FREE TAPATALK APP

LogicallyYours · 7th June 2012, 04:59 PM

Damn!...did I miss the Tard? ....aaaww....I never get to have any fun!

BCR · 10th June 2012, 03:22 PM

From another project, but thought it might be useful to the discussion of "error". The chart is based on positional measurements from seven different ARSR's of the same target.

Oystein · 10th June 2012, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by BCR

From another project, but thought it might be useful to the discussion of "error". The chart is based on positional measurements from seven different ARSR's of the same target.

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wo...enna-error.jpg

Interesting!

The distance between leftmost and rightmost tracks is about an eyeballed 0.6 minutes of latitude - which is, by definition, 0.6 nautical miles - more than a kilometer, or 3600 feet.

MasonBilderberg · 11th June 2012, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Interesting!

The distance between leftmost and rightmost tracks is about an eyeballed 0.6 minutes of latitude - which is, by definition, 0.6 nautical miles - more than a kilometer, or 3600 feet.

That is exactly what one would expect. This is why the lateral separation standard (how much distance you must keep) between aircraft increases from 3 nautical miles to 5 nautical miles when using multiple radar sites to track your targets.

CORed · 12th June 2012, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

You couldn't see a plane in the holes. There are pictures of the holes. There aren't any planes inside the holes.

Continuing the murder analogy, Dusty stares at the bloody hole in the body and says, "That's not a bullet wound. I don't see the bullet".

CORed · 12th June 2012, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by phunk

That object is either much closer to the camera than the WTC, or it's travelling thousands of miles per hour. It's most likely a bird close to the camera. Notice how it doesn't show up on any other videos?

It was a stealth pigeon.

minnemouse · 12th June 2012, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by MasonBilderberg

Thank you for the welcome. Yes "Mason" (Free Masons worship Satan) (sarcasm) and Bilderberg (We all know about that nefarious group!) (sarcasm). I didn't include my middle name, "Indigo", so my initials would be MIB. I just tried to incorporate as many conspiracies and new age thinking into my name as i possibly could. It ties in well with my blog.

As for the radar, i can only speak from experience and what i saw on my scope for 25 years. I have vague knowledge of how the signal gets from the main bang, processed by a computer and shows up on my screen.

As i said in my last post, it was common knowledge among air traffic controllers, the radars are very accurate but they also have many limitations (which the FAA reflects in their separation standards). It's been like this forever.

There were spots where targets would disappear, ghost targets would appear, targets jumped left or right of course (sometimes by several miles), targets jumped ahead several miles THEN jumped backwards several miles and we had one spot where we could watch 18 wheelers on route 95 here on the east coast.

And in this scenario - downtown NY - i have to wonder how much the buildings can mess with a radar signal.

Anyways, i love this forum. Very smart people here.

Hiya Mason, good to "meet" you

We have the same problems (I work at Oslo ATCC, Norway) with the radars in most of Norway, but that is mostly due to mountains (We`re not exactly known for sky scraper buildings in my part of the world..hehehe). It can make the targets jump, disappear of a very short period of time, and the sometimes the historical tracks looks like little wiggling worms. Its a very common problem many places around the world. Hence the 5 miles/1000 ft sep rule.

Its hard enough explaining this to anyone thats not in this line of work, but a helluva lot harder to explain to someone that dont want to understand, because it doesnt support their inane theories. Thanks for being a voice of reason

Minne

PS; I am not an air traffic controller, but I am flight data operator and have been so since 1990, and the radar and radar/data comp are my work tools

LSSBB · 12th June 2012, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by minnemouse

Hiya Mason, good to "meet" you

We have the same problems (I work at Oslo ATCC, Norway) with the radars in most of Norway, but that is mostly due to mountains (We`re not exactly known for sky scraper buildings in my part of the world..hehehe). It can make the targets jump, disappear of a very short period of time, and the sometimes the historical tracks looks like little wiggling worms. Its a very common problem many places around the world. Hence the 5 miles/1000 ft sep rule.

Its hard enough explaining this to anyone thats not in this line of work, but a helluva lot harder to explain to someone that dont want to understand, because it doesnt support their inane theories. Thanks for being a voice of reason

Minne

PS; I am not an air traffic controller, but I am flight data operator and have been so since 1990, and the radar and radar/data comp are my work tools

Minne, your post gave me flashbacks to when I was on active duty, standing watch in a Navy Cruiser Combat Information Center. We had the same issues, and they varied as we moved around, plus had to integrate data from other ships, aircraft, and the ground. It took a lot of coordination, because you didn't want to shoot at something you shouldn't, or not shoot at something you should. Plus we had to direct our own guys (fighters and bombers) the right way.

MasonBilderberg · 12th June 2012, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by minnemouse

Hiya Mason, good to "meet" you

We have the same problems (I work at Oslo ATCC, Norway) with the radars in most of Norway, but that is mostly due to mountains (We`re not exactly known for sky scraper buildings in my part of the world..hehehe). It can make the targets jump, disappear of a very short period of time, and the sometimes the historical tracks looks like little wiggling worms. Its a very common problem many places around the world. Hence the 5 miles/1000 ft sep rule.

Its hard enough explaining this to anyone thats not in this line of work, but a helluva lot harder to explain to someone that dont want to understand, because it doesnt support their inane theories. Thanks for being a voice of reason

Minne

PS; I am not an air traffic controller, but I am flight data operator and have been so since 1990, and the radar and radar/data comp are my work tools

Great to meet you Minne! I've had many discussions with conspiracists and they're all the same ... any imperfection in the system is distorted as "proof" of a conspiracy. *sigh* I don't know what world they live in where perfection is the expected norm.

I happened to visit my old facility this past weekend and i got to watch them controlling traffic on the same radars i used for 25 years and, there they were, the "little wiggling worms" on the radar target histories. Must've been a conspiracy!!!!

Robrob · 12th June 2012, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by MasonBilderberg

Great to meet you Minne! I've had many discussions with conspiracists and they're all the same ... any imperfection in the system is distorted as "proof" of a conspiracy. *sigh* I don't know what world they live in where perfection is the expected norm.

It's a symptom of almost all CT. Any anomaly (really anything outside their life's experience they don't understand immediately), is seen as evidence of a massive conspiracy.

It's funny. In our lives, we all have regular ongoing experience at how imperfect and fallible things really are. Why CT seem to constantly forget their own real life experiences is dumbfounding.

minnemouse · 12th June 2012, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Minne, your post gave me flashbacks to when I was on active duty, standing watch in a Navy Cruiser Combat Information Center. We had the same issues, and they varied as we moved around, plus had to integrate data from other ships, aircraft, and the ground. It took a lot of coordination, because you didn't want to shoot at something you shouldn't, or not shoot at something you should. Plus we had to direct our own guys (fighters and bombers) the right way.

Always very interesting to hear about other exoeriences with radar, LSBBB

And that just proves the point; radar is not perfect, due to different conditions, but its a pretty good tool, and certainly one we couldnt do without

minnemouse · 13th June 2012, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by MasonBilderberg

Great to meet you Minne! I've had many discussions with conspiracists and they're all the same ... any imperfection in the system is distorted as "proof" of a conspiracy. *sigh* I don't know what world they live in where perfection is the expected norm.

I happened to visit my old facility this past weekend and i got to watch them controlling traffic on the same radars i used for 25 years and, there they were, the "little wiggling worms" on the radar target histories. Must've been a conspiracy!!!!

Thanks, Mason

I´ve had the same discussions with chemtrail ct´ers about radar, and its like trying to explain something to a wall - a complete waste of time

Our equipment here is not quite 25 years, but its still not exactly state of the art and should be updated ASAP or sooner (hehehehehe). But I am guessing that its like it is in most lines of work these days; deliver more, on worse equipment with fewer folks. I am afraid that "safety first" has become "safe enough"

We completely changed around our airspace 7th of April 2011, and since then our radar quirks has gotten worse, mainly because the SIDs and STARs has been moved. Now they are placed in even more "moutaniny" areas, and the "echoes" the mountains give off makes for funny lateral jumps in the tracks - very irritating, but not dangerous - 5 miles/1000 ft separation has its purpose

Jams seems to think that radar is a 100% perfect tool with 0% margin for error, but its not, and until he understands that, or even radar as a concept, I feel further discussion in this thread is pretty moot

Minne

MarkLindeman · 13th June 2012, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by minnemouse

Jams seems to think that radar is a 100% perfect tool with 0% margin for error, but its not, and until he understands that, or even radar as a concept, I feel further discussion in this thread is pretty moot

I think he sort of moved on to a false binary: If it isn't a 100% perfect tool, then he can selectively ignore it altogether. In real life, ignoring radar is not a great idea.

As someone patiently tried to explain upthread: It's not true that measurements known to contain error are useless; on the contrary, measurements without (at least tacit) error estimates are useless, because one has no idea how to interpret them.

Jack by the hedge · 13th June 2012, 06:25 AM

Is that a lawyer thing? When your argument turns out to be utterly fallacious and the case seems irrecoverably lost, don't make any concession to logic, just keep talking as if you were winning the argument and you may yet bamboozle stupid jurors into thinking you must be onto something.

tsig · 13th June 2012, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Is that a lawyer thing? When your argument turns out to be utterly fallacious and the case seems irrecoverably lost, don't make any concession to logic, just keep talking as if you were winning the argument and you may yet bamboozle stupid jurors into thinking you must be onto something.

When you get the law, pound the law, when you got the facts pound the facts, when you've got neither, pound the table. He was pounding the table.

Nyarlathotep · 13th June 2012, 12:42 PM

No-Planers are my favorite variety of truthers, they have this interesting worldview that the government would be ruthless enough to knock down two skyscrapers worth of people but for some reason, but not ruthless enough to use actual planes. Killing a few thousand people in the building is one thing, adding in the few hundred in the planes...that would just be going too far.

Kind of amusing actually.

MasonBilderberg · 13th June 2012, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep

No-Planers are my favorite variety of truthers, they have this interesting worldview that the government would be ruthless enough to knock down two skyscrapers worth of people but for some reason, but not ruthless enough to use actual planes. Killing a few thousand people in the building is one thing, adding in the few hundred in the planes...that would just be going too far.

Kind of amusing actually.

I was debating a 9/11 conspiracist and he was telling me it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon, he said it was a missile. "Okay," i said, "then what happened to all the people that were on the airplane that 'allegedly' hit the pentagon?" He explained to me that they (Yes, the infamous "they") flew the plane out over the ocean and crashed it into the sea - killing everybody on the flight.

I tried to apply some logic, asking him "why would they crash the plane into the ocean instead of just flying the plane into the pentagon (killing everybody on the plane)?"

His brain locked. I got the blank, 100 yard stare. I had to press Ctrl+Alt+Del.

Justin39640 · 13th June 2012, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Is that a lawyer thing? When your argument turns out to be utterly fallacious and the case seems irrecoverably lost, don't make any concession to logic, just keep talking as if you were winning the argument and you may yet bamboozle stupid jurors into thinking you must be onto something.

Wasn't that the Colin Ferguson defense? He got 315 years...

ozeco41 · 13th June 2012, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by MasonBilderberg

I was debating a 9/11 conspiracist and he was telling me it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon, he said it was a missile. "Okay," i said, "then what happened to all the people that were on the airplane that 'allegedly' hit the pentagon?" He explained to me that they (Yes, the infamous "they") flew the plane out over the ocean and crashed it into the sea - killing everybody on the flight.

I tried to apply some logic, asking him "why would they crash the plane into the ocean instead of just flying the plane into the pentagon (killing everybody on the plane)?"

His brain locked. I got the blank, 100 yard stare. I had to press Ctrl+Alt+Del.

The 9/11 events involved a lot of separate issues and happenings. Putting them into a single coherent explanation requires mental processing and reasoning skills.

Some people can process multiple aspect complex situations. Some people cannot.

Observation of 9/11 discussion shows that:
A) the people on the debunker side tend to be those who can process complex multiple aspect situations; WHILST
B) The people on the conspiracy/truther side tend to be those who cannot process complex issues and often cannot focus on more than a single aspect at any specific time.

Give that some thought and test it against your experience in 9/11 discussions.

Now the big conceptual leap for me was when I realised I had the reasoning arse about.

It is not that truthers cannot think about complex issues. It is that those who cannot think through complex issues tend to become truthers.

IMNSHO The causality is the reverse. Those who cannot process complex issues tend to become conspiracy theorists because "I don't understand therefore there must be a conspiracy". And 9/11 "truthers" are merely a subset of conspiracy theorists who apply their lack of logic and reasoning skills to 9/11 matters.

Conversely those who can reason complex issues will see through the nonsense of 9/11 claims. Certainly the idiotic claims in the technical arena - there was no demolition at WTC. And your example - the airplane hit the Pentagon.

So being able to think will most likely lead to you being a "debunker" AND not being able to think will tend to make you a "truther" or other breed of Conspiracy Theorist.

One of these days I may initiate a thread so we can discuss this hypothesis.

(Do you see the obvious problem with trying to discuss it here?

)

Nyarlathotep · 13th June 2012, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by MasonBilderberg

I was debating a 9/11 conspiracist and he was telling me it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon, he said it was a missile. "Okay," i said, "then what happened to all the people that were on the airplane that 'allegedly' hit the pentagon?" He explained to me that they (Yes, the infamous "they") flew the plane out over the ocean and crashed it into the sea - killing everybody on the flight.

I tried to apply some logic, asking him "why would they crash the plane into the ocean instead of just flying the plane into the pentagon (killing everybody on the plane)?"

His brain locked. I got the blank, 100 yard stare. I had to press Ctrl+Alt+Del.

I wish I could express surprise at that. Really I do.

I've also heard No-planers theorize that the people were never on the planes. The government is paying/coercing them into lying low and staying "missing". It's really very silly.

nomuse · 13th June 2012, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep

No-Planers are my favorite variety of truthers, they have this interesting worldview that the government would be ruthless enough to knock down two skyscrapers worth of people but for some reason, but not ruthless enough to use actual planes. Killing a few thousand people in the building is one thing, adding in the few hundred in the planes...that would just be going too far.

Kind of amusing actually.

Its even funnier if you follow them further down their cluttered path.

I've seen no-planers who were willing to accept that there were actual flights with actual passengers on that day (they just didn't get anywhere near the towers). And who were also willing to accept there were actual airplane parts with actual serial numbers recovered from the crash sites. And just to ice the cake (or whatever the metaphor has metamorphized into now) they also hypothesis yet ANOTHER airplane that fly near the towers to launch a missile.

So you have the following narrative; ordinary passenger flights take off. They are diverted/forced down to a secret air force base and the passengers taken off and shot except for the VIPs, who go into a form of Witness Protection.

Meanwhile, parts from some other airplanes that had previously been broken up are loaded into vans painted up as First Responders. At the moment the missile hits (or whatever), while everyone is looking in the wrong direction, they will run out to scatter pre-burned engine parts around the Pentagon lawn (and so forth.)

And then at the fatal moment, yet another airplane flies over projecting a hologram/firing a missile/spotting for a space-based death ray and under cover of the explosions sneaks away over the Potomac.

And then Scott Evil walks in on the planning session for this monstrosity and shoots EVERYBODY.

MasonBilderberg · 13th June 2012, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by nomuse

Its even funnier if you follow them further down their cluttered path.

I've seen no-planers who were willing to accept that there were actual flights with actual passengers on that day (they just didn't get anywhere near the towers). And who were also willing to accept there were actual airplane parts with actual serial numbers recovered from the crash sites. And just to ice the cake (or whatever the metaphor has metamorphized into now) they also hypothesis yet ANOTHER airplane that fly near the towers to launch a missile.

So you have the following narrative; ordinary passenger flights take off. They are diverted/forced down to a secret air force base and the passengers taken off and shot except for the VIPs, who go into a form of Witness Protection.

Meanwhile, parts from some other airplanes that had previously been broken up are loaded into vans painted up as First Responders. At the moment the missile hits (or whatever), while everyone is looking in the wrong direction, they will run out to scatter pre-burned engine parts around the Pentagon lawn (and so forth.)

And then at the fatal moment, yet another airplane flies over projecting a hologram/firing a missile/spotting for a space-based death ray and under cover of the explosions sneaks away over the Potomac.

And then Scott Evil walks in on the planning session for this monstrosity and shoots EVERYBODY.

So? What's wrong with this theory?

(I just got sarcasm all over my new shirt!)

Justin39640 · 13th June 2012, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by MasonBilderberg

So? What's wrong with this theory?

(I just got sarcasm all over my new shirt!)

This is the mother of them all: The Vicsims Report. All the victims were computer simulations. (Just in case no one showed it to you yet)

Robrob · 13th June 2012, 09:20 PM

Why is it most all truther CT sound like they were written by a committee of 7th Graders?

MRC_Hans · 13th June 2012, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Remember that a force of impact in this direction
------------>
is exactly counterbalanced by the force of impact in this direction
<------------ .

So you claim that no speeding object can penetrate a stationary object?

Hans

BCR · 14th June 2012, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by Justin39640

This is the mother of them all: The Vicsims Report. All the victims were computer simulations. (Just in case no one showed it to you yet)

Well, I only know first-hand about the Falkenberg family. Charles was very real to his boss and co-workers. His calculus professor has a video of Zoe's first birthday, with Charles "flying her" around the room and "crashing" her "into things". Their friends remember the Christmas party of 2000, and Zoe's teachers remember the happy little girl who loved Zinnia's. And Leslie was very real to those who knew her at Georgetown.

But then again, all those folks could be government agents who just happened to know I would be calling them up a decade later and asking for their memories of the Falkenberg's. Those NWO folks are pretty tricky that way.

MasonBilderberg · 14th June 2012, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Justin39640

This is the mother of them all: The Vicsims Report. All the victims were computer simulations. (Just in case no one showed it to you yet)

Wow. There is something vile about that page. Calling mourning mothers and fathers "actors" is just low.

Dash80 · 14th June 2012, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Justin39640

This is the mother of them all: The Vicsims Report. All the victims were computer simulations. (Just in case no one showed it to you yet)

I actually read the whole report, I was so disgusted I almost threw up. These people are vile scum, sick in the head.

SpitfireIX · 14th June 2012, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Dash80

I actually read the whole report, I was so disgusted I almost threw up. These people are vile scum, sick in the head.

I was cleaning up my work files in preparation for mgrating to a new workstation a couple of years ago when I found a copy of that trash that I'd downloaded and then forgotten about (

) when the discussion thread here was locked (because it had degenerated into little more than everyone questioning the author's sanity). Naturally I immediately deleted it.

George152 · 14th June 2012, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

So you claim that no speeding object can penetrate a stationary object?

Hans

It's the degree she has. Took it off a broken thermometer

nomuse · 14th June 2012, 05:01 PM

Her degree is obtuse.

LSSBB · 14th June 2012, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by nomuse

Her degree is obtuse.

One poster in the forum apparently thinks she's acute.

ElMondoHummus · 14th June 2012, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by nomuse

Her degree is obtuse.

Originally Posted by LSSBB

One poster in the forum apparently thinks she's acute.

fitzgibbon · 20th June 2012, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Remember that a force of impact in this direction
------------>
is exactly counterbalanced by the force of impact in this direction
<------------ .

So you claim that no speeding object can penetrate a stationary object?

Hans

Apparently she's never tried to put a foot or a fist through drywall. And wrecking balls didn't work either. My God, the enormity of the conspiracy just grows and grows.

Where will it end?

Fitz

nomuse · 20th June 2012, 02:12 PM

I think she's more in the "soft objects can't go through hard objects." You know, like a bird through a windshield, a soda straw into clay, or a water jet cutting steel....

X · 22nd June 2012, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by nomuse

I think she's more in the "soft objects can't go through hard objects." You know, like a bird through a windshield, a soda straw into clay, or a water jet cutting steel....

Well, steel is usually cut with an abrasive waterjet, which I've heard some CTists claim is entirely different.
However, where I work we make fiberglass parts. Including roofs for buses. If it can make a roof, fiberglass must be pretty impervious to water, correct? Well, we have two waterjet robots, using only water to cut fiberglass parts (not the roofs, they're too big, but we do use scrap cutouts from them on the waterjet for jigs and templates). And our waterjets do not use abrasive.
I can also tell you first-hand that given enough passes, the 10-micron stream of 60,000 psi water will indeed cut steel. Again, no abrasive.

But in truther-ville, this is impossible. Because roofs can't be penetrated by water.

atavisms · 24th June 2012, 07:26 PM

This is disinformation nonsense. Thousands of us in NY watched the planes LIVE - How foolish can people be!
9-11 was an inside job,, obviously bc Islamists didnt rig wtc 1 2 & 7 with explosives but nonsense like this is meant to make reasonable people believe this BS is representative of 9/11 truth -it isn't. The facts of 9/11 are well documented and all point in one way: real planes, real victims, and real demolitions.

nomuse · 24th June 2012, 07:31 PM

I love truther fratricide.

MIKILLINI · 24th June 2012, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by atavisms

This is disinformation nonsense. Thousands of us in NY watched the planes LIVE - How foolish can people be!
9-11 was an inside job,, obviously bc Islamists didnt rig wtc 1 2 & 7 with explosives but nonsense like this is meant to make reasonable people believe this BS is representative of 9/11 truth -it isn't. The facts of 9/11 are well documented and all point in one way: real planes, real victims, and ~~real demolitions~~.

The crossed out part is not a fact.

BCR · 24th June 2012, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by atavisms

This is disinformation nonsense. Thousands of us in NY watched the planes LIVE - How foolish can people be!
9-11 was an inside job,, obviously bc Islamists didnt rig wtc 1 2 & 7 with explosives but nonsense like this is meant to make reasonable people believe this BS is representative of 9/11 truth -it isn't. The facts of 9/11 are well documented and all point in one way: real planes, real victims, and real demolitions.

Well, I don't know about all that. I'm still not convinced that some of the explosions reported in the basement area were not bombs. But if they were, we had a little case here in Memphis that might account for them.

Quote:

Early in 2002, five Middle Eastern men are convicted of fraudulently obtaining Tennessee drivers' licenses from a Memphis woman, Katherine Smith. At least one of the men is said to have driven from New York City to Memphis on September 11, 2001. Another of the five, Sakher Hammad, is found at his arrest to have in his possession a photo ID pass to the World Trade Center for September 5, 2001. He says he was there to do maintanance work on the underground level sprinklers.

But then again, the FBI could never really pin anything on them, so who knows.

7th June 2012, 04:59 PM	#641
LogicallyYours Student Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 47	Damn!...did I miss the Tard? ....aaaww....I never get to have any fun!
LogicallyYours Student Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 47

10th June 2012, 03:22 PM	#642
BCR Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Memphis Posts: 2,238	From another project, but thought it might be useful to the discussion of "error". The chart is based on positional measurements from seven different ARSR's of the same target.
	__________________ "Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

12th June 2012, 11:24 AM	#645
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,349	Originally Posted by WTC Dust You couldn't see a plane in the holes. There are pictures of the holes. There aren't any planes inside the holes. Continuing the murder analogy, Dusty stares at the bloody hole in the body and says, "That's not a bullet wound. I don't see the bullet".
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,349

12th June 2012, 11:39 AM	#646
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,349	Originally Posted by phunk That object is either much closer to the camera than the WTC, or it's travelling thousands of miles per hour. It's most likely a bird close to the camera. Notice how it doesn't show up on any other videos? It was a stealth pigeon.
CORed Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 4,349

12th June 2012, 12:14 PM	#647
minnemouse Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Norway Posts: 283	Originally Posted by MasonBilderberg Thank you for the welcome. Yes "Mason" (Free Masons worship Satan) (sarcasm) and Bilderberg (We all know about that nefarious group!) (sarcasm). I didn't include my middle name, "Indigo", so my initials would be MIB. I just tried to incorporate as many conspiracies and new age thinking into my name as i possibly could. It ties in well with my blog. As for the radar, i can only speak from experience and what i saw on my scope for 25 years. I have vague knowledge of how the signal gets from the main bang, processed by a computer and shows up on my screen. As i said in my last post, it was common knowledge among air traffic controllers, the radars are very accurate but they also have many limitations (which the FAA reflects in their separation standards). It's been like this forever. There were spots where targets would disappear, ghost targets would appear, targets jumped left or right of course (sometimes by several miles), targets jumped ahead several miles THEN jumped backwards several miles and we had one spot where we could watch 18 wheelers on route 95 here on the east coast. And in this scenario - downtown NY - i have to wonder how much the buildings can mess with a radar signal. Anyways, i love this forum. Very smart people here. Hiya Mason, good to "meet" you We have the same problems (I work at Oslo ATCC, Norway) with the radars in most of Norway, but that is mostly due to mountains (We`re not exactly known for sky scraper buildings in my part of the world..hehehe). It can make the targets jump, disappear of a very short period of time, and the sometimes the historical tracks looks like little wiggling worms. Its a very common problem many places around the world. Hence the 5 miles/1000 ft sep rule. Its hard enough explaining this to anyone thats not in this line of work, but a helluva lot harder to explain to someone that dont want to understand, because it doesnt support their inane theories. Thanks for being a voice of reason Minne PS; I am not an air traffic controller, but I am flight data operator and have been so since 1990, and the radar and radar/data comp are my work tools
	__________________ It´s good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out. Last edited by minnemouse; 12th June 2012 at 12:16 PM. Reason: Adding PS

10th June 2012, 03:47 PM	#643
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,929	Originally Posted by BCR From another project, but thought it might be useful to the discussion of "error". The chart is based on positional measurements from seven different ARSR's of the same target. http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wo...enna-error.jpg Interesting! The distance between leftmost and rightmost tracks is about an eyeballed 0.6 minutes of latitude - which is, by definition, 0.6 nautical miles - more than a kilometer, or 3600 feet.

11th June 2012, 06:39 AM	#644
MasonBilderberg Student Join Date: May 2012 Location: North Carolina Posts: 39	Originally Posted by Oystein Interesting! The distance between leftmost and rightmost tracks is about an eyeballed 0.6 minutes of latitude - which is, by definition, 0.6 nautical miles - more than a kilometer, or 3600 feet. That is exactly what one would expect. This is why the lateral separation standard (how much distance you must keep) between aircraft increases from 3 nautical miles to 5 nautical miles when using multiple radar sites to track your targets.

12th June 2012, 01:16 PM	#648
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,739	Originally Posted by minnemouse Hiya Mason, good to "meet" you We have the same problems (I work at Oslo ATCC, Norway) with the radars in most of Norway, but that is mostly due to mountains (We`re not exactly known for sky scraper buildings in my part of the world..hehehe). It can make the targets jump, disappear of a very short period of time, and the sometimes the historical tracks looks like little wiggling worms. Its a very common problem many places around the world. Hence the 5 miles/1000 ft sep rule. Its hard enough explaining this to anyone thats not in this line of work, but a helluva lot harder to explain to someone that dont want to understand, because it doesnt support their inane theories. Thanks for being a voice of reason Minne PS; I am not an air traffic controller, but I am flight data operator and have been so since 1990, and the radar and radar/data comp are my work tools Minne, your post gave me flashbacks to when I was on active duty, standing watch in a Navy Cruiser Combat Information Center. We had the same issues, and they varied as we moved around, plus had to integrate data from other ships, aircraft, and the ground. It took a lot of coordination, because you didn't want to shoot at something you shouldn't, or not shoot at something you should. Plus we had to direct our own guys (fighters and bombers) the right way.
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

12th June 2012, 05:13 PM	#649
MasonBilderberg Student Join Date: May 2012 Location: North Carolina Posts: 39	Originally Posted by minnemouse Hiya Mason, good to "meet" you We have the same problems (I work at Oslo ATCC, Norway) with the radars in most of Norway, but that is mostly due to mountains (We`re not exactly known for sky scraper buildings in my part of the world..hehehe). It can make the targets jump, disappear of a very short period of time, and the sometimes the historical tracks looks like little wiggling worms. Its a very common problem many places around the world. Hence the 5 miles/1000 ft sep rule. Its hard enough explaining this to anyone thats not in this line of work, but a helluva lot harder to explain to someone that dont want to understand, because it doesnt support their inane theories. Thanks for being a voice of reason Minne PS; I am not an air traffic controller, but I am flight data operator and have been so since 1990, and the radar and radar/data comp are my work tools Great to meet you Minne! I've had many discussions with conspiracists and they're all the same ... any imperfection in the system is distorted as "proof" of a conspiracy. sigh I don't know what world they live in where perfection is the expected norm. I happened to visit my old facility this past weekend and i got to watch them controlling traffic on the same radars i used for 25 years and, there they were, the "little wiggling worms" on the radar target histories. Must've been a conspiracy!!!!

12th June 2012, 09:40 PM	#650
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Originally Posted by MasonBilderberg Great to meet you Minne! I've had many discussions with conspiracists and they're all the same ... any imperfection in the system is distorted as "proof" of a conspiracy. sigh I don't know what world they live in where perfection is the expected norm. It's a symptom of almost all CT. Any anomaly (really anything outside their life's experience they don't understand immediately), is seen as evidence of a massive conspiracy. It's funny. In our lives, we all have regular ongoing experience at how imperfect and fallible things really are. Why CT seem to constantly forget their own real life experiences is dumbfounding.
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

12th June 2012, 11:52 PM	#651
minnemouse Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Norway Posts: 283	Originally Posted by LSSBB Minne, your post gave me flashbacks to when I was on active duty, standing watch in a Navy Cruiser Combat Information Center. We had the same issues, and they varied as we moved around, plus had to integrate data from other ships, aircraft, and the ground. It took a lot of coordination, because you didn't want to shoot at something you shouldn't, or not shoot at something you should. Plus we had to direct our own guys (fighters and bombers) the right way. Always very interesting to hear about other exoeriences with radar, LSBBB And that just proves the point; radar is not perfect, due to different conditions, but its a pretty good tool, and certainly one we couldnt do without
	__________________ It´s good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

13th June 2012, 12:04 AM	#652
minnemouse Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Norway Posts: 283	Originally Posted by MasonBilderberg Great to meet you Minne! I've had many discussions with conspiracists and they're all the same ... any imperfection in the system is distorted as "proof" of a conspiracy. sigh I don't know what world they live in where perfection is the expected norm. I happened to visit my old facility this past weekend and i got to watch them controlling traffic on the same radars i used for 25 years and, there they were, the "little wiggling worms" on the radar target histories. Must've been a conspiracy!!!! Thanks, Mason I´ve had the same discussions with chemtrail ct´ers about radar, and its like trying to explain something to a wall - a complete waste of time Our equipment here is not quite 25 years, but its still not exactly state of the art and should be updated ASAP or sooner (hehehehehe). But I am guessing that its like it is in most lines of work these days; deliver more, on worse equipment with fewer folks. I am afraid that "safety first" has become "safe enough" We completely changed around our airspace 7th of April 2011, and since then our radar quirks has gotten worse, mainly because the SIDs and STARs has been moved. Now they are placed in even more "moutaniny" areas, and the "echoes" the mountains give off makes for funny lateral jumps in the tracks - very irritating, but not dangerous - 5 miles/1000 ft separation has its purpose Jams seems to think that radar is a 100% perfect tool with 0% margin for error, but its not, and until he understands that, or even radar as a concept, I feel further discussion in this thread is pretty moot Minne
	__________________ It´s good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

13th June 2012, 05:18 AM	#653
MarkLindeman Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 396	Originally Posted by minnemouse Jams seems to think that radar is a 100% perfect tool with 0% margin for error, but its not, and until he understands that, or even radar as a concept, I feel further discussion in this thread is pretty moot I think he sort of moved on to a false binary: If it isn't a 100% perfect tool, then he can selectively ignore it altogether. In real life, ignoring radar is not a great idea. As someone patiently tried to explain upthread: It's not true that measurements known to contain error are useless; on the contrary, measurements without (at least tacit) error estimates are useless, because one has no idea how to interpret them.

13th June 2012, 06:25 AM	#654
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,507	Is that a lawyer thing? When your argument turns out to be utterly fallacious and the case seems irrecoverably lost, don't make any concession to logic, just keep talking as if you were winning the argument and you may yet bamboozle stupid jurors into thinking you must be onto something.

13th June 2012, 06:33 AM	#655
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 27,246	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge Is that a lawyer thing? When your argument turns out to be utterly fallacious and the case seems irrecoverably lost, don't make any concession to logic, just keep talking as if you were winning the argument and you may yet bamboozle stupid jurors into thinking you must be onto something. When you get the law, pound the law, when you got the facts pound the facts, when you've got neither, pound the table. He was pounding the table.

13th June 2012, 12:42 PM	#656
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	No-Planers are my favorite variety of truthers, they have this interesting worldview that the government would be ruthless enough to knock down two skyscrapers worth of people but for some reason, but not ruthless enough to use actual planes. Killing a few thousand people in the building is one thing, adding in the few hundred in the planes...that would just be going too far. Kind of amusing actually.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

13th June 2012, 04:09 PM	#657
MasonBilderberg Student Join Date: May 2012 Location: North Carolina Posts: 39	Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep No-Planers are my favorite variety of truthers, they have this interesting worldview that the government would be ruthless enough to knock down two skyscrapers worth of people but for some reason, but not ruthless enough to use actual planes. Killing a few thousand people in the building is one thing, adding in the few hundred in the planes...that would just be going too far. Kind of amusing actually. I was debating a 9/11 conspiracist and he was telling me it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon, he said it was a missile. "Okay," i said, "then what happened to all the people that were on the airplane that 'allegedly' hit the pentagon?" He explained to me that they (Yes, the infamous "they") flew the plane out over the ocean and crashed it into the sea - killing everybody on the flight. I tried to apply some logic, asking him "why would they crash the plane into the ocean instead of just flying the plane into the pentagon (killing everybody on the plane)?" His brain locked. I got the blank, 100 yard stare. I had to press Ctrl+Alt+Del.

13th June 2012, 04:23 PM	#658
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,667	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge Is that a lawyer thing? When your argument turns out to be utterly fallacious and the case seems irrecoverably lost, don't make any concession to logic, just keep talking as if you were winning the argument and you may yet bamboozle stupid jurors into thinking you must be onto something. Wasn't that the Colin Ferguson defense? He got 315 years...
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus Last edited by Justin39640; 13th June 2012 at 04:24 PM.

13th June 2012, 05:28 PM	#659
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,656	Originally Posted by MasonBilderberg I was debating a 9/11 conspiracist and he was telling me it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon, he said it was a missile. "Okay," i said, "then what happened to all the people that were on the airplane that 'allegedly' hit the pentagon?" He explained to me that they (Yes, the infamous "they") flew the plane out over the ocean and crashed it into the sea - killing everybody on the flight. I tried to apply some logic, asking him "why would they crash the plane into the ocean instead of just flying the plane into the pentagon (killing everybody on the plane)?" His brain locked. I got the blank, 100 yard stare. I had to press Ctrl+Alt+Del. The 9/11 events involved a lot of separate issues and happenings. Putting them into a single coherent explanation requires mental processing and reasoning skills. Some people can process multiple aspect complex situations. Some people cannot. Observation of 9/11 discussion shows that: A) the people on the debunker side tend to be those who can process complex multiple aspect situations; WHILST B) The people on the conspiracy/truther side tend to be those who cannot process complex issues and often cannot focus on more than a single aspect at any specific time. Give that some thought and test it against your experience in 9/11 discussions. Now the big conceptual leap for me was when I realised I had the reasoning arse about. It is not that truthers cannot think about complex issues. It is that those who cannot think through complex issues tend to become truthers. IMNSHO The causality is the reverse. Those who cannot process complex issues tend to become conspiracy theorists because "I don't understand therefore there must be a conspiracy". And 9/11 "truthers" are merely a subset of conspiracy theorists who apply their lack of logic and reasoning skills to 9/11 matters. Conversely those who can reason complex issues will see through the nonsense of 9/11 claims. Certainly the idiotic claims in the technical arena - there was no demolition at WTC. And your example - the airplane hit the Pentagon. So being able to think will most likely lead to you being a "debunker" AND not being able to think will tend to make you a "truther" or other breed of Conspiracy Theorist. One of these days I may initiate a thread so we can discuss this hypothesis. (Do you see the obvious problem with trying to discuss it here? )
	Last edited by ozeco41; 13th June 2012 at 05:29 PM. Reason: Spellin

13th June 2012, 05:56 PM	#660
Nyarlathotep Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7,514	Originally Posted by MasonBilderberg I was debating a 9/11 conspiracist and he was telling me it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon, he said it was a missile. "Okay," i said, "then what happened to all the people that were on the airplane that 'allegedly' hit the pentagon?" He explained to me that they (Yes, the infamous "they") flew the plane out over the ocean and crashed it into the sea - killing everybody on the flight. I tried to apply some logic, asking him "why would they crash the plane into the ocean instead of just flying the plane into the pentagon (killing everybody on the plane)?" His brain locked. I got the blank, 100 yard stare. I had to press Ctrl+Alt+Del. I wish I could express surprise at that. Really I do. I've also heard No-planers theorize that the people were never on the planes. The government is paying/coercing them into lying low and staying "missing". It's really very silly.
	__________________ Why stay sane in a sick world?

13th June 2012, 06:12 PM	#661
nomuse Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: People's Republic of Berkeley Posts: 746	Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep No-Planers are my favorite variety of truthers, they have this interesting worldview that the government would be ruthless enough to knock down two skyscrapers worth of people but for some reason, but not ruthless enough to use actual planes. Killing a few thousand people in the building is one thing, adding in the few hundred in the planes...that would just be going too far. Kind of amusing actually. Its even funnier if you follow them further down their cluttered path. I've seen no-planers who were willing to accept that there were actual flights with actual passengers on that day (they just didn't get anywhere near the towers). And who were also willing to accept there were actual airplane parts with actual serial numbers recovered from the crash sites. And just to ice the cake (or whatever the metaphor has metamorphized into now) they also hypothesis yet ANOTHER airplane that fly near the towers to launch a missile. So you have the following narrative; ordinary passenger flights take off. They are diverted/forced down to a secret air force base and the passengers taken off and shot except for the VIPs, who go into a form of Witness Protection. Meanwhile, parts from some other airplanes that had previously been broken up are loaded into vans painted up as First Responders. At the moment the missile hits (or whatever), while everyone is looking in the wrong direction, they will run out to scatter pre-burned engine parts around the Pentagon lawn (and so forth.) And then at the fatal moment, yet another airplane flies over projecting a hologram/firing a missile/spotting for a space-based death ray and under cover of the explosions sneaks away over the Potomac. And then Scott Evil walks in on the planning session for this monstrosity and shoots EVERYBODY.

13th June 2012, 06:56 PM	#662
MasonBilderberg Student Join Date: May 2012 Location: North Carolina Posts: 39	Originally Posted by nomuse Its even funnier if you follow them further down their cluttered path. I've seen no-planers who were willing to accept that there were actual flights with actual passengers on that day (they just didn't get anywhere near the towers). And who were also willing to accept there were actual airplane parts with actual serial numbers recovered from the crash sites. And just to ice the cake (or whatever the metaphor has metamorphized into now) they also hypothesis yet ANOTHER airplane that fly near the towers to launch a missile. So you have the following narrative; ordinary passenger flights take off. They are diverted/forced down to a secret air force base and the passengers taken off and shot except for the VIPs, who go into a form of Witness Protection. Meanwhile, parts from some other airplanes that had previously been broken up are loaded into vans painted up as First Responders. At the moment the missile hits (or whatever), while everyone is looking in the wrong direction, they will run out to scatter pre-burned engine parts around the Pentagon lawn (and so forth.) And then at the fatal moment, yet another airplane flies over projecting a hologram/firing a missile/spotting for a space-based death ray and under cover of the explosions sneaks away over the Potomac. And then Scott Evil walks in on the planning session for this monstrosity and shoots EVERYBODY. So? What's wrong with this theory? (I just got sarcasm all over my new shirt!)

13th June 2012, 08:36 PM	#663
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,667	Originally Posted by MasonBilderberg So? What's wrong with this theory? (I just got sarcasm all over my new shirt!) This is the mother of them all: The Vicsims Report. All the victims were computer simulations. (Just in case no one showed it to you yet)
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

13th June 2012, 09:20 PM	#664
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Why is it most all truther CT sound like they were written by a committee of 7th Graders?
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

13th June 2012, 09:47 PM	#665
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,604	Originally Posted by WTC Dust Remember that a force of impact in this direction ------------> is exactly counterbalanced by the force of impact in this direction <------------ . So you claim that no speeding object can penetrate a stationary object? Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

14th June 2012, 01:11 AM	#666
BCR Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Memphis Posts: 2,238	Originally Posted by Justin39640 This is the mother of them all: The Vicsims Report. All the victims were computer simulations. (Just in case no one showed it to you yet) Well, I only know first-hand about the Falkenberg family. Charles was very real to his boss and co-workers. His calculus professor has a video of Zoe's first birthday, with Charles "flying her" around the room and "crashing" her "into things". Their friends remember the Christmas party of 2000, and Zoe's teachers remember the happy little girl who loved Zinnia's. And Leslie was very real to those who knew her at Georgetown. But then again, all those folks could be government agents who just happened to know I would be calling them up a decade later and asking for their memories of the Falkenberg's. Those NWO folks are pretty tricky that way.
	__________________ "Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

14th June 2012, 07:46 AM	#667
MasonBilderberg Student Join Date: May 2012 Location: North Carolina Posts: 39	Originally Posted by Justin39640 This is the mother of them all: The Vicsims Report. All the victims were computer simulations. (Just in case no one showed it to you yet) Wow. There is something vile about that page. Calling mourning mothers and fathers "actors" is just low.

14th June 2012, 09:25 AM	#668
Dash80 Blitzkrieg Bop Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Home Sweet Home Posts: 1,577	Originally Posted by Justin39640 This is the mother of them all: The Vicsims Report. All the victims were computer simulations. (Just in case no one showed it to you yet) I actually read the whole report, I was so disgusted I almost threw up. These people are vile scum, sick in the head.
	__________________ I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.

14th June 2012, 12:47 PM	#669
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,832	Originally Posted by Dash80 I actually read the whole report, I was so disgusted I almost threw up. These people are vile scum, sick in the head. I was cleaning up my work files in preparation for mgrating to a new workstation a couple of years ago when I found a copy of that trash that I'd downloaded and then forgotten about () when the discussion thread here was locked (because it had degenerated into little more than everyone questioning the author's sanity). Naturally I immediately deleted it.
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

14th June 2012, 02:07 PM	#670
George152 Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hamilton New Zealand Posts: 2,054	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans So you claim that no speeding object can penetrate a stationary object? Hans It's the degree she has. Took it off a broken thermometer
	__________________ Unemployment isn't working

14th June 2012, 05:01 PM	#671
nomuse Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: People's Republic of Berkeley Posts: 746	Her degree is obtuse.

14th June 2012, 08:33 PM	#672
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,739	Originally Posted by nomuse Her degree is obtuse. One poster in the forum apparently thinks she's acute.
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

14th June 2012, 08:40 PM	#673
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,967	Originally Posted by nomuse Her degree is obtuse. Originally Posted by LSSBB One poster in the forum apparently thinks she's acute.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

20th June 2012, 01:05 PM	#674
fitzgibbon Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Just west of the centre of the universe Posts: 2,553	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Originally Posted by WTC Dust Remember that a force of impact in this direction ------------> is exactly counterbalanced by the force of impact in this direction <------------ . So you claim that no speeding object can penetrate a stationary object? Hans Apparently she's never tried to put a foot or a fist through drywall. And wrecking balls didn't work either. My God, the enormity of the conspiracy just grows and grows. Where will it end? Fitz
	__________________ "Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!" Howard Beale, "Network"

20th June 2012, 02:12 PM	#675
nomuse Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: People's Republic of Berkeley Posts: 746	I think she's more in the "soft objects can't go through hard objects." You know, like a bird through a windshield, a soda straw into clay, or a water jet cutting steel....