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

reply to post by impressme


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

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.

Originally posted by pteridine
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.

Yes, but it's hidden under 10 years of garbage and is going to take the best mind within the TM to find it. I'm sure there is someone just arrogant and obtuse enough that they'll eventually find it.......in another 1,000 years!

reply to post by Reheat

Hay, I've watched National Security Alert and I'm quite interested in that POS. But, I'm more interested in "Operational Accountability". How's that going and why has there been no further information about that?

Good to see your true opinion on your fellow US citizens who simply told their own story. "POS".

I see you have your own "POS" link. Are you actually still pushing that garbage??



Nobody saw those paths and the banks are exaggerated by a bastardization of one witness story that was cleared up by Craig Ranke.

Google Video Link

I ran to the outside (from in between the wings) and got into a position where I could see it. (...) if the Air Force memorial had been built, the airplane would have ran into it.

Terry Morin

Have you no shame?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


One thing that Ranke has never done was to "clear things up." His flyover theory is toast and his NOC theory is inconsequential. The 'duck and cover' claim with everyone in the DC area not noticing a fly away by a jetliner is a classic example of a contrived theory bent to fit a predetermined conclusion.
I don't know why this zombie was resurrected but there must be something in it for Craig and Aldo. Craig should call it a day, admit that a plane did hit the Pentagon, and move on.

reply to post by ProudBird

www.youtube.com...

350 knots...@400mph.

Okay, here's a projectile travelling at 500mph



Now add another 40mph (or 80mph if Stutt/Legge are to be believed)

Now add the descent from above the Navy Annex to the first floor of the Pentagon.

Don't forget wee Hani in the OCT soup! (Or the NOC witnesses)

Thanks!

reply to post by ProudBird

The silly analogy to driving a car through a Jiffy Lube? Comedy gold, thanks as always to our intrepid narrator, and agent provocateur of PfT.....the Rob Balsamo. Still pushing the same lies. The "Revolution Radio" interview is also very old news.....and, based on MY experiences in a simulator....a total crock of [snip].

Make that an out of control car where steering left pushes you to the right?
It was a simplification for the laymen amongst us.

Unlike Rob Balsamo and his highly qualified assemblage of "liars", as you call them, they actually recorded their attempts at hitting the Pentagon using the OCT narrative.



Have you? Or am I to take your word for it?

The guys (was it at America West? I forget) that claimed they had to "slow down to approach speeds" to hit the WTC Towers, that is ridiculous. I'd go as far as to say the pilot (sim instructor) being interviewed in the audio clip is lying, as a shill for the PfT crowd.

Wow, ProudBird, everybody is a "liar". You're starting to sound like a "twoofer"!

Why not ask him yourself? Post over at Pilotsfor911Truth. He's a member there, I believe.

Here's a quote from him in that presentation:

Dan : "After their Sim training period I said 'Hey, let's try something. Let's see if we can hit these buildings...uh..like we saw happen. We used a 737, a smaller much more manouevreable airplane. So, I set it up for these pilots and keep in mind these pilots have many years experience..They all took turns trying to hit the buildings AND THEY COULDN'T DO IT UNLESS THEY SLOWED DOWN TO ALMOST LANDING SPEEDS. THEY COULD NOT HIT THOSE BUILDINGS. AT HIGH SPEEDS THEY COULDN'T DO IT"

Interviewer: " I guess they were getting into 'Dutch Roll' and everything, right?" Dan : " That's right, that's EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING"

Is "Dutch Roll" real or not?

i39.tinypic.com...

While we're at it are the other effects on controllability an issue or not?

Mach Tuck?

Aileron Roll?

i39.tinypic.com...

Control Reversal?

A Dutch TV documentary show called "Zembla" in 2006 did an hour's worth about the Pentagon in particular, and the many silly "conspiracy" claims, such as that appallingly bad piece of junk "Loose Change". Two of the show's segments from YouTube, below. (In Dutch, with English subtitles). This Part opens with clips from "Loose Change", and narrator Dylan Avery's voice, telling lies and exaggerating as usual....saying it was a "330° turn at 530 miles per hour"... It was NOT at that airspeed, during the turn. He lies a lot more, in his lousy film.

First off, where have I even mentioned Dylan Avery or Loose Change??

Secondly, this video has been addressed by Pilotsfor911Truth:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

The Dutch simulation test was performed prior to the release of the Flight Data Recorder information, so clearly the Dutch researchers did not have any scientific data to examine the maneuver, nor implement the maneuver properly. Their main focus was to debunk claims made that the turning maneuver was impossible, which we agree is possible according to the data now released. However, other aspects of the flight path are impossible (See "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon")

There's much more at the link above, like how a 757 simulator wasn't used, that the alleged "inexperienced pilot" in the sim wouldn't divulge just how "inexperienced" he was or how many attempts were made before they started recording his attempts, etc..

"Scientific"? It's about as scientific as Reheat's "debunk" of the NOC testimony or the JREF math that has nothing to do with the officially released FDR data or the blatant denial of claims made by the very agencies you guys claim to defend (NTSB, FAA, ASCE, FBI)

I'm still waiting on the apology regarding the nosecone that you claimed was a "truther fantasy"(?) or should I stop holding my breath?

Thanks!

reply to post by pteridine


Hey, you post a lot but you don't say anything!

CIT went and talked to the witnesses. People like Reheat are still using an outdated online post of Terry Morin's instead of using the description of the flightpath straight from the horse's mouth!

Want to hear the best part? Even if Terry Morin's online testimony is used he still places the aircraft North of Columbia Pike and to line up with the directional damage from there would require one hell of a manouevre that nobody saw and that would make impact impossible.



Remember that this guy claimed that he couldn't see the stripes on the aircraft...

And the lightpoles..




As I said, Craig Ranke cleared it up in that interview. Reheat likes to obfuscate. Just like yourself.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


I don't blame you for avoiding my question about "Operation Accountability". From what I've seen it's not going well or else Ranke and large friend would be crowing about it all over the net. Obviously, it has been a complete failure as is all of this CIT garbage in spite of your verbose claptrap in trying to establish some credibility for your stupid ridiculous claim of an alternate flight path and flyover. It completes with beam weapons and nukes at the WTC for being the most convoluted asinine idea the TM has come up with...

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* for coming up with this stupid theory in the first place. Well, it's not actually your original thought as it was invented earlier and then carried to obsession by you. A path over the location of the present memorial is "one hellova lot closer" to the proven path than the NOC garbage. You attempt to equivocate between what you depict over the center of the Navy Annex and a path over the memorial as compared to the proven path is laughable.

This garbage has been debunked and defeated in every way to Sunday and back yet like a Zombie the likes of your ilk keep it alive as if it is still even a remote possibility. The fact that the stupid "National Security Alert" and "Operation Accountability" have gotten no traction except among deluded truthers as well as the dismal failure of the April Gallop law suits are accurate indicators of it's worth.

You mention the word shame as if your acquainted with the word. I am not at all surprised that you have no idea of the meaning of that word. If you did you'd have ceased this ridiculous poppycock long ago.

I am not about to engage in an endless discussion with you in this Forum or anywhere else. It is of no value and only allows the continuation of the nonsense. If what you have is so valuable and so important then go to Court and prove your case. Let me know as I would like to have a good laugh perhaps even offer to promote a rendition on South Park or a new edition of beavis and butthead.... Bye.

pteridine,

Back to the British Empire Lee-Enfield .303 hiting the gum tree fence post.

I am sticking to the analogy because indeed it is a good one for several reason.

You have not provided an analogy but the way you are describing the destuction of the WTC Towers it sounds like you think that the thousands of connection points popped apart after an initial addition of energy to the building exactly like one domino hits another and thousands of dominos fall over in sequence.

pteridine - you might like to know that in designing any system, whether it is a building, a municipal water supply system, electircal distribution system, software data system or an autopilot the last - last thing the designer wants to design into the system is the "when things get bad, they get a lot worse."

System designers spend much of their time making sure that if one element starts to go wrong at least one other element and usually more are in place to prevent total failure.

pteridine - a plane hitting one part of the building does not, can not, will not - loosen a bolt or break a weld two levels down and on the opposite side of the building.

A bullet hitting about two thirds up the fence post does not cause the wood to shred half way down the fence post.

A fence post is incredibly strong and eveyone knows that. A single small bullet even if it is traveling at twice the speed of sound can not destroy it. The energy packed into the bullet is a tiny fraction of what is required to destroy the fence post.

Now, scale all of this up to WTC 1. Aircraft are huge but the mass of the passenger plane compared to the building is very similar to the mass of the tiny bullet compared to the mass of the fence post.

The "construction" of the building does not matter a bit. It is the enormous mass of the building and the strength of all the steel beams and columns, all the conrete, all the welds and bolts.

The buildings were not a house of cards to which the slightest breeze would knock them over.

I take it that you have never been involved in building any sort of structure let alone a steel building or a conrete and steel building.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme

 

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

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.

reply to post by BRAVO949

pteridine - a plane hitting one part of the building does not, can not, will not - loosen a bolt or break a weld two levels down and on the opposite side of the building.

Huh? Speaking of people who have never been involved in the design and/or construction of a structure. Wow, thats a doozy. Can not? Will not? The stress of the impact will report through the structure the same way the loads are reported through the structure. And if the stress exceeds the actual load capacity of the connection and/or the connectors they will fail.

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.

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.

Unlike Rob Balsamo and his highly qualified assemblage of "liars"....

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.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Yes, "Dan" who claimed they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with....I mean, the WTC Tower with a simulator is full of it.

Is "Dutch Roll" real or not?

Yes, it is. But NOT in a Boeing 757, nor a 767. And, this is where "Dan" is either a liar, or.....because, if he was in a 737 simulator (I think that was his story) it certainly doesn't Dutch roll either.

The Dutch roll "problem" happens due to the sweep-back angle of the wings. In earlier designs of large commercial transport jets, the greater wing sweep was for higher Mach speed capabilities in cruise.

The 707/720 had this trait. As did the 727. I flew the 727 years ago....and, we had to train for Dutch roll situations, and how to recover from them. All modern jets have a Yaw Damper, that is designed to operate continually in flight. It is similar to an autopilot, but is separate from the full AutoFlight system.

On the 727 (and I presume, the 707/720 as well) the Yaw Damper was a big deal in terms of preventing a Dutch roll event. It was so important that part of the pre-takeoff checklist was during the taxi, there was an indicator on the instrument panel that had to be checked to verify Yaw Damper operation before every take-off. This was done while turning during taxi, to see the indicator move in the opposite direction of your turn. This showed that the ruder was responding to Yaw Damper inputs.

On the 727, if the Yaw Damper failed in-flight, then there was a limiting maximum airspeed, and altitude that you had to comply with. High speed, high altitude with no Yaw Damper was not authorized.

In the simulator, we practiced the recovery technique, for inadvertent Dutch roll encounters.

On the 737, 757 and 767 there are no speed nor altitude restrictions if both channels of the Yaw Damper system fail simultaneously. NO restrictions at all. The airplanes are not prone to that problem, because their wings are not swept back as much as earlier designs.


So, you see...."PfT" lies over and over again. Or, they are ignorant and inept. Which is it, do you suppose?

While we're at it are the other effects on controllability an issue or not?

Mach Tuck?

Nope. First, Mach Tuck is more of a problem with the earlier jets, and is also associated with wing sweep-back. The 757 and 767 are NOT prone to the phenomenon. Second.....Mach speed isn't even an issue, with ANY of teh four hijacked jets.

Here's an online aviation calculator

For Mach Tuck to be a problem, you first have to be nearing Mach 1. Plug some number into that calculator. How about 1,000 feet MSL altitude, and 480 knots CAS (Calibrated Airspeed.....it's essentially the same as Indicated Airspeed, within a knot or two):

This gives you a Mach number of 0.74, at most. That is only 74% of Mach 1. Not even an issue, is it?

"PfT" lies, yet again! Surprised?

Aileron Roll?

That was a link to Wikipedia because why?

I know what an aileron is....anyway, what is also left out of the "PfT" story is that at high speeds, MOST of the roll control is achieved via the Flight Spoilers. Refer to the image in post above....or, will repeat it here again:



It's not the best description....wait, this is more thorough (and 757-specific, for this thread. The 767 is similar, and of course, has the Inboard ailerons):

The spoilers also supplement roll control in response to control wheel commands. In flight, only five pairs of spoilers are used. On the ground, all six spoiler panels function as ground speedbrakes.
The Control Wheels and the Speedbrake Lever send signals to the spoiler controller.

Source


I cannot teach you how to fly via the ATS Forum....nor can you properly learn all of the systems and procedures of the Boeing 757 and 767 via this method. But, I can certainly prove the fallacies and deceptive practices of "PfT" here, to the best of my ability.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


And finally, the last bit. The "PilotsFor9/11Truth" had to scramble to come up with the most inane and specious arguments to counter the Dutch "Zembla" documentary.

There's much more at the link above, like how a 757 simulator wasn't used, that the alleged "inexperienced pilot" in the sim wouldn't divulge just how "inexperienced" he was or how many attempts were made before they started recording his attempts, etc..

That is hilarious.....that a "757 simulator wasn't used"!! Really, more comedy gold, considering the video that even you posted, up above, that was the excerpt from the Jesse Ventura Show! That piece of junk non-motion simulator in "Rusty" Amer's garage?

The "PfT" crew have quite a set of cojones to dare to make that sort of claim and comparison!!

Or, are they so deep in the doo-doo of lying and obfuscating, that they don't even realize how badly they are mucking it up?

As to "...how many attempts were made before..."? Pure speculation, "poisoning the well", and "argument from incredulity" tactics.

Here's an idea.....want to finance it? I'll help organize an experiment, we can find a group of volunteers with varying levels of flying experience, and do it ourselves!

Do an online search, you can find many places that operate simulators...full-motion airline simulators....besides the major airlines, of course. It ain't cheap, though......

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
As for the columns at the WTC blasting 500 feet, everybody knows that they fell into their footprint. That's how we know it was a demo!

Hmm no, the towers did not collapse into their footprints. WTC 7 did...

In its own footprint...



Not in its own footprint...



We know the towers were demolished with an energy more than fire and gravity could supply, because the collapse wave did not slow as it should have done as Ke was converted to other energy such as deformation, heat, sound etc. The only way the collapse could have continued is if the resistance was removed ahead of the collapse wave. The towers were too tall to 'implode'.

We know WTC 7 was a controlled 'implosion' demolition, because that is the only way you can make a building collapse mostly into its own footprint.

reply to post by ANOK


Tell me. Why could no one hear these blasts that were able to launch large parts of the tower 500 feet away? Parabolic motion supported by the height and pressure of the debris is a far more logical explanation.

Originally posted by ANOK



Hmm no, the towers did not collapse into their footprints. WTC 7 did...

In its own footprint...

I love the way you always show photos where about half the collapsed building can be seen and claim they prove your point about the "footprint". And then go quiet when asked for something a bit more conclusive.

We know the towers were demolished with an energy more than fire and gravity could supply, because the collapse wave did not slow as it should have done as Ke was converted to other energy such as deformation, heat, sound etc. The only way the collapse could have continued is if the resistance was removed ahead of the collapse wave. The towers were too tall to 'implode'.

We know WTC 7 was a controlled 'implosion' demolition, because that is the only way you can make a building collapse mostly into its own footprint.

No offence, but since you're - in the common parlance - constantly getting your arse handed to you over basic physics questions on here, you're not really my go-to guy on this. And you're not really anyone else's either are you? Given how thoroughly the "self-evident obvious physics Truth" is failing to resonate with anybody whatsoever.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

Tell me. Why could no one hear these blasts that were able to launch large parts of the tower 500 feet away? Parabolic motion supported by the height and pressure of the debris is a far more logical explanation.

People did hear blasts, don't lie.

Even before the planes hit, so you can't blame this on the fires...



Now can you quit with the distracting nonsense, and attempt to explain the physics problems I raise?

Originally posted by ANOK
People did hear blasts, don't lie.

Even before the planes hit, so you can't blame this on the fires...

You clearly having a hearing problem or something. All these people described the impact of the plane, and THEN the debris and fire coming down the elevators. Sequence and context is very important here. The plane did explode. That's not evidence of explosives.

Now can you quit with the distracting nonsense, and attempt to explain the physics problems I raise?

Right, the physics. Your problems are all in your head. I don't see the issues. There was not enough resistance to stop the collapse, and your attempts to say that a significant portion of the energy was converted during collapse to arrest it is just ridiculous. The trusses had nowhere near enough strength to hold up even one floor resting on top of them. They were not vertical columns, and had no vertical resistance except to carry office equipment and people, which are not going to weigh as much as another floor by a long shot.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I love the way you always show photos where about half the collapsed building can be seen and claim they prove your point about the "footprint". And then go quiet when asked for something a bit more conclusive.

Hmm I love the way you pretend I always do this like you know me. Usually I also show these pics...

No offence, but since you're - in the common parlance - constantly getting your arse handed to you over basic physics questions on here, you're not really my go-to guy on this. And you're not really anyone else's either are you? Given how thoroughly the "self-evident obvious physics Truth" is failing to resonate with anybody whatsoever.

Are you kidding me? You guys can't even answer basic physics questions lol. I don't care about being anyone's 'go to guy' lol I know what I'm talking about, you have yet to prove anything I've said to be wrong. You all constantly prove you are clueless about physics.

The first thing you all do is ignore the laws of motion, and assume that velocity causes an object to put more force on another object. That is a very basic laymans misunderstanding of physics, so why should I believe you understand any of it? You have to say I'm wrong, because if you admit I'm right, then you have to admit the NIST report is wrong.

Answer these basic questions, and prove to me you know physics, and I'm wrong...

4a. Two colliding objects will exert equal forces upon each other even if their mass is significantly different.

5b. Most collisions tend to be partially to completely elastic.

5f. Most collisions are not inelastic because the collision forces cause energy of motion to be transformed into sound, light and thermal energy (to name a few).

14. Suppose that you're driving down the highway and a moth crashes into the windshield of your car. Which undergoes the greater force?

a. the moth
b. your car
c. both the same

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.