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

Status
Not open for further replies.
jammonius said:
You post up your claims and your proofs; and, I will do the same.
Click to expand...

No you won't, as you have most clearly documented in this most awesome example of "dodging the question" I have ever seen.:eek:

You don't want to debate, you want to soapbox. Very poorly so, I may add.

I don't expect to get answers from you…mainly because you don't have any…but also due to the fact that you have some sort of elitist mentality that absolves you of any responsibility.

The accuser always has the burden of providing proof. Most of the posters here have followed this courtesy. You, however, have not.

I don’t believe you have the capability of carrying on a civil debate…this last post is a glaring exhibit ‘A’. I simply asked you a series of direct questions that could have been answered in 5 words or less, and you completely and intentionally avoided each and every one of them.

Was I trying to set you up? No. I was trying to get an understanding of why you think the way you do. I want to know what comparisons you are basing your opinions on so that I, and others, can peruse these “facts” for ourselves.

Your opinion is nothing more than a fantasy. It can’t even be given a “hypothesis” definition because you don’t have anything you’re saying set in reality.

Good luck on your quest.
 
sabretooth47 said:
No you won't, as you have most clearly documented in this most awesome example of "dodging the question" I have ever seen.:eek:

You don't want to debate, you want to soapbox. Very poorly so, I may add.

I don't expect to get answers from you…mainly because you don't have any…but also due to the fact that you have some sort of elitist mentality that absolves you of any responsibility.

The accuser always has the burden of providing proof. Most of the posters here have followed this courtesy. You, however, have not.

I don’t believe you have the capability of carrying on a civil debate…this last post is a glaring exhibit ‘A’. I simply asked you a series of direct questions that could have been answered in 5 words or less, and you completely and intentionally avoided each and every one of them.

Was I trying to set you up? No. I was trying to get an understanding of why you think the way you do. I want to know what comparisons you are basing your opinions on so that I, and others, can peruse these “facts” for ourselves.

Your opinion is nothing more than a fantasy. It can’t even be given a “hypothesis” definition because you don’t have anything you’re saying set in reality.

Good luck on your quest.
Click to expand...

In Jam's case, the words "Ignorance is bliss." is taken quite literally by him.
 
Why does Jam continue to dodge the question of what does he think happened to the people on the planes? If he thinks thinks there were no planers, then where are the passengers and crew? No planes must also mean no people- so does he think the people on the planes were fictional? Can he prove this?



If they were never on the planes- then why were remains and airplane debris found at the crash sites? Wht havene't these people been seen alive since 9/11.


The only thing more ridiculous than Jammy's no-planer delousion is his unwillingness and inability to prove his case. But then he is a Truther, and logic is a rare commodity in the Truther cult.

Jammy, if as you seem to think Ed Felt and Betty Ong were not on the planes, as you claim the planes didn't exist, then what happened to them?
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Posts like that of Titanic seek to fill in the void created by the absence of a proper investigation by using your losses as a way of placing all emphasis upon emotional concerns, such that we are then consumed by sympathy and therefore unable to say: Wat a minute or Time out let alone I have a few questions I'd like to ask.

.
Click to expand...


It's pathetic how Jamm has zero emotion towards the fact thousands were murdered on 9/11
 
jammonius said:
Here we are what, 40% through Compus' victims eulogy ploy and there is no indication at all, after reporting on nearly 1/3 of the passengers what their movements or whereabouts were on 9/11.

It is useless to point out that Titanic hasn't proven his claim. Titanic "believes" it and, as we know, the common storyline of 9/11 is, indeed, a matter of faith and of belief. No investigation was ever done or needed as far as the faith-based community is concerned.

That is why their proofs tend to start out with claims like:

"...family members still in mourning..."

.
Click to expand...



Vile.
More contempt for the dead....
 
Titanic Explorer said:
Why does Jam continue to dodge the question of what does he think happened to the people on the planes? If he thinks thinks there were no planers, then where are the passengers and crew? No planes must also mean no people- so does he think the people on the planes were fictional? Can he prove this?



If they were never on the planes- then why were remains and airplane debris found at the crash sites? Wht havene't these people been seen alive since 9/11.


The only thing more ridiculous than Jammy's no-planer delousion is his unwillingness and inability to prove his case. But then he is a Truther, and logic is a rare commodity in the Truther cult.

Jammy, if as you seem to think Ed Felt and Betty Ong were not on the planes, as you claim the planes didn't exist, then what happened to them?
Click to expand...
See post #3200

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6215974#post6215974
 
"What do you think a "realistic" crash would look like?"

Another simple question. Jammo please answer it. You cannot say something did not look like a plane crashing into a building unless you can describe what it should have looked like.

" how many airliners have you seen crash into steel buildings?"

Jammo another very simple question. A simple number will suffice for now.
 
You post up your claims and your proofs; and, I will do the same.

Jammo, you have not posted a single proof in hundreds and hundreds of pages. When do you plan to do so? You have to grasp the fact that a baseless assertion does not constitute proof in any context let alone a court of law.
You may think the videos are faked but who cares what you think? If you have proof that they were faked please show it to us. proof might consist of confessions of the people who faked them, paper trail showing how the fakes were substituted into a multiple live TV broadcasts etc. Again you can dispute the various eye witnesses all you like but this is not a court. If it was they would simply call those witness to testify. Their testimony would then be admissible evidence not hearsay. Please prove to us that either A) none of these people really exist or B) that they are deliberately lying to cover up "no planes".
You are making the assertions, who must provide the proof. Any of us that did not directly witness 911 have to rely on the accounts of others. I find those accounts perfectly plausible. Are none of the witnesses lying? probably not....there are always some people that like to inflate their part of a story but for all these people to be lying and for all the videos to be faked is utterly implausible. No organization could possibly pull that off and have any hope of getting away with it and why would they when it so much simpler to persuade some religious nutcases to hijack some planes?
 
Factual and Detailed Posting

Continuation of Review and assessment of Simulation of alleged Flight 175 Flight from video posted by Bill Smith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jop84...eature=channel

Boy, the last several posts in this thread have been noteworthy for how devoid of any useful content they are. That is too bad. :mad:

Here, then, is the next segment of the above referenced video that provides a detailed simulation of the last 4min 40secs of the alleged flightpath of alleged Flight 175 based on the purported radar data that some posters around here like to trumpet, but not analyze.

Basically, the radar data confirms the following:

1--If an actual Boeing 767 had flown in the way subsumed by the flight path data, it would have broken apart; and

2--The alleged flight path, as contained in the flight path study that uses the alleged radar data, does not match the indicated flight as seen in some of the videos of the event, thus confirming falsity either by video fakery or by false imagery or by use of aircraft other than alleged Flight 175, among other possible falsification processes.

That is what the data show, posters, lurkers and victims family members.

In other words, analysis and facts that I post once again combine to confirm that the common storyline of 9/11 as it specifically relates to alleged Flight 175 is demonstrably false.

Deal with it.


19--4:07-4:20 Explanation of use of autopilot to show speed.
20--4:20-4:22 Speed of descent in second minute = 3100ft/min.
21-4:22-5:05 Explanation re ground speed, weather neutral, no tail wind, 350knot max speed,
22--5:06- 5:25 Structural integrity compromised at indicated speed of 350knots, max safe speed at that altitude = 250knots.
23--5:26-5:30 Speed of descent in third minute = 5000ft/min.
24--5:30-6:27 Plane has redlined and is over maximum safe speed. Discussion of overspeed and of difference between air speed and ground speed. Airspeed of 350knots = ground speed of 577mph. Overspeed.
25--6:28-6:30 Speed of descent in fourth minute = 6000ft/min.
26--6:30-6:40 At indicated speed, structural integrity of airframe compromised.
27--6:43-6:47 Still 15 miles from WTC and 15,000ft up.

flightsim1927.jpg


Would anyone, anyone at all, care to engage in some meaningful dialogue on facts, data and actual information or not? :boggled:
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Basically, the radar data confirms the following"
Click to expand...

So you don't deny the authenticity of the radar data?

1--That had a Boeing 767 actually flown in the way subsumed by the flight path data, it would have broken apart; and
Click to expand...

This has been shown, repeatedly, to be a complete lie. No surprise you're using it. Do you really think an aircraft will disintegrate the second it exceeds its maximum speed? That would be the worst design choice ever. Please come back when you've learned, well, anything about engineering design.

2--The alleged flight path, as contained in the flight path study that uses the alleged radar data, does not match the indicated flight as seen in some of the videos of the event.
Click to expand...

This has been shown, repeatedly, to be a complete lie. Please explain how the radar data does not match the indicated flight as seen in some of the videos of the event. Your belief does not make it so.

Would anyone, anyone at all, care to engage in some meaningful dialogue on facts, data and actual information or not?
Click to expand...
You first.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Would anyone, anyone at all, care to engage in some meaningful dialogue on facts, data and actual information or not? :boggled:
Click to expand...

Sure...my first observation is that you posted pictures of a 747, which is a completely different aircraft than a 767.

Why are you basing your data on an airframe that was not part of 9/11. So, from my point of view, you are using incorrect data to push a theory that doesn't hold water.
 
sabretooth47 said:
Sure...my first observation is that you posted pictures of a 747, which is a completely different aircraft than a 767.

Why are you basing your data on an airframe that was not part of 9/11. So, from my point of view, you are using incorrect data to push a theory that doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

I guess since Jammy believes NO planes were used on 9/11 Jammy thinks it doesn't matter which model aircraft he uses.
 
excaza said:
So you don't deny the authenticity of the radar data?
Click to expand...

Would you please consider taking a moment and using some thought before posting dumb questions, please. I have consistently said that it is not possible to determine whether the radar data is "exercise or real world." If you are not familiar with that part of my claim, then please be advised of it now. Separate and apart from whether it is "real" or "exercise" it is still data and the question, as ever with respect to data is, what does it show. In this instance, the data show an impossible flight path and/or a flight path that diverges from what is shown in the equally false videos.

Those are the points that the data I am here relying on show.


This has been shown, repeatedly, to be a complete lie. No surprise you're using it.
Click to expand...

You might think that you have refuted something I said by posting the above. You do not refute anything. You have not even sourced your claim, let alone proven it.


This has been shown, repeatedly, to be a complete lie. Please explain how the radar data does not match the indicated flight as seen in some of the videos of the event. Your belief does not make it so.
Click to expand...

Once again, Excaza, your post is noteworthy for containing not one single source, link or other form of proof other than your declaration.

Do you even realize that your strongly held belief and your emotional attachment to the common storyline that you might feel so fully and so strongly and so immediately that it makes you want to burst is not proof?

Do you get it?

You first.
Click to expand...

Well, at least in the above you appear to recognize you haven't posted any refutation at all. And you haven't.

Look, Excaza, it's very clear you disagree with my claims. But, you haven't posted any proof of that which you disagree with; all you've done is share your emotional need to say that I am wrong about something. Your stronly felt emotions do not refute.

Please source, link and verify your claims with data that can be accessed and discussed.

My post is based on a video that I am painstakingly analyzing and posting. The data that I rely on is being posted. In other words, I am proving MY claim based on data and information.

You, on the other hand, are not. That is your choice.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
I have consistently said that it is not possible to determine whether the radar data is "exercise or real world." If you are not familiar with that part of my claim, then please be advised of it now.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of it. And again, you "consistently" saying it does not make it true. Your belief is not evidence.

Once again, Excaza, your post is noteworthy for containing not one single source, link or other form of proof other than your declaration.
Click to expand...
Funny how you notice it from others, but not anywhere in your 1700+ posts.

Please source, link and verify your claims with data that can be accessed and discussed.
Click to expand...
Please source, link, and verify your claims that a Boeing 767 will break apart at the airspeed and altitude indicated by the radar data. Someone saying it on youtube is not sufficient.

The data that I rely on is being posted. In other words, I am proving MY claim based on data and information.
Click to expand...

Where?
 
Last edited:
sabretooth47 said:
Sure...my first observation is that you posted pictures of a 747, which is a completely different aircraft than a 767.

Why are you basing your data on an airframe that was not part of 9/11. So, from my point of view, you are using incorrect data to push a theory that doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...


You are not up to speed on this. No pun intended :) The video explains it is using a 747 simulator and claims it is applicable to a 767. That claim is found in the video. In a prior post, I outlined that part of the video where the 747/767 claim of similarity for purposes of simulation is made:

2--0:22-0:37-- Flight simulation needed. Claims using Boeing 747 simulation to detail Boeing 767 flight is valid.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6185718&postcount=2931


In other words, the video data disagrees with your claim of "complete difference." If you want to pursue that point, perhaps you could post up some data to rely on. That is your choice. I am relying on the content of the video and the claim of adequate similarity that the video contains.

For your information, you might like to take a look at the following posts that pertain to the simulation of the last 4min40sec of alleged Flight 175, based on the content of the alleged flight path data.

The starting point is:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6182167&postcount=2892

The above is Bill Smith's post, initiating discussion of the video and providing the link.

My main posts on the subject, including earlier segments of the video can be found at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6183726&postcount=2910
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6185718&postcount=2931
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6192341&postcount=2995
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6216507&postcount=3214

all the best
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom