All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?

[jammonius]

It is claimed there are 43 known video clips of the explosion at Tower 2 or WTC2 or the South Tower.

There is a convenient youtuber that contains these 43 known versions available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg

Looked at as a whole, the compilation that runs for <10min. provides a variety of looks, angles, and degrees of quality concerning what happened to the South Tower.

Posters and Lurkers here know me as a NO PLANER and I know that designation puts me at 6s&7s with most who post here, where it is thought that >80% of you self-identify as 9/11 debunkers and very few of you self-identify as 9/11 truthers and an even smaller percentage self-identify as NO PLANERS even if you self-identify as a truther.

This might, then, be a short thread and there might be little or no interest in pursuing it. It will be possible to post up a still image for use as a "title page" so to speak for each of the 43 versions. I would consider that a group project in which I could participate jointly with others.

We could ask, say, a group of 4 posters to each post up 10 title page stills, for instance.

The first three in the video look like this;

1
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/1--shadowthingy001.png?t=1273959849

2
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/2--lefttorightblurry018.png?t=1273959999

3
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/3--cbsexplosionnoplaneseen.png?t=1273960073

IMHO, one can find more support for the NO PLANE claim when one considers ALL 43 as a group, with some being more consistent with the no plane claim than others. For instance, in a majority of them, it is very apparent that the explosion occurs in the "wrong" place. Basically, there is no explosion upon impact and when an explosion is seen, it is on the opposite sides of the buildings from impact, showing an internal rather than external source of explosion. Thus, the event was pyrotechnic in nature, as a NO PLANER sees it. Note that phrase: as a no planer sees it.

Almost all of you see it differently, probably. However, the drill here is to examine what the video shows. Let me repeat: The drill here is to examine what the video shows. People have the capacity to view information and say what they see and what they hear and draw conclusions from it.

It is likely those who are PLANE SPOTTERS, meaning, of course, they support the viewpoint that Flight 175, a Boeing 767 slammed into the South Tower is supported by all videos. I get that.

No planers, on the other hand, claim no such thing happened. Most people are offended by that. I get that, too.

However, let's look at what the video shows.

Oh, by the way, here's an example of what I mean when I say the explosion is in the wrong place:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/217-10soundheard4.png?t=1273960739

The above is but one example of the explosion occurring on the east face of the South Tower with nothing much occurring at the point of impact, as though the tower were made of papermache, rather than structural steel.

OK, if there's interest in discussion we can proceed.

I, personally, am not seeking here to convince anyone of anything. I hope we can look at the information and post up claims about what we see and what we hear in this video compilation, thus making this a discussion about the information and not about beliefs.

[Thunder]

wow, you put maybe an hour or two into this.

too bad it was all for nothing.

[jammonius]

wow, you put maybe an hour or two into this.

too bad it was all for nothing.

Take a look at this sequence:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/800-2bbcstilletto.png?t=1273962920

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/800-3bbcstillettoallinexplosionbegi.png?t=1273962980

All in and no explosion seen at point of presumed impact, yet explosion already emerging on east face.

Interesting, right?

[Sam.I.Am]

That does it, I'm convinced!!!



















That Jammie is a troll. Only a troll would take 43 different views from widely varied sources showing that a plane hit a building is evidence of no plane hitting a building.

[T.A.M.]

wow, low rez, frame rate limited videos of a 500 mph impact over a space of several 100 yards.

I am convinced also...

TAM;)

[Macgyver1968]

This is blatant trolling, and should not be responded to.

[16.5]

All in and no explosion seen at point of presumed impact, yet explosion already emerging on east face.

Interesting, right?

INTERESTING! Particularly, as you can't see the point of impact.

Great thread No Planer.

[AJM8125]

INTERESTING! Particularly, as you can't see the point of impact.

Great thread No Planer.

Not seeing the point of anything has kinda been his problem all along.

[jammonius]

Here are the title segments for the next four of the 43:

4
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/4--stagnesschool.png?t=1273968448

5
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/5--bluegoldlive.png?t=1273968590

6
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/6--fatshadow131.png?t=1273968629

7
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/7--shadowgroupy.png?t=1273968669

Once again, the exercise consists in simply looking at and listening to the content of the videos. Video is, afterall, a medium conveying visual images and sound. For purposes of this exercise, the quality of the video, whether it is low or high resolution or whatever is not a determining factor in how useful the process can be.

There's no point in me not owning up to being a NO PLANER, but that is not the issue. It doesn't matter what your perspective is. The point is to look at the data and see what it can be said to reveal.

[Juniversal]

It is claimed there are 43 known video clips of the explosion at Tower 2 or WTC2 or the South Tower.

There is a convenient youtuber that contains these 43 known versions available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg

Looked at as a whole, the compilation that runs for <10min. provides a variety of looks, angles, and degrees of quality concerning what happened to the South Tower.

Posters and Lurkers here know me as a NO PLANER and I know that designation puts me at 6s&7s with most who post here, where it is thought that >80% of you self-identify as 9/11 debunkers and very few of you self-identify as 9/11 truthers and an even smaller percentage self-identify as NO PLANERS even if you self-identify as a truther.

This might, then, be a short thread and there might be little or no interest in pursuing it. It will be possible to post up a still image for use as a "title page" so to speak for each of the 43 versions. I would consider that a group project in which I could participate jointly with others.

We could ask, say, a group of 4 posters to each post up 10 title page stills, for instance.

The first three in the video look like this;

1
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/1--shadowthingy001.png?t=1273959849

2
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/2--lefttorightblurry018.png?t=1273959999

3
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/3--cbsexplosionnoplaneseen.png?t=1273960073

IMHO, one can find more support for the NO PLANE claim when one considers ALL 43 as a group, with some being more consistent with the no plane claim than others. For instance, in a majority of them, it is very apparent that the explosion occurs in the "wrong" place. Basically, there is no explosion upon impact and when an explosion is seen, it is on the opposite sides of the buildings from impact, showing an internal rather than external source of explosion. Thus, the event was pyrotechnic in nature, as a NO PLANER sees it. Note that phrase: as a no planer sees it.

Almost all of you see it differently, probably. However, the drill here is to examine what the video shows. Let me repeat: The drill here is to examine what the video shows. People have the capacity to view information and say what they see and what they hear and draw conclusions from it.

It is likely those who are PLANE SPOTTERS, meaning, of course, they support the viewpoint that Flight 175, a Boeing 767 slammed into the South Tower is supported by all videos. I get that.

No planers, on the other hand, claim no such thing happened. Most people are offended by that. I get that, too.

However, let's look at what the video shows.

Oh, by the way, here's an example of what I mean when I say the explosion is in the wrong place:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/217-10soundheard4.png?t=1273960739

The above is but one example of the explosion occurring on the east face of the South Tower with nothing much occurring at the point of impact, as though the tower were made of papermache, rather than structural steel.

OK, if there's interest in discussion we can proceed.

I, personally, am not seeking here to convince anyone of anything. I hope we can look at the information and post up claims about what we see and what we hear in this video compilation, thus making this a discussion about the information and not about beliefs.Do you think all the videos (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5865799&postcount=19these videos) were faked??

[Thunder]

oooh....copyright infringement?

maybe CNN and BBC and ABC and NY1 and CBS woud like a little email.

[jammonius]

OK, here's one more, this is number 8:

8
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/8--bridge154.png?t=1273969293

In the 8th one, the shadow thing streaks straight across pretty rapidly and then impacts the South Tower. This is yet another instance in which there is no explosion upon impact and when the explosion starts, it is first seen on the south side.

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/202mostlyinnoexplosionseen.png?t=1273969364

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/202-2allinnoexplosion.png?t=1273969537

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/202-3explosionformingsouthsideonly.png?t=1273969657

Note the progression from plane visible at apparent impact; to plane being all in, so to speak; to explosion forming on south face of the tower.

All three have the same 202 time signature. Granted, the resolution is low, but you can verify this by simply looking at the video at the time frames noted; or at whatever segment is of interest to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg


Do posters and lurkers see how the process can work. It is not necessary to make declarations, only to show what the information actually reveals.

It is also possible and useful to post up statements about the sound that can be heard. In connection with the second explosion videos, it seems to me that most of them are either silent or of very poor quality when it comes to picking up the sound of the shadowy moving image.

[jammonius]

Do you think all the videos (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5865799&postcount=19these videos) were faked??

Short answer: NO.

Do you want the longer answer?

[fitzgibbon]

Basically, there is no explosion upon impact and when an explosion is seen, it is on the opposite sides of the buildings from impact, showing an internal rather than external source of explosion.

Yeah, I guess the concept of conservation of momentum doesn't apply to airplane fuel, just everything else in the known universe. :boggled::boggled::boggled:

Should the plane have been see to bounce too? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[jammonius]

9
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/9--swifty.png?t=1273970962

OK, one more for tonight and it's a revealing one. In number 9 there is both intriguing, close up video as well as some sound. I don't think the sound is consistent with a jetliner, but at least the sound is consistent with other descriptions given; like, say, that of Asst. Commis. Stephen Gregory and like that heard in CMs video.

The link for what is called "CMs video" is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuIACIpon7w&feature=player_embedded#!

That video has what I think is the best sound capture of the event that I know of.

IMHO, the sound heard is neither of the type made by a Boeing 767 at full throttle, nor is it heard for a long enough time period to be said to be a jetliner and to match the video imagery.

Now, in an earlier post, I said "no" as my short answer to the question of whether I think the videos are faked. I think some of them might be, but certainly not all of them.

Among those that I think might well be faked includes the one called Chopper 5. I think some of you know that one Ace Baker has made that claim and has done so effectively.

It is easy to see that something is amiss in that video as demonstrated by the following sequence from it:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/602chopper5allinnoexplosionJimFried.png?t=12739716 01

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/602-2noseoutnoexplosionwherecrashed.png?t=1273971775

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/602-3blackoutafternoseout.png?t=1273971852

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/603explosionafterblankoutafternoseo.png?t=12739716 99

The above is referred to as evidence of video fakery. I think one can see why and how that claim is made. It is basically a version of FTFY, one supposes.

Again, I don't think all the videos are fake. I think the Chopper 5 one might be.

I also suggest, however, close study of the Number 9 video. The one beginning at the 2:14 time marker in the All 43 video.

good night

[fitzgibbon]

Do you think all the videos (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5865799&postcount=19these videos) were faked??

Short answer: NO.

Do you want the longer answer?

No need. If they weren't all faked, then obviously at least some were real which deep-sixes your entire no-plane theory.

Thank you for personally putting the spike into two threads with one post. :bigclap

[jammonius]

Yeah, I guess the concept of conservation of momentum doesn't apply to airplane fuel, just everything else in the known universe. :boggled::boggled::boggled:

Should the plane have been see to bounce too? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

In this thread, would you consider being a little more forthcoming and informative in your posting? If there's something you'd like to say about the conseration of momentum as it relates to the crash and explosion video information, why not just do so and add to the substance of the thread?

Once again, I see no reason why PLANE SPOTTERS and NO PLANERS cannot discuss the video data, as data. You know my position, I know yours. No one is trying to change anyone's mind here, I don't imagine. Rather, let's assess the data.

What say you?

[jammonius]

No need. If they weren't all faked, then obviously at least some were real which deep-sixes your entire no-plane theory.

Thank you for personally putting the spike into two threads with one post. :bigclap

One could just as easily make a claim that proof of 1 being a fake reveals an intentional deception that puts paid to the entire common storyline, one supposes.

Again, I am not here to engage in a food fight centering on PLANE versus NO PLANE; rather, I foresee a discussion of the videos, singly and in the aggregate. The compiled videos are, after all, a source of information. Let's take a look at them; shall we?

OK, I have to stop for now, running late.

[beachnut]

Take a look at this sequence:




All in and no explosion seen at point of presumed impact, yet explosion already emerging on east face.

Interesting, right?
That is part of the plane which was moving at 800 feet per second. You don't do reality, do you?

You are showing proof of a plane hitting the WTC and the results of the impact. You talk nonsense about an event and have no idea why jet fuel burns along the side of the building.

[Thunder]

Short answer: NO.

Do you want the longer answer?

if even ONE of these videos, showing a plane crashing into the WTC is genuine, than the No-Plane Theory is dead as Lincoln.

[BigAl]

It is claimed there are 43 known video clips of the explosion at Tower 2 or WTC2 or the South Tower.


jammonius is trolling. reported. I suggest this thread be closed.

[Kevin_Lowe]

In this thread, would you consider being a little more forthcoming and informative in your posting? If there's something you'd like to say about the conseration of momentum as it relates to the crash and explosion video information, why not just do so and add to the substance of the thread?


I'm guessing from the reactions that you're just a troll, but anyway:

A plane is not a missile with a fuse. It does not have an explosive payload which explodes all at once as soon as its nose touches the outer frame of a building.

It's a big bubble of metal with a whole lot of flammable fuel inside, going at very high speed. When it hits a building it punches its way inside, breaking up as it does so, and fuel goes everywhere. When the fuel/air mixture is right the mixture ignites, which is at some point after initial impact and at some point inside the building.

If you learned about explosions from Hollywood or from Star Wars you might expect that to cause a stationary fireball: In Star Wars a spaceship can be zipping along at who-knows-what-speed and when it gets hit with a special effect it turns into a stationary explosion right where it was hit. That's not how reality works. If a plane-load of fuel is going sideways at a few hundred kilometres per hour when it ignites it keeps going sideways at a few hundred kilometres per hour except now it's on fire.

(If it didn't work that way then flamethrowers wouldn't work, they'd just make a huge fireball centred on the poor dude trying to fire it. Flaming liquids go sideways at high velocity just fine).

The whole mess of metal parts and flaming fuel retains its momentum and a lot of it goes flying out the far side of the building. It might look to you like the fireball originated on that side but that's not quite right. It originated inside going sideways, and it just kept on going sideways past the far side of the building.

[triforcharity]

Useless ranting snipped>

The above is but one example of the explosion occurring on the east face of the South Tower with nothing much occurring at the point of impact, as though the tower were made of papermache, rather than structural steel.



Google the word "Momentum" and you may get your answer.

[TSR]

One could just as easily make a claim that proof of 1 being a fake reveals an intentional deception that puts paid to the entire common storyline, one supposes.

.
One could, if one were also willing to assert that since the "War of the Worlds" broadcast was faked, that Orson Welles was never born.

Or perhaps it was all done with DEW -- I'm still waiting for those specs to show it was not.
.

[dafydd]

Why is Jammonious showing us videos of the plane hitting the building to convince us that a plane did not hit the building? I find his/her mental processes hard to follow.

[dtugg]

100% of no-planers are batcrap crazy.

[AJM8125]

100% of no-planers are batcrap crazy.

But our jammonius is extra special. I've just been to his website. In addition to being a 9/11 truther, we see that he's also into all manner of nonsense - chemtrails, moon landings, UFO's, crop circles, etc. Yup, he's a full-on woo.

Back to the OP. There are of course more than 43 known examples of Flight 175 and a very basic search turned up this one:

JuQl9hUC00k

Forward to one minute in and hear what Our Man in the Hat(:D) has to say. Interesting find - I wonder why nobody's mentioned him before. :rolleyes:

[sylvan8798]

Personally, I'm joining the chorus that says we shouldn't play with jammonius anymore. This thread sinks to a new low. :(

[Juniversal]

Short answer: NO.

Do you want the longer answer?What they said....\/

No need. If they weren't all faked, then obviously at least some were real which deep-sixes your entire no-plane theory.

Thank you for personally putting the spike into two threads with one post. :bigclap

if even ONE of these videos, showing a plane crashing into the WTC is genuine, than the No-Plane Theory is dead as Lincoln.

[Oystein]

...The point is to look at the data and see what it can be said to reveal.

In jammo world, with enough word salad tossing and invention of unsupported claims (lies), and especially with giving special attention to everything that is not seen, heard or said, anything can be said to be revealed from the 43 videos.


So here is my proposal. It can be said that the 43 videos reveal that pink elefants trample through dense jungles, hunting for mocking hyenas. It can also be said that the videos reveal that Lee Harvey Oswald had two identical twins shooting from holografic second and third schoold book depositories. Furthermore, it can be said that the videos reveal jammonius is a Nobel laureate in the field of fourth dimension digeridoo anaesthetics.

[Oystein]

Yeah, I guess the concept of conservation of momentum doesn't apply to airplane fuel, just everything else in the known universe. :boggled::boggled::boggled:

Should the plane have been see to bounce too? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Since Jim Ryan did not see a plane on the north fassade of the North Tower, and is therefore recruited as a no-planer, jammonius apparently expects the plane to get stuck on impact like Robin Hood's arrow in the Sheriff of Nottingham's chest.

[Stout]

What a bizarre thread, I thought the "no planers" thing only applied to the Pentagon hit.

Anyways..


Yeah, I guess the concept of conservation of momentum doesn't apply to airplane fuel, just everything else in the known universe. :boggled::boggled::boggled:



What he said

[jammonius]

I'm guessing from the reactions that you're just a troll, but anyway:

Well, in the above, there is at least a hint or a possibility that you are asking me to state whether or not I am a troll. That is a good sign in my opinion because it is consistent with a practice I engage in and encourage others so to do.

That practice is to ask a poster to confirm or not confirm something one suspects. I call it doublechecking for accuracy of understanding and I use that practice on a regular basis as posters here can attest, if you ask them.

So, assuming you are doublechecking for accuracy of understanding, my claim is that I am not trolling. If you look under my handle, you will see there have been a number of multi-page threads for which I provided the OP. People here routinely disagree with me, put me on ignore and, nonetheless, engage in multi-page threads, some of which attract new posters on a fairly regular basis that might be an indicator of interest in the topics.

I consider "interest in a topic" to be a good or positive indicator that the discussion is worthy. Agreement or disagreement is, of course, the nature of discussion.


A plane is not a missile with a fuse. It does not have an explosive payload which explodes all at once as soon as its nose touches the outer frame of a building.

I will put this plainly, your observation goes in the direction of making the discussion one of PLANE versus NO PLANE, however, that is not the only possible way to interpret what you've said above.

Keep in mind this from the OP:

The above is but one example of the explosion occurring on the east face of the South Tower with nothing much occurring at the point of impact, as though the tower were made of papermache, rather than structural steel.

OK, if there's interest in discussion we can proceed.

I, personally, am not seeking here to convince anyone of anything. I hope we can look at the information and post up claims about what we see and what we hear in this video compilation, thus making this a discussion about the information and not about beliefs.

In my opinion, the focus of the discussion is what is seen and heard in the video.

For instance, you did not post up a video link or segment, either by way of a still or by way of, say, a time segment from the All 43 video supporting your claim.

Would you consider doing that so that the focus remains on what the video data shows? Mind you, I am not here saying you must do this as clearly I have no right to do that. I am merely requesting you consider doing so; as, in so doing, the fcous is on the video and not on each other's "beliefs."


It's a big bubble of metal with a whole lot of flammable fuel inside, going at very high speed. When it hits a building it punches its way inside, breaking up as it does so, and fuel goes everywhere. When the fuel/air mixture is right the mixture ignites, which is at some point after initial impact and at some point inside the building.

Jet fuel is a middle distiallate fuel virtually interchangeable with plain old kerosene. It is combustible, but, technically speaking, is not flammable. There was a thread on that issue that went round and round I seem to recall with the outcome being inconclusive as to whether the word 'flammable' or the word 'combustible' applies to jet fuel.

Bottomline is that the common storyline of 9/11 mandates that a Boeing 767 that was carrying about enough jet fuel to fill an average size swimming pool crashed into the WTC at which point, most of the kereosene was used up in the initial fireball, as seen here:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/840bbclongshotzoomdiscussmyowneyesd.png?t=12740243 80

The above is an example of using the video as the frame of reference for posting in this thread. Mind you, there are a number of issues associated with that fireball, so it is not necessarily indicative of a Boeing 767 for a variety of reasons. But, once again, the focus here is on what the video shows and not on PLANE versus NO PLANE claims. Although we are still on the first page, we are toward the end of it. And, it is already apparent that posters are preferring to make this a PLANE versus NO PLANE discussion, rather than a discussion of what the video shows.

Let me repeat: I know most of you support PLANE. You know I support NO PLANE. So what? I am not here seeking to convince you folks to become NO PLANERS. I am encouraging dialogue on the issue of what the ALL 43 videos show. That and nothing more or less.

Grasp that if posters and lurkers would, please.


If you learned about explosions from Hollywood or from Star Wars you might expect that to cause a stationary fireball: In Star Wars a spaceship can be zipping along at who-knows-what-speed and when it gets hit with a special effect it turns into a stationary explosion right where it was hit. That's not how reality works. If a plane-load of fuel is going sideways at a few hundred kilometres per hour when it ignites it keeps going sideways at a few hundred kilometres per hour except now it's on fire.

I'm not sure I follow your hypothetical. Could you restate it and make it clearer; better still, could you relate what you are attempting to say specifically to the South Tower, supported by a reference to the video?


(If it didn't work that way then flamethrowers wouldn't work, they'd just make a huge fireball centred on the poor dude trying to fire it. Flaming liquids go sideways at high velocity just fine).

Ditto, above comment.


The whole mess of metal parts and flaming fuel retains its momentum and a lot of it goes flying out the far side of the building. It might look to you like the fireball originated on that side but that's not quite right. It originated inside going sideways, and it just kept on going sideways past the far side of the building.

Dit...

[Dumb All Over]

I vote PLANE.

[jammonius]

.
One could, if one were also willing to assert that since the "War of the Worlds" broadcast was faked, that Orson Welles was never born.

Or perhaps it was all done with DEW -- I'm still waiting for those specs to show it was not.
.

"War of the Worlds" is a very apt analogy to be considered in conjunciton with the events of 9/11, could more posters and lurkers but realize it.

That 1938 example might well be a forerunner for what 9/11 essentially was.

Thanks for your post.

[jammonius]

I vote PLANE.

Hooray for you. Would you like to participate in a discussion of what is revealed in the ALL 43 video based on assessment of what is seen and what is heard in one or more of the 43 versions of the event found in that video? An example of that process, i.e., of assessing video content can be found in post # 15.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5937092&postcount=15

thanks

[X]

Have you ever considered looking at all the evidence en masse, Jammonius?

[BigAl]

Hooray for you. Would you like to participate in a discussion of what is revealed in the ALL 43 video based on assessment of what is seen and what is heard in one or more of the 43 versions of the event found in that video? An example of that process, i.e., of assessing video content can be found in post # 15.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5937092&postcount=15

thanks

Troll much?

reported.

[Dumb All Over]

Hooray for you.
Thank you.
Would you like to participate in a discussion of what is revealed in the ALL 43 video based on assessment of what is seen and what is heard in one or more of the 43 versions of the event found in that video?
Heh heh. You're funny. /pokes jammonius

[jammonius]

Google the word "Momentum" and you may get your answer.

Well, OK, I did that, but doing so did not shed much light on what is seen here. Momentum is one thing, but "impact" is another. Here we see a sequence in which a claim is made a fuel laden metal "bubble" (I think it was called) collides at great speed with a solid steel object and goes right through with neither explosion nor debris being seen:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/800-2bbcstilletto.png?t=1274026153

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/800-3bbcstillettoallinexplosionbegi.png?t=1274026221

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/800-4bbcstillettonoseout.png?t=1274026352

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/801bbcstillettonoseout.png?t=1274026411

In the sequence seen above, it is very apparent the steel perimeter of the South Tower did not result in an explosive impact until AFTER the explosion manifested on both the east and the north face.

So, that is the context in which momentum and impact are to be discussed.

Would you like to develop this theme a bit further, based on what the video reveals?

[jammonius]

Have you ever considered looking at all the evidence en masse, Jammonius?

Yes I have, have you?

[jammonius]

What a bizarre thread, I thought the "no planers" thing only applied to the Pentagon hit.

Anyways..




What he said


Are you willing to consider what the ALL 43 video reveals?

thanks

[TSR]

"War of the Worlds" is a very apt analogy to be considered in conjunciton with the events of 9/11, could more posters and lurkers but realize it.

That 1938 example might well be a forerunner for what 9/11 essentially was.

Thanks for your post.

.
LOL.

You *do* know that that broadcast was clearly identified as fiction at every break?

It is a very apt analogy indeed: a bunch of people who did not bother to gather all of the information went off half-cocked, just like truthers. Of course, the analogy breaks down when one realizes no one then tried to pretend that the death rays actually existed, and that their qualities were well known -- unlike yourself.
.

[TSR]

Well, OK, I did that, but doing so did not shed much light on what is seen here. Momentum is one thing, but "impact" is another. Here we see a sequence in which a claim is made a fuel laden metal "bubble" (I think it was called) collides at great speed with a solid steel object and goes right through with neither explosion nor debris being seen:

.
"solid steel?"

How could they possibly rent office space in a building that had no place for people to move around in?
.

[jammonius]

.
"solid steel?"

How could they possibly rent office space in a building that had no place for people to move around in?
.

I don't know you're finding it necessary to be pedantic about this. The issue remains clear, t think; namely penetration of structural steel by an aluminum alloy tube that is, if the issue of interior space important to you, then it is equally, if not moreso, applicable to the shadow thingy.
Query: when and where have you referred to the hollowness and/or % of 'air' applicable to the supposed Boeing 767? Please provide link.
Thanks

[BigAl]

I don't know you're finding it necessary to be pedantic about this. The issue remains clear, t think; namely penetration of structural steel by an aluminum alloy tube that is,


Your "steel structure" where the aircraft hit the towers was columns made of 1/4 inches thick steel and mostly glass.

The column joints and the glass didn't stand a chance against the momentum of a 140 ton aircraft traveling at 500MPH.

[fess]

Although “Jammo” may have knowledge of the difference between kerosene and jet fuel, he certainly has no idea of the concept of lower and upper explosive limits (LEL/UEL). If he did, he would understand why the “explosion” appears to occur at the east and north side of WTC2. Add to that the effects of momentum, and have an answer.

[TSR]

I don't know you're finding it necessary to be pedantic about this. The issue remains clear, t think; namely penetration of structural steel by an aluminum alloy tube that is, if the issue of interior space important to you, then it is equally, if not moreso, applicable to the shadow thingy.
Query: when and where have you referred to the hollowness and/or % of 'air' applicable to the supposed Boeing 767? Please provide link.

.
Except that the "shadow thingy" was travelling at several hundred miles an hour.

Are you going to assert that this momentum (which you have blown off before) was insignificant to what happened?


Still waiting for you to show us the specs on the DEW weapon which would account for the demonstrated physical effects of 9/11.
.

[BigAl]

I don't know you're finding it necessary to be pedantic about this. The issue remains clear, t think; namely penetration of structural steel by an aluminum alloy tube that is, if the issue of interior space important to you, then it is equally, if not moreso, applicable to the shadow thingy.
Query: when and where have you referred to the hollowness and/or % of 'air' applicable to the supposed Boeing 767? Please provide link.
Thanks

Irrelevant

[beachnut]

I don't know you're finding it necessary to be pedantic about this. The issue remains clear, t think; namely penetration of structural steel by an aluminum alloy tube that is, if the issue of interior space important to you, then it is equally, if not moreso, applicable to the shadow thingy.
Query: when and where have you referred to the hollowness and/or % of 'air' applicable to the supposed Boeing 767? Please provide link.
Thanks
Aluminum is used because it is strong and light and can cut steel when it is going at speeds of 680 feet per seconds or great with great ease. It is call science something you fail to use in your delusional world of lies, hearsay, and twisted insanity of beam weapons, horse-trailers, wheel covers and jet fuel that can't burn.

Water cuts steel, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel at 470 to 590 mph will knock down walls.

Please post the water crushes the car video on 1 2 3...

Not sure how a tsunami knocks down buildings, it is only water.

[A W Smith]

I will put this plainly, your observation goes in the direction of making the discussion one of PLANE versus NO PLANE, however, that is not the only possible way to interpret what you've said above.


.


Just "double checking for accuracy" Andrew Johnson. May I ask, Are you a dunce? The title of the thread you yourself started is
ALL 43 VIDEOS-"SECOND HIT" [EXPLOSION]at WTC 2: PLANE or NO PLANE???

And you question why the discussion is one of plane versus no plane?

[fitzgibbon]

No need. If they weren't all faked, then obviously at least some were real which deep-sixes your entire no-plane theory.

Thank you for personally putting the spike into two threads with one post. :bigclap

Call me old school but just to reiterate this point:

If even some of the videos weren't fake, that amounts to a tacit admission on jammonius' part that what was seen corresponded with what his ilk like to refer to as the OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory).

That being the case, he clearly accepts the OCT and further arguments from him amount to how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin class of argument.

This thread and the Dick Oliver thread have reached their conclusion.

Thank you for your participation. Further arguments with jammonius are not required.

[dafydd]

Personally, I'm joining the chorus that says we shouldn't play with jammonius anymore. This thread sinks to a new low. :(

Well said,I won't be reacting anymore.

[Newtons Bit]

Well, OK, I did that, but doing so did not shed much light on what is seen here. Momentum is one thing, but "impact" is another. Here we see a sequence in which a claim is made a fuel laden metal "bubble" (I think it was called) collides at great speed with a solid steel object and goes right through with neither explosion nor debris being seen:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/800-2bbcstilletto.png?t=1274026153

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/800-3bbcstillettoallinexplosionbegi.png?t=1274026221

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/800-4bbcstillettonoseout.png?t=1274026352

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/801bbcstillettonoseout.png?t=1274026411

In the sequence seen above, it is very apparent the steel perimeter of the South Tower did not result in an explosive impact until AFTER the explosion manifested on both the east and the north face.

So, that is the context in which momentum and impact are to be discussed.

Would you like to develop this theme a bit further, based on what the video reveals?

It's pretty obvious that there's both debris and explosion there. You posted the screenshots that show them.

[sheeplesnshills]

Would you like to develop this theme a bit further, based on what the video reveals?

It shows hundreds of people dying. The lucky ones quickly.....Others were not so lucky.
You are utterly beneath contempt.

[jammonius]

.
LOL.

You *do* know that that broadcast was clearly identified as fiction at every break?

Your claim that the *broadcast was clearly identified as fiction at every break* is shown by wiki to be misleading as it relates to such notices:

"Later studies indicate that many missed the repeated notices that the broadcast was fictional, partly because the Mercury Theatre (an unsponsored cultural program with a relatively small audience) ran opposite the popular Chase and Sanborn Hour over the Red Network of NBC, hosted by Don Ameche and featuring comic ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and singer Nelson Eddy, three of the most popular figures in broadcasting. About 15 minutes into the Chase and Sanborn program the first comic sketch ended and a musical number began, and many listeners began tuning around the dial at that point. According to the American Experience program The Battle Over Citizen Kane, Welles knew the schedule of the Chase and Sanborn show, and scheduled the first report from Grover's Mill at the 12-minute mark to heighten the audience's confusion. As a result, some listeners happened upon the CBS broadcast at the point the Martians emerge from their spacecraft.

In addition consider this:

"...The first two thirds of the 60-minute broadcast was presented as a series of simulated news bulletins, which suggested to many listeners that an actual Martian invasion was in progress. Compounding the issue was the fact that the Mercury Theatre on the Air was a 'sustaining show' (it ran without commercial breaks), thus adding to the dramatic effect..."



It is a very apt analogy indeed: a bunch of people who did not bother to gather all of the information went off half-cocked, just like truthers.

Having skewed the facts, you now do the same with the essence of the analogy.

The point is, people believe what they saw on teevee, just as they believed what they heard on the radio. In each instance, despite the fact that the 9/11 event, upon examination, as I am proposing, can be said (note that phrasing) to be consistent more with a staged pyrotechnical fictional event than with a real one, just as Evan Fairbanks, who filmed the sequence of it shown below actually said it looked like:

"a bad special effect."

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/454fairbanksplanehalfinhasntnoticed.png?t=12740475 34

A jetliner image already halfway into WTC2 and this 'cameraman' has neither flinched yet nor given any indication he has heard what should be an ear-splittingly loud jetliner at 550mph, a mere 800ft above him, which should have been audible prior to impact and half-insertion into the tower. Note, too, that Fairbanks' video, like many on 9/11 for some reason, had no audio at all. Small wonder Evan Fairbanks thought it looked like "a bad special effect."

Here's the next instant in which a presumed Boeing 767 has already fully entered WTC2 and, yet again, no debris an no explosion and still no reaction from the cameraman:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/454-2fairbanksplaneallinnotnoticean.png?t=1274049507

As previously shown, explosion is already nearly fully formed on east face, even though there's much less development at the south face point of presumed impact.

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/456fairbanksallinnoticesexplosionwr.png?t=12740490 30

The above confirm what is meant by "a bad special effect."

I'm not sure why you're finding it necessary to use generalized, colloquial words that do not accurately describe the essence of the event. Can you say why you are choosing to do that?

In addition to that, it has always been my understanding the event is largely remembered because of wide spread panic that has been described and quantified as follows:

"Richard J. Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some six million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'".

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/WOTW-NYT-headline.jpg?t=1274046582


Of course, the analogy breaks down when one realizes no one then tried to pretend that the death rays actually existed, and that their qualities were well known -- unlike yourself.
.

The above is twisted, in my view, and has nothing of substance to add. I support the claim DEW destroyed the WTC and there are threads in this forum that elaborate fully on the claim. You have seen them, right? I'm not discussing DEW in this thread or in other threads centered on videos of one kind or another pertaining to claims Boeing 767s hit the WTC.

[twinstead]

You're like a broken record, jammonius, a sad, delusional broken record. Reading your threads has lost its fun.

[tsig]

Your claim that the *broadcast was clearly identified as fiction at every break* is shown by wiki to be misleading as it relates to such notices:

"Later studies indicate that many missed the repeated notices that the broadcast was fictional, partly because the Mercury Theatre (an unsponsored cultural program with a relatively small audience) ran opposite the popular Chase and Sanborn Hour over the Red Network of NBC, hosted by Don Ameche and featuring comic ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and singer Nelson Eddy, three of the most popular figures in broadcasting. About 15 minutes into the Chase and Sanborn program the first comic sketch ended and a musical number began, and many listeners began tuning around the dial at that point. According to the American Experience program The Battle Over Citizen Kane, Welles knew the schedule of the Chase and Sanborn show, and scheduled the first report from Grover's Mill at the 12-minute mark to heighten the audience's confusion. As a result, some listeners happened upon the CBS broadcast at the point the Martians emerge from their spacecraft.

In addition consider this:

"...The first two thirds of the 60-minute broadcast was presented as a series of simulated news bulletins, which suggested to many listeners that an actual Martian invasion was in progress. Compounding the issue was the fact that the Mercury Theatre on the Air was a 'sustaining show' (it ran without commercial breaks), thus adding to the dramatic effect..."




Having skewed the facts, you now do the same with the essence of the analogy.

The point is, people believe what they saw on teevee, just as they believed what they heard on the radio. In each instance, despite the fact that the 9/11 event, upon examination, as I am proposing, can be said (note that phrasing) to be consistent more with a staged pyrotechnical fictional event than with a real one, just as Evan Fairbanks, who filmed the sequence of it shown below actually said it looked like:

"a bad special effect."

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/454fairbanksplanehalfinhasntnoticed.png?t=12740475 34

A jetliner image already halfway into WTC2 and this 'cameraman' has neither flinched yet nor given any indication he has heard what should be an ear-splittingly loud jetliner at 550mph, a mere 800ft above him, which should have been audible prior to impact and half-insertion into the tower. Note, too, that Fairbanks' video, like many on 9/11 for some reason, had no audio at all. Small wonder Evan Fairbanks thought it looked like "a bad special effect."

Here's the next instant in which a presumed Boeing 767 has already fully entered WTC2 and, yet again, no debris an no explosion and still no reaction from the cameraman:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/454fairbanksplanehalfinhasntnoticed.png?t=12740475 34

As previously shown, explosion is already nearly fully formed on east face, even though there's much less development at the south face point of presumed impact.

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/456fairbanksallinnoticesexplosionwr.png?t=12740490 30

The above confirm what is meant by "a bad special effect."

I'm not sure why you're finding it necessary to use generalized, colloquial words that do not accurately describe the essence of the event. Can you say why you are choosing to do that?

In addition to that, it has always been my understanding the event is largely remembered because of wide spread panic that has been described and quantified as follows:

"Richard J. Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some six million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'".

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/WOTW-NYT-headline.jpg?t=1274046582



The above is twisted, in my view, and has nothing of substance to add. I support the claim DEW destroyed the WTC and there are threads in this forum that elaborate fully on the claim. You have seen them, right? I'm not discussing DEW in this thread or in other threads centered on videos of one kind or another pertaining to claims Boeing 767s hit the WTC.

Your post is prolix and an adventure in obscurantism.

[jammonius]

Aluminum is used because it is strong and light and can cut steel when it is going at speeds of 680 feet per seconds or great with great ease. It is call science something you fail to use in your delusional world of lies, hearsay, and twisted insanity of beam weapons, horse-trailers, wheel covers and jet fuel that can't burn.

Water cuts steel, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel at 470 to 590 mph will knock down walls.

Please post the water crushes the car video on 1 2 3...

Not sure how a tsunami knocks down buildings, it is only water.

I think the more apt analogy is Ethopia airlines crash as seen below. The wing disintegrates quickly and the plane disintegrates almost immediately on contact with lowly liquid water, all as seen as follows:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/ethopiacrash/027wingonwater.png?t=1274050568

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/ethopiacrash/033winggonealmostinstantlysameti-1.png?t=1274050785

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/ethopiacrash/035otherwinggoneandplaneunglued.png?t=1274050847

Note: Second wing breaks off without even hitting water, in sharp contrast to "shadow thingy" that enters structural steel from nose to mid-section, from mid-section to wings, from wings to aft section and from aft section through tail without ever deforming or even causing so much as an explosion and no discernible debris.

Posters, a little objectivity won't hurt in the thinking about jetliner crash dynamics. Those dynamics are nowhere to be seen in the WTC2 videos. That is actually an easy statement to make, could more posters and lurkers but realize it. But, once again, I am only asking that people view the videos and report what they see and hear. No pressure. I am not seeking to set up a pitched (and largely useless) PLANE vs NO PLANE pissing contest. I know most of you assert PLANE; and most of you know I do not. Once again, so what?

Let's look at and use the videos.

And finally, debris clearly discernible and fireball at point of impact, in the water, no less:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/ethopiacrash/037fireballatpointofimpact.png?t=1274051382

[Kevin_Lowe]

Water cuts steel, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel at 470 to 590 mph will knock down walls.

Please post the water crushes the car video on 1 2 3...

Good call.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM9FeEgI0Eo

The car is smashed, and it wasn't even an aeroplane doing hundreds of kilometres per hour doing the smashing. It was just a load of water poured from not far above the target. Imagine if that water was travelling at the speed at which a plane travels!

[Alan]

Fixing that link to the video (hopefully!):

FM9FeEgI0Eo

[fitzgibbon]

And finally, debris clearly discernible and fireball at point of impact, in the water, no less

Would you be so kind as to clearly show said "fireball"? Do you have any clue why it is that that plane happened to be landing in the water?

I'll even buy you your first clue. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_961) :rolleyes:

[jammonius]

While I am not willing to answer questions posters can answer for themselves and am sure not interested in engaging in rhetorical '20 question' exercises, as posters and even lurkers well know, I will post up additional data. Here are the beginning "title pages" as it were of the next four versions from the ALL 43 video compilation of known videos of the explosion at the South Tower:

10
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/10-panfrompeopleup.png?t=1274053799

11
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/11-dimslowshadow243.png?t=1274053858

12
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/12-panbackblkynNOPLANESEEN.png?t=1274053887

13
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/13-greydifferentangleapproach.png?t=1274053914

[fitzgibbon]

While I am not willing to answer questions posters can answer for themselves and am sure not interested in engaging in rhetorical '20 question' exercises,.....

:boggled::eek::eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:boggled::eek::eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:boggled::eek::eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:boggled::eek::eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:boggled::eek::eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:boggled::eek::eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:boggled::eek::eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:boggled::eek:

OK, answer one question. Easy question at that.

How does a plane that crashes into the sea because hijackers caused it to be starved of fuel have a feckin' "fireball"?

[triforcharity]

I think the more apt analogy is Ethopia airlines crash as seen below. The wing disintegrates quickly and the plane disintegrates almost immediately on contact with lowly liquid water, all as seen as follows:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/ethopiacrash/027wingonwater.png?t=1274050568

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/ethopiacrash/033winggonealmostinstantlysameti-1.png?t=1274050785

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/ethopiacrash/035otherwinggoneandplaneunglued.png?t=1274050847

Note: Second wing breaks off without even hitting water, in sharp contrast to "shadow thingy" that enters structural steel from nose to mid-section, from mid-section to wings, from wings to aft section and from aft section through tail without ever deforming or even causing so much as an explosion and no discernible debris.

Posters, a little objectivity won't hurt in the thinking about jetliner crash dynamics. Those dynamics are nowhere to be seen in the WTC2 videos. That is actually an easy statement to make, could more posters and lurkers but realize it. But, once again, I am only asking that people view the videos and report what they see and hear. No pressure. I am not seeking to set up a pitched (and largely useless) PLANE vs NO PLANE pissing contest. I know most of you assert PLANE; and most of you know I do not. Once again, so what?

Let's look at and use the videos.

And finally, debris clearly discernible and fireball at point of impact, in the water, no less:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/ethopiacrash/037fireballatpointofimpact.png?t=1274051382

Two problems that you seem to have.

Understanding momentum. Understanding physics.

#1-That plane was traveling at a much slower speed.
#2-Plane hitting water, wing first, is not even close to being comparable to a plane hitting a steel frame at ~500 MPH

When that plane hit the water at a much slower speed is going to cause that side of the plane to slow down significantly. This puts TREMENDOUS stress on the airframe. It acted in a way that is understandable to most people.

[triforcharity]

PS. Why are your screenshots so fuzzy?

[Scott Sommers]

I'm not really a lurker, but in general, I'm not too interested in dealing with the idea of no planes.

I do have a question for Jammi. You seem to be arguing that momentum is an insignificant force, not just at 911, but in general. Am I right?

[jammonius]

Hey posters/lurkers,

I'd like to suggest you review the video given title # 12. It is one of the videos within the 43 that shows NO PLANE. Let me hasten to add, I am not suggesting this review for purposes of the PLANE vs NO PLANE claim, I am only suggesting review of it for two purposes:

1--What it shows; and

2--What the people in it say.

Are items 1 and 2 clear enough? I hope so.

Here's what it shows:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/301panoutstopNOPLANESEEN.png?t=1274054612

As you can see in the post above this one, this segment, video # 12 begins at about the 2:53 mark in the ALL 43 video, who's link, once again, is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg

In the first photo above, the time marker has advanced to 3:01. The camera had been panning out from 2:53 to about 3:01, the point shown above.

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/302noplaneseen.png?t=1274054794

The above is 1 second later, at 3:02. No plane is seen in this video segment, I don't think, but posters are invited to double check and form their own conclusions.

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/303explosionseeneastformingstillsma.png?t=12740548 98

By the 3:03 mark, the beginning of the east face explosion is seen. In my opinion (note that phrase) because the explosion can be seen while it is still relatively small and only in the early formation process, it should have been possible to discern a shadow thingy had one been present, imho; and, maybe a shadow thingy can be discerned. I think that issue is up for grabs.

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/304explosionexpanding.png?t=1274055047

In the next second, the explosion on the east face is expanding as per this video. It is at about this point that the people in the video can be heard acknowledging they see the explosion and they exclaim about it.

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/310explosionstillexpandingcommentID.png?t=12740551 10

At this point the people in the video zoom in and they continue to discuss what they see openly acknowledging they don't know what has happened. That is to say, they are unaware the event is being attributed to a plane crashing into what they are seeing.

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/312THEYREBOMBINGIT.png?t=1274055252

At the 3:12 mark, corresponding to the above image, a person has said and I quote (more or less): "...they're bombing it..."

Clearly, then, these people are unaware of the claim a jetliner is involved. Explosion sound can be heard in this video, but there was nothing these folks saw or heard that led them to believe a plane was present, based on what they said.

I am not asserting that proves anything; rather, I am commenting on what the information shows. Others have an open invitation to do the same.

[Reactor drone]

PS. Why are your screenshots so fuzzy?

It's so he can call a 767 a shadow thingy.


;)

[AJM8125]

44+ known videos. :rolleyes:

JuQl9hUC00k

[Scott Sommers]

I am not asserting that proves anything; rather, I am commenting on what the information shows. Others have an open invitation to do the same.

But I think the point in the responses is that if you take into account forces aspects like momentum, there's nothing unusual going on here. Fast things have a lot of force, so even if they're not very hard, they do a lot of damage.

Jammi has his video and tells people to look. They respond back that well understood forces account for what we see. I think this is why science was invented and why it looks so mathematical. I think to have a more convincing argument, Jammi, you're going to have provide calculations for why momentum doesn't account for what we see in you videos. Otherwise, you're just talking to yourself. Maybe you don't care, but posting bits of videos here and making claims about what could and couldn't explain them, without the calculations, is laughable.

[jammonius]

Two problems that you seem to have.

Understanding momentum. Understanding physics.

#1-That plane was traveling at a much slower speed.
#2-Plane hitting water, wing first, is not even close to being comparable to a plane hitting a steel frame at ~500 MPH

When that plane hit the water at a much slower speed is going to cause that side of the plane to slow down significantly. This puts TREMENDOUS stress on the airframe. It acted in a way that is understandable to most people.

Let me be candid with you: Physics and the concept of momentum, conserved or otherwise, do not support the common storyline of 9/11. Physics is neutral, it is not a weapon to be used by one side or another. Posters in threads that I participate in seem often to use physics as a weapon, usually framed more or less as follows:

I (meaning other posters) know physics; and, you (meaning jammonius) don't.

It is that claim, rather than any resort to actual physics that is used by posters to then further their game by declaring victory as if this is a stupid gotcha game.

Another variation on the same stupid theme is to ask me to go off on wild goose chases and prove to them that pysics support the claims I'm making. That doesn't get anywhere as the claim is always, invariably and no matter what, "jammonius wrong." Physics is a science, crash physics is a variety of science. Crash physics has been badly corrupted in the area of 9/11 research and has led to nothing conclusive, whatsoever, that anyone can rely on, let alone show.

The common storyline is not supported by physics, crash, applied, or any other version of physics and there is no poster here and no lurker here who can show otherwise. There is no official study of what happened that is based on adequate, demonstrated physics.

Note, for instance, NIST. Just as they curtailed their investigation so as to END the scope of investigation before the WTC was annihilated, thus not explaining that annihilation; the NIST report also BEGINS the scope of investigation after the alleged crashes have occurred, thus not investigating those either.

That is out and out fraud. But, like the 9/11 Commission which we KNOW was told not to investigate too deeply, NIST likewise didn't investigate anything worthwhile either. Thus, resorts to claims of "physics" are pure, simple, out and out, unadulterated BS and posters here need to start acknowledging as much and stop fooling themselves.

[jammonius]

44+ known videos. :rolleyes:

JuQl9hUC00k

The above is both useful and useless at the same time.

This is what I said in the OP:

"It is claimed there are 43 known video clips of the explosion at Tower 2 or WTC2 or the South Tower.

There is a convenient youtuber that contains these 43 known versions available at:"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg

I phrased it as above since it is obvious that there might more than 43, given the event occurred in an area of where easily 1 million people were located within filming distance. Thus, there might well be other versions out there, for all I know.

So, now you post up a claim there are 44 rather than 43.

By the way, did you hear the comment at about the 0:30 mark where the guy who identifies himself as an architect says it would be "almost impossible to knock the building over"? One other observation is that the video does not show the second plane and has no audio consistent with a jetliner, imho.

What it does have, however, is a person claiming to have seen a plane hit the North Tower, but who describes a movement of the plane that is at variance with what is seen in, say, the Naudet video. So, something is amiss. Still, it is my practice to take eye witnesses at their word and I will make no exception here. I take Our Man with Straw Hat (OMSH) at his word.

One other observation about this new video is that it, too, is remarkably clear, unlike the dark, dim and obscure network feeds.

I do wish posters would consider being forthcoming and add to the information base in a more useful way when it comes to assessment of information. Still, the new video is very helpful and the thread is improved by having a link to it. :rolleyes:

[Scott Sommers]

This is great and everything, but the scope of my problem is much more limited than the NIST report. You posted some videos, the claim is that momentum will explain why the images look the way they do. There have been numerous other examples of water destroying harder objects. This is clearly documented here. There are calculations provided in links to other threads you have been involved in.

I don't care about the NIST report or anything elese. Why do you think momnetum will not explain the imag2es you have posted here? for your reply to be convincing, you'll have to post calculations. Now maybe you don't care if anyone is convinced. But if you want anyone to take this seriously, you'll need calculations.

[DGM]

The common storyline is not supported by physics, crash, applied, or any other version of physics and there is no poster here and no lurker here who can show otherwise. There is no official study of what happened that is based on adequate, demonstrated physics.


Are you having fun making stupid remarks knowing full well you have no intention of backing them up? You know my son used to do that............. when he was five!

[AJM8125]

So, now you post up a claim there are 44, but you don't say which one is new, let alone say anything else of substance.

I do wish posters would consider being forthcoming and add to the information base in a more useful way. :rolleyes:

I let the video do the talking for me jammonius. It does, once again cut to the heart of your no-plane delusions, which is why you didn't even acknowledge it when I posted it the first time.

Tell me jammonius, do you think flights 11 and 175 laid down a grid of chemtrails, stoning everyone on the ground before Cheney pushed the button on the DEW? :eye-poppi

[BigAl]

Let me be candid with you: Physics and the concept of momentum, conserved or otherwise, do not support the common storyline of 9/11.

The exterior of the WTC towers was mostly glass. The steel was about 1/4 inch thick.

[jammonius]

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/omst.png?t=1274057757
OMSH

[jammonius]

I let the video do the talking for me jammonius. It does, once again cut to the heart of your no-plane delusions, which is why you didn't even acknowledge it when I posted it the first time.

Tell me jammonius, do you think flights 11 and 175 laid down a grid of chemtrails, stoning everyone on the ground before Cheney pushed the button on the DEW? :eye-poppi


Sorry you grabbed the above before I edited the post you quoted. The new video adds a lot to the discussion, thanks, again, for posting it.

[dtugg]

If jammy says physics proves no planes, it must be true. After all, jammy is the final arbitrator of everything in the universe.

[jammonius]

Are you having fun making stupid remarks knowing full well you have no intention of backing them up? You know my son used to do that............. when he was five!

Wait a minute, DGM, this is what I said, to which you replied as quoted above:

Originally Posted by jammonius

The common storyline is not supported by physics, crash, applied, or any other version of physics and there is no poster here and no lurker here who can show otherwise. There is no official study of what happened that is based on adequate, demonstrated physics.

I challenge your post that is in the nature of a put down and I here reassert the above quote. Can you post something of substance in rebuttal or not?

Have a good evening.

[Scott Sommers]

Wait a minute, DGM, this is what I said, to which you replied as quoted above:



I challenge your post that is in the nature of a put down and I here reassert the above quote. Can you post something of substance in rebuttal or not?

Have a good evening.

Jammi, I tried to make this easy. No one here even wants an entire refutation of the NIST report. It is simply beyond the scope of the JREF forum. I'm asking something very simple and entirely consistant with the claim of this thread.

On what calculations do you base your statements about the momentum of the plane collisions with WTC?

Some members of this forum claim that you dodge questions you can't answer. I'm not sayibng that. I suspect the real answer to this is that you do not have the knowledge to produce these calculations so instead rely on pictures of questionable quality and an argument constructed of words that seem bizarre.

Maybe you don't care if no one takes you seriously. Maybe this whole thing has little to do with a scientific argument or even belief in a no-plane theory of 911. Prove me wrong, Jammi. I just want to hear your voice.

[DGM]

Wait a minute, DGM, this is what I said, to which you replied as quoted above:



I challenge your post that is in the nature of a put down and I here reassert the above quote. Can you post something of substance in rebuttal or not?

Have a good evening.
Yes I could! But why would I? No one believes a word you say and you have no intention of paying any attention to anything we post. Replying to your posts with any kind of effort is a waste of time and I think you know it. Frankly your act has gotten old and boring. It's like having a conversation with an infant with his fingers in his ears saying "LA..LA......LA I don't hear you".

ETA I'd put you on ignore but there's something morbidly humorous about watching you dig your hole ever deeper.

[Piggy]

For instance, in a majority of them, it is very apparent that the explosion occurs in the "wrong" place. Basically, there is no explosion upon impact and when an explosion is seen, it is on the opposite sides of the buildings from impact, showing an internal rather than external source of explosion.

You have got to be kidding.

Plane enters building and then explodes out the other side.

And you claim that's the "wrong" time and side?

You have got to be kidding.

[Scott Sommers]

You have got to be kidding.

Plane enters building and then explodes out the other side.

And you claim that's the "wrong" time and side?

You have got to be kidding.

That's why I tel him to stop with the pictures and words and give us some numbers. If Jammi would would provide some basic calculations of how much energy and resistance was involved in all this, he might get more than laughs and insults out of people here.

But perhaps he doesn't care.

[sylvan8798]

Let me be candid with you: Physics and the concept of momentum, conserved or otherwise, do not support the common storyline of 9/11. Physics is neutral, it is not a weapon to be used by one side or another. Posters in threads that I participate in seem often to use physics as a weapon, usually framed more or less as follows:


But if you don't rely on physics to guide your position, then on what do you rely, jammonius? Common sense? I'm sorry, but I am from Mars. On Mars we don't have steel buildings or aluminum airplanes. Anything you take for an axiom should be codifiable. You make statements out of nowhere and expect people to take them as axioms without support. And then you cannot support them, so you ignore any requests to do so, vomiting word sewage instead.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Posters here have shown you that. Maybe you have no idea how ridiculous you sound, but the rest of us know you are one egg short of a duet.

[MattTheTubaGuy]

in what way does physics disagree with the official story?

[Oystein]

...
Some members of this forum claim that you dodge questions you can't answer. I'm not sayibng that...

I am not saying that, either; to the contrary, and more importantly: jammo dodges questions he can answer, knowiung full well that an honest answer will reveal him as a troll and a liar.

Folks, stop feeding that troll. It is pointless. Count the many hours of your life you have already wasted on this worthless person, and move elsewhere. There is better fun to be had in town.

[Macgyver1968]

Please stop feeding the mental ill troll.

[dafydd]

Please stop feeding the mental ill troll.

I second that.

[jammonius]

You have got to be kidding.

Plane enters building and then explodes out the other side.

And you claim that's the "wrong" time and side?

You have got to be kidding.

Well, let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding: Do you reject the claim that jetliners explode upon impact and not after impact?

I here assert that jetliners explode the instant of impact and do not insert themselves, visually intact, into steel buildings without so much as a dent, let alone shredding, explosion and utter annihilation at the point of impact.

Query: What do you think is about to happen next?

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicsjetbomber232-1.png?t=1274099203

Hint: The ground will cause something to happen...


regards

[jammonius]

in what way does physics disagree with the official story?


Your query is indicative of denial and of rationalization in that I imagine that in a context other than 9/11 you understand that jetliners explode upon impact and do not insert themselves into buildings, intact, from nose to tail, wing tip to wing tip as though the steel and concrete building weren't there.

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicsrealplanesexplodeonimpa.png?t=12740993 81

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicspooranimation255-2.png?t=1274099541

Jetliners cannot enter steel buildings and remain intact. The jetliner seen doing that in this example that is taken from or based on one of the videos in the ALL43 compilation is, thereforeTROUBLESOME, to put the matter no more strongly than that.

Once again, I do not see the point of getting into a strictly PLANE vs NO PLANE food fight; but, I do foresee some usefulness in discussing what the informtion revealed in the ALL 43 videos actually can be said to mean. I think the photo shown above is, once again, troublesome from a crash physics perspective.

[dtugg]

Jetliners cannot enter steel buildings and remain intact. The jetliner seen doing that is, thereforeBS.

Crazy person, do you have some sort of super power that allows you to see through solid objects in photos? 'Cause that is the only way you could be able to tell if the part of the plane in contact with the building is still intact.

[jammonius]

Yes I could! But why would I? No one believes a word you say and you have no intention of paying any attention to anything we post. Replying to your posts with any kind of effort is a waste of time and I think you know it. Frankly your act has gotten old and boring. It's like having a conversation with an infant with his fingers in his ears saying "LA..LA......LA I don't hear you".

ETA I'd put you on ignore but there's something morbidly humorous about watching you dig your hole ever deeper.


So, in the above you give an excuse for not posting a substantive rebuttal to the following claim:

Originally Posted by jammonius

The common storyline is not supported by physics, crash, applied, or any other version of physics and there is no poster here and no lurker here who can show otherwise. There is no official study of what happened that is based on adequate, demonstrated physics.


My claim therefore stands as unrefuted.

[Pinch]

Well, let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding: Do you reject the claim that jetliners explode upon impact and not after impact?

I here assert that jetliners explode the instant of impact and do not insert themselves, visually intact, into steel buildings without so much as a dent, let alone shredding, explosion and utter annihilation at the point of impact.

Query: What do you think is about to happen next?



Hint: The ground will cause something to happen...


regards

So now the lattice work of structural materials that made up the WTC is now equated to the earth itself.

This guy keeps setting new levels of unheard of stupidity.

[jammonius]

Crazy person, do you have some sort of super power that allows you to see through solid objects in photos? 'Cause that is the only way you could be able to tell if the part of the plane in contact with the building is still intact.


I modified the post so as to make it clear I am not seeking to just get into a PLANE vs NO PLANE food fight, as I have said.

Your reply, however, is a mere quibble. The photo posted cannot be said to comport with the requirements of crash physics.

Do you acknowledge the photo violates the requirements of crash physics or not Dtugg?

[fitzgibbon]

Please stop feeding the mental ill troll.

Thirded. This thread has become a virtual Mobius strip.

[jammonius]

So now the lattice work of structural materials that made up the WTC is now equated to the earth itself.

This guy keeps setting new levels of unheard of stupidity.


Your post raises a claim but gives no explanation, no substantiation; and, therefore, no merit. You use the word "LATTICE" in a way that suggests you think the Twin Towers of the WTC were constructed of something other than LOAD BEARING STRUCTURAL STEEL PERIMETER BEAMS:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/fig_2_7.jpg?t=1274100701

Specifications:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/col_dimensions.gif?t=1274100749


Lurkers, please be sure to notice that LATTICE is not to be confused with LETTUCE and also be sure to remember the WTC was constructed with LOAD BEARING STRUCTURAL STEEL PERIMETER BEAMS sufficient to support the tallest buildings in the world when they were built.

[dtugg]

Please stop feeding the mental ill troll.

Fourthed.

jammy, you have a very severe mental illness. Please seek help. I am no doctor, but surely there are treatments that can at least lessen the effects of your disease.

[tsig]

Well, let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding: Do you reject the claim that jetliners explode upon impact and not after impact?

I here assert that jetliners explode the instant of impact and do not insert themselves, visually intact, into steel buildings without so much as a dent, let alone shredding, explosion and utter annihilation at the point of impact.

Query: What do you think is about to happen next?

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicsjetbomber232-1.png?t=1274099203

Hint: The ground will cause something to happen...


regards

That shadowy thingy will turn into a horse trailer?

[Pinch]

Lurkers, please be sure to notice that LATTICE is not to be confused with LETTUCE and also be sure to remember the WTC was constructed with LOAD BEARING STRUCTURAL STEEL PERIMETER BEAMS sufficient to support the tallest buildings in the world when they were built.

For the intellectually challenged:

The spandrels that made up the outer frame of the WTC at the 70-90 floor range were made up of 3/8" steel with a 14" box beam behind the fascia steel (clad in aluminum) also made up of 3/8" steel. In between the spandrels was approximately 26 inches of tempered glass. These spandrels were connected by four (4) bolts and light welding. Both data comes from FEMA’s WTC Steel Data Collection, page D-5.

The aircraft wings and center fuel tank of a 767 holds approximately 23,980 gallons of jet fuel. It is estimated that only 10,000 gallons was on board, with the aircraft taking off with only a partial load of fuel (only what it needed for its transcontinental flight plus the required FAA/Delta-mandated reserve)and burning a fixed amount on its flight. 10,000 gallons weighs about 60,000 lbs (Jet A fuel weighs 6.84 lbs per gallon - I'm rounding here). We then have 30 tons of fuel spread between the wings, which held approximately 1,500 gallons per wing, or 9,000 lbs of fuel per wing, or 4.5 tons of fuel per wing) and a center fuel tank that held the balance, approximately 6,900 gallons, or 41,000 lbs, giving the center fuel tank a weight factor of approximately 20 tons.

Moving on to the aircraft itself, there is another estimated 25-30 tons of dense, heavy metal included in the construction of these jets, from titanium to steel to solid aluminum making up elements such as the wing spar support infrastructure.

Tell us how a 155' long body weighing close to 100 tons in total weight and having fuel-related weight distributions of 4 and a half tons on either side of the centerline and a 20 ton weight directly along the centerline and traveling at 750 per second is going to be stopped and "explode on contact" after hitting against a latticework matrix of 3/8" steel spandrels and tempered glass?

The Truther community has its fair share of idiots, including those ensconced in the CIT and PfT fantasy worlds. This person here proudly ranks right there amongst 'em.

And if you could, please do a compare-and-contrast between what the B-52 hit from the previous video and what the 767 hit. If you can still use one as an example of what the other should have done, you really are dumber than anyone gave you credit for - not that I doubt that in the first place.

[jammonius]

For the intellectually challenged:

The spandrels that made up the outer frame of the WTC at the 70-90 floor range were made up of 3/8" steel with a 14" box beam behind the fascia steel (clad in aluminum) also made up of 3/8" steel. In between the spandrels was approximately 26 inches of tempered glass. These spandrels were connected by four (4) bolts and light welding. Both data comes from FEMA’s WTC Steel Data Collection, page D-5.

How much did the spandrels weigh; and, what was there load bearing capacity, if you know and can easily post this info? If you don't know, there's no need for you to go off on a wild goose chase. Just say you don't know.


The aircraft wings and center fuel tank of a 767 holds approximately 23,980 gallons of jet fuel. It is estimated that only 10,000 gallons was on board, with the aircraft taking off with only a partial load of fuel (only what it needed for its transcontinental flight plus the required FAA/Delta-mandated reserve)and burning a fixed amount on its flight. 10,000 gallons weighs about 60,000 lbs (Jet A fuel weighs 6.84 lbs per gallon - I'm rounding here).

This is interesting, I suppose. Indeed, you're confirming why there should have been an instantaneous explosion.


We then have 30 tons of fuel spread between the wings, which held approximately 1,500 gallons per wing, or 9,000 lbs of fuel per wing, or 4.5 tons of fuel per [/IMG]wing) and a center fuel tank that held the balance, approximately 6,900 gallons, or 41,000 lbs, giving the center fuel tank a weight factor of approximately 20 tons.

That is not a lot of weight and should have proven no match at all for the WTC. Indeed, you're describing a pittance of mass, in relationship to a 110 story skyscraper.

Query, what do you think is about to happen here:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicsdensity102-1.png?t=1274103239

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicsfmadidntpassthrough1-2.png?t=1274103365


Moving on to the aircraft itself, there is another estimated 25-30 tons of dense, heavy metal included in the construction of these jets, from titanium to steel to solid aluminum making up elements such as the wing spar support infrastructure.

Tell us how a 155' long body weighing close to 100 tons in total weight and having fuel-related weight distributions of 4 and a half tons on either side of the centerline and a 20 ton weight directly along the centerline and traveling at 750 per second is going to be stopped and "explode on contact" after hitting against a latticework matrix of 3/8" steel spandrels and tempered glass?

In the same way as the truck did when hitting a mere concrete barrier, not a steel and concrete skyscraper; i.e.:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicsdidntpassthrough107-1.png?t=1274103482

The concrete barrier repels the truck, just as the WTC should have repelled and/or caused the presumed jetliner to disintegrate and explode immediately depositing visible debris outside the point of impact rather than a fireball and paper in another place unrelated to the point of impact:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/921blurrycloseexplosionbigonwrongsi.png?t=12741036 44

That explosion is utterly in the wrong place.

Even here, the explosion is at point of impact:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicsexploatpointofimpact-1.png?t=1274103779


The Truther community has its fair share of idiots, including those ensconced in the CIT and PfT fantasy worlds. This person here proudly ranks right there amongst 'em.

And if you could, please do a compare-and-contrast between what the B-52 hit from the previous video and what the 767 hit. If you can still use one as an example of what the other should have done, you really are dumber than anyone gave you credit for - not that I doubt that in the first place.

From an attempt at crash physics, you descend a bit into meaningless, emotional drivel. You do realize, of course, that what any poster posts up says something about THAT poster and nothing whatever about anyone else, right?

I do hope your demonstrated and expressed lack of confidence in your own intelligence will result in motivation to do better in your next post, at least.

[HawksFan]

Un. Freakin. Believable.

[jammonius]

That shadowy thingy will turn into a horse trailer?

Ha, ha, that is very funny, funny, funny. :D

Unfortunately, apart from humor, the post adds nothing substantive or meaningful to this discussion at all. :(

[AJM8125]

About the only substantive or meaningful thing you can add to this thread is a mod-box announcing its closure.

[ElMondoHummus]

For the intellectually challenged:

The spandrels that made up the outer frame of the WTC at the 70-90 floor range were made up of 3/8" steel with a 14" box beam behind the fascia steel (clad in aluminum) also made up of 3/8" steel. In between the spandrels was approximately 26 inches of tempered glass. These spandrels were connected by four (4) bolts and light welding. Both data comes from FEMA’s WTC Steel Data Collection, page D-5.

The aircraft wings and center fuel tank of a 767 holds approximately 23,980 gallons of jet fuel. It is estimated that only 10,000 gallons was on board, with the aircraft taking off with only a partial load of fuel (only what it needed for its transcontinental flight plus the required FAA/Delta-mandated reserve)and burning a fixed amount on its flight. 10,000 gallons weighs about 60,000 lbs (Jet A fuel weighs 6.84 lbs per gallon - I'm rounding here). We then have 30 tons of fuel spread between the wings, which held approximately 1,500 gallons per wing, or 9,000 lbs of fuel per wing, or 4.5 tons of fuel per wing) and a center fuel tank that held the balance, approximately 6,900 gallons, or 41,000 lbs, giving the center fuel tank a weight factor of approximately 20 tons.

Moving on to the aircraft itself, there is another estimated 25-30 tons of dense, heavy metal included in the construction of these jets, from titanium to steel to solid aluminum making up elements such as the wing spar support infrastructure.

Tell us how a 155' long body weighing close to 100 tons in total weight and having fuel-related weight distributions of 4 and a half tons on either side of the centerline and a 20 ton weight directly along the centerline and traveling at 750 per second is going to be stopped and "explode on contact" after hitting against a latticework matrix of 3/8" steel spandrels and tempered glass?

The Truther community has its fair share of idiots, including those ensconced in the CIT and PfT fantasy worlds. This person here proudly ranks right there amongst 'em.

And if you could, please do a compare-and-contrast between what the B-52 hit from the previous video and what the 767 hit. If you can still use one as an example of what the other should have done, you really are dumber than anyone gave you credit for - not that I doubt that in the first place.

Let's also recall this: Noting that the jet impacted a load bearing element of the building is a red herring. The way the Twin Towers were designed, the columns bear vertical weight i.e. the force gravity exerts on the structure towards the ground. The force of the jets impacts were perpendicular to this.

On top of that, let's also remember that Ryan Mackey did a treatment of the feasibility of the jets delivering enough force to fail the perimeter columns:

http://911myths.com/images/f/f0/911physics_big.pdf

NIST published some pressure-impulse curves, and with that data, Ryan did a quick but excellent analysis. The relevant info starts at slide 16 of the above link, but the ultimate point is this: At the speeds experienced that day, the impulse that the jet fuel delivered by itself was more than sufficient to fail the perimeter columns. In fact, the amount of impulse could have been enough to fail a much stronger core column. And that is merely calculating the impulse delivered by the fuel; add the weight of the aircrafts themselves, and you most certainly have enough force to penetrate the perimeter columns.

So to truthers out there: There's no need to guess at this, nor is there any need to continue to make flawed qualitative comparisons to other events. The numbers are available, and conclusions can be drawn from them. If you want to make an argument that the jets could not have penetrated the columns, you have to make it a quantitative one. And you have to demonstrate why Ryan's figures do not apply. Otherwise, your argument fails.

</EMH's attempt to help Pinch bring some substance to an otherwise inane thread>

[DGM]

So, in the above you give an excuse for not posting a substantive rebuttal to the following claim:




My claim therefore stands as unrefuted.
I also don't play "20 questions" (with you anyway) or "wild goose chases". Therefor your point IMHO is refuted.

[Stout]

I have no reason to suspect that the perimeter columns, the ones that were designed to support a "live load" of 20 times the estimated actual live load, should withstand the impact of a speeding jetliner.

By my reckoning, the nose of the plane wouldn't have exploded on impact but merely made a huge hole in the lattice which would allow the fuel tanks ( and fuel) to enter the building relatively unobstructed. I say relatively, because we have no data AFIK, on what the actual crash looked like.

Yes, a military guy once told me that bombs are set to explode a fraction of a second after impact to allow the payload to actually enter a building and explode inside that building rather than on the roof. maybe this is where the idea that the planes should have exploded on the outside of the towers comes from ?

Interesting analogy with the truck and the concrete wall. Do we have anyway of comparing the relative masses and strengths of the objects being impacted to determine whether that specific example is in any way revalent ?

I've seen that same concept used to back up the idea that the collapse(s) shouldn't have happened the way they did, that the force exerted by the falling upper sections of the tower "shouldn't" have crushed through the lower floors as fast as they did.

They're both intuitive arguments, I know, based on what the truther "thinks" or "imagines" should have happened on that day. As interesting as intuitive speculation can be, I often find that that the real world way doesn't work in the way we imagine it should.

[Thunder]

its really amazing how you guys give this troll so much attention.

[Scott Sommers]

its really amazing how you guys give this troll so much attention.

Apparently he's a real person. One of my Facebook accounts has him as a friend. He reads like an acid head from the late 70s or 80s who doesn't know the 60s are over. There was speculation earlier that he's a medical student, but I'm not clear if a medical students or still in 'pre-med', if you get what I mean. Jammi, maybe you can clear this one up for me.

I don't think he's a troll as much as he's a mixed up kid. He's into a lot of stuff that he probably thinks is alternative knowledge. My reading of him is he's either going to straighten out or end up locked up somewhere. It would be hard to function as a professional these days with too much of that kind of baggage around.

[beachnut]

Well, let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding: Do you reject the claim that jetliners explode upon impact and not after impact?

I here assert that jetliners explode the instant of impact and do not insert themselves, visually intact, into steel buildings without so much as a dent, let alone shredding, explosion and utter annihilation at the point of impact.

Query: What do you think is about to happen next?

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicsjetbomber232-1.png?t=1274099203

Hint: The ground will cause something to happen...


regards
Sad, you show my fellow USAF pilots and officers being killed as your support for your insane claims on 911. Your insane claim is false. Where do you come up with all your insane claims?

The B-52 hit the ground at slow speed, very slow speed it was STALLED! If you understood flying you would know a stalled speed is slow. the energy of impact of flight 11 was 9.5 times greater in kinetic energy and flight 11 moving at 689 feet per second enters the building with the energy of a 1,300 pound bomb shaped like a 767. You failed to do the math. The B-52 hit the ground with the energy of 138 pounds of TNT, over 9 times less energy, and the B-52 has engines crashing into the fuel in the wing in a stall giving a different fuel ignition pattern. Darn, you debunk yourself while trying to make up insane claims.

The B-52 also hit the ground at slow speed so there is not a big crater. The fire starts on the B-52 and also in the WTC from jet fuel. You just proved with fire dynamics the billowing fireball in the WTC was from jet fuel; you debunked yourself.

What does this have to do with videos which also prove you insane claims wrong?


Please state the kinetic energy at impact of the truck. The KE at impact of Flight 11 was 2,840,000,000 joules. Can you do simple math and physics? Bet the answer is NO.

BTW, the truck hits with 2,266,201 joules of kinetic energy, 1252 times less energy than flight 11. Bad news for your insane claims. You may want to think about velocity squared, and learn some physics before you post more insanity.

The concrete barrier was reinforced, not plain concrete. Sorry, next time try to get something right; please.

[Hans]

Yep perhaps not a true troll just a mindnumbingly stupid.

[TSR]

.
Your claim that the *broadcast was clearly identified as fiction at every break* is shown by wiki to be misleading as it relates to such notices:

"Later studies indicate that many missed the repeated notices that the broadcast was fictional ..."

.
That people may have missed the notices does not mean they were not offered, just as I said.
.

Having skewed the facts, you now do the same with the essence of the analogy.

The point is, people believe what they saw on teevee, just as they believed what they heard on the radio.

.
No, the point is that you have offered nothing to suggest that what was seen on TV was not the events as they actually happened, preferring instead to ignore the equivalent of the Mercury Theater's announcements by claiming "this person did not hear them, so they were never broadcast."
.

A jetliner image already halfway into WTC2 and this 'cameraman' has neither flinched yet nor given any indication he has heard what should be an ear-splittingly loud jetliner at 550mph, a mere 800ft above him, which should have been audible prior to impact and half-insertion into the tower. Note, too, that Fairbanks' video, like many on 9/11 for some reason, had no audio at all. Small wonder Evan Fairbanks thought it looked like "a bad special effect."

.
800 ft and several blocks over, with the engines oriented so as to radiate the bulk of the noise elsewhere -- and we are still waiting for you to document how loud it *should* have been right there.

*Then* we can get back to the fact that this person saw it live, and discuss how such a "special effect" could possibly been employed in this case, given the number of people who *did* explicitly see a plane.
.

In addition to that, it has always been my understanding the event is largely remembered because of wide spread panic that has been described and quantified as follows:

"Richard J. Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some six million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'".

.
From your source:

Other studies suggest that the extent of the panic was exaggerated by contemporary media.

.

I support the claim DEW destroyed the WTC and there are threads in this forum that elaborate fully on the claim.

.
No, that's a knowing untruth on your part. You make the claim elsewhere, to be sure, but have run from actually giving any of the technical information required to rationally support it, nor any of your claims regarding "range of lethality" or "self-dampening effects."
.

You have seen them, right? I'm not discussing DEW in this thread or in other threads centered on videos of one kind or another pertaining to claims Boeing 767s hit the WTC.

.
How about showing us were we can see the DEW effects in these videos?
.

[triforcharity]

Well, let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding: Do you reject the claim that jetliners explode upon impact and not after impact?

I here assert that jetliners explode the instant of impact and do not insert themselves, visually intact, into steel buildings without so much as a dent, let alone shredding, explosion and utter annihilation at the point of impact.

Query: What do you think is about to happen next?

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicsjetbomber232-1.png?t=1274099203

Hint: The ground will cause something to happen...


regards

Ok, let me break it down for you.

If a plane is traveling ~500 MPH, how long will it take for the entire plane to enter the building?
At that rate, the plane will travel 2,640,000 feet per hour.

There are 3,600 seconds in an hour.

Now, using simple math, that comes out to 733 feet per second.

Now, since we have that down, lets find out how long a Boeing 767-200 is.

According to Boeing, a 767-200 has an overall length of 159'2" So, to make the math easier, we will say 160"

Plane traveling at 733 FPS and the plane is 160' Overall,

At that speed, it would take about .218281036834925 seconds from the time the nose enters, till the time the last part of the tail.

Now, I don't have the tools on my home computer to find the time from complete entry till explosion, but I would venture a guess and say it was not much more than .3 seconds.

Now, how fast should it have exploded Jam?

[triforcharity]

Oh, and Jammous,

That horribly fuzzy screenshot of a dumptruck hitting a wall. Guess what twoofie? It was DESIGNED to do exactly what it did. It is a specific type of concrete that is VERY strong, and is installed around military bases and checkpoints so that a truck cannot be rammed into a building. It is designed to do that.

[jammonius]

Here are a couple more title pages to assist in the process of objective review of the ALL 43 video clips:

14
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/14-behindbldgs330.png?t=1274125752

15
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/15-righttoleftblurry.png?t=1274125990

[Jorghnassen]

You know what the real conspiracy is? The smoke goes up in all those videos, thus Newton's law of universal gravitation is a lie.

/I know I shouldn't be feeding the trolls, but I just had to

[jammonius]

Sad, you show my fellow USAF pilots and officers being killed as your support for your insane claims on 911. Your insane claim is false. Where do you come up with all your insane claims?

The B-52 hit the ground at slow speed, very slow speed it was STALLED! If you understood flying you would know a stalled speed is slow. the energy of impact of flight 11 was 9.5 times greater in kinetic energy and flight 11 moving at 689 feet per second enters the building with the energy of a 1,300 pound bomb shaped like a 767. You failed to do the math. The B-52 hit the ground with the energy of 138 pounds of TNT, over 9 times less energy, and the B-52 has engines crashing into the fuel in the wing in a stall giving a different fuel ignition pattern. Darn, you debunk yourself while trying to make up insane claims.

The B-52 also hit the ground at slow speed so there is not a big crater. The fire starts on the B-52 and also in the WTC from jet fuel. You just proved with fire dynamics the billowing fireball in the WTC was from jet fuel; you debunked yourself.

What does this have to do with videos which also prove you insane claims wrong?


Please state the kinetic energy at impact of the truck. The KE at impact of Flight 11 was 2,840,000,000 joules. Can you do simple math and physics? Bet the answer is NO.

BTW, the truck hits with 2,266,201 joules of kinetic energy, 1252 times less energy than flight 11. Bad news for your insane claims. You may want to think about velocity squared, and learn some physics before you post more insanity.

The concrete barrier was reinforced, not plain concrete. Sorry, next time try to get something right; please.

The distinctions you seek to draw do not make any difference whatsoever. By melting into the WTC2, neither exploding, slowing, nor degrading, the imagery presented defies crash physics and is an absurdity.

Look, that is all that it is necessary to admit; namely, the imagery defies the dynamics of crash physics.

It wouldn't do you or other posters any harm to admit that much. It would at least make it seem as if a capacity for reasoned, impartial review of data still exists within those posters who, come what may, are determined to support the common storyline.

Some degree of objectivity will help, not hurt, your cause. Let me help out here.

All who are reasonable can view the following 4 segments and know that a jetliner crash is not being depicted because the deviation from the requirements of crash physics are simply too great to deny or to rationalize:

Nose and part of mid-section in and part of one wing in; no slowing no degrading, no explosion:
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355-1meltin1.png?t=1274126908

Nose and all mid-section in and all of one wing in part of second engine entering; no slowing do degrading, no explosion:
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355-2meltinonewinghalfofothernobend.png?t=1274127032

Nose and all mid-secion in and both engines in almost all of both wings in with remaining tip not even bent, let alone degraded and tail section about to also go in intact:
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355-3a-meltintailout.png?t=1274127818

Just about all in, explosion forming on east side and hint of explosion of something, but not of jet fuel and no debris on south side:
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355-3meltallin.png?t=1274127078

Come on posters and lurkers. Let go a little bit and let your objective nature at least allow you to acknowledge that what is seen above violates the principles of crash physics.

all the best

[Pinch]

You know what the real conspiracy is? The smoke goes up in all those videos, thus Newton's law of universal gravitation is a lie.

/I know I shouldn't be feeding the trolls, but I just had to

Its so easy. Like walking past a tv on a weekday afternoon and getting captured by the soaps. Reading this jammonious is like watching a train wreck in the the fetid underbelly of the worst part of town. Its so bad you simply can't take your eyes off it.

[jammonius]

Oh, and Jammous,

That horribly fuzzy screenshot of a dumptruck hitting a wall. Guess what twoofie? It was DESIGNED to do exactly what it did. It is a specific type of concrete that is VERY strong, and is installed around military bases and checkpoints so that a truck cannot be rammed into a building. It is designed to do that.

The above does not make any difference whatsoever in the fact that the video segments being shown here defy crash physics. That is all that is necessary to discuss. Once again, if you want to remain firmly dedicated to the PLANE proposition you may do so.

Just because there are anamolies that you must acknowledge does not mean you cannot remain a PLANE SPOTTER.

Little do posters realize it, but by being so inflexible, not ever able to admit when clearly presented information mandates a certain conclusion, you do your own viewpoint harm. It shows a lack of objectivity.

Come on, you can do better than that.

[beachnut]

The distinctions you seek to draw do not make any difference whatsoever. By melting into the WTC2, neither exploding, slowing, nor degrading, the imagery presented defies crash physics and is an absurdity.
...
all the best
The sad part is this is your best.

The fact is you don't understand physics; you are not showing signs you desire to understand physics, but show signs of supporting your insane claims with willful ignorance.

There is nothing to explode in the nose section of the 767, the fuel is in the wings; Fuel in the Wings, big hit.

The fuel igniting takes time, so until the wings hit the WTC there is no source for a fuel air jet fuel fireball. Plus you have to have ignition of the fuel, and the fuel did not stop at the shell of the WTC it forces the shell to break and the fuel entered the building due to KE, you have no clue; you have insane claims backed up with ignorance.

The only rational part of your post, proof Flight 175 smashed into the WTC. You can't do math and physics or you would have answered my questions.

I can hear on the videos of 911, the WTC floors failing faster and faster. The noise on 911 confirms it was a gravity collapse, no CD. Zero thermite product found; zero, like none, zip...

The guy inside the WTC felt the building failing and falling. oops

[dudalb]

I think this sums up jammonius posts on this thread:http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_188404b71f42981f10.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18980)

[triforcharity]

The above does not make any difference whatsoever in the fact that the video segments being shown here defy crash physics. That is all that is necessary to discuss. Once again, if you want to remain firmly dedicated to the PLANE proposition you may do so.

Just because there are anamolies that you must acknowledge does not mean you cannot remain a PLANE SPOTTER.

Little do posters realize it, but by being so inflexible, not ever able to admit when clearly presented information mandates a certain conclusion, you do your own viewpoint harm. It shows a lack of objectivity.

Come on, you can do better than that.

I did. You see the post RIGHT ABOVE the one you quoted?

Here it is, in it's entirety.

Ok, let me break it down for you.

If a plane is traveling ~500 MPH, how long will it take for the entire plane to enter the building?
At that rate, the plane will travel 2,640,000 feet per hour.

There are 3,600 seconds in an hour.

Now, using simple math, that comes out to 733 feet per second.

Now, since we have that down, lets find out how long a Boeing 767-200 is.

According to Boeing, a 767-200 has an overall length of 159'2" So, to make the math easier, we will say 160"

Plane traveling at 733 FPS and the plane is 160' Overall,

At that speed, it would take about .218281036834925 seconds from the time the nose enters, till the time the last part of the tail.

Now, I don't have the tools on my home computer to find the time from complete entry till explosion, but I would venture a guess and say it was not much more than .3 seconds.

Now, how fast should it have exploded Jam?



Care to address any of the FACTS I present? Or do you want to handwave them away?

[jammonius]

Ok, let me break it down for you.

If a plane is traveling ~500 MPH, how long will it take for the entire plane to enter the building?
At that rate, the plane will travel 2,640,000 feet per hour.

There are 3,600 seconds in an hour.

Now, using simple math, that comes out to 733 feet per second.

Now, since we have that down, lets find out how long a Boeing 767-200 is.

According to Boeing, a 767-200 has an overall length of 159'2" So, to make the math easier, we will say 160"

Plane traveling at 733 FPS and the plane is 160' Overall,

At that speed, it would take about .218281036834925 seconds from the time the nose enters, till the time the last part of the tail.

Now, I don't have the tools on my home computer to find the time from complete entry till explosion, but I would venture a guess and say it was not much more than .3 seconds.

Now, how fast should it have exploded Jam?

You do yourself a disservice by engaging in incomplete analysis. You do not come out and say there should be no explosion upon impact. And it is good you do not do so.

However, you also do not say when an explosion should appear at the place of impact either, thus your analysis is incomplete.

The imagery of what happened at the South Tower does not support the crash of a Boeing 767 into that building. The imagery defies crash physics. Clearly, by posing a question, you have not refuted that claim. True, you argue the claim, but, once again, by leaving the matter in question stage, you don't refute it.

This is elementary, akin to the exercise in the Dick Oliver thread where the demand was made to prove a crater would form when a heavy steel object dropped to the pavement from a height of about 1000ft. Impact craters are the expected result and attempts to argue against that proposition or to demand 'proof' of it are simply an exercise in evasion.

So it is here.

The imagery shown defies crash physics as demonstrated by more than adequate analogous crashes, shown in the posts in this thread. All of them have in common, explosion on impact.

That does not happen at the South Tower.

It would do you and your position good, not harm, to admit what must be admitted; namely, the shadow thingy that crashed into the South Tower did not explode upon impact. It also did not degrade or visibly slow or shatter, either; once again, unlike anything seen in any other crash shown.

[Dumb All Over]

Little do posters realize it, but by being so inflexible, not ever able to admit when clearly presented information mandates a certain conclusion, you do your own viewpoint harm. It shows a lack of objectivity.

Come on, you can do better than that.
I think this sums things up quite nicely.

Thread Closed

[jammonius]

Let's also recall this: Noting that the jet impacted a load bearing element of the building is a red herring. The way the Twin Towers were designed, the columns bear vertical weight i.e. the force gravity exerts on the structure towards the ground. The force of the jets impacts were perpendicular to this.

On top of that, let's also remember that Ryan Mackey did a treatment of the feasibility of the jets delivering enough force to fail the perimeter columns:

http://911myths.com/images/f/f0/911physics_big.pdf

NIST published some pressure-impulse curves, and with that data, Ryan did a quick but excellent analysis. The relevant info starts at slide 16 of the above link, but the ultimate point is this: At the speeds experienced that day, the impulse that the jet fuel delivered by itself was more than sufficient to fail the perimeter columns. In fact, the amount of impulse could have been enough to fail a much stronger core column. And that is merely calculating the impulse delivered by the fuel; add the weight of the aircrafts themselves, and you most certainly have enough force to penetrate the perimeter columns.

So to truthers out there: There's no need to guess at this, nor is there any need to continue to make flawed qualitative comparisons to other events. The numbers are available, and conclusions can be drawn from them. If you want to make an argument that the jets could not have penetrated the columns, you have to make it a quantitative one. And you have to demonstrate why Ryan's figures do not apply. Otherwise, your argument fails.

</EMH's attempt to help Pinch bring some substance to an otherwise inane thread>


Lurkers,

The above post vindicates the claim I have made and posted in this thread, stating as follows:

"The common storyline is not supported by physics, crash, applied, or any other version of physics and there is no poster here and no lurker here who can show otherwise. There is no official study of what happened that is based on adequate, demonstrated physics."

That statement stands as true. Ryan Mackay has no authority, no mandate and no status, other than being a debunker to make any claims about what is clearly shown to be an image of a jetliner defying the mandate of crash physics:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355-3a-meltintailout.png?t=1274127818

The above is absurd in the uttermost and depicts conditions that are not possible for a Boeing 767 jetliner to have achieved.

You know that, posters and lurkers, and it would do you good to admit it and move on.

[phunk]

In what way is it impossible? Don't just say it is, say WHY, in detail.

[16.5]

The above does not make any difference whatsoever in the fact that the video segments being shown here defy crash physics. That is all that is necessary to discuss. Once again, if you want to remain firmly dedicated to the PLANE proposition you may do so.

Just because there are anamolies that you must acknowledge does not mean you cannot remain a PLANE SPOTTER.

Little do posters realize it, but by being so inflexible, not ever able to admit when clearly presented information mandates a certain conclusion, you do your own viewpoint harm. It shows a lack of objectivity.

Come on, you can do better than that.

I admit it! I have been inflexible! Silly me.

Hell, I have not been objective either, damnit.

All this time I have been reading this silly thread about videos, and have failed to take in the big picture:

the thousands of people of who witnessed the plane hitting the Tower with their own eyes.

Thanks, jamms for reminding us how ridiculous No Planers truly are.

GREAT THREAD! TOP NOTCH!

[beachnut]

Lurkers,

The above post vindicates the claim I have made and posted in this thread, stating as follows:

"The common storyline is not supported by physics, crash, applied, or any other version of physics and there is no poster here and no lurker here who can show otherwise. There is no official study of what happened that is based on adequate, demonstrated physics."

That statement stands as true. Ryan Mackay has no authority, no mandate and no status, other than being a debunker to make any claims about what is clearly shown to be an image of a jetliner defying the mandate of crash physics:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355-3a-meltintailout.png?t=1274127818

The above is absurd in the uttermost and depicts conditions that are not possible for a Boeing 767 jetliner to have achieved.

You know that, posters and lurkers, and it would do you good to admit it and move on.
Pure insanity. You show an image at the exact second Flight 175 impacts the WTC, verified by RADAR it was Flight 175, and try to lie and say it is impossible. Too bad you don't understand RADAR and physics.

Physics! The impact is equal to 2093 pounds of TNT, this is why the aircraft and the WTC act the way they do. 175 is going 865 feet per second, the shell of the WTC fails to stop it. IT is called physics, and you are not capable of physics.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1EMC2einstein.jpg

Sorry, you can't say it is impossible and run away waving your hands! You have to supply numbers! It was shown in a study the WTC would repel an aircraft at 200 mph, but above that the WTC would fail and the plane would enter. So you now need to show with numbers and physics why a 767 can't break into the WTC at 590 mph with 277,580 pounds of mass.

[MattTheTubaGuy]

Jammonius, can you please explain to me what physics education you have?

and relating to the truck, e = 1/2*m*v2
if you double the speed, the kinetic energy quadruples!

also, please refer to my signature:D

[jammonius]

I admit it! I have been inflexible! Silly me.

Hell, I have not been objective either, damnit.

All this time I have been reading this silly thread about videos, and have failed to take in the big picture:

the thousands of people of who witnessed the plane hitting the Tower with their own eyes.

Thanks, jamms for reminding us how ridiculous No Planers truly are.

GREAT THREAD! TOP NOTCH!

In the Dick Oliver threads, it was demonstrated there were more, reliable, verifiable witnesses who said NO PLANE posted up than there were reliable, verifiable witnesses who said PLANE SPOT.

Did you miss it?

[ElMondoHummus]

Pure insanity. You show an image at the exact second Flight 175 impacts the WTC, verified by RADAR it was Flight 175, and try to lie and say it is impossible. Too bad you don't understand RADAR and physics.

Physics! The impact is equal to 2093 pounds of TNT, this is why the aircraft and the WTC act the way they do. 175 is going 865 feet per second, the shell of the WTC fails to stop it. IT is called physics, and you are not capable of physics.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1EMC2einstein.jpg

Sorry, you can't say it is impossible and run away waving your hands! You have to supply numbers! It was shown in a study the WTC would repel an aircraft at 200 mph, but above that the WTC would fail and the plane would enter. So you now need to show with numbers and physics why a 767 can't break into the WTC at 590 mph with 277,580 pounds of mass.

Another thing to point out, Beechnut, is that a truther attacking Ryan is indulging in irrelevancy. Any real response would be to examine the numbers Ryan gives. Because as you, I, and the rest of the rational folks here realize, Ryan's not making an authoritative argument, he's making a mathematical one. Therefore, the only real rebuttal is to deal with the impulse figures he gives.

The bottom line is that a calculation of the impulse taken from mass of fuel available and the speed it was traveling at must exceed the impulse that a column can handle in order to make it fail. If that impulse is insufficient, the column survives. In the two cases discussed here, the columns would not have survived. That's the end of the story, and it doesn't pay any heed to who does the math.

[jammonius]

Jammonius, can you please explain to me what physics education you have?

and relating to the truck, e = 1/2*m*v2
if you double the speed, the kinetic energy quadruples!

also, please refer to my signature:D

If there is something you can post that will prove or demonstrate that what is shown here is consistent, rather than inconsistent with crash physics, then, hadn't you ought to come on how and show it?

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355-3a-meltintailout.png?t=1274127818

Removing spammed image

The shown image defies crash physics. You have not, cannot and will not ever show otherwise. Facts are facts.

Face it and move on.

[MattTheTubaGuy]

well, you have not, in any way at all, explained why it defies crash physics.

[16.5]

In the Dick Oliver threads, it was demonstrated there were more, reliable, verifiable witnesses who said NO PLANE posted up than there were reliable, verifiable witnesses who said PLANE SPOT.

Did you miss it?

well, i wouldn't say I miss it...

HA!

Now, jammonius, you are not intentionally confusing WTC1 with WTC2, are you?

Because that would be very wrong!

I know you wouldn't intentionally fib, would you? You actually believe all this **** don't you?

Good for you, No Planer!!

Now study up on your physics for a second or two will ya? Because you are really making a dog's breakfast out of your own thread. Here's a hint, YOU are wearing the Milk Bone underpants, buddy.

[jammonius]

Another thing to point out, Beechnut, is that a truther attacking Ryan is indulging in irrelevancy. Any real response would be to examine the numbers Ryan gives. Because as you, I, and the rest of the rational folks here realize, Ryan's not making an authoritative argument, he's making a mathematical one. Therefore, the only real rebuttal is to deal with the impulse figures he gives.

The bottom line is that a calculation of the impulse taken from mass of fuel available and the speed it was traveling at must exceed the impulse that a column can handle in order to make it fail. If that impulse is insufficient, the column survives. In the two cases discussed here, the columns would not have survived. That's the end of the story, and it doesn't pay any heed to who does the math.

The above is false and completely so. Ryan has not posted in response to the visual information posted here and Ryan is not a recognized authority in crash physics; and, even if Ryan were, the mere claim that Ryan had shown how on earth what is impossible could, nonetheless happen, would still amount to no more and no less than an opinion. Plus, coming from an agenda-laden debunker, Ryan's opinion is not entirely credible; or, put more charitably, is still only an opinion.

Declarations about the existence of proof of a proposition are not the same as the posting of actual proof, Elmondo.

You are slipping.

[beachnut]

If there is something you can post that will prove or demonstrate that what is shown here is consistent, rather than inconsistent with crash physics, then, hadn't you ought to come on how and show it?


Removed spammed image


The shown image defies crash physics. You have not, cannot and will not ever show otherwise. Facts are facts.

Face it and move on.
You can't do the math to prove your point and the math shows the energy of the impact made it possible to enter the WTC tower. Bet you can't do the math to support your lie. Why do you make up lies based on your ignorance.

Impact energy is 4,380,000,000 joules, now show me why that energy is not enough to enter the WTC with math. You can't.

[jammonius]

well, i wouldn't say I miss it...

HA!

Now, jammonius, you are not intentionally confusing WTC1 with WTC2, are you?

Because that would be very wrong!

I know you wouldn't intentionally fib, would you? You actually believe all this **** don't you?

Good for you, No Planer!!

Now study up on your physics for a second or two will ya? Because you are really making a dog's breakfast out of your own thread. Here's a hint, YOU are wearing the Milk Bone underpants, buddy.

The Dick Oliver threads morphed into consideration to both WTC 1 and WTC 2. In addition to easily out numbering reliable, verifiable witnesses who saw no plane at WTC 1, the actual subject of the Dick Oliver threads, it was also shown there were more, and better situated, no plane witnesses for WTC 2 as well. Keep in mind, what you saw on teevee does not make you a witness.

As it was with WTC 1, so it was with WTC 2, people saw and heard an explosion.

That is the way it is.

[jammonius]

You can't do the math to prove your point and the math shows the energy of the impact made it possible to enter the WTC tower. Bet you can't do the math to support your lie. Why do you make up lies based on your ignorance.

Impact energy is 4,380,000,000 joules, now show me why that energy is not enough to enter the WTC with math. You can't.

Your post does nothing other than state a number. Your post is an absurd failure to contradict that what is visually seen defies crash physics and is, therefore, thrououghly indicative that no jetliner crashed into the South Tower. We are talking about the information revealed by the videos.

People believed what they saw on teevee, at first glance. We are now taking a look at what was seen, in detail, and we are seeing, quite plainly, video in and video out, one by one, that those videos show that whatever may be thought to be taking place is simply NOT a jetliner hitting the South Tower.

That is what we are seeing.

The videos are, in fact, quite revealing, each one in its own right.

Look at them.

You are engaging in the same non sequitur here as you do with blips on a screen and the claim of "radar."

Do better.

[ElMondoHummus]

Jammonius, can you please explain to me what physics education you have?

and relating to the truck, e = 1/2*m*v2
if you double the speed, the kinetic energy quadruples!


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.

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 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.

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.

[DGM]

Declarations about the existence of proof of a proposition are not the same as the posting of actual proof, Elmondo.

You couldn't have typed this with a straight face. Now I know for sure he's only screwing around for his own morbid ya-ya's

You are slipping.

Your gone!

[jammonius]

well, you have not, in any way at all, explained why it defies crash physics.

You are ignoring the information presented in the thread. I have clearly shown analogous crashes; and, in so doing, have demonstrated beyond any doubt that what happens in crashes did not happen in the videos of what took place at the South Tower.

Plus, impact analysis and crash physics have a variety of components. One component they each have is that people have direct common experience with them. When people see crashes, they know what to expect and can make determinations about whether what they see is real or not.

We know, for instance, that when the Roadrunner runs through the Acme Steel Building, that what we see is impossible.

The shadow thingy is, for all the world, the functional equivalent of the Roadrunner and that is why I sometimes post the following image:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/road_runner2-1.jpg?t=1274133097

The supposed Boeing 767 seen two or three posts up from this one going through the South Tower without slowing, degrading, exploding or leaving one visible piece of debris is just as absurd as the Roadrunner doing the same thing at the North Tower.

Belief in the one is on the exact same order of magnitude as is belief in the other; namely, a belief centered in the suspension of disbelief and a willingness to be fooled.

Don't fall for it. Instead, face up to the enormity of what 9/11 has done to our society; namely, all but destroyed it. We have got to come to grips with the truth of the matter and take the appropriate action.

Wake up; fail not.

[16.5]

We know, for instance, that when the Roadrunner runs through the Acme Steel Building, that what we see is impossible.

The shadow thingy is, for all the world, the functional equivalent of the Roadrunner and that is why I sometimes post the following image:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/road_runner2-1.jpg?t=1274133097

Deleted

[Thunder]

You are ignoring the information presented in the thread.

you have provided nothing of any significance in this thread.

like most other threads.

[beachnut]

...
Wake up; fail not.
The no plane delusion, despite RADAR data showing 175 exactly at the WTC when the photo you posted was taken. No logic, is that the key to making insane claims so stupid no one backs you?

The jet parts are Plymouth wheel-covers, zero evidence; a delusion
Fuselage is a horse-trailer, zero evidence ;a delusion
Beam weapon turned steel to dust, no evidence; a delusion

And now you show a photo of Flight 175 hitting the WTC, and say it is not happening. Another idiotic delusion.

Explain using physics and math why a 767 with a 4,380,000,000 joule kinetic energy impact can't enter the building. Do the math or retract your lies and insane claims.

[triforcharity]

You are ignoring the information presented in the thread. I have clearly shown analogous crashes; and, in so doing, have demonstrated beyond any doubt that what happens in crashes did not happen in the videos of what took place at the South Tower.
.

Really? You showed us a crash at about 150-200 MPH. Show me a crash that is anywhere CLOSE to the ~500 MPH, 733.33333 feet PER SECOND, and then you might have a leg to stand on.

As of right now, you have shown not one video of a crash simmilar to 9/11.

[AJM8125]

As of right now, you have shown not one video of a crash simmilar to 9/11.

Oh but he has. You see in jammonius land, a stalling B-52 and a Boeing 767 at maximum cruise will demonstrate the same type of crash characteristics. Just like a "witness" testimony from somebody who was underneath the WTC in a PATH car carries the same weight as a police report from officers who were there.

Strange place, I can't imagine what it's like to actually live there.

[tsig]

Ha, ha, that is very funny, funny, funny. :D

Unfortunately, apart from humor, the post adds nothing substantive or meaningful to this discussion at all. :(

Guess we're equal then. Except your posts aren't funny.

[Porkpie Hat]

You do yourself a disservice by engaging in incomplete analysis. You do not come out and say there should be no explosion upon impact. And it is good you do not do so.

However, you also do not say when an explosion should appear at the place of impact either, thus your analysis is incomplete.

The imagery of what happened at the South Tower does not support the crash of a Boeing 767 into that building. The imagery defies crash physics. Clearly, by posing a question, you have not refuted that claim. True, you argue the claim, but, once again, by leaving the matter in question stage, you don't refute it.

This is elementary, akin to the exercise in the Dick Oliver thread where the demand was made to prove a crater would form when a heavy steel object dropped to the pavement from a height of about 1000ft. Impact craters are the expected result and attempts to argue against that proposition or to demand 'proof' of it are simply an exercise in evasion.

So it is here.

The imagery shown defies crash physics as demonstrated by more than adequate analogous crashes, shown in the posts in this thread. All of them have in common, explosion on impact.

That does not happen at the South Tower.

It would do you and your position good, not harm, to admit what must be admitted; namely, the shadow thingy that crashed into the South Tower did not explode upon impact. It also did not degrade or visibly slow or shatter, either; once again, unlike anything seen in any other crash shown.You're claiming that this poster has presented an incomplete analysis yet you mindlessly repeat the phrase "The imagery shown defies crash physics" and present zero analysis to support it.

Yer one strange dew'd jamm!

[A W Smith]

I did. You see the post RIGHT ABOVE the one you quoted?

Here it is, in it's entirety.





Care to address any of the FACTS I present? Or do you want to handwave them away?
you have to subtract the portion of the aircraft from the nose to the wing root from that equation simply because there is no fuel in that portion to explode, And by then. the forward fuselage has already made a hole for the fuel to enter.

QED there will be no explosion at impact

[A W Smith]

Well, let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding: Do you reject the claim that jetliners explode upon impact and not after impact?

I here assert that jetliners explode the instant of impact and do not insert themselves, visually intact, into steel buildings without so much as a dent, let alone shredding, explosion and utter annihilation at the point of impact.

Query: What do you think is about to happen next?

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicsjetbomber232-1.png?t=1274099203

Hint: The ground will cause something to happen...


regards

is the ground the aircraft is impacting 95% air? Conversely Are the WTC towers solid objects? If you "here now assert" that the towers are solid bars of steel. How is it the jumpers were able to jump outside the towers?

[Oystein]

Why are you folks still talking to the troll? You know all he does all day is invent lies? He will never answer questions, will never concede anything, he will always spin whatever is said by whoever to represent his totally made up troll world.

Please please stop feeding the troll! It is utterly pointless and not even funny! Every jammo-thread is just an endless disgrace and disrespect for everything from the simple concept of truth to the memory of those who lost their lives, limbs or loved ones on that tragic day.

[Stout]

Why are you folks still talking to the troll? You know all he does all day is invent lies? He will never answer questions, will never concede anything, he will always spin whatever is said by whoever to represent his totally made up troll world.

Please please stop feeding the troll! It is utterly pointless and not even funny! Every jammo-thread is just an endless disgrace and disrespect for everything from the simple concept of truth to the memory of those who lost their lives, limbs or loved ones on that tragic day.

Yea, but it's funny:)

[Resume]

You are ignoring the information presented in the thread. I have clearly shown analogous crashes; and, in so doing, have demonstrated beyond any doubt that what happens in crashes did not happen in the videos of what took place at the South Tower.

Plus, impact analysis and crash physics have a variety of components. One component they each have is that people have direct common experience with them. When people see crashes, they know what to expect and can make determinations about whether what they see is real or not.

We know, for instance, that when the Roadrunner runs through the Acme Steel Building, that what we see is impossible.

The shadow thingy is, for all the world, the functional equivalent of the Roadrunner and that is why I sometimes post the following image:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/road_runner2-1.jpg?t=1274133097

The supposed Boeing 767 seen two or three posts up from this one going through the South Tower without slowing, degrading, exploding or leaving one visible piece of debris is just as absurd as the Roadrunner doing the same thing at the North Tower.

Belief in the one is on the exact same order of magnitude as is belief in the other; namely, a belief centered in the suspension of disbelief and a willingness to be fooled.

Don't fall for it. Instead, face up to the enormity of what 9/11 has done to our society; namely, all but destroyed it. We have got to come to grips with the truth of the matter and take the appropriate action.

Wake up; fail not.

At best you are misguided, ill-informed and just plain ignorant. Or, you are a troll getting off on attention and game-playing.

Worst case. You are severly deluded and believe the nonsensical truck you post; you walk among us, vote, and live in Mom's basement, eating Hot-Pockets and sipping juice boxes as you post paranoia.

Just my take as a lurker.

[Humanzee]

Jammonius, perhaps it would be useful if you would explain what you think a 767 travelling at 500mph slamming into WTC2 would look like. And if you have used math to bolster your description please post it up too.

Thanks.

[Macgyver1968]

Yea, but it's funny:)

It may have been at one time..but no longer.

Please don't feed the troll.

[fess]

Jammonius;

I must say that, in all of my years, I have not read more nonsensical, bovine defecation filled writings that at best are totally meaningless: Completely riddled with false information and analogies that, even to the most unknowledgeable individuals, would be called idiocy.

Your stills from various videos absolutely mean nothing, and take away from the true context of the videos themselves. For instance, what does the crash of a 36 ton (if fully loaded) dump truck, or, an out of control crash of a B-52 that cartwheels into terra firma have to do with a B757-200 being flown into WTC2?

So as to not be long winded, let me ask you this; without all of the word salad, tell me how many air crash investigations have you been involved in, and what training have you been through to conduct these investigations?

[Humanzee]

..your right...

[Oystein]

Yea, but it's funny:)

No it isn't. I can watch The Life of Brian 10 times and still laugh, but after the 100th time, even that gets boring.
jamonius wasn't nearly as funny the first time around, and we must now be nearing the 1000th re-run...

[Oystein]

...Or, you are a troll getting off on attention and game-playing...

That's it. Trolls feed on attention. Don't feed the trolls.

[Oystein]

Jammonius, perhaps it would be useful if you would explain ...

No. No word salad ever tossed by jammonius has ever been useful, and none ever will. We really should stop ordering more word salads.
They really are just troll **** on a tin plate.

[Oystein]

Jammonius;

...let me ask you this; without all of the word salad...

You know this question is futile. You WILL get word salad, distortions, childish babble and plain lies. You know it, don't you? Why do you ask a troll to keep trolling?

[jammonius]

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.

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 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.

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.

No, the above is false. It is, epistemologically understood, an attempt to use obfuscation in order to explain away what can be verified by sight:
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355-3a-meltintailout.png?t=1274127818

Removed spammed image

Posters and lurkers alike, the above is conclusive. You are seeing what can only result from animation in one form or another; not the crash of an actual Boeing 767.

Review Elmondo's post carefully and ask yourself: What do I understand from that post that explains what is seen in the photo?

At most, the Elmondo post is an attempt to explain, using abstractions, why what you see IS NOT an animation; or, put another way; why what you see is a depiction of reality even though it looks false.

Elmondo's attempt fails.

The photo is, indeed, an accurate depiction of what happened on 9/11; namely:

A PSYOP that used false imagery in order to create the illusion that the explosions that virtually everyone who was verifiably present and who gave either a spontaneous statement or who had a duty to give an accurate statement said, more or less, consistently, one after another, as follows:

I saw an explosion.

An entire 60 pages of posts raged on and on in Dick Oliver and not ever could posters, try as they might, overcome the fact that the Dick Oliver witnesses neither saw nor heard a plane. At most, they guessed that maybe, possibly there might have been a plane; and that was "at most."

So it is with the ALL 43 videos. They show the illusion of a plane; in almost all instances a "shadowy" or "blurry" or obscure object that in some videos moves too fast, in some too slow and in some is not seen at all.

The only consistency in all the videos is that the explosion is at the wrong place and does not occur at the point of impact.

On the above sentence, one can stand without fear of contradiction, even if the attempt to frame contradiction is expressed in either the most obscure and abstract construct in mathematics or in angelic script.

It does not matter.

The videos show an illusion of a jetliner and the explosion shows a pyrotechnical display.

[dtugg]

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=101&pictureid=3012

[jhunter1163]

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?

[HawksFan]

That's nice, jam. Now go wash up for dinner. You can tell all your friends about it tomorrow at daycare.

[catsmate1]

My fellow forumites, may I echo the calls for the shunning of the Jammy Dodger? He's not going to answer any difficult questions or add anything new to the debate, let alone accept a reality that clashes with his professed opinions.

In that spirit let me offer this link to speed the process (of ignoring j):

http://forums.randi.org/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=25515

[Pinch]

My fellow forumites, may I echo the calls for the shunning of the Jammy Dodger? He's not going to answer any difficult questions or add anything new to the debate, let alone accept a reality that clashes with his professed opinions.

In that spirit let me offer this link to speed the process (of ignoring j):

http://forums.randi.org/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=25515

I reported him...not that I expect that to do any good. These sorts of fora should have at least *some* sort of intellectual bar that one must clear, and this jammonious poster plays limbo instead, seeing how low he can go. Part of the JREF homepage header has the words "Critical Thinking" there - something that is in extremely scarce supply with this person. The straw/camel was probably the B-52 crashing and equating it with the WTC impacts, but heaven knows he's racked up a dozen or so absolutely stupefyingly dumb comments. If anyone had *any* questions about his mental abilities, that right there should have answered them.

[cyclonic]

Its amazing how little research 911twoofers actually do.

how the planes crashed into the towers.

PhKrirlTw8c

"ghost plane" owned!

akwFhxl8BVs


NEXT!!

[switchpoint]

It does not matter.

The videos show an illusion of a jetliner and the explosion shows a pyrotechnical display.

And what say you to the good folks on the ground that day that looked up to see a commercial jetliner crash into the tower? Illusion? Trickery?

This is whole new level of stupid.

[triforcharity]

I love the part where Ace says, "Well, that's a kerosene explosion, which has no destructive power." OMG, STFU ACE!!

http://www.adrc.asia/counterpart_report/png010205.htm
6 houses destroyed

http://www.twa800.com/ntsb/8-15-00/docket/Ex_20F.pdf

[cyclonic]

I love the part where Ace says, "Well, that's a kerosene explosion, which has no destructive power." OMG, STFU ACE!!

http://www.adrc.asia/counterpart_report/png010205.htm
6 houses destroyed

http://www.twa800.com/ntsb/8-15-00/docket/Ex_20F.pdf

lol. did you ever hear his fake suicide broadcast?

X0RUy_y41QM

you ever seen 'the devils lighter'?

m6jKhchCes8

[phunk]

The Dick Oliver threads morphed into consideration to both WTC 1 and WTC 2. In addition to easily out numbering reliable, verifiable witnesses who saw no plane at WTC 1, the actual subject of the Dick Oliver threads, it was also shown there were more, and better situated, no plane witnesses for WTC 2 as well.

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.

[cyclonic]

The young lady who filmed this should get an Oscar hey jammy jam.

dvIRgxAZd3g

[tsig]

It may have been at one time..but no longer.

Please don't feed the troll.

Yes. His habit of dismissing everyone is becoming tiresome.

Anyone who posts to him gets a golden shower.

[Piggy]

Well, let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding: Do you reject the claim that jetliners explode upon impact and not after impact?

I here assert that jetliners explode the instant of impact and do not insert themselves, visually intact, into steel buildings without so much as a dent, let alone shredding, explosion and utter annihilation at the point of impact.

Query: What do you think is about to happen next?

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicsjetbomber232-1.png?t=1274099203

Hint: The ground will cause something to happen...


regards

Q1: What happens when you fire a bullet into the ground?

Q2: What happens when you fire a bullet into a pumpkin?




Sorry, guys... he just looked at me with those big hungry eyes!

[ProBonoShill]

Posters and lurkers alike, the above is conclusive. You are seeing what can only result from animation in one form or another; not the crash of an actual Boeing 767.




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.

The only consistency in all the videos is that the explosion is at the wrong place and does not occur at the point of impact.
Lie

Yes. His habit of dismissing everyone is becoming tiresome.

Anyone who posts to him gets a golden shower.

*grabs umbrella

[beachnut]

Your post does nothing other than state a number. Your post is an absurd failure to contradict that what is visually seen defies crash physics and is, therefore, thrououghly indicative that no jetliner crashed into the South Tower. We are talking about the information revealed by the videos.

People believed what they saw on teevee, at first glance. We are now taking a look at what was seen, in detail, and we are seeing, quite plainly, video in and video out, one by one, that those videos show that whatever may be thought to be taking place is simply NOT a jetliner hitting the South Tower.

That is what we are seeing.

The videos are, in fact, quite revealing, each one in its own right.

Look at them.

You are engaging in the same non sequitur here as you do with blips on a screen and the claim of "radar."

Do better.


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.

[Stout]

No it isn't. I can watch The Life of Brian 10 times and still laugh, but after the 100th time, even that gets boring.
jamonius wasn't nearly as funny the first time around, and we must now be nearing the 1000th re-run...

I can see how it would get old.

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.

[MattTheTubaGuy]

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.:)

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)

[AJM8125]

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.:)

Uh, you've much to learn. Education and expertise mean exactly zip in jammonius land:

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.

An award winning quote, by the way. :eye-poppi

[Oystein]

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?

[Oystein]

...
Sorry, guys... he just looked at me with those big hungry eyes!

tsk tsk tsk... Guess I will have to look at you with stern, angry eyes then ;)

[Oystein]

I'm assuming your presence here is an attempt to convince lurkers such as myself that your theories are true...

I think you're wrong. I think this is a social experiment with us as white mice in a wheel.

[Oystein]

You post no numbers to support your lies; why? Can't you prove your claims with physics?...

What's the point in asking?

Tell me: What kind of reply do you predict, and is this the kind of reply you like to get? If not - why are you asking for it anyway?

If you go to a restaurant and order steak 7 times, and you get served **** every time, do you go there an 8th time and order steak?

[Oystein]

I can see how it would get old.

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 am convinced jammo is not a no-planer at all - he is a troll running a social experiment on us.

Or else, he is really in need of medical help, in which case ridicule from us would be unethical.

[Oystein]

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.



An award winning quote, by the way. :eye-poppi

That line in the sand is a grand canyon by now.

[jammonius]

Posters and Lurkers,

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg

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:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicspooranimation255-2.png?t=1274099541
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!

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/602-2noseoutnoexplosionwherecrashed.png?t=1273971775
OOPS! Somebody goofed.

The result of the above goof was a FTFY exercise as seen as follows:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/602-3blackoutafternoseout.png?t=1273971852

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.

Now for an assessement of ElMondo's post:

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:


http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-2index.htm

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.

I have clearly and unequivocally shown that the above statement is false.

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Posters and Lurkers,

This thread still has potential to be a useful exercise in objectivity.

<Pointless drivel and self-obsessed semantics deleted>

One word Jammy .... YAWN !!!!

[jammonius]

I can see how it would get old.

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.

Stick around then, you may be surprised by what you can potentially learn.

all the best

[jammonius]

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.


Lie



*grabs umbrella

No, the above is not at all a correct statement of my "presence here." Please see the OP for a statement of purpose.

[jammonius]

One word Jammy .... YAWN !!!!

You may go back to sleep for as long as that coping mechanism works for you.


rest well

[jammonius]

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.

You do not match the number you posted to any observed data at all. Your post is, therefore, useless.

[jammonius]

Uh, you've much to learn. Education and expertise mean exactly zip in jammonius land:

That is false as I have shown, in exacting detail, with precise accuracy.


An award winning quote, by the way. :eye-poppi

Epistemologically understood, my quote is valid and correct.

[jammonius]

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.

thanks

[jammonius]

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?

[BigAl]

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.

Reported for trolling.

[jammonius]

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:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicspooranimation255-2.png?t=1274099541

Removed spammed image.

It would be helpful if posters would post up either stills or time segments to support their video claims, I think.

[BigAl]

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:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicspooranimation255-2.png?t=1274099541

It would be helpful if posters would post up either stills or time segments to support their video claims, I think.

We have.

Reported for trolling.

[jammonius]

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.

That is rich.

[AJM8125]

Epistemologically understood, my quote is valid and correct.

Oh, intercourse the penguin.

[jammonius]

Q1: What happens when you fire a bullet into the ground?

Q2: What happens when you fire a bullet into a pumpkin?




Sorry, guys... he just looked at me with those big hungry eyes!


Could you please spare us the rhetoric and post up whatever it is you are trying to say? :(

Just come right out and scream it!
thanks

[AJM8125]

Let's see, so far we have:

Declaration that some videos are valid: check.

Disqualification of all witnesses who saw 175 on television: check.

Disqualification of one video, which now casts suspicion on the rest of them: check.

Now I would request that we cut to the chase and have jammonius explain to us how thousands of eyewitnesses around ground zero didn't see what they saw. I fully expect the remainder of this thread to be another quote mining extravaganza, where we will be introduced to Henry the Postal Worker who was busy sorting letters and heard a bang, thus proving there was no plane.

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

You may go back to sleep for as long as that coping mechanism works for you.


rest well

Why would I need to "cope" with anything ???

jammie ... you have had numerous ( :slp: ) posts across numerous ( :slp: ) threads all basically saying the same thing ... and I am telling you from one of the fabled lurkers your convincing no-one.

Not ONE SINGLE SOLITARY person buys into your spectacularly obtuse and stolid interpretations ... that is a fact !!!

You, jammie may be too much involved in your own "personal" incredulity to believe some videos and metaphor driven testimony, but the rest of us, whom inhabite reality can easily see you for the dolt you are.

At the end of the day jammie all you are doing is wasting pixels !!!

Go out, find a girlfriend ... your rubbish at this ... go out, live a life instead and find some happiness, this is no substitute for a social life !!!

[BigAl]

Could you please spare us the rhetoric and post up whatever it is you are trying to say? :(

Just come right out and scream it!
thanks

Everything you claim is either wrong or irrelevant to the point you are trying to make.

[Piggy]

Could you please spare us the rhetoric and post up whatever it is you are trying to say? :(

Just come right out and scream it!
thanks

I did. Answer those questions, please, Bob.

[Oystein]

I did. Answer those questions, please, Bob.

Piggy, seriously: You KNOW that jammonius will not answer any reasonable question in any reaonable way. Am I right, you know this, don't you? Please answer that question, Piggy!

And when you have, the follow up: Since you know for a fact that your question will not get a serious answer, why are you asking it?

[Macgyver1968]

I'm with O on this one. Responding to Jam is pointless. He is impervious to logic. He sees only what he wants to see, and never will answer a question...so there's no point in asking it. It's not even fun to make fun of him, as his mental illness shines like a beacon in the dark...and making fun of the kids on the short bus was something Mom taught me not to do.

So please, again...don't feed the mentally ill troll, and let this thread die.

[jammonius]

Why would I need to "cope" with anything ???

jammie ... you have had numerous ( :slp: ) posts across numerous ( :slp: ) threads all basically saying the same thing ... and I am telling you from one of the fabled lurkers your convincing no-one.

Not ONE SINGLE SOLITARY person buys into your spectacularly obtuse and stolid interpretations ... that is a fact !!!

You, jammie may be too much involved in your own "personal" incredulity to believe some videos and metaphor driven testimony, but the rest of us, whom inhabite reality can easily see you for the dolt you are.

At the end of the day jammie all you are doing is wasting pixels !!!

Go out, find a girlfriend ... your rubbish at this ... go out, live a life instead and find some happiness, this is no substitute for a social life !!!


Ah, so, you are willing to engage further, your nap notwithstanding; OK, fine, we can engage in more dialogue. And, since you are participating, I think this is as good a time as any to extend a proper welcome to you, an erstwhile lurker, to the forum and this thread.

Welcome! :)

Perhaps you will agree with me that it is useful to post to this thread as the topic is the ALL 43 video compilation containing the 43 versions of the second hit, of which only the first 15 have been specifically referenced with a "title page" image.

We have already seen one of the values of this thread in the posting of a 44th video clip that adds to the informational quality of the thread, IMHO.

I think one of the videos that has garnered some interest and some useful observational comment is this one, which, in time sequence order, is number 16:

16
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/16-lefttorightmeltintobldgKEY354.png?t=1274284619

Have you reviewed that particular one; and, if so, do you have any observational comment that you would like to add?

Once again, welcome to the thread.

By the way, let me say, yet again, I am not here seeking to convince anyone of anything. We are each capable of posting up what we see and what we hear in the observable database that is the primary subject matter of this thread.

[GlennB]

I think you're wrong. I think this is a social experiment with us as white mice in a wheel.

I've often thought this. I picture a team of undergrad psychology students measuring "how far can debunkers be pushed in the face of blatant irrationality". But the buggers never publish their results.

[jammonius]

I've often thought this. I picture a team of undergrad psychology students measuring "how far can debunkers be pushed in the face of blatant irrationality". But the buggers never publish their results.

Well, if you're interested in the sociology of the matter, you would do well, I think, to doublecheck with the source. I have laid out the reasons for the thread in the OP and they are true and correct. This is a thread about observable data and about what can be seen and heard.

Further to the imagery given the reference of # 16, there follows in the next second -- 3:55/6 -- a very important observable process whereby the shadow thingy melds into the WTC.

One reason for refering to the plane image as "shadow thingy" is because it is shadowy and blurry in that particular video segment, just as it is in almost all of the ALL 43 video segments.

One further reason is that if you look at the following image, it can be noted that the left wing appears to have disappeared, in part, as has most of the tail section, as I see it, speaking solely in terms of what I observe:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355wingandtailmissingmaybe.png?t=1274285954

Removed spammed image

I do not think the image shown above is consistent with the reality of a jetliner and is, instead, consistent with animation and or holographic imaging, in my opinion.

If you are so inclined, would you mind stating what you see?

[jammonius]

I did. Answer those questions, please, Bob.

I think your questions are a derail, but I'm not the mod. I also think your questions are an example of a request to go on a "wild goose chase" meaning one poster asks another to do something that poster is not willing to do.

However, in this one instance, I will play along for purposes of illustration of the uselessness of wild goose chases.

I searched for an image of a pumpkin being shot by a bullet, but, after looking at about 5 pages of images, I found nothing (wild goose chase). I did, however, manage to find this:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/tiger.jpg?t=1274286752

So, as I'm willing to assume for the moment you wouldn't ask me to answer a question you, yourself, aren't willing to also try to answer, can you please post up an image of a bullet impacting a pumpkin and or a bullet impacting the ground?

Beyond that, perhaps one other reply might be in order; but, beyond that possibility, I can tell you in advance, I am not going to be willing to spend a lot of posts on your queries about what bullets can be seen to do to pumpkins and the ground as such impacts and such outcomes do not shed enough light on the subject matter of this thread to warrant detailed discussion, IMHO.

all the best

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Ah, so, you are willing to engage further, your nap notwithstanding; OK, fine, we can engage in more dialogue. And, since you are participating, I think this is as good a time as any to extend a proper welcome to you, an erstwhile lurker, to the forum and this thread.

Welcome! :)


Erm ... no jam, I most certainly am NOT willing to engage in your pointless, puerile and spectacularly over-blown hyperbole. I am far too long in the tooth for any of the nonsense now, grew out of it years ago !!!

As a grand-mother and a plain-speaking Scots woman I believe in calling a spade a spade.

Your wrong jam, on so many levels, and I implore you to perhaps seek some professional advice or help, you clearly need it, and I for one will not aid you in fueling your obvious delusions and troubles with reality.

I do however, thank you for the welcome ... but due to no longer being willing to "suffer fools gladly" I decline any invite to satisfy your desperation for verbal embellishment.

As I advised before ... get a girlfriend ... or a life ... you'll be happier in the long run !!!

[lapman]

Well, if you're interested in the sociology of the matter, you would do well, I think, to doublecheck with the source. I have laid out the reasons for the thread in the OP and they are true and correct. This is a thread about observable data and about what can be seen and heard.

Further to the imagery given the reference of # 16, there follows in the next second -- 3:55/6 -- a very important observable process whereby the shadow thingy melds into the WTC.

One reason for refering to the plane image as "shadow thingy" is because it is shadowy and blurry in that particular video segment, just as it is in almost all of the ALL 43 video segments.

One further reason is that if you look at the following image, it can be noted that the left wing appears to have disappeared, in part, as has most of the tail section, as I see it, speaking solely in terms of what I observe:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355wingandtailmissingmaybe.png?t=1274285954

I do not think the image shown above is consistent with the reality of a jetliner and is, instead, consistent with animation and or holographic imaging, in my opinion.

If you are so inclined, would you mind stating what you see?
Of course you would say this. You can't state that it's a blobby/shadow/whatever thingy. So you hand wave it away by making another evidence free proclamation in order to keep your fantasy alive. Rational adults know that such animation capabilities were not in existence in 2001 to accurately depict natural lighting as is in the picture and the one on post #209. You will, as usual, make fictitious claims about the lighting in order to dodge this fact.

[dafydd]

Well, if you're interested in the sociology of the matter, you would do well, I think, to doublecheck with the source. I have laid out the reasons for the thread in the OP and they are true and correct. This is a thread about observable data and about what can be seen and heard.

Further to the imagery given the reference of # 16, there follows in the next second -- 3:55/6 -- a very important observable process whereby the shadow thingy melds into the WTC.

One reason for refering to the plane image as "shadow thingy" is because it is shadowy and blurry in that particular video segment, just as it is in almost all of the ALL 43 video segments.

One further reason is that if you look at the following image, it can be noted that the left wing appears to have disappeared, in part, as has most of the tail section, as I see it, speaking solely in terms of what I observe:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355wingandtailmissingmaybe.png?t=1274285954

I do not think the image shown above is consistent with the reality of a jetliner and is, instead, consistent with animation and or holographic imaging, in my opinion.

If you are so inclined, would you mind stating what you see?

It's an ****** picture of an ****** plane hitting an ****** building,what the eff is wrong with you?

[DavidJames]

It's an ****** picture of an ****** plane hitting an ****** building,what the eff is wrong with you?Nothing that can't be explained using Pavlovian theory.

Here's a suggestion, ignore the bell.

[ElMondoHummus]

Erm ... no jam, I most certainly am NOT willing to engage in your pointless, puerile and spectacularly over-blown hyperbole. I am far too long in the tooth for any of the nonsense now, grew out of it years ago !!!

As a grand-mother and a plain-speaking Scots woman I believe in calling a spade a spade.

I'm curious to hear what some of us older than college aged (*cough*) posters like myself (:() think regarding the maturity level of some of these conspiracy addicts. Of course, men like DRG and Steven Jones are not young guys, but it seems to me that a majority of their followers act as though their trapped in their adolescence to their early 20s. Their claims certainly demonstrate this: Belief in grandoise, epic narratives that only they can percieve, use of argumentative tactics in place of substance as well as a belief that use of such stands as validation of their points, petulant behavoir when they perceive that the reality of the situation injures them, and so on. It feels as though many of the ones feeling the need to proselytize are indeed in the late teens to early 20s age range. You get this feeling too?

I bring this up merely because my brain is free-associating today.

[dtugg]

You're

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2647/4107008206_14472e52b0.jpg

[sheeplesnshills]

I can see how it would get old.

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.

This is his third in about as many weeks. It get tedious and, if anything, replying is just feeding his madness.

[sheeplesnshills]

I've often thought this. I picture a team of undergrad psychology students measuring "how far can debunkers be pushed in the face of blatant irrationality". But the buggers never publish their results.

You might well be right as surely nobody outside of a secure hospital could be so utterly delusional as Jammo appears to be.
Its a pity one can't do the reverse of the truther sites, all they do is block you if you apply any rationality at all.

[dtugg]

I think jammy is actually that insane.

[KingMerv00]

oooh....copyright infringement?

maybe CNN and BBC and ABC and NY1 and CBS woud like a little email.

Probably fair use. It doesn't affect the market, the videos are factual rather than creative, it only represents a small portion of the entire material, and he is using it for educational reasons.

He's wrong but he's not breaking the law.

[sheeplesnshills]

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/DeadHorse.jpg

[Markus]

I searched for an image of a pumpkin being shot by a bullet, but, after looking at about 5 pages of images, I found nothing (wild goose chase).

Shooting pumpkins seems to be pretty popular on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXlkW7mowaQ

Pumpkin carnage begins around 1:40

[jammonius]

Shooting pumpkins seems to be pretty popular on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXlkW7mowaQ

Pumpkin carnage begins around 1:40

Shooting actually begins a bit earlier. Bullet goes in oneside and out the other.

OK, now can we get back to the topic at hand?

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/pumpkinshot.png?t=1274296298

[jammonius]

Of course you would say this. You can't state that it's a blobby/shadow/whatever thingy. So you hand wave it away by making another evidence free proclamation in order to keep your fantasy alive. Rational adults know that such animation capabilities were not in existence in 2001 to accurately depict natural lighting as is in the picture and the one on post #209. You will, as usual, make fictitious claims about the lighting in order to dodge this fact.


For the following:

"Rational adults know that such animation capabilities were not in existence in 2001 ..."

Can you indicate whether you are basing the claim on a substantiating source or whether you are speculating?

Note: You don't have to source the part that apparently distinguishes rational from irrational persons, adult or otherwise. Rather, the part I am interested in knowing whether you can source it or not is that part pertaining to what "animation capabilities existed in 2001."

As an aside, if you know and are willing to post it, your statement infers that such capabilites may have come into existence after 2001, but before now. If that inference is correct, a source would likewise be appreciated if it is available to you. You do not need to go off on a wild goose chase.

thanks

[AJM8125]

OK, now can we get back to the topic at hand?

Yes, excellent.

A plane crashed into WTC 2. Thousands saw it with their own eyes. Thanks.

/thread

[jammonius]

It's an ****** picture of an ****** plane hitting an ****** building,what the eff is wrong with you?


While the level of precision evidenced in your observation of data is rather low, you do exhibit some capacity for making an observation of data, nonetheless.

Apparently, your criteria for deciding what is or isn't a plane is pretty low. Do you always use your imagination to fill in missing information and assume that what you thusly imagine is correct?

By the way, if you want to take a look at another version of approximately the same moment in that video, you may do so at NIST's website at:


http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-2index.htm

See:
1-2B appendix

pg. 4/10

The tail section is just as missing from the NIST version as it is from the one I posted. There is, perhaps, a greater hint of a left wing in the NIST version, thus requiring a bit less use of imagination and wishful thinking. However, the wing is still missing there as well.

One has to literally say "well, there must be a wing in there somewhere," hope prayer (pun intended) :) in order to conclude the visual information comports with reality.

It doesn't.

No wing and no tail:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355wingandtailmissingmaybe.png?t=1274285954

Removed spammed image

[BigAl]

For the following:

"Rational adults know that such animation capabilities were not in existence in 2001 ..."

Can you indicate whether you are basing the claim on a substantiating source or whether you are speculating?


Irrelevant. Thousands of people saw 757/767 jets crash into the towers.

[dudalb]

I'm curious to hear what some of us older than college aged (*cough*) posters like myself (:() think regarding the maturity level of some of these conspiracy addicts. Of course, men like DRG and Steven Jones are not young guys, but it seems to me that a majority of their followers act as though their trapped in their adolescence to their early 20s. Their claims certainly demonstrate this: Belief in grandoise, epic narratives that only they can percieve, use of argumentative tactics in place of substance as well as a belief that use of such stands as validation of their points, petulant behavoir when they perceive that the reality of the situation injures them, and so on. It feels as though many of the ones feeling the need to proselytize are indeed in the late teens to early 20s age range. You get this feeling too?

I bring this up merely because my brain is free-associating today.

AKA "Know It All Disease" . It can hit anyone of any age, but is exceptionally common among the 17 to 23 year old age group.

[dudalb]

All 9/11 Conspiracy theories are crazy, but there are degrees of craziness ,and the No Planers are IMHO right at the bottom. Even the Mini Nukers and the Death Ray From Space theorists rank a little above them.

[JohnG]

There's something perversely counterproductive in entreating other posters to let a thread die...by posting to the selfsame thread, thereby constantly bumping it to the top of page one. Take it from someone who has tried (and failed spectacularly) to play "thread police" here before; if you object to a thread, don't post in that thread. At all. If enough people do the same, problem solved. Constantly haranguing others to follow your directives is probably just going to annoy people who are otherwise on the same page with you. The irony that I am currently haranguing people to stop...haranguing people is not lost on me, BTW.

I am not directing the following to Jammonius, who as others have pointed out is probably either a troll or in some way mentally impaired. I direct the following to the one or two lurkers here under the age of say, 25 who read Jammonius' posts and are thinking to themselves "hmmm...maybe he has a point".

Jammonius does not believe that jets hit the twin towers. He does not believe this because the footage of the attacks does not square with how he (apparently instinctively*) believes such attacks would/should actually appear. He believes one of the main giveaways is that the jets didn't instantaneously disintegrate and/or burst into flames the moment they made contact with the exterior of the towers. As triforcharity pointed out in an earlier post, the entire time span between the nose of the jet touching the the tower wall and the time we see the explosion erupting out of the opposite wall is something on the order of .3 seconds. That's not three seconds, that is three tenths of a second. Pretty much literally the "blink of an eye". Seems pretty "instantaneous" to me.:rolleyes: Those .3 seconds can seem like an eternity when viewing a single frame of a video or a still photograph, but that is totally irrelevant to the actual time frames involved. And high speed impacts between objects can often result in counterintuitive results. For example, high pressure water being used to cut steel or flimsy pieces of straw being embedded into tree trunks by hurricane force winds.

I don't mean to get into grumpy old middle-aged man mode on some of you, but I am guessing that there are many here (including Jammonius) who have never personally known a time before fairly realistic CGI effects used in TV, games and film. I am betting that at least some of your "instincts" to judge what a crashing and/or exploding plane should look like is based less on viewing footage of actual crashes and more on viewing (often CGI) visual effects. The thing you have to understand, though is special visual effects (of crashes and explosions) are usually created to wow an audience, not to mimic the look/sound/behavior or "real life" crashes and explosions.

People aren't the greatest observers at the best of times and are even worse when observing an event that is in some way tragic, unusual or aw(e)ful and most importantly an event they are unaccustomed to witnessing. I've mentioned in other threads that I have on more than one occasion been fooled into thinking that I was witnessing planes on approach that appeared to be hanging almost motionless in the air. It's a truly uncanny sight, I can assure you but I am left with a handful of explanations for what I was seeing in those situations:

1. The jets were (apparently secretly??) equipped with VTOL technology, allowing them to hover.

2. The jets didn't actually exist at all and were merely holograms projected into the clear blue sky.

3. I was hallucinating the entire thing.

4. The jets were alien spaceships in disguise.

5. I was witnessing real jets traveling at appropriate speeds for approach to an airport, but I was misjudging their speed based on my speed (I was in a moving car) and position relative to the planes and the fact that the clear blue sky gave me no points of reference with which to accurately gauge the speed of the planes.

Now call me an unimaginative dupe, but my first, best guess is #5. It does my ego no amount of good to admit that my observational skills are not up to the task of properly comprehending the phenomena I am witnessing, but if I am honest and rational with myself, I have to come to the conclusion that (based on Occam's Razor), the most likely explanation is that my "eyes are deceiving me". There are some people (and Jammonius appears to be one of them) who, due to arrogance, immaturity and/or possibly even some sort of mental illness cannot/will not allow himself to believe that his eyes could be fooling him. But for you "on the fence" lurkers out there, ask yourself one question; which of the following possibilities are more likely:

1. The appearance of planes in the 9/11 New York attacks was created for the witnesses in New York through the use of holograms** and other sorts of special effects.

2. Jammonius isn't nearly as good as he thinks he is at knowing what jets slamming at high speed into skyscrapers should look like.

I know which one gets my vote.




* I use the word "instinctively" because despite the fact that Jammonius believes the attacks violate the laws of physics, he can provide no equations at all with which support his belief. Your High School Math teachers weren't just trying to make sure you weren't using a calculator on your test when they asked you to "show your work". There was a larger, more important principle behind their request.

** Technology, by the way that doesn't even exist now, never mind nine years ago, though you might be surprised and disappointed to lean that fact if all your knowledge of holograms comes from watching Sci-Fi and Spy Thriller movies, games and TV shows. Another disappointing, but nevertheless true, fact; lasers aren't visible to the human eye unless they are being shot through something like smoke, vapor or dust.

[AJM8125]

All 9/11 Conspiracy theories are crazy, but there are degrees of craziness ,and the No Planers are IMHO right at the bottom. Even the Mini Nukers and the Death Ray From Space theorists rank a little above them.

Just in case you aren't aware, jammonius is in the no-plane / death ray camp and as far down the rabbit hole as one could be.

[jammonius]

Yes, excellent.

A plane crashed into WTC 2. Thousands saw it with their own eyes. Thanks.

/thread

I challenge you to source your assertion; and, as well, I here state that you cannot and will not do it because there are not 1000s who saw it with their own eyes and there are not even 100s of written accounts that are verifiable and useable as evidence. However, there are some. I, myself, am the source of posting of more of them than anyone else posting here.

However, there are more verifiable witnesses who say things inconsistent with PLANE SPOTTING than there are who say otherwise.

Speaking of psychological matters, I often wonder whether the phrase "Thousands saw it with their own eyes" was imparted via some sort of hypnosis? A lot of people say more or less the same thing when they either know or should know that they cannot possibly source that claim no matter how hard they try.

Do you know when and how and by what means you were taught to say "Thousands saw it with their own eyes"?

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/th_Animated20Hypnosis20Spiral.gif

Wake up!
:p

[AJM8125]

I challenge you to source your assertion; and, as well, I here state that you cannot and will not do it because there are not 1000s who saw it with their own eyes and there are not even 100s of written accounts that are verifiable and useable as evidence. However, there are some. I, myself, am the source of posting of more of them than anyone else posting here.

However, there are more verifiable witnesses who say things inconsistent with PLANE SPOTTING than there are who say otherwise.

Speaking of psychological matters, I often wonder whether the phrase "Thousands saw it with their own eyes" was imparted via some sort of hypnosis? A lot of people say more or less the same thing when they either know or should know that they cannot possibly source that claim no matter how hard they try.

Do you know when and how and by what means you were taught to say "Thousands saw it with their own eyes"?

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/th_Animated20Hypnosis20Spiral.gif

Wake up!
:p

I summarily hand wave that entire statement away and demand that you prove there weren't thousands who saw flight 175 crash with their own eyes.

See how it works?

[Oystein]

Irrelevant. Thousands of people saw 757/767 jets crash into the towers.

Jammonius is a horse. It's dead. You are flogging. Not a pretty sight.

[BigAl]

You continue to be wrong.

I challenge you to source your assertion; and, as well, I here state that you cannot and will not do it because there are not 1000s who saw it with their own eyes
:p

Thousands of people saw a 757/767 hit a tower.

Source: Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11 By David Friend and/or the archives of the New York newspapers.

[sheeplesnshills]

And on he flogs.......never getting anywhere.

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/horselucky.jpg

[sheeplesnshills]

Jammonius is a horse. It's dead. You are flogging. Not a pretty sight.

He's not just a dead horse.....he's a zombie horse!

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/zombiehest.png

[Oystein]

...Another disappointing, but nevertheless true, fact; lasers aren't visible to the human eye unless they are being shot through something like smoke, vapor or dust.

Similarly, explosions in deep space don't form billowing fireballs and clouds. Things would simply speed away rapidly and straight from the center of explosion.

[aggle-rithm]

Similarly, explosions in deep space don't form billowing fireballs and clouds. Things would simply speed away rapidly and straight from the center of explosion.

Wait a minute....

You're telling me people CAN'T outrun a nuclear explosion on foot...?

But...but...moviemakers wouldn't LIE, would they?

[lapman]

For the following:

"Rational adults know that such animation capabilities were not in existence in 2001 ..."

Can you indicate whether you are basing the claim on a substantiating source or whether you are speculating?

Note: You don't have to source the part that apparently distinguishes rational from irrational persons, adult or otherwise. Rather, the part I am interested in knowing whether you can source it or not is that part pertaining to what "animation capabilities existed in 2001."

As an aside, if you know and are willing to post it, your statement infers that such capabilites may have come into existence after 2001, but before now. If that inference is correct, a source would likewise be appreciated if it is available to you. You do not need to go off on a wild goose chase.

thanks
Computer animation has been a hobby of mine since the early '80's. I've used many different programs from POV through 3DS Max. I've followed the capabilities of all the major animation software. The biggest problem has always been re-creating natural light. In 2001, they were getting closer, but still not there.

[lapman]

While the level of precision evidenced in your observation of data is rather low, you do exhibit some capacity for making an observation of data, nonetheless.

Apparently, your criteria for deciding what is or isn't a plane is pretty low. Do you always use your imagination to fill in missing information and assume that what you thusly imagine is correct?

By the way, if you want to take a look at another version of approximately the same moment in that video, you may do so at NIST's website at:


http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-2index.htm

See:
1-2B appendix

pg. 4/10

The tail section is just as missing from the NIST version as it is from the one I posted. There is, perhaps, a greater hint of a left wing in the NIST version, thus requiring a bit less use of imagination and wishful thinking. However, the wing is still missing there as well.

One has to literally say "well, there must be a wing in there somewhere," hope prayer (pun intended) :) in order to conclude the visual information comports with reality.

It doesn't.

No wing and no tail:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355wingandtailmissingmaybe.png?t=1274285954
It must have taken you a long time to cherry pick that precise frame in order for you to support your fantasy. First, the wings are clearly visible. The tail is lost in the video artifact. What definitely idiotic about this is that in the pic shot from the exact same video:
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/16-lefttorightmeltintobldgKEY354.png?t=1274284619

Clearly shows the wings and tail. Why am I not surprised that you ignored this.

BTW, the tail is quite visible in the NIST document you linked to.

[AJM8125]

Computer animation has been a hobby of mine since the early '80's. I've used many different programs from POV through 3DS Max. I've followed the capabilities of all the major animation software. The biggest problem has always been re-creating natural light. In 2001, they were getting closer, but still not there.

Oh sorry!

That's education & expertise and is not allowed under logjam rules.

Thanks for playing!

[GlennB]

No wing and no tail:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355wingandtailmissingmaybe.png?t=1274285954

No columns. No windows. Crap still from a grainy video that has been recycled more time than the dying breath of Michelangelo.

[jammonius]

You continue to be wrong.



Thousands of people saw a 757/767 hit a tower.

Source: Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11 By David Friend and/or the archives of the New York newspapers.


newspapers aren't evidence; and, in any event, you haven't shown 100s let alone 1000s of them, such as they are. To be sure, you might be able to show a couple hundred newspaper ditties, provided you included the National Enquirer and Pennysaver, maybe.

But, no matter how you slice it, you will not find 1000s.

Instead, you will find people who saw an explosion because that is, in fact, what happened.

[jammonius]

No columns. No windows. Crap still from a grainy video that has been recycled more time than the dying breath of Michelangelo.

As I said, the same is seen in the NIST version. Furthermore, you have done nothing except describe what the video shows. That is what this drill is about; namely: what does the available data actually show?

Answer: Vague, inconclusive, suggestive and highly suspicious images and sound, in those that have sound.

One remarkable thing about second hit videos is that the majority of them either have no sound at all; or, pick up the sound of everything and everyone EXCEPT a jetliner supposedly screaming along at an earsplitting 550mph.

Get a clue.

[jammonius]

Computer animation has been a hobby of mine since the early '80's. I've used many different programs from POV through 3DS Max. I've followed the capabilities of all the major animation software. The biggest problem has always been re-creating natural light. In 2001, they were getting closer, but still not there.

Hence, drumroll.....Shadow thingy:o

Re-read your own post for what it actually says, lapman.

[dafydd]

Hence, drumroll.....Shadow thingy:o

Re-read your own post for what it actually says, lapman.

You are really insane,aren't you?

[BigAl]

newspapers aren't evidence; and, in any event, you haven't shown 100s let alone 1000s of them, such as they are. To be sure, you might be able to show a couple hundred newspaper ditties, provided you included the National Enquirer and Pennysaver, maybe.

But, no matter how you slice it, you will not find 1000s.

Instead, you will find people who saw an explosion because that is, in fact, what happened.

You are wrong.