Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Science Marches On!

There is no final frontier for 9-11 Denial. When you think they couldn't possibly get any dumber or funnier, they do.

86 Comments:

At 17 January, 2007 19:37, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Thats a mightly long rabbit hole to go...oh wait, is that suppose to be a mock up of the WTC...nah...its just a long rabbit hole....oh well...here I go...weeeeeeeeeee

TAM:)

 
At 17 January, 2007 19:38, Blogger CHF said...

I feel sorry for all those moderate leftists over at DU.

Imagine running a credible website where people discuss the latest issues and talk about how much they hate Bush....and along comes "Sweetheart."

At least the sane ones tend to speak up.

One poster wrote: You know, I threw a Hot Wheels car at a wall and it only chipped the paint. Obviously all of these reports of car accidents are a government plot. Jesus Christ...

Indeed.

 
At 17 January, 2007 20:27, Blogger Pat said...

chf, that's why the 9-11 Forum over there is what they call the Dungeon; the mods at DU don't allow any of the hot threads in the 9-11 Forum to move up onto their "greatest" page and any CT topics are pushed down there as well. The moderate left have dealt with these guys longer than we have.

 
At 17 January, 2007 21:56, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

Actually, I am impressed. After all, wasn't the WTC towers made of mesh surrounded by a base made of a milk carton?

But what REALLY impressed me was this statement:

"I was planning to load the structure by wrapping it in 2 layers of tinfoil..."

Maybe this loon can borrow some from the tinfoil hat he obviously wears so proudly.

Yikes.

 
At 17 January, 2007 23:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm no structural engineer, but even I can tell that the World Trade Centre wasn't built like that!

 
At 18 January, 2007 00:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Despite how pathetic this little model is in general, it misses the main factor that lead towards collapse.

There are none of the trusses that connected the core to the outer perimeter. There's also no weight on top of the impact point, it's obviously not going to collapse.

 
At 18 January, 2007 05:10, Blogger default.xbe said...

i like the suggestion to load it up with firecrackers to test controlled demolition, if CTers would actually do that they might realize their models are way too strong

 
At 18 January, 2007 05:26, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

A very comical project at best.

Perhaps if the NIST would release the data they used to form their theory, we wouldn't have backyard experiments to try to explain what happened.

 
At 18 January, 2007 05:59, Blogger Alex said...

Yes, a guy whose idea of logic is "it could have happened therefore it must have happened" is going to be able to figure out a computer model. Right.

 
At 18 January, 2007 06:34, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Warning...Off Topic Post
Does this remind anyone of Cambodia and its relationship to the Vietnam War? I truly feel sorry for U.S. and Canadian troops who have been placed in a position to fail.

Taliban Leader Is Hiding and Being Protected in Pakistan, Says Spokesman

ABC News | January 17, 2007
Maddy Sauer and Gretchen Peters

Fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar is alive and well and living in Pakistan under the protection of the Pakistan intelligence agency, according to the captured spokesman for the Taliban, Mohammad Hanif.

Hanif was captured in Afghanistan yesterday, and today the Afghan government released video footage of him in which he claims to know the location of Omar.

"He is living in Quetta," says Hanif, "and the ISI [Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency] is protecting him."

While Pakistani officials dismiss this statement, the information coincides with secret U.S. military documents obtained by ABC News earlier this year. The documents were part of a U.S. targeting assessment produced in January 2005 and, incredibly, were bought at an Afghanistan street bazaar, just a few hundred feet from the front gate of the U.S. air base in Bagram.

The documents listed 16 senior level al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, including Omar, as hiding in Pakistan where U.S. troops cannot operate.

U.S. officials said the information was provided to the government of Pakistani Pres. Pervez Musharraf but that the tier-one targets continue to operate inside Pakistan.

 
At 18 January, 2007 06:35, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

"it could have happened therefore it must have happened"
Care to support your statement, or is this yet another lie by a denier?

And considering, troll, you have no idea about my background in computers your statements mean dick to everyone.

 
At 18 January, 2007 06:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I laughed uncontrollablly when he tried to justify his experiment:

"I apologize that i cannot afford to do a million dollar fancy model.

But c'est la vie, why not experiment, its life afterall, and its only
a bloody milk jug... i can re-use the nails, i'm dead sure they ain't
gonna melt and i'm not even being cynical. Worst case, a public
experiment without a conclusion at the outset, is that not how
we do 'science' and inquiry? I can run a few experiments myself
if i get the proportions right, and i'll be able to put this issue
to rest in my own mind.

My prediction is that it will fall like a tree... and i've not run
this experiment yet... cement is still drying.

I'll also wager that there are no satellite-visible fires burning
24 hours later... i bet its out in 30 minutes tops."

 
At 18 January, 2007 07:34, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Perhaps if the NIST would release the data they used to form their theory, we wouldn't have backyard experiments to try to explain what happened.

You fruitcakes will ALWAYS do shit like this because YOU WILL ALWAYS find a reason to "believe" that the evil government is covering something up.

Why?

BECAUSE YOU ARE FUCKING NUTS!

 
At 18 January, 2007 07:35, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

And considering, troll, you have no idea about my background in computers your statements mean dick to everyone.

What is your background?

 
At 18 January, 2007 07:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That reminds me of the recent experiment I did to test the beam-weapon theory.

Taking my cues from Judy Wood herself, I constructed two towers out of a combination of Keebler's E.L. Fudge Sandwich Cookies (floor trusses), Vienna Fingers (core columns), and Wheatables Crackers (exterior columns).

I then stole my neighbors Heavy Duty Craftsman Wet/Dry Vac and re-wired it from "suck" to "blow". (Safety Note: If you are unfamiliar with the electrical workings of appliances like I am, make sure the equipment is not plugged into a power source. I received a nasty shock while converting the device and now suffer from a constant buzzing in my brain that suspiciously sounds like Dick Cheney humming "Old Man River".) I then duct-taped a funnel over the vaccuum hose to concentrate the "beam" of "energy" into a more focused stream.

I placed my confectionary towers out on the sidewalk and took my reconfigured beam weapon up to the roof of my apartment building to simulate the distance from space. (Editor's note: I found that roof access was strictly prohibited in my building complex. Undoubtedly, the building is owned and operated by the NWO who had gotten wind of my experiment and were trying to impede my progress. Ironically, the door was unlocked....) I then aimed the hose/funnel at the towers, and turned the vac on.

Approximately five and a half days later, the fudge in the floor trusses started to melt. Ignoring the fact that some asshole Jersey driver drove up onto the sidewalk and ran over my towers, thereby destroying them, I am positive that the buildings were about to instantaneously disintegrate into a fine, pulverized, crumb-like dust.

This is proof positive that a beam weapon was used.

 
At 18 January, 2007 07:39, Blogger Stevew said...

The NIST has released thousands of pages, I guess that is not enough

 
At 18 January, 2007 08:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That model was AWESOME! I remember making a T-Rex just like that in third grade. I can't wait to see it with the paper mache on it.

 
At 18 January, 2007 08:26, Blogger Manny said...

Why?

BECAUSE YOU ARE FUCKING NUTS!


He may well be nuts, and the stupidest motherfucker on the planet, but in this instance he's just making stuff up. NIST, of course, released literally reams and reams worth of the data they used. If he needs more, all he has to do is call (301) 975-6051 and ask for it. If he instead makes a formal FOIA request (NIST World Trade Center Investigation Team, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8610, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610) he can even make them format it for him. But he won't call, he won't write. He has no interest at all in actually acquiring any of the data. He simply wants to ask more spurious "questions" to divert attention from the real perpetrators of the attacks in order to advance his government-hating agenda.

 
At 18 January, 2007 09:36, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Manny

A question for all deniers:

Has the NIST released the data that they inputed into the computer models to arrive at their theory?


But he won't call, he won't write. He has no interest at all in actually acquiring any of the data. He simply wants to ask more spurious "questions" to divert attention from the real perpetrators of the attacks in order to advance his government-hating agenda.

Manny you should join Clock Lady in her paranormal studies because you seem to know everything when in reality you know nothing.

Please repost any information where I stated I hated the government? If you can't, you as others have been exposed as a LIAR.

 
At 18 January, 2007 09:43, Blogger Alex said...

A question for all deniers:

You'd have better luck finding them elsewhere. Since you and Bill are the only deniers on here, you may as well have just written "To Bill:"

Has the NIST released the data that they inputed into the computer models to arrive at their theory?

Released it to whom, exactly? What planet are you from? Data doesn't just get "released" like a flock of birds. Data is either published or it's provided to those who ask for it. Either re-phrase your question, or think about withdrawing it entirely.

Please repost any information where I stated I hated the government?

You don't need to state it you idiot.

 
At 18 January, 2007 10:21, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

You don't need to state it you idiot.

You should be able to or else you have been exposed yet again as a liar.

Released it to whom, exactly? What planet are you from? Data doesn't just get "released" like a flock of birds. Data is either published or it's provided to those who ask for it. Either re-phrase your question, or think about withdrawing it entirely.

Typical denier response when they know the answer doesn't support the case. You use the same tactic as some CT'ers do. Classic.

Hey Sherlock, is releasing data the same as publishing data?? Yes, DE-Da-DE.

Has the NIST released the data that they inputed into their computer programs to support their theory?

Of course the NTSB won't answer any questions about the discrepencies about Flight 77, so why should the American citizens expect the NIST's raw data they inputed into their computer programs.

Has the ...data either been
published or it's provided to those who ask for it?


Can you answer your own question?

 
At 18 January, 2007 10:35, Blogger Stevew said...

Alex
In addition to the final data he wants to see all the inputs, ECO's, ECR's, specs used and every nut and bolt the NISTused. If you go to the NIST home page and dig there is an encyclopedia of info about them but he thinks they should go and get scratch pads and everything else the NIST used. First he wanted the software, now all the input data which probably amounts to far more than the thousands of pages of released data. He is just a typ arrogant jerk that has to spout all this BS. Several people includeing myself have asked for his qualifications and all you will get is tapdance but this is typ of the whaks
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/broll_anim_links.htm

 
At 18 January, 2007 10:54, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

maybe you should put together a computer simulation of what happened at the Pentagon.

It wasn't Flight 77 that struck...so what did?

I'd love to see how another object (a missile?) managed to knock down lightpoles, hit a generator, blast a 90-foot hole in the Pentagon and then continue through three rings, scattering 757 wreckage and passenger DNA as it went.

 
At 18 January, 2007 11:05, Blogger acmefoilco said...

All this back and fourth with Swingly Dinglydang,reminds me of Monty Pythons "Argument Clinic" sketch.
Swing could be John Cleese's character..."Oh, this is futile!..."No it isn't!"
He's just here to be argumentative without regard to locical thought; and when confronted with it,(logic)
consciously ignores it. Pathetic, really.

 
At 18 January, 2007 11:15, Blogger Stevew said...

CHF
I gave him this on another thread, the animation, company,person who did it and all the links to contact him and see for his self. He obviously did not because he keeps trotting out the same drivil
I have been a SW user for years and I know Mike and his sym is accurate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&eurl=

http://www.mikejwilson.com/911

http://www.triaxialdesign.com/

Qualifications
Advanced knowledge of CAD and solid modeling software selection, implementation, training, supervision, and customization in real world environments.
Efficient and economical designs due to a practical understanding of machining, fabrication, and manufacturing process.

20 years of experience in the engineering, design, analysis, optimization, drafting, and documentation of mechanical components combined with an extensively applied engineering education.

Our team includes Certified SolidWorks Instructors, Certified SolidWorks Support Technicians, and Certified SolidWorks Professionals (CSWP)

TriAxial Design and Analysis have been in business since 1996. We have completed over 400 projects for over 90 different customers.

SolidWorks, Pro-E and Catia are the primere modeling pgms used around the world because of their accuracy and capabilities but the whaks would know nothing about this. There are things called Addins that allow these programs to input the actual flight profile into the animation so that the model will follow it exactly. There are other ways as well.
If you notice, at a number of points there are pik overlays that show clearly that the Animation is very accurate

 
At 18 January, 2007 11:26, Blogger Manny said...

Manny you should join Clock Lady in her paranormal studies because you seem to know everything when in reality you know nothing.

Uh huh. So what did they say when you called?

 
At 18 January, 2007 12:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SD,

Keep up the good debate.

TAM,

Have you studied the evidence about Flight 77? Let me summarize.

1. 9/11 Commission released a full blown fight simulation.

2. NTSB release a full blown (a) flight simulation and (b) full flight data recorder positional and control information, allegedly matching the flight simulation.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth have proven:

I) #1 doesn't match #2.

II) #2a doesn't match #2b

Will TAM or anyone else acknowledge that something is rotten in Denmark?

 
At 18 January, 2007 13:29, Blogger Alex said...

You don't need to state it you idiot.

You should be able to or else you have been exposed yet again as a liar.


....


Can you actually understand English, or are you just pretending? If you can't understand such a simple one-line statement, I don't see the point of us discussing anything more complex.

Perhaps you may want to look up the meaning of the word "you".


BG:


SD, Keep up the good debate.


Please. I know you're pretty stupid too, but don't make yourself look even worse by complimenting that incompetent piece of shit.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth have proven:

I) #1 doesn't match #2.

II) #2a doesn't match #2b


No, they haven't. They've made some silly allegations, sure, but they've yet to document any discrepancies.

 
At 18 January, 2007 13:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

but they've yet to document any discrepancies.

Alex,

Are you saying that the NTSB 77 simulation path thru space matches the 9/11 Commission Flight 77 simulation path thru space?

 
At 18 January, 2007 14:12, Blogger Alex said...

I have no idea, because I haven't wasted much time with the simulations. On the other hand, I certainly haven't seen any discrepancies between the two.

 
At 18 January, 2007 14:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If there is indeed a discrepancy between the 9/11 released Commission work product and the NTSB work product, which one should be taken as more accurate?

 
At 18 January, 2007 14:30, Blogger Alex said...

Are you going somewhere with this?

 
At 18 January, 2007 14:45, Blogger Stevew said...

Alex' did you notice that no one challenges Mikes animation

 
At 18 January, 2007 14:46, Blogger CHF said...

BG,

How about YOU make a computer model of what you think happened at the Pentagon?

 
At 18 January, 2007 15:00, Blogger Alex said...

I'm just curious what the relevance is. Even if the models don't match eachother, how does that help the twoofers? The government faked the evidence....twice? And did it differently each time? I don't get it. What are they trying to prove?

I like Mike's model, it's neat and rather entertaining if you can for a minute forget that this incident resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people. Still, as interesting as the model is, it's pointless. We already knew the path that the aircraft took, we could tell which objects it struck by looking at all the damaged crap, and we could tell where it hit because it left a giant hole in the side of the building. The animation's a good way to confirm all that, but those facts should never have been in question in the first place.

 
At 18 January, 2007 15:15, Blogger Stevew said...

I agree but I am a visual person and a SW user so it really hit home for me. Mike is doing another that will show what happened after it hit, should be good

 
At 18 January, 2007 15:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alex, et. al.,

It wouldn't be that much of a strain on your systems to watch the Pilots for 9/11 Truth video close enough to hear it spelled out:

* If the NSTB data released is correct, then what has been labeled as Flight 77 could NOT have hit the light poles that it was alleged to have hit.

I respect that most of you here find questions about what hit the Pentagon inane. However, if you are always saying you want to debate on the science, let's debate on the science.

 
At 18 January, 2007 15:22, Blogger Alex said...

I know, it does make the whole incident easier to visualize. I'm not trying to criticize his work...it's just frustrating to see so much effort being wasted on trying to show a bunch of idiots something which is self-evident to the rest of us.

 
At 18 January, 2007 15:35, Blogger pomeroo said...

Happy to oblige, bg. I acknowledge that you and Swing Dumpster are ignorant frauds.

 
At 18 January, 2007 15:42, Blogger pomeroo said...

I neglected to provide a link to that suspicious report probably fabricated by the NTSB. Bg, who has in the past objected to being labeled a fraud merely because he NEVER has any actual evidence to support his falsehoods, will now proceed to explain to us what the NTSB got wrong.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

 
At 18 January, 2007 15:48, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Funny how Swing the Douchebag demands that you answer his questions yet COUNTLESS times he avoids questions.

Please SD!!
Go to the nearest tall building and leap off to test free fall speed!

 
At 18 January, 2007 15:59, Blogger Stevew said...

Yea Alex but he is like me, he loves his work so it is no real effort
:)

 
At 18 January, 2007 16:14, Blogger Richard said...

So what are your computer qualifications Swing?

 
At 18 January, 2007 16:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pomeroo said...

I neglected to provide a link to that suspicious report probably fabricated by the NTSB. Bg, who has in the past objected to being labeled a fraud merely because he NEVER has any actual evidence to support his falsehoods, will now proceed to explain to us what the NTSB got wrong.


Pay attention... ready.

1. My contention is not that the NTSB is wrong. Nor is that the contention of Pilots for 9/11 Truth Video based on the video.

2. My contention is that the NTSB data conflicts with the flight simulation that was released by the 9/11 commission.

3. My contention is that the NTSB data provides a huge reason for skepticism about whether the flight whose tracking data has been provided can be, in fact, a flight which crashed into the Pentagon.

 
At 18 January, 2007 16:46, Blogger Manny said...

Please SD!!
Go to the nearest tall building and leap off to test free fall speed!


Hell, come to New York. It's legal. I'll bring you by Ten House first where you can tell firefighters directly of your, uh, "theories."

But first please share with the class what they told you when you called (301) 975-6051 about the data.

 
At 18 January, 2007 18:05, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 18 January, 2007 18:06, Blogger pomeroo said...

Bg, do us all a favor and drop the unconvincing rational pose. You are as confirmed a tinfoil-hatter as any of the loons at 911blogger.com. The NTSB data provide absolutely no grounds for skepticism--a stance, incidentally, that is far removed from your sciolism.

 
At 18 January, 2007 22:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

 
At 18 January, 2007 22:55, Blogger Alex said...

BG you dispicable scumbag.

I find it hard to believe Capt. Burlingame gave up his ship to Hani Hanjour pointing a boxcutter at him. Pilots know The Common Strategy prior to 9/11. Capt. Burlingame would have taken them where they wanted to go, but only after seeing more than a "boxcutter" or knife. Why was Capt. Burlingame, a 6'5" retired Military Officer with training in anti-terrorism, reported to have given up his airplane to 5 foot nothing. 100 and nothing Hani Hanjour holding a "boxcutter".

It's hard to argue with your hijackers WHEN YOU'RE SPURTING BLOOD FROM YOUR FUCKING JUGULAR!!!

I swear to god, don't EVER come anywhere near me offline. Just to be safe, stay out of my city too. I'm not in the habit of threatening people, so I won't go into specifics, but I will bring along a couple "box-cutters" to make it a learning experience.

 
At 19 January, 2007 07:05, Blogger Stevew said...

They also had 4" knives. When you are straped in flying a plane, it would be hard to get up and fight with a knife at your throat. Nobody thought they were going to crash the planes. I have a friend who knew the co-pilot and went to his funeral. I guess he was part of the cover up

 
At 19 January, 2007 08:24, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Well here we go with the retort by the deniers...

BG You and I both know they can't debate the science behind Flight 77 because its the governments own data.

1. After my first question, did the NIST release, publish, distribute, etc. the data they inputed into their computer program to support their theory?
I will accept all of the personal attacks as an answer of no.


I have found out, in response to Manny and for that matter Stevew that an organization has put in a FOIA request and the funding for the computer program. Sorry for insulting your intelligence as I should have known the answer from you would be no.

SteveW Your favorite site...what data did they use to construct their model? Did they use the NTSB's flight model which is a fraud within itself or the 9/11 commission's model? Or were they winging it based upon pictures from newspapers? Because really, the model of the Pentagon, doesn't mean jack shit if he/they didn't. Remember that. The 3D models don't mean dick if they didn't use the NTSB and/or the Commission's models.

I just visited Solidworks. A nice unprofessional website. I already know there are issues with 77's flight path, so I will try to see his Youtube presentation later. Does his flight path match the NTSB or the 9/11 commission, or is this one entirely different?

Also, did he use the NTSB data from the FOIA request that pilotsfor911truth.org received?

Based upon his model of the Pentagon, I should have no problem seeing the jet in the Pentagon's own camera frames, but alas, I don't see that long nose in the frame. I guess the Pentagon camera is wrong in this case.
I have to wonder,however, based upon the other examples of Solidworks, if Wilson is a salesman for the program. He does a nice job of highlighting its multiple uses, but I'm not convinced that he is an expert at flight path modeling, albeti good at recreating what he is told.

And Stevew in reference to the towers, of course I would like to see the data they used to arrive at their theory.

Why would we like to see the data that they tweaked to fit their models? Let me answer that for you...

The Report contains a lengthy accounting of how the models performed under various assumptions about the buildings and the planes. One assumption common to all their simulations is the following:

The two Tower models included the core columns, the floor beams, and the concrete slabs from the impact and fire zones to the highest floor below the hat truss structure: from the 89th floor to the 106th floor for WTC 1 and from the 73rd floor to the 106th floor for WTC 2. Within these floors, aircraft-damaged structural components were removed. (p 100/150)

Apparently, any structural component estimated to have been damaged to any degree was removed from the model -- as if it contributed nothing to the structure. In other words, if NIST's crash simulation predicted that a column had lost 10% of its load-bearing capacity, it was treated as if it had lost 100% of its capacity.


Dishonest science to fit a collapse theory that doesn't include explosive devices.

Certainly a 'very' scientific way to support the theory!

Even the NIST admitted some of the liberties they took in adjusting the model's parameters to fit their theory. (Excellent science, yet again.)See I would love to be able to do that as well by inserting some explosive data into the model to see the end result, which of course would lead to a global collapse which the NIST remains afoot from explaining that by using phrases such as he ill-defined terms of "column instability," "global instability," "collapse initiation," and "global collapse". Nothing to see here move along.

The computer models that it supposedly used to simulate collapse initiation. Figure 6-9 on page (96/145) shows sections of the global model for both the North and the South Towers. Both show the core columns to be much thinner than the perimeter columns. All of this and nevermind the competing FEMA theory is yet more reason for the public to have access to all of the data it used in its analysis, if but for one thing: improve the building of steel structured high rise buildings, nevermind the conspiracy part.

Alex...I'm just curious what the relevance is. Even if the models don't match each other, how does that help the twoofers? the models is not an 'if' question, they don't match...you would know that if you watched the analysis of both flight models The government faked the evidence....twice? And did it differently each time? I don't get it. What are they trying to prove?

Great questions, Alex? Does that make you a truffer now that you have raised those questions because notice neither I or BG asked those questions.

The proof is in the pudding. Discrepencies in the OS demand explanations by our (sorry, my) government. The NTSB model doesn't match reality? Why?
Do you think this might cause some speculation as to what really happened at the Pentagon?

For God's sakes it is a our nation's tragedy and it deserves some explanations that NTSB isn't willing to give. If both models matched and reflected reality, it would end the conspiracy debate about the Pentagon, but it ONLY FUELS IT!

The pilots for truth, insert their theory into the end of the video, their theory appears to match the reality of what happend to the Pentagon when using the government's own data.

It's hard to argue with your hijackers WHEN YOU'RE SPURTING BLOOD FROM YOUR FUCKING JUGULAR!!!

Man, I didn't realize they cut his throat. Do you have a source for that? Which passenger on the plane made that statement in the middle of the hijacking on their cell/air phone? Or are you using a style over substatance fallacy to try to prove BG wrong or discredit his position?

And it is impossible to argue using personal attacks over and over again it really detracts from the little most of you do have to say.

Alex, again I have shown you to be a liar, because you cannot support your character attacks against me. That in reference to calling me someone who hates the government.
Only lie and deny, lie and deny.

Alex, doesn't BG have to go to CANADA for you to physically assault him with box cutters? You have stooped to a new low with physical threats against a civilian. Are your CO's aware of your mental stability? Nevermind, you seem to be the type that would enjoy participating in a Kent State incident.

POMEROO What a wonderful way to deny the facts. Yet another denier shows his face.
Watch the video and the analysis. 77 could not have hit the light poles, and could not have had a level approach to the Pentagon but would have flown over the Pentagon had the NTSB not covered up its altitude model. Of course the 9/11 Commissions model does't match the NTSB's model, even to the point of having buildings and strucutres on the wrong side of the flight path but that is a whole different matter.

Which brings this question to light that I'm sure none of you can answer or will answer:

Why does the csv file show the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through FL180, but the animation altimeter does not show it being set?(This is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it).http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.
hp?showtopic=2646&st=30

Geez a group of expert professinoals pilots, who question the 9/11 attacks based upon the scientific study of data the goverment released. Imagine that. Can't quite lump them into the tin-hatter bullshit most of you spout.

Mannypeople far more capable with a lot more financial resources are doing exactly what you are tasking me to do. In an obvious character attack to discredit my position. The same sad tactic you all continually spout in defense of your competiting theories for the collapse of the towers both of which ignored a vast amount of evidence pointing to the use of explosives to assist in the destruction of the WTC towers.

Manny, which theory do you support...FEMA's or the NIST?

And Manny, to prove you as a liar as well, please point to me the exact data that the NIST used in their computer programs. If you can't you have just proven yourself a liar. Don't point me to the report, perse, I've read that. Point me to the computer model data they inputted to arrive at their theory?

Sincerely,

The Dumbest Mother Fucker On The Planet or TDMFOTP for short.

 
At 19 January, 2007 08:29, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 19 January, 2007 08:39, Blogger Stevew said...

I said I had a friend who knew the copilot not that I knew him. He told me. He is also an airline pilot himself. He did not tell me his name and I did not ask. If you bother to read I said they also had 4" kinves do don't try your usual spin

 
At 19 January, 2007 08:40, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

It's hard to argue with your hijackers WHEN YOU'RE SPURTING BLOOD FROM YOUR FUCKING JUGULAR!!!


I got to thinking about Alex's statement and wanted to find a source on that. I found this..

"Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters."
CNN - September 12, 2001 Posted: 2:06 AM EDT (0606 GMT)

But I don't read anything about necks being cut and blood everywhere. Is there another documented account of what happened to the pilots, Alex, or are you lying again?

 
At 19 January, 2007 08:40, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 19 January, 2007 08:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you studied the evidence about Flight 77? Let me summarize.

Well Duh!... Lets see... hundreds saw a passenger jet liner flying low over Washington, 45 or so directly saw said jet hit the Pentagon, many of them identified the model and the fact it was an American Airlines plane.

Pieces of the plane were strewn around the impact zone, some with American makings. Pieces of the plane including the black boxes were found in the Pentagon. All the passengers remains were found. The damage is consistent with a large airliner strike. ON and On.

Now even if one or both of the simulations are wrong on some details it does not stop the FACT and American Airliner hit the Pentagon.

So only a fool would try and make it out to be anything but what it was. And lets face it, truthers are gullible fools, all the one I meet are like that, dumb little pinheads who when you confront them face to face they first bluster and rave but when faced with someone with intelligence and facts they run away crying "Help I’m being repressed"

 
At 19 January, 2007 08:48, Blogger Stevew said...

As I said SD you are nothing but a blow hard. You have a way with words I will give you that but all you do is cherry pick that which supports your view and then embelish it with 500 words of Bs to try and make people think you actually know what you are talking about. I have yet to see you back up your lunacy with cold hard facts from people who are actually qualified, you just throw this and that most of which is taken out of context because you think it supports your view.

You obviously have no clue about 3D modeling or syms
Sw, Pro-E and Catia are the primere modeling pgms used around the world because of their accuracy and capabilities but the whaks would know nothing about this. These programs have been used around the world and are well known for their accruacy.

The 787, some of the 777, the A380, the Sea Wolf and Virginia class subs, supertankers, buildings and many other major things that we see in our world of today were designed with these programs. They are useing these programs to built the new CVN-21 Carriers and do the simulations as well. They are the primere tools used today.

The non technical people have no clue about these things so all they do is post mindless babble and lies. Get a Solidworks expert to prove it wrong and some one might believe it. As a Solidworks user I know you are full of crap. Can they explain in detail how it is wrong? No

By superimposing the actual piks over the animation clearly shows the animation to be acurate but the whaks like you simply do not have the knowledge to understand.
I posted the links so you could call or email them and get it right from them, guess you did not


What were your qualifications again? You know, the qualifications that allow you to make assessments about what it takes for buildings to fall? What school granted you a degree in architectural engineering? What school educated you in civil engineering? What institution of higher education matriculated you with training in structural dynamics? C'mon, tell us so we can guage your credibility.

 
At 19 January, 2007 08:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets have a fight, in one corner a truther armed with his carry on.

In the other a suicidal terrorist armed with a nice sharp box cutter, a can of mace (there are reports from the planes of this) and said terrorist may or may not have a bomb which he may use if overpowered.

Who want to place bets on the winner?

I don't think on flight 77 there were reports of stabbings but there sure were on some of the others.

 
At 19 January, 2007 09:15, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

when are you gonna show us YOUR model for the Pentagon crash/attack?

 
At 19 January, 2007 09:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As I said SD you are nothing but a blow hard. You have a way with words I will give you that but all you do is cherry pick that which supports your view and then embelish it with 500 words of Bs

That is how the truthers work.

When your basic concept of what happened has no basis in fact, you need to do something to make it appear more impressive. So they go for quantity of words over quality of idea.

If you can't blind them with brilliance, bury them in bullshit.

 
At 19 January, 2007 09:25, Blogger Stevew said...

So very true 911 SD is a master at it
Chuck Spinney, now retired after years of brilliant government service exposing the Pentagon's budgetary outrages, told me: "There are pictures taken of the plane hitting the Pentagon -- they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon's heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them . . . both stills and moving pictures. I just missed seeing it personally, but the driver of the van I just got out of in South Parking saw it so closely that he could see the terrified faces of passengers in windows. I knew two people who were on the plane. One was ID'd by dental remains found in the Pentagon."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=11616

 
At 19 January, 2007 09:44, Blogger Manny said...

"people far more capable with a lot more financial resources are doing exactly what you are tasking me to do. "

You have a girlfriend in the Niagara Falls area, don't you?

 
At 19 January, 2007 10:32, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Sw, Pro-E and Catia are the primere modeling pgms used around the world because of their accuracy and capabilities but the whaks would know nothing about this. These programs have been used around the world and are well known for their accruacy.

SWEET I hope they start using for computer games.

Now what does that have to do with 9/11? The model is only as good as the data that is put into it. What data did your favorite website use?
What authority does a 3-D modeler have on flight paths, the characteristics of planes, the discrepencies with the NTSB and the 9/11 commissions flight path, etc?


By superimposing the actual piks over the animation clearly shows the animation to be acurate but the whaks like you simply do not have the knowledge to understand.
Which model? The NTSB or the 9/11 commission, or the corrected one by Pilotsfor9/11truth.org?


SEE you do what you do best, avoid the facts and attack my character, cool. Doesn't help your position and highlights your maturity and lack of intelligence.

We've been on the pilots video now and you want to throw in computer modeling? Why?
Did you watch the video?

Two, (Liar Alert)
I have yet to see you back up your lunacy with cold hard facts from people who are actually qualified, you just throw this and that most of which is taken out of context because you think it supports your view.

See Chief, I back them up. You don't read them or you aren't interested in them.
Please explain to me how these professional pilots aren't qualified to make an assessment on the flight path of an airplane?
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
core.html

And again, if it was all cut and dried in the first place, this blog wouldn't be here, I wouldn't be here, nor would any of you.

Warning, arguement distraction Alert
On the other a suicidal terrorist armed with a nice sharp box cutter, a can of mace(there are reports from the planes of this)and said terrorist may or may not have a bomb which he may use if overpowered.

I thought we were dealing with just 77 at this point. Stick with the topic which was the Pilots video.

Which planes had reports of the mace, btw? Lets add one more to the mix. Lets do add bombs.

How the heck did they get that on board?

Please link to the numerous reports of pilots being butchered at the hands of the terrorists. So far I've seen led to the back of the plane in regards to Flight 77, which is what we were discussing in the first place.


Ahh 9/11 Truthi...go debunk the pilots video and get back to us. Sorry I don't speak as you do by flamming you, etc. What you are referring to is style over substance. Sorry I articulate my thoughts well, have an excellent command of the language and logic.

The point is, you have yet to attack the substance. Sure I write well. So what. Go debunk professional pilots and get back to me.


There are pictures taken of the plane hitting the Pentagon -- they were taken by the surveillance cameras at Pentagon's heliport, which was right next to impact point. I have seen them . . . both stills and moving pictures

Well hell, where are they? Let me see them and you will never hear from me again. Or is this the video frames they released? I mean if they existed, don't you think every site on the net would have carried them?? Comeon bro, do better than that!

 
At 19 January, 2007 10:43, Blogger Alex said...

Steve:

You have a way with words I will give you that

What are you, kidding? The guy can barely speak English! All he does is string together unrelated words, call people liars, and insist over and over again that we quote him. A way with words my ass. You better watch out or he might "throw in the flag" again.

 
At 19 January, 2007 10:46, Blogger Alex said...

To put it another way, his grasp of the English language is about equal to his grasp of Logic.

 
At 19 January, 2007 11:30, Blogger CHF said...

Swing,

how many 757 pilots are member of "pilots for truth?"

 
At 19 January, 2007 11:32, Blogger Stevew said...

Indeed Alex he has done it in the above post and tapdanced around the questions with the same dumb questions he always asks

 
At 19 January, 2007 11:32, Blogger Stevew said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 19 January, 2007 11:34, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

All he does is string together unrelated words, call people liars, and insist over and over again that we quote him.

I ask for quotes so as to provide you with an opportunity to prove your not a liar. Over an over again, you fail to do so to prove what you say of me to be true. In doing so, you prove to the readers, you indeed are a liar.

But then again, I'm just reflecting what has been thrown at me over and over.

Nevermind, this is directed at Alex. He only understands Canadian English and logic. My bad.

For any newbies out there, the best people to discuss the issues with:

the artistic macrophage, Rondelio, James, and Pat. The rest will provide you with meaningless banter and name calling. For a while 911truthiness would have made that list, but his is traveling down the 'Alex hole'.

 
At 19 January, 2007 11:55, Blogger Stevew said...

Since you have no clue about any of these pgm's, trying to educate you to their capabilities would be like licking a bald man's head to solve equations.

Did you email the folks that did the animation? They will be glad to give you a detail explaniation.

Do you have any experience in this area?

The 787, some of the 777, the A380, the Sea Wolf and Virginia class subs, supertankers, buildings and many other major things that we see in our world of today were designed with these programs. They are useing these programs to built the new CVN-21 Carriers and do the simulations as well. They are the primere tools used today.

You make claims about flight paths but you give no hard proof. How big were the discrepencies? Did anybody qualified these?
LOL you have little if any character What did these pilots use to make this vid? All you do is rely on another group of whaks and say it is the truth and we are suppose to believe you LOL not likely. You ask all these same questions but never answer any that have been put to you. Why is that?

This blog and others are to put the smackdown on all the lies told by the toofers. The man's name is in the link, if you really cared you would track him down and ask him yourself but like the other addy's you will not do it, all you do is whine about it.

What were your qualifications again? You know, the qualifications that allow you to make assessments about what it takes for buildings to fall?

What school granted you a degree in architectural engineering?

What school educated you in civil engineering?

What institution of higher education matriculated you with training in structural dynamics? C'mon, tell us so we can guage your credibility.

 
At 19 January, 2007 12:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ahh 9/11 Truthi...go debunk the pilots video and get back to us. Sorry I don't speak as you do by flamming you, etc. What you are referring to is style over substance. Sorry I articulate my thoughts well, have an excellent command of the language and logic.

True as an artist my know-how is with pictures, Heros??? not words but YOUR skill at reasoning and logic just plain sucks.

You still don't grasp the concept that the views of some pilots that can be easily countered with views from other pilots, and some computer simulations mean absolutely NOTHING when compared to the cold hard facts of what happened that day. Facts backed up by countless witnesses and physical evidence. Stuff you and your ilk can't escape.

You want to argue these unimportant crumbs and missed the donut. Typical conspiracy theorist shit.

Here is a little lesson in logic.

If the Pentagon does have indisputable proof of an airliner it is NOT to there advantage to release it. Why? just to make a bunch of conspiracy theorist happy? Screw Them! their nuts anyway, and they will call it faked when they do.

NO, best to hold on to it and hope some liberal politician is stupid enough to buy the truthers lies and THEN bring it out to discredit them.

You guys already make liberals look goofy with this bull.

 
At 19 January, 2007 12:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is another point. There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING on YouTube that is of any use when investigating a complex subject like 9/11. Anyone who starts a point of debate with, "see this video at YouTube". well......

It's just so much conspiracy theorist mastabatory aids. I picture a bunch of truthers wanking off to Barbara Honegger videos.

 
At 19 January, 2007 12:49, Blogger Stevew said...

Its funny, he wants all the input data the NIST used so he can see if the data was manipulated to arrive at the conclusion they wanted, not that he would understand but just wants us to watch a youtube vid made by someone and he does not ask the same questions about them LOL

 
At 19 January, 2007 12:54, Blogger CHF said...

I think it's been made pretty clear that Swing is both a coward and a fraud.

He claims that 9/11 was an inside job yet does nothing meaningful with his proof despite repeated challenges to submit his information to those who could actually do something with it.

He doesn't answer basic questions and refuses to contact experts in the relevant fields.

Bottom line: he knows full well that he's full of rubbish. He's just another keyboard crusader living out a childish fantasy of fighting "The Man."

One day he'll look back on all this with shame. But, alas, it is not this day.

 
At 19 January, 2007 13:28, Blogger Stevew said...

Too many drugs in the 60's

 
At 19 January, 2007 14:55, Blogger Just Me said...

Just throwing this out there for Swing Dangler (since you think you're so much smarter than I am)...for having such great mastery of the English language, you sure the hell don't know when to use "your" or "you're". I know they sound the same, but they're different words with different meanings. You should think about conquering the difference between the two before rambling about how articulate you are.

And for everyone who's wondering, these are Swing Dangler's qualifications as I know them (please correct me if I am wrong):
1. Has a bachelor's and master's degree (In what? Who knows? Nothing relating to aeronautics, engineering or demolition as far as I know)
2. Borrowed a book about materials from a friend who is an engineer (did he actually understand what he read? I can't say for sure)
3. Works with construction engineers and people with physics degrees (somehow this makes him competent in both areas...I guess since I work with people with law degrees, that makes me a lawyer)

 
At 19 January, 2007 15:13, Blogger Alex said...

Nevermind, this is directed at Alex. He only understands Canadian English and logic. My bad.

Ah yes. Now there's a Vintage swinger comment. If we could have taglines on here, that would definitely be mine.

 
At 19 January, 2007 22:15, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hey, Swingie, I used to wonder why you never tried debating at JREF. Pretty silly of me, huh?

You keep forgetting to explain why NO demolition experts anywhere think that the collapses of the Twin Towers suggest the use of explosives.

 
At 20 January, 2007 02:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello! Ronni--I mean, "pomeroo"! Excellent question! And I'd like to add that the NTSB animation of Flight 77 approaching the Pentagon absolutley definatively supports the government's account of what we all know happened that day:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/5645

Keep up the good work, all!
Hugs and kisses!

 
At 20 January, 2007 08:10, Blogger Alex said...

Dear Col. Jenny Sparks:

Go Fist Yourself.

Sincerely,

BGen. Hugh G. Rection

 
At 20 January, 2007 08:25, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Col Sparks:

are you really 10 years old, or do you just act like it while in cyberspace?

I ask this in all honesty, because from my readings of your posts at 9/11blogger (I lurk from time to time), to your spotty posts here, you seem to think like a 10 year old. Are you educated? If so, to what level?

TAM

 
At 20 January, 2007 13:22, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hey, Jenny, you're still cute as a button! And you're still an egregious liar. No jet was seen "circling" the Pentagon. Sorry.

Did you ever work out the "difficulties" that prevent you from parading your ignorance on JREF? Oh, that's right: there are no difficulties. You made it up. You were caught lying again.

Did Gold stop running long enough to agree to visit a firehouse with me? Yes, of course I'm kidding, you silly goose!

Smooch!

 
At 23 January, 2007 06:30, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 23 January, 2007 06:34, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Pomeroo Great question on the JREF issue. I suppose I should because the people on this blog can't hold a candle stick.

Lets take for example 911truthinesses comment that nothing on Youtube can be used. So if someone posts a video of the mainstream reports of the day,
that is not useful? Someone reposts animations from the USG and it isn't useful. Your assertion is of course ludricous because that is a documented record of what happened at that time on that day. But truthy would have you believe otherwise. Truthy woudl have you believe that whatever the US says is history is indeed history and the only way to obtain that history is through...errr well how do you obtain it Truthy? No offense truthy, but you have no clue.

Lets take Pomeroo's comment that no explosives agree taht explosives were used. To address that please tell me:

1. How many explosives experts are there in the world today?

2. How many have seen primary source material from that day including mainstream reports, eyewitness accounts, expert opinions, the FBI, local police and firefighters responses, videography of the day including the sound of explosions not from spray paint cans or bodies exploding?

3. After viewing the primary source material first, then the collapses of the towers, do they still hold the belief that explosves were not used at the WTC complex?

Now if you can give me a factual answers to those questions, I will be more than happy to accept your statements.

 
At 23 January, 2007 07:32, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

911truthy will you please link to where other pilots have found, explained, and posted the error in the analysis by pilotsfor911truth.org?

You say 'they' could so who are they and what did 'they'do?

Also in regards to that second plane that wasn't there...

OTHER WHITE JET WITNESS REPORTS:

1) Brian Kennedy, press secretary for a congressman, and others also see a
second plane. [Sacramento Bee, 9/15/01]
http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/special/attacks/0915_01.html

2) Meseidy Rodriguez confirms "it was a mid size plane". His brother inlaw
also saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary Rd. in
Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right
behind it.
http://mfile.akamai.com/920/rm/thepost.download.akamai.com/920/nation/091101-5s.ram

3) Kelly Knowles says that seconds after seeing Flight 77 pass, she sees a
"second plane that seemed to be chasing the first [pass] over at a slightly
different angle." [Daily Press, 9/15/01]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/dailypress091501.html

4) Keith Wheelhouse says the second plane was a C-130, two others aren't
certain. [Daily Press, 9/15/01] Wheelhouse "believes IT FLEW DIRECTLY ABOVE THE AMERICAN AIRLINES (AS AT THE NORTH TOWER!), as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon." As Flight 77 descends toward the Pentagon, the second plane veers off west. [Daily
Press, 9/14/01]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/dailypress091401.html

5) USA Today reporter Vin Narayanan, who saw the Pentagon explosion, says,
"I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second
jet hovering in the skies." [USA Today, 9/17/01]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/17/first-person.htm

6) USA Today Editor Joel Sucherman sees a second plane. [eWeek, 9/13/01].
Within a minute another plane started veering up and to the side. At that
point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to manouver out of the air
space or if that plane was coming round for another hit. (Audio)
http://play.rbn.com/?url=usat/usat/g2demand/010911sucherman.ra&v

7) An unnamed worker at Arlington national cemetery "said a mysterious
second plane was circling the area when the first one attacked the
Pentagon." [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 12/20/01]
http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-01/12-20-01/a02wn018.htm


Stevew You really don't read shit. The NIST admitted they manipulated the data. Go read their reports, I did.

Two, where are those qualified experts who debunked the pilotsfor911truth.org analysis?

You make claims about flight paths but you give no hard proof. I can't help it...I have to state that you are a complete idiot. The flight paths are from two different sources...the NTSB and the 9/11 Commission. Those are the hard facts. Do they match? Nope. Go figure out why, liar denier.

Is the NTSB flightpath correct? Nope.
There is a huge issue with the altitude of the plane prior to entering Pentagon airspace that appears to hide a curious coverup to the real flight path. Don't be afraid to watch the analysis, it is clearly explained to those of you that have no training in commercial aircraft, or planes inparticular.

Please spout all the lies and denies you want, but it doesn't change those cold hard facts you keep denying.

Since you have no clue about any of these pgm's, trying to educate you to their capabilities would be like licking a bald man's head to solve equations.(He assumes Swing has no clue but in reality he is clueless!

Did you email the folks that did the animation? nope
They will be glad to give you a detail explaniation.
How do you know? You are their champion, don't you know?

Actually I was hoping you could provide the information. They are your source and you are the head cheerleader for their modeling programs. I think you do not know the capabilities of these programs and your just relying on this website as your 'offical source' which of course you have spammed on numerous occasions. I know where they got their data-the federal government! Dolt! Too bad it is fraudelent and doesn't support a hill of beans.
Now what I would like to know is if they used the NTSB's flight path model or the 9/11 Commission's model? Can you tell me that, cheerleader?

Because those two official sources DON'T MATCH! If it were cut and dried, they would line up completely, the altitude would be correct on the NTSB's model, plenty of videos would be released or show the impact, and we wouldn't have clock ladies, conflicting eyewitness reports, hijacked planes flying around for nearly an hour without intercept, we wouldn't have second planes in the area or helicopters for that matter and we wouldn't have a conspriacy to debate!

 
At 23 January, 2007 14:05, Blogger CHF said...

Way to go Swing.

Wait until the thread is off the front page and THEN reply. You're a brave man.

Always nice to have the last word, isn't it?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home