Split From Kamikaze Attacks and the Effect of Speed

[TJM]

Ummm...the video is shot on the sidewalk...last time I checked, New York subways are called subways because they are subterranean....and are 30 feet or better underground. How could it be the sound of a subway?

And the subway certainly doesn't go at near-supersonic speed.

Not true! Jammonius just turned me into a no planer! Here's an video I just made of my supersonic trip through San Bruno California ... on the subway!

If your speakers or earphones are turned up high, you might want to lower them.



Choke on it, debunkers.

Now I know why I can never quite pinpoint where the Blue Angels are when they're buzzing the builldings in the Financial District until they're right directly overhead. Duh!! They're freakin holograms!

It all makes sense now!

 

[jammonius]

I did address the video, I gave it to you in the first place. There are more like it.

It clearly shows the sound of a 767 flying flat-out out at FAA minimums and the image of the plane hitting a tower.
You are a no-planer. Seek mental help. Take and pass a High School-level course in physics when you can.

Hi big al,

As you know, I am generally willing to deal with posts of substance, while not liking those that hurl personal insults and/or claims about one's intelligence or the lack thereof as I think all such references waste time and reflect solely upon the poster making the insults and not upon the other party.

With that said, I have highlighted in red that part of your post that is of interest.

While use of the word "shows" to describe sound is a bit awkward, I think I know what you mean. I anticipated this and said so. I said that what I think sounds like a subway others would hear a jetliner.

The sound of a jetliner is an everyday experience. I think it is something we all know when we hear it. There are probably websites that offer up sound samples and I would venture to say that if you listen to a soundcheck of a jetliner, it will not sound like what is heard in your reference video:

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

You next make what I think is an interesting comment and I would ask you if you would state the time interval in the video where it occurs. I refer here to this:

"...the image of the plane hitting a tower..."

Are you saying the video shows that image? If so where; if not, what do you mean?

thanks

 

[lapman]

E=1/2mv²
You can't fine errors in physics and you have no clue.

The energy of impact is a velocity and mass issue.

The energy in jet fuel and aviation gasoline is almost the same, with jet fuel winning.


You are saying someone who saw a 767 hit the WTC is proof of a 767 not hitting the WTC because he survived??? lol, you have to make up the dumbest delusions for what reason?

The impact of the 767 is like a bullet, the bullet kills what it hits, if you are not hit by parts you can survive unless you are burnt by the 66,000 pounds of fuel. The impact of the fuel would also kill.

Your posts debunk themselves; your delusional ideas on 911 are funny. Jet engine parts are wheel-covers and fuselage parts are horse-trailers. What new delusions do you have today?

Rational adults understand the difference between using TNT and an equivalent of energy as opposed to the actual use of TNT. Jam is claiming that the directional damage and explosion of the aircraft and it's fuel is the same as the omni-directional explosion of TNT. This is the usual delusional tactic. TNT is mentioned, so it should be the exact same effect.

 

[sylvan8798]

I anticipated this and said so. I said that what I think sounds like a subway others would hear a jetliner.

The sound of a jetliner is an everyday experience. I think it is something we all know when we hear it.

If one were to determine the frequency of a jet engine at rest, and measure the frequency heard on the video, one could back out a velocity, based on the sound emminating from a plane. One could also determine the proximity to the nearest subway, and measure the sound frequency and decibels of subway cars from where they are standing in the video, to compare the video to any potential subway noise. Do you agree that the matter could be settled by calculations and measurements, regardless of the OPINION of any individual persons?

FWIW it sounds like a plane to me...

 

[jammonius]

Ummm...the video is shot on the sidewalk...last time I checked, New York subways are called subways because they are subterranean....and are 30 feet or better underground. How could it be the sound of a subway?

Well, macgyver,

As a "no-planer," I am certainly not the one to answer questions that you might pose as you are not likely to believe a darn thing I say about any 9/11 related topic; and, perhaps, nothing else either. And that is understandable. 9/11 boggles the mind and people have a vested interest in the topic, especially those who post here.

Please consider asking a New Yorker whether the subways are audible from the sidewalks. More importantly, perhaps you could replay the following video from about the 18sec mark up to about the 26sec mark and ask a New Yorker if that sounds like the subway to them. Hint: Don't prejudice them by tellling them it's a 9/11 video. If you do, their capacity for hearing will almost certainly be compromised by bias or prejudice.


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

Separate and apart from your query about where the subways are and whether they can be heard or not, let me ask you:

Does the sound in video sound like a jetliner to you, 1000ft above ground at nearly 500mph?

Don't answer in the thread, only to yourself.

all the best

 

[twinstead]

The second plane hitting the WTC was probably one of the most watched and video taped attack in history. Jammonius if you desire to try to 'debunk' every single eye witness account, picture, and video of that event, you'd better start moving a little faster; you have only a few decades of life left.

 

[twinstead]

Please consider asking a New Yorker whether the subways are audible from the sidewalks.

Please consider asking a New Yorker who witnessed the planes hit whether he could have been wrong.

 

[lapman]

The sound of a jetliner is an everyday experience. I think it is something we all know when we hear it. There are probably websites that offer up sound samples and I would venture to say that if you listen to a soundcheck of a jetliner, it will not sound like what is heard in your reference video:

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

I live near a busy airport. I know exactly what an airliner sounds like. The sound is EXACTLY what an airliner sounds like at full throttle. The crash and explosion sounds nothing like a car crash. I've experienced those as well. The ongoing sound after the explosion is an echo of the explosion. Even though you acknowledge that the person states that is sounded like plane crash, you hand wave it away since it's inconvenient to your fantasy. Yes the person is using a simile. However, his simile is backed by real evidence.

 

[jammonius]

If one were to determine the frequency of a jet engine at rest, and measure the frequency heard on the video, one could back out a velocity, based on the sound emminating from a plane. One could also determine the proximity to the nearest subway, and measure the sound frequency and decibels of subway cars from where they are standing in the video, to compare the video to any potential subway noise. Do you agree that the matter could be settled by calculations and measurements, regardless of the OPINION of any individual persons?

FWIW it sounds like a plane to me...

The answer to your question is emphatically "no" and here's why.

In my experience, calculation of the type you mention would probably not result in a consensus opinion. I earlier posted that well-known ditty about putting "X number of whatevers in a room and getting X number of different opinions". I think that would apply here. That is not to say that such an exercise wouldn't be useful, rather that it would not likely solve anything.

For instance, Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculated that Boeing 767s could not sustain the speed attributed to shadow thingy without coming apart at the seams. I think it took opponents all of 10 seconds to claim Pilots' calculations were not just wrong, but also used all of the same epithets that posters here are fond of using against me, where dumb is one of the more polite ones, against Pilots.

So, in conclusion, calculation is alomost never a determining factor; and, instead, merely adds to the muddle.

 

[jammonius]

I live near a busy airport. I know exactly what an airliner sounds like. The sound is EXACTLY what an airliner sounds like at full throttle. The crash and explosion sounds nothing like a car crash. I've experienced those as well. The ongoing sound after the explosion is an echo of the explosion. Even though you acknowledge that the person states that is sounded like plane crash, you hand wave it away since it's inconvenient to your fantasy. Yes the person is using a simile. However, his simile is backed by real evidence.

lapman,

Thank you for your reply. OK, lapman, let me see if I understand you correctly:

You say you are right; and, you say I am wrong.

Did I nail it?

 

[lapman]

lapman,

Thank you for your reply. OK, lapman, let me see if I understand you correctly:

You say you are right; and, you say I am wrong.

Did I nail it?

No. I say I'm right based on actual experience. My experience is based on hearing airliners on a daily basis. You say you're right because you want to be right. You have a desperate need to hold on to your fantasy, so you'll ignore and hand wave away anything and everything that is inconvenient to it.

 

[LashL]

So, in conclusion, calculation is alomost never a determining factor; and, instead, merely adds to the muddle.

I'm calling dibs on this Stundie.

 

[Jackanory]

lapman,

Thank you for your reply. OK, lapman, let me see if I understand you correctly:

You say you are right; and, you say I am wrong.

Did I nail it?

The witness that you introduced nailed it remember.

"All I can see is this big gray plane, with red letters on the wing and on the tail, bearing down on me," said Stanley. The plane appeared to be like 100 yards away, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department.

Self debunking no planer.

 

[lapman]

So, in conclusion, calculation is alomost never a determining factor; and, instead, merely adds to the muddle.

WOOHOO! Another stundie. You're denial of reality is astounding.

ETA: Damn, the Goddess of Legaltainment beat me to it. I will concede.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So, in conclusion, calculation is alomost never a determining factor; and, instead, merely adds to the muddle.

Mathematics is actually a very precise language. It only "adds to the muddle" for those who can't understand it. That doesn't mean it's useless in any discussion in which you wish to take part.

 

[jammonius]

Well, it looks like our discussion of the video is over and some are wanting to discuss witness accounts.

Let me suggest this:

If there are any of you who were present in NYC in lower Manhattan especially, on 9/11, please say what you saw and what you heard?

I have posed that question on boards before and gotten very interesting results. The most interesting of which, to me, was the following one:

Yesterday, 11:56 PM
Post #157



Intern


Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 3-February 05
Member No.: 15,080



Ear witness,,, ok this is where I can testify...

I was just off of the corner of rector street and trinity walking east towards broadway and i heard ( didnt see) the impact but what i heard was a sound to describe as a quick " zhoop - crack - boom " all of which where about one second long each and a slight pause in between all of maybe the same length. Dont know what it means its just the way i remeber it.

I am no expert on what it is suppose to sound like however i have been to enough airshows to know that a jet approaching you very fast you will not hear until it is upon you or past you.

In my opinion I thought that a jetliner of those size engines would have been louder and in my mind the sound i heard was from a fighter jet or smaller than commercial size engine. But then again I have never heard a jet going allegedly that fast from any distance so i cannot debate the differences.

The first impact wasnt actually that forceful to me on the outside as much as the second one. The second one I was outside nyse on wall and it was so powerful that it rattled my head blurry for a second or 2.

Just for information..



Posters, needless to say, what the poster described above was not consistent with a jetliner, either. The reason is that this person was right in front of the South Tower, on "just off of the corner of rector street and trinity walking east towards broadway." The poster said:

I was just off of the corner of rector street and trinity walking east towards broadway and i heard ( didnt see) the impact but what i heard was a sound to describe as a quick " zhoop - crack - boom " all of which where about one second long each and a slight pause in between all of maybe the same length.

Someone here has suggested we give consideration to what witnesses had to say. Are you folks sure you want to go down that path?

Posters can reference this map to see where Rector and Trinity are located;

By the way, I am amazed at how little willingness there has been to actually engage in a discussion of what is found on this video:

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

Are posters afraid to look at it?

 

[lapman]

Well, it looks like our discussion of the video is over and some are wanting to discuss witness accounts.

True. You were shown to be wrong, as usual.

By the way, I am amazed at how little willingness there has been to actually engage in a discussion of what is found on this video:

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

Are posters afraid to look at it?

Now you are lying. I did in post #219. Others have done so as well.

 

[Jackanory]

If there are any of you who were present in NYC in lower Manhattan especially, on 9/11, please say what you saw and what you heard?

I have posed that question on boards before and gotten very interesting results. The most interesting of which, to me, was the following one:

Yesterday, 11:56 PM
Post #157



Intern


Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 3-February 05
Member No.: 15,080



Ear witness,,, ok this is where I can testify...

I was just off of the corner of rector street and trinity walking east towards broadway and i heard ( didnt see) the impact but what i heard was a sound to describe as a quick " zhoop - crack - boom " all of which where about one second long each and a slight pause in between all of maybe the same length. Dont know what it means its just the way i remeber it.

I am no expert on what it is suppose to sound like however i have been to enough airshows to know that a jet approaching you very fast you will not hear until it is upon you or past you.

In my opinion I thought that a jetliner of those size engines would have been louder and in my mind the sound i heard was from a fighter jet or smaller than commercial size engine. But then again I have never heard a jet going allegedly that fast from any distance so i cannot debate the differences.

The first impact wasnt actually that forceful to me on the outside as much as the second one. The second one I was outside nyse on wall and it was so powerful that it rattled my head blurry for a second or 2.

Just for information..



Posters, needless to say, what the poster described above was not consistent with a jetliner, either. The reason is that this person was right in front of the South Tower, on "just off of the corner of rector street and trinity walking east towards broadway." The poster said:

I was just off of the corner of rector street and trinity walking east towards broadway and i heard ( didnt see) the impact but what i heard was a sound to describe as a quick " zhoop - crack - boom " all of which where about one second long each and a slight pause in between all of maybe the same length.

You did it again. What is wrong with you? Why do you continue to debunk yourself by producing these witnesses? Unbelievable!

 

[W.D.Clinger]

For instance, Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculated that Boeing 767s could not sustain the speed attributed to shadow thingy without coming apart at the seams. I think it took opponents all of 10 seconds to claim Pilots' calculations were not just wrong, but also used all of the same epithets that posters here are fond of using against me, where dumb is one of the more polite ones, against Pilots.

Rob Balsamo, who is the individual responsible for virtually everything you attribute to PfT, has made so many mistakes in so many of his claims and calculations that he and PfT have become a running joke in this forum. To take just one example, Balsamo has at various times claimed that Flight 77's approach to the Pentagon implied a g-load of 11.2g, 10.14g, 2223g, or 58g. The correct result for Balsamo's problem is less than 2g, which means Balsamo's calculations have been off by factors ranging from more than 5 to more than 1000.

Balsamo has tried to excuse some of his mistakes by saying they were based on (his interpretation of) data, but all of those excuses are based on PfT or NTSB decodes that are now known to have ended 4 or 5 seconds before impact. Because Balsamo's calculations assumed those decodes ended at impact, Balsamo's calculations are worthless. Now that we have the final seconds of data, we know that the instantaneous g-load never exceeded 2.3g, and the highest average g-load for a full second was about 1.8g:
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Software/

These are not just matters of opinion, as you would have it, but matters of mathematics, physics, and hard data on which all competent observers agree. The data and calculations are public; anyone can study the details; if there were errors in the calculations or in the extraction of the data, then competent observers would be able to identify those errors.

You, however, cannot identify any errors in the calculations I have cited above. Hence your evasion:

So, in conclusion, calculation is alomost never a determining factor; and, instead, merely adds to the muddle.

 

[sylvan8798]

In my experience, calculation of the type you mention would probably not result in a consensus opinion. I earlier posted that well-known ditty about putting "X number of whatevers in a room and getting X number of different opinions". I think that would apply here. That is not to say that such an exercise wouldn't be useful, rather that it would not likely solve anything.

I highly doubt that the variation in the consensus would range from "subway cars" to "jet engines". You are missing the point that it would not be a matter of opinion. It would be a matter of applying known physics, which in this case would not be something still subject to the opinions of the physicists. Equipment, sensors, equations. Completely independent of any opinions.