Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
So, the only reason you wont accept the photos just because you cannot contact the photographer in person?

What photographer?

1. There is no name of a photographer for the photos.

2. There is no time and date the photos were taken.

3. There in no location of where the photos were taken.

Basic information that should be with the photos.

Otherwise i could just post a photo of plane part and say it was from the Pentagon and you guys would believe it.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

media.popularmechanics.com...
Plain View: Passenger windows on a piece of Flight 175's fuselage. (Photograph by William F. Baker/FEMA)

I indicated the source of the other photograph as being from AP/Wide World feeds. It's interesting that you are making such a demand for authentication from these photographs when you've posted your own photographs many times without attribution, simply linked from your photobucket account.

Incidentally, I'm glad they finally removed all the pornography from your photobucket account. I was shocked that a self-proclaimed NSA employee and holder of Top Secret, and codeword material would put such things out in the public forum, especially since the girl involved looked so young. Are your superiors at the NSA and your wife aware of your porn predelictions?

Originally posted by HLR53K
I have asked countless times for him to simply explain in his own words how the statements that he found are true, but he has refused that.
.

The reason i have not explained things to you in my own words is that you made it pefectly clear by your previous posts that you ignore anyhting i post. Even when i post facts and evidence from top sources.

Why do you ignore what i post? Are you afraid i might prove my original statements?

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate

media.popularmechanics.com...
Plain View: Passenger windows on a piece of Flight 175's fuselage. (Photograph by William F. Baker/FEMA)

Sorry but i dno accept Popualr Mechanics for a source. Most of thier reports have been debunked many times and long ago.

Besides i still do not see times, dates and locations.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


No, I am not afraid. That's why I keep asking you to post your explanation. So stop talking about posting it and actually do it, please.

Explain to me and the rest of the people in this thread how the turbulence of an airplane in level flight will decrease as it increases its speed.

You have my word as an engineer that I will not ignore your explanation. As I have said, I will take it and research into it. If it's correct, then I will say so. If I find discrepencies, then I will politely point them out.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by HLR53K]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Now you're just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. I didn't say that the source of the picture was from Popular Mechanics, in fact, I said that the source of that photograph was from a FEMA investigator. The location of the picture is quite clear. And again, you have no basis for demanding such information when you have not done us the same courtesy with the myriad photographs you've posted as "evidence". When you go back through every single post you've made and properly source and attribute all of your photographs, then you can start demanding the same from everyone else here.

I notice that you dropped all objections about the other picture, which was even more damning to your original claims. Not only is the source unimpeachable, the location and timing should be similarly self-evident. And again, you're not a member of law enforcement, a lawyer or a forensic video analyst so I demand that you stop trying to pretend you are.


[edit on 12-5-2008 by KarmaIncarnate]

Originally posted by HLR53K
No, I am not afraid. That's why I keep asking you to post your explanation.

But why should i post it if you are just going to ignore like everything else i have posted, and probably insult me like beleivers do.

Now you see why i have a lot people talk to me on U2U becasue they are tired of the insults from you believers.

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
Now you're just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. I didn't say that the source of the picture was from Popular Mechanics, in fact, I said that the source of that photograph was from a FEMA investigator.

Please show the proper sources for the photos or they are not considered evidence. I dont know how much simpler i can state it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please show the proper sources for the photos or they are not considered evidence. I dont know how much simpler i can state it.

Until you hold yourself to that same high standard with the myriad photos you've posted as "evidence" you may not make such demands of us.

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
Until you hold yourself to that same high standard with the myriad photos you've posted as "evidence" you may not make such demands of us.

I am not the one who made the claim to have photos am i.

If you are going to state somethign as fact, you should be prepared to support it with facts.

Otherwise its just an opinion.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Funny, I think I made *exactly* the same argument, only as a rejection of your so-called "facts". Let's do a quick tally, shall we?

You posted a list of 6 statements of opinion. None of them are facts, as they were not cited in any way to any source, credible or otherwise.

I responded to 4 of your most egregious "facts" and cited numerous details showing that your statements were completely false, baseless and without merit.

You followed up ignoring my most damning evidence to your theories, and trying desperately, and ineffectively to question the authenticity of several items I put forth. Incidentally, all of my "evidence" was cited as to the source of the item and in many cases, that "evidence" was then corroborated by further "evidence" from other unimpeachable sources.

To date in this conversation, you have provided no evidence or facts, cited or otherwise to back up your claims. In fact, so far, all you've managed is a series of fallacial arguments. For your reference, the tactic you're using right now is known as the "negative proof fallacy". It's cute, but obvious. Next time, try harder.

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
You posted a list of 6 statements of opinion.

Those 6 statement are what the people like you who beleive the official story cannot show evindece to support. They also show reasonable dounbt in the official story.

You failed to show photos with proper sources, so what next on the list will you try to prove?

I can and have also shown evindece that debates the official story.



[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Those 6 statement are what the people like you who beleive the official story cannot show evindece to support. They also show reasonable dounbt in the official story.

Interesting, you represented them as "facts". They are not, and I've shown that they aren't.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You failed to show photos with proper sources, so what next on the list will you try to prove?

Once again, until you start holding yourself to that same high standard of proof, your demands that we do the same will go unheeded.

In fact, I charge you to actually provide one actual, properly cited fact to back up any portion of what you say with regards to the 9/11 incident. Until you provide such a fact, everything you say will be disregarded as being the ranting, ravings of a pornophile lunatic.

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
Interesting, you represented them as "facts". They are not, and I've shown that they aren't.


I never stated them as facts, do not misquote me. it only makes you look immature.

Stil wating for the proper sources for your photos that you claim are evidence.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by KarmaIncarnate]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
Interesting, you represented them as "facts". They are not, and I've shown that they aren't.


I never stated them as facts, do not misquote me. it only makes you look immature.

Stil wating for the proper sources for your photos that you claim are evidence.

I never made the statement you just attributed to me. I think its patently obvious that you're now, badly, trying to insert words into my mouth, and you didn't even bother to spell them properly. I demand that you immediately apologize for misquoting me!

[edit on 12-5-2008 by KarmaIncarnate]

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
Interesting, you represented them as "facts". They are not, and I've shown that they aren't.

I demand that you immediately apologize for misquoting me!

Here is the exact post from you. So i demand you apologize for trying to make it look like i misquoted you.

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
Interesting, you represented them as "facts". They are not, and I've shown that they aren't.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


You cut out the part you added, but which can be seen in both posts above. So you either deliberately misquoted me with malice, or you're incompetent, which is it? If you deliberately misquoted me, I demand a retraction, an apology and a promise that if you ever deliberately misquote anyone again, you will leave this forum forever. If, on the other hand, that you're simply incompetent and cannot master the intricacies of this forum, then I demand that you admit your incompetence and beg the forum's forgiveness. My honor has been sullied by you either deliberately or otherwise and I demand satisfaction!

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
You cut out the part you added, but which can be seen in both posts above.

I quoted you exactly so stop being so childish and apologize for stating i misquoted you. Do i need to show the whole quote you made again so evryone can see what a child you are?

Still waiting for the proper sources for your photos.









[edit on 13-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by HLR53K
No, I am not afraid. That's why I keep asking you to post your explanation. So stop talking about posting it and actually do it, please.

This is the only statement that i need to make that supports my point about jet blast being able to rock cars.

"This turbulence includes various components, the most important of which are wingtip vortices and jetwash. Jetwash refers simply to the rapidly moving gasses expelled from a jet engine; it is extremely turbulent, but of short duration."

I will continue to post more facts that support my stements. (unlike the believers)


[edit on 13-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I quoted you exactly so stop being so childish and apologize for stating i misquoted you. Do i need to show the whole quote you made again so evryone can see what a child you are?

You've stooped to name calling? I'm pretty sure that's against the ATS posting policy. Aren't you the guy who keeps threatening to report other people to the forum moderators for various offenses and now you're stooping to an even lower level with base name calling and other boorish behavior? You should be ashamed of yourself.