Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
-
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?
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
-
- Tags
- no plane theory no planes
- Status
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
Once again you prove my assumptions of you; you are goofier than a crap house rat! And;
“Your 43 Videos only prove one thing for sure. You have no idea of how different video cameras work, and you have less knowledge of how various types of microphones work.”
See the above, and add;
Where would the explosion of an aircraft with the momentum of 700 ft/sec occur? Especially considering that this all happened in about 1/3 of a second. And, your statement that there was no debris is a total fabrication as facts show.
The above is a total and inexcusable lie.
Why do you keep asking for the “lurkers” on this forum to come to your rescue? Haven’t you realized yet that there are NONE? How long will it take for you to see that you are alone in your thoughts?
They reveal the truth, something you to not seem to care about or understand.
fess,
In your post #782, you offer up something I can respond to; namely:
Would you please kindly say what segment of the ALL 43 video you find most convincing that a Boeing 767@800ft@550mph is depicted?
If you don't want to you don't have to; and, I don't expect you to do much, for you cannot.
I have already plainly said:
I here assert that posters here cannot and will not even try to show that the video, the actual images that were spammed all over teevee, can be said to show a real Boeing 767 involved in a crash into the South Tower.
In words you might understand, I dare you to try to prove me wrong on the basis of actual references to what is seen and heard in the videos.
You won't
In words that might be easier still for you to understand, the chip that had been on your shoulder is now on the ground and hit your foot on the way down causing you pain, embarassment and loss of face in the entire thread, including lurkers.
On top of that direct challenge to get you to post up something of substance, your avatar looks stupid
In your post #782, you offer up something I can respond to; namely:
Would you please kindly say what segment of the ALL 43 video you find most convincing that a Boeing 767@800ft@550mph is depicted?
If you don't want to you don't have to; and, I don't expect you to do much, for you cannot.
I have already plainly said:
I here assert that posters here cannot and will not even try to show that the video, the actual images that were spammed all over teevee, can be said to show a real Boeing 767 involved in a crash into the South Tower.
In words you might understand, I dare you to try to prove me wrong on the basis of actual references to what is seen and heard in the videos.
You won't
In words that might be easier still for you to understand, the chip that had been on your shoulder is now on the ground and hit your foot on the way down causing you pain, embarassment and loss of face in the entire thread, including lurkers.
On top of that direct challenge to get you to post up something of substance, your avatar looks stupid
Last edited:
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,866
fess,
In your post #782, you offer up something I can respond to; namely:
Would you please kindly say what segment of the ALL 43 video you find most convincing that a Boeing 767@800ft@550mph is depicted?
If you don't want to you don't have to; and, I don't expect you to do much, for you cannot.
I have already plainly said:
I here assert that posters here cannot and will not even try to show that the video, the actual images that were spammed all over teevee, can be said to show a real Boeing 767 involved in a crash into the South Tower.
In words you might understand, I dare you to try to prove me wrong on the basis of actual references to what is seen and heard in the videos.
You won't
In words that might be easier still for you to understand, the chip that had been on your shoulder is now on the ground and hit your foot on the way down causing you pain, embarassment and loss of face in the entire thread, including lurkers.
On top of that direct challenge to get you to post up something of substance, your avatar looks stupid
Jammi, real question. What do you think I can see in your pictures that isn't happening in the Mythbusters video that I linked to?
BillyRayValentine
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 329
Out of consideration for those of us who have this freak on ignore, It'd be great if you guys didn't paste in lengthy quotes like this one. I know, I know, nobody's forcing me to read what's there...but nobody forces me to look at roadkill when I drive by either. Very, very difficult to turn away, period.
The fact that this imbecile has brainwashed his young children, something he crows about on his own disturbing website, should give anyone pause before engaging him. He is quite clearly suffering from acute mental illness, and has no compunction about loosing his children on the world in a similar mindset. It's terrible to consider what these kids will be like by the time they reach the age of emancipation.
If any other relatives happen to be reading this, please consider stepping in in some fashion. Grievous harm is being done to young, innocent, developing minds.
A W Smith
Philosopher
I can tell you that despite his indoctrination of the child, Once she matures she will come to the same conclusions that we do. That hijacked planes impacted the world trade center. You cannot MAKE someone mentally ill by indoctrinating fantasies that defy evidence and physics upon them. As a child she may believe those fantasies but there comes a time when we all agree there is no twoof fairy
Let me double check for accuracy of understanding. In the above you not only ASK, but SAY you are asking "a real question" correct?
You then pose the following as a question:
What do you think I can see in your pictures that isn't happening in the Mythbusters video that I linked to?
Scott, are you asking me to tell you what you can see with your eyes and related apparatus of perception; if so, I think you misapprehend what one person can do for another person?
Would you please clarify.
Note, too, that the absolute necessity that some posters have for engaging in gotcha rhetoric whereby they put someone else in the position of always having to answer questions that they, the questioner, then get to assess as 'right' or as 'wrong' or as requiring the answer to yet another question has its limitations.
When you pose a question that asks someone to answer what only you can experience, you expose the weakness of the rhetorical ploy that you might have been engaging in.
So, once again, did you actually ask what you intended to ask?
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Let me double check for accuracy of understanding. In the above you not only ASK, but SAY you are asking "a real question" correct?
You then pose the following as a question:
What do you think I can see in your pictures that isn't happening in the Mythbusters video that I linked to?
Scott, are you asking me to tell you what you can see with your eyes and related apparatus of perception; if so, I think you misapprehend what one person can do for another person?
Would you please clarify.
Note, too, that the absolute necessity that some posters have for engaging in gotcha rhetoric whereby they put someone else in the position of always having to answer questions that they, the questioner, then get to assess as 'right' or as 'wrong' or as requiring the answer to yet another question has its limitations.
When you pose a question that asks someone to answer what only you can experience, you expose the weakness of the rhetorical ploy that you might have been engaging in.
So, once again, did you actually ask what you intended to ask?
You are going to be a classic case in the study of mental illness one day.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
once again, did you actually answer what you were asked to answer? Nope.
BillyRayValentine
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 329
Problem is, his indoctrination extends to matters far beyond 9/11. It's an all encompassing, incredibly warped worldview...and his children are being brainwashed with it. Kids aren't equipped to see the lunacy of it all, and so they accept it at face value, courtesy of the passionate (and, unfortunately, insane) man they look up to and trust the most - their father. Yes, kids can recover from such a background and find a place among the rational. But you're wrong if you think the odds of that happening, or at least happening smoothly, are very good.
Sample the several hours of video he has on youtube. Click anywhere, on any video. Whatever particular bit of lunacy you're treated to has already been accepted as truth by children under the age of ten. That's effed up.
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
Oh, I see, you are trying to enter me into that game you don’t play… what was it again, twenty questions?
Well, I would say that there were a number of the videos that clearly show a 767/200 series aircraft slamming into the south tower. Although some of the videos appear to be “cherry picked” in order to prove whatever point it is that you are trying to make, others are unmistakably clear. Here are few other videos for your viewing pleasure, one of which is not a MSM version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJXfIOEQB8M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88&feature=related
BTW, what altitude was this aircraft at? So far you have stated, 1000’, 800’, and 700’.
The only way I seem to be able to answer this question is by making the statement; on your way to the mental health specialist, stop by your eye doctor’s office.
What a mess of asinine garbage, is that the best you can do?In words that might be easier still for you to understand, the chip that had been on your shoulder is now on the ground and hit your foot on the way down causing you pain, embarassment and loss of face in the entire thread, including lurkers.
On top of that direct challenge to get you to post up something of substance, your avatar looks stupid
sylvan8798
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 2,847
jammonius said:
NutCracker
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 654
`The stupidity burns´ is a chutzpah.
The electrons in my PC have recently set up a Labor Union. They demand less workload, more eletromane working conditions and compensation for the physical and emotional stress induced by the stupidity they have to pass on. A strike is imminent. Even though I have put the individual responsible for said stupidity on ignore a long time ago and even though in recent weeks I tried to minimize said stress by proactively putting individuals that are almost as dumb on ignore as well, stress levels have risen to such an extent that many electrons have fled my PC. The result of which is that my PC is now positively charged and that my furniture is negatively charged. I can see St. Elmo´s fire around the leaves of my plants in broad daylight. Suicide among the electrons is so common that I see Cherenkov radiation in the can of coke next to my keyboard.
Please, think of the electrons! Save the electrons!
The electrons in my PC have recently set up a Labor Union. They demand less workload, more eletromane working conditions and compensation for the physical and emotional stress induced by the stupidity they have to pass on. A strike is imminent. Even though I have put the individual responsible for said stupidity on ignore a long time ago and even though in recent weeks I tried to minimize said stress by proactively putting individuals that are almost as dumb on ignore as well, stress levels have risen to such an extent that many electrons have fled my PC. The result of which is that my PC is now positively charged and that my furniture is negatively charged. I can see St. Elmo´s fire around the leaves of my plants in broad daylight. Suicide among the electrons is so common that I see Cherenkov radiation in the can of coke next to my keyboard.
Please, think of the electrons! Save the electrons!
Last edited:
You have linked to youtube videos that contain some, but not all, of the 43 known video segments. In posting as you do, there is no way to know which segments you are referring to as you do not offer any differentiation, comparison or analysis at all.
While we cannot post up actual images, as I understand the rules applicable to this thread, we can post links to images.
Using the ALL43 as the frame of reference:
ALL 43
Please note for comparison purposes the following segments:
0:00 Shadow thingy approaches right to left, straight on and moves quickly.
0:18 Shadow thingy approaches at a very flat, straight line angle.
0:58 Shadow thingy approaches on a steeply descending angle.
1:14 Shadow thingy is not even shadowy and is, instead, a blurry blob and approaches rather quickly on a descending angle.
7:04 Shadow thingy is likewise a blurry blob here, approaching on a steep angle, but is slow as molasses.
7:16 This is a continuation of the 7:04 blob noting that it takes 12 seconds for the slow as molasses blurry blob to create the explosion in the wrong place.
8:03 Supposed engine is actually a firecracker that burns out in mid-air. See sequence 8:03 - 8:05
8:08 Shadow thingy has wings that slope downwards, and then proceeds to rise so as to create the explosion higher than it was to start with, thus contradicting the striaght line approach and the descending approach videos (see explosion at 8:13).
8:51 Shadow thingy makes a long straight line approach before exploding in the wrong place.
The above is an example of the kind of analysis that is possible here, lurkers.
That depends on which version of shadow thingy you rely on. It could be the one, the other, or any other variation one wants.
By the way, however, I generally give 800ft for Shadow thingy and 1000ft for the blob thingy at the North Tower. So, South Tower = 800ft; North Tower = 1000ft in my posting.
all the best
Last edited:
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
You got you linky wrong, Jam...here I corrected it for you.
As if you haven't posted it enough.
As if you haven't posted it enough.
I wonder what happened.
Thanks for the fix. As a heads-up, you may want to brush up on Evan Fairbanks as his video is # 21 and will be featured when we turn the page
His is one that clearly demonstrates no big Boeing hit the South Tower.
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
The above is an example of what I have said all along, you haven’t the slightest clue as to how a video camera works. And, who are all of these “lurkers” you keep talking to, and where are they? So far, there have been no lurkers or anyone else that has joined you in your insane thoughts.
Ok, by using your numbers, Flight 175 impacted the south tower at the 65th floor, and the north tower was impacted at the 81st floor. That is about as vague as the speeds you quote. If, you are going to keep going on with your “no plane” theory, please get your numbers right.
Earth to Fess,
Hey, Fess, look, it's alright, one supposes, to express an appreciation for exactitude, that is fine. But, if that is the direction you want to go in, why did you not post up what the actual altitude or height is with respect to shadow thingy and/or blob thingy?
Our lurkers might not know exactly how high the alleged planes were or what actual height corresponds to the floors where the explosions occurred.
If you aren't inclined to provide the actual iinformation, then why not at least provide a source where lurkers and posters can find the information; like, say, the NIST, NCSTAR 1-5 segment?
See:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-5index.htm
See, in particular:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-5A Chap 9_Appx C.pdf
By the way, what do you think of the very first sentence of NCSTAR 1-5A Ch 9 in terms of how stupid the NIST report actually is:
"This chapter describes the fire behaviors observed in World Trade Center (WTC)2 during the period following the impact of United airlines Flight 175 at 9:02:59 a.m. until the tower collapsed at 9:58:59 a.m. The fires had very different behaviors than those observed for WTC 1. In general, there was much less fire spread, and the total area of the outer facade where fires were observed was much smaller. For this reason, the discussion will focus on general characteristics and major changes in fire distribution instead of the details of the fire spread as in Chapter 8 describing the fires in WTC 1."
In case your propensity for denial is too strong, let me just inform you that the above quoted sentence describes an intent to engage in science fraud and in blatant obfuscation and that is what NIST did.
If there was no fire in WTC 2 worth mentioning, then a couple of things need to be considered:
1--The reason why no fire was there; namely, no jetliner hit it; and
2--the annihilation of the tower wasn't caused by the fire that wasn't there in the first place; as NIST acknowledges.
Come on, Fess, if you want to engage in exactitude, do it where it matters; namely, in exposing the NIST fraud.
Hey, Fess, look, it's alright, one supposes, to express an appreciation for exactitude, that is fine. But, if that is the direction you want to go in, why did you not post up what the actual altitude or height is with respect to shadow thingy and/or blob thingy?
Our lurkers might not know exactly how high the alleged planes were or what actual height corresponds to the floors where the explosions occurred.
If you aren't inclined to provide the actual iinformation, then why not at least provide a source where lurkers and posters can find the information; like, say, the NIST, NCSTAR 1-5 segment?
See:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-5index.htm
See, in particular:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-5A Chap 9_Appx C.pdf
By the way, what do you think of the very first sentence of NCSTAR 1-5A Ch 9 in terms of how stupid the NIST report actually is:
"This chapter describes the fire behaviors observed in World Trade Center (WTC)2 during the period following the impact of United airlines Flight 175 at 9:02:59 a.m. until the tower collapsed at 9:58:59 a.m. The fires had very different behaviors than those observed for WTC 1. In general, there was much less fire spread, and the total area of the outer facade where fires were observed was much smaller. For this reason, the discussion will focus on general characteristics and major changes in fire distribution instead of the details of the fire spread as in Chapter 8 describing the fires in WTC 1."
In case your propensity for denial is too strong, let me just inform you that the above quoted sentence describes an intent to engage in science fraud and in blatant obfuscation and that is what NIST did.
If there was no fire in WTC 2 worth mentioning, then a couple of things need to be considered:
1--The reason why no fire was there; namely, no jetliner hit it; and
2--the annihilation of the tower wasn't caused by the fire that wasn't there in the first place; as NIST acknowledges.
Come on, Fess, if you want to engage in exactitude, do it where it matters; namely, in exposing the NIST fraud.
Last edited:
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
- Status