| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ningen
Minor Poster
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 48
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
OK, Anthony, I apologize. It was careless on my part to attribute the quote to you.
But Tim was criticising me, not you, I think. He was saying that I was implying that the rate of descent was consistent. He is right that the timing is important.
My suggestion that the Hanson call is inconsistent with Flight 175's dive was based on an account of the dive by air traffic controller of Dave Bottiglia, which I shall have to provide in order to show whether or not I was being "deceptive." I can't do that for the next couple of days but will report back to answer Tim's criticism.
I would prefer Tim say "misleading" or "erroneous" because I am not trying to deceive anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ningen wrote: | OK, Anthony, I apologize. It was careless on my part to attribute the quote to you.
But Tim was criticising me, not you, I think. He was saying that I was implying that the rate of descent was consistent. He is right that the timing is important.
My suggestion that the Hanson call is inconsistent with Flight 175's dive was based on an account of the dive by air traffic controller of Dave Bottiglia, which I shall have to provide in order to show whether or not I was being "deceptive." I can't do that for the next couple of days but will report back to answer Tim's criticism.
I would prefer Tim say "misleading" or "erroneous" because I am not trying to deceive anyone. |
Fair enough, I apologize for the use of 'deceptive'. Also, just as an aside, it's "Tmc", not "Tim". Most decidedly not a he either, at least not last time I checked. 
Anthony, you could stand to put your defenses down a bit. Ningen is right, I was addressing him, not you, and have agreed with a fair deal of your analysis up to this point. My issue was with the call, and the apparent assumption inferred in Ningen's quote that the call was made during the 10k fpm portion of the descent. I had hoped it would be obvious that I wasn't actually asserting that the 10k fpm was consistent for the entire dive; the ludicrousness of that idea was what I was getting at.
In short: unless the plane was diving at 10k fpm that entire time, the point about the call is irrelevant.
_________________
"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 10, 2007 6:05 am Post subject: Apologies all round, then |
|
|
Apologies all round, then
Please accept my apologies for the gender mistake; my eye was obviously playing up that day; I usually mark and copy names, which are not caught by spellcheckers.
TmcMistress wrote:
| Quote: | Anthony, you could stand to put your defenses down a bit. Ningen is right, I was addressing him, not you, and have agreed with a fair deal of your analysis up to this point. My issue was with the call, and the apparent assumption inferred in Ningen's quote that the call was made during the 10k fpm portion of the descent. I had hoped it would be obvious that I wasn't actually asserting that the 10k fpm was consistent for the entire dive; the ludicrousness of that idea was what I was getting at.
In short: unless the plane was diving at 10k fpm that entire time, the point about the call is irrelevant. |
My irritation was mostly aimed at Ningen, for incorrectly ascribing the quote to me, but you really should have checked that I actually wrote the words, if you found them deceptive; like I should have checked the spelling of your name.
You see, I still got the "deceptive" mark put on me, by you, when I try never to be deceptive about anything. I spend most of my time, these days, trying to uncover other people's deceptions. When you are doing that, you've got to make sure that you are not leading with your chin, so to speak.
For what it's worth: There is a lot of material on the net which suggests that the aircraft in question was not United 175, which is why I always say "alleged" before using the designation, or enclose the phrase in quotation marks. There is also a large body of evidence which suggests that the cell-phone calls would have been almost impossible to connect, or at least to sustain for some of the periods that have been suggested, and were, therefore, almost certainly faked. In short: because the Keane Commission report is so highly suspect, it should never be used to bolster or refute any but the most basic of claims. The unblemished truth probably stops with the names of the guys who signed it; even so, they probably had ghost writers and didn’t bother to check the proofs.
I've just put another video up on U-Tube, on what this is all about: deception.
“9/11: The Great Nose In Nose Out Hoax”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034#fqpg09i0x38
Take care,
Anthony
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well well, so the nose out 'match' was manipulated to be a match in September Clues. Good find Anthony.
Whatever will the NPT/TV Fakery team come up with next to advance their 'agenda for truth'.
Is it just me, or does that seem above and beyond an honest 'mistake'?
_________________
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: Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ANYBODY WHO BELIEVES A BOEING HIT THE PENTAGON SHOULD CHECK THIS SITE OUT:
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
With Calum Douglas' video of black box info reconstruction, showing it was not low enough, and on wrong course, to hit poles and Pentagon); thirteen eyewitness testimonies to having seen the plane (but on a flight path which could not have knocked down the light poles and hit the Pentagon), is anyone out there suggesting Pilots for 911 Truth and Calum Douglas are 'controlled opposition'?
Here is one of their videos online:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1632533-911-attack-on-the-pentagon
and here is Calum's video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522
_________________
'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 |
|
|
outsider
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 30 Jul 2006
Posts: 6060
Location: East London
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | outsider wrote: | | Wings do not glide effortlessly through steel, |
This familiar and constantly repeated phrase always rings alarm bells with me, as it suggests post-hypnotic suggestion from watching slo-motion lo-grade video of an event of unimaginable violence that occurred in less than an eighth a second.
| outsider wrote: | | with no decelaration or swinging forward as nose would have impacted building. |
Using the Evan Fairbank video, Greg Jenkins claims to be able to detect slight deceleration, but to me it's unnoticeable.
The Scandia Phantom reactor wall crash test however graphically and unmistakeably shows that what you might 'expect' isn't what happens. That Phantom's tail just keeps ploughing steadily and unwaveringly towards its own destruction. |
I just revisited this thread, and I searched around for the test crash you speak of.
I found it (or one similar - you did not provide link) and you are right.
The tail does plough serenely on; but more to the point, so do the wings.
Video clip:
http://www.crazywebsite.com/Pg-Online-Funny-Videos/F-4-Nuke-Crash-Test -1.html
Interesting, though, that though travelling at 500 mph, it breaks up, instead of bursting through the wall. Yes, the wall was designed to stop an aircraft travelling at high speed, and did so. But so, presumably, was the newly strengthened Pentagon wall. And the steel beams stretching all the way up the Twins, aprox, a yard apart, were surely strong enough to smash to pieces an aluminium 'airliner'.
_________________
'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 |
|
|
Pugwash
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 226
Location: Buckinghamshire
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agreeing with outsider, an interesting clip. I hope I am stating the obvious..
As the female commentator is expert in plane demolition she would make a good synchronised swimmer. The plane hasnt been atomised or turned to dust.
It would have been interesting to see the wreckage, especially how the engines stood up to the impact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
