| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: Putting words into one's mouth |
 |
|
Putting words into one's mouth
| jfk wrote: | mr lawson,
am i right in thinking that you do not believe the planes could have entered the towers, in the manner they did on the footage, without depleted uranium augmented nose cones and wings? |
Why would you be right in thinking that?
Do some research, yourself. Look at my video, towards the end, and check what I said. Then Google "Empire State" + crash. Read about a similar event, and make up your own mind. Great Britain is still a free nation, isn't it? But that won't last long, if you can't get even the simplest things right.
I'm fed up with people assuming that I've said something that I have not.
Get your brain in gear before letting your fingers do the talking.
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: Yes you are missing something |
|
|
Yes you are missing something
| Mark Gobell wrote: | This is weirder than a really weird thing on weird pills.
| Anthony Lawson wrote: | He's lying again, Chek
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | It's the definition of VD that I asked for. |
HE DID NOT ASK FOR THE DEFINITION IF "VD"!
He asked for the definition of "Design Diving Speed". I had never heard the expression, and I had not used it in my video.
When will he stop telling lies? |
| Quote: | What?
Are you serious?
Design Dive Speed is VD.
VD is Design Dive Speed.
What's the problem?
You quoted the value of VD from the FAA Type Specification.
You have used that VD value as the basis for your claim.
I am, as in, "I am" asking you, as in "you", to provide a verifiable link to the definition of VD which as I think we now all know, without any doubt, is Design Dive Speed.
Am I missing something here? |
|
Yes, you are missing something exceedingly simple.
The FAA puts a limit on what THEY allow planes to do. In this case, for a diving speed, they use the initials: VD.
"Design Diving Speed" would, I assume, be what the aircraft is capable of doing, because of its design. (I have heard that the Boeing 737 exceeded the speed of sound in a dive, during its testing phase, but this may be only a rumour.)
See if you can follow this:
1. Ferraris are DESIGNED to go as fast as 200 miles per hour, maybe faster.
2. The British government has determined that, along with any other privately owned car, they are not allowed to do that on public roads.
Therefore, the first speed is what the car can achieve, the other, called the SPEED LIMIT, is the speed which the law says it is not supposed to exceed, but which is, quite often, still exceeded.
The same principle applies for aircraft. What the FAA says they are allowed to do and what they are capable of doing are:
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE, NOW?
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject: Re: Yes you are missing something |
|
|
| Anthony Lawson wrote: | Yes, you are missing something exceedingly simple.
The FAA puts a limit on what THEY allow planes to do. In this case, for a diving speed, they use the initials: VD.
"Design Diving Speed" would, I assume, be what the aircraft is capable of doing, because of its design. (I have heard that the Boeing 737 exceeded the speed of sound in a dive, during its testing phase, but this may be only a rumour.) |
Well, first off Anthony, if you had bothered to research VD properly you wouldn't need to assume anything.
If you had bothered to research VD you would have known exactly what it means and you wouldn't have needed to have exerted so much effort on personal abuse.
You would also have known that VD is the Design Diving Speed.
You would also have known how it is defined.
You would also have known something about the statutory requirements vis VD.
You would also have known something about another parameter to do with the actual flight testing of practical diving speeds.
Clearly you do not.
| Anthony Lawson wrote: | See if you can follow this:
1. Ferraris are DESIGNED to go as fast as 200 miles per hour, maybe faster.
2. The British government has determined that, along with any other privately owned car, they are not allowed to do that on public roads.
Therefore, the first speed is what the car can achieve, the other, called the SPEED LIMIT, is the speed which the law says it is not supposed to exceed, but which is, quite often, still exceeded.
The same principle applies for aircraft. What the FAA says they are allowed to do and what they are capable of doing are:
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE, NOW? |
Only because you've written it in such big letters.
I understand that concept fully and live by it every time I get into my car.
Thanks.
My suggestion to you would have been to make a video that simply restates the conclusion of the forum that you appear to have got your information from.
That being:
| Quote: | | Ignoring FAA regulations, aircraft can fly as fast as they like, up to the point when they start to disintegrate. The UA175 on the videos didn't appear to disintegrate whilst flying. Case closed. |
Now, wouldn't that have been so much more accurate and far easier for all to understand?
All you still need to do is to prove that said Boeing can fly at whichever of the many and varied speed estimates you might choose, at the known height, for the duration, without disintegrating.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: Re: Yes you are missing something |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | Well, first off Anthony, if you had bothered to research VD properly you wouldn't need to assume anything.
If you had bothered to research VD you would have known exactly what it means and you wouldn't have needed to have exerted so much effort on personal abuse.
You would also have known that VD is the Design Diving Speed.
You would also have known how it is defined.
You would also have known something about the statutory requirements vis VD.
You would also have known something about another parameter to do with the actual flight testing of practical diving speeds.
Clearly you do not. |
And by the look of it neither do you Mark.
The only other parameter is control effectiveness which may or may not account for the apparent exaggerated attitude change U175 exhibited immediately prior to impact.
Also bear in mind that Vd is an arbitrary limit for certification purposes only - hence the generalised formula for calculating it regardless of airframe engineering.
Even Vne from which it is derived is an operating limit rather than a structural limit, which if exceeded means a spell in the hangar being checked out for airworthiness to varying degrees of seriousness rather than being turned around immediately for flight as would normally be an airliner's lot.
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | All you still need to do is to prove that said Boeing can fly at whichever of the many and varied speed estimates you might choose, at the known height, for the duration, without disintegrating. |
The 911 flight(s) already proved it.
It's you no planers that are claiming (unsuccessfully) that they didn't happen because they couldn't happen using dishonest means.
They did happen.
Get over it.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: Re: Yes you are missing something |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | Well, first off Anthony, if you had bothered to research VD properly you wouldn't need to assume anything.
If you had bothered to research VD you would have known exactly what it means and you wouldn't have needed to have exerted so much effort on personal abuse.
You would also have known that VD is the Design Diving Speed.
You would also have known how it is defined.
You would also have known something about the statutory requirements vis VD.
You would also have known something about another parameter to do with the actual flight testing of practical diving speeds.
Clearly you do not. |
| chek wrote: | | And by the look of it neither do you Mark. |
No. I imagined it all quite obviously.
| chek wrote: | | The only other parameter is control effectiveness which may or may not account for the apparent exaggerated attitude change U175 exhibited immediately prior to impact. |
The only other parameter?
So there's 2 parameters only are there?
| chek wrote: | | Also bear in mind that Vd is an arbitrary limit for certification purposes only - hence the generalised formula for calculating it regardless of airframe engineering. |
Haven't a clue what that means.
| chek wrote: | | Even Vne from which it is derived is an operating limit rather than a structural limit, which if exceeded means a spell in the hangar being checked out for airworthiness to varying degrees of seriousness rather than being turned around immediately for flight as would normally be an airliner's lot. |
What relevance has this to Anthony Lawson's video?
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | All you still need to do is to prove that said Boeing can fly at whichever of the many and varied speed estimates you might choose, at the known height, for the duration, without disintegrating. |
| chek wrote: | The 911 flight(s) already proved it.
It's you no planers that are claiming (unsuccessfully) that they didn't happen because they couldn't happen using dishonest means.
They did happen.
Get over it. |
So I am a no planer am I?
Because I questioned Anthony Lawson's basis for his claims?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject: Re: Yes you are missing something |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | chek wrote: | The 911 flight(s) already proved it.
It's you no planers that are claiming (unsuccessfully) that they didn't happen because they couldn't happen using dishonest means.
They did happen.
Get over it. |
So I am a no planer am I?
Because I questioned Anthony Lawson's basis for his claims? |
No, it's rather because you question the plane events at the WTC despite the evidence using - as usual - your tried, tested and tired argumentative devices.
But in effect and in short, what is called in the trade, a 'no planer'.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | outsider wrote: | | Why on earth should you trust 'live footage' of the Twin Towers attack put out by the Neo-Fascist NWO? Aren't you fed up to the teeth with 'coincidences' in 911 & 7/7, without lapping up the Naudet brothers just 'happening' to be doing a documentary on NYFD, and just 'happening' to get such good footage? And of course, they just 'happen' to agree with the OCT, and get airtime from the MSM for their follow-up documentary on NYFD. You trusting soul! |
And yet your only basis for your claim is that it must be so, purely in order to fit with your no plane version of events.
How incredible it is that in the heart of NYC, one of the busiest and media company intensive cities on Earth, that on any given day of the year someone is filming something somewhere? Not very, it would seem to me.
I would have thought if your version was true that a far better quality capture would have been set up with a much more plausible reason; a Great Buildings doc or somesuch with proper focus and framing and so on.
And in case you forget - as no planers often seem to do - planes does not equal belief in the OCT. That's just yet another cosy bit of NPT fact bending. |
If you bother to check (pun not intended) you will see that I specifically state that I do not claim that 'no planes hit the buildings', but that the footage we all saw (said to be by the Naudet brothers) was fake.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: Yes you are missing something |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Mark Gobell wrote: | | chek wrote: | The 911 flight(s) already proved it.
It's you no planers that are claiming (unsuccessfully) that they didn't happen because they couldn't happen using dishonest means.
They did happen.
Get over it. |
So I am a no planer am I?
Because I questioned Anthony Lawson's basis for his claims? |
No, it's rather because you question the plane events at the WTC despite the evidence using - as usual - your tried, tested and tired argumentative devices.
But in effect and in short, what is called in the trade, a 'no planer'. |
I asked a simple question of Anthony Lawson.
I haven't, even said that he is wrong, if you check, Chek.
Now, because I asked that question, I'm accused of being the type of person that mugs old ladies, I've been accused of telling lies, being thick, being a no planer blah blah blah
You both are using the Bush doctrine are you not?
I didn't make the video chek.
I thought you were interested in 9/11 Truth?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jfk wrote: | mr lawson,
am i right in thinking that you do not believe the planes could have entered the towers, in the manner they did on the footage, without depleted uranium augmented nose cones and wings? |
Good point. My understanding is DU is so effective at penetrating armour because it is very dense, hard, AND IS FIRED AT EXTREMELY FAST SPEEDS, SO FAST IT IS ACTUALLY BURNING AS IT LEAVES THE BARREL OF TANK OR WHATEVER.
A DU-plated aluminium wing would neither be hard enough or travelling at anything like the velocity reqired. Might as well fire granite blocks at the Towers; they would have an impact, would probably breach the walls but would not slice cleanly through steel girders like a knife through butter.
I state once more (for others benefit, as you haven't accused me), I do not claim that no planes hit the buildings. So I AM NOT A NPT SUPPORTER.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| outsider wrote: | | If you bother to check (pun not intended) you will see that I specifically state that I do not claim that 'no planes hit the buildings', but that the footage we all saw (said to be by the Naudet brothers) was fake. |
That's a very arcane differentiation.
Fake in what way?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: Re: Yes you are missing something |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | I asked a simple question of Anthony Lawson.
I haven't, even said that he is wrong, if you check, Chek.
Now, because I asked that question, I'm accused of being the type of person that mugs old ladies, I've been accused of telling lies, being thick, being a no planer blah blah blah
You both are using the Bush doctrine are you not?
I didn't make the video chek.
I thought you were interested in 9/11 Truth? |
It must be down to your sunny disposition Mark.
That and your seemingly natural talent for meaningless obfuscation.
I'm beginning to think even you don't know why you do it.
A quick recap on the point of all this:
aircraft speed for U175 as estimated by:
RAE - 575mph
MIT - 536mph
FEMA - 590mph
note for the hard of thinking: speed differences are due to their being estimations.
The no planers dug up an alleged Boeing (software) engineer who allegedly worked on stall warning systems, to claim that a B767 couldn't exceed 220 mph at low level without disintegrating.
Which is a plain flat out lie by Joseph Keith, the alleged engineer.
The Boeing performance sheet for a B767
Vd = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.
meaning a safe descent speed of 483mph from 18000ft to sea level.
Neither RAE (who know a bit about aircraft) MIT (ditto) nor FEMA/NIST (no comment) doubt the 500mph+ speeds they estimate.
So the question is - what are you arguing about? And why?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | outsider wrote: | | If you bother to check (pun not intended) you will see that I specifically state that I do not claim that 'no planes hit the buildings', but that the footage we all saw (said to be by the Naudet brothers) was fake. |
That's a very arcane differentiation.
Fake in what way? |
This is not like you. It's really very simple: I believe that the footage we all saw was fake, but that some kind of aircraft or missile hit the Towers; it might even have been a Boeing, but again, I don't believe it was the scheduled flight (or was this one of the 2 of 4 planes that Loose Change shows weren't scheduled? I don't remember) with passengers. Whilst I don't believe this, I could be wrong; but I am sure the footage was faked. My reasons, for what they're worth, I've stated in previous posts.
Is there really any point in continueing this? Let's just agree to differ. I'm sure we're both on the same side vis-a-vis 9/11 Truth.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:27 am Post subject: Re: Yes you are missing something |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | I asked a simple question of Anthony Lawson.
I haven't, even said that he is wrong, if you check, Chek.
Now, because I asked that question, I'm accused of being the type of person that mugs old ladies, I've been accused of telling lies, being thick, being a no planer blah blah blah
You both are using the Bush doctrine are you not?
I didn't make the video chek.
I thought you were interested in 9/11 Truth? |
| chek wrote: | | It must be down to your sunny disposition Mark. |
I suspect the reason for the abuse in response to politely asking a simple, single question is nothing to do with the person asking the question chek. Sunny disposition or not. Attacking someone with such epithets reflects badly on those doing the attacking. Wouldn't you agree?
| chek wrote: | | That and your seemingly natural talent for meaningless obfuscation. |
Another charge. Where have I used meaningless obfuscation?
| chek wrote: | | I'm beginning to think even you don't know why you do it. |
I asked a simple question, which still has not been answered. And here we are now, debating me! Why hasn't it been answered and why are you debating me instead of answering the question?
| chek wrote: | A quick recap on the point of all this:
aircraft speed for U175 as estimated by:
RAE - 575mph
MIT - 536mph
FEMA - 590mph
note for the hard of thinking: speed differences are due to their being estimations. |
Well, that's 3 of them. I agree, they are estimates made from ? Not grainy YouTube videos surely?
BTW if anyone can supply a link to the RAE estimate I'd appreciate it.
| chek wrote: | The no planers dug up an alleged Boeing (software) engineer who allegedly worked on stall warning systems, to claim that a B767 couldn't exceed 220 mph at low level without disintegrating.
Which is a plain flat out lie by Joseph Keith, the alleged engineer. |
Then all you have to do is prove that it is a lie. I haven't made any statement about his claims how have I?
| chek wrote: | The Boeing performance sheet for a B767
Vd = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.
meaning a safe descent speed of 483mph from 18000ft to sea level. |
Meaning schmeaning. Prove it !
Hence my question about the definition of VD. Which is still unanswered.
| chek wrote: | | Neither RAE (who know a bit about aircraft) MIT (ditto) nor FEMA/NIST (no comment) doubt the 500mph+ speeds they estimate. |
And yet others in the industry do, as you well know. Why don't you post their views alongside?
| chek wrote: | | FEMA/NIST (no comment) |
What's that supposed to mean?
A disclaimer?
To read, how, Eduardo Kausel, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering produced his speed estimate click here (856kb PDF)
So, if the NPT camp produced a Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering to back up one of their claims, would you accept it?
You are in a very interesting, if unenviable, predicament chek. You are using sources to support your claim, who are the very same sources that lie at the heart of some of the 9/11 lies.
| chek wrote: | | So the question is - what are you arguing about? And why? |
I didn't intend to have to argue chek. I asked a simple question, which still hasn't been answered.
Not that I'm expecting you to answer it. You didn't make the video did you?
Still waiting for your 2nd google hit chek?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mark, as your characteristic and purely kneejerk question 'is there evidence for planes?' showed on another thread, (and similar on several other occasions) have shown, you're interested in word gaming and nothing more.
I'm not wasting any further time on this.
Accept or don't accept the type documentation.
If you choose to accept the no planes case, that's your affair.
Horses to water and so on.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | You are in a very interesting, if unenviable, predicament chek. You are using sources to support your claim, who are the very same sources that lie at the heart of some of the 9/11 lies. |
| chek wrote: | | I'm not wasting any further time on this. |
OK chek. Understood.
Your charge isn't true, yet again.
But hey, c'ya around . . .
Shame we didn't get to see your "2nd google hit" . . .
Hopefully Anthony will answer my question as it was, after all, addressed to him.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:15 am Post subject: Two Totally Unsupported Statements |
|
|
Two Totally Unsupported Statements
outsider wrote
| Quote: | | If you bother to check (pun not intended) you will see that I specifically state that I do not claim that 'no planes hit the buildings', but that the footage we all saw (said to be by the Naudet brothers) was fake. |
What is your source for the above statement? Have the Naudet brothers been tried and convicted in a properly constituted court of law, for video fakery? No, your source is malicious innuendo from the likes of Leslie Raphael and “September Clues.” I’d love to catch someone like you, sitting near a children’s playground with a camera in your hand; you’re probably there because one of your own children is on the swings. But I could take a picture of you and publish it, with the caption: “Paedophile checking out his prey” and I would only be doing exactly what Raphael, Simon Shack and you are doing to the Naudet brothers.
| Quote: | Good point. My understanding is DU is so effective at penetrating armour because it is very dense, hard, AND IS FIRED AT EXTREMELY FAST SPEEDS, SO FAST IT IS ACTUALLY BURNING AS IT LEAVES THE BARREL OF TANK OR WHATEVER.
A DU-plated aluminium wing would neither be hard enough or travelling at anything like the velocity reqired. |
You can’t even understand English. I did not suggest that the perpetrators might have plated wings with DU. People like you twist such things because you think its witty, or you enjoy putting someone else down. But what you do is put yourself down by revealing your inability to comprehend what has been written or said.
What I said was:
| Quote: | | A diving aircraft with DU placed in its nose cone and along the leading edges of its wings and vertical stabilizer, would become a huge equivalent of a bunker-busting cruise missile. |
You are just like Mark Gobell, you can’t listen or read accurately. He thinks that the expressions “VD” and “Design Dive Speed” are interchangeable, and mean the same thing, and he thinks that I should think so too.
Try swinging a broom handle, and then crowbar at your car, for example, and see what the difference in damage would be.
Get an education.
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anthony Lawson said:
"Flight 175 went from 31,000 feet to 800 feet in approximately 9 minutes, attaining a maximum 10,000 fpm dive rate during this maneuver. The aircraft would absolutely have built up enough speed to attain ~500 mph+ during the run in to the WTC."
And it is reported that during that time Peter Hanson made a call from Flight 175 that made no mention of such a horrific dive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anthony Lawson wrote: | | You are just like Mark Gobell, you can’t listen or read accurately. He thinks that the expressions “VD” and “Design Dive Speed” are interchangeable, and mean the same thing, and he thinks that I should think so too. |
Like I've, as in, I have, already said Anthony:
If you had researched your subject properly you would know that:
VD is Design Dive Speed
and
Design Dive Speed is VD
If you scroll back, chek provided you with a link that might help you.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BBC5.tv
Validated Poster
Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Trolls, trolls, trolls, everywhere I fu#king look. Man you can tell this site is getting better again, 'they're' starting to give a * again. Man, when will people learn none of this is real, reality that is, and writing posts for a satanic government is not the way to enjoy this fleeting experience down here on earth.
D'oh!
scott. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pastomen wrote: | Trolls, trolls, trolls, everywhere I fu#king look. Man you can tell this site is getting better again, 'they're' starting to give a * again. Man, when will people learn none of this is real, reality that is, and writing posts for a satanic government is not the way to enjoy this fleeting experience down here on earth.
D'oh!
scott. |
What?
Who is writing posts for a satanic government pastomen ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: Another liar |
|
|
Another liar
| Ningen wrote: | Anthony Lawson said:
"Flight 175 went from 31,000 feet to 800 feet in approximately 9 minutes, attaining a maximum 10,000 fpm dive rate during this maneuver. The aircraft would absolutely have built up enough speed to attain ~500 mph+ during the run in to the WTC." |
I have never said or written that. I have quoted it as having been written by someone who appeared to know what he was writing about: A USAF Lt Colonel with 22 years experience in the aircraft maintenance area.
You appear to be tarred with the same brush as Gobell; you figuratively put words into people mouths to suit your own agenda. Next time, make sure your gun is out of its holster, before you pull the trigger.
| Quote: | | And it is reported that during that time Peter Hanson made a call from Flight 175 that made no mention of such a horrific dive. |
Yes, and it was also reported that a whole Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and totally vanished, leaving far too small a hole in the facade. Where have you been, while some of us have been doing some serious research? Playing acronym games with Mark Gobell, perhaps?
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject: Re: Another liar |
|
|
| Anthony Lawson wrote: | Another liar
| Ningen wrote: | Anthony Lawson said:
"Flight 175 went from 31,000 feet to 800 feet in approximately 9 minutes, attaining a maximum 10,000 fpm dive rate during this maneuver. The aircraft would absolutely have built up enough speed to attain ~500 mph+ during the run in to the WTC." |
I have never said or written that. I have quoted it as having been written by someone who appeared to know what he was writing about: A USAF Lt Colonel with 22 years experience in the aircraft maintenance area.
You appear to be tarred with the same brush as Gobell; you figuratively put words into people mouths to suit your own agenda. Next time, make sure your gun is out of its holster, before you pull the trigger.
| Quote: | | And it is reported that during that time Peter Hanson made a call from Flight 175 that made no mention of such a horrific dive. |
Yes, and it was also reported that a whole Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and totally vanished, leaving far too small a hole in the facade. Where have you been, while some of us have been doing some serious research? Playing acronym games with Mark Gobell, perhaps? |
| Anthony Lawson wrote: | | You appear to be tarred with the same brush as Gobell; you figuratively put words into people mouths to suit your own agenda. |
I haven't put words into people's mouths Anthony.
I have simply asked you to explain the definition of VD, which, the entire world must know by now means Design Dive Speed.
The fact that you called it something else is irrelevant, you could have called it egg and chips for all I care.
The fact remains however, that you have used VD as the basis for your claim.
| Anthony Lawson wrote: | | Where have you been, while some of us have been doing some serious research? Playing acronym games with Mark Gobell, perhaps? |
I'm not playing any games Anthony.
I have asked you one simple question. Just one question.
One simple question that you have so far, failed to answer.
By asking that one single question, it has become quite clear that you did not know that VD means Design Dive Speed when you made your video, yet you have used VD as the basis for your claim.
It is also clear, that you seem to be blocked on the meaning of VD, even now.
You have also, so far not provided any evidence of the definition of VD.
You then claim to have been doing "serious research".
Picking up a single airspeed design parameter from an FAA Type Specification, without even knowing what that parameter is called and not knowing anything about how it is defined, is not what most folk would consider to be research, let alone serious research.
| Anthony Lawson wrote: | | The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
I agree.
Identifying those that make bold claims based on something that they know little or nothing about and then abuse those who ask questions, won't set us free either, but could also help to make the world a better place too.
Serious research? You must be joking. Surely?
No techniques, such as, fast footwork in manipulating this forum, mugging old ladies, telling lies, playing acronymical games or putting words into the mouths of innocents were used in this post.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK Lawson, so you didn't say it, you quoted it. Excuse me. But what difference does it make? I was not disputing the content of the statement. I was simply trying to make a point. You attack me in response, then make some nonsensical comment about the Pentagon.
You really should stick with video -- Americans are suckers for a British accent. In writing, you are just as pompous, but the lack of substance is much more apparent. You spin and you duck and you insult, but never answer a simple question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ningen wrote: | OK Lawson, so you didn't say it, you quoted it. Excuse me. But what difference does it make? I was not disputing the content of the statement. I was simply trying to make a point. You attack me in response, then make some nonsensical comment about the Pentagon.
You really should stick with video -- Americans are suckers for a British accent. In writing, you are just as pompous, but the lack of substance is much more apparent. You spin and you duck and you insult, but never answer a simple question. |
I'm afraid I didn't like his voice-over, anymore than I liked the content.
_________________
'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anthony Lawson at JREF:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=29a21b7c0c789181abd346ceb8295 74b&t=94642&page=21
"I thought that this “forum” might be a source of some genuine information, but I seem to have wandered into a den of verbal thugs: “I disagree with what you say, and I will abuse you to Hell and back, for saying it.
"It’s been like wandering into a bar full of bikers and ordering the wrong drink, so you’ll just have to get on with your bigotry and find someone else to kick around, because: I’m out’a here!"
Sorry you were abused, but don't take it out on us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ningen wrote: | Anthony Lawson said:
"Flight 175 went from 31,000 feet to 800 feet in approximately 9 minutes, attaining a maximum 10,000 fpm dive rate during this maneuver. The aircraft would absolutely have built up enough speed to attain ~500 mph+ during the run in to the WTC."
And it is reported that during that time Peter Hanson made a call from Flight 175 that made no mention of such a horrific dive. |
This is a deceptive misreading of the evidence. Obviously, the 10,000 fpm dive rate was not consistent during that entire 9 minutes.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:19 pm Post subject: Try getting it right the first time |
|
|
Try getting it right the first time, then
| Ningen wrote: | OK Lawson, so you didn't say it, you quoted it. Excuse me. But what difference does it make? I was not disputing the content of the statement. I was simply trying to make a point. You attack me in response, then make some nonsensical comment about the Pentagon.
You really should stick with video -- Americans are suckers for a British accent. In writing, you are just as pompous, but the lack of substance is much more apparent. You spin and you duck and you insult, but never answer a simple question. |
If you could see the numbers of e-mails and comments I receive mistakenly ascribing to me words I've neither written nor spoken, you would get annoyed, too. Your myth about who said the words which you say I said will now go on and on, because now TmcMistress is using your quote, and has not corrected it, even though my correction was posted before his post.
If you were "simply trying to make a point" then you should have made an effort to get your facts right, first. Don't blame me for attacking you: you are the one who got it wrong. And it does make a difference, because I was quoting an expert, but now TmcMistress is using the words as though I wrote them, and I am not an expert. The next thing, someone will be criticising me for writing above my level of knowledge, which I have not done: I HAVE QUOTED SOMEONE.
Can you now see what your error could lead to? What would be wrong with an apology?
I answered your simple question, but if you need a translation, here it is: My point was that your assumption that Peter Hanson really made the alleged call from Flight 175, was as ridiculous as believing that a Boeing 757 disappeared into the Pentagon, making a hole it could not possibly have passed through.
Regarding my brief membership of the Randi forum, they are a bunch of verbal bikers: all I did was ask a question, not try to make a point or even misquote anyone, and the response was absurd.
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: Setting the record straight |
|
|
Setting the record straight
| TmcMistress wrote: | | Ningen wrote: | Anthony Lawson said:
"Flight 175 went from 31,000 feet to 800 feet in approximately 9 minutes, attaining a maximum 10,000 fpm dive rate during this maneuver. The aircraft would absolutely have built up enough speed to attain ~500 mph+ during the run in to the WTC."
And it is reported that during that time Peter Hanson made a call from Flight 175 that made no mention of such a horrific dive. |
This is a deceptive misreading of the evidence. Obviously, the 10,000 fpm dive rate was not consistent during that entire 9 minutes. |
If you look at my previous post, or had you looked at an even earlier one, you will see that I did not write the words which Ningen has credited me with.
I also would like to point out that: had I written the words, I would not have been guilty of "a deceptive misreading of the evidence". The words you have either not read or have misunderstood are:
"...attaining a maximum 10,000 fpm dive rate during this manoeuvre."
You wrote: "Obviously, the 10,000 fpm dive rate was not consistent during that entire 9 minutes."
Although your comment is not phrased very well, you seem to be suggesting that the writer meant that the dive rate of 10,000 fpm was maintained rather than attained during the manoeuvre. This absurd assumption would mean that the aircraft plunged from an altitude of 90,000 feet in 9 minutes.
Clearly, the writer (not me, remember) indicates that during the dive in question, a speed-of-descent rate of 10,000 feet per minute was reached, not maintained for the entire dive.
You are another one who really should spend a little more time carefully examining what you are about to criticise.
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sherlock Holmes
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 205
Location: Sunny Southampton
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: Try getting it right the first time |
|
|
| Anthony Lawson wrote: | | Regarding my brief membership of the Randi forum, they are a bunch of verbal bikers: all I did was ask a question, not try to make a point or even misquote anyone, and the response was absurd. |
Mark Roberts (Gravy), tourguide extroardinairre, seems to have made it his life's work to prove that WTC7 fell down "naturally".
To use your own analogy Anthony, not so much an orange as a banana.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
