The Taxi Cab Challenge

posted by trebor451
Feel free to continue to make up numbers and data that match your pre-conceived conclusions. You seem to enjoy that, but don't expect anyone with any analytical or intellectual rigor to accept it.

posted by alienanderson
So you are quitting this discussion?

Aw shame, I was enjoying it

The taxi/light pole scenario is completely undefendable, and trebor451 knows it, and trebor is bailing out. The aircraft PROVEN flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo came nowhere near this light pole and trebor knows that too.

With the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY self-destructing right before their eyes, these government loyalists are getting a little leery at sticking their necks out too far.

reply to post by trebor451


Terbor, come on step up and be a man. You believe in this farce, but you
can't even spit out a logical theory?

You don't have any idea how a 20 lb. boom fell only feet away from the
base point, yet a 200+ lb pole which was bolted to the ground flew further away
with enough force to jam itself into the back seat?

Just get me one step closer to the answer please:

Do you expect the longer heavier pole which is bolted at the base to move
further than the lighter boom section?

If so, please give a clue as to how this might have happened.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by turbofan]

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by trebor451

 

Do you expect the longer heavier pole which is bolted at the base to move
further than the lighter boom section?

Don't be silly turbo, trebor won't answer your question as it does not take into account the buoyancy force which introduces a second quadratic invariant (the flux φp in addition to the energy flux εgnd) and this flux ought to be fundamental.

If I were you turbo, I would assumme that the buoyancy force variance flux φ = ∆f 2/τ (units distance2/time5) (where ∆f=g∆logθ, is the buoyancy force gradient across a layer thickness ∆z, τ is the time scale of the transfer) is dominant in the horizontal whereas at the same time, the horizontal structure is dominated by the energy flux ε = ∆v2/τ where ∆v(∆x) is a horizontal shear in the horizontal wind, and the time scale τ = ∆x/∆v.


[/sarcasm]

[edit on 6/6/2009 by alienanderson]

reply to post by turbofan


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/77ef734d0f9e.jpg[/atsimg]

The 'boom' in question is also called a truss arm and half of it is laying on the left in front of the taxi, with the lamphead positioned perfectly between it and the long main pole. Don't these Federal agents create lovely photo ops for their political campaigns? You government loyalists should be proud of them because they created a scene according to script to the best of their abilities. Unfortunately they were unwilling to come forward later and verify their work; but aww heck, nobody is perfect.

Next time hire a Hollywood stage crew if you guys want it done perfectly.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4bde21b878ba.jpg[/atsimg]

See, here on pole #4 they did a much better job propping the truss arm up on the guard rail. Practice makes perfect. Much more convincing for the sheeple isn't it?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1d2d765f5f65.jpg[/atsimg]

For Trebor, the unaswered question:

Originally posted by turbofanTerbor, come on step up and be a man. You believe in this farce, but you
can't even spit out a logical theory?

You don't have any idea how a 20 lb. boom fell only feet away from the
base point, yet a 200+ lb pole which was bolted to the ground flew further away
with enough force to jam itself into the back seat?

Do you expect the longer heavier pole which is bolted at the base to move
further than the lighter boom section?

If so, please give a clue as to how this might have happened.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1d2d765f5f65.jpg[/atsimg]

If that #4 upper pole (which was allegedly cut off the lower main pole by the aircraft wing) with the truss arm assembly still attached, came down violently on that guardrail, then why is there no visible damage?

Shouldn't there be a crimp in the aluminum tubing and corresponding damage to the guardrail where they came in contact?

Doesn't that truss arm assembly look like it was laid gently and lovingly on the guardrail by human hands?

Any comments trebor? Are you going to give the good old spook effort on turbofan's question trebor? Another truss arm expertly placed next to the lamphead; but you think normal physics from a 530 mph 90 ton aircraft would accomplish this?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/21d42279baac.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by alienanderson

Don't be silly turbo, trebor won't answer your question as it does not take into account the buoyancy force which introduces a second quadratic invariant (the flux φp in addition to the energy flux εgnd) and this flux ought to be fundamental.

If I were you turbo, I would assumme that the buoyancy force variance flux φ = ∆f 2/τ (units distance2/time5) (where ∆f=g∆logθ, is the buoyancy force gradient across a layer thickness ∆z, τ is the time scale of the transfer) is dominant in the horizontal whereas at the same time, the horizontal structure is dominated by the energy flux ε = ∆v2/τ where ∆v(∆x) is a horizontal shear in the horizontal wind, and the time scale τ = ∆x/∆v.

QFT.

posted by alienanderson

Don't be silly turbo, trebor won't answer your question as it does not take into account the buoyancy force which introduces a second quadratic invariant (the flux φp in addition to the energy flux εgnd) and this flux ought to be fundamental.

If I were you turbo, I would assumme that the buoyancy force variance flux φ = ∆f 2/τ (units distance2/time5) (where ∆f=g∆logθ, is the buoyancy force gradient across a layer thickness ∆z, τ is the time scale of the transfer) is dominant in the horizontal whereas at the same time, the horizontal structure is dominated by the energy flux ε = ∆v2/τ where ∆v(∆x) is a horizontal shear in the horizontal wind, and the time scale τ = ∆x/∆v.

posted by Seventh

QFT.

My gosh. Is that 9-11 Physics?

Only on 9-11; never ever at any other time in the entire history of the Earth?

Originally posted by turbofan
Terbor, come on step up and be a man. You believe in this farce, but you
can't even spit out a logical theory?

Yo TF! YOU are the people who are always bringing up the "Argument from Incredulity!" comment, not me.

"Logical", to you, is a relative term. It has levels of qualifications, it appears.

Logical theory? A United 757 was hijacked by Islamic terrorists who killed the pilot and flew the aircraft into the Pentagon, in the process knocking down lamp poles along Rt 27, one of which impacted an automobile as it traveled along Rt 27.

As I have mentioned time and time again, if you can categorically and without any mental reservation and with 100% certainty, with the facts of science (i.e. not a self-made cartoon), prove to me that an event such as that *can not happen* - as in can not physically happen, is physically impossible, in physic-ally impossible, then you may have something. I don't care how improbable it is, I don't care how long the odds re on something like that not happening. You need to prove to me that it simply CAN NOT happen. Your cartoon of a simulation may impress Balsamo and tezz and Preston and the others, but you might as well have Scooby Doo flying your cartoon aircraft.

As far as "logic": in this matter is concerned, based on the established track record of PfT and CIT, you have your own definition of "logical", a definition that falls more into the comedic genre than anything else. YOU are the aviators who don't understand the dissemination procedure for NOTAMS. YOU are the "aviators" who don't understand a standard, published departure from a military airfield. YOU are the "aviators" who claim "rush hour traffic" into Reagan is why an aircraft leaving Andrews would never depart on a 270 heading, even though it happens all the time. YOU are the "aviators" who have members who claim a 7X7 aircraft can't fly more than 360 knots. YOU are the "military aviators" who claim there were SAM missiles at the Pentagon that were "stood down". YOU are the "aviators" who seem to think flying an airliner along the hairy edge of P-56 is a normal and perfectly acceptable flight directive. YOU are the "aviators" who claim no aircraft hit the towers. YOU are the "aviators" who's member claims 9/11 was a false flag operation to start a war in Afghanistan so we could make money off the heroin market so we can fight aliens on the moon. YOU are the "aviators" who signed your names to an affidavit so rife with errors that it is nothing more than a joke.

And you say "I" don't have a logical explanation to this?

Straight up question. Are you aware of any aviation mishap or event that could, on a scale of comparative scale of "incredulity", match this lamp pole event? Again, regardless how improbable or how high the odds are against happening, has anything in aviation happened that could match this, in terms of "It couldn't happen therefor it didn't happen" criteria?

I await your "logical" reply.

"Trebor", answer my question. STOP answering questions with questions!

It is clear you cannot explain what you think you see.

I'll give you one more chance to answer the question about the lamp
post...we're not even getting to the taxi cab section of the argument.

I just need you to tell me/us how you expect the long section of the pole
which was bolted down, and much heavier to fly several feet, with more
velocity when the top lighter boom section and lamp fell down within a
few feet of the base point.

If you come back with garbage, and spin the question I will block you and
I would expect everyone else to do the same as you are proving to be
nothing but a troll.

Answer the question, or get ignored by everyone in this thread.

Originally posted by turbofan
If you come back with garbage, and spin the question I will block you and
I would expect everyone else to do the same as you are proving to be
nothing but a troll.

"Turbofan", please do. You and your leader Balsamo have proven that there "is" no debate in your world, no discussion, no tolerance for any thought other than what is accepted by your Leader. Your organization is a joke, "Tino".

Unfortunately, though, you do not control ATS so you can only block yourself from reading me and command your fellow PfT minions as well, which would be no great loss as far as I'm concerned.

You asked for a logical theory - I provided one. You don't like it, so you go off on this indignant rant, panties in a wad, sniffing that I am answering questions with questions, threatening to "block" me. Threatening? LOL.

Please. Block me and go off and work on your understanding of the dissemination procedure for NOTAMS and your understanding of a standard, published departure from a military airfield and your claim that "rush hour traffic" into Reagan is why an aircraft leaving Andrews would never depart on a 270 heading, even though it happens all the time and your members who claim a 7X7 aircraft can't fly more than 360 knots and your "military aviators" who claim there were SAM missiles at the Pentagon that were "stood down" and your belief that flying an airliner along the hairy edge of P-56 is a normal and perfectly acceptable flight directive and your claim that no aircraft hit the towers and your member who claims 9/11 was a false flag operation to start a war in Afghanistan so we could make money off the heroin market so we can fight aliens on the moon and your support of an affidavit so rife with errors that it is nothing more than a joke.

And block me. Please.

Originally posted by turbofan
Answer the question, or get ignored by everyone in this thread.

"Turbofan",

You almost sound like you own this thread. You almost sound like you own the other commentors. Is that true, tezz? I can see Preston in a slavish relationship here, parroting the company line regarding Lloyd England and the Pole Event and kowtowing to "Turbofan's" ministerial declarations, but do you own the others, too?

It must really torque you off by not being able to ban me like you do/did over at PfT. Not being able to shut up someone who is posting information that makes your "story" (SAM missiles? Camp Springs One? Hilarious Affidavit? Moon bases?) look like the comedy of errors joke it is.

Prove to me that the lamp pole event could never have physically happened. Prove to me that IT.IS.IMPOSSIBLE. Prove to me, without your little cartoon (I'm talking serious proof, mind you), that it could not happen in the physical world we exist in.

Prove to me that absolutely mind-blowing and mind-boggling and seemingly impossible aeronautical events that appear to defy the laws of physics and the natural law of our world can never happen and have never happened.

You can't, of course. There is always the possibility of the aircraft hitting that absolutely perfect time/attitude/altitude/place in space with the car in the absolute perfect location for all those piece parts to come together.

Prove to me.

[edit on 30-8-2009 by trebor451]

Reading comprehension is not your forte.

Mr. "Trebor" the long section of the light pole weighs more than the lamp, and/or boom.

Mr. "Trebor" the long section of the light pole was bolted to the ground.

Mr. "Trebor", physics would tell you that if an object was sliced in half
*cough*, the lighter objects which were not bolted down would move
further from their original position.

All other poles and lamps fell within a few feet of their base points leaving
no visible markings on the lawn, or guard rails.

How in your dream fantasy land can you claim that a 30+ foot section
of pole move further than the lamp/boom section?

It is physically impossible unless acted up by an external force (**cough:
like government agents planting poles, and dragging them across the
street leaving scracth marks on the road).

I'm ready to ignore you now. YOu offer nothing to this debate. No proof.
No theory. No science. Nothing.

Originally posted by turbofan
It is physically impossible unless acted up by an external force (**cough:
like government agents planting poles, and dragging them across the
street leaving scracth marks on the road).

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Well done, Tino. Come on back and re-engage when you get some cojones regarding the aviation issues in question here. And bring along that unemployed airline "pilot" you call your boss. He needs a break from raising money for his basement "office"

reply to post by trebor451


There's no need to discuss the aviation issues, you can't even get past
the basics of the light pole.

Aerodynamics is way above you.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by trebor451

 

There's no need to discuss the aviation issues, you can't even get past
the basics of the light pole.

Aerodynamics is way above you.

I though you *blocked* me.

Besides...*you* are the one who claims this is impossible with nothing more than your Scooby-driven cartoon of a simulation.

The difference between us is that I don't pretend to understand every element of aerodynamics. I do know, though, from experience and from research, that funky and unbelievable things can and do happen to aircraft and as a result, the light pole incident could very well have happened. If it could have happened, I see no reason why it did not happen given the circumstances.

Will you *please* block me now?

Alright everyone, please ignore and block "Trebor".

This is his way of saying, "I can't answer the simple question, yet I still believe...
so block me and spare me the trouble of trying to explain the impossible."

The difference between someone that wants to learn and someone who is
here to spin the truth is:

- Those who want to learn will ask questions and will follow logic. They will
come to US to ask questions.

- Those who are here to twist words, avoid questions are not here to
find out the truth. They cannot even carry a debate. Their sole purpose
is to cover the truth.

Please ignore these people. YOu will not change their mind. EVER. They
are just here to get under your skin, and confuse honest researchers.

Do yourselves a favour and forget they are here. Just continue to spread
the word and teach others what the MSM continues to hide.

Originally posted by trebor451
As I have mentioned time and time again, if you can categorically and without any mental reservation and with 100% certainty, with the facts of science (i.e. not a self-made cartoon), prove to me that an event such as that *can not happen* - as in can not physically happen, is physically impossible, in physic-ally impossible, then you may have something.

Casual readers to the thread will note that trebor is not able to understand and use Logic 101.

trebor, a self alleged 25 year veteran working for the DoD is clearly trying to mislead all of you, as proven by his above quote.

Casual readers, trebor has no evidence that Flight AA77 hit the light pole. None. Ask him what evidence that he has and watch him squirm, avoid, misdirect and deceive you into thinking that he has.

Continue to ask trebor to present his official government evidence that shows how Flight AA77 hit the light pole and he will not be able to answer you.

Remember, trebor clearly does not understand logic, for when he was asked to prove what happened with the light pole and the taxi, this is the best response that trebor could offer:

Originally posted by trebor451
I don't have to "prove" it because it happened.

trebor continues to embarrass himself in this thread. Why? Who knows/cares. He's never once proven how Flight AA77 hit the light pole.

Originally posted by turbofan
- Those who want to learn will ask questions and will follow logic. They will
come to US to ask questions.

Really. What you mean is you hope they will follow your logic. The logic of Balsamo. The logic of Ranke. The logic of Gallop. The logic of Lear. The "watch my simulation" logic of Turbofan/Tino.

Those who would follow that sort of logic are headed straight for where they belong and where they feel safest - in an environment where they are told what to think and where their lack of critical thinking skills are not missed, nor are they desired.

And reading here how indignant you seem to have gotten over a thread in an "online discussion forum" when you claim you have prima facie evidence of one of the worst mass murders in world history - and you are here on an Internet chat board, getting all bent out of shape and huffy and puffy and "I'm going to block you!!!' and "I'm going to get EVERYONE to block you!!!" and all. THAT is why anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together cannot and will never take you people seriously.

That and your Scooby Simulation. See ya at the trials!

Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by trebor451
As I have mentioned time and time again, if you can categorically and without any mental reservation and with 100% certainty, with the facts of science (i.e. not a self-made cartoon), prove to me that an event such as that *can not happen* - as in can not physically happen, is physically impossible, in physic-ally impossible, then you may have something.

So.....I guess the answer is no, you can't categorically and without ant mental reservation and with 100% certainty....

Meaning the event could have happened, which is step 1 in educating you and your team on this matter.

Because, the canard that this "can't" happen is crucial to your story (which, if of course crucial to DVD sales and tee-shirt sales and ball cap sales). The whole CIT/PfT shtick falls apart if the lamp pole event is shown to be plausible.

Ergo, if the lamp pole event is proven to be plausible, the north of the gas station theory falls apart, online stores shut down, arguments become moot and there is no reason to hang out on Internet chat/discussion boards any longer.

Casual readers to the thread will note that trebor is not able to understand and use Logic 101.

Intelligent readers will note that in Australia it appears "Logic 101" is turned upside down. I am being asked to prove an event - an event that has already occurred, mind you - umm.....occurred.

That is logic? PfT/CIT logic, no doubt.

The fact that you a) do not want this event to have happened, b) do not want to believe that it *could* have happened, c) discount any of the factors that make up this event, d) call the main character of this event a liar, e) accuse him of being in on it and f) are unable to prove that it *could not have happened*

Simply refusing to acknowledge something occurred as proof it *didn't* occur is akin to a child putting their fingers in their ears and yelling so it can't hear the parent telling them it is bed time. Cute image, and the child-like element of it matches this whole thread of discussion - that being one of the the Worst Mass Murders of All Time....being argued on an Internet discussion board. Woo hoo!!! Keep your Supreme Court! Keep your MSM news briefings! Keep all your silly affidavits! It doesn't GET any better than ATS!

trebor, a self alleged 25 year veteran working for the DoD is clearly trying to mislead all of you, as proven by his above quote.

I'm not trying to mislead anyone. Most people are smart enough to make up their own minds. Those who aren't deserve to be led around by people like Balsamo and Tino. This is a sideline to me, tezz. This is the *Internet( for cripes sake. This is an *Internet discussion board*. You people act like this is the end of days.

Continue to ask trebor to present his official government evidence that shows how Flight AA77 hit the light pole and he will not be able to answer you.

Can I ask why it is important there need be "official government evidence" in this matter? To impress *you*? Balsamo? Tino???? Please. You people don't matter to anyone. PfT and CIT and all on your team are jokes. I'm here for entertainment and you people provide it.

He's never once proven how Flight AA77 hit the light pole.

And I never will - because i don't have to, I don't need to and I don't care to. Why should I when we have Turbo's Sooper Scooby Simulation (!) (trademarked) to *prove* to the world what happened?

[edit on 31-8-2009 by trebor451]