I know what happens in 2012.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 911 was an inside job

Oh I am just getting "warmed up"... pardon the pun! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Check out this brief video... seems a bit like what titorite was saying. And of course, now that he has backed-down and said the grass ONLY needs to be "brown" and after "a couple hours", he will claim this video is somehow not valid. But is is at least interesting to see the PROOF that the grass would not be scorched black!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARsRVjSm86A

Oh yes... there is more!!!
Click to expand...

It was brief alright. :D

Actually, the brown areas in the picture you posted above, could be evidence of nothing. Yet - 1 or 2 below make alot of sense, as being possible or more likely causes.

The least likely of these is: 1.) Over watering, that caused lawn parasites. 1) Would make sense, if we had a way of knowing what the condition of the penta-lawn was in - prior to the plane crash in that area of the building.

or 2.) Gradual heat related thermal damage. 2) this is a byproduct of prolonged exposure to extreme heat in close proximity. The lawn was exposed to extreme heat for up to 1/2 an hour.

If I had to make a choice between 1 or 2 - I'd go with 2. Gradual heat related thermal damage has a distinct look, and in the photo you posted above the finding would more likely be consistant with this explanation - as areas beyond it, and around it, seem unremarkable in their appearance.
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

Hi JL,

Actually, the brown areas in the picture you posted above, could be evidence of nothing. Yet - 1 or 2 below make alot of sense, as being possible or more likely causes.
Click to expand...

I think I could possibly agree with that. Of course, as you realize, it is my contention that the dynamics of flame fronts in explosions such as this (especially ones that were NOT right at ground level, but slightly above it) does not require that the grass be scorched or even browned. In fact, I have not even begun to talk about the aerodynamic boundary layer concept, which is the precise mechanism that acts to "damp out" lateral velocities close to the surface of the earth (i.e. the "boundary"). I am saving my best evidence until after we hear back from titorite on what I have presented so far (IF we hear back from him!)


I am sure you also understand why I offered these photos... because titorite has sort of painted himself into a corner with his claims and assumptions. First he was screaming it was "inconsistent" that the grass was not scorched black. Now he has changed his stance that perhaps it only has to be browned, and he gave us his alleged experiment that would prove it (not really). So by showing him browned grass, now his claim of "inconsistency" falls apart because he, himself, was saying it should at LEAST be browned.

I still maintain that the flame front dynamics of a BLEVE explosion such as this, in this condition with the visual evidence we have, does NOT automatically require that the grass has to be visibly damaged. And in reality, I am being easy on titorite. For honestly, following proper scientific method, the burden would be on him to scientifically establish his claim that the grass should be visibly damaged from the flame. If titorite were submitting his claim in a paper that was to be peer-reviewed by experts in the field (combustion engineers and chemical engineers), they would require at least that he do one of two things:

a) Show a mathematical thermobaric model of the subject BLEVE explosion and the boundary layer effects over earth and grass. This model would have to show calculations for heat intensity, pressure, and temperature as a function of distance from the center of the BLEVE and above the boundary surface (the grass)... or
b) Provide evidence from experiments of representative, similar tests that would provide direct evidence that his claim is valid. And we have already estbalished (and he has agreed) that the BLEVE flame ball seen on the Pentagon video lasted nowhere near 6 seconds... so his proposed "experiment" would certainly not be accepted by a peer-review panel as "representative" of the actual event at the Pentagon.

So titorite is in a bit of a sticky wicket here. He has painted himself into a corner. And there is really little he can do to continue to argue that the Penta-lawn is an "inconsistency".

Thanks for the inputs...
RMT
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

"I think I could possibly agree with that. Of course, as you realize, it is my contention that the dynamics of flame fronts in explosions such as this (especially ones that were NOT right at ground level, but slightly above it) does not require that the grass be scorched or even browned. "
Click to expand...

Agreed. Will be interesting to see it explained.

" In fact, I have not even begun to talk about the aerodynamic boundary layer concept, which is the precise mechanism that acts to "damp out" lateral velocities close to the surface of the earth (i.e. the "boundary"). I am saving my best evidence until after we hear back from titorite on what I have presented so far (IF we hear back from him!) "
Click to expand...

My sense of Titorite is he's a good Joe. Like a few of us - he's become passionate to the point of becoming hard headed about alot of things that have been discussed here. And much of that comes out of his feeling we're all being dicked around about the events of 9/11 - and I would agree with him -in some ways we are still not, or ever will be told the entire truth (or not for 30 more years.)
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

RMT YOur second and thrid photo from the top, Same angle same cop car the bottom right hand corner.

When you look the left hand corner you see two differnt brown patterns in that grass. What gives? Did you photo shop the photos or did your source of the photos photoshop those photos?

Either way you have now begun to add false evidence to your insults and libel.
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

Oh yea Also I am not falzon or titorian or darwin murphy or anyone else you wanna accuse me of being RMT. I think your presentation of false evidence and your insults and libel is a testament to your failing argument. People only resort to name calling when they have no other avenue left to the to argue upon.
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

Hey just lurking... that is one point I can always agree on. We will not be told the truth of the matter. WHY NOT? Because those that are guilty wish to protect themselves by keeping the truth from the light of day.
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

Agreed. Will be interesting to see it explained.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, as we can see, titorite is not interested in explaining it. Perhaps because he cannot justify his belief that the grass should be damaged? I can clearly give explanations and even present a video why it should not... but he cannot provide a scientific explanation why it should have been. And what does that say about his argument?

My sense of Titorite is he's a good Joe.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that if he would simply admit when he is wrong, and stop ignoring the direct evidence I have given him that disputes his claims. I would also agree with this if he DIDN'T start accusing me of libel, and now fraud, when he can no longer defend his bad assumptions. But we now see, as his story has fallen apart, it is now more about focusing on ME rather than focusing on that video showing parts being thrown OUTSIDE the fireball. Notice how he has not addressed it...not even ONCE... since I pointed that out?

Like a few of us - he's become passionate to the point of becoming hard headed about alot of things that have been discussed here. And much of that comes out of his feeling we're all being dicked around about the events of 9/11 - and I would agree with him -in some ways we are still not, or ever will be told the entire truth (or not for 30 more years.)
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this part, JL. And one of the reasons for showing why it is bad to make accusations that cannot be scientifically vetted is because it actually WORKS AGAINST us in getting the truth. Titorite has constantly asked me why I don't "cross the Rubicon" and move from believing the GOV had foreknowledge to assuming the GOV acted to make these tragedies happen. The reason should now be obvious to someone who looks at reality: There is NO evidence to support going any further than I have. Beyond this, by constantly "banging the drum" as conspiracy theorists do (and IGNORING THE FACTS, when they are cornered just as titorite has), they make themselves and their cause look bad. You have seen the video of Penn & Teller where such people are often looked upon as kooks who continue to insist upon things that no evidence supports.

It is one thing to have a belief that the GOV did it. But it is a whole different aspect when you actively admit to trying to "change people's minds" to match YOUR unfounded belief. THIS is PRECISELY what DAMAGES the effort to GET TO THE TRUTH. Because those of us who believe there is truth that the GOV knew about what was coming on 9-11, but did nothing about it, are often "lumped in" with the nutcases who insist upon the things titorite insists upon. What titorite does not realize, but what is obviously true, is that he is doing more to jeapordize the ability to get to the truth just by continuing to try to "change people's minds" into believing something for which there is NO EVIDENCE. If all these conspiracy theorists would STOP with the extreme accusations which cannot be supported, and simply quiet down and work on the "who knew what, and when?" questions, we might actually push for actions that would result in knowing the answers to these basic questions.

I really appreciate your inputs, JL. You are a level-headed person, and I know you can see the points I have made and the evidence I have provided for titorite's claims of inconsistency. It seems you can accept the facts... too bad he cannot.

RMT
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

And so titorite's entire argument has come down to this:
I think your presentation of false evidence and your insults and libel is a testament to your failing argument. People only resort to name calling when they have no other avenue left to the to argue upon.
Click to expand...

My failing argument? That is pretty laughable. Folks can obviously see that you are refusing to address the salient points of evidence I have provided against your unfounded claims. The biggest one you do not want to touch is the clear video evidence of airplane parts flying outside the fireball. Interesting that you have not ONCE touched that issue since I showed the evidence. And... so you don't like photos 2 & 3 above? Well what about photo #1? Are you going to now assert that ALL my evidence is "false evidence"? Probably, knowing your games as I do.

And so when he cannot address the evidence that disputes his claims, he starts the road towards accusing me to be "part of the conspiracy" by accusing me of libel and fraud. It is not too long before he will accuse me of being "paid by the government" to come to places like this and make people like him look bad. But you know, the most interesting aspect of when someone accuses someone else of "libel" and "fraud" is whether that person is willing to pursue these accusations legally. I would be happy to give titorite the name and address of my lawyer if he wishes to take me to court and sue me for libel or fraud. It is because I am confident he can't make them stick.

Not too many posts ago, titorite was accusing me of not staying on the subject. Now who is not staying on the subject (Pentagon conspiracy)? Instead he has now made ME the subject. And one need only witness this thread to see all the times titorite goaded me on to "answer his issues". Each time he couldn't be patient as I addressed them one at a time... he had to continually goad me and pretend as if I was not going to address them. But did I not address them all? Yes. Yes, I did. Each and every one of them. And I am still addressing them, because I am far from done with his last "Penta-lawn" issue.

Titorite has just shared a video. Here is a very interesting video which shows a flamefront progressing along a grass surface. Much like titorite's claim for his video, the most interesting part of this video I am sharing is at the end. Notice that as the cameraman approaches the burning pile, TAKE NOTE that the grass through which the flamefront progressed IS STILL A HEALTHY SHADE OF GREEN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXKcnR-jgtQ

RMT
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

RMT you have taken to insults,name calling,libel,false evidence, accusations that I pose as "wanna be" time travelers however, if you can't say those sorts of thing you don't really have freespeech do you? So no, I don't care to sue you or anyone ever over some poor choice words. If I have stopped addressing your posts exactly as you desire its because of your poor choice of words. I have no desire to correspond with a grown man that behaves like an immature teenager.You attempted to put me on a pedestal. I decline.

As for your photos... You have presented many unaltered photos but that you would present a "faked" photograph to win your argument really makes me lose interest in what you have to say.

Reguards,
Titorite
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

WOW!...I mean WOW!!!..Your sinking to new lows titorite.

(Who does that sound like? Hint: He said it in this thread...a couple pages back).

Well, it is quite clear my work here is done, because now we see that titorite:

a) Cannot stand to address the Pentagon anymore, now that all of his "inconsistencies" have been disproven by scientific inquiry. But what is even worse is...

b) Now he presents us a video where he obviously wishes us to believe that the planes hitting the WTC towers were FAKED!?!?!!? Could anyone stoop lower than this?

Please take note: Titorite accuses me of insulting him, and perhaps I have...not as if he hasn't insulted me. But in promulgating thoughts and ideas that the planes never hit the WTC, that it was just "faked video", and that NONE of the people in lower Manhattan that day ACTUALLY saw planes hit the WTC towers... he is now taken to insulting the memories of the people who actually died on those airplanes, and the people who actually died in those towers, and he is continuing to insult the families of those who lost loved ones on that day!

Can you believe this ignorant, arrogant person? JL, is THIS what you call a "good Joe"? I am amazed and appalled at the level that titorite has sunken to... all because he refuses to admit that these photos he asked me to analyze do not show inconsistencies. If we are seeing the "real RMT" as titorite claims, then clearly now we are seeing the "real titorite".

And for the person who loves to apply "rules of disinformation" to anyone who disagrees with him... look how well he has been using Disinfo Tactic #17. Change the subject. Isn't is obvious to others how titorite can't wait to get off the Pentagon subject and move on to other "inconsistencies". We certainly do have someone who is well-versed in the Disinformation Tactics, don't we?

Would it be insulting or libelous to remind everyone that this is a person who has done time for drugs? No, it wouldn't since he, himself, told us this. I think he hasn't given up doing drugs, judging by his "critical thinking" skills. Put down the doobie, titorite.

RMT
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

a) Cannot stand to address the Pentagon anymore, now that all of his "inconsistencies" have been disproven by scientific inquiry. But what is even worse is...

The only thing you disproved was that jet exhaust would not burn grass "not even if the engine were 2 inchs off the ground". You said as much and I agreed to as much.

As for every other pentagon detail. No my friend ,you haven't proven a thing execpt your willingness to be immature when confronted with data that conflicts with what you want to believe.




b) Now he presents us a video where he obviously wishes us to believe that the planes hitting the WTC towers were FAKED!?!?!!? Could anyone stoop lower than this?

Certianly. We could have a yo' mama fight. I thought the video did a good job off showing crash physics. You DID push pause to examine the exterior around the plane didn't you?



You accuse me of insulting the victims of 911.

RMT I argue this stuff in the hopes for justice. I feel you argue this stuff for the fun of shameing people like myself.

Which idea is more insulting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r5fBdUTvzA

Above is the video I sent to ruthless in the hopes he would understand what the TV fakery means. To my sadness he found it less than convinceing.
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

Hey guys,

Lastnight - out of curiousity, I paid a visit over to letsroll911.org and spent most of what remained of my evening reading through about 15 pages of a long thread devoted to the plane that hit tower #2. This is the plane that was on video flying into the building from a couple of different angles that we've probably all seen dozens of times.

It seems apparent they've come to a determination after some intense examination of the fuselage, tail section, and noting it had no visible windows along the side, and from explosions that resulted from both plane impacts (towers #1 & #2), that the plane was a 767-300ER military tanker jet with a "poor mans" nuke attatched someplace near the front of the plane. (Will wonders ever cease.) :eek:

In the first 8 pages, they've got photos of the UA 767-222 jet plane that is alleged to have struck the building up close on a runway, and in flight - and then a picture of this Boeing 767-300ER USAF tanker in flight refueling some fighters. There was some speculation about the wingspan, and shape of the wings too.

Although, someone spent some time analyizing frames of the plane as it struck the building, to make this determination - there is one graphic posted, I found troubling and it was of the fuselage. To me one wing and engine seems offset from the other. To me this doesn't seem right. Who would build a plane with wings like that??

letsroll911.org, Page 8, Post #5

This link above will take you to the page, but you'll have to scroll down until you come to picture that reads "plane that hit tower #2 - Normal boeing 767." Sorry - but I couldn't figure out how to post the picture here :oops:

I woke up today thinking about a story entitled: 'The Sign of Four' and in it - Sherlock Holmes famous line: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? "
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

Indeed, Who in their right mind would construct a plane with offset engines? A video tech, thats who.
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

It seems apparent they've come to a determination after some intense examination of the fuselage, tail section, and noting it had no visible windows along the side, and from explosions that resulted from both plane impacts (towers #1 & #2), that the plane was a 767-300ER military tanker jet with a "poor mans" nuke attatched someplace near the front of the plane. (Will wonders ever cease.)

In the first 8 pages, they've got photos of the UA 767-222 jet plane that is alleged to have struck the building up close on a runway, and in flight - and then a picture of this Boeing 767-300ER USAF tanker in flight refueling some fighters. There was some speculation about the wingspan, and shape of the wings too.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting conclusion they have come to, considering the US does not have any 767 tankers in its fleet, and even more interesting considering that the 767 never existed in a tanker configuration in 2001 at all!

If you check the news for "USAF tanker contract" you will see that ONLY now is the USAF considering who will build the next refueling tanker aircraft that will begin to replace the KC-135 tankers, and eventually the KC-10 tankers. Here is a link stating that the USAF has delayed its selection from the two teams (Boeing and my company, Northrop-Grumman) until this coming December.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/08/airforce_tankercontract_070819/

I think I should know a bit about this subject, given that I have worked on our offering (the KC-30 which is based on the Airbus A330 jet, as they are our primary partner in this competition).

What is interesting is that no 767 aircraft was ever configured as a tanker UNTIL after 2002 when Italy became the "launch customer" for this version of the 767. Japan is also in the process of acquiring 767 tankers. And oh, BTW, the 767 variant used for the refueling tanker is the 767-200. There has never even been discussion of making a 767-300 into a tanker.

It seems you have stumbled upon some people who come to conclusions without checking their facts. If you can provide me the link to where someone says they saw a 767 tanker, perhaps I can take a look at it and tell you what type of airplane it really is. If it has an engine under each wing it is likely a KC-10 (which is a variant of the DC-10, and has a 3rd engine above its tail).

RMT
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

a plane flying at an angle will look like it has offset engines. there goes more fake evidence. this is why im totally giving up on what happened on 911. conspiracy theorists dont want you to believe the truth, they want you to believe their lies, and will do anything to get you to believe so.

"frame 37 skipped, so it must be a conspiracy..."

"i found this fake evidence, so it must be a conspiracy..."

"ooh! ooh! the tape glitched! there were never even any planes! it was all a conspiracy!"

in your arguments, you believe the things you want to, and you could care less about the things you dont.

yes, i watched the video. and no, it did not impress me. actually it sickened me.

now look, i would love to have a magic wand that would tell me the truth about 911, who shot kennedy, ufo's, etc. but theres no magic wand, and you cant go making crap up like you do have one.

rmt has proven facts, and taken the time to show how his evidence supports his side of the story. you have done no such thing. you have, however, insulted and ridiculed several people, including me.
 
Here is a quote from titorite:

I on the otherhand do my best to answer every question I can that I am asked...
Click to expand...

I wonder if he really does answer every question that is put to him? Let's see if he chooses to try to answer this question:

Question for titorite:"How can you continue to claim clean airplane parts are "inconsistent" now that you have been unequivocally shown that there were parts thrown from the impact point that were ALWAYS outside the fireball?"

You seem to have ignored this, and so I had to ask this question. If you are a man of honor, you will answer it.

Oh yes... and stop trying to change the subject to WTC when you have not finished admitting you can't prove squat about the Pentagon events being anything other than what the official story says they were.

RMT
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

conspiracy theorists dont want you to believe the truth, they want you to believe their lies, and will do anything to get you to believe so.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what is going on, ruthless. I could not have said it better myself.

And with regard to this thought, I suggest we all look at what titorite, himself, wrote about what he is trying to do.

I am willing to debate this event because I believe I can change peoples minds...
Click to expand...

This is what is known as a Freudian Slip. Take note he did not choose the words "convince people". He selected the specific words that he "can change peoples minds". That is an active phrase, and his subconscious dictated the selection of those words, because it relates exactly what he is trying to do. He is trying to ACTIVELY change (control) YOUR MIND. He is not merely making suggestions, and asking you to consider them valid so that YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR MIND. He is wishing to do it for you. Big, BIG, B-I-G Freudian Slip there, I would say! :eek:

And titorite dares to call my morals and ethics into question? At least I am not saying "I can change your mind." I am simply showing how bad assumptions lead to flawed conclusions in any investigative effort. Unfortunately, titorite "volunteered" to be the guinea pig who would help me prove that bad assumptions lead to flawed conclusions. He has acted true to his part in this regard. He has defined his bad assumptions and shown us how he can come to conclusions based on them, despite other evidence showing the assumptions to be bad.

If anyone else reading this takes ANYTHING of value away from this debate that titorite and I have had, take that away... that poor assumptions can lead to flawed conclusions. Learn from it. Learn not to make that mistake in life. Because as my old man (an engineer for AT&T in the 60s) always told me:

To ASSUME is to make an A$$ out of U and ME.
RMT
 
Re: 911 was an inside job

WOW!?!..Now How did I insult or riddicule you ruthless? The only thing I can possibly think of is saying you didn't like a video I shared with you. You didn't like it. How is me stateing that derogatory?

Also 1 or two questionable aspects is generaly not enough to suspect something. What we have here with 911 as a MULTITUDE of questionable aspects. Even you can admit something is fishy with WTC7 so why would you gloss over that and just accept it because someone else has an answer everything else?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top