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

[jammonius]

Have you ever considered looking at all the evidence en masse, Jammonius?

Yes I have, have you?

 

[jammonius]

What a bizarre thread, I thought the "no planers" thing only applied to the Pentagon hit.

Anyways..




What he said

Are you willing to consider what the ALL 43 video reveals?

thanks

 

[TSR]

"War of the Worlds" is a very apt analogy to be considered in conjunciton with the events of 9/11, could more posters and lurkers but realize it.

That 1938 example might well be a forerunner for what 9/11 essentially was.

Thanks for your post.

.
LOL.

You *do* know that that broadcast was clearly identified as fiction at every break?

It is a very apt analogy indeed: a bunch of people who did not bother to gather all of the information went off half-cocked, just like truthers. Of course, the analogy breaks down when one realizes no one then tried to pretend that the death rays actually existed, and that their qualities were well known -- unlike yourself.
.

 

[TSR]

Well, OK, I did that, but doing so did not shed much light on what is seen here. Momentum is one thing, but "impact" is another. Here we see a sequence in which a claim is made a fuel laden metal "bubble" (I think it was called) collides at great speed with a solid steel object and goes right through with neither explosion nor debris being seen:

.
"solid steel?"

How could they possibly rent office space in a building that had no place for people to move around in?
.

 

[jammonius]

.
"solid steel?"

How could they possibly rent office space in a building that had no place for people to move around in?
.

I don't know you're finding it necessary to be pedantic about this. The issue remains clear, t think; namely penetration of structural steel by an aluminum alloy tube that is, if the issue of interior space important to you, then it is equally, if not moreso, applicable to the shadow thingy.
Query: when and where have you referred to the hollowness and/or % of 'air' applicable to the supposed Boeing 767? Please provide link.
Thanks

 

[BigAl]

I don't know you're finding it necessary to be pedantic about this. The issue remains clear, t think; namely penetration of structural steel by an aluminum alloy tube that is,

Your "steel structure" where the aircraft hit the towers was columns made of 1/4 inches thick steel and mostly glass.

The column joints and the glass didn't stand a chance against the momentum of a 140 ton aircraft traveling at 500MPH.

 

[fess]

Although “Jammo” may have knowledge of the difference between kerosene and jet fuel, he certainly has no idea of the concept of lower and upper explosive limits (LEL/UEL). If he did, he would understand why the “explosion” appears to occur at the east and north side of WTC2. Add to that the effects of momentum, and have an answer.

 

[TSR]

I don't know you're finding it necessary to be pedantic about this. The issue remains clear, t think; namely penetration of structural steel by an aluminum alloy tube that is, if the issue of interior space important to you, then it is equally, if not moreso, applicable to the shadow thingy.
Query: when and where have you referred to the hollowness and/or % of 'air' applicable to the supposed Boeing 767? Please provide link.

.
Except that the "shadow thingy" was travelling at several hundred miles an hour.

Are you going to assert that this momentum (which you have blown off before) was insignificant to what happened?


Still waiting for you to show us the specs on the DEW weapon which would account for the demonstrated physical effects of 9/11.
.

 

[BigAl]

I don't know you're finding it necessary to be pedantic about this. The issue remains clear, t think; namely penetration of structural steel by an aluminum alloy tube that is, if the issue of interior space important to you, then it is equally, if not moreso, applicable to the shadow thingy.
Query: when and where have you referred to the hollowness and/or % of 'air' applicable to the supposed Boeing 767? Please provide link.
Thanks

Irrelevant

 

[beachnut]

I don't know you're finding it necessary to be pedantic about this. The issue remains clear, t think; namely penetration of structural steel by an aluminum alloy tube that is, if the issue of interior space important to you, then it is equally, if not moreso, applicable to the shadow thingy.
Query: when and where have you referred to the hollowness and/or % of 'air' applicable to the supposed Boeing 767? Please provide link.
Thanks

Aluminum is used because it is strong and light and can cut steel when it is going at speeds of 680 feet per seconds or great with great ease. It is call science something you fail to use in your delusional world of lies, hearsay, and twisted insanity of beam weapons, horse-trailers, wheel covers and jet fuel that can't burn.

Water cuts steel, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel at 470 to 590 mph will knock down walls.

Please post the water crushes the car video on 1 2 3...

Not sure how a tsunami knocks down buildings, it is only water.

 

[A W Smith]

I will put this plainly, your observation goes in the direction of making the discussion one of PLANE versus NO PLANE, however, that is not the only possible way to interpret what you've said above.


.

Just "double checking for accuracy" Andrew Johnson. May I ask, Are you a dunce? The title of the thread you yourself started is

ALL 43 VIDEOS-"SECOND HIT" [EXPLOSION]at WTC 2: PLANE or NO PLANE???

And you question why the discussion is one of plane versus no plane?

 

[fitzgibbon]

No need. If they weren't all faked, then obviously at least some were real which deep-sixes your entire no-plane theory.

Thank you for personally putting the spike into two threads with one post.

Call me old school but just to reiterate this point:

If even some of the videos weren't fake, that amounts to a tacit admission on jammonius' part that what was seen corresponded with what his ilk like to refer to as the OCT (Official Conspiracy Theory).

That being the case, he clearly accepts the OCT and further arguments from him amount to how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin class of argument.

This thread and the Dick Oliver thread have reached their conclusion.

Thank you for your participation. Further arguments with jammonius are not required.

 

[dafydd]

Personally, I'm joining the chorus that says we shouldn't play with jammonius anymore. This thread sinks to a new low.

Well said,I won't be reacting anymore.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Well, OK, I did that, but doing so did not shed much light on what is seen here. Momentum is one thing, but "impact" is another. Here we see a sequence in which a claim is made a fuel laden metal "bubble" (I think it was called) collides at great speed with a solid steel object and goes right through with neither explosion nor debris being seen:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/800-2bbcstilletto.png?t=1274026153[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/800-3bbcstillettoallinexplosionbegi.png?t=1274026221[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/800-4bbcstillettonoseout.png?t=1274026352[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/801bbcstillettonoseout.png?t=1274026411[/qimg]

In the sequence seen above, it is very apparent the steel perimeter of the South Tower did not result in an explosive impact until AFTER the explosion manifested on both the east and the north face.

So, that is the context in which momentum and impact are to be discussed.

Would you like to develop this theme a bit further, based on what the video reveals?

It's pretty obvious that there's both debris and explosion there. You posted the screenshots that show them.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Would you like to develop this theme a bit further, based on what the video reveals?

It shows hundreds of people dying. The lucky ones quickly.....Others were not so lucky.
You are utterly beneath contempt.

 

[jammonius]

.
LOL.

You *do* know that that broadcast was clearly identified as fiction at every break?

Your claim that the *broadcast was clearly identified as fiction at every break* is shown by wiki to be misleading as it relates to such notices:

"Later studies indicate that many missed the repeated notices that the broadcast was fictional, partly because the Mercury Theatre (an unsponsored cultural program with a relatively small audience) ran opposite the popular Chase and Sanborn Hour over the Red Network of NBC, hosted by Don Ameche and featuring comic ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and singer Nelson Eddy, three of the most popular figures in broadcasting. About 15 minutes into the Chase and Sanborn program the first comic sketch ended and a musical number began, and many listeners began tuning around the dial at that point. According to the American Experience program The Battle Over Citizen Kane, Welles knew the schedule of the Chase and Sanborn show, and scheduled the first report from Grover's Mill at the 12-minute mark to heighten the audience's confusion. As a result, some listeners happened upon the CBS broadcast at the point the Martians emerge from their spacecraft.

In addition consider this:

"...The first two thirds of the 60-minute broadcast was presented as a series of simulated news bulletins, which suggested to many listeners that an actual Martian invasion was in progress. Compounding the issue was the fact that the Mercury Theatre on the Air was a 'sustaining show' (it ran without commercial breaks), thus adding to the dramatic effect..."

It is a very apt analogy indeed: a bunch of people who did not bother to gather all of the information went off half-cocked, just like truthers.

Having skewed the facts, you now do the same with the essence of the analogy.

The point is, people believe what they saw on teevee, just as they believed what they heard on the radio. In each instance, despite the fact that the 9/11 event, upon examination, as I am proposing, can be said (note that phrasing) to be consistent more with a staged pyrotechnical fictional event than with a real one, just as Evan Fairbanks, who filmed the sequence of it shown below actually said it looked like:

"a bad special effect."

A jetliner image already halfway into WTC2 and this 'cameraman' has neither flinched yet nor given any indication he has heard what should be an ear-splittingly loud jetliner at 550mph, a mere 800ft above him, which should have been audible prior to impact and half-insertion into the tower. Note, too, that Fairbanks' video, like many on 9/11 for some reason, had no audio at all. Small wonder Evan Fairbanks thought it looked like "a bad special effect."

Here's the next instant in which a presumed Boeing 767 has already fully entered WTC2 and, yet again, no debris an no explosion and still no reaction from the cameraman:

As previously shown, explosion is already nearly fully formed on east face, even though there's much less development at the south face point of presumed impact.

The above confirm what is meant by "a bad special effect."

I'm not sure why you're finding it necessary to use generalized, colloquial words that do not accurately describe the essence of the event. Can you say why you are choosing to do that?

In addition to that, it has always been my understanding the event is largely remembered because of wide spread panic that has been described and quantified as follows:

"Richard J. Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some six million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'".

Of course, the analogy breaks down when one realizes no one then tried to pretend that the death rays actually existed, and that their qualities were well known -- unlike yourself.
.

The above is twisted, in my view, and has nothing of substance to add. I support the claim DEW destroyed the WTC and there are threads in this forum that elaborate fully on the claim. You have seen them, right? I'm not discussing DEW in this thread or in other threads centered on videos of one kind or another pertaining to claims Boeing 767s hit the WTC.

 

[twinstead]

You're like a broken record, jammonius, a sad, delusional broken record. Reading your threads has lost its fun.

 

[tsig]

Your claim that the *broadcast was clearly identified as fiction at every break* is shown by wiki to be misleading as it relates to such notices:

"Later studies indicate that many missed the repeated notices that the broadcast was fictional, partly because the Mercury Theatre (an unsponsored cultural program with a relatively small audience) ran opposite the popular Chase and Sanborn Hour over the Red Network of NBC, hosted by Don Ameche and featuring comic ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and singer Nelson Eddy, three of the most popular figures in broadcasting. About 15 minutes into the Chase and Sanborn program the first comic sketch ended and a musical number began, and many listeners began tuning around the dial at that point. According to the American Experience program The Battle Over Citizen Kane, Welles knew the schedule of the Chase and Sanborn show, and scheduled the first report from Grover's Mill at the 12-minute mark to heighten the audience's confusion. As a result, some listeners happened upon the CBS broadcast at the point the Martians emerge from their spacecraft.

In addition consider this:

"...The first two thirds of the 60-minute broadcast was presented as a series of simulated news bulletins, which suggested to many listeners that an actual Martian invasion was in progress. Compounding the issue was the fact that the Mercury Theatre on the Air was a 'sustaining show' (it ran without commercial breaks), thus adding to the dramatic effect..."




Having skewed the facts, you now do the same with the essence of the analogy.

The point is, people believe what they saw on teevee, just as they believed what they heard on the radio. In each instance, despite the fact that the 9/11 event, upon examination, as I am proposing, can be said (note that phrasing) to be consistent more with a staged pyrotechnical fictional event than with a real one, just as Evan Fairbanks, who filmed the sequence of it shown below actually said it looked like:

"a bad special effect."

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/454fairbanksplanehalfinhasntnoticed.png?t=1274047534[/qimg]

A jetliner image already halfway into WTC2 and this 'cameraman' has neither flinched yet nor given any indication he has heard what should be an ear-splittingly loud jetliner at 550mph, a mere 800ft above him, which should have been audible prior to impact and half-insertion into the tower. Note, too, that Fairbanks' video, like many on 9/11 for some reason, had no audio at all. Small wonder Evan Fairbanks thought it looked like "a bad special effect."

Here's the next instant in which a presumed Boeing 767 has already fully entered WTC2 and, yet again, no debris an no explosion and still no reaction from the cameraman:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/454fairbanksplanehalfinhasntnoticed.png?t=1274047534[/qimg]

As previously shown, explosion is already nearly fully formed on east face, even though there's much less development at the south face point of presumed impact.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/456fairbanksallinnoticesexplosionwr.png?t=1274049030[/qimg]

The above confirm what is meant by "a bad special effect."

I'm not sure why you're finding it necessary to use generalized, colloquial words that do not accurately describe the essence of the event. Can you say why you are choosing to do that?

In addition to that, it has always been my understanding the event is largely remembered because of wide spread panic that has been described and quantified as follows:

"Richard J. Hand cites studies by unnamed historians who "calculate[d] that some six million heard the CBS broadcast; 1.7 million believed it to be true, and 1.2 million were 'genuinely frightened'".

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/WOTW-NYT-headline.jpg?t=1274046582[/qimg]



The above is twisted, in my view, and has nothing of substance to add. I support the claim DEW destroyed the WTC and there are threads in this forum that elaborate fully on the claim. You have seen them, right? I'm not discussing DEW in this thread or in other threads centered on videos of one kind or another pertaining to claims Boeing 767s hit the WTC.

Your post is prolix and an adventure in obscurantism.

 

[jammonius]

Aluminum is used because it is strong and light and can cut steel when it is going at speeds of 680 feet per seconds or great with great ease. It is call science something you fail to use in your delusional world of lies, hearsay, and twisted insanity of beam weapons, horse-trailers, wheel covers and jet fuel that can't burn.

Water cuts steel, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel at 470 to 590 mph will knock down walls.

Please post the water crushes the car video on 1 2 3...

Not sure how a tsunami knocks down buildings, it is only water.

I think the more apt analogy is Ethopia airlines crash as seen below. The wing disintegrates quickly and the plane disintegrates almost immediately on contact with lowly liquid water, all as seen as follows:

Note: Second wing breaks off without even hitting water, in sharp contrast to "shadow thingy" that enters structural steel from nose to mid-section, from mid-section to wings, from wings to aft section and from aft section through tail without ever deforming or even causing so much as an explosion and no discernible debris.

Posters, a little objectivity won't hurt in the thinking about jetliner crash dynamics. Those dynamics are nowhere to be seen in the WTC2 videos. That is actually an easy statement to make, could more posters and lurkers but realize it. But, once again, I am only asking that people view the videos and report what they see and hear. No pressure. I am not seeking to set up a pitched (and largely useless) PLANE vs NO PLANE pissing contest. I know most of you assert PLANE; and most of you know I do not. Once again, so what?

Let's look at and use the videos.

And finally, debris clearly discernible and fireball at point of impact, in the water, no less:

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Water cuts steel, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel at 470 to 590 mph will knock down walls.

Please post the water crushes the car video on 1 2 3...

Good call.



The car is smashed, and it wasn't even an aeroplane doing hundreds of kilometres per hour doing the smashing. It was just a load of water poured from not far above the target. Imagine if that water was travelling at the speed at which a plane travels!