September Clues Addendum Chapter 1

[JazzRoc]

(09-03-2010 11:11 PM)kevlar Wrote:  This dude is crazy, old man, apparently, you are nuts. THE PLANE VANISHED. do you not understand?

LIKE THIS?:



The heavily-reinforced (atomic power station casing sample) concrete block weighing, I guess, 100 tonnes moves ONE metre in the direction of impact.
Now imagine the 3/4" civil steel UNREINFORCED box-section of the WTC tower fascia in its place.
Remember that this plane was TWELVE times lighter and 65 mph SLOWER than the Boeing 767.
Use your imagination.

Quote:The 160000 mass that you are creating out of thin air never existed

The Maximum take-off weight of the MIDRANGE 767-300 is 158,760 Kg. Top of the range 767-400ER rolls up at 204,120 Kg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

Quote:you can calculate all the sums about the impact that you want with your unprovable story

Er, NO. Sorry, but MATHEMATICS is quite often used in science to PROVE something. In this case, that you are bullshitting. The HOLE proves the PLANE.

Quote:there was no debris, there was no plane.

Quote:There is more than enough reasons to know that your passion about there being planes is highly suspect.

There are more than enough reasons to suspect that you're both paranoid and deluded. Add ignorant as well.

Quote:Firstly you completely distorted the speed argument. Something about in proper quotation of cruise speeds.

The radar plot confirms the speed at 565 mph. The plane's Vne speed alarm was probably working as they struck, unless they turned it off already. But the design offices strive for a structure that holds all the way up to compressibility effects, which arrive at Mach 0.95. Their sudden onset would break up the airframe anyway. Every aeroengineer knows this.

Quote:The videos show no deceleration of the object (plane) as it vanishes in to the wtc building.

On the contrary. They ALL do, without exception.

Quote:So you must admit even though there was 4000000 k joules of kinetic energy that the plane ultimately decelerated as it did not come out the other side.

But its engines and undercarriage did !

Denial runs deep in you, Obi... Haven't you seen the wonderful fabricated film they synthesized (at the same time as they were scattering brains on rooftops)?

Quote:So then if the plane had 4000000 k joules of tnt energy as you like to portray. Then why would it not have gone right the way through?

Denial runs deep in you, Obi... Haven't you seen the wonderful fabricated film they synthesized (at the same time as they were scattering brains on rooftops)?

Quote:As for radar there is no verifiable radar data as it has obviously been compromised

Yeah, I forgot to mention that. WHILE they hanging steel plates off tower walls, they were ALSO scattering brains, dropping aircraft parts round the streets, setting off 40,000 gallon kerosine fires, they were ALSO coordinating ALL those different videos, pouring molten duralumin out of windows, synthesizing radar plots EXACTLY coincident with the videos, and coordinating all those newsfeeds, have I missed something out? Oh yeah, depending on your sources, you have prelaid charges in the towers, or you are trundling up your death ray machine to work grievious damage upon the towers. That too...
Or, arabs with boxcutters killed the crews of two passenger planes and flew them into the towers.

Quote:if you believe the radar data then it is not surprising that you struggle to accept no planes. Unless you can produce some exclusive evidence from your friends at the government you have nothing as evidence to show me.

ALL the NIST data is in agreement, to me, perfectly consistent. Not even God could have co-ordinated the mad scenario described above. Certainly not Dubyah and his cronies.
The other point you should notice is that so far you haven't been correct about a single point in this discussion.

Quote:Kinetic energy from what i understand does not account for material sciences, it is only a value associated with the energy due to velocity and mass. It does not account for an impact.

Tell that to a soldier, and he might well shoot you. After all, there will be NO impact, and as you walk away unharmed, the soldier will throw away his gun. It'll be OK.

Quote:When you convert it to the tnt equivalent then you are trying to convert the energy of the object into the energy released at impact.

Not trying. Actually doing so.

Quote:But that does not account for what it is impacting being of a different material.

Impact energy is the energy at impact. What else can it be?

Quote:So an object of the same specific kinetic energy impacting wood is going to do more damage than if it was impacting steel or concrete.

No, it will do the SAME amount of damage to MORE WOOD.

Quote:I do not doubt that a 767 would have done damage to the wtc steel and concrete outer frame.

There is NO CONCRETE in the WTC outer frame. The video? Are you MAD or are you LYING? Choose...

Quote:But it would not have made a hole several meters into the building

Photographs show damage further in than that.

Quote:over 5 to six floors.

It is OBVIOUSLY THREE FLOORS. They had some concrete in them, but they were torn up too. All photographed.

Quote:Most of the plane would have fell down outside the building

Oh, we're back to nonsensical ritual religious incantation.

Quote:Due to the deceleration that should have occurred due to the aluminium being weaker than the steel and concrete.

And incantations need a certain mendacity to them...

Quote:Newtons third law, the strongest material wins ?

Action and reaction equal and opposite? What do columns do when they accept a momentum transfer somewhat equivalent to firing off one and a half tons of TNT between them and a thick steel plate which is shaped like an aeroplane? If you argue THAT didn't happen, then you are ONLY left with a penetrating plane !

Quote:That is how bullets if they hit kevlar will flatten.

All bullets? How about one from a M107 ?:

How would your bulletproof vest stand up to a bullet from this? Too fast and too heavy for you?

Quote:So the 4000000 kj of kinetic energy would have been released on to the weaker material, the plane, which would have broken up and exploded outside the building.

Don't let me stop your incantation. If you're ever found guilty of a capital crime, ask to be shot by firing squad.

Quote:I'll repeat a boeing 767 will not make a plane shaped hole over five to six stories in a steel and concrete building.

Amen. Fool.

I enjoy the way you managed to LIE TWICE with your last words. Are you MAD, or are you LYING?

LH drawing is column-to-window and shows insulation layer. Centre drawing shows section at tower top, RH drawing shows section at tower base.



http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html

Quote:"Holmgren's argument is that the ease with which the second plane penetrates the tower is evidence that it is a computer generated image superimposed over a smaller plane, which presumably would have had a more "realistic" impact. Yet this eyewitness is saying that what he saw in real life looked like a bad special effect. This testimony would indicate that what we all saw on TV, a 767 sliding easily through the wall of the WTC, is what actually happened. Holmgren claims that there is no witness testimony that verifies the 767 impact, yet here he has provided one".

Quote:"I'm alarmed at the current situation. Many of the most important 9/11 sites rely on Holmgren's analysis of the Pentagon anomalies. If he persists in pushing this baseless theory, large portions of the 9/11 truth movement stand to be tainted through this association. The debunkers would approach it like this: "Within the community of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, broad support is given to a man that believes that no 767s hit the World Trade Center." Guilt by association may not be an honorable debating tactic, but the other side is anything but honorable. The anti-conspiracy article in the May 2004 issue of Vanity Fair ("Welcome to the Conspiracy") uses Paul Joseph Watson's analysis of the first hit at the WTC to illustrate how absurd 9/11 conspiracy theories are. Though Watson doesn't go as far as the no-planers, his claims about multiple missile firings and the different sizes of the plane and the hole are erroneous enough to give the debunkers plenty of ammunition. It goes to show how risky this kind of speculation can be.

The WTC no-plane theories are a danger to the 9/11 truth movement and should be vigorously rejected".

And in my opinion the "9/11 truth movement" is an almost complete danger to ANY "truth movement", because its activities (failures, all of them) merely demonstrate ignorance and disrespect. Pseudoscience isn't going to prevail in a scientific world. Or if it does, we'll return to pre-Biblical population figures...

[JazzRoc]

(09-04-2010 02:29 AM)mothandrust Wrote:  it is not your qualifications i doubt, it is your motives - hence my original post in this thread. And fyi, my degrees are in computer science and political science (international relations theory) and i also have some age old qualification in building construction, processes and materials, which i never used (but was shepherded that way being from a family of architects and engineers). And through the years i've developed a really sharp nose for bullshit, and personally i don't have any truck with this npt, it is a distraction from forensic science, physics a ten year old can understand, documented evidence, and common sense.

If you want to analyze my motives, PM or start a thread.

On THIS thread the etiquette would be to challenge what I say (that would be something to do with the debated presence of planes at the WTC) and THEN question my motives.

If you are older than ten, you will agree with me that a hole precisely the shape of a 767 is EVIDENCE that a 767 passed through it.

You should then be very disappointed that the "search for truth" has proceeded inexorably, it seems, from USELESS to HARMFUL.

Or do you WANT such activity DEMORALIZED?

I DON'T.

