Reply With Quote
Lies by denial Chumpy....but you keep holding on tight to your 911 Commission Report bible...
Lies by omission, dan.
Lies by denial Chumpy....but you keep holding on tight to your 911 Commission Report bible...
You keep holding on tight to....
Well, nothing.
That's what you got after a full decade of two-hour YouTubes and lying about emailing conspiracy celebrities.
Yeah, funny that the more your beloved 911Commission Report and NIST report continues to fall apart the more desperate you get..
Eh, I admit I was skeptical of the official story once too -- but when I actually started looking into the claims being made by truthers like you, it became more and more clear that they had nothing but innuendo and unwarranted arrogance.
The official story explains pretty much everything.
The crap people like you post explains nothing.
Gee, dan -- no comment about this?
So what exactly is the conjecture? That none of the crashes actually occurred? Or that they did occur but were part of some elaborate government plot? It seems as though the "Truther" movement and its associates continually create loose theories which leave out a fair amount of evidence and then rely on the straw man of total acceptance of the 9/11 Commission Report as a response when their theories are picked apart.
I don't see how any of that answers my question or is relevent to it. Math is also part of my job, but that wouldn't keep me from answering a simple question.
How does the 40 degree angle affect the formula?
If you don't know the answer, then just say so. You could say, "I don't know, but I think it would."
Possible answers:
1. It does because of ......
2. It doesn't affect it.
3. I don't know, but I think it does.
4. .......
I'm about here, and am still scolling down.
Without getting to the bottom of the page, I am going to guess that dan didn't find it or post anything about it.
Even dan's "good friend" () Jim Fetzer brought it up, though he tried to gloss it over as much as possible.
It's the closest crash to United 93 I have seen. Of course there are differences in terrain and the like, but the main resemblances are striking.
lol KE over 12.
I think you're full of crap. You consistently alternate between being intellectually lazy and dishonest. Perhaps loading up a few pre-canned rationales as User666 suggested would go a long way to helping get all of the feet that are currently stuck in your ass out of it.
Why? I already said that a 40 degree angle would have an impact on RG's calculation...
How do YOU think a 40 degree angle is going to affect a crashing airliner? There is certainly going to be some damper effect and solving your problem is as simple as factoring in the exact angle (debatable), the exact airspeed at the time of impact (debatable), and the negative 5 degree angle of the plane, and multiplying then this factor to RG's KE of 14 (debatable)...certainly no complicated math there, even you could probably do that math, but that's not what your really after is it? You just want to drag this stupid point out because it takes away from so many other weaknesses in the official story...
...and if you still don't like that answer, so what.....I'm not the one making generalizations using calculations which may or may not be true ..
The good doctor is chapped because he can't tell the difference between .05 and .5...I tutored doctors who were smarter....
Speaking of doctors, what did Dr. Fetzer say when you emailed him?
lol chapped
You're a much better comedian than mathematician....seeing as you've still to figure out the difference between a typo and a "mathematical error".
You maintain that a 40 degree angle would impact the calculations yet you won't work out the specific factors involved.
If you knew, I'm sure you'd be quick to show us up. Instead you continue to offer nebulous replies.
You're full of crap.
Thank you! Finally!
By the way the angle that the plane travels as it hits the ground has nothing to do with RG's formula. There is no variable in RG's formula to factor in the angle of decent or what affect it would have on the formula. Since the speed of the plane was known at impact and the weight of the plane would not have a significant variance, the angle makes no difference.
Perhaps Dan will now realize why I continue to say that he's full of crap.
Doubtful, but perhaps.
Dan suffers from the inability to be wrong.
I already posted that it was not the real James Fetzer. You're the one who kept insisting that it was. One more time for those who don't get it yet....that is not the real James Fetzer. How else could I be so sure of this if I did not write the real James Fetzer and get a response?
Finally. You must not read very well, I've been saying that all along. Unlike RG I refuse to be locked down to a certain number though because there are too many variables which are debatable and I don't wanna burn effort defending something so mundane.
Sure it does. All other things being equal, if you drop something at a 90 degree angle it will have a more significant impact than of you drop something at a 40 degree, 30 degree, or 10 degree angle. Moreso, your going to have larger amounts of debris scattered across a larger area than you would have with a direct impact. We can debate this all we want but the impact crater does not look like an impact crater for a plane that hit the ground at a 40'degree angle. Even more, some witnesses have reported that the plane struck on a wing which would have led to debris being scattered over an even larger area.
Simple.
You're lying.
Tell you what, dan -- let's have a few other posters here email Dr. Fetzer and verify either your claim that it is not Fetzer or mine that it is and he posted our exchange in this thread.
How would you like that?
Zoom went the angle of my answer over your head!!!!
There are no variables significant enough to account for that would affect a large commercial jet striking the ground at over 500mph. If there is list them.
RG's formula has nothing to do with debris fields. At the speed and mass of the plane, the angle would have to be around <1 degree, unless of course you can provide an example of a plane that lands on the ground at 500mph at a steeper angle. At the speed the plane was traveling the wing would not have any effect. It's like taping a beer can to your bumper and ramming it into a concrete wall at 60mph. The can might as well not have existed. You physics reasoning is like that of a cartoon and not reality.
The problem you have Dan, is that you don't know anything about the subjects that you form your concrete speculations for. Casual observations are one thing, but your stubborn defense of them is another.
Last edited by Useruser666; 05-24-2012 at 11:00 AM. Reason: Autocorrect
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions