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

Status
Not open for further replies.
carlitos said:
Anonymous youtube videos, yes
Direct quotes given to bylined newspaper reporters, no

Am I close?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are close, but

th_nocigar.jpg


The difference here is the kind of information being used. Quotes from people, that is direct witness claims differs from information presented based on analysis and data. You can look this up, if you like, or take my word for it.

Oops, what am I saying? You'll likely prefer to look it up, right?

Try this and let me know if you understand the difference involved here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness

Basically, we are relying on the expertise presented in the video that analyzes a particular piece of data: The Flight Path Study for Flight 175; and, in particular, the last 4min40sec of it.

That is what the video does. Or, more exactly, here is how the video describes its process and the data upon which it relies:

3--0:44-0:52--"Official story" of Flight 175 from National Security Archives is referenced as a data point.

4--0:52-0:59 Claims to use NTSB "Flight Path Study" that was based on "is this exercise or is this real world" data about which we do not know whether it is the one or the other.

5--1:00-1:28 References use of radar data from NTSB study in the reconstruction and explains the use of the flight path data points A to G.

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

The video is, then, an exercise in providing an expert opinion.

So, if you want to attack the video, you have to do so by making the claim that it is wrong or that it isn't good enough for you for this reason, that reason or the other reason, backed up, of course, by some sort of solid sourcing of your claimed refutation.

all the best
 
jammonius said:
So, if you want to attack the video, you have to do so by making the claim that it is wrong or that it isn't good enough for you for this reason, that reason or the other reason, backed up, of course, by some sort of solid sourcing of your claimed refutation.
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. Please provide the calculations and assumptions about material properties, fluid properties, and any other relevant constants.
 
excaza said:
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.



Youtube

Adequate

Source


the stupid....it hurts :(
Click to expand...

Your refusal to source your objection to the simulator used in the video has not gone unnoticed.

You have not refuted the claims I have made and the data upon which the claims are based remain valid.

We are now well past your first post on this topic, post # 3215.

In not one post have you cited a single, solitary source so far. Your inability to refute is becoming glaringly obvious, Excaza.

I am beginning to think you cannot do better.
 
jammonius said:
Your refusal to source your objection to the simulator used in the video has not gone unnoticed.

You have not refuted the claims I have made and the data upon which the claims are based remain valid.

We are now well past your first post on this topic, post # 3215.

In not one post have you cited a single, solitary source so far. Your inability to refute is becoming glaringly obvious, Excaza.

I am beginning to think you cannot do better.
Click to expand...

So you have no source for your claim that a Boeing 767 will break apart at the airspeed and altitude indicated by the radar data.
 
EventHorizon said:
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).
Click to expand...

You are not up to speed on this, EH. The issue of aircraft model is not the essential point. The essential point is whether a 747 simulator is an adequate vehicle for simulating the conditions presented in the data depicting the last 4min40sec of alleged Flight 175, based on the input into the simulator of that data.

Neither you nor anyone else who has posted on this point, small though it may be, has posted up a single, solitary source confirming or substantiating the objection.

Your attempt at refutation fails.

You have not refuted a darn thing.
 
jammonius said:
Your refusal to source your objection to the simulator used in the video has not gone unnoticed.

You have not refuted the claims I have made and the data upon which the claims are based remain valid.

We are now well past your first post on this topic, post # 3215.

In not one post have you cited a single, solitary source so far. Your inability to refute is becoming glaringly obvious, Excaza.

I am beginning to think you cannot do better.
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. Please provide the calculations and assumptions about material properties, fluid properties, and any other relevant constants.
 
jammonius said:
Yes, you are close, but

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/flightsimvideo/th_nocigar.jpg?t=1281566627[/qimg]

The difference here is the kind of information being used. Quotes from people, that is direct witness claims differs from information presented based on analysis and data. You can look this up, if you like, or take my word for it.

Oops, what am I saying? You'll likely prefer to look it up, right?

Try this and let me know if you understand the difference involved here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness

Basically, we are relying on the expertise presented in the video that analyzes a particular piece of data: The Flight Path Study for Flight 175; and, in particular, the last 4min40sec of it.

That is what the video does. Or, more exactly, here is how the video describes its process and the data upon which it relies:

3--0:44-0:52--"Official story" of Flight 175 from National Security Archives is referenced as a data point.

4--0:52-0:59 Claims to use NTSB "Flight Path Study" that was based on "is this exercise or is this real world" data about which we do not know whether it is the one or the other.

5--1:00-1:28 References use of radar data from NTSB study in the reconstruction and explains the use of the flight path data points A to G.

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

The video is, then, an exercise in providing an expert opinion.

So, if you want to attack the video, you have to do so by making the claim that it is wrong or that it isn't good enough for you for this reason, that reason or the other reason, backed up, of course, by some sort of solid sourcing of your claimed refutation.

all the best
Click to expand...

Nice! Good! Great!

The US government is very proud at your continuous effort to put the 9/11 truthers in a bad light.

Thank you!
 
excaza said:
http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm

:)

Granted, I wouldn't really want to try it. The initial shock wave tends to rip things off.
Click to expand...

