Nope. It's almost as though you're making crap up without doing any photogrammetric projection to back it up. Oh wait. You were wrong. The plane wing went briefly behind the building exactly as shown. Your diversion and obfuscation doesn't change that. Strawman but wrong as well, no video shows it coming in flat. I know exactly which one you refer to and it's just more demonstration of poor spatial awareness. My claim is 100% correct and you don't even know what a forensic fact is, let alone present any.
more sleight of hand debate tactics. Think you could have come up with a shittier clip? Cant see anything but fuz the resolution is so bad and when others exist with much better resolution its nearly always indicative of a bogus explanation to follow. Look through these windows, from nists site!
a direct rebuttal to the nonsense I saw in your last post is not a strawman though you clearly wish it was. Nice tactic, you post the strawman and accuse me of posting a strawman. Thats typical DDDT we see out here
That would imply there were such tactics preceding, itself incorrect. Seriously, you can talk with your 10th generation "Ace" clips. Regardless of the quality, the wave of the collapse can clearly be seen. It irrefutably goes all the way down. Just that debunks Hulsey, Szamboti et al. Hmm, sounds like knee-jerk denial. If you cannot see that collapse progressing down all the way, then I suggest you seek out an optician. Well don't be silly, nobody is "looking through" any windows. I think I can see my next task, create a better gif than the one already pre-made.
The plane was diving, was clearly visible exactly as seen from his position. The strawman was suggesting that the plane approached level when it didn't, which didn't address the issue at all. Nearly flat, flat. It's not a strawman. And no videos show it coming in "nearly flat'!
And I stand by my "Biggie-skill" at identifying your circular reasoning. You said it had some good points then refused to name or duscuss them. That's deliberately evasive. Which is why he doesn't entertain such hogwash. Identifying it IS scientific. Well yeah, I know you already did. Let me clarify. You are not his equal in qualification by a very large degree. YOU aren't qualified to dismiss his critique, let alone suggest a doctorate-level physicist doesn't employ the scientific method. You dismissed it the moment it critiqued Hulsey - the bridge builder who failed to use a proper file model. You keep running away from that, I wonder why? Did Hulsey only Model 2 floors - yes, or no? So all his good points are a secret then?! And dismissing his content because he "is a fan" of other people who strongly critique Hulsey is not impressive at all. Complete nonsense! Scientific methodology is like a flowchart. It assesses and processes data to form a conclusion. I don't actually care what career you say you had. It is irrelevant what you did to make money. No, what I mean is that you ignore almost everything presented to you. That which you don't ignore is simply waved away because of your misguided reliance on the work of somebody who failed to actually properly model the fire when he assessed whether fire was the cause! You read and ignored them. Hulsey's "peers" are all "911-truthers". Yes they are. You aren't qualified to determine a single thing you deny. How would YOU know!? That sounds ever so slightly paranoid, but thank you for your opinion. Vague and rather random circular logic. Szamboti got his backside handed to him at Metabunk. Since you would never read any of it, you don't get to deny this. False, it is rejected by conspiracy theorists, who rely on the work of a bridge-builder, with zero experience of high-rise buildings, a man paid for his services by "911-truthers" to provide a conclusion they wanted and his paper had grossly insufficient fire-modeling on a building that had out-of-control fires for many hours on many floors!
So YouTube pulled that vid, no surprise there. Though it might be available elsewhere. It was slowed down frame by frame so you could see the alleged plane disappear into the building, just like we've all seen movies where a 'ghost' walks through a wall. Only when it completely disappears do you then see an explosion. When planes hit objects, whatever those objects may be, they do not disappear like a ghost disappears through a wall. Whatever that was it could not have been a standard commercial aircraft!
More batshit bare assertion and "no plane" insanity. In science there is a level of evidence that is acceptable as proof, in some things it's hard to come by. In life experiences, it takes the form of a number of things: Witness testimony - for the Pentagon crash there is a considerable number of accounts confirming a plane, a 757 and the provider American Airlines. Air Traffic Control - monitored the take-off of the flight and noted its later activity prior to crashing. National Guard - a plane spotted the inbound flight and subsequent crash. Security camera footage - though blurred, significant factors in the image demonstrate the exact shape expected. Lamp posts - knocked over during the approach, including an impact with a taxi on the highway prior to crash. Passengers and staff - DNA identified many onboard. Black boxes - recovered. Phone calls - 2 calls received from the plane. Plane pieces - strewn all over the Pentagon lawn, mangled and burnt deep into the building. This was a scheduled flight that strayed off course, pilot contact lost. observed into its target after a hijack. To say there is no proof of this is basically ridiculous. Now, what would NO PLANE entail, previously posted and no serious response made: Now we have to involve countless numbers of people to dispose of the actual plane! Burn it up and distribute parts all around the lawn and building! We have to fabricate the ATC involvement. We have to coerce all the eye-witnesses. We have to have explosions to knock out lamp posts etc. We have to fabricate the National Guard plane witness accounts. We have to involve a team to blow up the building/launch the missile/other plane whichever batshit alternative is suggested! Now we have to dispose / murder all the passengers, dismember some of them and scatter their DNA all over the crash site! How many to get all the luggage and scatter this around the area? Now we have to get actual passengers to fabricate(really!) their audio transcripts and phone calls! We have to fabricate the black box data and/or coerce the analysts who view it. I like logic, I like critical thinking, I like simplicity. What I don't like is insane claims requiring ludicrous numbers of people and tasks, when you just need to crash the damn plane!
It was not as standard commercial aircraft, it was a modified 767, likely modified in Israel by a company partly owned by the Pentagon Comptroller at the time, Dov Zakheim. It was modified into the tanker role, as during those years USAF was trying to find a replacement for its aging fleet of KC135 and KC10 aircraft. We know it was not standard by 2 clues: the unusual fairings at the wing root visible when the aircraft banked, and the engine that continued on after impact and ended up on the sidewalk blocks away. That engine was from a 747, and was part of the conversion done in Israel for the tanker role. And speaking of pulled videos, back around 2004 at the now defunct site called Pilots For 911 Truth, there was a very short video from a stationary surveillance camera at a parking lot in that part of Manhattan. A wide angle lens with the north facing side of the North Tower in the background. It clearly showed the impact of an airplane, but it was just a few seconds in duration. All that could be seen was that it was an airplane, it was a smaller airplane as eye-witness calls to NYPD corroborated. It contradicted the Naudet video. After several months, the video was taken down, but I saw it several times.
No it was a normal Boeing 767. No, that is incredibly unlikely, it involves that utterly ludicrous list in the post above. It's also bizarre circular reasoning of batshit proportion.. No. This is called bare-assertion. It wasn't modified at all. Nope, perfectly normal. Nope, it was from the 767. That line of guff is addressed her: Explaining the 9/11 Murray St Engine from Flight 175 (N612UA) that hit WTC2 | Metabunk Hearsay. What steps did you take to verify its authenticity. Historically, trufers are fairly dishonest, they fabricate, cherry pick and omit things. You are correct, you ARE spouting false claims, they WERE proven false 20 years ago and you DON'T have any credibility.
Oh my god. It's relentless. The Youtube "expert" says he's not just a tourist on the ferry, because suddenly his camera is stable and then he "edited in" the plane. It's painful that anyone would put out a video claiming this horseshit, but even worse that people could be suckered in by it. They really should pull it, this is insanity. Because this kind of thing happens all the time huh? YOU seem to think your opinion on the matter is informed because you compare a passenger plane to a movie. Pathetic. Why not? Physics says they do. It has speed and energy that is more than enough to do just that. Just because you feel the need to bloviate your poor opinion, doesn't make it correct. Because you say so? How can you people not get that list of necessary tasks (it's by no means exhaustive!).?
yes, cgi+cartoon physics. Most people that understand physics can detect the cartoon physics because a certain level of physics is required in a typical education. Cgi on the other hand is not and more difficult for the average person to detect. The guy I posted did a great job explaining exactly how easy it is to do. Thats the inherent problem with cgi, they are layered transparencies that can be readily detected by cgi experts.
Repeating totally insane claims doesn't make them real. There are no physicists* who look at anything on 911 and see "cartoon" physics. Hilariously, only trufers possess this ability. No he didn't. Irrelevant batshit. Only trufers are able to do any "analysis"! * there are a few snake-oil salesman out there sucking in the gullible. Post #439 - How can you people not get that list of necessary tasks (it's by no means exhaustive!).?
