Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?

[TJM]

Epistemologically understood, my quote is valid and correct.

Oh, intercourse the penguin.

 

[jammonius]

Q1: What happens when you fire a bullet into the ground?

Q2: What happens when you fire a bullet into a pumpkin?




Sorry, guys... he just looked at me with those big hungry eyes!

Could you please spare us the rhetoric and post up whatever it is you are trying to say?

Just come right out and scream it!
thanks

 

[TJM]

Let's see, so far we have:

Declaration that some videos are valid: check.

Disqualification of all witnesses who saw 175 on television: check.

Disqualification of one video, which now casts suspicion on the rest of them: check.

Now I would request that we cut to the chase and have jammonius explain to us how thousands of eyewitnesses around ground zero didn't see what they saw. I fully expect the remainder of this thread to be another quote mining extravaganza, where we will be introduced to Henry the Postal Worker who was busy sorting letters and heard a bang, thus proving there was no plane.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

You may go back to sleep for as long as that coping mechanism works for you.


rest well

Why would I need to "cope" with anything ???

jammie ... you have had numerous ( ) posts across numerous ( ) threads all basically saying the same thing ... and I am telling you from one of the fabled lurkers your convincing no-one.

Not ONE SINGLE SOLITARY person buys into your spectacularly obtuse and stolid interpretations ... that is a fact !!!

You, jammie may be too much involved in your own "personal" incredulity to believe some videos and metaphor driven testimony, but the rest of us, whom inhabite reality can easily see you for the dolt you are.

At the end of the day jammie all you are doing is wasting pixels !!!

Go out, find a girlfriend ... your rubbish at this ... go out, live a life instead and find some happiness, this is no substitute for a social life !!!

 

[BigAl]

Could you please spare us the rhetoric and post up whatever it is you are trying to say?

Just come right out and scream it!
thanks

Everything you claim is either wrong or irrelevant to the point you are trying to make.

 

[Piggy]

Could you please spare us the rhetoric and post up whatever it is you are trying to say?

Just come right out and scream it!
thanks

I did. Answer those questions, please, Bob.

 

[Oystein]

I did. Answer those questions, please, Bob.

Piggy, seriously: You KNOW that jammonius will not answer any reasonable question in any reaonable way. Am I right, you know this, don't you? Please answer that question, Piggy!

And when you have, the follow up: Since you know for a fact that your question will not get a serious answer, why are you asking it?

 

[Macgyver1968]

I'm with O on this one. Responding to Jam is pointless. He is impervious to logic. He sees only what he wants to see, and never will answer a question...so there's no point in asking it. It's not even fun to make fun of him, as his mental illness shines like a beacon in the dark...and making fun of the kids on the short bus was something Mom taught me not to do.

So please, again...don't feed the mentally ill troll, and let this thread die.

 

[jammonius]

Why would I need to "cope" with anything ???

jammie ... you have had numerous ( ) posts across numerous ( ) threads all basically saying the same thing ... and I am telling you from one of the fabled lurkers your convincing no-one.

Not ONE SINGLE SOLITARY person buys into your spectacularly obtuse and stolid interpretations ... that is a fact !!!

You, jammie may be too much involved in your own "personal" incredulity to believe some videos and metaphor driven testimony, but the rest of us, whom inhabite reality can easily see you for the dolt you are.

At the end of the day jammie all you are doing is wasting pixels !!!

Go out, find a girlfriend ... your rubbish at this ... go out, live a life instead and find some happiness, this is no substitute for a social life !!!

Ah, so, you are willing to engage further, your nap notwithstanding; OK, fine, we can engage in more dialogue. And, since you are participating, I think this is as good a time as any to extend a proper welcome to you, an erstwhile lurker, to the forum and this thread.

Welcome!

Perhaps you will agree with me that it is useful to post to this thread as the topic is the ALL 43 video compilation containing the 43 versions of the second hit, of which only the first 15 have been specifically referenced with a "title page" image.

We have already seen one of the values of this thread in the posting of a 44th video clip that adds to the informational quality of the thread, IMHO.

I think one of the videos that has garnered some interest and some useful observational comment is this one, which, in time sequence order, is number 16:

16

Have you reviewed that particular one; and, if so, do you have any observational comment that you would like to add?

Once again, welcome to the thread.

By the way, let me say, yet again, I am not here seeking to convince anyone of anything. We are each capable of posting up what we see and what we hear in the observable database that is the primary subject matter of this thread.

 

[GlennB]

I think you're wrong. I think this is a social experiment with us as white mice in a wheel.

I've often thought this. I picture a team of undergrad psychology students measuring "how far can debunkers be pushed in the face of blatant irrationality". But the buggers never publish their results.

 

[jammonius]

I've often thought this. I picture a team of undergrad psychology students measuring "how far can debunkers be pushed in the face of blatant irrationality". But the buggers never publish their results.

Well, if you're interested in the sociology of the matter, you would do well, I think, to doublecheck with the source. I have laid out the reasons for the thread in the OP and they are true and correct. This is a thread about observable data and about what can be seen and heard.

Further to the imagery given the reference of # 16, there follows in the next second -- 3:55/6 -- a very important observable process whereby the shadow thingy melds into the WTC.

One reason for refering to the plane image as "shadow thingy" is because it is shadowy and blurry in that particular video segment, just as it is in almost all of the ALL 43 video segments.

One further reason is that if you look at the following image, it can be noted that the left wing appears to have disappeared, in part, as has most of the tail section, as I see it, speaking solely in terms of what I observe:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...g/355wingandtailmissingmaybe.png?t=1274285954

Edited by LashL: 

Removed spammed image

I do not think the image shown above is consistent with the reality of a jetliner and is, instead, consistent with animation and or holographic imaging, in my opinion.

If you are so inclined, would you mind stating what you see?

 

[jammonius]

I did. Answer those questions, please, Bob.

I think your questions are a derail, but I'm not the mod. I also think your questions are an example of a request to go on a "wild goose chase" meaning one poster asks another to do something that poster is not willing to do.

However, in this one instance, I will play along for purposes of illustration of the uselessness of wild goose chases.

I searched for an image of a pumpkin being shot by a bullet, but, after looking at about 5 pages of images, I found nothing (wild goose chase). I did, however, manage to find this:

So, as I'm willing to assume for the moment you wouldn't ask me to answer a question you, yourself, aren't willing to also try to answer, can you please post up an image of a bullet impacting a pumpkin and or a bullet impacting the ground?

Beyond that, perhaps one other reply might be in order; but, beyond that possibility, I can tell you in advance, I am not going to be willing to spend a lot of posts on your queries about what bullets can be seen to do to pumpkins and the ground as such impacts and such outcomes do not shed enough light on the subject matter of this thread to warrant detailed discussion, IMHO.

all the best

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Ah, so, you are willing to engage further, your nap notwithstanding; OK, fine, we can engage in more dialogue. And, since you are participating, I think this is as good a time as any to extend a proper welcome to you, an erstwhile lurker, to the forum and this thread.

Welcome!

Erm ... no jam, I most certainly am NOT willing to engage in your pointless, puerile and spectacularly over-blown hyperbole. I am far too long in the tooth for any of the nonsense now, grew out of it years ago !!!

As a grand-mother and a plain-speaking Scots woman I believe in calling a spade a spade.

Your wrong jam, on so many levels, and I implore you to perhaps seek some professional advice or help, you clearly need it, and I for one will not aid you in fueling your obvious delusions and troubles with reality.

I do however, thank you for the welcome ... but due to no longer being willing to "suffer fools gladly" I decline any invite to satisfy your desperation for verbal embellishment.

As I advised before ... get a girlfriend ... or a life ... you'll be happier in the long run !!!

 

[lapman]

Well, if you're interested in the sociology of the matter, you would do well, I think, to doublecheck with the source. I have laid out the reasons for the thread in the OP and they are true and correct. This is a thread about observable data and about what can be seen and heard.

Further to the imagery given the reference of # 16, there follows in the next second -- 3:55/6 -- a very important observable process whereby the shadow thingy melds into the WTC.

One reason for refering to the plane image as "shadow thingy" is because it is shadowy and blurry in that particular video segment, just as it is in almost all of the ALL 43 video segments.

One further reason is that if you look at the following image, it can be noted that the left wing appears to have disappeared, in part, as has most of the tail section, as I see it, speaking solely in terms of what I observe:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355wingandtailmissingmaybe.png?t=1274285954[/qimg]

I do not think the image shown above is consistent with the reality of a jetliner and is, instead, consistent with animation and or holographic imaging, in my opinion.

If you are so inclined, would you mind stating what you see?

Of course you would say this. You can't state that it's a blobby/shadow/whatever thingy. So you hand wave it away by making another evidence free proclamation in order to keep your fantasy alive. Rational adults know that such animation capabilities were not in existence in 2001 to accurately depict natural lighting as is in the picture and the one on post #209. You will, as usual, make fictitious claims about the lighting in order to dodge this fact.

 

[dafydd]

Well, if you're interested in the sociology of the matter, you would do well, I think, to doublecheck with the source. I have laid out the reasons for the thread in the OP and they are true and correct. This is a thread about observable data and about what can be seen and heard.

Further to the imagery given the reference of # 16, there follows in the next second -- 3:55/6 -- a very important observable process whereby the shadow thingy melds into the WTC.

One reason for refering to the plane image as "shadow thingy" is because it is shadowy and blurry in that particular video segment, just as it is in almost all of the ALL 43 video segments.

One further reason is that if you look at the following image, it can be noted that the left wing appears to have disappeared, in part, as has most of the tail section, as I see it, speaking solely in terms of what I observe:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355wingandtailmissingmaybe.png?t=1274285954[/qimg]

I do not think the image shown above is consistent with the reality of a jetliner and is, instead, consistent with animation and or holographic imaging, in my opinion.

If you are so inclined, would you mind stating what you see?

It's an effing picture of an effing plane hitting an effing building,what the eff is wrong with you?

 

[DavidJames]

It's an effing picture of an effing plane hitting an effing building,what the eff is wrong with you?

Nothing that can't be explained using Pavlovian theory.

Here's a suggestion, ignore the bell.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Erm ... no jam, I most certainly am NOT willing to engage in your pointless, puerile and spectacularly over-blown hyperbole. I am far too long in the tooth for any of the nonsense now, grew out of it years ago !!!

As a grand-mother and a plain-speaking Scots woman I believe in calling a spade a spade.

I'm curious to hear what some of us older than college aged (*cough*) posters like myself () think regarding the maturity level of some of these conspiracy addicts. Of course, men like DRG and Steven Jones are not young guys, but it seems to me that a majority of their followers act as though their trapped in their adolescence to their early 20s. Their claims certainly demonstrate this: Belief in grandoise, epic narratives that only they can percieve, use of argumentative tactics in place of substance as well as a belief that use of such stands as validation of their points, petulant behavoir when they perceive that the reality of the situation injures them, and so on. It feels as though many of the ones feeling the need to proselytize are indeed in the late teens to early 20s age range. You get this feeling too?

I bring this up merely because my brain is free-associating today.

 

[dtugg]

You're

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I can see how it would get old.

But I do get a vicarious thrill out of watching someone present a completely ridiculous argument and watching that argument get demolished by people who really know what they're talking about.

FWIW, this is my first "no-planer" thread. I mean, I've heard about them, but I've never seen on live.

This is his third in about as many weeks. It get tedious and, if anything, replying is just feeding his madness.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I've often thought this. I picture a team of undergrad psychology students measuring "how far can debunkers be pushed in the face of blatant irrationality". But the buggers never publish their results.

You might well be right as surely nobody outside of a secure hospital could be so utterly delusional as Jammo appears to be.
Its a pity one can't do the reverse of the truther sites, all they do is block you if you apply any rationality at all.