Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

Dude, higher velocity does add more force. Yes, it's not one-sided. The energy acts on both the impacting and impacted objects. It won't shield either of them from damage, like you seem to think.

No that is not what I think. Why do you misunderstand everything? You need to read posts, and think about them, you are just skimming and making assumptions it seems?

No it won't shield either object from damage, that isn't what I said at all. An increase in velocity increases the forces, and damage, to BOTH objects. You want to believe the force would be more on the impacted object, which is incorrect.

Equal opposite reaction veremia, go learn about it, dude....

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Originally posted by ANOK
No that is not what I think. Why do you misunderstand everything? You need to read posts, and think about them, you are just skimming and making assumptions it seems?

No it won't shield either object from damage, that isn't what I said at all. An increase in velocity increases the forces, and damage, to BOTH objects. You want to believe the force would be more on the impacted object, which is incorrect.

Equal opposite reaction veremia, go learn about it, dude....

What the hell? That's EXACTLY what I just said. I don't think the force will be greater on one object or the other. Both will fail, but the mass is not subtracted, because mass is conserved. What kind of junk science are you using to attempt to say that any of the floors could remain intact under the weight of the debris?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ATH911So if a plane didn't fly over, but flew NoC, that wouldn't prove the OS wrong?

It might cause for some re-evaluation

Yeah, like what knocked down the light poles of the plane that "hit the pentagon" flew NoC?

I think that would cause for a LOT of re-evaluation.

but you forget that there is no true OS. There is the "majority accepted conclusion" that the government backs, but that can be changed if new facts surface. Changing one minor aspect would not invalidate the whole.

Alleged FDR flightpath, knocked down light poles. How different could the OS get?

I admit that the two policemen's accounts were quite convincing, but there must be some explanation. The policemen were recalling events from 5 years before, and I noticed that their memories were being jogged frequently about very obvious things that should have been remembered. It throws into question their exact recollection of the impact.

So it's just another bizarre coincidence related to the Pentagon attack that 10(?) people confirmed the two policemen's NoC accounts?

Originally posted by vipertech0596

If the CITGO was the size of a shopping mall, it MIGHT call things into question. But since it's a p*ssant convience store, not so much. Depending on a persons vantage point, and with the speed of the aircraft....not to mention the leading questions and memory prods, someone might be able to say it was NoC and still be wrong.

Video showed Sgt. Legasse (sp?) on the north side of the Citgo under the canopy thing. He could not see a plane if it flew South of the Citgo. Was he lying that he saw the plane flew NoC? He was "100%" sure he did.

Originally posted by pteridine

What is the second theory? CIT struck out with the flyover theory.

There theory had two parts, BOTH would prove a conspiracy.

There first part did. Does it really matter if the second part didn't?!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

After Napoleon Bonaparte was sentenced to exile to St. Helena, his health began deteriorating rapidly and he died six years later. The official autopsy by the British determined that he died of stomach cancer, but recent studies using modern forensic technologies shows evidence that he may have died of arsenic poisoning. If it's shown irrefutably that Napoleon died of arsenic poisoning rather than stomach cancer, does that prove Napoleon didn't really exist?

Cool story up until that part, bro.

You can't use evidence of something that exists to prove it doesn't exist. Witnesses seeing the plane hitting the Pentagon necessarly means it was a genuine terrorist attack regardless of the flight path the plane took.

So the plane could have flew NoC and that would mean no conspiracy?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


No fly away = no flyover. No flyover = dead theory.

NOC arguments are moot given the evidence of clipped light poles and a tree substantiating the SOC pathway.....unless of course you know the topiary ninjas mentioned previously.

ANOK,

I read all your posts, read the details, sometimes read them more than once. I view the pictures, watch videos and learn a lot.

Unless, in addition to learning about and writing about the fraud of 9/11 you are also on the research team developing cranial transplant technology you may have to face the fact that you will not be able to "reach" some of the people on here who pretend to argue.

I don't think that NZ Air Force plane (ProudBird's contribution) was going anywhere near 350 knots, by the way. Maybe 350 kmh but not 350 knots.

If air forces could get a 757 or 767 to fly at tree top level at 350 knots then the A-10 would have have never been developed.

"We" could have just slung two Howitzers under a 737 and saved billions.

Seriously, if a 757 can fly 350 knots, slightly higher than a radio anenna on a jeep then it could drop a bowling ball on a tank and knockit out.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

Dude, higher velocity does add more force. Yes, it's not one-sided. The energy acts on both the impacting and impacted objects. It won't shield either of them from damage, like you seem to think.

No that is not what I think. Why do you misunderstand everything? You need to read posts, and think about them, you are just skimming and making assumptions it seems?

No it won't shield either object from damage, that isn't what I said at all. An increase in velocity increases the forces, and damage, to BOTH objects. You want to believe the force would be more on the impacted object, which is incorrect.

Equal opposite reaction veremia, go learn about it, dude....

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

edit on 11/18/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Originally posted by pteridine

NOC arguments are moot given the evidence of clipped light poles and a tree substantiating the SOC pathway.....unless of course you know the topiary ninjas mentioned previously.

So the dozen NoC witnesses are all lying?

reply to post by pteridine

As usual, you are confused. All sharp noises are not explosions and explosions from various sources in a fire and collapse are not demolitions

There is no confusing here, and as usual you are always saying that we are all confused.

As for all the sharp noises not being explosions those are your “opinions” and as we all know opinions are not the facts.

Explosives needed to clear each floor in less than 200 milliseconds would certainly have been noticed. Thermite can't do it. Given that, the collapse must have been gravitationally driven.

What experts are claiming “200 milliseconds”?

You my friend do not know what type of Thermite was used or how it was applied; no one does for that matter. What we do know is enough thermite was found in the WTC dust sample that proves Thermite was one of the ingredients that were used and it had no business being in the dust sample to begin with.
Most ATS members know your unhealthy stance on any outside science that doesn’t support the pseudo-science of NIST.

I suppose all these people are liars to?
Information that you seem to ignore.

[color=gold]118 Witnesses:
The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers

www.journalof911studies.com...

I know that your belief system is challenged every time someone does not accept demolition as a cause of collapse, but take heart; there may be some evidence, somewhere, laying undiscovered on a youtube video waiting for a "researcher" to find.

That is untrue; however since you are so interested in my belief system instead of the OP or our conversation I find it amusing that you believe that I depend on YouTube videos for my truth. What does my beliefs systems have to do with your” opinions” to what you believe happened to the WTC?

At lease my belief system do not subscribe to 911 fairytales and outrages NIST lies that you so dearly have been defending year after year.
I have asked you a number of questions and you completely ignore them, typical response from one who defends the pseudo NIST report.

reply to post by BRAVO949

I don't think that NZ Air Force plane (ProudBird's contribution) was going anywhere near 350 knots, by the way. Maybe 350 kmh but not 350 knots.

Airspeed is measured in knots. Not kmh.

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by pteridine

NOC arguments are moot given the evidence of clipped light poles and a tree substantiating the SOC pathway.....unless of course you know the topiary ninjas mentioned previously.

So the dozen NoC witnesses are all lying?

Why is lying the only option? False choice. They were asked to estimate the position of a very fast moving aircraft relative to a small landmark. I think the word you are looking for is "wrong". Also, please note that no two of the so-called NoC witness described the same flightpath.

reply to post by BRAVO949

I don't think that NZ Air Force plane (ProudBird's contribution) was going anywhere near 350 knots....

Sure looked like 350 knots to me. There is another version of the same airshow, with the soundtrack and the event announcer mentioning the speed. This is how the audience knew what was happening.

Also, the climb at the end is the result of all that excess speed...that's how it works, trading excess speed for altitude. It is a short-term event, though.

BTW, the maximum (Vmo) speed (it is merely a published Limitation...all airplanes have some figure to use as a guide) for the 757 is 360 knots. It is well within the capability of the airplane.


Now......This is silly:

If air forces could get a 757 or 767 to fly at tree top level at 350 knots then the A-10 would have have never been developed.

I am at a loss for words, there...it is so absurd.

"We" could have just slung two Howitzers under a 737 and saved billions.

Yeah. Riiiiiiight.

Seriously, if a 757 can fly 350 knots, slightly higher than a radio anenna on a jeep then it could drop a bowling ball on a tank and knockit out.

SRSLY? A bowling ball?

reply to post by Reheat

........In spite of your pleas for credibility my analysis of what was said and the depiction is what was said by your earlier witnesses Paik and Morin is accurate. The fact that it doesn't fit is NOT MY PROBLEM *it's yours* ......

You know I'm right Reheat. Paik had the aircraft flying over his shop (his words) and Morin placed it over his head and heading towards the Memorial. What happened after the Navy Annex was described by the witnesses below it. North of Citgo.

Can the aircraft line up with the the directional damage from north of Columbia Pike?

Thanks!

Originally posted by hooper

Why is lying the only option? False choice.

Like when truthers bring up that we think it was highly suspicious of Bush to just sit there in a class and pick up a book to read after being told "A second plane hit! America is under attack!!!" and you skeptics say "Well what was he supposed to do, jump up screaming and run out of the room scaring the kids?" A false choice like that?

They were asked to estimate the position of a very fast moving aircraft relative to a small landmark. I think the word you are looking for is "wrong".

So Sgt Lagasse, who was on the north side of the Citgo, under a canopy, facing north, couldn't possibly see anything south of him, was 100% sure the plane flew NoC, was mistaken?

Also, please note that no two of the so-called NoC witness described the same flightpath.

Funny, looks like they all drew flightpaths North of the Citgo to me:



.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

It was a simplification for the laymen amongst us.

I'm glad you just admitted that you're a layperson. You see, this is the only reason why "PfT" has any followers.....they speak in terms that "sound" reasonable to the lay public. Like using that stupid Jiffy Lube analogy. They go on to razzle-dazzle with more bull crap, as you show in this post. "PfT" LIES to you, and they make it "seem" factual....but, they do not tell you the whole truth.

I've no problem admitting that I'm a layman. I've never suggested otherwise. But isn't it strange that a layman like me can hold my own against the alleged "experts" here? How? I doublecheck statements for myself and it doesn't take a genius to follow the black and white layout of aircraft limitations, controlability issues, etc that you apparently wave away as irrelevant.

Are these guys all made up?

pilotsfor911truth.org...

I've seen Pilotsfor911Truth back up their claims over and over. You guys seem to pull "data" and "facts" from the dark side of your moon!

And if Rusty Aimer and Dan Gavatos are fake personalities, why would you call them "liars"?

Make that an out of control car where steering left pushes you to the right?

That is completely irrelevant, and I know where you got it.from. The phenomenon known as "aileron reversal" is NOT a factor in the Boeing 767....nor, the 757. And, I will prove to you why, and you will see one of the "PfT" LIES revealed. In the case of the 767...there are FOUR ailerons. Two each wing:

On each wing, there is an Inboard and Outboard aileron. The Outboard ailerons do not operate when the trailing edge flaps are retracted. Period. The actual reason for the lockout is due to airspeed. But, since the speed that locks the Outboard ailerons is above the maximum flap extend speed, it is one way to look at it. If you don't believe me, here is the proof:

LOCKOUT SYSTEM ‘ At high speed, OUTBOARD ailerons are LOCKED

Found Here. The 757 does not have Inboard ailerons....but, it has a stiff wing that does not "twist"..... The phenomenon of "aileron reversal" only occurs (on very few airplanes...no modern ones) when you have Outboard ailerons near the tips of wings that are not sufficiently stiff, and can flex and twist. This is an OLD problem, seen in early days of high-speed jet flight. Not today.

First, we are not talking about flying the aircraft within the flight envelope.

Roll reversal is not an issue within the flight envelope of the aircraft. It is an issue at high speeds. This is why the outboard ailerons are locked out at high speed. Fly faster than the aircraft is rated, roll reversal will occur as the inboard ailerons do not lockout at higher speeds. This is another reason manufacturers set limits for their airplanes.

Mach Tuck is not solely associated with Mach number., nor near Mach 1 depending on the aircraft It can occur when Center of pressure moves too far aft of the Center of gravity. It is explained at the wiki link provided to you!
As airspeed increases Center of pressure moves aft. Fly too fast and the center of pressure will push the tail up, pushing the nose down, causing the aircraft to go faster, aggravating the situation making it worse. This is one form of Mach Tuck and another reason why manufacturers set airspeed limitations. Also keep in mind that 510 knots at sea level is the equivalent of Mach 1.19 at 22,000 feet. Mach .74 at sea level is much more dangerous than Mach .74 at cruising altitude.

Here's another link (I hope these people aren't liars)

www.aerospaceweb.org...

But as speed increases, the center of pressure begins moving aft, particularly at transonic speeds starting at about Mach 0.7. As the Cp moves aft, the moment arm between it and the elevator decreases. This movement makes the elevator less effective in providing pitch control. The difference in location between the Cp and the center of gravity (located in front of the Cp) causes the aircraft nose to pitch down, so more elevator trim is required to keep the aircraft level.

Do you honestly believe that an aircraft can be flown at any speed at any altitude and there won't be an adverse effect on not only the structure, but the control of the plane?

Seriously?

reply to post by ProudBird

Yes....he is. Balsamo is. His "highly qualified assemblage" are primarily just names that once in the past signed on to his BS playhouse....but don't actively participate any more. Sadly for them, their names are still being trotted out. Must be embarrassing for them. ......they actually recorded their attempts at hitting the Pentagon using the OCT narrative. And, you showed that ridiculous clip that Balsamo made. Bet he's so "proud", his buttons are popping since he was in Jesse Ventura's silly little show. Gee.....with that kind of budget, they couldn't get a better simulator?? No, not "they". "He". That's "Rusty" Amer. What I find particularly hilarious about him is....everything, really. He's retired from American Airlines, but for that silly "demonstration" he's wearing cockamamie open-collared shirt with gold and black epaulets. He knows better than to wear one of his actual AA uniform shirts. American's uniform is dark navy blue trousers and "blouse" (jacket), with white shirt and navy blue and silver stripes...not gold. And, the simulator they used? Pure comedy gold, right there. It is nowhere nearly as advanced as the one I showed that was used in the Dutch Zembla documentary. Frankly, I don't know what angle Amer has on the scam the "PilotsFor9/11Truth" is pulling.....maybe he just enjoys fooling people. Lots of pilots love to pull practical jokes. It's like a game of one upsmanship.

A lot of words without actually answering any of the points I made about Zembla's sim tests being carried out before the alleged FDR data was released, the "inexperience" of the pilot involved, how many attempts were made before actually recording, that it wasn't a 757 sim, etc. You know, little details like that?

By the way, Rusty is retired from United, not American.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


You continue to fall for the "PfT" and their utter lies? I have shown the facts.

Roll reversal is not an issue within the flight envelope of the aircraft. It is an issue at high speeds.

It is NOT an "issue" at all with modern airliners. None of them.

This is why the outboard ailerons are locked out at high speed.

No, it isn't. And, as you just noted above (contradicting yourself), "roll reversal" is not an issue within the normal flight envelope. The Outboard ailerons on the 767 are locked because they aren't needed. And, in the case of the wing design, if it is determined that undue stresses will be exerted form twisting moments, then the dual-aileron design is chosen. This is the case on the DC-10 and MD-11 as well. IIRC, the old Airbus A-300 too. In fact, most widebodies. I can look up the systems on airplanes I've never flown, and understand and learn how they work too.

I was looking up the details of the Airbus A330 (because of the Air France 447 crash) and have a guide to its systems stored on my hard-drive, so looking it up......and indeed....it also has two sets of ailerons. The arrangement is different from the 767, though. On the A330, BOTH Inboard and Outboard ailerons, each wing, are located Outboard of the trailing edge flaps. SO, even the "Inboard" ailerons are very near the wingtips!!

Fly faster than the aircraft is rated, roll reversal will occur as the inboard ailerons do not lockout at higher speeds.

Well, again this is incorrect, and I don't think you understood my earlier explanations. For the 767 in particular, the Inboard ailerons will NOT be able to cause the "roll reversal" symptoms, in any event! The wing is far too durable to "twist" that much! But, it's moot anyway, since the Flight Spoilers are responsible for most of the roll control in flight, especially at high speeds. It takes very, very, very little control deflection to actually cause an attitude change....and, faster the speed, even less control deflection needed.

Watch here, I found a video example. At about 2:15 minutes in, after lift-off, they make a left turn. To do that, the left aileron moves UP slightly, as do some Flight Spoilers. Remember, they are not at a high airspeed, since it just took off, and of course the flaps are still extended.....they are in process of finishing retracting as the turn has begun. Speed is maybe 180 - 200 knots, accelerating to no more than 250 kts. at that altitude and phase of flight.



Very little movement, and that is at a fairly low speed.

Mach Tuck is not solely associated with Mach number., nor near Mach 1 depending on the aircraft It can occur when Center of pressure moves too far aft of the Center of gravity.

