Split From Kamikaze Attacks and the Effect of Speed

[GlennB]

I'm calling dibs on this Stundie.

Damn you. I blame Mythbusters for keeping me busy for the last hour

But, those numbers eh? Harrumph! Who needs those pesky untrustworthy little tykes.

 

[GlennB]

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

That was my first thought.
I wonder if there's any way to get jammonious to understand?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.

That's a remarkable display of self-awareness for any truther, let alone a no-planer.

If you understand that normal people (and even some abnormal ones) think you're off your rocker, then why do you persist?

And don't say because the evidence leads that way or because "it's teh twoof", because we both know those are lies.

 

[Jackanory]

That was my first thought.
I wonder if there's any way to get jammonious to understand?

With his record of producing hand picked witnesses that debunk him who cares if he understands. I just cant wait for his next witness.

 

[Jackanory]

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;

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/benzene_lm.gif?t=1269199131[/qimg]

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?

Didnt posting stuff like this at the Wired New York Forum get you banned in 2007? Username JerryL?

 

[dafydd]

That was my first thought.
I wonder if there's any way to get jammonious to understand?

Not without professional medical help.

 

[jammonius]

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.

sylvan,

While on the one hand epistemology might be of some interest, I don't think we'll get very far, on the other. Even when scientific methodology is used to determine what we think we know about a thing or a thingy, as it were, it is still as likely as not to involve an opinion, albeit, one that is derived by someone who lays claim to being an expert in the methodology used. And, it is almost always possible to find an equally qualified expert who can come to an opposite conclusion.

Furthermore, many, if not most, scientific conclusions are expressed in terms that are not absolute. So that, for instance, in many instances, a conclusion based on scientific methodology will base its conclusions on terms like "more likely" or "probable" or some other hedge that literally invites other experts to come to an opposite and equally hedged determination, leaving us at the conclusion of the process at just about the same place we were at the beginning of the process of determining whatever it was we thought we were determining.

Let me ask you a question concerning 9/11:

Has any scientifically based determination ever led you to conclude that some element important to the common storyline is either untrue, or unlikely to be true?

Chances are, the answer is NO.

However, rather than do this on a "chances are" basis, I will pause here and await your answer to the question asked namely:

Has any scientifically based determination ever led you to conclude that some element important to the common storyline of what happened on 9/11 is either untrue, or unlikely to be true?

By the way, of the last several replies, yours is the only one that is in the least bit substantive. This discussion is fading fast. That video that big al posted up appears to have caught you folks off guard.

Not one single poster here has posted up an element of that video, marked by a time interval, with any claim at all that it supports the common storyline.

There has been no attempt whatsoever to refute the claims I have made about what is shown at specified time intervals in that video. You folks had better be careful, here. There are people who lurk and who pay attention. BaaBaa, for instance, {http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5738618&postcount=200} chimed in that this thread was of interest.

Well, BaaBaa, if you're still out there, take a look at that video and the way in which posters here have ducked, dodged, bobbed, weaved and done anything and everything EXCEPT discuss its content in time specific intervals.

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

 

[lapman]

Has any scientifically based determination ever led you to conclude that some element important to the common storyline of what happened on 9/11 is either untrue, or unlikely to be true?

In order for there to be an answer, there has to be a scientifically based determination that proves the "common storyline of what happened on 9/11" to be wrong that holds up to scrutiny. If you can provide one, then we can answer that question.

 

[Macgyver1968]

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

What do you mean your not the person to ask? You're the one making the claim that it sounds like a subway. I really don't need to ask a New Yorker. I know you can't hear an electric train under 30 feet of solid rock. That's just silly...just like most of your claims.

 

[twinstead]

In order for there to be an answer, there has to be a scientifically based determination that proves the "common storyline of what happened on 9/11" to be wrong that holds up to scrutiny. If you can provide one, then we can answer that question.

I will second this. Jammonius, when will you be presenting one of these?

 

[332nd]

Redtail,

I will assume that you are both asking a question and engaging in rhetoric, simultaneously. To the extent you are engaging in rhetoric, I don't think your point is very well made.

Well stop assuming because I'm not engaging in rhetoric, I'm asking you a question.

Adrenaline would not permit a human being, not even Husain Bolt, to move fast enough to get across a room and underneath a desk if a jetliner traveling at 250 yards per second was 100 yards away. Nor would it make a difference if a person could as the schrapnel, debris, fire, and other energy effects would undoubtedly destroy that person.

So you are familiar with part of what adrenaline does. You also show you know little about explosions.

Assuming you are asking a question, you may further assume that I either know what adrenaline is; or, if I don't, I can probably look it up and get some sort of general overview of what it is, what it does and so on.

And yet you didn't.

Why do you ask, pray tell?

Because it's clear to me that Mr. Praimnath does.

The plane appeared to be like 100 yards away,

Have you ever been in a fight-or-flight situation?

 

[twinstead]

Have you ever been in a fight-or-flight situation?

I can only assume he has--when he comes face-to-face with reality.

 

[BigAl]

Hi big al,

You are mentally ill. Get help before you type again.

 

[I Ratant]

j wrote""I know exactly what an airliner sounds like. The sound is EXACTLY what an airliner sounds like at full throttle."
.
Obviously the Dungeons and Dragons game of airliner noises he saw on Sponge Bob Square Pants didn't sound like the plane that flew into the north tower.
So obviously, the imitation noises on the game are the standard for which deluded no-planers must adhere.
The event.
Real people hearing/seeing the plane hit the North Tower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

 

[jammonius]

Dear lurkers and those who do not post regularly,

We know you're out there keeping informed and that this thread might be of interest to you. So, I here refer you back to post # 195, back on pg. 5 of this thread.

See:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5738553&postcount=195

It will be noted in that post I went through the following video that appears to capture the first explosion at WTC1. I call it an explosion, because that is what it is referred to as in the video itself. To be sure, one person says it was a plane crash in response to a question from someone standing there who can be assumed not have thought it was a plane crash, otherwise, why ask?

So, right there we have a possible confirmation that no Boeing 767 hit WTC1.

See:

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

In post # 195, I made specific reference to the sound as being consistent with the sound of the subway.

I then made what I think is a charge that posters here, if they believe the common storyline, needed to refute. I said:

0:23-0:25 The sound that I say is a subway can still be heard after the collision, at almost, but not quite the same intensity as before the collision sound. I therefore deduce that I am likely correct that what is heard is a subway train because had it been a jetliner, the 'rushing' sound would have ceased from and after the point of collision. The collision was at the 0:23 marker and the 'rushing' sound continues past that point. The 'rushing' sound then diminishes, which I think is consistent with the subway train either coming to a stop or fading in intensity as it travels away from the camera, consistent with a doppler effect.

The claim that a video contains sound that continues after the supposed jetliner crash is a significant claim. No one here has commented on it, let alone refuted it.

Accordingly, that claim stands as made. No one here even tried to refute that claim!

Posters and those who might be casually observing, take a look at that video and see and hear for yourself. That video is no plane evidence.

all the best

 

[jammonius]

Out of all the threads at JREF, the 9/11 threads are the ones I lurk in and I kind of make a point of keeping out of them, as I really don't have much to add to the dialogue. But in one or two other threads, people have said that it's important to reply to hypotheses like these (there's no way I can call them theories) for people who may randomly come across them. As I am essentially one of those people, I'd like to offer a thank you for your time, aggravation and diligence in this effort.

So, yeah, thank you!

BaaBaa,

After more than 50 posts after you posted the above, I think a word of acknowledgement from me to you, and those like you, might be in order.

Thank you, for your post.

jammonius

 

[TJM]

The claim that a video contains sound that continues after the supposed jetliner crash is a significant claim. No one here has commented on it, let alone refuted it.

Accordingly, that claim stands as made. No one here even tried to refute that claim!

Posters and those who might be casually observing, take a look at that video and see and hear for yourself. That video is no plane evidence.

all the best

Comment: It's called an echo. Haven't spent much time around tall buildings have you?

 

[BigAl]

The claim that a video contains sound that continues after the supposed jetliner crash is a significant claim. No one here has commented on it, let alone refuted it.

The answer to that is so obvious to people with any basic physics (or ever watched and listened to a thunderstorm) that none of us thought it was worth commenting on.

So far, attempts at explaining things to you have been efforts in futility.

Get help. Get educated. Grow up.

 

[LashL]

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

<snipped for brevity>


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."
<snipped for brevity>

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

Wait.

When you posted this at that other board back in 2007, you were shown to be wrong about what you wrote, shown to be wrong about your interpretation of where the witness was located, and you conceded that you were wrong. Those with actual knowledge of the area were very clear in their rebuttal of your assertions, and after providing same, you were specifically asked:

So, do you admit you misinterpreted the location of Sandvik, and that his not seeing a plane had nothing to do with whether there was a plane?

To which you replied:

Yes.

So, why are you now re-posting this old crap here and pretending otherwise?

 

[dudalb]

The sailors also came to dread overcast days, which the kamikaze pilots would exploit to their advantage too. That is until radar directed AA became a reality, late 1944 or early 1945 IIRC.

They dreaded overcast before the Kamikaze attacks began because Overcast days also gave a huge advanantage to conventional Attacks on Carriers.
Don't forget that Kamikaze attacks as a planned, mass tactic did not begin until October of 1944.