| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should Critics Corner be banned and it's occupants evicted? |
| Yes |
|
28% |
[ 8 ] |
| No |
|
71% |
[ 20 ] |
| Other |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 28 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| chek wrote: |
What a lot of effort. Still, it's your soul shill.
You've had as much help as I'm giving you.
As I said before, the next time you hear from me will be to expose any further of your lies. |
The proof doesn't exists does it? See lurkers, see how the dedicated truth seekers operates? He makes claims that he can't back up, and then when challenged, claims it is my responsibility to find his evidence for him. But this doesn't exist does it Chek? You are a liar, aren't you? Prove me wrong. If you fail to show the evidence in your next post then you will prove that you are a liar. If you can, I will aplogise. Let us see the evidence.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | Blimey chek you really have lost it today.
I've always thought that there are multiple people posting under your account. The tone, the language, the logic(?) etc, tend to vary a lot from day to day or even hour to hour.
Is this just *one* of the cheks going doolally? |
Spoken like a true stalinist comrade Ignatz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | What a lot of effort. Still, it's your soul shill.
You've had as much help as I'm giving you.
As I said before, the next time you hear from me will be to expose any further of your lies. |
You know, John White pulled this same stunt on the IRS thread. What is it with you conspiracy nuts and your allergy to producing your evidence?
Why is it that only New Reich Stalinist shills are willing to back up their arguments when challenged?
_________________
"They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Jay Ref wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | Is this what you were talking about?
| Quote: | Buildings are not designed to withstand the impact of
fuel-laden commercial airliners. However, Port
Authority documents indicate that the impact of a
Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph and possibly crashing
into the 80th floor had been analyzed during the
design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964.
While NIST has not found evidence of the analysis, the
documents state that such a collision would result in
localized damage only, and that it would not cause
collapse or substantial damage to the WTC towers.
The effect of fires due to jet fuel dispersion and ignition
of building contents was not considered in the
1964 analysis. Loss of life in the immediate area of
aircraft impact was anticipated, but loss of life from fire
and smoke was not considered. |
So, no evidence for that claim. |
Chek is ignorant and has made an ignorant, illogical, and just plain stupid comment. I don't think he lies...but I sure wouldn't put it past him.
Chek old buddy....you DO know that the Boeing 767-200 was only a twinkle in some engineer's eye when the TT were built...don't you???
So tell us again how an aircraft that didn't exist could have influenced building design in any way? Your answer to this question will be most entertaining.
-z |
Jay ref you old fraudster, are you suggesting that a B707 is somehow unique? |
I'm not suggesting it; it is objectively true that a B707 is a B707 and no other thing. Not now, not ever.
| Quote: |
That somehow separate calculations should have been performed for every possible brand of aircraft such as a DC-8, or any comparable aircraft in terms of size, weight and performance- such as a 767?
You really are a troll aren't you? |
you are side-stepping my question to you. I was looking forward to a cool woo-woo explaination of how a structural engineer in 1964 designs his building to withstand an impact by an aircraft that doesn't exist until 14 years later....or go into active service until 17 years later.
Just because all airplanes fly doesn't mean a B747 is the same thing as a Cessna 152.
B-767 Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html
B-707 Max. takeoff weight 257,000 lb (116,570 kg)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/
I know math isn't a strong suit for you nutters so here's a bit of help:
395,000 lbs
-257,000 lbs
----------------
=138,000 lbs
The difference is more than half the carrying capacity of the 707. Getting hit by a fully loaded 767 is like getting hit with 1.5 fully loaded 707s. Also the scenario Robertson et al thought most likely was of a lost 707 in low visibility conditions flying slowly around in search of a friendly airport beacon...at no time did they consider over engineering the building to withstand a 707 loaded at 1.5 times capacity plunging headon at over 500 mph!!
Reapeat...at no time was this possibility considered during the design of the WTC towers!
| Quote: |
Now let Pixels get on with his homework.
He seems to have found part one, now let him do the rest on his own.
It might help make a fully functional human being of him.
Personally I doubt it, but you never know, |
It is easy to envision a person of your intellect playing poker against a cat....and losing.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jay Ref wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Jay Ref wrote: | | Johnny Pixels wrote: | Is this what you were talking about?
| Quote: | Buildings are not designed to withstand the impact of
fuel-laden commercial airliners. However, Port
Authority documents indicate that the impact of a
Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph and possibly crashing
into the 80th floor had been analyzed during the
design of the WTC towers in February/March 1964.
While NIST has not found evidence of the analysis, the
documents state that such a collision would result in
localized damage only, and that it would not cause
collapse or substantial damage to the WTC towers.
The effect of fires due to jet fuel dispersion and ignition
of building contents was not considered in the
1964 analysis. Loss of life in the immediate area of
aircraft impact was anticipated, but loss of life from fire
and smoke was not considered. |
So, no evidence for that claim. |
Chek is ignorant and has made an ignorant, illogical, and just plain stupid comment. I don't think he lies...but I sure wouldn't put it past him.
Chek old buddy....you DO know that the Boeing 767-200 was only a twinkle in some engineer's eye when the TT were built...don't you???
So tell us again how an aircraft that didn't exist could have influenced building design in any way? Your answer to this question will be most entertaining.
-z |
Jay ref you old fraudster, are you suggesting that a B707 is somehow unique? |
I'm not suggesting it; it is objectively true that a B707 is a B707 and no other thing. Not now, not ever.
| Quote: |
That somehow separate calculations should have been performed for every possible brand of aircraft such as a DC-8, or any comparable aircraft in terms of size, weight and performance- such as a 767?
You really are a troll aren't you? |
you are side-stepping my question to you. I was looking forward to a cool woo-woo explaination of how a structural engineer in 1964 designs his building to withstand an impact by an aircraft that doesn't exist until 14 years later....or go into active service until 17 years later.
Just because all airplanes fly doesn't mean a B747 is the same thing as a Cessna 152.
B-767 Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html
B-707 Max. takeoff weight 257,000 lb (116,570 kg)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/
I know math isn't a strong suit for you nutters so here's a bit of help:
395,000 lbs
-257,000 lbs
----------------
=138,000 lbs
The difference is more than half the carrying capacity of the 707. Getting hit by a fully loaded 767 is like getting hit with 1.5 fully loaded 707s. Also the scenario Robertson et al thought most likely was of a lost 707 in low visibility conditions flying slowly around in search of a friendly airport beacon...at no time did they consider over engineering the building to withstand a 707 loaded at 1.5 times capacity plunging headon at over 500 mph!!
Reapeat...at no time was this possibility considered during the design of the WTC towers!
| Quote: |
Now let Pixels get on with his homework.
He seems to have found part one, now let him do the rest on his own.
It might help make a fully functional human being of him.
Personally I doubt it, but you never know, |
It is easy to envision a person of your intellect playing poker against a cat....and losing.
-z |
More than a few incorrect assumptions in your 'calculations' Jayref.
But no doubt you're clever enough to go back over them and find them.
With the right motivation, I'm sure you can.
The motivation itself, I'm not so sure about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chek, you are a liar. You fail to present any evidence to back up your claims.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Still waiting for those calculations Chek. They do exist don't they?
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
