Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[uk_dave]

If you would like to show a true calculation I would be happy to view, then correct, it for you

So you believe you know more than the guy who was involved in the design?

 

[VespaGuy]

Russell, I have to sign off for a while, but I just wanted to make sure you didn't forget about me. I know you are responding to quite a few people, but I commented on the link you provided a page or two ago.

To recap, you said:

"9/11 was not a conspiracy" is a positive claim.

I explained that it was not, and even provided you with several other negative claims. You finally backed it up with a link that says:

Claims can be phrased in either the positive or the negative. Claims that are phrased in the negative are called counter-factual claims.

Are you willing to admit that "9/11 was not a conspiracy" is not a positive claim?

Thank you.

 

[Moving On]

For the record, my reference to you as a layman in regard to the law was not a dig. I consider myself a "layman" in fields outside my area of expertise.

I din't perceive it as a dig.

I was (attempting) being funny.

 

[uk_dave]

I din't perceive it as a dig.

I was (attempting) being funny.

Then I sit corrected

I should have known

I mean...with avery and jones as poster boys for the CT movement you just have to have a good sense of humour

(ouch)

 

[Mince]

annoyance factor

Gratz. Your first accurate statement at JREF.

 

[Moving On]

Yes russell it is clear disinfo but as I probed earlier, what is the motive? Are they professional disinfo agents or just hobbyists?

I don't know.

The skill, frequency and persistence of the strategies is interesting though.

If our beliefs are correct I would have to imagine that such things would exist.

"The Pentagon’s strategy for taking over the internet and controlling the free flow of information has already been chronicled in a recently declassified report, “The Information Operations Roadmap”; is a window into the minds of those who see free speech as dangerous as an “enemy weapons-system”.

The Pentagon is aiming for “full spectrum dominance” of the Internet. Their objective is to manipulate public perceptions, quash competing points of view, and perpetuate a narrative of American generosity and good-will."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12060.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/index.htm

It is also highlighted in the prophetic PNAC document, Rebuilding America's Defenses that Rumsfeld was a part of.

"Cyberspace, or ‘Net-War’ - If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace,” and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new 'global commons'".

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

I have to keep an open mind and refrain from accusing anybody though.

 

[beachnut]

Sigh.

Jessica's Calculation


Beachnut's Calculation


Neither of you have sourced your figures, so these are worthless.

Source for my calculation is the weight and speed of the 707 as used by Robertson when he calculated the impact the WTC could be expected to sustain when a 707 was lost in the fog, landing configuration, 180 mph, lighter wieght due to lower fuel state.

If you have other numbers for the design of the WTC then I would be happy to check your source.

But I found the number for weight and speed as I said, using the numbers Robertson used.

Jessica used the cruse speed of 600 mph and the maximum gross weight of a 707. Jessica number are wrong because at 1000 feet the maximum speed by law below 10,000 feet is 250 KIAS for jet aircraft, unless they have a waiver.

Only if someone was doing the impact on purpose would the speed not be in the range of 150 KIAS to 250 KIAS.

Since the design was the impact of what would happen as an accident, the speed of 180 mph and lighter landing weight was used.

I was wondering why Jessica used numbers that are wrong?

No logic, my number are sourced, but it would be neat if someone could prove my numbers wrong?

Can you prove my source wrong? You will say what source, but I am tired of digging up my sources beyond the facts I told you who used the same numbers, can Jessica dispute my number or what? But I am the source, I am a pilot and an Electrical Engineer, I have 33 years of flying experience, 32 years Engineering experience, 16 years experience aircraft accident investigation, and I have decided to sell the reference of my source for the design numbers. (lol)

Can you confirm 180 mph and the weight to back me up?

Can you even confirm the 250 KIAS below 10,000 feet?

Did you know all the planes on 9/11 were in overspend condition for the airframe?

Just dumb questions, but I take most of this as common knowledge.

The main idea is you would not design for a high speed impact unless you considered a crime. In addition, using 600 mph for the impact design speed is wrong for a few reasons when considering an accident, or a probable accident.

 

[Moving On]

Russell, I have to sign off for a while, but I just wanted to make sure you didn't forget about me. I know you are responding to quite a few people, but I commented on the link you provided a page or two ago.

To recap, you said:



I explained that it was not, and even provided you with several other negative claims. You finally backed it up with a link that says:



Are you willing to admit that "9/11 was not a conspiracy" is not a positive claim?

Thank you.

Actually I did forget about you.

You do your philosophy pretzel and I'll keep looking for truth - OK?

 

[jessicarabbit]

I don't know.

The skill, frequency and persistence of the strategies is interesting though.

If our beliefs are correct I would have to imagine that such things would exist.



It is also highlighted in the prophetic PNAC document, Rebuilding America's Defenses that Rumsfeld was a part of.



I have to keep an open mind and refrain from accusing anybody though.[/b]

They do seem to use very structured organised tactics here. They claim they just don't like to see 911 lied about but that doesn't explain their determination. Its very intriguing.

 

[Moving On]

They do seem to use very structured organised tactics here. They claim they just don't like to see 911 lied about but that doesn't explain their determination. Its very intriguing.

There also appears to be group synchronicity like flanking maneuvers too.

Packing is another phenomenon I see.

 

[Moving On]

This one is VERY popular here:

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

Example: "How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint."

Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)?

 

[beachnut]

darn they require facts, logic, and real source

that leaves out all CT inclined folks

 

[WildCat]

The skill, frequency and persistence of the strategies is interesting though.

If our beliefs are correct I would have to imagine that such things would exist.

Was it the title over my avatar that gave it away? I knew that was a bad idea!

 

[Moving On]

This one is probably number 1 though.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Example: "You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics -- does your Bible have a [deleted] on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is a well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?

Are they off having a strategy meeting?

 

[Gravy]

No retraction is forthcoming.

I see. Okay, Russell, I consider you to be a neo-Nazi, with 94.5% certainty. I don't have to back that up, because my beliefs don't need to have a basis in reason or fact, and I shouldn't expect anyone on a skeptic's forum to ask me to back up my outrageous claims.

Russell, you have provided no evidence that you aren't a neo-Nazi. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'll be posting in other threads.

 

[Mince]

If anyone is having difficulty debating here, I would remind you that, before the police state is inducted, you are not required to debate here.

 

[jessicarabbit]

This one is probably number 1 though.



Are they off having a strategy meeting?

I suspect the CIA has called in all the troops to help brief google on the widening of the operation.

 

[Moving On]

I see. Okay, Russell, I consider you to be a neo-Nazi, with 94.5% certainty. I don't have to back that up, because my beliefs don't need to have a basis in reason or fact, and I shouldn't expect anyone on a skeptic's forum to ask me to back up my outrageous claims.

Russell, you have provided no evidence that you aren't a neo-Nazi. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'll be posting in other threads.

SEE RULE NUMBER 5 ABOVE.

 

[jessicarabbit]

I see. Okay, Russell, I consider you to be a neo-Nazi, with 94.5% certainty. I don't have to back that up, because my beliefs don't need to have a basis in reason or fact, and I shouldn't expect anyone on a skeptic's forum to ask me to back up my outrageous claims.

Russell, you have provided no evidence that you aren't a neo-Nazi. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'll be posting in other threads.

Did you read the study by the nobel laureate scientists gravy? I would be interested to hear your response.

 

[realitybites]

There also appears to be group synchronicity like flanking maneuvers too.

Packing is another phenomenon I see.

Spare the pyschiatric evaluation please, Russ. You say that as though these traits belong solely to the JREF forum.

... Have you read any of the threads in the forum you moderate?