Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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]

Ummm...I didn't call you a nutcase. If you look above, I believe that was weedwhacker. I might actually demand an apology from you. I'll think about it...

So what you're saying is that I'm taking all those website that have posted an explanation of the laws and principles for granted?

I've had 5 years of college experiments to, at least for myself, verify that those principles and laws are true. They are called laws for a reason.

Would you like the titles, authors, and publishing dates of the books I used to verify the information on those websites? The ones I used for my research. You can then go to your local college library and see if they have them and crack them open.

Still waiting on you to show where my explanation is wrong.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by HLR53K]

reply to post by HLR53K


HLR....I resemble that remark!!!

Serious, I could never get away with calling someone on this forum a nutcase.....I can call Bush a nutcase, or others who don't post.....but, I will say that some people may 'follow' nutcases.....so it's not a direct insult....not even an allusion.....just personal opinion, and I think that's allowed still....

WW

Originally posted by HLR53K
Ummm...I didn't call you a nutcase. If you look above, I believe that was weedwhacker. I might actually demand an apology from you. I'll think about it...

Would you like the titles, authors, and publishing dates of the books I used to verify the information on those websites? The ones I used for my research. You can then go to your local college library and see if they have them and crack them open.

Well i thought all you believers were all together on insulting anad calling people names that do not agree with you? That seems to be something you all do.

Let me ask you this, would you accept documents i posted that show my education and background? Becasue of your prior posts (and other believers post) it seems you wouldn't.

So why should i accept your research ?

[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Serious, I could never get away with calling someone on this forum a nutcase

Funny how believers call people names instead of being able to have an adult discussion.

But i guess i was right about them living in a fantasy world and not being able to accept reallity so they have to resort to name calling and insults.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well i thought all you believers were all together on insulting anad calling people names that do not agree with you? That seems to be something you all do.

Let me ask you this, would you accept documents i posted that show my education and background? Becasue of your prior posts (and other believers post) it seems you wouldn't.

So why should i accept your research ?

[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

As I have said in a past post, if you believe posting your documents will help your case, then go ahead.

I have proven that I have not called you a nutcase in any post. Show me where I did that or prove that you have a prejudice to anyone who offers an opposing view.

Why should you accept my explanation? Well, if you don't accept it directly from me, why don't you do some research into it yourself. If you are as good at researching as you claim, it shouldn't take any length of time to look up:

1. Reynolds Number
2. Flow separation
3. Prandtl's theories

Any of those can readily be explained by independent sources on both the internet and in textbooks that any library should carry. Research those three topics and then decide for yourself if you should accept it or not. At the very least, you should come back with a better understanding and some questions.

So again I ask, show me where my explanation is incorrect.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by HLR53K]

Before going in-depth and debunking each of these, point by point, I want to make it clear that what you've posted isn't "evidence" or "facts". Evidence requires an outward sign or something that furnishes proof of a thing. Un-attributed statements do not count as evidence in a court of law, and they certainly have no standing as debate points here.

I realize that this post will get me lumped into the group you derogatorily refer to as "the believers" (with various forms of mispelling) which is fine. I would be interested in joining said group, but only if there is a t-shirt and a secret handshake.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. No photos or videos showing FLight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

This is patently false. The Defense Department released two videos of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. I've included a link to those videos here: www.judicialwatch.org...

You can claim that this video is inconclusive or doesn't clearly show an aircraft but rather a "missle like" object, however, that is your opinion (read: non-professional, amateur, unskilled opinion since you are not a trained video forensic specialist).

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
2. No FBI or NTSB reports stating parts found at Pentagon match Flight 77.

Again, this is patently false. Parts including the voice and data recorders from Flight 77 were recovered at the site. This was reported in a number of places including by Frank J. Murray of the Washington Times, September 15, 2001.

Also, since you apparently don't read with comprehension, here's a nice picture showing indisputable proof (also, its an AP/Wide World sourced photo):
media.popularmechanics.com...

Lastly, Allyn E. Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC was the first structural engineer on the scene. He was quoted as saying: "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
3. No FBI or NTSB report stating the parts found at WTC match FLights 11 and 175.

Oh really? Why did W. Gene Corley, while heading the FEMA probe on the collapse of the towers study the wreckage then? In fact Corley, who is a licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories (en.wikipedia.org...) gave testimony in front of Congress about his findings. You can find that testimony here: www.asce.org...

For the lazy, Corley and his team also photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC-5 including a chunk of the fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. You can see a picture of some of the wreckage here:
media.popularmechanics.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
4. No FBI or NTSB report stating parts found at Shanksville match Flight 93.

This is growing truly tiresome. Once again, the cockpit voice recorder for Flight 93 was recovered. In fact, that recording is available here:
www.airdisaster.com...

This recording was played for the families of the victims of this flight, again I cite as evidence, CNN's reporting:
www.cnn.com...

Unfortunately the rest of my retort to your post was truncated by the 4000 character limit on posts. I'll continue it in another post to follow this one.

Actually, after reviewing your last two "facts" I'm not going to waste my time. I feel that I debunked enough of your initial "facts" with my previous post. In the future I would encourage that you do the following:

1) Do not claim to have facts, if you cannot show evidence to support them.

2) Do not claim to have evidence, when you apparently do not know what "evidence" actually is. For your reference, a list of provably false statements, with no attribution do not count as evidence.

Nothing I posted in my retort to your post was hidden or difficult to find. In fact, most of the source material was available in a very well-done piece by Popular Mechanics debunking the various 9/11 conspiracy theories and lunatic fringe arguments. I recommend you review it because so many of your closely-held theories are answered in the article. For your reference, its here: www.popularmechanics.com..."

I realize that my post here is technically off the original topic, but in my defense, it answers a number of accusations made by the OP of this thread, and overcomes an objection that he made, being that nobody is willing to debate his "facts". For the record, I have shown that he has no "facts" or "evidence" and may perhaps have only a foggy notion of what facts and evidence actually are.

Originally posted by HLR53K
I have proven that I have not called you a nutcase in any post. Show me where I did that or prove that you have a prejudice to anyone who offers an opposing view.

Well the fact that i have proven Del to be a lier and now this quote shows you and other beleivers are prejudice to anyone who offers an opposing few.

so far, what I see is about two dozen people, against about two million.....why would I throw my support behind a nutcase?

[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
This is patently false. The Defense Department released two videos of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. I've included a link to those videos here: www.judicialwatch.org...

Again, this is patently false. Parts including the voice and data recorders from Flight 77 were recovered at the site. This was reported in a number of places including by Frank J. Murray of the Washington Times, September 15, 2001.

Lastly, Allyn E. Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC was the first structural engineer on the scene. He was quoted as saying: "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why. "

1. Show me a frame from the 2 videos that show an AA 757 or admit there is no photo or video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

2. Please show me a FBI or NTSB report that matches parts found to Flight 77, that seems to be a simple statement.

3. I asked for official FBI and NTSB reports not an engineers quote.

PLEASE READ POST BEFORE RESPOINDING. ALL OF TESES STATEMENT I MADE SHOW REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE OFFICIAL STORY.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. Show me a frame from the 2 videos that show an AA 757 or admit there is no photo or video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

2. Please show me a FBI or NTSB report that matches parts found to Flight 77, that seems to be a simple statement.

3. I asked for official FBI and NTSB reports not an engineers quote.

PLEASE READ POST BEFORE RESPOINDING. ALL OF TESES STATEMENT I MADE SHOW REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE OFFICIAL STORY.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

You're slicing hairs trying desperately to cling to a debunked set of theories. You aren't a certified video forensics expert, however certified video forensics experts have reviewed the video and authenticated it. Further, I showed that wreckage you claim didn't exist, was in fact, in evidence (I even showed you pictures of it) and that said wreckage was authenticated by a trained, professional engineer who then testified in front of Congress.

In fact, in the past few posts, I've shown more properly documented and cited evidence than you have in the entirety of this thread. You can continue to bury your head in the sand; you have the unimpeachable right to your own ignorance.

Another interesting omission in your "theories" is that while you're trying to claim that none of the crashes were actual aircraft, you ignore the fact that countless videos exist of the WTC crashes themselves including, but not limited to showing planes actually impacting the tower. I'm curious as to how you're trying to make the claims you are when faced with overwhelming actually evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
I showed that wreckage you claim didn't exist, was in fact, in evidence (I even showed you pictures of it) and that said wreckage was authenticated by a trained, professional engineer who then testified in front of Congress.

In fact, in the past few posts, I've shown more properly documented and cited evidence than you have in the entirety of this thread.

1. I never stated the wreakage didn't exist, please do not be immature and misquote me. The photos are not sourced and have no official FBI and NTSB reports to confim what aircraft they are from.

2. You have failed to showe official evidence or reports from the FBI or NTSB. You have shown photos with no proper sources.

I have shown evidence that shows reasonable doubt in the official story.





[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by KarmaIncarnate


Karma,

Don't waste any more effort. The information you have already provided is just fine. There are some conspiracy theorists that just simply refuse to see what is right in front of them.

Your efforts will be in vain....there is no convincing the unconvinceable. Just know that you are right....and can see the evidence as it is. Others will see conspiracy for years and years to come. The world will just pass them by...

Originally posted by Disclosed
The information you have already provided is just fine.

It might be fine for the beleivers that do not need actual facts and evidnece to believe something. (like the official story)

But for people looking for the truth it fails on all levels.

1. NO sources with the photos.

2. No frame from any of the videos released that show an AA 757.



[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well the fact that i have proven Del to be a lier and now this quote shows you and other beleivers are prejudice to anyone who offers an opposing few.

It is true. I've been known to lay about. Especially when it's warm and sunny outside. Usually with a book at a park or by the pool. I am in fact, a "lier." The claim I'm a "liar" is a little more dubious.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by _Del_]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
1. NO sources with the photos.

So, the only reason you wont accept the photos just because you cannot contact the photographer in person? The fact that it was used as evidence in a trail...that doesnt matter. You NEED to talk to them? In person?

How many civilians are normally allowed to walk around the Pentagon with cameras? Do you think it was just some kid with a camera? Maybe took it home and photoshopped in all of the debris, then released to the media?

reply to post by ULTIMA1

I beg your pardon. You are correct, you never tried to hide the fact that parts were recovered from every single crash site, parts that belong to the planes associated with those crash sites, in fact you couldn't possibly do so. You only wanted to see NIST/NTSB reports documenting that recovery. My question is, aside from trying to mince hairs and defend an otherwise indefensible topic, why is it that critical to your argument to have these pieces? It's been clearly and heavily documented everywhere that parts were recovered at each site, parts associated with the proper aircraft, in most cases the data and voice recorders (the so-called black boxes) were recovered and in the case of flight 93, played for the public. In short, there can be no denial that a plane crashed at each site (or in the case of WTC that two planes crashed) and that parts from the associated flight were recovered by the NTSB at each site. Again, this is documented all over the place, including but not limited to the evidence I provided in my post refuting your claims. The links to the images I posted were sourced in my post as well. Once is by the AP and the other is by a journalist as well. Those pictures are also in the Popular Mechanics story I linked to in case you don't believe me.

At this point, I've obliterated any possible argument you might have for reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable doubt that the planes crashed and that the planes in question are the flights indicated. Further, I have demonstrated that you have no ability to present anything even remotely similar to facts, instead you submit conjecture and hyperbole. Until you can post facts and evidence to back up your claims, I demand that you issue an apology to the people of this thread for wasting their time.

Originally posted by Disclosed
So, the only reason you wont accept the photos just because you cannot contact the photographer in person?

What photographer?

1. There is no name of a photographer for the photos.

2. There is no time and date the photos were taken.

3. There in no location of where the photos were taken.

Basic information that should be with the photos.

Otherwise i could just post a photo of plane part and say it was from the Pentagon and you guys would believe it.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
2. No frame from any of the videos released that show an AA 757.
[edit on 12-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

You are not a certified video forensic technician, therefore you have no basis to make this claim. I demand that you retract this statement immediately as it is baseless and without merit.

reply to post by Disclosed


Huh...never would have thought that the company firewall would let me through to this site. Go figure.


I have come to this realization too, Disclosed. I have posted a whole string of facts based on fluid theories that pertain to aerodynamics, but Ultima has refused to listen.

I have asked countless times for him to simply explain in his own words how the statements that he found are true, but he has refused that.

Recently, I've told him that he doesn't have to take my word for the explanations that I've posted and that he can easier do his own research of:

1. Reynolds Number
2. Flow separation
3. Prandtl's theories

Yet, he still refuses too simply because he doesn't trust me. Refusal to look up something for himself because he doesn't trust me? I think that he knows that if he does look up these long-standing (125 years!!!) facts of fluids, that his general statement of: "Wake turbulence decreases with speed" will be proven wrong.


I'll leave one major question behind that should cause doubt to his statement without any complicated theories:

If turbulence decreases as speed increases, then why is there a "wall" aircraft have to punch through at Mach 1, the speed of sound?

If Ultima's statement is correct, then early propeller airplanes should have easily been able to go supersonic in dives and early jet airplanes should have easily punched through in level flight. Yet it took a rocketplane in 1947 to break through.

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
I beg your pardon. You are correct, you never tried to hide the fact that parts were recovered from every single crash site, parts that belong to the planes associated with those crash sites,

You only wanted to see NIST/NTSB reports documenting that recovery.

1. Thanks for clearing that part up.

2. First its the FBI and NTSB reports.

Anytime a plane crash is considered a crime scene by law the FBI becomes the lead investigating agency with the NTSB provididing technical help.

The reason we need the FBI and NTSB crims sence reports is that thier reports are the only official reports that matter.

Without the FBI and NTSB reports we do not really know what happened that day.