Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

lisabob2 said:
How can you prove they are wrong? the speeds of the planes that hit the towers were ESTIMATES. How fast does 300mph look as compared to 500mph? flying a plane is not flying a Boeing 767 or 757 is it? As a pilot you know the differences.
Sorry just saying what you have done flying proves nothing.
Maybe post something that disproves what the Boeing test pilots or Engineers have to say on this subject.
Click to expand...

If you believe that the speeds are estimated by just their 'look', you are in way over your head. Within a few MPH, you only need access to some videos of the flights, a stopwatch, some reasonably accurate measurements of the plane dimensions and Manhattan skyline dimensions, and in which direction the plane is flying in relation to the vantage point of the video. There is no way the estimates are off by 200mph. You couldn't put that kind of mistake past a group of High School geometry students, let alone the entire country.
 
GStan said:
my bolding

Precisely correct, the picture does not prove they were all cut that way, however, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that they were cut in any other way. Jones assertion that tests 'could have been done' is not evidence that they were cut in another way. Just an irrelevant observation that fits his predetermined conclusions. Given that the only photo evidence showing how they may have been cut is the photo of the man cutting one with a torch, it is reasonable to assume that they were all cut with a torch. Upon the identification of new evidence, that assumption may ultimately prove to be incorrect, however, until such evidence is discovered, the most plausible explanation is that the columns were cut with torches. (They even had a non-sinister motive for cutting them, if you can believe that!?)
Click to expand...
Jones said that test could help prove what cut the columns, he did make some observations on what he thought but he did say more test were needed to confirm cause of the columns cuts.
 
are you really that ignorant?

Speeds can be estimate pretty close to accurate based on the distance traveled and the time it took to cover that distance.

The investigators HAD SEVERAL objects to use to determine this speed in the various videos filmed of the two crashes.


Estimates? Yes. BUT VERY close estimates.

Have you bothered to take an algebra 2 class?

And Gravy Posted several vdieso showing 757 and 767 planes flying LOW at over 300 mph and doing just fine.

Sorry, but YOU have again proved that you dont know what you are talking about.
 
lisabob2 said:
Jones said that test could help prove what cut the columns, he did make some observations on what he thought but he did say more test were needed to confirm cause of the columns cuts.
Click to expand...
More tests are not needed. All he would have to do is contact the company that was working there. If he really wanted (he doesn't) to know he could have the guys name that made the cut. It's called research.
 
apathoid said:
Oh and it's lack of intake air which causes these compressor stalls, not too much air. Jets love lots and lots of thick, dense air.
Click to expand...

I must admit I laughed out loud when I saw the original quote.
But just a quick clarification:

Saying compressor stalls are caused by "lack of intake air" is rather imprecise.
It's caused by poor airflow generating stall conditions around the airfoils (blades to you laymen) of the compressor. It can be caused by several things.

From the Wikipedia article on Compressor Stalls, which is fairly accurate (and accessible) (numbers added by me):
The following factors can induce compressor stall:
* Engine thrust too high for the operating altitude ...(1)
* Engine operation outside specified design parameters ...(2)
* Turbulent or disrupted airflow to the engine intake ...(3)
* Contaminated or damaged engine components (such as damaged or wrongly positioned guide vanes) ...(4)
* Abrupt increases in engine thrust ...(5)
* Use of reverse thrust at insufficient forward speed, resulting in reingestion of turbulent airflow ...(6)
Click to expand...

Of these,1, 3 and 5 can easily fall under the umbrella of "lack of intake air".
4 and 6 could also fit under there, with a little effort.
And 2 is up for grabs, depending on your definition of "outside design parameters".

But my basic point is that compressor stalls are just what they say they are, stalling of airflow on the compressor. Normally, propagating stalls.
Just to further expand on what you said. ;)

I now return you to your regularly scheduled derailment thread, already in progress...
 
Last edited:
Yo, lisabob2!

For the final time: 911myths.com is not my website.
 
Last edited:
lisabob2 said:
At 911myths Roberts show us pictures of a core column, some exterior columns, and a worker cutting a exterior column with a torch.
He says this is evidence that those first column pictures were cut by workers.
I would like to point out the obvious.
Just because 1 picture shows a exterior column being cut by a worker, there is nothing in the other pictures to prove that they were cut by same method. As a matter of fact the only thing those pictures show are damaged columns. How they were damaged is questionable. They could have been cut by workers, or possible not. Steven Jones says that simple scientific tests could have proven how the columns were cut, or damaged.
Click to expand...

have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? if not, look it up, and apply it here.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? if not, look it up, and apply it here.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Also, as with everything else, s/he's just plain wrong. There's plenty in the photos that tells us how the columns were cut and why they weren't cut with thermite/thermate.

Please don't feed the troll, people. This one ain't gonna be snapping out of it.
 
