• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split From Kamikaze Attacks and the Effect of Speed

Foolmewunz said:
Jammonius,
The difference between your quoted version of the event and my version is that I saw the plane. He clearly says he didn't see it but heard it. He sounds fairly intelligent. Accept that it was not, for one reason or another, in his field of vision. But he heard it.

That's all he's saying. He is not saying, that he's a logical positivist and that therefore it didn't exist. If someone asks me about the car crash in front of my building last Saturday, I'd comment, "I heard it, but I didn't see the taxi hit the bus." Why? Am I doubting that there was a taxi? A bus? That they collided? No. I'm just stating my own involvement which was that I heard the honking of a horn for five or six seconds, the screech of brakes locking up, and then a crash. In the aftermath, with mangled vehicles, traffic tied up for two hours, EMS wagons, etc... I have no reason to doubt that. Now you may come along and show that it was a subway train that I heard, but you're going to have that extraordinary burden of bringing extraordinary proof because that's a rather extraordinary claim.
Click to expand...


foolmewunz,

Logical positivism is probably not helpful to either of us here as it is unlikely we could satisfy the standards required by that school of thought for assertions of what is true and what is not.

Much of what we do in the everyday world relies very heavily upon inference, as you seem to point out.

Indeed, one of the most iconic statements heard on 9/11, and what that was repeated in nearly identical wording on all the teevee networks was:

"oh my goodness, there's another one"

That iconic statement was made so as to affirm there had been two jetliner crashes when there had not been, up to that point certainly, any confirmation that a jetliner had hit WTC 1. Do you recall that? I think that was an improper use of inference and very deceptive. But, the everyday world is sometimes very tolerant of sloppy inferential thinking. Generally speaking, use of inference is tolerated when varying interests are not then in conflict. When interests are in conflict, then inference is more likely to be challenged, so as to make sure accuracy in understanding is reached.

What I think I can usefully offer here is a comment on what you heard.

You will recall that in your first post on this matter you put in bold/large

I heard it.

OK, that gives us something to work with.

We know, also, that one of the witnesses I rely on speaks of what he heard and describes the sound. I refer here to Asst. Commissioner Stephen Gregory.

He was out doors, on West Street between Liberty and Albany. You can see his location on that overhead photo I posted above. Suffice to say, he was at the doorstep of WTC2, with an unobstructed view of the upper floors.

He used some detailed language to describe what he heard as follows:

You could hear it coming in and then we heard the explosion and you could hear the roar of the plane coming in. At first I didn't realize it was a plane.

OK, that is a description of what he heard in terms of a time sequence and the kind of sound he heard.

He describes a roar that he didn't realize was a plane. I am here paraphrasing, but that is a fair paraphrase, I think.

He continues, though:

I thought it was like the roar of fire, like something had just incinerated, like a gas tank or an oil tank. It sounded like a tremendous roar and then you heard boom and then there was a big fire, a lot of fire, a big fireball.

The above is also descriptive, once again of a roar and like something like a gas tank incinerating. That is fairly descriptive, I think.

Now, it is to be recalled that in an earlier post, I posted up the reply of a poster to a message board, someone just like you foolmewunz who was there and who volunteered to post what he saw and heard, just like you.

You will recall that he was also outdoors and on the doorstep of WTC2, so to speak, at Rector and Trinity, heading toward Broadway.

He said:

"I was just off of the corner of rector street and trinity walking east towards broadway and i heard ( didnt see) the impact but what i heard was a sound to describe as a quick " zhoop - crack - boom " all of which where about one second long each and a slight pause in between all of maybe the same length. Dont know what it means its just the way i remeber it.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5739359&postcount=227

You know what, I think that witness's description of what he heard matches with that of Stephen Gregory rather well. Surprisingly well I think.

The only request I have of you is whether you can search your memory bank a bit and see if you can recall in greater detail what you heard.

So far, you have said:

"As to the timing, I'd love to say I could be precise, but that morning consists of a lot of pregnant pauses, much like Eisenstein's Odessa Steps sequence. Could've been a total of ten seconds from first earfall to impact, could've been twenty to twenty-five, I just don't know."

And, before that, you said:

"But before we saw it (yes, "we" - there were dozens of us watching out of the windows), we all heard it. All we could see in the air was choppers and I remember thinking initially that that one chopper must be really loud because it sure sounded like a JET ENGINE. It was VERY LOUD. And then we saw the 767 come screaming into our line of vision (screaming - that's a euphemism for going real fast and real loud), and even on that first day, a number of us commented within moments that he seemed to be "gunning the engines, flooring it, revving the thing.....".

That is an important statement. It is important because it appears you discussed what was heard with others. Thus, it might be possible for you to check with them to double check as to what they recall hearing. It is also possible that if you compare what Stephen Gregory and jr343 heard with what you describe as follows, you might be able to jog your memory a bit:

"...even on that first day, a number of us commented within moments that he seemed to be "gunning the engines, flooring it, revving the thing....."

That's important commentary, foolmewunz, and we are grateful for you providing us with it.

Oh, and by the way, neither Stephen Gregory nor jr343 saw a plane.

I'm not sure I recall whether you've indicated whether you were indoors or outdoors. I think I'm understanding you to have been indoors. Let me double check for accuracy: Were you indoors or outdoors?

Also, some witnesses have reportedly said the plane they saw looked like a military plane and some said the plane had no windows. You have said you thought it was a passenger plane, I think. Have you any recollection concerning windows?

all the best
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
foolmewunz,

Logical positivism is probably not helpful to either of us here as it is unlikely we could satisfy the standards required by that school of thought for assertions of what is true and what is not.

Much of what we do in the everyday world relies very heavily upon inference, as you seem to point out.

Indeed, one of the most iconic statements heard on 9/11, and what that was repeated in nearly identical wording on all the teevee networks was:

"oh my goodness, there's another one"

That iconic statement was made so as to affirm there had been two jetliner crashes when there had not been, up to that point certainly, any confirmation that a jetliner had hit WTC 1. Do you recall that? I think that was an improper use of inference and very deceptive. But, the everyday world is sometimes very tolerant of sloppy inferential thinking. Generally speaking, use of inference is tolerated when varying interests are not then in conflict. When interests are in conflict, then inference is more likely to be challenged, so as to make sure accuracy in understanding is reached.

What I think I can usefully offer here is a comment on what you heard.

You will recall that in your first post on this matter you put in bold/large

I heard it.

OK, that gives us something to work with.

We know, also, that one of the witnesses I rely on speaks of what he heard and describes the sound. I refer here to Asst. Commissioner Stephen Gregory.

He was out doors, on West Street between Liberty and Albany. You can see his location on that overhead photo I posted above. Suffice to say, he was at the doorstep of WTC2, with an unobstructed view of the upper floors.

He used some detailed language to describe what he heard as follows:

You could hear it coming in and then we heard the explosion and you could hear the roar of the plane coming in. At first I didn't realize it was a plane.

OK, that is a description of what he heard in terms of a time sequence and the kind of sound he heard.

He describes a roar that he didn't realize was a plane. I am here paraphrasing, but that is a fair paraphrase, I think.

He continues, though:

I thought it was like the roar of fire, like something had just incinerated, like a gas tank or an oil tank. It sounded like a tremendous roar and then you heard boom and then there was a big fire, a lot of fire, a big fireball.

The above is also descriptive, once again of a roar and like something like a gas tank incinerating. That is fairly descriptive, I think.

Now, it is to be recalled that in an earlier post, I posted up the reply of a poster to a message board, someone just like you foolmewunz who was there and who volunteered to post what he saw and heard, just like you.

You will recall that he was also outdoors and on the doorstep of WTC2, so to speak, at Rector and Trinity, heading toward Broadway.

He said:

"I was just off of the corner of rector street and trinity walking east towards broadway and i heard ( didnt see) the impact but what i heard was a sound to describe as a quick " zhoop - crack - boom " all of which where about one second long each and a slight pause in between all of maybe the same length. Dont know what it means its just the way i remeber it.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5739359&postcount=227

You know what, I think that witness's description of what he heard matches with that of Stephen Gregory rather well. Surprisingly well I think.

The only request I have of you is whether you can search your memory bank a bit and see if you can recall in greater detail what you heard.

So far, you have said:

"As to the timing, I'd love to say I could be precise, but that morning consists of a lot of pregnant pauses, much like Eisenstein's Odessa Steps sequence. Could've been a total of ten seconds from first earfall to impact, could've been twenty to twenty-five, I just don't know."

And, before that, you said:

"But before we saw it (yes, "we" - there were dozens of us watching out of the windows), we all heard it. All we could see in the air was choppers and I remember thinking initially that that one chopper must be really loud because it sure sounded like a JET ENGINE. It was VERY LOUD. And then we saw the 767 come screaming into our line of vision (screaming - that's a euphemism for going real fast and real loud), and even on that first day, a number of us commented within moments that he seemed to be "gunning the engines, flooring it, revving the thing.....".

That is an important statement. It is important because it appears you discussed what was heard with others. Thus, it might be possible for you to check with them to double check as to what they recall hearing. It is also possible that if you compare what Stephen Gregory and jr343 heard with what you describe as follows, you might be able to jog your memory a bit:

"...even on that first day, a number of us commented within moments that he seemed to be "gunning the engines, flooring it, revving the thing....."

That's important commentary, foolmewunz, and we are grateful for you providing us with it.

Oh, and by the way, neither Stephen Gregory nor jr343 saw a plane.

I'm not sure I recall whether you've indicated whether you were indoors or outdoors. I think I'm understanding you to have been indoors. Let me double check for accuracy: Were you indoors or outdoors?

Also, some witnesses have reportedly said the plane they saw looked like a military plane and some said the plane had no windows. You have said you thought it was a passenger plane, I think. Have you any recollection concerning windows?

all the best
Click to expand...


Seems unwieldy. Wouldn't it have been simpler to crash planes into buildings?
 
BigAl said:
Is there a compulsive typing syndrome?
Click to expand...
.
With so many responders on "ignore", these pages would be nothing but j responses to the newbies, before he "ignores" them in turn, as far as he can see.
The long posts simulate some interest, I expect.
 
How does he dismiss the RADAR data? But then he thinks jet engine parts are wheel-covers; all his ideas on 911 are delusional. A unique truther, he has wheel-cover delusions. Plymouth wheel-covers at that.
 
Call for eyewitness accounts

OK, posters, including lurkers and newbies. If you were in or near NYC, or the Pentagon, or Shanksville PA on 9/11 and saw something, please post up what you saw.

Those of you who have doubts as to whether jetliners were there or not are particularly encouraged to speak up, as it is understood that you might be reluctant to say things that don't match the common storyline.

However, if you saw exactly what is shown on teevee or whatever, feel free to speak up as well. I am not biased one way or the other. That, of course, makes it seem like I'm biased because most people ARE biased in favor of the common storyline.

Bias is funny that way.

Whatever, post up what you saw and heard, hurry, hurry on down. Or is it:

Come on down!


Now's the time to come out of the closet, so to speak, and post up what you saw and heard.

Thanks in advance :)
 
jammonius said:
OK, posters, including lurkers and newbies. If you were in or near NYC, or the Pentagon, or Shanksville PA on 9/11 and saw something, please post up what you saw.
Click to expand...
.
Given how you've reacted to the two posters who *have* shared their personal experiences, I have to ask: how many more do you figure you'll need?

What, exactly, would it take for you to accept the "common storyline?"
.
 
jammonius said:
I am not biased one way or the other.
Click to expand...
Wow. The biggest lie of all. You have shown in your posts that your biased so much toward the CT side that you patently refuse to even consider on the most basic level anything that goes against your fantasy.
 
Has jammonius already forgotten about the two first-hand accounts in this thread, or was that a really, really sad attempt at a rally cry?
 
Call for eye and ear witness accounts is repeated.

Whether you saw it differently than the common storyline or whether you saw exactly what was shown on teevee or whatever, feel free to speak up now!
 
I am only aware of seeing foolmewunz's account, who is in dialogue with us. I understand big al was a witness, but I don't recall seeing an account posted by big al. Did I miss it? Or, is there another account by a different poster?

Can someone post up the shortcut?

thanks
 
jammonius said:
Call for eye and ear witness accounts is repeated.

Whether you saw it differently than the common storyline or whether you saw exactly what was shown on teevee or whatever, feel free to speak up now!
Click to expand...
.
You seem to have missed this:
.
TSR said:
.
Given how you've reacted to the two posters who *have* shared their personal experiences, I have to ask: how many more do you figure you'll need?

What, exactly, would it take for you to accept the "common storyline?"
.
Click to expand...
 
jammonius said:
I am only aware of seeing foolmewunz's account, who is in dialogue with us. I understand big al was a witness, but I don't recall seeing an account posted by big al. Did I miss it? Or, is there another account by a different poster?

Can someone post up the shortcut?

thanks
Click to expand...

I never claimed to have heard or seen either plane.

You are sick. Get help or at least cut back on the typing.
 
jammonius said:
Call for eye and ear witness accounts is repeated.

Whether you saw it differently than the common storyline or whether you saw exactly what was shown on teevee or whatever, feel free to speak up now!
Click to expand...
You are off topic and you can't defend your delusions.

Why are you off topic. ???

You can't do math and physcics and those are needed to understand this thread. You can't refute this video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8184528465256118271#
You can't do much on this topic due to lack of knowledge in physics; get back on topic or be gone.

scott.in.taiwan said:
I am not referring to meth or other forms of stimulants. Rather, I mean the magnitude of an objects's instantaneous velocity (here). The claim is repeatedly being made by our Truther friends that jet planes crashing into the WTC and Pentagon could not have caused the damage that was observed because they were not hard enough. I think that's their argument. I don't have the patience to wade through all their Truther crap to find out the exact nature of their claims. I just want to expand on some observations that I think are relevant and let the morons set me straight with their amazing logic.

Over on this post, we were talking about Japanese suicide attacks during the Second World War - the Kamikaze. Planes often not much larger than a car but with top speeds of as much as 600 mph were collided with steel ships over a thousand times heavy. At least 26 ships were sunk by Kamikaze. Check this video at 1:04 for an example of what speed can do.


But don't believe me. Let's hear what our Truther scientists have to say about this.
Click to expand...
What was the topic? report off topic posts and rid the free world of delusion spewing 911 failed spammers.

One moronic delusion truther have is aircraft are not strong enough to damage steel buildings. Like Kamikazi attacks prove this theory failed, the following photo proves the same and exposes failed truther logic.
1BirdStrike.jpg

The failed logic for this photo was an aircraft can't damage a building by showing a bird built for light weight like aircraft easily damages an aircraft in flight due to the kinetic energy impact.

The bird like a kamikazi damages a plane, and the planes under the control of the terrorists (terrorists which 911 truth apologizes for) damage the WTC.

One great failing of 911 truth is the lack of physics. When you post E=1/2mv2, the 911 truth cult member has to ignore it since they can't do math, physics or logical thinking as proved in the above picture where flesh and blood damage metal aircraft, but 911 truth dolts claim metal aircraft can't damage glass and metal buildings. Not great minds 911 truth, more like minds which produce an abundance of delusional thoughts based on lies and fantasy.
 
JohnG said:
Seems unwieldy. Wouldn't it have been simpler to crash planes into buildings?
Click to expand...

One explanation I've seen: remote controlled airliners couldn't have been flown with enough accuracy to fly it into the towers, or with enough accuracy to guarantee that they could be flown into the towers on the first try, so the conspirators wouldn't have used that. But the conspirators aren't fanatical enough for two of them to have sacrificed their lives by piloting the planes into the towers. So they had to fake the airliners.

Why they didn't just blow up the towers and then blame that on terrorists is another question.
 
Matthew Cline said:
One explanation I've seen: remote controlled airliners couldn't have been flown with enough accuracy to fly it into the towers, or with enough accuracy to guarantee that they could be flown into the towers on the first try, so the conspirators wouldn't have used that. But the conspirators aren't fanatical enough for two of them to have sacrificed their lives by piloting the planes into the towers. So they had to fake the airliners.
Click to expand...

Bad assumptions make an ass out of u and mption.

Remote controlled aircraft have been shown to take off, land and manuever. People use them for global hawks every day, and nasa showed that they can remote control jumbo jets. So it is already BS.

Now what has been shown to make the claim of remote controlled jets impossible is the amount of work necessary to control the jets via remote control. The amount of changes necessary is huge, would take a **** load of time, and it would mean the jets would be out of commission for a while, and the flight crew would notice the changes immediately. It is unworkable.

That remove the ability to fly them by remote control.

As for your next assumption, that people couldn't fly the jets into huge stationary targets on a clear day is also bs.

The conspirators were purely fanatical enough to pilot two of the jets into buildings.. in fact the conspirators did it with 4 jets (well 3 into buildings and one into a field). It is called radical islamic terrorists. Very simple.

Again wouldn't it have been easier to fly jets into them?

Why they didn't just blow up the towers and then blame that on terrorists is another question.
Click to expand...
Because the terrorists couldn't get explosives into the building, and they learned from the 93 attack which didn't sever a single support column.

again, wouldn't it have been easier just to fly jets into the targets?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom