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

Aw Jeez, not this crap again?

My original post on this topic was that the destruction revealed by the Pentagon pictures and videos indicated much less total impact energy compared to the WTC case.

We are urged by you to equate a tiny hole punched in the wallboard of the Pentagon through which and woman and her child escaped the damaged building.

Now, how in the world do you explain that?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

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?

Originally posted by BRAVO949
Aw Jeez, not this crap again?

My original post on this topic was that the destruction revealed by the Pentagon pictures and videos indicated much less total impact energy compared to the WTC case.

We are urged by you to equate a tiny hole punched in the wallboard of the Pentagon through which and woman and her child escaped the damaged building.

Now, how in the world do you explain that?

Easy- you're comparing apples and oranges. The Pentagon had steel reinforced concrete walls with steel reinforced floors. The Pentagon was built back in the '40s and they built things massively like that back then becuase they didn't know how to do otherwise yet. The WTC OTOH had hollow box columns set up in a lattice pattern that held up a steel tray filled with a few inches of concrete. They built it with such a light construction because it was a monstrously large structure and they had to build it lightweight or else it would have collapsed under its own weight. It's the difference between someone slugging Mike Tyson vs someone slugging Paris Hilton.

All this was already explained from day one and could be found in a thirty second Google search. You simply refuse to do it because you're deathly afraid of the answers you'll find. You WANT there to be some sinister plot behind this so you'll grasp at any straw you can find to justify it, up to and including how "suspicious" it is that a concrete box is more sturdy than a house of cards.

This is neither here nor there. Every video of the impact shows that an aluminum aircraft can and will sever steel columns so the destructive power from the impact is beyond question. You do recognize this photograph, yes? The exterior steel columns certainly look severed to me. Do they look severed to you?

reply to post by BRAVO949


Sigh...

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about! I am not Rob Balsamo...he's the one who uses the "RC plane analogy".

And, saying that I used "astrology" is a flat-out lie. I know that astrology is horse crap.

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?

Make the bullet fast enough, and yes. A tiny, tiny speck of dust is a hazard when in space.

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?

What's a "butter ball"? Do you mean a turkey? Who said a turkey is equivalent to an airplane??

A "butter ball" against a "padded wall" isn't even close to an analogy for 9/11. How ridiculous can a person get?

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?"

No....I am hands-down 1,000 times better. And also..... I don't have the vile intention of being a suicide bomber.

I was teasing you for God's sake.

This is a serious subject - some group has attacked our country and we have never carried out a proper investigation into who attacked and why.

Remember the Bush administration tried to prevent any sort of investigation at all then they blocked the 9/11 Commission even after packing it with stooges.

Remember they suggested the war-criminal Henry Kissinger as the head of it?

I don't think that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were in on it because they are collectively too stupid.

I don't think the government did it at all but I know that 19 amateurs did not pull off the most successful black ops of all time.

I actually believe you that that you are a much better pilot than the person the official story says flew into the Pentagon but if no one with 1/1000th of your skill could have done what was done. Someone with 1/100th of you skill couldn't. Probably not 1/10th.

If amateurs could do this sort of thing then every military in the world is wasting its money training commando troops.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by BRAVO949

 

Sigh...

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about! I am not Rob Balsamo...he's the one who uses the "RC plane analogy".

And, saying that I used "astrology" is a flat-out lie. I know that astrology is horse crap.

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?

Make the bullet fast enough, and yes. A tiny, tiny speck of dust is a hazard when in space.

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?

What's a "butter ball"? Do you mean a turkey?

Who said a turkey is equivalent to an airplane??

A "butter ball" against a "padded wall" isn't even close to an analogy for 9/11. How ridiculous can a person get?

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?"

No....I am hands-down 1,000 times better. And also..... I don't have the vile intention of being a suicide bomber.

reply to post by BRAVO949


And what people like you never understand is that the investigation was carried out by the FBI, CIA, NSA, and a host of other government agencies. The 9/11 Commission was not supposed to duplicate any investigations done by other agencies. It's primary purpose was to look into the history, the timeline of events that day, and more importantly, the Governments response that day. Which confirmed what most of us already knew. That the US Government had long since lost the ability to effectively respond to aerial attacks and that there is too much of a CYA mentality.

Well it is pretty obvious that Summers was not prepared in the least. He was completely blindsided and you could tell he was losing his cool.

CIT has the most definitive evidence proving 9/11 an inside job. Hands down. No matter how much the deniers move goal posts and twist logic.

reply to post by WetBlanky


Huh??

CIT has the most definitive evidence proving 9/11 an inside job. Hands down.

"CIT"?

The 'group' (of two) who claim the "fly-over"?? With no basis to support this claim??

That "CIT"????

reply to post by WetBlanky


CIT has no evidence for their theory. No plane flying away means no flyover. It is one of more idiotic theories out there. Even Ranke can't be stupid enough to believe it; he has to be trolling for the sake of publicity.

reply to post by ProudBird


Yes CIT. The team of researchers who uncovered corroborated witness accounts who not only prove a flyover but also prove the damage, including the 5 light poles, staged.

Why are you so against witnesses who were there who unwittingly destroy the official story? Is it because you are in denial or simply can't admit you've been wrong this whole time?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by WetBlanky

 

CIT has no evidence for their theory. No plane flying away means no flyover. It is one of more idiotic theories out there. Even Ranke can't be stupid enough to believe it; he has to be trolling for the sake of publicity.

What theory? You mean to tell me Sgt Lagasse and Sgt Brooks saw a "theory" on the north side of the gas station? You know they stood by the which side of the gas station they saw the "theory" on even after learning the implications, right?

You just need to stop. You sound silly trying to reduce it to a theory.

Isn't Craig Ranke a member here? Aren't you breaking the rules by attacking him personally?

reply to post by pteridine

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...

Ah yes, your evidence that Jones said he will correct his mistakes. Well where is it? The link below is supposed to be your credible source, nothing here?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by turbofan

 

On the Norwegian radio interview you provided a link to, Jones discusses ongoing work in some detail, e.g.,
"This paper is nearing completion and will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. I am more involved in the TEM and XRD studies which are also being vigorously pursued. Note that this research is essentially pro-bono; we do not have a grant for these studies."

There are other references to the new work in there apparent to anyone who bothered to read it.

There is no evidence, again you have stoop to a new low against Jones and his peer review Journal.
Steven Jones made “no such claims” and you have not brought any credible sources to back your claims

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

Now you are “not telling the truth,” I have proven Jones paper went through the proper protocols for a peer review and you lost in this debate with me in the past. We already covered this in 27/12/2010 I did a thread about your rant and smear campaign that you continue to spew with no evidence to support your insan claims. One can see by reading your posts about Steven Jones and his Journal to how desperate you are.
My thread below about this topic:

Originally posted by impressme

[color=gold]Steven Jones Tells 9/11 "Debunkers" to Put up or Shut up!

”What you need to know about "Peer-review"

"Useful information for "non-scientists" about the process of peer-reviewed publishing, such as has been the case with Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Materials ." - 911truth.org

www.abovetopsecret.com...

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?"

The fact is you are not telling the truth again, Jones was asked to retire and it was a simple phone call from the Bush administration that demanded his removal because he proved the government was lying to the American people about the demise of the WTC and his science PROVES THAT. Pro Steven Jones was not an embarrassment to the University, it was the university board members who were the embarrassment for not standing up to credible science, no instead they stood for “Bush politics” and sold Jones out for their university funding from the feral government. It was that simple if the university wanted their yearly funding then they had to comply and remove Steven Jones. It is so clear to who has been disingenuous and has an agenda in this thread.

edit on 21-11-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)

reply to post by WetBlanky


Pretty sure he got booted a long time ago. I could be wrong, but haven't seen him post in ages....thank God.

reply to post by WetBlanky


CIT's theory is that there was a flyover event and bombs went off just as the aircraft flew over. All of DC ducked and turned away from the blast and missed the airplane flying away. The NOC part is all related to witnesses with parallax problems claiming flight paths that are not reconcilable with the evidence of downed light poles and trimmed trees.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by WetBlanky

 

Pretty sure he got booted a long time ago. I could be wrong, but haven't seen him post in ages....thank God.

Yeah judging by how the debate went for Anthony Summers, I'd be thanking God that Ranke wasn't here too if I were you.

reply to post by impressme


Your delusions are consistent, at least.
Jones was forced to retire. Did you tap the phones to listen in on the Bush administration instructing the university to be rid of Jones?
Jones did say he was correcting his experiments in the Norwegian State Radio interview.
You have never shown that my calculations were incorrect.
The irregularities at Bentham over the review process caused the editor to resign in protest.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by WetBlanky

 

CIT's theory is that there was a flyover event and bombs went off just as the aircraft flew over. All of DC ducked and turned away from the blast and missed the airplane flying away. The NOC part is all related to witnesses with parallax problems claiming flight paths that are not reconcilable with the evidence of downed light poles and trimmed trees.

Oh, you're one of those guys who doesn't know the area. The Pentagon is not in DC and is hardly visible from there. Plus you are obviously not familiar with Reagan National Airport which has large airliners flying in and away all day. It is not an uncommon sight to see a plane over, next to, or ascending away from the pentagon every 2-3 minutes all day. A huge, gigantic 10 story fireball isn't a common sight and that is where most people would have their attention drawn towards.

Also, CIT has provided evidence that people saw the flyover and flyaway. From Roosevelt Roberts to co-workers of ANC worker Erik Dihle to witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter.

Just because you keep moving goal posts and make irrational demands that some flyover witness or witnesses have to come forward in order for you to believe, doesn't mean CIT hasn't proven their case.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The north side flight path is the "presence of evidence". The pull-up seen by Robert Turcios and Darius Prather is the "presence of evidence". Roosevelt Roberts and the other flyover related witnesses represent the "presence of evidence".

Let's just see what you are about.

Do you understand that the north side flight path plane cannot cause he physical damage?

Do you agree that this flight path means 9/11 was an inside job?

Do you understand that the witnesses did not support any conspiracy theories and assumed the plane hit at the time of the interview? Do you understand that if they saw the plane on the north side of the Citgo it can't hit the light poles or building?

Do you understand that they stand by where they saw the plane even after they learned the implications?

Why if you are an American would you fight to keep their accounts about the north path out of the court room?

As for parallax. Please. Three witnesses were on or behind the gas station property and all definitively put it on the north side of the gas station and STOOD BY IT AFTER THE FACT! There is no parallax involved because the only ones even remotely susceptible to parallax PUT THE PLANE IN A SLOW DESCENDING RIGHT HAND BANK and in the case of the ANC workers place the plane headed right to them and over them as they ran under it!!! Where they place corroborated Lagasse and Brooks. The official south side, low and level, neck breaking 530 mph flight path does not have any kind of bank. Therefore they are directly describing the north of gas station path and your claims of parallax are bogus. You didn't think about that when constructing such a lazy and sloppy argument did you?

reply to post by pteridine

Your delusions are consistent, at least.

So we are back to name calling.
Because I will not agree with your “conspiracy theories” you call me “delusional?” I guess when you been caught fabricating nonsense, there really nothing left for you to do.

Jones was forced to retire. Did you tap the phones to listen in on the Bush administration instructing the university to be rid of Jones?

Had you bother to do any research on this subject you would have known this.

Jones did say he was correcting his experiments in the Norwegian State Radio interview.

No, Jones did not make any such statements and you should stop making up fallacies especially since you cannot prove this nonsense.

You have never shown that my calculations were incorrect

Yes I have, several times; I can’t help it if you refuse to view them.

The irregularities at Bentham over the review process caused the editor to resign in protest

No that was a totally different thing altogether and that had absolutely nothing to do with Jones peer review. I see what you are trying to do; you are trying your best to fool the ATS readers that a negative incident that took place years ago, a particular member of a scientific publication magazine who was not qualified to review Jones peer review Journal and resigned from her Publication. This has absolutely nothing to do with Jones original peer reviewed paper, nice try.

reply to post by WetBlanky


Hmmmm.......I don't worry about his arguments or theories. Because I know he is full of hot air. I also know that he is a charlatan. He and his cohort badgered a friend of mine for weeks about what he had seen that day from the parking lot of the Pentagon. Rest assured , the pitifully few accounts used by Ranke, do not come close to presenting an accurate picture of what happened that day.


But go ahead, keep swallowing everything he tells you.

reply to post by WetBlanky


I have flown in and out of National [Reagan] many times. The duck-and-cover silliness is a play for magic to have happened because of the inability to reconcile reality with a poorly thought out conspiracy theory. The Flyover-NOC theory is not supported by the externally visible physical evidence [downed poles, damaged tree, aircraft parts] and eyewitnesses. The fuel explosion was 1500-2000 gallons of fuel. No explanation of how that amount of fuel was secretly placed has been provided. Witnesses that saw the plane on a flightpath consistent with the damaged poles and tree and reported internal damage to the building and saw the plane striking the Pentagon have never been refuted.
The contrived theories about the fates of the passengers, the planes, and the rationale for such are beyond ridicule. Why a cabal would complicate matters in such a way has never been explained. The idiotic idea that 'records had to be destroyed' and the only way to do such was to fake an attack shows that the originator of such has no idea how and where records are maintained. I find it hard to fathom how Ranke expects people to buy this silliness but he must have experience as a con artist. Some people must need the feeling of being privy to inside information to feel important.

reply to post by impressme


The Norwegian radio link was provided by Turbofan in that thread. I only read it and commented at the time. Jones did say he was writing another paper correcting the shortcomings of the first.

As to your refutations of my energy calculations; I haven't been able to find such. Perhaps you can provide a link to the thread where you think you addressed them.