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

[DGM]

Declarations about the existence of proof of a proposition are not the same as the posting of actual proof, Elmondo.

You couldn't have typed this with a straight face. Now I know for sure he's only screwing around for his own morbid ya-ya's

You are slipping.

Your gone!

 

[jammonius]

well, you have not, in any way at all, explained why it defies crash physics.

You are ignoring the information presented in the thread. I have clearly shown analogous crashes; and, in so doing, have demonstrated beyond any doubt that what happens in crashes did not happen in the videos of what took place at the South Tower.

Plus, impact analysis and crash physics have a variety of components. One component they each have is that people have direct common experience with them. When people see crashes, they know what to expect and can make determinations about whether what they see is real or not.

We know, for instance, that when the Roadrunner runs through the Acme Steel Building, that what we see is impossible.

The shadow thingy is, for all the world, the functional equivalent of the Roadrunner and that is why I sometimes post the following image:

The supposed Boeing 767 seen two or three posts up from this one going through the South Tower without slowing, degrading, exploding or leaving one visible piece of debris is just as absurd as the Roadrunner doing the same thing at the North Tower.

Belief in the one is on the exact same order of magnitude as is belief in the other; namely, a belief centered in the suspension of disbelief and a willingness to be fooled.

Don't fall for it. Instead, face up to the enormity of what 9/11 has done to our society; namely, all but destroyed it. We have got to come to grips with the truth of the matter and take the appropriate action.

Wake up; fail not.

 

[The Big Dog]

We know, for instance, that when the Roadrunner runs through the Acme Steel Building, that what we see is impossible.

The shadow thingy is, for all the world, the functional equivalent of the Roadrunner and that is why I sometimes post the following image:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/road_runner2-1.jpg?t=1274133097[/qimg]

Deleted

 

[Thunder]

You are ignoring the information presented in the thread.

you have provided nothing of any significance in this thread.

like most other threads.

 

[beachnut]

...
Wake up; fail not.

The no plane delusion, despite RADAR data showing 175 exactly at the WTC when the photo you posted was taken. No logic, is that the key to making insane claims so stupid no one backs you?

The jet parts are Plymouth wheel-covers, zero evidence; a delusion
Fuselage is a horse-trailer, zero evidence ;a delusion
Beam weapon turned steel to dust, no evidence; a delusion

And now you show a photo of Flight 175 hitting the WTC, and say it is not happening. Another idiotic delusion.

Explain using physics and math why a 767 with a 4,380,000,000 joule kinetic energy impact can't enter the building. Do the math or retract your lies and insane claims.

 

[triforcharity]

You are ignoring the information presented in the thread. I have clearly shown analogous crashes; and, in so doing, have demonstrated beyond any doubt that what happens in crashes did not happen in the videos of what took place at the South Tower.
.

Really? You showed us a crash at about 150-200 MPH. Show me a crash that is anywhere CLOSE to the ~500 MPH, 733.33333 feet PER SECOND, and then you might have a leg to stand on.

As of right now, you have shown not one video of a crash simmilar to 9/11.

 

[TJM]

As of right now, you have shown not one video of a crash simmilar to 9/11.

Oh but he has. You see in jammonius land, a stalling B-52 and a Boeing 767 at maximum cruise will demonstrate the same type of crash characteristics. Just like a "witness" testimony from somebody who was underneath the WTC in a PATH car carries the same weight as a police report from officers who were there.

Strange place, I can't imagine what it's like to actually live there.

 

[tsig]

Ha, ha, that is very funny, funny, funny.

Unfortunately, apart from humor, the post adds nothing substantive or meaningful to this discussion at all.

Guess we're equal then. Except your posts aren't funny.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

You do yourself a disservice by engaging in incomplete analysis. You do not come out and say there should be no explosion upon impact. And it is good you do not do so.

However, you also do not say when an explosion should appear at the place of impact either, thus your analysis is incomplete.

The imagery of what happened at the South Tower does not support the crash of a Boeing 767 into that building. The imagery defies crash physics. Clearly, by posing a question, you have not refuted that claim. True, you argue the claim, but, once again, by leaving the matter in question stage, you don't refute it.

This is elementary, akin to the exercise in the Dick Oliver thread where the demand was made to prove a crater would form when a heavy steel object dropped to the pavement from a height of about 1000ft. Impact craters are the expected result and attempts to argue against that proposition or to demand 'proof' of it are simply an exercise in evasion.

So it is here.

The imagery shown defies crash physics as demonstrated by more than adequate analogous crashes, shown in the posts in this thread. All of them have in common, explosion on impact.

That does not happen at the South Tower.

It would do you and your position good, not harm, to admit what must be admitted; namely, the shadow thingy that crashed into the South Tower did not explode upon impact. It also did not degrade or visibly slow or shatter, either; once again, unlike anything seen in any other crash shown.

You're claiming that this poster has presented an incomplete analysis yet you mindlessly repeat the phrase "The imagery shown defies crash physics" and present zero analysis to support it.

Yer one strange dew'd jamm!

 

[A W Smith]

I did. You see the post RIGHT ABOVE the one you quoted?

Here it is, in it's entirety.





Care to address any of the FACTS I present? Or do you want to handwave them away?

you have to subtract the portion of the aircraft from the nose to the wing root from that equation simply because there is no fuel in that portion to explode, And by then. the forward fuselage has already made a hole for the fuel to enter.

QED there will be no explosion at impact

 

[A W Smith]

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?

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...g/crashphysicsjetbomber232-1.png?t=1274099203

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


regards

is the ground the aircraft is impacting 95% air? Conversely Are the WTC towers solid objects? If you "here now assert" that the towers are solid bars of steel. How is it the jumpers were able to jump outside the towers?

 

[Oystein]

Why are you folks still talking to the troll? You know all he does all day is invent lies? He will never answer questions, will never concede anything, he will always spin whatever is said by whoever to represent his totally made up troll world.

Please please stop feeding the troll! It is utterly pointless and not even funny! Every jammo-thread is just an endless disgrace and disrespect for everything from the simple concept of truth to the memory of those who lost their lives, limbs or loved ones on that tragic day.

 

[Stout]

Why are you folks still talking to the troll? You know all he does all day is invent lies? He will never answer questions, will never concede anything, he will always spin whatever is said by whoever to represent his totally made up troll world.

Please please stop feeding the troll! It is utterly pointless and not even funny! Every jammo-thread is just an endless disgrace and disrespect for everything from the simple concept of truth to the memory of those who lost their lives, limbs or loved ones on that tragic day.

Yea, but it's funny

 

[Resume]

You are ignoring the information presented in the thread. I have clearly shown analogous crashes; and, in so doing, have demonstrated beyond any doubt that what happens in crashes did not happen in the videos of what took place at the South Tower.

Plus, impact analysis and crash physics have a variety of components. One component they each have is that people have direct common experience with them. When people see crashes, they know what to expect and can make determinations about whether what they see is real or not.

We know, for instance, that when the Roadrunner runs through the Acme Steel Building, that what we see is impossible.

The shadow thingy is, for all the world, the functional equivalent of the Roadrunner and that is why I sometimes post the following image:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/road_runner2-1.jpg?t=1274133097[/qimg]

The supposed Boeing 767 seen two or three posts up from this one going through the South Tower without slowing, degrading, exploding or leaving one visible piece of debris is just as absurd as the Roadrunner doing the same thing at the North Tower.

Belief in the one is on the exact same order of magnitude as is belief in the other; namely, a belief centered in the suspension of disbelief and a willingness to be fooled.

Don't fall for it. Instead, face up to the enormity of what 9/11 has done to our society; namely, all but destroyed it. We have got to come to grips with the truth of the matter and take the appropriate action.

Wake up; fail not.

At best you are misguided, ill-informed and just plain ignorant. Or, you are a troll getting off on attention and game-playing.

Worst case. You are severly deluded and believe the nonsensical truck you post; you walk among us, vote, and live in Mom's basement, eating Hot-Pockets and sipping juice boxes as you post paranoia.

Just my take as a lurker.

 

[Humanzee]

Jammonius, perhaps it would be useful if you would explain what you think a 767 travelling at 500mph slamming into WTC2 would look like. And if you have used math to bolster your description please post it up too.

Thanks.

 

[Macgyver1968]

Yea, but it's funny

It may have been at one time..but no longer.

Please don't feed the troll.

 

[fess]

Jammonius;

I must say that, in all of my years, I have not read more nonsensical, bovine defecation filled writings that at best are totally meaningless: Completely riddled with false information and analogies that, even to the most unknowledgeable individuals, would be called idiocy.

Your stills from various videos absolutely mean nothing, and take away from the true context of the videos themselves. For instance, what does the crash of a 36 ton (if fully loaded) dump truck, or, an out of control crash of a B-52 that cartwheels into terra firma have to do with a B757-200 being flown into WTC2?

So as to not be long winded, let me ask you this; without all of the word salad, tell me how many air crash investigations have you been involved in, and what training have you been through to conduct these investigations?

 

[Humanzee]

..your right...

 

[Oystein]

Yea, but it's funny

No it isn't. I can watch The Life of Brian 10 times and still laugh, but after the 100th time, even that gets boring.
jamonius wasn't nearly as funny the first time around, and we must now be nearing the 1000th re-run...

 

[Oystein]

...Or, you are a troll getting off on attention and game-playing...

That's it. Trolls feed on attention. Don't feed the trolls.