• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

Miragememories said:
Deets knows a snakepit when he sees one.

I admire him for quickly recognizing that it would be a precious waste of his time hoping to carry on an honest dialogue in this forum.

Dr. Greening took a while, but he to came to the same conclusion.

MM
Click to expand...
Dr Greening does not support your delusions on 911. Use logic next time.

One BS reason for Deets running, Deets ran away because I think between another here posting, and I, we know Deets' Peers in the Flight Dynamics community and soon his peers will know how stupid and anti-intellectual Deets new paranoid conspiracy theories are. He has to run, deep down he has to know he is spewing off the top of his head BS, if not he has serious problems with reality. Good for Deets, I would not think of bringing up this nonsense as a topic since it is pure garbage; Deets ideas are pure insanity if you accept the fact he knows better.

Deets thinks CIA offices in WTC7 are a factor in his delusions on WTC7! Deets fails on 175, 77, and WTC7. When will he get his Pulitzer? never

You have no evidence, CE has no evidence. Do you think Deets does?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Here, Garb: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/official-interviews.html

For you, TAM, and everybody else who is foaming at the mouth about CIT without ever having looked at the primary sources, here is "National Security Alert" (witness testimony starts at around 16:00 into it):

Click to expand...

See, what did I tell you Garb? I don't want to watch some stupid CIT video. Provide the original source material, or a link to it, for the alleged 2001 testimony you mentioned. From Ranke and file, I would trust nothing but.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Go take a look at the confessions of Jeff Hill that I just posted CLE...he was one of your staunchest believers only a short time ago. He made real calls asking people real questions, he was one of the truly cowardless truthers who actually tried (often in vain) to get answers....

You can find the thread yourself I am sure.

TAM:)
 
Childlike Empress said:
Here, Garb: http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/official-interviews.html

For you, TAM, and everybody else who is foaming at the mouth about CIT without ever having looked at the primary sources, here is "National Security Alert" (witness testimony starts at around 16:00 into it):

Click to expand...

Do YOU actually believe the CIT story?

As with many critics of the common storyline, I am unable to figure out what YOUR overall hypothesis is about the events of 9/11. What happened, in your judgement, on that day?

I opened a thread devoted to that question: The Roll Call.
 
Oystein said:
After 10 pages, no indication that Ron agreed to the publication of private mails on page 1.
Click to expand...


Post #3, last snippet, genius. I know about your thread. I leave the "i believe" and "i'm convinced" stuff to you. Regarding CIT, i came to the same conclusions as Mr. Deets did. See here.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Post #3, last snippet, genius. I know about your thread. I leave the "i believe" and "i'm convinced" stuff to you. Regarding CIT, i came to the same conclusions as Mr. Deets did. See here.
Click to expand...

Rob writes "Keep in mind, these emails will be saved and published". I don't see Ron agreeing to this.

That is the frustrating part about anti-urrrrr-OCTers: Never commit to anything.

So ok, you have no convictions and no believes. You just oppose.

Regarding CIT, I see that you acknowledge their few witnesses report what they report. That does not imply that you think a plane flew over the Pentagon and the rest was faked. Surely you would also admit that the many more witnesses who saw a plane fly INTO the Pentagon also need to be explained somehow... So are the few NOC witnesses corroborated? Only among themselves. They are outliers. I can talk to a few millionaires and corroborate that average household wealth in Germany is > 1 mio €. Same kind of nonsense.
 
Miragememories said:
I found the northern flightpath witness testimony to be most compelling.
Click to expand...

With all the barrage of questions and comments, I don't know which to respond to.

So, I'll pick this one as is a good one on which to expand.

The ten witnesses testifying to a north flight path were each in an excellent physical position to testify to what they claim to have seen that turns out to be consistent with a flight path North of the Citco station.

If the plane had flown a flight path South of the Citco station, you would think there would have been a similar number of people speaking up, and who were in an excellent physical position to testify to that. Turns out, there are none who have spoken up.

There are a large number of witnesses (seventy or so) who were NOT in an excellent physical position to say one way or another if the plane flew North or South of the Citco station. Therefore, I don't think their testimony on this issue should be given much weight.
 
... and still my question goes unanswered. :mad:

You'd almost think he couldn't. After all, he already replied to it, without answering.
 
R.Mackey said:
You've made the claim that AA 175 could not have impacted WTC 2 as advertised because its computed speed of ~ 560 MPH was unattainable at that altitude. (I'm paraphrasing; feel free to correct the details.) On what basis do you do so? Boeing 767's have exceeded this speed by a considerable margin at even lower altitudes on their way to crashes.
Click to expand...

dadeets said:
I presume you are including the conversion to equivalent airspeed in your statement. Please provide examples.
Click to expand...


So far. Your turn Mackey.
 
dadeets said:
With all the barrage of questions and comments, I don't know which to respond to.

So, I'll pick this one as is a good one on which to expand.

The ten witnesses testifying to a north flight path were each in an excellent physical position to testify to what they claim to have seen that turns out to be consistent with a flight path North of the Citco station.

If the plane had flown a flight path South of the Citco station, you would think there would have been a similar number of people speaking up, and who were in an excellent physical position to testify to that. Turns out, there are none who have spoken up.

There are a large number of witnesses (seventy or so) who were NOT in an excellent physical position to say one way or another if the plane flew North or South of the Citco station. Therefore, I don't think their testimony on this issue should be given much weight.
Click to expand...

Here's a start:




"crashed INTO the Pentagon"

I think close enough to have a part of the airplane land on your car is enough of an "excellent physical position".
 
dadeets said:
With all the barrage of questions and comments, I don't know which to respond to.

So, I'll pick this one as is a good one on which to expand.

The ten witnesses testifying to a north flight path were each in an excellent physical position to testify to what they claim to have seen that turns out to be consistent with a flight path North of the Citco station.

If the plane had flown a flight path South of the Citco station, you would think there would have been a similar number of people speaking up, and who were in an excellent physical position to testify to that. Turns out, there are none who have spoken up.

There are a large number of witnesses (seventy or so) who were NOT in an excellent physical position to say one way or another if the plane flew North or South of the Citco station. Therefore, I don't think their testimony on this issue should be given much weight.
Click to expand...

1. We are still waiting for confirming links to original source material that states these witnesses described such in 2001.
2. These witnesses are recalling, in many cases years later, a traumatic near instantaneous event. I think that alone makes their testimony useless.
3. They don't have to be in an "excellent" position to see where the plane came from, or where it struck. A "good" or even "partially obstructed" view would be sufficient. The witnesses that say they saw the plane crash into the Pentagon are numerous.
4. As a scientist you must know that witness testimony, especially that of a handful of witnesses interviewed years later about it, is perhaps the weakest form of evidence...it is close to anecdotal evidence, which we limit to pseudoscience...the dungeon of critical thinking and analysis. So why would you put your faith and your reputation behind this theory, with all of the physical evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon against it. Hard Physical Evidence.

TAM:)
 
Childlike Empress said:
So far. Your turn Mackey.
Click to expand...
Deets is hoping KEAS will save his failed idea.

The video of 175 impacting the WTC, and RADAR data proves Flight 175 did the airspeed. Boeing makes great jets, they don't fall apart because they are over the 360 KCAS limit, and below MACH .8. I flew Boeing jets for years and they can easily be over the lower altitude speed limit and recover to slower speeds. Many people are alive today because after Boeing Jets went well past their limits, they survived and landed safely.

It would be easy to go 100 knots over the 350/360 KCAS limit at low altitude, there is no control problem right away, and also lots of ways to slow down and save yourself before you go faster! lol

I exceed Vmo by accident for a few seconds, and the plane worked better! A fellow pilot exceeded Vmo a lot for a long time and he damage the skin under the leading edge; the maintenance guys were UPSET!@.

Sorry, I have flight tested by accident Boeing Jets past their limits, and the limits in question are to ensure the airframe, engines and flight controls last a long time. Remember I said the aircraft was de-laminating!? If you exceed the low altitude limit in large aircraft they can be damaged due to High Q. Deets knows this but he seems to be unable to understand how easy it is to exceed the Vmo, or the dive speed.

What planes do you fly CE? How much aero have you had? How many times have you been over Vmo?

Deets has nothing, he ran away because he did not do an analysis, he was talking BS.

I would never take a 767/757 over Vmo unless I was trying to save the passengers or crew for some reason. To go 100 knots over dive speed would be stupid, but the terrorists were not planning on flying again. And they did not care if they went too fast and voided the warranty.
 
Pardalis said:
Do you consider yourself a no planer?
Click to expand...

I am guessing, given his boisterous defense of Capt Bob and Ranke and file, that he is a "No planer - no planes crashed" rather then a "No planer - no planes at all" truther, but I am only guessing.

TAM:)
 
I think her position is whatever is in opposition to the USA.

Easy and simplistic. An ideology believed to an extreme will make you accept and believe anything.
 
dadeets said:
With all the barrage of questions and comments, ...

The ten witnesses testifying to a north flight path were each in an excellent physical position to testify to what they claim to have seen that turns out to be consistent with a flight path North of the Citco station.

If the plane had flown a flight path South of the Citco station, you would think there would have been a similar number of people speaking up, and who were in an excellent physical position to testify to that. Turns out, there are none who have spoken up.

There are a large number of witnesses (seventy or so) who were NOT in an excellent physical position to say one way or another if the plane flew North or South of the Citco station. Therefore, I don't think their testimony on this issue should be given much weight.
Click to expand...

These witnesses are all north of the real flight path, they all point to the south flight path, can't beleive you failed to watch the video and don't know which way south is.

I have the FDR, the north flight path is not on the FDR, the south Flight path is. Darn, beat by data. Reality data, not cheery picked witnesses who debunk CIT by pointing to the real flight path, but all agree, and one who saw 77 impact the Pentagon. OOPS.

You should spend more than a few minutes studying the lies of CIT before you defend them with talk.

Please explain why the headings and true track of 77 found in the FDR, and RADAR show the south flight path?

Please explain how you dismiss real data for lies from CIT?

There is a witness right under 77 on the south flight path who CIT have to say is telling a lie. And they have to dismiss the FDR, which was found in the Pentagon. OOPS. Darn, research, why do you fail to use it and prefer talk and hearsay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom