You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
The simple explanation is that radios and navigation are affected by the earth's orbit and magnetic fields.
The areas where this effect is greatest is well documented and constant. Meaning that if you fly over a certain area multiple times, your radios will be affected the same way each time. Aircraft routes are also always the same or there are only a certain number of routes (like roads in the sky). Pilots are trained to compensate for these values or to tell the computers how to compensate for this. For example, at a given point on earth, the magnetic declination causes 10 degrees of error to the aircraft's navigation instruments.
Since the terrorists took some pilot training, they would undoubtedly know where the isogonal lines were and had knowledge of where the waypoints where. It's not difficult for them to know where the area of greatest interference and noise is. Hell, give me a couple hours and I could figure it out.
...and if you read the Wikipedia entry of the timeline, it has full radio transmissions so I don't even know what you're talking about.
I'm gonna take a stab at this. Let me see if I understand what you're trying to explain here.
Plane crashed into building and intervene the elevators. The explosions were so great that it sent a fireball down the elevator shaft, bursting out elevator doors because the pressure is so great in the shaft, and it went all the way to the basement level.
I might be wrong, maybe some scientific experiment can show us a demonstration or something but, fire doesn't travel down a shaft with THAT great of an explosion if the shaft only contains oxygen. Wouldn't it require some sort of built up gas or fuel down the shaft in order for fire to travel and explode with such force and pressure that will burst through the elevator doors?
How can an explosion at the tube/shaft opening at the top send combustion down a tube/shaft if there was no gas or fuel for the fire to trace? One can already imagine that it will explode through as far as it would the windows and floors.
And didn't this hero and the guy in the Rosie video said the first explosion came from beneath B1, that the explosion was so great that it bounced them upwards into the air?
Again, I'm just taking a stab at common sense, logic, nature's law, whatever you want to call it.
Great post Mr_chin, you really shined the light on what is important here and how to put these official government story persons in there place. Laws of nature.
What you and I conclude is common sense, the following are against
Blaupunkt69 - against
dangonay - against
Ronin - ignored
Lomac - waiting for update reply
none commented
radioman
CorneringArtist
Graeme S
MarkyMark
Great post Mr_chin, you really shined the light on what is important here and how to put these official government story persons in there place. Laws of nature.
What you and I conclude is common sense, the following are against
Blaupunkt69 - against
dangonay - against
Ronin - ignored
Lomac - waiting for update reply
none commented
radioman
CorneringArtist
Graeme S
MarkyMark
Your common sense and everyone elses common sense are on two totally different planets.
I still don't see you answering the questions presented to you either, you just post more videos to confuse everyone. So own up to what people are asking you after they reply to your questions.
My brain hurts trying to understand the videos you post, when people like Lomac and Ronin are trying to present facts to you and you ignore them and go down another tangent.
This is a pointless argument. No minds will be changed, even if there was a way of 100% proving one way or the other the only response would be another Rosie O'Donnell video. Posted via RS Mobile
Your saying now that these people on video are lying. OK
Quote:
Originally Posted by RacingMetro92
Your common sense and everyone elses common sense are on two totally different planets.
I still don't see you answering the questions presented to you either, you just post more videos to confuse everyone. So own up to what people are asking you after they reply to your questions.
My brain hurts trying to understand the videos you post, when people like Lomac and Ronin are trying to present facts to you and you ignore them and go down another tangent.
Are you talking about dangonay's questions? The 9/11 Debunker Gets His Ass Handed To Him By Richard Gage answers these with one question showing how dropping a brick from the top of the wtc 7 would fall the same speed as how the building fell and collapsed that day. There should be resistance but no, it was imploded.
These are laws of nature that you will one day learn and see how silly this thread is for going for so many pages.
This is a pointless argument. No minds will be changed, even if there was a way of 100% proving one way or the other the only response would be another Rosie O'Donnell video. Posted via RS Mobile
Ill put you and RacingMetro92 down as ambiguous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin
I love that Rosie O'Donnell is considered a credible source in this thread.
Thats what it takes sometime to open some peoples minds.
I'm gonna take a stab at this. Let me see if I understand what you're trying to explain here.
Plane crashed into building and intervene the elevators. The explosions were so great that it sent a fireball down the elevator shaft, bursting out elevator doors because the pressure is so great in the shaft, and it went all the way to the basement level.
I might be wrong, maybe some scientific experiment can show us a demonstration or something but, fire doesn't travel down a shaft with THAT great of an explosion if the shaft only contains oxygen. Wouldn't it require some sort of built up gas or fuel down the shaft in order for fire to travel and explode with such force and pressure that will burst through the elevator doors?
How can an explosion at the tube/shaft opening at the top send combustion down a tube/shaft if there was no gas or fuel for the fire to trace? One can already imagine that it will explode through as far as it would the windows and floors.
And didn't this hero and the guy in the Rosie video said the first explosion came from beneath B1, that the explosion was so great that it bounced them upwards into the air?
Again, I'm just taking a stab at common sense, logic, nature's law, whatever you want to call it.
The problem I have is that demolition explosives don't cause fireballs. Those giant colourful balls you see in the movies? They're the result of gas cans or propane tanks exploding. Actual demolition explosions create one hell of a mess, but they do their job with minimal dramatics. They don't cause burns; they lacerate and pulverize you.
The problem I have is that demolition explosives don't cause fireballs. Those giant colourful balls you see in the movies? They're the result of gas cans or propane tanks exploding. Actual demolition explosions create one hell of a mess, but they do their job with minimal dramatics. They don't cause burns; they lacerate and pulverize you.
Indeed. Remember that top gear episode where they dropped the Toyota from the top of the residential tower? No fireballs, no bangs, just a series of pops and *whump*.
How ever you want to spin it you're basically calling the guys on video liars.
Also what ever the explosion was, it wasnt from the plane.
It was preplanned.
How ever you want to spin it you're basically calling the guys on video liars.
Also what ever the explosion was, it wasnt from the plane.
It was preplanned.
Just as you say Lomac is accusing your witnesses of lying, so too are you accusing his of the same.
CiC, still lying that the buildings fell at free fall speed? There's ZERO evidence to support this and lots that show fall times more like 12-15 seconds. Gage is outright lying and I can't believe you picked such a lousy video to prove your point. Hell, I could produce a better argument for controlled demolition than that idiot.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Gage over a year ago (one he refuses to answer me on - gee does that sound familiar?).
With the resources of the claimed 1,500 engineers and architects at his site, how come they haven't put together their own simulation? These are the very same people who use high-end CAD tools in their daily work. These guys design buildings and structures and perform simulations to see how they react under various loads and conditions (like high winds or earthquakes). We have the WTC blueprints. We have the blueprints for the planes. In short, we have everything needed to re-create an accurate simulation. Yet they've never bothered to.
I suggest you ask Gage yourself. I e-mailed him as a fellow truther, thanked him for his fantastic site, and asked when their group of engineers was going to do a simulation to prove the official account wrong. I never received an answer back. I bet $$$ you and Alpha v2 could politely ask him this and you won't receive a reply either.
It's too bad Gage doesn't have a forum. Then again, he's too smart for that. A forum would allow people like me to ask the questions in public, and he can't allow that.
there's no point in me saying anything because you're still stuck in your own paradigm of trying to explain, until you can see from my point of view you'll never understand no matter what essays or explanation i will give
there's no point in me saying anything because you're still stuck in your own paradigm of trying to explain, until you can see from my point of view you'll never understand no matter what essays or explanation i will give
I thought we're trying to figure out what the first explosion was? Why there was 2 explosions? Why Rodriguez described that there was one from the bottom and then one at the very top? He described that he saw a guy come running into the room with blood drenched and skin peeling off, and then the second explosion happen seconds later. How the buildings fell does not debunk 9/11.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomac
The problem I have is that demolition explosives don't cause fireballs. Those giant colourful balls you see in the movies? They're the result of gas cans or propane tanks exploding. Actual demolition explosions create one hell of a mess, but they do their job with minimal dramatics. They don't cause burns; they lacerate and pulverize you.
If there was gas pipes running along the elevator shaft, it would have to be quite huge in diameter to cause fire running down the shaft, bursting out doors. The volume of gas would need to be equivalent to the volume of the shaft to create pressure that huge to reach the basement floor and blow out doors.
