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.
Reply
Old 8th July 2011, 12:31 PM   #241
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I forget, is Lloyd England ;
-an 'agent' himself
-threatened into agreeing to be part of a vast conspiracy
-paid off to be part of a vast conspiracy
and what is the evidence of any of the above other than the CiT's personal speculation?
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Aaawww you guys aren't taking this seriously.

Since Lloyd England's complicity is a subject in the CiT scenario of the events surrounding the Pentagon on Sept 11/01, and since CE is the resident adherent and thus most expert in the CiT take on things , perhaps CE would address my above post.
Specifically what evidence there is of Lloyd's complicity other than the unsupported speculations of the CiT.
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
It's called pluralis majestatis, peasant. At least that's what we want you to believe.
Could I request that the Royal we respond to this humble peasant's query Empress?

I'm not back until Monday so no rush.
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 11th July 2011, 09:01 AM   #242
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
I first posted my query on July 5. Is the question more difficult than I had envisioned?
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 12th July 2011, 10:48 AM   #243
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
OK, I went through pages and pages of other threads here concerning the Pentagon and Lloyd and still cannot find a CiT or CiT adherent telling me what exactly they believe that Mr. England is.

Well other than Turbofan outright calling Lloyd a "liar".
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 13th July 2011, 06:24 AM   #244
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
OK, I went through pages and pages of other threads here concerning the Pentagon and Lloyd and still cannot find a CiT or CiT adherent telling me what exactly they believe that Mr. England is.

Well other than Turbofan outright calling Lloyd a "liar".
So he's a liar yet they base their theory on his story.
tsig 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 13th July 2011, 08:23 AM   #245
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
OK, I went through pages and pages of other threads here concerning the Pentagon and Lloyd and still cannot find a CiT or CiT adherent telling me what exactly they believe that Mr. England is.

Well other than Turbofan outright calling Lloyd a "liar".
He is a NWO brainwashed operative. I know you have watched Bourne Identity. Kinda like that
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR 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 13th July 2011, 11:09 AM   #246
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
He is a NWO brainwashed operative. I know you have watched Bourne Identity. Kinda like that
He was ripped of then. He does not seem to have hooked up with a hot babe.
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 13th July 2011, 11:33 AM   #247
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
He was ripped of then. He does not seem to have hooked up with a hot babe.
Jason blew it when he dumped Nicky.




__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 18th July 2011, 07:39 AM   #248
RKOwens4
Thinker
 
RKOwens4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by BobHaulk View Post
I've a mate who flies the 9/11 conspiracy flag. He claims this math proves to him that there is something wrong with the official story

"once again i must insist you show your sums - F=MA in relation to lamposts at pentagon (I could use any no of anomalous events contradicting the laws of physics) F = 80000kg (mass of 767) x 154 ms (official speed of planes) so F = 12320000 N or 2,769,646.178992 lbs So a force of over 2 million pounds occurs 5 times to parts of a flimsy Aluminium air frame and it flies on - no damage. Im sure you ll want to correct me if i have made an error."

He claims there are plenty of things that happened on 9/11 that goes against the laws of physics. He won't come here to debate so i'm wondering what seasoned debunkers think of this.
Okay I see there are 7 pages of replies so this has probably already been stated, but it's sad that the guy uses the equation F=ma (which reads, Force equals mass times acceleration) but then goes on to make two huge blunders proving that he doesn't understand this equation at all (and then a third embarassing mistake just to top it off). First, for the mass of the airplane, he uses the sum of 80,000 kg. This is the plane's WEIGHT, not its mass. Weight is mass times the acceleration of gravity, so its mass would be somewhere around 8,200 kg. His second blunder was for the other part of the right hand side of the equation: the a (acceleration). He simply plugs in the plane's VELOCITY (its speed), not its acceleration. A plane can be travelling at 600mph but if it's at a constant speed, its acceleration is zero. I believe that Flight 77 WAS accelerating, but surely not 150 m/s^2. And, his third embarassing mistake that just tops off his stupidity is when he says that Flight 77 was a Boeing 767. It was actually a Boeing 757.

I don't claim to be a physicist, but I did have to take several upper level physics classes for my civil engineering degree and F=ma is like high school physics. Lastly, when the plane's wings clipped the poles, its nose was less than a half a second away from hitting the side of the Pentagon (maybe even a quarter or an eighth of a second). So even if the poles had caused damage to the wings (which they probably did), the plane still would have crashed into the Pentagon!
__________________
"It's amazing, amazing, that with all the access to accurate information, that people could be so pathetically uninformed." -CNN's Jack Cafferty

Last edited by RKOwens4; 18th July 2011 at 07:44 AM.
RKOwens4 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 18th July 2011, 08:02 AM   #249
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by RKOwens4 View Post
First, for the mass of the airplane, he uses the sum of 80,000 kg. This is the plane's WEIGHT, not its mass. Weight is mass times the acceleration of gravity, so its mass would be somewhere around 8,200 kg.
Look, I'm sorry to have to do this, but it's only fair: I have to nominate that for a Stundie. The plane's mass is quite reasonable at 80,000kg - Wikipedia gives values around 60,000kg for an empty 757 and around 120,000kg at maximum takeoff weight. Its weight is not expressible in kg because kg is a measure of mass, not force, but the force due to gravity on 80,000kg is about 785,000 Newtons. Console yourself with the knowledge that debunker Stundies are so extremely rare.

Dave

ETA: Of course, multiplying the plane's mass by its velocity to get a force is quite stupid, but not as stupid as the later post where he claimed that the calculation was valid.
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 18th July 2011 at 08:05 AM.
Dave Rogers 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 18th July 2011, 04:11 PM   #250
RKOwens4
Thinker
 
RKOwens4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Look, I'm sorry to have to do this, but it's only fair: I have to nominate that for a Stundie. The plane's mass is quite reasonable at 80,000kg - Wikipedia gives values around 60,000kg for an empty 757 and around 120,000kg at maximum takeoff weight. Its weight is not expressible in kg because kg is a measure of mass, not force, but the force due to gravity on 80,000kg is about 785,000 Newtons. Console yourself with the knowledge that debunker Stundies are so extremely rare.

Dave

ETA: Of course, multiplying the plane's mass by its velocity to get a force is quite stupid, but not as stupid as the later post where he claimed that the calculation was valid.
A quick check on Wikipedia's Boeing 767 page had its WEIGHT as about 80,000 kg. Not mass. And yes, as soon as I saw that, I noticed that it had the incorrect unit of kg which should have been N and figured this was a minor mistake on Wikipedia's part. Well whoever updated that section did make a mistake, but it was in posting the MASS under WEIGHT, rather than an error in newtons/kg. Yes, the mass is around 80,000 kg. My mistake was in getting the weight from Wikipedia.
__________________
"It's amazing, amazing, that with all the access to accurate information, that people could be so pathetically uninformed." -CNN's Jack Cafferty

Last edited by RKOwens4; 18th July 2011 at 04:19 PM.
RKOwens4 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 19th July 2011, 02:00 AM   #251
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by RKOwens4 View Post
A quick check on Wikipedia's Boeing 767 page had its WEIGHT as about 80,000 kg. Not mass.
Yes, but it's a very common usage, though incorrect, to express weight as a value in kilogrammes equal to the mass. It's acceptable as long as it's understood to be shorthand for "80,000kg x 1g", which is pretty much universally the case.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers 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 19th July 2011, 12:55 PM   #252
RKOwens4
Thinker
 
RKOwens4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Yes, but it's a very common usage, though incorrect, to express weight as a value in kilogrammes equal to the mass. It's acceptable as long as it's understood to be shorthand for "80,000kg x 1g", which is pretty much universally the case.

Dave
That's news to me (I'm American). But, I've worked literally thousands if not tens of thousands of homework/classwork/exam problems using the metric system and kilograms/newtons and not once did I see weight expressed in kilograms. I just figured the person who updated the Wikipedia page mistakenly wrote kg instead of n, as it was listed under the heading "weight". But, whatever, rest of the guy's claim was still totally wrong.
__________________
"It's amazing, amazing, that with all the access to accurate information, that people could be so pathetically uninformed." -CNN's Jack Cafferty
RKOwens4 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 19th July 2011, 02:18 PM   #253
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by RKOwens4 View Post
That's news to me (I'm American). But, I've worked literally thousands if not tens of thousands of homework/classwork/exam problems using the metric system and kilograms/newtons and not once did I see weight expressed in kilograms. I just figured the person who updated the Wikipedia page mistakenly wrote kg instead of n, as it was listed under the heading "weight".
Perhaps NIST can help reslove the issue.

Quote:
In science and technology, the weight of a body in a particular reference frame is defined as the force that gives the body an acceleration equal to the local acceleration of free fall in that reference frame [4: ISO 80000-4]. Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight defined in this way is the newton (N). When the reference frame is a celestial object, Earth for example, the weight of a body is commonly called the local force of gravity on the body.

Example: The local force of gravity on a copper sphere of mass 10 kg located on the surface of the Earth, which is its weight at that location, is approximately 98 N.

Note: The local force of gravity on a body, that is, its weight, consists of the resultant of all the gravitational forces acting on the body and the local centrifugal force due to the rotation of the celestial object. The effect of atmospheric buoyancy is usually excluded, and thus the weight of a body is generally the local force of gravity on the body in vacuum.

In commercial and everyday use, and especially in common parlance, weight is usually used as a synonym for mass. Thus the SI unit of the quantity weight used in this sense is the kilogram (kg) and the verb “to weigh” means “to determine the mass of” or “to have a mass of.”

Examples: the child’s weight is 23 kg the briefcase weighs 6 kg Net wt. 227 g


Inasmuch as NIST is a scientific and technical organization, the word “weight” used in the everyday sense (that is, to mean mass) should appear only occasionally in NIST publications; the word “mass” should be used instead. In any case, in order to avoid confusion, whenever the word “weight” is used, it should be made clear which meaning is intended.
Originally Posted by RKOwens4 View Post
But, whatever, rest of the guy's claim was still totally wrong.
An understatement
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

Last edited by BCR; 19th July 2011 at 02:26 PM.
BCR 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 July 2011, 02:33 AM   #254
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by RKOwens4 View Post
But, whatever, rest of the guy's claim was still totally wrong.
Agreed. And laughably so.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers 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 01:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.