This is how Satam's Passport made it through the WTC.

reply to post by turbofan


Hi Turbo, it's rewarding to know that you care enough to search for my posts. If you haven't noticed, I derive great pleasure posting something that I know you'll bite on, then go away for a while and watch you make of fool of yourself.

I giggled most of the day regarding your attempt to weight that bag full of air in order to prove air has no weight. Maybe your scale is broken!

Please don't ever try to weigh yourself after taking a big gulp of air as you'll likely become airborne! There isn't enough weight in air to keep your body on the ground when it's hot air!

I learned back on the FDR thread at JREF that it is futile to engage with you on anything as you google your way through threads in a futile attempt to impress everyone with your knowledge.

You need to stick with auto mechanics as that apparently is your business and leave these adult discussions to people with more knowledge that you display.

I'm busy today, so I won't be back often, so ta ta!

Later....

Na, my scale is fine. Study my stance on air weight further. Nowhere
did I say air has no weight. I did however say, there is no difference in
the weight of a balloon full or air vs. a deflated balloon. Your lastest reply
further highlights your lack of scientific understanding and poor reading
comprehension.

Since you brought up the weight of air in the bag/balloon, let's start
with that one. How do you weigh air on a scale in a balloon Reheat?

Please be specific and detail the process. You may use your video
reference that shows a balloon full of air weighing 36 units (grams? I believe 36 was the number on the display). How did 'they' achieve a reading on the scale
showing that value?

Let's see you Google your way out of this one!

P.S. You still can't figure out my profession after making it public months
and months ago! Way to research Reheat!

[edit on 7-7-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by turbofan


Hay Turbo, If you think I'm going to give you a straight up answer to ANYTHING, think again. I know your tactics and methods. Remember I was a witness to your shellacking on the FDR, but you managed to draw that into dozens of pages arguing virtually nothing and displaying your lack of understanding for days on end. You would have no problem arguing with a fence post even tho' you were wrong.

If you didn't contest that air has weight why did you go to so much trouble to weight that plastic bag?

In that I praised the video as a new idea to explain why light items were ejected from the fuselage, that doesn't mean that I agree with every issue addressed in it.

If you're sure your scales aren't broken you might try sucking all of the air out of the room. Your ideas suck on virtually every other issue, so that should be a relatively simple task.....

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Reheat]

Originally posted by ReheatHay Turbo, If you think I'm going to give you a straight up answer to ANYTHING, think again. I know your tactics and methods.

"And" I know that you're not smart enough to figure out why the inflated balloon weighs the same as a deflated balloon.

Remember I was a witness to your shellacking on the FDR, but you managed to draw that into dozens of pages arguing virtually nothing and displaying your lack of understanding for days on end. You would have no problem arguing with a fence post even tho' you were wrong.

Shellacking? The same shellacking that has your clan of monkies
spewing a bird strike to excuse the missing seconds?

It's tough to explain tech to someone who can't even figure out the
"weight of air in a balloon", but it's clear as day that your JREF crew
is running in circles about FDR function. It took a computer program
created by Warren Stutt to get it through their heads...that nothing
was erased. I guess I wasted many months trying to explain EEPROM
erasure functions to the kids with little success.

So now it's not about erasure, it's about Power supply! I hope you
can keep up with the difference and understand what the heck is going on
within that "taknikal" thread.

Just remember, it was your "team" that had to rethink their theor...GUESS.
I told them erasure was not possible from DAY ONE.

Maybe you can suggest a species of bird that can knock out main bus
power on a 757-x to Mackey and the gang? Shellacking

If feel so shellacked

If you didn't contest that air has weight why did you go to so much trouble to weight that plastic bag?

To discredit the video. Still care to take a stab at why the inflated balloon
full of air, weighs the same as a deflated balloon? If that's too difficult for
you, maybe you can explain how to weigh air on a scale in relative atmosphere?

In that I praised the video as a new idea to explain why light items were ejected from the fuselage, that doesn't mean that I agree with every issue addressed in it.

If you agree with the 'air' creating the 'nose out' image, or blowing out
the lobby windows then you agree with the bulk of the video which is
total non-scientific garbage.

P.S. Bird strike! I tawt, I taw a puddy tat!


[edit on 8-7-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan

If you didn't contest that air has weight why did you go to so much trouble to weight that plastic bag?

To discredit the video.

I thought that it was obvious that the image of a balloon on a set of scales was used for illustrative purposes to reinforce the statement that air has weight and by no means a representation of scientific method used to measure the weight of air.

You don't seem to be challenging the known fact that air has measurable properties such as mass and weight, which is the only point the video was making when the image of the balloon appeared.

What exactly is your point?

Still care to take a stab at why the inflated balloon
full of air, weighs the same as a deflated balloon?

Because within an atmosphere the buoyant force, the air displaced by the expanded balloon, would be equal in mass and density when compared to the air contained within it. The resulting weight would actually be the combined weight of the balloon plus the weight of the air inside it minus the weight of the displaced air.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by discombobulator]

This video is very suggestive and biased from the start.

It shows a lot of damage done by "air".

A hole in the pentagon, done by air ?
Strange that this "air can punch a (small) hole into this building but there is not trace of any wings or engines making a hole in the same building.

They show "air" damage done by a tornado and other storms.
They show a the oklahoma bombed building stating it was damaged by "air".
Do they forget that the in "air" examples that there is a force behind those "air" movements.
Like an explosion or the global weather.
The forces in those examples are far far greater than a little airplane cabin made out of some thin aluminium.
Very thin examples if they leave the acual explosive force or weather force out to explain them.

I am not a scientist but was the WTC not filled with air to ?
Does air not act like a gas and can fly into any direction once the "delicate" cabin rips appart against the heavy steel beams of the WTC.

But i have to say, this video is a whole lot better than the bin laden confession videos they made, they are making progress.
Still no cigar.




[edit on 8-7-2009 by jaamaan]

Originally posted by discombobulator

I thought that it was obvious that the image of a balloon on a set of scales was used for illustrative purposes to reinforce the statement that air has weight and by no means a representation of scientific method used to measure the weight of air.

You don't seem to be challenging the known fact that air has measurable properties such as mass and weight, which is the only point the video was making when the image of the balloon appeared.

Discom, you forgot to explain that the guy with a fork and a toaster was not planning to eat the toaster!

Discom saves the day and Reheat is off the hook! It's too bad you
had to cover for Reheat's inability to explain himself, but I'll give you
props for knowing the correct answer. Thank you for also knowing
the difference between mass and weight (see below).

Originally posted by discombobulator
I thought that it was obvious that the image of a balloon on a set of scales was used for illustrative purposes to reinforce the statement that air has weight and by no means a representation of scientific method used to measure the weight of air.

It's obvious that the image and association of the scale and weight of
air is incorrect.

You don't seem to be challenging the known fact that air has measurable properties such as mass and weight, which is the only point the video was making when the image of the balloon appeared.
What exactly is your point?

My point? Let's see: What is the weight of the aircraft at 700 feet with and
without "air" inside? What is the weight of the air at 700 feet as per volume
of the fuselage?

The point will become obvious as these questions are answered.

I'd like Reheat to answer this ...but if he is unable after the first reply,
please feel free to jump in and save him.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by turbofan]