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

[beachnut]

... 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.


...
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."

Solid? lol, now hollow steel beams are solid, not hollow as shown to be hollow, and jet engine parts are Plymouth wheel covers. Did you mean air filled center, not hollow but filled with air? The plane is filled with air, jet fuel, people, and has the kinetic energy of 1300 to 2093 pounds of TNT; but then you don't do physics, science or reality based facts! You spew delusions

 

[ElMondoHummus]

In the case of North Tower, I think the columns at the point where the jet hit were wide flange, not box columns. I think. I'd need to look it up to be certain, but if anyone here remembers, feel free to confirm or correct.

Regardless, the whole argument is moot. The towers were not solid steel, and the force needed to penetrate the towers would need only be sufficient to deform the columns plus break them off at their connections, plus deform or destroy any non-column structure in the way (the trusses? Other connections?). Trying to describe the situation as hollow aluminum tubes penetrating "solid steel" is erroneous and fallacious in the extreme. These were built structures, not steel bricks.

 

[BigAl]

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."

Yup. The windows were wider than the load-bearing beams. Photos of the exterior don't show this because the beams were covered with non-load-bearing aluminum cladding.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

What a typical office view from inside the World Trade Center might look like. Don't forget that the non structural window casings add to the girth of the beams.

 

[phunk]

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."

By solid, do you mean mostly air? That middle one is over 90% air.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Fine...now show us the basis for your assertion or its worthless.

You know the weight of the plane, make an assumption of beam thickness and show that a plane traveling at the speed alleged would bounce up in pieces.

 

[fess]

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.

There are some things that have not been refuted, mainly because Jammo will not provide answers to the questions posed to him. Wouldn’t one think that the “20 questions gotcha” game would be quite old by now? Actually, it is Jammo’s way of saying, “I can’t answer that question because if would shoot a gigantic hole in my theory.
However, there is one thing that positively can not be refuted, and that is; Jammo is dumber than a dirty sock full of empty sea shells when it comes to trying to support his theories.

 

[fess]

Fine...now show us the basis for your assertion or its worthless.

You know the weight of the plane, make an assumption of beam thickness and show that a plane traveling at the speed alleged would bounce up in pieces.

I once had the occasion to prove this assumption with a Plymouth Fury. The piece of metal was not unlike the center column in the above illustration, and when I hit it, it bent like a pretzel. I faired quite well in the incident, but unfortunately, the Fury spent some time in intensive care. The column didn’t survive.
And no, the question of my sobriety was not raised at the time, and I refuse to answer at this time.

 

[Rocket_Scientist]

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.

Any and all attempts to use "science' to justify what is observed will fail and fail miserably

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

In one single post you proved you know absolutely nothing about science. Jammonius, this is absolutely 100 percent trollish behavior. You made an assertion and then refuse to back it up and use the excuse that science can not validate what was observed. REALLY? How exactly will science "conflict"?

The ONLY "data" you've posted is videos and yet you assert that science CAN'T tell us whether or not a fully fueled wide body aircraft could penetrate the WTC. What info is missing that won't allow us to perfom those calculations? YOU explain why science can't show this was possible. Huge handwave and dodge have been noted by everyone reading this thread.

Back in 2003 when the shuttle columbia broke up on re-entry, the only observed data they initially had was that 1. the shuttle broke up at about 200,000 ft and 2. there was an apparrent foam strike at liftoff. With the exception of a few engineers, virtually no one at NASA could believe a 1.7lb chunk of foam (traveling@500mph) could damage a reinforced carbon panel.

They spent months coming up with altrenate senarios until the MADS data recorder was found. The data on it, in addition to the data recieved by mission control prior to break up, showed where the breach in the wing was and STILL they didn't want to believe a little piece of foam could pierce the wing. Not untill they fired a foam chunk@500mph at a used RCC panel and see the gaping hole it left did everyone believe.

You obviously will NEVER believe a plane hit the WTC because you've just made it clear that you DON"T understand science and YOU DON'T BELIEVE SCIENCE. You're one of those sad people who refuse to believe what they don't understand and your quotes about science prove that.

The sad part about having a discussion like this on an internet forum instead of a face to face conversation, is that the face to face conversation would've ended in 10 minutes or less after someone like jammonius couldn't or refused to back up their claims.

 

[djlunacee]

In one single post you proved you know absolutely nothing about science. Jammonius, this is absolutely 100 percent trollish behavior. You made an assertion and then refuse to back it up and use the excuse that science can not validate what was observed. REALLY? How exactly will science "conflict"?

The ONLY "data" you've posted is videos and yet you assert that science CAN'T tell us whether or not a fully fueled wide body aircraft could penetrate the WTC. What info is missing that won't allow us to perfom those calculations? YOU explain why science can't show this was possible. Huge handwave and dodge have been noted by everyone reading this thread.