Maybe I missed it somewhere in his videos but he didn't say anything about a fireball. If the guy who was drenched in blood was standing near any demolition explosives at the time, it would definitely tear and shed out his skin. What Rodriguez was describing sure sounds like the guy was lacerated.
Anyone debunking 9/11 will and can find explanation on how the buildings fell with scientific explanations. But let's use our imagination a little here. One side of the building got hit, and the building collapsed straight down. The buildings didn't fell to the side. Both towers fell in an identical way, but one was hit at a much lower level. I can only imagine for a building to fall like this is if you take out the center columns and have the outer columns collapse inwards preventing the middle from going to one side.
Ok, aside from our imaginations, the things we do know is that, many witnesses described the first boom, like an explosion, prior to the plane crashing into the building. There are firefighters saying there was a second explosion and even a third before the building collapsed. They were in the building when the fire already started, and then felt an explosion, then the building came down.
There were firefighters saying they heard on the radio that they are going to bring the building down (building 7).
We know that building 7 imploded from regular fire, and this could possibility be one of the explosion witnesses heard. This was at 9:59 AM, one minute after south tower collapsed.
If you put the timeline together, one explosion before the plane hits, firefighters inside building, second explosion, south tower collapses. Third explosion, WTC 7 collapses. Second and third explosions were seconds in between.
Coincident?
A non conspiracy event would be, boom (from the first airplane), boom (second airplane). South tower collapses. North tower collapses. WTC 7 rescued from regular fire. Where did all the explosions come from? Especially the one Rodriguez described? I'm betting my money that both towers' center columns were taken out at B2 before anything happened. And when the top lost its support from the columns being taken out, the center fell first.
CiC, still lying that the buildings fell at free fall speed? There's ZERO evidence to support this and lots that show fall times more like 12-15 seconds. Gage is outright lying and I can't believe you picked such a lousy video to prove your point. Hell, I could produce a better argument for controlled demolition than that idiot.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Gage over a year ago (one he refuses to answer me on - gee does that sound familiar?).
With the resources of the claimed 1,500 engineers and architects at his site, how come they haven't put together their own simulation? These are the very same people who use high-end CAD tools in their daily work. These guys design buildings and structures and perform simulations to see how they react under various loads and conditions (like high winds or earthquakes). We have the WTC blueprints. We have the blueprints for the planes. In short, we have everything needed to re-create an accurate simulation. Yet they've never bothered to.
I suggest you ask Gage yourself. I e-mailed him as a fellow truther, thanked him for his fantastic site, and asked when their group of engineers was going to do a simulation to prove the official account wrong. I never received an answer back. I bet $$$ you and Alpha v2 could politely ask him this and you won't receive a reply either.
It's too bad Gage doesn't have a forum. Then again, he's too smart for that. A forum would allow people like me to ask the questions in public, and he can't allow that.
You have this narrow view of looking at data simulations and technical mombo jumbo which serves Richard's explanation no point because all 1500 professionals know the laws nature, you dont.
A bowling ball might have the least air resistance compared to a brick... but collapsing floors have concrete and steel cages in its way.
Just as you say Lomac is accusing your witnesses of lying, so too are you accusing his of the same.
For a witness to be around the area at that time and claim no explosions were felt or heard, yes I would call them a liar.
The proof is in news camera videos showing thick windows blown out .
Funny, thing is these lobby videos were posted here a few times but again you like to debate despite the facts already being revealed in the thread.
CharlesInCharge's member list of persons opposing his laws of nature and common sense beliefs.
Blaupunkt69 - against
dangonay - against
Graeme S - against
Lomac - against
Ronin - ignored
RacingMetro92 - ambiguous
MarkyMark - ambiguous
none commented
radioman
CorneringArtist
Last edited by CharlesInCharge; 02-15-2013 at 01:02 PM.
there's no point in me saying anything because you're still stuck in your own paradigm of trying to explain, until you can see from my point of view you'll never understand no matter what essays or explanation i will give
So what you're saying is that the only way we're going to understand your claims is for us to suspend logic and just accept your view as the correct one. Oh, I get it. So if we just believe without proof or evidence then we won't need proof or evidence!
Seems legit. Now I get it. How could I have not seen it before? 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, PEOPLE.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
