[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Travis said:
My conclusion is that Rense.com, in trying to prove that the WTC landing gear debris is that of a 737, only prove that both have four grooves in the tires and through the links that they provide show that the assembly does not look like that of a 737. The links Apathoid provides show how the debris does look like that of 767.

It is hilarious that Rense.com so often unintentionally debunks their own ideas.
Click to expand...

Would you kindly comment on the end of the shaft. It is identical,
http://www.rense.com/general63/hiding.htm
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Would you kindly comment on the end of the shaft. It is identical,
http://www.rense.com/general63/hiding.htm
Click to expand...

Certainly I'll comment on it. The picture of the Murray St fragment, and it's shaft, is here and their picture of a CFM56 shaft is this. But any similarity between the two is purely in the mind of article author Jon Carlson because I don't see it. Also they provide a link to a webpage to check out the low pressure turbine shafts. The only one on there is this one that looks even less like what was seen in the photo of the Murray St fragment.

Thus ends my comment on it.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Would you kindly comment on the end of the shaft. It is identical,
http://www.rense.com/general63/hiding.htm
Click to expand...


Have you learned nothing from the tire example above?

You see, different model turbofan engines have the same basic buildup, which means that they'll more or less have the same components. It shouldn't be surprising if the same parts look pretty similar between engine types as the parts were designed to do exactly the same job. Take a fan blade for example. They look the same(size notwithstanding) no matter what engine you're looking at, right? Same basic idea as the turbine shafts...
 
sleahead said:
I don't think this poor woman is looking for recompense, Malcom. What is in that video that makes you think she is seeking recompense?

It is most unfortunate that she has suffered further torment due to the lies of the Troof Movement. Lies perpetuated by people like you, Malcolm.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that she was looking for recompense. I said that I would look at getting her some recompense. There is a difference.
Is Brigadier General Partin a liar also, please refer to my previous post.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Any type of concrete of any age.
The 'calculations' on my part are common sense.
Click to expand...

fact.jpg
 
Belz... said:
Malcolm:

Kindly answer my last two posts.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Where is your evidence re,
1. the dogs
2. the power down(s)
Silverstein admits it here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS20kYHS5PU
Do you deny Giuliani had the crime scene swept up, or do you wish to contest the meaning of the word 'coincidence'?
Giuliani knew the towers were going to collapse, because he admits it here,
1 min to 1.04 min.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKHLok-RVNw
Here is the BBC saying WTC7 was down, when it's not,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88_tYTFUA2s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4&mode=related&search=
 
malcolm kirkman said:
I am intrigued as to how you have been able to overcome all the inconsistencies involved in 9/11.
Do you have any knowledge of previous 'inside jobs'. OKC for example, Operation Northwoods etc?
Click to expand...

The 'inconsistancies' turn out not to be inconsistancies at all, once you take the time to learn facts and separate truths from the lies spread by the truth movement.

For example, I have inside knowledge about the OKC bombing, as one of my best friends served with, and knew well, Timothy McVeigh and others who worked with him. In fact, he was pulled from a field training exercise (from my side, in fact, where we were pulling OP (observation point) duty) by federal agents within 30 minutes of the bombing, for questioning.

So it was not an 'inside job' as in a planned government staged attack. It was a terrorist attack by an American dissident with more than a few mental problems, and his cult of easily mindwashed racist buddies.

Operation Northwoods was summarily rejected by the government, and its creator long considered a laughingstock among those in the know. Its continual resurfacing is no more or less suspicious than the continual circulation of the Protocals of the Elders of Zion, and both have about equal meaning to the underlying truths of 9/11 - namely, none.

There are thousands of rejected documents in the Government every year, from budget proposals to battle plans to personnel structuring. If we assume that every rejected document still represents a true and active plan within Government, we'd be accepting that all the government ever does is implement multiple, redundant, and often contradictory plans.

The mere existence of such documents proves nothing, any more than the mere existence of a book about the Red October proves that Russia had (and America has) a stealth sub.

Got anything else?
 
malcolm kirkman said:
I didn't say that she was looking for recompense. I said that I would look at getting her some recompense. There is a difference.
Is Brigadier General Partin a liar also, please refer to my previous post.
Click to expand...

Apparently so. Please recall that just because someone is a General doesn't mean that they're above suspicion or stupidity. In fact, generals tend to be more gullible than most other officers, because of their detachment from the realities of the world and their deep involvement in the political stratum of military life. Generals do not advance through in-depth knowledge of the machines and processes of the military reality, but through in-depth knowledge of the workings of people - specifically, the politics and psychologies of making friends and influencing people. Like many politicians, the success of an officer has more to do with having a good show wife and knowing when to take credit and when to shift blame, than knowing anything about aircraft engines or munitions.

The non-commissioned officers have long maintained an unstated belief that, as one earns brass and goes up in rank, one has less understanding of the military (equipment, personnel, and processes) than they did before. The lowest private knows more about military equipment, often, than the highest generals. I've seen that one at work myself, when a three-star got into quite the argument with our own new private over the operation of the fire control computer - a model he had never seen or even heard of (the general). He was arguing about using paper tables and manual calculation devices while our own newbie private was attempting to explain the BCS and the FDDM (two semi-modern pieces of computer equipment)... The general then tried to pull the rank card (I'm a general and I know what I'm talking about!) only to have our own full-bird politely guide him into our vehicle to demonstrate the computer to the general.

Needless to say, the general left quite embarrassed. Sadly, our full-bird retired early due to pressure from the same general (who strongly hated him after that).

SO, yeah, I'd have to say your token general was lying and/or ignorant, just like you.
 
apathoid said:
Get in line buddy. :D

Mal hasn't responded to my last six or so. I'm starting to get the impression that he is ignoring me.(sniff, sniff)
Click to expand...

You've posted to Brainache and Travis in your last six posts. But you are right to say you've had no reply to two posts about the engines. I did tell another poster that I would have a good look at the engines over the weekend. This I didn't manage to find the time for and I'm going on holiday for two weeks in a couple of days. I daresay I'll find the odd internet cafe and as I'm a earlier riser than the bride, I don't envisage a lot of disruption to sending posts. As a lot of my posts are made when y'all are asleep, there tends to be a wait for moderation, which leads to a group of my posts arriving all at once.
I can't see myself finding a lot of time to give the engines a good coat of looking over, for say, the next three weeks. For now, kindly look at the end of the shafts here,
http://home.att.net/~south.tower/STengine1.htm
and resist the temptation to do what another has done, which is to post the wrong photo for comparison. You will see the end of the shaft at the top of the 911 wreck and a photo of a new shaft in a crate, which is clearly identical.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
I'm going on holiday for two weeks in a couple of days. I daresay I'll find the odd internet cafe and as I'm a earlier riser than the bride, I don't envisage a lot of disruption to sending posts.
Click to expand...


Erm, did I read this wrong, or are you intending on continuing to post here while you're on your Honeymoon? :jaw-dropp

-Gumboot
 
Z said:
The 'inconsistancies' turn out not to be inconsistancies at all, once you take the time to learn facts and separate truths from the lies spread by the truth movement.

For example, I have inside knowledge about the OKC bombing, as one of my best friends served with, and knew well, Timothy McVeigh and others who worked with him. In fact, he was pulled from a field training exercise (from my side, in fact, where we were pulling OP (observation point) duty) by federal agents within 30 minutes of the bombing, for questioning.

So it was not an 'inside job' as in a planned government staged attack. It was a terrorist attack by an American dissident with more than a few mental problems, and his cult of easily mindwashed racist buddies.

Operation Northwoods was summarily rejected by the government, and its creator long considered a laughingstock among those in the know. Its continual resurfacing is no more or less suspicious than the continual circulation of the Protocals of the Elders of Zion, and both have about equal meaning to the underlying truths of 9/11 - namely, none.

There are thousands of rejected documents in the Government every year, from budget proposals to battle plans to personnel structuring. If we assume that every rejected document still represents a true and active plan within Government, we'd be accepting that all the government ever does is implement multiple, redundant, and often contradictory plans.

The mere existence of such documents proves nothing, any more than the mere existence of a book about the Red October proves that Russia had (and America has) a stealth sub.

Got anything else?
Click to expand...
Watch this space.
 
malcolm kirkman said:
If you visit an abattoir, you will see a cow led into a box.
Click to expand...
I've been to both a slaughterhouse and a butcher shop. I don't really need your description.
The slaughterman fires a bolt through the cow's forehead and the cow drops at free fall speed.
Click to expand...
The cow will fall at less than 9.8m/s2 because it still has some lingering support, including the energy required to bend the limbs and whatever lingering muscle support is available. Again, a useless analogy.
The floor of the box gives (...)
Click to expand...
Your fascination with the slaughter process is not really adding anything to your insistence that WTC7 fell in any way resembling a cow in any situation. Technically the cow falling through the floor of the slaughterhouse is NOW in "freefall" and is moving at something like 9.8m/s2. It has still not been hit by flaming debris or burned for several hours.
I use the term because the cow drops at free fall speed.
Click to expand...
Debatable but irrelevant.
If you jumped off the top of WTC7 at the same moment the penthouse 'crimped' you would hit the ground at the same time the penthouse did.
Click to expand...
If I jumped from the time of the first damage to the building I could have base jumped off the building a half dozen times, at least until I got tired of climbing the stairs. But starting from your "crimp"

Jumping from a height of 228m:
t=sqr(2*228/9.8)
t=sqr(2*23.265)
t=sqr(46.53)
t=6.82 seconds

Skydivers list 9-10 seconds as the time to reach terminal velocity for a human, so I'll disregard it. Drag calculations might bring this up a bit, but since it took more than 8 seconds for the penthouse to collapse into/through the uppermost story of WTC7 and more than 7 seconds for the north face to fall, it disproves your "Free Fall" claims.

Any explanation other than controlled demolition stretches credulity beyond breaking point. WTC7 did indeed drop like a shot cow.
Click to expand...
And again, a slaughtered cow isn't in freefall until you drop the trap door, at which time it is still drastically unlike a building on fire for 7 hours and then collapsing due to structural failure of any sort.
 
Tirdun said:
If I jumped from the time of the first damage to the building I could have base jumped off the building a half dozen times, at least until I got tired of climbing the stairs. But starting from your "crimp"

Jumping from a height of 228m:
t=sqr(2*228/9.8)
t=sqr(2*23.265)
t=sqr(46.53)
t=6.82 seconds

Skydivers list 9-10 seconds as the time to reach terminal velocity for a human, so I'll disregard it. Drag calculations might bring this up a bit, but since it took more than 8 seconds for the penthouse to collapse into/through the uppermost story of WTC7 and more than 7 seconds for the north face to fall, it disproves your "Free Fall" claims.
Click to expand...


WTC7 was only 174m high, and freefall from the top of it would only be 5.9s. Making the actual collapse time even slower, relative to freefall.

-Gumboot
 
malcolm kirkman said:
Where is your evidence re,
1. the dogs
2. the power down(s)
Silverstein admits it here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS20kYHS5PU
Do you deny Giuliani had the crime scene swept up, or do you wish to contest the meaning of the word 'coincidence'?
Giuliani knew the towers were going to collapse, because he admits it here,
1 min to 1.04 min.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKHLok-RVNw
Here is the BBC saying WTC7 was down, when it's not,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88_tYTFUA2s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4&mode=related&search=
Click to expand...

1. Insignificant.
2. co-incidence, and not even 100th the amount of time needed to rig the buildings.
3. I deny Guiliani had the scene swept up any differently than any scene of this type would be.
4. Lots of people, journalists included, were given warnings the building might collapse.
5. Misspeak, nothing more.

Really, is this all that is being brought to the table here?

Thanks

TAM:)
 
ETA: Nevermind. I found a source here.

I'll dig through the CFM56-3 manuals tonight at work, and if I have time, I'll find the shaft in question and get a few closeup pics..
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom