• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

bill smith said:
Why not start that thread and keep Tricky happy ? Can I suggest a title. ' Was there video fakery/no planes at the WTC on 9/11 ? '
Click to expand...
Why? So you can avoid it. Besides this is on topic to this thread.

Billy, The "readers" are seeing you squirm. Answer the question.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
If I put myself in you debunker's shoes and see what a piss poor job you have made of disproving bard''s 'slug of fuel' argument I am just amazed that you can get satisfaction out of just plain obfuscation and denial. If it was me I would recognise where I was wrong and accept it.It's almost as if it is a job to you guys rather than a matter of coming up with the better argument. Like 'If all else fails just keep denying' This is standard behaviour throughout the jref 9/11 conspiracy forums.
Click to expand...

Obfuscation, denial and ignoring questions are a large portion of the way you conduct yourself here, Bill. There's not a doubt about how all your arguments have failed while you, on the other hand, keep on pretending they haven't.

bardamu said:
How would you calculate the mass and momentum of a slug that has no measurable dimensions?
Click to expand...

Do you need someone helping you with a step-by-step process to explain this?


If I debunked the witness testimony, you'd say there's still the "fuel slug" proof. Let's take them one at a time. If it's not such a fatal issue, tell me why R Mackey would go to all the trouble of constructing a mathematical model to prove that the fuel alone could destroy the columns, then invite the truth movement to debunk his work.
Click to expand...

One extremely significant point here: You haven't debunked any witness testimony.

Standard red herring.
Click to expand...

The statement above is a standard dodge for you.
 
Bard,

tfk said:
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?"
Click to expand...


bardamu said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, B, but we're still stuck on the "YOU cannot comprehend what you read" problem.

Mackey did not "mis-construct" anything.

You cannot competently construct a simple "if-then" chain of logic.

Mackey doesn't need to do anything else to make his point.

You are lost in space.

Perhaps you could try to answer the very specific question that I put to YOU (not to Mackey) in my post, cited above.


Tom
 
tfk said:
The UC Santa Cruz football team is gonna be very unhappy with you...


LMGTFY: http://tinyurl.com/y92alep

DON'T piss off the slug...!

Tom
Click to expand...
Banana Slugs, big yellow yucky slimy slugs. Football team? Oh football, the game all the NATO European members beat us US "football" players at with ease. (my daughter went to UC Santa Cruz and had a one room cottage 1/2 block away from the boardwalk)

When will a truther explain how the 66,000 pound jet fuel fireball was faked if no plane delivered the 10,000 gallons of jet fuel?
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
Perhaps you could try to answer the very specific question that I put to YOU (not to Mackey) in my post, cited above.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the plane alone would punch through the wall has nothing to do with the Hardfire Physics of 9/11 show. That presentation is supposed to show that momentum from the plane was not needed.
 
bardamu said:
Whether or not the plane alone would punch through the wall has nothing to do with the Hardfire Physics of 9/11 show. That presentation is supposed to show that momentum from the plane was not needed.
Click to expand...
And it does!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The volume of fuel is a known and enough to do the job. When are you going to produce some calculations to refute this. So far you have nothing.

The world is watching you fail.
 
bardamu said:
Whether or not the plane alone would punch through the wall has nothing to do with the Hardfire Physics of 9/11 show. That presentation is supposed to show that momentum from the plane was not needed.
Click to expand...

What makes you so sure about that?
 
bardamu said:
Whether or not the plane alone would punch through the wall has nothing to do with the Hardfire Physics of 9/11 show. That presentation is supposed to show that momentum from the plane was not needed.
Click to expand...

Thank you for explaining in detail how little you understand what you were told.

You are twisting yourself up in your attempts to be clever. You ain't that clever, bard.

The point of that section was NOT to "show that momentum from the plane was not needed".

The point of that section was two-fold.

1. To explain to you the fundamental way that engineers have found, over the course of the last 100 years or so - by experiment, and supplemented by theory - to be the RIGHT considerations to determine what happens in a collision.

Ryan summarized for you the work of several hundred engineers and many thousands of experiments. What matters are pressure & impulse & the failure curves.

The lesson there is "all of your other considerations, e.g., how strong is Al vs Steel, how thick is the metal, etc. are irrelevant." And if you go down that theoretical path, you're considering factors that are fundamentally irrelevant, and that theoretical path will lead you to the wrong answer.

2. He answered a very specific question: "Twoofers have claimed that it was unreasonable for the plane to have penetrated the outer columns. Does this claim survive technical examination?"

The analysis and the answer was directed at what DID happen. He also gave a quick assessment of what speed would the plane have to have been below in order for it to not penetrate.

There was absolutely NOTHING in that presentation that was "supposed to show that momentum from the plane was not needed."

Showing that the fuel alone is sufficient is NOT the same as showing that the plane alone would NOT penetrate.

He mentioned in passing that there was an obvious decrease in the damage in the area of the outer wings. This is consistent with the rest of the analysis.

In order to perform the calculation that you are inferring, then a BOTE approximation is not appropriate. You'd need to do a careful engineering analysis.

Again, the point here is to show that the claim of the truthers, that "this event violates common sense or engineering mechanics", is fundamentally wrong.

He accomplished this seven ways to Sunday.

If YOU want to disprove what he said, I'd recommend that you get an engineering degree with a specialty in materials and collisions. At the end of 4 years of study, you'll find out that he is right. The good news is that would be a small price to pay for the education that you'd have at that point.

Tom
 
HTML:
Pardalis said:
How about a big freaking derail? Isn't this thread about the nose-out footage?

Or are you going to cause yet another thread split?

How many does that make?
Click to expand...

Fonebone < The "nose-out" videos are genuine and a valuable clue as to the identity of the flying object
disguised as a jumbo jet that struck the WTC 2 south tower.
Correctly identify the flying object will instantly indentify the
as yet unknown conspiritors in this murderous plot against America
and her inalienable liberties
The flying object was real but was NOT a Boeing 767 Jumbo jet or a CGI illusion concocted by
Hollywoodesque miscreants.
The screaming jet engine powered flying object that penetrated the WTC 2
south wall was a 21 st. century " flying pig " cleverly concealed inside of
the gut of a hollowed out miniature scale model of a Boeing 767 jumbo jet
utilized to cloak the missile.
The flying pig's nose passed completely through the steel box column exterior
and exited the WTC 2tower at the North-East bevel before the flying pig's payload of advanced blast incindiary munitions was ignited.
The mimiature turbo-fan jet engine that propelled the flying pig cloaked as a
miniature "jumbojet" was found at the corner of Broadway and Murray st.
Compare this miniature turbo-fan jet engine to the WTC 1 flying pig sun bathing
in front of grown men at the Staten Island lanffill. Folding chair holding barricate tape
scales the engine size.

The fact of the flying pigs "bunker-buster " nose surviving both entrance and exit through the structural
steel exteriors of the WTC tower betrays the plot.
Technologically speaking the flying pig of the early 19 th. century was the great grandaddy
of modern flying pigs --21 st century CRUISE MISSILES.
 
Fonebone said:
The screaming jet engine powered flying object that penetrated the WTC 2
south wall was a 21 st. century " flying pig " cleverly concealed inside of
the gut of a hollowed out miniature scale model of a Boeing 767 jumbo jet
utilized to cloak the missile.

The fact of the flying pigs "bunker-buster " nose surviving both entrance and exit through the structural
steel exteriors of the WTC tower betrays the plot.
Technologically speaking the flying pig of the early 19 th. century was the great grandaddy
of modern flying pigs --21 st century CRUISE MISSILES.
Click to expand...

:dl:

/Ignore
 
I found a classified image of the NWO "Flying Pig" command vehicle.

07pigbusreduced76626217.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom