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

[DGM]

So, Lurkers, you can see that I have been making supported claims, but they have not been refuted.

No, what you have been doing is making a claim and repeating it until you convince yourself it's true. Nothing you have posted supports your assertion that the planes should not have acted exactly like they did when they contacted the building.

Do you plan to show us how the science that proves the planes acted like they should have is incorrect?

 

[TSR]

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?

.
No.

It is my claim, supported by that picture, that in terms of the finished building, and in terms of total surface area, that the vast majority of what the planes hit was not "load bearing structural steel" but instead was glass.

And as has been pointed out, that load bearing structural steel was not solid, making the entirety of the point to which I was responding false.

Please feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Seriously, I am beginning to think your grip on reality has become tenuous at best,

It took you this long?

Dave

 

[sylvan8798]

Where have you been? I have posted up a whole series of candidates for the coveted title of FIRST NO PLANER.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. None of the people you quote believe there wasn't a plane, dweeb.

 

[carlitos]

seconded

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?

Enquiring minds want to know. Is jammonius seeking truth or playing word games?

 

[BillyRayValentine]

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

I have him on ignore, but I have to respond to that quote.

The notion that a jet weighing 300,000+ lbs. and traveling at 450+ mph would be "no match" for the beams in the facade of the WTC sums this troll up quite nicely. It's impenetrable stupidity. Of the completely unreachable variety.

 

[Oystein]

The noise level issue is not a new one. We spent some time on this in the Dick Oliver threads. There was no consensus, but an interesting phenomenon developed nonethelss.

This is only right insofar as YOU, and ONLY you stubbornly denied a consensus. There was a very strong consensus among ALL other paricipants of that thread, including a good number of your oh so revered lurkers who chose to chime in because they couldn't take your trolling and your appeal to them any longer.

Keep in mind the premise of the Dick Oliver threads involved the explosion at the North Tower. The primary Dick Oliver video was a 1min16sec video that was basically an unintended historical document of virtually unprecedented value. It recorded the sound of the explosion.

You are deliberately leaving out the fact, noted by everybody and denied only by you, that that video also featured the sound of an approaching jet engine right up to the moment we hear an explosion.

The camera was at Park Row, near Beekman, about 1 block north and about 2 blocks east of the North Tower.

This is a flat out LIE. As the north face of the North Tower was about on Fulton Street between Washington and West Streets, Park Row at Beekman was 2 blocks north and 4 to 5 blocks west of WTC1.

None, repeat, none of ther passersby reacted as if a widebody jetliner was approaching at near onto 500mph, barely 1000ft above them, not counting the two blocks west.

LIE repeated: 5 blocks away (about 1700 feet).

And, no one thought a jetliner had crashed, either, in that video.

This is another flat out LIE: The very first opinion voiced in that video was "sounded like a plane crash!" In later ongoing coverage by Dick Oliver and his team Oliver reports "Jim, just a few moments ago, something believed to be a plane crashed into the South Tower of the WTC" (less than 2 minutes after the event; he mistakes north for south tower).

Anyway, the dB range was from about 116 down to, perhaps, 100. Needless to say, the debunker tactic was to find ways to progressivly seek to justify lowering the sound limit. Personally, I think 116dB was on the low side, given the speed that the common storyline mandates.

You are most clearly WRONG, and the wrongness of your claim has been pointed out to you by many, including folks who deal with jetplanes on a daily basis, and they used sources and links that showed WHY your claim is wrong. Your repeating these errors even after having been shown how wrong they were amounts to yet another flat-out LIE.

Bottomline, 116dB should have caused freight and concern. The passersby in the video were almost all completely nonchalant. There was one ambiguous exeception, someone we dubbed Our Lady in Blue. She turned her head slightly and I'll tell you, the debunkers latched onto her for dear life.

Yet another flat-out LIE. You know fully well, that "Our Lady in Blue" not only turned her head, she came to a full stop after walking swiftly in a New York pace.

Nevermind that no one else in the video paid the least bit of attention.

Your expectation that Ney York passerbyers should react differently rests on the wrong premise 116dB or comparably loud jet noises. Because your premise is wrong, your expectation is wrong. You have continually dodged any requests to show YOUR assumptions and YOUR calculations for how loud a jet should have been, so you have nothing to back up your claims. Many others, on the other hand, HAVE shown both assumptions and calculations, came up with much lower numbers, and you have in no single case that I am aware of even made an attempt at refuting those arguments.

I don't think these issues will eve get resolved, the emotional attachment to a point of view is too strong.

The issues ARE resolved, it is ONLY you who clings to his silly claims. The most parsimonous explanation for this would be that YOU are the one who is too strongly emotinally attached to his foolish pet ideas.

On an objective basis, more NO PLANE evidence has been posted than PLANE SPOT evidence.

Silliness.

 

[Gorgonian]

if you disagree with the proposition that jetliners explode upon impact then you post your refutation of the claim.

this has been done. The nose cannot explode any more than a hammer hitting a piece of steel can. The jet fuel is in the wings, not the nose. Support your claim that the nose should explode.

 

[Thunder]

I have posted 100% independent proof, of planes on 9-11 at the WTC.

 

[dtugg]

I have posted 100% independent proof, of planes on 9-11 at the WTC.

All you've done is prove that either you or your supposed neighbors are in on it.

 

[Thunder]

All you've done is prove that either you or your supposed neighbors are in on it.

 

[djlunacee]

It took you this long?

Dave

I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. I was hoping he wouldn't go down th same road as others I have heard about, but while during the boycott, I read some old threads thinking that it really couldn't be as bad as some made it out to be. After reading a few old threads with the likes of ULTIMA1; Christopher7; and Bill Smith; I am in awe.

 

[djlunacee]

Enquiring minds want to know. Is jammonius seeking truth or playing word games?

I don't think he would know truth if it slapped in him in the face twice......wait a minute.....No, no he wouldn't, sad truthfully.

 

[dtugg]

I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. I was hoping he wouldn't go down th same road as others I have heard about, but while during the boycott, I read some old threads thinking that it really couldn't be as bad as some made it out to be. After reading a few old threads with the likes of ULTIMA1; Christopher7; and Bill Smith; I am in awe.

Find one of the threads where jammy is arguing that a giant laser from outer space destroyed the WTC. No, I am not making that up.

 

[djlunacee]

Find one of the threads where jammy is arguing that a giant laser from outer space destroyed the WTC. No, I am not making that up.

I will, I still have to let the 85 page Christopher7/ULTIMA1 thread, as well as the mjd1982 thread I read this week fade from memory, one can only handle so much ignorance.

Seems like Jammy has fled again, seems to be a pattern emerging here.....

 

[jammonius]

LOL and why is that ?

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

The incongruity consists in the fact that paper is the only debris seen in that and other videos. Not a single identifiable part of a plane, let alone a widebody jetliner is seen.

I hasten to add that the debunkers have tried with all their might; or, rather, with all of their rationalization and denial, to claim a piece of a jet engine is seen flying, but, the firecracker streamer they claim is a piece of a jet engine visibly fizziles out as seen in some of the videos. I think I have already posted on that issue.

Further, as no part or piece of a jet engine was ever identified by part number, there is no confirmation at all -- zero, zip, nada -- to substantiate that debunker claim.

So, at the end of the day, the claim that a piece of paper is the most prominent remnant of a supposed Boeing 767 crashing into the South Tower is richly ironic and very symptomatic of the fact that the 9/11 plane crash was a pyrotechnical hoax.

Paper for crying out loud

(Not even burned, at that)

 

[Gorgonian]

facepalm.jpg

 

[djlunacee]

The incongruity consists in the fact that paper is the only debris seen in that and other videos. Not a single identifiable part of a plane, let alone a widebody jetliner is seen.

I hasten to add that the debunkers have tried with all their might; or, rather, with all of their rationalization and denial, to claim a piece of a jet engine is seen flying, but, the firecracker streamer they claim is a piece of a jet engine visibly fizziles out as seen in some of the videos. I think I have already posted on that issue.

Further, as no part or piece of a jet engine was ever identified by part number, there is no confirmation at all -- zero, zip, nada -- to substantiate that debunker claim.

So, at the end of the day, the claim that a piece of paper is the most prominent remnant of a supposed Boeing 767 crashing into the South Tower is richly ironic and very symptomatic of the fact that the 9/11 plane crash was a pyrotechnical hoax.

Paper for crying out loud

(Not even burned, at that)

Then have a look

http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm

Now provide me evidence that the United States Government has a DEW mounted on a satellite, orbiting Earth.

 

[jammonius]

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

I have dealt extensively with that video segment. It is number 16 in the ALL43. Here's an example of how I addressed that video:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5942464&postcount=118

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.

I don't understand the appeal that making declarations about posters being "right" and me being "wrong" has? I really don't.

There have been almost no attempts at refutation of what I post. sts75, RIP, was right about that. True, posters here are prone to declaring themselves "right" about this that or the other; but they do not engage in much in the way of actual refutation.

There has not been any meaningful refutation of the fact that almost no one reports hearing a jetliner; that no one was able to deduce the presence of one based on what they heard in any reliable witness statement. Instead, almost all witnesses report hearing an explosion.

So, based on what the actual witnesses said, I really don't understand why some posters jump up and down claiming they are right about how a low, fast widebody jet sounds?

Let me ask you, if you don't mind: Do you think, based on your experience, that a jetliner at <1000ft up and 550mph could be clearly heard by anyone in lower Manhattan? Do you think the videos that captured the event and that had the sound on could reliably capture the sound of a jetliner? Do you think there are any of the ALL43 that do that?

The one that is in question here, number 16, does have sound, but that sound is more consistent with the "roar" that Asst. Commn. Stephen Gregory describes; about which he said he "didn't think it was a plane." That is what the single best witness there is said, djlunacee. I am here basing my claim on the actual evidence.

Do you acknowledge that that is what I am doing?

Based on evidence, my claim stands unrefuted.

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?

Look, the fact that you can offer an EXCUSE IN ALL CAPS doesn't change the fact that you are offering an excuse as to why you have no evidence of a jetliner.

What do you want; congratulations, or something, that you do not have evidence of a jetliner?

I do not care why you don't have evidence and I do not care if you have a good excuse. The fact remains, you haven't got the evidence and you cannot infer it by not having it. The reason for that is some of the videos do have sound; and, even there, the evidence of the sound of a jetliner is conspicuous by its absence.

These are the unrefuted facts.

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.

Good grief are we ever off on the wrong foot. I have posted the best sources, including links, of the calls that came in; namely the PAPD reports.

Almost all of the callers reported "an explosion" and almost none of them reported "a plane" of any sort, let alone a jetliner.

Here is an example of a PAPD witness account:

A memorandum from PO James E. Hall # 1529 to Lt. E. Gutch stating:

"On Sept. 11, 2001 the undersigned officer was assigned to the CVI unit. Also assigned that day was PO A. Niedermeyer #1537 and PO J. Rivero #1623. While conducting a bus inspection detail in the location of W 41st and 11th Ave. at approx. 0845, we received a radio transmission stating an explosion occurred at the location of the World Trade Center."

The PAPD statements were compiled at

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports01.pdf
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports02.pdf

Unfortunately, the above links might be dead now. I think they're cached somewhere and it might be helpful if some poster were to locate them. I do have the pdf versions, but a link would, admittedly, be helpful.

A detailed discussion of the nature and quality (or lack thereof) of debunker witness claims was done by me at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5888089&postcount=275

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?

Your assertions are only very tenuously correct. I have in other threads discussed DEW. I am not going to do so here. Suffice to say, very briefly, that Dr. Wood does not claim the location of DEW was a staellite.

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.

Thank you for expressing your opinion. You do acknowledge, of course, that your opinion does not refute anything I have claimed, right?

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?

Well, first of all, welcome back from the SELF IMPOSED TIME-OUT CORNER!

Do you feel better now? Are you now able to start engaging in refutation?

Secondly, while you were away, I posted the following:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6041185&postcount=958

The subtitle of that post is:

The real reason for the 1 week boycott = INABILITY TO REFUTE

And, true to form, no one has refuted that post. Are you willing to give it a shot, now that you're presumably relaxed and ready to post again?

 

[Oystein]

...
I don't understand the appeal that making declarations about posters being "right" and me being "wrong" has? I really don't.
...

At the end of the day, that's what it boils down to: Which claims and propositions are right, and which are wrong? A declaration will be made.

if you are not interested in right and wrong, the entire discussion is nonsense (as if it weren't already)