Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

Turbofan said:
Just like the reply in the other thread Mackey, the FDR recorded data with
a time reference up to :45

So it's either the clock / parameter data is off by six seconds (:rolleyes:),
or Bin Laden did some pretty trick data manipulation before the FBI arrived!

Still waiting for you to pick a theory and stick to it. Jumping around doesn't
give you much credibility.
Click to expand...

No. The FDR timestamp is the last valid data record. The data shows the aircraft is still flying, therefore impact happened after :45, and the FDR data does not continue all the way to impact. This is what I've been saying for years.

You're already arguing this in several other threads. Don't contaminate this one. The only problem here is you either cannot or will not understand what I'm saying. That's not very interesting, and it's off-topic.
 
R.Mackey said:
No. The FDR timestamp is the last valid data record. The data shows the aircraft is still flying, therefore impact happened after :45, and the FDR data does not continue all the way to impact. This is what I've been saying for years.

You're already arguing this in several other threads. Don't contaminate this one. The only problem here is you either cannot or will not understand what I'm saying. That's not very interesting, and it's off-topic.
Click to expand...

You tell that to the NTSB then.

Also try to figure out how the plane at 1.5 DME (last recorded) value on
either path could dip down to hit light poles based on the last g data.

As far as the NTSB and official story is concenred, the impact at the
Pentagn happened at :45.

It's right in the Flight Path study.

If you have a problem with that (like we do), you should question the
story.

That is all.
 
Turbofan said:
You tell that to the NTSB then.

Also try to figure out how the plane at 1.5 DME (last recorded) value on
either path could dip down to hit light poles based on the last g data.

As far as the NTSB and official story is concenred, the impact at the
Pentagn happened at :45.

It's right in the Flight Path study.

If you have a problem with that (like we do), you should question the
story.

That is all.
Click to expand...

You're still off-topic.

I don't consider a potential error of merely four seconds in NTSB's estimated impact time to be sufficient grounds to "question the story." The more likely scenario is that you've assigned a precision to that number that it simply doesn't have.

And this doesn't remotely approach the level of significance needed to cast doubt on the fate of AA 77. Even if the NTSB does intend that number to be accurate to a single second, all it would mean is that they made a mistake. There is no competing theory that makes more sense, even if what you're saying (which you have not verified) is the unvarnished truth.

Simple as that.
 
R.Mackey said:
You're still off-topic.

I don't consider a potential error of merely four seconds in NTSB's estimated impact time to be sufficient grounds to "question the story." The more likely scenario is that you've assigned a precision to that number that it simply doesn't have.

And this doesn't remotely approach the level of significance needed to cast doubt on the fate of AA 77. Even if the NTSB does intend that number to be accurate to a single second, all it would mean is that they made a mistake. There is no competing theory that makes more sense, even if what you're saying (which you have not verified) is the unvarnished truth.

Simple as that.
Click to expand...

So you've changed your story again. Instead of six second clock sync
'error', you're changing to four seconds of NTSB impact time error?

Well, like I said you better stick to one theory and make it solid.

Another question: Which set of points are you using to get 4 seconds
of impact time error?

It's still not adding up. Reply with your final theory and stick to it please.
I can't debate you if there is a constant change in your belief.
 
Four seconds, six, what's the difference?

The "theory" is quite simple:
  • American Airlines Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.
  • The flight path passed near to the Virginia Highway Patrol radio mast, and impacted several light standards prior to the final collision.
  • The final few seconds of FDR data show the approximate position and state of the aircraft just prior to these events.
  • Further FDR data was lost, due to latencies and write errors caused by the collision.
  • The best guess final trajectory of the aircraft is approximated by Case B or C in this derivation, although any of the various cases are plausible.
  • This trajectory is consistent with FAA radar data, as well as the bulk of witness testimony both from the ground and from another aircraft witnessing this event.
  • This trajectory is also entirely consistent with the performance limits of the aircraft, and the expected competence and abilities of the terrorist pilot.
  • All of these are further consistent with the recovered debris, impact damage to the structure, and recovered remains of passengers on the aircraft.

This has been my consistent position for months. Now, then, if you plan to offer an alternative hypothesis, I'll listen.
 
R.Mackey said:
Four seconds, six, what's the difference?

The "theory" is quite simple:
  • American Airlines Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.
  • The flight path passed near to the Virginia Highway Patrol radio mast, and impacted several light standards prior to the final collision.
  • The final few seconds of FDR data show the approximate position and state of the aircraft just prior to these events.
  • Further FDR data was lost, due to latencies and write errors caused by the collision.
  • The best guess final trajectory of the aircraft is approximated by Case B or C in this derivation, although any of the various cases are plausible.
  • This trajectory is consistent with FAA radar data, as well as the bulk of witness testimony both from the ground and from another aircraft witnessing this event.
  • This trajectory is also entirely consistent with the performance limits of the aircraft, and the expected competence and abilities of the terrorist pilot.
  • All of these are further consistent with the recovered debris, impact damage to the structure, and recovered remains of passengers on the aircraft.

This has been my consistent position for months. Now, then, if you plan to offer an alternative hypothesis, I'll listen.
Click to expand...


#1. Your theory is NOT consistent with the FDR data.

#2. There is a BIG difference in distance vs. speed within 2 seconds

It's funny that you've been caught yet again, and the best you can say is,
"what's the difference"?

You're an engineer? NASA employee? What's the difference?

And you design and research for NASA? Damn...

I'n happy to see that you at least admit it's a "theory" :)
 
Turbofan said:
#1. Your theory is NOT consistent with the FDR data.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

Turbofan said:
#2. There is a BIG difference in distance vs. speed within 2 seconds
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're referring to here.

Turbofan said:
It's funny that you've been caught yet again, and the best you can say is,
"what's the difference"?
Click to expand...

I don't appear to be "caught." Again, I don't know what you're referring to. Perhaps if you articulated your own hypothesis, I might have a better idea.

Turbofan said:
You're an engineer? NASA employee? What's the difference?
Click to expand...

I don't follow this either.

Turbofan said:
And you design and research for NASA? Damn...
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. I don't see the relevance.

Turbofan said:
I'n happy to see that you at least admit it's a "theory" :)
Click to expand...

That is the correct term. A "hypothesis" is a proposed mechanism for a given phenomenon. If that hypothesis is tested against experiment and observation and found to be consistent, it graduates to "theory," as in the "theory of relativity" or the "theory of gravity." Theories are rarely promoted to fact, as it usually remains possible for a better explanation to arise in the future, as it does here. However, with no challenger in sight, I'm confident it will bear up.
 
R.Mackey said:
However, with no challenger in sight, I'm confident it will bear up.
Click to expand...

I know you said that you're working on your analysis of the NIST WTC 7 report, but I'm just curious if you have the same confidence with this theory.

In short, are you concerned about the fact that the entire report is proposed without physical evidence?
 
RedIbis said:
I know you said that you're working on your analysis of the NIST WTC 7 report, but I'm just curious if you have the same confidence with this theory.

In short, are you concerned about the fact that the entire report is proposed without physical evidence?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. But let me clarify that.

It's taking me longer than I expected to deal with the WTC 7 report for two reasons. One is that, to be frank, the Truth Movement has all but disappeared. Apart from Turbofan and thewholesoul repeating themselves endlessly (each has a 60+ page topic, and they don't overlap), there's just not much going on.

The other is that, as you suspect, the NIST WTC 7 report is much more speculative than other reports, such as the earlier report on the Towers, or investigation into AA 77. Because there is less physical evidence, it is harder to exclude competing hypotheses. I will say in advance that the NIST WTC 7 hypothesis is valid, even plausible, but I'm not yet convinced that it is the best hypothesis.

This has nothing to do with explosives, of course, which are ruled out for any number of reasons, or "thermite" for which there remains no coherent hypothesis in the first place. But there are other possibilities. Other damage mechanisms, more grave faults in the design, etc. As other posters such as Newton's Bit have pointed out, the NIST recommendations based on their analysis are substantial, so it is worth thinking about alternatives.

That isn't to say that I'm concerned about the lack of physical evidence. We have what we have. But it does change the burden of proof. We will never know precisely what happened in WTC 7, or any of a million other things that happen every day. That's just the nature of uncertainty.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
No, I don't. But let me clarify that.

It's taking me longer than I expected to deal with the WTC 7 report for two reasons. One is that, to be frank, the Truth Movement has all but disappeared. Apart from Turbofan and thewholesoul repeating themselves endlessly (each has a 60+ page topic, and they don't overlap), there's just not much going on.

The other is that, as you suspect, the NIST WTC 7 report is much more speculative than other reports, such as the earlier report on the Towers, or investigation into AA 77. Because there is less physical evidence, it is harder to exclude competing hypotheses. I will say in advance that the NIST WTC 7 hypothesis is valid, even plausible, but I'm not yet convinced that it is the best hypothesis.

This has nothing to do with explosives, of course, which are ruled out for any number of reasons, or "thermite" for which there remains no coherent hypothesis in the first place. But there are other possibilities. Other damage mechanisms, more grave faults in the design, etc. As other posters such as Newton's Bit have pointed out, the NIST recommendations based on their analysis are substantial, so it is worth thinking about alternatives.

That isn't to say that I'm concerned about the lack of physical evidence. We have what we have. But it does change the burden of proof. We will never know precisely what happened in WTC 7, or any of a million other things that happen every day. That's just the nature of uncertainty.
Click to expand...


Allow me to be just as speculative as NIST and call BS. I think you are quite concerned with the lack of physical evidence. There is not "less physical evidence" as you say, there is no physical evidence.
 
R.Mackey said:
...
That isn't to say that I'm concerned about the lack of physical evidence. We have what we have. But it does change the burden of proof. We will never know precisely what happened in WTC 7, or any of a million other things that happen every day. That's just the nature of uncertainty.
Click to expand...
Why has the truth movement missed the fact WTC7 was doomed when the fires were not fought. If WTC7 had not fallen, it would have been taken down, piece by piece. High-rise buildings being totaled by fire and not falling have historic examples. (they had to be dismantled, because of fire)

Your post points are excellent. I can't argue with sound logic and judgment.
 
RedIbis said:
Allow me to be just as speculative as NIST and call BS. I think you are quite concerned with the lack of physical evidence. There is not "less physical evidence" as you say, there is no physical evidence.
Click to expand...

If you're just going to call me a liar, then kindly be on your way. I had mistakenly thought you were actually interested. This is exactly the attitude that makes me wonder if going through the report with the likes of you is even worth it.

You're wrong, by the way. There is video evidence. Not as good as having the rubble pile, but it is physical evidence nonetheless.
 
RedIbis said:
Allow me to be just as speculative as NIST and call BS. I think you are quite concerned with the lack of physical evidence. There is not "less physical evidence" as you say, there is no physical evidence.
Click to expand...
Red: Let me ask you a serious questions. For the sake of this question, let's assume NIST used speculation. I know the qualifications of those doing the speculation in the NIST report. I think it's only fair, to know your qualifications so I can try and compare the value of your speculation versus the authors of the NIST report.

Please give me an honest answer.
 
R.Mackey said:
If you're just going to call me a liar, then kindly be on your way. I had mistakenly thought you were actually interested. This is exactly the attitude that makes me wonder if going through the report with the likes of you is even worth it.

You're wrong, by the way. There is video evidence. Not as good as having the rubble pile, but it is physical evidence nonetheless.
Click to expand...

There is no video evidence of column 79 failing and leading to global collapse. The entire theory is premised on the failure of this one column. Not even the column itself is presented as the physical evidence to support the two novel phenomena.
 
RedIbis said:
There is no video evidence of column 79 failing and leading to global collapse. The entire theory is premised on the failure of this one column. Not even the column itself is presented as the physical evidence to support the two novel phenomena.
Click to expand...

There is no video evidence of secret death squads preparing WTC 7 for demolition prior to 911, so I guess by your standards that alone invalidates the CD theory, right?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
There is no video evidence of column 79 failing and leading to global collapse. The entire theory is premised on the failure of this one column. Not even the column itself is presented as the physical evidence to support the two novel phenomena.
Click to expand...

There are very, very many physical phenomena for which we do not have a piece thereof. Black holes are the first thing that came to mind.

We do not have the WTC 7 debris. That is all there is to it. After accepting this fact, one either throws up one's hands and says, "well, I guess it's IMPOSSIBLE," and remains ignorant. Or, one conducts other experiments to come up with plausible explanations. NIST has done the latter, in keeping with the very best tenets of science.

If you have no interest in the explanations on the basis of not having the column itself alone, then you are simply being willfully ignorant. Sorry, but that's how it is. Science, as I've remarked before, is a competitive process. If you can come up with a better explanation, then you win. Share with me your explanations. If instead, you deny any explanation, you are not part of the process at all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom