FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Flight 93 - Overview
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn

Quote:
Hey Grumpy - I happen to have done the graphics work on a lot of Killtown's McClatchey accusations.


Not something to be proud of. That makes you part of the problem and responsible for this stupid shit.

Quote:
she also swears "the plane flew right over" her house


She heard it, not saw it. Hearing(especially in an enclosed space) is a very poor indicator of direction or position. The most you can say is she was mistaken.

The Killtown harassment of this woman is one of the low points in some very sleezy events. Had I been her I would have sued his pants off(and you as well) for such useless and antisocial behavior.

Saw a video of Killtown and others behavior in NY on an aniversary of 911. Looked to me like the only reason he didn't have to go to a hospital to have a bullhorn surgically removed from his ass is because of the heavy police presence. There were some firefighters and steelworkers there ready to give him an attitude adjustment with a ballbat. Now that would make an entertaining reality show!!! Hell, I would PAY to see that one!!!

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy wrote:
Quote:
Hey Grumpy - I happen to have done the graphics work on a lot of Killtown's McClatchey accusations.


Not something to be proud of. That makes you part of the problem and responsible for this stupid shit.

I stand by my research. It's correct, scientific, carefully documented and adheres precisely to the laws of physics. Therefore, blow it out your ass. Cool

Quote:
The Killtown harassment of this woman is one of the low points in some very sleezy events. Had I been her I would have sued his pants off(and you as well) for such useless and antisocial behavior.

Have you had much luck in your letigious campaign against anti-social behavior? Now you really sound like a member of the Bush administration. Freudian slip, Grump?

And I would welcome a lawsuit regarding the Shanksville data (as stupid as that would be, suing over the legitimacy of a photo), as I would welcome suit brought against many 9/11 Truthers. But don't hold your breath - they don't dare swat that hornet's nest. You can be sure that the only courts such cases would be allowed would feature compromised judge Reggie Walton and NWO legal whore Patrick Fitzgerald as prosecutor.

The only reason I'd be at all hesitant is that I'd fear for my long-time lawyer's safety. He'd suddenly expire in a one-car crash on a deserted road, and the next thing I'd know I'd be represented by Mark Zaid.

Laughing

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn

Quote:
I stand by my research.


Like calling this cloud of smoke "ordinance related"???





On August 13, 2006, an Algerian Lockheed L100-30, the commercial version of the well-known C-130 Hercules, a four-engine turboprop, crashed near Piacenza, Italy, as reported by local news and government sources. A cloud of smoke rose from the crash site and a local resident, Gianluca Pietta, took a picture of it (shown here with his permission):

Yeah, real scientific, just like claiming no plane and passenger parts were removed from the site.

Scientific??? NO. Stupid, certainly.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy wrote:
Rumpl4skn

Quote:
I stand by my research.


Like calling this cloud of smoke "ordinance related"???


It might behoove you in the future, Grump, to actually read the research you're critiquing. Show me where I postulate anything about the smoke cloud being "ordnance related." I believe that was Killtown's take, not mine.

The 'research' I referenced was my definitive proof that the smoke cloud in Val's photo is not only off the mark from the crash site (which she claims she snapped within seconds of the explosion), but also - within seconds - roughly 700 yards across in size.



Unless there was a small nuke on board Flight 93, that's not a believable size of cloud. Or, is it somehow believable in your own world of physics?

The only other possible explanation - if there indeed was a smoke cloud at that moment, and not something photoshopped in after the FBI confiscated her camera and hard drive - is that it occurred at less than half the distance to the alleged crash site.

Quote:
Scientific??? NO. Stupid, certainly.

Grumpy Cool

Once again, please be so kind as to blow it out your ass.

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn

Quote:
Unless there was a small nuke on board Flight 93, that's not a believable size of cloud. Or, is it somehow believable in your own world of physics?


What would you know about how big the cloud would be??? 2200 feet doesn't strike me as out of the realm of possibilities. The aircraft obviously struck the ground at or near supersonic speed, and the fuel(100,000 lbs of it) burned mostly within the first couple of seconds, the energy of the impact vaporized most of it instantly.

So,Scientific??? NO. Stupid, certainly.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy wrote:
What would you know about how big the cloud would be??? 2200 feet doesn't strike me as out of the realm of possibilities.

Well, that's because your job here is to deny every possible reality that conflicts with your job/agenda - which is endless apologist for the PTB. And I thank you for endlessly proving that over and over.

Along with the invariable, obligatory insult at the end of each post, designed to drive every discussion into the realm of name-calling and unrelated personal insults. That's sure to generate the desired cognitive dissonance that prevents any dangerous revelation of fact.

Now let's inspect you latest "gem":

Quote:



On August 13, 2006, an Algerian Lockheed L100-30, the commercial version of the well-known C-130 Hercules, a four-engine turboprop, crashed near Piacenza, Italy, as reported by local news and government sources. A cloud of smoke rose from the crash site and a local resident, Gianluca Pietta, took a picture of it (shown here with his permission):

The discrepancy Killtown makes about the smoke clouds is not the shape, it's the color. Jet Fuel (kerosene) smoke is more black, ordnance smoke is much more gray.

Your two pictures very clearly show that a verified aircraft crash and the Shanksville cloud are clearly different colors. Thank you for your cooperation. I never thought you'd agree with me on this. Laughing

Now, if I were like you, at this point I'd add the insult, like, "Go fuck yourself." But I wouldn't do that. I'm not as smart as you.

Cool

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
PerpetualYnquisitive



Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 57
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

PostPosted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grumpy wrote:
What would you know about how big the cloud would be??? 2200 feet doesn't strike me as out of the realm of possibilities. The aircraft obviously struck the ground at or near supersonic speed, and the fuel(100,000 lbs of it) burned mostly within the first couple of seconds, the energy of the impact vaporized most of it instantly.

So,Scientific??? NO. Stupid, certainly.

Grumpy Cool


ROFLMAO, and you claim to be a 'physics teacher'. Almost too funny for words.

I'm calling you out on your absolutely FALSE claim that "the fuel(100,000 lbs of it) burned mostly within the first couple of seconds" line of b.s.

As any 'physics teacher' knows, liquids don't actually burn, the vapour around the liquid is what actually burns.

Please post the formula that shows this dispersion of the 100,000 lbs of fuel that allowed it to be "burned mostly within the first couple of seconds".

Fuel Injectors and Carburetors
Fuel injectors are designed to accurately meter fuel to the engine and to deliver it in a precise pattern of fine droplets. Because the fuel passages are small, injectors are highly sensitive to small amounts of deposits in the critical regions where the fuel is metered and atomized. These deposits can reduce fuel flow and alter the spray pattern, degrading drivability, decreasing power and fuel economy, and increasing exhaust emissions. Deposits cause similar problems for carbureted engines because carburetors also use a number of small channels and orifices to meter fuel.

Volatility, or the fuel's tendency to vaporize, is the key gasoline characteristic for good vehicle drivability. Drivability describes how your vehicle starts, warms up, runs and performs to your expectations. When the spray pattern of your fuel from the fuel injector is disrupted, the vaporization of the fuel can be negatively affected. That can seriously impact your car's drivability because only fuel vapor actually burns; solids and liquids don't burn at all.

http://www.texaco.com/yourcar/techronadvantage_deposits.asp

P.S. You can't have a plane's fuel tanks 'burrow' into the ground and be completely encapsulated by dirt in a fraction of second and have a wide, aerosol dispersion above the ground at the same time. The two events are mutually exclusive of each other, though the power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them, such as you do, is a well known trait of 'party members'.

_________________
Question everyone, Twice! Especially yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Grumpy



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 876
Location: NC USA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PerpetualYnquisitive

Quote:
ROFLMAO, and you claim to be a 'physics teacher'


Actually, the title is either "Doctor" or Professor". 30+ years of teaching physics.

Quote:
I'm calling you out on your absolutely FALSE claim that "the fuel(100,000 lbs of it) burned mostly within the first couple of seconds" line of b.s.

As any 'physics teacher' knows, liquids don't actually burn, the vapour around the liquid is what actually burns.


And if you slam a planeful of fuel into the ground at or above the speed of sound, the fuel will be vaporized on impact.

Quote:
Fuel Injectors and Carburetors
Fuel injectors are designed to accurately meter fuel to the engine and to deliver it in a precise pattern of fine droplets. Because the fuel passages are small, injectors are highly sensitive to small amounts of deposits in the critical regions where the fuel is metered and atomized. These deposits can reduce fuel flow and alter the spray pattern, degrading drivability, decreasing power and fuel economy, and increasing exhaust emissions. Deposits cause similar problems for carbureted engines because carburetors also use a number of small channels and orifices to meter fuel.

Volatility, or the fuel's tendency to vaporize, is the key gasoline characteristic for good vehicle drivability. Drivability describes how your vehicle starts, warms up, runs and performs to your expectations. When the spray pattern of your fuel from the fuel injector is disrupted, the vaporization of the fuel can be negatively affected. That can seriously impact your car's drivability because only fuel vapor actually burns; solids and liquids don't burn at all.
http://www.texaco.com/yourcar/techronadvantage_deposits.asp


And how is it that an injector vaporizes fuel???

High pressure and high speed nozzles.

Quote:
You can't have a plane's fuel tanks 'burrow' into the ground and be completely encapsulated by dirt in a fraction of second and have a wide, aerosol dispersion above the ground at the same time.


BULLSHIT. At the moment of impact nearly all of the kenetic energy is transferred to the fuel, and, like hitting a fuel filled balloon with a bullet, it instantly vaporizes the majority of the fuel, forming a huge fireball.

Quote:
The two events are mutually exclusive of each other, though the power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accept both of them, such as you do, is a well known trait of 'party members'.


And a complete lack of understanding of basic physics is an all too often seen sign of idiocy on this forum.

Grumpy Cool

_________________
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RockDock



Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 366

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Too bad I didn't see the Grumpster spewing on this thread earlier.

It is funny that in this case the fuel vaporized in seconds, but at the WTC the fuel did not vapourize at all and in fact had time to soak into the carpets and run down the elevator shafts.

The "Professor" sure could spew the BS, depending on the thread.

Nice to see him out of here. See ya around Grumpy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lord Carpainter



Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 268
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He's probably going to hop down to JREF or PWOT, complaining about being banned from a 'twoofer forum', leaving out the 'him being a troll part'. Returning to serious discussion about Flight 93, it is clear as day that no plane crashed in Shanksville. It was not shot down. It did not crash. It landed.

We've seen the obviously planted wreckage go down in flames. From the black boxes to the wreckage photos released 4 years later. It was all planted. Plane wreckage was planted at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Shanksville. Yet no traceable parts. Planting plane wreckage was detailed in the NorthWoods Documents, guys.

Quote:
THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

13 March 1962

JUSTIFICATION FOR US MILITARY INTERVENTION IN CUBA

7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc.


The grass and forest were unburnt on the day of 9/11. (The burn damage to the forest was shown AFTER 9/11, but we had seen photos of undamaged trees on the day. The fires in the forest had to have been started by the perps AFTER 9/11.) But wasn't there 5,500 gallons of jet fuel? So if it didn't burn the grass or forest, where did it go? An eyewitness on the scene said that it didn't smell like jet fuel. Just scorched earth. It wasn't on the ground either. So did it go underground? The EPA says the soil was not contaminated. There was no jet fuel.

And where was the identifiable wreckage? The only identifiable pieces we saw were in photos released 4 years after 9/11. The four-windowed fuselage piece and the colored fuselage piece. Is it just a coincidence that there was another United Airlines four-windowed fuselage piece at the World Trade Center? Why did this fuselage piece take seemingly no fire damage? Why is the fuselage piece completely undamaged as well?

There was no credible identifiable wreckage and no jet fuel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Killtown



Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 65
Location: U.S.

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 2:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Will be doing 2 hour call-in show on http://www.beyondthegrassyknoll.com/

Talking mostly about the non-plane crash in Shanksville.

_________________
Homepage - 9/11 Index - killtown.blogspot.com - Flight 93 Photo Fraud
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.