ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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.
Reply
Old 18th April 2017, 08:25 AM   #201
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Ok, I think it was enough time for potentially interested "Skeptics" to find out for themselves which fallacy Reheat commits with his stunt. It's of course classic case Strawman. All is said about it for example starting here (see long version at the link in that post). Amusingly, Reheat described there quite accurately what he himself did in a typical case of projection, blaming one's own sins on someone else:




Nuff said.
You know it doesn't matter a lick what semantic games you people play. AA 77 hit the Pentagon. Period. Any other notions are either the rantings of a full blown lunatic, or a liar.
NoahFence 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 20th April 2017, 06:53 AM   #202
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,664
Talking

Hay, CE. Where are you? Refute the math, refute what the the witnesses said. He, He, you can't refute anything. That's why you don't reply and that why you hide in the shadows until this issue comes up later, hoping I will disappear.

I am famous for publishing that renowned piece of paper within the debunker world, but you could claim a Pulitzer prize for proving it wrong.

My chart is very clear. You need to come up with a concrete explanation for why it's wrong. You are failing miserably. Come on, rescue your reputation here. Everyone here thinks you are just another conspiracy theorists supporting a deluded theory. Why don't you prove them wrong?
__________________
[Noc]
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 20th April 2017, 08:27 PM   #203
dropzone
Master Poster
 
dropzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,032
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
I am famous for publishing that renowned piece of paper within the debunker world
So, you're as big a loser as the rest of us. Very reassuring.
dropzone 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 20th April 2017, 09:13 PM   #204
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,462
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Nuff said.
Just to let you know that American 77 had time-replacement equipment serial and part numbers that can be traced right to the aircraft that struck the Pentagon, which of course, was American 77 and only a certain number of B-757-200 aircraft were built. You cannot switch aircraft because each aircraft have their own unique fingerprints that can be used to identify a particular aircraft even between aircraft of the same model. It would take me 30 minutes to identify a switched aircraft because I know what to look for.

To claim that no aircraft struck the Pentagon when there was aircraft wreckage spread everywhere with traceable serial and part numbers is absurd especially since radar tracked American 77 to its crash site at the Pentagon. Remember, a B-757 is not a stealth aircraft and even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar.
skyeagle409 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 24th April 2017, 10:28 AM   #205
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 559
Was watching some documentaries the other night and heard an air crash investigator make an interesting statement that some truthers like CE should take a moment to ponder:

Quote:
When you look out the window of a terminal at the airport and you see a big beautiful 747--weighs 800,000 pounds and it can carry 500 people--and then you get out to an accident site and the biggest part of that airplane left is a rudder or maybe an engine.
https://youtu.be/lScLDj776C0?t=18m27s

CE--still waiting for you to respond to my post from three weeks ago re where in the video you provided you believe you can actually see the crash site in the building. A simple time stamp would suffice. Or you could just acknowledge that you cannot see it the video and you have not seen it elsewhere. It'll be a small step back towards reality, but a meaningful one.
benthamitemetric 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 1st July 2019, 09:29 AM   #206
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,267
18 years has not cured the woo

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
No, I didn't miss them, it's just that these "parts" have been documented from all angles already. Nothing new there. Together with the scrap, they easily fit into the container that's burning here:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
That's btw a typical misunderstanding of loud-mouthed but low-research "debunkers" in assessing the Pentagon situation, especially regarding the work of the CIT. If it hadn't be so obvious that no large passenger plane hit the Pentagon, this conclusive research would not have been triggered:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Conclusive? lol, CIT are idiots, that is not conclusive research, it was wild speculation based on massive ignorance in many fields. To have tunnel vision to a preconceived conclusion, and jump on failed recollection of a few witnesses is idiotic. It appears CIT had no clue where they were when they filmed some of the witnesses, who actually point to the real flight path, and mimic rocking of the wings as appears in the FDR. No big deal, I cheated, I was trained as an aircraft accident investigator, and find CIT's investigation to be a joke. CIT must of had no clue what direction the real flight path was as they filmed witnesses, and fooled you with BS.

YT evidence, big fail. Still gullible for CIT video of woo, exposing the worse investigators in history.

There were tons of debris from flight 77, and you never will have evidence to deny it. Except in a fantasy world where science is ignored.

The FDR, Radar, and DNA prove 77 impacted the Pentagon.

After 18 years, it is now your fault you can't comprehend the level of destruction of 77 due to the impact speed of 483.5 knots. With the energy of 1200 pound of TNT, 77 was destroyed at impact spreading thousand of parts along the impact path into the Pentagon, and ejecting parts around the point of impact. 77 became a kinetic energy weapon at impact. Most accident are at much slower speeds leaving much larger parts because the kinetic energy of the aircraft is around 150 pounds of TNT, 8 times less energy than the impact of 77. Why can't you do physics?

After 18 years, it is your fault you can't comprehend the damage to the Pentagon was due to 77's kinetic energy impact.

In 18 years you could have gained skills in physics/math/engineering to comprehend 77's impact. In 18 years you could have learned why people are poor witnesses and how to interpret their testimony. But you did not.

If you spent anytime going through the hundreds of Flight 77/Pentagon witnesses, you could have seen how the FDR, RADAR and DNA match their testimony, instead of forming failed conclusions you can't explain or take a stand on.
'
Why can't you comprehend the FDR, Radar, and DNA. 18 years of fantasy on your part and belief in unqualified CIT nuts who have witnesses pointing to the actual flight path of 77.

Thanks for the humous posts, as you deny reality and believe the worse investigators in history. How did they fool you into believing the FDR found in the Pentagon is fake?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 1st July 2019 at 09:42 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 1st July 2019, 01:00 PM   #207
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,802
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Conclusive? lol, CIT are idiots, that is not conclusive research, it was wild speculation based on massive ignorance in many fields. To have tunnel vision to a preconceived conclusion, and jump on failed recollection of a few witnesses is idiotic. It appears CIT had no clue where they were when they filmed some of the witnesses, who actually point to the real flight path, and mimic rocking of the wings as appears in the FDR. No big deal, I cheated, I was trained as an aircraft accident investigator, and find CIT's investigation to be a joke. CIT must of had no clue what direction the real flight path was as they filmed witnesses, and fooled you with BS.

YT evidence, big fail. Still gullible for CIT video of woo, exposing the worse investigators in history.

There were tons of debris from flight 77, and you never will have evidence to deny it. Except in a fantasy world where science is ignored.

The FDR, Radar, and DNA prove 77 impacted the Pentagon.

After 18 years, it is now your fault you can't comprehend the level of destruction of 77 due to the impact speed of 483.5 knots. With the energy of 1200 pound of TNT, 77 was destroyed at impact spreading thousand of parts along the impact path into the Pentagon, and ejecting parts around the point of impact. 77 became a kinetic energy weapon at impact. Most accident are at much slower speeds leaving much larger parts because the kinetic energy of the aircraft is around 150 pounds of TNT, 8 times less energy than the impact of 77. Why can't you do physics?

After 18 years, it is your fault you can't comprehend the damage to the Pentagon was due to 77's kinetic energy impact.

In 18 years you could have gained skills in physics/math/engineering to comprehend 77's impact. In 18 years you could have learned why people are poor witnesses and how to interpret their testimony. But you did not.

If you spent anytime going through the hundreds of Flight 77/Pentagon witnesses, you could have seen how the FDR, RADAR and DNA match their testimony, instead of forming failed conclusions you can't explain or take a stand on.
'
Why can't you comprehend the FDR, Radar, and DNA. 18 years of fantasy on your part and belief in unqualified CIT nuts who have witnesses pointing to the actual flight path of 77.

Thanks for the humous posts, as you deny reality and believe the worse investigators in history. How did they fool you into believing the FDR found in the Pentagon is fake?
The second linked video is the one where I had indicated 699' AGL(time mark 4:44) and if that altitude was in the flight path indicated by the FDR. The mark says it is physically impossible to descend to almost ground level. Not sure if that is correct, but the video indicates that the engines "would have been scrapping the concrete as it impacted the building. They are making an assumption of vertical height without providing any evidence for it. I suspect that the plane was low but not that low and hit with the engines just above the ground.

https://youtu.be/_HlUmmPBoLg

Last edited by bknight; 1st July 2019 at 01:00 PM. Reason: listed url
bknight 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 1st July 2019, 03:59 PM   #208
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,267
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
The second linked video is the one where I had indicated 699' AGL(time mark 4:44) and if that altitude was in the flight path indicated by the FDR. The mark says it is physically impossible to descend to almost ground level. Not sure if that is correct, but the video indicates that the engines "would have been scrapping the concrete as it impacted the building. They are making an assumption of vertical height without providing any evidence for it. I suspect that the plane was low but not that low and hit with the engines just above the ground.

https://youtu.be/_HlUmmPBoLg
The last Radio Altimeter reading was 4 feet, and I think that is calibrated to be 4 feet above the ground for the landing gear down. (in the KC-135 a ground symbol would rise as we landed based on our RadAlt located on the bottom of the plane - the symbol would rise to our aircraft symbol on the ADI as the main wheels touched down)

In the past someone had estimated the position between the first and second floor where 77 nose impacted. I think one engine did hit something that was on the ground, but the engine was not on the ground.

669 ASL? Sign language? Think they meant pilot talk MSL, not ASL. I guess they want it to mean above sea level, is that high or low tide (okay, bad joke). The last seconds of Radio Altimeter give a read out from the ground.

The last 7 seconds of RadAlt. Final entry 4 feet, second before 57 feet, 89 feet, 183 feet, 233 feet, 273 feet, 352 feet. The 352 foot reading is about over terrain which is 150 MSL. This means at about 6 seconds out Flight 77 was about 500 feet.

Pilots for truth idiotic lies based on ignorance did not use the FDR final four seconds, and made up an altitude, and claim there was too much G-force, and also ignored the real flight path.

The 669 MSL altitude would have occurred more than 6 seconds out. By not using the last four seconds. At about 672-669 feet MSL, 77 was about 8 seconds out descending. Thus the PFLies left out four seconds and made false assumptions. Balsamo can't do physics, math, and more.


RadAlt measures the distance the aircraft is above the ground, AGL. The Pentagon sits at 35 feet MSL or so, the surrounding terrain rises on the reverse flight path from 80 feet to 200 feet MSL for the last 8 to 10 seconds of 77's flight.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
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 1st July 2019, 07:22 PM   #209
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,802
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The last Radio Altimeter reading was 4 feet, and I think that is calibrated to be 4 feet above the ground for the landing gear down. (in the KC-135 a ground symbol would rise as we landed based on our RadAlt located on the bottom of the plane - the symbol would rise to our aircraft symbol on the ADI as the main wheels touched down)

In the past someone had estimated the position between the first and second floor where 77 nose impacted. I think one engine did hit something that was on the ground, but the engine was not on the ground.

669 ASL? Sign language? Think they meant pilot talk MSL, not ASL. I guess they want it to mean above sea level, is that high or low tide (okay, bad joke). The last seconds of Radio Altimeter give a read out from the ground.

The last 7 seconds of RadAlt. Final entry 4 feet, second before 57 feet, 89 feet, 183 feet, 233 feet, 273 feet, 352 feet. The 352 foot reading is about over terrain which is 150 MSL. This means at about 6 seconds out Flight 77 was about 500 feet.

Pilots for truth idiotic lies based on ignorance did not use the FDR final four seconds, and made up an altitude, and claim there was too much G-force, and also ignored the real flight path.

The 669 MSL altitude would have occurred more than 6 seconds out. By not using the last four seconds. At about 672-669 feet MSL, 77 was about 8 seconds out descending. Thus the PFLies left out four seconds and made false assumptions. Balsamo can't do physics, math, and more.


RadAlt measures the distance the aircraft is above the ground, AGL. The Pentagon sits at 35 feet MSL or so, the surrounding terrain rises on the reverse flight path from 80 feet to 200 feet MSL for the last 8 to 10 seconds of 77's flight.
Fat finger entry that was supposed to be 699' AGL(but with those pilots that you mentioned it could have been MSL.

ETA:
I checked the video and it does indicated ASL Go figure what that pilot organization is talking about. Not being a pilot rather leaves me me behind the learning curve.

Last edited by bknight; 1st July 2019 at 07:32 PM. Reason: Rechecked video
bknight 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 1st July 2019, 07:43 PM   #210
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,810
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Fat finger entry that was supposed to be 699' AGL(but with those pilots that you mentioned it could have been MSL.

ETA:
I checked the video and it does indicated ASL Go figure what that pilot organization is talking about. Not being a pilot rather leaves me me behind the learning curve.
Above Sea Level.
lobosrul5 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 1st July 2019, 08:12 PM   #211
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,267
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Fat finger entry that was supposed to be 699' AGL(but with those pilots that you mentioned it could have been MSL.

ETA:
I checked the video and it does indicated ASL Go figure what that pilot organization is talking about. Not being a pilot rather leaves me me behind the learning curve.
699 feet MSL would be 8 second or more out.

Pilots use AGL, above ground level, and MSL. ASL is a sign language to me. Non pilots might use Above Sea Level (ASL), or in propaganda videos trying to sell woo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
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 1st July 2019, 08:47 PM   #212
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,462
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
699 feet MSL would be 8 second or more out.

Pilots use AGL, above ground level, and MSL. ASL is a sign language to me. Non pilots might use Above Sea Level (ASL), or in propaganda videos trying to sell woo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude
I love the idea of pilots using Above Sea Level. Landing in Denver, Johannesburg or Quito might be problematic. ("Looking good, Lonnie we're still still not at 5000 feet.... oh, *****!")
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   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 1st July 2019, 10:08 PM   #213
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,267
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
I love the idea of pilots using Above Sea Level. Landing in Denver, Johannesburg or Quito might be problematic. ("Looking good, Lonnie we're still still not at 5000 feet.... oh, *****!")
You don't want to be below AGL, until the end.


We use approach plates when in the weather and we can't see the ground.
https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1907/09077IL7.PDF
We set the current local altimeter, and after intercepting the glide slope, we go down to DH, decision height, and decide to land or go around. Plus, we have the Radio Altimeter going which gives altitude above the ground.

Plus, if you are on a 737 Max, and I see the trim moving on it's own, I use the trim to keep the plane from a nose down...
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
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 2nd July 2019, 05:52 AM   #214
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,802
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The last Radio Altimeter reading was 4 feet, and I think that is calibrated to be 4 feet above the ground for the landing gear down. (in the KC-135 a ground symbol would rise as we landed based on our RadAlt located on the bottom of the plane - the symbol would rise to our aircraft symbol on the ADI as the main wheels touched down)

In the past someone had estimated the position between the first and second floor where 77 nose impacted. I think one engine did hit something that was on the ground, but the engine was not on the ground.

669 ASL? Sign language? Think they meant pilot talk MSL, not ASL. I guess they want it to mean above sea level, is that high or low tide (okay, bad joke). The last seconds of Radio Altimeter give a read out from the ground.

The last 7 seconds of RadAlt. Final entry 4 feet, second before 57 feet, 89 feet, 183 feet, 233 feet, 273 feet, 352 feet. The 352 foot reading is about over terrain which is 150 MSL. This means at about 6 seconds out Flight 77 was about 500 feet.

Pilots for truth idiotic lies based on ignorance did not use the FDR final four seconds, and made up an altitude, and claim there was too much G-force, and also ignored the real flight path.

The 669 MSL altitude would have occurred more than 6 seconds out. By not using the last four seconds. At about 672-669 feet MSL, 77 was about 8 seconds out descending. Thus the PFLies left out four seconds and made false assumptions. Balsamo can't do physics, math, and more.


RadAlt measures the distance the aircraft is above the ground, AGL. The Pentagon sits at 35 feet MSL or so, the surrounding terrain rises on the reverse flight path from 80 feet to 200 feet MSL for the last 8 to 10 seconds of 77's flight.
Part of a generator IIRC, and it was imaged to show the part missing due to the engine strike.
bknight 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

Bookmarks

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 03:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.