How Many Are Some?
The movie claims:
Some saw a small, 8 to 20 passenger commuter plane." ...maybe a 20 passenger corporate jet, no markings on the sides... "
How many is some in this case? Hmm, one guy, Steve Patterson misjudged the size of the plane. I don't really think that qualifies as some.
some ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sm)adj.
1. Being an unspecified number or quantity: Some people came into the room. Would you like some sugar?
2. Being a portion or an unspecified number or quantity of a whole or group: He likes some modern sculpture but not all.
3. Being a considerable number or quantity: She has been directing films for some years now.
The movie then continues:
And some saw a United States Military helicopter.
" ...when it occurred, he said that he saw a helicopter circle the building. "
" He said that it appeared to be a US Military helicopter, and that it disappeared behind the building where the helicopter landing zone is."
" And that he then saw a fireball going to the sky. "
So now it was a helicopter that ran into the Pentagon? I thought it was an A-3 Skywarrior... or a small passenger jet.... or was it a cruise missile? Is anyone keeping score?
The filmmakers don't ask this question, but just by chance, how many saw a large commercial jetliner? Hmm, over a hundred. OK, that is some.
I take it they aren't lawyers:
"Your honor. I know 120 people saw the defendant bludgeon the victim to death at his birthday party, but one man did also identify his cousin as being the perpetrator. Additionally his sister had the opportunity to do it. You must acquit!"
Update: A reader pointed out the correct designation of the A3 is Skywarrior, not Skyhawk, it has since been corrected.
posted by James B. @ 12:59 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Err more than one person says the things you quote.
Secondly, you're using a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if Fox News does that. The fact is, the video itself does that. Every major news channel could do the same, that doesn't make it right.
In Re:
"Your honor. I know 120 people saw the defendant bludgeon the victim to death at his birthday party, but one man did also identify his cousin as being the perpetrator..."
I agree completely.
If 120 people saw or heard the same event, it's safe to say that these numerous persons are correct. Unless, of course, you believe in some conspiracy theory where the 120 people are collectively confused or lying on purpose to indict this one individual.
I find it ironic, then, that this example is used in regards to the 911 controversy. Dozens of witnesses at ground zero reported hearing and /or seeing explosions in the towers well after the initial impact of the aircrafts and well before collapse. Some firefighters reported that the parking garage and machine shop were completely destroyed. We know this from radio transmissions recorded that day. It should be noted that these two locations are nowhere near the impact zone, and the radio call came in one-half hour after the initial impact. What concerns me is that the statements made by these witnesses, which include the chief of safety and many fire and police officials, have not been fully addressed by the 911 Commission. Personally, I find the theory that "the planes were really holograms", or "Marvin Bush was behind it" to be laughable, however, it is important to collect and analyze the facts. The New York Times published its Oral History of 911 and documented every single one of these statements. They are numerous and consistent. NIST does not address the issue either.
The explosions seen and heard could have been caused by some other fully explanable event, however, they don't touch upon it, (aside from speculating that jet fuel which was not ignited by the large fireball after impact leaked down the core to the lobby and waited several minutes before exploding. This speculation raises more questions than it answers and opens the door for scrazy theories.
I have FEMA's original evidence list from 2002. It lists 236 pieces of steel collected, including numerous pieces from the impact zone. Dylan Avery is mistaken when he asserts that all of the steel was recycled. Only 98% of the steel was recycled and never tested.
There are some contradictions in the government's version, to be sure; the wtc steel tested by NIST reveals that no portion of the steel at impact zone reached 300 Celcius for more than 20 minutes. NIST also ran models on the steel in a controlled environment and showed that the steel still retained enough strength to support the weight of the building X 3, because of the material's high redundancy. Review of the building's response to impacts also show little or no mechanical failure (If I swing a bat at your knees, you are not going to wait an hour before you collapse). NIST eventually through out the notion of mechanical collapse as a principal cause, noting that the impact mirrored what would be expected from high winds. NIST's summary, however, ignores its own test data and claims that the steel reached 900 degrees Celcius, which it arrived at by putting in speculative worst case scenario data, and other inputs (which they don't elaborate on) into computer models, to achieve the observed event (collapse).
Unfortunately, nutjobs run with this and proclaim that "fire can't melt steel". This is FALSE, as anyone in a foundry can tell you; this is how we make steel products.
There is a lot of speculation on BOTH sides of this equation. Facts need to be addressed, and very carefully. Loose Change has it wrong when it states that no piece of steel was bigger than a few feet long. Well, whole pieces of the perimeter column sections, some of them 40 X 80 feet can be seen at ground zero, albeit from their own footage. Whoops.
But here's another interesting whoops: semi-intact column matrices weighing several tons were found lodged into the tops of other buildings as far as eight blocks away. I beg you, explain to me how a collapse caused essentially by gravity launches tons of metal horizontally. NIST does not answer this issue.
Just as an aside, I would point anyone to the Oakland bridge collapse of recent. The tanker exploded directly under a connector beam, and 8800 gallons of gasoline effectively became a blow torch for several hours.
This is a fine example of how fire bends (melts) steel.
These conditions, however, were only very briefly present at the site of the wtc. By NIST's own data: "The fuel would have burned off in 20 minutes".
Having said that, I would like to counter some of the nutjobs' contentions that the fires in the building "weren't that hot". This is misleading. I am sure it was hot enough to make any human being want to jump out of the building than burn to death... or choke on black smoke.
I am still waiting on NIST's final report on tower 7. This one appears to be a controlled demolition, especially in the absence of any observable raging fire. We are told that there are photos revealing the extent of the damage....however, the public hasn't seen them. It is time to see them to put this to rest.
FactNotFiction
Post a Comment
<< Home