twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
You sound like a cultist trying to gain members
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
-
- Tags
- no plane theory no planes
- Status
You sound like a cultist trying to gain members
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
And the moronic comment at 1.16.....he clearly is watching the burning WTC tower and probably has already taken lots of pictures of that and it had been burning for quite a time by then. He would not have heard the plane before it hit so would have had no warning of it coming.
even if he had spotted it before it hit, it would have been a very cool, quick thinking, person to have photographed it...........
at 3.33 The Comets Failed due to metal fatigue at the corners of the large rectangular windows NOT due to harmonic shaking affects. If your so called Boeing "expert" get that wrong what else is he taliking out his azz...........
at 3.59 Flying aluminum beer cans??? WTF? He is clearly not an aircraft engineer...."if they built them strong enough to be safe".....WTF??? Flying is about the safest form of travel there is! I've been around the world twice and probably have about 500,000 miles in the air total.......I'm still here!
at 4.19 The moron now thinks that because an aircraft is mostly aluminum it could not go through a structural steel building! Guess he never saw a lead bullet go through steel then. Someine needs to look into the school that let this guy graduate (assuming he actually did go to Engineering college), has he never heard of kinetic energy????
at 4.46 we find out that Dr Hill major was Biology and Electrical Engineering! So he is outside his field.....no surprise there
Come on Bill.....Is this the best you have????? You would have to be as slow as Jammo to fall for this excreta!
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Oh dear,Bill has fallen low.Telltale Tom has him beaten by a mile in the trolling stakes.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
At 5.12 The video now shows car crash test to show that the plane should have crushed and bounced off! I guess that in Biology and Electrical engineering they don't tell you that kinetic energy increases by the square of the velocity..........10 times the speed equals 100 times the energy. Then at 5.38 he says he doesn't think even the engine would penetrate.......LOL he has no clue. Funny that a minute ago the plane couldn't have done it because it was made of soft aluminium but now a heavy steel and titanium engine couldn't either???? What does think the WTC was built off....Armour plate? At 5.47 he call the engine core on Murray street the engine off a 737....how does he know that? And then he thinks it ending up on a sidewalk under the scaffolding is funny......why? It had to land somewhere and likely simply bounced and rolled to a stop there.
At 7.05 lots more videos of low speed crashes as if they would be comparable to one 10 times as fast.....he says plane should crumple....where does he imagine the planes structure has time to do that? It simply is traveling too fast for loads to be transferred back through the structure.
At 7.32 they quote the photographer that said it looked like a bad special effect......as if a) a photographer would know what a planer hitting a building at 500 mph should look like and b) good special effects always reflect reality!
at 7.35 they seem surprised that it does not appear to slow down. Well it probably does by a tiny unmeasurable amount.....but since the parts of the plane outside of the building haven't hit anything yet why would they slow appreciably? Those parts of the plane that have hit the building have either punched through or been shredded. As we have all seen in the phantom crash test....at 500 mph there is no appreciable slowing of the plane even when hitting a much solider object than the WTC.
At 8.12 they complain about not seeing things bending! LOL When you punch holes in things they don't bend...they fail in shear.
At 8.41 "stabilized by logo"? what does that mean? Don't you love the way they just drop things in as being significant but without explaining why? Lets the nutcases imagine all sorts of things.
9.04 more slow speed crashes..........they still don't know about KE
To sum up....this has to be just about the shoddiest piece of truther crap out there. Good news is that 3 of of 4 people that watched the first on did not bother to keeping watching until the last one and is anyone surprised?
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
I think this point is what makes me laugh the most about these no-planers. Why would they assume that planes would not penetrate the buildings? It’s like they expected them to smoosh up against the side of WTC like Wile E. Coyote splatting against the side of a cliff and then slowly sliding down in a comical fashion.
It’s amazing to me that most CTer’s have these convictions with absolutely no comprehension of general physics.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
I suppose its good in one way.......if this was easy to understand than anyone could do it and I would a lot less well paid
Whats more bizarre it that they think "common sense" is applicable to situations unlike any normally witnessed and that they as unqualified people know better than all the qualified engineers etc in the world.....its hard to think of any truther that is making assertions that would be in their field of expertise.
Wait a minute. While it's true, I've been away for a few days and still have a few other fish to fry before responding to some attempts made by some posters who have desparately tried to rehabilitate the now totally refuted PLANE SPOTTER claim regarding alleged Flight 175.
Still, the quoted post goes a step too far, requiring this observation right away.
The post to which this responds essentailly uses Wylie Coyte as a foil for the opposite of what Wylie actually represents; i.e., REALITY.
Therefore the post to which this responds stands as clear proof that adherence to the common storyline of 9/11 does require the knowing and willing substitution of illusion in place of reality.
Earth to Sabretooth:
YES, in the real world, we expect what happens to Wylie Coyote in the ROADRUNNER cartoons as and for a reflection of REALITY.
And, we know that what happens in the ROADRUNNER cartoon to the Roadrunner is an illusion, pure and simple, and that the illusion of the Roadrunner running headlong through the Acme Steel Building, and other solid objects, is not real.
Putting this in the context of 9/11 and Flight 175, here are some simple illustrations that might help some of you, I hope.
As for Sabretooth, it would appear the process of being consumed by ILLUSION is almost complete.
That is too bad.
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
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
Maclovio "Joe" Lopez, Jr. 41, was a passenger on Flight 175. He lived in Norwalk, California. Joe was a construction worker at Spiniello Co. In Boston for a water main project, he was on his way home to Norwalk, California to visit his wife, Rhonda, his 21-year-old daughter, Dannette, and his 18-year-old son, Joseph.
Lopez grew up in Pueblo, Coloumbia and married his high school sweetheart 22 years ago, "He loved children," she said and remembered how he ran behind his daughter when she was learning to ride a bicycle. But he didn't trust people easily, "if you weren't a little kid you had to wait until he liked you," said Rhonda.
"People always saw hard, but really he was soft on the inside," she said. "I think that anybody who really knew him knows what they're going to miss. Anybody else, it wouldn't have mattered to him anyway."
Source: HERE
Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.
Compus
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
Maclovio "Joe" Lopez, Jr. 41, was a passenger on Flight 175. He lived in Norwalk, California. Joe was a construction worker at Spiniello Co. In Boston for a water main project, he was on his way home to Norwalk, California to visit his wife, Rhonda, his 21-year-old daughter, Dannette, and his 18-year-old son, Joseph.
Lopez grew up in Pueblo, Coloumbia and married his high school sweetheart 22 years ago, "He loved children," she said and remembered how he ran behind his daughter when she was learning to ride a bicycle. But he didn't trust people easily, "if you weren't a little kid you had to wait until he liked you," said Rhonda.
"People always saw hard, but really he was soft on the inside," she said. "I think that anybody who really knew him knows what they're going to miss. Anybody else, it wouldn't have mattered to him anyway."
Source: HERE
Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.
Compus
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Apparently, you also have a lack of reading comprehension:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiom
So, you’re suggesting cartoons are based in reality? I’m starting to understand where you get your [lack of] knowledge in physics.
Ok, so the coyote is real and the bird is not….got it.
You are legitimately out of your mind. You may want to ask your therapist for a better prescription.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Just to help you with your accuracy of understanding, our jammonius does in fact believe that flight 175 should have behaved like a Molotov cocktail on impact, breaking up on the curtain wall and falling to the ground.
See how sane it sounds when said like that (insert sarcasm smiley here.)
Get help.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
A mentally ill one.
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
More from the Jammonius Truther Handbook (SOP Evasionary Tactics sect 1 para. II)
DNA evidence? Planted.
Radar tracks? Falsified.
Video? Faked.
Audio? Inconclusive.
Eyewitnesses? Duped.
News Reports? Fabricated.
Expert Testimony? Corrupt .
Non-truther sources? Propaganda.
Victims? Imaginary.
Debris? Bogus.
Documentary Evidence? Psyops.
Empirical Data? Superfluous.
Energy Requirements? Unnecessary.
Compus
DNA evidence? Planted.
Radar tracks? Falsified.
Video? Faked.
Audio? Inconclusive.
Eyewitnesses? Duped.
News Reports? Fabricated.
Expert Testimony? Corrupt .
Non-truther sources? Propaganda.
Victims? Imaginary.
Debris? Bogus.
Documentary Evidence? Psyops.
Empirical Data? Superfluous.
Energy Requirements? Unnecessary.
Compus
Last edited:
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Jammonius
I found this little gif that I thought you might be able to use sometime.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/v.gif
Yet another truther lie (who would thought it?) You did not find it, Bill Smith. I posted it and then you thought Jammy could use it if one of Compus' posts would make Jammy feel uncomfortable again...
That;s a just perfect gif(t) for compus.
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Ah sure darlin' girl you can see right through me . lol
Hey Bill,
I prefer to engage our debunkers with information that refutes their PLANE SPOTTER claims. Sometimes, however, humorous gestures can serve some legitimate purpose.
It is to be noted that the video information on the radar data and the flight dynamics attributed to shadow thingy have not been refuted in the least. It took dozens of pages just to get a few of them, like Oystein, for instance, to even come to grips with the substance of the radar video.
Even now, next to none of them, including Oystein, grasp the fact that the video, the radar data and the NTSB analysis of it, plainly put shadow thingy 1000ft above sea level, in the vicinity of the South Tower, after a dive. Those factors falsify almost all of the ALL 43 videos as well as debunker interpretations of the radar data.
If you will check, Bill, you will see that the debunkers continue to seek desparately to hold on to the claim the radar data ends at 2000ft irrespective of a direct NTSB quote confirming the radar data extends down to the 1000ft level.
I think it best to just let them stew in their juices on that one.
all the best
Last edited:
Oystein,
OK, I will acknowledge that your posts 3529 and 3530 are each a worthy attempt to engage in substantive posting. The thread benefits greatly from posts of that nature. Thank you for your effort.
The main point of departure we have is your little snipet buried in post # 3529claiming:
"...the end of the chart is at 2000ft..."
That claim is false. You are placing emphasis upon a chart that does not claim to be done to scale; and, in any event, the chart is not the proper source for a claim about altitude. Instead, the source data, the radar itself and the NTSB analysis of it is the proper source for altitude claims. The NTSB plainly states that the radar ends at 1000ft and that is what the chart is actually portraying.
The debunker attempt is, then, a strawperson claim.
The radar ends at 1000ft thereby falsifying the ALL 43 videos and also falsifying the claim there was a jetliner involved in the explosion at the South Tower.
We are making some progress here in the sense that the truth is coming out, notwithstanding debunker attempts at obfuscation.
- Status