Reply With Quote
Not really.
It does prove that RG knows how to read financial statements and research quarterly filings.
That may be the only thing it proves.
Is there a point to any of this?
Not really.
It does prove that RG knows how to read financial statements and research quarterly filings.
That may be the only thing it proves.
Is Dan going to give all the stats of all the cross-country planes that flew from all those airports that morning?
Or is he just going to move on to something else like it was a scheme to boost the ratings of Frasier.
CNNIndustry sources said post-Labor Day isn't normally a strong time and air traffic is off this year, but passenger loads on the four flights are off about 20 percent from similar routes last September.
"They may have done some research,'' said John Ho , an American Airlines spokesperson. "If it's an issue of being able to control a fewer number of passengers, they may have been astute enough to know that Tuesday and Wednesday are your lower load factor days.''
Ho said the airline hasn't detected any unusual booking activity on its two flights, dismissing speculation that the hijackers bought a large number of unused tickets.
I finished reading though the quarterly filings of united and american.
SUMMARY:
We have a lot of overcapacity and are losing money.
Both airlines were slowlyreducing capacity, but business traveller cutbacks were greater than the airlines predictions, so they were caught with a LOT of extra capacity that they have only now started to correct.
To distract from all the other stupid that is flat out wrong?
Better to put in a coincidence that you know is slightly suggestive, than to risk being proven wrong again, I guess.
This s*** is weeaaak.
But there were fewer people flying!
On a Tuesday morning!
Wake up sheeple!
More:
LinkyThe first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned al ude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it.
The Hijacking of American 77
LinkyAt 8:54, the aircraft deviated from its assigned course, turning south. Two minutes later the transponder was turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft was lost. The Indianapolis Air Traffic Control Center repeatedly tried and failed to contact the aircraft. American Airlines dispatchers also tried, without success.
Let's see the huge difference dan is trying to show here in bold.
American Airlines Flight 77: A Boeing 757-223 -- Seating Capacity 200, carrying 58 passengers (5 hijackers) and 6 crew.
Dan says that the fact there are 15 fewer passengers compared to September 2000 is a sure sign of a conspiracy.
United Airlines Flight 93: A Boeing 757-222 -- Seating Capacity 200, carrying 37 passengers (4 hijackers) and 7 crew.
Dan says that the fact there are 9 fewer passengers compared to September 2000 is a sure sign of a conspiracy.
American Airlines Flight 11: A Boeing 767-223ER -- Seating Capacity 181 --carrying 81 passengers (5 hijackers) and 11 crew.
Dan says that the fact there are 20 fewer passengers compared to September 2000 is a sure sign of a conspiracy.
United Airlines Flight 175: A Boeing 767-222 -- Seating capacity 181, 56 passengers (incl. 5 hijackers) and 9 crew.
Dan says that the fact there are 14 fewer passengers compared to September 2000 is a sure sign of a conspiracy.
For some reason Chump in his Vodka induced mind thinks a plane smashing into a building at 500 miles per hour will not leave any marks where the wings and the huge engines would hit. As seen in the photo below you see no sign of any wings or engine marks but yet according to him we are to believe they smashed into millions of pieces...
Speaking of millions of pieces..(Chumps contradictions exposed) why is it when we want proof of wings, engines , and people , they always seem to have been smased into millions of pieces. and yet when you need a produce a plane part? you have all these nice clean bright red and blue metal aircraft parts just sitting their in the open?
That piece of so called aircraft debris that looked like American airlines was later found to not even be part of the same metal they use. It's not hard to paint an unmanned aircraft to look like Southwest airlines if you want. Many eye witnesses saw men wearing ties placing small light weight parts through out the debris field, as they Covered other parts using blue tarps. But that footage will come later.
It is not easy to debate with people who have not at least seen 1 of the 3 top 911 films. No one says you have to believe any of it, But by watching the films you don't have to ask basic simple questions that will only slow down the debate as we want to move froward with the videos. After all even though I may not like Gay cowboys I would at least watch Broke back mountain before I engage myself in any form of debate. It only makes sense.
now back to the TRUTH after all the video [_] tells the truth!
Some of you keep asking for proof of Termite charges being placed. A top demolition expert shows the TV crew how they use linear shape charges at an angle to produce the same cuts seen in the WTC steel beams that where still sticking out on the ground after the so called collapse.
There are pictures of engine parts and landing gear and people widely available. Not my fault you don't even try to look for them.Speaking of millions of pieces..(Chumps contradictions exposed) why is it when we want proof of wings, engines , and people , they always seem to have been smased into millions of pieces. and yet when you need a produce a plane part? you have all these nice clean bright red and blue metal aircraft parts just sitting their in the open?
An animated gif is proof of thermite?Some of you keep asking for proof of Termite charges being placed.
Stay off the vodka chumpy. Either the 911 conspirators knew exactly what flights to target or they were extremely lucky.
They knew that these flights would have an average of 15 fewer passengers onboard compared to the previous year?
Please give me the stats of all the cross country flights originating from Dulles, Newark and Logan Airports that morning so you can show just how big a difference there was.
This next video shows a steel framed building that burned for over 20 hours and did not collapse and yet it was still strong enough to support a heavy craine
And please Dan, tell me what ratio of hijackers to passengers would have deterred the hijackers from their plan? I'm sure you have that magic number as well.
The steel frame did indeed collapse while the concrete used in the structure remained standing. The building was constructed using a completely different method and was not hit by a jetliner traveling over 500mph. The building had to be demolished. Sometimes a picture is worth nothing.
More truth to come...............
You might want to compress them more some more while you are at it. Quality shouldn't be a concern for you.
Yes. For those flights, on that Tuesday morning, 32.85%. Any more stupid questions?
32.85%
Just like they planned it.
The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.
a very large quan y of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed incon uously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior par ions.
REMEMBER THIS IS JUST THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY/FORCE IN THE FIRST 11 METERS OF THE 400+ METER COLLAPSE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE = m x g x h
Consider the mass of just the top floor of the building.
PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m
Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.
SOOOO
The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.
Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.
They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.
Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.
Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:
v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second
Subs ute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m
This means the 30 foot section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.
Think about this for a moment.
The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.
Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing.
STILL FURTHER
Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.
IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.
Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)
What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?
Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
