• 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.
Oystein said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that.

But like I said, he looked at me with those big hungry eyes.

I reckon I'm posting here for the same reason you are.

Or were. Done now.

Cheerio!
 
Piggy said:
But like I said, he looked at me with those big hungry eyes.
Click to expand...

Like this?
puppy-dog-eyes.jpg
 
cna you please refrain from quoting all of a person's text if you're only going to provide a 1 sentence answer? some of us have these trolls on ignore for a reason.
 
jammonius said:
One remarkable thing about second hit videos is that the majority of them either have no sound at all; or, pick up the sound of everything and everyone EXCEPT a jetliner supposedly screaming along at an earsplitting 550mph.

Get a clue.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand the difference between the speed of light and the speed of sound, you should give up 911 fraud and become a horse dentist, it's your destiny.
 
jammonius said:
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:

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

I know it's a waste of time trying to explain it to you, but what the hell.

The "missing" parts of the plane are nearly the same shade of gray as the building behind them. The video has been compressed multiple times, including at least (but probably more):

1) The initial digitization when it was downloaded from the camera (or when it was recorded if it was a digital camera).
2) The upload to youtube.
3) The conversion to jpeg in your screenshot.

The multiple conversions will make low contrast parts blend together. Another obvious sign of this is that the wtc buildings in that image are solid gray, you can't see any sign of there being exterior columns at all.
 
phunk said:
The multiple conversions will make low contrast parts blend together. Another obvious sign of this is that the wtc buildings in that image are solid gray, you can't see any sign of there being exterior columns at all.
Click to expand...

We can, of course, take that as proof that there weren't any exterior columns, since what the video clearly shows is that there were none and we are talking here about what the videos show. ;)
 
Pinch said:
An Equine Proctologist. That way he would be working in a field he is familiar with.
Click to expand...

Nearly all truthers are amatuer bovine proctologists who don't know how to use full arm length gloves and have contracted Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) that leads to their unique form of insanity which was described correctly by Albert Einstein and displayed by jamm in this thread.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

This "ghost plane" nonsense was well and truly debunked by Steve Wright on hardfire hosted by Ronald Wiek and owned no planes/no brains truther A.Baker more then two years ago.
i have posted this video before on this thread but of course jamm completely ignores it, because it proves how pathetic his theory really is,and keeps posting the same drivel over and over again.

so once again here is the video




He also claims the tail and the rear of the plane should have crumpled or broken off before going into the building.
this is yet another example of his lack of research into hi-speed aircraft
impacts as shown in this video.

 
I came across this on the net,I posted it in another thread but think that it applies equally well here.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than in actuality.
 
Jammonius, I would like to see what points you agree and disagree on, but not all at once so please don't accuse me of lack of information.

Jammonius, do you agree that if a plane hit one of the twin towers, there would not be an explosion until the wings actually hit the building?
 
Take a closer look. In that one, the right wing is FUBAR instead of the left one. That image is just as troublesome, just as suggestive of animation, of some sort, or holographic technology, as an alternative, as is the other one.
Click to expand...
How can an holographic projection make pictures with such sharp shapes, 9/11 denier?
 
lapman said:
That's a lie. You purposely picked a frame that was full of video artifacts in order to hold on to your fantasy.


Of course you would say that. You have to hand wave away everything that is inconvenient to your fantasy, so you make up an interpretation.


So you cannot comprehend the difference between being obscured by video artifacts and missing. Why am I not surprised. :rolleyes:

Now you believe in fictitious holographic tech.. oh wait, you believe in the fictitious dustification DEWs. Never mind. None have any problems with showing the aircraft that all rational adults see. You have purposely used grainy YouTube videos since you can twist and mold them to conform to your fantasy.

Of course you would say that. You have to hand wave away everything that is inconvenient to your fantasy.
Of course you would. Agreement would be abandoning the fantasy that you must hold on to in order to keep your fantasy alive.
That is false. Even motion blur would not delete anything. However, video artifacts would obscure parts of the aircraft. Fortunately, rational adults know this. Only the delusional would consider that proof of anything.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure where any of the above actually takes those who are in the PLANE SPOTTER camp. One of the main themes of the NO PLANE camp is that the video information upon which the common storyline depends for validity is of poor quality and is inconclusive. Thus, commentary by a PLANE SPOTTER on the poor quality of the available video serves to undermine the PLANE SPOTTER position.

I have already posted up the "title pages" of videos 1 through 16 of the ALL 43 compilation. I think what can be done usefully from this point forward is a brief commentary on each of the remaining titles. That is to say, a summary of the information contained in each of them.

17
17-anotherlefttorightdifferentappro.png


17 Comment:
This one starts at about the 4:04 mark and runs until about 4:14. It has a hissing sound, but there is no sound at all associated with shadow thingy and the explosion makes no sound. The only thing actually heard in the segment is the ABC announcer saying the video was provided for free.

In that statement we have confirmation of the old adage "you get what you pay for." The value of that video segment is, more or less, $0.00.

All the things said by Lapman about video quality certainly apply to # 17. Yet, that video was shown over and over in order to convince people a Boeing 767 crashed into the South Tower. That claim is based on bogus, inconclusive video of which # 17 is a good example of the stupidly poor video upon which the common storyline depends.

Note the poor quality of the shadow thingy image. The nose is crooked, the tail is all but invisible and the left wing is crooked. Lapman will, perhaps, claim those are video artifacts. So what. They are the substance of the information upon which the common storyline depends. In my view, the data show that the imagery is an animation of some sort.

As we have seen and as we shall continue to see, one video segment after another, posters and lurkers, the video information upon which the common storyline of 9/11 is based is all bogus, phony, lame and false. Note that sentence. One can still believe in the common storyline if that is what one wants to do. I don't care what posters and lurkers believe, nor should I. Belief is a personal matter.

What I can however say is that the video information reveals falsity and does not support the claim a Boeing 767 hit the WTC. That comment is data based, centered in fact-based reasoning.
 
Last edited:
MattTheTubaGuy said:
Jammonius, I would like to see what points you agree and disagree on, but not all at once so please don't accuse me of lack of information.

Jammonius, do you agree that if a plane hit one of the twin towers, there would not be an explosion until the wings actually hit the building?
Click to expand...

No, I do not agree.
 
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