It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

page: 36
1
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
I still have that door open for you to read and question the specifics of my posts. You have yet to truly debate them.


Also you have yet to truly debate the facts and evidence i have posted.


[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Also you have yet to truly debate the facts and evidence i have posted.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


So all my aerodynamic laws and principles explanation posts don't count?
I still don't think you read any of them at all.

Let put it to a vote, since this is still a mostly democrate country.

Who do you all think made a stronger point for their side of the wake turbulence debate? Me or Ultima?



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Quotes the the believer "Del" lied and stated i wrote and sold books but never proved this when challenged.

posted on 4-5-2008 @ 01:19
I'm saying the final report issued by the same group probably has more complete data than the one fifteen months before that. I just quoted the NIST final report on the collapse. Why would you use their earlier reports other than to obfuscate the truth. If I have the final product why would I consult the initial sketch? I'm sure in your "extensive" research you've seen the final report available. You're caught trying to peddle incomplete information as the final conclusion. Just like every other baseless point you make, you cherry pick to find something that fits your "theory" and then dismiss any other information. Throughout several threads you've been proven foolish on everything from impossible low flight, monstrous jetblast/wake turbulence, difficulty of aircraft control, ability to see a building wider than the Sears Tower is tal, etc et all. At best your "research" has been incompetent, and at worst dishonest. Lying to sell a book is disgusting wouldn't you agree?

posted on 4-5-2008 @ 02:55
I don't think it's funny at all. It's sad. Sad someone would go out of their way to twist terrible events to market a book. I'm sorry you think anyone not agreeing with you is biased. Surely the only two available options, like you said are that I am biased or I agree with you.
Feel free to employ the martyr complex; I'm sure someone will feel sorry for you. It just won't be me.

posted on 4-5-2008 @ 03:38
You're right of course. I live in a fantasy world because I'm not smart enough to figure these things out like you, or I'm too afraid to admit the truth. Those are clearly the only options available to me. I've been pigeon-holed so neatly into the slots you've alloted me; whatever shall I do.

How many books have you sold on this tripe?


posted on 4-5-2008 @ 03:44
Keep spamming that. Someone will take your side, I have no doubt.

So 50 books? 100? 1000? $10 a piece? More? Less?

posted on 4-5-2008 @ 14:41
Well, you've certainly posted alot of things. Way to deflect the point. No wonder you write books. Discourse would prove more difficult.

posted on 4-5-2008 @ 15:56
The official story isn't the truth. Only Ultima's book holds the elusive truth. Anyone who doesn't agree or buy the book is insulting the memory of the victims of the tradgedy. I've heard it already...
I'm not the one claiming to hold the key to secret knowledge. I'm not the one selling a book by cherry picking data out of preliminary reports without revealing the actual conclusion of the reports disingenuously.








[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Wait a minute......my post was hi-jacked!!

I never made the post, that I 'replied to' right here....look it up!!!

Who did this?????

I didn't write the end points......not me.....never.....someone should look into this.....

WW

signature....how do I do this....I'm Tim...(supposed to be private, in U2Us and such....but heck, this is important!!!

signed, Tim


allow me to edit, and re-phrase, upon closer inspection.....it is my assertion that someone wishes to conflate various posts, in order to improve his/her position, in the view of the ATS audience.

Mods should be able to see, and judge appropriately, as they always do....that's why THEY are Mods, and we are not....

Tim...AKA WW



[edit on 5/11/0808 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
So all my aerodynamic laws and principles explanation posts don't count?
I still don't think you read any of them at all.


Who do you all think made a stronger point for their side of the wake turbulence debate? Me or Ultima?


1. If my facts and evidence do not count then neither do yours.

2. Oh like thats fair to have a vote, when all your beleiver buddies will gang up and vote for you just becasue i do not agree with them or the official story.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I suppose saying that I asked you to deny it and that you ignored that request will do little to placate you, though true. You didn't deny it and I ran with it. I'm perfectly willing to stand by them until I hear a denial. It does seem the most logical answer to your refusal to answer the question or admit error in even the most trivial matter.
Again, I think the question is relevant to the conversation and you haven't ever taken the time to say "I'm not selling a product, and I don't plan to." That seems a perfectly reasonable request, imo.
Further, I was unaware authoring a book or producing a video was a crime of the magnitude of murder which you freely insinuate on the masterminds in your theory.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I suppose saying that I asked you to deny it and that you ignored that request will do little to placate you, though true.


I suppose showing you the post where i challenged you to prove that i wrote and sold books was ignored will still not get you to admit you lied, TRUE ?

Also showing you the couple of posts warning you not to post about me writing or selling books or i would notify the mods will not get you to admit you lied, TRUE?



[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I'm not going to argue with you and further derail the thread. I'm perfectly willing to let the mods handle it. Adieu.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I'm not going to argue with you and further derail the thread. I'm perfectly willing to let the mods handle it. Adieu.


Thats funny since you derail threads all the time.

So thanks for proving that you lied and you are a coward for not admititng it.



[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA....you play a dangerous game.....since you LIED about me claiming you sell books, when I NEVER DID ANY SUCH thing.....

If you find PROOF, beyond a reasonable doubt that I claimed such a thing, then I will relinguish my ATS membership....

Oh....but all you wish to prove is reasonable doubt....you've said so, in your posts.

In fact, funny thing.....you've said that you have 'reasonable doubt' to disprove the events of 9/11....but you have NEVER come forward with thesse 'reasonable doubts'.....just innuendo, and dis-jointed un-coordinated 'facts'......

Yet, you ignore other 'facts'.....the dead people from 9/11??

Why is this?? Is it too inconvenient to incorporate 'facts' into your 'belief' system???

Oh....I know...next argument is....well, you 'believers' are going to swallow the 'official story'....so....let's say I 'swallow' the story....so far, what I see is about two dozen people, against about two million.....why would I throw my support behind a nutcase? (not you, I am not calling you a name....)

I have flown airplanes, the airplanes involved in 9/11. I know how they work, and I know that it is possible, despite all of the fringe websites, who don't know what they're talking about, the airplanes (B757/B767) are very nice to fly....very easy to fly.....and I hope to prove that someday, here on ATS. With help from Springer, et al....

Best, WW



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA....you play a dangerous game.....since you LIED about me claiming you sell books,


Maybe you did not say but you are in with the believer who did say it. You all post the same thing over and over and go by whatever the official story states, and ignore any facts or evindece that others post that do not go along with what the official story states. So sorry if you are upset about the book thing.

Do you need me to list all the facts and evidence i have (AGAIN) that proves a resonable doubt against the official story. I mean you ignored it the first time are you going to ignore it again?





[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA.....do not try to conflate, or obfuscate, or outright lie.

YOU.....YOU accused me, in a post, and anyone who cares can scroll up to see it.....YOU accused me of ACCUSING you, that you were writing a book...this is history, on this forum.

You never apologized....you never admitted to your mistake. I neither ask for, nor I do I request your apology.

However, I happen to think that you owe an apology to many, many other people....again, not me.......

Will wait......



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You never apologized....you never admitted to your mistake. I neither ask for, nor I do I request your apology.


You mean just like you and your buddies never apologized for things that were stated about me. Do i have to go back and quote what things have been stated about me? Like calling me or anyone that does not agree with you a nutcase.



[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Shall we start with the reasonable doubt about the official story.

1. No photos or videos showing FLight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

2. No FBI or NTSB reports stating parts found at Pentagon match Flight 77.

3. No FBI or NTSB report stating the parts found at WTC match FLights 11 and 175.

4. No FBI or NTSB report stating parts found at Shanksville match Flight 93.

5. Conflicting reports about the black boxes at WTC.

6. NIST failed to recover steel from buidling 7 for testing.

To be cont. getting late.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA.....again.....you take a comment, not directed at you, in any way shape or form....and conflate it into an argument.

I will let the ATS audience read, and decide for themselves.

They are smart, and know how to use the forum to scroll up...

WW



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
Just for the record, I never thought you could be writing a book.

Way back on page 1 I said it was a nice little simulator and it still is but as with then, I'm still puzzled about what it could prove in relation to the events at the Pentagon. I have learnt a lot more about turbulence caused by low flying aircraft thanks to the very informative posts. Not that I ever doubted that aircraft disturb the air but enough good info has been shown here to actually put numbers on it. Also a jet engine has to be pretty much aimed at an object at short range to apply its 'blast' in a damaging manner.

What I've seen here has proved very supportive of a large aircraft flying at high speed close to the ground and therefore supportive of the 757 at the Pentagon and it all lines up with the overall witness account of what happened there.

Was that the intention of the thread?

The reason I ask is that it has become unclear as to what position you're taking on the overall event.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
ULTIMA.....again.....you take a comment, not directed at you, in any way shape or form....and conflate it into an argument.



I notice how as usual you completely ignored the posts about reasonable doubt of the official story.

But you did make this statemant about peolple not agreeing with you or the official story being a nutcase.


so far, what I see is about two dozen people, against about two million.....why would I throw my support behind a nutcase? (not you, I am not calling you a name....)


So that must mean if i do not agree with you i am a nutcase?


[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Was that the intention of the thread?

The reason I ask is that it has become unclear as to what position you're taking on the overall event.


My intention in this thread is what it has been in every thread, to find the truth of what really happened that day.

As i do research i post facts and evidence i find. So far the facts and evidence i have found seem to question the official story.



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

1. If my facts and evidence do not count then neither do yours.

2. Oh like thats fair to have a vote, when all your beleiver buddies will gang up and vote for you just becasue i do not agree with them or the official story.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Ahhh, I see. So you essentially believe that my explanations are lies and complete BS. How about you actually do some more research into my explanations (Reynolds Number, flow separation, Prandtl's theories) before dismissing them.

So far, you've only shown websites with a statement, but never a full explanation as to why that statement is so. I have asked you many times to explain it, but you refuse to. You're essentially taking the statement at faith.

I, on the other hand, have shown you facts of aerodynamics and fluids that are concrete and can be found in any college-level fluids or aerodynamics textbook. Not only that, I have also done experiments across multiple courses throughout my college career that prove these laws to be true.

Just look up Reynolds Number, flow separation, and Prandtl anywhere and you'll find exactly what I've been posting.

And by the way, who said they didn't count? Here's what happened:

1. You posted your statements.
2. I saw them, thought about them, and returned with my aerodynamic explanation to counter.
3. It's your turn to pick at my explanation and if I went wrong, to show where I did go wrong.

I'm still waiting on you to show me where my explanation is wrong. If you know higher-order aerodynamic concepts as you claim you do, it shouldn't be this hard for you to do that.


[edit on 11-5-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on May, 11 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by HLR53K
Ahhh, I see. So you essentially believe that my explanations are lies and complete BS.


I could say the same to you.

I guess the sources i posted are only good when they agree with you. I mean you already called everyone that does not agree with you a nutcase.


[edit on 11-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]




top topics



 
1
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join