• 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.
While I am not willing to answer questions posters can answer for themselves and am sure not interested in engaging in rhetorical '20 question' exercises, as posters and even lurkers well know, I will post up additional data. Here are the beginning "title pages" as it were of the next four versions from the ALL 43 video compilation of known videos of the explosion at the South Tower:

10
10-panfrompeopleup.png


11
11-dimslowshadow243.png


12
12-panbackblkynNOPLANESEEN.png


13
13-greydifferentangleapproach.png
 
jammonius said:
I think the more apt analogy is Ethopia airlines crash as seen below. The wing disintegrates quickly and the plane disintegrates almost immediately on contact with lowly liquid water, all as seen as follows:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/ethopiacrash/027wingonwater.png?t=1274050568[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/ethopiacrash/033winggonealmostinstantlysameti-1.png?t=1274050785[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/ethopiacrash/035otherwinggoneandplaneunglued.png?t=1274050847[/qimg]

Note: Second wing breaks off without even hitting water, in sharp contrast to "shadow thingy" that enters structural steel from nose to mid-section, from mid-section to wings, from wings to aft section and from aft section through tail without ever deforming or even causing so much as an explosion and no discernible debris.

Posters, a little objectivity won't hurt in the thinking about jetliner crash dynamics. Those dynamics are nowhere to be seen in the WTC2 videos. That is actually an easy statement to make, could more posters and lurkers but realize it. But, once again, I am only asking that people view the videos and report what they see and hear. No pressure. I am not seeking to set up a pitched (and largely useless) PLANE vs NO PLANE pissing contest. I know most of you assert PLANE; and most of you know I do not. Once again, so what?

Let's look at and use the videos.

And finally, debris clearly discernible and fireball at point of impact, in the water, no less:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/ethopiacrash/037fireballatpointofimpact.png?t=1274051382[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Two problems that you seem to have.

Understanding momentum. Understanding physics.

#1-That plane was traveling at a much slower speed.
#2-Plane hitting water, wing first, is not even close to being comparable to a plane hitting a steel frame at ~500 MPH

When that plane hit the water at a much slower speed is going to cause that side of the plane to slow down significantly. This puts TREMENDOUS stress on the airframe. It acted in a way that is understandable to most people.
 
I'm not really a lurker, but in general, I'm not too interested in dealing with the idea of no planes.

I do have a question for Jammi. You seem to be arguing that momentum is an insignificant force, not just at 911, but in general. Am I right?
 
Hey posters/lurkers,

I'd like to suggest you review the video given title # 12. It is one of the videos within the 43 that shows NO PLANE. Let me hasten to add, I am not suggesting this review for purposes of the PLANE vs NO PLANE claim, I am only suggesting review of it for two purposes:

1--What it shows; and

2--What the people in it say.

Are items 1 and 2 clear enough? I hope so.

Here's what it shows:

301panoutstopNOPLANESEEN.png


As you can see in the post above this one, this segment, video # 12 begins at about the 2:53 mark in the ALL 43 video, who's link, once again, is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg

In the first photo above, the time marker has advanced to 3:01. The camera had been panning out from 2:53 to about 3:01, the point shown above.

302noplaneseen.png


The above is 1 second later, at 3:02. No plane is seen in this video segment, I don't think, but posters are invited to double check and form their own conclusions.

303explosionseeneastformingstillsma.png


By the 3:03 mark, the beginning of the east face explosion is seen. In my opinion (note that phrase) because the explosion can be seen while it is still relatively small and only in the early formation process, it should have been possible to discern a shadow thingy had one been present, imho; and, maybe a shadow thingy can be discerned. I think that issue is up for grabs.

304explosionexpanding.png


In the next second, the explosion on the east face is expanding as per this video. It is at about this point that the people in the video can be heard acknowledging they see the explosion and they exclaim about it.

310explosionstillexpandingcommentID.png


At this point the people in the video zoom in and they continue to discuss what they see openly acknowledging they don't know what has happened. That is to say, they are unaware the event is being attributed to a plane crashing into what they are seeing.

312THEYREBOMBINGIT.png


At the 3:12 mark, corresponding to the above image, a person has said and I quote (more or less): "...they're bombing it..."

Clearly, then, these people are unaware of the claim a jetliner is involved. Explosion sound can be heard in this video, but there was nothing these folks saw or heard that led them to believe a plane was present, based on what they said.

I am not asserting that proves anything; rather, I am commenting on what the information shows. Others have an open invitation to do the same.
 
jammonius said:
I am not asserting that proves anything; rather, I am commenting on what the information shows. Others have an open invitation to do the same.
Click to expand...

But I think the point in the responses is that if you take into account forces aspects like momentum, there's nothing unusual going on here. Fast things have a lot of force, so even if they're not very hard, they do a lot of damage.

Jammi has his video and tells people to look. They respond back that well understood forces account for what we see. I think this is why science was invented and why it looks so mathematical. I think to have a more convincing argument, Jammi, you're going to have provide calculations for why momentum doesn't account for what we see in you videos. Otherwise, you're just talking to yourself. Maybe you don't care, but posting bits of videos here and making claims about what could and couldn't explain them, without the calculations, is laughable.
 
triforcharity said:
Two problems that you seem to have.

Understanding momentum. Understanding physics.

