• 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

Sword_Of_Truth said:
If you understand that normal people (and even some abnormal ones) think you're off your rocker, then why do you persist?
Click to expand...

I think a more pertinent question would be: why are you spending your time trying to convince us? Wouldn't it be a more productive use of your time to try to convince other truthers that no planes hit the towers?
 
LashL said:
So, why are you now re-posting this old crap here and pretending otherwise?
Click to expand...


Hmm... I'm by no means a medical professional, but difficulty in retaining memories may contribute to jammonius's fairly obvious learning disability.
 
LashL said:
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:

To which you replied:




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

Given that he was banned from said forum (Wired New York) i suppose he needs another to spread his dillusions. His wimpers to the lurkers in a previous post would indicate that he is coming to the end here too.
 
jammonius said:
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,
Click to expand...
it wasn't a thingy, it was a plane, jammonius
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.
Click to expand...
So you honestly believe that if two equally qualified experts measured these exact same quantities, one could say it was a plane while another would say it was a subway? Perhaps your criteria for qualification at something is a little too thin.
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.
Click to expand...
They might differ in the measurements by small variations, not in huge ones, and not in the basic relationships to be used to do the calculations. This isn't rocket science, it's first year physics.
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.
Click to expand...
I assume you are including in your class of "scientifically based determinations those made by assorted crackpots, like Heiwa, and subsequently debunked. If so, then we don't agree on the classification of those determinations.

How do you account for the fact that your "subway" happens to zoom by these newspeople with such magnificent timing as to coincide with the timing of the impact? And don't start talking about how the rushing sound continues after the impact. The plane didn't stop at that instant, and the sound of the multiple explosions carries back to them as well.
 
jammonius said:
sylvan,

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.
Click to expand...

In my case, "yes". I came to JREF and people like you via reports of "molten steel" on the pile posted to the Internet.

I saw the burning pile essentially every day after 9/12/2001.

My University physics (40 years old) told me that it just might be possible so I started checking the physics of the allegation. It turns out that there is no science or evidence that shows that molten steel was possible on the pile at WTC.

Researching further, it turns out that in spite what Truthers say, there are no eyewitness accounts of molten steel. It's all second-hand.
 
Jackanory said:
Given that he was banned from said forum (Wired New York) i suppose he needs another to spread his dillusions. His wimpers to the lurkers in a previous post would indicate that he is coming to the end here too.
Click to expand...


That may be, but my point is that he knows that his previous assertions were proven to be false, and he even conceded that they were false, and yet here he is presenting the same false assertions while omitting the important part: i.e., that he knows them to be false.

That's just blatant dishonesty.
 
BigAl said:
In my case, "yes". I came to JREF and people like you via reports of "molten steel" on the pile posted to the Internet.

I saw the burning pile essentially every day after 9/12/2001.

My University physics (40 years old) told me that it just might be possible so I started checking the physics of the allegation. It turns out that there is no science or evidence that shows that molten steel was possible on the pile at WTC.

Researching further, it turns out that in spite what Truthers say, there are no eyewitness accounts of molten steel. It's all second-hand.
Click to expand...

big al,

We are in agreement on molten steel. There was none. That was obvious in that, as New Yorkers know, when water comes into contact with molten steel it creates volatile steam and can explode, as happened in NYC not too long ago. It rained on either 9/12 or 9/13 and there was no molten steel. Plus, prior to that, first responders were able to walk all about GZ, thus it was cool enough and no evidence for molten steel.

The iconic photo used to justify molten steel claims is phony and illogical to boot. Ask yourself, what would happen to the exposed faces of firefighters if they were inches away from molten steel? Answer: Their faces would get burned.

However, what is also true about GZ is that hosing down was done for not days or weeks or even months after 9/11. Rather, hosing down of what looked like, but was not, smoke went on for a very long time. big al, if you were at or near GZ, then you could see the hosing going on as recently as 2008, and certainly all through 2001 and into 2002.

Now, as this is not a DEW thread, I will stop there.

I must say, I find it interesting to be in agreement with you on molten steel, if not otherwise.

all the best
 
LashL said:
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:

To which you replied:

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


Greetings LashL,

You know, our posting styles are a little bit different.

When I encounter what I think is an error another poster has made, particularly an error that is substantive, I will generally post up a reply that "double checks" for "accuracy of understanding" rather than make a declaration of error or of contradiction or some other "gotcha" type claim. People make mistakes and I do not see the point of playing "gotcha." You are not dumb or stupid or anything of the sort. Rather, you are a skilled professional person. All such persons make mistakes from time to time.

A recent example of my having double checked for accuracy involved a post by gumboot who appeared to claim the permimeter columns of the WTC were made of aluminum. Instead of jumping into "gotcha" mode, I asked him what he meant and he then acknowledged he had made a mistake. He corrected it, and we moved on.

My asking for clarification and gumboot's reply can be found at post # 131:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5737320&postcount=131

In connection with the matter currently under discussion, no mistake was made by me, to put it no more harshly than that.

I also choose not to declare that an issue of "reading comprehension" exists here, even though a claim like that could, conceivably, be made, but I see no point in that kind of "gotcha" process either.

Here, then, is what is involved:

Put simply, the quote in question was from a poster by the name of jr343, not David Sandvik.

I think I did quote Sandvik in an earlier post. Sandvik was one of the 503 first responders who was interviewed by the so-called First Responder Task Force. I posted the link for the statements and for Sandvik's statement, individually.

That one is post #164

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5737797&postcount=164

However, the quote on this page is from a poster to a message board, not a first responder. And, that is what I said, however, it might have been misunderstood.

I said:

"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

..."

So, I was asking if there might be similarly situated posters here on this the JREF forum who were present in NYC on 9/11; and I was asking for them to post up what they saw and heard just as had happened in another message board.

By the way, another element here is that the quote I am speaking of was on the Randi Rhodes Message Board. Someone here has posted up a claim involving Wired NY, to which I am choosing not to reply to.

The only thing I will say here is that the witness quote I am talking about is jr343, a poster to RRMB.

Is that clear?

Your assumptions are mistaken and I am sorry you found it necessary to pose your queries without double checking for accuracy first.
 
Wow..witnesses to the WTC don't cooperate with your private 'investigation'. What a surprise! I wasn't there, but can I give you an eye witness account anyway?
 
Posters,

By not responding to the video that has been reviewed to the point of noting time intervals of important aspects of that video, you are making a big concession.

Come on, the video was digested two pages ago.

Either refute or concede, please.
 
jammonius said:
Posters,

By not responding to the video that has been reviewed to the point of noting time intervals of important aspects of that video, you are making a big concession.

Come on, the video was digested two pages ago.

Either refute or concede, please.
Click to expand...

I'll spell it: E. C. H. O.
 
jammonius said:
Posters,

By not responding to the video that has been reviewed to the point of noting time intervals of important aspects of that video, you are making a big concession.

Come on, the video was digested two pages ago.

Either refute or concede, please.
Click to expand...
.
Where's Ed Felt?
 
jammonius said:
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
Click to expand...

Delurk mode on

Your right there is no evidence that a plane hit the WTC in that video.

There is also no evidence that a plane did not hit the WTC in that video.

If that was the only evidence than nobody could say one way or the other if a plane hit the WTC, but since its not the only evidence I'll still side with all the evidence that does indicate a plane hit the WTC.

Delurk mode off
 
jammonius said:
Posters,

By not responding to the video that has been reviewed to the point of noting time intervals of important aspects of that video, you are making a big concession.

Come on, the video was digested two pages ago.

Either refute or concede, please.
Click to expand...

I responded. I said that all these videos show Flight 11 or Flight 175 screaming over Manhattan.

You are a mentally ill loon. Please get help.



 
BigAl said:
I responded. I said that all these videos show Flight 11 or Flight 175 screaming over Manhattan.

You are a mentally ill loon. Please get help.



Click to expand...

Yes. This is all starting to get a bit like the Christophera "Realistice" thread, with the exception that Chris kept all his nuttiness in one thread. Jam is spread all over the place.
 
Not even a good jam, like razzberry or blueberry. More like broccoli jam or cabbage jam or something... :rolleyes:
 
jammonius said:
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.
Click to expand...
When I sit in the outfield of a baseball game and a player hits the ball I don't hear the crack of the bat on the ball until the ball is out of the outfield... does this mean that the baseball game is fake, or does t mean that sound travels at a certain speed?

And do you think there would be echos in the concrete canyons of downtown Manhattan?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom