Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[FineWine]

.
After 2+ years of dealing with him, I can tell you without a doubt that he is NOT a prankster. He really just doesn't understand.

Which makes his strutting all the more amusing.

Right now, he is talking smack about how he's gonna "tackle" Ryan Mackey on this very issue here: http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post124408

It simply leaves you shaking your head.

Until you run into the ugly underbelly of his assertions, which requires that all sorts of heroic people be traitors & murderers.

All of the above is easily observable in his posts. I'll stop there. I get in trouble with the mods whenever I speculate on his motives...

Tom

Something is definitely happening out there. As the "truth" movement has entered its terminal stage, suffocated under the weight of its own stupidity, some these loons are cracking up. Bill has gone completely berserk. In the past week, he has accused the FDNY of complicity in his imaginary conspiracy and joined the ranks of the no-planers. His death throes are ugly, but enjoyable.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

He's been all over the place and can't quite decide what lie he wants to push. He's trying to play median between no-planer and conventional truther loon... the reputation for trying to argue both gets worse, not better from doing that.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I just got a weird feeling of de javu in a really weird way...

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/5861/animez.png

 

[bill smith]

That'll be the day.

I put his silly hide on Ignore many months ago, after he tried claiming that al-Qaeda was a complete fabrication made up specifically for September 11th, and that there'd been no mention of them at all prior to 1998. That was all I needed.

In retrospect, it was a good move. The rest of y'all have been chasing him and his no-plane moonbattery around for hundreds of pages since then. Well, the time is yours to waste, I guess.

I don't think that that's an exact representation of what I said about Al-Quaeda but there you have it. Please be advised that I do not actually make the claim for no-planes.
I am simply looking at the feasibiities involved.

 

[dtugg]

I don't think that that's an exact representation of what I said about Al-Quaeda but there you have it. Please be adivsed that I do not actually make the claim for no-planes.
I am simply looking at the feasabiities involved.

Is it still your position that there was no mention of al Qaeda in the media prior to 1998? This is a yes or no question.

 

[Toke]

Happy birthday you two.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How could the plane put so much energy into causing the building to sway back and forth and still have gone through those columns in a flash like it did ?

Bill, here's one to make your head explode:

If the area where the plane hit had been specially reinforced so that the plane did no damage to it whatsoever, so that it didn't lose any energy at all from severing the columns, the building would have swayed exactly the same amount.

Energy and momentum. Different things. Try to learn which is which.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Bill, here's one to make your head explode:

If the area where the plane hit had been specially reinforced so that the plane did no damage to it whatsoever, so that it didn't lose any energy at all from severing the columns, the building would have swayed exactly the same amount.

Energy and momentum. Different things. Try to learn which is which.

Dave

Well now Dave let's just see...

The plane struck the 500,000 ton building one third of the way down. The plane weighed 150 spread out tons of aluminium, some as thin as 1mm.

This 150 tons represents one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building.

So are you saying that this miniscule item smashed through 33 well braced steel box columns and went on to destroy up to ten truly MASSIVE core columns before some parts exited the other side through maybe a dozen more steel box columns. All this destruction happening in the blink of an eye.

We saw the plane enter the building seamlessly and without any apparent loss of velocity.

Are you saying that this plane weighing one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building had the energy to destroy the massive columns and set the 500,000 ton building swaying for four minutes- all without any apparent sign of an impact?

 

[Toke]

Bill,
How do you feel about shotgun slugs?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well now Dave let's just see...

The plane struck the 500,000 ton building one third of the way down. The plane weighed 150 spread out tons of aluminium, some as thin as 1mm.

"Some as thin as 1mm." What a lovely piece of misdirection. There are millions of asteroids, some as small as grains of sand, so if Ceres were to hit Earth, we'd have nothing to worry about.

This 150 tons represents one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building.

But the 150 tons was moving at over 400mph, and the building was moving at 0mph. 400/0 = infinity. So the plane was moving infinity per cent faster than the building. And yet, the building only recoiled slowly. If percentages were all that mattered, the building should have recoiled infinitely fast, shouldn't it?

Or maybe just throwing around percentages and pretending they mean something without any context is just stupid.

So are you saying that this miniscule item smashed through 33 well braced steel box columns and went on to destroy up to ten truly MASSIVE core columns before some parts exited the other side through maybe a dozen more steel box columns. All this destruction happened in the blink of an eye.

Yes, and everybody who's done the maths agrees with me. Only ignorant nobodies on internet forums disagree, and they've already decided what to believe in advance.

We saw the plane enter the building seamlessly and without any apparent loss of velocity.

Liar. The deceleration of the plane's tail has been measured, and you know this.

Are you saying that this plane weighing one three-hundreth of one percent the weight of the building had the energy to destroy the massive columns and set the 500,000 ton building swaying for four minutes

Yes, and if you were able to understand physics and simple arithmetic you'd be able to come to the same conclusion yourself.

- all without any apparent sign of an impact?

Except for a massive hole in the side of the buiding, a huge fuel deflagration on the other side, and bits of debris raining down on to the street below. Don't forget those subtle, easily-missed signs of an impact.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

"Some as thin as 1mm." What a lovely piece of misdirection. There are millions of asteroids, some as small as grains of sand, so if Ceres were to hit Earth, we'd have nothing to worry about.



But the 150 tons was moving at over 400mph, and the building was moving at 0mph. 400/0 = infinity. So the plane was moving infinity per cent faster than the building. And yet, the building only recoiled slowly. If percentages were all that mattered, the building should have recoiled infinitely fast, shouldn't it?

Or maybe just throwing around percentages and pretending they mean something without any context is just stupid.



Yes, and everybody who's done the maths agrees with me. Only ignorant nobodies on internet forums disagree, and they've already decided what to believe in advance.



Liar. The deceleration of the plane's tail has been measured, and you know this.



Yes, and if you were able to understand physics and simple arithmetic you'd be able to come to the same conclusion yourself.



Except for a massive hole in the side of the buiding, a huge fuel deflagration on the other side, and bits of debris raining down on to the street below. Don't forget those subtle, easily-missed signs of an impact.

Dave

I have measured the velocity of the plane entering the building myself Dave and I know that it lost no velocity passing through the 33 columns into the building.. My method was primitve but accurate enough for this purpose.

There is no real point in arguing this with Dave so I ask the critical reader to read my post and then to read his reply. You have to decide for yourself.

 

[dtugg]

I have mesured the velocity of the plane entering the building myself Dave and I know that it lost no velocity passing through the columns into the building.. My method was primitve but accurate enough for this purpose.

There is no real point in arguing this with Dave so I ask the critical reader to read my post and then to read his reply. You have to decide for yourself.

How did you measure it? Eyeballing a youtube video doesn't count, no-planer bs.

 

[dtugg]

Is it still your position that there was no mention of al Qaeda in the media prior to 1998? This is a yes or no question.

Is there a reason that you ignored this question, no-planer-bs?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have measured the velocity of the plane entering the building myself Dave and I know that it lost no velocity passing through the 33 columns into the building.. My method was primitve but accurate enough for this purpose.

Please support this assertion. What was your method, what was its accuracy, and what therefore would be the minimum reduction in velocity capable of being measured by your method?

If you don't have an answer to that question, then you're lying.

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

wait...wait...let me guess.

bill can't find a news article mentioning al-qaeda on a google search for prior to 1998, and therefore has concluded that the media never mentioned them prior to 1998.

I want to laugh but it is almost too sad. This is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of the "if it isn't on the internet then it doesn't exist" attitude that makes the TM look so ridiculous.

Tell me it isn't so bill.

TAM

 

[bill smith]

Please support this assertion. What was your method, what was its accuracy, and what therefore would be the minimum reduction in velocity capable of being measured by your method?

If you don't have an answer to that question, then you're lying.

Dave

I took a video that showed the approach of the plane and it's complete penetration into the building.

Then I froze he video at the exact moment it's nose touched the columns.

I put a mark on my screen exactly at the end of the tail.

Then I flew the plane again until it's nose just touched the mark and froze it.

Then I clicked the plane through until it's nose just touched the columns again. I counted how may clicks it took to fly that one plane length in other words.


Then I clicked the plane into the building until it was fully in.

Guess what ?

The same amount of clicks .

 

[Dave Rogers]

I took a video that showed the approach of the plane and it's complete penetration into the building.

Then I froze he video at the exact moment it's nose touched te columns.

I put a mark on my screen exactly at the end of the tail.

Then I flew the plane again until it's nose just touched the mark and froze it.

Then I clicked the plane through until it's nose just touched the columns again. I counted how may clicks it took to fly that one plane length in other words.


Then I clicked the plane into the building until it was fully in.

Guess what ?

The same amount of clicks .

OK, you've answered the first part of the question. Now, what is the uncertainty of your velocity measurement, expressed as a percentage of the measured velocity?

Dave

 

[bill smith]

OK, you've answered the first part of the question. Now, what is the uncertainty of your velocity measurement, expressed as a percentage of the measured velocity?

Dave

There would be some margin of error of course but not a significant one I believe.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There would be some margin of error of course but not a significant one I believe.

Bzzzzttttt! Fail.

If you don't know the margin of error, then you don't know what is the smallest effect you can detect. If you don't know that, then you can't claim not to have observed anything. Your analysis is completely worthless.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Bzzzzttttt! Fail.

If you don't know the margin of error, then you don't know what is the smallest effect you can detect. If you don't know that, then you can't claim not to have observed anything. Your analysis is completely worthless.

Dave

Well let's leave that to any eventual readers to assess for themselves Dave.