#1-That plane was traveling at a much slower speed.
#2-Plane hitting water, wing first, is not even close to being comparable to a plane hitting a steel frame at ~500 MPH

When that plane hit the water at a much slower speed is going to cause that side of the plane to slow down significantly. This puts TREMENDOUS stress on the airframe. It acted in a way that is understandable to most people.
Click to expand...

Let me be candid with you: Physics and the concept of momentum, conserved or otherwise, do not support the common storyline of 9/11. Physics is neutral, it is not a weapon to be used by one side or another. Posters in threads that I participate in seem often to use physics as a weapon, usually framed more or less as follows:

I (meaning other posters) know physics; and, you (meaning jammonius) don't.

It is that claim, rather than any resort to actual physics that is used by posters to then further their game by declaring victory as if this is a stupid gotcha game.

Another variation on the same stupid theme is to ask me to go off on wild goose chases and prove to them that pysics support the claims I'm making. That doesn't get anywhere as the claim is always, invariably and no matter what, "jammonius wrong." Physics is a science, crash physics is a variety of science. Crash physics has been badly corrupted in the area of 9/11 research and has led to nothing conclusive, whatsoever, that anyone can rely on, let alone show.

The common storyline is not supported by physics, crash, applied, or any other version of physics and there is no poster here and no lurker here who can show otherwise. There is no official study of what happened that is based on adequate, demonstrated physics.

Note, for instance, NIST. Just as they curtailed their investigation so as to END the scope of investigation before the WTC was annihilated, thus not explaining that annihilation; the NIST report also BEGINS the scope of investigation after the alleged crashes have occurred, thus not investigating those either.

That is out and out fraud. But, like the 9/11 Commission which we KNOW was told not to investigate too deeply, NIST likewise didn't investigate anything worthwhile either. Thus, resorts to claims of "physics" are pure, simple, out and out, unadulterated BS and posters here need to start acknowledging as much and stop fooling themselves.
 
AJM8125 said:
44+ known videos. :rolleyes:

Click to expand...

The above is both useful and useless at the same time.

This is what I said in the OP:

"It is claimed there are 43 known video clips of the explosion at Tower 2 or WTC2 or the South Tower.

There is a convenient youtuber that contains these 43 known versions available at:"



I phrased it as above since it is obvious that there might more than 43, given the event occurred in an area of where easily 1 million people were located within filming distance. Thus, there might well be other versions out there, for all I know.

So, now you post up a claim there are 44 rather than 43.

By the way, did you hear the comment at about the 0:30 mark where the guy who identifies himself as an architect says it would be "almost impossible to knock the building over"? One other observation is that the video does not show the second plane and has no audio consistent with a jetliner, imho.

What it does have, however, is a person claiming to have seen a plane hit the North Tower, but who describes a movement of the plane that is at variance with what is seen in, say, the Naudet video. So, something is amiss. Still, it is my practice to take eye witnesses at their word and I will make no exception here. I take Our Man with Straw Hat (OMSH) at his word.

One other observation about this new video is that it, too, is remarkably clear, unlike the dark, dim and obscure network feeds.

I do wish posters would consider being forthcoming and add to the information base in a more useful way when it comes to assessment of information. Still, the new video is very helpful and the thread is improved by having a link to it. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
This is great and everything, but the scope of my problem is much more limited than the NIST report. You posted some videos, the claim is that momentum will explain why the images look the way they do. There have been numerous other examples of water destroying harder objects. This is clearly documented here. There are calculations provided in links to other threads you have been involved in.

I don't care about the NIST report or anything elese. Why do you think momnetum will not explain the imag2es you have posted here? for your reply to be convincing, you'll have to post calculations. Now maybe you don't care if anyone is convinced. But if you want anyone to take this seriously, you'll need calculations.
 
jammonius said:
The common storyline is not supported by physics, crash, applied, or any other version of physics and there is no poster here and no lurker here who can show otherwise. There is no official study of what happened that is based on adequate, demonstrated physics.
Click to expand...
Are you having fun making stupid remarks knowing full well you have no intention of backing them up? You know my son used to do that............. when he was five!
 
jammonius said:
So, now you post up a claim there are 44, but you don't say which one is new, let alone say anything else of substance.

I do wish posters would consider being forthcoming and add to the information base in a more useful way. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I let the video do the talking for me jammonius. It does, once again cut to the heart of your no-plane delusions, which is why you didn't even acknowledge it when I posted it the first time.

Tell me jammonius, do you think flights 11 and 175 laid down a grid of chemtrails, stoning everyone on the ground before Cheney pushed the button on the DEW? :eye-poppi
 
jammonius said:
Let me be candid with you: Physics and the concept of momentum, conserved or otherwise, do not support the common storyline of 9/11.
Click to expand...

The exterior of the WTC towers was mostly glass. The steel was about 1/4 inch thick.
 
AJM8125 said:
I let the video do the talking for me jammonius. It does, once again cut to the heart of your no-plane delusions, which is why you didn't even acknowledge it when I posted it the first time.

Tell me jammonius, do you think flights 11 and 175 laid down a grid of chemtrails, stoning everyone on the ground before Cheney pushed the button on the DEW? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...


Sorry you grabbed the above before I edited the post you quoted. The new video adds a lot to the discussion, thanks, again, for posting it.
 
If jammy says physics proves no planes, it must be true. After all, jammy is the final arbitrator of everything in the universe.
 
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