How Loony are the Loons?

" Were you ever going to comment on that?"

Sure, just as soon as you answer where in the NIST report is the explaination for the mechanism for the collapse of the towers.
 
RemoveBush said:
"How fast was the 707 flying in their examples?"

I don't know! I would think they would be somewhere in the area of landing and takeoff speeds? This speed would be somewhere between 200 and 350 MPH, by best guess.

"How fast were the 767's that flew into the WTC going?"

They say about 500 MPH, but the speed seems slower when you watch it. The plane is not moving through the air like a fighter jet at an air show and you can track it with a camera. If it was going 500 MPH, it would have been much harder to track with a camera.

I have tried following planes at an air show, and you can barely see them coming or going. Nothing like that on 9/11.
Click to expand...

So because you went an air show, you don't think the planes that slammed into the Towers were going very fast?

Well, since you have so much experience from your air show, how fast would a 767 have to go to cause massive internal structural damage?

Please remember I am not as bright as you, so just simple sentences will do.
 
RemoveBush said:
They say about 500 MPH, but the speed seems slower when you watch it. The plane is not moving through the air like a fighter jet at an air show and you can track it with a camera. If it was going 500 MPH, it would have been much harder to track with a camera.

I have tried following planes at an air show, and you can barely see them coming or going. Nothing like that on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Thats funny because I've been to dozens of airshows and never had trouble following an airplane during a high speed pass. And the apparent speed difference is because of the difference in size; the fighters you see during airshows are a 1/5 the size of a 767. Seriously, this needs to be pointed out to you...and you're an engineer?
 
"BTW, if I would have had to guess what, if any, education you had, I'd have guessed you were an engineer as they (and I include myself here) tend to have atrocious spelling skills."

Yes I am an Engineer and have stated that several time... I do have poor spelling skills and I rely heavily upon spell check in word to fix them. There is no spell check here so cannot do that. If someone is going to critisize about spelling rather than the substance, they really don't have much to argue anyway and are just finding another reason to sidetrack the conversation.
 
RemoveBush said:
"How fast was the 707 flying in their examples?"

I don't know! I would think they would be somewhere in the area of landing and takeoff speeds? This speed would be somewhere between 200 and 350 MPH, by best guess.

"How fast were the 767's that flew into the WTC going?"

They say about 500 MPH, but the speed seems slower when you watch it. The plane is not moving through the air like a fighter jet at an air show and you can track it with a camera. If it was going 500 MPH, it would have been much harder to track with a camera.

I have tried following planes at an air show, and you can barely see them coming or going. Nothing like that on 9/11.
Click to expand...

View the first crash from the Naudette brothers video and see how fast it disappears behind the skyline to the west and then impacts the north tower which looks at LEAST four blocks away. 550 MPH is 806 feet per second. I don't recall off hand how big the city blocks are downtown But jeeze just do the rough math in your head!
 
"how would explosives every 10th or 20th floor speed up the collapse any more than 10 of 5 percent of an unassisted collapse? And for what purpose? If explosives were used that far ahead of the collapse it would have been self evident from 80 something camera angles. Are you reading what you are typing? Do you think you have stumbled upon a Sesame Street forum for children?"

They are seen, you just ignore them!

There are squibs, not air pressure, exploding from pin point places in the collapse. If it was from air pressure, it would have been more spuratic and less systematic.
 
"how far away were the cameras that were able to track the planes on 9/11? its much easier to track a fast moving object from farther away you know (as opposed to at an air show when they fly directly overhead)"

Sure, but there are SEVERAL camera shots by citizens that captured them and were able to track them smothly and easily.

This is an indication that the planes were moving at a slower speed than 500 MPH.
 
DavidJames said:
Yet you've provided nothing of substance so far, zip, nada. Just empty claims.

I'm calling your bluff, show your stuff, Mr. Engineer.
Click to expand...
Agree.

If RB is, in fact, an engineer, he is an embarassment to the profession at this point in the thread.

RB, this has all been debated here before. Spend a week or two reviewing the old threads here. Loose Change I - IV are 'stickied" threads at the top of this forum, and Gravy's Loose Change critique addresses a lot of the issues you've jumped back and forth between.

It seems pointless to cover all of this ground again.

I'm also sure this thread will go to 20 pages minimum.
 
Yes I am an Engineer and have stated that several time.
Click to expand...

Which field?
What sort of work have you been involved with?

There are squibs, not air pressure, exploding from pin point places in the collapse. If it was from air pressure, it would have been more spuratic and less systematic.
Click to expand...

lol what do you mean systematic? If they were squibs, the sound of many different explosions going off in sequence would have been heard by all those around - it wasn't.
 
RemoveBush said:
"BTW, if I would have had to guess what, if any, education you had, I'd have guessed you were an engineer as they (and I include myself here) tend to have atrocious spelling skills."

Yes I am an Engineer and have stated that several time... I do have poor spelling skills and I rely heavily upon spell check in word to fix them. There is no spell check here so cannot do that. If someone is going to critisize about spelling rather than the substance, they really don't have much to argue anyway and are just finding another reason to sidetrack the conversation.
Click to expand...

Wow you are an engineer, I am impressed. Guess what my friend so are the majority of people you are talking to, so drop the false sense of superiority.

Are you going to answer the questions that have been put to you or simply say “I’m an engineer, so you should listen to me"?
 
RemoveBush said:
Yes I am an Engineer and have stated that several time...
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm a little skeptical of this claim after reading your posts. Perhaps you wouldn't mind telling us what sort of engineer you are, what your degree is in and where you studied?

We have a great many engineers here, including several ME's and CE's that would be very interested to hear your arguments and see you supporting math..
 
RemoveBush said:
"BTW, if I would have had to guess what, if any, education you had, I'd have guessed you were an engineer as they (and I include myself here) tend to have atrocious spelling skills."

Yes I am an Engineer and have stated that several time... I do have poor spelling skills and I rely heavily upon spell check in word to fix them. There is no spell check here so cannot do that. If someone is going to critisize about spelling rather than the substance, they really don't have much to argue anyway and are just finding another reason to sidetrack the conversation.
Click to expand...
Hey, I was just making a joke, man. Thought a "brother" engineer would understand.
 
RemoveBush said:
"how would explosives every 10th or 20th floor speed up the collapse any more than 10 of 5 percent of an unassisted collapse? And for what purpose? If explosives were used that far ahead of the collapse it would have been self evident from 80 something camera angles. Are you reading what you are typing? Do you think you have stumbled upon a Sesame Street forum for children?"

They are seen, you just ignore them!

There are squibs, not air pressure, exploding from pin point places in the collapse. If it was from air pressure, it would have been more spuratic and less systematic.
Click to expand...
lol...squib

i still say someone decided to call them that to make fun of CTers and they just ran with it
 
"So because you went an air show, you don't think the planes that slammed into the Towers were going very fast?"

Once again, you feel the need to take things out of context and spin them to meet your need??

I never said they were not "going very fast"! I said they were not going 500 MPH like we were told by the way citizens were able to track them with little issues.

"Well, since you have so much experience from your air show, how fast would a 767 have to go to cause massive internal structural damage?"

With a building like the WTC's it would have take a lot more than ONE plane to do enough damage to take them out. The structure would have TOPPLED from the stress of the weight being applied to one portion of the building.

OK smart guy..... Take a wooden chair..... Cut off on of its legs. Now stand on it and tell me what way does the chair want to fall???? Does it want to fall straight down or does it want to fall toward the missing leg?

"Please remember I am not as bright as you, so just simple sentences will do."

It that simple enough for your or should I talk in baby language?
 
"Thats funny because I've been to dozens of airshows and never had trouble following an airplane during a high speed pass. And the apparent speed difference is because of the difference in size; the fighters you see during airshows are a 1/5 the size of a 767. Seriously, this needs to be pointed out to you...and you're an engineer?"

Hey brainiac..... Were you FILIMING?? Probably not!

It is harder to follow a fast moving object when you are focusing on it through a view finder, rather than tracking it with both your eyes......

Common sense just escapes you doesnt it?
 
RemoveBush said:
"how would explosives every 10th or 20th floor speed up the collapse any more than 10 of 5 percent of an unassisted collapse? And for what purpose? If explosives were used that far ahead of the collapse it would have been self evident from 80 something camera angles. Are you reading what you are typing? Do you think you have stumbled upon a Sesame Street forum for children?"

They are seen, you just ignore them!

There are squibs, not air pressure, exploding from pin point places in the collapse. If it was from air pressure, it would have been more spuratic and less systematic.
Click to expand...

Really?

Please explain your understanding of pressure relief valves on high pressure systems and what they do. Please explain why they are vital to ensure that things that are not over pressurised do not damage the equipment.

You being an engineer will have no problem with this.

Ps Relief valves= windows (a clue)
 
"Hey, I was just making a joke, man. Thought a "brother" engineer would understand."

I know!!! I was not criticizing you in any way..... My comment in the last sentance was for those that do, you made it clear that you make mistakes as well.....

I hope you did not take that in a negative way?
 
RemoveBush said:
"BTW, if I would have had to guess what, if any, education you had, I'd have guessed you were an engineer as they (and I include myself here) tend to have atrocious spelling skills."

Yes I am an Engineer and have stated that several time... I do have poor spelling skills and I rely heavily upon spell check in word to fix them. There is no spell check here so cannot do that. If someone is going to critisize about spelling rather than the substance, they really don't have much to argue anyway and are just finding another reason to sidetrack the conversation.
Click to expand...

TheChadd said:
Which field?
What sort of work have you been involved with?



lol what do you mean systematic? If they were squibs, the sound of many different explosions going off in sequence would have been heard by all those around - it wasn't.
Click to expand...

TheChadd said:
You are not an engineer.
Click to expand...

Yes he is! He drives the choo-choo at the shopping mall for the kiddies. Has to make change and stuff, so he has to use his math skills every day!

Really!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom