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

[Sabretooth]

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.

It was a Tuesday. I'd figure I'd correct you before PaJamas did...

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Jammo, please explain why the maker of your 747 simulation is not dead from a accident?. Please explain why you are not, at this moment, in the sights of snipers rifle?

Why would an organization capable and willing to do what you suggest they did have any hesitation in snuffing out two little no-entities like you? Who would notice? Not us....we would simply attribute it to you being put on more effective medication.
If what you say is true why have you not been discovered dead with a plastic bag over your head, an apparent auto erotic suffocation? You do know that they would know exactly who you are and where you live? Every time you log on they would know.

 

[Furcifer]

Can't argue with this much stupid.

Oh yes you can, and you will dammit! I needs my morning chuckles I do.

I think jammonius needs to take his act on the road. 5 day all expenses paid trip to ground zero, all he's got to do is stand there with a sign that says

"There were no planes on 9/11, it's all a psyop, you've been had by your government"

I think that would give him an opportunity to confront the liars that say there were planes flown into the WTC's.

I think we can find him a tour guide to help him find all the important places to present his theory.

I think I have some airmiles to donate to the cause

 

[sheeplesnshills]

It was a Tuesday. I'd figure I'd correct you before PaJamas did...

I stand corrected. I made a mistake, Mea Culpa.

(see jammo you can admit you are wrong. thats what grown ups do.)

 

[tsig]

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.



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.



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.

So the video is true because it claims to be true.

Still I wonder why the guy just didn't use the correct plane simulation.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Jammo, at 7.05 your friend points out the VNE (velocity never exceed) marking on the airspeed indicator gauge. Please let us know what the factor of safety built into that reading is for the UA 767 plane you suggest did not hit the South Tower.
Simple zero or positive number answer is required. If you do not know what this is then please find out from your friend what he thinks it is and what is his source for that data.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

At 7.56 your friends state that the plane is above its certified top speed. fair enough but your friend fails to also point out that certified top speed is NOT the speed at which the plane will suffer enough damage to destroy it. A factor of safety is added to account for tolerances in the airframe and instruments, weakening of the airframe as it gets older and unpredictable other forces like turbulance, pilot error etc.
Factors of safety are applied to all engineering where there is a likely safety hazard if a part fails....cars, bridges, planes.........no exceptions to this rule.

Jammo do you accept that a factor of safety would apply in this case?

 

[Bell]

This is how Jammy will reply to every opposing point, bit of evidence or counter argument:

The above does not refute a darn thing.

No matter what is thrown at him Jammy will only accept his own truth.

Christophera managed 279 pages. How long will Jammy's thread last?

Jammy, seek help!

 

[twinstead]

I propose we answer every post Jammonius makes with, "the above does not refute a darn thing" from now on.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

at 8.24 your friend seems surprised that the plane does not level off on the radar data.....but forgets to mention that the data ends BEFORE the impact as one would reasonably expect it to due to the ground clutter) The last radar data figure is at about 2000 feet. Well above the height the plane hit the tower so its not surprising at all that most of the videos, which catch only catch the last few seconds, do not show the steep dive.

The videos show a plane diving down and hitting the buildings

 

[sheeplesnshills]

at 9.31 your friend says the "divebombing" contradicts the other videos.....nope its just from a better angle so that the vertical change of height over the last few seconds is more clearly apparent. Do you deny that sometimes the angle you see something from affects what you see? This is why they look at multiple cameras at football or soccer games to see if it really was a goal, touchdown, penulty etc.
My conclusion? Your friend is either stupid or insane or a liar or some combination of these three.

 

[DGM]

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.

Could you tell us what these "organizations' have to say about your "no-plane" theory?

 

[Sabretooth]

... 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.

OK, so I was sitting here for a while playing with MS Flight Sim 2002 (the early unreleased version that has the WTC still in it, just in case anyone is wondering...and yes I can prove it if need be). I used a 767-400, which is just a slightly longer version of the 767-200 that was flt 175.

I have had ZERO problems recreating the flight path of flt 175. Heck, I even pushed the heck out of the plane just to see if I could find it's breaking point. A full throttle nose-dive from 30,000 ft to 3,500 ft and then yanked back on the stick produced no damage to the airframe...with the exception that I "over-sped" the engines. Keep in mind, overspeed does not imply damage, it just means the compressor fans inside the engines were beyond their design limits, and this was well beyond the actual stresses that flt 175 would have experienced.

Bottom line...I found absolutely no evidence that the airframe would not be able to survive the maneuvers of flt 175 on 9/11.

Sorry, I do not have the time or capability to make this into a utube video that you base all your conclusions (ie: delusions) on. Not that I planned on it anyway, seeing that if I did take the time to do so, you'd probably ignore it and say it doesn't prove anything and my efforts would be totally wasted. So deal with it.

 

[Bell]

OK, so I was sitting here for a while playing with MS Flight Sim 2002 (the early unreleased version that has the WTC still in it, just in case anyone is wondering...and yes I can prove it if need be). I used a 767-400, which is just a slightly longer version of the 767-200 that was flt 175.

I have had ZERO problems recreating the flight path of flt 175. Heck, I even pushed the heck out of the plane just to see if I could find it's breaking point. A full throttle nose-dive from 30,000 ft to 3,500 ft and then yanked back on the stick produced no damage to the airframe...with the exception that I "over-sped" the engines. Keep in mind, overspeed does not imply damage, it just means the compressor fans inside the engines were beyond their design limits, and this was well beyond the actual stresses that flt 175 would have experienced.

Bottom line...I found absolutely no evidence that the airframe would not be able to survive the maneuvers of flt 175 on 9/11.

Sorry, I do not have the time or capability to make this into a utube video that you base all your conclusions (ie: delusions) on. Not that I planned on it anyway, seeing that if I did take the time to do so, you'd probably ignore it and say it doesn't prove anything and my efforts would be totally wasted. So deal with it.

[jammy mode]The above does not refute a darn thing.[/jammy mode]

 

[jammonius]

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.

Let me check for accuracy: Are you saying you are right and they are wrong, or what?

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.

The above is not in the least bit logical. You have not proven that 1000s saw anything.

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.

Even your cohorts will tell you that the above is factually inaccurate. As for me, I will go further and say that your quoted claim is not merely inaccurate, it is delusional, as to yourself; and, misleading as to the rest of us.

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?

Yes I not only doubt, I here assert that when put into a position where telling the truth matters, next to no one will claim they saw and heard a widebody jetliner.

Let me know if anything in the preceding sentence is unclear to you and I will clarify it for you as best I can.

I have said many, many times that the people who were documented to be in the best possible place to observe and who had either a duty or a professional reason to be observant report neither seeing nor hearing a plane, let alone a jetliner.

Two of the best who fit the description of being in the best documented place and who had a duty to be observant and who report neither seeing nor hearing a jetliner are:

Asst. Commissioner Stephen Gregory
Photographer David Handschuh

Let me know if anything in the above list naming Stephen Gregory and David Handschuh as quinessentially important NO PLANE witnesses is unclear to you and I will do what I can to clarify further.

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?

Yes. I have documented that very issue in this thread. Video segment # 12 of the ALL43 shows no plane and, equally significant, the people in the video, i.e., the people behind the camera also do not comment on a plane; and, instead, make the statement that is consistent with the best witnesses referring solely to an explosion; or, to use the exact words in that video segment:

"...they're bombing it..."

I documented this early on. See post # 68

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5939580&postcount=68

Dozens of people were filming the towers at the time, surely if there were no planes one of them would have recorded that fact?

There are two to four of the ALL43 videos that do not show a plane. This is already documented in this thread. You are not up to speed.

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

You apparently still do not realize that beliefs are not being questioned. People can continue to believe in the common storyline of 9/11 for as long as they can as far as I am concerned.

As to sanity, as it relates to common, ordinary emotional well being among people in a society, I would say that strong belief in common storyline of 9/11is a form of coping mechanism.

Consider, if you would, the impact on your emotional well-being of coming to the recognition that the common storyline is false. How much of an emotional investment in the common storyline do you have? What would happen to you if you were to stop believing in the common storyline? Needless to say you do not have to post answers here. These are things you can consider, think about, or reject as you see fit.

Anecdotally, I here assert that I am aware of many people who simply do not wish to go there. That is, many people who do not wish to think deeply about 9/11 because they don't think they can do anything about it and deeper thought would only "depress" them.

It is not so much that they believe the common storyline, rather, they simply do not want to take the risks to their sense of well-being that consideration of the falsity of that storyline would entail.

That is understandable. That is one reason why I always reiterate that I do not question people's beliefs and that I am very comfortable with people continuing to believe the common storyline for as long as they can.

Let me put it plainly: The people who post here are obviously willing to put their emotional attachment to the common storyline to some degree of risk. That is commendable. Others are not willing to do that. Some come here, but block out my posts. One has to ask: Does that make them feel better?

Goodness knows I am not here seeking to upset anyone.

 

[jammonius]

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

OK, I see that a few of you, Sheeples, Sabretooth, are posting up based on assessment and analysis of the video and/or claimed simulation practices themselves. Each is a step in the right direction in that it furthers the discussion.

As the digest that I am doing is nearing its end, I will here first post up the next segment and will likely respond to the posts that pose legitimate challenges as and when I can.

I encourage posters to think critically and post up objections, sourced and confirmed, so as to engage in proper refutation.

Next to nothing is cast in concrete, so to speak, (no pun intended) as it relates to 9/11. There has not ever been an official, valid, properly investigated determination of what happened.

To be fair, all of us are mere pikers here. All I am really saying is that there is an awful lot of data consistent with the NO PLANE claim; and, correspondingly, precious little valid data supporting the PLANE SPOTTER claim.

There is so much NO PLANE data and information that one can confidently say "no widebody jetliners hit the WTC on 9/11, and none crashed in Shanksville or at the Pentagon either."

Upon that statement I stand.

Now, back to the digest:

37--8:20-8:26 Aircraft rate of descent continues, flight does not level off.
38--8:26-8:30 Descent of 6300ft in last 40 seconds per NTSB
39--8:30-8:31 Rate is 157ft/sec
40--8:32-8:36 Rate is 785ft in last 5 secs before "impact"
41--8:36-8:38 Here begins the comparison with the video. Shadow thingy comes in straight in the version shown. I suppose I should make a determination as to which of the ALL43, per our numbering system, are being shown in the video. I will endeavor to do that once the impact of this video is disgested by posters, lurkers and victims family members.
42--8:39-8:42 Another version showing a level approach, completely at odds with NTSB data.
43--8:42-8:44 Another version, level approach, therefore video must be fake (or radar is).
44--8:44-8:52 Another version "according to NTSB report this is fake"
45--8:52-9:01 Another version "according to NTSB report this video shown by BBC is fake"

 

[Sabretooth]

There has not ever been an official, valid, properly investigated determination of what happened.

Only according to you, that doesn't make it a valid point.

All I am really saying is that there is an awful lot of data consistent with the NO PLANE claim; and, correspondingly, precious little valid data supporting the PLANE SPOTTER claim.

This statement actually made me laugh out loud. I've never been so throughly convinced that I'm attempting to debate facts with a certified looney.

How, pray tell, are we to have a debate with you when you clearly don't operate on the same reality plane as the rest of us?

 

[HyJinX]

Only according to you, that doesn't make it a valid point.



This statement actually made me laugh out loud. I've never been so throughly convinced that I'm attempting to debate facts with a certified looney.

How, pray tell, are we to have a debate with you when you clearly don't operate on the same reality plane as the rest of us?

There is no data that proves a reality plane exists.

 

[Sabretooth]

There is no data that proves a reality plane exists.

Sure there is! www.youtube.com/fantasy_island

 

[DGM]

I encourage posters to think critically and post up objections, sourced and confirmed, so as to engage in proper refutation.

Let's check for accuracy of understanding. You want us to source AND confirm our objections although you have only taken the word of an anonymous YouTube poster?

Why don't you go first?

ETA: Would it be OK if I confirm with say sabretooth47, and vice versa. We're both anonymous internet sources