Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Action80

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 93  Next >
1
There were no long distance non-stop commercial flights in the celestial navigation days.  This is exactly the kind response I'd expect from someone that has absolutely no self awareness.
The first non-stop flights made were all non-commercial.

Introducing that term is simply a diversionary tactic on your part.

The point is they were made using celestial navigation.

I am aware.

2
They have not been making non-stop flights to Johannesburg from London for that long.
Where is your evidence for this?

Also, need I remind that your question was:
Quote
How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?

The 707 was able in 1950.  If you wanted a different answer, you should have asked a different question.
I already made my statement.

Long-distance travel routes have not varied significantly since their inception.

And they haven't.

Your own post showing Lindbergh's route clearly demonstrates that.


When you compare those routes when they started to what they fly now, they are essentially the same, as I stated.
In what way is the route from London to Johannesburg the same today as it was in 1930?
Introducing a prior multistop route into the discussion of a long-distance non-stop route is typical of the BS you try to interject into any examination of issues conducted in the threads on these boards. Your style is tiresome and weary and isn't worth the effort.


In your original response, you chose to provide the route taken by Lindbergh, which...SURPRISE!!!...doesn't vary much from what is taken now. Projection?
No, not projection at all.  Is that another word you have trouble with?


Go back and read that post.  I specifically said it was like the route they take today.  I was using it as an example of one of the first great circle routes. Here's a reminder:
Quote from: BillO
Some routes starting in the late 1930s when planes had more range, like Lindberg's flight from NY to Paris, did roughly use great circles.  Those are still in use today (a bit more accurate though), but their geometry would make little sense on a flat earth.
Confirming my response then. The long-distance routes today used by airliners have changed very little.
 

Yeah, one of the holes is using the dimensions of a spherical earth to arrive at a conclusion.
Yes, thanks for pointing that out, and not only is not a "hole" it proves their point as when they use a flat earth is does NOT work.

Your getting like Ranty now, working hard to prove the earth is round!!  Keep it up buddy!
Not hardly, as the sphere that should be labeled as such by them is NOT the earth, but the celestial sphere above.

Try harder next time.

3
How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?
Ever since planes with the range have been available, and that matters squat because they do fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg and back and they don't fly the old routes anymore.  On the slight chance you are asking in earnest, the Boeing 707 was the first airliner that was capable of making the flight.  It was first flown in 1950.  So, the ability has been there for 74 years.
What slight chance?

They have not been making non-stop flights to Johannesburg from London for that long.

When you compare those routes when they started to what they fly now, they are essentially the same, as I stated.

You have nothing.
You have to love the projection here.  Scintillating!
In your original response, you chose to provide the route taken by Lindbergh, which...SURPRISE!!!...doesn't vary much from what is taken now. Projection?


Even that paper is full of holes.
So surely you can point out a few of these "holes" with your detailed reasoning as to why they are "holes", to help us all understand, right?  Or are you just making baseless statements?
Yeah, one of the holes is using the dimensions of a spherical earth to arrive at a conclusion.

4
snipped for brevity
Also, key factor, celestial navigation does not and cannot work on a flat earth.  https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.07491.pdf
How long have they been able to fly non-stop from London to Johannesburg?

You have nothing.

Even that paper is full of holes.

5
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 25, 2024, 11:13:22 AM »
The video concerns his report, so I am the one sticking to the video. You are the one who is not. You are the one introducing wild conspiratorial conjecture which will no longer be tolerated.

He didn't say that explosives were not used to bring the building down because the report he released points to the evidence released by FEMA.


It appears that what was said in the Angry Ranting section turns out to be correct... that I am debating our lowest tier debate poster and a large rock while sadly losing an uphill battle against conspiracy theory circular logic.

You have my permission to have the last word.
You've got nothing except to keep pushing the actual conspiracy theory then.

Good to know.

6
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 23, 2024, 10:10:37 PM »
The video concerns his report, so I am the one sticking to the video. You are the one who is not. You are the one introducing wild conspiratorial conjecture which will no longer be tolerated.

He didn't say that explosives were not used to bring the building down because the report he released points to the evidence released by FEMA.

7
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 23, 2024, 08:11:13 PM »
From A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center-7:

"• Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building, as asserted by
NIST. In order to allow for the observed collapse of the east penthouse approximately 7
seconds prior to the collapse of the rest of the structure, these columns needed to have
failed at the upper floors of the building all the way to the penthouse. Yet there were no
documented fires above Floor 30. Therefore, fire did not cause the collapse of Columns
79, 80, and 81 nor the collapse of the east penthouse (Section 4.3).
•The hypothetical failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 — the three easternmost core
columns — would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures. Therefore,
the hypotheses of NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger that the buckling of Column
79 could trigger a progressive collapse of the entire building are invalid, and the collapse
of Columns 79, 80, and 81 high in the building was a separate and distinct event (Section
4.5).

"According to Appendix C of FEMA’s May 2002 report, a steel member recovered from
WTC 7 was found to have experienced corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and
sulfidation at 1,000°C, resulting in the formation of a liquid eutectic (see Figure 1.8).
Researchers have hypothesized that the presence of thermate, which is a form of thermite
incendiary that includes sulfur, would explain the sulfidation and formation of a liquid
eutectic (Jones, 2006 and 2007)."

8
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 23, 2024, 08:03:09 PM »
The following are 3 initial Questions about the models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey:

1. In his simulation model, where were each of the individual demo/detonations placed in terms of what floor and on what beam or column?
2. From question 1, what were the total number of demo/detonations in his model?
3. An observation made and seen (from video content of WTC 7 collapsing) is that the building fell on it's own footprint; in a very similar manner some say to that of building demolitions. During building demolitions (specially with tall buildings) observers and video content show many many visible and individual pops and puffs of smoke coming from each individual demo/detonation. Does the number of demo/detonation devices in Dr. Hulsey's model = the number of pops reported by witnesses = many number of reported/observed puffs of smoke from each detonation?   

The following is one additional question (not directly related to Dr. Hulsey's report) that I would be curious to get your take on:
4. If you believe this to be a conspiracy (an inside job) where WTC 7 was brought down by demo, why would the demo have been set up to have the building fall on it's own footprint vs. falling off center or to the side? Did the government forget to tell the demo company to setup the detonations in such locations as to have WTC 7 fall off center to better hide the truth? Did the government forget to do this in the same manner that NASA keeps forgetting to put stars in their background shots of space?
             
Where did Dr. Hulsey state in his interview that explosive charges were utilized?


Where does he say that they weren't utilized?
Wait a minute. You are claiming they were utilized?

Why don't you stick to the video.

9
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 23, 2024, 06:48:10 PM »
The following are 3 initial Questions about the models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey:

1. In his simulation model, where were each of the individual demo/detonations placed in terms of what floor and on what beam or column?
2. From question 1, what were the total number of demo/detonations in his model?
3. An observation made and seen (from video content of WTC 7 collapsing) is that the building fell on it's own footprint; in a very similar manner some say to that of building demolitions. During building demolitions (specially with tall buildings) observers and video content show many many visible and individual pops and puffs of smoke coming from each individual demo/detonation. Does the number of demo/detonation devices in Dr. Hulsey's model = the number of pops reported by witnesses = many number of reported/observed puffs of smoke from each detonation?   

The following is one additional question (not directly related to Dr. Hulsey's report) that I would be curious to get your take on:
4. If you believe this to be a conspiracy (an inside job) where WTC 7 was brought down by demo, why would the demo have been set up to have the building fall on it's own footprint vs. falling off center or to the side? Did the government forget to tell the demo company to setup the detonations in such locations as to have WTC 7 fall off center to better hide the truth? Did the government forget to do this in the same manner that NASA keeps forgetting to put stars in their background shots of space?
             
Where did Dr. Hulsey state in his interview that explosive charges were utilized?

10
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 23, 2024, 04:29:08 AM »
If you believe WTC 7 was an inside demolition job, please provide the following so that we can have a good debate around it. These are my initial questions:

- based on your own research, what specific floors and what specific beams or support points were the pyrotechnic explosives placed?
- from the above question, what were the total number of pyrotechnic explosions placed and triggered?
- approximately how much pyrotechnic material (in pounds) was placed at each placement location?
- when do you believe all of these pyrotechnic explosives were placed and how long do you think it would have taken to place all of them?
- why didn't the "government" plant or place the pyrotechnic explosives so that the building fell in a more sideways manner. If they wanted to hide what they were doing, why wouldn't they have done so?
         
LOL! "Pyrotechnic..."

Once again, the thread is about the paper and accompanying models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey.

If you want to address his paper and findings, great.

11
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 22, 2024, 01:46:57 PM »
I am pointing out you chose to label the NIST computer modeling as valid, for the benefit of the readership here. That is a lie, as the NIST did not release their data sets to validate the model.

You know, the thing that scientists in pursuit of the truth are required to do.

So, you lied when you labeled the NIST computer modeling as valid.

Case closed.


You seem to continue to trip over yourself.

Had you bothered to carefully read the reply's posted within your own OP thread, you would know that I did not label the NIST report as Valid.

What you are referring to is a quote posting snippet (amongst many) from Tom that came from the NIST report. Tom says "Also, this is funny"...and then attaches a snippet portion of the NIST report which states "These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. THESE VALIDATED COMPUTER MODELS produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred."

All I did was reply with "Nothing really news-breaking or earth shattering Tom" and attached back the same quotes from the NIST. I wouldn't go so far as to call Tom a liar though.
Nothing earth shattering when the "validated computer models," do not reflect what was witnessed.

You are joking, right?

Or just lying.

Perhaps when the NIST said "these validated computer models" the validations they were referring to could have been from "the observations that confirmed what actually occurred" in their report. As I mentioned earlier, I did not do the computer modelling at the NIST and so I suggest that you reach out to them to get clarity on what they meant by "validated computer models."

I would also suggest that you do your own research and apply critical thought vs. uploading conspiracy theory video feeds and believing everything they say. You know, the thing that scientists do in pursuit of the truth that they are required to do.
I uploaded a video of an interview with Dr. Hulsey.

You have no critique of his model, just more of the same attack-the-messenger bullshit the rest of the liars have to offer in response.

Pathetic crap.

Dr. Hulsey's model does reflect what was seen that day.

And you reflect what was seen afterward by all the other infantile AI chatbots that were soon trotted out immediately after 9/11. You know, labeling people who were questioning the events as "truthers." Imagine, attempting to turn the word "truth," into an insult. Czar Bushy the II was a real slick one, uh...


You've got to stop watching video feeds that are steeped with conspiracy theory content. I believe it's turned you paranoid and has perhaps taken away your ability to apply good rationale critical thought.
"Conspiracy theory content" has nothing to do with it, yet, rather hypocritically, you choose to side with the CONSPIRACY THEORY (and that is exactly what it is, for the mainstream media and all government officials that day plainly stated the Arabs...CONSPIRED) that somehow, someway, Arabs with little to no flight training, were able to commandeer four US domestic airliners, armed with nothing more than boxcutters, and manage to achieve what has never before happened in all of human history; that is, manage to successfully bring down three buildings in a controlled demolition in New York, NY, punch a near perfect hole in the Pentagon through to the inner ring with an aluminum framed jet, and nose dive another into a field in PA, leaving hardly any scarred area on the ground.

Sorry, you should take your own advice and stop peddling clear, utter tripe on these boards.

I watched the video and provided a list of my observations with some critical thought questions as well; you kind of ignored it and continue to shout "liar."

My observation of you is that it seems like you watch said conspiracy video content and then kind of repeat what the people in the video are saying. For example -- in the Jimmy Dore video you uploaded, he says stuff about labelling people who were questioning events as "truthers". You watched his video and are simply repeating exactly what he said.

My other observation of you is that you set a very low bar or low standard of evidence for anything you believe in and set an impossibly high bar of evidence for anything that doesn't align to your world view. For example, in a previous thread you will say things like (paraphrasing): whenever I have looked around / wherever I have looked around the earth looks flat to me, therefore I conclude it must be flat. You say this as a declaration and then kind of close the books. But then, your expectation from "the other side" is impossibly high to such a degree that you resort to calling people liars if, for example, they forget to add units of measure to a sentence.           
You offered absolutely nothing regarding the models presented by Dr. Hulsey, because you have nothing to counter what they demonstrate. The official story regarding the collapse of WTC - 7 on 9/11 is bullshit, plain, pure, and simple. And you and the rest of the conspiracy theorists need to stop pushing your unfounded conspiracy theories. They are lies and when you push them, that makes you a liar.

I repeated what Jimmy Dore said because it is true. The ones pushing the "official story," which is in reality, "a conspiracy theory," are the ones who wanted to mock the people questioning those events as "truthers." Turning a quest for truth about that day into some sort of insult.

Ain't gonna happen here.

I cannot help it if you are unable to post coherent sentences here on the forum. If you do not enjoy having that inability pointed out, perhaps you need to find another sandbox.

12
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 22, 2024, 08:04:09 AM »
I am pointing out you chose to label the NIST computer modeling as valid, for the benefit of the readership here. That is a lie, as the NIST did not release their data sets to validate the model.

You know, the thing that scientists in pursuit of the truth are required to do.

So, you lied when you labeled the NIST computer modeling as valid.

Case closed.


You seem to continue to trip over yourself.

Had you bothered to carefully read the reply's posted within your own OP thread, you would know that I did not label the NIST report as Valid.

What you are referring to is a quote posting snippet (amongst many) from Tom that came from the NIST report. Tom says "Also, this is funny"...and then attaches a snippet portion of the NIST report which states "These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building's collapse. THESE VALIDATED COMPUTER MODELS produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred."

All I did was reply with "Nothing really news-breaking or earth shattering Tom" and attached back the same quotes from the NIST. I wouldn't go so far as to call Tom a liar though.
Nothing earth shattering when the "validated computer models," do not reflect what was witnessed.

You are joking, right?

Or just lying.

Perhaps when the NIST said "these validated computer models" the validations they were referring to could have been from "the observations that confirmed what actually occurred" in their report. As I mentioned earlier, I did not do the computer modelling at the NIST and so I suggest that you reach out to them to get clarity on what they meant by "validated computer models."

I would also suggest that you do your own research and apply critical thought vs. uploading conspiracy theory video feeds and believing everything they say. You know, the thing that scientists do in pursuit of the truth that they are required to do.
I uploaded a video of an interview with Dr. Hulsey.

You have no critique of his model, just more of the same attack-the-messenger bullshit the rest of the liars have to offer in response.

Pathetic crap.

Dr. Hulsey's model does reflect what was seen that day.

And you reflect what was seen afterward by all the other infantile AI chatbots that were soon trotted out immediately after 9/11. You know, labeling people who were questioning the events as "truthers." Imagine, attempting to turn the word "truth," into an insult. Czar Bushy the II was a real slick one, uh...

13
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 21, 2024, 04:33:32 AM »
I am pointing out you chose to label the NIST computer modeling as valid, for the benefit of the readership here. That is a lie, as the NIST did not release their data sets to validate the model.

You know, the thing that scientists in pursuit of the truth are required to do.

So, you lied when you labeled the NIST computer modeling as valid.

Case closed.

14
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 20, 2024, 08:54:14 AM »

Google search - "how much fuel did ua 175 carry"

1st up = "UA 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER and had also left Boston, bound for Los Angeles. It flew into WTC 2 carrying about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb) of jet fuel, evenly distributed between the inboard portions of the left and right wing tanks."

That is less than 10,000.

Your "book," is way, way off...perhaps in the section called "fiction."


So, "62,000 lb ........ that is less than 10,000".  Please explain.  Are you introducing gallons into this debate, when jet fuel is measured by mass, just to maintain your assertion that Mahogany is a liar?
It seems jet fuel is measured by more than just mass.

"The cost of fueling your private jet can vary significantly. For example, on May 11, 2022, the IATA per gallon price was $4.82 in North America, $4.01 in Europe, and $3.55 in Asia. At Boston's Hanscomb Field Jet A was selling between $9.79 and $13.38 per gallon. In Oklahoma City it was as low as $7.05 per gallon."

But no. mahogany clarified he meant pounds.

So, if he meant pounds, he meant pounds. He didn't write that.

He also hasn't told the truth regarding valid computer modeling performed by the NIST. Because they did not perform valid computer modeling.

15
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 19, 2024, 08:07:36 PM »
Both 767s were destined for LAX.  According to Mr Google, a 767 uses around 13,000 pounds of fuel per hour.  Flight time of 5 hours from passing NY, plus 40 min reserves, would suggest that each 767 was carrying around 70,000 pounds of Jet-A1; kerosene if you will, at impact.  "Tens of thousands" in my book. 

Although Mahogany did not specify units, aircraft of US origin normally measure fuel load in pounds; European generally in kilograms.  Fuel quantity on commercial and military aircraft is always quantified by mass (not volume) since that is directly related to its calorific value. 

Can you be a little more specific about his alleged lie?
Google search - "how much fuel did ua 175 carry"

1st up = "UA 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER and had also left Boston, bound for Los Angeles. It flew into WTC 2 carrying about 9,100 gal (62,000 lb) of jet fuel, evenly distributed between the inboard portions of the left and right wing tanks."

That is less than 10,000.

Your "book," is way, way off...perhaps in the section called "fiction."

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 19, 2024, 07:38:38 PM »
As I pointed out a couple of years ago, the Corn Pop story has been corroborated. Intuitively you feel that it isn't true, but the evidence shows that it actually is. Not a great start if that's Exhibit A of Biden's supposed mental incompetence.
Wearing your hard hat backward is an important first step in challenging vicious men named "Corn Pop," on the mean streets of Wilmington, DE.

17
Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7
« on: February 19, 2024, 07:25:17 PM »
two commercial airliners (each carrying tens of thousands of kerosene jet full)
^this is a lie.


what specifically is the lie?
"Each carrying tens of thousands of jet full (sic)"

Once you admit this one, then you can deal with the lie of the "valid" NIST computer modeling.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 19, 2024, 05:56:24 PM »
I didn't mean he was actually defrauding people.
I mean, if you're going to go around spending $300 on sneakers then you're clearly an idiot, but I guess that's your business.
I just find it hilarious how easy Trump finds it to extract money from his cult.
I agree that spending 400 dollars on sneakers makes you an idiot.

You characterized the pitch of the sneakers as "grifting."

Are you against licensing agreements?

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 19, 2024, 03:04:55 PM »
So... Mixing up foreign names means he doesn't know where a border is?

Does that mean that if you mix up your coworker's name, you don't know where you work?
What name did he mix up?

What does my coworker have to do with the border?
The Egyptian and Mexican leaders.  As your link states.
He only mentioned one name. In the same press conference where he was scolding the special counsel who stated the reason why he wasn't charged with lying about and mishandling classified documents was because he was (effectively) senile and he doubted he would be convicted.

I mean, the reason why he wasn't charged is actually the same reason why none of the charges against Trump will ever result in anything of consequence and that is because these "special counsels" have no real standing under US Code to prosecute charges.

But Joe is senile, no doubt about it.

That "Corn Pop," fella is vicious, I tell ya...

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 19, 2024, 01:00:40 PM »
So... Mixing up foreign names means he doesn't know where a border is?

Does that mean that if you mix up your coworker's name, you don't know where you work?
What name did he mix up?

What does my coworker have to do with the border?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 93  Next >