Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[ElMondoHummus]

Mother of God... the argument some here are presenting has gotten stupid and needs a reality check. Do any of you truthers here understand that it doesn't matter what you all nitpick about the specifics? Do any of you all understand that the overall direction of the lines of evidence firmly establishes the involvement of the jets? You all had better understand that your obsession with the individual details does not invalidate the narrative, that all it does is provide minute detail about what actually occurred. We discussed this in the derail in the Szamboti thread, except in regards to the black boxes. The principle applies here, though:

... Revisionists who want to rewrite aspects of history, whether it's the Holocaust (what Shermer tackled) or 9/11 (what we're tackling here), tend to focus on individual details to the exclusion of all others, then they try to claim that the mass of these individual questions adds up to some alternate story. Nevermind that so many of those individually nitpicked and too often misrepresented details, if interpreted conspiratorially, lead to mutually contradicting conclusions. The point is that conspiracy fantasists see mass and meaning in this ersatz narrative.

But there really is none. A narrative must be supported by the details comprising the narrative. And that doesn't happen here. For example, explosives demolitions are contradicted in at least four different ways:

1. No remains of explosive devices were ever reported as being recovered
2. No secondary effects, such as severe barotrauma or all windows in the area being shattered, were noted. In fact, quite the opposite.
3. No signs of explosives use remains on the recovered debris. Every piece shows other types of failure.
4. No opportunities existed for the installation of explosives.

... and each of those lines of argument stand on their own. Yet, conspiracy peddlers find it necessary to ignore the convergence of evidence in order to concentrate on disproving a single point, and then claiming that by extension the dominant narrative (i.e. the "official story") built naturally and honestly from observation and balanced consideration of lines of evidence, is somehow wrong. It's the same "guilt by association" tactic that's existed for as long as humans grasped the concept of logical arguments: If one element of the story is in doubt, then the whole story must be in doubt. Nevermind that the doubt is not refutation of the individual element, let alone all the other pieces of evidence that exists.

The same thing is happening here. How many individual, separate lines of evidence exists to firmly establish that the United and American Airlines jets were involved?

1. The radar tracks do indeed exist. And this by itself encompasses several smaller lines of evidence pertaining to what the air traffic controllers witnessed electronically
2. For one of the flights, accidental radio transmissions exist.
3. Cell and airphone calls from passengers on the jets establish the hijackings.
4. Eyewitnesses saw jets impact the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and in each case described their liveries. Other witnesses in Pennsylvania observed Flight 93 fly low overhead. The point is that there are direct eyewitness observations of the jets.
5. In addition to the eyewitneses, there were also film/video recordings of the impacts into the Twin Towers.
6. Recovered debris and personal effects establish which flights were involved.
7. Airlines reported missing jets.
8. For the Washington and Pennsylvania crashes, you do indeed have the flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders.

But the point is, even for the New York bound flights, even without the FDRs, you still have a convergence of what, 6 independent lines of evidence? If not more? But a truther will attempt to denigrate individual elements of a story in the attempt to topple it, ignoring the fact that it's not only the existence of the individual lines of evidence that firmly establishes the narrative, but that it's the mutual support and agreement they give to each other. So a single point of doubt, even if not misrepresented or divorced from context, hardly overcomes the mass and direction of the remaining lines of evidence. The radar supports the origin of the flights, and independently, so do the testimonies of the victims from the cell and airphone calls. The personal effects and, when recovered, human remains also establish the identity of the jets. The video evidence shows that jets were indeed there, and also shows that eyewitnesses were on the streets and noted the collapses. The eyewitnesses in turn as a mass of testimonies provide further support of the fact jets were involved, and even if some individual testimonies contain mistakes, contradict, or do not as a whole add up to proving that the jets were from United or American Airlines, they establish beyond doubt that there were jets involved; the further detail would come from other sources. In the end, the point is that the evidence doesn't simply exist as an incoherent, tangled mass. The point is that despite oddities, gaps, disagreements (example: Mineta's memories of exact times), and other discontinuities in the narrative, the overall weight and direction of the evidence points towards only a very limited number of possible narratives. And at no time, even mere minutes after the event, was the "government did this" narrative a valid one to take, given the evidence. From the beginning, all of it pointed at radical islamic hijackers crashing jets into buildings. All of the evidence combines to agree with this conclusion and support it in many different ways.

In other words, all the evidence converges onto this conclusion. The nitpicks of the conspiracy peddlers are like pebbles hitting a skyscraper. Even when one scores, how does that compromise the entire thing?

That is one of the base problems with these conspiracy peddlers. So the black boxes for FL11 and 175 were unrecovered? So what? Tell me how that undoes the video, eyewitness testimony, airline testimony of missing jets, FAA ATC testimony of what they saw occur on their radars, cell and airphone calls from passengers, recovered debris, and all the other lines of evidence that exists. Tell me how the missing FDRs are so central a problem that they negate all the other independent lines of evidence. Tell me why their absence puts all those other lines of evidence in doubt. And tell me what alternate narrative encompasses all the other observations - and yes, I mean all; the evidence exists, regardless of how convenient it may or may not be to anyone's favorite alternative - and is better supported than the one that stands now.

If one of you conspiracy peddlers can do that, then you'll finally be onto something. But forgive my cynicism; since 2006 when I first saw this nonsense, and since 2001 when the event occurred, none of you - not a single one of you - has been able to do this. So I'm terribly sorry to say that I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

Sure, that was in regards to the flight data recorders. But again, the principle applies here. Do any of you conspiracy peddlers realize that it doesn't matter what minute aspects of the video you obsess over, or what element of whatever model NIST used might have multiple states and interpretations? The point is what I said above: The weight and direction of the evidence firmly establishes the presence of the jets.

So here's the question: Tell me how either the issues you see with the video of the jets impacting, or the issues you all bring up about NIST's models undo the weight of the eyewitness testimony, airline testimony of missing jets, FAA ATC testimony of what they saw occur on their radars, cell and airphone calls from passengers, recovered debris, and all the other lines of evidence that exists. Tell me how either your all's point about the video or your point about the NIST model are so central a problem that they negate all the other independent lines of evidence. Tell me why the anomaly with the video, or the potential issue with the model puts all those other lines of evidence in doubt. And tell me what alternate narrative encompasses all the other observations. Tell me how your narrative is better supported than the one that stands now. Let's hear it. Are any of you ready to make a stand about the implications of the minutiae you choose to argue over? Or do you want to keep obsessing over isolated points that have no bearing on the overall story?

 

[DGM]

Well put!

My guess will be, wash, rinse and "keep obsessing over isolated points that have no bearing on the overall story".

After all that IS the "truth" movement. (see my sig.)

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Well put!

My guess will be, wash, rinse and "keep obsessing over isolated points that have no bearing on the overall story".

After all that IS the "truth" movement. (see my sig.)

(*Snort!*) Actually, all I think I'm going to get in response is a "We're just asking questions" sort of reply.

 

[tfk]

The model is not "close enough". It's a million miles away. Columns broke that couldn't have been hit by fuel.

By what torturous logic to you equate:

"There was plenty of energy and pressure available to punch thru those wall with both the plane & the fuel. Here, let me show you that the fuel alone could do it."

To:

"Without the fuel, it could not have punched thru the walls." ???

If you had actually listened a little bit harder, you might have learned enough to answer for yourself the completely separate question "Would the plane alone have punched thru the walls?"

Clearly, you are not capable of understanding math.
Evidently, you are not able to employ English.
And logic ain't your strong suit either.

If you don't mind my asking, what do you do well?


Tom

 

[bill smith]

By what torturous logic to you equate:

"There was plenty of energy and pressure available to punch thru those wall with both the plane & the fuel. Here, let me show you that the fuel alone could do it."

To:

"Without the fuel, it could not have punched thru the walls." ???

If you had actually listened a little bit harder, you might have learned enough to answer for yourself the completely separate question "Would the plane alone have punched thru the walls?"

Clearly, you are not capable of understanding math.
Evidently, you are not able to employ English.
And logic ain't your strong suit either.

If you don't mind my asking, what do you do well?


Tom

Are you saying that the aluminium should have smashed the steel box columns before the steel box columns wuld have smashed the aluminium ? You must be because any other way lots of aluminium would have fallen down the impact side ofthe building. You will agree that none did. Not as much as a single gram. We have video covering the entire period.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Hey there T. How come those few survivors did not mention any fire ?

Are you ******* STUPID?!?!?!?!

Yep, Bill is willfully ignorant.

 

[bill smith]

Yep, Bill is willfully ignorant.

Think about it. You have a very light, even skeletal aluminium frame covered by an aluminium skin as thin as 1mm hitting a wall of a steel-framed building that is composed of 58& much heavier steel and 42% glass. The impact speed is 590 mph.

It doesn't make any difference which frame is moving. At the point of contact the force extered on both frames is exactly the same.

Which frame will break first ?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Yeah, Suppose the planes were real and flight 175 missed the building altogether as many pilots say would happen five times our of six with a human pilot ?

The plane would plough into the ground at that angle and speed with no doubts whatsoever. What happens then ?The Perps are left with WTC2 all prepped for demolition. undamaged and with hundeds of first responders ready to go in and find the explosives that would prove an inside job, Are you with me so far ?

So what was their contingency plan B ?

You are attempting to argue false plans A & B. These are speculations created with no evidence to back them up.
We don't "suppose" the planes were real, eyewitnesses confirm it. Some who actually saw the planes crash are here, telling you Bill.
Why do you choose to call them liars?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Think about it. You have a very light, even skeletal aluminium frame covered by a aluminium skin as thin as 1mm hitting a wall that is composed of 58& much heavier steel and 42% glass. The impact speed is 590 mph.

It doesn't make any difference which frame is moving. At the point of contact the force extered on both frames is exactly the same.

Which frame will break first ?

Very light? Tonnes describes the dead weight of the plane and fuel.
Now, when travelling at 590 mph...what can you tell me about momentum and impact of mass?

 

[bardamu]

What in the world are you talking about? Why couldn't the columns have been hit by the fuel? And why are you talking as if fuel were the only thing that could break the columns?

Some of the broken columns corresponded to sections of the wing that contained no fuel.

No, I do not. And I can already see where you're misrepresenting the argument. Pretty transparent, even for a no-planer.

So you believe that the fuel alone could have caused the damage, yet you ask me why I'm talking as if fuel were the only thing that could have caused the damage. Please show some consistency.

Clearly they think buildings are solid volumes of uniform mass with no livable space inside. The very prospect of a high speed projectile completely overwhelming a structural connection between two or more connecting columns is unfathomable. I've had my fun, this is about as entertaining as talking about death lasers of the Judy Wood variety. It's old... and based on more ignorance than even the controlled demolition screwyness...

I notice you're not even trying to defend the model in question.

Did I miss something here? You still have not shown the model to be incorrect. The volume of fuel is still correct despite how you say it was distributed. The net result remains the same. The "fuel slug" severs the columns.

The momentum from the engines alone may have been enough to break all the columns, but the engines weren't wide enough to hit all the columns that were broken. It's the same problem with the distribution of the fuel.

Do you plan to show your calculations to dispute his claims or are you going to continue to tap dance around them?

I've shown my calculations. Rib 18 is around half way along the wing. The fuel was inboard of rib 18. Columns were broken that would have been hit be sections of the wing outboard of rib 18.

By what torturous logic to you equate:

"There was plenty of energy and pressure available to punch thru those wall with both the plane & the fuel. Here, let me show you that the fuel alone could do it."

To:

"Without the fuel, it could not have punched thru the walls." ???

If you had actually listened a little bit harder, you might have learned enough to answer for yourself the completely separate question "Would the plane alone have punched thru the walls?"

I think Bard meant wing spar, not "fuel slug".

The wing spar is the strongest part in the wings. They were strong enough to go through 2" steel.

Now we're getting somewhere! Tell Mackey he needs to construct a model showing that the wing spars alone could have broken the columns.

Before he does that, he needs to amend his slug of fuel model to point out that it's a wonderful example of how NOT to construct a model.

 

[bardamu]

(*Snort!*) Actually, all I think I'm going to get in response is a "We're just asking questions" sort of reply.

I gave up reading your long-winded posts a while ago when I realised they're nothing but smoke & mirrors. You'll talk about anything except the subject under discussion. The debunkers here are saying it doesn't matter for Mackey's slug of fuel whether the fuel could hit the columns or not, yet they'll post videos on youtube desperately trying to show that the antenna on the north tower tilted before it dropped. It's typical of the one-way scepticism that's necessary for anybody defending the official story.

 

[BigAl]

I gave up reading your long-winded posts a while ago when I realised they're nothing but smoke & mirrors. You'll talk about anything except the subject under discussion. The debunkers here are saying it doesn't matter for Mackey's slug of fuel whether the fuel could hit the columns or not, yet they'll post videos on youtube desperately trying to show that the antenna on the north tower tilted before it dropped. It's typical of the one-way scepticism that's necessary for anybody defending the official story.

Is the Bard unaware that "slug" is a unit of mass with a unit of pounds, and not something measured in length or volume?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(mass)​

Maybe this has already been pointed out to Bard. Over and over.

 

[bardamu]

Is the Bard unaware that "slug" is a unit of mass measured in pounds and something I would expect Mackey to use correctly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(mass)​

Maybe this has already been pointed out to him. Over and over.

So what? To find the mass we need to know the volume and the density. One of the things I'm questioning is whether the figures for the volume are realistic.

 

[DGM]

So what? To find the mass we need to know the volume and the density. One of the things I'm questioning is whether the figures for the volume are realistic.

The volume of fuel in the plane is a known value!!!!!!

What you think the airline doesn't know how much fuel they put in the plane and how much it would have used?

That's just denial on your part.

(PS it's in the report you refuse to understand).

 

[BigAl]

So what? To find the mass we need to know the volume and the density. One of the things I'm questioning is whether the figures for the volume are realistic.

What part of "slug is a unit of mass" do you not understand.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by bardamu
I gave up reading your long-winded posts a while ago when I realised they're nothing but smoke & mirrors. You'll talk about anything except the subject under discussion. The debunkers here are saying it doesn't matter for Mackey's slug of fuel whether the fuel could hit the columns or not, yet they'll post videos on youtube desperately trying to show that the antenna on the north tower tilted before it dropped. It's typical of the one-way scepticism that's necessary for anybody defending the official story.

Originally Posted by bardamu
So what? To find the mass we need to know the volume and the density. One of the things I'm questioning is whether the figures for the volume are realistic.

Dodge much? The upper post makes it clear that you are using the word "slug" as something measured in feet and not as a physcal unit stated in pounds. Mackey would be using slug in it's correct way.

You? Not so much.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Is the Bard unaware that "slug" is a unit of mass with a unit of pounds, and not something measured in length or volume?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slug_(mass)​

I didn't know that either...I done learned me sumthin' new this mornin'. The only slugs I knew about were fired out of shotguns.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I gave up reading your long-winded posts a while ago when I realised they're nothing but smoke & mirrors. You'll talk about anything except the subject under discussion. The debunkers here are saying it doesn't matter for Mackey's slug of fuel whether the fuel could hit the columns or not, yet they'll post videos on youtube desperately trying to show that the antenna on the north tower tilted before it dropped. It's typical of the one-way scepticism that's necessary for anybody defending the official story.

No, you gave up because you have no way to refute what I say. Tell me how the "fuel slug" supposedly is such a fatal issue that it negates all the video that's been shot, all the witness testimony that's been given, all the radar data that exists, all the cell and airphone calls that were made by the passengers. Tell me what it's supposed to signify. And tell me how the narrative it points at is better supported than the one that already exists.

It's that simple. And you can't do it. If you could, you would've done so by now.

 

[DGM]

No, you gave up because you have no way to refute what I say. Tell me how the "fuel slug" supposedly is such a fatal issue that it negates all the video that's been shot, all the witness testimony that's been given, all the radar data that exists, all the cell and airphone calls that were made by the passengers. Tell me what it's supposed to signify. And tell me how the narrative it points at is better supported than the one that already exists.

It's that simple. And you can't do it.

I would settle for him actually attempting to prove his point. So far, not so much. His argument so far is the typical, "I don't think this is right".

 

[Macgyver1968]

If a plane didn't hit the building...what made the hole? The fuel explosion happened a second later...so how was the hole made without any explosions?