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

[CompusMentus]

Roll-up Roll-up....It's Jim Fetzers "Non-random Thoughts" show.

Proudly hosted on Andrew Johnstons "checktheevidence" site, everyone interested in the background to the Judy Jam and Jim lunacy listen to THIS (MP3 file, about 1 hour duration. November 11 2006. Click to play locally or right click/save as to download)

All here in marvellous idiocy:-

We have Judy's first public announcement that the DEW was a "spacebeam", some hilariously inept interpretations of seismic data from the WTC area on 9/11, floating grand piano's, a caller claiming that the people who jumped were thrown out of the towers by black ops teams, Judy counter-claiming that the jumpers were expecting to be caught by helicopters with nets, that only buildings with a prefix of "WTC" were damaged on 9/11. Jim espouses that Senator Wellstones airplane was brought down with an EMP pulse. Judy that the contents of the tower's were dustified and "wafted up to heaven", that a beam was aimed at the WTC that "triggered the natural frequencies of it's molecules" which caused the buildings to self-destruct "like the Tacoma narrows bridge".....

And much, much more.

Just a snippet folks, of what Jam, Jim and Judy would have us accept as "scientific" investigation.

Compus

 

[X]

Sorry if I got the nomenclature wrong. I have been calling it angle of descent
ie a realistic description of the angle of the flightpath relative to the ground.

i.e. a horizontal flightpath would have a an angle of descent of 0 degrees and a vertical dive, one of 90 degrees. My graph is intended to show that the angle of the flight path from 18000 feet was approximately (now you know what that word means Jammo ) was about 25 degrees from the horizontal.

If "dive angle" is the wrong words for that then I apologize for that error.

De nada.


And while I'm here...


Hey look, Jammonius!!!
Sheeples just admitted to and apologized for a mistake.
It's not that hard to do.

You should try it sometime. Instead of digging deeper.

(Actually, you're probably closer to the other side, with that hole of yours)

 

[jammonius]

Jammonius here's another video you might be interested in..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU&feature=related

Well, Bill,

You're right again. That is a useful video, confirming, in a slightly different way that the video imagery is fake and that the radar data involve impossible flight dynamic assumptions.

Well done.

Here's the beginning of a summary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU&feature=related

1:20 "this isn't precise" is putting it mildly. It shows a plane entering WTC without disentegrating, courtesy of ARA who prepared that piece of fraudulent graphics and who knows better.
1:30 Angle determined by NIST
1:40 What NIST angle looks like
2:00 Precise angle plane simulated image
2:33 Basis for angle comparison
2:44 Start of angle comparison
4:03 Angles don't match
5:23 Another demonstration of wrong angle
6:33 Flight path fantasy and descent

If past is prologue (and it usually is), posters here will not be able to refute this information in the least. The evidence is now overwhelming that no jetliner and no Boeing 767 and no flight 175 hit the South Tower on 9/11.

 

[DGM]

Well, Bill,

You're right again. That is a useful video, confirming, in a slightly different way that the video imagery is fake and that the radar data involve impossible flight dynamic assumptions.

Well done.
<scam video deleted>.

As this "evidence was up-loaded by an "anonymous" person this must be fake and discarded.

Thanks for playing


Do Better!

 

[jammonius]

Oh - impossible? Wrong.

The video claims a maximum descent rate of 6000ft/min

I found this official Type Acceptance Report for Boeing 767, applicable to New Zealand air space.

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&sourc...sg=AFQjCNFG2MAaBz2e-mJ0sOPgF7XzY54Fng&cad=rja

On page 8 you find the following interesting passage:



Let's do some math:
FL430 = 43000 feet
FL170 = 17000 feet
FL100 = 10000 feet
FL430, linear descent to FL170 = 26000 feet descent
26000 feet descent in 3 mins. = 8667 ft/min
FL170 linear descent to FL100 in 1 min = 7000 ft/min

So apparently NZ air space regulations, based on Boeing detailed spec, recommends an emergency descent rate of more than 8000 ft/min at high altitude, and 7000 ft/min at medium altitude.

Quite obviously, they would not recommend that if it was impossible or significantly dangerous.

Nice try. Your assumptions don't match the claims set out in the video.

Try again

 

[jammonius]

"The airplane impacted the south tower of the World Trade Center at approximately 9:02:40."


Jammo, just for you.

Main Entry: 1ap·prox·i·mate
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈpräk-sə-mət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin approximatus, past participle of approximare to come near, from Latin ad- + proximare to come near — more at proximate
Date: 15th century

1 : located close together <approximate leaves>
2 : nearly correct or exact <an approximate solution>

— ap·prox·i·mate·ly adverb

my source? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/approximately

Good luck with reconciling the conflicts between and among the various aspects of the common storyline of 9/11 as it relates to Flight 175.

Actually, Sheeples, you may be on to something here that might be useful.

As we know, supporters of the common storyline of 9/11 do not require facts, let alone precise details to substantiate their willingness to believe the common storyline. I submit to you that if Flight 175 was said to have hit the South Tower the day after 9/11 that would be approximately close enough for many of your true believers.

What you fail to grasp here is that the videos contradict the radar data, the radar data makes no sense and both contradict the seismic data.

What this tells you does not consist in the need for a definition of the word approximate and its derivations; rather, what this tells you is that the story about what is said to have happened does not add up, make sense, hold water or otherwise ring true.

Got it yet?

 

[332nd]

Well, Bill,

You're right again. That is a useful video, confirming, in a slightly different way that the video imagery is fake and that the radar data involve impossible flight dynamic assumptions.

Well done.

Here's the beginning of a summary:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/flightsimvideo/preciseplane.jpg?t=1282331120[/qimg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU&feature=related

1:20 "this isn't precise" is putting it mildly. It shows a plane entering WTC without disentegrating, courtesy of ARA who prepared that piece of fraudulent graphics and who knows better.
1:30 Angle determined by NIST
1:40 What NIST angle looks like
2:00 Precise angle plane simulated image
2:33 Basis for angle comparison
2:44 Start of angle comparison
4:03 Angles don't match
5:23 Another demonstration of wrong angle
6:33 Flight path fantasy and descent

If past is prologue (and it usually is), posters here will not be able to refute this information in the least. The evidence is now overwhelming that no jetliner and no Boeing 767 and no flight 175 hit the South Tower on 9/11.

Wait... are they trying to use perspective from a perpendicular angle?

 

[bill smith]

As this "evidence was up-loaded by an "anonymous" person this must be fake and discarded.

Thanks for playing


Do Better!

Take it easy DGM. Nobody is being dragged away yet.

 

[Oystein]

Nice try. Your assumptions don't match the claims set out in the video.

Try again

There is not a single assumption in my post

Care to clue me in?

ETA: Claims set out in the video? I responded to your claim, specifically "The simulation, based on the NTSB flight path and other data confirms the flight path and rate of descent is impossible"
The video gathers a maximum descent rate of 6000ft from the NTSB flight path / altitude chart. Right or wrong?
I take your claim to mean "rate of descent of 6000ft/min is impossible for a 767". Right or wrong?
I proved that claim wrong by showing that official documents descibing 767 operations allow for descent rates of up to 8666 ft/min.

 

[bill smith]

Jammonius you should be creating a storyboard and dialogue for a video as you go along. You've got the goods and we all know how effective video is. You may run into someone who is handy that way and it would be good to be ready. Just a thought.

 

[TheRedWorm]

It's a pretty sad day when a troll has to stoop to this level of crazy just because he/she wants attention. Hey Bill, drop the act and visit other parts of the forum. DC did it, and you can too! (Alright, to be completely fair, DC actually believed the stuff he said at the time, but still...)

 

[bill smith]

It's a pretty sad day when a troll has to stoop to this level of crazy just because he/she wants attention. Hey Bill, drop the act and visit other parts of the forum. DC did it, and you can too! (Alright, to be completely fair, DC actually believed the stuff he said at the time, but still...)

David Chandler still believes every 9/11 word he says Red Worm. With very good reason.

 

[Sabretooth]

... we all know how effective video is.

That is the funniest hint I ever read. You're praising the effectiveness of video, all while you and Jammy discount the MSM feeds.

The irony here is deafening.

 

[CompusMentus]

The crew and passengers of United Airlines Flight 175

On the morning of September 11 2001, United Airlines Flight 175 was flying to Los Angeles from Boston, and was hijacked by Islamic terrorists. Shortly after taking off it was deliberately flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, New York.

There were no survivors.


UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175 PASSENGERS


Brian Kinney, 29, was a passenger on Flight 175. He lived in Lowell, Massachusetts. Mr Kinney was a Manager of Global Risk Management Solutions at PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Boston. He left behind a wife, Alison, his parents, Norman and Darlene and a brother, Timothy.

Brian was an engaging and industrious worker, he had risen from intern to manager at Pricewaterhouse. He was on his way to meet a client on Flight 175.

Brian and Alison had planned to start a family.

Source: HERE

Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.


Compus

 

[bill smith]

That is the funniest hint I ever read. You're praising the effectiveness of video, all while you and Jammy discount the MSM feeds.

The irony here is deafening.

The MSM footage was made with guys like you in mind Sabretooth and as we all see it worked magnificently. It doesn't work so well on intelligent critical observers though.

 

[Sabretooth]

The MSM footage was made with guys like you in mind Sabretooth and as we all see it worked magnificently. It doesn't work so well on intelligent critical observers though.

Oh I forgot. You folks don't operate in reality.

Maybe you want to explain that to the training department for NY State firefighters seeing that we use those videos for training. Should we just use LC from now on?

 

[TheRedWorm]

David Chandler still believes every 9/11 word he says Red Worm. With very good reason.

I never said he didn't. I'm saying that I don't think YOU do. Not that you'd admit to it of course, it's your identity here. But I am telling you that this site is more than this sub-forum, and if you dropped the act, and visited other sections, you'd probably get more out of it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What happened to the planes if they didn't crash?

 

[Bell]

What happened to the planes if they didn't crash?

What happened to the passengers and crew inside them?

 

[bill smith]

Oh I forgot. You folks don't operate in reality.

Maybe you want to explain that to the training department for NY State firefighters seeing that we use those videos for training. Should we just use LC from now on?

But then I'd never find out if the Butler did it or how he did it. Sorry..answer to Red Worm.