NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[Childlike Empress]

I know you're not arguing from popularity here, right?

It was just an observation. I hadn't watched it when i embedded it (and learned nothing from it). edit: But good catch!

Thanks for the answer Mr. Deets!

 

[triforcharity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transportation_Safety_Board

"The NTSB is normally the lead organization in the investigation of a transportation accident within its sphere. However, this power can be surrendered to other organizations if the Attorney General declares the case to be linked to an intentional criminal act, although the NTSB would still provide technical support in such investigations. This occurred during the investigation of the September 11, 2001, attacks when the Department of Justice took over the investigation."

MM

Yes, TECHNICAL support, like decoding FDRs and CVRs, telling them what part of the plane that piece came from, but not re-constructing the plane, nor are they the lead on any criminal case. As SOON as the NTSB determines that a plane crash is a crime, they step back, and the FBI becomes the lead.

Why would the NTSB reconstruct the planes?

 

[R.Mackey]

I spoke with Mr. Wieck on several occasions back in October 2009. I told Wieck I was willing, but it died with Mr. Mackey, I do believe.

That is correct.

It is a significant hassle to arrange these kinds of things. Just picking a date to hold the discussion with Mr. Szamboti took several months. The debate itself was deeply disappointing.

As near as I can determine, you have contributed far less material than Mr. Szamboti -- no new ideas, no new results, nothing written anywhere. In this thread so far, all you've done is duck my one simple question, and reiterate Pilots For Truth talking points that have been beat to death even by other Truthers. Neither of these things predisposes me to bend over backwards trying to get something interesting out of you. Why should I bother? I don't think you have anything to say.

One of the moderators asked me if I wanted a moderated thread. I'm not opposed to the idea, but I certainly don't need one. It's not my request. As far as I'm concerned, if you have something to say, say it. Save us the drama.

 

[beachnut]

Yes, TECHNICAL support, like decoding FDRs and CVRs, telling them what part of the plane that piece came from, but not re-constructing the plane, nor are they the lead on any criminal case. As SOON as the NTSB determines that a plane crash is a crime, they step back, and the FBI becomes the lead.

Why would the NTSB reconstruct the planes?

You tell him the truth, then he proves the hit run poster wrong, and he is a debunker; but has no idea he debunked the other truther, or how.

Where is Deets? When will he defend a Boeing 767 can't go 510 knots?

Defend the Jones thermite scam?
Defend the fly over lie?

 

[RedIbis]

That is correct.

It is a significant hassle to arrange these kinds of things. Just picking a date to hold the discussion with Mr. Szamboti took several months. The debate itself was deeply disappointing.

As near as I can determine, you have contributed far less material than Mr. Szamboti -- no new ideas, no new results, nothing written anywhere. In this thread so far, all you've done is duck my one simple question, and reiterate Pilots For Truth talking points that have been beat to death even by other Truthers. Neither of these things predisposes me to bend over backwards trying to get something interesting out of you. Why should I bother? I don't think you have anything to say.

One of the moderators asked me if I wanted a moderated thread. I'm not opposed to the idea, but I certainly don't need one. It's not my request. As far as I'm concerned, if you have something to say, say it. Save us the drama.

Who's being dramatic? It sounds like you really don't want a moderated debate.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Maybe we could all self-moderate a little bit and refrain from bickering now that we are waiting for Mr. Deets answer to Mr. Mackey's plea?

 

[dadeets]

Maybe we could all self-moderate a little bit and refrain from bickering now that we are waiting for Mr. Deets answer to Mr. Mackey's plea?

And what is Mr. Mackey's plea?

It appears someone is going to have to interpret much of what Mr. Mackey says so I can find out what requires my response.

 

[Fizzard]

And what is Mr. Mackey's plea?

It appears someone is going to have to interpret much of what Mr. Mackey says so I can find out what requires my response.

Yeah, he probably should have been more clear about it, but I'm guessing he wants you to respond to his question:

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.

All this noise, and I still don't have an answer to my question.

I hope no one is surprised.

I still don't have an answer to my question. A very, very simple one, and it's even on topic. Not holding my breath.

... and still my question goes unanswered.

You'd almost think he couldn't. After all, he already replied to it, without answering.

Amazing...

Day 2, no answer to my question. Which is for Mr. Deets to back up a claim he made on his own initiative, and one that has to deal with aeronautics.

Anyone willing to bet I'll ever get an answer? Anyone??

He can use any units he wants. MPH, KCAS, KPH, furlongs per fortnight, I don't care. I invited him to clarify his claim in my original question.

Day 3

No Answer to my Question

Here is my Shocked Face:[/size]

Day 5

No Answer to my Question

This thread demonstrates pretty clearly just what Mr. Deets brings to the Truth Movement. Unless he starts producing something a whole lot more interesting, I think we can ignore him completely. This thread outs him as just another robot.

 

[TjW]

Well, I'll give it a shot.
Mackey said in post 244:

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.

Now, I believe that he is expressing a wish that you explain the basis for your belief that AA175 could not have attained a velocity near approximately 560 miles per hour.
If it absolutely couldn't, then there is some maximum velocity that it could reach.
I believe that he does not wish to put words in your mouth, but rather wants a simple exposition from you of what you believe the maximum attainable velocity of AA175 would be under conditions in which the aircraft need not be reusable.
I think nearly any reasonable units - IAS, CAS, TAS, Mach, or EAS would be accepted, as long as you supply your assumptions and math.

I personally would consider it a bonus if you could explain why the speeds calculated from the radar data are wrong.

 

[Childlike Empress]

And what is Mr. Mackey's plea?

It appears someone is going to have to interpret much of what Mr. Mackey says so I can find out what requires my response.

In general, it's "there's nothing to debate". He says that you bring nothing new to the discussion and your qualification is meaningless because you are only repeating long debunked arguments. You are a member of P4T and AE911T and i figure that you have a whole establishment to convince if you are serious. I would expect that you would challenge Mackey on a specific topic building on his known and published work, work that fundamentally contradicts your position.

 

[Sabretooth]

In general, it's "there's nothing to debate". He says that you bring nothing new to the discussion and your qualification is meaningless because you are only repeating long debunked arguments. You are a member of P4T and AE911T and i figure that you have a whole establishment to convince if you are serious. I would expect that you would challenge Mackey on a specific topic building on his known and published work, work that fundamentally contradicts your position.

And the truther is the one who didn't get it.

Shocker.

 

[The Big Dog]

So far Mr. Deets has stepped in a pile of CIT bs, ignored the responses and is now spamming a "confrontation" video.

Why exactly does this No Planer deserves a moderated thread again?

 

[dadeets]

Well, I'll give it a shot.
Mackey said in post 244:


Now, I believe that he is expressing a wish that you explain the basis for your belief that AA175 could not have attained a velocity near approximately 560 miles per hour.
If it absolutely couldn't, then there is some maximum velocity that it could reach.
I believe that he does not wish to put words in your mouth, but rather wants a simple exposition from you of what you believe the maximum attainable velocity of AA175 would be under conditions in which the aircraft need not be reusable.
I think nearly any reasonable units - IAS, CAS, TAS, Mach, or EAS would be accepted, as long as you supply your assumptions and math.

I personally would consider it a bonus if you could explain why the speeds calculated from the radar data are wrong.

In general, it's "there's nothing to debate". He says that you bring nothing new to the discussion and your qualification is meaningless because you are only repeating long debunked arguments. You are a member of P4T and AE911T and i figure that you have a whole establishment to convince if you are serious. I would expect that you would challenge Mackey on a specific topic building on his known and published work, work that fundamentally contradicts your position.

This clearly isn't going to work. Here we have two people with two ideas of what his question is.

Meanwhile, he hasn't answered my question. In fact, he stonewalled my question by (1) ignoring it, then, (2) sending a question my way, repeatedly, demanding that I answer it.

Not the kind of posturing that is amenable to a constructive debate.

 

[R.Mackey]

And what is Mr. Mackey's plea?

It appears someone is going to have to interpret much of what Mr. Mackey says so I can find out what requires my response.

This would have been a lot more plausible if you hadn't already replied to my question, and tried to dodge it.

Explain why you think UA175 couldn't have been going 560 MPH, as NIST estimated from image correlation on videos, and NTSB cross-verified against radar tracks. That's what I asked of you. And if you need someone to "interpret" that for you, you're in for a rough time.

 

[beachnut]

This clearly isn't going to work. Here we have two people with two ideas of what his question is.

Meanwhile, he hasn't answered my question. In fact, he stonewalled my question by (1) ignoring it, then, (2) sending a question my way, repeatedly, demanding that I answer it.

Not the kind of posturing that is amenable to a constructive debate.

Especially since you think Flight 77 flew over the Pentaton and the DNA of dead people was found in the Pentagon and your are supporting liars who said 77 flew over the Pentagon.

You support liars, and have not tried to research Flight 77 to see the RADAR data (you know RADAR data, ntap!, clue), the FDR and DNA to see Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon. The big tell is the jet fuel fireball on video exactly the size of the fuel on 77.

The question; where is your proof Flight 175 can't crash into the WTC at 590 mph; as in true airspeed, real airspeed, as in SPEED. ... you dodge the question asking a question. Why?

Answer the question, try reality. Please, pretty please. good luck'

darn, elvis has left the building...

 

[tsig]

This clearly isn't going to work. Here we have two people with two ideas of what his question is.

Meanwhile, he hasn't answered my question. In fact, he stonewalled my question by (1) ignoring it, then, (2) sending a question my way, repeatedly, demanding that I answer it.

Not the kind of posturing that is amenable to a constructive debate.

You could have just answered the question. Do planes suddenly fall apart when they go too fast?

 

[Pinch]

Not the kind of posturing that is amenable to a constructive debate.

The words "constructive debate" and "someone from Pilots for 9/11 Truth" are mutually exclusive.

 

[T.A.M.]

This IS his own thread, TAM. The topic is him and his convictions.

No, the topic is that he is a trufie. Technically, all posts should be related to his status as a truther, not debating with him on his beliefs. I think, so the thread does not get diluted and unreadable, that a new topic such as he suggested, should be given its own thread, or should go in an existing thread covering that "belief".

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

This would have been a lot more plausible if you hadn't already replied to my question, and tried to dodge it.

Explain why you think UA175 couldn't have been going 560 MPH, as NIST estimated from image correlation on videos, and NTSB cross-verified against radar tracks. That's what I asked of you. And if you need someone to "interpret" that for you, you're in for a rough time.

Mr. Deets;

There is Mr. Mackey's question for you. Seems pretty plain to me.

Got an answer to give?

TAM

 

[Garb]

This clearly isn't going to work. Here we have two people with two ideas of what his question is.

Meanwhile, he hasn't answered my question. In fact, he stonewalled my question by (1) ignoring it, then, (2) sending a question my way, repeatedly, demanding that I answer it.

Not the kind of posturing that is amenable to a constructive debate.

You did not ask him any direct questions before he asked you.