RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 1:58:42 PM)

If I understand you correctly your queried/missing measurement is dimension d in diagram unfortunately ascii art has never been a forte of mine

app 1 storey of building, i.e. 10-12ft dependant on any difference between ground level (grass) and ground level (floor level of floor 1 of building



Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 2:25:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

If I understand you correctly your queried/missing measurement is dimension d in diagram unfortunately ascii art has never been a forte of mine

app 1 storey of building, i.e. 10-12ft dependant on any difference between ground level (grass) and ground level (floor level of floor 1 of building


ok then split it and go with 11 ft so we have a fuselage hole of 22 ft high x 16ft wide and a wing hole of 90ft wide total by 11ft high?



sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 3:14:42 PM)

yup, those numbers sound pretty fair



Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 3:44:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

yup, those numbers sound pretty fair



Ok then lets start with the first issue:

we agree that the hole height is roughly 22ish feet high.

Here is one of the better photos that i have of the hole.

Please explain where the tail of the aircraft is?

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/Pentagondamagepoint.jpg

i am unable to find damage above 22 feet high on that building and we agree the hole is roughly 22 feet high.  The tail of a 757 is 45 feet high.  If it did not  make a hole and go inside the building then is must be laying on the outside of the building.

1) i see no tail imposed damage on the building.
2) i see no hole in the building that the tail would fit into
3) i see no tail that would have had to get clipped off by a 22 foot hole in the front of the building and should be visibly laying there.

where is the tail or what happened to it.



Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 4:06:56 PM)

The tail is a bit taller than fuselage and undercarriage together. A 757-200F is 44 feet 6 inches in height. So, let us guesstimate that the tail is 23 feet in height, the fuselage 14 feet in diameter and the undercarriage 7 feet in height. Tail and fuselage then would measure approximately 37 feet in height.



sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 4:17:33 PM)

Dispute your figure of 45 feet high, I am willing to bet that figure is for hangar access ie landed, stationary at the airport, gear down aircraft at dry weight with suspension at maximum extenstion.

Check methods of construction for vertical stabiliser (I assume that is what you mean by tail, namely the upright section containing rudder controls). Said assembly is designed for lateral loading (ie on the side) and is NOT designed to withstand any impact greater than a birdstrike (if even that, bearing in mind its relatively thin aspect and airflow along the length of the aircraft.

Excercise, take a plastic model kit of an aircraft, try force it through a more solid object, note how shear loads affect any protusions such as wings, horizontal and vertical stabilisers.

C'mon even that well known twin towers author Professor Steven Jones of Brigham Young University went on record and published in November 2005 that he believed a 757 hit the pentagon. So if we assume that he knows enough physics and civil engineering to make claims re the manhattan strikes can we logically assume he knows about the same subjects to make an accurate assesment of the pentagon strike?



Still eagerly awaiting a mission plan as outlined earlier.




Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 4:30:11 PM)

I do not know what hit the Pentagon. I do know that it was not a Boeing 757, though.



sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 4:45:33 PM)

Why not a 757? any way you wish to slice with occams razor it is the only viable answer



Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 5:04:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Convince the gullible masses that an airliner (a boeing 757 belonging to american airlines for the sake of argument) has impacted a building well known to the public.

Criteria
1. Collateral damage (military and civilian casualties) are expected and authourised, but should be kept to a reasonable limit
This is what happened at the Pentagon. Mission accomplished.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
2. Secrecy is paramount. Nobody must ever let the truth out, that means ensuring that all conspirators, and planted witnesses if required, must stick to the official line until beyond their graves. Of course none should obviously show an increase in financial wealth that cannot be accounted for by means of network interview fees. It should not need saying that a number of unusual deaths or disappearances are not a smart policy

We need only 64 people on board that "plane", some of whom already were dead, others who may be dying shortly from terminal illness and still others whom we pay a million or ten million dollars a piece to start a new life. Then we see to government recompensation for the relatives. It is doable. Easy. Besides, we arrange for the plane to hit the accounting department of the Pentagon, so then we do not have to explain how billions of dollars went missing there. (Was it thirty billion dollar?) The keep your mouth shut pay off is cheap in comparison.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
3. Budget is to all intents and purposes is unlimited, however a $Xmillion budget would of course be more favourable than a budget of X x10 million dollars.

Of course we will do it cheap! Boeing 757's cost a lot, so we will use two Boeing 727's from the scrap heap and two even smaller flying objects (like two cruise missiles, for example, or whatever.)
Total cost of the operation except for government money? Say between one hundred and five hundred million dollars.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Why not a 757?
Interesting question, isnt it?



sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 5:16:26 PM)

You got an off the shelf price for two airworthy 727s + crew/remote systems + two tomahawk type weapons? Bet a 757 is cheaper, especially as it will be insured. so we actually get the plane free if we do it as it is supposed to look!  :)


Too many conspiracy believers pick on a tree or three and forget the whole forest.


Edited to add, why pay millions to start a new life and risk blabbing? just pay the damn compensation for deaths



Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 5:21:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Dispute your figure of 45 feet high, I am willing to bet that figure is for hangar access ie landed, stationary at the airport, gear down aircraft at dry weight with suspension at maximum extenstion.

Check methods of construction for vertical stabiliser (I assume that is what you mean by tail, namely the upright section containing rudder controls). Said assembly is designed for lateral loading (ie on the side) and is NOT designed to withstand any impact greater than a birdstrike (if even that, bearing in mind its relatively thin aspect and airflow along the length of the aircraft.

Excercise, take a plastic model kit of an aircraft, try force it through a more solid object, note how shear loads affect any protusions such as wings, horizontal and vertical stabilisers.

C'mon even that well known twin towers author Professor Steven Jones of Brigham Young University went on record and published in November 2005 that he believed a 757 hit the pentagon. So if we assume that he knows enough physics and civil engineering to make claims re the manhattan strikes can we logically assume he knows about the same subjects to make an accurate assesment of the pentagon strike?



Still eagerly awaiting a mission plan as outlined earlier.





No i do not operate like that.  i really do not care what byu jones says when it comes to things i can figure out for myself.   i only post him when people demand to see a title.

Another problem you run into is the problem of disinfo.  If in the event the government is wiling to go so far to pull something like this off they are well versed in propaganda techniques and will use those techniques to cover their asses.  In which case you have to do your own math and cannot rely on others because you would have no way to know who is correct or incorrect and it all winds up being emotional and who your gut "feels" is correct rather than making a rational decision and knowing who is correct.  The only way to "know" who is correct is to do your own math and look for the obvious, as i will demonstrate here.

Of course i did not go as far as obtaining samples of the metal as he does so i have to depend on him in that respect but not for the greater majority of either 911 or the pentagon because its really basic physics and math to figure most of it out.  The hard part for people is to get past the point the government could do this in the first place and than get off their butts and actually look at the evidence, hell its work at least a little bit!  and that breaks into the beer time.

No that is not how it is done.  We oiled down the struts daily to prevent corrosion and the struts are pumped up to 6.5 inches from the calibration mark to the seals. Well there was a range but i dont remember because it has been several years.

Ok since i had to duck under those damn planes for 4 years i can get us within a foot of the actual tail tip height with very simple math

So for the measurements, the bottom of the body of the aircraft is between 3 - 4 feet off the ground.

So body base = +4
Fuselage = +13
---------------------------
Top of fuselage = 4+13 = 17feet above the ground.

Now 44 total tail tip height minus 17ft to top of fuselage = 24 feet

Simpe math shows the tip of the tail is 24 feet higher than the fuselage hole.

plane specs here:
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html

So we should have at least 20 feet higher hole, that is a slice through the building that is 20 foot higher or 2 stories higher than the 16 x 20 foot fuselage hole that we agreed on earlier if the tail went inside.  or...we should have 20 foot of tail laying on the outside of the building on the ground and the outside of the building would show damage.

No hole in wall, no tail on ground cant be a 757, no other choices.   Unless you can think of something that can be calculated?  i have a pretty good imagination and know my planes pretty good and i cant.

note: in the above math i gave you 5 extra feet lower for free just to be ultra conservative.

So before we get into the more complicated aspects we have to understand the most simple and the tail is both the most simple and obvious imo.  Well aside from the engine that i posted to lucky who made claims he was going to punch big holes in my theories this weekend but has yet to show up.  Wonder whats up with that?




Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 5:29:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

Why not a 757? any way you wish to slice with occams razor it is the only viable answer

Not in terms of an investigation.  Only in terms of accepting one version sight unseen over another version sight unseen, in which case its a tie.

The tail and the engine imo opinion meet the occams rule as far as an investgation is concerned when a certain degree of disecting is required.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

You got an off the shelf price for two airworthy 727s + crew/remote systems + two tomahawk type weapons? Bet a 757 is cheaper, especially as it will be insured. so we actually get the plane free if we do it as it is supposed to look!  :)


Too many conspiracy believers pick on a tree or three and forget the whole forest.


Edited to add, why pay millions to start a new life and risk blabbing? just pay the damn compensation for deaths



Even a 727 is to big, i would hazzard a guess that any larger transport plane is to big.  They could do it with a small plane and missle attached.  i think that is the whole point here. 

Once its determined that the story told to us cannot be true then we have to brainstorm to figure out what most closely fits the damage.    So we have to look at what we have.   We know something flew into it and take it from there, whats plausible, a 757 i think or at least i hope i illustrated is simply not plausible even on the most simple terms.

As for cost it does not matter.  they can so easily steal it from us the tax payer it is incredible.   If they cant it still does not matter, as long as they can hide it from congress we the tax paey pick up the tab, which is exactly why we need out tax laws fixed and to go back to our constitution.  It would be much harder for them to pull this crap off.



sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 5:42:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
No i do not operate like that.  i really do not care what byu jones says when it comes to things i can figure out for myself.   i only post him when people demand to see a title.

Fair enough, but anyone who quotes or cites him to me instantly loses any credibility they may have had. He has never allowed himself to be peer reviewed, has not certified expertise in civil engineering and last I heard was about to be fired by the uni for not being up to standard.
quote:


Another problem you run into is the problem of disinfo.  If in the event the government is wiling to go so far to pull something like this off they are well versed in propaganda techniques and will use those techniques to cover their asses. 

This is a point I have tried making several times and you have avoided it each and every time


Why an elaborate dis-information scam when you can just fly a 757 into a building cheaper, easier, less risk of leaks and achieve the desired end image?
 
 
quote:


Ok since i had to duck under those damn planes for 4 years i can get us within a foot of the actual tail tip height with very simple math

So for the measurements, the bottom of the body of the aircraft is between 3 - 4 feet off the ground.

So body base = +4
Fuselage = +13
---------------------------
Top of fuselage = 4+13 = 17feet above the ground.

Now 44 total tail tip height minus 17ft to top of fuselage = 24 feet

Simpe math shows the tip of the tail is 24 feet higher than the fuselage hole.

plane specs here:
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=101
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html

So we should have at least 20 feet higher hole, that is a slice through the building that is 20 foot higher or 2 stories higher than the 16 x 20 foot fuselage hole that we agreed on earlier if the tail went inside.  or...we should have 20 foot of tail laying on the outside of the building on the ground and the outside of the building would show damage.

No hole in wall, no tail on ground cant be a 757, no other choices.   Unless you can think of something that can be calculated?  i have a pretty good imagination and know my planes pretty good and i cant.

note: in the above math i gave you 5 extra feet lower for free just to be ultra conservative.

So before we get into the more complicated aspects we have to understand the most simple and the tail is both the most simple and obvious imo.  Well aside from the engine that i posted to lucky who made claims he was going to punch big holes in my theories this weekend but has yet to show up.  Wonder whats up with that?





Shear forces?
Vertical stabiliser designed for later loading?

Repeat experiment as outlined above with plastic model. Take a convertible car, stand a surfboard on end in the back seat and secure so as to have the thin profile along the length of the vehicle and to not blow away when the wind is on the side. Drive into a low roof parking lot at speed. Inform the class of the results of these experiments.


In short, things break off!

Please let me know how you would create the image of a 757 into a large building without actually doing so bearing in mind the need for absolute secrecy





Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 5:43:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
You got an off the shelf price for two airworthy 727s
Say four hundred thousand dollars per plane. Say one million dollars for two.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
+ crew/remote systems

The remotes were provided by industry that stood to gain a lot from selling more of them as a result of the coming wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Thus: remote systems at no cost.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
 + two tomahawk type weapons?

I do not know what them other two flying objects were. Tomahawks in any case cost six hunderd thousand dollars a piece. Cheap!
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Bet a 757 is cheaper, especially as it will be insured. so we actually get the plane free if we do it as it is supposed to look!  :)

No. We make a profit by insuring two lesser planes and two whatsamacallits as if they were expensive 757's. So that is the pay off for the two airline companies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Edited to add, why pay millions to start a new life and risk blabbing? just pay the damn compensation for deaths

What deaths?



Sinergy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 5:45:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

3). My metallurgy data sheet claims aluminum does not support combustion.



Burning, from the standpoint of a welder, is heating something hot enough for it to hook up with oxygen atoms.

Technically, you can burn anything if you get it hot enough.

Thank you for admitting you dont understand how a mass hitting another mass at a significant difference in relative velocities generates a certain amount of energy.

Sinergy



sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 5:49:29 PM)

Ok short sweet and simple, one last time.

If it wasnt a 757 what was it?

How do you create the image of a 757 striking the building bearing in mind the need to guarantee no leaks ever without actually doing so?

The second has been asked repeatedly and never answered by you Real, I will only respond now to these two questions.



sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 5:55:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
You got an off the shelf price for two airworthy 727s
Say four hundred thousand dollars per plane. Say one million dollars for two.

Why two? are we now disputing the number of impacts? If so I am off this thread
quote:

 
quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
 + two tomahawk type weapons?

I do not know what them other two flying objects were. Tomahawks in any case cost six hunderd thousand dollars a piece. Cheap!
 

I think perhaps we are not having the same conversation here
quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Bet a 757 is cheaper, especially as it will be insured. so we actually get the plane free if we do it as it is supposed to look!  :)

No. We make a profit by insuring two lesser planes and two whatsamacallits as if they were expensive 757's. So that is the pay off for the two airline companies.

Again I wonder why two aircraft are now part of the picture, again this adds to my suspicion that you may have only read the last handful of posts and even then missed important words like "pentagon"
quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Edited to add, why pay millions to start a new life and risk blabbing? just pay the damn compensation for deaths

What deaths?

The 64 you mentioned!



Real0ne -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:01:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Please let me know how you would create the image of a 757 into a large building without actually doing so bearing in mind the need for absolute secrecy


you do not need to.  That is the beauty of the magician.   Think in terms of a magician, while a person is watching one thing they are doing somehting else.  Then add disinfo and propaganda and plus a country full of idiots i mean y9ou would not believe how ignorant so many people are, well lets say uneducated more correctly said.

Hell you can do anything you want when you can go unchallenged or lightly challenged.   plant a few witness's have your buddy chertoff and meigs do a disinfo write up, give them a promotion and nice cush government job with a pension and fringe benifits, who wouldnt bite on that?



Sinergy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:04:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy
Please let me know how you would create the image of a 757 into a large building without actually doing so bearing in mind the need for absolute secrecy


you do not need to.  That is the beauty of the magician.   Think in terms of a magician, while a person is watching one thing they are doing somehting else.  Then add disinfo and propaganda and plus a country full of idiots i mean y9ou would not believe how ignorant so many people are, well lets say uneducated more correctly said.

Hell you can do anything you want when you can go unchallenged or lightly challenged.   plant a few witness's have your buddy chertoff and meigs do a disinfo write up, give them a promotion and nice cush government job with a pension and fringe benifits, who wouldnt bite on that?



I would not.  I have not when asked to do so in the past.

Thank you for letting everybody know you would.

Sinergy



sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/28/2007 6:04:14 PM)

Real, you really are missing my point

WHY PULL AN ILLUSION IF YOU CAN DO IT FOR REAL?


edited for carp sellping



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875