Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #524744 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-05 15:31 -0500 |
| Last post | 2015-10-06 12:09 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 158 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-05 15:31 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 11:32 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 13:11 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 14:58 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-06 16:16 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 04:09 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-06 10:41 -0700
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 14:59 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-06 15:50 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-06 21:17 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-06 16:50 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-06 18:50 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-06 16:32 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 00:31 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 18:11 +1100
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 05:47 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 17:54 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 19:15 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 19:59 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 20:04 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 21:17 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 22:18 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-08 15:59 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 18:03 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-08 20:18 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:18 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 23:54 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 05:21 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 10:31 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 17:07 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-08 17:13 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 18:18 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-08 20:23 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 23:58 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-09 12:54 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-09 09:09 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-10 19:44 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-09 12:31 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-09 09:04 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 14:39 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-10 20:13 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-09 19:33 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-09 17:10 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 19:54 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 18:36 -0700
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:37 -0500
Re: Debunking DWEEBunkers "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-10 08:01 -0400
Re: Debunking DWEEBunkers "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 13:34 -0500
Re: Debunking DWEEBunkers Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-10 20:11 -0400
Re: Debunking DWEEBunkers "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 04:06 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-10 15:41 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 13:35 -0500
HOH versus OCO noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 16:38 -0700
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-10 20:14 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-11 03:56 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-10 23:07 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-11 01:49 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 04:14 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-11 13:28 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-13 15:21 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-13 17:03 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 09:34 +1100
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-15 02:52 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-14 04:28 +0200
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-15 02:50 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 04:30 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-15 02:50 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 03:55 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-15 09:54 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-15 09:59 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-15 18:11 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-16 17:51 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-18 06:36 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-18 06:45 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-18 14:07 +0100
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-19 15:15 +0000
p.m is cOOl noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 15:17 -0700
Re: p.m is cOOl noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 19:24 -0700
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-17 18:17 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-18 06:53 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-18 07:11 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-18 14:07 +0100
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 10:37 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-18 11:27 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-18 14:54 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-18 20:21 +0100
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-19 14:45 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 10:37 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-10-15 20:18 +0200
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 03:46 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-15 14:34 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-16 23:52 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-17 01:56 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-17 05:53 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-17 09:55 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-17 17:15 +0100
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-17 12:22 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-17 13:16 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 10:36 -0700
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 14:29 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 04:00 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-17 06:05 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-17 10:56 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-17 17:21 +0100
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-17 14:47 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-17 15:07 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-17 21:03 +0100
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-17 16:16 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-17 23:19 +0100
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-17 18:20 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 15:43 -0700
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-13 21:18 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-15 02:54 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 13:52 -0700
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-10 19:45 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:43 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 00:01 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 05:28 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 04:39 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 08:42 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:37 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 17:13 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 10:25 +1100
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 23:02 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 14:51 +1100
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-08 10:52 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-07 17:12 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 20:05 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 21:13 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-08 09:02 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-08 10:57 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 17:08 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 08:46 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 10:30 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 12:29 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-09 13:48 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-09 16:27 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 20:18 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 20:40 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 20:43 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-07 21:16 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-10-07 22:23 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-08 03:02 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 14:54 +1100
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-08 04:58 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-08 10:54 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-10-08 16:55 +0000
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-09 10:30 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 04:37 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-10 11:44 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 13:35 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-11 10:20 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-08 09:32 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> - 2015-10-08 17:07 -0400
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 20:28 -0700
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-10-08 15:38 -0500
Re: Debunking Popular Mechanics "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 04:09 -0500
p.m noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 12:09 -0700
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-13 17:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <m8sq1bth2ov2jvrac8c05asa054me22hh3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526039 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:21:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:mvdo5a$v21$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>news:mvcml0$7l8$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> writes: >> >>>>>Bast is stupid. And that's being kind. :) >>>> >>>> yeah, having an IQ above room temperature disqualifies you from being a >>>> 9/11 kook... >> >>>That coming from people that think an aluminum egg shell should leave >>>roadrunner cutouts in the Twin Towers is hilarious. >> >> K00ktard, at such speeds it's the momentum and the change of momentum >> (force) applied over a small area that determines what happens. The mass >> of the airplane at 500 mph applied to a relatively small area of cheap, >> thin steel, there's no way for the steel to resist that. > >ROTFLMAO because the 500 mph at 1000 feet above sea level is bullshit. Jets >can not fly that fast where the air is thick You couldn't be any more ignorant, Roger. Ever see an air show? Ever have the jets fly by at tree level and break the sound barrier? Just shut it. You *never* know what you're talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 09:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <auvq1bt7d7kqrq1kaq2cr762gphqi4ipoq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526046 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:03:48 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:21:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:mvdo5a$v21$1@pcls7.std.com... >>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>> >>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>>news:mvcml0$7l8$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>> Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> writes: >>> >>>>>>Bast is stupid. And that's being kind. :) >>>>> >>>>> yeah, having an IQ above room temperature disqualifies you from being a >>>>> 9/11 kook... >>> >>>>That coming from people that think an aluminum egg shell should leave >>>>roadrunner cutouts in the Twin Towers is hilarious. >>> >>> K00ktard, at such speeds it's the momentum and the change of momentum >>> (force) applied over a small area that determines what happens. The mass >>> of the airplane at 500 mph applied to a relatively small area of cheap, >>> thin steel, there's no way for the steel to resist that. >> >>ROTFLMAO because the 500 mph at 1000 feet above sea level is bullshit. Jets >>can not fly that fast where the air is thick > >You couldn't be any more ignorant, Roger. Ever see an air show? >Ever have the jets fly by at tree level and break the sound barrier? > >Just shut it. You *never* know what you're talking about. As airspeed is a measure of the air pressure entering a pitot port compared to the air pressure at a static port, an airspeed of 500 mph is going to correspond to the same dynamic pressure on the airframe whether you are at 1,000 feet or 40,000 feet. But Rockhead never let a fact get in the way of his crackpot stories. Shill #2 -- Great Tarverisms #6 ...a pitot probe produces Pressure One and Temperature Zero. (ie P!T0) There are only pitostatic ports on a jet transport and zero pitot tubes. When fitted with a pitot tube, for flight test, Boeing airplanes use the redundant information to drive backup gages. But thanks for playing. John alt.disasters.aviation 1 August 2001
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 02:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l8ju1bp315bnb2aie85c6q3goi2hplbu9u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526064 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:34:44 +1100, Government Shill #2 <gov.shill@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:03:48 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> wrote: > >>On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:21:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>news:mvdo5a$v21$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>> >>>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:mvcml0$7l8$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>> Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> writes: >>>> >>>>>>>Bast is stupid. And that's being kind. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> yeah, having an IQ above room temperature disqualifies you from being a >>>>>> 9/11 kook... >>>> >>>>>That coming from people that think an aluminum egg shell should leave >>>>>roadrunner cutouts in the Twin Towers is hilarious. >>>> >>>> K00ktard, at such speeds it's the momentum and the change of momentum >>>> (force) applied over a small area that determines what happens. The mass >>>> of the airplane at 500 mph applied to a relatively small area of cheap, >>>> thin steel, there's no way for the steel to resist that. >>> >>>ROTFLMAO because the 500 mph at 1000 feet above sea level is bullshit. Jets >>>can not fly that fast where the air is thick >> >>You couldn't be any more ignorant, Roger. Ever see an air show? >>Ever have the jets fly by at tree level and break the sound barrier? >> >>Just shut it. You *never* know what you're talking about. > >As airspeed is a measure of the air pressure entering a pitot port compared to >the air pressure at a static port, an airspeed of 500 mph is going to correspond >to the same dynamic pressure on the airframe whether you are at 1,000 feet or >40,000 feet. Ah thank you! I didn't know that. :) >But Rockhead never let a fact get in the way of his crackpot stories. LOL Rockhead. Perfect description. >Shill #2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 04:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9926817ff8a2df642f36e892ef3a1b29@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #526046 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Sarah Ehrett, in <news:m8sq1bth2ov2jvrac8c05asa054me22hh3@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:21:29 -0500, Rocky > (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional > woman-stalking truck crashing kook) <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >> news:mvdo5a$v21$1@pcls7.std.com... >>> Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional >>> woman-stalking truck crashing kook) <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>> news:mvcml0$7l8$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>> Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> writes: >>>>>> Bast is stupid. And that's being kind. :) >>>>> yeah, having an IQ above room temperature disqualifies you from being a >>>>> 9/11 kook... >>>> That coming from people that think an aluminum egg shell should leave >>>> roadrunner cutouts in the Twin Towers is hilarious. >>> K00ktard, at such speeds it's the momentum and the change of momentum >>> (force) applied over a small area that determines what happens. The mass >>> of the airplane at 500 mph applied to a relatively small area of cheap, >>> thin steel, there's no way for the steel to resist that. >> ROTFLMAO because the 500 mph at 1000 feet above sea level is bullshit. Jets >> can not fly that fast where the air is thick > You couldn't be any more ignorant, Roger. Ever see an air show? > Ever have the jets fly by at tree level and break the sound barrier? > > Just shut it. You *never* know what you're talking about. Roger Wittekind is a kooktard of the highest caliber... he spews his retardation without bothering to check whether his retardation can easily be refuted. For instance: <http://911blogger.com/node/20232> ================================== Here are the simple facts relating to the Boeing 767-200’s AA11 & UA175 on 9/11: 1. The speed of the aircraft that hit the WTC was officially reported as between 500mph and 560mph ground speed, calculated by the observed point to point distance covered over time. 2. A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively. 3. The speed of sound at approximate sea level is 761 mph on a standard day. Therefore the theoretical maximum speed the 767-200 can reach intact is, conservatively, .86 x 761mph = 654mph or approximately 100mph above the officially reported speed of AA11 or UA175. 4. The 767-200 is an aircraft that’s considered highly powered due to its requirement to function with only one engine for ETOPS - Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. It is capable of taking off fully loaded with only one engine. 5. Lear’s argument: The normal maximum operating speed at sea level is 360Knots/h (Nautical miles) which equates to 415mph (a lot less than seen on 9/11). It is not, as Lear stated in his interview 360mph, which is considerably less. This maximum operating speed (Indicated) used is something that is decided by Boeing in conjunction with the operator and is not a structural or performance limit; rather it has been determined to be a safe speed at which to operate with commercial passengers on board and to prevent the need for increased maintenance. 6. The 767-200 is considered by pilots and aviation professionals to be a “slick” or “low drag” aircraft, being without bulbous construction and with highly swept 31.5 degree wings. It is well known that it is difficult to keep the 767 aircraft from over-speeding during decent; due to its low drag/high power configuration. The idea of using a Full Flight Simulator accredited by the FAA or relevant authority to test the maximum attainable speed for a Boeing 767-200 is only possible if you have the thousands of dollars it costs to hire such or access to one through your vocation. Well it just so happens that during my training in Sydney I worked in our Simulator Centre as a technician where Australian 767 pilots are trained and certified. The simulators are extremely busy and it is difficult to get access during the day or evening. On the 29th of April, after I had completed my work for the night shift, I drove to the Simulator Facilities at our Flight Training Centre at the Jet Base. I rang the nightshift maintenance staff and gained access to the building at just after 3am on the 29th of April 2009. Being licensed on the 767 and familiar with the facilities, I asked if I might access the simulator under the supervision of the technician on duty, Daniel Gazdoc. He agreed to help and I explained what I wanted to do and why. We boarded the simulator (#2) which was configured as a GE powered 767-300 (marginally different from the 767-200, being a little longer and a bit heavier) and booted up the computers, placing the aircraft at 2000ft above Sydney (This altitude was set to prevent us hitting any obstacles if I lost control, resulting in an insignificant 6mph difference compared to AA11 and UA175; that is compared to Mach speed). We set the aircraft weight to 130,000kgs (286,000 pounds), approximately what it would have been on Flight 11 and 175; that is, lightly loaded. We pulled the aural warning circuit breakers on the overhead panel so that we would not be annoyed by configuration and over-speed warnings during our test. I sat in the pilot’s seat and pushed the throttles to the stops, maintaining wings level and a flat trajectory. To my surprise, within a few seconds we had exceeded the maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots/h (415mph); then the needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the scale. The aircraft continued to increase speed until it reached .86 Mach (654mph), which is its rated airframe Mach speed limit. This makes complete sense, as the manufacturer does not want you to exceed this but wants you to have the maximum thrust available in case of emergency. At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain my attitude once the aircraft was trimmed. Originally thinking I was going to have to do a dive to attain the speeds of AA11 and UA175 due to the engines possibly struggling to make enough thrust, I thought it would be good to see what speed we could achieve in a shallow dive. We took the aircraft to 10,000ft and I commenced a 5 degree dive to 2,000ft and found that the aircraft attained and maintained a speed of .89 Mach (approaching 700mph) and was reasonably easy to control for a non-pilot. We did these tests a couple more times to be sure and then at about 3:45am I left the simulator. Daniel was happy for me to record his name. How accurate are Full Flight Simulators and how does the 767-300 compare to the 200? The flight simulator in which I carried out this test is considered to be an exact representation of the real aircraft. It takes into account all of the test data gathered during the initial flight testing of the 767-200/300 and ongoing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders and observed performance. The instrumentation is exactly the same as the actual aircraft and can be put into service in a real aircraft. The performance of the aircraft engines and the aircraft’s structure are modeled so that a pilot can remain current without doing as many actual flight hours. Basically it is fair to say that what you can do in the simulator can be done in real life, especially as relates to thrust, lift and drag. After doing this test I then spent a few days on the flight line checking whether the average 767 pilot thought that the engines could achieve .86 Mach at sea level considering what I found in the sim. Mostly they agreed--due to the exceptional power to weight ratio of the 767 series, and its low drag airframe, it was probable it could do just that. I also asked the older pilots that flew in the Pratt and Whitney (JT9-7R4) powered 767-200 series aircraft if those aircraft were similar to fly to the 767-300 General Electric (CF6) powered aircraft they now fly (current simulator configuration). They said they were very similar, having a little less power but being a little shorter and lighter, thus giving them nearly exactly the same power to weight ratio. Once again this was no surprise to me as this is what the manufacturer does--matches the airframe to the power plant to meet the performance specifications which are basically the same for 200 and the 300 series Boeing 767. Conclusion: Is it probable that the 767-200 can make 560mph at sea level? It is highly probable that AA11 and UA175 could easily make the airspeeds quoted in the official reports and as seen in the video footage. Here is a summation of the facts: 1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11, 2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of experts, so it stands as fact. 2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 Mach by a margin of .12 Mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of reported speed of .74 Mach. 3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive. 4. Considering the large margins demonstrated here, we can now conclude that the “Impossible Airspeed” stated by John Lear et al. is false. ================================== The B767 is speed-limited below 10,000 feet not because its airframe is unable to handle or attain the speed, but because its windshield isn't strong enough to withstand a bird strike at speeds in excess of 313 knots. So at 560 MPH, the plane would have only been at 0.74 Mach... it's rated to 0.86 Mach. Its engines are easily capable of pushing the plane to that speed and beyond, even at low altitudes, as the Boeing certification flights (which I've previously posted a video of, showing them going to 0.86 Mach at low altitude) prove. The planes usually cruise at altitude at a speed of 0.84 Mach, so the engines are definitely capable of pushing the plane that fast... and they're not even at full throttle. At low altitude, the engines produce a *lot* more thrust. For instance, on a B747-200, the engines are capable of producing 219,000 pounds of thrust, but the plane only requires 55,145 pounds of thrust to maintain cruise speed of 0.86 Mach. The engines on a B767 can push that plane to 0.97 Mach even fully loaded. Poor stupid Roger Wittekind... reality yet again kicks him in the ass. <snicker> -- Roger T.E. Wittekind PO Box 471 167 40th Avenue East Moline, IL 61244 309-755-6374 309-755-6394 Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver from East Moline, IL. Roger Wittekind (aka Rocky), your brain is grasping at straws in trying to avoid admitting *you* *are* *wrong*, and as your brain becomes more and more desperate to avoid the truth we promulgate (which utterly demolishes your kook conspiracy theory), it makes larger and larger leaps of illogic. For instance: ============================= A) You said the satellite uplink inteference seen in the WCBS video *you* *provided* was a nuke EMP, so your broken brain told you they must have buried nukes under the twin towers. Being a simpleton, you believed they just dug shallow holes, dropped the nukes in, smoothed over the concrete and walked away for 33 years. B) Your timing on the WCBS video *you* *provided* between the satellite uplink interference (what you deemed to be a "nuke EMP") and the tower shaking being 12 seconds (it was actually 14 seconds, but kooks can't count) means your supposed nukes had to have been buried from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* below the surface (dependent upon soil composition and thus speed of compressive blast transmission). Never mind that we don't have the technology to drill that deep even today, let alone in 1968. Your broken brain had to yet again change your kooky little conspiracy theory to at least try to orient itself at some acute angle to reality. So no "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years" anymore, now it was "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years". C) You're such a simpleton you didn't realize nukes require periodic replacement of their neutron-source trigger, which naturally radioactively decays over time, building up the decay byproduct xenon, which absorbs neutrons. It's called xenon poisoning. So your broken brain told you that someone had to service those nukes to keep the triggers viable... which means your broken brain was thus *forced* to change from "dug a shallow hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "dug an impossibly deep hole, dropped the nukes in, covered it up, walked away for 33 years", to "built an entire *facility* impossibly deep under the WTC, complete with service personnel and" "4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area the nukes were maintained" (your words). D) Your broken brain then said there were 19 nukes instead of your original 3, because you knew there were 19 instances of satellite uplink interference in the WCBS video *you* *provided*, in which you k'lamed one of the instances of satellite uplink interference was an EMP. And if you k'lame one of them is an EMP, they *all* must be EMPs, so your broken brain now tells you there were 19 nukes detonated in rapid succession... completely ignoring the fact that even one nuke detonation would plunge the city into darkness due to EMP burning out electrical substations, and completely ignoring the fact that no nuclear detonation byproducts were found in the rubble, in the vicinity of the rubble, or anywhere in NYC. E) Now that your broken brain was convinced that the nukes were buried deeply, of course, they had a very wide blast radius, which screwed up your kooky k'lame that they were used to demolish WTC1 and WTC2, but somehow missed WTC3 and WTC4... so your broken brain conceived that the nuclear weapons could somehow dig themselves up from that miles-deep facility to just below the WTC towers prior to exploding, in order to make their cone of destruction smaller. Nevermind that your broken brain said they dug through 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* of *solid* *bedrock* in *12* *seconds*. LOL F) So I've led you by the nose in a full circle... if those bombs your broken brain is telling you existed *did* dig their way up to underneath the WTC twin towers before detonating (they didn't... first because there were no nukes, second because it'd be impossible, but for the sake of argument, we'll continue), that leads right back to your calculation of the time between your claimed "EMP" (the satellite uplink interference on the WCBS video *you* *provided*) and the time the building shook, which is pretty much where we started. So I've proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility... saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode, where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP") and the shaking of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL H) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID: <e3f0e4f638e69c3db43076c8b842db91@dizum.com>), and a new era of widespread nuclear terrorism has arrived... proof positive that you're off your meds, Roget Wittekind. I) To back up yor "nuclear terrorism era" k'lame in H) above, you're now further k'laming there is such a thing as a magical "detonator" that causes a nuclear weapon to be a "clean nuke" which expulses no EMP and leaves no radiological contamination... heaping proof upon proof that you're off your meds, Roger Wittekind. J) To explain away the lack of any evidence of your k'lame of a "nuclear terrorism era", your broken brain has conceived that your magical nukes are employing "Hushaboom technology" (your words) to silence them. K) Your broken brain has now stated (MID: <YtWdnQvC1PTFNWjInZ2dnUU7-NmdnZ2d@giganews.com>) that "liquid freon in the air conditioners helped to turn the nuke into a themo [sic] nuclear bomb" (your words). Complete and utter nonsense from your thoroughly broken schizophrenic brain, Roger. L) In further expanding your delusion, your broken brain has k'lamed that the reason for the WTC Memorial Lights is to cover up Cherenkov radiation at the WTC site as a result of a nuclear detonation, kook blather which I utterly destroy here: MID: <1f304ece6ae3cd30c1bee10ad300b720@dizum.com> by proving that Cherenkov radiation in air can only happen with highly energetic beta radiation; that beta particles due to nuclear fission aren't energetic enough to cause Cherenkov radiation in air; and that even with beta particles of maximum possible energy, the Cherenkov radiation in air would only extend ~2 meters above the ground. That's not taking into account that the WTC Memorial Lights are currently at the *top* of the 7-story Battery Parking Garage on Morris Street and are lit only once a year on 11 Sep. Before the new Goldman Sachs building was built, the lights were in vacant lot 26 on West Side Highway near the WTC site (on which the new Goldman Sachs building now sits). They were *never* at the WTC site. Moron. LOL IOW, your broken brain is far too stupid to discern fantasy from reality, so you've caught yourself in an unresolvable logic hole. And the harder you try to resolve it, the more you run around in little tard-circles, banging your head with your fist and doing your very best Rainman impersonation. I can twist your brain into a Gordian Knot with my knowledge. And I've just barely even started, I haven't even worked up a sweat yet. ============================= Moron. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 02:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <s5ju1bdrutrfvqu2aq71o71jf9a0ot5fr6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526090 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 04:28:44 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > >Sarah Ehrett, in <news:m8sq1bth2ov2jvrac8c05asa054me22hh3@4ax.com> did >thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:21:29 -0500, Rocky >> (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional >> woman-stalking truck crashing kook) <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>> news:mvdo5a$v21$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional >>>> woman-stalking truck crashing kook) <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>>>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:mvcml0$7l8$1@pcls7.std.com... > >>>>>> Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> writes: > >>>>>>> Bast is stupid. And that's being kind. :) > >>>>>> yeah, having an IQ above room temperature disqualifies you from being a >>>>>> 9/11 kook... > >>>>> That coming from people that think an aluminum egg shell should leave >>>>> roadrunner cutouts in the Twin Towers is hilarious. > >>>> K00ktard, at such speeds it's the momentum and the change of momentum >>>> (force) applied over a small area that determines what happens. The mass >>>> of the airplane at 500 mph applied to a relatively small area of cheap, >>>> thin steel, there's no way for the steel to resist that. > >>> ROTFLMAO because the 500 mph at 1000 feet above sea level is bullshit. Jets >>> can not fly that fast where the air is thick > >> You couldn't be any more ignorant, Roger. Ever see an air show? >> Ever have the jets fly by at tree level and break the sound barrier? >> >> Just shut it. You *never* know what you're talking about. > >Roger Wittekind is a kooktard of the highest caliber... he spews his >retardation without bothering to check whether his retardation can >easily be refuted. > >For instance: ><http://911blogger.com/node/20232> >================================== >Here are the simple facts relating to the Boeing 767-200’s AA11 & >UA175 on 9/11: > >1. The speed of the aircraft that hit the WTC was officially reported >as between 500mph and 560mph ground speed, calculated by the observed >point to point distance covered over time. > >2. A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of >sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as >the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme >high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the >airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively. > >3. The speed of sound at approximate sea level is 761 mph on a >standard day. Therefore the theoretical maximum speed the 767-200 can >reach intact is, conservatively, .86 x 761mph = 654mph or >approximately 100mph above the officially reported speed of AA11 or >UA175. > >4. The 767-200 is an aircraft that’s considered highly powered due to >its requirement to function with only one engine for ETOPS - >Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. It is >capable of taking off fully loaded with only one engine. > >5. Lear’s argument: The normal maximum operating speed at sea level is >360Knots/h (Nautical miles) which equates to 415mph (a lot less than >seen on 9/11). It is not, as Lear stated in his interview 360mph, >which is considerably less. This maximum operating speed (Indicated) >used is something that is decided by Boeing in conjunction with the >operator and is not a structural or performance limit; rather it has >been determined to be a safe speed at which to operate with commercial >passengers on board and to prevent the need for increased maintenance. > >6. The 767-200 is considered by pilots and aviation professionals to >be a “slick� or “low drag� aircraft, being without bulbous >construction and with highly swept 31.5 degree wings. It is well known >that it is difficult to keep the 767 aircraft from over-speeding >during decent; due to its low drag/high power configuration. > >The idea of using a Full Flight Simulator accredited by the FAA or >relevant authority to test the maximum attainable speed for a Boeing >767-200 is only possible if you have the thousands of dollars it costs >to hire such or access to one through your vocation. Well it just so >happens that during my training in Sydney I worked in our Simulator >Centre as a technician where Australian 767 pilots are trained and >certified. The simulators are extremely busy and it is difficult to >get access during the day or evening. On the 29th of April, after I >had completed my work for the night shift, I drove to the Simulator >Facilities at our Flight Training Centre at the Jet Base. I rang the >nightshift maintenance staff and gained access to the building at just >after 3am on the 29th of April 2009. Being licensed on the 767 and >familiar with the facilities, I asked if I might access the simulator >under the supervision of the technician on duty, Daniel Gazdoc. He >agreed to help and I explained what I wanted to do and why. > >We boarded the simulator (#2) which was configured as a GE powered >767-300 (marginally different from the 767-200, being a little longer >and a bit heavier) and booted up the computers, placing the aircraft >at 2000ft above Sydney (This altitude was set to prevent us hitting >any obstacles if I lost control, resulting in an insignificant 6mph >difference compared to AA11 and UA175; that is compared to Mach >speed). We set the aircraft weight to 130,000kgs (286,000 pounds), >approximately what it would have been on Flight 11 and 175; that is, >lightly loaded. We pulled the aural warning circuit breakers on the >overhead panel so that we would not be annoyed by configuration and >over-speed warnings during our test. I sat in the pilot’s seat and >pushed the throttles to the stops, maintaining wings level and a flat >trajectory. To my surprise, within a few seconds we had exceeded the >maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots/h (415mph); then the >needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at >over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the >Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the >scale. The aircraft continued to increase speed until it reached .86 >Mach (654mph), which is its rated airframe Mach speed limit. This >makes complete sense, as the manufacturer does not want you to exceed >this but wants you to have the maximum thrust available in case of >emergency. At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to >maintain my attitude once the aircraft was trimmed. > >Originally thinking I was going to have to do a dive to attain the >speeds of AA11 and UA175 due to the engines possibly struggling to >make enough thrust, I thought it would be good to see what speed we >could achieve in a shallow dive. We took the aircraft to 10,000ft and >I commenced a 5 degree dive to 2,000ft and found that the aircraft >attained and maintained a speed of .89 Mach (approaching 700mph) and >was reasonably easy to control for a non-pilot. We did these tests a >couple more times to be sure and then at about 3:45am I left the >simulator. Daniel was happy for me to record his name. > >How accurate are Full Flight Simulators and how does the 767-300 >compare to the 200? > >The flight simulator in which I carried out this test is considered to >be an exact representation of the real aircraft. It takes into account >all of the test data gathered during the initial flight testing of the >767-200/300 and ongoing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders and >observed performance. The instrumentation is exactly the same as the >actual aircraft and can be put into service in a real aircraft. The >performance of the aircraft engines and the aircraft’s structure are >modeled so that a pilot can remain current without doing as many >actual flight hours. Basically it is fair to say that what you can do >in the simulator can be done in real life, especially as relates to >thrust, lift and drag. > >After doing this test I then spent a few days on the flight line >checking whether the average 767 pilot thought that the engines could >achieve .86 Mach at sea level considering what I found in the sim. >Mostly they agreed--due to the exceptional power to weight ratio of >the 767 series, and its low drag airframe, it was probable it could do >just that. I also asked the older pilots that flew in the Pratt and >Whitney (JT9-7R4) powered 767-200 series aircraft if those aircraft >were similar to fly to the 767-300 General Electric (CF6) powered >aircraft they now fly (current simulator configuration). They said >they were very similar, having a little less power but being a little >shorter and lighter, thus giving them nearly exactly the same power to >weight ratio. Once again this was no surprise to me as this is what >the manufacturer does--matches the airframe to the power plant to meet >the performance specifications which are basically the same for 200 >and the 300 series Boeing 767. > >Conclusion: Is it probable that the 767-200 can make 560mph at sea >level? > >It is highly probable that AA11 and UA175 could easily make the >airspeeds quoted in the official reports and as seen in the video >footage. Here is a summation of the facts: > >1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11, >2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or >team of experts, so it stands as fact. > >2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 Mach by >a margin of .12 Mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of >reported speed of .74 Mach. > >3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight >Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot >certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an >airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It >was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow >dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far >greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph >or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight >conditions were simulated in a shallow dive. > >4. Considering the large margins demonstrated here, we can now >conclude that the “Impossible Airspeed� stated by John Lear et al. is >false. >================================== > >The B767 is speed-limited below 10,000 feet not because its airframe >is unable to handle or attain the speed, but because its windshield >isn't strong enough to withstand a bird strike at speeds in excess of >313 knots. > >So at 560 MPH, the plane would have only been at 0.74 Mach... it's >rated to 0.86 Mach. Its engines are easily capable of pushing the >plane to that speed and beyond, even at low altitudes, as the Boeing >certification flights (which I've previously posted a video of, >showing them going to 0.86 Mach at low altitude) prove. > >The planes usually cruise at altitude at a speed of 0.84 Mach, so the >engines are definitely capable of pushing the plane that fast... and >they're not even at full throttle. At low altitude, the engines >produce a *lot* more thrust. > >For instance, on a B747-200, the engines are capable of producing >219,000 pounds of thrust, but the plane only requires 55,145 pounds of >thrust to maintain cruise speed of 0.86 Mach. The engines on a B767 >can push that plane to 0.97 Mach even fully loaded. > >Poor stupid Roger Wittekind... reality yet again kicks him in the ass. > ><snicker> Excellent write up! You've laid it all out with extreme clarity. As you say, Roger Wittekind again gets a boot to his ass from his own arguments. I'm going to archive this for future reference. Thanks FNVWE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-14 04:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q58s1btimm3im90do1ko9jue9gf8urf0u5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526046 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:03:48 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:21:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:mvdo5a$v21$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:mvcml0$7l8$1@pcls7.std.com...
>>>>> Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>>>Bast is stupid. And that's being kind. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> yeah, having an IQ above room temperature disqualifies you from being a
>>>>> 9/11 kook...
>>>
>>>>That coming from people that think an aluminum egg shell should leave
>>>>roadrunner cutouts in the Twin Towers is hilarious.
>>>
>>> K00ktard, at such speeds it's the momentum and the change of momentum
>>> (force) applied over a small area that determines what happens. The mass
>>> of the airplane at 500 mph applied to a relatively small area of cheap,
>>> thin steel, there's no way for the steel to resist that.
>>
>>ROTFLMAO because the 500 mph at 1000 feet above sea level is bullshit. Jets
>>can not fly that fast where the air is thick
>
>You couldn't be any more ignorant, Roger.
Now you've issued a challenge that he will attempt to meet.
>Ever see an air show?
>Ever have the jets fly by at tree level and break the sound barrier?
>
>Just shut it.
If only he could.
>You *never* know what you're talking about.
That's never stopped Roger. Not since I first became aware of
his existence.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 02:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n3ju1blubqnlu0mcig30jbjs537vmn5o9c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526113 |
On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 04:30:44 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:03:48 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> >wrote: > >>On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:21:29 -0500, "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>news:mvdo5a$v21$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>>> >>>>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:mvcml0$7l8$1@pcls7.std.com... >>>>>> Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> writes: >>>> >>>>>>>Bast is stupid. And that's being kind. :) >>>>>> >>>>>> yeah, having an IQ above room temperature disqualifies you from being a >>>>>> 9/11 kook... >>>> >>>>>That coming from people that think an aluminum egg shell should leave >>>>>roadrunner cutouts in the Twin Towers is hilarious. >>>> >>>> K00ktard, at such speeds it's the momentum and the change of momentum >>>> (force) applied over a small area that determines what happens. The mass >>>> of the airplane at 500 mph applied to a relatively small area of cheap, >>>> thin steel, there's no way for the steel to resist that. >>> >>>ROTFLMAO because the 500 mph at 1000 feet above sea level is bullshit. Jets >>>can not fly that fast where the air is thick >> >>You couldn't be any more ignorant, Roger. > > Now you've issued a challenge that he will attempt to meet. LOL He can't help himself. >>Ever see an air show? >>Ever have the jets fly by at tree level and break the sound barrier? >> >>Just shut it. > > If only he could. > >>You *never* know what you're talking about. > > That's never stopped Roger. Not since I first became aware of >his existence. I just became aware that Roger is in his 60's. Is that true? What a loser.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 03:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vfqu1btjbqp1s89sg1vgdsbio79p4soeoh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #526236 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:50:34 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net>
wrote:
[...]
>>>>ROTFLMAO because the 500 mph at 1000 feet above sea level is bullshit. Jets
>>>>can not fly that fast where the air is thick
>>>
>>>You couldn't be any more ignorant, Roger.
>>
>> Now you've issued a challenge that he will attempt to meet.
>
>LOL He can't help himself.
>
>>>Ever see an air show?
>>>Ever have the jets fly by at tree level and break the sound barrier?
>>>
>>>Just shut it.
>>
>> If only he could.
>>
>>>You *never* know what you're talking about.
>>
>> That's never stopped Roger. Not since I first became aware of
>>his existence.
>
>I just became aware that Roger is in his 60's. Is that true? What
>a loser.
I've known of his existence for about a year. It's 100% true.
--
Shill #3. Current Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 09:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30897a118576c22698c350@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526248 |
In article <vfqu1btjbqp1s89sg1vgdsbio79p4soeoh@4ax.com>, compuelf@gmail.com says... > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:50:34 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> > wrote: > > [...] > > >>>>ROTFLMAO because the 500 mph at 1000 feet above sea level is bullshit. Jets > >>>>can not fly that fast where the air is thick > >>> > >>>You couldn't be any more ignorant, Roger. > >> > >> Now you've issued a challenge that he will attempt to meet. > > > >LOL He can't help himself. > > > >>>Ever see an air show? > >>>Ever have the jets fly by at tree level and break the sound barrier? > >>> > >>>Just shut it. > >> > >> If only he could. > >> > >>>You *never* know what you're talking about. > >> > >> That's never stopped Roger. Not since I first became aware of > >>his existence. > > > >I just became aware that Roger is in his 60's. Is that true? What > >a loser. > > I've known of his existence for about a year. It's 100% true. A year?? I think it's been a lot longer than that. I've seen his posts going back a long long time, and I seem to remember both of us posting back at his BS. -- BDK: Head Government Shill, Psychotronic World Dominator. Master of Remote Viewing. Level 6 expert in kOOkStudies. Former FEMA camp activities director. Head Strategic Writer. Former Black Helicopter color consultant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 09:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7OGdnR5khskwIoLLnZ2dnUU7-WmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526260 |
"BDK" <Control@Worldcontrol.com> wrote in message news:MPG.30897a118576c22698c350@news.giganews.com... > In article <vfqu1btjbqp1s89sg1vgdsbio79p4soeoh@4ax.com>, > compuelf@gmail.com says... >> >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 02:50:34 -0400, Sarah Ehrett <ninety7gt@cox.net> >> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >>>>ROTFLMAO because the 500 mph at 1000 feet above sea level is >> >>>>bullshit. Jets >> >>>>can not fly that fast where the air is thick >> >>> >> >>>You couldn't be any more ignorant, Roger. >> >> >> >> Now you've issued a challenge that he will attempt to meet. >> > >> >LOL He can't help himself. >> > >> >>>Ever see an air show? >> >>>Ever have the jets fly by at tree level and break the sound barrier? BZZZZT No jets break the sound barrier at air shows. That doesn't mean they can't it means they don't. Plus if a 767 could fly faster than the speed of sound it would but it does not fly that fast because it can not. DUH Still nothing explains the following or why Ground Zero was called Ground Zero better than a nuke or three: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And talking about three. Because the radiation was so bad at Ground Zero the first three days after 9/11 only Iron workers with cranes were allowed on the third day. So the lack of cranes in the above photo tells us that photo was taken either the day after 9/11 or the second day after 9/11. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 18:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvoq8s$ck7$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #526264 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >And talking about three. Because the radiation was so bad at Ground Zero >the first three days after 9/11 only Iron workers with cranes were allowed >on the third day. So, President Bush was an iron worker in a crane on 9/14/2001, kòóktard? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OCgMPX2mE He wasn't even wearing any protection. And the people rescued by rescuers on the first two days? Who rescued them, if nobody was allowed in to rescue anybody? Geez, kòóktard, why are you reviving arguments that were shot down in flames long ago, ones that are so easy to disprove? Or maybe you just saw that in a kookvid and you just wanted to give us more proof that kookvids always lie? No need for that, you already proved to us that kookvids always lie. (and you never did give us any proof the radiation was any higher on 9/11 than it was on 9/10/2001. All you gave us was a "my dog ate my kookvid" excuse!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 17:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <BIudnZeAWbI24rzLnZ2dnUU7-LmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526277 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mvoq8s$ck7$3@pcls7.std.com... "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >And talking about three. Because the radiation was so bad at Ground Zero >the first three days after 9/11 only Iron workers with cranes were allowed >on the third day. So, President Bush was an iron worker in a crane on 9/14/2001, kòóktard? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OCgMPX2mE He wasn't even wearing any protection. ===================== And I'll bet he didn't get anywhere near the places that the haze is coming from and even that video proves he didn't stay and work at the site very long at all. DUH. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > And the people rescued by rescuers on the first two days? Who rescued > them, if nobody was allowed in to rescue anybody? Just like the jets in Nuke York City were pure fiction as proven by the disappearing wing and the total lack of crash dynamics why shouldn't everything else tied to 9/11 be pure fiction? And do not forget the OP. PM was debunked because they were using big lies that even NIST wouldn't use. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 06:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvveln$8bk$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #526478 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:mvoq8s$ck7$3@pcls7.std.com... >"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >>And talking about three. Because the radiation was so bad at Ground Zero >>the first three days after 9/11 only Iron workers with cranes were allowed >>on the third day. >So, President Bush was an iron worker in a crane on 9/14/2001, kòóktard? >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OCgMPX2mE >He wasn't even wearing any protection. >===================== >And I'll bet he didn't get anywhere near the places that the haze is coming >from and even that video proves he didn't stay and work at the site very >long at all. DUH. Yet there he was. He was standing on "the Pile" on the third day with several people around him, and they were not iron workers, and he was not wearing any protection from radiation (or anything else). You said only iron workers went in on the third day. FALSE. What's stoopid isn't so much that you repeated this lie, but you did so after I already pointed out at least twice that President Bush was there on the third day. >> And the people rescued by rescuers on the first two days? Who rescued >> them, if nobody was allowed in to rescue anybody? >Just like the jets in Nuke York City were pure fiction as proven by the >disappearing wing and the total lack of crash dynamics why shouldn't >everything else tied to 9/11 be pure fiction? So you are saying that nobody was rescued the first two days? It was all lies? hehehe, you fell for my trap. I knew you were going to say that nobody was rescued the first two days, so I deliberately didn't mention the 14 people rescued from the Tower 1 stairwell. You kooked about them before, so you believe they existed. (unless you changed your story again) Were there no people rescued from the Tower 1 stairwell? The trapped Ladder 6 crew were met at the escape hole and assisted by the Ladder 43 crew a couple of hours after Tower 1 collapsed, The injured woman (Josephine Harris) who was with them and whose injury slowed them down, saving their lives, had to be carried out of the site by Ladder 43 and Ladder 53 crews in a rescue basket. Two hours after Tower 1 collapsed. They had to avoid 150-200 feet dropoffs on the way out. >>(and you never did give us any proof the radiation was any higher on 9/11 >>than it was on 9/10/2001. All you gave us was a "my dog ate my kookvid" >>excuse!) No answer? BTW, after about 24 hours in the dog, you'll find that your kookvid will be greatly increased in quality...don't forget the pooper-scooper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 06:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Ieqdnet3-Ko8G77LnZ2dnUU7-ROdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526667 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mvveln$8bk$1@pcls7.std.com... > "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>news:mvoq8s$ck7$3@pcls7.std.com... >>"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: > >>>And talking about three. Because the radiation was so bad at Ground Zero >>>the first three days after 9/11 only Iron workers with cranes were >>>allowed >>>on the third day. > >>So, President Bush was an iron worker in a crane on 9/14/2001, kòóktard? >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OCgMPX2mE >>He wasn't even wearing any protection. > >>===================== > >>And I'll bet he didn't get anywhere near the places that the haze is >>coming >>from and even that video proves he didn't stay and work at the site very >>long at all. DUH. > > Yet there he was. He was standing on "the Pile" on the third day with > several people around him, and they were not iron workers, ROTFLMAO because their had to be Iron workers there since there were two cranes in the background that were not there the day before that video was taken. <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg "The Pile." Oh yes, we were given a pile of BS where 9/11 is concerned. Like the jets with no crash dynamics or the collapse that resembles a nuclear demolition instead of a collapse. <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > and he was not > wearing any protection from radiation (or anything else). You said only > iron workers went in on the third day. FALSE. Yes, to work at the site and if Bush had been there one day earlier he wouldn't have been allowed at a site filled with radiation so why do you think he waited until the third day. DUH. . > What's stoopid isn't so much that you repeated this lie, but you did so > after I already pointed out at least twice that President Bush was there > on the third day. But all he did was talk. Did you see him resue anybody? I didn't. I just saw him add to the pile of bullshit that he helped to build. >>> And the people rescued by rescuers on the first two days? Who rescued >>> them, if nobody was allowed in to rescue anybody? Oddly enough those people were recued from Stairwell B in WTC1 before WTC7 was nuked so they were only dealing with radiation from two nukes instead of three. >>Just like the jets in Nuke York City were pure fiction as proven by the >>disappearing wing and the total lack of crash dynamics why shouldn't >>everything else tied to 9/11 be pure fiction? > > So you are saying that nobody was rescued the first two days? It was all > lies? hehehe, you fell for my trap. I knew you were going to say that > nobody was rescued the first two days, so I deliberately didn't mention > the 14 people rescued from the Tower 1 stairwell. You kooked about them > before, so you believe they existed. (unless you changed your story > again) Were there no people rescued from the Tower 1 stairwell? Yep, you could have mentioned the people that were under the vaporization range of a deep underground nuke too. > The trapped Ladder 6 crew were met at the escape hole and assisted by the > Ladder 43 crew a couple of hours after Tower 1 collapsed, The injured > woman (Josephine Harris) who was with them and whose injury slowed them > down, saving their lives, had to be carried out of the site by Ladder 43 > and Ladder 53 crews in a rescue basket. Two hours after Tower 1 > collapsed. They had to avoid 150-200 feet dropoffs on the way out. > >>>(and you never did give us any proof the radiation was any higher on 9/11 >>>than it was on 9/10/2001. All you gave us was a "my dog ate my kookvid" >>>excuse!) > > No answer? > > BTW, after about 24 hours in the dog, you'll find that your kookvid will > be greatly increased in quality...don't forget the pooper-scooper. ROTFLMAO because I still have a photo that was taken around mid day with nobody in it and no signs of cranes either so that means the photo was taken on 9/12 or 9/13 when nobody was allowed at GZ because the radiation from three nukes was so high. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 14:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n005f2$7e6$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #526679 |
On 18/10/2015 12:45, Rocky wrote: > "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message > news:mvveln$8bk$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>> "Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>> news:mvoq8s$ck7$3@pcls7.std.com... >>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>> And talking about three. Because the radiation was so bad at Ground Zero >>>> the first three days after 9/11 only Iron workers with cranes were >>>> allowed >>>> on the third day. >> >>> So, President Bush was an iron worker in a crane on 9/14/2001, kòóktard? >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OCgMPX2mE >>> He wasn't even wearing any protection. >> >>> ===================== >> >>> And I'll bet he didn't get anywhere near the places that the haze is >>> coming >> >from and even that video proves he didn't stay and work at the site very >>> long at all. DUH. >> >> Yet there he was. He was standing on "the Pile" on the third day with >> several people around him, and they were not iron workers, > > ROTFLMAO because their (sic) had to be Iron workers there since there were two > cranes in the background that were not there the day before that video was > taken. <G> > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > There you have it folks, Rocky thinks that the president is an iron worker. > "The Pile." Oh yes, we were given a pile of BS where 9/11 is concerned. > Like the jets with no crash dynamics or the collapse that resembles a > nuclear demolition instead of a collapse. <G> > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > >> and he was not >> wearing any protection from radiation (or anything else). You said only >> iron workers went in on the third day. FALSE. > > Yes, to work at the site and if Bush had been there one day earlier he > wouldn't have been allowed at a site filled with radiation so why do you > think he waited until the third day. DUH. > There you have it folks, Rocky now says there was radiation, but this strange radiation from 'nukes' clears after two days. > . >> What's stoopid isn't so much that you repeated this lie, but you did so >> after I already pointed out at least twice that President Bush was there >> on the third day. > > But all he did was talk. Did you see him resue anybody? I didn't. I just > saw him add to the pile of bullshit that he helped to build. > > >>>> And the people rescued by rescuers on the first two days? Who rescued >>>> them, if nobody was allowed in to rescue anybody? > > Oddly enough those people were recued from Stairwell B in WTC1 before WTC7 > was nuked so they were only dealing with radiation from two nukes instead of > three. > There you have it folks, Rocky now thinks that WTC7 fell two days after the TT's > >>> Just like the jets in Nuke York City were pure fiction as proven by the >>> disappearing wing and the total lack of crash dynamics why shouldn't >>> everything else tied to 9/11 be pure fiction? >> >> So you are saying that nobody was rescued the first two days? It was all >> lies? hehehe, you fell for my trap. I knew you were going to say that >> nobody was rescued the first two days, so I deliberately didn't mention >> the 14 people rescued from the Tower 1 stairwell. You kooked about them >> before, so you believe they existed. (unless you changed your story >> again) Were there no people rescued from the Tower 1 stairwell? > > Yep, you could have mentioned the people that were under the vaporization > range of a deep underground nuke too. > > >> The trapped Ladder 6 crew were met at the escape hole and assisted by the >> Ladder 43 crew a couple of hours after Tower 1 collapsed, The injured >> woman (Josephine Harris) who was with them and whose injury slowed them >> down, saving their lives, had to be carried out of the site by Ladder 43 >> and Ladder 53 crews in a rescue basket. Two hours after Tower 1 >> collapsed. They had to avoid 150-200 feet dropoffs on the way out. >> >>>> (and you never did give us any proof the radiation was any higher on 9/11 >>>> than it was on 9/10/2001. All you gave us was a "my dog ate my kookvid" >>>> excuse!) >> >> No answer? >> >> BTW, after about 24 hours in the dog, you'll find that your kookvid will >> be greatly increased in quality...don't forget the pooper-scooper. > > ROTFLMAO because I still have a photo that was taken around mid day with > nobody in it and no signs of cranes either so that means the photo was > taken on 9/12 or 9/13 when nobody was allowed at GZ because the radiation > from three nukes was so high. > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg > > Rocky > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 15:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n031ff$olu$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #526679 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:mvveln$8bk$1@pcls7.std.com... >> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >>>news:mvoq8s$ck7$3@pcls7.std.com... >>>"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >> >>>>And talking about three. Because the radiation was so bad at Ground Zero >>>>the first three days after 9/11 only Iron workers with cranes were >>>>allowed >>>>on the third day. >> >>>So, President Bush was an iron worker in a crane on 9/14/2001, kòóktard? >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OCgMPX2mE >>>He wasn't even wearing any protection. >> >>>===================== >> >>>And I'll bet he didn't get anywhere near the places that the haze is >>>coming >>>from and even that video proves he didn't stay and work at the site very >>>long at all. DUH. >> >> Yet there he was. He was standing on "the Pile" on the third day with >> several people around him, and they were not iron workers, >ROTFLMAO because their had to be Iron workers there since there were two >cranes in the background that were not there the day before that video was >taken. <G> Not the point. You kookclaimed that *only* ironworkers were allowed on site on the third day. However, President Bush, who was President, not an ironworker, was right there, along with his entourage and several firefighters and police, giving his famous bullhorn talk. Arguably the most important man in the US at the time was where you kookclaimed that was too dangerous for anyone except ironworkers. So you lied to us, once again. >"The Pile." That's what the government and first responders including my cousin's husband (a police detective from New Jersey, now retired) called it. The media called it "Ground Zero" and that's what stuck. Just like that terrorist group in Iraq and Syria, the Feds call them ISIL, the media calls them ISIS. Guess what most Americans know them as? Oh, BTW, my cousin's husband was sent to the Pile Sept. 12, 2001 to help with search and rescue. Are you going to claim that he is lying as well when he says he was there 9/12/2001? >> and he was not >> wearing any protection from radiation (or anything else). You said only >> iron workers went in on the third day. FALSE. >Yes, OK, you admit that you lied when you kookclaimed that only iron workers were allowed in on the third day. >so why do you >think he waited until the third day. DUH. He had A LOT more important things to do on those days! Like figure out what he should and shouldn't do in response. He was the freaking President. >>>> And the people rescued by rescuers on the first two days? Who rescued >>>> them, if nobody was allowed in to rescue anybody? >Oddly enough those people were recued from Stairwell B in WTC1 before WTC7 >was nuked so they were only dealing with radiation from two nukes instead of >three. Diversion noted. Who rescued the people from Stairwell B, just two hours after the collapse, right where you kookclaim the imaginary nuke was? Remember that nuclear radiation is most dangerous right after a nuke goes off, because that's when the short-lived stuff releases its intense radiation. >> Were there no people rescued from the Tower 1 stairwell? >Yep, So those 14 people were lying? They were never rescued from the stairwell? >>>>(and you never did give us any proof the radiation was any higher on 9/11 >>>>than it was on 9/10/2001. All you gave us was a "my dog ate my kookvid" >>>>excuse!) >> >> No answer? >> >> BTW, after about 24 hours in the dog, you'll find that your kookvid will >> be greatly increased in quality...don't forget the pooper-scooper. >ROTFLMAO <snip diversion> Still no answer? So why do you kookclaim that the radiation was at all higher after the collapses? Especially since you said it was in a kookvid, and you yourself proved to us that all kookvids are full of lies. BTW, did you notice the improvement of your kookvid after it went through the dog?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 15:17 -0700 |
| Subject | p.m is cOOl |
| Message-ID | <001cc5ce-4b06-4ff1-b26f-8fa0f7a71fb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526667 |
thaks for succinctity > wearing any protection from radiation (or anything else). You said only > iron workers went in on the third day. FALSE. > on the third day. > So you are saying that nobody was rescued the first two days? It was all > lies? hehehe, you fell for my trap. I knew you were going to say that > nobody was rescued the first two days, so I deliberately didn't mention > the 14 people rescued from the Tower 1 stairwell. You kooked about them > before, so you believe they existed. (unless you changed your story > again) Were there no people rescued from the Tower 1 stairwell? > > The trapped Ladder 6 crew were met at the escape hole and assisted by the > Ladder 43 crew a couple of hours after Tower 1 collapsed, The injured > woman (Josephine Harris) who was with them and whose injury slowed them > down, saving their lives, had to be carried out of the site by Ladder 43 > and Ladder 53 crews in a rescue basket. Two hours after Tower 1 > collapsed. They had to avoid 150-200 feet dropoffs on the way out.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 19:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: p.m is cOOl |
| Message-ID | <adaec6c4-033a-447c-8009-94f0bbe5e3cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #526751 |
yeah; these guys should phototshop themselves, there, standing next to a bush ... a biG Bush
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 18:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c9Odnd2kMLWsSr_LnZ2dnUU7-amdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #526277 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:mvoq8s$ck7$3@pcls7.std.com... > > And the people rescued by rescuers on the first two days? Who rescued > them, if nobody was allowed in to rescue anybody? ROTFLMAO because there really wasn't much of a rescue operation without heavy machinery and where was the heavy machinery the first two days after 9/11? <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg And anybody that knows shadows knows the following photo was taken mid day and where are all the so called rescuers? http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg 9/11 was such a big farce even some if not all of the alleged jumpers were bogus too because 9/11 was a psy-op designed to get people to stop thinking for themselves. http://septemberclues.info/vicsims.shtml BTW not only are nuclear demolitions real but 9/11 proved they can fool a lot of people. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-18 06:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mvvfl0$8bk$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #526627 |
"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes: >"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message >news:mvoq8s$ck7$3@pcls7.std.com... >> >> And the people rescued by rescuers on the first two days? Who rescued >> them, if nobody was allowed in to rescue anybody? >ROTFLMAO because there really wasn't much of a rescue operation without >heavy machinery and where was the heavy machinery the first two days after >9/11? <G> So now you changed your story and said there *was* a rescue operation on the first two days? Contradicting your earlier kookclaim? Did you really think they had a bunch of heavy equipment there, waiting to be used, waiting for the planes to slam into the buildings? Also, if you called a heavy equipment company on 9/10 saying you needed a bunch of huge cranes in a couple days, you would have been laughed at. (yet, because of cooperation, they did get a bunch of heavy equipment by the third day, in the background behind President Bush) >And anybody that knows shadows knows the following photo was taken mid day >and where are all the so called rescuers? > http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg That photo, without the kook scribbling on it, was taken 9/17/2001, likely a little after noon. >9/11 was such a big farce even some if not all of the alleged jumpers were >bogus too because 9/11 was a psy-op designed to get people to stop thinking >for themselves. You kooktards are really a mean and nasty lot, aren't you. Not only do you deny that the passengers on the jets died that day, you now claim nobody was rescued and that nobody jumped to their death.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web