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

[jammonius]

The Thunderbirds have a routine where they direct your attention to four of their F-16's in diamond formation to the right of the spectators, while a single F-16 comes silently from the left at high subsonic speed low to the ground. By the time you hear the single plane, he's already past you. It's really startling because you have no idea the plane is coming. One of the pilots mentioned he likes the maneuver because in his words "By the time you hear me, it's too late".

rbanks1

Thank you for your observation as to what one could expect to hear. In my view, there is no support in the ALL43 video for the sound of a jetliner, at all.

This observation is literally true because most of the videos, by actual count, are utterly silent, as in, they have no sound. The others do not have a convincing sound of a jetliner irrespective of how one accounts for approach or whether they are past the camera or not.

Not only that, the actual witnesses do not report hearing a jetliner or making the deduction they were present based on sound.

At the end of the analytic process, then, one can fairly say that your attempt to explain why no jetliner was heard does not comport with either what was shown in the available data or by the accounts of the verifiable witnesses.

You are offering an explanation, to be sure, but your explanation is not convincing in my opinion.

 

[TSR]

Thus, it is appropriate to say that no jetliner crashed because it did not result in that which is observed in every other crash of a lightweight hollow instrument with solid structural steel.

.
One point at a time: you are incorrect in your characterization of WTC1 and 2 being "solid structural steel."

The tower walls were, in fact, mostly glass as shown by this pic -- see those vertical lines in the middle of the left hand tower? Those are the core columns, visible because of the backlighting provided by the sun.


.

 

[dc1971]

Take a look at this sequence:

All in and no explosion seen at point of presumed impact, yet explosion already emerging on east face.

Interesting, right?

Wow, Jammonius, you have brought me to see the errors of my ways. And to think, I have been living a lie what with my return to school to earn a Bachelor of SCIENCE degree! Shucks! If only Youtube were around when I was learning Physics and Chemistry in high school, I would have just dropped those classes because Youtube would have been there to show me some REAL Physics and Chemistry!

 

[Gorgonian]

I typed out a response to every sentence of your posts, but I am editing it down to the part that you need to address. I am worried that you will waste time on less important aspects and not focus on the important parts. Here is all that needs addressing:

Absent a demonstration by way of example and/or by way of a specific refutation of a specific claim, you do not refute. You make a claim that something or another is a fallacy and you give the fallacy a name. So what? You are not the arbiter of what is or is not fallacious. And that for obvious reasons: You do not name your own fallacies.

If you dispute that a fallacy I have pointed out exists, please show an example. We can then discuss that. Vaguely alluding that I might have made an error in identification is not going to cut it. Please be specific. It might look like this:

"You said that xyz argument is an "argument from incredulty" when it is not. There reason it is not is abcdefg.

Of course, you would insert the arguments in place of the string of letters. I hope this helps you see the proper way to discuss these things.

I am prepared to support my claims. Always. I support my claims when they are challenged with refutation. I do not engage in 20 question BS games or in "gotcha games."

You do understand the difference, do you not?

No. There is no difference. For instance, here:

SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM THAT THE AIRPLANE SHOULD HAVE EXPLODED ON IMPACT. Do this using logic or other examples.

There is absolutely no way you can claim this 20 questions (there are 0 questions) or a gotcha game. It is neither. It is a demand that you support an assertion that you have made. This assertion is one of the major points of disagreement between you and the rest of the board. It would help to focus on just this item until it is cleared up.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Take a look at this sequence:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/800-2bbcstilletto.png?t=1273962920[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/800-3bbcstillettoallinexplosionbegi.png?t=1273962980[/qimg]

All in and no explosion seen at point of presumed impact, yet explosion already emerging on east face.

Interesting, right?

jammonius,

3 questions so that you can more easily frame the basis of your issues with the fuel explosion and its dynamics.

How quickly does jet fuel ignite?

How fast was the jet fuel going when it ignited as part of the impact with the WTC?

How would what you expect differ from what was observed?

Fitz

 

[jiggeryqua]

After all, Stanley Praimnath says he saw a wing.

So the 'shadowy thing' was a plane?

 

[rbanks1]

Thank you for your observation as to what one could expect to hear. In my view, there is no support in the ALL43 video for the sound of a jetliner, at all.

This observation is literally true because most of the videos, by actual count, are utterly silent, as in, they have no sound. The others do not have a convincing sound of a jetliner irrespective of how one accounts for approach or whether they are past the camera or not.

Not only that, the actual witnesses do not report hearing a jetliner or making the deduction they were present based on sound.

At the end of the analytic process, then, one can fairly say that your attempt to explain why no jetliner was heard does not comport with either what was shown in the available data or by the accounts of the verifiable witnesses.

You are offering an explanation, to be sure, but your explanation is not convincing in my opinion.

Umm,

What in the world are you talking about? I was responding to Apathoid about my experience at an airshow. I was not talking to you, therefore I was not attempting to explain anything to you, nor was I trying to convince you of anything.

rbanks1

 

[Sam.I.Am]

So the 'shadowy thing' was a plane?

Obviously not... It must have been someones leftover KFC lunch from the company fridge. I can't say as I'd blame him for saying "Lord, I can't do this. You take over." in that situation. I mean, can you imagine a cold KFC wing coming right at you at a high rate of speed? Those things are sharp, possibly causing you to lose an eye, and the cold breading could leave some nasty scratch marks too. Thankfully he made it under his desk in time to prevent that horror...

 

[jammonius]

.
One point at a time: you are incorrect in your characterization of WTC1 and 2 being "solid structural steel."

The tower walls were, in fact, mostly glass as shown by this pic -- see those vertical lines in the middle of the left hand tower? Those are the core columns, visible because of the backlighting provided by the sun.


.

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding. Is it your claim the Twin Towers, which were the tallest buildings in the world when they were built, did not have load bearing structural steel perimeter beams as and for one of their primary building components?

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by TSR
.
One point at a time: you are incorrect in your characterization of WTC1 and 2 being "solid structural steel."

The tower walls were, in fact, mostly glass as shown by this pic -- see those vertical lines in the middle of the left hand tower? Those are the core columns, visible because of the backlighting provided by the sun.

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding. Is it your claim the Twin Towers, which were the tallest buildings in the world when they were built, did not have load bearing structural steel perimeter beams as and for one of their primary building components?

Dodge much? The perimeter was load bearing but it wasn't (your words) "solid steel".

The exterior was mostly glass and what steel there was, was about 6mm (one quarter of an inch) thick at the floors hit by the planes.

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

.
One point at a time: you are incorrect in your characterization of WTC1 and 2 being "solid structural steel."

The tower walls were, in fact, mostly glass as shown by this pic -- see those vertical lines in the middle of the left hand tower? Those are the core columns, visible because of the backlighting provided by the sun.


.

Wow, nice picture! based on the crane on top, this must have been taken just as they were being finished, so they would not have had anything in them.
I wouldn't say they are mostly glass, particularly because the steel on the outside was load bearing, but it was about half an half, with the windows being about as wide as the steel columns. the steel beams were HOLLOW though, which is completely different to solid steel.

Jammonius, please explain clearly and precisely what you think should happen when a plane hits a building like one of the World Trade centre buildings.

 

[DGM]

I have made a claim, based on observation. If you disagree with the proposition that jetliners explode upon impact then you post your refutation of the claim.

This is where you went wrong. You have not made your claim based on observation. Pure observation shows the plane enter the building then exploding. What you have done is make a claim that what is observed should not have happened as observed.

What we (and the lurkers) noticed is that you refuse to back-up this claim. Why is this?

 

[jammonius]

Dodge much? The perimeter was load bearing but it wasn't (your words) "solid steel".

The exterior was mostly glass and what steel there was, was about 6mm (one quarter of an inch) thick at the floors hit by the planes.

Hi BigAl,

Did you have a good week "on strike"?

To be sure, the perimeter beams used in the Twin Towers did become progressively narrower in gauge with height. The buildings were, in fact, in the nature of pyramid structures. The lower down, the higher the load. The perimeter beams at the bottom were at least 2inches thick, if not more, if memory serves me correctly. At the height of the explosion at the South Tower, the beams were either 1/4inch as you say or 5/8inch.

In order to place the issue of what those 1/4inch perimeter beams looked like, I offer this:

I here assert that a jetliner was no match for those beams and that most of an actual jetliner would disintegrate and deposit itself in bits and pieces, some large, some small, on the outside of the tower and would not, by any stretch of the imagination, glide right through those 1/4inch to 5/8inch, box shaped, steel beams from nose, through the intact wings, through the aft section and on through the tail without so much as visibly loping off an identifiable flap or part of the tail section, under any version of a real event.

What was seen on your teevee and in the ALL43 videos is stupidly cartoonish, (just like the Roadrunner cartoon, that I have also posted to illustrate the point that what is seen in the South Tower explosion videos is cartoonish) could more of us decide to come to our senses and realize it.

In fact, this is just as good a place as any to offer up version 26 of that cartoon:

26
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...e/26-chopper5jimfriedlAce553.png?t=1277292832

This one is the so-called "Chopper 5" version and is one of those that qualifies as a probable CGI fake. I have addressed this version early on in this thread, and it was not refuted.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5937092&postcount=15

Version 26 begins at about the 5:53 mark and then zooms in just in time to show shadow thingy go in one side and out the other. Let me repeat that:

"zooms in just in time to show shadow thingy go in one side and out the other" without degrading or exploding. In fact, the video is then edited with a black out spot in order, apparently, to correct the error of showing the thingy coming out the other side intact.

This video (version # 26 in the ALL43 compilation) speaks for itself, posters and lurkers. It is one that should convince you that the NO PLANE claim has at least some validity, even if it is too soon for you to let go of the delusion altogether. Do yourselves a favor:

Look at it

 

[DGM]

I here assert that a jetliner was no match for those beams and that most of an actual jetliner would disintegrate and deposit itself in bits and pieces, some large, some small, on the outside of the tower and would not, by any stretch of the imagination, glide right through those 1/4inch to 5/8inch, box shaped, steel beams from nose, through the intact wings, through the aft section and on through the tail without so much as loping off a flat, under any version of a real event.

What do you base your assertion on given the fact that science has shown the plane should have done exactly what it did?

 

[BigAl]

Hi BigAl,

"zooms in just in time to show shadow thingy go in one side and out the other" without degrading or exploding. In fact, the video is then edited with a black out spot in order, apparently, to correct the error of showing the thingy coming out the other side intact.

You have a definition of "without degrading or exploding" that is counter to reality but we already knew that. You also have an unmatched talent for finding images that don't support your assertions.

Hand-wave this short video away.

http://thecameraplanetarchive.magnify.net/video/Over-There-NYT

 

[jammonius]

This is where you went wrong. You have not made your claim based on observation. Pure observation shows the plane enter the building then exploding. What you have done is make a claim that what is observed should not have happened as observed.

What we (and the lurkers) noticed is that you refuse to back-up this claim. Why is this?

OK, we're making some more progress. It would appear the week-off may have done some of you some good.

The assertion that "[y]ou have not made your claim based on observation" followed by a counter-observation is fair game and is in the nature of refutation. Congratulations.

Now, with that being the case; namely, I say the observable data shows a plane entering a steel building without exploding; or, as I most often actually say, by exploding in the wrong place, we have but to allow ourselves to take a look at the data and to comment upon it.

I have also done that and would continue to do that, but the thread has been placed under an edict that we are not to post up too many still images.

I have been making the claim the explosion occurs in the "wrong place" ever since the OP:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5936647&postcount=1

In that one, the claim of explosion in the wrong place is supported by a still image.

Thus, while you seek to refute that claim, I think your attempt is contradicted by the visual evidence that I have shown. Thus, my claim stands as unrefuted, despite your attempt to do so.

As you have not refuted the claim I made, I do not have to post up any additional proof as that which has already been posted remains valid.

See the OP.

Instead of refutation, the first attempt to reply to the OP that where the "wrong place" quote was also included was post # 10

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5936998&postcount=10

That post did not refute, it merely asked a question, without posting any refutation at all.

Do posters agree that that is what happened after the first mention of the explosion occurring in the wrong place?

The next mention of the "wrong place" explosion, supported by video, was in post # 102

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5941169&postcount=102

So, Lurkers, you can see that I have been making supported claims, but they have not been refuted; all as sts75 plainly pointed out to you before sts75 got waived off, as it were.

 

[jammonius]

You have a definition of "without degrading or exploding" that is counter to reality but we already knew that. You also have an unmatched talent for finding images that don't support your assertions.

Hand-wave this short video away.

http://thecameraplanetarchive.magnify.net/video/Over-There-NYT

Thanks for offering up a source of the more complete version of video # 19.

I addressed video # 19 on, you guessed it, page 19

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5992600&postcount=748

I stand by the observations made in that post.

However, I do recommend posters and lurkers view the 2:36 more complete version offered up by BigAl in the quoted post.

Thank you for posting that, BigAl, the level of discussion is advanced by having that link to consider.

Posters and lurkers:

Look at it

http://thecameraplanetarchive.magnify.net/video/Over-There-NYT

Note, too, the paper debris. That is completely inconsistent with a jetliner crash. See the 1:09 mark for an eerie and forlorn piece of paper floating by.

 

[BigAl]

Thanks for offering up a source of the more complete version of video # 19.

I addressed video # 19 on, you guessed it, page 19

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5992600&postcount=748

I stand by the observations made in that post.

So we agree that you have a definition of "without degrading or exploding" that is counter to reality

We are making progress.

 

[Edx]

http://thecameraplanetarchive.magnify.net/video/Over-There-NYT

Note, too, the paper debris. That is completely inconsistent with a jetliner crash. .

LOL and why is that ?

Whether a bomb or a plane hits a busy office building paper's gonna go flying.

 

[djlunacee]

Jammonius,

Seriously, I am beginning to think your grip on reality has become tenuous at best, your ignorance of facts is absolutely outrageous, you have made assertion after assertion in this thread based on opinion. Your appeal to the lurkers has completely backfired, as evidenced in the exchange on page 25 of this thread. Matt the Tuba Guy posted this link which you ignored so I will post it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPvi8sOGN5U&feature=player_embedded

Your inane theory of a plane at 1000 ft and 500mph would have been earsplitting has been shown to be 100% wrong by several members, including your precious lurkers that you appeal to in every post. When presented with a rational explanation as to why there is no sound in most of your videos, which I will repeat for the last time here, MOST OF YOUR VIDEOS ARE FROM NEWS BROADCASTS FROM THE STUDIO, THE AUDIO FEEDS ARE SHUT OFF TO ALLOW FOR VOICEOVERS BY THE COMMENTATORS, you ask me to be irrational, why would I want to do that?

Your knowledge of planes is zero, your knowledge of how an investigation works is zero, the investigators already knew that a plane hit the building from the 1000's of 911 calls that poured in after the impacts.

You claim that Judy Woods has proven that it was a DEW mounted to a satellite that destroyed the towers, good for her, when are hey handing down the indictments? Did you ever stop to think for one second and think? You do know that the U.S. is not the only country with satellites orbiting the earth correct? You don't think the Chinese would have said something about a frickin weapon mounted to a satellite? How about the Russians?

I admire your conviction, I do. However your ignorance and lack of common sense, your aversion to reality and rationality, make it absolutely impossible for you to understand the events of 911.

I do have one question though, you had this entire forum for an entire week to prove your theory on 9/11. Yet you disappeared and all of a sudden show up on the day when you knew the self imposed boycott would end, why?