Back in 2003 when the shuttle columbia broke up on re-entry, the only observed data they initially had was that 1. the shuttle broke up at about 200,000 ft and 2. there was an apparrent foam strike at liftoff. With the exception of a few engineers, virtually no one at NASA could believe a 1.7lb chunk of foam (traveling@500mph) could damage a reinforced carbon panel.

They spent months coming up with altrenate senarios until the MADS data recorder was found. The data on it, in addition to the data recieved by mission control prior to break up, showed where the breach in the wing was and STILL they didn't want to believe a little piece of foam could pierce the wing. Not untill they fired a foam chunk@500mph at a used RCC panel and see the gaping hole it left did everyone believe.

You obviously will NEVER believe a plane hit the WTC because you've just made it clear that you DON"T understand science and YOU DON'T BELIEVE SCIENCE. You're one of those sad people who refuse to believe what they don't understand and your quotes about science prove that.

The sad part about having a discussion like this on an internet forum instead of a face to face conversation, is that the face to face conversation would've ended in 10 minutes or less after someone like jammonius couldn't or refused to back up their claims.

Yeah, what he said. What now Jammo?

 

[djlunacee]

There are some things that have not been refuted, mainly because Jammo will not provide answers to the questions posed to him. Wouldn’t one think that the “20 questions gotcha” game would be quite old by now? Actually, it is Jammo’s way of saying, “I can’t answer that question because if would shoot a gigantic hole in my theory.
However, there is one thing that positively can not be refuted, and that is; Jammo is dumber than a dirty sock full of empty sea shells when it comes to trying to support his theories.

I, for the first time in my life, am at a complete and total loss for words.

 

[rbanks1]

Back in 2003 when the shuttle columbia broke up on re-entry, the only observed data they initially had was that 1. the shuttle broke up at about 200,000 ft and 2. there was an apparrent foam strike at liftoff. With the exception of a few engineers, virtually no one at NASA could believe a 1.7lb chunk of foam (traveling@500mph) could damage a reinforced carbon panel.

They spent months coming up with altrenate senarios until the MADS data recorder was found. The data on it, in addition to the data recieved by mission control prior to break up, showed where the breach in the wing was and STILL they didn't want to believe a little piece of foam could pierce the wing. Not untill they fired a foam chunk@500mph at a used RCC panel and see the gaping hole it left did everyone believe.

One of my R/C helicopters threw a blade as I was spooling up for takeoff. The 32" blade was made of woven carbon fiber composite with a lightweight foam core. The heli is set up for 3D aerobatics so the blades are extremely light for their size weighing in at 10 ounces each. That 10 ounce blade struck and penetrated a 55 gallon steel drum that was being used as a trashcan.

That drum was made of 1/8" thick steel and the blade not only penetrated it, but went in far enough to put a dent in the opposite side. The gross imbalance caused the opposite blade to flex downward where it struck and very cleanly severed the 1/16" wall thickness titanium tail boom and the kevlar drive belt and steel pitch linkage contained within. Objects with very little mass can indeed do some remarkable things if they are traveling fast enough.

rbanks1

 

[sheeplesnshills]

jammonius, 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?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Yep looks like a plane to me. Unless you can prove its faked?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

removed

 

[fitzgibbon]

Yep looks like a plane to me. Unless you can prove its faked?

uh....sheeple? jammy subscribes to Smacco's razor so it's incumbent upon all and sundry to disprove that it's a "shadow thingy".

HTH
Fitz

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Objects with very little mass can indeed do some remarkable things if they are traveling fast enough.

like bullets.......

weigh almost nothing, made of a soft metal yet will go through a house.....who would have thought!

 

[excaza]

However, there is one thing that positively can not be refuted, and that is; Jammo is dumber than a dirty sock full of empty sea shells when it comes to trying to support his theories.

Hey, I like sea shells!

Anyway, I just read the first 3 pages of this thread, then the last one, and it's the exact same thing. My head hurts. I don't know what else to say, so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head.

 

[jammonius]

In one single post you proved you know absolutely nothing about science.

Your quoted observation is another that seeks to establish alternatively that I don't know anything about something or another or that I am "wrong" about something or another. What is the fascination with who is "right" and who is "wrong"?

Who, pray tell, are you to make the declaration that I "know absolutely nothing about science" and what interest are you seeking to advance by making that declaration?

Do you actually still fail to grasp that I am here posting up claims, supporting them with data or information of one sort or another, and responding to posters who do the same?

Is that pattern, practice and process really so hard to fathom?

Jammonius, this is absolutely 100 percent trollish behavior. You made an assertion and then refuse to back it up and use the excuse that science can not validate what was observed. REALLY? How exactly will science "conflict"?

I am not making an unusual or obscure claim. Did you fail to grasp that part of my post that referenced the NIST study, NCSTAR1? NIST acknowledges that its science is inconclusive and only "partially validated" (to use NIST's actual euphemism) by observable data. Or, in other words, NIST's conclusions, and reliance upon science, was phony. That would have been the more honest way of putting it.

Perhaps the common storyline has, for you, too strong an emotional connection for you to grasp what I'm here getting at. If that is the case, then take, by way of example, that of climate change. You do recognize that science has been bent totally out of shape and all but destroyed by the controversy raging within the climate change realm, right?

9/11 is no different. Science has been misused to a faretheewell to try to justify the common storyline of 9/11 irrespective of the fact that, among other things, steel buildings cannot annihilate themselves in less time than it takes an object to free fall in a vacuum from the same height.

People know that. You know that. But, it is likely your investment in the common storyline will not allow you to square your conception of science with what was observed.

So it is with the jetliner claim. The shadow thingy behaved in ways that defied science, and, in particular, crash physics.

Appeals to science have to be assessed for motivation. In looking at your post, you do not indicate what motivates you to appeal to science. We do not know what reason you attach to an appeal to science when the observable data show a jetliner, in the case of the explosion at the South Tower, do what jetliners cannot do.

You do recognize, do you not, that jetliners cannot glide through steel buildings without slowing and degrading and exploding on impact, correct?

If you claim you need "science" to prove that assertion to your satisfaction, then I am afraid you are setting yourself up for the process of rationalization and of denial to set in.

If, on the other hand, you are content with the proposition that a jetliner can glide through a steel building from nose to midsection, including wings, through the aft section, to and including the entire tail with not so much as an antenna breaking off, absent scientific proof, then I am content for you to be in that position.

I am not content with proving to you that no jetliner can do that on the basis of "science."

I hope you understand my position on this.

I am not dodging anything. Rather, I am refusing to allow the claim of appeal to science to stand in the way of an observed absurdity.

The ONLY "data" you've posted is videos and yet you assert that science CAN'T tell us whether or not a fully fueled wide body aircraft could penetrate the WTC.

Wait. I am not here seeking to prove anything to you. If you have questions about whether a jetliner can penetrate a steel skyscraper in the manner seen in the video, then you need to say that.

If you are under the misapprehension that the alleged jetliner was fully fueled, then you need to double check your facts. The jetliner is postulated to have had no more than 10,000gals of fuel at takeoff, and that is not a full load. Moreover, by way of illustration, that is only enough fuel to fill an average size backyard swimming pool and is not enough to do a darn thing to a 110story steel reinforced skyscraper. Plus that the "fuel" in question was jet fuel which is a middle-distillate petroleum product that is interchangable with kerosene. You know, the stuff you light your charcoal with.

Kerosene does not burn hot enough or long enough to do a darn thing to steel, let alone massive amounts of structural steel beams.

What info is missing that won't allow us to perfom those calculations? YOU explain why science can't show this was possible. Huge handwave and dodge have been noted by everyone reading this thread.

You have not identified any specific calculations to be done, let alone articulate a purpose for them.

For starters, have you agreed that a jetliner glided through the South Tower without slowing, degrading or exploding upon impact?

That is why the video data I have posted is so important. Eventually, and it hasn't happened in this thread as yet, people have to admit to themselves what they see and what they hear.

That is the starting point.

Basically, when people admit to what is seen and what is heard, the appeal to science becomes moot. You are not there yet. You do not grasp this essential fact yet. However, you likely will in due course.

Back in 2003 when the shuttle columbia broke up on re-entry, the only observed data they initially had was that 1. the shuttle broke up at about 200,000 ft and 2. there was an apparrent foam strike at liftoff. With the exception of a few engineers, virtually no one at NASA could believe a 1.7lb chunk of foam (traveling@500mph) could damage a reinforced carbon panel.

They spent months coming up with altrenate senarios until the MADS data recorder was found. The data on it, in addition to the data recieved by mission control prior to break up, showed where the breach in the wing was and STILL they didn't want to believe a little piece of foam could pierce the wing. Not untill they fired a foam chunk@500mph at a used RCC panel and see the gaping hole it left did everyone believe.

The basic issue of what destroyed the Columbia was solved in less than a week.

You obviously will NEVER believe a plane hit the WTC because you've just made it clear that you DON"T understand science and YOU DON'T BELIEVE SCIENCE. You're one of those sad people who refuse to believe what they don't understand and your quotes about science prove that.

I very much adhere to scientific methodology. Your claim as quoted above is false.

The first proposition in connection with the explosion at the South Tower is to come to grips with what happened.

People in this thread have not done that. They have not allowed for the input of reliable data points. Hence, the science, if any were to be applied, would be skewed.

The sad part about having a discussion like this on an internet forum instead of a face to face conversation, is that the face to face conversation would've ended in 10 minutes or less after someone like jammonius couldn't or refused to back up their claims.

All of my claims are substantiated. That, too, is a point that posters here often refuse to come to grips with, with a few exceptions.

 

[TJM]

All of my claims are substantiated. That, too, is a point that posters here often refuse to come to grips with, with a few exceptions.

No. They are not.