On the one hand you claim a difference between a Boeing 747 and a 767, for purposes of use of a flight simulator to illustrate the last 4min40sec of alleged flight 175; and, you post up something on a DC8, on the other?

That is wickedly inconsistent to begin with. Plus, you haven't analyzed a darn thing or explained what point you're seeking to make, let alone how it relates to the flight simulation of the last 4min40sec of Flight 175.

So, you cannot do better, afterall.

Perhaps you'd better pass the baton to someone else, Excaza, sorry to say.
 
jammonius said:
On the one hand you claim a difference between a Boeing 747 and a 767, for purposes of use of a flight simulator to illustrate the last 4min40sec of alleged flight 175; and, you post up something on a DC8, on the other?

That is wickedly inconsistent to begin with. Plus, you haven't analyzed a darn thing or explained what point you're seeking to make, let alone how it relates to the flight simulation of the last 4min40sec of Flight 175.

So, you cannot do better, afterall.

Perhaps you'd better pass the baton to someone else, Excaza, sorry to say.
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. Please provide the calculations and assumptions about material properties, fluid properties, and any other relevant constants.
 
EventHorizon said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, EH, I am being consistent and reliable here. The types of information are the subject of differing rules on what is or isn't reliable. Normal witness to events are subject to the hearsay and other issues I have raised. But, expert witnesses are subject to different rules.

I have explained this in an earlier post.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6216888&postcount=3243

In short, I am being consistent with the rules on what is or isn't reliable as information.

Nice try at finding a contradiction, but neither you nor Carlitos merit a cigar. :D
 
excaza said:
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 provide the calculations and assumptions about material properties, fluid properties, and any other relevant constants.
Click to expand...

You still have not sourced your objection and your objection still fails. Too bad they won't let me post my rubber stamps:D
 
jammonius said:
You still have not sourced your objection and your objection still fails. Too bad they won't let me post my rubber stamps:D
Click to expand...

You have asserted that a Boeing 767 will break apart at the airspeed and altitude given by the radar data. This is your claim, and your responsibility to verify. 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 provide the calculations and assumptions about material properties, fluid properties, and any other relevant constants.
 
excaza said:
You have asserted that a Boeing 767 will break apart at the airspeed and altitude given by the radar data. This is your claim, and your responsibility to verify. 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 provide the calculations and assumptions about material properties, fluid properties, and any other relevant constants.
Click to expand...

No, you are not succeeding here in your bid to obfuscate what is or isn't being proven. I am not making the claim of aircraft failure based on excessive speed. Rather, my source is making that claim. My source is the video that neither you nor anyone else has refuted with a single source yet.

You, in particular, are becoming very glaringly obvious in your inability to source your (failed) attempt at refutation. We are well past your first post on this subject --post 3215 and your only attempt at sourcing was a laughable attempt to post up something about a DC8 aircraft that you did not even explain.

Excaza, can you not do better? :boggled:
 
sheeplesnshills said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am a bit surprised that you are choosing to display an inability to make a proper analytical differentiation.

The above is not an apt comparison as I hope you inwardly know. More than that, I am not going to say at present.
 
jammonius said:
No, you are not succeeding here in your bid to obfuscate what is or isn't being proven. I am not making the claim of aircraft failure based on excessive speed. Rather, my source is making that claim. My source is the video that neither you nor anyone else has refuted with a single source yet.

You, in particular, are becoming very glaringly obvious in your inability to source your (failed) attempt at refutation. We are well past your first post on this subject --post 3215 and your only attempt at sourcing was a laughable attempt to post up something about a DC8 aircraft that you did not even explain.

Excaza, can you not do better? :boggled:
Click to expand...

So you have no evidence that a 767 will break apart at the airspeed and altitude shown by the radar data. Other than some anonymous youtube video.

Great scientific work, you should get that published!
 
jammonius said:
No, you are not succeeding here in your bid to obfuscate what is or isn't being proven. I am not making the claim of aircraft failure based on excessive speed. Rather, my source is making that claim. My source is the video that neither you nor anyone else has refuted with a single source yet.

You, in particular, are becoming very glaringly obvious in your inability to source your (failed) attempt at refutation. We are well past your first post on this subject --post 3215 and your only attempt at sourcing was a laughable attempt to post up something about a DC8 aircraft that you did not even explain.

Excaza, can you not do better? :boggled:
Click to expand...

No, wrong. You're source is claiming that a 747 simulator is good enough for a 767. You need to prove that or your source is invalid. Your source saying that this is true is not good enough.
 
I almost feel compelled to mention that a "source" for the inaccuracy of the (four engine) 747 simulator to simulate a (twin engine) 767 is the title of said simulator.
 
If there were no planes, then were are Ed Felt and Betty Ong?

Notice Jam has not once addressed this question?


Jam if you are going to argue there were no planes, you need to explain the people who were on the planes-

What happened to them?

Why were their remains found at the crash sites?

You try to dismiss the people with a wave of your arm because they are inconvenient to your no-planer delusions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom