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

[jammonius]

Another version of this photo was posted somewhere earlier, if memory serves me correctly. The claim was what is seen is a part of an aircraft.

Looked at from the above perspective, it is not at all certain that what is seen is a part of any aircraft, let alone a Boeing 767.

To my knowledge, the basis of the assertion that the above is a part of an aircraft does not originate from any investigative source and is, instead, merely a debunker claim.

I do not know that to be the case, exactly. Rather, I am only saying I know of no official investigation that claims the above is a plane part of any sort, much less a Boeing 767 and still less a Boeing 767 said to be involved in a flight allegedly occuring on 9/11.

 

[Dog Town]

Odd how no planers think the footage is fake, yet latch onto a moment in the footage to support one of tehir crackpot theories (such as claiming tha sparks causes the second one the of the planes hit the tower as an internal explosion)

That's because they are, like the label they apply to themselves, a contradiction! Go twoofers!

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Another version of this photo was posted somewhere earlier, if memory serves me correctly. The claim was what is seen is a part of an aircraft.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/WtcUA175debrisZoom.jpg?t=1278187292[/qimg]

Looked at from the above perspective, it is not at all certain that what is seen is a part of any aircraft, let alone a Boeing 767.

To my knowledge, the basis of the assertion that the above is a part of an aircraft does not originate from any investigative source and is, instead, merely a debunker claim.

I do not know that to be the case, exactly. Rather, I am only saying I know of no official investigation that claims the above is a plane part of any sort, much less a Boeing 767 and still less a Boeing 767 said to be involved in a flight allegedly occuring on 9/11.

Are you serious?? How about the many photos of tha airplane landing gear on the streets below...
What would you say to members of the NYFD, who had to climb over pieces of the plane and body parts on tbe roof of the nearby Marriot? Did they dream the whole thing?

 

[TJM]

Another version of this photo was posted somewhere earlier, if memory serves me correctly. The claim was what is seen is a part of an aircraft.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/WtcUA175debrisZoom.jpg?t=1278187292[/qimg]

Looked at from the above perspective, it is not at all certain that what is seen is a part of any aircraft, let alone a Boeing 767.

To my knowledge, the basis of the assertion that the above is a part of an aircraft does not originate from any investigative source and is, instead, merely a debunker claim.

I do not know that to be the case, exactly. Rather, I am only saying I know of no official investigation that claims the above is a plane part of any sort, much less a Boeing 767 and still less a Boeing 767 said to be involved in a flight allegedly occuring on 9/11.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

 

[Oystein]

Another version of this photo was posted somewhere earlier, if memory serves me correctly. The claim was what is seen is a part of an aircraft.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/WtcUA175debrisZoom.jpg?t=1278187292[/qimg]

Looked at from the above perspective, it is not at all certain that what is seen is a part of any aircraft, let alone a Boeing 767.

To my knowledge, the basis of the assertion that the above is a part of an aircraft does not originate from any investigative source and is, instead, merely a debunker claim.

I do not know that to be the case, exactly. Rather, I am only saying I know of no official investigation that claims the above is a plane part of any sort, much less a Boeing 767 and still less a Boeing 767 said to be involved in a flight allegedly occuring on 9/11.

jammonius, just to clarify my understanding: Are you saying that up until now you were not aware of Figure 2-29 on page 2-32 of FEMA's investigation of the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2, which AJM8125 thankfully linked to?

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

I want to point out that this official investigation claims the above is a plane part of flight UA175 which was a Boeing 767.

Please read the linked document, with special attention to page 2-32 and figure 2-29, and acknowledge that you are now aware that an official investigation claims the above is a plane part of flight UA175 which was a Boeing 767, so you won't be able to play dumb again on that matter in the future!

 

[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. Again. Not rhetorical. Not 20 questions. Will you deign to answer or will you continue to duck and/or move the goalposts?

 

[DGM]

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

I think I need to respond as to how Jam sees your questions

<start Jam mode>

How quickly does jet fuel ignite?

How fast does a penguin swim underwater?

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

Considering the fact you have not addressed the speed of a penguin why should I address your absurd rhetorical question?

How would what you expect differ from what was observed?

Fitz

If you won't respond to me in a meaningful way why should I respond to you?


<end Jam mode>

 

[TJM]

[fitz] Ohhh INTERCOURSE THE PENGUIN. [/fitz]

 

[DGM]

[fitz] Ohhh INTERCOURSE THE PENGUIN. [/fitz]

On the telly?

 

[jammonius]

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

Ah, that's the style. Thank you for posting up that FEMA pdf. I stand corrected. The photo is indeed a part of the FEMA report, an official investigation.

In that same FEMA document, please take a look at the photo of the hole in the North Tower. Do you see Edna Cintron standing there where, supposedly a Boeing 767 had crashed?

all the best

 

[jammonius]

Are you serious?? How about the many photos of tha airplane landing gear on the streets below...
What would you say to members of the NYFD, who had to climb over pieces of the plane and body parts on tbe roof of the nearby Marriot? Did they dream the whole thing?

Photos of pieces of junk are not proof of airline parts either generally, much less specific to the aircraft said to have crashed. You know that on some level, I am sure.

Do you acknowledge that no part or piece of any plane said to have been involved in the crashes at the WTC were ever identified by part number or serial number?

 

[DGM]

Photos of pieces of junk are not proof of airline parts either generally, much less specific to the aircraft said to have crashed. You know that on some level, I am sure.

Do you acknowledge that no part or piece of any plane said to have been involved in the crashes at the WTC were ever identified by part number or serial number?

Why do you ask people questions?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Photos of pieces of junk are not proof of airline parts either generally, much less specific to the aircraft said to have crashed. You know that on some level, I am sure.

Do you acknowledge that no part or piece of any plane said to have been involved in the crashes at the WTC were ever identified by part number or serial number?

Are you suggesting the airplane debris found on nearby rooftops and on the streets below just happened to be there? The pieces have indeed been identified as having come from the planes that crashed.
Are you suggesting the debris was planted?
Or perhaps you think they were holograms?

 

[TheRedWorm]

J, can you answer my JFK questions? ETA: Or, anyone else's, for that matter?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

J, can you answer my JFK questions? ETA: Or, anyone else's, for that matter?

He doesn't think he needs to- Like most Truthers, he doesn't think he needs to back his claims..

 

[djlunacee]

Are you suggesting the airplane debris found on nearby rooftops and on the streets below just happened to be there? The pieces have indeed been identified as having come from the planes that crashed.
Are you suggesting the debris was planted?
Or perhaps you think they were holograms?

He will never tell, that would be a commitment, and he doesn't play gotcha games.

 

[TheRedWorm]

And he/she/it wonders why virtually no one takes him/her/it seriously...

 

[TJM]

Ah, that's the style. Thank you for posting up that FEMA pdf. I stand corrected. The photo is indeed a part of the FEMA report, an official investigation.

In that same FEMA document, please take a look at the photo of the hole in the North Tower. Do you see Edna Cintron standing there where, supposedly a Boeing 767 had crashed?

all the best

Ah, that's the style. Thank you for falling back on your incredulity when faced with the facts.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

And he/she/it wonders why virtually no one takes him/her/it seriously...

He/she 's either a troll, or a complete nut..
I really don't see how a sane person can look at the obvious evidence that planes crashed into the WTC, yet walk away thinking there were no planes. Mental illness has to be a factor....

In their world 2 + 2 = potato

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I really don't see how a sane person can look at the obvious evidence that planes crashed into the WTC, yet walk away thinking there were no planes. Mental illness has to be a factor....

Oh I believe it... Some of the pentagon no planers, are that way with the 16 ft hole shenanigans. It's a savage violation of Adam Savage's mythbusters quote: I reject your reality and substitute it with my own.

You can't debate with people who think like that at all