Jammonius, once again what education do you have in the field of physics?
If you have any less than one and a half years of university physics, I think you have an obligation to shut up and listen to people with a higher education.
And, by the way, I am happy to draw a line in the sand with you on this. Your reliance upon math and upon physics is deception personafied. That type of fallacy is well known and well-understood. It is deception pure and simple and goes by the name of the "wise-person" fallacy, where claims of greater than normal expertise are used to make the claim that those with less expertise cannot understand what only those with more expertise understand.
Jamm, AW Smith pointed out above that there is no fuel in the part of the plane that has entered the building in the picture you keep showing. This is a perfectly logical explanation as to why there is no explosion in the picture. Would you care to address this?
What do you hope to achieve by this question? You know that jamm will either not address the question, or come up with yet more distortions and silly crap pulled out of his/her arse, don't you?
But I do get a vicarious thrill out of watching someone present a completely ridiculous argument and watching that argument get demolished by people who really know what they're talking about.
FWIW, this is my first "no-planer" thread. I mean, I've heard about them, but I've never seen on live.
Originally Posted by jammonius
And, by the way, I am happy to draw a line in the sand with you on this. Your reliance upon math and upon physics is deception personafied. That type of fallacy is well known and well-understood. It is deception pure and simple and goes by the name of the "wise-person" fallacy, where claims of greater than normal expertise are used to make the claim that those with less expertise cannot understand what only those with more expertise understand.
This thread still has potential to be a useful exercise in objectivity. I continue to recommend focus upon the observable data, consisting in the ALL 43 videos, of which the "title pages" to the first 15 of them, have already been posted showing where they can be found in the reference video; namely, the youtuber found here:
As we can see in the post quoted below, however, some posters seem intent on obfuscation of the observable data by seeking to send us off on a wild goose chase within the NIST NCSTAR1 constellation of fraudulent data.
I will address this by way of the following illustration of NIST's falsity from only 1 of the 10,000pgs of NIST data that do nothing except perpetrate fraud.
You can see this for yourself: NIST makes the following false statement:
"The wing structures were completely fragmented by the exterior wall."
That is the NIST claim found at NCSTAR 1-2 pg lxxvi.
But, this is the observed data that shows, contrary to the above claim, that the wings were not fragmented at all because they are shown to be intact even as they are magically shown doing what no jetliner could possibly do:
No fragmentation whatsoever is shown. In fact, the wing is intact and there is no corresponding debris consistent with a claim of fragmentation.
...and where it is shown there is no debris consistent with fragmentation of anything, let alone a Boeing 767. For that matter, the big bad Boeing is here shown not only not to have fragmented upon impact, but, indeed, to have actually continue on by coming through still intact on the otherside!
OOPS! Somebody goofed.
The result of the above goof was a FTFY exercise as seen as follows:
Come on posters, this is an exercise in objective review of OBSERVABLE DATA. Get with it.
Posts that appeal to physics, without showing a darn thing about physics, other than naked claims of how learned that poster claims to be in physics, cannot withstand the conclusiveness of the observed data. The only thing physics in that context can do is try to make you think you aren't seeing what you are, in fact, seeing; namely: Conditions that defy physics and that depict animation and fraud, under conditions of simulated attack.
In terms of the fuel: NIST modeled 66,100 pounds for Flight 11 and 62,000 lbs for UA175. In terms of totals, the combined fuel plus aircraft weights ended up being modeled as 283,600 and 277,580 lbs respectively. In terms of speed: The models actually were run with several different parameters, but the simple figures that NIST gives centers around 443MPH for Flight 11 and 542MPH for UA175.
You are not in the least bit being forthright in what the NCSTAR 1, in its multitudinous parts and sub-parts actually states. In fact, if you open the door to NCSTAR 1, then all you do is engage in obfuscation. The following segments of NCSTAR 1 consist in well over 100mb of mind-numbing falsity and it is disengenuous of you not to have alerted lurkers that you were sending them off on a wild goose chase:
NIST NCSTAR 1-2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-2A: Reference Structural Models and Baseline Performance Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers
NIST NCSTAR 1-2B: Analysis of Aircraft Impacts into the World Trade Center Towers (Chapters 1-8)
NIST NCSTAR 1-2B: Analysis of Aircraft Impacts into the World Trade Center Towers (Chapters 9-11)
1-2B appendix
Are you trying to fool yourself, Elmondo? In opening up the Pandora's box of NIST fraud, it appears as though you are.
All of this can be found in NCSTAR 1-2B. I'll also point out that Ryan's math based on those figures shows that only 185 MPH was necessary to penetrate the Towers. When you consider those masses at those speeds, that's what it would've taken. Yet the jets were travelling far faster than that.
The above is a grossly distorted attempt to use NIST's bogus modeling as set forth in the NCSTAR 1-2B segment (about 70mb of bs), where, for instance, NIST acknowledged that it needed to (but did not) match its modeling to observed data. I kid you not, lurkers: Behold what NIST actually said about that range of calculations that Elmondo would like to bamboozle you with:
"...Therefore, the comparison of the calculated and observered exterior wall damage can provide a PARTIAL VALIDATION of the analysis methodologies used in the global impact analyses..."
NCSTAR 1-2B Ch. 9, pg. 208
TRANSLATION: The NIST analyses are bogus.
The simple fact remains that attempts to refute the conclusions have so far been limited to video comparisons of far different masses travelling at far lower speeds impacting far different "structures". That's not even apples to oranges.
The above is ridiculous. The speed factor would still result in disintegration upon impact, something that is simply not observed in the video data.
Bottom line: To address this issue, a person must look at the impulse figures and compare them to the P-I curves given for columns in NCSTAR 1-2B. If they exceed the points on the curve, then failure results. It's a simple and substantive concept, really, but conspiracy addicts tend to not indulge in substance.
But I do get a vicarious thrill out of watching someone present a completely ridiculous argument and watching that argument get demolished by people who really know what they're talking about.
FWIW, this is my first "no-planer" thread. I mean, I've heard about them, but I've never seen on live.
I'm assuming your presence here is an attempt to convince lurkers such as myself that your theories are true. I must tell you, you're failing miserably and in fact making me despise the truth movement.
You post no numbers to support your lies; why? Can't you prove your claims with physics? I did, and you failed to take the number and refute the fact that was more than 11 time the energy needed to enter the WTC shell and do damage to the core and the other side of the WTC as seen on the video which debunks your claims. I have no idea how you can be so clueless on this. You can't do physics, you do lies.
Jammonius, once again what education do you have in the field of physics?
If you have any less than one and a half years of university physics, I think you have an obligation to shut up and listen to people with a higher education.
We all have the capacity to observe visual data and then give an accurate interpretation of what we see, provided we commit ourselves to objectivity. You agree?
You, yourself, are taking steps in the right direction, even if grudgingly done, as seen in your next paragraph:
personally I don't see how the videos don't show the airplane exploding on impact. the airplane hits the building, and it explodes almost immediately. the reason the explosion first appeared on the other side is because the airplane (and the explosive fuel as well) are moving. (conservation of momentum)
Can you please post up stills or post up time segments from the video that substantiates your quoted observation?
In a certain sense, your last quoted paragraph does go in a very useful direction; namely, an attempt to explain what is seen. I would hope that more posters would do as you have attempted above; albeit, with inadequate detail, given the readily available and easy to use methods of posting the needed detail.
This is not the same as sending someone off on a wild goose chase because the data set has been made available within the thread itself. Thus, let me repeat: I am not here sending you off on a wild goose chase.
Furthermore, if you do not want to substantiate your quoted statement with reference to specific video statements, then don't.
Some very good friends of mine watched the WTC2 crash from the 42nd floor of a building about 1/4 mile south. They had an unobstructed view of the whole thing, and there is no doubt it was a plane crash.
Asst. Commissioner Stephen Gregory, who may have been the highest ranking firefighter on duty, and who, obviously, had a duty to be observant and who subsequently had a duty to report accurately what he saw and heard, said, in substance as I understand it, in a written and transcribed statement he did not see a plane and did not think what he heard sounded like a plane.
I have quoted his actual statementmany times and will do so again if you like. However, that is not the real point here, IMHO. I should also mention that some posters have attempted to read into Gregory's statement things he did not say in the statement and that is OK up to a point. Have you seen that quote and do you have an opinion on what it means?
Asst. Commissioner Gregory's vantage point was from the command post on West between Albany and Liberty; i.e., front row center, as it were, for seeing a plane had a plane been there.
There were several firefighters at the command post. They all consistently report neither seeing nor hearing a plane.
Standing alone, the testimony of that group of firefighters is all but conclusive, could more posters but realize it, if they are inclined to review the matter objectively.
That said, I am not here trying to convince anyone of anything. I have said several times now that if you are a PLANE SPOTTER, you are welcome to remain a plane spotter. The drill here consists in finding a real plane doing what real planes do IN THE VIDEO. Can you do that?
Asst. Commissioner Stephen Gregory, who may have been the highest ranking firefighter on duty, and who, obviously, had a duty to be observant and who subsequently had a duty to report accurately what he saw and heard, said, in a written and transcribed statement he did not see a pland and did not think what he heard sounded like a plane.
I have quoted his actual statement, about which some people try to find ways to interpret differently than I have above many times. Have you seen that quote?
Asst. Commissioner Gregory's vantage point was from the command post on West between Albany and Liberty; i.e., front row center, as it were, for seeing a plane had a plane been there.
There were several firefighters at the command post. They all consistently report neither seeing nor hearing a plane.
Standing alone, the testimony of that group of firefighters is all but conclusive, could more posters but realize it.
Jamm, AW Smith pointed out above that there is no fuel in the part of the plane that has entered the building in the picture you keep showing. This is a perfectly logical explanation as to why there is no explosion in the picture. Would you care to address this?
I've taken a look at AWSmith's post and I do not think his conclusion can be reasonably drawn from the observed video, of which the following is an example that I think serves to contradict AWSmith's claim:
I've taken a look at AWSmith's post and I do not think his conclusion can be reasonably drawn from the observed video, of which the following is an example that I think serves to contradict AWSmith's claim:
Well, we now know that some posters here think referring to what actual, verified witnesses have said and providing actual quotations from NIST amounts to trolling.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
