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

[excaza]

Why would he answer a question he can't handwave away?

It's really not that hard to calculate the drag at that speed and altitude. It's also not hard to find some structural characteristics and use a simple statics calculation to see if the aircraft yields under those forces. Heck, you could probably get the data directly from Boeing, they've most certainly tested the aircraft in excess of the do not exceed velocity. You can't certify an aircraft (or anything ever seriously marketed) without demonstrating it will perform within a certain safety factor without failing. Especially if the product is designed to carry people.

 

[EventHorizon]

If there were no planes, then were is ed Felt and Betty Ong?
Notice Jam has not once addressed this question?

Of course he hasn't. That's a gotcha question, or in jammonius's world, a logical fallacy: argumentum ad gotchum. The definition being a question which when answered totally invalidates the original argument.

That's why you won't receive an answer. Either that or jammonius is a dishonest, deceitful troll.

 

[Bell]

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.

No, wrong. This is exactly what the US government told Jammy to do. Make ridiculous claims so the whole of the 9/11 truth movement looks like a bunch of bat crap crazy nut cases. And Jammy is doing a good job!

 

[jammonius]

Those who dispute my video source are failing to substantiate their objections to it.

On the issue of attempts to refute the validity of the simulation of the last 4min40sec of Flight 175, an alleged Boeing 767, using for illustration of that path, a Boeing 747 simulator, please see post # 3243.

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

In that post, the following statement is to be found:

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.


Not one poster has provided a single, solitary source for any objection made to or about that video simulation so far.

Not one.

Accordingly, the video and the information it provides remains valid and uncontradicted.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

On the issue of attempts to refute the validity of the simulation of the last 4min40sec of Flight 175, an alleged Boeing 767, using for illustration of that path, a Boeing 747 simulator, please see post # 3243.

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

In that post, the following statement is to be found:

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.


Not one poster has provided a single, solitary source for any objection made to or about that video simulation so far.

Not one.

Accordingly, the video and the information it provides remains valid and uncontradicted.

Still dodging the questions- what happened to Ed Felt, Betty ong and the others who were murdered on the planes?
If you deny the planes existed- then where are these people?

 

[excaza]

On the issue of attempts to refute the validity of the simulation of the last 4min40sec of Flight 175, an alleged Boeing 767, using for illustration of that path, a Boeing 747 simulator, please see post # 3243.

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

In that post, the following statement is to be found:

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.


Not one poster has provided a single, solitary source for any objection made to or about that video simulation so far.

Not one.

Accordingly, the video and the information it provides remains valid and uncontradicted.

Not one poster has provided a single, solitary source for any objection made to or about my objection made to or about the video simulation so far.

Not one.

Accordingly, my objection made to or about the video simulation remains valid and uncontradicted.

 

[EventHorizon]

On the issue of attempts to refute the validity of the simulation of the last 4min40sec of Flight 175, an alleged Boeing 767, using for illustration of that path, a Boeing 747 simulator, please see post # 3243.

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

In that post, the following statement is to be found:

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.


Not one poster has provided a single, solitary source for any objection made to or about that video simulation so far.

Not one.

Accordingly, the video and the information it provides remains valid and uncontradicted.

It's a 747 simulator. The plane in question is a 767. Do you need a source that a 767 is not the same thing as a 747? Here you go:

http://flyaow.com/planes/767aircraftspecifications.htm
http://www.montereypeninsulaairport.com/747specsheet.html

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Not one poster has provided a single, solitary source for any objection made to or about that video simulation so far.

.

Interesting claims from someone who has not offered a shred of evidence to back his no-planer delusions.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Jam, what do you feel for the people who were murdered on 9/11?
Do you feel anything?

 

[fess]

So, Jammy wants to be a pilot once again. Perhaps you missed my statement in a post before; there are real pilots on this forum, you know, pilots who have flown real aircraft with real controls that actually fly through the air. Not those like the idiot that produced the UTube video that you base your claims on.

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.

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.

Firstly, let me say that the aircraft being used in the video is not the same as a 757/767, and does not fly at all like the one portrayed in the video. If I knew what MS 747 the idiot used in the video, I could prove it. You also might be interested in knowing that the flight dynamics for the MS aircraft models are notoriously wrong. After all, it is a game.

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

I cannot call this a lie being that you believe this crap, so I’ll just say it is totally false. During certification tests, the 757/767 was taken to over 150% of its design limitations.

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.

This is more stupidity, at best. I would say that the producer of this video is not only wrong, but has no idea of what he is talking about. Just listening to this idiot makes me shudder thinking that people like this are allowed to walk in public unescorted.

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

Stop appealing to those who don’t want to talk to you.

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.

Total BS! 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.

Are you trying to make a point here, or just offering more BS.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/flightsimvideo/flightsim1927.jpg?t=1281560074[/qimg]

Would anyone, anyone at all, care to engage in some meaningful dialogue on facts, data and actual information or not?

If I indeed thought for one moment that the dialogue would be meaningful, I might say yes.
You have yet to mention what, if any, actual flight experience the producer of the video might have. After listening to him, I would dare say he has the same experience you have proven to have… none.

 

[excaza]

So, Jammy wants to be a pilot once again. Perhaps you missed my statement in a post before; there are real pilots on this forum, you know, pilots who have flown real aircraft with real controls that actually fly through the air. Not those like the idiot that produced the UTube video that you base your claims on.

Degree in aerospace engineering continuing on to a masters in mechanical engineering with an emphasis on manufacturing and engineering design helps too

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

i wonder what Jam does for a living?

 

[fess]

by Jammonius
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.

I take it by mentioning "exercise or real world.” you are talking about the military exercises of the day? If so, you might think about it in a more rational matter. The Air Force does not normally utilize FAA radar data in its exercises, any more than it utilizes civil air space for exercises. The path you are on is a well beaten path that you have taken before, and it led nowhere.
Put up some substantial evidence that the flight paths shown are false.

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

Relying on false information does not better your position.
Do better, if you can.

 

[EventHorizon]

I take it by mentioning "exercise or real world.” you are talking about the military exercises of the day? If so, you might think about it in a more rational matter.

Not possible.

 

[fess]

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.

If you base your theory on a source that is false, what does that say for your theory? I once stated that, with your level of intelligence, you should have no problem seeing through this idiot, but I quess not.

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.

You are going to believe this source when he tells you that a 747 with 4 engines has the same flight dynamics of a 757/767 with two engines? Not to mention the fact that the air file that is used by MS for their 747 is incorrect. If you can tell me what air file is used for the aircraft in the video, I'll prove it.

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

Keep relying on false information to bolster your theory. It will only result in your being as wrong as the producer of the video.
It would behoove you to find out if this guy can even spell pilot.

 

[tfk]

I take it by mentioning "exercise or real world.” you are talking about the military exercises of the day? If so, you might think about it in a more rational matter. The Air Force does not normally utilize FAA radar data in its exercises, any more than it utilizes civil air space for exercises. The path you are on is a well beaten path that you have taken before, and it led nowhere.
Put up some substantial evidence that the flight paths shown are false.


Relying on false information does not better your position.
Do better, if you can.

fess,

Not only do they "... not normally use FAA radar data ..."

For safety reasons, they never employ FAA radars. There are no physical connections between the computers that run the AF radar simulations, and the FAA radars. The AF computers can not inject fake blips into the FAA radars.

The whole "is this exercise or real world" is just jammy being jammy: fondling himself in public.


tom

 

[George 152]

i wonder what Jam does for a living?

He's got to grow up and leave infant school before such things as earning a living arrive on the horizon...

 

[fess]

fess,

Not only do they "... not normally use FAA radar data ..."

For safety reasons, they never employ FAA radars. There are no physical connections between the computers that run the AF radar simulations, and the FAA radars. The AF computers can not inject fake blips into the FAA radars.

The whole "is this exercise or real world" is just jammy being jammy: fondling himself in public.


tom

That is basically what i was trying to say, thanks for making it clearer.

 

[jammonius]

It's a 747 simulator. The plane in question is a 767. Do you need a source that a 767 is not the same thing as a 747? Here you go:

http://flyaow.com/planes/767aircraftspecifications.htm
http://www.montereypeninsulaairport.com/747specsheet.html

Your post is silly. The fact that the video uses a Boeing 747 simulator as the way of inputing the data for the last 4min40sec of the alleged 9/11 Flight 175's path, a craft said to have been a Boeing 767 is freely acknowledged in the video. That is not the point that requires refutation.

The issue is whether the use of the Boeing 747 simulator results in any meaningful way in a distortion of the flight path data or in some other respects yields outcomes that are unreliable.

Surely you are not overlooking this fact. However, just as surely, you are not engaging in any sourced refutation of the video.

Let me put it this way to you and others who are floundering here badly.

Either refute the validity of the video's use of the 747 simulator for the purpose it is using it for or move on.

You are wasting your own time here by continuing to post on the matter without the benefit of a single, solitary source, link or other confirmation of any point you might be trying to make that is worth making.

 

[TJM]

What's the going rate for buying a 9/11 family member's silence these days?