• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
jammonius said:
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.




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.




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?



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.
Click to expand...

What a hypocrite (no surprise really). Not a single source for his delusional claims and he's requesting sources from everyone else.
 
jammonius said:
The video explains it is using a 747 simulator and claims it is applicable to a 767. 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.
Click to expand...

The video claiming so does not make it true. A 747 simulator cannot be used to simulate a 767. They're not the same. It would be like using a toyota prius simulator to model a ford fiesta.

Do better.
 
Jammonius:
I got a "gotcha" I know you will ignore! Why do you think Boeing or the Airlines didn't notice their planes couldn't do what radar says they did? Are they "in on it" (with everyone else) or are the just not as smart as you "truthers"?

I know you can't answer but I just like to point out what's obvious to us rational people.
 
EventHorizon said:
What a hypocrite (no surprise really). Not a single source for his delusional claims and he's requesting sources from everyone else.
Click to expand...


Wait a minute. We are seriously off on the wrong foot here. The data I am relying on consists in what I think is a well-made, informative video. That is the data source. I am relying on it. I'm posting on it and I'm analyzing it.

It is completely false for you to say I am not sourcing my claim. I am posting on the basis of a source, that source and it is freely available for anyone to review.

That is what is meant by a source.

You are wrong to say that I am not sourcing my claims.

Furthermore, within the video source, it is also represented that it is based on the FAA flight path data that was analyzed by the NTSB. It shows images of that data and the images match those data sources which I have also elsewhere posted. So, the data within the data source, that is, the NTSB flight path study, based on FAA provided data points, also has a demonstrated validity.

True, the simulation is based on a 747 simulator; but the source says they are sufficiently similar so as to be accurate. I will rely on that claim unless and until it is shown to be false.

That is where I will place my reliance, i.e., upon the source, until someone else posts up a source that contradicts, refutes or otherwise legitimately casts doubt on that claim of 747/767 similarity for purposes of a simulation of flight.

Maybe now I understand why posters think I don't source my claims. Posters don't what a source is.

sheesh :eye-poppi
 
jammonius said:
Wait a minute. We are seriously off on the wrong foot here. The data I am relying on consists in what I think is a well-made, informative video. That is the data source. I am relying on it. I'm posting on it and I'm analyzing it.
Click to expand...

I highlighted the problem with your statement.

True, the simulation is based on a 747 simulator; but the source says they are sufficiently similar so as to be accurate. I will rely on that claim unless and until it is shown to be false.

That is where I will place my reliance, i.e., upon the source, until someone else posts up a source that contradicts, refutes or otherwise legitimately casts doubt on that claim of 747/767 similarity for purposes of a simulation of flight.
Click to expand...
Video says so, must be true. 767 is real similar to a 747. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Jammonius:
I got a "gotcha" I know you will ignore!
Click to expand...

Gotcha questions should be ignored. They are stupid and they add nothing to reasoned discussion.

Why do you think Boeing or the Airlines didn't notice their planes couldn't do what radar says they did?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a gotcha question. It is a loaded question because it presumes what Boeing and the Airlines didn't notice without proving that is the case. Gotcha questions tend to require that one accept the untested assumptions contained within them. Usually, but not always, the assumptions required to be accepted serve, not to ask a question, but rather, to advance a point.

In your example, it appears you are seeking to use a stupid gotcha question to claim that Boeing and the Airlines were not in on the 9/11 plot, therefore the 9/11 common storyline is true, or something along those lines.

You cannot do that and expect to have a rational discussion.

Are they "in on it" (with everyone else) or are the just not as smart as you "truthers"?
Click to expand...

Let me ask you something, do you really think anyone should be required to answer a baiting, loaded question like the one posed above?

If you have trouble understanding that the first part of your question is loaded, I do hope you will at least grasp that the last part is stupidly loaded.

Do you grasp that?

I know you can't answer but I just like to point out what's obvious to us rational people.
Click to expand...

Let me see, are you claiming you are more rational than I am? Are you also right and am I also wrong? Does your answer to those make you feel better?
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Gotcha questions should be ignored. They are stupid and they add nothing to reasoned discussion.



Yes, that is a gotcha question. It is a loaded question because it presumes what Boeing and the Airlines didn't notice without proving that is the case. Gotcha questions tend to require that one accept the untested assumptions contained within them. Usually, but not always, the assumptions required to be accepted serve, not to ask a question, but rather, to advance a point.

In your example, it appears you are seeking to use a stupid gotcha question to claim that Boeing and the Airlines were not in on the 9/11 plot, therefore the 9/11 common storyline is true, or something along those lines.

You cannot do that and expect to have a rational discussion.



Let me ask you something, do you really think anyone should be required to answer a baiting, loaded question like the one posed above?

If you have trouble understanding that the first part of your question is loaded, I do hope you will at least grasp that the last part is stupidly loaded.

Do you grasp that?



Let me see, are you claiming you are more rational than I am? Are you also right and am I also wrong? Does your answer to those make you feel better?
Click to expand...
OK I'll retract and rephrase.

Why do you think Boeing or the airlines did not notice that their airplanes could not have done what was said they did?
 
excaza said:
I highlighted the problem with your statement.


Video says so, must be true. 767 is real similar to a 747. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I wonder if you realize you have yet to post a source for any claim you are making about the matter of adequate simulation??

Excaza, you have not refuted anything because you have not provided a source, link or other form of confirmation of the claim you are making.

I am going to stick with this as long as necessary.

Either you are going to source your claim or you are going to be reminded that you have not refuted a darn thing for as long as it takes for you to source and therefore prove your objection that it is inaccurate to use a 747 simulator for a 767 flight.

The video claims it is valid to do so. That is an adequate source.

Once again, Excaza, you have yet to source your claim of objection.
 
Last edited:
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. Please show the calculations and assumptions about material properties, fluid properties, and any other relevant constants. I'll wait.

jammonius said:
The video claims it is valid to do so. That is an adequate source.
Click to expand...

Youtube

Adequate

Source


the stupid....it hurts :(
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
I wonder if you realize you have yet to post a source for any claim you are making about the matter of adequate simulation??

Excaza, you have not refuted anything because you have not provided a source, link or other form of confirmation of the claim you are making.

I am going to stick with this as long as necessary.

Either you are going to source your claim or you are going to be reminded that you have not refuted a darn thing for as long as it takes for you to source and therefore prove your objection that it is inaccurate to use a 747 simulator for a 767 flight.

The video claims it is valid to do so. That is an adequate source.

Once again, Excaza, you have yet to source your claim of objection.
Click to expand...

They are two different airplanes. They don't even have the same number of engines. Are you intentionally being obtuse or can you really not figure this out?

Still waiting for that valid source by the way (no a yootoob video is not a valid source).
 
If I showed Jammy that airliners can sustain supersonic speeds without significant structural damage, would his head explode? Granted, the control surfaces would probably get wrecked from the shocks, but the plane would be fine ;)
 
Last edited:
excaza said:
If I showed Jammy that airliners can sustain supersonic speeds without significant structural damage, would his head explode? Granted, the control surfaces would probably get wrecked from the shocks, but the plane would be fine ;)
Click to expand...
Of course not! He can always use the universal "It's fake" card.
 
DGM said:
It's a different aircraft and you don't have a Youtube video saying it doesn't matter!

Try again.


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Good thing aircraft design has come a long way since the 50s! 767 was launched in the 80s, lots more fun new materials and structural designs than the DC8 had. :D


I'll have to go make a video ;)
 
Last edited:
Jammy is a US government disinfo to put the 9/11 truth movement in a bad (mad?) light.
 
I love how he is allowed to use youtube as a source but we're not allowed to use television (teevee as he would put it) as a source. More hypocrisy.
 
=jammonius;6216715]I wonder if you realize you have yet to post a source for any claim you are making about the matter of adequate simulation??

The video claims it is valid to do so. That is an adequate source.
Click to expand...

so by your definition so are all 43 Videos! Thanks for confirming that they are in fact adequate sources as are all the eye witness testimonies.
No I see why you usually refuse to answer questions....every time you do so you put your foot further into your mouth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom