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

[EventHorizon]

Anybody else amazed that jamm actually has the mental capacity to turn on a computer AND log onto the internet?

 

[BigAl]

Momentum is not the issue that needs to be resolved for purposes of understanding the observed data. Impact is.

Wrong. Momentum and it's conservation explains just about everything.

Two 757/767 aircraft were hijacked by Arab Islamists who crashed them into the twin towers, causing the resulting fire and collapse.

 

[jammonius]

New page Lurker reminder: Post up what you saw and heard on 9/11

15

This one is another in "silent" mode as there is no sound in video segment # 15. Shadow thingy is also very blurry and appears to take an unexpected hop in its apparent motion toward the South Tower. It appears fleetingly between towers one and two before the characteristic explosion in the wrong place appears. In this one the explosion on the north face appears before the one on the east, that, as we know, appears before the one on the south or impact face appears.

Posters seem intent on discussing "momentum" when the proper issue is that of "impact."

It starts at 3:44+/- and goes for about 10 seconds. Posters are welcome to view it and offer their comments as to what they think the audio visual information reveals.

 

[A W Smith]

 

[EventHorizon]

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/fuselage1ib.jpg[/qimg]

Obviously the remains of a horse trailer.

 

[DGM]

Posters seem intent on discussing "momentum" when the proper issue is that of "impact."

Now your just trying to pad your nomination for the "Stundie" lifetime achievement award.

 

[jhunter1163]

PLANE SPOT claims are not presumed presumed not to be correct.

Fixed that for you, jammy.

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

momentum and kinetic energy have everything to do with the impact. you obviously have no knowledge at all of physics. you have no right to tell us that a plane hitting the wtc buildings does not obey crash physics, since you have no idea what should happen when a plane hits a building.
and saying that a picture of an airplane doesn't look like an airplane when it obviously does just shows that you should be in some kind of mental institution if you aren't already.
(I came up with an idea - SETI911 (Scientists and Engineers for Truther Institutionalisation )

 

[TJM]

Now your just trying to pad your nomination for the "Stundie" lifetime achievement award.

If you have two hours of your life that you don't mind wasting, watch his presentation that I linked to a few pages back. Yes, he believes Flight 175 should've behaved like a Molotov cocktail upon impact. This is demonstrated in the video by tossing one into a brick stairway, IIRC. Quite the show stopper.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Anybody else amazed that jamm actually has the mental capacity to turn on a computer AND log onto the internet?

Mark well, lurkers:

All available evidence suggests that no reliable witness has ever testified under oath that jammonius can use a computer, log onto the JREF forum, or present a valid argument.

Anyone who disputes the above is an unreliable witness or hologram.

 

[dafydd]

NO, I will not answer your gotcha questions. Look, this is simple. You are not allowed to use the Q&A process to use me to make claims you want to make and can make on your own.

If, for instance, you want to establish that certain expertise helps in explaining the apparent crashes seen on teevee on 9/11, do that.

If, for another instance, you want to establish that you have such credentials and you find them invaluable in enabling you to make such and such claims about the apparent crash dynamics associated with 9/11, then do that.

If you disagree with what I claim then come right out and scream it.

But, as to stupid gotcha games, I do not play them, either as Questioner (Torquemada) or as Answerer (poor converso).

If there's any part of I do not play gotcha games, in either its '20 questions' version or any other version, that you still fail to grasp, then do let me know and I will clarify as patiently as I can under the circumstances.

So you have no training.Asking what your experience is in this field is not a gotcha question.You really are a total nutcase,but you seem to be harmless.

 

[TJM]

This one is another in "silent" mode as there is no sound in video segment # 15. Shadow thingy is also very blurry and appears to take an unexpected hop in its apparent motion toward the South Tower. It appears fleetingly between towers one and two before the characteristic explosion in the wrong place appears. In this one the explosion on the north face appears before the one on the east, that, as we know, appears before the one on the south or impact face appears.

Sorry for not following along too closely, but if you don't mind clarifying something; Are you saying the explosions are inconsistent with each other?

 

[dafydd]

Sorry for not following along too closely, but if you don't mind clarifying something; Are you saying the explosions are in consistent with each other?

No gotcha questions please,they intrude in Jammy's fantasy world.

 

[tsig]

NO, I will not answer your gotcha questions. Look, this is simple. You are not allowed to use the Q&A process to use me to make claims you want to make and can make on your own.

If, for instance, you want to establish that certain expertise helps in explaining the apparent crashes seen on teevee on 9/11, do that.

If, for another instance, you want to establish that you have such credentials and you find them invaluable in enabling you to make such and such claims about the apparent crash dynamics associated with 9/11, then do that.

If you disagree with what I claim then come right out and scream it.

But, as to stupid gotcha games, I do not play them, either as Questioner (Torquemada) or as Answerer (poor converso).

If there's any part of I do not play gotcha games, in either its '20 questions' version or any other version, that you still fail to grasp, then do let me know and I will clarify as patiently as I can under the circumstances.

But you get to ask questions and point out "gotchas".

Odd game you play where you're the only one whose score counts.

 

[tsig]

Post # 534 is a cheap screen grab from a well-known debunker website. That website is of extremely poor quality when it comes to sourcing of data.

For instance, the claim associated with this photo is, as indicated, TNT teevee. The photo is, in actuality, a study in desparation. That little teevee screen grab is one of the very few instances in which a claim is made that a piece of debris is identified by part number.

That little ditty is not a part of any investigation and, as seen in the photo itself, that photo does not show a darn thing that can be said, based on content, that it has anything at all to do with a jetliner crash on 9/11 or on any other day.

Look at it, lurkers, and ask yourselves, what on earth does it have to do with 9/11 that can be established on the basis of the image?

The answer is nothing at all.

Everything associated with that image is manufactured in, by and for debunkers with agendas and has nothing at all to do with any investigation of 9/11, such as there were, that exist and is not a part of any determination of what happened at all.

In short, this is not evidence:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/PlanePart-serial.jpg?t=1274737123[/qimg]


I, myself, have posted the following photograph several times, maybe even in this thread, and certainly in the Dick Oliver ones.

It is to be recalled, the photo was used in the NIST report with language that made it quite clear NIST did not know where it came from and made no findings that it was authentic.

I also posted photos showing how it could have been fabricated.

I called it "perimeter beam with wheely" and referred to it so many times that I finally started just using its initials: PBW.

The claim that "truthers" "fear" that photo is utterly and completely false. That photo and its context are utterly and entirely consistent with NO PLANE contentions and is embraced as such.
[qimg]http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/7-70_tire-embedded-wtc1-panel.jpg[/qimg]

Are you calling everyone here liars?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

It would appear that people have an interest in discussing this topic. It is also to be noted that we have not even reached

edited to remove excreta

And, therein lies the explanation that was the norm amongst actual witnesses, unaffected by teevee and by psychological pressure to conform.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I
edited to remove excreta

not.

thanks

 

[tsig]

No problema



I think you infer too little. A crash of a widebody jetliner <1000ft above millions of people with eye and earshot is a dramatic event that would have been noticed with certainty. I think it is on this particular inference that you and I may have our greatest degree of disagreement.



Well, once again, I disagree to the extent you are trying to provide a basis for why people didn't see OR hear a jetliner <1000ft above them.



No single piece of information is likely to be conclusive, especially from eyewitnesses who differ, one with the other. Further, I don't wish to be understood as claiming a single eyewitness constitutes proof of the claim, nor should I be thought of as making that claim. Afterall, this is a thread for which I provided the OP that uses a video database as its primary source of information.

I am open to the use of all forms of evidence and have done so.



Well, ok. However, the audio recorded voices as voices, emergency sirens as emergency sirens and everything else as and for what it was. That such technology would not be able to capture what should have been the single loudest source of sound, jet engines at 140dB at their source, is, to me, inexplicable absent an assertion that no such thing happened.



I don't think your above explanation is all that clear or consistent. You seem to vacilate on the essentials. Would you mind clarifying the above?

In so doing, would you please consider the recent psych experiment where people were told to give increasingly powerful electronic jolts based on the authority of a person in a "lab coat." The labcoat was the symbol of authority that needed to be "obeyed." Nearly all gave a jolt on command even when they knew it would be deadly. Such is the power of conformity.

I think you understate that power.



You've misunderstood me. I am concerned with "what happened" on 9/11, something that has not ever been demonstrated, proven or documented. In short, we do not know, on the basis of a reliable, governmentally sponsored and paid for investigation, what happened on 9/11. (period)

In the absence of knowing what happened, it is foolhardy to say who did it. I do not claim "the government" did 9/11. I do, however, claim that "19 Arabs with boxcutters" did not do it, UNLESS, "19 Arabs" is code for some corporate cabel that included operatives from companies like SAIC and ARA; and unless "boxcutters" is a an acrynym for directed energy weaponry (DEW) just like "daisy cutters" is one for a very large bomb. Do you get my drift here?

It is not at all clear that the government did 9/11, it is clear that the military-industrial-complex (MIC) of which SAIC and ARA are each cream of the crop members and also are developers and testers of DEW, and developers of military PSYOPs, too, each had a powerful financial incentive, as well as the know how and the capacity, to be involved in 9/11.

Upon that claim I stand.



There is no need to have generalized as you did above. The particulars overrule the general. In this instance, we are talking about a jetliner that is required by the common storyline to be <1000ft up at full throttle, 550mph, in the case of the South Tower shadow thingy. A jetliner in those conditions would create a sonic disturbance, an environmental impact and a degree of amazement that would not have gone unnoticed by people at all.

In short, it would have grabbed people's attention, based on how it sounded, in no uncertain terms. Posters who disregard that observation engage in nothing other than denial and rationalization.



While it is undoubtedly true that most people have a higher opinion of what they think they may be proving than others do, it is nonetheless, interesting to compare what you think is evidence versus what I think is. More than that, it serves no useful purpose to say.



No, the issue has nothing whatever to do with claiming someone is a liar. This is simply a matter of what is or is not "evidence." You need to look up and familiarize yourself with the legal definition of the word "hearsay". Newspapers are not evidence because they are hearsay. However, business records, of which the 503 Task Force Statements and the PAPD statements are examples of, count as evidence.

Also, audio visual info may or may not be evidence, depending on whether they can be shown to be authentic.

So, that is all I'm saying. One has to consider the source so as to determine whether the statements are valid or not from the perspective of "evidence" understood by its legal definition.



I disagree. NO PLANE and PLANE SPOT claims are to be considered by the same standard, not by one that is more favorable to the one than to the other. And, PLANE SPOT claims are not presumed to be correct.

Why are you immune to the psyops?

 

[tsig]

Mark well, lurkers:

All available evidence suggests that no reliable witness has ever testified under oath that jammonius can use a computer, log onto the JREF forum, or present a valid argument.

Anyone who disputes the above is an unreliable witness or hologram.

I see no evidence that anyone named Jammonius even posts here.

 

[TJM]

Tactic #1: Toss a word salad at it and hope somebody latches onto another point, thus taking the heat off, or

Tactic #2: Ignore it all together and hope it goes away, along with questions like:

• Why weren't there any broadcast quality shots of Flights 11 & 77 hitting their targets?

• Why did an apparent hologram crash in Pennsylvania?

• Why wasn't the Pentagon destroyed by the DEW?

And so on.

I see he's chosen #2. Fitting.