Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gravy said:
Sir Knight, I've started a new thread here for further discussion of your claims. Thanks for filling me on the murder attempts.
Click to expand...


you are welcome, but I am not sure I should thank you for the thread. Not sure now I really wanted to go there due to so much BS and they ask but don't read everything, like here but apparently worse or so it seems. It is like now there is no topic just a shooting gallery. LOL
Oh well it might be short lived and if I continue here I will do my best to stay on topic as I really have wanted to, sincerely...

SK
 
T.A.M. said:
DR;

Thanks for the info. While most of it went over my non-aeronautical inclined head, I appreciate the effort. It is that kind of detail that I refer to with links, which he tried to nail me with "Appeal to authority". Well he is probably right, but as a non-authority, who else should I refer to...uncle bob the shoe salesman.
Click to expand...

Here is a much shorter version about the so called compression wave:

Many (novice) pilots think that ground effect is caused by air being compressed between the wing and the ground. This is not so. Ground effect is caused by the reduction of induced drag when an airplane is flown at slow speed very near the surface.
Click to expand...
http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/aft_perf.htm
I added the term "novice" since pilots who have been around a while tend to learn and retain the subtleties of what really is happening to their aircraft as it flies.

It says some of what I did far more simply. :)

DR
 
Last edited:
brumsen said:
I know. No problem there, then. But did Jones still think you were violating academic ethics when you had explained this to him? If so, on what basis?


Proven? No, he is just being consistent. I don't see the satire here, or perhaps I find it just not so funny.
The point should be that any journal, no matter how published, has to earn itself a reputation. Maybe JoD is not planning to do so? Again, hardly satire.


The first two are remarks about sources, and I would tend to agree with you there. The latter is referring to a disagreement about what a certain picture shows. You claim to have the better argument there. So, obviously, do they.
Click to expand...

Except we have actual evidence we can point to. We can show their picture of a "thermite cut" and place it beside a picture of a beam cut by a torch and show how they are similar. They show the picture, and then show a copy of a patent for a device nobody has ever seen in action and they have no idea whether it would do what they claim it would, and then talk about a supposed secret super nano-thermite which is being developed by the government.

We intend on getting a reputation, but for the research we do, not for how many degrees we have. The "scholars" just carry out crappy biased research based off of dubious sources, and then when challenged on it scream, "But we are scholars we have PhDs, we are experts! The World Trade Centers were like trees, TREES I tell you! Damn all the structural engineers to hell!"
 
Last edited:
Regarding 77 hitting light poles on the way to the Pentagon...

From here: http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11077
TeamFDR has established that the plane -- AA77, from which the flight data recorder was obtained, was flying TOO HIGH to strike those poles.
Click to expand...
I can't find "TeamFDR's" claim nor the data behind it. Has anyone seen it or a rebuttal?
 
DavidJames said:
Regarding 77 hitting light poles on the way to the Pentagon...

From here: http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11077
I can't find "TeamFDR's" claim nor the data behind it. Has anyone seen it or a rebuttal?
Click to expand...
The rebuttal is in the eyewitness accounts and the photos. I'd like to hear the CTs tell that taxi driver that no plane hit the light poles.

879044ca98bc1035d.jpg
 
DavidJames said:
Regarding 77 hitting light poles on the way to the Pentagon...

From here: http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11077
I can't find "TeamFDR's" claim nor the data behind it. Has anyone seen it or a rebuttal?
Click to expand...
I've finally had some FOIA success, and got some documents from the NTSB today about Flight 77 & others. These include the altitude readings they're talking about. Read more & download from http://www.911myths.com/html/ntsb_release_august_22_2006.html
 
DavidJames said:
Regarding 77 hitting light poles on the way to the Pentagon...

From here: http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11077
I can't find "TeamFDR's" claim nor the data behind it. Has anyone seen it or a rebuttal?
Click to expand...
It may be related to this:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3271
Poster Snowygrouch from the British 9/11 Truth forum obtained flightpath animations from the NTSB, which apparently indicates an altimeter reading indicating an altitude of 180 above sea level (about 130 above ground level) at the point where the plane hit the light poles.
 
DavidJames said:
Regarding 77 hitting light poles on the way to the Pentagon...

From here: http/s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11077
I can't find "TeamFDR's" claim nor the data behind it. Has anyone seen it or a rebuttal?
Click to expand...
My pal and yours, JDX, says he's been trying to upload the full animation for the past 5 days. I asked him for the site so I could try and upload it as well. Plus, I'd like to see the site in general....
 
I am confused. does TeamFDR have a new theory. they are admitting AA77 existed, and crashed, as they are basing their comments on the "Recovered Flight Recorder" wrt hitting the poles, but then they are saying the flight could not have hit the poles...

So there theory is what, that the plane crashed somewhere else, and therefore the data on the recorder is inconsistent with the trajectory and damage doen near the Pentagon. they can't have it both ways.
 
T.A.M.,

Just a nitpick on your debunk (which was a very fine job IMHO). In point 7, Fetzer referred to "Charles Pagelow". You refer to him twice as "Charles Pagalow". Wouldn't want anyone to imply you were looking for the wrong guy.
 
Gravy said:
Way to go, Mike!
Click to expand...
Mike's FOIA document also seems to answer the mystery of flight speed on flight 77. As some know there has been two claims. One report from FOX news stated 345
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/345.htm
Others stated 530MPH.

So when you read the document 1 (AAL77) page 11-2
I see as airspeed 460 KL.
460 X .15=529MPH to convert from KTS to MPH
So it seems the government report was indeed correct.
 
chipmunk stew said:
Looks to be just under 30' above sea level. (Which makes sense considering how close it is to tidal water.)
Click to expand...

Okay, so elevation relative to sea level is between 0' and +30' (approx.) The Pentagon is 71' tall so it's base is between 0' and 30' and its roof is between 71' and 101'. So, once I have some time, I can dig up the height of the street lamps in question and compare that to the FDR data that MikeW most excellently obtained and see if it ties out.
 
JDX says the troothers filed a FOIA request and got some DVDs from the NTSB that includes an animation from the data obtained from the FDR of Flight 77.

Although they've been having a difficult time uploading the animation due to someone (or something) attacking his IP.

edit: Old news, I know. Not sure why I made this post. Back to zoning out.
 
Last edited:
JamesB said:
Except we have actual evidence we can point to. We can show their picture of a "thermite cut" and place it beside a picture of a beam cut by a torch and show how they are similar. They show the picture, and then show a copy of a patent for a device nobody has ever seen in action and they have no idea whether it would do what they claim it would,
Click to expand...
They show a copy of a patent and evidence that the device in question has been manufactured. Are you suggesting that the manufacturer has no idea whether it works?

JamesB said:
We intend on getting a reputation, but for the research we do, not for how many degrees we have. The "scholars" just carry out crappy biased research based off of dubious sources, and then when challenged on it scream, "But we are scholars we have PhDs, we are experts! The World Trade Centers were like trees, TREES I tell you! Damn all the structural engineers to hell!"
Click to expand...
Yeah ok it's easy to poke some fun there. Where, though, is there an article in the 9/11 studies journal that says WTC towers are like trees? Anyway, we were talking about the reputation of the journal, not of the editors or the authors. A journal earns its reputation by publishing solid research that has passed peer review. Even if you doubt that this is the case with the 9/11 studies journal, the quality of its papers has to my knowledge not been defended by pointing out the author's degrees.
My question, again, is: do you want the JoD to earn a reputation as a solid journal?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Okay, so elevation relative to sea level is between 0' and +30' (approx.) The Pentagon is 71' tall so it's base is between 0' and 30' and its roof is between 71' and 101'. So, once I have some time, I can dig up the height of the street lamps in question and compare that to the FDR data that MikeW most excellently obtained and see if it ties out.
Click to expand...
The lamp posts were about 40 feet tall.
 
Gravy said:
The lamp posts were about 40 feet tall.
Click to expand...

ETA: I haven't read the FDR report, but I believe the data sampling rate may be a source of error when trying to determine a plane's exact altitude at an exact spot. Also, is the recorded altitude above ground level or above sea level?

Didn't mean to quote myself there. But while I'm at it, I just want to emphasize the insanity of CTs using these means of trying to "prove" that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. It's just another way of avoiding dealing with the people who were there.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom