Split From Kamikaze Attacks and the Effect of Speed

[Matthew Cline]

Bad assumptions make an ass out of u and mption.

Oops, I should have made clear that I don't actually buy into any of the Truther BS, but was just repeating a rationalization I'd seen one no-planer make. The information on remote-controlled planes is still interesting, though.

 

[Foolmewunz]

For the record, I was indoors. Upstairs. 20th Floor of 10 Exchange Place in Jersey City. Unobstructed view. Nothing between me and the Manhattan side but sky and river.

And, Jammonius, you really have to learn some of the subtleties of the English language. You read "discussed". I said "commented".

Think about an excited office full of workers. Not forensic investigators. Not EMS. Not first responders. A bunch of Carol's, and Joe's and Neil's and Alexo's and Juerg's and Stephanies. And one or another said things, after and during the witnessing of one of the most shocking and horrific things anyone could ever hope to see,...

Oh My God.
We're definitely under attack.
That sumbitz was picking up speed.
My brother works in that building.
That was so loud! He had the pedal to the metal!
We better get out of here, we're right on the river and exposed if there are more.
Has anyone seen Marcia? I hope she made it in, she comes through the Trade Center on the train.

I don't think we were really having what I would consider to be lucid conversations as in party A exchanging an idea with party B and party B then responding in the same vein.

 

[gumboot]

Thanks for your reply.

When you say "the explosive force of the 500lb bomb (which is incidentally less than the fuel load of a B767)" what do you mean by "the fuel load"? Does that refer to the weight of the liquid or the energy volatility of kerosene?

By the way, do your calculations take into consideration the differing energy/volatility characteristics as between aviation gasoline and aviation jet fuel, which is kerosene? If so, how was that done; if not, why not?

For God's sake. I've only been talking about the penetrative power of the aircraft on impact. The explosive power of anything carried on board - be it a bomb or jet fuel or avgas, is entirely irrelevant. READ. Stop wasting my time.

 

[tsig]

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!

That's right folks step right up and see the egress.

 

[tsig]

Is there a compulsive typing syndrome?

Keyboard diarrhea.

One of the symptoms is long runny posts.

 

[tsig]

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

No one here is obligated to do your work for you.

 

[jammonius]

For the record, I was indoors. Upstairs. 20th Floor of 10 Exchange Place in Jersey City. Unobstructed view. Nothing between me and the Manhattan side but sky and river.

And, Jammonius, you really have to learn some of the subtleties of the English language. You read "discussed". I said "commented".

Think about an excited office full of workers. Not forensic investigators. Not EMS. Not first responders. A bunch of Carol's, and Joe's and Neil's and Alexo's and Juerg's and Stephanies. And one or another said things, after and during the witnessing of one of the most shocking and horrific things anyone could ever hope to see,...

Oh My God.
We're definitely under attack.
That sumbitz was picking up speed.
My brother works in that building.
That was so loud! He had the pedal to the metal!
We better get out of here, we're right on the river and exposed if there are more.
Has anyone seen Marcia? I hope she made it in, she comes through the Trade Center on the train.

I don't think we were really having what I would consider to be lucid conversations as in party A exchanging an idea with party B and party B then responding in the same vein.

foolmewunz,

Thanks for the above. As I have been sayiing all along, you are an important eyewitness to what happened and I am grateful for your posting.

A few posters have called into question my assertion of not being "biased." Well, ok, perhaps that was an overstatement. I have a bias in favor of the claim that no Boeing 767 was involved. However, I do not allow that bias to result in disregard of evidence to the contrary.

foolmewunz, you, yourself, initiated your account of what happened by calling what you saw a "767" and you, yourself, later qualified that to say, in substance, you couldn't be sure it was a 767. That is fair and that is honest.

I know you were not saying it wasn't a 767 and you were only saying you couldn't positively identify it as a 767. Further, it is also fair, I think, to assume you firmly believe it was a 767 and you might consider what I am doing here as simply quibbling. I am not. I am here discussing how bias works.

I have a bias, and I think all of us have biases.

I do not go to the length that some posters go to here of using epithets and slurs and put downs. Those are mere indicators of bias, could posters but realize it.

I also acknowledge the existence of evidence in support of a plane hitting WTC2. I am here engaging in honest dialoque with an actual eyewitness. I have done that in the past, as well. I have quoted Scott Holowach, a witness who claims he saw a plane; and I have relied on his account of what Chief Ganci said as to a plane; namely: no no no no.

How many of you have quoted "no plane" witnesses, other than for the purpose of ridiculing them?

Have any of you heard of Lt. Stephen King? While I give Chief Ganci the honorary title of being the First No-Planer because Chief Ganci died on 9/11, I also accredit Steve King as being the Second No-Planer and the Board Chair of the No-Plane Society. Anyone here ever read his statement?

It is stunning.

Well, foolmewunz, let me close by asking if you recall any specifics of the plane image you saw? As I mentioned before, witnesses report seeing different things in that respect.

 

[jammonius]

For God's sake. I've only been talking about the penetrative power of the aircraft on impact. The explosive power of anything carried on board - be it a bomb or jet fuel or avgas, is entirely irrelevant. READ. Stop wasting my time.

gumboot,

Thanks for taking time to clarify as per my request. I am concerned about what appears to me to be a lack of analysis upon the second of the two objects involved in the kamikaze, materials penetration aspect here. I am not so much concerned about that issue as it relates to WWII planes and ships, but I am very concerned about it as it relates to 9/11 and the WTC and especially to WTC2, the one for which we have some video footage that reveals what I think are clear violations of penetration power or penetration physics.

I do not think an aluminum tube should be able to penetrate steel without visible degredation, slowing, splitting off of large, visible, recognizable parts and pieces and without creating a fireball characterized by thick, black smoke upon impact and not later than impact and certainly not on the opposite side of where impact occurred.

Why does your modeling not include any analysis of either the resistance of the steel object or, indeed, the penetrating power of it as to the supposed hollow aluminum tube?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

gumboot,

Thanks for taking time to clarify as per my request. I am concerned about what appears to me to be a lack of analysis upon the second of the two objects involved in the kamikaze, materials penetration aspect here.

It would help a lot if you would state your education and experience in conducting the kind of analysis you are attempting to carry out here.

 

[sylvan8798]

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:

Please stop using the word "iconic".

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.
...

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:

You can jog from here to pluto, jammonius, I guarantee those people are not going to suddenly realize what they actually heard and saw was a shadow thingy and not an airplane.

Why can't you accept this? Let us play psychiatrist. Lay down on the couch, take a deep breath, and tell us why the idea that swarthy men of ill intent would hijack planes and fly them into buildings is so horrifying to you that you have to invent something, anything, else to explain the day's events.

I also acknowledge the existence of evidence in support of a plane hitting WTC2. I am here engaging in honest dialoque with an actual eyewitness. I have done that in the past, as well. I have quoted Scott Holowach, a witness who claims he saw a plane; and I have relied on his account of what Chief Ganci said as to a plane; namely: no no no no.

How many of you have quoted "no plane" witnesses, other than for the purpose of ridiculing them?

Have any of you heard of Lt. Stephen King? While I give Chief Ganci the honorary title of being the First No-Planer because Chief Ganci died on 9/11, I also accredit Steve King as being the Second No-Planer and the Board Chair of the No-Plane Society. Anyone here ever read his statement?

It is stunning.

Good grief, jammonius, don't libel the victims by claiming them to be members of your nutclub. That certainly brings a new level of offensiveness to your postings.

Well, foolmewunz, let me close by asking if you recall any specifics of the plane image you saw? As I mentioned before, witnesses report seeing different things in that respect.

So now it was an image of a plane? That traveled across the sky and made a lot of noise heard by people at diverse places? And was filmed looking and sounding pretty darn real? Any evidence that this sort of technology exists?

You have reached a level of offensive that does not deserve further engagement.

 

[BigAl]

I do not think an aluminum tube should be able to penetrate steel without visible degredation, slowing, splitting off of large, visible, recognizable parts and pieces and without creating a fireball characterized by thick, black smoke upon impact and not later than impact and certainly not on the opposite side of where impact occurred.

Why does your modeling not include any analysis of either the resistance of the steel object or, indeed, the penetrating power of it as to the supposed hollow aluminum tube?

Of course it's been modeled

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625. Abstract:

The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.

Of course you ignored this excellent 7 minute video that explains the above. It's been shown to you before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c​

You are sick. Get help.

 

[jammonius]

Please stop using the word "iconic".


You can jog from here to pluto, jammonius, I guarantee those people are not going to suddenly realize what they actually heard and saw was a shadow thingy and not an airplane.

Why can't you accept this? Let us play psychiatrist. Lay down on the couch, take a deep breath, and tell us why the idea that swarthy men of ill intent would hijack planes and fly them into buildings is so horrifying to you that you have to invent something, anything, else to explain the day's events.
Good grief, jammonius, don't libel the victims by claiming them to be members of your nutclub. That certainly brings a new level of offensiveness to your postings.
So now it was an image of a plane? That traveled across the sky and made a lot of noise heard by people at diverse places? And was filmed looking and sounding pretty darn real? Any evidence that this sort of technology exists?

You have reached a level of offensive that does not deserve further engagement.

Greetings sylvan,

Well, after a few pages of relatively respectful dialogue, brought on, I think, by foolmewunz's posts, I see you've regressed back to low-down, put-down, holy roller stage in your above quoted post. That is too bad. For you.

Anyway, I will assume that yours is an unconscious request that I actually post up the information about the person who I say is the Board Chair of the No Plane Club. Stephen King. I previously referred to him as Lieutenant. His correct rank as of 9/11 was higher than that. He was Battalion Chief Stephen King.

Here is his no plane declaration which is notable, I think, for how emphatic it is.

"Q. Did you know there was any incident going on with the other tower at that point?
A. Oh, let me tell you. I guess I left that all out. Yes. At some point when I'm at the command post, I hear something about an aircraft has struck the other tower, the south tower. I'm at the command post at that point.
Q. You're in the north tower?
A. I'm in the north tower. I hear something about an aircraft just struck the south tower. And I don't know that a plane has hit the north tower.
Q. You still don't know that?
A. I still don't know that. I don't believe I know that. If I do, then I was in more shock than I thought. Even though I heard a plane struck the south tower, I mean, I didn't hear anything like an airliner. It was just I heard a plane struck the south tower. I remember saying how is that possible? In my mind, I'm thinking it might be a news helicopter. I'm thinking that, you know, when we have an event like this in the city, how you get one of those helicopters in there very quickly. So, literally, although they said an aircraft, I'm thinking that maybe it's some idiot in a news helicopter circling, you know, filming this event in the north tower and somehow he plowed into the south tower. Or else, I'm saying to myself, if it isn't that, maybe it's
-- I'm a pilot, by the way. I'm a commercial pilot for 30 years. I flew in the Navy.
Q. Fixed-wing pilot?
A. Fixed-wing. I've flown some helicopters. But fixed-wing. And I flew in the Navy. But anyway, the other thing I'm thinking is what they call a VFR corridor that runs up the Hudson River right alongside the Twin Towers. It goes up the Hudson River. VFR, visual flight rule, private plane type, they can go up and down that as long as they stay under 1100 feet AGL, above ground level. So I'm saying to myself the other possibility is some light plane. But I'm never thinking airliner. I don't hear that at all. So I'm saying to myself we've got a major thing going on in the north tower, something struck the south tower, and I don't envision this as a terrific event going on
in the south tower. Anyway, that early, that's not what I understand."

You know, my one criticism of Chief King is that he sounds a bit like beachnut, don't you think? He is emphatic. He tells us he was a NAVY PILOT. What is it with these military pilots that leads them to think they know it all and that no one else knows a damn thing?

Oh, one other thing I should mention, sylvan, jingoism and resorts to patriotic zeal and phony expressions of the unilateral right to express sympathy for victims is both sick and sickening. I would recommend you not resort to that tactic again.

Do better next time.

Do posters agree that Chiefs Ganci and King are No Planers Numbers 1 and 2, respectively?

As between the two, which one do posters think deserves to be considered No Planer Number 1?

 

[DGM]

Here is his no plane declaration which is notable, I think, for how emphatic it is.

And it's not obvious to you he can't see how someone (a pilot) could accidentally (the thought it was on purpose never crossed his mind) hit the towers? Really?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Of course it's been modeled.

Yes, but it was modelled using physics and maths, and we already know jammonius rejects those as "deception personafied". Clearly, unless you can point to a rigorous mathematical model of the physics of the impact that doesn't use maths and physics, you're simply avoiding the issue.

Dave

 

[tfk]

I am concerned about what appears to me to be a lack of analysis upon the second of the two objects ... [blah, blah, blah]

No, you're not.
You're not interested IN THE SLIGHTEST about any analysis.

This is another "what is the name of the lead inspector?" bunch of smoke-blowing crappola.

... but I am very concerned about it as it relates to 9/11 and the WTC and especially to WTC2, the one for which we have some video footage that reveals what I think are clear violations of penetration power or penetration physics.

No, you are not "concerned" about that in the slightest, either.

If you were really concerned, then you'd bother to to learn something about the well-understood engineering theory of impact & collision.

Such as the clear rendition that Ryan Mackey gave in his Hardfire discussions.

And I have to rescind my comment above. You are VERY "concerned" about the issues of collision & impact. You are SO concerned that they will prove your assertions to be utter nonsense that you avoid learning any of the fundamentals as if they were the plague.

For the sole purpose of being able to continue to spew lying nonsense.

Psssst... It's called a "pressure-impulse curve". See if you can go find out what it means. It really does explain it. In detail. For the non-stoopid.

I do not think ...

You are a willful, determined ignoramus who exerts a huge amount of effort to remain stupid & uninformed. Who cares what you think.

Collision engineers know (not "think", "KNOW") that the plane would have penetrated that wall exactly as it did.

an aluminum tube

It wasn't "an aluminum tube".

An aluminum tube the size of the fuselage, the wings, stabilizer and the tail of a 767 with an average wall thickness of 4 mm (.16") would have weighed approx. 39,000 lbs. Flight 11 weighed approximately 240,000 pounds at impact.

You're INTENTIONALLY ignoring 200,000 lbs (~80%) of the impacting material.

In order to sustain your stoopid, of course.

should be able to penetrate steel

You're still caught up in moronic "bulk" properties. And ignoring extrinsic factors like size, shape, energy & toughness.

I suppose skin cannot penetrate stone.

All those karate guys must be breaking bricks with holograms & space rays, eh?

without visible degredation,

There was MASSIVE "degredation".
[Gee, for someone who goes to such laughable lengths to appear all cultured and lawyer-talking, you sure don't spel too gud.]

There was massive degradation of the parts that DID penetrate the steel.

You're looking at the parts that have NOT penetrated the steel. And they seem to hold their shape as they fly thru the air. Quel surpris for an airplane, no?

slowing,

They did slow. It was PROVEN to you that they slowed just a few posts ago, with the image of the tail of the plane. And it was proven in NIST analysis. And it was proven in the Purdue studies.



But you're gonna ignore all of that. And let your willful, stubborn STUPID come riding to your rescue again.

... splitting off of large, visible, recognizable parts and pieces ...

The parts of the plane that HAVE penetrated the THIN steel columns have split off large, recognizable (to a forensic airplane crash investigator, not to you who thinks that turbine cores are hubcaps) parts. They are, alas, "invisible", because they are INSIDE the friggin' building.

And because you are not, in fact or fantasy, Clark Kent.

without creating a fireball

... um, excuse me...

... characterized by thick, black smoke ...

And the "expertise" that bring you to this delusion is ... what?

... upon impact and not later than impact ...

and your "expertise" that brings you to the delusion of "instantaneous action at a distance" is, uh, ... what?

... and certainly not on the opposite side of where impact occurred.

um, let's see if we can put this simply...

The fuel that is in the part of the plane that has not yet entered the building has not yet encountered any of the condition that would make it explode. Aircraft designers are kinda careful that way. They don't like their planes blowing up at awkward moments.

The fuel that has entered the building HAS, in fact, encountered conditions that would, and did, make it explode. But, since you are not, in fact, Clark Kent, you cannot see thru the walls of the building to witness the fireball that is passing thru the building.

Since fuel, whether it is burning or not, has mass, it is subject to the demands of "momentum". Which means that it has a strong proclivity to keep moving in the same direction at the next moment in time as it was at the last moment in time. Unless acted on by an impulse, of course.

So that mass-ful, burning fuel continued thru the building, in a partial fireball, partial bolus of uburned fuel (because flame fronts DO take time to move from one place to another), continuing on approximately the same path & only slightly reduced speed, and then emerged out of the far sides of the building.

As the PORTION of the fireball that you could see. Because, as we've well established, you are not, in fact, Clark Kent.

Why does your modeling not include ...

Why are you asking a complete amateur like gumboot (nice, informed guy that he is) about his collision analysis, when a whole PASSEL of experts at NIST (and Purdue) have provided exquisitely detailed, independent analyses that include every single detail that you could possibly imagine, and perhaps a couple hundred that your willful, determined stupid prevents you from imagining??

Gumboot did it right. He didn't have to go get a degree in collision engineering, spend $40K on software & $100K on hardware, spend about 6 years of his life learning to do FEA & CFD, and another 10 years of his life trying to laboriously build the models of the plane & towers all by his lonesome, and then another 10 years debugging his models...

He decided to listen to the experts, to read what they had to say, see that it made sense (even if every detail was a little mysterious), and then to listen to other independent experts who verified that, "Yup, those NIST engineers did it right".

And then he was able to assemble all of this information, and to see on his own that it all made sense. That it hung together in a giant, self-consistent picture. He was able to see the forest, while checking on the occasional tree.

Why can't a smooth-talking, lawyer-imitating guy like you do the same thing?

Why does your modeling not include any analysis of either the resistance of the steel object or, indeed, the penetrating power of it as to ...

Oh, this is the part where you think that YOU can come up with the critical parameters of the analysis???

LAMO...

... the supposed hollow aluminum tube?

And we circle back around to the "hollow aluminum tube".

The "Stoopid Square Dance". Always end up right back where you started.

You know, I love country swing dancing.

Almost as much as I LOVE to watch fancy-talking, diarrhea of the mouth, oh-so-impressed-with-themselves jackasses make fools of themselves.

Show me that dance step again, wouldja?

Geez, you Brits got some purty talkin' dolts over there. Don't feel too bad about it, tho. We seem to have a bumper crop of 'em over here, too.


Tom

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So, in conclusion, calculation is alomost never a determining factor; and, instead, merely adds to the muddle.

You could not be more wrong if you tried. Given good data, math cannot lie.
People make mistakes or can lie but math cannot.

 

[I Ratant]

For the record, I was indoors. Upstairs. 20th Floor of 10 Exchange Place in Jersey City. Unobstructed view. Nothing between me and the Manhattan side but sky and river.

And, Jammonius, you really have to learn some of the subtleties of the English language. You read "discussed". I said "commented".

Think about an excited office full of workers. Not forensic investigators. Not EMS. Not first responders. A bunch of Carol's, and Joe's and Neil's and Alexo's and Juerg's and Stephanies. And one or another said things, after and during the witnessing of one of the most shocking and horrific things anyone could ever hope to see,...

Oh My God.
We're definitely under attack.
That sumbitz was picking up speed.
My brother works in that building.
That was so loud! He had the pedal to the metal!
We better get out of here, we're right on the river and exposed if there are more.
Has anyone seen Marcia? I hope she made it in, she comes through the Trade Center on the train.

I don't think we were really having what I would consider to be lucid conversations as in party A exchanging an idea with party B and party B then responding in the same vein.

.
I bet the j-bird sees this as confirmation of the hologram!

 

[lapman]

Anyway, I will assume that yours is an unconscious request that I actually post up the information about the person who I say is the Board Chair of the No Plane Club. Stephen King. I previously referred to him as Lieutenant. His correct rank as of 9/11 was higher than that. He was Battalion Chief Stephen King.

Here is his no plane declaration which is notable, I think, for how emphatic it is.

The utter blatant stupidity of your statement is beyond measure. It shows that you haven't even the most basic clue of what a "no-planer" is.

"Q. Did you know there was any incident going on with the other tower at that point?
A. Oh, let me tell you. I guess I left that all out. Yes. At some point when I'm at the command post, I hear something about an aircraft has struck the other tower, the south tower. I'm at the command post at that point.
Q. You're in the north tower?
A. I'm in the north tower. I hear something about an aircraft just struck the south tower. And I don't know that a plane has hit the north tower.
Q. You still don't know that?
A. I still don't know that. I don't believe I know that. If I do, then I was in more shock than I thought. Even though I heard a plane struck the south tower, I mean, I didn't hear anything like an airliner. It was just I heard a plane struck the south tower. I remember saying how is that possible? In my mind, I'm thinking it might be a news helicopter. I'm thinking that, you know, when we have an event like this in the city, how you get one of those helicopters in there very quickly. So, literally, although they said an aircraft, I'm thinking that maybe it's some idiot in a news helicopter circling, you know, filming this event in the north tower and somehow he plowed into the south tower. Or else, I'm saying to myself, if it isn't that, maybe it's
-- I'm a pilot, by the way. I'm a commercial pilot for 30 years. I flew in the Navy.
Q. Fixed-wing pilot?
A. Fixed-wing. I've flown some helicopters. But fixed-wing. And I flew in the Navy. But anyway, the other thing I'm thinking is what they call a VFR corridor that runs up the Hudson River right alongside the Twin Towers. It goes up the Hudson River. VFR, visual flight rule, private plane type, they can go up and down that as long as they stay under 1100 feet AGL, above ground level. So I'm saying to myself the other possibility is some light plane. But I'm never thinking airliner. I don't hear that at all. So I'm saying to myself we've got a major thing going on in the north tower, something struck the south tower, and I don't envision this as a terrific event going on
in the south tower. Anyway, that early, that's not what I understand."

So, he was inside the building and couldn't hear it. However, he still believed an aircraft had hit the building. Based on his knowledge at the time, airliners did not fly that low in that area. So, based on his knowledge, it could have been a helicopter or small aircraft. That goes in line with the initial reports that I heard that morning. He is giving what his FIRST thoughts were. You disrespect this man by your fallacious claim that he's a no-planer. You disrespect the Chief by claiming the same. Your complete dishonesty by misquoting them only shows that you have no interest in the truth.

Do posters agree that Chiefs Ganci and King are No Planers Numbers 1 and 2, respectively?

Absolutely not. Too bad you don't have the intelligence to understand why.

 

[jammonius]

Of course it's been modeled

Of course you ignored this excellent 7 minute video that explains the above. It's been shown to you before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c​

You are sick. Get help.

big al,

Thanks for your post up of an old argument segment concerning a NIST study that has been argued up, down and sideways, to the point of inconclusiveness--it was, after all, a NIST study, so what would one expect but inconclusiveness?

And, as to your video, big al, did you notice at the 5:16 mark it actually states, and I quote:

This entire section, was pushed out by the planes landing gear and wheel.

That is funny, big al.

Permit me to make a suggestion. Would you stop relying on excerpts from old, out of date, threads. The excerpts are almost always out of context.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Do I understand this correctly; jammonius is now claiming there are FDNY firefighters who are No Planers? None of there are even Truthers, much less No Planers. Why are you even bothering to talk with the guy?