Scientific Forums


Pages: (768) « First ... 676 677 [678] 679 680 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Closed Topic · Start new topic · Start new poll


> 9/11 Events - New thread
adoucette
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 01:12 AM


Illegitimi non carborundum
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 12894
Joined: 14-April 05

Positive Feedback: 77.59%
Feedback Score: 205


The CT'ers are obviously getting DESPERATE.

As this year draws to a close we watch their "Scholars for Truth" disintegrate with each side calling the other side names and accusing each other of lying.

Now we have them postulating that the effect of a 450 mph 767 running into the towers was only MINOR damage, that the insulation wouldn't get disloged or that the fires were not severe.

To make it even funnier, they resort to using the NIST model results and then claim that THEY can interpret them better than the NIST scientists.

TOO FUNNY

Arthur



--------------------
"We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point; that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"

Thomas B. Macaulay
Top
quicknthedead
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 02:06 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 393
Joined: 15-July 06

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -17


For once and for all, the Pavel Hlava video is based in fraud.
The story behind the video purports it was done by civilians in an SUV, but the reflection off the window in front of the vehicle proves it was an emergency fire vehicle.

Here below are 7 clips taken from the video that prove this.
link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9sM7N1Hz9k

You can enlarge each clip by clicking on it.

Clip #1:
The rear window of the target car in question is the one at the extreme, bottom-right of the picture.
In this first clip, a partial view of this rear window is only darkness.
user posted image

Clip #2:
Now a white undefined image can be seen in the darkness.
user posted image

Clip #3:
Now the white image is now defined and identified. It is the right rear-end of the car in front of the target car (looking through the window of the target car). However, this right rear-end/white image is surrounded on its entire right side (from top to bottom) by another undefined image, which consists of three basic hues: white area at top, dark area in the middle, white area at bottom.
This unidentified image appears not to be a part of the view of the car in front of the target car.
user posted image

Clip #4:
The hues of the unidentified image are now more distinct: (from top to bottom) white, red, white.
It is definitely not a part of the view of the car in front of the target car.
user posted image

Clip #5:
This 2nd image is even more distinct now and appears to be a rectangular red and white reflection off the window of the target car.
user posted image

Clip #6:
This 2nd image is now identified. It is a reflection of an emergency fire vehicle. In addition, by comparing Clips #3 and #6, it is evident the headlights of this vehicle are superimposed over the right rear-end of the car in front of the target car (its headlights appear to change in brightness due to swinging in behind the cars in front of it). Also, the suggestion that the red found in the reflection is due to the upper brake light of the target car {a BMW} is without merit, as can be seen from studying both Clips #6 and #7 in conjunction with one to the other. A red brake light would not take up this much area in the reflection.
user posted image

Clip #7:
Seeing is believing. I recommend all 7 images be brought up/enlarged, and then click each, one at a time, doing all in a row from 1 to 7. The red and white emergency fire vehicle can easily be seen in the reflection.
user posted image



In addition, this emergency fire vehicle can be plainly seen in the following link. It is found in the small moving video found inside the larger picture. The video plays over and over.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel/reflection2.htm

To repeat, this video, based in fraud, is untrustworthy. The only question is how deep does the fraud run. Among other things, tampering of the video’s timestamping is a real possibility. Direct inspection of the original videotape is required.

Therefore, no one has yet to bring any evidence forward to show that the final radar data time of 8:46:40 for AA Flt 11 found in the 9/11 Commission’s final report is erroneous:
“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: http://www.studyof911.com/articles/mirrored/craigfurlong/

The debunking site 911myths.com states similar disinformation as found at this forum by the OCT proponents regarding the accuracy of the radar data. They attempt to dissemble by taking selected facts out of context without giving all the information. Piecemeal data suits their aim to demean the accuracy of the reports from the NTSB and the Commission. Their report can be found here:
http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_proof_.html

911myths.com writes:
QUOTE
Although "Seismic Proof" earlier portrayed the radar times as accurate "to the second", the NTSB paint a very different picture. The radars didn't all use synchronized times, for instance, and in this case there were large offsets to be considered. An "effort" had to be made to account for the "error" in each radar set. And as they point out, ASR radar doesn't provide continuous data anyway: records are made "approximately every 4½ seconds". There is plenty of scope here for errors of considerably more than a second. Without having access to the raw radar data, and technicians skilled in its interpretation, though, it's hard to see how we can assess the accuracy of this calculation.


They fail to point out, however, that this same report states that all radar tracks were synchronized to UTC.

I have presented an abundance of evidence at this forum that shows the radar time is accurate.

The 911myths.com report also attempts to dissuade concerning the reflection found in the Pavel Hlava video (they even point to this forum for corroboration).

The truth is another matter as facts speak for themselves.
Top
Grumpy
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 02:14 AM


Curmudgeon of Lucidity
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 4329
Joined: 25-August 05

Positive Feedback: 75.44%
Feedback Score: 141


metamars

QUOTE
Oh, yeah. We also found out that Grumpy, who claims an IQ of 160 and a bachelor's degree in physics and chemistry, is afraid of math and gets confused between energy and velocity, and their dependence on height and time.

Why do I have trouble believing him? Well, fortunately for us, Isaac Newton had no such problems, though he is also believed to have had a high IQ.


Newton was also an avid alchemist, having a high IQ means you are very good at taking IQ tests, not that you are competent at all pursuits. Math gives me headaches, it's not that I cannot do it, but that it requires great effort, which at my age I find not to be worth it. I have never been one to think in mathematics as some do.

Nevertheless, when you double the speed of a mass, the energy goes up by four times according to the equation E=1/2mv\2(energy equals one half mass time velocity squared), so, just as I said, The energy contained in the falling mass WAS UNSTOPPABLE by the remaining structure once it fell the distance of one floor(3.2 meters) and the faster that mass moved, the less resistent(as a percentage of the top mass total energy)the remaining building was, thus the top mass accelerated at ~2/3 the acceleration of gravity all the way down.

Airplane hit building, building fall down.

Grumpy cool.gif


--------------------
Rationality, logic, and civil debate fail when confronted with blunt stupidity. Kaeroll

Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945

“Admittedly, people of a theological bent are often chronically incapable of distinguishing what is true from what they’d like to be true.” Richard Dawkins.

"Fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom, but it's end." Clarence Darrow

"Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down
theism." Richard Dawkins
Top
Grumpy
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 02:26 AM


Curmudgeon of Lucidity
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 4329
Joined: 25-August 05

Positive Feedback: 75.44%
Feedback Score: 141


quicknthedead

You and your paper are toast. adoucette proved your claim of fraud in the Pavel video is just the third brake light of a BMW. Give it up, your credibility is NIL, and the only ones who you will convince are the brain dead tin hatters who will clutch at the least little straw.

This is really painful to watch, the mental breakdown of a true believer. The magic smoke has been let out of your iPod, it's burnt, that tune will never play again. Change your name and move on with your life, find something else to obcess about.

Grumpy cool.gif


--------------------
Rationality, logic, and civil debate fail when confronted with blunt stupidity. Kaeroll

Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945

“Admittedly, people of a theological bent are often chronically incapable of distinguishing what is true from what they’d like to be true.” Richard Dawkins.

"Fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom, but it's end." Clarence Darrow

"Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down
theism." Richard Dawkins
Top
blue74
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 03:01 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 412
Joined: 9-October 06

Positive Feedback: 80%
Feedback Score: 3


QUOTE (quicknthedead @ Jan 1 2007, 02:06 AM)
For once and for all, the Pavel Hlava video is based in fraud.
The story behind the video purports it was done by civilians in an SUV, but the reflection off the window in front of the vehicle proves it was an emergency fire vehicle.

Here below are 7 clips taken from the video that prove this.
link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9sM7N1Hz9k

Sorry. I'm not convinced either.

The looping video bit done by webfairy shows the lower tail light on the BMW of similar color to the uper brake light.

There is a suggestion that this is caused by processing enhancment. The white part looks just like the rear of the car in front, but processed to look whiter. The red part looks just like the tail light (not lit) but processed to enhance color/brightness.

Apart from the visual evidence, there is no logical surface about to cause the postulated reflection - front/rear glass is at the wrong angle and being curved will not produce a life sized reflection anyway.

Rear view mirror is the only possible culprit that could be in the right plane to reflect, but it would have to be malaligned.

I have not been impressed with webfairy's work to date.

(And I will try stay off purely speculative politics, metamars. There's enough physics to keep us busy.)
Top
quicknthedead
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 03:20 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 393
Joined: 15-July 06

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -17


QUOTE (Grumpy @ Dec 31 2006, 07:26 PM)
quicknthedead

You and your paper are toast. adoucette proved your claim of fraud in the Pavel video is just the third brake light of a BMW. Give it up, your credibility is NIL, and the only ones who you will convince are the brain dead tin hatters who will clutch at the least little straw.

This is really painful to watch, the mental breakdown of a true believer. The magic smoke has been let out of your iPod, it's burnt, that tune will never play again. Change your name and move on with your life, find something else to obcess about.

Grumpy cool.gif

You are pathetic in your posts, Grumpy.

You have no concept of facts and evidence.

And your dog can't hunt.
Top
Grumpy
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 03:38 AM


Curmudgeon of Lucidity
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 4329
Joined: 25-August 05

Positive Feedback: 75.44%
Feedback Score: 141


quicknthedead

And your dog is dead, loser.

You've been proven a faker and liar, you never will recover any credibility with anyone.

The Pavel video proves your paper is good only for cleanup after a good crap. You're a joke and a laughingstock, in a pathetic sort of way. Every town has the town fool, I guess the internet now has one and his name is Craig, who cannot read a siesmic chart, doesn't know the meaning of approximate and knows nothing about how radars work, hell, you can't even realize that the reflection from glass takes a certain angle(hint, it's not the angle of the back window of a BMW, though the third tailight does reflect a nice shade of red)

Grumpy cool.gif

PS Don't bother replying, nothing you say is of any value.


--------------------
Rationality, logic, and civil debate fail when confronted with blunt stupidity. Kaeroll

Nature is not constrained by your lack of imagination.

"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945

“Admittedly, people of a theological bent are often chronically incapable of distinguishing what is true from what they’d like to be true.” Richard Dawkins.

"Fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom, but it's end." Clarence Darrow

"Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down
theism." Richard Dawkins
Top
quicknthedead
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 03:48 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 393
Joined: 15-July 06

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -17


QUOTE (blue74 @ Dec 31 2006, 08:01 PM)
Sorry. I'm not convinced either.

The looping video bit done by webfairy shows the lower tail light on the BMW of similar color to the uper brake light.

There is a suggestion that this is caused by processing enhancment. The white part looks just like the rear of the car in front, but processed to look whiter. The red part looks just like the tail light (not lit) but processed to enhance color/brightness.

Apart from the visual evidence, there is no logical surface about to cause the postulated reflection - front/rear glass is at the wrong angle and being curved will not produce a life sized reflection anyway.

Rear view mirror is the only possible culprit that could be in the right plane to reflect, but it would have to be malaligned.

I have not been impressed with webfairy's work to date.

(And I will try stay off purely speculative politics, metamars. There's enough physics to keep us busy.)


Pardon me for using a site of someone you don't care for.
Why don't you just forget about the webfairy. I have nothing to do with with her or her ideas.

All anyone has to do is look at the 7 clips provided that prove a reflection of an emergency fire vehicle. This evidence of fraud is plain to see. I took these clips directly from the Hlava video myself.

Your thought on the angle of view and other ideas have nothing to do with the evidence before your eyes.

You're right, stick with the physics area because you have no way around this real evidence. You are sadly mistaken, blue74; you either need glasses or you are COINTEL...either way, your credibility just fell big-time in my estimation.


Top
Al Kyda
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 03:58 AM


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 168
Joined: 29-September 06

Positive Feedback: 75%
Feedback Score: 2


QUOTE (quicknthedead @ Jan 1 2007, 02:06 AM)
For once and for all, the Pavel Hlava video is based in fraud.
The story behind the video purports it was done by civilians in an SUV, but the reflection off the window in front of the vehicle proves it was an emergency fire vehicle.


"I had to think for a minute... What cruel game was he playing?" -- Nick Danger, Third Eye
Top
quicknthedead
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 04:03 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 393
Joined: 15-July 06

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -17


QUOTE (Grumpy @ Dec 31 2006, 08:38 PM)
quicknthedead

And your dog is dead, loser.

You've been proven a faker and liar, you never will recover any credibility with anyone.

The Pavel video proves your paper is good only for cleanup after a good crap. You're a joke and a laughingstock, in a pathetic sort of way. Every town has the town fool, I guess the internet now has one and his name is Craig, who cannot read a siesmic chart, doesn't know the meaning of approximate and knows nothing about how radars work, hell, you can't even realize that the reflection from glass takes a certain angle(hint, it's not the angle of the back window of a BMW, though the third tailight does reflect a nice shade of red)

Grumpy cool.gif

PS Don't bother replying, nothing you say is of any value.


My, such a wordsmith.

But ever any substance?

The paper still stands, and the time of 8:46:40 is still real and accurate.

Not you, not anyone has disproved that time, Grumpy.

I asked Doc, "What did the NTSB base the 8:46:40 on?"

Doc's answer was it was a moot point because of the Hlava video.
Well, the Hlava video has fraud written all over it, and Doc is the one who is mute.

How about you, Grumpy? What did the NTSB base the 8:46:40 on?

Can you give a real, factual answer, or are you afraid too?

I know explosions happened in WTC1 before the plane hit.

That denotes coverup.

That denotes complicity.
Top
Common Sense
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 04:13 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1843
Joined: 25-December 05

Positive Feedback: 58.82%
Feedback Score: 11


This guy is worse than Christipher. Heh!

Actually, I even see the licence plate of the car in front! tongue.gif

This post has been edited by Common Sense on Jan 1 2007, 04:24 AM


--------------------
Throughout history, [reason] has been mans only true savior. - Common Sense (TM)

"Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!" - Groucho Marx

http://www.debunking911.com
http://www.911myths.com
http://www.jod911.com

SCHOLARGATE IS COMING.....
Top
Foxx
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 04:28 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1547
Joined: 19-October 05

Positive Feedback: 40%
Feedback Score: -7


Just in case many newcomers or other readers may not recognize the old nemesis of truth 'CS'...

This group-entity refer to themselves with user names such as 'CommOn Sense' ... (sometimes 'CommEn Sense'; amongst many others which try to imply some common perception of rationality.

(For the record, I refer to these posters as "CS" because I find it offensive for such liars to associate themselves with higher intelligence qualities such as true common sense).

The authors of "debunking911.com" are a prime example of the lying and twisting of the whole OCT genre.

They have often posted (on this thread), a particular page from the 'debunking' site where they attempt to 'debunk' the statements of fire-fighters who spoke of bombs, through instead --- blaming Alternative CTs as having 'misunderstood' or 'deliberately twisted' the words of the firefighters (and numerous other first responders), who spoke of bombs in the buildings.

On this page... (http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm)...

They speak of the 'motives' of alternative theorists in the following disparaging terms...

QUOTE

Now the WHOLE QUOTE... without the taking out of context...

And here is the outright LIE...

These CT sites are dishonest...

Here is the other lie, they split up those quotes to make it seem...


I pointed out about 6 months ago that these authors were hypocritical, in that they were doing exactly what they implied others were doing.

A specific example of this was in reference to the testimony of Captain Karin Deshore.

In first quoting her, (in emphasized type) they state...

QUOTE

MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.


I see they have modified the page somewhat after my originally pointing out their hypocrisy, however they are still implying the same idea (on that page)... that Captain Deshore 'admits' she had her back to the building, so their implication was / is she couldn't possibly have seen red flashes sequentially erupting and circumscribing the building (exactly as happens in many controlled demolitions).

What they did to make it seem that Deshore was just some conspiracy idiot who was 'lying'... was to combine separate statements made by Deshore from different parts of her witness testimony.

A serious and deliberate lie meant to attack the 'messenger' rather than actually addressing the 'message'.

In the first testimony (when Deshore said her back was turned to the building) she was refering to the FIRST collapse (WTC 2). The later testimony (refering to the red flashes circumscribing the building on one particular lower floor) was in reference to her experience regarding the initiation of 'collapse' of the second tower falling (WTC 1).

I have pointed out this flagrant disrespect for truth and twisting of factual evidence directly to 'CS' previously, and their refusal to turn away from this LIE clearly demonstrates their malicious twisting of truth.

Furthermore given that 911debunking maligns 'CT sites' for...

QUOTE

"These CT sites are dishonest...

Here is the other lie, they split up those quotes to make it seem...


...Yet, utilizes this exact same tactic on the very same page, it is blatantly obvious that this group are hypocrites in the extreme.

I do agree with metamars that the sudden re-appearance of CS at this thread, (coinciding with the refutation of the more technical OCTs here), probably signals the increase of spam and character assassination as a change in tactics by these organized OCTs (aka - suspected employees of 3-letter organizations who are literally following their 'leader's admonition that "we should not tolerate conspiracy theorists")



--------------------
Hold ON,
Hold on to yourself...
for (the TRUTH) is gonna hurt like hell.


http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6714356054823827684&q=911
Send PM ·
Top
Common Sense
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 04:49 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1843
Joined: 25-December 05

Positive Feedback: 58.82%
Feedback Score: 11


I see Faux is still character assassinating in the place of facts. He'll never change. Heh!

If his back is toward the building he didn't SEE an explosion did he... He HEARD a loud sound which SOUNDED like an explosion. The point is he realized later it was the explosive sound of the building coming down. Proof is he isn't leading group pushing for the investigation into the mass murder of 3000 people by the government is he...

Of course you know that, your group of conspiracy theorists will twist anything anyone says. You and Bush are so much alike it's scarey. Heh!

When I used the other names I told everyone who I was. Tell me how that's part of a group you M@R@N..

This post has been edited by Common Sense on Jan 1 2007, 04:57 AM


--------------------
Throughout history, [reason] has been mans only true savior. - Common Sense (TM)

"Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!" - Groucho Marx

http://www.debunking911.com
http://www.911myths.com
http://www.jod911.com

SCHOLARGATE IS COMING.....
Top
RealityCheck
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 05:32 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 6426
Joined: 1-July 05

Positive Feedback: 70%
Feedback Score: 9


QUOTE (Foxx @ Jan 1 2007, 04:28 AM)
....
....
....
....
....
....



Oh dear. How sad. Never mind. I'm still optimistic that an honest/undeluded Foxx (and a rehabilitated "quicknthedead" also) will manifest sometime this new year.

That 'blanked' Foxx quote was my new year's present to you, Palpatane!...I know how much Foxx's posts turn your stomach even the FIRST time round, hehehe.

Cheers and Happy New Year to all!

RC.
.

PS: CommonSense....Hi!...long time no see! How's things? Take it easy over NYE partying, OK? hehehe. RC.
.

This post has been edited by RealityCheck on Jan 1 2007, 05:35 AM


--------------------
RealityCheck is a terrorist, crybaby and poster of anti-scientific crap.
RealityCheck is the sound of one hand wanking.
Top
Foxx
Posted: Jan 1 2007, 05:37 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1547
Joined: 19-October 05

Positive Feedback: 40%
Feedback Score: -7


QUOTE

by CS

If his back is toward the building he didn't SEE an explosion did he... He HEARD a loud sound which SOUNDED like an explosion. The point is he realized later it was the explosive sound of the building coming down.


WRONG !

Pretending to be just an idiot, CS ???

As I advised you before. READ the testimony...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110192.PDF.

Deshore's back was turned when WTC 2 came down. She did NOT have her back turned, but was LOOKING DIRECTLY AT WTC 1 when she reported seeing the flashes which circumscribed the building on one of the lower levels at the initiation of collapse. Two totally different instances from the testimony, which you have combined to attack that messenger.

But you already know that, which means you are deliberately lying, and spreading lies.

Some OCTs are inculpable in their ignorance, but you are NOT one of those.

This post has been edited by Foxx on Jan 1 2007, 05:47 AM


--------------------
Hold ON,
Hold on to yourself...
for (the TRUTH) is gonna hurt like hell.


http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6714356054823827684&q=911
Send PM ·
Top

Topic Options Pages: (768) « First ... 676 677 [678] 679 680 ... Last »

Closed Topic · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use