IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags aa77

Reply
Old 14th March 2008, 03:07 PM   #41
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
It's honestly absurd. I've calculated it before that a 30 foot per second descent across those 5 frames as we see them would be about 1 pixel difference in the original image. 1 extra pixel.

The idea that those 5 frames mean it's at 0fps is so seriously absurd that it makes my head hurt.

If the truthers actually cared about the truth, they'd sit down and -demonstrate- that these absurd assumptions of theirs were even remotely equal to reality.

Here's the math, by the way:
For there to be a 1-degree descent across that image... 1-degree away from horizontal... it'd be tangent(1-degree)*850 feet per second = 14 ft/second.

0-degree slope across the image = 0 fps descent
1-degree slope across the image = 14 fps descent
2-degree slope across the image = 30 fps descent
5-degree slope across the image = 74 fps descent

So will one of you truthers tell me how you've decided that the plane was flying 0 degrees.. horizontal... in stead of... 2 degrees down.. from those 5 images. Someone please tell me how you can determine 0-degrees is right, and 2-degrees is wrong, from those 5 frames.

I've repeated this so many times that I'm this close to making an image for you guys so I can paste it. I'll draw a 0-degree line and then a 2-degree line, and ask you to tell me why you believe the 0 is right and the 2 is wrong.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire

Last edited by Anti-sophist; 14th March 2008 at 03:16 PM.
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 03:10 PM   #42
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
What TC fails to understand is that to us the FDR is one small piece of evidence and the conclusions we make along with the scientists are based on assessing ALL the evidence. As opposed to PFT who cherry pick only data that will support their already decided conclusions. When it doesn't support those conclusions it's just dismissed.

Not much unlike the unavoidable results that are the result of the conclusions they do make which they dismiss because those results leave 1000 times more holes than the theories they try to point out as having holes.
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 03:14 PM   #43
AMTMAN
Muse
 
AMTMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
That is exactly correct and far from "idiotic". Well, i dont feel a 757 could do it. Im not alone. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html. The list grows regularly.

.
Since in your opinion it could not have been a 757 then what was it?

As for the list growing regularly what you have is an extremely small group beliveing in the fantasy put forth by PfT. Nothing more.
__________________
You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. Swing Dangler commenting on the air phones issue

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door.... A-Train on "potential" exits on a 767.
AMTMAN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 03:29 PM   #44
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
Couldn't take it anymore...



Now, can one of you truthers _PLEASE_ explain to me why 0 feet per second is the correct final vertical velocity? PLEASE give me a reason to think that -30 fps is utterly impossible give the above image. I'm not seeing it. It doesn't make _any_ sense to me at all.

Maybe my math is wrong. Maybe I screwed up the angles. But can one of you, for the love of all that is right and holy in the world, _please_ come up with a reasonable estimate range of the descent and stop pretending that 0.000000 fps is the only possible interpretation of the above evidence.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire

Last edited by Anti-sophist; 14th March 2008 at 03:34 PM.
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 03:46 PM   #45
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,652
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I'm curious of the claim that the descent rate needs to be arrested at all. Given that the aircraft hit at about ground level (and according to some witnesses, part of it hit the ground just before impact) and given that it clearly was not at ground level immediately prior to hitting the Pentagon (otherwise it, well, would have crashed before the Pentagon) it goes without saying that the aircraft was in a descent at the time of impact.


While a final descent rate off 0 is probably not an accurate description of what really happened, it is a lower bound we can work with, and as Myriad has shown, even with that absurdly favourable assumption, the PfT calculations are still wrong, and the plane would have been entirely able to make this maneuver. So with the more reasonable assumption that the plane was still descending at some non-zero rate, their claims are even more unlikely.

Not that they'll ever admit it. "Velocity, acceleration, what's the difference?"
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 04:06 PM   #46
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I'm curious of the claim that the descent rate needs to be arrested at all. Given that the aircraft hit at about ground level (and according to some witnesses, part of it hit the ground just before impact) and given that it clearly was not at ground level immediately prior to hitting the Pentagon (otherwise it, well, would have crashed before the Pentagon) it goes without saying that the aircraft was in a descent at the time of impact.
Yes, the descent rate did have to change over the last 3/4 mile (4 seconds), *if* the plane flew over the VDOT tower.

The rate from the tower to the first pole would have averaged 80 ft/s, the rate from the light pole to the Pentagon wall was about 20 ft/s.
__________________
Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 04:10 PM   #47
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Do JREFers condone other JREfers deleting their post content when proven their numbers do not add up to the govt story? The FDR positional data has been shown using JREFers own claims.


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread335956/pg1

Im sure this thread will now disappear into the abyss since we have shown in your own words that your claims still do not add up to the govt story. Some JREFers even delete their own posts.

So, which JREFers condone such action?

Last edited by TC329; 14th March 2008 at 04:28 PM. Reason: broken link & typo
TC329 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 04:17 PM   #48
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
there goes TC ignoring that P4t has been shown to be faulty. deleted? please. when someone makes a correction in their calculations, they do so, so that their calculatiosn are correct. unlike the fraud Rob who continues to post faulty math.
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 04:18 PM   #49
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Anti-sophist View Post
It's honestly absurd. I've calculated it before that a 30 foot per second descent across those 5 frames as we see them would be about 1 pixel difference in the original image. 1 extra pixel.

The idea that those 5 frames mean it's at 0fps is so seriously absurd that it makes my head hurt.

If the truthers actually cared about the truth, they'd sit down and -demonstrate- that these absurd assumptions of theirs were even remotely equal to reality.

Here's the math, by the way:
For there to be a 1-degree descent across that image... 1-degree away from horizontal... it'd be tangent(1-degree)*850 feet per second = 14 ft/second.

0-degree slope across the image = 0 fps descent
1-degree slope across the image = 14 fps descent
2-degree slope across the image = 30 fps descent
5-degree slope across the image = 74 fps descent

So will one of you truthers tell me how you've decided that the plane was flying 0 degrees.. horizontal... in stead of... 2 degrees down.. from those 5 images. Someone please tell me how you can determine 0-degrees is right, and 2-degrees is wrong, from those 5 frames.

I've repeated this so many times that I'm this close to making an image for you guys so I can paste it. I'll draw a 0-degree line and then a 2-degree line, and ask you to tell me why you believe the 0 is right and the 2 is wrong.


The absurdity of this argument is compounded by the fact that the aircraft only appears in one frame. We do not know if the camera is level, or even what the "level" line is in the frame, we cannot determine the approach angle of the aircraft in the single frame it appears, and we do not have an additional frame of the aircraft from which to determine a change in approach angle.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 04:20 PM   #50
AMTMAN
Muse
 
AMTMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Do JREFers condone other JREfers deleting their post content when proven their numbers do not add up to the govt story? The FDR positional data has been shown using JREFers own claims.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//...howtopic=10905
Im sure this thread will now disappear into the abyss since we have shown in your own words that your claims still do not add up to the govt story. Some JREFers even delete their own posts.

So, which JREFers condone such action?
I'm sorry but all PfT does is post fiction and lies.

If what they say seems so important to you why is it that all they do is sell cheap DVD's and troll message boards?
__________________
You of course would forget that the original burden of proof falls upon truthers. Swing Dangler commenting on the air phones issue

Here is a diagram of a Boeing 767. I see numerous potential exit points. For example, the Nose Gear Door.... A-Train on "potential" exits on a 767.
AMTMAN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 04:31 PM   #51
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
there goes TC ignoring that P4t has been shown to be faulty. deleted? please. when someone makes a correction in their calculations, they do so, so that their calculatiosn are correct. unlike the fraud Rob who continues to post faulty math.
Only problem is that JREFers never "corrected" anything. They just keep spouting the same thing which still doesnt add up to the govt story. Click the link to see for yourself. Others have.. and others do.

By the way, Why are R Mackey's numbers so much different from Myriads? You also may want to tell R Mackey to add 1 G for earths gravity. R Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's starting at the VDOT antenna to the pentagon. You people contradict each other and dont even realize it.
TC329 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 05:02 PM   #52
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Yeah it's those JREFers spouting the same thing that doesn't add up over and over. As opposed to PFT. What? The FDR again? How many years has this been going on?
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 05:02 PM   #53
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Only problem is that JREFers never "corrected" anything. They just keep spouting the same thing which still doesnt add up to the govt story. Click the link to see for yourself. Others have.. and others do.

By the way, Why are R Mackey's numbers so much different from Myriads? You also may want to tell R Mackey to add 1 G for earths gravity. R Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's starting at the VDOT antenna to the pentagon. You people contradict each other and dont even realize it.
3.2 vs 3.49 is "so much different"?
They started with different assumptions. Ryan did a curve fit to the available data, Myriad did a straight linear derivation.
Not much different at all.
BTW, "Pentagon" is a proper noun, and don't and doesn't are contractions. The apostrophe is that little key over by "Enter"
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 06:13 PM   #54
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post

Darn, I'm not a "player."

I suppose it makes sense. I'm not a pilot, a veteran, or a NASA engineer. I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. All I did was pay attention in High School math class (that's "maths" for all you people who append an "s" to the word "math").

Quote:
Im sure this thread will now disappear into the abyss since we have shown in your own words that your claims still do not add up to the govt story.

The most likely way to make this thread disappear would be to derail it into discussion of old long-resolved FDR issues. So, we can judge who wants the thread to disappear by who brings up old long-resolved FDR issues.

I'd kind of like to keep it around, so that all the work I put into correcting the high school mathss that Rob Balsamo got wrong won't go to waste. So, I hope other members will refrain from discussing FDR issues with you on this thread. (However, the FDR thread has been bumped for your convenience.)

Speaking of that math, do you still stand by Rob's conclusion that a plane descending at 75 fps from an altitude of 80 feet, that begins pulling 11.4 G's at that point, would descend another 35 feet in 1.3 seconds? Because when I apply the formula for the positioning of an accelerating object:

altitude = altitude(initial) + v(initial)t + 1/2at^2
where
altitude(initial) = 80 feet
v(initial) = 75 fps
a = 333 feet/second-second (32 fps * 10.4)

...Then the altitude and vertical velocity over time does this:

seconds --- alt (ft) --- rate of descent (fps) (negative = ascent)
0.0 --- 80 --- 75
0.1 --- 74 --- 47
0.2 --- 72 --- 13 <--- about to level off above 71 ft. still way above impact height
0.3 --- 72 --- -20 <--- plane has already leveled off and started climbing
0.4 --- 77 --- -53
0.5 --- 84 --- -87 <--- plane is now higher than it started at t=0
0.6 --- 95 --- -120
0.7 --- 109 --- -153 <--- plane is now higher than the Pentagon roof
0.8 --- 127 --- -187
0.9 --- 147 --- -220
1.0 --- 172 --- -253
1.1 --- 199 --- -287
1.2 --- 230 --- -320
1.3 --- 264 --- -353

At .24 seconds the plane has leveled off. At that time it reaches an altitude of just over 71.5 feet, which is less than 8.5 feet lower than it started at t=0. Clearly, that is a far more extreme maneuver than what is needed just to avoid going below 40 or 45 feet. Rob Balsamo is claiming that this trajectory is somehow also the minimum necessary to avoid running into the ground. This is what told me, even before I looked for them, that there had to be errors in his calculations.

Now, here's what happens when you use my figure of 3.2 Gs, starting from the same conditions:

altitude(initial) = 80 feet
v(initial) = 75 fps
a = 70.4 feet/second-second (32 fps * 2.2)

seconds --- alt (ft) --- rate of descent (fps) (negative = ascent)
0.0 --- 80 --- 75
0.1 --- 73 --- 68
0.2 --- 66 --- 61
0.3 --- 61 --- 54
0.4 --- 56 --- 47
0.5 --- 51 --- 40
0.6 --- 48 --- 33
0.7 --- 45 --- 26
0.8 --- 43 --- 19
0.9 --- 41 --- 12
1.0 --- 40 --- 5
1.1 --- 40 --- -2 <--- plane is now level with impact point
1.2 --- 41 --- -9
1.3 --- 42 --- -16

See? My results make sense when you perform the simple test of putting those results into effect and calculating what would happen. Rob's don't.

Even if I were wrong about where and why his calculations are wrong (and I am not), this is absolute proof that they are in fact wrong.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 14th March 2008 at 06:14 PM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 07:01 PM   #55
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
TC329 say what you want, agree or not, but what you CAN'T say is that the folks here haven't addressed in detail your OP
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

Last edited by twinstead; 14th March 2008 at 07:02 PM.
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 07:12 PM   #56
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
TC329 say what you want, agree or not, but what you CAN'T say is that the folks here haven't addressed in detail your OP
At this point, the attempts at education must be judged futile and all we can do is watch in fascinated horror as the freight train, despite all heiwa logic, somehow does not maintain its course as he stands beneath the bridge he has blown...
Ignorance is not a sin, nor is it something to be ashamed of--unless you maintain it in the face of overwhelming reality. At that point it becomes stupidity, and while it is to an extent pitiable, we need to let nature take her course.
Darwin will win...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 07:48 PM   #57
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,652
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Do JREFers condone other JREfers deleting their post content when proven their numbers do not add up to the govt story? The FDR positional data has been shown using JREFers own claims.

So, which JREFers condone such action?

Do PfTers condone other PfTers lying?

So, which PfTers condone such action?



Quote:
Beachnut is their star "FDR Expert"

Not even close, not even when he tries a pathetic attempt to explain why this isn't a blatant lie.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 08:23 PM   #58
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,693
Quote:
Beachnut is their star "FDR Expert"
I don't believe Beachnut claims this. This statement implies that there is an "FDR Expert" at the pilot loon site. That is a big fat joke.

The ONLY true FDR experts at extracting and interpreting the data are at the NTSB and perhaps the manufacturers.

I find it amusing that they tout their consultation with Ed Santana (a salesman) as their evidence of "proven" FDR performance. As AS has indicated there is no guarantee that it will perform as advertised when slammed into a blast resistant reinforced wall at 500+ mph.

The pilot loon site has no clue where the aircraft is in it's flight path using the data they have, they are simply guessing to support their theory and touting it as data supplied by the NTSB as if the NTSB endorses their intrepretations. It's about as much proof of an InSiDe JoOb as is CIT's claims of a flyover. Both are as valid as a.....

Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2008, 09:32 PM   #59
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Only problem is that JREFers never "corrected" anything. They just keep spouting the same thing which still doesnt add up to the govt story. Click the link to see for yourself. Others have.. and others do.

By the way, Why are R Mackey's numbers so much different from Myriads? You also may want to tell R Mackey to add 1 G for earths gravity. R Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's starting at the VDOT antenna to the pentagon. You people contradict each other and dont even realize it.
The reason our numbers are slightly different is because we used different assumptions. I in fact provided two different numbers -- according to your ignorance, I am therefore disagreeing with myself. However, had you actually read the posts, you would have been able to understand.

Both of our derivations are reasonable solutions to the problem, using your measurements. All are well within the performance limits of the aircraft.

In addition to being a ridiculous hypothesis, Mr. Balsamo couldn't even get the mathematics right. These are very basic, first-semester Physics concepts, so it absolutely boggles the mind that someone so scientifically inept (and you, who follow him) could still be attempting to salvage some kind of face from this trainwreck. Let me reiterate:
  • You provided your measurements of aircraft position
  • You said that proved the flight path was impossible
  • Your calculations were wrong
  • Those measurements are, in fact, quite reasonable
  • You still fail to understand our explanations
Game, set, match, go home.

Two other points: Whether or not you add 1 g depends on what you're trying to do. I computed the true acceleration of the aircraft, whereas Myriad computed the actual g-loading. It's very simple to go from one to the other, and it was inherently clear what my numbers were from the text. Either add one, or don't, depending on what you're calculating. Both are perfectly reasonable. I'd be equally justified in castigating you for not using meters, but you'll notice I didn't do that.

And finally, your posts here appear to be a conduit for previously banned posters, in specific Mr. Balsamo. I doubt the moderators would look kindly on such behavior. I would much prefer you stay around and at least have a chance of learning something rather than being booted out, so please, avoid giving this impression in your future posts. Thanks.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 07:39 AM   #60
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Thank you for your replies.

R Mackey has the aircraft pulling 3.49 G's from the VDOT antenna to the pentagon

Myriad has the aircraft at 1 G from the VDOT antenna to pole 1 and then pulling 3.2 G's from pole 1 to the pentagon.

R Mackey numbers make more sense. However, very different requirements from what the FDR shows. Same with Myriad numbers.

When told JREFer G requirements do not appear in the FDR data, Anti-Sophist drops in for his usual "Debunked" speech.

Anti-Sophist says there is up to "2 seconds missing" - He was shown his own words do not add up to the govt story.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=337
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=341
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0&postcount=43


When confronted with FDR data, Anti-Sophist drops a link to the above thread (as do many of his "colleagues" at JREF) and yells "Debunked!".. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that his own words place the aircraft too high.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//...showtopic=4801

Anti-Sophist is unable to address Radar Altitude and passes it off to Beachnut.


Beachnut has claimed the aircraft is 2600, 2800, 3000, and 3000+ feet from the wall when the data ended. He claims this is why the altitude shows too high. His claimed distance is based on 1.5 DME from DCA VOR. He keeps changing distance due to the fact each position is still too high if data terminated at each point. When shown the altitude is still too high quoting his own words at those points, he goes back and deletes his post/claims.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...=102924&page=3 (starts at post 102)

Video presentation based on 1.5 DME
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...67311585730947


Beachnut impersonates the NTSB leaving his typical debate style comment - "Pilots For 9/11 Stupid". Its possible it wasnt Beachnut, but the signature is there.

R Mackey's or Myriads numbers do not show up in the FDR data at all. The last second of data shows less than 1 G. Myriad and R Mackey both require more than 3 G's sustained over a period of time. Mackeys requiring more time based on speed (VDOT to Pentagon). Some may make the excuse that the FDR is missing data (as seen above from Anti-Sophist and Beachnut), yet the NTSB themselves have refused to explain "time missing" and in fact say they want everything "as accurate as possible when providing information through the FOIA". They account for the clock annotation error and Autopilot MCP errors. They do not account for any other possible errors or "time missing".

The NTSB produces this type of information on a regular basis. They show vertical accel recorded up till time of "impact" in which they calculated based on FDR, Radar and ATC transcripts.This data shows less than 1 G. The fact that the vertical accel was recorded up till time of "impact" as calculated by the NTSB is consistent with claims made by the manufacturer, ED-55 and TSO-124.

Since it was mentioned in this thread, the FDR recovery and location are also in question.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/location_2.html

It would be interesting to see R Mackey plug in the numbers based on NTSB plotted altitude at VDOT Antenna (699 MSL), last data sample (480 MSL) and Radar Altitude (273+135= 408 MSL) in place of VDOT Antenna height.

With that said, we do thank R Mackey and Myriad for your time critically analyzing the math and we will be re-checking our calculations and revise the article if required. The english police can save their criticism for your regulars on this board. The rest, feel free to continue the ad homs.

Regards

D
TC329 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 07:52 AM   #61
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
TC329 Yea, you go back and check those calculations. I realize that declaring yourself wrong and abandoning your untenable position will never happen even if you ARE indeed wrong, but you'll know inside.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 08:13 AM   #62
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,693
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
It would be interesting to see R Mackey plug in the numbers based on NTSB plotted altitude at VDOT Antenna (699 MSL), last data sample (480 MSL) and Radar Altitude (273+135= 408 MSL) in place of VDOT Antenna height.
Hi Robbie,

It's going to be real difficult to recover your "lost face" based upon your distinct lack of judgment and deplorable math skills in miscalculating the numbers YOU PROVIDED.

In a continued attempt to deceive the DUMB who lurk here, and in a weak attempt to recover you now wrongly label the raw data as "NTSB plotted altitude at VDOT Antenna". THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. It is data you (and your drones) extracted and you (and your drones) interpreted. No matter how much you attempt to spin, you don't know the location of the aircraft, nor it's exact flight path other than in it's final second or so when it impacted the Pentagon and that is based upon the Purdue analysis of the damage path. To use that report as the basis for the FDR numbers means that you are accepting that the aircraft indeed struck the Pentagon. You have no clue exactly where it is near the VDOT antenna. In that you accept the damage path report you do a wonderful job of self debunking your fantasy to prove that the aircraft did indeed strike the Pentagon as the FACTUAL PHYSICAL evidence shows.

Keep up the good work!

Last edited by Reheat; 15th March 2008 at 08:15 AM.
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 08:28 AM   #63
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
TC329 posts
Quote:
The vertical accelration is 75 fps.
Has anyone stundied that refutation of Newtonian physics yet?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 08:51 AM   #64
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Based on this topography combined with the height of the VDOT Antenna protruding into the reported flight path of American 77, it is aerodynamically and physically impossible for this aircraft to have performed the way the government would have us believe.
Top of VDOT Height = 304 MSL (above sea level)
Top of Pole 1 height = 80 MSL

Difference = 224 feet descent required.

Distance between VDOT - Pole 1 = 2400 feet

2400/Speed 781 feet per second (according to Flight Data Recorder) = 3 seconds

Conclusion = Impossible for any transport category aircraft to descend from top of VDOT Antenna to top of pole 1 and pull level to "impact hole" as reported by the government story and seen in the DoD "5 Frames Video". 11.2 G's was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 G's would rip the aircraft apart.
Myriad stated something like this above but it bears repeating

starting +75fps downward velocity with an upward acelleration of -10 g(10 X 32 =320 f/s2 ) and with a time of 3 seconds ( 11 g minus the gravity component for the resultant acelleration on the aircraft)

D= (75)(3) - 0.5(320)(3)2
D= 1215 feet in the direction of the upwards acelleration.
Thus is the plane started at 304 feet MSL and underwent a poistive acelleration of 10 g's then it would be at a height of over 1500 feet MSL in 3 seconds.

Therefore since what we wanted to do was calculate the acelleration the plane actually underwent in order to end up in the Pentagon there is something very wrong with the calulations since they will put the plane 1400+ feet above the place where the plane is said to have gone.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 09:41 AM   #65
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
TC has just been copy/pasting various responses from other people onto this site. I'm not really in the mood arguing by proxy with the same 2 or 3 people who prefer to make death threats rather than correct the glaring errors in their math. I don't really care about Rob's tired copy/pasted argument about how much data is missing from the FDR. The evidence is overwhelming. Rob is in denial.

We made a new thread to deal with his antenna math, not re-argue about the FDR end point. We pointed out the numerous flaws. We've recieved 0 corrections, only subject changes. This thread is about how you are wrong about your silly antenna math. Please stop trying to derail it.

Let me spell it out for you: Your antenna math has been proven wrong. You've set up an absurd mental scenario and still proceeded to screw up the math. Changing the subject doesn't doesn't the fact that your math is wrong. Fix it. This is the _second_ time you've made an absurd post full of bogus and awful math, been proven wrong, and decided to change the subject to the same tired argument you've already lost.

It seriously easier to get a death threat out of you then get you to fix your own awful analysis when glaring errors have been pointed out.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire

Last edited by Anti-sophist; 15th March 2008 at 09:47 AM.
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 10:14 AM   #66
Hornit
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 96
Looks like a poster by the name of "AirlinePilot" over at 9/11 blogger is arguing with Rob about this very topic!! Excellent!
Hornit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 10:22 AM   #67
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
he's been reported for it at least 2 times.
This is about reality, not a data lag.

Edit:
Sorry--that was in reply to anti-sophlist...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

Last edited by rwguinn; 15th March 2008 at 10:22 AM.
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 10:27 AM   #68
Hornit
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 96
The position information is even more of a problem for them. The wingspan of a 757 is 124' 10". In order for the aircraft to miss the tower it only has to be 63' to one side or the other. This tower has no guide wires so the accuracy of the position has to be known to some fairly accurate degree. Anyone know in here if that aircraft had a GPS tweaked INS or not? I'm type rated in the 757 and know that Delta's do not have that capability, even today. I doubt that American had this capability then either. Knowing the exact ground track within 63 feet is not likely given the technology used or the radar path and calibration.

In my mind this destroys any debate about the tower from the start.
Hornit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 10:42 AM   #69
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,693
Originally Posted by Hornit View Post
Anyone know in here if that aircraft had a GPS tweaked INS or not? I'm type rated in the 757 and know that Delta's do not have that capability, even today. I doubt that American had this capability then either. Knowing the exact ground track within 63 feet is not likely given the technology used or the radar path and calibration.

In my mind this destroys any debate about the tower from the start.
The FDR data in the last frames they (pft loons) have shows the INS position about 19 miles or so from the Pentagon, so apparently it was not tweaked.

AMTMAN works for AA, so perhaps he knows for sure what was installed in 2001.
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 10:56 AM   #70
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Hi Robbie,

It's going to be real difficult to recover your "lost face" based upon your distinct lack of judgment and deplorable math skills in miscalculating the numbers YOU PROVIDED.

In a continued attempt to deceive the DUMB who lurk here, and in a weak attempt to recover you now wrongly label the raw data as "NTSB plotted altitude at VDOT Antenna". THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. It is data you (and your drones) extracted and you (and your drones) interpreted. No matter how much you attempt to spin, you don't know the location of the aircraft, nor it's exact flight path other than in it's final second or so when it impacted the Pentagon and that is based upon the Purdue analysis of the damage path. To use that report as the basis for the FDR numbers means that you are accepting that the aircraft indeed struck the Pentagon. You have no clue exactly where it is near the VDOT antenna. In that you accept the damage path report you do a wonderful job of self debunking your fantasy to prove that the aircraft did indeed strike the Pentagon as the FACTUAL PHYSICAL evidence shows.

Keep up the good work!

Thank you for your insightful post and civil demeanor Reheat.
Please state the altitude in the below linked animation abeam the VDOT Antenna as plotted and produced by the NTSB. Please do not forget to correct for local pressure.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

If you believe the above animation plotted and produced by the NTSB is in error, why are you as a former airman, allowing and making excuses for the NTSB to provide error filled information through the FOIA to the American general public when the NTSB in fact states "[they} want everything as accurate as possible when providing information via FOIA" and have not corrected for any errors you and your colleagues have claimed?

Dont forget to check the new additions. http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.

Let us know when you want to join or perhaps even put your name on your claims.
TC329 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 10:58 AM   #71
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Oh look, the NTSB video that they claim is not meant for any kind of accurate representation, but simply for demonstration purposes. This is what you are using to make calculations within feet right?
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 11:03 AM   #72
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Thank you for your reply Anti-Sophist.

However, our math doesnt change the fact that the math of your colleagues does not support what is in the FDR data at a lower altitude than the FDR data. If they use altitudes as reported in the FDR data, their calculations will further conflict vertical acceleration as provided by the NTSB.

So I guess the question remains why doesn't Mackey & Myriad use the altitudes reported in the FDR data?

I know you know the answer to that question but please take a moment and answer it for the rest of the class for they are uninformed on this issue.

Personally I would like to see the 2 use the altitudes reported in the FDR data.


Since you have argued on this thread regarding "massive time errors", we have addressed it. It appears you do not want to argue that point any longer. I can see why when even your own link you drop while yelling "debunked" does not support the govt story.

Regards
TC329 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 11:22 AM   #73
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,693
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
........ http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0
............................
Hi Robbie,

You answer with a cartoon. It's already Sat afternoon, I watched cartoons this morning.

You're trying to put the thread thru Mammoth Cave rather than a needle and it's not going to work.

Why do you continue to avoid discussion of the numbers you provided when this all started. Cat got Robbie's tongue?

Are you any better with the FDR based math than the VDOT antenna based math?
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 11:29 AM   #74
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,106
Originally Posted by TC329 View Post
Thank you for your replies.

Beachnut has claimed the aircraft is 2600, 2800, 3000, and 3000+ feet from the wall when the data ended. He claims this is why the altitude shows too high. His claimed distance is based on 1.5 DME from DCA VOR. He keeps changing distance due to the fact each position is still too high if data terminated at each point. When shown the altitude is still too high quoting his own words at those points, he goes back and deletes his post/claims.

Video presentation based on 1.5 DME

Beachnut impersonates the NTSB leaving his typical debate style comment - "Pilots For 9/11 Stupid". Its possible it wasnt Beachnut, but the signature is there.

NTSB is consistent with claims made by the manufacturer, ED-55 and TSO-124.

Regards

D
You do not know where the FDR stopped. If the RADAR ALT is correct, the data stopped over 2800 or more (MORE) feet from the Pentagon. By data stopped, that could mean it was not stored on the chip, not that the data was not in the FDR system! (system, the FDR is made up of many items, and compresses the data to save space on the 1991 CHIP in the FDR, that was not required to meet the standards you can't produce.)

p4t are not rational about the Pentagon, and make up stuff blaming many unknown bad guys in the Air Force, FAA, FBI, and DoD for making the Pentagon blow up. They, p4t, lack the knowledge and ability to live in the real world on 9/11 topics.

Your research is so shallow, you do not back up anything you posted about flight 77 with facts; you have not proven how high the poles, or towers are. Your work is not referenced to anything but bad math. Bad math.

Real bad physics. But par for p4t (learn what acceleration and velocity are) lol

When will you post the standards you keep taking about? Rob should give the copy of the standard, ED-55; was the installed FDR covered by the ED-55 which TSO-124 said earlier FDR did not have to meet? Why are you guys so research challenged? You should look up all the stuff first before you make up false stories and try to mislead others. And the math you guys do will be math class examples of why you should pay attention in math class! No wonder jdx has failed to get the simple ATP FAA rating.

The tower is not 305 feet MSL, it is 92.6 feet MSL. Funny stuff p4t, jdx; FAILURE. Boone looked it up; more research in one day than 9/11 truth in 6 years! LOL p4t are not very good at this stuff.

Last edited by beachnut; 15th March 2008 at 11:43 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 11:36 AM   #75
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Let's knock off the FDR stuff. That's a derail, the twoofer standard policy when they have had their heads handed to them.
This is about numbers and "because I feel TC329's original post raised a new claim that hasn't been discussed in detail here before"
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 11:45 AM   #76
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,607
I remember seeing somewhere (perhaps here) a picture of a mark on the VDOT mast which possibly might have been made by AA77. Does anyone else remember this pic, and if so was the mark confirmed to be made by AA77? It might be possible to get a better idea of the plane's actual altitude if it nicked the antenna mast going by.
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 11:57 AM   #77
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Let's knock off the FDR stuff. That's a derail, the twoofer standard policy when they have had their heads handed to them.
This is about numbers and "because I feel TC329's original post raised a new claim that hasn't been discussed in detail here before"
i disagree that its a derail, if you go by the premises laid out in the OP

Quote:
(1) Flight 77's path took it over the 169ft VDOT antenna;
(2) Flight 77 therefore had to sustain a 4480fpm descent rate to strike the lightpoles on Washington Blvd.
(3) To arrest this descent prior to striking the Pentagon would require a 30.1G pullout (note that the website referred to does not assert this, rather it claims 11.2G)
(4) This is unsustainable by the airframe.
the first premise is dependent on interpreting the FDR data, and without it the entire claim falls apart, you could discuss the other 3 premises, but that would require assiming the first is accurate

persoanlly i no problem assuming something is true for the purposes of discussion, but others might not want to do that, thus discussion of how the FDR data is interpreted is relevant
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 12:00 PM   #78
TC329
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,453
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You do not know where the FDR stopped. If the RADAR ALT is correct, the data stopped over 2800 or more (MORE) feet from the Pentagon. By data stopped, that could mean it was not stored on the chip, not that the data was not in the FDR system! (system, the FDR is made up of many items, and compresses the data to save space on the 1991 CHIP in the FDR, that was not required to meet the standards you can't produce.)

p4t are not rational about the Pentagon, and make up stuff blaming many unknown bad guys in the Air Force, FAA, FBI, and DoD for making the Pentagon blow up. They, p4t, lack the knowledge and ability to live in the real world on 9/11 topics.

Your research is so shallow, you do not back up anything you posted about flight 77 with facts; you have not proven how high the poles, or towers are. Your work is not referenced to anything but bad math. Bad math.

Real bad physics. But par for p4t (learn what acceleration and velocity are) lol

When will you post the standards you keep taking about? Rob should give the copy of the standard, ED-55; was the installed FDR covered by the ED-55 which TSO-124 said earlier FDR did not have to meet? Why are you guys so research challenged? You should look up all the stuff first before you make up false stories and try to mislead others. And the math you guys do will be math class examples of why you should pay attention in math class! No wonder jdx has failed to get the simple ATP FAA rating.

The tower is not 305 feet MSL, it is 92.6 feet MSL. Funny stuff p4t, jdx; FAILURE. Boone looked it up; more research in one day than 9/11 truth in 6 years! LOL p4t are not very good at this stuff.
Your argument from incredulity noted Beachnut. Thank you. The data had to have stopped 2800 feet or more becuase you believe AA77 hit the pentagon. We understand.

Why did the NTSB not stop the data at a point more than 2800 feet away? Why did the NTSB report impact time as 09:37:45 with vertical acceleration recorded up to that point if you say all this data was recorded more than 2800 feet away? Why are they working for the NTSB and you are accumulating almost 7000 posts on JREF making excuses for the govt story and trolling the web attacking people you think are nuts? Say it Beachy, the NTSB provides "junk" data.. right? Just like P4T is junk. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

Thanks again for your replies.

By the way "Reheat". The animation reconstruction produced by the NTSB based on what they claim is the Flight Data Recorder information from AA77 is not a "cartoon". But your evasiveness to report the altitude plotted by the NTSB (which you claimed the "dumb" P4T plotted), noted.

Regards.
TC329 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 12:05 PM   #79
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
TC329, I need your strict attention.

If you want to talk about flight paths consistent with FDR data, you need to present that data.

You didn't do that. You presented altitude data referenced to ground obstacles. You made a hypothesis based on those obstacles, and you screwed it up royally.

If you want to talk about FDR data, bring some FDR data. But don't complain that my numbers don't work with the FDR data. You set the ground rules. Now you're changing them.

I have no problem showing you how any combination of evidence can be met with a realistic flight path. But you can't hide evidence and claim it doesn't work. That's just stupid.

So far, we've established only two things. First, that there are MANY flight paths that work with the obstacles on the ground -- and given this wide range, there's no reason to doubt one or more solutions also agree with the FDR data. And second, you guys fail at basic Newtonian dynamics. You're in no position to even guess about what happened until you correct this problem.

We can help, but if and only if you're willing to learn.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 15th March 2008 at 12:06 PM.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th March 2008, 12:06 PM   #80
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
 
Anti-sophist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,542
This thread is about the flawed math of your obstacles calculation. Not the FDR. You've already lost that argument. Data analysis is only as good as the analyzer. You guys can't even solve basic Newtonian physics problems.

Please stick to the topic.
__________________
A witty saying proves nothing. -Voltaire

Last edited by Anti-sophist; 15th March 2008 at 12:08 PM.
Anti-sophist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.