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

[jammonius]

Complete failure of refutation of source video simulating last 4min40sec FL175

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

It will be recalled that Bill Smith, in posting the referenced video directed our attention to the 8min mark.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=2892

The next segment of the video digested and illustrated below ends at the beginning point that Bill wanted us to check out.

Bill was right to direct attention to that segment, of course. However, what we are seeing here in the video as a whole is one splendid piece of investigative information, based on the essential data that, ironically enough (note that phrase) is based on the exact so-called "radar" data that some here have mentioned, but never sought to analzye or demonstrate what the information actually stood for.

That is rich.

All this video really does is use a 747 simulator for purposes of demonstrating known data about Flight 175 and known and accepted flight characteristics of a Boeing 767.

What little, largely unsubstantiated attempts at refutation there have been have sought, by and large, to focus on the complete non-issue that the simulator used in the video is that of a Boeing 747 instead of 767. That is a non-issue because the type of simulator serves only for graphic illustration of the instrumentation, not the flight characteristics of the aircraft. Furthermore, to the limited extent that flight characteristics are a factor, they are adjusted for in the video to relate to the 767.

In other words, the video is totally valid for the purposes it undertakes to demonstrate.

Here is the next segment, digested:


28--6:48-6:59 All aircraft have VNE max. speed indicator
29--7:00-7:07 VNE explained
30--7:08-7:28 Effect of exceeding VNE shown.
31--7:29-7:45 Testing for flutter shown.
32--7:46-7:56 Simulation requires speed in excess of VNE while still at 17,000ft in air.
33--7:57-8:00 Breakup at 12,000ft asserted.
34--8:01-8:08 Start of demonstration that NTSB flight path report contradicts some of ALL43 videos.
35--8:09-8:14 Radar data
36--8:15-8:30 Radar data parameters, based on NTSB data analysis, charted.

 

[jammonius]

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.



Not anymore. Next.

The above does not refute a darn thing.

 

[jammonius]

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

For reasons unknown to me, your google maps illustration does not properly display. Can you, perhaps, just indicate what your search was, please?

If I can see whatever it is you're trying to post, I will respond accordingly.

 

[jammonius]

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

As I said before, that is the proper inference to draw.

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

Courage aside, it is clear and apparent that among the ever growing number of people, in many different areas of expertise, who are, in fact, speaking out against the common storyline of 9/11 that such people are slowly but surely turning the tables on the 9/11 psyop.

It is not easy. Resistance is seemingly strong. But, as illustrated, say, in this thread, the resistance is largely of an emotional nature, not based on reason.

In due course the emotional attachment to the common storyline will be overcome.

Thanks for your post.

 

[A W Smith]

The above does not refute a darn thing.

Yes it certainly does

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Jammo, a 747 is a much larger aircraft, has four engines not two and is of a much older design. It may well be that it really is a good substitute for a 767 in a simulator but you have not shown that to be the case. Until you do then any outcome from using a 747 is not usable as evidence of anything.
Next you have to show that the simulator used really is an accurate proxy for a real aircraft at those speeds and altitudes.....again until you do so it cannot be used as evidence of anything.

 

[jammonius]

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?

Here we go again with yet another "there must be 1000s" claims.

Certainly, there are many, however quantification is difficult. In case you hadn't noticed, there exists a large number of organizations, based in many instances upon professional affiliation, such as Architects and Engineers, Pilots, to name two, that openly and effectively oppose the common storyline of 9/11.

I am not going to get into a contest with quantifying the number of orgs, or the level of support for them, other than to say that they are doing a good job of gradually, but definitely wearing down the hold that the psyop has on our society.

all the best

 

[A W Smith]

For reasons unknown to me, your google maps illustration does not properly display. Can you, perhaps, just indicate what your search was, please?

If I can see whatever it is you're trying to post, I will respond accordingly.

view from church street station up to where the south tower would have been.

 

[Sabretooth]

The above does not refute a darn thing.

On the contrary. You cannot use a basketball to judge what a baseball will do when hit with a bat. Show me where a 747 will act and react exactly the same as a 767 and maybe we have a discussion, but until then, this theory is garbage.

The utuber conveniently ignored the fact that these planes do not operate within the same flight envelope. Therefore, his "facts" are automatically flawed. Just because he claims they are the same, it doesn't make it true.

Further, the utuber is not a pilot. Just because you watch "The Matrix", it doesn't mean you know karate.

And I noticed you ignored my point that the utube poster could just as easily (or even more so) used a simulation of the correct aircraft. Maybe...just maybe...we could have a real debate on that. But since you claim there weren't any planes at all, I don't see how that will ever happen.

 

[jammonius]

Jammo, a 747 is a much larger aircraft, has four engines not two and is of a much older design. It may well be that it really is a good substitute for a 767 in a simulator but you have not shown that to be the case.

The maker of the video called prompt attention to the use of a 747 simulator for a 767 craft and indicated why it was valid.

I have chosen to rely on that claim. It is not my claim; it is the claim made by my source.

Judging by the quality, the effectiveness and the thoughtfulness of the video, I am inclined to accept my source's declaration over yours.

I note here, as I have noticed elsewhere, over the last several pages, that you do not source your objection. You have merely stated it; but you have not substantiated it.

My substantiation consists in the claim made in the video, a piece of data and information that appears, on its face, to be clear, cogent, convincing and well done.

Not one poster here has posted up an objection based on a source.

Until you do then any outcome from using a 747 is not usable as evidence of anything.

Your claim is patently false. You have not sourced your objection. I am basing my claim on what is asserted in the video itself. That is my source. See:

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

Next you have to show that the simulator used really is an accurate proxy for a real aircraft at those speeds and altitudes.....again until you do so it cannot be used as evidence of anything.

That is likewise patently false because you have not sourced or validated your objection. Once again, I am relying on the claim contained in the video. That is the information that carries some weight because of the quality and the precision that it objectively demonstrates having.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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?

Aliens! Just like in Close encounters of the third kind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tWJ9Ec2TC4

Jammo probably imagines they will turn up in a corner of area 51

 

[jammonius]

view from church street station up to where the south tower would have been.

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/churchststation.jpg[/qimg]

Ah, thanks for clarifying what you meant. I don't think that helps you AW. I don't think there exists sufficient information for you to infer that was the subway location referenced by the witness in question who worked at 175 Broadway.

Still, I am open to further discussion on the matter; and, perhaps, more google street view posting. As you are here discussing a witness from a compilation where only 6 out of 82 were valid and properly sourced, I think I can easily afford to be magnaimous here and give your side in this discussion the benefit of every doubt. But, you still have to earn entitlement to claim the witness was properly situated to have made the claim apparently made by the witness. I gather this is of some importance to you, so I will continue to abide in the outcome of the discussion, one way or the other. After all, witness statements can and should be viewed objectively. You agree?

 

[A W Smith]

Here we go again with yet another "there must be 1000s" claims.

Certainly, there are many, however quantification is difficult. In case you hadn't noticed, there exists a large number of organizations, based in many instances upon professional affiliation, such as Architects and Engineers, Pilots, to name two, that openly and effectively oppose the common storyline of 9/11.

I am not going to get into a contest with quantifying the number of orgs, or the level of support for them, other than to say that they are doing a good job of gradually, but definitely wearing down the hold that the psyop has on our society.

all the best

yeah you keep telling yourself that jammy.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ae911truth.org#

 

[jammonius]

Aliens! Just like in Close encounters of the third kind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tWJ9Ec2TC4

Jammo probably imagines they will turn up in a corner of area 51

Ah, so, you do know how to source some of your claims. So, we can reasonably infer here that since you have not sourced your objection to the video simulating the last 4min40sec of alleged Flight 175, you cannot do so.

Too bad.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The maker of the video called prompt attention to the use of a 747 simulator for a 767 craft and indicated why it was valid.

I have chosen to rely on that claim. It is not my claim; it is the claim made by my source.

Sorry but but thats inadequate as evidence. Do you really imagine that this simulation would be admissible as evidence when it cannot even use the right plane?

Judging by the quality, the effectiveness and the thoughtfulness of the video, I am inclined to accept my source's declaration over yours.

Who cares? I'm an engineer with 27 year experience, you and your friend are????? Who do you imagine would make a more credible witness?

I note here, as I have noticed elsewhere, over the last several pages, that you do not source your objection. You have merely stated it; but you have not substantiated it.

YOU are making the assertion, therefore YOU must prove your case.

My substantiation consists in the claim made in the video, a piece of data and information that appears, on its face, to be clear, cogent, convincing and well done.

Its a video! funnily enough just like the one showing the 43 videos of the plane hitting the tower. You keep questioning the latter but blindly accept the former.....why? What education or experiaence do you have in jet aircraft, 767s in particular, flight simulators etc that allows you to say that one is faked and the other not?

Not one poster here has posted up an objection based on a source.

Thats what we have just been doing!.....its the wrong kind of plane and the author makes claims about structural failure of the aircraft he cannot substantiate.

Your claim is patently false. You have not sourced your objection. I am basing my claim on what is asserted in the video itself. That is my source.

So what, the source is wrong and thus so are you.

That is likewise patently false because you have not sourced or validated your objection. Once again, I am relying on the claim contained in the video. That is the information that carries some weight because of the quality and the precision that it objectively demonstrates having.

No its just nicely packaged crap. How can you call it precise when its not even the right plane????

 

[djlunacee]

The above does not refute a darn thing.

Thank you for reminding the posters, lurkers, friends and family members of the victims, just how completely ignorant you are. The planes are not comparable which makes your little video irrelevant. Since you insist we shall add this to the list of things you have gotten wrong.

1. Jammy believes that planes, trains, and buses all sound the same.
2. Jammy believes that if a person says they saw a plane, they really didn't
3. Jammy believes that the fuel payload for a Boeing jet is NOT carried in the wings
4. Jammy believes that the planes should have bounced off of the WTC complex and fallen to the ground.
5. Jammy believes that the explosions after impact took place in the wrong spot (with no knowledge of crash dynamics, velocity, momentum, physics, or any other science)
6. Jammy believes that if there are no photos or video of an individual on the internet or youtube then people do not exist
7. Jammy believes that if I were talking to you, and I used the term WE it doesn't include me.
8. Jammy believes that the WTC complex was destroyed from an imaginary weapon, fired from an imaginary place, of which he will never answer or provide a single solitary shred of proof, not one single drop of it.
9. Jammy believes that all of the airplanes debris was planted.
10. Jammy believes that all of the DNA remains of the passengers is faked.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Welcome to Mt. Stupidity!!!


There is a reason Jammy does not answer any direct question and will not answer the question of what happened to Ed Felt? Betty Ong? Peter Hanson?
Why? Reality will set in, period. He dismisses these as gotcha questions, then reprojects to make it seem as if the people with sense, logic, and reason, are engaging in some kind of shenanigans. I told you a while back I have you figured out Jammo, you are indeed a coward who takes no responsibility for his statements, much less prove them. Nothing in this thread that you have posted refutes the fact that 19 terrorists boarded 4 planes, hijacked them and used them as weapons against the USA.

 

[A W Smith]

Ah, thanks for clarifying what you meant. I don't think that helps you AW. I don't think there exists sufficient information for you to infer that was the subway location referenced by the witness in question who worked at 175 Broadway.

And why would you not think it was the station in question Jammy boy?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Ah, so, you do know how to source some of your claims. So, we can reasonably infer here that since you have not sourced your objection to the video simulating the last 4min40sec of alleged Flight 175, you cannot do so.

Too bad.

Why would I?, no 747 hit the towers or attempted to do so....so a simulation of one falling apart when attempting to do so requires no refutation.

 

[excaza]

My favorite is his stance on youtube videos. If they agree with his delusions, they are 100% fact. If they disagree with his delusions, they are part of the supposed super-de-duper psyop.

Can't argue with this much stupid.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Here we go again with yet another "there must be 1000s" claims.

Certainly, there are many, however quantification is difficult. In case you hadn't noticed, there exists a large number of organizations, based in many instances upon professional affiliation, such as Architects and Engineers, Pilots, to name two, that openly and effectively oppose the common storyline of 9/11.

You do know that almost none of the people in those groups is qualified to have an opinion, fewer still deny there were indeed planes and their numbers are way below the % of their professions that that will be suffering from mental illness.
Thousand did see the second planes hit, that is undeniable given the fact it was a busy Monday morning in a city of 10,000,000 people. Only a small number have come forth and given witness statements because there was no need to ask people to come forth as eyewitnesses because the planes were caught on Hi Def TV, recorded by unimpeachable sources. Do you doubt for a minute that there would be plenty of people willing to testify in court as to what they saw? Do you have single person who was in the right place at the right time who claims there was no plane? Do you have a single video that is clearly at the right place at the right time that shows the explosion but no plane where there should have been one? Dozens of people were filming the towers at the time, surely if there were no planes one of them would have recorded that fact?

I

am not going to get into a contest with quantifying the number of orgs, or the level of support for them, other than to say that they are doing a good job of gradually, but definitely wearing down the hold that the psyop has on our society.

Yet the vast majority of qualified folks think they are insane....go figure.