• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thunder said:
oooh....copyright infringement?

maybe CNN and BBC and ABC and NY1 and CBS woud like a little email.
Click to expand...

Probably fair use. It doesn't affect the market, the videos are factual rather than creative, it only represents a small portion of the entire material, and he is using it for educational reasons.

He's wrong but he's not breaking the law.
 
DeadHorse.jpg
 
lapman said:
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.
Click to expand...


For the following:

"Rational adults know that such animation capabilities were not in existence in 2001 ..."

Can you indicate whether you are basing the claim on a substantiating source or whether you are speculating?

Note: You don't have to source the part that apparently distinguishes rational from irrational persons, adult or otherwise. Rather, the part I am interested in knowing whether you can source it or not is that part pertaining to what "animation capabilities existed in 2001."

As an aside, if you know and are willing to post it, your statement infers that such capabilites may have come into existence after 2001, but before now. If that inference is correct, a source would likewise be appreciated if it is available to you. You do not need to go off on a wild goose chase.

thanks
 
dafydd said:
It's an effing picture of an effing plane hitting an effing building,what the eff is wrong with you?
Click to expand...


While the level of precision evidenced in your observation of data is rather low, you do exhibit some capacity for making an observation of data, nonetheless.

Apparently, your criteria for deciding what is or isn't a plane is pretty low. Do you always use your imagination to fill in missing information and assume that what you thusly imagine is correct?

By the way, if you want to take a look at another version of approximately the same moment in that video, you may do so at NIST's website at:


http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-2index.htm

See:
1-2B appendix

pg. 4/10

The tail section is just as missing from the NIST version as it is from the one I posted. There is, perhaps, a greater hint of a left wing in the NIST version, thus requiring a bit less use of imagination and wishful thinking. However, the wing is still missing there as well.

One has to literally say "well, there must be a wing in there somewhere," hope prayer (pun intended) :) in order to conclude the visual information comports with reality.

It doesn't.

No wing and no tail:

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

Edited by LashL: 
Removed spammed image
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jammonius said:
For the following:

"Rational adults know that such animation capabilities were not in existence in 2001 ..."

Can you indicate whether you are basing the claim on a substantiating source or whether you are speculating?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Thousands of people saw 757/767 jets crash into the towers.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
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.
Click to expand...

AKA "Know It All Disease" . It can hit anyone of any age, but is exceptionally common among the 17 to 23 year old age group.
 
All 9/11 Conspiracy theories are crazy, but there are degrees of craziness ,and the No Planers are IMHO right at the bottom. Even the Mini Nukers and the Death Ray From Space theorists rank a little above them.
 
There's something perversely counterproductive in entreating other posters to let a thread die...by posting to the selfsame thread, thereby constantly bumping it to the top of page one. Take it from someone who has tried (and failed spectacularly) to play "thread police" here before; if you object to a thread, don't post in that thread. At all. If enough people do the same, problem solved. Constantly haranguing others to follow your directives is probably just going to annoy people who are otherwise on the same page with you. The irony that I am currently haranguing people to stop...haranguing people is not lost on me, BTW.

I am not directing the following to Jammonius, who as others have pointed out is probably either a troll or in some way mentally impaired. I direct the following to the one or two lurkers here under the age of say, 25 who read Jammonius' posts and are thinking to themselves "hmmm...maybe he has a point".

Jammonius does not believe that jets hit the twin towers. He does not believe this because the footage of the attacks does not square with how he (apparently instinctively*) believes such attacks would/should actually appear. He believes one of the main giveaways is that the jets didn't instantaneously disintegrate and/or burst into flames the moment they made contact with the exterior of the towers. As triforcharity pointed out in an earlier post, the entire time span between the nose of the jet touching the the tower wall and the time we see the explosion erupting out of the opposite wall is something on the order of .3 seconds. That's not three seconds, that is three tenths of a second. Pretty much literally the "blink of an eye". Seems pretty "instantaneous" to me.:rolleyes: Those .3 seconds can seem like an eternity when viewing a single frame of a video or a still photograph, but that is totally irrelevant to the actual time frames involved. And high speed impacts between objects can often result in counterintuitive results. For example, high pressure water being used to cut steel or flimsy pieces of straw being embedded into tree trunks by hurricane force winds.

I don't mean to get into grumpy old middle-aged man mode on some of you, but I am guessing that there are many here (including Jammonius) who have never personally known a time before fairly realistic CGI effects used in TV, games and film. I am betting that at least some of your "instincts" to judge what a crashing and/or exploding plane should look like is based less on viewing footage of actual crashes and more on viewing (often CGI) visual effects. The thing you have to understand, though is special visual effects (of crashes and explosions) are usually created to wow an audience, not to mimic the look/sound/behavior or "real life" crashes and explosions.

People aren't the greatest observers at the best of times and are even worse when observing an event that is in some way tragic, unusual or aw(e)ful and most importantly an event they are unaccustomed to witnessing. I've mentioned in other threads that I have on more than one occasion been fooled into thinking that I was witnessing planes on approach that appeared to be hanging almost motionless in the air. It's a truly uncanny sight, I can assure you but I am left with a handful of explanations for what I was seeing in those situations:

1. The jets were (apparently secretly??) equipped with VTOL technology, allowing them to hover.

2. The jets didn't actually exist at all and were merely holograms projected into the clear blue sky.

3. I was hallucinating the entire thing.

4. The jets were alien spaceships in disguise.

5. I was witnessing real jets traveling at appropriate speeds for approach to an airport, but I was misjudging their speed based on my speed (I was in a moving car) and position relative to the planes and the fact that the clear blue sky gave me no points of reference with which to accurately gauge the speed of the planes.

Now call me an unimaginative dupe, but my first, best guess is #5. It does my ego no amount of good to admit that my observational skills are not up to the task of properly comprehending the phenomena I am witnessing, but if I am honest and rational with myself, I have to come to the conclusion that (based on Occam's Razor), the most likely explanation is that my "eyes are deceiving me". There are some people (and Jammonius appears to be one of them) who, due to arrogance, immaturity and/or possibly even some sort of mental illness cannot/will not allow himself to believe that his eyes could be fooling him. But for you "on the fence" lurkers out there, ask yourself one question; which of the following possibilities are more likely:

1. The appearance of planes in the 9/11 New York attacks was created for the witnesses in New York through the use of holograms** and other sorts of special effects.

2. Jammonius isn't nearly as good as he thinks he is at knowing what jets slamming at high speed into skyscrapers should look like.

I know which one gets my vote.




* I use the word "instinctively" because despite the fact that Jammonius believes the attacks violate the laws of physics, he can provide no equations at all with which support his belief. Your High School Math teachers weren't just trying to make sure you weren't using a calculator on your test when they asked you to "show your work". There was a larger, more important principle behind their request.

** Technology, by the way that doesn't even exist now, never mind nine years ago, though you might be surprised and disappointed to lean that fact if all your knowledge of holograms comes from watching Sci-Fi and Spy Thriller movies, games and TV shows. Another disappointing, but nevertheless true, fact; lasers aren't visible to the human eye unless they are being shot through something like smoke, vapor or dust.
 
dudalb said:
All 9/11 Conspiracy theories are crazy, but there are degrees of craziness ,and the No Planers are IMHO right at the bottom. Even the Mini Nukers and the Death Ray From Space theorists rank a little above them.
Click to expand...

Just in case you aren't aware, jammonius is in the no-plane / death ray camp and as far down the rabbit hole as one could be.
 
AJM8125 said:
Yes, excellent.

A plane crashed into WTC 2. Thousands saw it with their own eyes. Thanks.

/thread
Click to expand...

I challenge you to source your assertion; and, as well, I here state that you cannot and will not do it because there are not 1000s who saw it with their own eyes and there are not even 100s of written accounts that are verifiable and useable as evidence. However, there are some. I, myself, am the source of posting of more of them than anyone else posting here.

However, there are more verifiable witnesses who say things inconsistent with PLANE SPOTTING than there are who say otherwise.

Speaking of psychological matters, I often wonder whether the phrase "Thousands saw it with their own eyes" was imparted via some sort of hypnosis? A lot of people say more or less the same thing when they either know or should know that they cannot possibly source that claim no matter how hard they try.

Do you know when and how and by what means you were taught to say "Thousands saw it with their own eyes"?

th_Animated20Hypnosis20Spiral.gif


Wake up!
:p
 
jammonius said:
I challenge you to source your assertion; and, as well, I here state that you cannot and will not do it because there are not 1000s who saw it with their own eyes and there are not even 100s of written accounts that are verifiable and useable as evidence. However, there are some. I, myself, am the source of posting of more of them than anyone else posting here.

However, there are more verifiable witnesses who say things inconsistent with PLANE SPOTTING than there are who say otherwise.

Speaking of psychological matters, I often wonder whether the phrase "Thousands saw it with their own eyes" was imparted via some sort of hypnosis? A lot of people say more or less the same thing when they either know or should know that they cannot possibly source that claim no matter how hard they try.

Do you know when and how and by what means you were taught to say "Thousands saw it with their own eyes"?

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/th_Animated20Hypnosis20Spiral.gif[/qimg]

Wake up!
:p
Click to expand...

I summarily hand wave that entire statement away and demand that you prove there weren't thousands who saw flight 175 crash with their own eyes.

See how it works?
 
You continue to be wrong.

jammonius said:
I challenge you to source your assertion; and, as well, I here state that you cannot and will not do it because there are not 1000s who saw it with their own eyes
:p
Click to expand...

Thousands of people saw a 757/767 hit a tower.

Source: Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11 By David Friend and/or the archives of the New York newspapers.
 
JohnG said:
...Another disappointing, but nevertheless true, fact; lasers aren't visible to the human eye unless they are being shot through something like smoke, vapor or dust.
Click to expand...

Similarly, explosions in deep space don't form billowing fireballs and clouds. Things would simply speed away rapidly and straight from the center of explosion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom