What you are sure of, is what you got wrong. Your sure stuff, makes your "theory", a dumber fantasy. You use the SOF flying in your fantasy, and now nonsense about NORAD. The lack of knowledge debunks your fantasy.
What's your theory about 9/11?
- Thread starter carlitos
- Start date
What you are sure of, is what you got wrong. Your sure stuff, makes your "theory", a dumber fantasy. You use the SOF flying in your fantasy, and now nonsense about NORAD. The lack of knowledge debunks your fantasy.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Of course he is. That's the game you folks play with members of different sects of your cult, but you're not really a truther, are you?
Performance art ROCKS!
Last edited:
Making you the best 911 truth has, the best believer? Or a parody?
What does it prove? Are you gullible? You present lies from 911 truth nuts. Have you talked to the guy who built the WTC towers. The person responsible for the structure of the towers? He says the thermite claims are nonsense. He says the towers collapse is the way it would happen. As an engineer I agree with Robertson. As an engineer I understand the many studies done, and here you are presenting a nut on 911 issues asking for a new investigation - but Gage, the A&E for 911 truth cult leader, is only going for the money. You present nonsense that has fooled you. As an engineer I know any lay person can understand 911 and see your video is nonsense, it means nothing. How much have you donated to Gage?
You show a collapse that takes more than 16 seconds, and fail to understand it is more than twice the time of dropping something from the top of WTC 7 (in a vacuum)? 911 truth is failure, using their videos as your evidence is bad. Gage has made over 1,000,000 dollars pushing fantasy on 911, fooling people who can't think for themselves.
Last edited:
And you'll present evidence in...
In...
Too broad, monsieur troll, far too broad!
George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
Then you got woken by your mummy and went to school to eat your playlunch !
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
Professor Jones completely misapplies Newton's 3rd Law with regards to the collapses of the Twin Towers. This is obvious to a freshman physics major.
This is not ad hominem, which is to attack the character of the person making an argument. You may reject citations of Mr. Robertson's or Prof. Bazant's opinions as being argument from authority, but we are dealing here in practical, everyday logic and not pure Aristotelian logic. Put it this way: If you were to build a skyscraper, who would you hire as structural engineers? Les Robertson and Zdenek Bazant, or Richard Gage and Steven Jones?
Robertson or Bazant easily qualify as expert witnesses in any court of law, on the subject of structural engineering. Dr. Jones does not, and I'm sure that Professors Dawkins, Tyson, or Krauss would never claim to, and they don't seem to have any inclination to even comment on 9/11. Sticking to one's field is usually a good idea.
It's not that Robertson and Bazant are a minority opinion amongst structural engineers; they are merely prominent representatives of the overwhelming consensus of structural engineers, including those of NIST, and private firms such as ARUP and Exponent (formerly Failure Analysis), who were privately hired by firms with a direct financial interest in knowing the causes of the collapses.
Last edited:
Redwood
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2012
- Messages
- 1,557
Which means that it's pointless to try to observe detail in the initiation and progression of the collapses from 30fps video, even high quality 30fps video. You'd need a hi-speed sequence camera shooting thousands of frames per second to observe any "bounce" during the collapse, or the progression of the failure of the perimeter columns at the initiation points at the start of the collapses of the Twin Towers.
It's really amusing when truthers try to analyze low-quality, compressed video for proof of a "smoking gun" in some Mission Impossible inside job.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
That would be an interesting theory if it weren’t for the fact that the Otis fighters were still in W-105 at 9:03.
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
A little over six miles due north of Otis AFB is a USAF radar tracking facility. It is a very large facility that my daughter worked at as a crew chief before going to Peterson AFB. It is part of the air defense system. Guess which direction it is pointed?
I spent many hours at that facility with my daughter looking at the various radar screens and watching the air traffic in the ADIZ. (Yes, I did have the necessary clearance to be there.) It was quite interesting to say the least.
For 50 years the 'big' threat was Soviet nuclear bombers. If one had gotten under NORAD's 'doughnut' of radar coverage,NORAD would have been dependent upon FAA notification at the FAA's leisure? Really? Certainly,if the Secret Service had an 'arrangement' with the FAA after 911 as Cheney let slip,then NORAD had one for the duration of the Cold War.
I have no doubt they wanted the Russians & the US taxpayer$ to believe that,but it's unbelievable to thinking,logical people. The very thought that the screens at Cheyenne Mountain aren't linked to the FAA system,is laughable. And who was in communication with Cheyenne Mountain on 911? General Arnold. And with Whom was he also in contact? Col. Robert Marr and both these men testified they knew about Flight 93 BEFORE 911 notification.
It was no mistake (the mistake was that the truth slipped out). They didn't confuse 93 with Delta 1989 (Arnold makes plain he was aware of BOTH & didn't confuse the two). If that's the best defense you got,among thinking people you'll lose.
I have no doubt they wanted the Russians & the US taxpayer$ to believe that,but it's unbelievable to thinking,logical people. The very thought that the screens at Cheyenne Mountain aren't linked to the FAA system,is laughable. And who was in communication with Cheyenne Mountain on 911? General Arnold. And with Whom was he also in contact? Col. Robert Marr and both these men testified they knew about Flight 93 BEFORE 911 notification.
It was no mistake (the mistake was that the truth slipped out). They didn't confuse 93 with Delta 1989 (Arnold makes plain he was aware of BOTH & didn't confuse the two). If that's the best defense you got,among thinking people you'll lose.
The Generals are liars, the inside job guys, but you use their lies to form your fantasy? Did you find the 911 truth book, the step by step guide, on making up nonsense?
If a Soviet bomber makes it past the ADIZ, there is no USA. It is too late if they make land fall.
The funny part about what you think has only one source - your fantasy.
The military could not launch before 911 on hijacked aircraft. They are not allowed to do police work. They can monitor hijacked aircraft if asked.
Just a quick note before we break for beer; NWO gives us the weekend off. Knock yourself out spreading nonsense, what are now lies since you fail to take knowledge and use it.
At this point,having posted my theory some time ago,I find it interesting which of it's many claims have been challenged & which haven't. This makes me suspect that those claims which haven't are,perhaps,the strongest. So,I'd like to draw attention to them.
1. I claimed the Otis F15s scrambled at 8:46 (hit radar 8:53-REALLY! 7 minutes to get air born?) But I'll go with 8:53,flew for ten full minutes,"full blower all the way" & yet were still 100 miles out from NYC at 9:03 means they were put into the holding pattern BEFORE 9:03 to wait for 175 to hit.
Ok,so why didn't they make NYC by 9:03 if they really flew as fast as the pilots say they did for as long as the Commission claims? Answer that.
2. I claimed the Otis F15s were only given enough fuel to do a "patriotic" flyover AFTER WTC2 was hit but not enough to be a problem for the other aircraft to be 'hijacked' that day. I based this on the NORAD tapes & Capt. Duffy telling Maj. Nasypany (at 9:09) that they have LESS THAN half an hour fuel remaining. F15s have a combat radius of 1,200+ miles,these had traveled LESS than the 153 between Otis & NYC & had been in the air only 16 minutes. Worse,yet,they were reported (by Marr) to be carrying EXTRA fuel.
No one has addressed these claims. Please do.
1. I claimed the Otis F15s scrambled at 8:46 (hit radar 8:53-REALLY! 7 minutes to get air born?) But I'll go with 8:53,flew for ten full minutes,"full blower all the way" & yet were still 100 miles out from NYC at 9:03 means they were put into the holding pattern BEFORE 9:03 to wait for 175 to hit.
Ok,so why didn't they make NYC by 9:03 if they really flew as fast as the pilots say they did for as long as the Commission claims? Answer that.
2. I claimed the Otis F15s were only given enough fuel to do a "patriotic" flyover AFTER WTC2 was hit but not enough to be a problem for the other aircraft to be 'hijacked' that day. I based this on the NORAD tapes & Capt. Duffy telling Maj. Nasypany (at 9:09) that they have LESS THAN half an hour fuel remaining. F15s have a combat radius of 1,200+ miles,these had traveled LESS than the 153 between Otis & NYC & had been in the air only 16 minutes. Worse,yet,they were reported (by Marr) to be carrying EXTRA fuel.
No one has addressed these claims. Please do.
That's an exaggeration. Truth be told,bombers were really only "THE" threat in the early days of the Cold War. By the middle they were outdated,slow & far too vulnerable to be considered "the" threat because of the ICBM. My generation (born mid '60s) certainly never feared them because we figured we'd be dead because of the ICBMs before they ever arrived (If they arrived at all). It's 'War Games' versus 'Fail safe',but there's still 'Fail safe' there's still the threat & they were thinking about it (all aspects) from the very beginning & there's NO WAY NORAD wasn't linked into the FAA on 911.
Exactly,right! The Otis fighters were still in W-105 at 9:03. I'm glad you've come around. We finally agree on something.
Looks can be deceiving.
Seems like you try to apply common sense and gut feeling to a complex engineering problem.
Your problem here is that gut feeling and common sense don't work really well when trying to estimate how things happen way outside our domain of experiences.
And, face it, the energy, masses, forces involved in these collapse totally defy all of your worldly experiences.
You are wrong, but it's nothing to be ashamed of.
Cool
Like I already wrote to Ivan: Of course Jones is not literally always wrong on everything, but all his significant claims about 9/11 are fundamentally wrong:
- There were no unusual temperatures, given the nature of the event
- He found no unreacted thermite
- He found no residues of reacted thermite - that which he believes to be such residue are in fact the most ordinary contents of construction and industrial dusts, including many kinds of mundane ashes.
- The towers were not demolished
You're fantastic. Thank you. Classify me as the converted. I never thought I would change this opinion... and I HATED feeling like a CT nut job. But clearly, I knew just enough physics lingo and knowledge to think I understood.
Bare in mind, molten metal, super hot (white hot) dripping from the sides of the building... weird stuff -- but unless some new information emerges, people who're better able to read the data than I have elucidated the reality of the matter.
A PARTICULAR thanks goes out to you, Oystein, for taking the time to break down the issue.
A couple of you were pricks when you didn't need to be... but for the most part, a general thanks to the community for taking the time to edify me.
Last edited:
Agreed. Better word choices. It's a struggle at times to not expose my bias... I'm not a trained scientist; I'm uneducated, in general... so thanks!
I'll work on it, but if I immediately do it again, feel free to laugh at me.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
How does this "mean" that? They couldn't exactly go into one of the busiest air spaces in the country at full speed with guns blazing, could they? How fast do you claim the planes actually flew to arrive where you think they should have been? Were the planes configured to fly that fast? Exactly how fast is "Full blower" trimmed like they were when they left Otis?
What's to address? Your "theory" has a major problem. If they were fueled for full combat range, they could not have gone as fast as you claimed. They also can't just go screaming into densely populated airspace, ATC needs time to clear a path.
Your whole "theory" is based on your misunderstanding of how things actually work. People keep trying to explain these things to you but you keep ignoring them.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Do you have any idea how long they can go "full blower all the way"?
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 1,764
No, he doesn't. Frank fails at understanding aviation. He thinks Pilots of fighters getting 5th hand information should know exactly what is going on up to the second, that they should know a target from 150 miles away, burn straight for it through the busiest airspace in the world and find the right one out of dozens in the vicinity, shoot it down out of the sky before shoot down authority was given and before anyone knew there was even a second aircraft hijacked.
You claim no one addressed your points? My very first reply to your written diarrhea addressed these moronic fantasy claims of stupidity. You ignore my post, continue as if you're on some smoking gun trail of conspiracy, when your only points are based on ignorance of how the system works, ignorance of SOP, ignorance of aviation, and ignorance of facts in general.
You claim no one addressed your points? My very first reply to your written diarrhea addressed these moronic fantasy claims of stupidity. You ignore my post, continue as if you're on some smoking gun trail of conspiracy, when your only points are based on ignorance of how the system works, ignorance of SOP, ignorance of aviation, and ignorance of facts in general.
Last edited: