Wednesday, May 17, 2006

The New Math

Another indication how our filmmakers fail to pay even the slightest attention to what they are claiming. It is apparent that you cannot take any of their "research" at face value. At the 2:29 mark:

December 1st, 1984.
A remote-controlled Boeing 720 takes off from Edwards Air Force Base, and is crash-landed by NASA for fuel research. Before its destruction, the plane flew a total of 16 hours and 22 minutes, including 10 takeoffs, 69 approaches, and 13 landings.













Ten takeoffs and 13 landings? That is quite an accomplishment. What an amazing plane!

18 Comments:

At 17 May, 2006 20:06, Blogger roger_sq said...

See what happens when you trust the government, blindly following their expertise like a bunch of lemmings?

On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base
(Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing
to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree
glide slope. The landing gear was left retracted. Passing the decision height of 150 feet above ground level (AGL), the aircraft
was slightly to the right of the desired path. Just above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a "go-around," there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the centerline of the runway. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low. The fire and smoke took over an hour to extinguish.

This flight, called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), was the culmination of more than a year of preparation in a joint research project by NASA and the FAA to test the effectiveness of anti-misting kerosene (AMK) in a so-called survivable impact. Added to typical Jet A fuel, the AMK was designed to suppress the fireball that can result from an impact in which the airstream causes spilled fuel to vaporize into a mist....

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled
Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14
flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs,
69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/index.html

 
At 17 May, 2006 20:57, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

Uh, what the government said (and you quoted) I have no problem with. It makes perfect sense. On the other hand, what was said in the LC video is just stupid, and demonstrates how sloppy their fact-checking is.

 
At 17 May, 2006 21:20, Blogger roger_sq said...

ironic since it's a direct quote.

During the 14
flights, ...10 remotely piloted takeoffs,
69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.


that's from NASA, moron.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/index.html

 
At 17 May, 2006 21:34, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, but NASA was smart enough to preface it with "13 remotely piloted" landings, so it actually made sense.

 
At 17 May, 2006 21:45, Blogger nes718 said...

Ha ha ha! Conspiracy smasher = the make it fit crew :D

 
At 17 May, 2006 21:49, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

I may be a moron, but at least I have a shred of reading comprehension. I know that the "10 remotely piloted takeoffs..." comment was from NASA. See that qualifier "remotely piloted"? It makes all the difference. It does not imply that the plane had only 10 takeoffs, just that only 10 were remotely piloted.

Loose Change, on the other hand, says that the plane did 10 takeoffs and 13 landings. They're sloppy with facts.

 
At 17 May, 2006 21:52, Blogger roger_sq said...

How fucking retarded do you have to be that you cannot deduce that a plane which landed took off first?

Sorry if Avery didn't assume you were too stupid to draw that conclusion.

More nitpicking minutae, once again.

 
At 17 May, 2006 22:01, Blogger nes718 said...

They're sloppy with facts.

There are a lot of facts in those 2 hours. Not all are going to be to everyone's liking but majority are pretty verifiable as the NASA excerpt proves.

 
At 18 May, 2006 06:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could be touch and go landings, which wouldn't include takeoffs.

I've seen that done (by accident) from the cab stand at the MSP airport. Pretty scary.

 
At 18 May, 2006 08:49, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

roger_sq wrote:
"How fucking retarded do you have to be..."

Yes! That's what I'm saying - how retarted did Dylan Avery have to be to not realize that 10 takeoffs and 13 landings is preposterous? The NASA article you quoted said it right, Dylan said it wrong and looks sloppy and foolish.

And Paul, I've done lots of touch and gos, and I think that each would count as a takeoff and a landing. But anyway, the NASA article is clear that these weren't touch and gos.

 
At 18 May, 2006 08:52, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

nesnyc wrote:
"There are a lot of facts in those 2 hours. Not all are going to be to everyone's liking but majority are pretty verifiable as the NASA excerpt proves.

First, the NASA excerpt proves that Dylan was sloppy with the facts.

So what are the other facts in the 1:20 of LC2E that are verifiable? From what I've seen, every single substantive claim in Loose Change is verifiably false. Is there just one that you would stand behind?

 
At 18 May, 2006 08:59, Blogger undense said...

How fucking retarded do you have to be that you cannot deduce that a plane which landed took off first?

You completely miss the point. Everyone understands that what goes up must come down. It's the plainly stated "10 takeoffs and 13 landings" which is confusing and makes an error of ommission as well by not providing all the information (Something Loose Change does rampantly throughout the entire schlock-fest of a movie). Those that can't comprehend that fact are the retarded ones.

 
At 18 May, 2006 09:26, Blogger nes718 said...

So what are the other facts in the 1:20 of LC2E that are verifiable? From what I've seen, every single substantive claim in Loose Change is verifiably false. Is there just one that you would stand behind?

Most, if not all are verifiable through some press release or eyewitness account. If you view the movie with a doubting mind and don't check up on the facts, then that is the impression you will be left with. Most of the people that believe the official conspiracy simply pass it off as "kooky" or "retarded" and never really do any checking all their own.

Take the poor excuse of an article Popular Mechanics wrote has been thoroughly debunked and proved false by the facts. The truth may be unpleasant, but the fact remains and the truths self evident.

 
At 18 May, 2006 11:28, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

nesnyc wrote:
Most, if not all are verifiable through some press release or eyewitness account.

I asked if there was even one "fact" from Loose Change that you would stand behind. What I got was a bunch of handwaving. Come on - name just one!

 
At 18 May, 2006 17:41, Blogger Brian Tiemann said...

"Take the poor excuse of an article Popular Mechanics wrote has been thoroughly debunked..."

Oh, for Pete's sake. Does this "debunking" have to be debunked too, now?

I read as far as its "proof" that the plane had a "pod" underneath it (their illustrative image showed no such thing, just the usual reinforced humps where the wings attach to the fuselage). No doubt they'd have lead off with their most convincing "evidence", so I can just imagine how convincing the rest is.

Look, I just want to know: what do you think motivates those of us who believe the official story, nesync? What caricature of us do you have implanted in your brain? What are we, plutocratic monocle-wearing slave-whippers who crave the sight of smog? Buck-toothed NASCAR-watching beer-swillers? Moon-eyed swaying church patrons? Rifle-waving, camo-wearing war fanatics? Stop me if I'm getting close.

It might do you good to let go of your preconceptions and learn something about the motivations and qualifications of those who disagree with you. You might find that the biggest irony here is simply that you're so desperate to uphold your caricatures of Evil Fiendish Republicans that you're perpetuating a conspiracy against your own conscious mind.

 
At 20 May, 2006 07:07, Blogger sumy23 said...

This blog is for defending corruption.

If you post any real info on this blog they will just delete your post. They really only encourage weak info. Anything that they can't debunk gets deleted. Dont waste your time here.

 
At 04 June, 2007 03:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, while searching for widgets for my blog, I stumbled upon www.widgetmate.com and wow! I found what I wanted. A cool news widget. My blog is now showing latest news with title, description and images. Took just few minutes to add. Awesome!

 
At 24 July, 2007 09:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So because producers drop a few words from their lines and quotes automtically makes them sloppy?

I guess that means every single media outlet in the world that has at one time or another shortened a quote is a complete farce.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home