IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Reply
Old 19th May 2012, 03:14 PM   #401
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
I saw a plane that day, with my own eyes, not on TV.
Evidence ONLY supports this statement.

Quote:
Explain this, explain the deaths of my sister's UA co-workers.
I don't see how he can....


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.
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:15 PM   #402
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
If you have a claim you want to make, make it and stop beating around the bush with rhetorical flourishes.

If you disagree with the validity of a witness, like, say, Battalion Chief King, then say so.

As for me, I think it all but absurd that there are posters here who take issue with the fact that a widebody jetliner <1000ft@500+mph would sound ultra loud, so much so that there should have been a large number of people requiring treatment for damage to their ears had any such thing occurred.

For those of you who claim the jetliner couldn't be heard for this, that or the other reasoning, good luck with that.
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.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:17 PM   #403
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What would be the sound level (in Db's) in the expected exposure area? You have this information or did you just pull this opinion out of your butt?
Answer the question, jammonous...answer it now...
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:26 PM   #404
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
Answer the question, jammonous...answer it now...
You stand a better chance of getting him to fart rainbows than getting a straight answer.

We just get a lot of verbose waffling and a nice big bowl of word salad.

Hmmm I'm hungry now...
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:33 PM   #405
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
We have the video of a woman talking to the television studio about seeing another plane hit the tower just as the flames rise from the second impact.

It is all so obvious that it should not require that many damned witnesses.

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?
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:36 PM   #406
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What would be the sound level (in Db's) in the expected exposure area? You have this information or did you just pull this opinion out of your butt?
If you want to make a claim about dB levels do so. Post a claim and do not put yourself in the position of asking me to play along with your imitation of
"20 questions".
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:38 PM   #407
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
You are inferring that you can prove how a huge plane showed up as a black blob with no discernable parts of plane? Go for it.
Strange. Multiple witnesses could tell it was a plane. Yet you keep harping on about low-res videos filmed from a long way away, not the closer ones.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:39 PM   #408
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
If you want to make a claim about dB levels do so. Post a claim and do not put yourself in the position of asking me to play along with your imitation of
"20 questions".
You already did. Why do I need to prove what you believe to be true?

Need me to re-quote the claim you made that I just did and you responded too?

I'm in a good mood, here it is:

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
As for me, I think it all but absurd that there are posters here who take issue with the fact that a widebody jetliner <1000ft@500+mph would sound ultra loud, so much so that there should have been a large number of people requiring treatment for damage to their ears had any such thing occurred.
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 19th May 2012 at 03:42 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:40 PM   #409
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
You find it absurd that people here require evidence as opposed to your hand-waving?

Too friggin' bad...
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
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:41 PM   #410
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
If you want to make a claim about dB levels do so.
Are you drunk? I ask because it's obvious who made what claim...


When will you be presenting evidence for your claim of "loud planes"?
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:42 PM   #411
brazenlilraisin
...tart
 
brazenlilraisin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post

Scott Holowach - "I saw it" - "wings turned" - "Chief, I witnessed it" - "100% sure"

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?
brazenlilraisin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:42 PM   #412
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
Answer the question, jammonous...answer it now...
No. I do not play "20 questions". If a poster finds it necessary to post dB level, let the poster do so.

I do not find it necessary, otherwise I would have done so.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:44 PM   #413
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So, the pictures of the plane you posted are no good, why? Do you need HD images of the left front door manufactures ID tag?

I don't think even a window seat on one of the planes would convince him.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:44 PM   #414
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin View Post
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?

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

Last edited by jammonius; 19th May 2012 at 03:47 PM.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:45 PM   #415
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
You appear to disagree that a widebody jetliner <1000ft@500+mph is ultra loud.
You have provided NO EVIDENCE that at the distance of the witness', the planes would be "ultra loud".

Quote:
I have heard them.
This is not evidence...it is your biased opinion.


Quote:
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.
Whatsamatter...too lazy to do your own "work"? Typical...
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:48 PM   #416
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
Okay, seriously. How many times are you going to show videos of fake planes impacting buildings to prove that real planes didn't impact buildings?
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?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:49 PM   #417
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
No. I do not play "20 questions". If a poster finds it necessary to post dB level, let the poster do so.

I do not find it necessary, otherwise I would have done so.

Thanks for exposing yourself as an intellectual COWARD...you are making my "job" all the easier when you make a fool of yourself.
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:52 PM   #418
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
Are you drunk? I ask because it's obvious who made what claim...


When will you be presenting evidence for your claim of "loud planes"?
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
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:55 PM   #419
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
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.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:55 PM   #420
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
You have provided NO EVIDENCE that at the distance of the witness', the planes would be "ultra loud".



This is not evidence...it is your biased opinion.




Whatsamatter...too lazy to do your own "work"? Typical...
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.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:57 PM   #421
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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.

So you don't plan to back-up the statement you made that people should have had hearing loss.

Why don't you just say this?
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 03:57 PM   #422
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
Thanks for exposing yourself as an intellectual COWARD...you are making my "job" all the easier when you make a fool of yourself.
Your post seems disjointed and rather nonsensical. I don't think you know what your talking about and that your post is confused.

DO BETTER
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:01 PM   #423
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So you don't plan to back-up the statement you made that people should have had hearing loss.

Why don't you just say this?
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.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:01 PM   #424
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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.
Jammy... Come on now, stop typing nonsense and put down the bottle of JD.
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:03 PM   #425
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
*waves*

Hey jammonius,

Plane witness here, are you going to call me a liar then?
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

Last edited by jammonius; 19th May 2012 at 04:05 PM.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:06 PM   #426
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post

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.
Good you made a claim.

Now. in dB's what would be the sound level at the expected (stated) exposure distance?

You posted a video (the reporter) and Naudet both have the sound of a plane.

Your turn.
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 19th May 2012 at 04:37 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:07 PM   #427
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
Jammy... Come on now, stop typing nonsense and put down the bottle of JD.
I have not typed nonsense; and, where I am, it's coming close to Saturday Night for goodness sake. A little JD might be in order!

In fact, I've gotta go for awhile...

Later, folks
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:12 PM   #428
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Your post seems disjointed and rather nonsensical. I don't think you know what your talking about and that your post is confused.

DO BETTER
I notice you do this when something cuts you a bit. Then you run away. You might want to develop thicker skin considering your rather odd no-planer enthusiasm.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:17 PM   #429
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
 
JohnG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Abandon All Hope
Posts: 6,808
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
You are inferring that you can prove how a huge plane showed up as a black blob with no discernable parts of plane? Go for it.

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
JohnG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:24 PM   #430
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
delete

Last edited by tsig; 19th May 2012 at 04:27 PM.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:25 PM   #431
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
 
MIKILLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
No. I do not play "20 questions". If a poster finds it necessary to post dB level, let the poster do so.

I do not find it necessary, otherwise I would have done so.
Of course. Cherry picking is a sport with you, but I don't have to go and show the relevant threads proving this. I just don't find it necessary, otherwise I would have done so. They speak for themselves.
__________________
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
MIKILLINI is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:28 PM   #432
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
I have not typed nonsense; and, where I am, it's coming close to Saturday Night for goodness sake. A little JD might be in order!

In fact, I've gotta go for awhile...

Later, folks
We understand. I'll keep this handy for you when you return.

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Good you made a claim.

Now. in dB's what would be the sound level at the expected (stated) exposure distance?

You posted a video (the reporter) and Naudet both have the sound of a plane.

Your turn.
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 19th May 2012 at 04:37 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:30 PM   #433
swright777
Muse
 
swright777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
someone added a black blob to the copy of the video he turned over to whomever. Unless you can prove a blob is a plane, of course.
It looks like a plane to me and most non-crazy people. Get the original video without the blob plane and then you'll have something.
swright777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:38 PM   #434
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
Okay, seriously. How many times are you going to show videos of fake planes impacting buildings to prove that real planes didn't impact buildings? Is there something about this belief that everyone who shares has abysmal organizational skills? It's very simple really. Put one folder on your desk top to show the fake planes and another to show what real planes really look like. It will help remind you of what a mockery you are when someone comes along that mocks your nonsense. NY1 snowball.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...loudblob-1.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...tunderside.jpg
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
The building are fuzzy so the problem is someone took the picture with the camera set of 'fuzzy', same thing happens to bigfoot photographers.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:46 PM   #435
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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
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.

Last edited by Dash80; 19th May 2012 at 04:59 PM.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:48 PM   #436
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Yes, you are correct BINGO!
So you really don't care that no one believes you?...to the point of not even attempting to "back up" your claims?

Why do you even bother to friggin' post?
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:52 PM   #437
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Let me know if you fail to grasp the concept I am relying on...
Oh, I grasp it very well....you want to make claims, yet not be held responsible for "backing up" those claims....

It's the "text book" definition of an intellectual coward, which is why it is appropriate to use that term.
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:54 PM   #438
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
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.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 04:57 PM   #439
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
*waves*

Hey jammonius,

Plane witness here, are you going to call me a liar then?
I doubt he has the "stones" to flat out do that....although I'd like to see him try.
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2012, 05:10 PM   #440
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
 
MIKILLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post

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.
How does it falsify? Your claim is not specific enough to separate speculation and facts.
__________________
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

Last edited by MIKILLINI; 19th May 2012 at 05:13 PM.
MIKILLINI is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.