I know very well what Mach Tuck is. yes, it can onset before Mach 1. However, Boeing themselves have stated in documentation that the 757/767 family of jets is NOT susceptible to the phenomenon.

From the Boeing 757/767 FCTM:
"The airplane exhibits excellent stability throughout the high altitude/ high Mach range. Mach buffet is not normally encountered at high Mach cruise.The airplane does not have a Mach tuck tendency.

www.pprune.org...

('FCTM' is the Flight Crew Training Manual, and is published by Boeing). If you want one for yourself, I just Googled it. Here is a link, it can be downloaded to your heart's content:
www.4shared.com...

In the link to PPRuNe above, it goes on to mention the Mach Trim system, and its operation. And also, that exceeding Mmo in level flight with just engine thrust alone is unlikely when at high weights, because of the rapid increase in overall drag as speed increases. However, with the assistance of gravity, there is no impediment to the rapid acceleration well above Mmo, if you allow it to happen (as the hijackers did, obviously). AND, they used high thrust too.

Just in a normal descent, with engines in Flight Idle, I have been right up to the barber pole many times ("barber pole" is the Vmo/Mmo needle on the airspeed indicator). No unusually steep deck angle is needed, it is not discomfiting to the passengers in any way. It is a very normal, every day occurrence when "flying the line".

Here, found this short clip where they are checking the Overspeed Warning system. It alarms when you exceed Vmo/Mmo. We join them as they are in a very shallow descent, and as you see the engines are up at normal cruise power settings. As soon as they reach the Vmo speed, the Captain closes the throttles, and slightly raises the nose to arrest the descent, and to facilitate the slowing. He also uses the SpeedBrakes, there at about half-way in the video, to increase drag, and assist the deceleration:



The resolution quality is poor, so I can't quite read the altimeter....looks to be in the 26,000 feet or so, give or take. The VVI (Vertical Velocity) appears pegged at the max it can display, 6,000 fpm down. Note the very minor pitch attitude angle, below the horizon. Not even ten degrees Nose Down...maybe 6 (?)



Now, this sounds like the clap-trap put out by the "PfT" again:

Also keep in mind that 510 knots at sea level is the equivalent of Mach 1.19 at 22,000 feet. Mach .74 at sea level is much more dangerous than Mach .74 at cruising altitude.

They write gibberish like that all the time. It's nonsense

reply to post by ProudBird

You continue to fall for the "PfT" and their utter lies? I have shown the facts.

Hi WeedWhacker, still poisoning PFT I see.
Fact is we only seen your “opinions” not the facts.
As far as the plane hitting the Pentagon, it never happened and you cannot prove one did. Furthermore, it is impossible to hold a 757 just a few feet off the ground, even at speeds of over 300knts and you know that.
Yes a 757 can fly a few feet off the ground however only on slow speeds of 200knts when reaching speeds of 500knts as the government claims. The vacuum under the plane travelling at excess speed of 500knts and the extreme low altitude would instantly slam the plane straight into the ground it is absolutely impossible to fly a commercial airliner at high speeds at that low of elevation and you know this.
I have seen some of the U-tube videos of stunt pilots flying 747 767 at low altitude however none of them are doing speeds of 500knts in these commercial airliners.

No plane crashed at the Pentagon and there is no evidence to conclusively prove that one did, all you have is blind faith that our government is telling the truth and the fact is they been caught lying so much that the 911 Commissioners wanted the Justice Department to do a criminal investigation into the White House, Pentagon and the FAA because they were caught lying.

The only thing Weed that you can do is insult me and make the silly claims that I don’t know what I am talking about as few long time debunkers on here usually do when they are losing their arguments in trying to defend a make believe story. You cannot put science to an event that never happened. That is why you can only give your “opinions” on this topic and no evidece to support your claims to back the OS.

That is exactly the point.

That aircraft looks much more like it was moving at about 350 kilometers per hour than 350 nautical miles an hour.

One might think the an NZ Air Force pilot who flew a multi-million dollar plane at 350 nautical miles an hour that close to the ground would have landed and been greeted by a courts-martial.

Or, are any of you suggesting the pilots commanding officer ordered the pilot to make the dangerous maneuver?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by BRAVO949

 

I don't think that NZ Air Force plane (ProudBird's contribution) was going anywhere near 350 knots, by the way. Maybe 350 kmh but not 350 knots.

Airspeed is measured in knots. Not kmh.