Last edited:
lisabob2 said:
My brother has been a Boeing aircraft tecnician since 1980.
Click to expand...

Can we please stop trading professional experience of lack thereof ? The facts are in: the planes went at those speeds. Many, many professionals in the field confirm this. Just because a few of them say otherwise does not mean that the majority is automatically wrong.

lisabob2 said:
do you really think my friends want to me to give their names over the internet?
Click to expand...

Why not ? What are they afraid of ?

lisabob2 said:
How can you prove they are wrong? the speeds of the planes that hit the towers were ESTIMATES. How fast does 300mph look as compared to 500mph?
Click to expand...

A little more than half.

Sorry just saying what you have done flying proves nothing.
Click to expand...

Just saying you have a technician brother proves nothing, either. That's why I'd prefer you show us actual evidence.

Just because 1 picture shows a exterior column being cut by a worker, there is nothing in the other pictures to prove that they were cut by same method.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with how science works before saying something like this.

1) There is no evidence of explosives
2) There is evidence of at least some cutting by the mop-up crew.

Therefore, it is very reasonable to assume that the REST of the columns were cut by the crew as well. No ?
 
Ah, trotting out the ol' "757s/767s can't fly that fast" argument.

They build them well in Everett, I assure you. Commercial airliners can fly faster than V(ne); the designers don't WANT you to exceed that speed, because bad things happen to the airframe and control surfaces if you exceed it for any length of time. Beachnut will correct me on this if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that a 757 or 767 could be flown supersonic under the right conditions. This would be extremely dangerous, and I sure wouldn't want to be on that plane, but it's probably possible.

It's a safety issue; of course, safety was a very low priority of the hijackers on 9/11.

ETA: On further investigoogling, it appears that in the EgyptAir crash, a 757 came very close to Mach 1 (if not exceeding it) without breaking up; however, there were nasty effects to the control surfaces.

http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-48087.html
 
Last edited:
lisabob2 said:
My brother has been a Boeing aircraft tecnician since 1980.
Click to expand...
Let me know when you bring him over so we can ask him questions because...
The engineers & test pilots that have verified these facts know quite a bit more than you do about the planes they designed & fly.
Click to expand...
Obviously he might know quite a bit more than you do.
calling me a liar changes nothing especially the facts
Click to expand...
LIAR! Calling you otherwise hardly changes anything inside your brain.
 
So...any factual errors by Mark Roberts identified yet?
 
LashL said:
So...any factual errors by Mark Roberts identified yet?
Click to expand...



Number of factual errors made by Mark Roberts: 0

Number of eyewitnesses to Lyte Trip's Pentagon "flyover": 0

Number of serious journals to which Steven Jones has
submitted his work for peer-review: 0

Number of architects and engineers who believe that
the Towers had concrete cores: 0

Number of demolition experts who believe that
explosives were used in the Twin Towers on 9/11: 0

Number of real reporters who found a big story in
Norman Mineta's testimony: 0


Gee, you guys produced all this in only six years? Those evil perps must be trembling in their boots.
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
Gee, you guys produced all this in only six years? Those evil perps must be trembling in their boots.
Click to expand...

Yes, you see this is the essential result of the cerebral manifestation of truther-logic. It will get you close to concocting a Star-Trek manuscript or perhaps a remake of Blade Runner with an Orwellian twist and an added shreek "t'was da jooz and neo-cons" as background noise.
 
pomeroo said:
Number of factual errors made by Mark Roberts: 0

Number of eyewitnesses to Lyte Trip's Pentagon "flyover": 0

Number of serious journals to which Steven Jones has
submitted his work for peer-review: 0

Number of architects and engineers who believe that
the Towers had concrete cores: 0

Number of demolition experts who believe that
explosives were used in the Twin Towers on 9/11: 0

Number of real reporters who found a big story in
Norman Mineta's testimony: 0


Gee, you guys produced all this in only six years? Those evil perps must be trembling in their boots.
Click to expand...

Who would agree to peer review a Steven Jones journal???
 
WhiteLion said:
Yes, you see this is the essential result of the cerebral manifestation of truther-logic. It will get you close to concocting a Star-Trek manuscript or perhaps a remake of Blade Runner with an Orwellian twist and an added shreek "t'was da jooz and neo-cons" as background noise.
Click to expand...

Excuse me? Blade Runner, feh! Orwell, jooz and neo-cons aside. But let's leave Star Trek out of this. It's real. ( oh where is the star-trek-is-real-type smiley....durn)

(trekkietothecore :)
 
pomeroo said:
Number of architects and engineers who believe that the Towers had concrete cores: 0
Click to expand...

No matter how much I love your otter, and make no mistake, I LOVE your otter, please no c-expletive cores!! That will haunt me all my days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom