Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
T said this.
Your statement is a lie. I presented to the readers at Topix NIST's CLEAR presentation of their ''analyses in NCSTAR1-2, which show the plane losing about 70% of its velocity while penetrating the outer wall''

Now look at this video at the 50-odd second mark. I know this is the authentic 9/11 video because I saw it myself . I only remember it so well because even then I was really surprised to see the plane go through the building. Anyway....do you still believe NIST ? 70% ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvWwIxMbmE
 
bill smith said:
T said this.
Your statement is a lie. I presented to the readers at Topix NIST's CLEAR presentation of their ''analyses in NCSTAR1-2, which show the plane losing about 70% of its velocity while penetrating the outer wall''

Now look at this video at the 50-odd second mark. I know this is the authentic 9/11 video because I saw it myself . I only remember it so well because even then I was really surprised to see the plane go through the building. Anyway....do you still believe NIST ? 70% ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvWwIxMbmE
Click to expand...

way to use the worst quality video ever
its too blurry a shot from too far away
 
bill smith said:
T said this.
Your statement is a lie. I presented to the readers at Topix NIST's CLEAR presentation of their ''analyses in NCSTAR1-2, which show the plane losing about 70% of its velocity while penetrating the outer wall''

Now look at this video at the 50-odd second mark. I know this is the authentic 9/11 video because I saw it myself . I only remember it so well because even then I was really surprised to see the plane go through the building. Anyway....do you still believe NIST ? 70% ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvWwIxMbmE
Click to expand...

Bill, here's your homework project for this week. Take a series of screen captures from the video, before the first zoom and between the first and second zooms. Extrapolating back from the section of the video where the airliner is visible, work out where it should be on each of your screen captures. Present the results here, and show your working. At that point, you'll have an actual argument to present. Anything less will be taken as evidence of either intellectual laziness or fear of exposure as a fraud.

The "plane go through the bulding" bit has been discussed ad nauseam here. The object exiting the building has been proven to be distinguishable from the nose of the airliner in double-blind tests on the forum, and the time of it exiting the building has been shown to disagree with the projected position of the nose of the airliner as extrapolated from the frames before impact. In fact, that latter result is indirect evidence that the airliner decelerated on impact; the debris exiting the opposite tower did so after having crossed the interior at about a quarter of the speed of the airliner before impact.

Dave

ETA: For those interested, use the forum search for threads on "Pinnochio's Nose", or posts by truthseeker1234. Wear headphones or a balaclava while reading; your brain may try to escape through your ears.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Bill, here's your homework project for this week. Take a series of screen captures from the video, before the first zoom and between the first and second zooms. Extrapolating back from the section of the video where the airliner is visible, work out where it should be on each of your screen captures. Present the results here, and show your working. At that point, you'll have an actual argument to present. Anything less will be taken as evidence of either intellectual laziness or fear of exposure as a fraud.

The "plane go through the bulding" bit has been discussed ad nauseam here. The object exiting the building has been proven to be distinguishable from the nose of the airliner in double-blind tests on the forum, and the time of it exiting the building has been shown to disagree with the projected position of the nose of the airliner as extrapolated from the frames before impact. In fact, that latter result is indirect evidence that the airliner decelerated on impact; the debris exiting the opposite tower did so after having crossed the interior at about a quarter of the speed of the airliner before impact.

Dave

ETA: For those interested, use the forum search for threads on "Pinnochio's Nose", or posts by truthseeker1234. Wear headphones or a balaclava while reading; your brain may try to escape through your ears.
Click to expand...

Jeez and it went through those nine or ten massive core columns after penetrating the 33 14'' x 14'' steel box columns as if they weren't there as well. Pretty good for aluminium as thin as 1mm. Strange that it looked so much like an aircraft nose when it was really only debris wasn't it ? It must have been made from slightly thicker aluminium than the plane in the image below.

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034
 
bill smith said:
Jeez and it went through those nine or ten massive core columns after penetrating the 33 14'' x 14'' steel box columns as if they weren't there as well. Pretty good for aluminium as thin as 1mm.
Click to expand...

Nope. It wasn't a solid object, it was debris.

bill smith said:
Strange that it looked so much like an aircraft nose when it was really only debris wasn't it ?
Click to expand...

You must have failed to read the bit where I already answered that.

bill smith said:
It must have been made from slightly thicker aluminium than the plane in the image below.
Click to expand...

So that concrete terminal building is actually made of steel, and the plane was taxiing at over 400mph when it hit, was it?

Well, I see you chose not to even try to back up your allegation. Was it intellectual laziness, or fear of exposure as a fraud?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Nope. It wasn't a solid object, it was debris.



You must have failed to read the bit where I already answered that.



So that concrete terminal building is actually made of steel, and the plane was taxiing at over 400mph when it hit, was it?

Well, I see you chose not to even try to back up your allegation. Was it intellectual laziness, or fear of exposure as a fraud?

Dave
Click to expand...

I am one of those Dave who has faith in ordinary people. I am one myself. I will continue to show them videos like this complete with my exciting commentary and let them decide what they see for themselves.
In the meantime you are always free to show by mathmatical calcultion that they are not actually seeing what they are seeing. Deal ?
 
bill smith said:
I am one of those Dave who has faith in ordinary people. I am one myself. I will continue to show them videos like this complete with my exciting commentary and let them decide what they see for themselves.
Click to expand...

I bet you are a sucker for three-card monte games.
 
bill smith said:
T said this.
Your statement is a lie. I presented to the readers at Topix NIST's CLEAR presentation of their ''analyses in NCSTAR1-2, which show the plane losing about 70% of its velocity while penetrating the outer wall''
Click to expand...

The subject under discussion was your lie about tfk being "in broad agreement" with your claim of 'no deceleration'. All you have done with this new post is change the subject within a different thread. No surprises there, of course.
 
GlennB said:
The subject under discussion was your lie about tfk being "in broad agreement" with your claim of 'no deceleration'. All you have done with this new post is change the subject within a different thread. No surprises there, of course.
Click to expand...

I did say that it was 'my recollection'. I could possibly be wrong, but that doesn't make it a lie. But knock yourself trying to prove that if you like.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I am one of those Dave who has faith in ordinary people. I am one myself. I will continue to show them videos like this complete with my exciting commentary and let them decide what they see for themselves.
In the meantime you are always free to show by mathmatical calcultion that they are not actually seeing what they are seeing. Deal ?
Click to expand...

Intellectual laziness, then.

Dave
 
bill smith said:
Jeez and it went through those nine or ten massive core columns after penetrating the 33 14'' x 14'' steel box columns as if they weren't there as well. Pretty good for aluminium as thin as 1mm. Strange that it looked so much like an aircraft nose when it was really only debris wasn't it ? It must have been made from slightly thicker aluminium than the plane in the image below.

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034
Click to expand...


So, to the surprise of no one, you learned absolutely nothing from Mackey's lecture.
 
bill smith said:
I did say that it was 'my recollection'. I could possibly be wrong, but that doesn't make it a lie.
Click to expand...

No. You posted a deliberate lie, couched in weasel phraseology. Excellent technique if you want to distract children or politicians, but you'll need better here. The point is that if tfk were "in broad agreement" with your 'no deceleration' guff then he could only be a no-plane believer. We both know this is not the case, therefore your statement could only have been a lie.
 
GlennB said:
No. You posted a deliberate lie, couched in weasel phraseology. Excellent technique if you want to distract children or politicians, but you'll need better here. The point is that if tfk were "in broad agreement" with your 'no deceleration' guff then he could only be a no-plane believer. We both know this is not the case, therefore your statement could only have been a lie.
Click to expand...

I thought I rememberd a discussion where I calculated that the plane entered the building from nose to tail in about one-fifth of a second and T. agreed with me more or less. Then I showed that the plane had flown it's final body length prior to entering the building also in about one-fifth of a second. Does that make T a no-planer ? You tell me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom