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

[jammonius]

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?

No, I do not plan on posting 'science' as there is none that is convincing, standing alone. The science must be validated by what is observed, not the other way around.

Upon that statement of epistemology, I stand.

Any and all attempts to use "science' to justify what is observed will fail and fail miserably, as it relates to the stupid proposition that jetliners crashed into the WTC as is apparently, but not actually, seen on teevee and in preserved videos, of which, ALL43 of them are the subject of this thread, for which I am responsible for the OP.

I am the one who posted the data.

The reason for the inability to use science to prove jetliners hit the WTC, or did not do so, is that the science will conflict. It is not possible to post a consensus scientific approach to justifying either that a jetliner did or did not crash into the WTC complex, as apparently seen in video.

NIST does not claim their analysis confirms the crash of jetliners.

So, right at the outset, your post is doomed to inconclusivity. NIST, itself, does not claim the videos prove the crashes of jetliners. Instead, NIST issued a wishy-washy, equivocal statement about the extent to which their calculations were confirmed or not confirmed by what was observed. I have elsewhere posted on that issue, including the NIST quotation.

You can look it up. I think it's in this thread, actually.

 

[phunk]

So it is with the 9/11 crashes. What is observed, namely an insertion of a jetliner into a steel structure without an immediate explosion or crash dynamic involving disentegration. 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.

That structural steel was not solid, it was also hollow.

 

[Oystein]

That structural steel was not solid, it was also hollow.

Plus, it is of little relevance how stable the airframe was relative to the structure it is impacting: liquids, sand piles or cardboard moving with the same mass, energy and impulse would have caused basically the same kind of destruction, as the impact must dissipate energy and impulse somehow. Beyond certain thresholds of force per area, disintegration of the fassade will be inevitable.
You can shoot holes into steel with water guns. It does not matter very much if the impacting structure (plane) disintegrates itself or already arrives disintegrated.

 

[jammonius]

.
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.
.

If you are satisfied with your post, then so be it. But, let's go through it:

Your "No" answer apparently means you acknowledge the WTC Twin Towers were constructed from load-bearing structural steel perimeter beams that had a thickness that was in a variable range, depending upon height from at least 2inches max to at least 1/4inch min.

That much we appear to agree on.

You next rely on a picture of uncertain origin and of uncertain focal length, film-type, resolution, filtering, etc. to claim with respect to the tallest building in the world, when built, that: "the vast majority of what the planes hit was not "load bearing structural steel" but instead was glass."

That is your claim and you are presumably sticking with it.

I, on the other hand, contend that the following picture more accurately conveys the nature and the extent of the structural steel construction of the Twin Towers and that structural steel, not glass, was the primary component and also shows that no jetliner hit it and that if one had, the majority of it would have been outside, not inside the building:

That said, people can differ as to what they think pictoral information shows. I respect your attempt to show the presumed jetliner hit mostly glass. At least you're giving it a shot.

Now, if you don't mind my saying this, I want to point out to our lurkers as follows:

TSR claims "...the vast majority of what the planes hit was not "load bearing structural steel" but instead was glass..."

I kid you not lurkers. That is what TSR claims.

Finally, you also assert "that load bearing structural steel was not solid, making the entirety of the point to which I was responding false.

Here's a diagramatic spec of the structural steel perimeter beams that confirm they are solid structural steel beams in every practical sense of those words, with the emphasis being placed upon "structural" and upon "steel" as opposed to "hollow" and "aluminum tube."

 

[dtugg]

Here's a diagramatic spec of the structural steel perimeter beams that confirm they are solid structural steel beams in every practical sense of those words, with the emphasis being placed upon "structural" and upon "steel" as opposed to "hollow" and "aluminum tube."

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/col_dimensions.gif?t=1277314958[/qimg]

You just proved the columns were hollow. Congrats.

 

[djlunacee]

Jamm,


Again all of the errors you have made in your assertions in this thread, have been whipped like a dead mule.

Earsplitting decibel levels....refuted

Solid structural steel....refuted

No sounds of a plane....refuted

NO PLANES.....REFUTED

your continued hand waving and dodging of fact and physical evidence....


UNDISPUTED



Yes indeed, I am well rested, and ready to go as soon as you can provide evidence that proves assertions, all you are doing is writing an opinion piece.

 

[Oystein]

You just proved the columns were hollow. Congrats.

Next, jammo will tell us that this is an aardvark:

 

[Sam.I.Am]

You would expect to see aircraft parts from the WTC in what seems to be in the Red Hook area (based upon camera angle and surroundings)?

The smoke plume was right overhead and you could see thousands of pieces of paper fluttering overhead. Here's my question to you Jam, How did you're majik DEW Lazurs dustify steel while not vaporizing common office paper?

 

[jammonius]

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

I have made note of your photos and of the commentary that followed them.

Based upon the commentary, your thread and your photos are being treated as a "joke".

Is that what you intended?

I will monitor that thread, but it would appear it has already established a tone and a quality that does not lend itself to serious discussion.

 

[fitzgibbon]

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

Bumping for jammonius. Notice 3 questions (all inter-related) not 20. Should be easey-peasey for you to answer.

 

[DGM]

No, I do not plan on posting 'science' as there is none that is convincing, standing alone. The science must be validated by what is observed, not the other way around.

The science IS clearly validated by what is seen. The plane did in fact enter the building AND explode after (just like it should). Your the only one that is going against what is seen in the videos. If I remember you say they're "fake" to explain that, Correct?

 

[jammonius]

Hey Lurkers, the posse is back from timeout...

27
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...43title/27-straightonfast614.png?t=1277316364

Video segment # 27 is another of the silent jobby-dos. It is brief and is very grayish in tone. It is mostly unremarkable, imho, and doesn't really add much. The shadow thingy seems to glide across at a pace that is about at the mid-point of the speed differential noted between and among the various versions.

 

[jammonius]

The science IS clearly validated by what is seen. The plane did in fact enter the building AND explode after (just like it should). Your the only one that is going against what is seen in the videos. If I remember you say they're "fake" to explain that, Correct?

The word IS -- placed in bold -- and the word AND -- likewise so placed -- is not science. You have not posted any science; and, you sure as heck haven't refuted anything I have posted, at all.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Answer your own questions if they are of interest to you. I am not in a class being taught by you. I do not like your teaching style. Were I a student, I would not, under any circumstances, take a class taught by you as I do not like your style at all.

Once again, answer your own questions and post your results if and to the extent your results are in the least bit relevant to a point you are trying to make.

Well, Jocko, you're the none claiming the quality of the fuel-air explosion is all wrong. Yet you're reticent to step up to the plate and explain why.

I wonder why?

 

[fitzgibbon]

NVM

 

[DGM]

The word IS -- placed in bold -- and the word AND -- likewise so placed -- is not science. You have not posted any science; and, you sure as heck haven't refuted anything I have posted, at all.

Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true.

ETA The "lurkers" are seeing you squirm. You need to validate your assertions and soon.

 

[Thunder]

Jamm- just because a FNDY or NYPD guy was on the wrong side of the WTC and did not see the 2nd plane hit, does not make them "no-planers".

just because someone was looking the other way and only heard the plane hit, and failed to see it, does not make them "no-planers".

a No-Planer is someone who actually disputes the fact that 2 airplanes crashed into the WTC on 9-11.

 

[djlunacee]

Apparently, you are not rested enough. Your post confirms you still do not grasp that claims of refutation, standing alone, do not refute anything.


Do Better

Yep its official, you are hopeless, just about what I expected, quick question though, If you are not going to present science to prove your no plane theory, then why do you think we have to present it to refute you????

the fact still remains that your claims have been refuted, claiming that they haven't when everyone can read the thread, is really not a smart move.

 

[carlitos]

Here's a diagramatic spec of the structural steel perimeter beams that confirm they are solid structural steel beams in every practical sense of those words, with the emphasis being placed upon "structural" and upon "steel" as opposed to "hollow" and "aluminum tube."

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/col_dimensions.gif?t=1277314958[/qimg]

What is represented by the white space in the middle of those boxes? Air, that's what. You posted a diagram of hollow steel columns as evidence that the steel columns weren't hollow. Awesome.

 

[DGM]

I, on the other hand, contend that the following picture more accurately conveys the nature and the extent of the structural steel construction of the Twin Towers and that structural steel, not glass, was the primary component and also shows that no jetliner hit it and that if one had, the majority of it would have been outside, not inside the building:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/NIST_p105.jpg?t=1277314606[/qimg]

Did you happen to notice in this picture that you posted the steel is bent IN? Just like science says would happen. You've got to stop posting your "evidence", it's killing you.