More Holes in 9-11 Kooker Knowsknothing's Head
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Foundations of operations management, second canadian edition 2e ritzman malhotra krajwsky solutions manual
Next: Quantum Gravity 354.3: Is Light Repulsion?
From: Iarnrod on 15 Jan 2010 13:00 On Jan 14, 2:14 pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Not one shred of "proof" that they were at the controls and the planes > were not under remote control. Yes there is. There is total incontrovertible proof. Witnesses. Phone calls. BODIES of the hijackers. PLUS the FACT that it is totally physically impossible to "remotely control" passenger jets. It cannot be done. Your theory, as usual stands on a House of Cards of dozens of physical impossibilities such as violations of the laws of physics, gravity-defying thermite, silent and invisible explosives and so on. You have less than nothing to go on here.
From: PV on 15 Jan 2010 14:09 Iarnrod <iarnrod(a)yahoo.com> writes: >PLUS the FACT that it is totally physically impossible to "remotely >control" passenger jets. It cannot be done. Your theory, as usual I think you need to amend that just a bit. It's certainly conceivable that someone, with a lot of time and effort, could rig up servos and onboard cameras to remote control any aircraft. Adam and Jamie could do it! That said, it's not what's being discussed by chewie, he has some weird idea that the planes are equipped with such a system, but it's invisible to the pilot and passengers. It's just barely conceivable that you could do that on a fly-by-wire aircraft since there's no physical connections between the controls and the surfaces of the plane, but none of these planes were fly by wire, so tough luck there. Certainly Chewie is wrong, that's what he DOES. but it's not categorically impossible to make a remote controlled aircraft. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
From: PV on 15 Jan 2010 14:19 Iarnrod <iarnrod(a)yahoo.com> writes: >you since I knew, and you didn't, that the FDR showed no opening of >the cockpit door EVER over 40 hours. You stupid dope, the null value >meant it wasn't being monitored. For you to maintain your kooker There is no "null" value. In absence of a sensor, unused inputs to the data recorder are tied to ground, to avoid chatter from a free-floating I/O pin. And grounded means "closed" in the data. Some truthers claim that every data bit would have a "open", "closed" or "unused" setting, but that's not how binary logic works. You got a one or a zero, that's it. Any "unused" value would have to be determined by determining the wiring of that particular plane. That model year didn't have a door sensor, and that's not something that was retrofitted onto planes at the time, so there's no reason to believe that the data recorder is doing anything other than what it should do - report a closed bit because the pin is grounded. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
From: Iarnrod on 15 Jan 2010 14:43 On Jan 15, 11:57 am, DanB <a...(a)some.net> wrote: > Iarnrod wrote: > > > There is, of course. Live phone calls from passengers reporting the > > hijackings. BODIES of the hijackers RECOVERED in the wreckage. > > This wreckage? > <http://grandrants.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/911_shanksville.jpg> > <http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/shankesville/shanksville16.JPG> > <http://www.nomoretyranny.org/gallery/gallery3-4.jpg> Why, yes. Why do you ask? Oh wait, youre a dope, I forgot for a moment. You seem unaware that body parts from EVERY person who was aboard Flight 93 were recovered and positively identified INCLUDING THOSE OF THE FOUR HIJACKERS. How do you even get through the day trying to feed yourself, being as stupid as you are? Try to keep up through the newspapers or something, dearie. > > There is not one single piece of evidence pointing to an inside job. > > Sounds like lawyer speak. This is how science is done. > > 'You look to falsify a hypothesis.' > > Now, in real science you do experiments as many times as needed. We > can't do that so it is a matter of looking at what evidence is available. > > Official theory, a Boeing 757-200 created the crash site in the above > photos. Proven FACT. 95% of the entire plane was recovered and a traditional reassembly was done during the investigation. Plus ALL of the passengers, crew and hijackers body parts were identified. Case closed. > Official theory, a Boeing 757-223 was nearly at level flight by the time > it passed over the clover leaf doing 800 ft/sec. Now crunch the numbers > of the required maneuver to pull this off. Done. What do you think is wrong with the maneuver? A turn? Planes turn all the time, Danny. > Official theory, a Boeing 757-223 melted into the pentagon. Look over > the photo evidence. > <http://lakeweb.com/F77/images> Melted? I am not aware of a single official theory that says a plane melted into the Pentagon. > Official theory, All the outer columns of WTC7, having a safety factor > of ~6, simultaneously failed from a fire inside the building. > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A> I am unaware that this is any part of the official findings. Youll have to bone up on reality and come back when you learn something, dearie. > Official theory, WTC1 and WTC2 failed catastrophically from rather cold > fires. Fires are not cold, Danny. > Where in any official report is the pulverization and removal of the > concrete that was in the core addressed so that the skeleton of the core > is left standing? That didnt happen, so obviously it would not be in any reality-based report. > If there is any question about the ejection of material from the > structure, take a good look. > > <http://algoxy.com/psych/images/coreblast1.jpg> Why would there be a question about a completely natural physical occurrence? What did you expect would happen in a collapse? > > FACT. > > Your fact does not make a 'truth'. I didnt claim it did. It is not my fact. What is true remains true whether you believe it or not. Your incredulity at completely normal physical laws such as gravity and how it works does not actually create a crisis in the real world of proven facts. > You can only claim it does so it is > only your opinion. Sorry but there are factual matters, not opinions. > All we know is that the official hypothesis may be true. But if it is, > why are there so many bazaar anomalies in evidence? Name one. There arent any. You have only your opinion that the facts are not the facts, but as I said, that wont change the facts.
From: DanB on 15 Jan 2010 14:52
Iarnrod wrote: > On Jan 15, 11:57 am, DanB<a...(a)some.net> wrote: >> Iarnrod wrote: >> >>> There is, of course. Live phone calls from passengers reporting the >>> hijackings. BODIES of the hijackers RECOVERED in the wreckage. >> >> This wreckage? >> <http://grandrants.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/911_shanksville.jpg> >> <http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/shankesville/shanksville16.JPG> >> <http://www.nomoretyranny.org/gallery/gallery3-4.jpg> > > Why, yes. Why do you ask? Oh wait, you�re a dope... Bzzzt. ad hominem, you loose. >>> There is not one single piece of evidence pointing to an inside job. >> >> Sounds like lawyer speak. This is how science is done. >> >> 'You look to falsify a hypothesis.' >> >> Now, in real science you do experiments as many times as needed. We >> can't do that so it is a matter of looking at what evidence is available. >> >> Official theory, a Boeing 757-200 created the crash site in the above >> photos. > > Proven FACT. 95% of the entire plane was recovered... How do you know? >> Official theory, a Boeing 757-223 was nearly at level flight by the time >> it passed over the clover leaf doing 800 ft/sec. Now crunch the numbers >> of the required maneuver to pull this off. > > Done. What do you �think� is wrong with the maneuver? A turn? Planes > turn all the time, Danny. I see you don't know what 'crunch the numbers', means... >> Official theory, a Boeing 757-223 melted into the pentagon. Look over >> the photo evidence. >> <http://lakeweb.com/F77/images> > > �Melted?� I am not aware of a single official theory that says a plane > melted into the Pentagon. Where are the wings? Did you miss the Purdue simulation? >> Official theory, All the outer columns of WTC7, having a safety factor >> of ~6, simultaneously failed from a fire inside the building. >> >> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A> > > I am unaware that this is any part of the official findings... Did you miss the video? >> Official theory, WTC1 and WTC2 failed catastrophically from rather cold >> fires. > > Fires are not cold, Danny. Those were, did you see the black smoke? >> Where in any official report is the pulverization and removal of the >> concrete that was in the core addressed so that the skeleton of the core >> is left standing? > > That didn�t happen, so obviously it would not be in any reality-based > report. Why did you remove the link that shows it? >> If there is any question about the ejection of material from the >> structure, take a good look. >> >> <http://algoxy.com/psych/images/coreblast1.jpg> > > Why would there be a question about a completely natural physical > occurrence? Your words, 'natural'... >>> FACT. >> >> Your fact does not make a 'truth'. > > I didn�t claim it did. Then why keep screaming 'FACT'. >> You can only claim it does so it is >> only your opinion. > > Sorry but there are factual matters, not opinions. No, they are your opinion. >> All we know is that the official hypothesis may be true. But if it is, >> why are there so many bazaar anomalies in evidence? > > Name one. I pointed out several. You just seem to have an agenda.... |