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

[jammonius]

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.

OK, Fess, at most you are saying there are people here who could conceivably refute the claims made in the video; which claims, in particular, are a use of a Boeing 747 simulator in order to recreate the conditions set out in the alleged flight path data put out into the public domain as proof of the flight path of alleged Flight 175.

Surely, you also are not unaware of what the video does. And, in order to avoid confusion, I am here painstakingly summarizing the content of the video. We know what is coming; namely, that the flight path data makes no sense and depicts impossible flight dynamics and, equally important, is a variance with what some of the videos show concerning the flight path immediately prior to the pyrotechnical explosion at the South Tower.

Look, if there are pilots here who want to engage in refutation and/or discussion, I assume they can.

If they cannot, and quite clearly, they have not, then I assume they'll remain quiet.

Meanwhile, the claims I am making and sourcing stand as unrefuted.

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.

You, just like all others so far, have not sourced your claim. You have not refuted a darn thing.

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.

You do not source the above claim, let alone provide anything that can be discussed, let alone analyzed.

You have still not refuted a darn thing based on an independent demonstration of evidence, support or confirmation of any type.

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.

Your opinion is about as valuable as that of the next person, and the next and the next. However, your opinion is just that: Your opinion.

You have not sourced your claim or substantiated your objection. You haven't refuted anything at all.

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

I will appeal to whomever I like. And, for what it's worth, the record of new people posting is quite satisfactory, if I do say so myself.

Total BS! Deal with it.

Will anyone, anyone at all at least make an attempt, howsoever feeble it might be, to put up a source? If not, please consider moving on.

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

I'm providing a summary of the video content. You know, posting up data and information in support of my claims.

Try it sometime, Fess.

If I indeed thought for one moment that the dialogue would be meaningful, I might say yes.

Look, Fess, either post up meaningfully or don't. The choice is yours.

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.

You still have not sourced or substantiated your objection. Merely engaging in a generalized, broad brush attack on the video for the purpose of attacking it does not refute it.

Let me guess, you don't like the video. That's fine. But your dislike of it does not refute it.

 

[TJM]

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

Since we've started a new page.

 

[jammonius]

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

You have not sourced your claim of what can or cannot be done; let alone what was or was not done on 9/11. The data reveal that those involved were confused and could not distinguish "exercise" from "real world." Thus, at a minimum, the known data contradict, ostensibly at least, your unsubstantiated observations.

You have not refuted a darn thing.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Meanwhile, the claims I am making and sourcing stand as unrefuted.



.

Liar. You seem to make things up as you go along.
where are the people who were on the planes, Jammy?
If you think there were no planes- do you think the people never existed?

 

[TJM]

You have not refuted a darn thing.

That's fairly convenient. You haven't proven a darn thing either.

 

[jammonius]

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?

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on your 'gotcha' questioning.

Thank you for seeking to modify the questioning so as to make it legit.

Your modification is certainly a step in the right direction, but it's still loaded.

But, since you appear to be willing to search for a legitimate way of asking something, I will here modify the question for you a little more and then answer the modified question.

OK, here goes:

DGM might have legitimately asked:

I, DGM, here claim that there is no known information that I am aware of that either Boeing or the airlines noticed or stated that their airplanes could not have done what the facts about the flight paths of the planes on 9/11 are said to have done, in particular, Flight 175. Because there is no known information to that effect, I, DGM, here assert that lack of information means they can be presumed to have agreed that the flight path data could be accurate.

I, DGM, make this assertion on the basis of inference. I am here inferring that the lack of a response can be considered acquiescence. Do you, jammonius, agree or disagree?

In response, I would say:

Well, DGM, since you put it that way, I can respond. I have not fully researched whether Boeing or the Airlines have responded in some way, but I assume both would fall within that category of people and entities that would have very strong reason to "go along with the program" and "get along." In both instances, their economic livelihood probably depends very much on their doing so.

Remember, Afghanistan was invaded on 10/7/01. I very much doubt if any US corporate entity could have taken a position that might have been seen as going against the common storyline. There was far too much pressure, social, economic, political and otherwise for that to have occurred, imho.

So, on that basis alone, I question whether the inference you want to draw from the apparent lack of contradiction by Boeing and the Airlines is the proper inference to draw. I disagree with that inference.

Plus, while neither Boeing nor the Airlines may have spoken out, there certainly have been a fair number of engineers and airline pilots who have done so. And, we know that most such persons are instantly villified, precisely because of the pressure to conform and the antagonism towards those who do not.

So, in the end, your use of inference is, I am afraid, too clever by a half and is not the proper inference to draw from the apparent lack of response by Boeing and the Airlines.

all the best

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on your 'gotcha' questioning.

Thank you for seeking to modify the questioning so as to make it legit.

Your modification is certainly a step in the right direction, but it's still loaded.

But, since you appear to be willing to search for a legitimate way of asking something, I will here modify the question for you a little more and then answer the modified question.

OK, here goes:

DGM might have legitimately asked:

I, DGM, here claim that there is no known information that I am aware of that either Boeing or the airlines noticed or stated that their airplanes could not have done what the facts about the flight paths of the planes on 9/11 are said to have done, in particular, Flight 175. Because there is no known information to that effect, I, DGM, here assert that lack of information means they can be presumed to have agreed that the flight path data could be accurate.

I, DGM, make this assertion on the basis of inference. I am here inferring that the lack of a response can be considered acquiescence. Do you, jammonius, agree or disagree?

In response, I would say:

Well, DGM, since you put it that way, I can respond. I have not fully researched whether Boeing or the Airlines have responded in some way, but I assume both would fall within that category of people and entities that would have very strong reason to "go along with the program" and "get along." In both instances, their economic livelihood probably depends very much on their doing so.

Remember, Afghanistan was invaded on 10/7/01. I very much doubt if any US corporate entity could have taken a position that might have been seen as going against the common storyline. There was far too much pressure, social, economic, political and otherwise for that to have occurred, imho.

So, on that basis alone, I question whether the inference you want to draw from the apparent lack of contradiction by Boeing and the Airlines is the proper inference to draw. I disagree with that inference.

Plus, while neither Boeing nor the Airlines may have spoken out, there certainly have been a fair number of engineers and airline pilots who have done so. And, we know that most such persons are instantly villified, precisely because of the pressure to conform and the antagonism towards those who do not.

So, in the end, your use of inference is, I am afraid, too clever by a half and is not the proper inference to draw from the apparent lack of response by Boeing and the Airlines.

all the best

Where is Betty Ong? Where is Ed Felt?
Notice how jammy refuses to address the fact there were people on the planes...

 

[TJM]

So what's the going rate to buy the silence of an entire industry these days?

 

[jammonius]

That's fairly convenient. You haven't proven a darn thing either.

I have sourced my claims and no one else has in the last few pages. This is really a remarkable exercise. A little 9:44 video and no one can offer up a single, meaningful refutation of any part of it, with the lone exception of one silly quibble about a 747 not being a 767, something that wasn't even being questioned.

This is extraordinary.

Right before our very eyes, lurkers and victims family members, posters here are failing and failing miserably.

There have been next to no sourced or linked claims in page after page here.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I have sourced my claims and no one else has in the last few pages. This is really a remarkable exercise. A little 9:44 video and no one can offer up a single, meaningful refutation of any part of it, with the lone exception of one silly quibble about a 747 not being a 767, something that wasn't even being questioned.

This is extraordinary.

Right before our very eyes, lurkers and victims family members, posters here are failing and failing miserably.

There have been next to no sourced or linked claims in page after page here.

Explain the people who boarded the planes on 9/11 and haven't been seen alive since. What do you think happened to them?

 

[fess]

Jammy, if you and the producer of the video you claim as your "source" are so close, ask him to send me the air file of the aircraft he is using in his presentation.
Also, ask him to prove that a 757/767 will come apart during the maneuvers as he claims.
I am having problems finding the post where you gave the link for the video, please list it again. I really don't want to watch it again, but I will. This time I will take it apart for you.

 

[TJM]

I have sourced my claims and no one else has in the last few pages. This is really a remarkable exercise. A little 9:44 video and no one can offer up a single, meaningful refutation of any part of it, with the lone exception of one silly quibble about a 747 not being a 767, something that wasn't even being questioned.

This is extraordinary.

Right before our very eyes, lurkers and victims family members, posters here are failing and failing miserably.

There have been next to no sourced or linked claims in page after page here.

I can post up a link that will neither prove or disprove that Bullwinkle J. Moose is a live actor or an animation. That isn't the point.

My point is you have not, will not and cannot post anything that definitively supports your conclusion that an imaginary weapon system based on imaginary technology was used by your imaginary plotters to turn the World Trade Center into dust, using pictures you've posted which are inconclusive because all of that ******* steel is in the way of the dust.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

You have still not refuted a darn thing based on an independent demonstration of evidence, support or confirmation of any type.

Your opinion is about as valuable as that of the next person, and the next and the next. However, your opinion is just that: Your opinion.

You have not sourced your claim or substantiated your objection. You haven't refuted anything at all.

.

Projection much?
Your double standards are endless....

 

[tfk]

You have not sourced your claim of what can or cannot be done; let alone what was or was not done on 9/11. The data reveal that those involved were confused and could not distinguish "exercise" from "real world." Thus, at a minimum, the known data contradict, ostensibly at least, your unsubstantiated observations.

You have not refuted a darn thing.

What goes around, jammy...

If it were any one but you, I'd probably make an effort.

But, then again, it's ... you know ... you.

So, you know, who cares?

You've earned the right to be ignored.


tom

 

[Oystein]

...
Well, DGM, since you put it that way, I can respond. I have not fully researched whether Boeing or the Airlines have responded in some way, but I assume both would fall within that category of people and entities that would have very strong reason to "go along with the program" and "get along." In both instances, their economic livelihood probably depends very much on their doing so.
...

In other words: You believe that there are literally thousands of Americans, working for Boeing and the airlines alone, who must be clearly aware of mass murderers in this country, but are too much cowards to speak up?

 

[Andy_Ross]

If no aircraft crashed what happened to the 4 Aircraft on 9/11?
Where did they go? where did the aircraft, crew and passengers go after they left the airports?

 

[Sabretooth]

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.

www.wikipedia.com/irony

 

[tsig]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on your 'gotcha' questioning.

Thank you for seeking to modify the questioning so as to make it legit.

Your modification is certainly a step in the right direction, but it's still loaded.

But, since you appear to be willing to search for a legitimate way of asking something, I will here modify the question for you a little more and then answer the modified question.

OK, here goes:

DGM might have legitimately asked:

I, DGM, here claim that there is no known information that I am aware of that either Boeing or the airlines noticed or stated that their airplanes could not have done what the facts about the flight paths of the planes on 9/11 are said to have done, in particular, Flight 175. Because there is no known information to that effect, I, DGM, here assert that lack of information means they can be presumed to have agreed that the flight path data could be accurate.

I, DGM, make this assertion on the basis of inference. I am here inferring that the lack of a response can be considered acquiescence. Do you, jammonius, agree or disagree?

In response, I would say:

Well, DGM, since you put it that way, I can respond. I have not fully researched whether Boeing or the Airlines have responded in some way, but I assume both would fall within that category of people and entities that would have very strong reason to "go along with the program" and "get along." In both instances, their economic livelihood probably depends very much on their doing so.

Remember, Afghanistan was invaded on 10/7/01. I very much doubt if any US corporate entity could have taken a position that might have been seen as going against the common storyline. There was far too much pressure, social, economic, political and otherwise for that to have occurred, imho.

So, on that basis alone, I question whether the inference you want to draw from the apparent lack of contradiction by Boeing and the Airlines is the proper inference to draw. I disagree with that inference.

Plus, while neither Boeing nor the Airlines may have spoken out, there certainly have been a fair number of engineers and airline pilots who have done so. And, we know that most such persons are instantly villified, precisely because of the pressure to conform and the antagonism towards those who do not.

So, in the end, your use of inference is, I am afraid, too clever by a half and is not the proper inference to draw from the apparent lack of response by Boeing and the Airlines.

all the best

So the proper inference to draw is that the engineers and pilots can be cowed into silence by economic and social threats.

It's really a shame that not one of those people had enough courage to speak out against such evil.

 

[Sabretooth]

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.

Comparisons between 747 and 767
(info retrieved from Wikipedia…is this a legit enough source for you, Jammy?)

Length:
747 = 231 ft.
767 = 159 ft.

Wingspan:
747 = 211 ft.
767 = 156 ft.

Max Takeoff Weight:
747 = 875,000 lbs
767 = 412,000 lbs

Max Cruise Speed:
747 = 604 mph
767 = 568 mph

So you and the youtube poster are essentially trying to claim that a Hummer H3 (747) can operate at the same exact functionality and behaviors as a Chevy Cavalier (767).

The fact that the 747 operates at OVER twice the weight of a 767 destroys this simulation theory.

Another thing…there are easily just as many 767 sims as there are 747 sims. Why didn’t your truther utube buddy just use the correct freakin' plane?

I know why, because he couldn't re-create the data he needed to make his claim true. So he, like the rest of your truthers, inserted the most convenient *ahem* "fact" he could find so he could still try and spew his BS.

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

Not anymore. Next.

 

[A W Smith]

Well, OK, so far, AW. But, you have left the essential point in an incomplete state of assessment. The point had to do with where a witness said s/he was in relationship to 'seeing zee plane.' This, afterall, is a thread about zee plane.

Merely claiming there's a Church Street Station is well and good, but that, in and of itself, does not provide any insight at all into where the common storyline of 9/11 says a jetliner was seen and where that station is located.

Would you please consider posting up a complete thought? Thanks

Are you that stupid? This is the view from that subway station location directly across from the wtc complex, He would have had a clear view of flight 175 banking and impacting the south tower. Your assertion that he couldn't is therefore a lie. Lurkers and posters alike can see that you cherry pick witnesses from many more blocks away who werent in a position to see and hand wave off witnesses who in fact did see a plane. As was mentioned before. All it takes is one legitimate witness who DID see a plane and your no-plane assertion falls apart. Sorry Jammy boy, Evidence supports us and the rest of the world and you are deluded, mentally ill, and wrong

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...0.711915,-74.010555&spn=0.00059,0.001545&z=20