PDA

View Full Version : Loose Change - Part IV

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Darth Rotor
18th August 2006, 10:49 AM
Yeah, I dont doubt you're right. But I always thought drag opposed thrust and lift opposed weight. Meaning more weight wouldnt necesarily lead to more drag, thus not slowing the plane down.
How deep into aerodynamics for beginner pilots do we need to go, this morning? :)

Your first statement, for summation of forces, is basically correct for our discussion here.

Your second ignores the problem of needing to produce more lift for a given weight. For a given power setting (thrust) and attitude/angle of attack, one would be flying slower in a heavier plane than in a lighter plane.

DR

apathoid
18th August 2006, 10:50 AM
rwguinn is in the right.

Vertical speed and velocity vector are not the same for an aircraft that still has lift. The aircraft was not falling vertically, it was flying a roughly 5 degree glide slope.

Given the overall weight of the aircraft, the marginal difference in airspeed vector due to fuel would account for a knot or three (five?) of difference in airspeed in a shallow dive like that. The nose/pitch attitude, and angle of attack on the arifoils (below the horizontal) would have more to do with that, as you'd get additive thrust from gravity (a small resultant vector) to add to the thrust from the engines. Less than a percent, if impact was at 400+ knots.

The Kinetic Energy at impact would be calculated at the point of impact to include the vector sum of the forces along the line of travel: gravity's contribution to this is minimal, since the plane had lift, and plenty of it, all the way to impact. Lift is a force that counteracts gravity, or generally works in opposition to gravity.

DR

OK, I didn't really follow that. Are you saying that an extra 40,000 lbs would have a negligible effect on airspeed at a given rate of descent and initial speed?

What I am saying is I know for a fact that heavier airplanes need more room to slow down on descent and often need drag(spoilers), this is a matter of experience. I have talked to Boeing pilots about this, and thats the only reason I mentioned this.

Darth Rotor
18th August 2006, 10:55 AM
OK, I didn't really follow that. Are you saying that an extra 40,000 lbs would have a negligible effect on airspeed at a given rate of descent and initial speed?

What I am saying is I know for a fact that heavier airplanes need more room to slow down on descent and often need drag(spoilers), this is a matter of experience. I have talked to Boeing pilots about this, and thats the only reason I mentioned this.
No, given the overall weight of the aircraft, the power setting, and the apparent attempt at max speed, the speed difference, while finite, isn't as pronounced at high speeds as at approach speeds, where you are dealing with stall margins and high angle of attack, high induced drag, etc.

At the higher speed, form drag is a more significant source of drag than induced drag. (drag from creating lift) and I don't think you'd have flaps or spoilers out (which add lift) when making a high speed run. As I mentioned above, I'd assume a clean configuration for the attack run.

To be honest with you, I don't know if the difference would be 3 knots, 7 knots, or what, I'd have to look at a 757 performance chart, from the manual, know the temp and barometric altimeter, the max gross weight of the plane in question, at both fuel loads, to give you a precise answer. I am pretty certain that my order of magnitude is correct: single digits.

DR

EDIT: the remark "(which add lift)" was supposed to be "(which add drag)" and thanks go to apathoid for pointing that out to me. Of course, flaps also add lift . . . I'm having a beer. Been too long since I taught this to newbie pilot trainees.

Darth Rotor
18th August 2006, 10:59 AM
Bah, double post.

Looks like I buy the beer.

DR

apathoid
18th August 2006, 11:00 AM
How deep into aerodynamics for beginner pilots do we need to go, this morning? :)

Your first statement, for summation of forces, is basically correct for our discussion here.

Your second ignores the problem of needing to produce more lift for a given weight. For a given power setting (thrust) and attitude/angle of attack, one would be flying slower in a heavier plane than in a lighter plane.

DR

Thats it, I'm getting Billzilla over here pronto :)

The part I bolded makes zero sense to me, it makes sense talking about level flight as well as a climb - but not descending

Airplane 1: A 757, at 80 tons, descending at a given thrust setting at 2000 fpm starting at 400 mph
Airplane 2: A 757, at 125 tons, descending at a given thrust setting at 2000 fpm starting at 400 mph.

Are you saying airplane 1 will accel faster than than airplane 2?

apathoid
18th August 2006, 11:05 AM
EDIT: nevermind!

apathoid
18th August 2006, 11:10 AM
No, given the overall weight of the aircraft, the power setting, and the apparent attempt at max speed, the speed difference, while finite, isn't as pronounced at high speeds as at approach speeds, where you are dealing with stall margins and high angle of attack, high induced drag, etc.

At the higher speed, form drag is a more significant source of drag than induced drag. (drag from creating lift) and I don't think you'd have flaps or spoilers out (which add lift) when making a high speed run. As I mentioned above, I'd assume a clean configuration for the attack run.

To be honest with you, I don't know if the difference would be 3 knots, 7 knots, or what, I'd have to look at a 757 performance chart, from the manual, know the temp and barometric altimeter, the max gross weight of the plane in question, at both fuel loads, to give you a precise answer. I am pretty certain that my order of magnitude is correct: single digits.

DR

OK DR, I gotcha now, except I dont believe that the difference would only be a few knots - but you may be right. I'm also assuming all variables being the same in my example except the aircrafts weight.

A quick correction though, spoilers dont add lift dude - they dump it.

Darth Rotor
18th August 2006, 11:11 AM
Thats it, I'm getting Billzilla over here pronto :)

The part I bolded makes zero sense to me, it makes sense talking about level flight as well as a climb - but not descending

Airplane 1: A 757, at 80 tons, descending at a given thrust setting at 2000 fpm starting at 400 mph
Airplane 2: A 757, at 125 tons, descending at a given thrust setting at 2000 fpm starting at 400 mph.

Are you saying airplane 1 will accel faster than than airplane 2?
The variable of staying on attack/glide slope is missing in your set up.

If all you want to do is descend, set a nose attitude for X airspeed, and descend at an identical power setting, my brain says the heavier aircraft will fall (vertical velocity) at a higher fpm, due to lift having less work to do.

If you are descending at a constant rate, a glide slope, an attack angle, you are still in a state of equilibrium of forces, you are unaccelerated.

OK, start with max thrust, so we have a constant power setting. You set an approach path (dive angle) at the face of the Pentagon. (Probably a piss poor assumption, really, given the guy in question is flying by hand.) But, in the hands of a "good stick," and given a pretty stable glide path, which you adjust with the stick/yoke, the ligter plane would of course accelerate (his flight path is more horizontal, less vertical) faster than the heavier plane, for the same targeted glide path. Is the difference significant at max speed? Probably not, in this 400+ knot missile mode.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to dump the nose and fall as fast from teh sky, (that old vertical dive) without using any speed brakes or flaps or spoilers, I'd guess a heavier aircraft would achieve terminal velocity first, if we assume both aircraft remain intact and retain lift.

DR

Darth Rotor
18th August 2006, 11:12 AM
OK DR, I gotcha now, except I dont believe that the difference would only be a few knots - but you may be right. I'm also assuming all variables being the same in my example except the aircrafts weight.

A quick correction though, spoilers dont add lift dude - they dump it.

AARRRRRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Darn, I buy the beer again!

DR

apathoid
18th August 2006, 11:14 AM
Darn, I buy the beer again!

DR

Awesome, no need to make the usual Friday beer run then :D

apathoid
18th August 2006, 11:21 AM
The variable of staying on attack/glide slope is missing in your set up.

If all you want to do is descend, set a nose attitude for X airspeed, and descend at an identical power setting, my brain says the heavier aircraft will fall (vertical velocity) at a higher fpm, due to lift having less work to do.

If you are descending at a constant rate, a glide slope, an attack angle, you are still in a state of equilibrium of forces, you are unaccelerated.

OK, start with max thrust, so we have a constant power setting. You set an approach path (dive angle) at the face of the Pentagon. (Probably a piss poor assumption, really, given the guy in question is flying by hand.) But, in the hands of a "good stick," and given a pretty stable glide path, which you adjust with the stick/yoke, the ligter plane would of course accelerate (his flight path is more horizontal, less vertical) faster than the heavier plane, for the same targeted glide path. Is the difference significant at max speed? Probably not, in this 400+ knot missile mode.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to dump the nose and fall as fast from teh sky, (that old vertical dive) without using any speed brakes or flaps or spoilers, I'd guess a heavier aircraft would achieve terminal velocity first, if we assume both aircraft remain intact and retain lift.

DR

I agree with absolutely everything here except the bolded part. Glideslope and rate of descent are 2 different things entirely, yes? If the angle was the same(ie 2.5 degrees) I agree 100%. But if we use vertical speed instead, say 2500 fpm(resulting in a different AoA), the heavier airplane will pickup speed faster.

rwguinn
18th August 2006, 11:36 AM
This has nothing to do with freefall.

I guess I need to clarify. We have:

Airplane 1: A 757, at 80 tons, descending at idle at 2000 fpm starting at 400 mph
Airplane 2: A 757, at 125 tons, descending at idle at 2000 fpm starting at 400 mph.

The extra weight will will cause airplane 2 to speed up because more gravity is pulling it down, the rate of descent is the same in both cases. Again, this has nothing to do with freefall velocity.
WHAT!
I surrender.
Ignorance takes over.

chran
18th August 2006, 11:41 AM
So, what ever happened with Gravy's debate of (with?) Korey Rowe?

His challenge seems to stand, and I remember Gravy sending him an email about it ...

Did Korey back out?

apathoid
18th August 2006, 11:41 AM
WHAT!
I surrender.
Ignorance takes over.

Look man, I can appreciate your engineering expertise but here, you are just misunderstanding the point. You are looking at this the wrong way.

It is a FACT that an airplane on autopilot, descending at a given rate, and a given N1 % will accel faster if its heavier. Heavier aircraft need more room to descend without busting the 250/10000 FAA speed limit, why is that do you suppose?

ETA - Just PMed Billzilla (747 Captain) and asked him to clarify....

rwguinn
18th August 2006, 12:10 PM
Look man, I can appreciate your engineering expertise but here, you are just misunderstanding the point. You are looking at this the wrong way.

It is a FACT that an airplane on autopilot, descending at a given rate, and a given N1 % will accel faster if its heavier. Heavier aircraft need more room to descend without busting the 250/10000 FAA speed limit, why is that do you suppose?

ETA - Just PMed Billzilla (747 Captain) and asked him to clarify....

nope--
I am trying to get some precision, as opposed to pseudoscience in here.
Gravity acts equally on all bodies, regardless of weight. Ballistic coefficients and aerodynamics are additional factors--obviously. The heavier airplane (assuming for a minute that they are both the same airplane type --engines and all) will take longer to accelerate to any given speed for the same power (thrust) setting. That, however, is in addition to the gravitational component of that thrust.
and BTW--in your example, 2 airplanes descending at 2000fpm, both have a 2000fpm down component. They are equal.

/derail-back to CT mythology.

Abbyas
18th August 2006, 12:22 PM
I've been suspended again at good old LC forums.

Good thing he's stuck on the ground in front of a computer screen 24/7 and can't do any real damage.

He makes me want to up my med dosage.

apathoid
18th August 2006, 12:30 PM
nope--
I am trying to get some precision, as opposed to pseudoscience in here.
Gravity acts equally on all bodies, regardless of weight. Ballistic coefficients and aerodynamics are additional factors--obviously. The heavier airplane (assuming for a minute that they are both the same airplane type --engines and all) will take longer to accelerate to any given speed for the same power (thrust) setting. That, however, is in addition to the gravitational component of that thrust.
and BTW--in your example, 2 airplanes descending at 2000fpm, both have a 2000fpm down component. They are equal.

You are confusing vertical speed with forward speed(airspeed, groundspeed). Completely independant of one another. This is why I said you simply arent getting what I'm saying(granted I'm not the most articulate fella in the world).

They have the same vertical speed, yes, and if they have the same thrust behind them - then what happens to airspeed when one airplane is significantly heavier than the other(from fuel and pax)?

I am not not trying to rewrite physics books here, I work on airliners and have talked about this very topic with pilots. We've also talked about it in autopilot school where my instructor said the first you need to ask a pilot whose written up an autopilot is whether he was late starting a descent or if he had an unusually high fuel/pax load if the write-up dealt with VNAV.

rwguinn
18th August 2006, 12:40 PM
You are confusing vertical speed with forward speed(airspeed, groundspeed). Completely independant of one another. This is why I said you simply arent getting what I'm saying(granted I'm not the most articulate fella in the world).

They have the same vertical speed, yes, and if they have the same thrust behind them - then what happens to airspeed when one airplane is significantly heavier than the other(from fuel and pax)?

I am not not trying to rewrite physics books here, I work on airliners and have talked about this very topic with pilots. We've also talked about it in autopilot school where my instructor said the first you need to ask a pilot whose written up an autopilot is whether he was late starting a descent or if he had an unusually high fuel/pax load if the write-up dealt with VNAV.
Heavy airplanes require higher airspeed to generate the lift required to counter the weight. That is due to airflow over the wing. Lift is perpendicular to the wing --which is not necessarily UP
I specifically differentiated between gravity components and thrust components of velocity.
You did not.
That's all you get on this subject on this thread. Any other questions, PM me. We've derailed enough here.

apathoid
18th August 2006, 12:43 PM
Heavy airplanes require higher airspeed to generate the lift required to counter the weight. That is due to airflow over the wing. Lift is perpendicular to the wing --which is not necessarily UP
I specifically differentiated between gravity components and thrust components of velocity.
You did not.
That's all you get on this subject on this thread. Any other questions, PM me. We've derailed enough here.

Check.

/re-rail

Darth Rotor
18th August 2006, 02:03 PM
I agree with absolutely everything here except the bolded part. Glideslope and rate of descent are 2 different things entirely, yes? If the angle was the same(ie 2.5 degrees) I agree 100%. But if we use vertical speed instead, say 2500 fpm(resulting in a different AoA), the heavier airplane will pickup speed faster.
For the same thrust, a heavier plane would accelerate more slowly while stying on the same glide slope. Or isn't that what we are talking about? Are you saying the RoD would increase more quickly for a change in nose attitude, given that we are at max power?

What actually would happen, from a stick and rudder perspective, would be that to maintain the picture (fixed on the impact point of the Pentagon) of the glide in attack from 2000 feet to about 40 or zero feet, with fixed power, the pilot has to adjust the angle of attack with his nose to maintain the desired glide path. A heavier aircraft would, all other things being equal, be a few knots slower on that glide path due to needing the marginally increased lift to hold glide slope as constant.

Again, starting at the same point over the ground, about 4 nm away at 2000 feet, to hit a spot on the side of the Pentagon at "0" feet, you have to counter act the increased weight with a slightly increased lift to stay on glide slope, which means slightly higher nose attitude/angle of attack, which means slower airspeed. Trying to stay on identical airspeed with a heavier plane makes for, at identical power settings, a higher rate of descent. But the point is to hit the target.

This is a bit counterintuitive as a pilot flying glide slope based approaches, since most approaches like that are a constant airspeed evolution, with power/attitude adjustments to stay on glide path.

DR

Dog Town
18th August 2006, 02:39 PM
LC 23 comes out yesterday, and you guys are going on about thrust,lift etc..
Is this the sex, or DennyTario forum?
No Offense ment!

eeyore1954
18th August 2006, 02:41 PM
I've been suspended again at good old LC forums.

Good thing he's stuck on the ground in front of a computer screen 24/7 and can't do any real damage.

He makes me want to up my med dosage.

Johndoe is unbelieveable (in many ways)

defaultdotxbe
18th August 2006, 02:41 PM
LC 23 comes out yesterday, and you guys are going on about thrust,lift etc..
Is this the sex, or DennyTario forum?

theres nothig to debunk in LC2ER, its all the same old stuff weve been debunking

**awaits a CTer to mine the "nothing to debunk" quote and use it out of context**

Dog Town
18th August 2006, 02:45 PM
Hehe, got it. Have no time for it now. will TRY and watch later.

apathoid
18th August 2006, 03:11 PM
For the same thrust, a heavier plane would accelerate more slowly while stying on the same glide slope. Or isn't that what we are talking about? Are you saying the RoD would increase more quickly for a change in nose attitude, given that we are at max power?

I'm strictly speaking of descents at any power setting, as long as its the same between the lighter and heavier loaded plane.
Lets see if we can get on the same page with a few things....

-In an aircraft such as a 757, at a given thrust, wouldnt the airplane speed up as AoA decreases(nose down attitude)? And slow down as AoA increased?

-At a given thrust, wouldnt the airplane speed up as RoD increases? And slow down as RoC increased?

-All other factors being the same in an identical plane, wouldnt the heavier airplane have a top of descent(3X rule?) that is farther from the airport?(I'm almost positive of this)

Wouldn't what we are talking about be the opposite in a climb, theoretically?(This is where I may be wrong!!)
If you are saying a heavier loaded plane wouldnt accelerate as fast descending at a given rate(-2000 fpm) and thrust(say 50%), aren't you saying that it will decelerate less slowly while climbing as well? I know thats not the case and I can prove it by looking at some 757 performance charts, which I do have at my disposal.

What actually would happen, from a stick and rudder perspective, would be that to maintain the picture (fixed on the impact point of the Pentagon) of the glide in attack from 2000 feet to about 40 or zero feet, with fixed power, the pilot has to adjust the angle of attack with his nose to maintain the desired glide path. A heavier aircraft would, all other things being equal, be a few knots slower on that glide path due to needing the marginally increased lift to hold glide slope as constant.

Again, starting at the same point over the ground, about 4 nm away at 2000 feet, to hit a spot on the side of the Pentagon at "0" feet, you have to counter act the increased weight with a slightly increased lift to stay on glide slope, which means slightly higher nose attitude/angle of attack, which means slower airspeed. Trying to stay on identical airspeed with a heavier plane makes for, at identical power settings, a higher rate of descent. But the point is to hit the target.
I agree that a heavier airplane needs nose up correction to maintain RoD. I still think it speeds it however.
Can we agree that in a descent, given the same AoA/thrust, the heavier airplane will have a higher rate of descent, thus having a higher speed?

DR

LC 23 comes out yesterday, and you guys are going on about thrust,lift etc..
Is this the sex, or DennyTario forum?
No Offense ment!

Hey now, some of find this boring sh[rule8] interesting!

mrfreeze
18th August 2006, 04:00 PM
Well one of the CT slipped and let their ultimate plan out of the bag What if it's too late to expose Zionism after we expose 911? Although I'm confused how Zionism would survive if we were to take over america and dethrone the criminals.

I really hope that was meant as a collective we, and not a CT only we.

Dog Town
18th August 2006, 04:20 PM
I'm confused how Zionism would survive if we were to take over america and dethrone the criminals.

These kids are inches away from going terrorist! Blowing things up comes next, in their little fictional revolution! Not in my hood!Bring It!

T.A.M.
18th August 2006, 04:48 PM
(1) Welcome eeyore..I notice you are new blood here. I recall seeing you at the LC Forum, while I was Lurking. I can't remember if you were CT or Debunker, but either way, you are welcome here.

(2) As far as the CTers being close to Terrorists, I would only say that I have seen a person, who I know relatively well, go from a mild interest in 9/11 Inside job to full blown "if I had the money to get there, I'd march on washington and ground zero" obsessionalism (and this guy lives 1500 miles from GZ). In my opinion, as harmless as you think they are, tehy have the potential to rise up and be as dangerous as the Terrorists of 9/11.

Dog Town
18th August 2006, 04:52 PM
As far as the CTers being close to Terrorist, I would only see that I have seen a person, who I know relatively well, go from a mild interest in 9/11 Inside job to full blown "if I had the money to get there, I'd march on washington and ground zero" obsessionalism (and this guy lives 1500 miles from GZ). In my opinion, as harmless as you think they are, tehy have the potential to rise up and be as dangerous as the Terrorists of 9/11.

Glad he doesn't have the funds, and has you to watch over! Jeeezis!I still can't find one!

defaultdotxbe
18th August 2006, 04:54 PM
(2) As far as the CTers being close to Terrorists, I would only say that I have seen a person, who I know relatively well, go from a mild interest in 9/11 Inside job to full blown "if I had the money to get there, I'd march on washington and ground zero" obsessionalism (and this guy lives 1500 miles from GZ). In my opinion, as harmless as you think they are, tehy have the potential to rise up and be as dangerous as the Terrorists of 9/11.

were kennedy CTers like this in the 60s? is it alot of talk about nothing, or are we seeing a whole new breed of CTer here?

Dog Town
18th August 2006, 04:55 PM
were kennedy CTers like this in the 60s? is it alot of talk about nothing, or are we seeing a whole new breed of CTer here?

Super dooper internet crazy new! Grew up in Dallas 60's.Nothen like this! Besides ....the Maffia took him down!

Abbyas
18th August 2006, 05:00 PM
were kennedy CTers like this in the 60s? is it alot of talk about nothing, or are we seeing a whole new breed of CTer here?

It's funny, people on the LC board are talking about how you don't need a permit if there will be no shouting. If they have the numbers that they want down there (unlikely), there will definitely be shouting.

I will give serious "props" to the NYPD if the poo does not hit the fan on 9/11. Mix a bunch of emotional firemen together with nutty CTs, and the results can't be good.

Dog Town
18th August 2006, 05:01 PM
Go NYFD,and PD!

mrfreeze
18th August 2006, 05:15 PM
If this is true it is great. Someone posted that Loose Change had been covered on Turkish Tv, and a new user posted this link http://www.aksam.com.tr/haberpop.asp?a=50283,5 as being where it was shown. Since it was that persons first post it may have been a joke, but if not it is a proud moment for us.

*edit* It seems that the one skeptic moderator, after being removed from his position, has now also been banned. It's a great year for the truth.

Brainache
18th August 2006, 05:18 PM
I saw an item on their schedule listed as "Vets for truth" and I thought Wha..?
What does any of this have to do with animal doctors?
Then I realised it was short for veterans.
I suppose serving in the military doesn't make people immune to this stuff.

Belz...
18th August 2006, 05:25 PM
One tin soldier rides aloooooone.

Good lord, they imply that Firefighters are complicit in the cover up of the attacks, especially those that knew that WTC7 was going to fall, and they don't expect hubbub? Do they really see themselves as some sort of Malcom X?

Do these guys even have a permit to march?

With that brain, it's amazing they can actually breathe, let alone march.

Abbyas
18th August 2006, 05:25 PM
this is true it is great. Someone posted that Loose Change had been covered on Turkish Tv, and a new user posted this link http://www.aksam.com.tr/haberpop.asp?a=50283,5 as being where it was shown. Since it was that persons first post it may have been a joke, but if not it is a proud moment for us.

I'm sorry, I don't get it? Why is it good for us again?

T.A.M.
18th August 2006, 05:26 PM
On my blog, www.911yj.blogspot.com (yes ok, groan at the plug...sorry), I have published an open call for CTers to rethink going to what I have named CONSPIRAPALOOZA 2006 at GZ. I think we should make some sort of effort to keep them civil, If we can not get them to reconsider going there. I know Gravy, Abby, and the gang will be there, but I was hoping someone could brainstorm on how those of us who can't get there, could somehow help.

Any thoughts?

chipmunk stew
18th August 2006, 05:26 PM
If this is true it is great. Someone posted that Loose Change had been covered on Turkish Tv, and a new user posted this link http://www.aksam.com.tr/haberpop.asp?a=50283,5 as being where it was shown. Since it was that persons first post it may have been a joke, but if not it is a proud moment for us.

*edit* It seems that the one skeptic moderator, after being removed from his position, has now also been banned. It's a great year for the truth.
Is that Screw Loose Change? As in MarkyX's video?
Maybe they simply didn't realize.

Class
18th August 2006, 05:29 PM
I'm sorry, I don't get it? Why is it good for us again?

It's Screw Loose Change!

EDIT: chipmunk stew...

Belz...
18th August 2006, 05:29 PM
Gravitic force increases, yes, but acts a higher mass, and the effects cancel out.

That's the only point I don't follow. Gravity is constant at the same altitude, right ? So what's this cancel-out business ?

EDIT: Never mind.

T.A.M.
18th August 2006, 05:29 PM
LC Forum - Dylan Avery on going to GZ:

" immortal technique will be performin, alex jones will be speaking, it will be huge!

be at NYC. period. biggrin.gif

edit: itinerary and flyer coming soon... :)"

Abbyas
18th August 2006, 05:31 PM
It's Screw Loose Change!

Ha!

Belz...
18th August 2006, 05:35 PM
I've been suspended again at good old LC forums.

Either that or he doesn't like cute girls.

What's that you say ? A moderator-Belz... would let his emotions get the better of him and NOT ban a cute girl, no matter what ? Me ? Emotions ?

Naaahh! Never.

Ever.

T.A.M.
18th August 2006, 05:37 PM
Here is a good way to see the LC group's state of mind...

Poll on their site.

Q. If we had to select a U.S. President, who would you vote for?

Hillary Clinton [ 3 ] [6.52%]

John Edwards [ 2 ] [4.35%]

Condi Rice [ 1 ] [2.17%]

John McCain [ 0 ] [0.00%]

We have to find a Truth Candidate quick or I will slit my wrist [ 16 ] [34.78%]

What's the point, it will be rigged anyway [ 24 ] [52.17%]

So I am guessing they'd all be holding signs that either said "Fetzer for President" or "AJ in 2008".

God that would be comical...

apathoid
18th August 2006, 05:47 PM
On my blog, www.911yj.blogspot.com (yes ok, groan at the plug...sorry), I have published an open call for CTers to rethink going to what I have named CONSPIRAPALOOZA 2006 at GZ. I think we should make some sort of effort to keep them civil, If we can not get them to reconsider going there. I know Gravy, Abby, and the gang will be there, but I was hoping someone could brainstorm on how those of us who can't get there, could somehow help.

Any thoughts?

Is Stephen still planning on being there? Something tells me there wont be many of them there anyways, only 300(or so) showed up for their little convention and that was on a weekend.

Speaking of plugs, Mike W has my essay up at 911myths :)
http://911myths.com/html/what_s_new_.html

18th August 2006, 05:54 PM
Here is a good way to see the LC group's state of mind...

Poll on their site.

Q. If we had to select a U.S. President, who would you vote for?

Hillary Clinton [ 3 ] [6.52%]

John Edwards [ 2 ] [4.35%]

Condi Rice [ 1 ] [2.17%]

John McCain [ 0 ] [0.00%]

We have to find a Truth Candidate quick or I will slit my wrist [ 16 ] [34.78%]

What's the point, it will be rigged anyway [ 24 ] [52.17%]

So I am guessing they'd all be holding signs that either said "Fetzer for President" or "AJ in 2008".

God that would be comical...

I don't suppose the gene pool will be lucky enough for the 34.78% to follow through on their threat will it?

defaultdotxbe
18th August 2006, 05:59 PM
What's the point, it will be rigged anyway [ 24 ] [52.17%]

self-fulfilling prophecy here, the majority doesnt vote, so the minority chooses the president, then the majority complains they dont like the president

MarkyX
18th August 2006, 06:32 PM
Is that Screw Loose Change? As in MarkyX's video?
Maybe they simply didn't realize.

Huh, what?!

I can't connect to the site. Are you telling me that my video is somewhere in Turkey?

:eek:

MortFurd
18th August 2006, 06:35 PM
Huh, what?!

I can't connect to the site. Are you telling me that my video is somewhere in Turkey?

:eek:

Perzackly. With a website in Turkish all around it.

MarkyX
18th August 2006, 06:37 PM

I really want to see this.

MortFurd
18th August 2006, 06:44 PM
How's this:

Dog Town
18th August 2006, 06:46 PM
I don't suppose the gene pool will be lucky enough for the 34.78% to follow through on their threat will it?

Please! I think it's called Natural Selection, evolution, and all!

LashL
18th August 2006, 06:47 PM
Way to go, Marky!!

P.S. The link works for me, but I don't read Turkish :)

Dog Town
18th August 2006, 06:51 PM
Yes Markyx, wahooo! Not wooo! Get a good hash connect yet?

MarkyX
18th August 2006, 06:56 PM
Here's hoping they can read english

MortFurd
18th August 2006, 06:59 PM
Have you seen the screen shot I posted?

Dog Town
18th August 2006, 07:02 PM
Here's hoping they can read english

Been there, they speak it. Special moments like cash!

MarkyX
18th August 2006, 07:07 PM
Have you seen the screen shot I posted?

Yes, it's very very small. It's hard to read anything (no offense)

MortFurd
18th August 2006, 07:09 PM
Yes, it's very very small. It's hard to read anything (no offense)

Ah, heck. The message board software scaled it down. Sorry.

MarkyX
18th August 2006, 07:13 PM
Use http://www.imageshack.us/

Darth Rotor
18th August 2006, 08:13 PM
You are mixing vertical speed and the velocity vector that is measured on the airspeed indicator, which is the speed of the aircraft relative to the airmass.

If you hold power constant, and weight is more, changes in pitch attitude will of course change both speed and rate of descent. If you hold airspeed and thrust constant, more weight will tend to cause higher RoD since to balance forces and come up with the same airspeed, your AoA is slightly different (nose attitude) for the heavier aircraft.

For the constant glide slope at constant power setting, your heavier aircraft will have to fly slightly slower since to prevent higher RoD than glide path allows, you have to adjust nose attitude.

The aim, in this exercise, is not to fall (vertically) but to move laterally and hit a target.

DRHey now, some of find this boring sh[rule8] interesting![/QUOTE]
Draw the triangle on a piece of paper. Bottom is long leg, length 24,000 feet (4 nm) Short leg of right triangle is 2000 feet. Hypotenuse represents actual flight path (desired) to impact point. You are moving far more "laterally" than "vertically" on this glide path. Consider 460 knots in Feet per minute, and compare to the 3000 FPM RoD.

460 knots = 6000 x 460 feet per hour / 60 minutes per hour = 46,000 feet per minute.

DR

ktesibios
18th August 2006, 09:10 PM
Speaking of plugs, Mike W has my essay up at 911myths :)
http://911myths.com/html/what_s_new_.html

Well done!:clap:

My area of expertise is audio recording and reinforcement electronics, not avionics, but I had no trouble understanding your essay. I think it should be accessible to anyone with a general electronics background or even anyone who has a clue about what happens when they flip a light switch.

I noticed that a few of the diagrams seem to be missing from the pdf (notably the first two). You might want to check that.

Also, what's "monkey motion" (I assume that it's industry slang)?

TjW
18th August 2006, 09:11 PM
No, given the overall weight of the aircraft, the power setting, and the apparent attempt at max speed, the speed difference, while finite, isn't as pronounced at high speeds as at approach speeds, where you are dealing with stall margins and high angle of attack, high induced drag, etc.

At the higher speed, form drag is a more significant source of drag than induced drag. (drag from creating lift) and I don't think you'd have flaps or spoilers out (which add lift) when making a high speed run. As I mentioned above, I'd assume a clean configuration for the attack run.

To be honest with you, I don't know if the difference would be 3 knots, 7 knots, or what, I'd have to look at a 757 performance chart, from the manual, know the temp and barometric altimeter, the max gross weight of the plane in question, at both fuel loads, to give you a precise answer. I am pretty certain that my order of magnitude is correct: single digits.

DR

EDIT: the remark "(which add lift)" was supposed to be "(which add drag)" and thanks go to apathoid for pointing that out to me. Of course, flaps also add lift . . . I'm having a beer. Been too long since I taught this to newbie pilot trainees.

In general, the speed differences of the same aircraft at different weights will be related by the square root of the change in wing loading. i.e. twice as heavy means you'll fly 1.41 times faster -- in both forward and sink velocity.
This is why gliders ballast up with water in strong conditions.

apathoid
18th August 2006, 09:20 PM
You are mixing vertical speed and the velocity vector that is measured on the airspeed indicator, which is the speed of the aircraft relative to the airmass.

If you hold power constant, and weight is more, changes in pitch attitude will of course change both speed and rate of descent. If you hold airspeed and thrust constant, more weight will tend to cause higher RoD since to balance forces and come up with the same airspeed, your AoA is slightly different (nose attitude) for the heavier aircraft.

The aim, in this exercise, is not to fall (vertically) but to move laterally and hit a target.

DR

Emphasis to the bolded part.

Ok doke, but what if the autopilot was keeping the RoD exactly the same in both cases?
Think of it like this, if the airspeed and thrust was exactly the same between a "heavy" 757 and a "light" 757, and they stayed the same with autopilot help: How would the vertical speeds compare?

For the constant glide slope at constant power setting, your heavier aircraft will have to fly slightly slower since to prevent higher RoD than glide path allows, you have to adjust nose attitude.

Again, completely agree. But, as I said above if you could fix variable with autopilot help, then what would happen?

Anyhow, Bill(zilla) got back to me. He flies left seat on the 747.

Cool :) Yeah, thats pretty much as I thought. But, essentially they are telling me that :

Airplane A: 757 at 255,000 lbs, at 50% N1(or even idle), in a 2000 fpm descent
-and-
Airplane B: 757 at 140,000 lbs, at 50% N1(or idle, same as above), in a 2000 fpm descent

..will accelerate(or decel) at the same rate and I just dont know about that. I remember talking to a 767 pilot about VNAV and he was telling me that the plane will speed up in a descent closer to MLW and will sometimes bust VNAV constraints if the descent started a little late. I never gave it much thought, but the physics guys I'm debating seem to think he is wrong. I'm not a physics guy or a pilot, so I don't know.....it seems logical either way I guess.

Now that I think about it, a heavy aeroplane will tend to over-speed more easily. The pilot sounds like he's right.

T.A.M.
18th August 2006, 09:23 PM
Apathoid:

No, Eli says he doesn't have the cash to make the trip. We are both 1500 Miles from GZ, so it is a bit of a jaunt, even by plane. I will be there (with the Debunkers) in spirit, and watching on TV.

Dog Town
18th August 2006, 09:25 PM
Me too, stuck in studio 2-21 !

apathoid
18th August 2006, 09:26 PM
Well done!:clap:

My area of expertise is audio recording and reinforcement electronics, not avionics, but I had no trouble understanding your essay. I think it should be accessible to anyone with a general electronics background or even anyone who has a clue about what happens when they flip a light switch.

I noticed that a few of the diagrams seem to be missing from the pdf (notably the first two). You might want to check that.

Also, what's "monkey motion" (I assume that it's industry slang)?

Thanks !
I really, really watered it down and cut out 3 pages on autopilot servos. I couldve written another 20 pages on autopilot, IRS, etc...maybe I'll do a pt II :)

Thanks for the heads up on the missing images.

Oh, monkey motion is A&P slang referring to seemingly unnecessary linkage in the flight controls. But Boeings are nothing compared to MD-XX aircraft :D

Brainache
18th August 2006, 09:29 PM
I'm down here at the other side of the world and I'd be very surprised if this GZ rally or whatever they are calling it doesn't turn nasty very quickly.
I would advise anyone who plans to attend to be very careful.
But all I can say is good luck. People like them need to see that they aren't fooling anyone but themselves.

LashL
18th August 2006, 09:37 PM
Here's hoping they can read english

Most of them can. I've been to Turkey and had no problem communicating in English. I can't speak a word of Turkish and it wasn't an impediment :)

So the very fact that they posted your Screw Loose Change video in English is terrific, Marky, even if neither you nor I nor most of the rest of us here can read the accompanying text in Turkish :)

ETA: they reproduced the video in English on the site even though the text on the print page is in Turkish. They would not have done that unless they knew that lots of Turks would understand the English video. Like I said, I didn't know a word of Turkish before I got there and didn't need it to communicate.

So, again, congratulations!

ktesibios
18th August 2006, 09:45 PM
Thanks !
I really, really watered it down and cut out 3 pages on autopilot servos. I couldve written another 20 pages on autopilot, IRS, etc...maybe I'll do a pt II :)

If you want to produce an edition that's designed for technicians and engineers, that would be really cool.

Of course, my idea of "cool" is kind of warped- years ago someone I knew said to me "you look at them electronics books like I look at a Hustler" ;)

Dog Town
18th August 2006, 09:56 PM
you look at them electronics books like I look at a Hustler"
That sounded prettee'er than a 2 dollar whore!
What would we do without either of ya????

apathoid
18th August 2006, 10:01 PM
If you want to produce an edition that's designed for technicians and engineers, that would be really cool.

Of course, my idea of "cool" is kind of warped- years ago someone I knew said to me "you look at them electronics books like I look at a Hustler" ;)
Sure!!
I'll run that by Mike and if he likes the idea, I'll "geek" the current version and use wiring prints/schematics over block diagrams and purdy pictures. :)

I actually want to try a theoretical sabotage of a 767 FCC when I get a chance. I'm thinking of pulling a few inhibit/discrete lines, powering up the MCDP and see how it responds and what EICAS messages/ Maintenance messages pop up. I've already got a pretty good idea though as I've done it accidentally before!!

Gravy
18th August 2006, 10:34 PM
So, what ever happened with Gravy's debate of (with?) Korey Rowe?

His challenge seems to stand, and I remember Gravy sending him an email about it ...

Did Korey back out?
He says he's too busy with 9/11 activities. He was excited, though, about the "arguments" we could have at Ground Zero. I reminded him that that's day of remembrance for me, not a day for shouting matches for the sake of video cameras.

I'll try for October.

Gravy
18th August 2006, 10:41 PM
Sure!!
I'll run that by Mike and if he likes the idea, I'll "geek" the current version and use wiring prints/schematics over block diagrams and purdy pictures. :)

I actually want to try a theoretical sabotage of a 767 FCC when I get a chance. I'm thinking of pulling a few inhibit/discrete lines, powering up the MCDP and see how it responds and what EICAS messages/ Maintenance messages pop up. I've already got a pretty good idea though as I've done it accidentally before!!

Hmm...Apathoid...Atlanta...Delta? You wouldn't happen to know the mechanic who, when I was waiting in a Delta plane in Atlanta, pulled up a ladder, climbed up to the side of the plane beneath my window, scratched his head, called down to his buddy, was handed a mallet, and started wailing away with it at something on the plane?

'Cause I'd really like to talk to him.

MikeW
18th August 2006, 10:48 PM
I noticed that a few of the diagrams seem to be missing from the pdf (notably the first two). You might want to check that.
Oops. Only the first two? Which page(s)? Anyone else see this? Try saving the file to your desktop and view it from there (if that's not what you're doing already). Then click in the space where the image looks like it ought to be. Still nothing?

Class
18th August 2006, 10:49 PM
Hmm...Apathoid...Atlanta...Delta? You wouldn't happen to know the mechanic who, when I was waiting in a Delta plane in Atlanta, pulled up a ladder, climbed up to the side of the plane beneath my window, scratched his head, called down to his buddy, was handed a mallet, and started wailing away with it at something on the plane.

'Cause I'd really like to talk to him.

http://www.rodserling.com/theystartedontz/0220K.jpg
There's something, something, on the wing!

gumboot
18th August 2006, 10:53 PM
[brief derail]

I just want to clarify, for the "aircraft speed" discussion, I thought the discussion was about rate of descent - the train of logic being:

1 - heavier aircraft descends faster
2 - why?
3 - because it's heavier
4 - laws of gravity, all fall same speed, blah blah...

Hence my comment....

Which can as easily be explained by the following experiment:

Take an A4 sheet of 80gsm paper...

That's 21 cm x 29.7cm = 21*29.7 = 623.7cm^2

Total weight = 80g for 1m^2 = 10000cm^2

Weight per cm^2 = 0.008g

Sheet of paper = 4.9g

Now take an A4-sized slab of lead weighing 1kg

Attach each to a fan with a 1m long piece of wire.

Extend wire to maximum length, and let go.

What happens?

Lead slab falls onto fan, piece of paper doesn't.

Now, in each case, the wind resistance on each is identical. The reason the lead slab falls faster is because it is heavier, therefore has higher gravitational potential energy, therefore requires higher resistance to keep it in the air.

Hence, all else being equal, a heavier object falls faster in air than a lighter object.

Now, there may be some confusion, are we talking about the aircraft's rate of descent, or its airspeed?

And on a possibly more pertinent note... why exactly are we arguing this again? Is it to determine impact speed? Because as I understand it we have the FDR, so this discussion is pointless?

I'm sure someone mentioned somewhere why this is being discussed, I just can't remember...and am feeling lazy... :p

-Andrew

defaultdotxbe
18th August 2006, 11:18 PM
Hence, all else being equal, a heavier object falls faster in air than a lighter object.

while techinically this is true, the most important thing to be equal is surface area, its the weight/surface area ratio that determines what falls like a brick or flutters like a peice of paper (not entirely certain how that will apply to the current discussion, just felt like pointing it out)

Gravy
18th August 2006, 11:23 PM
http://www.rodserling.com/theystartedontz/0220K.jpg
There's something, something, on the wing!
:D

A pictographic representation of the mallet incident:

:) :confused: :hit: :eek: :jaw-dropp :boxedin:

gumboot
18th August 2006, 11:31 PM
while techinically this is true, the most important thing to be equal is surface area, its the weight/surface area ratio that determines what falls like a brick or flutters like a peice of paper (not entirely certain how that will apply to the current discussion, just felt like pointing it out)

Absolutely, hence my example. :)

I think we can agree that an empty 757 and a full 757 have the same dimensions. :)

-Andrew

apathoid
18th August 2006, 11:34 PM
Hmm...Apathoid...Atlanta...Delta? You wouldn't happen to know the mechanic who, when I was waiting in a Delta plane in Atlanta, pulled up a ladder, climbed up to the side of the plane beneath my window, scratched his head, called down to his buddy, was handed a mallet, and started wailing away with it at something on the plane?

'Cause I'd really like to talk to him.

Ha! There are a few things that respond well to firm whacks with a hammer; stuck valves, stuck relays and hot rivets...to name some :)

apathoid
18th August 2006, 11:42 PM
[brief derail]

I'm sure someone mentioned somewhere why this is being discussed, I just can't remember...and am feeling lazy... :p

-Andrew

I think it started when I said its basically impossible for AA77 to have hit at 345 mph, given that a heavily fueled 757 may actually accelerate at engines idle during a descent because of the heavier fuel load. Major derailage for sure..

JamesB
19th August 2006, 12:01 AM
He says he's too busy with 9/11 activities. He was excited, though, about the "arguments" we could have at Ground Zero. I reminded him that that's day of remembrance for me, not a day for shouting matches for the sake of video cameras.

I'll try for October.

Is he still mad at you for dissing his military record?

Gravy
19th August 2006, 12:12 AM
Is he still mad at you for dissing his military record?
Heh. He said, "Let's let bygones be bygones." I said, "The honorable thing to do would be to remove that accusation from your blog." Also, he said the "WHAT'S YOUR REAL NAME?" comment was Bermas' addition. Bermas, the "researcher," is convinced that I'm not who I am. I reminded Rowe that since it's his post, he's responsible for the content.

Haven't heard from him since.

SRW
19th August 2006, 01:43 AM
For the last week I have been without INTERNET access, so after updating my Phone with the latests Podcasts. I started the process of getting updated on the sick world of loose change, I watched the new release, and I still feel the same anger--that scum are using the death of my friend and the thousands of others, murdered that day.

In contrast I feel a sense of pride over the guys and gals of JREF who really are the truth seekers, and go about this taking a lost cause like "Submersible" not only showing him the truth, but at the same time educating him and anyone else reading this on the method for finding the truth.

Not simply telling him to google, but showing him what makes a good argument and how to think through the process. Not simply taking a conclusion some one has fed you and parroting that conclusion but how to find all the ways a conclusion can be reached and to evaluate them to eliminate the ones with little or no support and embrace the ones with solid evidence behind them. Granted it does not always work, but I feel and overwhelming respect for the JREF team for making such a valiant attempt. Submersible may well never see the light, but I think some fence sitting lurkers will drop our way especially after seeing what the other side has to offer.

Sword_Of_Truth
19th August 2006, 01:47 AM
Well I've been banned from Loose Change twice and today, I got my first death threat from a truther!

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8009371&postID=115578708064004909&isPopup=true
(I gave his chain a good hard yank in return, should be interesting to see if ho pops an artery or something.)

Do I get a cookie now?

T.A.M.
19th August 2006, 06:55 AM
WHat is funny, is they have this false sense that some new "revolution" is coming where they will "takeover" the government, and then round up the "evil doers" and have them killed.

Sounds like a great script for a movie, but it is SO FAR FROM REALITY, that one has to wonder how much true "sanity" these people have left.

Gravy
19th August 2006, 06:58 AM
When properly outfitted (http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/8/13/16149/6010/9#c9), most vertebrates can be tuned to accept Loose Change as gospel.

mrfreeze
19th August 2006, 07:27 AM
Well im banned again. For saying that another banned members reference to "Daddy Warbucks" was the first time in a while I had seen an original movie reference.

Gravy
19th August 2006, 07:35 AM
Well im banned again. For saying that another banned members reference to "Daddy Warbucks" was the first time in a while I had seen an original movie reference.
Sounds like a perfectly justified action by the mods. JohnDoeX gets cranky if he doesn't get a few bannings in with his morning coffee.

kookbreaker
19th August 2006, 07:41 AM
Sounds like a perfectly justified action by the mods. JohnDoeX gets cranky if he doesn't get a few bannings in with his morning coffee.

Does he take that before or after his morning temper tantrum? I know his afternoon meltdowns aren't much to view without the morning schedule.

ktesibios
19th August 2006, 10:36 AM
Oops. Only the first two? Which page(s)? Anyone else see this? Try saving the file to your desktop and view it from there (if that's not what you're doing already). Then click in the space where the image looks like it ought to be. Still nothing?

Saved to my PC at home and opened with Acrobat Reader, everything is fine- no missing illustrations.

The problem I experienced last night was reading it on a Mac using Safari. When you click on a link to a pdf, Safari saves the file to the desktop and then opens it using Preview.

It must have been some sort of weirdity in Preview. Sorry about the false alarm. :footinmou

T.A.M.
19th August 2006, 11:05 AM
Truth or lies radio...head of Veterans for 9/11 Truth movement on it 2-3PM EST...now

http://www.truthorlies.org/

T.A.M.
19th August 2006, 11:08 AM
I love this guy...he gets his "News" headlines from "Infowars.com"...now there is a reliable source...this show should be amusing to listen to...

T.A.M.
19th August 2006, 11:12 AM
apparently his entire world is a result of the "Neocon" agenda, and Bush, apparently is responsible for the recent Israeli raid on a Hezbollah site.

MikeW
19th August 2006, 11:45 AM
It must have been some sort of weirdity in Preview. Sorry about the false alarm. :footinmou
Thanks for the information. Absolutely no need to apologise, though -- it was a real problem on Safari, obviously, so I appreciate the feedback.

JamesB
19th August 2006, 12:41 PM
Truth or lies radio...head of Veterans for 9/11 Truth movement on it 2-3PM EST...now

http://www.truthorlies.org/

As a veteran, I am offended by his use of that name.

Submersible
19th August 2006, 04:01 PM
Not simply telling him to google, but showing him what makes a good argument and how to think through the process. Not simply taking a conclusion some one has fed you and parroting that conclusion but how to find all the ways a conclusion can be reached and to evaluate them to eliminate the ones with little or no support and embrace the ones with solid evidence behind them. Granted it does not always work, but I feel and overwhelming respect for the JREF team for making such a valiant attempt. Submersible may well never see the light, but I think some fence sitting lurkers will drop our way especially after seeing what the other side has to offer.

You can't even discuss the contents of the images that are available to everyone.
I mean, if you watch tower 1 & 2 as they begin to fall, how have you and others been able to "dismiss" the sudden explosion of everything on those floors.
If by some miracle the iron reached a temperature where it failed to hold it's load, it's not as if every beam on the floor would have somewhat exploded and allowed the top portion of the tower to come crumbling down.

Heated metal may bend, but it doesn't EXPLODE.
And regardless how hot the iron on the "fire floors" reached, if by some miracle the top portion of the towers were allowed to literally FALL down on the lower portion of the structure...
it's not as it it would have BLOWN THE FOUNDATION OUT OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE.

I've seen the same video's and images as everybody else, but for some reason the contents of those images are rarely discussed. The amount of fire that was present in both towers when they first began to fall is NOT sufficient enough to melt each and every beam on 4 or 5 floors at the same exact time.
Please tell me how hot metal must bet before it EXPLODES the way it appears to do in ALL of the video footage of the towers as they collapse.

Show me the light sweetheart.

Submersible
19th August 2006, 04:08 PM
LC Forum - Dylan Avery on going to GZ:

" immortal technique will be performin, alex jones will be speaking, it will be huge!

I went to see Immortal Technique when he launched his "Invasion tour" about 5 months ago and he's just not built right to discuss the REAL issues.
There was a 5 person discussion panel and 4 of them said the phrase "poison in the food" , but later on when they opened the mic for people to ask questions... I asked him and the rest of the audience at South Central Farms when or what would it take to FIGHT about the poison in the food.
He gave me a racist answer, basically so he could blame the problem on someone else. It probably didn't help that I was the only white person there.

WHat is funny, is they have this false sense that some new "revolution" is coming where they will "takeover" the government, and then round up the "evil doers" and have them killed.

Sounds like a great script for a movie, but it is SO FAR FROM REALITY, that one has to wonder how much true "sanity" these people have left.

You can lay down and take IT up the @#\$ all you want from the establishment and continue to be programmed all you want.
please don't get confused, NOTHING I've done lately represents the actions of a sane MAN. It's just been really difficult to find another one, especially one that already has a 'voice' who is ready to DO something other than bitching and moaning about their problems.

Mr. Skinny
19th August 2006, 04:14 PM
You can't even discuss the contents of the images that are available to everyone.
I mean, if you watch tower 1 & 2 as they begin to fall, how have you and others been able to "dismiss" the sudden explosion of everything on those floors.
If by some miracle the iron reached a temperature where it failed to hold it's load, it's not as if every beam on the floor would have somewhat exploded and allowed the top portion of the tower to come crumbling down.

Heated metal may bend, but it doesn't EXPLODE.
And regardless how hot the iron on the "fire floors" reached, if by some miracle the top portion of the towers were allowed to literally FALL down on the lower portion of the structure...
it's not as it it would have BLOWN THE FOUNDATION OUT OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE.

I've seen the same video's and images as everybody else, but for some reason the contents of those images are rarely discussed. The amount of fire that was present in both towers when they first began to fall is NOT sufficient enough to melt each and every beam on 4 or 5 floors at the same exact time.
Please tell me how hot metal must bet before it EXPLODES the way it appears to do in ALL of the video footage of the towers as they collapse.

Show me the light sweetheart.
Well, not all of the steel would have to fail because high temperatures caused bending. Once enough steel failed due to the high temperatures, the load they were supporting would be transferred to the rest of the structure. They would then be overloaded, and would fail in other ways not related to temperature (torsion, shear, tension, etc.).

Gravy
19th August 2006, 04:22 PM
You can lay down and take IT up the @#\$ all you want from the establishment and continue to be programmed all you want.
To whom is that rude comment addressed?

please don't get confused, NOTHING I've done lately represents the actions of a sane MAN. It's just been really difficult to find another one, especially one that already has a 'voice' who is ready to DO something other than bitching and moaning about their problems.
According to the recent (small sample) poll at LC, what half of them aren't willing to do is vote. Dylan Avery has even proudly stated that he's not registered to vote.

19th August 2006, 04:23 PM
You can't even discuss the contents of the images that are available to everyone.
I mean, if you watch tower 1 & 2 as they begin to fall, how have you and others been able to "dismiss" the sudden explosion of everything on those floors.
If by some miracle the iron reached a temperature where it failed to hold it's load, it's not as if every beam on the floor would have somewhat exploded and allowed the top portion of the tower to come crumbling down.

Heated metal may bend, but it doesn't EXPLODE.
And regardless how hot the iron on the "fire floors" reached, if by some miracle the top portion of the towers were allowed to literally FALL down on the lower portion of the structure...
it's not as it it would have BLOWN THE FOUNDATION OUT OF THE SUPERSTRUCTURE.

I've seen the same video's and images as everybody else, but for some reason the contents of those images are rarely discussed. The amount of fire that was present in both towers when they first began to fall is NOT sufficient enough to melt each and every beam on 4 or 5 floors at the same exact time.
Please tell me how hot metal must bet before it EXPLODES the way it appears to do in ALL of the video footage of the towers as they collapse.

Show me the light sweetheart.

Perhaps you could seek out a few qualified structural engineers, anywhere in the world, and explain to them how they are wrong.

They will thank you.

19th August 2006, 04:32 PM
Submersible, welcome back!

Would you care to respond to my last question to you, back at post #1928?

Friend, there are only two ways anyone can "come to a conclusion" about something: they are presented with factual, verifiable evidence, or misled with lies and innuendo. Which would you like to provide?

Mr. Skinny
19th August 2006, 04:38 PM
Friend, there are only two ways anyone can "come to a conclusion" about something: they are presented with factual, verifiable evidence, or misled with lies and innuendo. Which would you like to provide?
To be fair, couldn't you hear some factual, verifiable evidence and some lies and innuendo, and simply jump to a conclusion that was later proven to be wrong?

T.A.M.
19th August 2006, 04:45 PM
I was wondering...do we have any good info on the whole "ASTM E119 Steel" argument.

Doing a net search, I can find little wrt the "6 hours" that the Steel should have remained unhindered if it were of the ASTM E119 Standard.

What I do find is information that describes the ASTM E119 as a series of tests created in 1918 to measure the ability of BUILDING STRUCTURES to withstand fire and subsequent temperature. I can't find anything about how this test was applied to the Steel Beams by themselves, rather than as part of the building structure as a whole, and I can find no Temp curve with anything close to 6h on it. Most of them list temps over a 1-2 hour period...

As this statement is used alot by the CTs, I would appreciate some clarification.

Oh, and submersible, if the "take it up the ^&*&" comment was directed at me, I do not take it up the "^&*&" for anyone, let alone govt, and I am far from programmed...

Mr. Skinny
19th August 2006, 04:48 PM
T.A.M., I may be able to find a copy of ASTM E119 at work. I'll PM you.

60hzxtl
19th August 2006, 04:48 PM
Dylan Avery has even proudly stated that he's not registered to vote.

That would involve reading. . .

T.A.M.
19th August 2006, 04:51 PM
Mr. Skinny;

That would be great. Even better, would be if you could break it down for a non-engineering scientist into something I can understand, specifically, with how it was/would be applied to the WTC steel.

Thanks.

Gravy
19th August 2006, 04:54 PM
Show me the light sweetheart.
Submersible, it's not becoming to compound ignorance ("Iron" "Explode" "Melt") with arrogance.

Let there be light:
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 04:55 PM
I noticed today we are calling up ex military,.. again! Anyone know if Korey is starting to squirm? He's gotta go soon, I would think! All I can say is friendly fire!Oopss, I said it out loud!

DT

T.A.M.
19th August 2006, 04:56 PM
He'll probably get D.A. and J.B. To jump up and down on his legs until they go "crack".

19th August 2006, 04:58 PM
To be fair, couldn't you hear some factual, verifiable evidence and some lies and innuendo, and simply jump to a conclusion that was later proven to be wrong?Well, our new friend was talking about "coming to a conclusion," not "jumping" to the same. But perhaps it's a quibble. I concede your point.

Mr. Skinny
19th August 2006, 04:58 PM
Mr. Skinny;

That would be great. Even better, would be if you could break it down for a non-engineering scientist into something I can understand, specifically, with how it was/would be applied to the WTC steel.

Thanks.
Well, I'd guess it's a series of tests where a load is applied to (perhaps) a cantilevered steel beam. It gets heated to various temperatures, the heat source is removed and one measures if the steel "snaps back" to it's original dimensions. Once the steel won't recover when heated past a certain point, it's reached it's Youngs modulus of elasticity, IIRC, and fail.

Sorry, but it's been too many years since my static and dynamics courses. Hope others will correct my mistakes.

If I can get the ASTM Std, I think I'd rather leave it to the engineers that work in the field to put in laymans terms, TAM.

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 05:01 PM
"IIRC" I see this used here. What is it?

Mr. Skinny
19th August 2006, 05:04 PM
"IIRC" I see this used here. What is it?
If I Recall Correctly.

T.A.M.
19th August 2006, 05:06 PM
9/11 5th Anni Flyer - LC (http://www.loosechange911.com/img/flyer.gif)

Link to the 9/11 GZ flyer cover Dylan et al are putting out.

Mr. Skinny
19th August 2006, 05:08 PM
Fix the fuggin width! My dial-up connection is writhing in pain.

Submersible
19th August 2006, 05:08 PM
Which would you like to provide?

I would like to discuss the images and the appearance of the towers as they stood and as they fell.

If there was a fire hot enough inside of either tower to weaken the iron beyond it's structural capabilities, it would have done it one at a time unless the fire was tremendous... which it wasn't according to the images, video or radio transmissions.

If you look at the images right before the towers fell or the video's, there is a sudden explosion all the way around the 'fire or entry floors' that blew debris in every direction, and the top portion of the structure came crumbling down.
Regardless how much fire or heat was inside each tower , unless it 'free fell' to the floors beneath it the building wouldn't have failed to hold the top portion up, seeing as it had the strength to do so for so many years.
How do the 'professionals' explain that the top 1/4 of the tower had the strength or compression abilities to suddenly crush the remaining 3/4 of the tower including the foundation.

The demolition WTC 1 & 2 was identical.
And there are no images of tower 7 that shows a 'gaping hole' or enough damage to weaken the structure... much less the foundation. right ?

Submersible, it's not becoming to compound ignorance ("Iron" "Explode" "Melt") with arrogance.

How would you describe the complete destruction of the towers, or the explosion that takes place as they initially begin to fall... or the material used to construct the buildings ? ?

like priannah

T.A.M.
19th August 2006, 05:09 PM
Here is their "Schedule":

9/11/06: FIVE YEARS OF LIES, FOUR DAYS OF TRUTH/THE WEEKEND TRUTH WILL CHANGE THE WORLD

Friday, Sept.8th, St. Marks

Welcome/Introduction/Actions
7:00 – 7:30

Al Fonz of 9/11 Vets For Truth: 9/11 As Pretext For Iraq Invasion
7:30 – 8:00

Korey Rowe veteran of the Iraq and Afganistan War.
8:00 – 8:45

Ralph Schoenman: 9/11 and the Attack on Lebanon
8:45 – 10:00

Saturday, Sept.9th, Community Church

9/11 Truth Movement hits the Streets, flyering and outreach throughout New York City starting at Union Square by the Washington statue.
11:00am

Jim Marrs, Tom Foti, Chris Emery, Howie Hawkins
3:00 – 5:30 pm

Barry Zwicker
7:00 – 8:00

First responders
8:00 – 9:00

9/11 Victims Family Members
9:00 – 9:30

Sunday Sept. 10th, Cooper Union Hall

9/11 Truth Breakthrough Press Conference to feature all major speakers
11:30 – 12:15

9/11 Truth Breakthrough Rally!

Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, Jesse Richard, Ralph Schoenman, Jim Marrs, Barry Zwicker, Ian Wood , Kevin Barrett, Faiz Kahn, Carl Person, Les Jamison.
1:00 – 5:00

Dinner Break
5:00 - 6:30

Introduction and Ground Zero Plan
6:30 – 7:00

Alex Jones – progress in the movement
7:00 – 7:30

Preview of LC Final Cut
7:30 – 9:30

Immortal Technique
9:30 – Night

Monday, Sept. 11th, St. Marks Church

Ground Zero Rally For Truth
9/11 Truth Convergence and Stragedy Session for 2007
Some can March back to St. Marks Church, or take the subway
8:00 am

9/11 Truth Convergence - food, music and speaker, networking...open mike, video area, info etc.
4:30

St. Marks Church
2nd Ave 10th Street
NY, NY 10003

Take the 6 train to Astor Place
or R train to 8th Street

Community Church
40 east 35th street by Park Ave.
NY, NY 10016

Take the 6 train to 33rd street
Copper Union
3rd Avenue, 7th street.
NY, NY 10003

Take the 6 train to Astor place
or R train to 8th street

+=+=+

And, Luke is having a screening soon...

Social Concerns Committee Film Forum
Sunday, August 20, 2006
10:45am
Unitarian Church of Staten Island
312 Fillmore Street, corner of Clinton, one block east of Snug Harbor
http://www.unitarianchurchofstatenisland.org/

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 05:15 PM
I see 9/11 Victims Family Members get a whole 1/2 hour. Nice!

Submersible
19th August 2006, 05:16 PM
Let there be light:

An error occurred while processing your request.
Reference #99.15a002cc.1156032593.237f29a

Were you going to show me another story that someone from NIST has written to explain the sudden collapse of these superstructures?

I should have 15 post by tomorrow and maybe we can discuss some of the IMAGES ? It's hard when you can't believe your own eyes ain't it !
Maybe after I can post images you won't quit pulling these fictional stories out of the USG's smoke screen.

cest la'vie

ktesibios
19th August 2006, 05:17 PM
submersible, why don't you try downloading and reading the NIST reports (the most relevant probably being NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers and NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers), which are available here (http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm).

If you're going to reject the "official story", you might first want to know what it is, instead of making up a load of ridiculous strawmen as a stand-in for it.

Mr. Skinny, IIRC Young's modulus (or modulus of elasticity or elastic modulus) applies to members which are strained within the limits in which they behave elastically- as long as they're within those limits the stress/strain relationship is linear- strain=stress/elastic modulus.

Once a piece of steel, or anything, is strained to the point that it deforms permanently (plastically), that relationship is out the window. I think the concept you're thinking of is yield strength or elastic limit, which varies with temperature (according to NIST NCSTAR 1-6, at 500 C the types of steel used in the WTC towers lose something like 50-60% of their room temperature yield strength and their elastic modulus is reduced by around 35%).

Of course, I'm an electronics, not mechanics guy, so YMMV.

T.A.M.
19th August 2006, 05:17 PM
Ya, likely related to the number of family members who actually even partially buy into the LC bullshaite...

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 05:18 PM
I wish I was gonna be there! The #6 train sounds like a festival!

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 05:19 PM
Ya, likely related to the number of family members who actually even partially buy into the LC bullshaite...

Everyone's got an opinion! Sheeesh what a bad one though! Stin..kay!
Not U Tam!

T.A.M.
19th August 2006, 05:25 PM
It will be interesting to see what these Family members have to say, and the reaction of the "truthers".

I also read that the NY National Guard are marching to GZ 9/11/06 also. Interesting to see the interaction between D.A.'s posse and the boys in camoflague (spelling).

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 05:29 PM
I never hate my job. I hate my responsibilities, for not allowing me to be there, on that day! Dang'it!

Mr. Skinny
19th August 2006, 05:32 PM
Mr. Skinny, IIRC Young's modulus (or modulus of elasticity or elastic modulus) applies to members which are strained within the limits in which they behave elastically- as long as they're within those limits the stress/strain relationship is linear- strain=stress/elastic modulus.

Once a piece of steel, or anything, is strained to the point that it deforms permanently (plastically), that relationship is out the window. I think the concept you're thinking of is yield strength or elastic limit, which varies with temperature (according to NIST NCSTAR 1-6, at 500 C the types of steel used in the WTC towers lose something like 50-60% of their room temperature yield strength and their elastic modulus is reduced by around 35%).

Of course, I'm an electronics, not mechanics guy, so YMMV.
OK, doesn't sound like I'm too far off the mark. I admit I may be using the wrong terminology, but what you just posted does not disagree with what I was trying to say. Perhaps I was equating Youngs modulus to elastic limit improperly.

Gravy
19th August 2006, 05:41 PM
I was wondering...do we have any good info on the whole "ASTM E119 Steel" argument.

Doing a net search, I can find little wrt the "6 hours" that the Steel should have remained unhindered if it were of the ASTM E119 Standard.

What I do find is information that describes the ASTM E119 as a series of tests created in 1918 to measure the ability of BUILDING STRUCTURES to withstand fire and subsequent temperature. I can't find anything about how this test was applied to the Steel Beams by themselves, rather than as part of the building structure as a whole, and I can find no Temp curve with anything close to 6h on it. Most of them list temps over a 1-2 hour period...

As this statement is used alot by the CTs, I would appreciate some clarification.

Oh, and submersible, if the "take it up the ^&*&" comment was directed at me, I do not take it up the "^&*&" for anyone, let alone govt, and I am far from programmed...

Summary of NIST's 2004 fire test on floor assemblies
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_fire_resistance_data.htm

Results from above test: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/ULTestResults.pdf

NIST gallery of fire experiment images: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm

See page 18 of the FEMA report http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

Interesting short article on structural fire protection & the WTC http://www.structuremag.org/archives/2006/June-2006/C-PI-Fire%20Protection-June-06.pdf

Lengthier artlcle about fire codes in structural steel buildings: http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/Engineering_Journal4/262_EJ_gewaintroup.pdf

Festival o' fire & structural steel papers (technical) http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/steelinfire/previous_Frame-3.html

Design against progressive collapse in fires (Interesting!) http://www.fireox-international.com/fire/ProgressiveCollapsePaper.pdf

Good links re: WTC and structural fire engineering http://www.fireox-international.com/fire/structdesfire.htm

Abbyas
19th August 2006, 05:44 PM
Report from Ground Zero: When the Gravy's away, RealityBites and Abbyas will drink beer.

Reality Bites and I went down to ground zero again today. Nothing new. The gentleman who told Gravy he could see into his soul again accused me of causing the next terrorist attack. If only I had so much power. I responded by telling him I wasn't the one coming up with alibis for Al Qaeda.

Reality Bites had a nice long chat with an iron worker/CT who decided that I was just lying.

I passed out my contradictory flyers for awhile with the general "She's being paid to cast doubt."

The best was the dog of "Bogglehead" from the SLC forum and his dad, Carl Pederson, who's trying to run for Attorney General of New York in the 9/11 truth party. The dog was outfitted with a lovely "9/11 was an inside job" doggie cape.

Gravy
19th August 2006, 05:44 PM
An error occurred while processing your request.
Reference #99.15a002cc.1156032593.237f29a

Were you going to show me another story that someone from NIST has written to explain the sudden collapse of these superstructures?

The link works fine for me. Let there be light. http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Belz...
19th August 2006, 05:49 PM
Heated metal may bend, but it doesn't EXPLODE.

Kay... following you until now...

And regardless how hot the iron on the "fire floors" reached, if by some miracle the top portion of the towers were allowed to literally FALL down on the lower portion of the structure...

I don't think gravity could be called a miracle, except metaphorically.

I've seen the same video's and images as everybody else, but for some reason the contents of those images are rarely discussed. The amount of fire that was present in both towers when they first began to fall is NOT sufficient enough to melt each and every beam on 4 or 5 floors at the same exact time.

No ?

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 05:50 PM
Reality Bites and I went down to ground zero again today. Nothing new. The gentleman who told Gravy he could see into his soul again accused me of causing the next terrorist attack. If only I had so much power. I responded by telling him I wasn't the one coming up with alibis for Al Qaeda.

Not to be too cliche,but you guys are the wind beneath my wings! Hard for an old rocker to use that one! From the heart, however!
DT

Gravy
19th August 2006, 05:50 PM
Report from Ground Zero: When the Gravy's away, RealityBites and Abbyas will drink beer.

Reality Bites and I went down to ground zero again today. Nothing new. The gentleman who told Gravy he could see into his soul again accused me of causing the next terrorist attack. If only I had so much power. I responded by telling him I wasn't the one coming up with alibis for Al Qaeda.

Reality Bites had a nice long chat with an iron worker/CT who decided that I was just lying.

I passed out my contradictory flyers for awhile with the general "She's being paid to cast doubt."

The best was the dog of "Bogglehead" from the SLC forum and his dad, Carl Pederson, who's trying to run for Attorney General of New York in the 9/11 truth party. The dog was outfitted with a lovely "9/11 was an inside job" doggie cape.
They finally recruited an honest member, and wearing a cape, to boot! I hope you gave our psychic friend the international cuckoo sign. Good job Abby & Reality.

ryanebelhar
19th August 2006, 05:50 PM
on that flyer they are holding signs that say "Investigate 9/11"

Who is it they want to lead such an investigation?

Belz...
19th August 2006, 05:52 PM
If you look at the images right before the towers fell or the video's, there is a sudden explosion all the way around the 'fire or entry floors' that blew debris in every direction, and the top portion of the structure came crumbling down.

No, there isn't. You're imagining things. All I see is debree ejected by the collapse.

19th August 2006, 05:53 PM
I would like to discuss the images and the appearance of the towers as they stood and as they fell.If you like, though attempting to analyze static images of a dynamic process is likely to be somewhat problematic. However, will you stick to the one topic and not move on to others willy-nilly?

If there was a fire hot enough inside of either tower to weaken the iron beyond it's structural capabilities, it would have done it one at a time unless the fire was tremendous... which it wasn't according to the images, video or radio transmissions.Please provide your definition for the word "tremendous."

Also, what are your qualifications in regard to this topic?

If you look at the images right before the towers fell or the video's, there is a sudden explosion all the way around the 'fire or entry floors' that blew debris in every direction, and the top portion of the structure came crumbling down.If true (I don't know one way or the other, not having video of the collapse handy)... so?

Regardless how much fire or heat was inside each tower , unless it 'free fell' to the floors beneath it the building wouldn't have failed to hold the top portion up, seeing as it had the strength to do so for so many years.Do you know the difference between a "live load" and a "static load"?

Also (and I'm not trying to be difficult), your qualifications for determining what these buildings under these conditions "wouldn't have" done is important. Please provide them.

How do the 'professionals' explain that the top 1/4 of the tower had the strength or compression abilities to suddenly crush the remaining 3/4 of the tower including the foundation.Have you read/studied the pertinent reports? Are you interested in learning, or are you another contributor who primarily wants to "ask questions?"

The demolition WTC 1 & 2 was identical.Unless your defintion is different than mine, I don't concede that at all. But even if they were identical enough... so?

And there are no images of tower 7 that shows a 'gaping hole' or enough damage to weaken the structure... much less the foundation. right ?I'm not conversant in WTC7 enough to address this.

How would you describe the complete destruction of the towers, or the explosion that takes place as they initially begin to fall... or the material used to construct the buildings ? ?1) The towers did not suffer "complete destruction." Unless, once again, our definitions are out of sync.

2) What "explosion that takes place as they initially begin to fall?" In any event, are you suggesting that violent physical impacts do not produce violent sounds?

3) What does "material used to construct the buildings" mean?

like priannahHuh?

~

One note in regard to the entirety of your post (which I've broken down, obviously): Questions are not evidence. Here it is again:

Questions are not evidence.

That you or I do not understand something does not make it suspect in the least. If you wish to learn, there are plenty of people in this and other forums who can assist you. But argument from incredulity (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity) is not a satisfactory position.

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 05:53 PM
on that flyer they are holding signs that say "Investigate 9/11"

Who is it they want to lead such an investigation?

Fetzer Jones, Jones,etc.....Usual suspects!

Belz...
19th August 2006, 05:54 PM
Reality Bites and I went down to ground zero again today. Nothing new. The gentleman who told Gravy he could see into his soul again accused me of causing the next terrorist attack. If only I had so much power. I responded by telling him I wasn't the one coming up with alibis for Al Qaeda.

Reality Bites had a nice long chat with an iron worker/CT who decided that I was just lying.

I passed out my contradictory flyers for awhile with the general "She's being paid to cast doubt."

Ever since I've registered here, I've been amazed at the mental gymnastics some people will make to stick to their beliefs. It gets downright silly. I just boggles the mind.

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 05:58 PM
Ever since I've registered here, I've been amazed at the mental gymnastics some people will make to stick to their beliefs. It gets downright silly. I just boggles the mind.

It's called religion!

MarkyX
19th August 2006, 05:59 PM
9/11 5th Anni Flyer - LC (http://www.loosechange911.com/img/flyer.gif)

Link to the 9/11 GZ flyer cover Dylan et al are putting out.

LOL who drew that crap.

EDIT: Oh Honest Government, the only thing I agree with

Mancman
19th August 2006, 06:09 PM
I would like to discuss the images and the appearance of the towers as they stood and as they fell.

If there was a fire hot enough inside of either tower to weaken the iron beyond it's structural capabilities, it would have done it one at a time unless the fire was tremendous... which it wasn't according to the images, video or radio transmissions.

One at a time? What on earth are you on about. Fire doesn't discriminate.

Fires, why not take a look at this NIST fire map, showing where fire was observed between impact and collapse in WTC1:
http://i7.tinypic.com/250jeba.jpg

That looks tremendous to me. Floors 98,97 and 96 in particular appear fully engulfed.

If you look at the images right before the towers fell or the video's, there is a sudden explosion all the way around the 'fire or entry floors' that blew debris in every direction, and the top portion of the structure came crumbling down.
Regardless how much fire or heat was inside each tower , unless it 'free fell' to the floors beneath it the building wouldn't have failed to hold the top portion up, seeing as it had the strength to do so for so many years.

I don't see that in the videos. For example, this one: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=south+tower

You can see the eastern wall is already bowing inward. Some small pieces of debris fall, and then the wall buckles inward, leading to the global failure. No signs of anything explosive occuring before that event.

How do the 'professionals' explain that the top 1/4 of the tower had the strength or compression abilities to suddenly crush the remaining 3/4 of the tower including the foundation.

They explain it with physics. Quick physics recap: when an object begins to fall, it's potential energy becomes kinetic energy. A dynamic load exerts many times more force than a static one. Once the tops of those towers began to move, nothing could stop them.

The demolition WTC 1 & 2 was identical.
And there are no images of tower 7 that shows a 'gaping hole' or enough damage to weaken the structure... much less the foundation. right ?

Gaping holes:
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/7wtc.jpg

http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg

The foundation of the building is irrelevant.

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 06:14 PM
I just saw Korey Dylan(spelled Dillon, but still) score a touchdown! What are the odds? LOL!

Class
19th August 2006, 06:18 PM
Ya, likely related to the number of family members who actually even partially buy into the LC bullshaite...

I've always wondered how many of the victims' family members believe in the inside job BS. I have heard many figures thrown around, ranging from some, a lot, to nearly all.

I think I remember Dylan saying that thousands of victims' family members are crying out of 9/11 truth on an update on the LC site. Does anyone know how many family members believe it was an inside job?

kevin
19th August 2006, 06:20 PM

I posted this in another thread, but here is some stuff from UL about the tests too:

http://www.ul.com/regulators/WTC.pdf

Dog Town
19th August 2006, 06:21 PM
30 min worth!

kevin
19th August 2006, 06:22 PM
I think I remember Dylan saying that thousands of victims' family members are crying out of 9/11 truth on an update on the LC site. Does anyone know how many family members believe it was an inside job?

From what I know of people on the LC site I would get a firm definition of family member. They're likely to count 3rd cousins twice removed.

Gravy
19th August 2006, 06:45 PM
I would like to discuss the images and the appearance of the towers as they stood and as they fell.

If there was a fire hot enough inside of either tower to weaken the iron beyond it's structural capabilities, it would have done it one at a time unless the fire was tremendous... which it wasn't according to the images, video or radio transmissions.
What, exactly, is your definitiion of a "tremendous fire?"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044a20637d40e1.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e7b71a223d8.jpg

An office fire can't buckle huge, steel, fire-protected columns and beams? This is WTC 5, not hit by plane, office materials fire only. Note that this is on floor 8 out of 9: it doesn't have 100-200 million pounds of weight above it, as the damaged portions of the towers did.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044aa72598802f.jpg

Regardless how much fire or heat was inside each tower , unless it 'free fell' to the floors beneath it the building wouldn't have failed to hold the top portion up, seeing as it had the strength to do so for so many years. :eek:
Ahem. The buildings did not stand for many years with severe strucrual damage to several floors. Please present your math that shows that the damaged towers should have withstood the live loads they were subjected to on 9/11.

How do the 'professionals' explain that the top 1/4 of the tower had the strength or compression abilities to suddenly crush the remaining 3/4 of the tower including the foundation.
I'm no profesional, but the strength and compression of the top portion of the towers are hardly relevant once they're set in motion. The sudden dynamic loading caused by their millions of pounds of mass is.

The demolition WTC 1 & 2 was identical.
Wrong. The damage to the buildings was dissimilar, as evidenced by where they were hit, how fast they were hit, and the inverse order in which they collapsed. The reasons for their collapses may have been dissimilar. Read the NIST report.

And there are no images of tower 7 that shows a 'gaping hole' or enough damage to weaken the structure... much less the foundation. right ?
Wrong. While I don't know of any clear photos of the huge damage to the center of the south face, because the volume of smoke blots most of that face out, there are photos of severe structural damage to the southwest corner, and damage below the center of the south parapet. There are also photos of ejected debris in front of, and behind, WTC 7 from the collapse of the towers. These give a sense of the force of the impact WTC 7 was subjected to.

Directly in front of WTC 7

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044a579cd17937.jpg

Behind WTC 7 (it's at left), about 600 feet from WTC 1

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044a579cd55d1f.jpg

South face damage

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044bd1b32e04c8.jpg

Southwest corner damage

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e7bca52f0db.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044e7bca5532d3.jpg

And please see my post today which refutes a claim that demo charges were used on WTC 7 perimeter columns. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1858713&postcount=125

How would you describe the complete destruction of the towers, or the explosion that takes place as they initially begin to fall... or the material used to construct the buildings?
Awesome, nonexistent, steel, concrete, gypsum, glass, aluminum.

Hellbound
19th August 2006, 06:53 PM
How do the 'professionals' explain that the top 1/4 of the tower had the strength or compression abilities to suddenly crush the remaining 3/4 of the tower including the foundation.

You know, I love this. I get a good chuckle every time I see it. It just shows how little these "truthers" actually care about truth, as known of them have stopped for 5 minutes to think about the relevent physics or consider, well, the basics of structures.

They seem to be under the impression that the taller/larger a building is, the stronger it is. You know, the WTC was soooo tall and big, it would be hard to crush.

Well, reality bites 'em in the a\$\$. The taller a building is, the weaker it is. It's hard to make tall buildings, and make them so they'll keep standing up. There's a reason that skyscrapers are huge undertakings, and more expensive than (for example) a group of smaller buildings with an identical floor space.

That "top part of the building" only had to have the energy to take out one floor. More floors below that don't make it harder to go trhough, because one floor does not support the next. If the top section had enough energy to break the core colums, then the floors don't matter. Take out the core columns and all of it fails. And when it hits that first floor, that floor isn't getting help from other floors. That single floor has to hold up the entire weight of the section impacting it, as a live load. That's about 20 to 100 times the max load it was designed to withstand. The extra floors below this don't add any strength...the core columns have to support this weight as well.

The placement, position, and motion of weight makes a huge difference. Find a 2x4. Set it up across a couple cinder blocks. Carefully lay across the 2x4. Chances are, it'll hold you up. Know, instead of laying on it, still, with your weight spread out, jump on the center of it. It'll break. But the weight weas the same...the same weight it was supporting a minute before, right?

It's just a simple, ignorant idea, somthing I'd expect my 4 year old to come up with.

rwguinn
19th August 2006, 07:09 PM
No, there isn't. You're imagining things. All I see is debree ejected by the collapse.

Ah, yes
"Thunder. Lightning. Isn't it amazing how they always seem to be together?"
Smoke and Fire. Debris and collapse.
sigh. Do we surrender to insolent ignorance now, or fight on?

gumboot
19th August 2006, 07:15 PM
Submersible,

I think I understand some of your confusion. You are interpreting the raw data incorrectly. The moment that the floors "explode" is well after collapse has started. Note the "explosion" (as you call it) occurs at the first intact floor below impact.

Before this happened, all of the impacted floors had to collapse. You had a section - 4 or 5 floors, or whatever, with catastrophic damage. In photos you can see the floors sagging significantly. Remember in WTC the floor trusses were what kept the building rigid - lose the floors, and you're in trouble.

The face of the building gets pulled in across the entire impact area. Like stretching a rubberband, eventually the face will reach a critical point where it is no longer capable of maintaining the forces acting on it.

At that point the entire wall of the impact zone will fail at once. Bear in mind the exterior columns carried much of the weight. According to the NYPD Aviaiton Units, the core columns in the impact zone were "glowing red hot" 20 minutes before collapse.

As soon as those outer walls gave way, the entire top section would free-fall through the 4 or 5 or so destroyed floors with virtually no resistance.

Bear in mind, from video footage, it is hard to detect this stage of the collapse. It is only after the top section has smashed through the collapsing impact zone and comes into contact with the first INTACT floor that the "explosion" occur.

Consider... how much PE does the top floors of the building have? I am sure you can do the simple math to calculate what speed this section was at after having fallen through the collapsed floors offering no resistence.

From this you can calculate the amount of force acting on the first intact floor.

But for the sake of simplicity, I'll tell you now (because I've seen the calculations) the force was absolutely massive. The force was much higher than the first intact floor could handle. It, also, collapsed. The next floor down had to deal with MORE mass travelling FASTER. That means MORE force. If the first intact floor could not hold, there was no way the second could.

And then to the third, and so on. As the mass descended down, it grew in weight and grew in velocity, making it more difficult for each floor to resist than the ones before it.

-Andrew

Gravy
19th August 2006, 07:17 PM
It's just a simple, ignorant idea, somthing I'd expect my 4 year old to come up with.

The 9/11 Deniers are Marxists.

Groucho Marx, in one of his movies: "Why, a four year-old child could understand this report! (Aside to his assistant) Run out and find me a four year-old child. I can't make head or tail out of it!"

kevin
19th August 2006, 08:32 PM
But for the sake of simplicity, I'll tell you now (because I've seen the calculations) the force was absolutely massive. The force was much higher than the first intact floor could handle.

Some of the design criteria used for the World Trade Center is in the NIST report. All of the design criteria can be obtained from the building code in affect at the time as the WTC met all those codes (exceeded them in many cases.)

The biggest dead load + live load (they do design for some live load. the live load is people moving about) I could find was for WTC 7 on the substation floor 1. It was designed for 525 pounds per sq. ft. All the others are considerably less, in the neighborhood of 250 pounds per sq. ft.

It's pretty easy to keep something still. It's pretty hard to stop it once it starts moving. (and now every structural engineer in the world is going to be banging on my door for belittling their speciality....)

Kent1
19th August 2006, 08:57 PM
Excellent post.
One other interesting thing I would like to add is from this photo.
Note the detached perimeter columns sticking out
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_0.html
That upper gash pic also travels down at least 17 floors.
If you watch carefully you can see some of it.

SRW
19th August 2006, 11:18 PM
Excellent post.
One other interesting thing I would like to add is from this photo.
Note the detached perimeter columns sticking out
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_0.html
That upper gash pic also travels down at least 17 floors.
If you watch carefully you can see some of it.

One thing that kills me about compareing wt7 to a controlled demolition is the "squibs" when ever you see a controlled demo you hear the cutting charges going off, popping sounds that sound like firecracker's, then you see cutting charges on the exterior of the building, and finally during the collapse you see compressed air and stuff fly out the windows. WT-7 you hear nothing and see nothing until the building starts to fall then you see the same compression blowing out the windows. And the druthers yell see squips!!! Were all druthers standing under the buildings while bricks where falling?

Amd don't forget the nice clean pile it left, not touching the other nearby buildings.

[URL]http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10104

Pardalis
19th August 2006, 11:33 PM
cest la'vie

C'est la vie

SRW
19th August 2006, 11:47 PM
Crest la vie
So do you have a better understanding how little you can tell from a film especially if you do not have the proper back ground to do the Analise's>?

Pardalis
19th August 2006, 11:49 PM
So do you have a better understanding how little you can tell from a film especially if you do not have the proper back ground to do the Analise's>?

Are you talking to me?

SRW
20th August 2006, 12:01 AM
no directed at sunmursable, sorry for the fallout

Kent1
20th August 2006, 12:09 AM
One thing that kills me about compareing wt7 to a controlled demolition is the "squibs" when ever you see a controlled demo you hear the cutting charges going off, popping sounds that sound like firecracker's, then you see cutting charges on the exterior of the building, and finally during the collapse you see compressed air and stuff fly out the windows. WT-7 you hear nothing and see nothing until the building starts to fall then you see the same compression blowing out the windows. And the druthers yell see squips!!! Were all druthers standing under the buildings while bricks where falling?

Amd don't forget the nice clean pile it left, not touching the other nearby buildings.

[URL]http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10104

I think the "squibs" have been pinned
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm
When you get a higher resolution copy they don't exist.
http://www.knowordie.co.uk/WTC7.avi
Its just previous edge damage and windows breaking.
The lower resolution copy has poor artifacting. Also Jones screwed up when he said:
"The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos."
http://www.911myths.com/html/squib_timing.html

Anyone can see this by just watching the video

MRWiffen
20th August 2006, 03:08 AM
I was wondering...do we have any good info on the whole "ASTM E119 Steel" argument.

Doing a net search, I can find little wrt the "6 hours" that the Steel should have remained unhindered if it were of the ASTM E119 Standard.

What I do find is information that describes the ASTM E119 as a series of tests created in 1918 to measure the ability of BUILDING STRUCTURES to withstand fire and subsequent temperature. I can't find anything about how this test was applied to the Steel Beams by themselves, rather than as part of the building structure as a whole, and I can find no Temp curve with anything close to 6h on it. Most of them list temps over a 1-2 hour period...

As this statement is used alot by the CTs, I would appreciate some clarification.

Oh, and submersible, if the "take it up the ^&*&" comment was directed at me, I do not take it up the "^&*&" for anyone, let alone govt, and I am far from programmed...

Here's the current abstract from the ASTM site http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/DATABASE.CART/REDLINE_PAGES/E119.htm?L+mystore+unbi8357

I'll check when I get to work if we have a copy of the full standard. If I can't interpret it I'll get the metalurgist at work to give me a hand.

T.A.M.
20th August 2006, 05:08 AM
Greeat MrWhiffen. Between you and MrSkinny I might actually be able to understand the damn thing, and then compare that with what K Ryan said (that the steel should have kept its structural integrety for 6h).

Submersible:

Check out these links, if you are really interested in learning about the fall of the towers...and actually READ the reports, not skim...

Implosionworld Article on WTC Collapse (http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf)

MIT Structural and Civil Engineers Article on WTC Collapse (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/)

ASCE Fellow Article on WTC Collapse (http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf)

ASCE Position on WTC Collapse (http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1057)

MIT Civil Engineering Professor Article on WTC Collapse (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/nr/2001/skyscrapers.pdf)

Testimony of The LEad Civil Engineer Who Investigated the Collapses (http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Services/Astaneh-Testimony%20Congress-March%206%20Final.pdf)

There is a start...

20th August 2006, 09:12 AM
T.A.M. you realize all those links to universally accepted experts in the revelant fields are from members of the establishment. Obviously when looking for truth, the evil forked-tongue of the Man is to be scrupulously avoided, right? ;)

Sultanist
20th August 2006, 10:02 AM
Forgive me if this has already been posted (I haven't visited this forum for months now).
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

I laughed so hard it hurt when this was posted to Hells Kitchen (IIDB) this morning.
Do you happen to know if it's been posted to Loose Change? I sure would like to read their reaction to it.

MarkyX
20th August 2006, 10:14 AM
Forgive me if this has already been posted (I haven't visited this forum for months now).
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

I laughed so hard it hurt when this was posted to Hells Kitchen (IIDB) this morning.
Do you happen to know if it's been posted to Loose Change? I sure would like to read their reaction to it.

Several times. Dylan is disappointed because he sent Maddox a few times to Loose Change. Other members of the movement think Maddox is part of the New World Order because pirates represent "Skull and Bones"

This is the best argument for abortion, ever. Nothing is going to beat these guys.

WildCat
20th August 2006, 10:15 AM
Forgive me if this has already been posted (I haven't visited this forum for months now).
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

I laughed so hard it hurt when this was posted to Hells Kitchen (IIDB) this morning.
Do you happen to know if it's been posted to Loose Change? I sure would like to read their reaction to it.
It's been posted here and in LC. The LC thread was in the Skeptics section, which has been eliminated.

Sultanist
20th August 2006, 10:22 AM
The LC thread was in the Skeptics section, which has been eliminated.

Why does that not surprise me. I tell you one thing, if that bunch ever gets a government in it's own image, the First Amendment will go out the window faster than you can say "pull it". :D

20th August 2006, 10:29 AM
Why does that not surprise me. I tell you one thing, if that bunch ever gets a government in it's own image, the First Amendment will go out the window faster than you can say "pull it". :D

Yea, I'm sure that the Russian common folk were quite surprised with what replaced the evil Czars after the revolution. Whoops.

I say, let's throw off the bondage of the evil Federal Government and replace it with some kind of Stalinesque utopia! Down with the Man! Power to the people! :)

Dog Town
20th August 2006, 10:29 AM
Why does that not surprise me. I tell you one thing, if that bunch ever gets a government in it's own image, the First Amendment will go out the window faster than you can say "pull it". :D

The only way these kiddies get a Gov in their image, wil be when they all move back to that Island in Peter Pan! They are Lost Boys!
DT

apathoid
20th August 2006, 10:34 AM
Why does that not surprise me. I tell you one thing, if that bunch ever gets a government in it's own image, the First Amendment will go out the window faster than you can say "pull it". :D

Irony is not a strong point of theirs.

Dave_46
20th August 2006, 10:52 AM
Folks, it's been fifteen years since i was involved, but I spent nearly twenty years carrying out the British Standard version of these tests. Essentially the test consists of subjecting an element of a building (loaded where necessary) to a standard temperature/time regime.

The temperature is given by:

T = 20 + 345 x log(base 10)(8t + 1)

T is temperature deg C
t is time in minutes
(It's been a few years, so I hope I remembered correctly)

The elements are usually only about 3 metres long, because that is the size of the test furnaces.

The failure criterion for loadbearing structures is its loadbearing capacity. This is usually gauged by measuring deflection, but I think it can also be maximum temperature for steel. (again from memory I think 550 C)

The test standard can be used for tests up to six hours duration, but the longest I ever did was four hours (on a non loadbearing partition).

The duration that a test specimen lasts before failure can NOT be taken as the time to failure in a real fire. Nobody can predict what the severity of a real fire will be. It is a comparitive test which is usually used for marketing purposes. e.g. A manufacturer of say a fire resisting door will have his doorset tested for 30min or 60min (or whatever is wanted) to enable them to sell their product in the marketplace.

I hope this is useful

Dave

ETA The reason that individual elements are tested separately is also due to restrictions in the test furnaces.

T.A.M.
20th August 2006, 11:29 AM
Nice to see the LC boys and girls have there finger on the "pulse"...lol

seems they still believe there were employees of Odigo in the WTCs and that they all got out safe due to the instant message warning...lol

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=10970

T.A.M.
20th August 2006, 11:32 AM
Even more hillarious, they honestly think the "Jon Benet Ramsey" news is simply a smokescreen to keep attention off the "9/11 truth" and the middle east.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=11080

Sir Knight
20th August 2006, 11:52 AM
Hello everyone, well this is my first post and I have already learned so many things. Like all the things you CANNOT do when you are NEW here. So I am having to retype this whole thing OVER for when you are NEW you cannot use other URLS not related to this site, so POOF my lengthy post was gone!

Let me tell you a little about myself before you write me off as a looney toon. I am 55 years old, an inventor, well educated, a writer, investigator, been in computers for over 30 years and I was issued the first patent issued on software. Now with that said I will get to WHY I came to this site and WHY I am posting here.

I viewed LOOSE CHANGE not just one but a couple of times now, and I was super impressed with how it was done. They didn't tell you want to believe, they just showed you the news clips, facts and testimony from those that were there and they asked the questions and let you come to the conclusions, which for the most part were foregone conclusions.

I never believed in the conspiracy being touted by the Government that it was foreigners doing it. See the government wanted us to believe in a conspiracy but the one they were selling didn't include them.

I am angry at many people because of the film which only confirmed what I suspected had gone on, but it did things in a more detailed and factual manner instead of just a gut feeling. But I am more angry with the NAY SAYERS on LOOSE CHANGE which I have found on this thread. I can't believe people can be so stupid with regarding simple straight forward facts. And they wonder how the government thought they could get away with this? Well we have less rights now than we had BEFORE 9/11, we are not living in a FREE society anymore But people like Luke T. is why the government thought they would get away with things.

Here is the quote: "And does this look like a 16 foot hole to anyone? That's what Loose Changes says is all that was created in the Pentagon by the attack." Well the picture posted by Luke shows a fallen portion of the Pentagon AFTER it had burned for a while and had collapsed long after the video taken by the news media.

post1493879

The video showed the smaller HOLE in the Pentagon right AFTER the missle hit. And what about the government saying the plane crashed in front of the Pentagon and skidded into it when there was NO evidence of that happening and this was all NEWS footage right after it happened. The hole shown by LOOSE CHANGE was NEWS FOOTAGE, how can you argue with that? It was NOT big enough to have been created by the airline which the Government said CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON. Forgetting for a moment that someone else in the government said it was a MISSLE. LOL I saw the windows just beside the SMALL hole intact except from broken glass and I guarantee you that if a BIG AIRLINER had hit that building there would BE NO WINDOWS are all there. How can logical people believe the BS handed out by the government? But a lot do, and that is why they thought they could get away with it, and even if everyone believed in the REAL conspiracy what would they do about it? Oh maybe we could get our own government to do an investigation which they might release to the public in about 50 years from now.

I think everyone should review the movie several times and TAKE NOTES. Do research and THINK. I find it incredible that any person after looking at the simple facts could ever believe that the story being peddled by our government is even close to being the truth.

There is a lot more than what I have posted here I would love to say but I guess I have used up my 5 cents worth on this note.

Let me know what you think or feel, but do it AFTER really reviewing the movie, not by going on what other people have said or what you think you know.

Sir Knight

20th August 2006, 12:05 PM
First off, welcome to the forums.

Hello everyone, well this is my first post and I have already learned so many things. Like all the things you CANNOT do when you are NEW here. So I am having to retype this whole thing OVER for when you are NEW you cannot use other URLS not related to this site, so POOF my lengthy post was gone!

You will be able to post URLs after you have 15 posts under your belt.

Let me tell you a little about myself before you write me off as a looney toon. I am 55 years old, an inventor, well educated, a writer, investigator, been in computers for over 30 years and I was issued the first patent issued on software.

For my own edification, what was that patent on, and for whom were you working at that time?

Now with that said I will get to WHY I came to this site and WHY I am posting here.

I viewed LOOSE CHANGE not just one but a couple of times now, and I was super impressed with how it was done. They didn't tell you want to believe, they just showed you the news clips, facts and testimony from those that were there and they asked the questions and let you come to the conclusions, which for the most part were foregone conclusions.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you; I found LC to be propaganda filled and making every effort to influence people.

I never believed in the conspiracy being touted by the Government that it was foreigners doing it. See the government wanted us to believe in a conspiracy but the one they were selling didn't include them.

I am angry at many people because of the film which only confirmed what I suspected had gone on, but it did things in a more detailed and factual manner instead of just a gut feeling. But I am more angry with the NAY SAYERS on LOOSE CHANGE which I have found on this thread.

Instead of being angry, perhaps you could provide a counter to our counter-arguments to LC's claims.

I can't believe people can be so stupid with regarding simple straight forward facts.

Please attack the argument, not the person (people).

And they wonder how the government thought they could get away with this? Well we have less rights now than we had BEFORE 9/11, we are not living in a FREE society anymore But people like Luke T. is why the government thought they would get away with things.

Post hoc, ergo promptor hoc. A government conspiracy is not the only way that civil liberties can be lost.

Here is the quote: "And does this look like a 16 foot hole to anyone? That's what Loose Changes says is all that was created in the Pentagon by the attack." Well the picture posted by Luke shows a fallen portion of the Pentagon AFTER it had burned for a while and had collapsed long after the video taken by the news media.

post1493879

The video showed the smaller HOLE in the Pentagon right AFTER the missle hit. And what about the government saying the plane crashed in front of the Pentagon and skidded into it when there was NO evidence of that happening and this was all NEWS footage right after it happened. The hole shown by LOOSE CHANGE was NEWS FOOTAGE, how can you argue with that? It was NOT big enough to have been created by the airline which the Government said CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON. Forgetting for a moment that someone else in the government said it was a MISSLE. LOL I saw the windows just beside the SMALL hole intact except from broken glass and I guarantee you that if a BIG AIRLINER had hit that building there would BE NO WINDOWS are all there.

How can logical people believe the BS handed out by the government? But a lot do, and that is why they thought they could get away with it, and even if everyone believed in the REAL conspiracy what would they do about it? Oh maybe we could get our own government to do an investigation which they might release to the public in about 50 years from now.

I think everyone should review the movie several times and TAKE NOTES. Do research and THINK. I find it incredible that any person after looking at the simple facts could ever believe that the story being peddled by our government is even close to being the truth.

We've done much more than watch it and take notes. We've analyzed it. We've critiqued it. We've helped develop comprehensive debunks of it.

There is a lot more than what I have posted here I would love to say but I guess I have used up my 5 cents worth on this note.

Let me know what you think or feel, but do it AFTER really reviewing the movie, not by going on what other people have said or what you think you know.

Sir Knight

Have you even looked at any of the critiques/counter-arguments made against LC?

chran
20th August 2006, 12:07 PM
I think everyone should review the movie several times and TAKE NOTES. Do research and THINK. I find it incredible that any person after looking at the simple facts could ever believe that the story being peddled by our government is even close to being the trutth. Hello Sir Knight, and welcome to the forum.

Someone already did review the movie and take notes: http://tinyurl.com/jnfp8

That's a link to Gravy's Loose Change Viewer Guide. Read it and draw your conclusions from that.

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 12:09 PM
They didn't tell you want to believe, they just showed you the news clips, facts and testimony from those that were there and they asked the questions and let you come to the conclusions, which for the most part were foregone conclusions.

No, they quote mined, clip mined, and data mined to present only the "facts" and statements and views that supported their preconcieved notion. So there wasn't anything about "letting you decide for yourself". If someone wants you to choose a flavor of ice cream, and all they show you 5 differnt types of vanilla, it's not likely you'll choose chocolate.

I am angry at many people because of the film which only confirmed what I suspected had gone on, but it did things in a more detailed and factual manner instead of just a gut feeling. *choke* But I am more angry with the NAY SAYERS on LOOSE CHANGE which I have found on this thread. I can't believe people can be so stupid with regarding simple straight forward facts.
About all Loose change and its creators can deal with are "simple facts". The real facts are a lot more complicated than a poorly written thriller, or a holywood action movie, or a murder mystery. Of course, most people do what you did, they see loose change, assume that's the entire story, and never look at the actual evidence that is available.
Well we have less rights now than we had BEFORE 9/11, we are not living in a FREE society anymore But people like Luke T. is why the government thought they would get away with things.

Less rights...can you be specific please? How are we no longer "free"?

And what about the government saying the plane crashed in front of the Pentagon and skidded into it when there was NO evidence of that happening and this was all NEWS footage right after it happened.Source? I saw the windows just beside the SMALL hole intact except from broken glass and I guarantee you that if a BIG AIRLINER had hit that building there would BE NO WINDOWS are all there. Again, if you actually cared about reality or the "truth" and bothered to research things, you'd know that the renovated section that was hit had bomb-proof windows installed. How can logical people believe the BS handed out by the government? Because we research the evidence, instead of being spoon-fed a biased view by someones collection of incomplete and inaccurate sound bites. I think everyone should review the movie several times and TAKE NOTES. Do research and THINK. Most of us have. That's why we can conclusively say that the factual content of "Loose Change" is comparable to the factual content of "Weekend at Bernie's" I find it incredible that any person after looking at the simple facts could ever believe that the story being peddled by our government is even close to being the truth.And I constantly wonder how someone can accept whatever they are told by a film student with an agenda as gospel, and prefers a simple, spoon-fed list of "facts" instead of doing the actual work to find out the facts.

Sir Knight
20th August 2006, 12:16 PM
Hello everyone, well this is my first post and I have already learned so many things. Like all the things you CANNOT do when you are NEW here. So I am having to retype this whole thing OVER for when you are NEW you cannot use other URLS not related to this site, so POOF my lengthy post was gone!

Let me tell you a little about myself before you write me off as a looney toon. I am 55 years old, an inventor, well educated, a writer, investigator, been in computers for over 30 years and I was issued the first patent issued on software. Now with that said I will get to WHY I came to this site and WHY I am posting here.

I viewed LOOSE CHANGE not just one but a couple of times now, and I was super impressed with how it was done. They didn't tell you want to believe, they just showed you the news clips, facts and testimony from those that were there and they asked the questions and let you come to the conclusions, which for the most part were foregone conclusions.

I never believed in the conspiracy being touted by the Government that it was foreigners doing it. See the government wanted us to believe in a conspiracy but the one they were selling didn't include them.

I am angry at many people because of the film which only confirmed what I suspected had gone on, but it did things in a more detailed and factual manner instead of just a gut feeling. But I am more angry with the NAY SAYERS on LOOSE CHANGE which I have found on this thread. I can't believe people can be so stupid with regarding simple straight forward facts. And they wonder how the government thought they could get away with this? Well we have less rights now than we had BEFORE 9/11, we are not living in a FREE society anymore But people like Luke T. is why the government thought they would get away with things.

Here is the quote: "And does this look like a 16 foot hole to anyone? That's what Loose Changes says is all that was created in the Pentagon by the attack." Well the picture posted by Luke shows a fallen portion of the Pentagon AFTER it had burned for a while and had collapsed long after the video taken by the news media.

post1493879

The video showed the smaller HOLE in the Pentagon right AFTER the missle hit. And what about the government saying the plane crashed in front of the Pentagon and skidded into it when there was NO evidence of that happening and this was all NEWS footage right after it happened. The hole shown by LOOSE CHANGE was NEWS FOOTAGE, how can you argue with that? It was NOT big enough to have been created by the airline which the Government said CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON. Forgetting for a moment that someone else in the government said it was a MISSLE. LOL I saw the windows just beside the SMALL hole intact except from broken glass and I guarantee you that if a BIG AIRLINER had hit that building there would BE NO WINDOWS are all there. How can logical people believe the BS handed out by the government? But a lot do, and that is why they thought they could get away with it, and even if everyone believed in the REAL conspiracy what would they do about it? Oh maybe we could get our own government to do an investigation which they might release to the public in about 50 years from now.

I think everyone should review the movie several times and TAKE NOTES. Do research and THINK. I find it incredible that any person after looking at the simple facts could ever believe that the story being peddled by our government is even close to being the truth.

There is a lot more than what I have posted here I would love to say but I guess I have used up my 5 cents worth on this note.

Let me know what you think or feel, but do it AFTER really reviewing the movie, not by going on what other people have said or what you think you know.

Sir Knight

gmanontario
20th August 2006, 12:19 PM
Hello everyone, well this is my first post and I have already learned so many things. Like all the things you CANNOT do when you are NEW here. So I am having to retype this whole thing OVER for when you are NEW you cannot use other URLS not related to this site, so POOF my lengthy post was gone!

Let me tell you a little about myself before you write me off as a looney toon. I am 55 years old, an inventor, well educated, a writer, investigator, been in computers for over 30 years and I was issued the first patent issued on software. Now with that said I will get to WHY I came to this site and WHY I am posting here.

I viewed LOOSE CHANGE not just one but a couple of times now, and I was super impressed with how it was done. They didn't tell you want to believe, they just showed you the news clips, facts and testimony from those that were there and they asked the questions and let you come to the conclusions, which for the most part were foregone conclusions.

I never believed in the conspiracy being touted by the Government that it was foreigners doing it. See the government wanted us to believe in a conspiracy but the one they were selling didn't include them.

I am angry at many people because of the film which only confirmed what I suspected had gone on, but it did things in a more detailed and factual manner instead of just a gut feeling. But I am more angry with the NAY SAYERS on LOOSE CHANGE which I have found on this thread. I can't believe people can be so stupid with regarding simple straight forward facts. And they wonder how the government thought they could get away with this? Well we have less rights now than we had BEFORE 9/11, we are not living in a FREE society anymore But people like Luke T. is why the government thought they would get away with things.

Here is the quote: "And does this look like a 16 foot hole to anyone? That's what Loose Changes says is all that was created in the Pentagon by the attack." Well the picture posted by Luke shows a fallen portion of the Pentagon AFTER it had burned for a while and had collapsed long after the video taken by the news media.

post1493879

The video showed the smaller HOLE in the Pentagon right AFTER the missle hit. And what about the government saying the plane crashed in front of the Pentagon and skidded into it when there was NO evidence of that happening and this was all NEWS footage right after it happened. The hole shown by LOOSE CHANGE was NEWS FOOTAGE, how can you argue with that? It was NOT big enough to have been created by the airline which the Government said CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON. Forgetting for a moment that someone else in the government said it was a MISSLE. LOL I saw the windows just beside the SMALL hole intact except from broken glass and I guarantee you that if a BIG AIRLINER had hit that building there would BE NO WINDOWS are all there. How can logical people believe the BS handed out by the government? But a lot do, and that is why they thought they could get away with it, and even if everyone believed in the REAL conspiracy what would they do about it? Oh maybe we could get our own government to do an investigation which they might release to the public in about 50 years from now.

I think everyone should review the movie several times and TAKE NOTES. Do research and THINK. I find it incredible that any person after looking at the simple facts could ever believe that the story being peddled by our government is even close to being the truth.

There is a lot more than what I have posted here I would love to say but I guess I have used up my 5 cents worth on this note.

Let me know what you think or feel, but do it AFTER really reviewing the movie, not by going on what other people have said or what you think you know.

Sir Knight

<Lurk Mode OFF>
I for one being 52 years old have learned that even the best educated people on the planet can still be narrow-minded, judgemental looney tunes. Education does not equal critical thinking skills.

What makes you an expert on the pentagon hit? How big should the hole have been, and please show your numbers. No "commn sense" arguments please.

As far as the LC dreck goes, I couldn't stand having the taste of vomit in my mouth more than once. FYI most of the people here have seen the village idiots at work and have commented hundreds of times on all aspects of that waste of good beer-drinking time. See any post by Gravy and MarkyX, people who have actually DONE some research rather than accepting the move at face value.

Dylan et al are complete losers who have found a way to profit on the deaths of 3000+ people. A warning to you friend is to expect no quarter when discussing 9/11 here. Even the regulars get corrected if they are wrong. Statements like "I can't believe that people do/don't believe <insert a conclusion here>" will definitely not hold any water unless you have iron clad proof to back it up.

Back to you guys Gravy and MarkyX

<lurk mode ON>

eta: I bet you're a hero at the circle-jerk over at the LC forums...

steve s
20th August 2006, 12:20 PM
If you look at the images right before the towers fell or the video's, there is a sudden explosion all the way around the 'fire or entry floors' that blew debris in every direction, and the top portion of the structure came crumbling down.

No. There are no explosions before the collapse starts. It's not till after the collapse begins that material starts being ejected, making it appear that some explosive force is occuring.

Regardless how much fire or heat was inside each tower, unless it 'free fell' to the floors beneath it the building wouldn't have failed to hold the top portion up, seeing as it had the strength to do so for so many years.

Your statement here (in bold) just shows you don't understand the difference between a static load and a dynamic load. Here's an experiment for you. Set a bowling ball on your foot. It exerts a force equal to the weight of the ball. Now pick that ball up and drop it on your foot. It exerts a helluva lot more force, right? Once the upper floors started to fall, the force they exerted was far greater than their static weight.
This has been explained here many times. You Loosers seem to think that repeating the same tired claims will somehow validate them.

How do the 'professionals' explain that the top 1/4 of the tower had the strength or compression abilities to suddenly crush the remaining 3/4 of the tower including the foundation.

You see, Sub, the 'professionals' actually understand the laws of physics. They know that momentum equals mass times velocity. As each floor collapses, it adds to the mass of the collapsing portion of the building. Thus the momentum is continually increasing throughout the collapse. It's the same principle behind an avalanche. Once it starts, it's not going to stop till it gets to the bottom.

This is going to sound very arrogant, but you're total lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of physics has allowed you to believe in some pretty ridiculous things. Perhaps you should learn more about science before you accuse people of conspiring to murder thousands of their fellow citizens.

Steve S.

Stellafane
20th August 2006, 12:22 PM
...But I am more angry with the NAY SAYERS on LOOSE CHANGE which I have found on this thread. I can't believe people can be so stupid with regarding simple straight forward facts...

Sorry buddy, you've already lost me. Don't call me stupid until I've proved it to you, OK?

jhunter1163
20th August 2006, 12:38 PM
Sir Knight:

Welcome to the forum.

I see that I've been beaten to the punch by several posters, but I'll reiterate: Loose Change is total crap, and there are a number of highly knowledgeable posters on here who will be happy to tell you exactly why it is crap, how high it is piled, and how much it stinks in parts per million.

My personal feeling is that incompetence on the part of CIA and FBI is a FAR better explanation of why 9/11 happened than any grandiose government plot. Check out www.expertwitnessradio.org for more from a 25-year DEA agent who has an intimate familiarity with how undercover ops SHOULD be handled and see what he thinks about the pooch-screw on 9/11.

ETA: Just FYI, I don't agree with a lot of what appears on that site, but the guy does know his stuff regarding undercover ops.

T.A.M.
20th August 2006, 12:47 PM
Sir Knight:

Welcome. Whether you are a CTer, Debunker, or somewhere in between, you are welcome here, and your opinions, as different as they maybe from most, will be allowed, if not neccesarily accepted.

Quote #1:
"I viewed LOOSE CHANGE not just one but a couple of times now, and I was super impressed with how it was done. They didn't tell you want to believe, they just showed you the news clips, facts and testimony from those that were there and they asked the questions and let you come to the conclusions, which for the most part were foregone conclusions."

I have viewed LC at least 6 times, in its entirety, and find it less factual and convincing each and every time. What they did was take isolated comments, news snippets, and testimony, completely out of context, then wove it onto the screen in a way to falsely connect unrelated "dots". Since you say that most of the conclusions they allowed you to come to were foregone anyway, I can safely assume, you were much closer to being a CTer wrt to 9/11 anyway.

Quote #2:
"I never believed in the conspiracy being touted by the Government that it was foreigners doing it. See the government wanted us to believe in a conspiracy but the one they were selling didn't include them."

The above statement clearly indicates my former comment, that your stance is far from neutral on the matter.

Quote #3:
I am angry at many people because of the film which only confirmed what I suspected had gone on, but it did things in a more detailed and factual manner instead of just a gut feeling. But I am more angry with the NAY SAYERS on LOOSE CHANGE which I have found on this thread. I can't believe people can be so stupid with regarding simple straight forward facts.

Most people who started out on these threads, likely had their own view on things, but it was likely more open than yours based on the above. It was through HARD RESEARCH of the facts. FACTS NOT TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, facts taken from legitimate sources including multiple eyewitness testimony, expert testimony, TRUELY PEER REVIEWED journal papers on the topics written by EXPERTS in the field, Multiple accounts from legitimate news sources, that allowed most here to come to the conclusion that while there are some descrepancies in the govt story, for the most part, it is true.

Quote #4:
"And they wonder how the government thought they could get away with this? Well we have less rights now than we had BEFORE 9/11, we are not living in a FREE society anymore But people like Luke T. is why the government thought they would get away with things."

Freedom must be tempered with lawfulness or anarchy will rule, and I for one do not want to live in an anarchist state.

Quote #5:
Here is the quote: "And does this look like a 16 foot hole to anyone? That's what Loose Changes says is all that was created in the Pentagon by the attack." Well the picture posted by Luke shows a fallen portion of the Pentagon AFTER it had burned for a while and had collapsed long after the video taken by the news media.

I can tell your research on the topic is limited to "9/11 truth" videos, as if you did any of your own real research you would have quickly found the numerous pictures of the pentagon, before the collapse, that show a large 8-10 feet tall x 80-90 feet wide hole on bottom, and then atop it, but part of the same hole, the 16-20 feet wide hole you speak of. You will notice in the "Loose Change" video that water spray covers all aspects of the building below the hole they tell you is "all of the hole". Do some real research on it.

QUote #6:
"The video showed the smaller HOLE in the Pentagon right AFTER the missle hit. And what about the government saying the plane crashed in front of the Pentagon and skidded into it when there was NO evidence of that happening and this was all NEWS footage right after it happened. The hole shown by LOOSE CHANGE was NEWS FOOTAGE, how can you argue with that? It was NOT big enough to have been created by the airline which the Government said CRASHED INTO THE PENTAGON. Forgetting for a moment that someone else in the government said it was a MISSLE. LOL I saw the windows just beside the SMALL hole intact except from broken glass and I guarantee you that if a BIG AIRLINER had hit that building there would BE NO WINDOWS are all there. How can logical people believe the BS handed out by the government? But a lot do, and that is why they thought they could get away with it, and even if everyone believed in the REAL conspiracy what would they do about it? Oh maybe we could get our own government to do an investigation which they might release to the public in about 50 years from now."

Well...Do your own research. (1) Pentagon was Reinforced Concrete, (2) the windows were blast windows, (3) at some point, the windows had to be in tact.

The misquote that was obviously so to be "as" a missile, instead of "and a missile" by D. Rumsfeld, requires no further discussion.

The hole was not news footage, it was a photo.

Quote #7:
"I think everyone should review the movie several times and TAKE NOTES. Do research and THINK. I find it incredible that any person after looking at the simple facts could ever believe that the story being peddled by our government is even close to being the truth.

There is a lot more than what I have posted here I would love to say but I guess I have used up my 5 cents worth on this note.

Let me know what you think or feel, but do it AFTER really reviewing the movie, not by going on what other people have said or what you think you know."

You obviously had no idea where you were going when you came here. 95% of the posters on this thread have watched, critiqued, and Debunked that movie many, many times. I don't think it would be any exaggeration to say that 95% of the posters here have watched it and studied more, and in more detail, than you.

That is what I tihnk, and I am but a neophyte in the Debunking realm. Beware the heavies here, and have your evidence i's dotted and t's crossed if you want to seriously debate the issues.

T.A.M.

ghost707
20th August 2006, 12:49 PM
I never believed in the conspiracy being touted by the Government that it was foreigners doing it. See the government wanted us to believe in a conspiracy but the one they were selling didn't include them.
Sir Knight

Hello Sir Knight.

Do you believe that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was a government conspiracy?

How about the attack on the USS Cole?

Kobar towers?

Spain train bombing?

London bombing?

Attacks in Turkey?

Attacks in Saudi Arabia?

Attacks in Africa?

What about the Muslim riots in France?

steve s
20th August 2006, 12:49 PM
I viewed LOOSE CHANGE not just one but a couple of times now, and I was super impressed with how it was done. They didn't tell you want to believe, they just showed you the news clips, facts and testimony from those that were there and they asked the questions and let you come to the conclusions, which for the most part were foregone conclusions.

The conclusions were foregone because they only showed you what they wanted you to see. Too bad they left out the 99.999% of the facts which completely contradict their unsubstantiated claims.

I can't believe people can be so stupid with regarding simple straight forward facts. And they wonder how the government thought they could get away with this?

Yeah, it's amazing how some twenty-something losers with no background in any field of engineering, explosives, or forensics could uncover a conspiracy by the all-powerful government just by looking at some low-res, grainy images on the internet.

I saw the windows just beside the SMALL hole intact except from broken glass and I guarantee you that if a BIG AIRLINER had hit that building there would BE NO WINDOWS are all there.

Forgive me if I don't think your guarantee is worth much.

Let me know what you think or feel, but do it AFTER really reviewing the movie, not by going on what other people have said or what you think you know.

That's the problem. Loosers don't think, they just feel. It' feels like the towers didn't fall the way they should. It feels like the hole at the Pentagon should have been different. It feels like the crash site at Shanksville should have looked differently.

Here's a couple of things for you to chew on Sir Knight. Dylan Avery has admitted in a videotaped interview that Loose Change is just fiction.

Also, doesn't the fact that he's had to make so many versions of LC to correct all the mistakes of previous versions trouble you?

Steve S.

Sir Knight
20th August 2006, 12:57 PM
"For my own edification, what was that patent on, and for whom were you working at that time?"

First of all I am here on a basis of anonymity and if you were as smart as you purpose in your response to my post you would have easily gone checked me out and TOLD ME WHO I WAS, it is public information. LOL
And I was working for myself. I have worked in artificial intelligence which appears to me to be more valid than the simple intelligence I find in this world in general. I have designed computers from scratch, and have worked in software/computers over 30 years.

I am a VICTIM of serveral conspiracies (real factual stuff), I have lost my home and they could take it IF THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME SOMETHING IN WRITING telling me why. There is a little known law they use that actually goes against all my rights and it breaks more laws than I care to say. It was created especially for people in conspiracies to use against those that know. Free society....I don't think so. The CIA was involved and I have more factual evidence of it than I care to discuss. But no one in the government wants to hear it, nor know about it. Drug companies, I know FACTUALLY that they are in bed with the government to prevent us from being heathy. I have been poisoned, my car has been rigged to blow up and many other attempts on my life are documented by many different parties. Now just why would I tell you EXACTLY who I am? If I wanted you to know I would tell you.

9/11 is nothing new, just old SH_T different day.

What makes me an expert on anything? Wisdom, something which I doubt you know anything about.

There are two things that really bother me about all of this, the fact that it happened the way it did, and the fact that some will go out of their way to help them keep it hidden the best they can.

I had a feeling the REALITY of this world would be lost on a place like this.

Another thing, "Knowledge without wisdom is stupidity". I see more of that on here than I can to stand. This country was born on conspiracies and will continue, history will repeat itself.

Those that refuse to acknowledge the lies will partake of them.

Just like the old joke goes, "how do you know when a Politician is lying..his lips are moving." You want me to believe the Politicians are telling me the truth? Now as Spoc would say, "That isn't logical."

This place is a waste of my time as I see it now. I was hoping it would be a place I could share the REAL truth of my life with others, it was just a dream anyway. Most of your people wouldn't know the truth if it landed on your head, the government would tell you it was a hot air balloon and you would believe it no matter what it looked like.

I fight for what is right and for the truth, and I have found that this world doesn't do that in general. It takes the easy way out and the lie is ALWAYS the easy way out.

Well to those that believe good luck, and to the others that are blind good bye. One thing I have learned over the years, and that is "when someone wants to do something they only need one reasons to do it, when someone doesn't want to, they will find 1,000 reasons not to." Well if you don't want to believe the truth, you will find 1,000 reasons/excuses not to.

That is all I care to say on this subject or anything anymore except...

The reason I am an expert on a LOT OF THINGS is because I was THERE.
I KNOW and I don't need someone that is baffling people with BS to tell me I don't know what I know. I have no agenda just wanted a place to maybe find something...someone....that would really care....but I don't really think this is the place. As I said it was just a dream.

Closeminded? That you people know....

Sir Knight

Hellbound
20th August 2006, 01:00 PM
Yep, giant flying looney tune.

You, Sir Knight, are an expert on fantasy and delusion.

gmanontario
20th August 2006, 01:06 PM
Oh I can condense that rant to a few sentences:

You people are meanies for not agreeing with me so I'm going back to where I can be a superhero. Evidence Shmevidence is what I say because the MIB are after me.

Nyah Nyah Nyah

Besides, does Sir Knight really think that anyone here gives a rats ass about his life other then for morbid amusement? The folks here are ready to listen to evidence, not autobiographies, fantasy stories and anecdotes (AFAIK that is).

Shortest time ever for a drama queen exit I say..

T.A.M.
20th August 2006, 01:09 PM
Not that you have a bone to pick or anything I guess....jeez. You admitted you have a position on the matter, and some here called you on it...what is wrong with that. People here are about evidence, REAL evidence, not speculation, not "what ifs" or what doesn't "feel" right.

A "Wise" gas attendant, is as useless as Bookworm who hasn't been outside his own house, so Wisdom, by itself, is as useless as info alone. At least Information can be analyzed and critiqued, unlike "wisdom". You are not the only 50 something here, nor the only Scholar, some come down off your soap box and seriously debate the issues. Noone is going to be mean to you, and if they are others here usually will call them on it.

There are people here who were close to the events of 9/11. There are many NYC residents amongst the group here. And unlike the authors of LC, who laugh at and mock the dead, such as Mark Bingham and Betty Ong, we treat all the victims, and their loss, with the utmost respect...

I don't think you came here to debate anything anyway...

If you are looking for people with views similar to your own, Go here...

Loose Change Forum (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=idx)

Scholars for 9/11 truth (http://www.st911.org/)

T.A.M.

ghost707
20th August 2006, 01:11 PM
Thanks for stopping by, Sir Knight.

delphi_ote
20th August 2006, 01:11 PM
Oh I can condense that rant to a few sentences:

You people are meanies for not agreeing with me so I'm going back to where I can be a superhero. Evidence Shmevidence is what I say because the MIB are after me.

Nyah Nyah Nyah

Besides, does Sir Knight really think that anyone here gives a rats ass about his life other then for morbid amusement? The folks here are ready to listen to evidence, not autobiographies, fantasy stories and anecdotes (AFAIK that is).

Shortest time ever for a drama queen exit I say..
Thanks for the summary. That post hurt my eyes.

rwguinn
20th August 2006, 01:12 PM
Hello everyone, well this is my first post and I have already learned so many things. Like all the things you CANNOT do when you are NEW here. So I am having to retype this whole thing OVER for when you are NEW you cannot use other URLS not related to this site, so POOF my lengthy post was gone!

Let me tell you a little about myself before you write me off as a looney toon. I am 55 years old, an inventor, well educated.........

Sir Knight
my bolding:
I beg to disagree.
apparently the first of many prevarications.

delphi_ote
20th August 2006, 01:14 PM
What makes me an expert on anything? Wisdom, something which I doubt you know anything about.
What makes me wise? My wisdom! What makes me an expert? My expertise!
:dl:

20th August 2006, 01:15 PM
"For my own edification, what was that patent on, and for whom were you working at that time?"

First of all I am here on a basis of anonymity and if you were as smart as you purpose in your response to my post you would have easily gone checked me out and TOLD ME WHO I WAS, it is public information. LOL
And I was working for myself. I have worked in artificial intelligence which appears to me to be more valid than the simple intelligence I find in this world in general. I have designed computers from scratch, and have worked in software/computers over 30 years.

Well, you see, I'm a little confused. You say you've been in IT/MIS/etc for over thirty years. Now, by that, I take it to mean < forty years. Which is where my confusion comes in. From my understand the first software patent was applied for in 1962 (44 years ago, by BP) The first software patent ever granted is probably a patent for a "computer having slow and quick access storage, when programmed to solve a linear programming problem by an iterative algorithm, the iterative algorithm being such that (...)" applied for in 1962 by British Petroleum Company ([2], see end of page 3). The patent relates to solving simultaneous linear equations. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent

I am a VICTIM of serveral conspiracies (real factual stuff), I have lost my home and they could take it IF THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME SOMETHING IN WRITING telling me why. There is a little known law they use that actually goes against all my rights and it breaks more laws than I care to say. It was created especially for people in conspiracies to use against those that know. Free society....I don't think so. The CIA was involved and I have more factual evidence of it than I care to discuss. But no one in the government wants to hear it, nor know about it. Drug companies, I know FACTUALLY that they are in bed with the government to prevent us from being heathy. I have been poisoned, my car has been rigged to blow up and many other attempts on my life are documented by many different parties. Now just why would I tell you EXACTLY who I am? If I wanted you to know I would tell you.

So, I assume that this is a tacit admission to having provided false information at the time of your registration here on the forums? You realize, the gov't would still be able to track you down via server logs, proxy logs, etc

9/11 is nothing new, just old SH_T different day.

What makes me an expert on anything? Wisdom, something which I doubt you know anything about.

Attack the argument, not the person.

There are two things that really bother me about all of this, the fact that it happened the way it did, and the fact that some will go out of their way to help them keep it hidden the best they can.

Evidence?

I had a feeling the REALITY of this world would be lost on a place like this.

What exactly is "a place like this"?

<snip>
This place is a waste of my time as I see it now. I was hoping it would be a place I could share the REAL truth of my life with others, it was just a dream anyway. Most of your people wouldn't know the truth if it landed on your head, the government would tell you it was a hot air balloon and you would believe it no matter what it looked like.

I fight for what is right and for the truth, and I have found that this world doesn't do that in general. It takes the easy way out and the lie is ALWAYS the easy way out.

Well to those that believe good luck, and to the others that are blind good bye. One thing I have learned over the years, and that is "when someone wants to do something they only need one reasons to do it, when someone doesn't want to, they will find 1,000 reasons not to." Well if you don't want to believe the truth, you will find 1,000 reasons/excuses not to.

That is all I care to say on this subject or anything anymore except...

The reason I am an expert on a LOT OF THINGS is because I was THERE.
I KNOW and I don't need someone that is baffling people with BS to tell me I don't know what I know. I have no agenda just wanted a place to maybe find something...someone....that would really care....but I don't really think this is the place. As I said it was just a dream.

Closeminded? That you people know....

Sir Knight

I'll take that as a, "no, I haven't read any of the critiques of LC because they might challenge the fantasy world in which I live." Copy. Don't let the door hit 'cha on the way out.

Belz...
20th August 2006, 01:16 PM
Let me tell you a little about myself before you write me off as a looney toon. I am 55 years old, an inventor, well educated, a writer, investigator, been in computers for over 30 years and I was issued the first patent issued on software.

Doesn't make you any better at logic, really.

I never believed in the conspiracy being touted by the Government that it was foreigners doing it...

...which for the most part were foregone conclusions.

I am angry at many people because of the film which only confirmed what I suspected had gone on...

I think what you're saying is "this film confirmed my preconceived notions and I accepted it without question, just like I am accusing you guys of accepting the official story."

I can't believe people can be so stupid with regarding simple straight forward facts. And they wonder how the government thought they could get away with this?

Funny how you people keep saying this is the "government"'s version of the story.

chacal
20th August 2006, 01:16 PM
One thing I have learned over the years, and that is "when someone wants to do something they only need one reasons to do it, when someone doesn't want to, they will find 1,000 reasons not to." Well if you don't want to believe the truth, you will find 1,000 reasons/excuses not to.

Dylan, is that you?

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 01:18 PM
Sir Knight, do you know Philip K. Dick?

steve s
20th August 2006, 01:18 PM
But no one in the government wants to hear it, nor know about it. Drug companies, I know FACTUALLY that they are in bed with the government to prevent us from being heathy.

I'm healthy. I haven't been sick in 20 years.

There are two things that really bother me about all of this, the fact that it happened the way it did,

A meaningless statement, akin to saying "No matter where you go, there you are."

This country was born on conspiracies and will continue, history will repeat itself.
Those that refuse to acknowledge the lies will partake of them.

Your protestations to the contrary, you were obviously a conspiracy "looney tune" long before you saw Loose Change.

Just like the old joke goes, "how do you know when a Politician is lying..his lips are moving." You want me to believe the Politicians are telling me the truth? Now as Spoc would say, "That isn't logical."

I don't have to listen to politicians to know that the CTs are full of crap.

I was hoping it would be a place I could share the REAL truth of my life with others,

You thought we were going to be a bunch of passive sheep who would accept your drivel without argument. Glad to disappoint you.

Well to those that believe good luck,

That's the point. It's a belief system. The CTers are like creationists. No amount of evidence will ever sway them because their beliefs aren't based on evidence, just a pre-conceived belief system.

The reason I am an expert on a LOT OF THINGS is because I was THERE.
I KNOW and I don't need someone that is baffling people with BS to tell me I don't know what I know.

Like your "guarantee", this is meaningless. We're supposed to accept it because "You know," even if you can't offer up a shred of evidence to support what "You know."

Steve S.

gmanontario
20th August 2006, 01:18 PM
What makes me wise? My wisdom! What makes me an expert? My expertise!
:dl:

A perfect candidate to be a moderator at the LC circle-jerk festival.

Belz...
20th August 2006, 01:19 PM
And I was working for myself. I have worked in artificial intelligence which appears to me to be more valid than the simple intelligence I find in this world in general. I have designed computers from scratch, and have worked in software/computers over 30 years.

From scratch ? You mean without using previously-existing electronic technology ? Are you Bill Gates ?

I am a VICTIM of serveral conspiracies (real factual stuff), I have lost my home and they could take it IF THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME SOMETHING IN WRITING telling me why. There is a little known law they use that actually goes against all my rights and it breaks more laws than I care to say. It was created especially for people in conspiracies to use against those that know. Free society....I don't think so. The CIA was involved and I have more factual evidence of it than I care to discuss. But no one in the government wants to hear it, nor know about it. Drug companies, I know FACTUALLY that they are in bed with the government to prevent us from being heathy. I have been poisoned, my car has been rigged to blow up and many other attempts on my life are documented by many different parties. Now just why would I tell you EXACTLY who I am? If I wanted you to know I would tell you.

I believe I have misjudged you from your first post:

"Let me tell you a little about myself before you write me off as a looney toon."

I think you've done a very GOOD job of writing yourself off, mister.

20th August 2006, 01:21 PM
yikes

Sir Knight
20th August 2006, 01:23 PM
Hello Sir Knight.

Do you believe that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was a government conspiracy?

How about the attack on the USS Cole?

Kobar towers?

Spain train bombing?

London bombing?

Attacks in Turkey?

Attacks in Saudi Arabia?

Attacks in Africa?

What about the Muslim riots in France?

Well I wasn't going to respond to anything else but you struck a note. It just so happens that someone in the CIA I personal know, (who I used to think of as a friend) happen to visit certain spots just right before certain things happened. Just like clockwork. He told me many things but they would all be wasted on the likes of you. And this posting thing is probably not good for my personal well being. If I say one or two things there are people who would know exactly who I am. You people forget so easily when people get caught doing things and the truth comes out, like the Watergate affair and so many others, there is always a scape goat and someone else takes the fall. And I myself have had witnesses that knew truths and facts about my personal situations that up and disappeared over night, or CHANGED their stories because someone paid them a visit. Frankly in a way I am somewhat surprised that the people behind loose change is still alive. Sometimes fction is based on fact and the truth even stranger than fiction.

Hey I was told by IBM, the makers and designers of the PC that my company could NOT do something in particular with them, as they weren't designed to do it. LOL Hey they should know right, they were the experts, but you should have seen their faces when we told them we ALREADY HAD DONE IT. Experts are a dime a dozen and you can buy one to say anything you want.

One thing I see a real shortage of on here is LOGIC and WISDOM. Most of you sure don't know your history really well. And most of you don't know people in the CIA either, I can tell. But then again, maybe some of you who are telling us what we know is BS has something to do with the CIA.
See most of what I know had nothing to do with LOOSE CHANGE, and if it is pure fiction they stumbled upon the truth by accident. But the news clippings and other things they show, I saw for myself when they happened. I had a CIA agent under oath lying about me and to me. I had witnesses and evidence to support my case/side but it didn't matter at all.
The truth is irrelevant when it comes to our government. All is done under the guise of NATIONAL SECURITY. And the CIA guy I mentioned, oh he admitted to being CIA but he worked for the State Dept as a cover. And those incidents that just happened every time he had to take a trip to that particular part of the world, that must have just been a long series of co-incidents.

If I could prove anything to you, you guys wouldn't lift a finger to help.
So why waste my time?

I really should have known better, but one gets tired of fighting at times.

Well the war continues.........if I live through all of this there will be a book and movies, but it will just probably be labled fiction for NO ONE will want to believe it is the TRUTH.

Sir Knight

Class
20th August 2006, 01:25 PM
I have been poisoned, my car has been rigged to blow up and many other attempts on my life are documented by many different parties.

Got any evidence of this?

I didn't read past this point by the way.

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 01:26 PM
Sir Knight, you should really write this stuff down, this is science-fiction gold!

chacal
20th August 2006, 01:28 PM
Mayby he's a writer just fooling around.

T.A.M.
20th August 2006, 01:29 PM
and let me guess, you can't name the CIA agent, cause they'll getcha.

and any other proof you want to bring in to help any arguement you've made.

logic. you think coming in here and spueing off things without a single piece of verifiable evidence is logical. To believe you on face value, with no proof, would that be the LOGICAL, or WISE thing to do.

You are still up on your soapbox.

Like I said, most people who post here, unlike most of the Conspiracy sites, are not teens and 20 something hermits. Alot of the people here are close to or past your age, and most are very well educated. You make grand assumptions about those here simply they do not share your perspective...is that WISE or LOGICAL??

delphi_ote
20th August 2006, 01:33 PM
It just so happens that someone in the CIA I personal know, (who I used to think of as a friend) happen to visit certain spots just right before certain things happened. Just like clockwork. He told me many things but they would all be wasted on the likes of you.
Name names and places, or I'll file this all under "C" for "crap" with the rest of your posts.

20th August 2006, 01:33 PM
Sir Knight reminds me of a couple characters I've seen on GLP

SRW
20th August 2006, 01:34 PM
Sir knight

Might I interest you in a new tinfoil suit of armor? It appears the one you are currently using is not working.

Steve

Mr. Skinny
20th August 2006, 01:35 PM
The reason I am an expert on a LOT OF THINGS is because I was THERE.
Well, I'm 54 and I'm an expert on everything that occured in MY LIFE!! So there. Phhhhhhhbbbt:catfight:

(always wanted to try that ALL CAPS thing. Am I more convincing when I do that?)

20th August 2006, 01:35 PM
Name names and places, or I'll file this all under "C" for "crap" with the rest of your posts.

So, could you have ever guessed when you posted http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1484181#post1484181 that you would spawn 13610+ posts, a new sub-forum, viewer guides, blogs, etc? Don't go all Napolean on us now.

Sir Knight
20th August 2006, 01:35 PM
From scratch ? You mean without using previously-existing electronic technology ? Are you Bill Gates ?

I believe I have misjudged you from your first post:

"Let me tell you a little about myself before you write me off as a looney toon."

I think you've done a very GOOD job of writing yourself off, mister.

No I am not Bill Gates, I was around before him. He is a joke in many ways a good thief at best, and even a better liar.

I haven't written myself off, just you. Everything I told you is the truth and I could prove it but what difference would it make in your petty world or mine? You don't have room for the truth as you are just full of yourself.

You make doubting Thomas look good.

I did something even Bill Gates didn't do, I was the first to ever be issued a patent on Software paving the way for everyone else. And yes I designed and implimented my own without the help of ANYONE. The fact that Microsoft is infringing on my patent every day and that they owe me millions wouldn't faze you would it? LOL I tell you what, put your money where you mouth is. Put up \$10,000 with any attorney you choose, send me their name, phone and address and under contract with him I will prove everything I said is true and if I do I get the \$10,000. All I would have to show him is one letter from Microsofts attorney's. But I will not tell you where I am. LOL I am in my own witness protection program.

When it comes to put up or shut up I don't think you are going to put up anything but a stink.

Guys this hasn't been fun nor really entertaining and I really do have better and more important things to do.

Oh and I am really holding my breath waiting on the \$10,000. NOT!

Sir Knight

Sir Knight
20th August 2006, 01:38 PM
Another stupid pointless post, I was referring to being in CONSPIRACIES with the GOVERNMENT idiot. I WAS THERE, I KNOW THEY HAPPEN. I HAVE PROOF, all you can be an expert on is stupidity, BECAUSE YOU ARE THERE JUST BEING STUPID. You totally ignored what I was saying and hung onto the final word. Geeesh, you made my point about the majority on here. Bye....

chacal
20th August 2006, 01:40 PM
I have been poisoned, my car has been rigged to blow up

but, We seldom fail and newer twice. Someone is gonna lose a finger over this.

Sir Knight
20th August 2006, 01:41 PM
First of all I don't need or use tinfoil and I have my vero own real suit of armor, but that doesn't help you against lies and conspiracies I am afraid to say.

Not sure what your intent was in the comment, if it was a joke of a sort it wasn't all that funny.

Mr. Skinny
20th August 2006, 01:41 PM
Another stupid pointless post, I was referring to being in CONSPIRACIES with the GOVERNMENT idiot. I WAS THERE, I KNOW THEY HAPPEN. I HAVE PROOF, all you can be an expert on is stupidity, BECAUSE YOU ARE THERE JUST BEING STUPID. You totally ignored what I was saying and hung onto the final word. Geeesh, you made my point about the majority on here. Bye....
First "wise" thing you've said.

bolding mine

delphi_ote
20th August 2006, 01:45 PM
I WAS THERE, I KNOW THEY HAPPEN. I HAVE PROOF
Show. Us. The. Proof.

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 01:45 PM
Well the war continues.........if I live through all of this there will be a book and movies, but it will just probably be labled fiction for NO ONE will want to believe it is the TRUTH.

Science-fiction can be very entertaining.

20th August 2006, 01:47 PM
Sir Knight, you realize that just about anybody can register on a discussion board and pretty much say anything they want, right?

This is a skeptics board.

If you want to be addressed as anything other than JAPS (just another paranoid schizophrenic) then perhaps you should prove it. Otherwise, there are plenty of crazy people boards you can post to.

Sir Knight
20th August 2006, 01:49 PM
Boy yeah just like I am going to tell you things for what reason? What would you do or could you do? I am not crap, I wish I was full of it, it would be a much better life to be full of crap than to know what I know and have been through what I have been through. The only way I would share anything of what I know would be with someone I might consider a friend, and boy if that is where you are coming from you need to work on that. If 1/2 of what I have said is true, which all of it is, I sure wouldn't just be spilling it all over this place, not with the likes of people like you. I know there are people looking for me and like I said this posting stuff most probably isn't a good thing for me. And you guy are judging me bigtime without any facts what so ever and you have done NO reseach on what I have given you at all. And I should take or consider advice from you guys about what to do in my situation? yeah right, then I would really be one stupid ASS but a dead one to boot.

Thanks but no thanks, you do not have a trust building attitude so I don't consider you very trust worthy. You have no real ideas or facts about me or my situation so for you to jump to those concusions so quickly again proves that you guys don't weigh facts and truths you judge based on what you don't know which is IGNORANCE. Again you have proven my points exactly.

Sir Knight

SRW
20th August 2006, 01:50 PM
First of all I don't need or use tinfoil and I have my vero own real suit of armor, but that doesn't help you against lies and conspiracies I am afraid to say.

Well why did you think I mentioned yours was not working? Sheesh just try and help some people.

gmanontario
20th August 2006, 01:50 PM
For someone WHO WAS THERE and has PROOF and says IBM IS VIOLATING A PATENT and who HAS BEEN THE VICTIM OF ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS, this proves he is fantasizing.
(never done all caps before)
Why would a gov't let this guy live? They can (supposedly) murder 3000+ people yet let this guy spread his message through message boards? Does he have a James Bondian ability to escape the madmen who would prefer to see his demise?

Apparently Sir Knight is a superhero if you believe all his crap.

What a crock.

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 01:52 PM
Sir Knight, you come here, post claims without proof, and want US to do the research??????

Research on what? Your CIA friend? Who the **** is he, and why the **** should I care?

Mr. Skinny
20th August 2006, 01:55 PM
I work for the US govt., so tomorrow when I get to work, I'll just type "Sir Knight" into my computer. His entire dossier will be presented, and then I can come back here and tell the rest of you what he's talking about.

Deal? I know waiting 24 hours is tough, but I value my weekends.

Sir Knight
20th August 2006, 01:57 PM
I don't mind skeptics at all, but stupid peole who jump to conclusion and lable people based on ignorance I do have a problem with. And again I came here willing to prove something to someone I guess but not under a hostile invironment. And for this being a skeptics board, I didn't see that anywhere posted and this is the first I heard that argument. But I can see it is more than just skeptics here, fringe loonatics more or less abound here. Good thing this isn't a suicide line or I would have ofted myself by now. And if Jesus would show upon this site you guys would string him up as a fake. LOL What ever......like I said you guys in general don't want to know the truth and you will stay that way, nothing I am going to say or do will change that unfortunately.

But what I was looking for sure wasn't here......but then again I am not sure where it is.....and I thought it couldn't hurt looking.....I can admit when I am wrong.....it hurt. Just tell me where to go to talk to anyone who wants to REALLY hear about the CRAZY TRUTH and will give a damn when they hear it?

No such board I guess, and I guess it was a crazy thought to even come here.

Sir Knight

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 01:58 PM
Sir Knight, what would you like us to discuss?

Mr. Skinny
20th August 2006, 02:00 PM
OK. I'll agree to be nice for the time being, Sir Knight.

What would you like to talk about/discuss?

brodski
20th August 2006, 02:01 PM
I work for the US govt., so tomorrow when I get to work, I'll just type "Sir Knight" into my computer. His entire dossier will be presented, and then I can come back here and tell the rest of you what he's talking about.

Deal? I know waiting 24 hours is tough, but I value my weekends.
I work for the UK government, so I'll be at work in a little under 10 hours, I'll just use our sooper seekrit line to TEH US GUB'MNT to pull up the file, I wouldn't want to ruin your weekend. ;)

SRW
20th August 2006, 02:02 PM
One more thing Sir Knight, the software patent thing, would make you 12 when the patent was issued.

Good by and hope you continue on your nice little trip.

60hzxtl
20th August 2006, 02:02 PM
The CIA?

Why is it always CIA?

Why is it never ONI, DIA, Army Intel, NSA, or any of the other alphabet agencies?

(Once a king always a king but once a Knight's enough.)

Mr. Skinny
20th August 2006, 02:03 PM
I work for the UK government, so I'll be at work in a little under 10 hours, I'll just use our sooper seekrit line to TEH US GUB'MNT to pull up the file, I wouldn't want to ruin your weekend. ;)
Thanks, brodski. :)

Sir Knight
20th August 2006, 02:04 PM
Sir Knight, you come here, post claims without proof, and want US to do the research??????

Research on what? Your CIA friend? Who the **** is he, and why the **** should I care?

LOL, again you prove my point, YOU DON'T care and everyone should care but they are too lazy to. If you care you might have to do something about something. People who care CARE before they find out something, you cannot convince anyone to CARE, it should come naturally. He is just a small cog in a big clock, he isn't what you should care about. And considering I had just one post before being attacked like a vicious pack of animals, how could I put up all the stuff I know. I would have thought someone might take an interest and I might make it through the 15 posts which I could use links and such. Geesh, just how exactly do you expect me to prove everything about me and what I know in a day alone one posting or even 10? I think that would be illogical to expect under any kind of circumstances. I don't think you care about anyone not even yourself, and I sure wasn't looking for you.

Sir Knight

Mr. Skinny
20th August 2006, 02:05 PM
The CIA?

Why is it always CIA?

Why is it never ONI, DIA, Army Intel, NSA, or any of the other alphabet agencies?
That's true. For instance, I work for the Air Force, but I wear civilian clothing. Can you guess why that is?

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 02:07 PM
LOL, again you prove my point, YOU DON'T care and everyone should care but they are too lazy to.

So you want us to have a discussion about your friend who works at the CIA? OK, what's his name?

He is just a small cog in a big clock

60hzxtl
20th August 2006, 02:07 PM
That's true. For instance, I work for the Air Force, but I wear civilian clothing. Can you guess why that is?

Deep thinking here. . . . ah, you are a civilian employee of the Air Force?

(Ct'er: his uniform didn't come back from the cleaners!)

Mr. Skinny
20th August 2006, 02:09 PM
Deep thinking here. . . . ah, you are a civilian employee of the Air Force?
Yes, but didn't it sound mysterious? Like I was an officer working for the OSI or something?

You, sir, are just too quick. :D

chacal
20th August 2006, 02:09 PM
That's true. For instance, I work for the Air Force, but I wear civilian clothing. Can you guess why that is?

They couldn't find a uniform that would fit a yellow pointy object?

Mr. Skinny
20th August 2006, 02:10 PM
They couldn't find a uniform that would fit a yellow pointy object?
I'm sure that played into their decision to hire me as a civilian.

Sir Knight
20th August 2006, 02:13 PM
You are so funny. I said I have been in computers for over 30 years, I am 55 years old, how do you come to I must have been 12? I think you math is faulty. I never said when I got the patent, did I give you a date and time? Now I know how the government thought they would get away with all this, you guys don't even know how to use a calculator. But in highschool I built my first computer from scratch, my electronics teacher told me I couldn't do it but I did. Also just for grins and giggles, everyone else built those crystal controlled radios in class, LOL, I was the only one that built an AM radio transmitter. I just had to be different. The other was just too simple.
You know that expression, "You don't have a clue" well that appears to be a pretty good slogan for this thread. I have boxes and boxes of court documents, testimony, sworn statements etc etc. It would take anyone of you a month or more to just read through all of it. you have it all wrong, it isn't I who needs to convince you, that is pretty much impossible at this stage, it is someone out there that would need to convince me they could help if what I said was true and factual. I guess I was looking for someone that did CARE or COULD DO something other that spout more inuendos and rumors via igorance. LOL you guys may have already started a rumor that I am BILL GATES. I didn't see the connection at all.
You guys can't even get a few simple facts I give to you straight.

And hey the 12 years old was some what entertaining, stupid but entertaining.

Sir Knight

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 02:15 PM
OK Sir Knight, let's cut to the chase. What do you want to talk about, specifically?

Sir Knight
20th August 2006, 02:17 PM
One more thing Sir Knight, the software patent thing, would make you 12 when the patent was issued.

Good by and hope you continue on your nice little trip.

Sorry forgot to do the quote thing.

Here it is again.

You are so funny. I said I have been in computers for over 30 years, I am 55 years old, how do you come to I must have been 12? I think you math is faulty. I never said when I got the patent, did I give you a date and time? Now I know how the government thought they would get away with all this, you guys don't even know how to use a calculator. But in highschool I built my first computer from scratch, my electronics teacher told me I couldn't do it but I did. Also just for grins and giggles, everyone else built those crystal controlled radios in class, LOL, I was the only one that built an AM radio transmitter. I just had to be different. The other was just too simple.
You know that expression, "You don't have a clue" well that appears to be a pretty good slogan for this thread. I have boxes and boxes of court documents, testimony, sworn statements etc etc. It would take anyone of you a month or more to just read through all of it. you have it all wrong, it isn't I who needs to convince you, that is pretty much impossible at this stage, it is someone out there that would need to convince me they could help if what I said was true and factual. I guess I was looking for someone that did CARE or COULD DO something other that spout more inuendos and rumors via igorance. LOL you guys may have already started a rumor that I am BILL GATES. I didn't see the connection at all.
You guys can't even get a few simple facts I give to you straight.

And hey the 12 years old was some what entertaining, stupid but entertaining.

Sir Knight

Pardalis
20th August 2006, 02:17 PM
BTW

Let me know what you think or feel, but do it AFTER really reviewing the movie, not by going on what other people have said or what you think you know.

I believe this is your original request, and I think it's been answered.

60hzxtl
20th August 2006, 02:18 PM
You are so funny. I said I have been in computers for over 30 years, I am 55 years old, how do you come to I must have been 12? I think you math is faulty. I never said when I got the patent, did I give you a date and time? Now I know how the government thought they would get away with all this, you guys don't even know how to use a calculator. But in highschool I built my first computer from scratch, my electronics teacher told me I couldn't do it but I did. Also just for grins and giggles, everyone else built those crystal controlled radios in class, LOL, I was the only one that built an AM radio transmitter. I just had to be different. The other was just too simple.
You know that expression, "You don't have a clue" well that appears to be a pretty good slogan for this thread. I have boxes and boxes of court documents, testimony, sworn statements etc etc. It would take anyone of you a month or more to just read through all of it. you have it all wrong, it isn't I who needs to convince you, that is pretty much impossible at this stage, it is someone out there that would need to convince me they could help if what I said was true and factual. I guess I was looking for someone that did CARE or COULD DO something other that spout more inuendos and rumors via igorance. LOL you guys may have already started a rumor that I am BILL GATES. I didn't see the connection at all.
You guys can't even get a few simple facts I give to you straight.

And hey the 12 years old was some what entertaining, stupid but entertaining.

Sir Knight

And all this relates directly to "Loose Change" just how?

Gravy
20th August 2006, 02:18 PM
Greetings, Sir Knight

Boy yeah just like I am going to tell you things for what reason?
Because this is a discussion forum devoted to critical thinking. When you raise issues you should be prepared to discuss them. When you make claims you should be prepared to back them up with evidence. That's how it works here.

Pick an issue related to 9/11 or Loose Change and we'll discuss the facts. Agreed?

mrfreeze
20th August 2006, 02:19 PM
SirKnight: According to Wikipedia, the first software patent was granted in 1962 to a british company. That was 44 years ago. You are 55. So at most you would have been 12 at that time. Unless you patented something before they did?

Gravy
20th August 2006, 02:21 PM
I think you math is faulty. I never said when I got the patent, did I give you a date and time?

Let me tell you a little about myself before you write me off as a looney toon. I am 55 years old, an inventor, well educated, a writer, investigator, been in computers for over 30 years and I was issued the first patent issued on software.

Or do you mean that the patent itself was issued on a data tape or another electronic medium that they mailed to you, rather than on paper? :)

Mr. Skinny
20th August 2006, 02:21 PM
You know that expression, "You don't have a clue" well that appears to be a pretty good slogan for this thread.
True. We "don't have a clue" because you've told us nothing so far. How are we supposed to CARE about your problems, if we don't know what they are?

Again, what would you like to discuss?

edited for grammar

Sir Knight
20th August 2006, 02:22 PM
So you want us to have a discussion about your friend who works at the CIA? OK, what's his name?

No I don't want to speak about him, as I said BEFORE he is no longer my friend, he helped set me up.

And if anyone of you actually read my posts, especially the last one or two, maybe you could GET A CLUE to what I realy want or need. I think it is more of a need than want and maybe I am barking up the wrong tree. I just thought maybe there would be some real people here that gave a **** and would take a REAL interest in my plight.

As I have heard over the years, it isn't what you know but WHO you know.

I am looking for a friend NOT a fight. I am not crazy but sure wish I was.

Sir Knight

Gravy
20th August 2006, 02:24 PM
As I have heard over the years, it isn't what you know but WHO you know.
Sorry, but here, it's what you know.