[kevlar]

Whats looks like a plane shaped hole is evidence that it is not a plane because a plane would not make a plane shaped hole. Firstly i do not like your style of discussion, picking little phrases out of my posts and then replying to them out of context and spinning them how you like, does not allow for me to reply in a sensible manor. I now have to pick each little phrase of yours and respond to it like you have done to mine, trapping me into that form of discussion. Weak. So i won't do that.

You show a video that i was going to use as proof that a plane would not go through the building and make a plane shaped hole. But then you try and use it as justification that the plane would vanish, hilarious. When i said the plane vanished, i meant the plane vanished into the building. As the videos show the plane goes RIGHT THROUGH the steel and concrete like a knife through butter. Now this clearly goes against all scientific common sense because there was no deceleration.

I am aware that the mass indicated by yourself and used by myself was an estimate, but my point was that you are making sums about an impact of a boeing when there was no plane. In the same spirit of imagination lets do the same calculations with a cruise missile and explosives and see how well we get on.

Right reading the rest of your immature replies i have come to the conclusion that i can not continue the discussion because any one who believes the official conspiracy theory is delusional and obviously struggles to comprehend that people have the technological and logistical capabilities to pull an operation off like you have just described.

Yes they did sync the news feeds (poorly), yes they did confiscate all the significant 9/11 footage, yes they did plant parts of planes under scaffolding and on top of one roof. Yes they did plant bombs in the buildings and yes they did use missiles. It is all right in front of your face you just have to have the cognitive pathways available to see it.

You are the epiphany of a senseless debunker. Even when shown video and audio evidence and prove it in scientific terms you still have loads of bullshit to try and argue against it and refuse to believe the truth. You can reply to this if you want don't expect me to reply to you. You can take that as "you won" or some childish bullshit like that, that is up to you. But all the people with logic and common sense that read this, know that it is not about who wins this silly discussion with a debunker called jazzroc. It is about the evidence that proves it all anyway regardless of how well i can argue with a professional debunker.


But if anyone else apart from the retarded jazzroc would like to ask any questions or discuss no plane theory or my theories about 9/11 please go a head.

[JFK]

kevlar Wrote:You are mistaken. If you have a background in military aviation or British intelligence then you should be intelligent enough to know that an aluminium air plane can not make a hole in a steel and concrete building

Does an official MOS ( Military Occupational Speciality ) of avionics specializing on the Bell XV-15 VTOL from likely before you were even a gleam in your daddy's eye count ?

By the way....
From the 757-200SF Maintainance Manual Chapter 51-00-00 page 1.


( hosted on one of my testforums )

[kevlar]

Ok lets say this is a real scan not just wrote out in photoshop, so what, ok it says that an airplane is made out of aluminium and steel what has that got to do with no plane theory? By the way the only titanium on a 767 is the engines and they vanished at all four sites. David Copperfield was in town at the time.

[JFK]

Since when are the engines structural components of the airframe genius ?

[kevlar]

Ok genius which parts of the plane are made from titanium ?

[JazzRoc]

(09-04-2010 12:47 PM)kevlar Wrote:  Whats looks like a plane shaped hole is evidence that it is not a plane because a plane would not make a plane shaped hole.

Nor a bullet a bullet-hole, nor a knife a stab wound. I understand.

Quote:Firstly i do not like your style of discussion, picking little phrases out of my posts and then replying to them out of context

Your context is the problem. It's a dense thicket of weeds that needs to be cleared, weed-by-weed.

Quote:and spinning them how you like, does not allow for me to reply in a sensible manor. I now have to pick each little phrase of yours and respond to it like you have done to mine, trapping me into that form of discussion. Weak. So i won't do that.

The "spin" is science. You're lying and being found out...

Quote:You show a video that i was going to use as proof that a plane would not go through the building and make a plane shaped hole. But then you try and use it as justification that the plane would vanish, hilarious.

The high-resolution video of the Flight 175 strike exhibits aerodynamic features which PROVE (to me, quite incontrovertibly) the passage of the aircraft into the building. The features are not known to video simulators and I won't reveal them here.

Quote:When i said the plane vanished, i meant the plane vanished into the building. As the videos show the plane goes RIGHT THROUGH the steel and concrete

Wash your mouth out with soap. You will NEVER stop lying, will you?

Quote:like a knife through butter. Now this clearly goes against all scientific common sense because there was no deceleration.

Video lends itself to deceleration calculations because of its regular frame speed. I've seen the analysis done, and surprise! Deceleration is consistently there in EVERY video.

Quote:I am aware that the mass indicated by yourself and used by myself was an estimate, but my point was that you are making sums about an impact of a boeing when there was no plane. In the same spirit of imagination lets do the same calculations with a cruise missile and explosives and see how well we get on.

And the first thing you would have to do is to explain the presence of KEROSINE in sufficient quantities that kerosine explosions reached both foyers. There is no missile that carries 40,000 gallons of kerosine. Then there's the shape of the hole with inward-facing torn column ends. 767.

Quote:Right reading the rest of your immature replies i have come to the conclusion that i can not continue the discussion because any one who believes the official conspiracy theory is delusional and obviously struggles to comprehend that people have the technological and logistical capabilities to pull an operation off like you have just described.

All your challenges have been bullshit. Your laughable idea that the plane would drop off the fascia (which you persistently and falsely claim to be concrete) boils down to to the mere incredulity of someone failing to comprehend physics. Sums don't matter, eh?

Quote:Yes they did sync the news feeds (poorly), yes they did confiscate all the significant 9/11 footage, yes they did plant parts of planes under scaffolding and on top of one roof.

You failed to mention the thousands of body parts identified with hundreds of people.
How did they pour twenty tons of molten dural out of a tower window?

Quote:Yes they did plant bombs in the buildings and yes they did use missiles. It is all right in front of your face you just have to have the cognitive pathways available to see it.

The cognitive pathways for an evidence-free delusion? No, thanks.

Quote:You are the epiphany of a senseless debunker.

Your English needs brushing up with your science. Perhaps you meant "epitome". I shan't expect your epiphany, but you'll be glad when it comes...

Quote:Even when shown video and audio evidence and prove it in scientific terms you still have loads of bullshit to try and argue against it and refuse to believe the truth.

"The TRUTH? - You CAN'T HANDLE the truth!" (Jack Nicholson)

Quote:It is about the evidence that proves it all anyway regardless of how well i can argue with a professional debunker.

The evidence of THAT HOLE will never go away. Deny it however you might try, that is EVIDENCE you cannot accept. True?

There is no direct evidence that 767s did not hit the WTC.
There is no evidence produced that proves the videos were faked, only laughably mistaken analysis of poor quality video, misunderstandings of the nature of digital video, multiple failures to understand the most basic aspects of perspective, and uninformed amateur speculation on the physics of the impacts.

Even setting all the technical issues aside, the no-plane analysis simply defies common sense. There were thousands of people on the ground and on rooftops, and none after the fact have complained that what is replayed on TV is not what they saw.

In the age of the internet, we should have heard volumes about this if the planes on TV were not the planes in real life. It would be very simple for an ordinary person to write an email to a 9/11 investigator saying "that's not what I saw," or even to write their own online articles about it. New York produced half a million anti-war marchers, including many 9/11 Truth activists, but we're supposed to believe that after nine years, NONE of the eyewitnesses would have taken the opportunity to speak out over this? The whole of New York must be in on the conspiracy!

Are we also to believe that the planners of 9/11 would fly an incongruous small plane into a city whose attention was riveted on the WTC, and which is always swarming with camera-toting tourists to begin with? One good image would have brought the official story down and the 'War on Terror' with it.

What would the planners have to gain by rolling the dice on such elaborate high-tech trickery, when crashing airliners into the WTC towers was very probably the simplest and most easily executed part of the whole operation?

It would be an example of infinite risk for no gain. Moreover, since there is no substantive and compelling reason to believe that a 767 did not hit the South tower, by analogy there is also no logical reason to suspect anything different concerning the preceding North tower impact, even though it is comparatively poorly documented.

http://www.taner.net/wtc/media/First_Pla...SLOW_.mpeg

Quote:"stupid silly false information only one agenda talk enough bullshit distract smoking crack crazy old man nuts highly suspect distorted your friends at the government spinning trapping immature delusional struggles to comprehend senseless debunker professional debunker retarded Lying conman with an agenda"

Slander and abuse seem to be your stock-in-trade. They have no meaning in arguments about the science of the matter. You need to discover the world of energetic high-speed impacts - that's military weapons and their effects - BEFORE you wade in with your ignorance into technical matters you don't yet understand.

[kevlar]

I am not here to convince you jazzroc. i am here to discuss with other people who already agree with me (to some extent) so that we can learn from each other and continue researching the event. You see this is concen, used to be called conspiracy central where people with an interest in alternative information meet and discuss it. If you want to try and convince everyone on this forum that 9/11 went exactly as NIST said it did, then maybe you are on the wrong forum.

Most of the people on here have agreed at least for 5 years that 9/11 did NOT go as NIST said it did, so for some dude to come along this far on and start trying to convince me of the official story, well to be frank it is a waste of time, a joke.

[JazzRoc]

(09-04-2010 07:09 PM)kevlar Wrote:  I am not here to convince you jazzroc. i am here to discuss with other people who already agree with me (to some extent) so that we can learn from each other and continue researching the event.

Garbage in has given you garbage out. Get off the garbage tips.

Quote:You see this is concen, used to be called conspiracy central where people with an interest in alternative information meet and discuss it. If you want to try and convince everyone on this forum that 9/11 went exactly as NIST said it did, then maybe you are on the wrong forum.

I don't believe 9/11 went exactly as NIST said it did, and "CONCEN" isn't spelled "9/11".

Quote:Most of the people on here have agreed at least for 5 years that 9/11 did NOT go as NIST said it did, so for some dude to come along this far on and start trying to convince me of the official story, well to be frank it is a waste of time, a joke.

What is a joke is ignorant and slanderous people gaining a sense of self-importance by latching on to any delusion and proclaiming lies which hurt the bereaved and many other people in our society. A BLACK joke. 9 years of it...
The sooner it ends, the better. What am I saying? It's ending itself, thanks to people who came before and despised it as I do.

[kevlar]

So if anyone else wants to discuss no planes please go right a head but jazzroc i will no longer communicate with. Lying conman with an agenda.

I am willing to be convinced that i am incorrect. But Jazzroc has showed me no new evidence he has only been rude, made incorrect statements and just plain out lied. His main argument against it is that it would have been easier to fly planes and use muslim hijackers than missiles. He talks a lot of shit and rarely has any convincing arguments against the points that i have made. He is obviously clinging on to the muslim hijackers story because of his own personal reasons.

[h3rm35]

remember - nik, (the guy throwing baseless accusations of employment by intelligence agencies at anyone who disagrees with him,) was the one who invited the guy who's obviously a disinfo agent, and who admitted he educated at a Brittish military outpost to this forum because he found him intriguing and intelligent on some other forum.

[JazzRoc]

(09-04-2010 09:12 PM)h3rm35 Wrote:  remember - nik, (the guy throwing baseless accusations of employment by intelligence agencies at anyone who disagrees with him), was the one who invited the guy who's obviously a disinfo agent, and who admitted he (was) educated at a British military outpost to this forum because he found him intriguing and intelligent on some other forum.

Hello h3rm35. You're lying again if you're writing about me. Is it just that if you write, you lie? Is that it?
http://jazzroc.wordpress.com
http://www.youtube.com/beachcomber2008
That's info, but with your setbacks you won't recognize it as such.

Why don't you compare notes on how to lie about people with this rabble?
http://www.youtube.com/profile?gl=GB&hl=...ocISaSPOOK

[mothandrust]

(09-04-2010 11:51 AM)JazzRoc Wrote:  

(09-04-2010 02:29 AM)mothandrust Wrote:  it is not your qualifications i doubt, it is your motives - hence my original post in this thread. And fyi, my degrees are in computer science and political science (international relations theory) and i also have some age old qualification in building construction, processes and materials, which i never used (but was shepherded that way being from a family of architects and engineers). And through the years i've developed a really sharp nose for bullshit, and personally i don't have any truck with this npt, it is a distraction from forensic science, physics a ten year old can understand, documented evidence, and common sense.

If you want to analyze my motives, PM or start a thread.

On THIS thread the etiquette would be to challenge what I say (that would be something to do with the debated presence of planes at the WTC) and THEN question my motives.

If you are older than ten, you will agree with me that a hole precisely the shape of a 767 is EVIDENCE that a 767 passed through it.

You should then be very disappointed that the "search for truth" has proceeded inexorably, it seems, from USELESS to HARMFUL.

Or do you WANT such activity DEMORALIZED?

I DON'T.

"it is better to meet a mother bear robbed of her cubs than
to meet some fool busy with a stupid project"

i have neither time nor inclination to analyse your motives. one look at your bullshit link is enough to convince anyone who has done the most superficial research that you are either an idiot or a liar (or both if you take a metaphysical perspective).

this conversation is over.

[JazzRoc]

(09-04-2010 09:45 PM)mothandrust Wrote:  this conversation is over.

It never began.