fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
You do realize that you only have 5 more videos to show some proof of what you claim... don't you?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
-
- Tags
- no plane theory no planes
- Status
You do realize that you only have 5 more videos to show some proof of what you claim... don't you?
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
Rhetoric you say? You are dense… are you not? OK, considering your lack of comprehension, I will make as plain as I possibly can; Yes, you can see the twin towers from the above location.
There are very few tall buildings in this area of New York City, certainly none that would hide the view of the twin towers.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
In that case, yes, I can confirm that you could clearly see the towers from that location. 6th Ave is 6 lanes wide, pointed towards the towers, and there are no tall buildings in that area. You'd have a wide open view of the towers from there.
And given the angle that the plane approached the south tower, yes, you'd be able to see it approach and the subsequent explosion but not the actual impact on the other side of the building.
Last edited:
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
You are quite welcome, I just love it when people like you prove to the world that they are totally insane, and live in their own little world, totally removed from reality.
You post a still from a video of an aircraft moving across the screen from left to right at a speed of over 700ft/sec and expect the image to be clear? I did notice however, you failed to mention the damage being done to the East wall as the aircraft moves into and through the building. It is clearly visible to any viewer watching the video, just not you.
You do realize, don’t you, that using an image or a statement out of context can be construed as being a lie? But, I would guess that you don’t care how low you stoop in order to carry on your charade.
As I have said on more than one occasion, you are a fraud, and yes, a liar also. You may believe that you are leading the members of this forum through a myriad of word salad statements, but I assure you that you are wrong. It is we, or I, that is letting you make a fool of yourself.
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
You do realize that you only have 4 more videos to show some proof of what you claim... don't you?
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
Thank you Sir.
Tinfoil Hater
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,440
what a sad image..at that very second, the people on that plane were screaming, being ripped to shreds, and were in their last seconds of life...
If you continue to insist planes never crashed into the WTC, then what message do you have for the family members of the people who were on those planes? I think you no-planers are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers...
Last edited:
indeed...for they deny very clear-cut facts.
millions of Jews are missing...yet Holocaust deniers refuse to accept this.
planes were seen on videos, photos, and human eyes, yet No-Planers refuse to believe it.
very very similar cloth indeed.
The issue of what the videos show is being advanced at long last. Femr2 apparently looks at the gif in the above post as being a fair representation of reality. In order to hold that view, one has to suspend disbelief. Here is a still extracted from Femr2's gif:
That gif, in its entirety, and in segments, including that seen above cannot by any stretch of reality be said to depict the properties of an actual jetliner crash.
The image confirms a jetliner has glided almost all the way through a steel, concrete and rebar structure without degrading, without bending, without exploding and without shearing off any debris in any realistic quantity. in fact, let's be a little more exacting here. The wings that we must necessarily infer have passed through the exterior wall have done so, according to the still excerpt from Femr2's gif, without leaving any sign of doing so. Look at it posters and lurers. It's right there in front of you.
I can anticipate that some will engage in a process of rationalization and of denial claiming the video lacks sufficient resolution and such like. Well, the fact is, that tail section of that shadow thingy should not be intact and should not be able to glide through and should not have been in the least bit visible at that instance. Yet, it continued to glide right through, once again, without degrading and without even slowing.
Posters, observation confirms that the shadow thingy is not a Boeing 767 and is not Flight 175. It is an illusion.
In fact, what is seen in Femr2's gif is the exact functional equivalent of a Roadrunner cartoon:
The Roadrunner and the Shadow thingy are two examples of the same thing:
Special effects; or, as Evan Fairbanks said in the case of Shadow thingy, "a bad special effect."
Last edited:
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
I'll draw your attention to post #985, posted requesting your input 10 days and more than 500 posts in this thread ago and bumped repeatedly.
How should the plane and the resulting explosion at that time looked different?
TIA for your attention to this matter.
Fitz
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
There might be one other possibility Jam. What if the building itself had been tampered with, say weakened somehow in the area of impact.
After all it's undeniable that there is a flash from inside the building a split second before impact. It can be clearly seen even in Femr2's gif. This flash would indicate that the plane was hitting the building with pinpoint precision at a predetermined location. The same was true of flight 11 where there was also a flash before impact.
Last edited:
Greetings Fitz,
Your post # 985 may have contained the following:
I don't know if I responded to that or not. If I did, the response was likely along the following lines:
Your queries are rhetorical and are not questions at all. Rather, they are assertions or claims, about which you very likely have very definite opinions about, or claims that you would like to make. It is not incumbent upon another to answer the rhetoric posed by someone else.
If you would like to make a claim concerning the relationship between, on the one hand, what is shown as absurdly impossible crash dynamics in the videos from the explosion at the South Tower and issues associated with 1)speed of ignition of jet fuel (kerosene); and/or 2) what the speed was of the jet fuel when it ignited as part of the impact with the WTC; and/or 3) whether you think the observed dynamics conform or differ from what was observed, on the other, then kindly MAKE YOUR CLAIMS.
I can assure you that if you make a claim or if you make an assertion concerning one or two or three of the rhetorical claims you have posted, then I will respond.
However, for so long as you post your hidden and disguised claims as rhetorical questions, I will not answer them--ever. I do not engage in "20 question" gaming. You may or may not be a teacher. I do not know or care. But, I am not in your class, I do not like your teaching style and would not ever enroll in a class taught by you. As I am not a student in your class, I am not obliged to answer your rhetorical questions about claims you may wish to make, and can, if you so choose, make on your own.
If you ask me questions about claims I have made; or, better still, if you seek to to refute claims I have made, then I am far more likely to respond. If there is anything here you do not understand, let me know, and I will seek to clarify so that you do understand.
jammonius
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
Please show evidence that the bolded statement is true. If they are impossible, you must have some sense of what is possible, so please post that as soon as possible. Math would be a plus.
What are you considering as being the comparative possibility; and, why have you limited the realm of possibility to just two?
I am not certain of the origin of the flash and it is difficult to isolate that flash in order to snag a still image of it for posting and discussion here. I think Killtown's website might contain a still of the flash. As well, there are other video segments where the issue of flashes being seen before shadow thingy does its magic trick can be seen as well.
It is possible a discussion of the various "flashes" might ensue. In terms of strict observation, it is a bit of an oxymoron to assert that the flash originates from inside the building because a two dimensional video does not allow one to see what is on the other side of the perimeter wall. Instead, and more accurately, I think one is limited to saying a flash originates at the wall. One can also question whether the flash occurs before shadow thingy's nose is seen to touch that wall. That is a point of observation, about which people are likely to differ based on how wedded they are to the common storyline.
As you know, the eye beholds what the viewer wants it to, generally speaking.
Thanks for your post. I hope there'll be many more.
all the best
Last edited:
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
It did. Very clearly. That's why I even gave you the link to it as a way to satisfy yourself that the post was as displayed in my previous posting.
You didn't
They are not rhetorical questions.
But you're making assertions about many well-understood physical interactions. Surely if you're in a position to make them, you're in a position to demonstrate valid logic.
And again, they are not rhetorical questions. A question asked is not in and of itself rhetorical.
I asked you. Repeatedly. Thus far, your responses have been either "I don't play 20 questions' or 'That's a rhetorical question!'
I (and others) have been asking. I await an answer.
The above is a ludicrous post. This is a thread with more than 1550 posts dedicated to a discussion of what the ALL43 videos show about the explosion at the South Tower on 9/11. Virtually all posts made by me in this tread stand for the proposition that the videos, taken separately, taken together in groups, or taken as a whole data set do not show the properties that would result from an actual jetliner crashing into that building.
Your thinly disguised request for more proof is, then, an assertion that merely says you continue to believe the common storyline that a jetliner hit the South Tower on 9/11. I am not here seeking to change your belief, TheRedWorm.
I have said many times, posters, including you, may continue to believe the common storyline for as long as they can.
If you'd like to discuss something in the 1550+ posts as to whether you think it supports or contradicts the common storyline, fine, post up, if you please.
I will continue to post more and additional information, page by page, post by post, as I have done. Do you doubt that that is true?
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
You are making an assertion. He is merely asking you to show your work. Is it really as difficult as all that?
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Would you say that if I can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the flash originated from inside the building and prior to impact that that would make my hypothesis worth true consideration ?
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
It’s hilarious almost, that your still depicts the exact moment that the engines slam into the building, at I might add, 700ft/sec. That alone proves that your brain, located in its cranial enclosure, resembles that of a BB in a dump truck!
Couldn’t you blow this image up a little more so your image would be more “blurry”? Come on Jammy, you can do better than that.
Not in your world anyway.
Can you offer any proof of what you say? Your image shows that the wings are just now making contact with the outer core of the building, at 700FT/sec. If, and I repeat, if, you knew anything about aircraft construction, you would realize that the wings are one of the sturdiest members of the aircraft, and they could have easily penetrates the outer core. Just like a bullet can penetrate steel.
Are we now resorting to using cartoons to illustrate our proof? You are slipping.
Last edited:
Fitz,
You will receive an answer to the following rhetorical questions when you re-post the rhetoric as claims that you are making:
How quickly does jet fuel ignite?
As to which, Fitz states...
How fast was the jet fuel going when it ignited as part of the impact with the WTC?
As to which, Fitz asserts...
How would what you expect differ from what was observed?
As to which, Fitz claims...
As soon as you so post, in the form of a statement, an assertion and/or a claim, I will likely respond.
Until you so post, I will not respond.
You will receive an answer to the following rhetorical questions when you re-post the rhetoric as claims that you are making:
How quickly does jet fuel ignite?
As to which, Fitz states...
How fast was the jet fuel going when it ignited as part of the impact with the WTC?
As to which, Fitz asserts...
How would what you expect differ from what was observed?
As to which, Fitz claims...
As soon as you so post, in the form of a statement, an assertion and/or a claim, I will likely respond.
Until you so post, I will not respond.
Last edited:
- Status