|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
19th May 2012, 03:14 PM | #401 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
|
Evidence ONLY supports this statement.
Quote:
Seriously, I can't imagine what it must be like to meet one of these "yahoos" in person....would they really be stupid enough to say to a witness, "you didn't see a plane"? The "Aldrin Solution" comes to mind. |
19th May 2012, 03:15 PM | #402 |
Rave on, Not Fade Away
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
|
Haha what?
I've stood that kind of distance away from jets at take-off thrust, which didn't damage my ears. By the way twin engine turbofan airliners are significantly overpowered, the required amount of thrust needed to get them up in the air is far more than they need in flight. I honestly doubt the planes would be that much louder, if at all. Plus there was plenty of noise on the streets below (particularly for the second plane), not to mention all those tall buildings and the effects they might have on the sound. |
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings. |
|
19th May 2012, 03:17 PM | #403 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
|
|
19th May 2012, 03:26 PM | #404 |
Rave on, Not Fade Away
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
|
|
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings. |
|
19th May 2012, 03:33 PM | #405 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
Lefty, Yours is not a particularly helpful, let alone strong claim. You provide neither witness name, source, nor link. If you want to post a claim about a teevee exchange of views of whether or not a plane hit the South Tower, try to do so on the basis of a claim like that, of say, Don Dahler, an on scene ABC reporter who said he saw no plane, but who was contradicted by the teevee anchor: Don Dahler vs. ABC Dahler: ...i didn't see any plane going in...that...that's just exploded...i... Gibson: We just saw another plane coming in from the side. Dahler: You did?? I...that was ..was...out of my view... Gibson: That was a second explosion. You can see the plane come in just from the right hand side of the screen... (=> Dahler's witness report 'overruled' by a TV monitor) Source: http://thewebfairy.com/911/haarp/rep....see.plane.wmv Note: I am not yet willing to put a number on Don Dahler as I do not think I have adequate sources/links to claim he is a verifiable witness. As soon as verifiable sources and links are found, if they are, he will be added as an official NO PLANER witness. As for you, Lefty, I'nm sure you're not claiming your post counts as a PLANE SPOTTER witness, correct? |
19th May 2012, 03:36 PM | #406 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
|
19th May 2012, 03:38 PM | #407 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
|
|
19th May 2012, 03:39 PM | #408 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
19th May 2012, 03:40 PM | #409 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
You appear to disagree that a widebody jetliner <1000ft@500+mph is ultra loud.
Okay. Fine. You disagree. The sound and the loudness of jetliners is a daily, common, shared experience. I have heard them. I base my claim that one at <1000ft@500+mph would be ultra loud on my common sense. If your common sense tells you otherwise, that is acceptable to me. True, if you disagree, I might say: R e a a l l y but that's about all. If you think it necessary to take a technical approach to this and put the matter in terms of dB level, posted sound level of jetliners, etc., feel free to do so. Good luck |
19th May 2012, 03:41 PM | #410 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
|
|
19th May 2012, 03:42 PM | #411 |
...tart
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
|
If you're brave enough to go foot slog, slog, slog, slogging over the 'All 43' thread, I'm pretty sure you'll find that jammonious dismissed Scott Holowach's testimony on the basis that his chief didn't see a plane, making the specific argument that the testimony of the chief merits greater consideration based on rank alone. Ergo, the chief is a witness to no plane, thereby discrediting his subordinate's plane spotter testimony.
That's how it works. So why bother engaging him? |
19th May 2012, 03:42 PM | #412 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
|
19th May 2012, 03:44 PM | #413 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
19th May 2012, 03:44 PM | #414 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
Yes, that is what I argued then and, as the saying goes, that's my story and I'm stickin' with it. What might be of interest is your point of view on the matter. Perhaps, if you so choose, you could post up whether you think it more likely that Holowach is accurate; or, perhaps you agree with me, (unlikely, I suppose, given your quoted post) that it is more likely that Ganci was accurate. It is also possible, I suppose, that you accredit both of them equally. We don't yet know your claim on the matter as you haven't posted one. I don't recall whether you commented on the matter in the "All 43" thread. If you did, perhaps you could consider letting us know. Blessings |
19th May 2012, 03:45 PM | #415 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
|
|
19th May 2012, 03:48 PM | #416 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
LOL. Back to your one pony trick of using your cell phone to take a 3rd generation video of your 1982 television screen playing a 4th generation video tape.
Why don't you show the hi-res video? You were asked this numerous times before your little vacation and you never did produce. Will you be doing so now? |
19th May 2012, 03:49 PM | #417 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
|
|
19th May 2012, 03:52 PM | #418 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
I'm willing to engage on this until you get it straight. I did not post dB level, expressed numerically, because I did not think it necessary to do so. Had I thought it necessary to do so I would have.
If you want to make a claim that my post is inadequate because I did not post a numerical dB level, then just come right on out and scream it. That's fine. One forum of refutation is to claim the post is inadequately supported. If you do that and I then decide that there might be merit to your rebuttal then, in that event, I might choose to post up dB level. What I will not evah do is play "20 questions" where you get to assume that my claim is inadequate UNTIL I answer your 20 (to the tenth power) questions. I do not put myself in the position of having to answer a never ending string of questions. Grasp this |
19th May 2012, 03:55 PM | #419 |
Rave on, Not Fade Away
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
|
*waves*
Hey jammonius, Plane witness here, are you going to call me a liar then? |
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings. |
|
19th May 2012, 03:55 PM | #420 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
Yes, you are correct BINGO!
I, jammonius, have provided NO EVIDENCE that at the distance of the witness', the planes would be "ultra loud". However, RAF, and in direct reply to your claim, hear this: I, jammonius, have not reinvented the WHEEL either. Let me know if you fail to grasp the concept I am relying on in response to your claim and I will then try to put it in clearer terms. |
19th May 2012, 03:57 PM | #421 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
19th May 2012, 03:57 PM | #422 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
|
19th May 2012, 04:01 PM | #423 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
I have said it is based on common sense and common experience. That is far from a failure of back-up. I don't know what your epistemological leanings are, but I think in connection with a claimed widebody jetliner <1000ft@5000+mph, the common storyline is exposing one of its major flaws and weaknesses.
Now for a claim: The lack of recording, reporting on and damage from ultra loud, deafening noise from a jetliner said to have been <1000ft above, traveling at >500mph FALSIFIES the common storyline of 9/11. That is my claim. |
19th May 2012, 04:01 PM | #424 |
Rave on, Not Fade Away
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
|
|
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings. |
|
19th May 2012, 04:03 PM | #425 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
I have nevah called any witness a liar and have no plan to do so now.
If you choose to post your eye witness account, if that is what you are, then do please consider posting it in a form that addresses the basic W format of "who, what, when, where, why IF you are so inclined. Thanks in advance. I look forward to your posting your witness account. Blessings |
19th May 2012, 04:06 PM | #426 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
19th May 2012, 04:07 PM | #427 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
|
19th May 2012, 04:12 PM | #428 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
19th May 2012, 04:17 PM | #429 |
Pedantic Bore
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Abandon All Hope
Posts: 6,808
|
I think the word you were grasping for was "implying". You're the one doing the inferring. And you really need to let the "blob" thing go, it's a ferociously stupid argument, even by Truther standards. Anything will look like a "blob" if it's seen/photographed from far enough away and/or if the object is fast moving and/or partially obscured. There are toddlers living in rain forests who understand this basic concept of optics. Why in the name of sanity don't you? |
__________________
Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison |
|
19th May 2012, 04:24 PM | #430 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
delete
|
19th May 2012, 04:25 PM | #431 |
Incromulent Logic
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
|
|
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo |
|
19th May 2012, 04:28 PM | #432 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
19th May 2012, 04:30 PM | #433 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
|
|
19th May 2012, 04:38 PM | #434 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
19th May 2012, 04:46 PM | #435 |
Rave on, Not Fade Away
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
|
Ok, fair enough.
Who: Myself, obviously. Also my sister. When: 8:47am-9:03am Where: Battery Park City apartment (visiting my sister who had married a New Yorker and moved there in 1999) with a good view of the towers to the North East and of West Street. What: I guess you would class this first part as a so-called no-plane witness but I was asleep at the time of the first crash. Something woke me, the sound of the explosion maybe. I saw something out the window and went over for a closer look, seeing debris and paper raining down, flames and smoke shooting from the south side of the North Tower. My sister had woken at the same time, she had that same feeling of being suddenly wrenched from sleep by a loud noise. We watched in horror as the building burned. It was just a couple minutes later when people started to jump, my brain couldn't immediately process that those falling shapes were people. The window was open slightly, sirens blaring all around us. We were so paralyzed by what we were seeing neither of us even thought of turning on a tv. There was a faint smell of something, my sister (a flight attendant) recognized it as jet fuel. We couldn't see the gaping hole in the North face but it seemed possible a plane had struck the building. I heard a roaring sound and looked out to try and find the source. A large blue-looking plane streaked by. I also thought I saw a flash of red and being a Brit it made me think of a BA plane's livery. The plane hit the South Tower within about 3 seconds of seeing it. We evacuated our building right after this. Why: Not exactly sure what you mean here but why did I see a plane? Because I was looking at it, no mistaking what it was to me even if my initial thought on it's airline livery was wrong. Hope this helps, whatever you make of it. Anneliese. EDIT: I would like to add that although my instinctual thought was British Airways, my sister had no doubt which airline it belonged to. The very same one she worked for, United. She was very sure of this. |
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings. |
|
19th May 2012, 04:48 PM | #436 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
|
|
19th May 2012, 04:52 PM | #437 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
|
|
19th May 2012, 04:54 PM | #438 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
I'm not clear on why Jammonius thinks travelling at 500mph is especially significant for the level of noise produced by an airliner. I imagine he thinks the engines would have to be throttled up quite far to achieve this speed. Perhaps then he should ponder the noise created by jets taking off. Sure, they're loud, but they're not literally deafening. They are certainly operating their engines at very high power, yet if you're under the flightpath, a jet taking off over one's head at 1000ft is merely a nuisance and definitely not so loud as to damage your hearing.
|
19th May 2012, 04:57 PM | #439 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
|
|
19th May 2012, 05:10 PM | #440 |
Incromulent Logic
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
|
|
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|