Jet engine sim for testing 9/11 planes

page: 56
1
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Why would they need to match more?

What you're asking for is a ridiculous level of confirmation. See my previous post for an example.


You may be happy with what you have but i am looking for facts and evidence, 1 part is not enough when there was lots of parts and debris at the Pentagon.

Sorry if my standards are a little higher then yours.




posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Large Quanity = majority.


A find it ironic that you often insult the intelligence and reading comprehension of other posters.




Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash,



This does not state the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed outside of the building in the initial explosion. Only that the fuel burned quickly, which everyone has agreed on.
I believe the official statement was roughly a third of the fuel was burned consumed in the initial fireball outside the building. Do we have to dredge these things over and over again because you think a third is a majority?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

You may be happy with what you have but i am looking for facts and evidence, 1 part is not enough when there was lots of parts and debris at the Pentagon.

Sorry if my standards are a little higher then yours.



So then you're aware that the FDR has been proven to have been found at the Pentagon, and that the serial number mathes the FDR that belonged to 77. And that the flight data shows no contradictions. And all these statements are from official sources that you said you would accept as true. Good.


We have a second confirmation. The DNA evidence that matched the people on the planes. This was reported from an official sources, and reported in an official document, which is also a source that you said you would accept as true.

So then you are aware that contrary to some of your previous statements, there's definitely NOT "no evidence to support the official story". And that further use of this claim would be knowingly repeating a falsehood and should be considered a T&C violation?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
We have a second confirmation. The DNA evidence that matched the people on the planes.


Well you should know that DNA evidence did match the people on the plane BUT there is no evidence that the people from the plane were in the Pentagon or Towers or at PA.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


ULTIMA, thank you (?) I think, for answering???

You snipped a piece out of my question, yet failed to thoroughly respond to my entire question.

Oh, wait! Your answer was "We don't know" the answer.

Did I get that correctly??

Here's what I think you said, as an 'answer'. "We don't know" what hit the Pentagon. This is the basis for your debates, here on ATS. If you are finding true, verifiable 'cracks in the armor' of the 'official' story, then please provide solid, verifiable evidence....not just guesses and innuendo.

You have an audience, here, who are looking for solid, solid stuff to bite into. We are ready, willing, and able to jump onboard, if it is undeniable. In the meantime....it is all whitewash, IMO.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well you should know that DNA evidence did match the people on the plane BUT there is no evidence that the people from the plane were in the Pentagon or Towers or at PA.



The official reports, which you said you would accept as true, state that they are from the Pen, or the towers, or PA. They are qualified to make this decision. You are not.

But it's good to see that you now realize that 77 is definitely confirmed to be the plane that hit the Pentagon, since the official report, which you said that you would accept as true, has id'd the FDR as being from 77 and was found at the Pentagon.


Hopefully, you are also now aware that your previous statements that "there is no evidence to support the official story" is also a false one since you now accept the FDR evidence, and that further claiming that "there is no evidence to support the official story" would be knowingly repeating a falsehood, which would be a T&C violation and could result in a banning.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
If you are finding true, verifiable 'cracks in the armor' of the 'official' story, then please provide solid, verifiable evidence....not just guesses and innuendo.


So far the only people posting guesses and innuendo are the people the believe that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

They have posted no actaul evidence or official reports that AA77 hit the Pentagon.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Again, what a beautiful dodge and weave maneuver!!! Answer the darn question, please!



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Answer the darn question, please!


I have answered the question, its not my fault if it does not fit into your theory of what happened.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1Funny though how the FDR is the only part that has been identified as being from AA77 but the data does not match the official story.


Of course it dont match the official story, it's not accurate enaugh without a GPS-track (this 757 didn't have gps input).

On the other hand you conspiracy heads have been (mis)using the DFDR data as the truth of God when it comes to supporting your vesion of how this happend.

And without any real system knowledge or understanding of how the systems works you have crashed and burned more than once.


[edit on 7-6-2008 by SickSoul]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SickSoul
On the other hand you conspiracy heads have been (mis)using the DFDR data as the truth of God when it comes to supporting your vesion of how this happend.


Since when is looking for the truth a conspiracy?

How am i (mis)using the data?

[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
How am i (mis)using the data?



I welcome all attempts to discredit the FDR recording because every attempt that fails acts to solidify it. All efforts thus far have failed to prove it's anything other than genuine but please keep trying until all avenues are exhausted.

It's stronger evidence than a part number off a wheel or anything else found on site.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
It's stronger evidence than a part number off a wheel or anything else found on site.


Which brings up the question, why has no other part at the site been matched to AA77?

Would you believe the FDR was in questoin if i post enough sources from pilots and other specialiast that question it?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Which brings up the question, why has no other part at the site been matched to AA77?


Do you have any proof or inside information that no recovered parts match AA77 or that any individual part absolutely could not have come from AA77?



Would you believe the FDR was in questoin if i post enough sources from pilots and other specialiast that question it?


Please show what you consider to be data contradictory to AA77 and I'll see what I think of it IE if there's a rational explanation for any discrepancies. The flight path and altitude questions already have reasonable & rational explanations so I'm hoping you have something I haven't yet seen that can't be explained in terms of AA77 striking the Pentagon and limitations of the recording technology.

You still haven't commented on my estimate of the effect of pitch and altitude on the jet blast experienced by vehicles as AA77 flew over them.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
You still haven't commented on my estimate of the effect of pitch and altitude on the jet blast experienced by vehicles as AA77 flew over them.


As you have stated its an estimate, any sources to support your estimate?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As you have stated its an estimate, any sources to support your estimate?



Do you need sources for elementary trigonometry?

A basic education should provide enough grounding to understand the principles involved and I didn't use anything more advanced than the theories of Pythagoras. A better estimate of the spreading angle of the main blast would help if you have a better figure than the 20' one you gave me much earlier of course.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
A basic education should provide enough grounding to understand the principles involved and I didn't use anything more advanced than the theories of Pythagoras.


So does that mean you cannot post any sources to support your estimate?



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


My sources are your linked jet engine simulator, your estimate of the spread of high turbulence behind a jet engine, witness statements about the degree of blast they felt in their cars, height of the plane above the carriageway as evidenced by the damaged light poles and the negative pitch as described by witnesses + recorded by the DFDR although, as I showed earlier, that part of the flight was not actually recorded and the last readable frame of recorded data was from over 2000' prior to it crossing the road.

That's why I ask if you have any better figures I could use particularly in relation to AA77's RB211 turbines.

You must have better data to come to a different conclusion than I have unless you're agreeing that the degree of turbulence witnesses felt fits the low altitude crossing of a descending aircraft at high speed.

In fact it's still unclear what you're trying to show in this thread but it's looking like a pretty good case for an aircraft hitting the Pentagon so far.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


I can see Ultima's answer being:

"We don't know what hit the Pentagon because the FBI hasn't released all the information yet"

and

"It's not [AA Flight 77] because we don't have any serial numbers"

It's nice that he's asking questions, but I'm kind of getting tired of seeing the same canned response to the specific questions we ask him. No real response to address our questions to him, just a blanket statement that doesn't really solve anything.

Though I am curious as to why he's arguing so passionately in this thread that a large aircraft passed over the witnesses he says, but then says that no large aircraft could have been involved at the Pentagon.

I mean all this in no ill-terms. I just want to see some progressive reasoning instead of the same stuff over and over.

[edit on 9-6-2008 by HLR53K]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by HLR53K
 


HLR....you've asked a good question there. I am hoping to draw out more specific info from ULTIMA as well. 'canned responses'.....perfect description.

This concept of 'Serial Numbers' seems to be a red herring, IMO. The DFDR and CVR have already been identified as belonging to the correct airframe, the airframe that was AAL 77.

I, and others, have noted that as to landing gear wheels, there are no specific SNs assigned to them, just Part Numbers. There would be SNs on the instruments, the electronics in the E&E compartment, etc. Doubt very much those small labels, one or two inches in length, would have survived the impact and fires. The major airframe components, aluminum fuselage sections, etc, would not be labeled with a SN. Other components .... hydraulic pumps, actuators....fuel pumps, accumulators....possibly, but again, how would those placards still be readable?

BTW...had a thought, not for this particular thread, but food for the mind to chew on...at the WTC a huge debunking claim is the 'wrong' engine was found. Not sure I've EVER SEEN anyone mention the APU in the B767. It is very, very similar in size to the B737 core SNEMCA engine....could this be the source of this 'conspiracy theory', as relates to the WTC??





top topics
 
1
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join