• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
jammonius said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
jammonius said:
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.
Click to expand...

Google the word "Momentum" and you may get your answer.
 
jammonius said:
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.
Click to expand...
.
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.
.
 
Last edited:
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 said:
100% of no-planers are batcrap crazy.
Click to expand...

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:



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:
 
Last edited:
Personally, I'm joining the chorus that says we shouldn't play with jammonius anymore. This thread sinks to a new low. :(
 
jammonius said:
Short answer: NO.

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

fitzgibbon 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
Click to expand...

Thunder said:
if even ONE of these videos, showing a plane crashing into the WTC is genuine, than the No-Plane Theory is dead as Lincoln.
Click to expand...
 
jammonius said:
...The point is to look at the data and see what it can be said to reveal.
Click to expand...

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.
 
fitzgibbon said:
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:
Click to expand...

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

Anyways..


fitzgibbon said:
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:
Click to expand...

What he said
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
I'm guessing from the reactions that you're just a troll, but anyway:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:

840bbclongshotzoomdiscussmyowneyesd.png


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.
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Dit...
 
Last edited:
TSR said:
.
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.
.
Click to expand...

"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.
 
Last edited:
Have you ever considered looking at all the evidence en masse, Jammonius?
 
triforcharity said:
Google the word "Momentum" and you may get your answer.
Click to expand...

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:

800-2bbcstilletto.png


800-3bbcstillettoallinexplosionbegi.png


800-4bbcstillettonoseout.png


801bbcstillettonoseout.png


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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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