Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just threw up, I laughed so hard reading this. Opening paragraph of Reynold's Overview section:

I bolded the funny s***, and underlined and italicized the stuff that made me puke. That's right.... he credits Spooked (aka "Picture Pages") as being a leading researcher.

The guy who drew a plane on notebook paper.

The guy who flew popsicle stick airplanes into cardboard towers (or something along those lines).

The guy who's convinced no plane ever hit the South Tower.

.... oh.

And Killtown.

Now THAT is funny. Not quite my funniest moment of the week, however...

THIS: "The engine punches a hole and there are high strength steel structural elements that connect the engine to the landing gear. The engine drags the landing gear through the hole. " Is the funniest thing I've heard all week...
 
Don't even get me started on Rajter. The only engineering student who's bio is filled with his athletic accomplishments over his academic ones....

Well, he's certainly one of the winners of the master race. :p
 
He's exactly right though. I got my first CIA paycheck today and boy are they generous!

For us Canadian CIA agents, the Medical Plan is what makes it all worth while...lol

:D

Monetarily speaking, yes.

But really, when you think about the warm-fuzzy feeling you get from just being a globalist and spreading the NWO... isn't every day a payday?

Coke and hookers for everyone....on me!!!

I get paid in Babies' blood and dead puppies.

C'mon, Everyone, to Bohemian Grove!

Come on now people.

Something tells me you're not taking this seriously...

-Andrew
 
From www.911tvfakery.net

... When Jones defends the WTC airliner story, he cites soft evidence like videos, "many, many eyewitnesses," unverified flight data recorders, an alleged consensus of Scholars' (capital "S") in favor of airliners and calls for release of evidence (who but the government could object?). Jones says videos "clearly show the commercial jet liner." Doh! You mean the perps would fake a video and NOT show a jet liner? The question is, do the pixels reflect reality or is the jet liner image inserted?

Video is SOFT evidence? Hundreds of eyewitness reports all saying the same thing is soft evidence?

SmacOn, apply directly to the forehead...
SmacOn, apply directly to the forehead...
SmacOn, apply directly to the forehead...
 
Check out the top of the ST911 site.

Bleh. I'd never gone there before. Loved this, though:

"...As retired software engineer in the aerospace industry Joseph Keith says, "Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing," "No nothing." The videos are fake.

I'm no genius, and I'm certainly a babe in the woods when it comes to physics, but living in Tornado Alley all my life, and having a father who was an avid outdoorsman and firearms enthusiast taught me that velocity counts for a lot in how two objects behave when one strikes another.
 
Guys;

I am in the early stages of writing a commentary on Kevin Ryans recent Journal of 9/11 Studies paper, and as a result, I need some links to what exactly John Skilling said about the construction of the WTCs. I do not want to trust what Ryan has said he said, as we all know how they cherry pick...

anyone? anyone?
 
I'm no genius, and I'm certainly a babe in the woods when it comes to physics, but living in Tornado Alley all my life, and having a father who was an avid outdoorsman and firearms enthusiast taught me that velocity counts for a lot in how two objects behave when one strikes another.

ive quoted this here before, but here it is again

The mechanical properties of a projectile
depends on its speed. For example, if I take a soft lead bullet and press it
slowly against a steel plate, say 0.5 cm thick, using a mechanical press, it
would deform into a lead disc and the steel plate would be largely
unaffected. However, if I take the same soft lead bullet and it's fired from
a 0.357 Magnum, it would easily blow a large hole in the same steel plate.
The difference is that deformation of a projectile takes a certain amount of
time to occur. If the impact time is very short compared to this
characteristic time of deformation, the mechanical properties of the object
will be very different. This is not an uncommon phenomenon. Another example,
if I jump into a lake from a height of 1 meter, I just sink and make a
splash -- no harm. But if I jump into the same lake from an airplane at 1000
meters above the surface, I'm a pancake. I might just as well hit solid
ground. The reason is: at the speed with which I hit the water is so fast,
the water does not have time to "get out of the way" so it becomes
essentially a solid. This is what happens to straws etc. driven by tornadic
winds. They become projectiles, like an arrow.
 
Oh my, yes! That will be PERFECT!

I love the smell of woo-woos imploding in the morning.

Okay, I think I've figured out most of the acronyms around here (some people think I Perfected "btw" back in the old CompuServe days).

Am I right that ETA is "edited to add"?

But what the heck is a woo?
 
Guys;

I am in the early stages of writing a commentary on Kevin Ryans recent Journal of 9/11 Studies paper, and as a result, I need some links to what exactly John Skilling said about the construction of the WTCs. I do not want to trust what Ryan has said he said, as we all know how they cherry pick...

anyone? anyone?

Here's the Seattle Times archived story, T.A.M., that Ryan cites.

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227


Note that Ryan failed to include the whole quote *surprise surprise* - conveniently leaving out the bolded part: "We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side," said John Skilling, head structural engineer. "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much."
 
Last edited:
Am I right that ETA is "edited to add"?

Yep, or Estimated Time of Arrival if your on a trip..;)

But what the heck is a woo?

A woo is a shorthand for somebody that takes postitions that are not only outside the mainstream, they are not even within shouting distance of the water. Rather than call them a variety of names, someone wiser than I decided the name Woos, or woowoos would best describe the wonderful wacky world of charlatans, fakes, healers, and Conspiracy Theorists.

Here is a good set of definitions...http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

ETA: Now, of course, we all know who the Woowooowooowooowooowooo is: http://www.thenyuknyukshoppe.com/ch.gif


BTW, welcome to the Forum.
 
Okay, I think I've figured out most of the acronyms around here (some people think I Perfected "btw" back in the old CompuServe days).

Am I right that ETA is "edited to add"?

But what the heck is a woo?

Hi, Jennie :)

You are right that "eta" is "edited to add".

Woos are people like conspiracy theorists, tinhatters of all stripes, people who do either do not have or do not engage their critical thinking skills, people who believe in pseudoscience over facts and evidence, people who believe in false psychics and mystics and such, people who believe in any half baked theory that comes along without any scientific or factual basis for such belief, fake moon landing people, crop circle people, fake healers, etc. well, you get the idea.

ETA: oops, I see you've already been answered.
 
Last edited:
LashL:
Thanks, I'll go read it...

Everyone:

Charles N. Pegelow - 713-869-7928 - Houston, TX

This is the only info I can find on the guy Fetzer is claiming is a structural engineer on his radio show. Several CTers have thrown this in my face.

I got the info off a house damage/marketing site or some such. No engineering speak on there...

No othe Charles N. Pegelow on a google search...

Anyone got any confirmed info on this guy?
 
Interesting article.

Seems they did include the jet fuel and subsequent fire in their analysis.

A few things:

Doesn't mention impact speed of jet they accounted for.
Doesn't mention if, when analysing (1) Steel integrity changes due to heat were included, and if they were (2) if the added heat from burning products within the building would have been included.

the problem, we do not know if the analysis calculated only for the buildings to remain intact IMMEDIATELY AFTER the impact, or if it went beyond to calculate if the building would continue to remain standing, and for how long...

In fact, both buildings did withstand the initial impacts, didnt they...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom