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

[jammonius]

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!

Wait a minute, DGM, this is what I said, to which you replied as quoted above:

Originally Posted by jammonius

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.

I challenge your post that is in the nature of a put down and I here reassert the above quote. Can you post something of substance in rebuttal or not?

Have a good evening.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Wait a minute, DGM, this is what I said, to which you replied as quoted above:



I challenge your post that is in the nature of a put down and I here reassert the above quote. Can you post something of substance in rebuttal or not?

Have a good evening.

Jammi, I tried to make this easy. No one here even wants an entire refutation of the NIST report. It is simply beyond the scope of the JREF forum. I'm asking something very simple and entirely consistant with the claim of this thread.

On what calculations do you base your statements about the momentum of the plane collisions with WTC?

Some members of this forum claim that you dodge questions you can't answer. I'm not sayibng that. I suspect the real answer to this is that you do not have the knowledge to produce these calculations so instead rely on pictures of questionable quality and an argument constructed of words that seem bizarre.

Maybe you don't care if no one takes you seriously. Maybe this whole thing has little to do with a scientific argument or even belief in a no-plane theory of 911. Prove me wrong, Jammi. I just want to hear your voice.

 

[DGM]

Wait a minute, DGM, this is what I said, to which you replied as quoted above:



I challenge your post that is in the nature of a put down and I here reassert the above quote. Can you post something of substance in rebuttal or not?

Have a good evening.

Yes I could! But why would I? No one believes a word you say and you have no intention of paying any attention to anything we post. Replying to your posts with any kind of effort is a waste of time and I think you know it. Frankly your act has gotten old and boring. It's like having a conversation with an infant with his fingers in his ears saying "LA..LA......LA I don't hear you".

ETA I'd put you on ignore but there's something morbidly humorous about watching you dig your hole ever deeper.

 

[Piggy]

For instance, in a majority of them, it is very apparent that the explosion occurs in the "wrong" place. Basically, there is no explosion upon impact and when an explosion is seen, it is on the opposite sides of the buildings from impact, showing an internal rather than external source of explosion.

You have got to be kidding.

Plane enters building and then explodes out the other side.

And you claim that's the "wrong" time and side?

You have got to be kidding.

 

[Scott Sommers]

You have got to be kidding.

Plane enters building and then explodes out the other side.

And you claim that's the "wrong" time and side?

You have got to be kidding.

That's why I tel him to stop with the pictures and words and give us some numbers. If Jammi would would provide some basic calculations of how much energy and resistance was involved in all this, he might get more than laughs and insults out of people here.

But perhaps he doesn't care.

 

[sylvan8798]

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:

But if you don't rely on physics to guide your position, then on what do you rely, jammonius? Common sense? I'm sorry, but I am from Mars. On Mars we don't have steel buildings or aluminum airplanes. Anything you take for an axiom should be codifiable. You make statements out of nowhere and expect people to take them as axioms without support. And then you cannot support them, so you ignore any requests to do so, vomiting word sewage instead.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Posters here have shown you that. Maybe you have no idea how ridiculous you sound, but the rest of us know you are one egg short of a duet.

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

in what way does physics disagree with the official story?

 

[Oystein]

...
Some members of this forum claim that you dodge questions you can't answer. I'm not sayibng that...

I am not saying that, either; to the contrary, and more importantly: jammo dodges questions he can answer, knowiung full well that an honest answer will reveal him as a troll and a liar.

Folks, stop feeding that troll. It is pointless. Count the many hours of your life you have already wasted on this worthless person, and move elsewhere. There is better fun to be had in town.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Please stop feeding the mental ill troll.

 

[dafydd]

Please stop feeding the mental ill troll.

I second that.

 

[jammonius]

You have got to be kidding.

Plane enters building and then explodes out the other side.

And you claim that's the "wrong" time and side?

You have got to be kidding.

Well, let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding: Do you reject the claim that jetliners explode upon impact and not after impact?

I here assert that jetliners explode the instant of impact and do not insert themselves, visually intact, into steel buildings without so much as a dent, let alone shredding, explosion and utter annihilation at the point of impact.

Query: What do you think is about to happen next?

Hint: The ground will cause something to happen...


regards

 

[jammonius]

in what way does physics disagree with the official story?

Your query is indicative of denial and of rationalization in that I imagine that in a context other than 9/11 you understand that jetliners explode upon impact and do not insert themselves into buildings, intact, from nose to tail, wing tip to wing tip as though the steel and concrete building weren't there.

Jetliners cannot enter steel buildings and remain intact. The jetliner seen doing that in this example that is taken from or based on one of the videos in the ALL43 compilation is, thereforeTROUBLESOME, to put the matter no more strongly than that.

Once again, I do not see the point of getting into a strictly PLANE vs NO PLANE food fight; but, I do foresee some usefulness in discussing what the informtion revealed in the ALL 43 videos actually can be said to mean. I think the photo shown above is, once again, troublesome from a crash physics perspective.

 

[dtugg]

Jetliners cannot enter steel buildings and remain intact. The jetliner seen doing that is, thereforeBS.

Crazy person, do you have some sort of super power that allows you to see through solid objects in photos? 'Cause that is the only way you could be able to tell if the part of the plane in contact with the building is still intact.

 

[jammonius]

Yes I could! But why would I? No one believes a word you say and you have no intention of paying any attention to anything we post. Replying to your posts with any kind of effort is a waste of time and I think you know it. Frankly your act has gotten old and boring. It's like having a conversation with an infant with his fingers in his ears saying "LA..LA......LA I don't hear you".

ETA I'd put you on ignore but there's something morbidly humorous about watching you dig your hole ever deeper.

So, in the above you give an excuse for not posting a substantive rebuttal to the following claim:

Originally Posted by jammonius

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.

My claim therefore stands as unrefuted.

 

[Pinch]

Well, let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding: Do you reject the claim that jetliners explode upon impact and not after impact?

I here assert that jetliners explode the instant of impact and do not insert themselves, visually intact, into steel buildings without so much as a dent, let alone shredding, explosion and utter annihilation at the point of impact.

Query: What do you think is about to happen next?



Hint: The ground will cause something to happen...


regards

So now the lattice work of structural materials that made up the WTC is now equated to the earth itself.

This guy keeps setting new levels of unheard of stupidity.

 

[jammonius]

Crazy person, do you have some sort of super power that allows you to see through solid objects in photos? 'Cause that is the only way you could be able to tell if the part of the plane in contact with the building is still intact.

I modified the post so as to make it clear I am not seeking to just get into a PLANE vs NO PLANE food fight, as I have said.

Your reply, however, is a mere quibble. The photo posted cannot be said to comport with the requirements of crash physics.

Do you acknowledge the photo violates the requirements of crash physics or not Dtugg?

 

[fitzgibbon]

Please stop feeding the mental ill troll.

Thirded. This thread has become a virtual Mobius strip.

 

[jammonius]

So now the lattice work of structural materials that made up the WTC is now equated to the earth itself.

This guy keeps setting new levels of unheard of stupidity.

Your post raises a claim but gives no explanation, no substantiation; and, therefore, no merit. You use the word "LATTICE" in a way that suggests you think the Twin Towers of the WTC were constructed of something other than LOAD BEARING STRUCTURAL STEEL PERIMETER BEAMS:

Specifications:

Lurkers, please be sure to notice that LATTICE is not to be confused with LETTUCE and also be sure to remember the WTC was constructed with LOAD BEARING STRUCTURAL STEEL PERIMETER BEAMS sufficient to support the tallest buildings in the world when they were built.

 

[dtugg]

Please stop feeding the mental ill troll.

Fourthed.

jammy, you have a very severe mental illness. Please seek help. I am no doctor, but surely there are treatments that can at least lessen the effects of your disease.

 

[tsig]

Well, let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding: Do you reject the claim that jetliners explode upon impact and not after impact?

I here assert that jetliners explode the instant of impact and do not insert themselves, visually intact, into steel buildings without so much as a dent, let alone shredding, explosion and utter annihilation at the point of impact.

Query: What do you think is about to happen next?

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/crashphysicsjetbomber232-1.png?t=1274099203[/qimg]

Hint: The ground will cause something to happen...


regards

That shadowy thingy will turn into a horse trailer?