Time to move on. Ultima2 has just about done me.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split From Kamikaze Attacks and the Effect of Speed
Time to move on. Ultima2 has just about done me.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Considering that visual evidence also led you to believe Ground Zero was flat and a 5' excavator bucket was 18" wide, I would recommend seeing a good opthamologist sometime soon.
Greetings, big al,
My question is: What about the shadow thingy? What effect does the physics of impact have upon it? Why did it not degrade, create a debris field on the south side of building and so on? In particular, why didn't the wings and especially the tail separate and break off, such that a part, piece, portion or identifiable component thereof would be seen flying about.
Here is, perhaps, the best still shot of the aftermath of the shadow thingy impacting the south tower. This is David Handschuh's photograph:
To the extent debris can be seen, it looks like paper and certainly no discernible part or piece of a jetliner. Other videos, including that of Evan Fairbanks that has been relied on here by another poster simply show the entire length, breadth and width of the jetliner gliding right on into the south tower, no problema.
Reference to physics might be nice; however, imho, the visual evidence is rather overwhelming that what is depicted is a shadow thingy and not a make Boeing model 767.
This is what you get with a 767 at 590 mph. It is not a surprise you are unable to grasp this since you think jet engine parts are wheel-covers and fuselages are horse-trailers. You have delusional ideas on 911 that are so moronic you would be banned in one post at Balsamo's nut house pilots for truth forum.
You debunk yourself as you show photographic proof of a 767 impact and kinetic energy destruction. Funny stuff, you apologies for terrorists reaches new levels of stupidity.
Last edited:
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Questions for jammonius:
What made the roar of big jet engines running flat out at low altitude along the length or Manhattan on the morning of 9/11?
What hit the towers so hard that it made the seismographs jump?
Last edited:
beachnut,
I disagree that reliance on math or on physics solves anything. The visual evidence is not consistent with a Boeing 767 and is, instead, consistent with a psyop, based on deception and illusion; just as Evan Fairbanks, an eyewitness, said: "a bad special effect."
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.
Your reliance on that fallacy is not persuasive. Furthermore, your assertions are not backed up by any official investigation that used the approach you are relying on. Not one.
As you know NIST engaged in modeling in order to confirm its pre-ordained conclusion about what might, just maybe, could be, cause of collapse initiation, and nothing more.
What NIST is often juxtaposed with, confused with, commingled with is a simulation done by Purdue.
The Purdue simulation was designed only to create a realistic visualization of the 767 colliding with the Tower, not to assess structural damage or model how it supposedly led to the total destruction of the building 102 minutes later. And therein lies another form of science fraud; namely, the careful tailoring of assumptions without calling attention to them, such that broader generalizations are then drawn, wittingly or unwittingly, as the case needs to be.
The improper use of inferences, based upon deceptive attempts to hide behind obscure, complex and therefore obfuscated scientific reasoning has one primary purpose: That of deceptive explanation.
beachnut, if your lack of self-confidence is so great that you need to rfestate your credentials all the time, perhaps you need to strengthen them. Have you ever considered enrolling in a PhD program?
regards
I disagree that reliance on math or on physics solves anything. The visual evidence is not consistent with a Boeing 767 and is, instead, consistent with a psyop, based on deception and illusion; just as Evan Fairbanks, an eyewitness, said: "a bad special effect."
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.
Your reliance on that fallacy is not persuasive. Furthermore, your assertions are not backed up by any official investigation that used the approach you are relying on. Not one.
As you know NIST engaged in modeling in order to confirm its pre-ordained conclusion about what might, just maybe, could be, cause of collapse initiation, and nothing more.
What NIST is often juxtaposed with, confused with, commingled with is a simulation done by Purdue.
The Purdue simulation was designed only to create a realistic visualization of the 767 colliding with the Tower, not to assess structural damage or model how it supposedly led to the total destruction of the building 102 minutes later. And therein lies another form of science fraud; namely, the careful tailoring of assumptions without calling attention to them, such that broader generalizations are then drawn, wittingly or unwittingly, as the case needs to be.
The improper use of inferences, based upon deceptive attempts to hide behind obscure, complex and therefore obfuscated scientific reasoning has one primary purpose: That of deceptive explanation.
beachnut, if your lack of self-confidence is so great that you need to rfestate your credentials all the time, perhaps you need to strengthen them. Have you ever considered enrolling in a PhD program?
regards
Last edited:
Mancman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
Provide evidence that it is doctored.
Also, please explain why, as shown in this video, the 250,000 ton WTC2 swings northwards as United Flight 175 impacts:
Please enlighten us, what was it that made 250,000 ton of mass violently jolt, were it not a 130 ton plane moving at 860 feet per second?
Oh boy, big al,
Not again. Why are you always seeking to sneak untested assumptions by us? You cannot assume what hasn't been proven.
You claim:
Yet, the actual eye and ear witnesses say there was NO SOUND CONSISTENT WITH FULL THROTTLE JETLINERS <1000ft above the ground level. Here are some examples:
• Stephen Gregory, Assistant Commissioner, Bureau of Communications
Q. Where were you when the second plane hit?
A. We were down at the command post between Liberty and Albany on the west side of West Street. …
Q. Did you see or hear the second plane before it hit the World Trade Center?
A. I never actually saw the plane, but l heard it. You could hear it coming in and then we heard the explosion and you could hear the roar of the plane coming in. At first I didn't realize it was a plane. I thought it was like the roar of fire, like something had just incinerated, like a gas tank or an oil tank. It sounded like a tremendous roar and then you heard boom and then there was a big fire, a lot of fire, a big fireball. I never actually saw a plane hit the building. I never saw that. I saw it on television, but I never saw it while I was standing there.
• Gary Smiley, FDNY paramedic, was carrying an injured woman across Church Street who kept yelling "plane" and Smiley recalled, "I looked up at that point, and that's when the second plane hit the South Tower. The explosion was unbelievable. It was right over my head. You didn't hear anything. People ask me sometimes, 'What did you hear?' I heard nothing."
• Steven Bienkowski, NYPD Harbor Unit Scuba Team: "I happened to be sitting in the back left side of the (helicopter) ship. … We were on the southwest side of the South Tower, and I glanced over my shoulder and there came a United Airlines aircraft right at us, a little bit underneath where we were. And I do mean a little bit underneath us. It probably missed us by about three hundred feet, and it proceeded to fly right through the building, right in front of us. …. I don't remember hearing an explosion, although it must have been extremely loud. … When that second plane went into the building, it just looked like an evil magician's trick. It looked nothing like what I would have imagined a plane crashing into a building would look like. The plane just completely disappeared and turned into a giant fireball. Being there was surreal."
Also, if there are reports of ear injury or hearing loss or treatment for that kind of injury, it is sure hard to locate. If you have some, would you ploease post it up.
Please restate your assumptions about what sort of seismic signal should have occurred. We know there was an explosion. Was the signal registering the explosion or was it registering something punching a hole in the South Tower. Furthermore, and come to think of it, we know a hole was punched into the south tower, but, do you see that you are merely assuming it was a 767 jetliner, rather than a shadow thingy and some sort of weapon of deception? You do see that you are making an assumption, correct?
Sometimes assumptions are correct, big al and sometimes they are incorrect. However, they alwasy need to be proven rather than allowed to stand as being true without testing them.
In my discussion with you, I have noticed a tendency to incorporate untested assumptions on your part. That is not an effective way to post, imho.
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
A 767 going close to 600MPH near sea-level is by definition going flat-out.
Who faked the sound that goes along with your alleged fake video?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You forgot to read what you posted again:
I have not yet located a still shot corresponding to the 24sec time interval on macgyver's video, however here's an approixmation from another known video:
As one can see, yet again, there is little or no evident explosion at the point of impact; namely, the south side, yet there is evidence of explosion on the east and, bizarrely, perhaps, evidence in the above of the nose actually coming out the north side more or less intact!?
I hasten to add that debunkers have sought to say that what is coming out the north side only looks like the nose and isn't really the nose. Persumably, they also have some math and some physics that only experts can be trusted with that confirms, triumphantly of course, that what looks like the nose coming out the north end really isn't.
Posters will realize that I am here engaging in irony, again, as the visual evidence that we are dealing with a deceptive shadow thingy is rather overwhelming, could posters but choose to let denial be a river in Egypt and not a characteristic associated with what is plain to see.
As one can see, yet again, there is little or no evident explosion at the point of impact; namely, the south side, yet there is evidence of explosion on the east and, bizarrely, perhaps, evidence in the above of the nose actually coming out the north side more or less intact!?
I hasten to add that debunkers have sought to say that what is coming out the north side only looks like the nose and isn't really the nose. Persumably, they also have some math and some physics that only experts can be trusted with that confirms, triumphantly of course, that what looks like the nose coming out the north end really isn't.
Posters will realize that I am here engaging in irony, again, as the visual evidence that we are dealing with a deceptive shadow thingy is rather overwhelming, could posters but choose to let denial be a river in Egypt and not a characteristic associated with what is plain to see.
big al, joined in by dgm are engaging in unworthy context ripping of what Asst. Commissioner Stephen Gregory said. No further comment on this is necessary. Obviously, what Gregory said can be seen by anyone who cares to look. If anyone wants to know what the phrase "cherry picking" means, please see the posts of big al and of dgm.
bingo
bingo
You couldnt debunk yourself any more if you tried. Well done. Witnesses that use similies again. They saw it or heard it. Between them they witnessed it. It didnt look or sound like it does in the movies but they saw it or heard it. Great stuff. Well done. Got anymore debunking for us. Classic stuff.
Last edited:
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Questions for jammonius:
What made the roar of big jet engines running flat out at low altitude along the length or Manhattan on the morning of 9/11?
What hit the towers so hard that it made the seismographs jump?
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why wouldn't the explosion continue into the building with the plane due to the effects of inertia? The laws of physics (although "truthers" are clueless about them) still applied on 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034
By a twoofer, no less...
(how do I embed this, btw?)
McHrozni
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Any idiot can find a picture that doesn't show something. You are good at that.
Look at that tower a few milliseconds later and you'll see a massive fireball of aviation fuel.
Question: How was the roar of jet engines along Manhattan Island faked?
Last edited:
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
That is correct.
This is a great video explaining how the jets broke the connections between the panels and didn't "cut the steel."
jammonius:-
My expertise is in legal matters. From debating with you on another thread and reading your contributions to yet another it is abundantly clear you know nothing about the law of evidence, but you pontificate and argue about that at length.
Now I see you pontificating and arguing about physics. This is basic stuff (my formal physics education stops at A level) but I'd covered the physics required to understand this at least two years earlier).
Can't you understand that:
Once you've proved you know nothing about a subject but are prepared to argue about it anyway you have destroyed your credibility with anyone who does know something about that subject.
Now should you make a pronouncement about something I don't have any knowledge of (or don't have the maths/physics/chemistry to fully follow the argument) I am going to save time and assume you're wrong.
My expertise is in legal matters. From debating with you on another thread and reading your contributions to yet another it is abundantly clear you know nothing about the law of evidence, but you pontificate and argue about that at length.
Now I see you pontificating and arguing about physics. This is basic stuff (my formal physics education stops at A level) but I'd covered the physics required to understand this at least two years earlier).
Can't you understand that:
Once you've proved you know nothing about a subject but are prepared to argue about it anyway you have destroyed your credibility with anyone who does know something about that subject.
Now should you make a pronouncement about something I don't have any knowledge of (or don't have the maths/physics/chemistry to fully follow the argument) I am going to save time and assume you're wrong.
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,715
MC
use the video code [ and then put yt and close the braket]
" Or quote my post and see how I use the yt code Though I think this debunks the no planers rather well and this one " frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>
Last edited: