[Merged]Various emails - pomeroo and Morgan Reyolds

[pomeroo]

Morgan Reynolds has sent me another e-mail. He ran away from our e-mail debate when confronted with the reality of thousands of eyewitnesses to the crash of Flight 175. Now, he and Ace are mounting another assault on reason. Here are excerpts, and I assume that I have his permission to post them, as the last time we debated this idiocy, he professed interest in the comments of JREFers (my reply to Ace follows Reynolds's ravings):

(Reynolds wrote)
Go to content, Ace? Perish the thought. Let's debate blurry, grainy internet videos instead. Especially those showing physically impossible events. Hello? Reason? Anyone out there?

Gee, where am I wrong here:
http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt.htm. I welcome your reasoned critiques. I've received nada (that means "nothing" y'all up north).
An aluminum plane vs. a hell-strong steel-framed tower, 110-stories tall, built hell-strong because, well, like it was not placed in an Iowa corn field, now was it? Any fall-downs or collapses would be frowned upon by the ptb. In fact, Mr. Rockefeller had this whole thing rammed through, remember? Heard of him? Int'l banker and all that stuff?
The towers were award-winning structures with concrete-steel-reinforced, steel truss-supported steel floor pans, and a lousy aluminum plane is gonna slam into their lateral edges, without a damned glitch? And the plane has no problems, not a wing tip, flap or panel mussed? Oh yeah! Just lubricates itself right on through. Uh, huh, I say, uh, uh ha. I flew an Airbus 319 (Boeing 737 size) in October and about 40% of the way out on the wing (before half-way from the fuselage) was the printed message 4X: "Do not walk beyond this point." You mean a 200-lb. man might damage that "ultra-strong" wing? Hmmmm...
Oh, for your next reality check, please try this on for size:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=had_a_car_crash

__________________________

(Ron wrote to Ace baker)

Ace,

Part of your problem--a small part, sad to say-- is that you don't live in
New York City. You rely strictly on videos and imagine that everybody else
does as well. But people who actually watched Flight 175 hit the South Tower
carry in their brains indelible memories of an event that they, as
observers, participated in. I recognize that you cannot allow yourself to
confront this reality as it destroys your fantasy, but you can't make it
less real by closing your eyes and wishing very hard.
"Shrinker" and other regulars on the JREF who work in video analysis have
attempted, with no success, to explain why your attempts to demonstrate your
preposterous thesis keep failing: you lack access to the materials that
would permit the sort of analysis you want to conduct. Despite our
arguments, I find you likable and not unintelligent. As "Shrinker" has
commented, however, you know just enough to get yourself into trouble. You
fancy yourself an expert in a field where the professionals know much more
than you do. Given that you aren't stupid, your inability to learn anything
from people who have painstakingly explained these matters to you over and
over suggests some sort of pathology. My purpose here is not to be unkind,
but to spark the faintest glimmer of self-doubt in your mind.

The last time we had this silly discussion, I cited the wife of one of my
best friends. She and her co-workers watched the plane hit the South Tower
from their 21st floor office windows on East 39 Street. Her group consisted
of seven or eight people. She points out that the windows on that side of
the building were crowded with people staring at the WTC complex. What was
happening in her office, in other words, was happening in every office high
enough to have an unobstructed view of downtown Manhattan. How many people
in her building alone do you suppose were staring at the Towers? Two
hundred? Three hundred? Four hundred? Now, we're talking about a SINGLE
BUILDING. In how many buildings across Manhattan was this scene replicated?
How about the people in Brooklyn Heights, across the river, who were
watching the Towers from their rooftops, as were my then-girlfriend's
neighbors? How about other neighborhoods within a mile or two of the
disaster? Think, Ace--think! How many THOUSANDS of people watched this
historic event unfold in front of their eyes?

Arlene, my friend's wife, asks a very straightforward question: She wants to
know how your deception is intended to work. Do you propose to persuade her
and her co-workers that they did not see the plane they all remember seeing?
Will you pretend that they are members of your imaginary conspiracy?
Seriously, how do you simply vanish thousands of witnesses?

Perhaps none of this is getting through. Let me turn it over to Arlene:
"Ace, I wasn't watching the TV. I WAS LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW. I < SAW >
A PLANE HIT THE SOUTH TOWER. WE < ALL >
< SAW > THE PLANE.

Please, Ace, you must end this surreal sideshow about videos and respond to
real people who SAW a real plane.

Ron
Ron, I have merged all these threads. Please keep your communications with Morgan Reynolds and Ace Baker contained in one thread.

[The Doc]

Ron, I must say that I admire your persistence with these loons. An interesting read indeed, and thanks for posting it here :)

[JamesB]

Uhh Morgan, the reason nobody has critiqued your paper is not because it is completely solid...

[pomeroo]

Ron, I must say that I admire your persistence with these loons. An interesting read indeed, and thanks for posting it here :)


I confess that something makes me want to help Ace Baker. Morgan Reynolds baffles me. Here's a professor of economics who outside his field is, well, what he is.

[uk_dave]

Uhh Morgan, the reason nobody has critiqued your paper is not because it is completely solid...

....it's because it's only visible to.....'special' people.

[T.A.M.]

TV-Fakery/CGI proponents are simply not worth your time Ron. Exposing them does little, as they have little following, and are regarded as fringe lunatics by their own movement.

TAM:)

[AMTMAN]

Morgan Reynolds has sent me another e-mail. He ran away from our e-mail debate when confronted with the reality of thousands of eyewitnesses to the crash of Flight 175. Now, he and Ace are mounting another assault on reason. Here are excerpts, and I assume that I have his permission to post them, as the last time we debated this idiocy, he professed interest in the comments of JREFers (my reply to Ace follows Reynolds's ravings):

(Reynolds wrote)
Go to content, Ace? Perish the thought. Let's debate blurry, grainy internet videos instead. Especially those showing physically impossible events. Hello? Reason? Anyone out there?

Gee, where am I wrong here:
http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt.htm. I welcome your reasoned critiques. I've received nada (that means "nothing" y'all up north).
An aluminum plane vs. a hell-strong steel-framed tower, 110-stories tall, built hell-strong because, well, like it was not placed in an Iowa corn field, now was it? Any fall-downs or collapses would be frowned upon by the ptb. In fact, Mr. Rockefeller had this whole thing rammed through, remember? Heard of him? Int'l banker and all that stuff?
The towers were award-winning structures with concrete-steel-reinforced, steel truss-supported steel floor pans, and a lousy aluminum plane is gonna slam into their lateral edges, without a damned glitch? And the plane has no problems, not a wing tip, flap or panel mussed? Oh yeah! Just lubricates itself right on through. Uh, huh, I say, uh, uh ha. I flew an Airbus 319 (Boeing 737 size) in October and about 40% of the way out on the wing (before half-way from the fuselage) was the printed message 4X: "Do not walk beyond this point." You mean a 200-lb. man might damage that "ultra-strong" wing? Hmmmm...
Oh, for your next reality check, please try this on for size:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=had_a_car_crash

__________________________



How do you reason with the unreasonable? Using his logic as I have said so many times before it should be impossible for something like a bird to damage or even cause an aircraft to crash. After all, a bird is a collection of organs, hollow bones, and feathers. An aircaft on the other hand is much more sturdy.

< http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80113 >

And I wonder what qualifies Mr. Reynolds as to identifying aircraft engines? If you ask me he's just like David Ray Griffin. Another pompous ex-college professor who thinks he's smarter than everyone else, even in subjects he has no expertise in.

[AMTMAN]

Mr. Reynolds might also want to look into the B-25 that slammed into the side of the Empire State Building. Its weight was a fraction of the 767's used on 9-11. It was going much slower than Flight 11 and 175. Even in a dive it wouldn't even get close to the cruise speed of a 767. And it hit a building that was built much stronger than the WTC. Using his "logic" at most that aircraft should have left a couple burn marks on the side of the ESB.

[pomeroo]

Here is a collection of e-mails from Ace Baker to me and Frank Greening. I don't post these to mock Ace. I would sincerely appreciate any advice on helping him to confront his demons. The messages below were written by him after he received the e-mail I posted in the OP. He simply refuses to acknowledge that thousands of people observed a plane fly into the South Tower. I am grappling with a deep-rooted pathology and I don't know what to try. This is scary stuff.

Ron,

I can appreciate your frustration and fear as no media professionals
are are willing to defend the plane theory. Must be lonely.
"Shrinker" is an anonymous internet poster. He could be anyone as far
as I know. If he/she/it wants to answer the questions, they await.

Shrinker told me that broadcast quality copies of 9/11 videos were
available through normal archive. This was a despicable lie.

If any of your media friends are willing to come out from under their
slimy rocks, and actually weigh in, let me know. Until then victory
is mine.

Answer the questions.

http://911planequestions.blogspot.com/ (http://911planequestions.blogspot.com/)

-a

Ron,

I've created a blog which asks the questions and provides some
relevant reference material.

Go ahead and post a message to the JREF perps, and tell them to
answer the questions. The blog is here:

>> http://911planequestions.blogspot.com/ (http://911planequestions.blogspot.com/)

Serious answers only please. I don't think there are good answers to
the questions, because I don't think there were any planes at the
WTC. If there were planes, there would be good answers. But if there
are, then post the answers.

-Ace Baker

Frank,

My position is that the the 9/11 videos are completely authentic,
except they have airplanes compostied into them. Other than that,
they are authentic videos of real events.

I maintain that no flying objects of any sort hit the twin towers.
Some no-planers think there were missiles, I reject that for several
reasons.

1. It makes the job of video compositing much more difficult, and
impossible in real time.
2. I don't think the perps would ever risk having some other object
than a 767 fly though the air to be videotaped.
3 The crash physics are absent. This is a problem for any flying
object. In particular, address question #5 if you think it was a
disguised missile, or any flying object.

The ghostplane video simply does not resemble a plane crash, it
highly resembles making a video image disappear with layer masking.

The explosions which occur on the face of the tower look suspiciously
like the dustification process which took place subsequently on the
whole tower. We see small, individual white explosions which occur
across the face of the tower, in the shape of an airplane.

This is nothing like a plane crash, and you know it. The orange and
black "fuel air explosion" occurred more than one second later. It
makes no sense at all when you think about it.

Now have an attempt at answering the questions. They are reasonable
questions, and your team is depending on you. Nobody else has the
courage to defend the plane theory.

http://911planequestions.blogspot.com/ (http://911planequestions.blogspot.com/)

=Ace Baker

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm confussed. Wasn't it recently revealed that Mr. Baker is, by his own admission, dealing with mental health issues?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

2. I don't think the perps would ever risk having some other object
than a 767 fly though the air to be videotaped.

And this is somehow less of a risk than have hundreds of John Q. Publics with handy-cams and cellphones filming empty air just prior to impact?

We see small, individual white explosions which occur
across the face of the tower, in the shape of an airplane.

This is nothing like a plane crash, and you know it.

Ace... if you're reading this... you really need to rethink this statement.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm confussed. Wasn't it recently revealed that Mr. Baker is, by his own admission, dealing with mental health issues?

Did you try to say "confused" or "concussed"?

I ask because a state of mental disarray exacerbated by cranial trauma would accurately describe the feeling one has after reading an Ace Baker rant. ;)

[StoneWT]

Use of the word 'perps' indicates lunacy. :)

[pomeroo]

This idiocy shouldn't make me angry at this juncture--but it does!

Ace,
There is more room for play among "no planers" than your message might
suggest.

First, you've been suckered into venturing into the "what really
happened" question, a far more difficult enterprise than merely
disproving the official story. But, what the heck, let's go there! No
Fear, Everybody Dies, Not Everybody Lives. Had enuf motorcycle
slogans? OK :-))

It seems to me that we no planers must plainly admit that we cannot yet
prove up what kind of trickery and technology was really used on 9/11
in its entirety, if only because we do not have enough information on
what new technologies black budgets have produced. No fault in that.
Yet the official story "did not happen, could not have happened."
That's clear enough.

Well, what can we prove today? The following, to be exact:
Theorem 1: no fixed wing aircraft ("plane") flew into either tower.

To clarify, no conventional fixed-wing aircraft flew into either tower,
Boeing or otherwise. That does not eliminate some kind of small
GPS/remote-guided capsule with stubby "fixed wings."

We can prove that conventional planes did no disappear into the towers,
as advertised, without doubt. Yet the importance of this discovery
should not be minimized. It is a tremendous finding: No planes = no
hijackers = no Arab terrorists = no justification for the 9/11 mass
murder projects. That is why the plane defenders, wherever they are,
including the media, get so agitated when challenged. They have
nothing scientific to counter the challenge and just huff and puff on
behalf of the ptb and warfare, 7/24.
Everything else re the plane fraud is up for grabs. OK, we can prove
the following too:

Theorem 2: every video showing a physically impossible event is fake.
OK, that is self-explanatory, but maybe we can prove more, namely, the
airplane "magic show" was fake, no matter what method was employed.

Theorem 3: at least some of the videos are provably fake in the
compositing sense of the word "fake."
But that is not the only possibility for fakery methods employed on
9/11 we must entertain. We cannot rule out that more exotic methods
than bluescreen or cgi fakery may have been used, methods we have not
yet discovered, although bs and/or cgi were certainly used in
manipulated videos. In particular, we cannot reject out of hand the
following possibility:

Theorem (really hypothesis b/c unprovable today) 4: a precision-guided,
narrow-bodied missile or capsule (narrower than 24" including wing
span) projected a false 767-image around itself and this image was
video taped on 9/11. This does not mean a hologram projection but
rather light-wave refraction technology may make this possible, an
inverse of "cloaking" aircraft by bending light waves. As yet unproven
by yours truly to be sure but an hypothesis that cannot be definitively
rejected scientifically as of yet. So one or videos could actually
have recorded "reality," but it was filming a David Copperfield act, if
you know what I mean.

To sketch this in a bit further, a missile or capsule could have
penetrated a tower window (no contact with steel skeleton under cover
of the "flash") while projecting a 767-image and the missile could
actually have disappeared and exited out the other side through an
opposite tower window. The missile or capsule could have been "blown
up" under cover of the "explosion" on the opposite side of the south
tower. This scenario would be consistent with the lack of a major exit
hole and allow for a "real" nose image exiting the building without any
missile or airliner "nose" ever supported via proven debris. Wild I
know. Not probable mind you, just something not rejectable out of
hand.

One interesting observation is that a few witnesses in PA reported the
observed plane image flying upside down. I talked to a convincing
eyewitness in NYC who claimed she saw the top of the airliner before it
went into the south tower, a physical impossibility from her claimed
vantage point. The plane image looked upside down to her.

While I agree with you that we have preliminary arguments and evidence
for DEW creating the gashes, and we can absolutely disprove gash
creation via fixed-wing aircraft based on Newtonian physics and
evidence at hand, we cannot yet reject a missile or guided-bomb theory
carrying a 767-image projection with it, as posed in hypothesis 4
above.

The military is mightily interested in deception and have ample funds
to play and invent same. Hell, football teams are mightily interested
in faking the opposition out of their collective J-straps.
If such a diabolical method was used in the perps' mass murder, it
would constitute video fakery of another kind from compositing of
course, but the possibility, if used on 9/11, might also rehabilitate a
subset of videos as non-manipulated footage, as well rehabilitate some
witnesses.

Bottomline: At this moment in time, we cannot dismiss the "disguised
missile" or capsule theory in my opinion.

Finally, a general point: it makes no scientific sense to eliminate all
possibilities other than things we know of today. It is like saying
the towers were brought down by firecrackers or thermite -- because
those are the two things I know of. Any other proposal is "absurd."
Let's call it "Space Beams" 'n such. Call it that as I cruise the
interstate listening to satellite radio. In 1950 it was "impossible"
for a man to break the four-minute mile barrier. Could anything be
less "scientific" than all these psy-op techniques? I believe this
question answers itself. Beware, lest this thought be attributed to
Dr. Judy Wood and we wouldn't want that, now would we?

Your devoted fan,
freethinker
and active mind
(not "open" and certainly
not "wide open"),

A Proud if
repeatedly-tagged "Rabid"
No Planer
without Froth,
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.

__________________________

(I responded)

You are an uninformed crank who promotes utter nonsense to advance a bizarre
political agenda. It is to be expected that you deny the existence of the
multitude of eyewitnesses to the crash of a commercial airliner into the
South Tower. Your fantasies cannot survive contact with reality. Tell us why
NOT ONE of the tens of thousands of people who stared at the spectacle
unfolding at the WTC complex that terrible morning thought to complain that
there was no plane. NOBODY wrote a letter-to-the-editor asking, "What's all
this talk about a plane--there was no plane"? NO ONLOOKERS thought to
mention to any reporters that they couldn't understand all of this talk
about a plane. Let me take a guess: the thousands of individuals who watched
from the street, from their cars as they crossed the bridges leading to
downtown Manhattan, from their offices and rooftops, were watching--and
filming--nothing! They were, in an alternate reality, up in arms, protesting
that they never saw a plane. Somehow, your imaginary, mathematically
impossible conspiracy has suppressed ALL of them.

You ridiculous, fatuous fraud.

Professionals in the field of video analysis have explained to Ace Baker
over and over that the sort of analysis he wants to conduct is impossible
with the materials available to him. He has learned nothing from them. It's
not his fault: his illness makes learning impossible.

Real people died when the planes they were on were hijacked and flown into
the Towers.

Ron

[pomeroo]

Not be outdone, our boy Ace just weighed in with...

(Ace Baker wrote)

Still nobody with the ability to answer a few questions, eh Ron?
C'mon, you could answer some of them. Give it a go. They are simple
questions.

Why was Chopper 5 never replayed if there's nothing wrong with it?

Why is the bottom of the ghostplane THE WRONG DAMN COLOR, RON? It was
supposed to be BLUE!

Where is the plane in the Chopper 5 wide shot?

Why did WNYW remove Chopper 5 from the archives?

IT WOULDN"T BE BECAUSE THERE'S NO FREAKING PLANE IN THE WIDE SHOT,
WOULD IT?

Ron, your cowardice overshadows your faux-arrogance. Why is no one
able to defend the plane theory? It's quite odd really.


-Ace Baker

[AMTMAN]

It's probably best that you not argue with someone who is insane.

[sts60]

I am reminded of a lurker over on apollohoax (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com) who chimed in with this opinion of our discussion with a rabid Apollo hoax believer:

"I think you spend too much time arguing with mental patients."

[rwguinn]

It's probably best that you not argue with someone who is insane.
"Never argue with an Idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience" somebody...

[T.A.M.]

No-Planers do not deserve your attention let alone your time and energy on written response.

TAM:)

[AZCat]

Thanks for posting this, Ron. It provides an excellent example of the logic used by the "truth movement".

[Furi]

I am reminded of a lurker over on apollohoax (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com) who chimed in with this opinion of our discussion with a rabid Apollo hoax believer:

"I think you spend too much time arguing with mental patients."

If that hapened to be in a thread with Rocky, wasn't he a rabid No Planer as well?

[pomeroo]

From the Wikipedia article:

Morgan O. Reynolds is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_A%26M_University) and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.
He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Labor) during 2001–2002, George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)'s first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an inside job, and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholars_for_9/11_Truth).

________________


It's one thing when dumb, ignorant kids spout their idiocy, but look at this guy's background, for chrissakes!

[slyjoe]

Theorem: something that can be proven from known facts.

"I can prove..." is not a proof. These loons need to show their work. Somehow, I don't think this will be forthcoming.

Agree with sts60 and rwguinn - this is just bat guano crazy.

[CurtC]

My favorite part: "a precision-guided, narrow-bodied missile or capsule (narrower than 24" including wing span) projected a false 767-image around itself and this image was video taped on 9/11."

Not that it's necessary to refute insanity, but it's a pretty remarkable missile that can not only project the image of a 767 around itself, but can then continue to project the tail of the 767 after it's impacted with a building.

[GStan]

Is this guy a real PHD? I'm relatively new to this stuff and I've never heard of him until today. As I was reading through the text, I was assuming that I was reading something written by a high school student. A real PHD? I can't believe he's allowed to leave his house without a chaperone.

[CurtC]

It's one thing when dumb, ignorant kids spout their idiocy, but look at this guy's background, for chrissakes!
Well, he's obviously insane now, but I wonder if he has always had this condition, or it just recently appeared. People with schizophrenia are typically normal as kids, and then the condition strikes around 20-25. Can schizophrenia strike when someone is in his 50's? He doesn't simply seem to lack critical thinking skills (like the typical younger Troother), he seems to really be delusional.

[Furi]

The chemtrails made him that way

[Tolls]

Just so I know I've got this straight.

1. Planes can't make a hole in a steel building, no matter what.
2. Therefore they can't have been planes that were seen.
3. So they were stubby missiles, which could go through the windows.
4. People saw planes.
5. Couldn't have been planes (see 1), so there must be some sort of holographic thingy in the missiles.

Have I got the "logic" straight on this?

[uk_dave]

It's the MKUltra.

Unfortunately the 'bonkers' button, which we normally use only when he appears on Fox news, got.... ummmmmmm.... stuck......

.....ok ok... so we were having the NWO Xmas bash and Margot from accounts got a bit drunk and decided to get a bit flirty with the new kid in the post room. Now, obviously we don't leave the MOR MKUltra control box laying around..... normally, but this night we'd cracked open a case of particularly fine 'Cute Kids Blood' vintage 'not very old' and spirits were high, as was Margot, since she'd shoved the control box down her knickers and told the kid from the post room that she wanted him to play with "her nutty professor".

Of course I knew nothing of this at the time as I was with Big Owl discussing the forthcoming NWO Fancy Dress Competition, which, incidentally, was won by Susan from 'Maintenance and Assassinations' who came dressed as Dick Cheney On A Thursday.

[pomeroo]

Ace's latest:

Anthony Lawson is the only person I know of who claims to have seen
an airplane in the Chopper 5 wide shot. The JREFs spent a lot of
energy trying to explain why the plane wouldn't be in the shot.
Anthony, if you see, it where is it?

-Ace Baker


Does everyone understand that he imagines that thousands of people were looking at the sky, pointing and screaming, and they saw nothing?

[16.5]

I love the No Planers! Seriously, have you ever discussed 911 with a fence sitter? Maybe they watched Loose Change, but never bothered to look into the BS that Do Over and the Boys were selling. Tell them about the No Planers. I did and the person's eyes bugged out, they said "No Planes... but that is insane! People saw those planes with their own eyes."

I agreed and told them that was the slippery slope they were on, and encouraged them to look into Screw Loose Change, etc, and those people now don't believe a single lie the Twoofers tell.

Thank you No Planers! Keep up the good work! Seriously.

[johnny karate]

Could someone (preferrably a no-planer, but I doubt any would dare show their faces here) why the puppet-masters behind this vast conspiracy would over-complicate their already overly complicated plot, risking failure and exposure, by disguising a missile as an airplane?

[Brainster]

Could someone (preferrably a no-planer, but I doubt any would dare show their faces here) why the puppet-masters behind this vast conspiracy would over-complicate their already overly complicated plot, risking failure and exposure, by disguising a missile as an airplane?

I've said this many times, but the No-Planers are responding to a very real problem with the conspiracy theories that the "Plane-Huggers" try to gloss over. If you believe that the US government was behind the plot, the planes (and especially the pilots) are a huge, almost insurmountable problem.

Almost everybody in the 9-11 Troof movement wishes away the planes in some manner. Many claim that it was not Flights 11 and 175 that hit the towers, but some military refueling tankers (which, as James B has pointed out, did not exist at the time).

Why? Work it backwards. If you believe 9-11 was an inside job, how do you explain American and United pilots crashing their planes into the buildings? Answer: You can't.

[rcronk]

I don't think they're insane, I think they're addicted - addicted to feeling elite and saving the world. It seems that nothing (not even logic or evidence) will get in their way as they attempt to get more of their "drug."

It's actually quite sad. From my experience, fixing them doesn't involve logic or evidence about the issue at hand, it involves helping them understand that they can derive their self worth from something other than "saving everyone" by spreading conspiracy theories. I've made significant headway with some "truthers" face to face over months of kind, patient interaction - but NEVER by arguing logic and evidence on a forum thread.

[ElMondoHummus]

Is this guy a real PHD? I'm relatively new to this stuff and I've never heard of him until today. As I was reading through the text, I was assuming that I was reading something written by a high school student. A real PHD? I can't believe he's allowed to leave his house without a chaperone.


Yes, he's one of the well known "No Planers". You can do a search on this forum for other opinions of his work.

And yes, he's a bit... well:

Zw8nzm1zPKA

[Alferd_Packer]

"Never argue with an Idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience" somebody...


Arguing with a truther is like wrestling a pig. You both get covered in filth and slime, and the pig likes it.

[Mancman]

Ace's latest:

Anthony Lawson is the only person I know of who claims to have seen
an airplane in the Chopper 5 wide shot. The JREFs spent a lot of
energy trying to explain why the plane wouldn't be in the shot.
Anthony, if you see, it where is it?

-Ace Baker



Lawson doesn't just claim to have seen an airplane, he shows us it at 8:10 -
B6jS2Ah22us

Poor Ace.

[pomeroo]

I've said this many times, but the No-Planers are responding to a very real problem with the conspiracy theories that the "Plane-Huggers" try to gloss over. If you believe that the US government was behind the plot, the planes (and especially the pilots) are a huge, almost insurmountable problem.

Almost everybody in the 9-11 Troof movement wishes away the planes in some manner. Many claim that it was not Flights 11 and 175 that hit the towers, but some military refueling tankers (which, as James B has pointed out, did not exist at the time).

Why? Work it backwards. If you believe 9-11 was an inside job, how do you explain American and United pilots crashing their planes into the buildings? Answer: You can't.



Exactly right. We've both made this point many times: those planes are terribly inconvenient. A ordinary, dull-witted conspiracy liar--Max Photon, Swing Dangler, Lost Child, etc.--finds that his fantasies are destroyed by the reality of the planes. These types twist and squirm, but after their remote-control fantasies are refuted and the calls made from the doomed aircraft are shown to be real, they are finished. The no-planers advance a thesis that satisifes the logical requirements of their alternate universe, although they are undeniably insane.

[Gazpacho]

The no-planers increasingly sound like the Catholic church explaining the doctrine of the Eucharist. Apparently the towers were hit by something that had all the accidental properties of airplanes but the substance of a missile.

[16.5]

[QUOTE=Brainster;3241115]Almost everybody in the 9-11 Troof movement wishes away the planes in some manner. [QUOTE]

Quite correct, and that is precisely how I explain that people who are taken in by Loose Change and the like are on a slippery slope to denying the planes existed at all.

NoPlaners: useful idiots, or really useful idiots?

[beachnut]

Is this guy a real PHD? I'm relatively new to this stuff and I've never heard of him until today. As I was reading through the text, I was assuming that I was reading something written by a high school student. A real PHD? I can't believe he's allowed to leave his house without a chaperone.
Do not tell his family about his nut case ideas. He will be committed. You can find his stuff on the web, he is pure nuts on 9/11. Nut case dumb.

http://nomoregames.net/ (http://nomoregames.net/) he has been crazy from way back when on 9/11. This is the fate of all die hard 9/11 truth people, insanity.

[sts60]

I am reminded of a lurker over on apollohoax who chimed in with this opinion of our discussion with a rabid Apollo hoax believer:

"I think you spend too much time arguing with mental patients."
If that hapened to be in a thread with Rocky, wasn't he a rabid No Planer as well?
Dear old rocky was a rabid no-everything. In one Apollo thread, he flatly denied the existence of the South Atlantic Anomaly.

From the Wikipedia article:

Morgan O. Reynolds is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University
---> Insert Aggie joke here <---

[Furi]

The no-planers increasingly sound like the Catholic church explaining the doctrine of the Eucharist. Apparently the towers were hit by something that had all the accidental properties of airplanes but the substance of a missile.

Reminds me of a certain well known (in the UK) bread spread.

Has all the taste of butter but non of the bad things associated with it.

Just one little snag I CAN believe it's not butter,

It is abso:talk034:lutely nothing like :talk034: butter, You MORONS have you no concept of taste. Eat some butter then eat that malingering greasy crap, how the hell can you then tell me you can't :talk034: believe that's not :talk034: butter whilst knowing you havent lied your :talk034::talk034: off.

as for the bad stuff, well I'll accept that in exchange for the knowledge that I am eating the real deal and not some manufacured pseudo crud.

=^..^=

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Do not tell his family about his nut case ideas. He will be committed. You can find his stuff on the web, he is pure nuts on 9/11. Nut case dumb.

http://nomoregames.net/ (http://nomoregames.net/) he has been crazy from way back when on 9/11. This is the fate of all die hard 9/11 truth people, insanity.

[minor_derail]

Has anyone noticed the similarity in formatting between http://nomoregames.net/ and http://www.crescentandcross.com (WARNING: graphic violent photography, extreme jew-hatred) ?

/derail

[beachnut]

[minor_derail]

Has anyone noticed the similarity in formatting between http://nomoregames.net/ and http://www.crescentandcross.com (WARNING: graphic violent photography, extreme jew-hatred) ?

/derail
Morgan, Kevin Barret, and Rich Rajter are all in on 9/11 crap, and it seems Rick does the web site of hate, and he also helps 9/11 liars like Morgan.

It seems hate mongers are also related to real dumb biased guys who can not think rationally on 9/11.

[T.A.M.]

So the No-Planer crew are co-led by an "out of the closet" anti-semite...surprise surprise.

Nice people Morgan is hanging out with.

TAM:)

[OldTigerCub]

I've said this many times, but the No-Planers are responding to a very real problem with the conspiracy theories that the "Plane-Huggers" try to gloss over. If you believe that the US government was behind the plot, the planes (and especially the pilots) are a huge, almost insurmountable problem.

Almost everybody in the 9-11 Troof movement wishes away the planes in some manner. Many claim that it was not Flights 11 and 175 that hit the towers, but some military refueling tankers (which, as James B has pointed out, did not exist at the time).

Why? Work it backwards. If you believe 9-11 was an inside job, how do you explain American and United pilots crashing their planes into the buildings? Answer: You can't.

I think I understand your point, Brainster. To prove whatever your preferred CT, you have to start with the desired conclusion and work backward through the problems to your logic, eliminating or downplaying each fact that presents an obstacle that stands in the way of achieving your desired agenda or effect.
On the other hand, after watching "A Beautiful Mind" last weekend on TV, it made me wonder if the movie accurately portrays what goes on in the minds of certain mentally ill people. If so, I think I have a better understanding of some of our favorite CTers.

[Gravy]

The title of this thread: "The Impossible Morgan O. Reynolds"

and

Professionals in the field of video analysis have explained to Ace Baker over and over that the sort of analysis he wants to conduct is impossible with the materials available to him. He has learned nothing from them. It's not his fault: his illness makes learning impossible.

Well, there you have it. These are a handful of people out of six billion. Reporting here that they aren't well is like breaking the news that the sun rises in the east. You're giving these people the attention they crave, and are aggravating yourself in the process. So why not let it go, Ron?

[T.A.M.]

I agree. I think you feed there disease by bringing attention to them. Ron, I do see your perspective, pointing out the outrageousness of their claims to those who may mistakenly think these people "have something", but really, they make the Demolition crew look like rocket scientists.

To use an analogy seen in the title of another recent thread here, it is like "fish in a barrell", except the fish are already filleted.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

The title of this thread: "The Impossible Morgan O. Reynolds"

and



Well, there you have it. These are a handful of people out of six billion. Reporting here that they aren't well is like breaking the news that the sun rises in the east. You're giving these people the attention they crave, and are aggravating yourself in the process. So why not let it go, Ron?


Sounds like good advice.

[Tolls]

I've said this many times, but the No-Planers are responding to a very real problem with the conspiracy theories that the "Plane-Huggers" try to gloss over. If you believe that the US government was behind the plot, the planes (and especially the pilots) are a huge, almost insurmountable problem.

Almost everybody in the 9-11 Troof movement wishes away the planes in some manner. Many claim that it was not Flights 11 and 175 that hit the towers, but some military refueling tankers (which, as James B has pointed out, did not exist at the time).

Why? Work it backwards. If you believe 9-11 was an inside job, how do you explain American and United pilots crashing their planes into the buildings? Answer: You can't.

Ah, that makes a lot more sense than my rather feeble attempt to figure out how someone can get to there being no planes, and all the ensuing nonsense around that idea. Thanks for that.

[pomeroo]

Well, I was goaded into ignoring Mark's sound advice:

(Morgan Reynolds wrote)
"Thousands of onlookers"? Name the first 100. Where may I find the
interviews?


Presume: 1. To take for granted; assume to be true in the absence of proof to the contrary...

Presumption: 1. Behavior or language that is boldly arrogant or offensive; effrontery. 2. The act of presuming or accepting as true...

The perp apologists, including plane huggers, are pretty much down to assertions about witnesses because they cannot repair to basic physics, debris evidence, cartoon-outlines gashes carved by the perps or physical and scientific evidence in general. So they are down to videos, and that's a real bust, and then witnesses. Witnesses? You're kidding! Here was my take many months ago and more could be added, but this will suffice for now:

[16.5]

"Thousands of onlookers"? Name the first 100. Where may I find the interviews?"

Ah, Morgan, the argument from personal incredulity! No planes, and now a Texan presuming to lecture New Yorkers on the typography of New York!

You guys make it to easy.

[pomeroo]

Presume: 1. To take for granted; assume to be true in the absence of proof to the contrary...

Presumption: 1. Behavior or language that is boldly arrogant or offensive; effrontery. 2. The act of presuming or accepting as true...

The perp apologists, including plane huggers, are pretty much down to assertions about witnesses because they cannot repair to basic physics, debris evidence, cartoon-outlines gashes carved by the perps or physical and scientific evidence in general. So they are down to videos, and that's a real bust, and then witnesses. Witnesses? You're kidding! Here was my take many months ago and more could be added, but this will suffice for now:

[beachnut]

Well, I was goaded into ignoring Mark's sound advice:

(Morgan Reynolds wrote)
"Thousands of onlookers"? Name the first 100. Where may I find the
interviews?


Presume: 1. To take for granted; assume to be true in the absence of proof to the contrary...

Presumption: 1. Behavior or language that is boldly arrogant or offensive; effrontery. 2. The act of presuming or accepting as true...

The perp apologists, including plane huggers, are pretty much down to assertions about witnesses because they cannot repair to basic physics, debris evidence, cartoon-outlines gashes carved by the perps or physical and scientific evidence in general. So they are down to videos, and that's a real bust, and then witnesses. Witnesses? You're kidding! Here was my take many months ago and more could be added, but this will suffice for now:
So Morgan says the eye can not see a 500 mph plane due to some things he makes up.

Gee, I have heard first person here, people who saw the jets hit. They could tell the airliner type. Some were only 700 feet away! Morgan needs to be in a home for the mentally impaired. He is a nut case on more than 9/11. I think any group that ever had Morgan as a member is bogus.

[GStan]

Thanks mondo and beach for the elightenment. Considering some of what I've read in the last 24 hours, I have concluded that this thread would me immeasurably more fun and entertaining if "Dr." Reynolds would be so kind as to come and attempt to play a little defense. I smell some Stundies.:D

[Stellafane]

I've come to suspect that no-planers don't really care whether or not planes actually hit anything, because reality isn't all that important to them. They just like to argue with people about it, because doing so somehow makes them feel smart. So when they run into people with the time and wherewithall to blast them out of the water, they just go on, utterly unmoved, to the next person willing to engage them. It's like they live their lives forever pressing Ctrl-Alt-Delete.

[pomeroo]

I must apologize to those of you who have been following this thread. I attempted to post a lengthy e-mail from Morgan Reynolds, along with my response, and, for some reason, it gets cut off. I will start a new thread in the hope that the mods will integrate it into this one.

[pomeroo]

Presume: 1. To take for granted; assume to be true in the absence of proof to the contrary...

Presumption: 1. Behavior or language that is boldly arrogant or offensive; effrontery. 2. The act of presuming or accepting as true...

The perp apologists, including plane huggers, are pretty much down to assertions about witnesses because they cannot repair to basic physics, debris evidence, cartoon-outlines gashes carved by the perps or physical and scientific evidence in general. So they are down to videos, and that's a real bust, and then witnesses. Witnesses? You're kidding! Here was my take many months ago and more could be added, but this will suffice for now.
Manhattan could not see a plane if it smacked into a tower at 500+ mph, and many said so. A plane at 500 mph would cover a 60-feet-wide street and its sidewalks within a tenth of second. Virtually everyone's view was blocked. Second, people on the Jersey shore might see a plane head for the south end of Manhattan but were too far away to verify that it crashed into the south tower. The only potentially good views would be selected spots on the water close to the south end of Manhattan and selected west-facing windows in skyscrapers south and southeast of WTC 2. Third, many witnesses heard no jet and some videos have no jet liner sound even though it is trivial to insert the sound of booming jetliner at (incredibly) high speed and low altitude. Fourth, witness testimony is notoriously unreliable and Manhattan, along with the script delivered to complicit media moguls). Sixth, physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony, especially conflicting witness testimony not under oath and not subject to cross-examination. Researchers should pay more attention to physical evidence than hearsay inadmissible in court.
Scrutiny of alleged eyewitness testimony, however, may not be entirely worthless. As far as we can tell, there is a dearth of testimony from disinterested witnesses affirming a Big Boeing crashing into the north tower: many thousands of people in Central Park plus northbound drivers, passengers and pedestrians along First, Second and Third Avenues, Lexington Avenue, Park Avenue, Madison Avenue, Fifth Avenue, Avenue of the Americas, Broadway, etc., could have seen a low-flying AA Boeing 767 thundering south/southwest down the island of Manhattan. At high speed it would have been incredibly noisy, extraordinary and scary. It would have echoed down the canyons. The direction or source may not have been obvious at first. At 400+ mph the jetliner would have taken approximately one minute to fly less than seven miles from just north of Central Park into the North Tower, time enough for witnesses to see and track a plane even if they could not confirm that that same plane hit the north tower. Thousands of disinterested eyewitnesses could have confirmed a Big Boeing flying overhead if the official story were true but I've not seen any such interviews done that morning. The internet lacks credible "street interviews" and the controlled media did not go there. That is a telling fact.
The witnesses offered often are media, "anonymous" or those who do not confirm a jetliner flying into a tower at all. From a legal, adversarial point of view, most WTC "eyewitness" testimony in favor of large airliners is highly vulnerable. Get them in court and cross-examine them under oath. That is a new ball game and I strongly suspect that an attorney of the "W. 33d street, almost three miles north of the WTC, a 10-minute ride, not a walk. That's not "nearby" by my lights. Second, facing south from an office on the 21st floor sounds good but it's not a good vantage point because the plane would fly by in a flash, too fast to get a real fix on what it was. Third, the plane would take over 20 seconds to arrive at the north tower, not "the last 5-6 seconds of flight" claimed. Murtagh's timing is off by an order of magnitude. While hugely effective, Murtagh's testimony is not credible. Fourth, CNN led its coverage with a report from one of its own executives about a large airliner flying into the North Tower. They did not have enough respect for the audience to interview an actor on the street, instead putting the lie "in plain view" by broadcasting it from a CNN employee. Fifth, Murtagh is a poor actor, with a flat, disinterested delivery that no appalled American watching an airliner fly into the North Tower could possibly muster.
Some truth leaks out in early media coverage of a disaster because the controlled media is not entirely controlled down to the reporter level. It's almost amusing how Murtagh's lie is immediately overturned by the first unidentified female Natural State.


Morgan,

You're exactly right. I went through this for months on JREF forum. I was down on my knees begging for anyone who saw the plane to talk to me. Nobody ever came through. The JREFs kept saying "thousands" and "tens of thousands". I know there are some people on record saying they saw a plane, but I've seen about 2 or 3 for the first hit, and maybe a couple dozen for the second hit.

Considering how many people are in that area, that's pretty astonishing.

-a



(Ron wrote)
It's about time you delusional frauds attempted to confront the gaping hole in your pernicious fantasy.
Your grotesque ignorance of basic science renders you incapable of debating anyone with a background in physics or engineering, forcing you to spout gibberish about "Newtonian laws" and other concepts far beyond your limited intellects. Tell us why NO--ZERO--real physicists have noticed the "violations" you dunces rave about. Oh, of course: they're all members of your imaginary, mathematically impossible conspiracy. See how easy that was.

Hilariously, your insanely bloated conspiracy managed to convince everybody that Boeing 767s were flown into the Twin Towers, but they planted evidence from a different sort of commercial airliner. Hey, what the hell--it could happen. Pay no attention to those avionics techs who say that you're nuts.

You claim unpersuasively that you want to talk with one of the tens of thousands of people who watched Flight 175 hit the South Tower. Yet you failed, predictably, to address Arlenes's question, one that you would hear repeated over and over until you assumed your characteristic posture of fleeing with your tails between your legs. I'll repeat it: She wanted to know how your deception is supposed to work. Will you attempt to trick her and her co-workers into thinking that they didn't actually see a plane? Will you propose that they saw nothing at all, or will you fabricate a suitable substitute? Or will you be reduced to pretending that they're all agents of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. She promises not to believe you.

Of the multitude who stared at the spectacle unfolding at the WTC complex after the first plane hit, OBVIOUSLY--NECESSARILY-- a percentage of them missed the impact of the second plane. A larger percentage did not. Here's a test you crackpots wouldn't dare to administer. Come to Manhattan and stop random passers-by. Ask them how many people they know who claim to have observed the crash of the second plane. Almost everybody knows at least somebody who saw the event. Put on your Sherlock Holmes deerstalkers, get out your magnifying glasses, and above all, get off your lazy asses and do something more than pontificate about matters you are too obtuse and agenda-driven to understand. Spouting ignorant nonsense to one another makes you feel good, but it also establishes your essential unseriousness.

Oddly enough, your farrago of lies and sheer idiocy contains, inadvertently, one true statement. The noise produced by Flight 175 does figure prominently in the accounts of all three eyewitnesses whom I know personally.

Ace Baker has been thrashed soundly many times on the JREF. The preposterous fantasies he promotes have been dissected and thoroughly refuted by people with strong technical backgrounds. Perhaps, Morgan, you'd care to run your sciolism by Ryan Mackey, a NASA engineer who just published a 200-page whitepaper refuting the lies and blunders contained in Griffin's latest travesty. (http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf (http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf)) Griffin had so much confidence in his own product that he reneged on an agreement to discuss the book on 'Hardfire' and simply ran away. Don't be too concerned for him, however. He can still hustle it to uncritical simpletons who hate America.

There is a reason why you shameless, empty-headed frauds avoid debates.

Ron

[~enigma~]

Yes...it's an inside job to silence you from speaking against an insane man.

[afinemadness]

Let's forget for one second the idiocy of saying that there were no planes and address his explanation for why it was impossible to see planes.

1) The planes went by too fast and there would be obstructions. I guess everyone was on street level and no one was in a high rise building. I also did not realize that there was a wall around the towers stopping people in the adjoin streets and the rotunda from looking up and seeing them.

2) People in NJ could not see. I have a special affinity for this one. I had an office 3 blocks off of the water front in Jersey City and on a clear night could tell you which offices in the towers had their lights on. So much for unable to see for sure.

3) The sound. My only thought on that is everyone that I know that was in Jersey City or downtown Manhattan heard it. I know people that got out of their cars on the turnpike extension because the plane flew so low over their heads that their cars shook and watched the impact.

I also agree with one of your points Ron in that it is amazing that someone that has no first hand knowledge of the area tells us what we could and could not see.

[pomeroo]

I'm going to propose something that many of the people here who, in my opinion, are smarter than I will oppose vehemently. I want to give Ace Baker a chance to make his case on 'Hardfire.' Mark is, of course, invited to counter his nonsense, but I understand that he, quite reasonably, finds the prospect distasteful. I want to recruit debate opponents for the no-planers, preferably people with knowledge in the field of video analysis. Also, I'd like to hear from people who actually watched Flight 175 crash into the South Tower. Even if you didn't observe the event yourself, please present the accounts of friends or co-workers who did. I want to see how Ace disposes of the testimony of real flesh-and-blood people who watched other real people die horribly.

[~enigma~]

I'm going to propose something that many of the people here who, in my opinion, are smarter than I will oppose vehemently. I want to give Ace Baker a chance to make his case on 'Hardfire.' Mark is, of course, invited to counter his nonsense, but I understand that he, quite reasonably, finds the prospect distasteful. I want to recruit debate opponents for the no-planers, preferably people with knowledge in the field of video analysis. Also, I'd like to hear from people who actually watched Flight 175 crash into the South Tower. Even if you didn't observe the event yourself, please present the accounts of friends or co-workers who did. I want to see how Ace disposes of the testimony of real flesh-and-blood people who watched other real people die horribly.
Ron,

Idiots of the caliber of Morgan Renyolds (and friends) have no exposure and their bs essentially dies outside of their own limited and restricted group. Why do you want to give them any publicity which will only serve to boost their egos?

[pomeroo]

Ron,

Idiots of the caliber of Morgan Renyolds (and friends) have no exposure and their bs essentially dies outside of their own limited and restricted group. Why do you want to give them any publicity which will only serve to boost their egos?

Enigma, I just finished a phone conversation with my friend and mentor Don Schlesinger. Don is perhaps the foremost theoretician of the game of blackjack and was an options analyst at Morgan Stanley. He wonders why anyone would waste time employing rational methods with people who operate in a realm outside reason and logic.
My reply was one that I have made in this forum. Granted the no-planers are insane. But, the old vaudeville saying "you buy the premise, you'll buy the bit" applies here. Everything emanating from the fantasy movement is insane. We willingly debate loons who pretend that agents of a shadow army participating in a conspiracy that has no discernible point hauled tons of explosives into two of the busiest skyscrapers in the world and detonated them on the exact floors struck by commercial airliners. Why should we try to establish a hierarchy of madness? Most 9/11 fantasies collapse under the weight of the planes. The no-planers simply eliminate those inconveniences.

[~enigma~]

Enigma, I just finished a phone conversation with my friend and mentor Don Schlesinger. Don is perhaps the foremost theoretician of the game of blackjack and was an options analyst at Morgan Stanley. He wonders why anyone would waste time employing rational methods with people who operate in a realm outside reason and logic.
My reply was one that I have made in this forum. Granted the no-planers are insane. But, the old vaudeville saying "you buy the premise, you'll buy the bit" applies here. Everything emanating from the fantasy movement is insane. We willingly debate loons who pretend that agents of a shadow army participating in a conspiracy that has no discernible point hauled tons of explosives into two of the busiest skyscrapers in the world and detonated them on the exact floors struck by commercial airliners. Why should we try to establish a hierarchy of madness? Most 9/11 fantasies collapse under the weight of the planes. The no-planers simply eliminate those inconveniences.True to some extent Ron. Those who believe in CD do not necessarily believe in no planes or that the planes were switched (ie. passengers were in on it). Those who believe in no planes at the wtc and in video fakery are claiming that not only are the thousands of eyewitnesses wrong but the passengers are either paid government agents that aren't dead or were in on the conspiracy. No planers and TV fakery believers are a select bunch of idiots that are great examples of the benefits of abortion :)

[defaultdotxbe]

i think rather than getting a debunker to debate ace you should see if you can get another truther to debate him

it would illustrate that despite all the obvious "evidence" for an inside job they still cant decide what kind of job it was and what its inside of

[afinemadness]

I understand that you have a warm place in your heart for Ace. I do not want this to sound cruel and I am sure that he is a good person but having him on would be useless. You have as much of a chance of getting through to him as you have in getting the chair he is sitting on to understand your points. people like Ace do not see an issue and evaluate it they they see something and have a visceral reaction. They are unable to see anything that does not meet their belief structure. You see it all the time in fundamentalists. There is also the hate America first crowd that resides on Pacifica radio that sees everything this country or it's allies do as wrong and anyone that criticizes the US as always right. The no planers are in the same boat. No amount of proof will suffice. Obviously it is your show and you can do what you want but I am afraid that you will be sorely disappointed as it will be either a real snoozer if he shuts down or an episode of Morton Downey if he gets combative.

[Gravy]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5692853335910175330#6m35s

[pomeroo]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5692853335910175330#6m35s


Mark, suppose we feature Ace Baker and announce that he is the face of the 9/11 fantasy movement. What does that say about the "saner" fantasists who refuse to face you? You see the box they're in? They can dismiss Ace as a madman, but they lack his courage of convictions. When they say, "Of course you can achieve facile victories against a deranged person"--oops, where do they go from there? If they wouldn't be such easy pickings, why are they afraid to demonstrate it?

[Regnad Kcin]

Did you try to say "confused" or "concussed"?Confussed, no error. It's a variant of hornswabbled.

[Gravy]

As always, Ron, I'm flattered that you'd want to have me on, but I feel very strongly that debating people like Ace only helps to feed their illness and their sense that they're doing work that's worth discussing, and does nothing to further any rationalist cause. Just because there are a few vocal no-planers doesn't mean they represent a meaningful constituency.

I posted that clip because in it you equate no-planers with people who believe that flying reindeer destroyed the towers – an idea not worthy of discussion. At least Fetzer influenced people to get involved at one time, and he said that he goes under the assumption that planes did hit the towers. While I'm not trained to diagnose mental illness, in some cases it's clear. I can't imagine that someone is not mentally ill who believes that no planes hit the towers, which later vaporized and left no rubble. Can you?

I don't argue with the reindeer people for the same reason that I don't argue with the wide-eyed doomsday preacher at Wall and Broad. We're seeing the same effect here: very few truthers stop in these days who are remotely rational, and the less they know, the louder they shout. They influence no one to join them, but if we allow them to, they sure can occupy our time.

That the truthers claim that WTC 7 is their best evidence of a smoking gun, yet they won't discuss the issue on Hardfire with a pro like Arthur Scheuerman, tells me that if you want to keep doing 9/11 shows you may need to consider a different format. If the leading fearless champions of "truth" won't come out from under the covers, and Ace Baker is the de facto face of the truth movement, then in my opinion our job is done and it's time to move on.

[leftysergeant]

Perhaps the easiest no-planer to debunk would be Dave Von Kleist. He makes the absurd statement that it is unlikely that a woman standing on an upper floor of the tallest building in Chelsea, about three miles away, would be unable to see an airliner striking the second building while she was on the phone talking to a live news caster.

And then there is the stupid remark he makes about a woman caught on video screaming "That was NOT a United Airliner!" as proof of some sort of trickery, when anyone with a room-temp IQ knows that she was emotionally invested in the air line in some way.

[T.A.M.]

Ron;

I am one of those who disagree with your invite (albeit not vehemently). I think you are opening up the show, and its purpose to be from here on it looked at as simply arguing a strawman. The majority of their movement will look upon the ACE show as a sucker punch, an easy win. Now granted, I see where you are going with this. If they do call the ACE show a cheap shot, an easy win, then they set themselves up to provide a better champion, increasing pressure on the biggies (DRG, Gage, etc...) to step up to the plate, but you know they still will not.

I also think there is the real possibility of legitimate mental illness with many of the CGI/TV Fakery crowd.

If you decide to go ahead with it anyway, then for the love of god find a video editing or video analysis expert to have him debate against.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

I know that many of you are disgusted and bored by the lunacy of Morgan Reynolds and Ace Baker. I present these exchanges between the two Bizarros and Anthony Lawson in the spirit of, "For those of you who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing you'll like."

(Morgan Reynolds wrote)
Well stated, Ace. Our meager ($ losing) efforts involve chump change, while the mass media have $billions on the line. Even more is on the line, the entire power structure is because the media are the head of the snake, the psy-op enforcement arm of the ptb. These mass murderers and their apologists are toast if the public ever catches wind of the plane fraud.

Hey Lawson, plane-believer, where is the plane debris below the impact zones and in the gashes?
Where is your video evidence of Newton's third Law of Motion (equal and opposite actions) in action, as displayed in every other collision between two bodies in history except the two 9/11 Twin Tower hits? The videos show no force exerted by the south tower on the plane (image!). This is physically impossible, isn't it?

Even NIST bureaucrat, Bill Pitts, who was responsible for NIST's collection of 9/11 photos and videos, calls the videos of the disappearance of the plane images (dubious term for north tower hit, I know, but for the sake of argument I will label it a "plane image") into the towers "amazing" and "miraculous" (= adj. of the nature of a miracle = an event that appears unexplainable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God). Pitts finds it "amazing that the building just ate the plane":Jeff (pumpitout) Hill: "A lot of people seem to think that the video was fake because if you look at the video...kind of seamlessly melts into the building."

Bill Pitts, NIST: "I don't disagree with what you're saying. I've looked at exactly the same stuff. I've seen the same thing in 15 other videos. I don't see how they all could fake it.


Why not? All penetration videos arrived hours, days, weeks, months and years after the event. None were shown live or with a few second, only a plane image disappearing behind the edge of a tower. btw, why did none of the network professionals, all with cameras on the towers, never turn and film the airplane "hit"? Ghengis wonders if they were all blind and deaf.

Pitts continues: "I don't have any problem with it. I know you guys are still trying to figure out what you're seeing and I don't blame you 'cause I looked at it too and to me it's still amazing that the building just ate the plane.


I gather Lawson, in contrast to NIST's Bill Pitts, finds everything A-OK with the videos. What is wrong with this picture?

On Dec 18, 2007, at 10:12 AM, Ace Baker wrote:
Mr. Lawson,

Yes I will state my interest. My interest is in educating the public. I'm losing money.

Most of the people on this list already know that I am making a movie about the science of 9/11. Several have been interviewed on camera, others such as Mr. Shermer declined.

The film is a non-profit educational documentary, and is being funded by a private individual. His name will be on the finished movie, as will all of the principals.

I did indeed offer you the job of narrator, as we all like your speaking voice. That offer was withdrawn when it became clear that you were attempting to influence the content of the work.

I can state unequivocally that my effort in writing and directing the documentary is a labor of love, I am losing money hand-over-fist in order to make it happen.

Now look at the financial interests involved in perpetuating the plane myth. What's at stake is nothing less than the entire sanctity of network news organizations. If there were real planes, we can continue to pretend that news organizations are independent. If there were no planes, we must accept the idea that the news organizations are simply propaganda arms of the U.S. government, willing conspirators to treason and mass-murder.

Sincerely,

Ace Baker

[uk_dave]

Must....clean....brain....wire...brush.... no planes.... faked video..... faked video of holograms.... no witnesses.... holograms nobody saw...faked videos of holograms nobody saw.... brain hurts.... wasted money on holograms nobody saw and faked video for no good reason.... must hide from big owl.... show me the money.....the money.... oh....the horror.

[GStan]

I make fun of people who watch soap operas.
I make fun of people who watch pro-wrestling.
I make fun of people who watch Jerry Springer et al.

And yet here I am watching this so-called Truth Movement.

I think I've got some thinkin' to do.

[pomeroo]

"The videos show no force exerted by the south tower on the plane (image!). This is physically impossible, isn't it?"

Correct!

[twinstead]

If there is such a thing as 'COINTELPRO', Ace and company are it; they make the 911 'truth' movement look like total idiots.

[Brainache]

So Ace is making a movie? Can't wait for that one.

I hope he doesn't go broke before he finishes it...

[T.A.M.]

I don't think they are cointelpro or disinfo. Do not give them so much credit. If This all powerful evil cabal wanted to put "Disinfo" into the truth movement, I think they would be a little more subtle then the obvious insanity that is "CGI/TV Fakery/No-planism".

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

Easiest job in the world.

(Hope we're not paying them)

[Gnu World Order]

"The videos show no force exerted by the south tower on the plane (image!). This is physically impossible, isn't it?"

Correct!

Yes, that's why you see the plane emerge, unblemished, from the other side of the tower and continue on to land safely in San Francisco.

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the forum Gnu.

TAM:)

[Comsat Angel]

I love how they casually ignore thousands, if not tens of thousands, if not several hundred thousand, eyewitnesses to these events. Still, seeing Twoofers lose it with each other in print is always good for a malicious chuckle or two!

[leftysergeant]

I would assume that this Anthony Lawson is the gentleman who made a short film called "The Orange" about the collapse of WTC 7 and several others bashing no-planers.

It is amusing that he is so indignant that there are people wack enough not to believe in planes, but still, he sees CD in the events of that day.

A bit like watching a Hassidic Jew and a Mormon arguing theology.

[einsteen]

It looks like they get more attention from the debunkers than the truthers.

[twinstead]

It looks like they get more attention from the debunkers than the truthers.

If the battles on LC and other truther forums is any indication, that may be an incorrect statement.

[pomeroo]

(Morgan Reynolds wrote)
Lawson claims that Dr./Mr. Reynolds, in trying

To make your case, you cannot keep talking about Newton's laws and no external debris; Reynolds' Response: I can keep talking about Newton's laws and lack of airplane wreckage as much as I like and I really, really like to talk about those subjects. That you object tells me that I am over the target. Thank you. Newton's laws were formulated over three centuries ago and have been in play (at work?) since the beginning of time. "Surreal" exceptions have been rather hard to find, much less verify.

obviously the velocity and weight of the plane meant that what was seen on the photographic evidence happened, Reynolds: The velocity and weight of the plane? The faster and heavier the plane, the bigger the steel/concrete towers would "kickback." The kickback would be wicked, real wicked, real strong. Towers are not built to be lightweight because they are not intended to fly, planes are. duh. The redundancy factor = strength margin = overdesign = overbuild is huge for a quarter-mile tower built in downtown Manhattan and is close to non-existent for an aluminum plane as a collision vehicle. What do you not understand about this eminently reasonable proposition, and one so well empirically verified?
Mr. Lawson cannot be as thick-headed as he pretends to be. Here is one version I have of the lesson Lawson so badly needs to learn, to get your "arms around," dear sir:


Under Newton's 1st law of motion, or law of inertia, if a plane does not decelerate upon impact with an exterior wall, no net force could have been impressed on the plane. To restate, if a plane continues to fly at the same speed, no force has been applied to it. That is the law of inertia. NIST's assertion that we would not expect the aircraft to "decelerate immediately upon impact" against a steel wall backed by steel/concrete floors apparently contradicts Newton's first law. Since a contradiction cannot exist in nature, I can think of six possible explanations:

(a) the 1st law never has been generally valid and/or does not apply to these kinds of interactions between bodies (Newton was wrong, for example, because the master scientist neglected to account for a time lag between impact and deceleration)

(b) the physical law has general validity, but was temporarily suspended in New York City between 8:46 and 9:03 a.m. on 9/11, perhaps by Muslim terrorists

(c) the twin towers and jetliners were built long after Sir Isaac Newton died and hence his old-fashioned laws could not be expected to apply to "biologically-inspired" designs over a quarter-mile tall and their interaction with jetliners

(d) pre-9/11 mechanics no longer apply in a post-9/11 world

(e) the law of inertia holds alright but the buildings were a figment of our imagination and there was no interaction between objects

(f) the law of inertia holds but the planes were a figment of our imagination and there was no interaction between objects (i.e., the plane was a video insert, a TV special effect).
Engineers would be shocked to learn that Newton's first law is invalid or did not apply on 9/11 or after 9/11. Their disbelief suggests that explanations a-d can be safely rejected because Newtonian mechanics still apply. And since the Twin Towers were real by all accounts, that leaves fake videos as the most likely explanation for observing little or no deceleration.

(to be continued)

[pomeroo]

Under Newton's 2d law, sometimes called the law of acceleration, if a force is applied at the front of an airplane, it must slow and the back or tail of that aircraft must slow too. Unless that is, the front is no longer in the way of the back of the plane because the front is no longer connected to the rear, and the disconnect occurred without loss of kinetic energy. Further, according to the 2d law deceleration must be proportional to the force applied. The steel/concrete Twin Towers would administer quite a force against an aluminum airplane flying at high speed.


Since NIST insists that a 159-foot-long Boeing 767 disappeared into the north tower within 0.25 seconds and into the south tower within a corrected 0.23 seconds, almost the same as their speeds in the air, no force was impressed on these planes according to Newton's second law.

(to be continued)

[pomeroo]

F=ma and if a=0, then no net force was applied. When was Newton's 2nd law repealed? I did not get the memo. If the 2d law still applies, and I believe it does, then NIST cannot possibly be right and any gashes or holes in the towers that appeared at 8:46 a.m. and 9:03 a.m. on 9/11 must have been impressed by some method other than by a no-deceleration airplane. NIST apparently forgot the lecture on the first day in engineering mechanics class.
Newton's 3d law, sometimes called the law of reciprocal actions, states that all forces occur in pairs and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. That is, the forces of action and reaction between bodies in contact have the same magnitude, same line of action, and opposite sense. Didn't NIST personnel have a tug of war when they were children? If there is a force on the building in a crash, there is an equal and opposite force on the airplane. Yet the plane does not slow down or break apart!
If an aluminum plane ran into a Twin Tower, it must crumple, shatter and could not possibly leave a jetliner-shaped, cartoon-like "silhouette of passage" because in a collision with a tremendously strong building, arguably the strongest in the world, an airplane with its far lower mass, density and strength because it is built to be lightweight, would be far less able to withstand the equal force exerted on both bodies. The airlines weigh your luggage and worry about its distribution en route while building security personnel and custodians do not worry about the weight building entrants bring in because buildings do not have to be lightweight and are built with redundant strength.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/woman_wtc.jpg


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_woman_impact-area_full_large.jpg
Strength and massiveness matter greatly in which body will fare better in withstanding the equal force of an impact. Everybody knows this in shopping for a car: should I buy a heavy SUV for safety or accept the risk of driving a lightweight econobox or sportscar? If the damage inflicted on the other body in a collision between a jetliner and a Tower were likened to a sports contest, it would be something like Tower 100, Airplane 2. Imagine, for example, that a Tower fell on the airplane instead of the aluminum airplane hitting the Tower: complete and utter devastation of the airplane. However, this mismatch is not what the videos show. Instead, the aluminum plane cuts right through steel and disappears inside the Tower. This is impossible. Structural steel is far stronger than aluminum and present in abundant quantities, and would suffer only light damage compared to complete and utter destruction/rejection of an aluminum airplane, with most of its debris scattered outside the building, especially wings, tail section and a majority of the shattered fuselage. The five floors in each Tower allegedly impacted by planes weighed more than 100X that of the alleged 140 ton airplanes. For more of this analysis, please see http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt.htm and http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=had_a_car_crash

http://nomoregames.net/911/nist_denies_prelim/64_cookieHole_dsnc1775A.jpg
Figure 1
http://nomoregames.net/911/nist_denies_prelim/65_CoyotePlate.jpg
Figure 2
http://nomoregames.net/911/nist_denies_prelim/Geewhizz.jpg
Figure 3
http://nomoregames.net/911/nist_denies_prelim/66_Roadrunner.jpg
Figure 4
ARA: http://drjudywood.com/articles/ARA/ARA.html
Appeal: http://drjudywood.com/pdf/070822_RFC_Appeal17a_JW.pdf
NIST RFC: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html

[Mince]

Towers are not built to be lightweight because they are not intended to fly, planes are. duh.


This guy sounds like a real intellectual dynamo.

[slyjoe]

...snip

Reynolds: The velocity and weight of the plane? The faster and heavier the plane, the bigger the steel/concrete towers would "kickback." The kickback would be wicked, real wicked, real strong.

By this logic, a slower and lighter object can more easily penetrate the building? :confused:

I always wondered what they meant when they said the attacks violated the laws of physics. I think Morgan Reynolds has violated the laws of physics, and I mean "violated" in the dirtiest sense.

Wow.

[Anti-sophist]

Under Newton's 2d law, sometimes called the law of acceleration, if a force is applied at the front of an airplane, it must slow and the back or tail of that aircraft must slow too.

This argument is so absurd it makes my brain hurt. Force doesn't magically travel to all sections of some abstract "object" however it is defined. The force actually has to have a means to actually travel. If it doesn't, it's not a single object. A plane colliding with a building at that speed isn't and cannot be treated as a single object. There's simply absolutely no way for a force like this to act upon the rear of an aircraft.

Newton's law weren't violated. Reynold's absurd definition of an "object" is the only problem. If you properly model the plane as a set of objects that are capable of being deformed, Newton's law predict what would happen perfectly.

This video debunks his -entire- argument.

3LRBHqJI40k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LRBHqJI40k

Reynolds has exactly two choices when we apply his absurd argument to this video:

1) His argument is wrong
2) This video was faked

Please, please, please ask him to measure the deceleration of the plane in this video. He says, because of Newton's law, it -must- decelerate. I'd -love- for him to back that claim up with some evidence. This video is -perfect- for that.

For the record, Killtown chose the second, when I presented this identical argument to him. He told me the Sandia video was a psyops.

[HighRiser]

He thinks the towers were solid blocks and airplanes are no more substantial than aluminum cans? What does he imagine that the curtain walls of the towers were made of? What happens when you throw an empty beer can at a window? Compare that to what happens when you throw a full one at the window.

[T.A.M.]

I love it when an Economist tries to teach the "appropriate" application of Newton's laws.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Don't know if this really merits its own thread, Ron, since it's simply a reprint of an email. I asked the mods if it can be combined with one of your recent similar threads.

[pomeroo]

Don't know if this really merits its own thread, Ron, since it's simply a reprint of an email. I asked the mods if it can be combined with one of your recent similar threads.

No problem. I actually tried to post it in the last thread devoted to Reynolds and Ace, but apparently it was too large. I can see an advantage to having his comprehensive explanation of the physics of the (nonexistent) plane crashes under one heading. I think it makes it more convenient for people who want to refute specific errors, as opposed to simply venting about the fatuity of these loons.

[Brainster]

He thinks the towers were solid blocks and airplanes are no more substantial than aluminum cans? What does he imagine that the curtain walls of the towers were made of?

The exteriors of the Twin Towers were not curtain walls; the steel columns along the exterior were load-bearing, and substantial; indeed this was part of the revolutionary design of the buildings. That they were unlikely to withstand the impact of the planes is a separate issue.

[Brainache]

...

A bit like watching a Hassidic Jew and a Mormon arguing theology.

I think its a bit more like watching a Chimpanzee and a Spider Monkey throwing poo at each other.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The velocity and weight of the plane? The faster and heavier the plane, the bigger the steel/concrete towers would "kickback." The kickback would be wicked, real wicked, real strong.


Huh... I didn't realize the towers were constructed of a non-Newtonian... solid. :confused:

[StoneWT]

Good god, this is voluntary retardation on a massive scale!

Has Reynolds taken the simple step of asking a non-woo person with applicable expertise about his stunning :faint: proof? :confused: Is he just Killtown with some prior government experience and a degree? Does he simply sit around and think :drool: about stuff as a substitute for genuine research?

[T.A.M.]

His "experts" are Ace Baker, Rick Rajter, and Judy Wood...you do the math.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

What was the thread where the deceleration of the plane was discussed?
I seem to recall that some really bright people were participating (not to suggest that there aren't bright people in this one ;)).

[Cl1mh4224rd]

His "experts" are Ace Baker, Rick Rajter, and Judy Wood...you do the math.


I gotta say, in this case, 1+1+1 does not equal 3...

[Alferd_Packer]

The faster and heavier the plane, the bigger the steel/concrete towers would "kickback."

OK, let's try a physics experiment. Let's accelerate a heavy object toward Morgan, say a full beer can moving at 400 mph.

Let's see how much he is able to "Kickback" the can.

[T.A.M.]

What was the thread where the deceleration of the plane was discussed?
I seem to recall that some really bright people were participating (not to suggest that there aren't bright people in this one ;)).

You are very lucky you finished with that you ineducable TV host.

TAM;)

[pomeroo]

"If an aluminum plane ran into a Twin Tower, it must crumple, shatter and could not possibly leave a jetliner-shaped, cartoon-like "silhouette of passage" because in a collision with a tremendously strong building, arguably the strongest in the world, an airplane with its far lower mass, density and strength because it is built to be lightweight, would be far less able to withstand the equal force exerted on both bodies."


You have to remind yourself that he can write idiocy like this because he doesn't believe that aluminum planes did run into the Twin Towers. I suppose when you're trying to prove that something that happened really didn't happen, it helps if you can pretend it was impossible.

[StoneWT]

In this case, it's more like 1+1+1 equals 'guano'.

It would be easier to take if he just thought it was a cool conspiracy theory, but butchering Newton in order to provide proof just makes it infinitely worse. Instead of being an ignorant dupe, he is actively creating new BS to confuse other dumb people that don't know any better.

[Alferd_Packer]

I wonder if Morgan has ever heard of the plane on a conveyor belt problem. I'd love to see his take on that.

[pomeroo]

You are very lucky you finished with that you ineducable TV host.

TAM;)


Hey, hit me hard enough and I can roll over and beg.

[pomeroo]

I wonder if Morgan has ever heard of the plane on a conveyor belt problem. I'd love to see his take on that.


Okay, I'll bite. Tell us about it.

[T.A.M.]

Hey, hit me hard enough and I can roll over and beg.

ummm...go there I will not. Besides, you aint such an old dog...

TAM;)

[Alferd_Packer]

A plane is on a conveyor belt. The belt speed is controlled so that it matches the forward speed of the airplane wheels - but going backwards.

Can the plane take off?

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Now I'm not agreeing with the conspiracy theorists. Just trying to get a little clarity here.

It seems that AntiSophist is saying that the plane is not considered to be one whole object. The nose of the airplane does not automatically transfer the force back to the tail of the plane.

But doesn't that mean that only a small fraction of the mass of the airplane should be considered when calculating the force encountered by the wall?

Just curious.

[pomeroo]

A serious question for the physics brainiacs. Like too many artsy-fartsy humanities-types, I neglected the hard sciences in college. I'm ashamed to reveal how many times I've had to dig out my old physics text to attempt to follow Mackey, or Greening, or Newton's Bit (don't be offended if I didn't mention your name; I'm typing quickly). How much physics knowledge is required to be competent to refute with confidence the errors in Reynolds's message? Would a bright undergrad be up to the task?

[rwguinn]

"If an aluminum plane ran into a Twin Tower, it must crumple, shatter and could not possibly leave a jetliner-shaped, cartoon-like "silhouette of passage" because in a collision with a tremendously strong building, arguably the strongest in the world, an airplane with its far lower mass, density and strength because it is built to be lightweight, would be far less able to withstand the equal force exerted on both bodies."


You have to remind yourself that he can write idiocy like this because he doesn't believe that aluminum planes did run into the Twin Towers. I suppose when you're trying to prove that something that happened really didn't happen, it helps if you can pretend it was impossible.
Here's a good place to start (http://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Mechanics-Deformable-Bodies-Edward/dp/0060411090) (Sophomore level Engineering)

he needs to learn that Rigid Body Kinematics and Dynamics (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7Ebaraff/pbm/rigid2.pdf) do not apply real world--they are only a starting place...

[rwguinn]

A serious question for the physics brainiacs. Like too many artsy-fartsy humanities-types, I neglected the hard sciences in college. I'm ashamed to reveal how many times I've had to dig out my old physics text to attempt to follow Mackey, or Greening, or Newton's Bit (don't be offended if I didn't mention your name; I'm typing quickly). How much physics knowledge is required to be competent to refute with confidence the errors in Reynolds's message? Would a bright undergrad be up to the task?

See above.
I would expect a Junior (3rd year college) engineering student to have no problem with it. Certainly a senior.

[rwguinn]

A plane is on a conveyor belt. The belt speed is controlled so that it matches the forward speed of the airplane wheels - but going backwards.

Can the plane take off?
How do you get the wheels turning in the first place--they aren't driven:D

And yes, I know what you're saying...

[pomeroo]

A plane is on a conveyor belt. The belt speed is controlled so that it matches the forward speed of the airplane wheels - but going backwards.

Can the plane take off?


Wow! This is what I was talking about. I'm going to take an uneducated guess and sit back for the answer. I'll learn something in any case.

I'm guessing that the plane has no velocity, so it can't take off.

[rwguinn]

Wow! This is what I was talking about. I'm going to take an uneducated guess and sit back for the answer. I'll learn something in any case.

I'm guessing that the plane has no velocity, so it can't take off.
A hint, pomeroo:
The wheels are to keep the prop from hitting the ground...

[pomeroo]

Here's a good place to start (http://www.amazon.com/Engineering-Mechanics-Deformable-Bodies-Edward/dp/0060411090) (Sophomore level Engineering)

he needs to learn that Rigid Body Kinematics and Dynamics (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7Ebaraff/pbm/rigid2.pdf) do not apply real world--they are only a starting place...


I definitely should have included your name--my apologies. Is the refutation of Reynolds's analysis a physics problem or an engineering problem? How is such a distinction made?

[pomeroo]

A hint, pomeroo:
The wheels are to keep the prop from hitting the ground...



Hmmm. Now, you're making me think that the plane does take off, that it achieves sufficient forward thrust to get airborne. I feel stupid.

[rwguinn]

I definitely should have included your name--my apologies. Is the refutation of Reynolds's analysis a physics problem or an engineering problem? How is such a distinction made?

It's technically an engineering problem. See Newton's Bit's essays on buckling elsewhere in this subforum. Load transfer is applied physics--which is engineering, by definition:D

Hmmm. Now, you're making me think that the plane does take off, that it achieves sufficient forward thrust to get airborne. I feel stupid.
The question is not simple. And I could be wrong, lying to you, or laying a red herring (hedge, hedge)

[pomeroo]

It's technically an engineering problem. See Newton's Bit's essays on buckling elsewhere in this subforum. Load transfer is applied physics--which is engineering, by definition:D


The question is not simple. And I could be wrong, lying to you, or laying a red herring (hedge, hedge)


Don't tell us the answer until a few people who are smarter than I am have taken a crack at it.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Now I'm not agreeing with the conspiracy theorists. Just trying to get a little clarity here.

It seems that AntiSophist is saying that the plane is not considered to be one whole object. The nose of the airplane does not automatically transfer the force back to the tail of the plane.

But doesn't that mean that only a small fraction of the mass of the airplane should be considered when calculating the force encountered by the wall?

Just curious.

Maybe rwguinn can comment on the above

[Cl1mh4224rd]

A plane is on a conveyor belt. The belt speed is controlled so that it matches the forward speed of the airplane wheels - but going backwards.

Can the plane take off?


Nope. No (or not enough) airflow over the wings to generate lift. That's my answer, and I'm sticking to it... unless convinced otherwise. ;)

[pomeroo]

Nope. No (or not enough) airflow over the wings to generate lift. That's my answer, and I'm sticking to it... unless convinced otherwise. ;)


Geez, that takes me back to my original guess, that the zero velocity of the plane prevents it from getting off the ground. This is a problem in gedanken physics, right? So, relative to the air surrounding the plane, the plane isn't moving at all.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Geez, that takes me back to my original guess, that the zero velocity of the plane prevents it from getting off the ground. This is a problem in gedanken physics, right? So, relative to the air surrounding the plane, the plane isn't moving at all.


Well, that's how I see it. Not having any formal education in this area, though, I reserve the right to be completely wrong. ;)

[pomeroo]

Well, that's how I see it. Not having any formal education in this area, though, I reserve the right to be completely wrong. ;)


Well, what you say sounds reasonable to me. But, just reflect on the twoofer mentality. Suppose it turns out that you're mistaken and someone like RWGuinn explains the answer in detail. Would it occur to you to start screaming that he's wrong and he's lying? Try as I might, I simply can't get inside their heads.

[Anti-sophist]

Now I'm not agreeing with the conspiracy theorists. Just trying to get a little clarity here.

It seems that AntiSophist is saying that the plane is not considered to be one whole object. The nose of the airplane does not automatically transfer the force back to the tail of the plane.

But doesn't that mean that only a small fraction of the mass of the airplane should be considered when calculating the force encountered by the wall?

Just curious.

I don't know who is trying to calculate the force encountered by the wall using Newton's equations. They are woefully unequipped to answer that question. But yes. The force function over time experienced by the wall would be very different if it was hit by a plane of mass M at speed V versus a single cannon ball of mass M at speed V.

It should be obvious from common sense that the physics of high impact collisions can't be simply analyzed using macroscopic objects and newton's laws. You can't simplify two different objects into just their mass and speed and pretend the analysis proceeds equally for both, given those quantities. It's a trivial matter to demonstrate that a 6-lb sandbag will behave quite differently than a 6-lb cannonball in a collision, although in Reynold's "macroscopic" view, both objects are identical.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

I can see how modeling the entire crash would be extremely complex. But in trying to understand the force involved in the initial impact, it seems there would be something of a reciprocal relationship involved, would there not?

I mean, the more strongly the plane was connected together, the more the plane acted as a single object, the more of its mass would be included, the more force that would be felt by the wall on initial impact, and the more force also felt by the entire plane, and the more deceleration of the entire plane.

Whereas, the weaker the plane was connected together, the less the plane acted as a single object, the less of its mass would be included, the less force that would be felt by the wall on initial impact, and the less force felt by the entire plane, and the less deceleration of the entire plane.

[uk_dave]

Nope. No (or not enough) airflow over the wings to generate lift. That's my answer, and I'm sticking to it... unless convinced otherwise. ;)


That's what I would have said....but I'm wondering, since the plane must be moving relative to the air around it.... as it is using that air to 'pull' itself forward by the use of it's engines rather than drive to the wheels.....then.......

.....ummmmmmmm........

...too early in the morning for this!

ETA: Further coffee leads me to conclude that the plane can take off because the reverse conveyor belt has no more effect on the motion of the plane than it would if the plane was already flying....or something.

[Anti-sophist]

I can see how modeling the entire crash would be extremely complex. But in trying to understand the force involved in the initial impact, it seems there would be something of a reciprocal relationship involved, would there not?

I mean, the more strongly the plane was connected together, the more the plane acted as a single object, the more of its mass would be included, the more force that would be felt by the wall on initial impact, and the more force also felt by the entire plane, and the more deceleration of the entire plane.

Whereas, the weaker the plane was connected together, the less the plane acted as a single object, the less of its mass would be included, the less force that would be felt by the wall on initial impact, and the less force felt by the entire plane, and the less deceleration of the entire plane.

Ok. Sure.

My suspicion though is that an aircraft undergoing what we saw will experience no measurable deceleration (at the tail). As I said from the previous video, it would be relatively simple to find out.

I know, for certain, it's a larger error to treat the entire plane as a single object versus treating the entire plane as a million individual objects that are completely unconnected. In some sense, treating the plane as a liquid.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Ok. Sure.

My suspicion though is that an aircraft undergoing what we saw will experience no measurable deceleration (at the tail). As I said from the previous video, it would be relatively simple to find out.

I know, for certain, it's a larger error to treat the entire plane as a single object versus treating the entire plane as a million individual objects that are completely unconnected. In some sense, treating the plane as a liquid.

So the kinetic energy of the initial impact would be 1/2 * mass * velocity ^ 2 ? With mass being 1/1,000,000 the mass of the airplane?

[Blackadder_no]

I wonder if Morgan has ever heard of the plane on a conveyor belt problem. I'd love to see his take on that.

Well, the Mythbusters have actually done that one already, it's going to be aired in January...

[funk de fino]

In a theoretical model the plane, would indeed, take off

[Alferd_Packer]

That's what I would have said....but I'm wondering, since the plane must be moving relative to the air around it.... as it is using that air to 'pull' itself forward by the use of it's engines rather than drive to the wheels.....then.......

.....ummmmmmmm........

...too early in the morning for this!

ETA: Further coffee leads me to conclude that the plane can take off because the reverse conveyor belt has no more effect on the motion of the plane than it would if the plane was already flying....or something.

give the man a cigar.

I've seen arguments over this topic span hundreds of pages and thousands of posts.

Instinctively "common sense" tells us that since the conveyor belt is canceling the forward movment of the wheels, then the plane does not move. But planes are not powered through the wheels to the ground, they are powered through the propeler through the air. Thus, the plane will still move forward even though it's wheels are spinning backwards at twice the normal speed.

It will take off.

But, as it has been pointed out, this is a classic test for truther mentality. A lot of people guess wrong on this. Those that fail to comprehend and accept the right answer when it is explained to them, fail the test.

[gumboot]

Thus, the plane will still move forward even though it's wheels are spinning backwards at twice the normal speed.


The wheels would be spinning forwards at twice the airspeed of the aircraft.

-Gumboot

ETA. Technically the bit of the wheel that is moving forwards (the infinitely small point at the top of the wheel) would be traveling at four times the airspeed of the aircraft, but that's getting into the details.

[jsiv]

Instinctively "common sense" tells us that since the conveyor belt is canceling the forward movment of the wheels, then the plane does not move. But planes are not powered through the wheels to the ground, they are powered through the propeler through the air. Thus, the plane will still move forward even though it's wheels are spinning backwards at twice the normal speed.


Most of you are wrong, and the above about the freewheeling and where the plane gets its thrust from does not actually matter.

You should read the actual question again. It is intended to mislead.

If this hypothetical conveyor belt matched the speed of the wheels instantly and exactly, the plane would get nowhere. Even though the wheels are not powered, they are essential in getting airborne as the plane requires forward motion to fly (unless there is one hell of a headwind). The wheels have to be moving along the ground, either by spinning or by skidding. I'm going to assume absolutely perfect conditions in this scenario, so skidding is out of the question.

You say that the wheels would just spin faster and the plane would move forward and take off anyway. That is true if the conveyor belt was matching the speed of the plane, but if you read the question again, you can see that this is not the case. It is matching the wheels. This means that if this hypothetical rig actually got running in the first place and remained in sync, the conveyor would also increase its speed to match the wheels and -- assuming perfect traction -- the whole thing would remain stationary. You could keep increasing the speed of the wheels to infinity and the conveyor belt would still match it. No forward motion = no liftoff.

Of course, the actual rig in question could not really exist in the real world, so the whole thing is a bit of a humorous theoretical question.

[Tolls]

It will take off.


Gack!
I've had that explained to me before now and I still got it wrong!
:o

[Tolls]

You say that the wheels would just spin faster and the plane would move forward and take off anyway. That is true if the conveyor belt was matching the speed of the plane, but if you read the question again, you can see that this is not the case. It is matching the wheels. This means that if this hypothetical rig actually got running in the first place and remained in sync, the conveyor would also increase its speed to match the wheels and -- assuming perfect traction -- the whole thing would remain stationary. You could keep increasing the speed of the wheels to infinity and the conveyor belt would still match it. No forward motion = no liftoff.

Of course, the actual rig in question could not really exist in the real world, so the whole thing is a bit of a humorous theoretical question.

Gack * 2!

Now I'm all confused...:confused:

[westprog]

Most of you are wrong, and the above about the freewheeling and where the plane gets its thrust from does not actually matter.

You should read the actual question again. It is intended to mislead.

If this hypothetical conveyor belt matched the speed of the wheels instantly and exactly, the plane would get nowhere. Even though the wheels are not powered, they are essential in getting airborne as the plane requires forward motion to fly (unless there is one hell of a headwind). The wheels have to be moving along the ground, either by spinning or by skidding. I'm going to assume absolutely perfect conditions in this scenario, so skidding is out of the question.

You say that the wheels would just spin faster and the plane would move forward and take off anyway. That is true if the conveyor belt was matching the speed of the plane, but if you read the question again, you can see that this is not the case. It is matching the wheels. This means that if this hypothetical rig actually got running in the first place and remained in sync, the conveyor would also increase its speed to match the wheels and -- assuming perfect traction -- the whole thing would remain stationary. You could keep increasing the speed of the wheels to infinity and the conveyor belt would still match it. No forward motion = no liftoff.

Of course, the actual rig in question could not really exist in the real world, so the whole thing is a bit of a humorous theoretical question.

I think that there are too many infinities in the idealised version for it to be illustrative. We have to assume that the wheels are perfect circles, that there is no skidding, that perfect contact exists at all times, and so on.

[funk de fino]

Most of you are wrong, and the above about the freewheeling and where the plane gets its thrust from does not actually matter.

You should read the actual question again. It is intended to mislead.

If this hypothetical conveyor belt matched the speed of the wheels instantly and exactly, the plane would get nowhere. Even though the wheels are not powered, they are essential in getting airborne as the plane requires forward motion to fly (unless there is one hell of a headwind). The wheels have to be moving along the ground, either by spinning or by skidding. I'm going to assume absolutely perfect conditions in this scenario, so skidding is out of the question.

You say that the wheels would just spin faster and the plane would move forward and take off anyway. That is true if the conveyor belt was matching the speed of the plane, but if you read the question again, you can see that this is not the case. It is matching the wheels. This means that if this hypothetical rig actually got running in the first place and remained in sync, the conveyor would also increase its speed to match the wheels and -- assuming perfect traction -- the whole thing would remain stationary. You could keep increasing the speed of the wheels to infinity and the conveyor belt would still match it. No forward motion = no liftoff.

Of course, the actual rig in question could not really exist in the real world, so the whole thing is a bit of a humorous theoretical question.

You are wrong.

There is nothing to counter the forward thrust generated by the aircraft engines.

There is no force acting in the opposite direction therefore the aircraft will move forward regardless of whether it has wheels or not. If the aircraft moves forward it will take off.

Some aircraft have no wheels remember. They are only there to prevent damage to the aircraft on landing and take off and to allow the engines to work more efficiently by reducing drag on the ground.

Aircraft can land without wheels and if they had powerful enough engines to overcome friction they could also take off without wheels (admittedly with a lot of underside damage)

Try to get the image of a car on a rolling road out of your head

[gumboot]

If this hypothetical conveyor belt matched the speed of the wheels instantly and exactly, the plane would get nowhere. Even though the wheels are not powered, they are essential in getting airborne as the plane requires forward motion to fly (unless there is one hell of a headwind). The wheels have to be moving along the ground, either by spinning or by skidding. I'm going to assume absolutely perfect conditions in this scenario, so skidding is out of the question.

You say that the wheels would just spin faster and the plane would move forward and take off anyway. That is true if the conveyor belt was matching the speed of the plane, but if you read the question again, you can see that this is not the case. It is matching the wheels. This means that if this hypothetical rig actually got running in the first place and remained in sync, the conveyor would also increase its speed to match the wheels and -- assuming perfect traction -- the whole thing would remain stationary. You could keep increasing the speed of the wheels to infinity and the conveyor belt would still match it. No forward motion = no liftoff.



It's something of a trick question because it is impossible for the conveyor belt to move at the same speed as the wheels if the aircraft is moving.

Using a simple formula (ignoring, for a moment direction)

X = wheel speed
V = aircraft airspeed
C = conveyor belt speed

The formula is X = C+V

Therefore C can only ever equal X if V = 0.

So in a way, the answer is actually no, the aircraft cannot take off, but only because the actual experiment, as worded, is impossible to accomplish with an aircraft that is moving.

If you made the scenario that an aircraft was taking off along a stationary conveyor belt, and then you instantly matched the conveyor belt to the ground speed of the aircraft (but in opposite direction) the rotation speed of the wheels would instantly double, and the relative ground speed of the aircraft would not change.

-Gumboot

[uk_dave]

how 'bout a helicopter?

:D

[jsiv]

You are wrong.

There is nothing to counter the forward thrust generated by the aircraft engines.

There is no force acting in the opposite direction therefore the aircraft will move forward regardless of whether it has wheels or not. If the aircraft moves forward it will take off.

Yes, not all planes have wheels, but what they all have in common is that they need forward motion to achieve lift-off. For a plane with wheels there is only two ways that can happen, and that is by either having the wheels turn or by skidding along. If we rule out skidding, then how do you propose the plane moves forward when the conveyor belt cancels out the wheels?

It can't, unless it's skidding along or dragging the whole conveyor with it, but I'm going to assume that this imaginary world has perfect traction and that the conveyor belt is securely attached to the ground.


I think that there are too many infinities in the idealised version for it to be illustrative. We have to assume that the wheels are perfect circles, that there is no skidding, that perfect contact exists at all times, and so on.

So in a way, the answer is actually no, the aircraft cannot take off, but only because the actual experiment, as worded, is impossible to accomplish with an aircraft that is moving.

If you made the scenario that an aircraft was taking off along a stationary conveyor belt, and then you instantly matched the conveyor belt to the ground speed of the aircraft (but in opposite direction) the rotation speed of the wheels would instantly double, and the relative ground speed of the aircraft would not change.

Right, and I suspect that the original version of this question probably did specify ground speed rather than wheel speed and that the one Alfred posted is a bastardized version that doesn't really make much sense, but can still be interesting:

A plane is on a conveyor belt. The belt speed is controlled so that it matches the forward speed of the airplane wheels - but going backwards.

[NickUK]

I think Ron should ask Ace this question if he ever gets him on Hardfire.

[jsiv]

how 'bout a helicopter?

:D


Or an overweight truck full of birds that all take to the wings (at a few feet) just as it pulls into a weigh station?

..

.....

[Myriad]

Yes, not all planes have wheels, but what they all have in common is that they need forward motion to achieve lift-off. For a plane with wheels there is only two ways that can happen, and that is by either having the wheels turn or by skidding along. If we rule out skidding, then how do you propose the plane moves forward when the conveyor belt cancels out the wheels?

It can't, unless it's skidding along or dragging the whole conveyor with it, but I'm going to assume that this imaginary world has perfect traction and that the conveyor belt is securely attached to the ground.


Planes need forward motion relative to the air, not the ground.

Put a plane in a big enough wind tunnel, turn on enough wind, and the plane would most definitely take off. Its wheels would never have to budge. (Would anything prevent you from flying a kite over a conveyor belt?)

But even without wind, the plane on the conveyor belt still takes off. That's because the conveyor belt simply cannot "cancel out the motion of the plane's wheels." It can cancel out the wheels' net forward motion relative to the surface they're resting on, by moving forward at the same speed as the plane, but this would obviously not hinder the plane's taking off. A conveyor belt moving backwards would only cause the wheels to spin faster (while also increasing the net forward movement of the wheels relative to the surface they're resting on). That's not canceling out the wheels' motion in any meaningful way.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[chillzero]

Or an overweight truck full of birds that all take to the wings (at a few feet) just as it pulls into a weigh station?

..

.....


Mythbusters killed that one off.

[Tolls]

Planes need forward motion relative to the air, not the ground.

Put a plane in a big enough wind tunnel, turn on enough wind, and the plane would most definitely take off. Its wheels would never have to budge. (Would anything prevent you from flying a kite over a conveyor belt?)

But even without wind, the plane on the conveyor belt still takes off. That's because the conveyor belt simply cannot "cancel out the motion of the plane's wheels." It can cancel out the wheels' net forward motion relative to the surface they're resting on, by moving forward at the same speed as the plane, but this would obviously not hinder the plane's taking off. A conveyor belt moving backwards would only cause the wheels to spin faster (while also increasing the net forward movement of the wheels relative to the surface they're resting on). That's not canceling out the wheels' motion in any meaningful way.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Ah, this bit I fathom.

Essentially the engine is driving the plane forwards and, unless the treadmill is providing some sort of braking force to the wheels, which seems wrong to me, the wheels really have no effect on that at all.

Does that make sense?

[funk de fino]

The original question as posted online etc

"A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?"


The answer is yes, it will take off.

Nothing is counteracting the force generated by the thrust of the engine against the air.

[Calcas]

The original question as posted online etc

The answer is yes, it will take off.

Nothing is counteracting the force generated by the thrust of the engine against the air.

Exactly.

A vehicle utilizes it's wheels to move forward over the ground. But, wheels on a plane are irrelevant as far as propulsion. It moves via the thrust of the engine against the air while the wings provide the lift necessary to take off.

[jsiv]

Yes, but a lot of people don't seem to realize that these are two entirely different questions. The answer to one doesn't automatically apply to the other.

This is getting very off-topic now though, I think.

[Alferd_Packer]

STOP!!!

I'm sorry I brought it up.


The debate is illustrative of the focus on minutae that is typical of truther debates, and that is all.

Enough with the plane

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-EopVDgSPAk

[Dave Rogers]

A plane is on a conveyor belt. The belt speed is controlled so that it matches the forward speed of the airplane wheels - but going backwards.

Can the plane take off?

As a mere physicist I'd say yes, but I'm open to correction from a world expert who's tried it out on MS Flight Simulator.

Dave

[pomeroo]

STOP!!!

I'm sorry I brought it up.


The debate is illustrative of the focus on minutae that is typical of truther debates, and that is all.

Enough with the plane

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-EopVDgSPAk


Fascinating question--thanks!

[pomeroo]

The latest from Reynolds. Who can provide the most concise, point-by-point reply?

(Morgan Reynolds wrote)
My dear Galen,

1. In a real collision a plane would crumple against the building, parts would break off and shatter, etc., with some damage to the building as well, obviously, but as I have said previously, if it were a sporting contest, the score in terms of damage inflicted on the opponent would be Tower 100, Plane 2. Total destruction of the airplane with most parts outside the building and significant presence left in whatever gash(es) it could create. There would be damage to the tower but it would be structurally inconsequential. The perps, being smarter and more invested in this project than you, knew about the physics of a real crash and that was not the effect they were looking for.

2. "Bounce" is not quite the right term if my honorable antagonist means to be strict, as in "rebound elastically from a collision." Since he accuses me of mistaking an airliner's behavior in a collision with that of a rubber ball, let me state plainly that a plane is not a rubber ball. A rubber ball can collide with an object like the ground and rebound elastically several times in succession (coefficient of restitution close to 1.0). A plane cannot do that because its parts are inelastic. The building would break and deform plane parts inelastically.

3. Some better terms to avoid this confusion would be that the building with its vastly superior strength and equal and opposite force would essentially reject the aircraft and its parts, crumple and break them, repel them, kick them back, force back, disperse, scatter, repulse, fracture and fragment. That's plenty for now. The exoskeleton was formidable, braced by formidable floors and a hell-strong core.

4. Newton's 3d law means that we can think of a tower falling on a parked plane. We need not have the tower moving 500 mph to crush the plane, but if you want entertain that thought experiment, please be my guest.

5. A real crash would leave some 767 pieces in whatever tower gashes it could manage and on the ground below the impact zone plus elsewhere because the left wing/engine would have hit first (remember 38d bank?), spinning the plane counterclockwise to the east, flinging the tail section, etc. A 767 has 3.1 million parts according to Boeing. Where are they? Much less its contents. There is not one visible airplane part in either gash. There is no evidence of parts below either impact zone. A couple of witnesses claimed there were some but I have not seen one pic or other evidence to support that. Do you have some?

6. A flying passenger bus is no missile, Galen. It is not even close in terms of penetrating power. You want to debate this?

7. For your edification, are a couple of photos of the ground below Corey Lidel's little encounter with an Eastside condo tower:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Instinctively "common sense" tells us that since the conveyor belt is canceling the forward movment of the wheels, then the plane does not move. But planes are not powered through the wheels to the ground, they are powered through the propeler through the air. Thus, the plane will still move forward even though it's wheels are spinning backwards at twice the normal speed.

It will take off.


Tricksy! *hiss*

[rwguinn]

Tricksy! *hiss*

No trick. Just basic fizicks and general science.
You have to filter out what data is important. All the wheels do is let you steer the airplane, keep the prop (if so equipped) from hitting the ground, and reduce the amount of force required to move the airplane.

I have model airplanes with frozen wheels--they won't turn at all. They take off, too-leaving black marks on the runway.
Conversly, I have, on a very windy day, released the airplane at full throttle, and taken off with negative ground velocity. I have also see a J-3 Cub (rider scale) do the same thing.

It's kind of like the questions on college exams. They give you, sometimes, a lot more data than you need to solve the problem.

[FactCheck]

Had he not been a professor I would let him get away with being self delusional, but since he is one I have to conclude he is purposely perpetuating this charade for some other reason. One glaring piece of evidence for my conclusion is how he makes the comparison of aluminum and steel outside the fact that there was kinetic energy and liquid involved.

If any of his devout followers are reading this I have a simple test which will can clear any questions up they may have involving aluminum, steel and the towers...

What you need:

- 1 empty aluminum soda can

- 1 full aluminum soda can

- 1 of the windows from your home with average glass thickness

- dust pan

- metal garbage can

- Broom

1) Throw the empty aluminum soda can at the window as hard as you can. Note the window doesn't break. The empty soda can does not have the kinetic energy to break the glass

2) Throw the full aluminum soda can lightly at the window. Note the window doesn't break. There is more mss but not enough KE to break the glass.

3) Throw the full aluminum soda can as hard as you can at the window.

3) Pick up the broom and dust pan and sweep the glass into the metal garbage can. :)

The liquid and speed gave the can the needed kinetic energy to break the glass. I don't have to be a professor to know this. Just as the fuel and speed gave the aluminum airliner the needed kinetic energy to slice through the steel in the towers. He HAS to know this. It's not about convincing him hes wrong. He already knows it. He talks about aluminum and steel as if that strength of each are the only things to consider. Absurd!

[gumboot]

Planes need forward motion relative to the air, not the ground.

Put a plane in a big enough wind tunnel, turn on enough wind, and the plane would most definitely take off. Its wheels would never have to budge. (Would anything prevent you from flying a kite over a conveyor belt?)

But even without wind, the plane on the conveyor belt still takes off. That's because the conveyor belt simply cannot "cancel out the motion of the plane's wheels." It can cancel out the wheels' net forward motion relative to the surface they're resting on, by moving forward at the same speed as the plane, but this would obviously not hinder the plane's taking off. A conveyor belt moving backwards would only cause the wheels to spin faster (while also increasing the net forward movement of the wheels relative to the surface they're resting on). That's not canceling out the wheels' motion in any meaningful way.

Respectfully,
Myriad



I think jsiv's point is that the wording of the question is wrong because it specifies that the moving surface matches the wheel speed when it should be saying that it matches the aircraft speed. For the moving surface to be able to match the wheel speed, the aircraft speed must be zero. If the aircraft's speed is zero it cannot take off.

-Gumboot

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

The original question as posted online etc

The answer is yes, it will take off.

Nothing is counteracting the force generated by the thrust of the engine against the air.

Yes, but a lot of people don't seem to realize that these are two entirely different questions. The answer to one doesn't automatically apply to the other.

This is getting very off-topic now though, I think.

STOP!!!

I'm sorry I brought it up.


The debate is illustrative of the focus on minutae that is typical of truther debates, and that is all.

Enough with the plane



Everything is cleared up now... I knew the question as posed was incorrect :)

It's a good demonstration of why it's important to get details right as changing one minor detail can significantly alter the outcome.

The correctly formed question is, of course, an excellent tool for demonstrating the Truther Flaw when it comes to 9/11 physics. Thank you Alferd_Packer for bring it up. :)

-Gumboot

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No trick. Just basic fizicks and general science.
You have to filter out what data is important. All the wheels do is let you steer the airplane, keep the prop (if so equipped) from hitting the ground, and reduce the amount of force required to move the airplane.


Yeah. I'm mildly fascinated with those sorts of problems, but I always seem to fall for them, even though the answer makes sense after I hear it. *shrug*

[Anti-sophist]

So the kinetic energy of the initial impact would be 1/2 * mass * velocity ^ 2 ? With mass being 1/1,000,000 the mass of the airplane?

Nope. Not sure how this conclusion follows from what I previously said. Unless you have a strange definition of "initial impact" (ie, you say the "initial impact" is when the nosecone impacted, before the front of the cockpit impacted)... the kinetic energy doesn't change by calculating it with respect to a single large object versus decomposing it into bunch of smaller objects. It's the same total mass and the same velocity, so the energy is unchanged.

Also, I'm not sure how kinetic energy as a quantity is relevant to the question about the expected deceleration of the rear of the aircraft.

[rwguinn]

Nope. Not sure how this conclusion follows from what I previously said. Unless you have a strange definition of "initial impact" (ie, you say the "initial impact" is when the nosecone impacted, before the front of the cockpit impacted)... the kinetic energy doesn't change by calculating it with respect to a single large object versus decomposing it into bunch of smaller objects. It's the same total mass and the same velocity, so the energy is unchanged.

Also, I'm not sure how kinetic energy as a quantity is relevant to the question about the expected deceleration of the rear of the aircraft.
Only as it applies to the work required to buckle, then shred and otherwise rip asunder the structural integrity of the parts of the airplane between nose and tail--a miniscule portion of that available.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Nope. Not sure how this conclusion follows from what I previously said. Unless you have a strange definition of "initial impact" (ie, you say the "initial impact" is when the nosecone impacted, before the front of the cockpit impacted)... the kinetic energy doesn't change by calculating it with respect to a single large object versus decomposing it into bunch of smaller objects. It's the same total mass and the same velocity, so the energy is unchanged.

Also, I'm not sure how kinetic energy as a quantity is relevant to the question about the expected deceleration of the rear of the aircraft.

I wasn't caring so much about the deceleration of the rear of the aircraft. I was just thinking that if we thought of the airplane as 1 million separate pieces, like you suggest, then we have one million separate collisions. Each of those has 1/1,000,000 of the kinetic energy than would be present if the airplane acted as a single solid object.

In other words, the total kinetic energy is the same, but it is spread out over time.

I think it might be analogous to burning a log on a fireplace. I read somewhere that burning a log releases about the same amount of energy as exploding a stick of dynamite. The reason dynamite will destroy your fireplace and burning a log won't, is that dynamite puts all that energy on the fireplace in a much shorter amount of time.

[Anti-sophist]

I wasn't caring so much about the deceleration of the rear of the aircraft. I was just thinking that if we thought of the airplane as 1 million separate pieces, like you suggest, then we have one million separate collisions. Each of those has 1/1,000,000 of the kinetic energy that would be present if the airplane acted as a single solid object.

Yes, that would be true.


In other words, the total kinetic energy is the same, but it is spread out over time.

I think it might be analogous to burning a log on a fireplace. I read somewhere that burning a log releases about the same amount of energy as exploding a stick of dynamite. The reason dynamite will destroy your fireplace and burning a log won't, is that dynamite puts all that energy on the fireplace in a much shorter amount of time.The physical concept you are describing is aptly named power. Energy over time. A simple example is walking down a set of stairs versus falling down them. Same change of energy. Very different results.

On dynamite: I did the math once and I seem to remember a stick of butter has more energy than a stick of dynamite.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Maximum appreciation for the education.

-SLG

[Dave Rogers]

I think jsiv's point is that the wording of the question is wrong because it specifies that the moving surface matches the wheel speed when it should be saying that it matches the aircraft speed. For the moving surface to be able to match the wheel speed, the aircraft speed must be zero. If the aircraft's speed is zero it cannot take off.

If we go down that road, though, it immediately becomes clear that the situation specified in the question is a physical impossibility. Even assuming friction in the wheel bearings so that at a sufficiently high speed the moving surface is able to exert a force on the aircraft equal to that of the reaction force of its jet engines, the strength of the undercarriage will not be great enough to transmit that force to the airframe; in simple language, the wheels will be torn off. Since the question demands an explanation of a physically impossible situation that nobody else has postulated in the first place, its resemblance to the typical truther question (e.g. "How could nineteen cavemen and a dialysis patient force the USAF to stand down all the fighter aircraft on the East Coast?") is even more pronounced.

Dave

[jsiv]

You expect me to believe that a few Arab cavemen had the resources to put every single fighter jet in the country on a conveyor belt?!

You "skeptics" get more and more ridiculous.

[gumboot]

If we go down that road, though, it immediately becomes clear that the situation specified in the question is a physical impossibility.


Not really... if we look at the original wording:

A plane is on a conveyor belt. The belt speed is controlled so that it matches the forward speed of the airplane wheels - but going backwards.

There's no mention there that the aircraft is moving forward, or indeed is even under propulsion at all.

Like virtually everyone else, when I read the problem I automatically corrected it to read as it was clearly intended to be worded, and thus came to the correct conclusion that the aircraft could take off.

However I failed to detect the error in the wording which actually dictates that the aircraft is not moving (because this is the only circumstance under which the wheel speed and conveyor belt speed can match) and therefore the wheels are not moving, and therefore the conveyor belt is not moving.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

You expect me to believe that a few Arab cavemen had the resources to put every single fighter jet in the country on a conveyor belt?!

You "skeptics" get more and more ridiculous.



Heh heh heh.

-Gumboot

[pomeroo]

Fresh from his recent humiliation, having learned nothing, Morgan Reynolds is back with another "challenge" to the rationalist community. After seeing his bogus offer to debate instantly accepted, Reynolds hid for a short spell and has returned with more of the nonsense we've come to expect, this time with a twist. Instead of the usual science-illiteracy, Reynolds trots out a real name, a retired pilot named John Lear who makes comments that should amuse JREFers in general and Beachnut, Apathoid, and Gumboot in particular.

(Reynolds wrote)


The notion of a large plane hitting a targeted tower at high speed at all is a huge stretch, much less an exact pre-weakened section spread over six floors of a tower (cartoon cut-outs at 25 and 38 degree angles). I confess I have not read Weiss' detailed theory because a large real plane is a non-starter as a theory.

The analysis below by John Lear might improve understanding: the combination of high speed and control make it virtually impossible to hit a 208' target, much less something more exact (and 2 for 2!? within 17 minutes!). When Mr. Lear did a radio interview with pilotsfor911truth (sp?), the interviewer volunteered that two experienced airliner pilots were on flight simulators the morning of 9/11 and neither pilot could hit the "tower" in six attempts.



[My apologies. I simply can't paste the rest of this message. I will attempt to figure out why.]

[pomeroo]

deleted

[beachnut]

Fresh from his recent humiliation, having learned nothing, Morgan Reynolds is back with another "challenge" to the rationalist community. After seeing his bogus offer to debate instantly accepted, Reynolds hid for a short spell and has returned with more of the nonsense we've come to expect, this time with a twist. Instead of the usual science-illiteracy, Reynolds trots out a real name, a retired pilot named John Lear who makes comments that should amuse JREFers in general and Beachnut, Apathoid, and Gumboot in particular.

(Reynolds wrote)

The notion of a large plane hitting a targeted tower at high speed at all is a huge stretch, much less an exact pre-weakened section spread over six floors of a tower (cartoon cut-outs at 25 and 38 degree angles). I confess I have not read Weiss' detailed theory because a large real plane is a non-starter as a theory.

The analysis below by John Lear might improve understanding: the combination of high speed and control make it virtually impossible to hit a 208' target, much less something more exact (and 2 for 2!? within 17 minutes!). When Mr. Lear did a radio interview with pilotsfor911truth (sp?), the interviewer volunteered that two experienced airliner pilots were on flight simulators the morning of 9/11 and neither pilot could hit the "tower" in six attempts.

[My apologies. I simply can't paste the rest of this message. I will attempt to figure out why.]
He hides the text; go to the source and pull it. right click, show source or some other method of see his web page in text mode. (what is the address?)

But I put kids in a sim, they hit buildings. No flying experience beats the 9/11 truth pilots, as do terrorist pilots. It appears 9/11 truth pilots are not as good as terrorist pilots and not as good as non pilots.

Hear yea, all, anyone can fly if they want, it is fun sometimes and scary other times. Good luck; but never fly with a 9/11 truth pilot; they are unable to do simple flying effectively; not that hitting a building is good, but believe me, if they can not hit a building, how can the hit a little runway! Kind of a joke but they said they could not hit the side of building! A big one, the biggest office building the Pentagon too? Holy bad pilot.

There was a great video of a small plane pilot in a large jet simulator for the first time and he hit the Pentagon first attempt! Just like the kids who I took in a simulator, a large jet sim! It was in German or something; who has it! The video of an amateur pilot doing what 9/11 truth pilots can not!?

[Obviousman]

yep - I did it easily on Flight Sim. I know of several RPT pilots who tried on various simulator types (this is airline sims, full motion, etc, not just the software games we use) and had no problems. They put inexperienced people in, and had no problems.

I'd love to set up a trial; randomly select a bunch of people, and give them 10 mins of sim training, then see if they can do it.

I'd bet the majority would do it with ease.

[Gravy]

Ron, can I suggest that this be merged with your other Morgan Reynolds Wrap email threads? There's no new material here. Pilots land on runways in crosswinds. They can hit huge buildings. John Lear is a UFO nut who believes the U.S. government and extraterrestrials jointly run a giant underground facility in the west where over 100,000 UFO abductees have been taken and experimented on.

beachnut, that sim video was Dutch, but it's offline now. Perhaps someone has a copy they can upload.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Argument from personal incredulity. Again?! BOOOORING!

[OldTigerCub]

Is Reynolds suggesting that the "cartoon cutouts" were already pre-cut or pre-weakened into the towers, and were targets which the airplanes had to precisely fly into?
If I understand his statement correctly.....well, I'm jut going to go over here and laugh hysterically for a while....

:dl:

[jhunter1163]

yep - I did it easily on Flight Sim. I know of several RPT pilots who tried on various simulator types (this is airline sims, full motion, etc, not just the software games we use) and had no problems. They put inexperienced people in, and had no problems.

I'd love to set up a trial; randomly select a bunch of people, and give them 10 mins of sim training, then see if they can do it.

I'd bet the majority would do it with ease.

I hit the Pentagon in a 737 in Microsoft FS9 the first time I flew one. I trained a little in a Cessna 172 to get the feel for the controls (more than 10 minutes, to be fair), then went for the big iron. Anyone with a little hand-eye coordination could do it.

[twinstead]

I hit the Pentagon in a 737 in Microsoft FS9 the first time I flew one. I trained a little in a Cessna 172 to get the feel for the controls (more than 10 minutes, to be fair), then went for the big iron. Anyone with a little hand-eye coordination could do it.

I also found crashing into large buildings relatively easy in MFS.

[Mr.Herbert]

John Lear quotes:

The commission thought that 4 airplanes crashed on 911.

None did.

It was an illusion. There were no planes. Or hijackers. I don't know where the real planes went. 2 of them did not take off at all. I don't know where all the passengers went.

But the commission made a mistake in determining that 4 airplanes crashed on 911.

Thanks for the thread. http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

There were no remains of anybody found on the day of the crash according to the Coronor that day. Since that date the Coronor has changed his story, probably under threat as many others have.

In fact there was no crash. In fact the crash site video was not released until 5pm about 6 hours after the alleged crash and that was because they had to have time to fake the crash site.

But thanks for your post as uninformed as it was. http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/images/smilies/smile.gif


If there is any attack by "aliens from outer space" it will just be the government fooling around again like they did on 911.


The guy is tapped.

[pomeroo]

Ron, can I suggest that this be merged with your other Morgan Reynolds Wrap email threads? There's no new material here. Pilots land on runways in crosswinds. They can hit huge buildings. John Lear is a UFO nut who believes the U.S. government and extraterrestrials jointly run a giant underground facility in the west where over 100,000 UFO abductees have been taken and experimented on.

beachnut, that sim video was Dutch, but it's offline now. Perhaps someone has a copy they can upload.


Sure, merging it is a good idea. I'm not home at the moment. I'm going to try copying the e-mail to a Word document.

[JimBenArm]

Shouldn't the title of these threads be "Morgan Reynolds Conveys He's Mentally Challenged"?

[T.A.M.]

I don't care what his last name is, or who he is by reputation of his forefathers, the guy's comments reveal him as a complete nut.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

I'm truly sorry. I simply can't post this e-mail. If anyone is interested, please send me a PM and I will be happy to forward it to you.