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

[Gorgonian]

I literally am laughing out loud that there is one person on the planet that actually thinks that jammonius simply avoiding all responsibility to answer questions and present evidence by calling them "rhetorical tricks and gotcha games" (what a colossally stupid and cowardly practice) is out-arguing everyone.

I mean, seriously. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic to watch.

 

[jammonius]

and yet another:




http://www.50hz.com/decibel.html


and this chart even includes a jet flyover at 1000ft



and again:


http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1983/1983 - 2320.html


this will show you that as technology advanced laws were in place to regulate the noise put out by the larger planes, for the protection of airport communities.

From personal experience, I work within a 3 mile radius of an airport, there are flyovers all the time, all day, you can still sit outside and hold a conversation with someone and understand at normal voice levels, despite the planes.

Your information is helpful and adds to the quality of the thread. It does not, however, change the fact that a jetliner at <1000ft@550mph was not heard on 9/11, and therefore, not present.

Your charts, though helpful, are still inconclusive. Jetliners are not supposed to fly at anything close to 550mph at <1000ft above sea level, as is mandated by the common storyline of 9/11. There's even a decent school of thought and of discussion that commercial jetliners would break apart if they were flown at that speed that low.

Clearly, any such phenomenon would be frightening, painful, harmful to ears and easily the most prominent feature of the event.

And, people would report "a screaming screeching plane crash" or some other apt description regularly and routinely if that had happened. Instead, people routinely and uniformly reported something different. They reported "an explosion."

And that is what happened: An explosion, not a plane crash, let alone a widebody jetliner at 550mph.

 

[jammonius]

OK

It appears you are taking someones statement that they "didn't see a plane" to mean they are saying there wasn't one AT ALL, when in fact they simply mean they didn't SEE IT. Big difference. Perhaps they were looking the wrong way. Perhaps they were indoors or concentrating on something else when the planes struck.

OK. The above is in the nature of a claim and/or a refutation. Thank you for your reply. It adds to the substance of the thread. I can respond to the above.

In a sense you are quite correct in that I am drawing the inference that reports of "explosion" or of "bomb" or reports that do not mention a plane are consistent with the claim NO PLANE was there. As such I am engaging in inference.

However, the contrary assertion is equally one that is inferential; namely, you can and you are infering that merely not mentioning seeing a plane is not the same as a claim no plane was there.

I have always gotten that. Your assertion is not a new one; however, it is one that hasn't been mentioned in awhile.

Inferences can differ. The task then is to assess what inference is more likely true and what inference is less likely true.

The inference that a failure to mention a plane in the context of what a person saw and heard on 9/11 is more consistent with NO PLANE being there is founded upon the extraordinariness and the sheer magnitude of a widebody plane crash upon one's senses and sensibilities.

Quite literally, then, if a widebody plane crash had been seen and heard, then, people would have been specific about mentioning it and would not have used generic terminology of "an explosion" to describe an event that involved their having seen or heard or perceived the event to be one of a jetliner crash.

The proper inference to be drawn from the failure to mention a jetliner crash and, instead, to only mention "an explosion" is that the latter is the more accurate description of what was seen.

It is not reasonable to infer a jetliner crash from the near onto universal mention of "explosion" by those who saw and heard something from close range and who reported what they saw and heard.

Also you seem to think that when they say they saw an "explosion" that it must have been by any means other than a plane flying into it, such as explosives or a DEW D) I can't see how you can dismiss the fact it was a plane because you don't believe the evidence but then float an idea like DEW with zero evidence at all....

I have answered most of the above in the prior segment. The evidence DEW destroyed the WTC is overwhelming and has been dealt with in other threads in this forum and most especially, addressed, proven and confirmed by the research and investigation of Dr. Judy Wood (drjudywood.com). More than that I cannot and will not say as DEW is not the topic of this thread. I have addressed DEW six ways to Sunday, elsewhere.

I didn't see a panic. Just some rude kid repeatedly back up an idiotic idea and people responding. Kids like sts75 have come and gone many times through this forum. It's nothing new.

The above is also a useful indicator of how "inference" works as a process. I infer "panic' because of the extraordinary volume of replies that greeted sts75's presence in the forum, the editing of the thread and the lengthy suspension imposed upon sts75. Let me hasten to add, I am not saying that sts75 violated no rule. I am saying that the combination of events that included a deluge of replies, a 3 page redaction of the thread AND a lengthy suspension all combine to confirm a state of panic.

I could almost not even keep up with the page-by-page posting of segments from the ALL43 videos for awhile during the mad dash to try to bait, trap or otherwise ensnare sts75, a newcomer, to the thread.

st75 was very helpful to this thread and to the validity of appealing to lurkers to post up.

 

[jammonius]

Even more important, how many people DIDN'T see it hit the building? According to Jammonius, if somebody says he didn't see it, it didn't exist.

The above is a clear over-interpretation of what I have posted. I have said that because a jetliner <1000ft@550mph above Manhattan is such an invasive, spectacular, shocking and awe-inspriing event, it would be described in terms that were specific to the event and would not be described as "an explosion" or as "a bomb."

That is, essentailly, what I stake my claim on, Twinstead. I have been clear about that, I think. There was no reason for your over-interpretation.

 

[jammonius]

I literally am laughing out loud that there is one person on the planet that actually thinks that jammonius simply avoiding all responsibility to answer questions and present evidence by calling them "rhetorical tricks and gotcha games" (what a colossally stupid and cowardly practice) is out-arguing everyone.

I mean, seriously. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic to watch.

Sts75's observation was that posters here were not engaging in refutation of my claims and that I was posting proof of what I was claiming.

He was right about that in all respects.

 

[phunk]

The above is rationalization personified. It is a lame excuse for why no one heard and why no mic captured the sound of a jetliner <1000ft up @ 550mph and why no one had to be treated for damage to their ears.

Ear damage?

Look at the distance from the turnpike to the runway here. I drive past this all the time while jets are taking off (full throttle, low altitude), and I haven't had any damage to my ears.

 

[ImANiceGuy]

I'll bite Jammonious. I've done absolutely no research into a no-plane theory as it seems absolutely absurd at first glance.

You have a week to convince me. You'll find I'm quite a bit friendlier than JREF'ers (who will no-doubt still be lurking here, chomping at the bit to post)

Where should I start?

 

[Gorgonian]

Sts75's observation was that posters here were not engaging in refutation of my claims and that I was posting proof of what I was claiming.

He was right about that in all respects.

So you aren't denying that your avoidance of any responsibility to answer questions or supply evidence for claims by spouting nonsense about rhetorical tricks and gotcha games is colossally stupid and cowardly?

I mean, I really don't see how you can defend it. Would you care to try? Every time someone asks you a question that demonstrates the flaws and holes in your theory (which are tremendous and obvious to everyone but you) or asks that you provide evidence or proof to back up a claim (such as that it would be impossible for a man in the building to have a wing go by him--where is the support for that delusion?) you simply revert to your standard line about rhetorical games and gotchas.

Explain that, please. It is literally ridiculous to continue this thread until you overcome this hang-up of yours.

Imagine if I claimed that there where Lilliputians living in my microwave. If you began asking me questions about them or asking that I support this claim with evidence, I would just simply say I don't participate in rhetorical gotcha games and deflect this. I win.

Don't you see how stupid this is? Have you ever been evaluated by a psychiatrist? Both of these questions are 100% legitimate.

 

[jammonius]

Ear damage?

Look at the distance from the turnpike to the runway here. I drive past this all the time while jets are taking off (full throttle, low altitude), and I haven't had any damage to my ears.

Your analogy is not apt. Jets at takeoff are loud, but the noise is limited by technology, including "hush kits" that keep jets at a 'safe' noise level at takeoff. Still, one knows a jet is taking off because it is loud. One expects to see and hear jets near an airport. One does not expect to see big jets right above them in Manhattan. If one were to appear 1000ft up, people would respond to an environmental impact of that nature with legitimate fear and concern for their safety.

However, the common storyline of 9/11 mandates that the shadow thingy jet was screaming along at <1000ft @ 550mph. That is full throttle, beyond the capacity of the "hush kits" to contain the noise and at or above the 140dB level that can cause ear damage. Add to that the wake vortex issue and sheer environmental impact of a widebody jet that loud, that fast, that low, above crowded, dense, Manhattan. It then becomes necessary to factor in a lot of big, attention-getting, freightening environmental impacts, based on noise and other factors, that simply did not happen because no one reported experiencing them. Those present did not see or hear any such thing and did not describe any such thing.

They saw and they heard an explosion. And that is what they said over and over again.

 

[jammonius]

I'll bite Jammonious. I've done absolutely no research into a no-plane theory as it seems absolutely absurd at first glance.

You have a week to convince me. You'll find I'm quite a bit friendlier than JREF'ers (who will no-doubt still be lurking here, chomping at the bit to post)

Where should I start?

Greetings NiceGuy,

Well, thank you for asking. I think there's no better place to start than the <10:00 ALL43 video that is referenced in the OP and in this thread. Just watch the video that includes all of the various versions of the shadow thingy hitting the South Tower.

There are some who insist that it is essential to claim video fakery, that is to say, CGI having been inserted into the video. That may be true for some of them, but I am not sure it is true for all of them. Therefore, it is necessary to consider holographic imagery of the type that is referenced in various military sources as being a new kind of deception technology for war fighting.

By way of example, there have been a number of stories out there concerning a plan to introduce a giant image of Mohammed over Iraq in order to scare the beejeezus out of the Iraqi army. The problem was, no one knew how Mohammed should look so the plan was abandoned.

However, consideration of the plan implies the existence of holographic technology that can project large images.

In addition, some of the videos in the ALL 43 camp do not show a jet image. For some, that is because the angle is not correct. However, a couple show no jet and there does not appear to be any reason for there not to be one in the field of view of the camera.

The speed difference, angle of approach of shadow thingy varies widely, from video segment to video segment and is a real clue that something is seriously wrong.

As well, the explosion sequence of shadow thingy into the South Tower is simply bizarre. Basically, the explosion sequence absolutely requires the complete suspension of disbelief in order to accept that what is apparently seen is real.

Jetliners to not melt into steel buildings, penetrating them from nose, through midsection, throught wings, aft and tail without degrading exploding and depositing large sections OUTSIDE the steel structure. Yet, shadow thingy did just that and did not even explode at the point of impact. Instead, the explosion started first and expanded far more rapidly on the east and the north faces of the tower.

That is absurd.

I also suggest the Evan Fairbanks video and interview with Peter Jennings that can be found at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bclQyWqp-dA

Among the eyewitnesses, the very best one is Asst. Commn. Stephen Gregory. I posted his statement and source at post # 928:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6038890&postcount=928

In short, NiceGuy, the evidence of a pyrotechnical event, based on false imagery is apparent. It appears the common storyline of 9/11 DEPENDS upon the willingness of people to suspend disbelief, just as if they were watching a movie.

Objective observation of the available information falsifies the common storyline of 9/11 to such an extent that it is very apparent that the only way to hold onto a belief in the common storyline is through the process of denial and of WANTING to believe, rather than having a rational basis to do so.

And that is understandable. It is very painful to consider that we have been duped by forces and entities that we either trusted implicitly or that there are forces and entities that have tremendous power and control, about whom little is known.

9/11 mandates a confrontation between the real and the unreal, the known and the unknown.

I do not know who did 9/11.

I do know that no jetliners hit the WTC; and, at some level, so do all of us. It is simply a matter of choosing to apply what we know based on reason so as to overcome the emotional investment in wanting to believe the stupid common storyline.

all the best

 

[phunk]

Your analogy is not apt. Jets at takeoff are loud, but the noise is limited by technology, including "hush kits" that keep jets at a 'safe' noise level at takeoff.

There is no on/off switch for a hush kit. It's effects are always there, not just at takeoff, and they have nothing to do with safety. The noise level of a jet is always safe as long as you're not right next to it.

Still, one knows a jet is taking off because it is loud.

and yet when I changed my tire on the side of the turnpike less than 1000 feet from the runway, it didn't bother me at all.

One expects to see and hear jets near an airport. One does not expect to see big jets right above them in Manhattan. If one were to appear 1000ft up, people would respond to an environmental impact of that nature with legitimate fear and concern for their safety.

Jets fly around manhattan all the time, it's sitting between 3 major airports. This one being lower than usual would not make people run in panic or even fear for their safety. The plane was flying at a significant percent of the speed of sound, and obscured by buildings most of the time. By the time the noise was close enough to turn heads, they would have seen it was already flying away from them when they looked up.

However, the common storyline of 9/11 mandates that the shadow thingy jet was screaming along at <1000ft @ 550mph. That is full throttle, beyond the capacity of the "hush kits" to contain the noise and at or above the 140dB level that can cause ear damage.

140db is right next to the plane, not 1000 feet away. 1000 feet away, there is absolutely no risk of ear damage.

Add to that the wake vortex issue and sheer environmental impact of a widebody jet that loud, that fast, that low, above crowded, dense, Manhattan. It then becomes necessary to factor in a lot of big, attention-getting, freightening environmental impacts, based on noise and other factors, that simply did not happen because no one reported experiencing them. Those present did not see or hear any such thing and did not describe any such thing.

Name one frightening environmental impact that should have been seen.

 

[Rocket_Scientist]

Does Jammonius, really think that a widebody jet nearlly 1000 ft up is going to do "enviromental" damage?.......really

 

[Rocket_Scientist]

Well i've been a lurker on this thread for a while now so i'll have to say another vote for plane. Oh i shared the link to this thread with several friends at work. The kindest comment was "lunitic" I know their comments probably don't count much to Jammonius, thier just other people like myself in the aerospace industry

 

[Rocket_Scientist]

Your analogy is not apt. Jets at takeoff are loud, but the noise is limited by technology, including "hush kits" that keep jets at a 'safe' noise level at takeoff. Still, one knows a jet is taking off because it is loud. One expects to see and hear jets near an airport. One does not expect to see big jets right above them in Manhattan. If one were to appear 1000ft up, people would respond to an environmental impact of that nature with legitimate fear and concern for their safety.

However, the common storyline of 9/11 mandates that the shadow thingy jet was screaming along at <1000ft @ 550mph. That is full throttle, beyond the capacity of the "hush kits" to contain the noise and at or above the 140dB level that can cause ear damage. Add to that the wake vortex issue and sheer environmental impact of a widebody jet that loud, that fast, that low, above crowded, dense, Manhattan. It then becomes necessary to factor in a lot of big, attention-getting, freightening environmental impacts, based on noise and other factors, that simply did not happen because no one reported experiencing them. Those present did not see or hear any such thing and did not describe any such thing.

They saw and they heard an explosion. And that is what they said over and over again.

Jammonius,

For once could you back up your assertion about how loud you think a jet "screaming along at <1000ft" really is? You really can't can you? The noise radiated by the engines are going to be most concentrated behind those engines which by amazing coincidence, were pointing at a slight angle AWAY from the ground. Take a look at this:

I took this photo on "vultures row" which is on the 08 and 09 level of the carriers island structure. The F14 is on the mid ships catapult which is barely 100ft from where I took this photo. At this distance you needed to cover your ears or have on some good hearing protection. HOWEVER, by the time it reached the ramp (end of catapult) You could talk to the person standing next to you again. The noise was still loud but not "earsplitting" and this is while we were facing the EXHAUST of the engines. That distance was less than 400ft

This is a freak'in F14 on AFTERBURNERS. How loud do you think these engines are compared to a commercial jet? For once BACK UP your assertions. Calculate the sound level and prove it to be "earsplitting" or quit bringing it up.

 

[Gorgonian]

Jetliners to not melt into steel buildings

This is a strawman. No one claims an airplane melted.

penetrating them from nose, through midsection, throught wings, aft and tail without degrading exploding and depositing large sections OUTSIDE the steel structure.

This is part strawman, part argument from incredulty. No one claims the planes entered the buildings without degrading and exploding. In fact, you are the one often expressing that the fact that people hear explosions somehow means there wasn't an airplane! Now, the explosions don't happen when the nose hits the building, because there isn't really anything there to explode. It would be like if I slammed a street-side mailbox into the building. Why would that explode? No, the explosion happens when the jet fuel impacts the building. Think about where that is in the plane. Not in the nose.

Further, many airplane parts were found in the street, but not many enormous parts, because the airplane exploded inside a building. The fact that you don't believe this could happen is merely your own incredulty. In order to convince people that know it can happen that it couldn't happen, you have to do more than just state it with an astonished look on your face. You have to prove it. Support it with evidence, math, whatever you've got.

You won't do this because you can't. Right? Show me I'm wrong and do it. This is not a 20 questions rhetorical gotcha, this is exactly what you have been saying to us with your asking for proof of 1000 eye-witnesses. Don't dodge this because then you will be shown to be the hypocrite we know you are.

Yet, shadow thingy did just that and did not even explode at the point of impact. Instead, the explosion started first and expanded far more rapidly on the east and the north faces of the tower.

That is absurd.

Already demonstrated why it did not explode at the point of impact. SHOW WHY YOU THINK IT SHOULD. You can't and won't.

Don't even try to ignore or dodge these questions.

 

[Edx]

For once BACK UP your assertions. Calculate the sound level and prove it to be "earsplitting" or quit bringing it up.

The funny thing is he probably also believes in explosive demolition that are somehow silent

 

[Rocket_Scientist]

The funny thing is he probably also believes in explosive demolition that are somehow silent

Actually, i'm not expecting ANY type of coherent response....any more than anyone else who's asked a question on this or ANY thread that Jammonius posts on. I'll just expect more of this while completely ignoring the meat of the question:

 

[dtugg]

Jammonius,

For once could you back up your assertion about how loud you think a jet "screaming along at <1000ft" really is? You really can't can you? The noise radiated by the engines are going to be most concentrated behind those engines which by amazing coincidence, were pointing at a slight angle AWAY from the ground. Take a look at this:

[qimg]http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i24/dbright65/afterburner.jpg[/qimg]

I took this photo on "vultures row" which is on the 08 and 09 level of the carriers island structure. The F14 is on the mid ships catapult which is barely 100ft from where I took this photo. At this distance you needed to cover your ears or have on some good hearing protection. HOWEVER, by the time it reached the ramp (end of catapult) You could talk to the person standing next to you again. The noise was still loud but not "earsplitting" and this is while we were facing the EXHAUST of the engines. That distance was less than 400ft

This is a freak'in F14 on AFTERBURNERS. How loud do you think these engines are compared to a commercial jet? For once BACK UP your assertions. Calculate the sound level and prove it to be "earsplitting" or quit bringing it up.

This just reminds me. Last year I was at an airshow (the same the pic from my avatar was taken) and F-16s did passes directly above my head at very low altitude (probably a couple hundred feet) and probably near the speed of sound. It was pretty loud. But didn't get hearing damage.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

This just reminds me. Last year I was at an airshow (the same the pic from my avatar was taken) and F-16s did passes directly above my head at very low altitude (probably a couple hundred feet) and probably near the speed of sound. It was pretty loud. But didn't get hearing damage.

Generally, you need repeated exposure to jet noise to suffer hearing damage.

I have some hearing damage from my time in the U.S. Navy (1976 to 1980), where I worked on the engines and fuel systems of aircraft, including the F-14.

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

=

...
There are some who insist that it is essential to claim video fakery, that is to say, CGI having been inserted into the video. That may be true for some of them, but I am not sure it is true for all of them. Therefore, it is necessary to consider holographic imagery of the type that is referenced in various military sources as being a new kind of deception technology for war fighting
...

wait, so now you are saying that no planes physically hit the building, but holographic images were projected to make it look like a plane DID hit the building?

this means that if a holographic plane was 'seen', then any 'no plane' witness claims are made invalid.

also, I'm pretty sure airplanes taking off are at full throttle so they can get in the air, so the noise of an airplane taking off would be the same as was heard on 911, and this is what it sounded like in the videos that were taken close enough to get the sound.

once again, the collision of the airplane with the building is in no way at all different to what I would expect a plane hitting a building to look like.

I do know that no jetliners hit the WTC; and, at some level, so do all of us.

no