• 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, perhaps it would be useful if you would explain ...

No. No word salad ever tossed by jammonius has ever been useful, and none ever will. We really should stop ordering more word salads.
They really are just troll **** on a tin plate.
 
Jammonius;

...let me ask you this; without all of the word salad...

You know this question is futile. You WILL get word salad, distortions, childish babble and plain lies. You know it, don't you? Why do you ask a troll to keep trolling?
 
In terms of the fuel: NIST modeled 66,100 pounds for Flight 11 and 62,000 lbs for UA175. In terms of totals, the combined fuel plus aircraft weights ended up being modeled as 283,600 and 277,580 lbs respectively. In terms of speed: The models actually were run with several different parameters, but the simple figures that NIST gives centers around 443MPH for Flight 11 and 542MPH for UA175.

All of this can be found in NCSTAR 1-2B. I'll also point out that Ryan's math based on those figures shows that only 185 MPH was necessary to penetrate the Towers. When you consider those masses at those speeds, that's what it would've taken. Yet the jets were travelling far faster than that.

The simple fact remains that attempts to refute the conclusions have so far been limited to video comparisons of far different masses travelling at far lower speeds impacting far different "structures". That's not even apples to oranges.

Bottom line: To address this issue, a person must look at the impulse figures and compare them to the P-I curves given for columns in NCSTAR 1-2B. If they exceed the points on the curve, then failure results. It's a simple and substantive concept, really, but conspiracy addicts tend to not indulge in substance.

No, the above is false. It is, epistemologically understood, an attempt to use obfuscation in order to explain away what can be verified by sight:
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...posting/355-3a-meltintailout.png?t=1274127818

Edited by LashL: 
Removed spammed image


Posters and lurkers alike, the above is conclusive. You are seeing what can only result from animation in one form or another; not the crash of an actual Boeing 767.

Review Elmondo's post carefully and ask yourself: What do I understand from that post that explains what is seen in the photo?

At most, the Elmondo post is an attempt to explain, using abstractions, why what you see IS NOT an animation; or, put another way; why what you see is a depiction of reality even though it looks false.

Elmondo's attempt fails.

The photo is, indeed, an accurate depiction of what happened on 9/11; namely:

A PSYOP that used false imagery in order to create the illusion that the explosions that virtually everyone who was verifiably present and who gave either a spontaneous statement or who had a duty to give an accurate statement said, more or less, consistently, one after another, as follows:

I saw an explosion.

An entire 60 pages of posts raged on and on in Dick Oliver and not ever could posters, try as they might, overcome the fact that the Dick Oliver witnesses neither saw nor heard a plane. At most, they guessed that maybe, possibly there might have been a plane; and that was "at most."

So it is with the ALL 43 videos. They show the illusion of a plane; in almost all instances a "shadowy" or "blurry" or obscure object that in some videos moves too fast, in some too slow and in some is not seen at all.

The only consistency in all the videos is that the explosion is at the wrong place and does not occur at the point of impact.

On the above sentence, one can stand without fear of contradiction, even if the attempt to frame contradiction is expressed in either the most obscure and abstract construct in mathematics or in angelic script.

It does not matter.

The videos show an illusion of a jetliner and the explosion shows a pyrotechnical display.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
picture.php
 
My fellow forumites, may I echo the calls for the shunning of the Jammy Dodger? He's not going to answer any difficult questions or add anything new to the debate, let alone accept a reality that clashes with his professed opinions.

In that spirit let me offer this link to speed the process (of ignoring j):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=25515

I reported him...not that I expect that to do any good. These sorts of fora should have at least *some* sort of intellectual bar that one must clear, and this jammonious poster plays limbo instead, seeing how low he can go. Part of the JREF homepage header has the words "Critical Thinking" there - something that is in extremely scarce supply with this person. The straw/camel was probably the B-52 crashing and equating it with the WTC impacts, but heaven knows he's racked up a dozen or so absolutely stupefyingly dumb comments. If anyone had *any* questions about his mental abilities, that right there should have answered them.
 
Last edited:
Its amazing how little research 911twoofers actually do.

how the planes crashed into the towers.



"ghost plane" owned!




NEXT!!
 
It does not matter.

The videos show an illusion of a jetliner and the explosion shows a pyrotechnical display.

And what say you to the good folks on the ground that day that looked up to see a commercial jetliner crash into the tower? Illusion? Trickery?

This is whole new level of stupid.
 
The Dick Oliver threads morphed into consideration to both WTC 1 and WTC 2. In addition to easily out numbering reliable, verifiable witnesses who saw no plane at WTC 1, the actual subject of the Dick Oliver threads, it was also shown there were more, and better situated, no plane witnesses for WTC 2 as well.

Some very good friends of mine watched the WTC2 crash from the 42nd floor of a building about 1/4 mile south. They had an unobstructed view of the whole thing, and there is no doubt it was a plane crash.
 
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

Q1: What happens when you fire a bullet into the ground?

Q2: What happens when you fire a bullet into a pumpkin?




Sorry, guys... he just looked at me with those big hungry eyes!
 
Posters and lurkers alike, the above is conclusive. You are seeing what can only result from animation in one form or another; not the crash of an actual Boeing 767.

I'm assuming your presence here is an attempt to convince lurkers such as myself that your theories are true. I must tell you, you're failing miserably and in fact making me despise the truth movement.

The only consistency in all the videos is that the explosion is at the wrong place and does not occur at the point of impact.
Lie

Yes. His habit of dismissing everyone is becoming tiresome.

Anyone who posts to him gets a golden shower.

*grabs umbrella
 
Your post does nothing other than state a number. Your post is an absurd failure to contradict that what is visually seen defies crash physics and is, therefore, thrououghly indicative that no jetliner crashed into the South Tower. We are talking about the information revealed by the videos.

People believed what they saw on teevee, at first glance. We are now taking a look at what was seen, in detail, and we are seeing, quite plainly, video in and video out, one by one, that those videos show that whatever may be thought to be taking place is simply NOT a jetliner hitting the South Tower.

That is what we are seeing.

The videos are, in fact, quite revealing, each one in its own right.

Look at them.

You are engaging in the same non sequitur here as you do with blips on a screen and the claim of "radar."

Do better.


You post no numbers to support your lies; why? Can't you prove your claims with physics? I did, and you failed to take the number and refute the fact that was more than 11 time the energy needed to enter the WTC shell and do damage to the core and the other side of the WTC as seen on the video which debunks your claims. I have no idea how you can be so clueless on this. You can't do physics, you do lies.
 
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...

I can see how it would get old.

But I do get a vicarious thrill out of watching someone present a completely ridiculous argument and watching that argument get demolished by people who really know what they're talking about.

FWIW, this is my first "no-planer" thread. I mean, I've heard about them, but I've never seen on live.
 
Jammonius, once again what education do you have in the field of physics?
If you have any less than one and a half years of university physics, I think you have an obligation to shut up and listen to people with a higher education.:)

personally I don't see how the videos don't show the airplane exploding on impact. the airplane hits the building, and it explodes almost immediately. the reason the explosion first appeared on the other side is because the airplane (and the explosive fuel as well) are moving. (conservation of momentum)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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