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

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

LOL...

That's funny (yes, I check out these things for myself), but Pilotsfor911Truth has had a steady stream of membership over the years ever since they were formed.

Rob Balsamo is an "expert" at creating sock user names. He's had perhaps 20 here, (so far)....maybe even more, hard to keep count.

It is most likely he artificially inflates the figures at his pet site....he is the Administrator, and can do whatever he wants.

The real key is to check the actual levels of participation, NOT just the roster numbers.

Mybad on the fuel weight. (See? Not that hard to concede a point ProudBird. You should try it some time)

You seem to have missed the other valid points made. Selective reading? Or is it because I'm right?
The 350 knot (alleged) aircraft proves nothing except the VMO chart posted by Rob Balsamo is correct.

The "sock" allegation...you're really reaching man. Do you think for one minute that the details of those people who have been steadily signing up wouldn't have been checked by JREF and friends and jumped upon like a dog on a rancid bone to discredit them??

Have you ever checked them out for yourself?

I noticed in another post that somebody called you "Weedwhacker". Is that you? You're not using a sock "ProudBird" are you?

reply to post by Reheat


Then why bother posting Reheat??

I've debunked your "debunk" in two posts. Even if Morin's online testimony is for some reason accepted over a direct interview, he still places the aircraft North of Columbia Pike.

Can the aircraft line up with the directional damage from there? I'll answer it for you.

No.

You have trouble reading too it appears. I already told you that those who reject solid evidence on the proven advice of disinformationists and a forum that ridicules a movement they claim to represent is totally irrelevant.

Later (assuming you're not going to waste any more time on me!)

xoxox

reply to post by ProudBird

She is NOT an engineer, nor is she a pilot! You can hear it plainly in the recording.....she's obviously scanning through books and documentation to try to find the answer. She knows about as much about flying as you do, it seems.

So she's scanning through Boeing "books and documentation" to find the answer?
And she said (laughing) that flying at cruise speed at low altitude was impossible.

Gotcha.

Listen, I'm not sure how this works (or if the admins don't like it) but do you mind if I post your assertions over at Pilotsfor911Truth to get an expert opinion on them? There are guys there who have 1000s of hours flight time in 757/767s. What flight time should I tell them you have? And what basically do Pilotsfor911Truth claim that you have such a hatred for them?

Mind giving me a point by point list that I can post there? I'm a layman but I'd really like to see this discussed.

I really don't know why you're taking offence against the suggestion that you go there and debate the assertions yourself.

If not, I'm happy enough to go back to discussing the NOC witnesses and how nobody has named a single witness who contradicts their description of the flightpath.

Thanks!

reply to post by ProudBird

A "shallow descent"? Yes, and so did American 77. The descent is shown clearly in the FDR information.

Please don't tell me that you're actually comparing the descent in that video to the alleged descent rate (and speed) shown in the NTSB data??

Even if you are going by Warren Stutt's "data", which isn't official by the way, it's still a steep descent remember. At cruise speed.

How many feet per second did "Flight 77" descend from just before the Navy Annex?

I don't believe any of the two because of the NOC witnesses, but humour me.

reply to post by pteridine

The report was a real report, hence not a 'pseudo' report

The hard fact is NIST report was proven a pseudo report. Now you can deny it all you like however it is your ignorance that is being exposed right now. The fact is there are no real scientist who supports the NIST Report.

The fact that you didn't like it doesn't make it pseudo. As a reference, the authors of the Jones/Harrit paper are excellent examples of 'pseudo chemists.'

You do not know what I think, however I will tell you what I know about the NIST report and that is you will never be able to challenge it. The fact is NIST applied make believe science known as (“'pseudo” science) to their hypothesis and NIST science has been proven a fraud by real science.

As for Jones/Harriet paper being examples of 'pseudo chemists. That is one of the biggest fallacies that you continue to spread. You were asked by me and other ATS members repeatedly to show your science to prove Jones paper flawed. *You never did* no instead you were caught copping and pasting from Jeff Rence’s website from bloggers “opinions” from people who solely supported the fallacies of the OS. These opinion where not even yours, this speaks volumes about you.

Having an opinion is one thing however claiming you’re “opinions” are the facts without showing evidence or any credible sources is another.
The fact is you have absolutely nothing to substantiate your opinions, against Jones/Harriet peer reviewed paper. I have confronted you many times and in fact caught you embellishing outrages fallacies as you are demonstrating right now and have exposed your canards on ATS.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

As for Jones/Harriet paper being examples of 'pseudo chemists. That is one of the biggest fallacies that you continue to spread. You were asked by me and other ATS members repeatedly to show your science to prove Jones paper flawed. *You never did* no instead you were caught copping and pasting from Jeff Rence’s website from bloggers “opinions” from people who solely supported the fallacies of the OS. These opinion where not even yours, this speaks volumes about you.

Having an opinion is one thing however claiming you’re “opinions” are the facts without showing evidence or any credible sources is another.
The fact is you have absolutely nothing to substantiate your opinions, against Jones/Harriet peer reviewed paper. I have confronted you many times and in fact caught you embellishing outrages fallacies as you are demonstrating right now and have exposed your canards on ATS.

Early on, I exposed Jones use of TGA in a stream of air. I showed the errors in energy output and explained the calculations. Perhaps others saw this and repeated it. I explained things as simply as possible and that was still apparently either too complex for you or was unacceptable in that it showed your hero, Jones, wasn't much of a scientist.
It seems that your idea of "research" is wandering around the web selecting what others say that agree with your opinions. You don't need "experts' " opinions. I hope my assistance for calculating the average time for individual floor collapse has helped you begin to form your own opinions rather than to parrot what you read on a for-profit truth site.

Originally posted by pteridine
I hope my assistance for calculating the average time for individual floor collapse has helped you begin to form your own opinions rather than to parrot what you read on a for-profit truth site.

Do you know what pressure load the floors, and their connections, were able to withstand before failure? Do you know the Fos of a floor section? Did you address the loss of Ke to deformation, sound, heat, etc., or do you assume a constant increase in Ke, as others incorrectly do?

I'd love those figures. You say you've done calculations, so I'm assuming you know them?

You accuse others of just repeating what they have read, that's all you guys do. You say nothing that isn't on 911myths. Whenever I bring up physics that is not on 911myths you all fail.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by pteridine
I hope my assistance for calculating the average time for individual floor collapse has helped you begin to form your own opinions rather than to parrot what you read on a for-profit truth site.

Do you know what pressure load the floors, and their connections, were able to withstand before failure? Do you know the Fos of a floor section? Did you address the loss of Ke to deformation, sound, heat, etc., or do you assume a constant increase in Ke, as others incorrectly do?

I'd love those figures. You say you've done calculations, so I'm assuming you know them?

You accuse others of just repeating what they have read, that's all you guys do. You say nothing that isn't on 911myths. Whenever I bring up physics that is not on 911myths you all fail.

When Impme wanted to know what "experts" calculated

reply to post by pteridine

Early on, I exposed Jones use of TGA in a stream of air. I showed the errors in energy output and explained the calculations.

I will treat you with the same respect that you treat me and everyone else who disagrees with you.

Early on, I exposed I how you twisted Jones science and I was able to prove that your opinion about TGA had no errors in the output and I even gave you the proper calculation, which you couldn’t dispute. We already covered all this and you where debunked.

Perhaps others saw this and repeated it. I explained things as simply as possible and that was still apparently either too complex for you or was unacceptable in that it showed your hero, Jones, wasn't much of a scientist.

You sure did explained it, and I was able to show you your errors I don’t think you understand your math much less counter the calculations that I and others have come up with.

It seems that your idea of "research" is wandering around the web selecting what others say that agree with your opinions.

It seems that your ideas of “research” is wandering on J R website and selecting what others are coming up with in their calculation and in hoping they are right however, when the proper calculation are presented to you , you don’t seem to understand much less counter the real science.

You don't need "experts' " opinions

Neither do you, and yet you pick and choose from JR website, again hoping no one can disprove your nonsense.

I hope my assistance for calculating the average time for individual floor collapse has helped you begin to form your own opinions rather than to parrot what you read on a for-profit truth site.

No your assistance was not helpful since it was proven by me and others on here that your calculations are no good and were proving that you are using “pseudo-science.”

reply to post by impressme


As usual, your delusions prevent you from understanding what you don't wish to understand. If you have showed how my calculations were incorrect, you never posted it. All you have done is repeat what you have read and say that I have not shown any "science." It is apparent that you don't understand what science is and cannot follow the arguments.
The demolition theories have been dead for a while and only the few folks living in an alternate universe still espouse them. Paintman Jones' promise to correct his experiments has been another empty promise from a famous hit and run artist.

If you have anything that shows my calculations to be incorrect, post it or admit that you are unable to show any errors in my work.

reply to post by pteridine

The demolition theories have been dead for a while and only the few folks living in an alternate universe still espouse them.

Sources please? Again all you do is spew negative opinions that are completely untrue and I will challenge you on that.
I supposed you have proved all of these scientist and all their technical papers are all wrong to?
www.ae911truth.org...

Again your opinions are not the facts and you have been proven wrong by me and others repeatedly.
What little calculations you did showed you were debunk by me and other ATSers and you know it, but yet you pretend like no one noticed and now you carrying on as if you were not challenged and debunked. Just like you telling the fallacies that no one supports the demolition theory, I hate to tell you but real science and scientists "only support demolition," and have put their names and reputations on their science and their work have NEVER been debunked by anyone.
I know you cannot even believe demolition was possible as you have well demonstrated it repeatedly but you have completely ignored all the science that proves demolition and everyone who doesn’t agrees with your pseudo-science of “office fires” and “jet fuel” bringing down the WTC in a normal collapse as you continue to demonstrate it to me are below link:

As usual, your delusions prevent you from understanding what you don't wish to understand
It is apparent that you don't understand what science is and cannot follow the arguments.

Yep, everyone who disagrees with you is delusional and has no understanding to any science, if that is what you believe then why do you continue to have this conversation with me and why waste your precious time?

Paintman Jones' promise to correct his experiments has been another empty promise from a famous hit and run artist.

I see you have created a new name for Steven Jones (Paintman Jones') and now you continue to parrot JR website fallacies that Jones promise to correct his mistakes.
Jones never made any such claim and had he you would have gladly given us the sources to back your claim.

If you have anything that shows my calculations to be incorrect, post it or admit that you are unable to show any errors in my work.

I have posted my calculations several times to you I cannot help it if you continue to ignore them and I am not going to play your circular logic game that you continue to play right now.

First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they attack you,
Then you win.

--Gandhi

As I said a few days ago "we" have seen no real computer simulation of the WTC impact or the Pentagon impact.

The Purdue video is a joke. It is CGI, possibly done on a Commadore 64.

Here we see a 12 inch wooden pole cut righ through an airplane wing.



Think of the aircraft as a beach ball and the building as a katana.

It does not matter how fast the beach ball is propelled against the sword, the beach ball will still be destroyed by the weapon.

Now see the beach ball as a person who clings to the official story and the dangerous samurai sword as the sharp wit of a person who is free to think for himself and questions the lies of 9/11.

Also this little gem.



Here is Mike Walter in what appears to be a series of lies. Doesn't glancing to the right signify a lie? It looks they told him they will give him back his testicles if he lies three times before the cock crows.

reply to post by BRAVO949


That video shows examples of low-speed impacts.

Here we see a 12 inch wooden pole cut righ through an airplane wing.

Physics, and the understanding of the energies involved, are fundamental to comprehension.

A bullet, a low velocity, cannot penetrate a target. But, increase its velocity, and then what happens?

Physics.

Whoever made that video is not understanding the facts, nor the reality.....of physics.

reply to post by impressme


Can you explain tome why Jones said he would return with a follow-up paper to address the outstanding points in his first work and then never did? He claimed he would answer criticisms of the paper by late 2009.

Originally posted by BRAVO949
As I said a few days ago "we" have seen no real computer simulation of the WTC impact or the Pentagon impact.

The Purdue video is a joke. It is CGI, possibly done on a Commadore 64.

Now see, this is just funny to me.

You say we have seen no real computer simulation of the WTC impact or the Pentagon impact. Then, within ONE sentence, you talk about the simulation done (not even mentioning the one done for the Pentagon) and say it's fake based on your personal feeling, essentially.

You haven't looked at what they used to calculate the forces. You don't know anything about what was done to create the simulations, but like a good layman, you are willing to discredit it because it disagrees with you.

Anyway, look up the equation F=mv^2 . It might change your life.

Originally posted by impressme


First they ignore you,
Then they ridicule you,
Then they ridicule you some more,
Then more people ridicule you, more and more, especially when your lawsuit is thrown on and called frivolous and was based on fantasy and delusion.
Then you are ridiculed even more.
In perpetuity.

--Trebor451

There...fixed that for ya.

Originally posted by BRAVO949
As I said a few days ago "we" have seen no real computer simulation of the WTC impact or the Pentagon impact.

The Purdue video is a joke. It is CGI, possibly done on a Commadore 64.

Here we see a 12 inch wooden pole cut righ through an airplane wing.

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Purdue report and you know it. The main point of the report is that the incompressible fluids of the aircraft (I.E the fuel) acted like a battering ram against the strructure and caused more damage to the structure than originally understood.

Not that it matters, as we saw with our own eyes how an aluminum aircraft was able to sever the exterior box columns as per every video every taken during the 9/11 attack so it stands to reason the aircraft was able to sever the interior box columns. Unless you're one of those people spreading that "the planes were all holograms" foolishness, the plane DID cause significant structural damage to the building regardless of how many youtube videos you post.

Think of the aircraft as a beach ball and the building as a katana.

No, according to the Purdue report, it's more of the case we need to think of the aircraft as hurricane Katrina and the building as New Orleans.

What does this have anything to do with the Pentagon attack that the OP was discussing? Is this one of those attempts to steer the argument to something else because you know you're wrong about the "no plane hit the Pentagon" nonsense?

reply to post by impressme


I discussed Jones' promise to redo his faulty experiment with turbofan in June of 2009 right after the Norwegian State Radio interview. www.abovetopsecret.com...
This was to be done by the end of 2009 and be published in an actual peer reviewed journal. Of course, it never happened and Jones got very quiet. Either the work was so bad that it never made it through the review process or Stevie's experiments showed him that it was....red paint. Jones ego prevents him from admitting either which would terminate any celebrity that he might have. He is feeding off of deluded people who pay him to give lectures about his thoroughly debunked theories. Jones was forced to 'retire' when the faculty at his university refused to support his bad science. He is an embarassment to his school and science in general. As you are fond of saying, "how does that work for you?"

You have never shown my calculations to be incorrect; all you have done was to say they were incorrect, that I have no "evidences," and that Jones "sciences" were irrefutable. It seems that you are only capable of bitter verbal attacks when you are unable to refute statements made by those you disagree with. This appears to be most of the time.

Dear Chief ProudBird,

You are a "layman" when it comes to physics though.

You do admit that, don't you?

You might know a few things about RC planes but physics is not your area and you proved that by mixing astrology and physics back last week.

Are you telling us that if you fire a light aluminum bullet at a solid steel plate if it is going fast enough it will go through the steel plate?

If you throw a butter ball as hard as you can at padded wall in your room will it bounce off or penetrate the wall?

The ulitimate question for a man of your experience is, "Was the pilot of the missile that hit the Pentagon a better pilot than you are?"

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by BRAVO949

 

That video shows examples of low-speed impacts.

Here we see a 12 inch wooden pole cut righ through an airplane wing.

Physics, and the understanding of the energies involved, are fundamental to comprehension.

A bullet, a low velocity, cannot penetrate a target. But, increase its velocity, and then what happens?

Physics.

Whoever made that video is not understanding the facts, nor the reality.....of physics.