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

[jammonius]

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.

The content and the quality of the above cited videos is atrocious. If Lapman has any ounce of objectivity at all, one should expect a reply that will categorically reject as phony and lame each of the said videos.

Here are representative samples:

Weick claims "...everyone knows someone who saw the plane hit..."
That is stupidly false and sets the tone for the remainder of the video that serves no useful purpose, debunks nothing and is, instead, a poor piece of propaganda. If that is the sort of thing debunkers rely on, cite and take pride in, then I feel sorry for debunkers.

Let me doublecheck for accuracy: Do debunkers take pride in that video? Is that one of your key sources for claiming the common storyline of 9/11 as it relates to the South Tower is true?


What is interesting about the next stupid video, excerpts below, is that the first two slides shown below contain accurate statements. As to the third slide's content, well, once again, is that indicative of the best debunkers can do? I hope not.

What follows the above is an experiment showing a mock-up of an old jetfighter tied down on a rail and apparently powered by an external rocket that then crashes into a barrier and explodes on impact, where it should explode, thus confirming the animation of the South Tower explosion is phony.

A tethered and tied down mock up of a plane serves no other useful analogy to the conditions of 9/11 other than to note the plane thingy does not penetrate the concrete barrier, and, instead, explodes and disintegrates upon impact, which is what shadow thingy should have, but did not, do.

Note the explosion is at the point of impact and is larger than the secondary explosion off to the side. In the Shadow thingy version, the explosion development is completely opposite, where the explosion on the side develops first and expands faster, while the explosion at the point of impact is a mere afterthought. Clearly, the animation and the pyrotechical display contained a programming error in the 9/11 PSYOP.

Even poor, quality, stupid debunker videos show that much.

Do better. The video relied on by debunkers is next to worthless.

 

[aggle-rithm]

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.

Good to put a name on it, although I'll surely forget.

Probably related to the saying, "ignorance breeds confidence far more than knowledge does."

 

[HannibalGroup]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2041454#post2041454

 

[BigAl]

The content and the quality of the above cited videos is atrocious. If Lapman has any ounce of objectivity at all, one should expect a reply that will categorically reject as phony and lame each of the said videos.

Here are representative samples:


[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/weick.png?t=1274445329[/qimg]
Weick claims "...everyone knows someone who saw the plane hit...".

For people that lived or worked in lower Manhattan, it's close to being literally true.

 

[jammonius]

Good to put a name on it, although I'll surely forget.

Probably related to the saying, "ignorance breeds confidence far more than knowledge does."

Let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding:

Have you considered the quotation you cite above in the context of belief in the common storyline of 9/11?

..."ignorance breeds confidence far more than knowledge does..."


Come on posters and lurkers, think this through.

 

[jammonius]

For people that lived or worked in lower Manhattan, it's close to being literally true.

The only way in which it can be considered to be close to being literally true, BigAl, is in the context of what the witnesses actually said, which is best summarized, perhaps, by Our David Stollick:

It was jist an explosion

In accord are:

Internal explosion

Bomb

 

[jammonius]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2041454#post2041454

That is an old thread. Is there something you wish to point to in some substantive way or another. Do you have something you want to lay a claim to that supports whatever point you're trying to make?

If so come right out and scream it.

 

[dafydd]

Let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding:

Have you considered the quotation you cite above in the context of belief in the common storyline of 9/11?

..."ignorance breeds confidence far more than knowledge does..."


Come on posters and lurkers, think this through.

A classic Dunning–Kruger effect response.You are a fascinating case.

 

[BigAl]

The only way in which it can be considered to be close to being literally true, BigAl, is in the context of what the witnesses actually said, which is best summarized, perhaps, by Our David Stollick:

It was jist an explosion

Your response is irrelevant.

Most people that lived or worked in lower Manhattan know someone that saw a plane hit a tower.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Careful Jammo, the dead horse is getting pretty annoyed at all the flogging........

 

[sheeplesnshills]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

A follow-up study suggests that grossly incompetent students improve both their skill level and their ability to estimate their class rank only after extensive tutoring in the skills they had previously lacked.

Unfortunately since jammo will not, or can do, any of the work to prove his assertions nor accept the help of those of us who have tried to guide him step by step, there is little hope for him to have an epiphany and realize how utterly moronic his position is.

 

[triforcharity]

The content and the quality of the above cited videos is atrocious. If Lapman has any ounce of objectivity at all, one should expect a reply that will categorically reject as phony and lame each of the said videos.

Here are representative samples:


[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/weick.png?t=1274445329[/qimg]
Weick claims "...everyone knows someone who saw the plane hit..."
That is stupidly false and sets the tone for the remainder of the video that serves no useful purpose, debunks nothing and is, instead, a poor piece of propaganda. If that is the sort of thing debunkers rely on, cite and take pride in, then I feel sorry for debunkers.

Let me doublecheck for accuracy: Do debunkers take pride in that video? Is that one of your key sources for claiming the common storyline of 9/11 as it relates to the South Tower is true?


What is interesting about the next stupid video, excerpts below, is that the first two slides shown below contain accurate statements. As to the third slide's content, well, once again, is that indicative of the best debunkers can do? I hope not.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/weickacequote.png?t=1274446275[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/weickacequote2.png?t=1274445201[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/weickacequote3.png?t=1274445266[/qimg]


What follows the above is an experiment showing a mock-up of an old jetfighter tied down on a rail and apparently powered by an external rocket that then crashes into a barrier and explodes on impact, where it should explode, thus confirming the animation of the South Tower explosion is phony.

A tethered and tied down mock up of a plane serves no other useful analogy to the conditions of 9/11 other than to note the plane thingy does not penetrate the concrete barrier, and, instead, explodes and disintegrates upon impact, which is what shadow thingy should have, but did not, do.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/weickjetonrail9KEY.png?t=1274445870[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/weickjetonrail8KEY.png?t=1274445942[/qimg]

Note the explosion is at the point of impact and is larger than the secondary explosion off to the side. In the Shadow thingy version, the explosion development is completely opposite, where the explosion on the side develops first and expands faster, while the explosion at the point of impact is a mere afterthought. Clearly, the animation and the pyrotechical display contained a programming error in the 9/11 PSYOP.

Even poor, quality, stupid debunker videos show that much.

Do better. The video relied on by debunkers is next to worthless.

I feel sorry for you. I really do. To be so ignorant about....well.....everything must be painful.

The video of the jet is a demonstration of how the CONCRETE works to stop an attack.

It is NOT a demonstration on how the plane explodes.

Nice strawman though.

 

[triforcharity]

Jammo,

Why do you believe that the impact should have IMMEDIATELY caused a fireball? Did Boeing start putting fuel tanks in the nose, and told nobody?

Care to take a stab at your idiotic conclusion?

 

[TJM]

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
[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/17-anotherlefttorightdifferentappro.png?t=1274442362[/qimg]

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.

Yes, let's keep posting crappy YouTube screen grabs and ignore the thousands of people who seen it with their own eyes. Good job.

 

[HannibalGroup]

That is an old thread. Is there something you wish to point to in some substantive way or another. Do you have something you want to lay a claim to that supports whatever point you're trying to make?

If so come right out and scream it.

That is not a link to a 'thread'. it is a link to a 'post'. (Educate yourself and learn the difference.) The post is from an eyewitness to both planes impacting. You have been shown this before and you ignored it like a coward.

Address this 'old post'. In short, do better.

The crazy Wood and the prisoner Leapheart are counting on you.

 

[jammonius]

Your response is irrelevant.

Most people that lived or worked in lower Manhattan know someone that saw a plane hit a tower.

BigAl,

The above is nothing short of obstinate. Even our own eyewitness posters, of which I, myself, am responsible for requesting and obtaining posts from them, based on my constant call for Lurkers to post up, have shown that what people actually saw was an explosion.

jr343
foolmewunz
BillyRayValentine

True, in the case of foolmewunz he thought he saw a plane, but didn't know what kind. In BillyRayValentine's case, a poster who posted his eyewitness account only a matter of a few days ago is quite clear in saying he didn't hear anything in connection with the North Tower and his statement about the South Tower speaks for itself. His description of "seeing" a plane is tentative while his description of the explosion and fireball is definite and clear.

jr343 didn't see any planes and didn't think he heard any.

We also have <60 pgs of DICK OLIVER postings showing that those who were actually present saw and heard an explosion and did not see or hear a plane, let alone a Boeing 767 @ 500mph+/-

It is absolutely absurd for you to continue with your mantra that is suggestive of hypnosis at best and ignorance at worst. What you are saying is not borne out by the actual witnesses.

Even the police dispatch statements repeat over and over again that people called in saying they saw and heard an explosion:

See;

http://adam.pra.to/public/mir/www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/

Police Reports, Group 1
100 pages, 9.1 megs

Police Reports, Group 2
98 pages, 10.6 megs

Police Reports, Group 3
100 pages, 8.8 megs

Police Reports, Group 4
94 pages, 7.9 megs

All you have to do is look at the actual reports and you'll see those saying "explosion' out number those saying "plane" or "small plane" or "missile" or some such by a very wide margin. These are your actual, spontaneous witnesses, reporting what they saw and heard to the police.

Posters and lurkers, please post up what you actually saw, if you were present and if you saw or heard something. As for the statement found at post # 160 at this link, I invite posters here to review it and to make note of how unverifiable and troubling it actually is. That is not a valid witness statement, imho.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...54#post2041454

However, if proponents of that statement want to actually post up its text and say something meaningful or substantive about it, rather that just provide a page link (that is not a link to a specific post) then little else needs to be said. OK, you claim there's a witness to BOTH explosions, something that is actually not that common; however jr343 is one exception whose statement is high specific and highly credible. jr343's statement is also based on a factual narrative and not a propaganda story.

Here's what jr343 had to say, once again:

Yesterday, 11:56 PM
Post #157



Intern


Group: Members
Posts: 88
Joined: 3-February 05
Member No.: 15,080



Ear witness,,, ok this is where I can testify...

I was just off of the corner of rector street and trinity walking east towards broadway and i heard ( didnt see) the impact but what i heard was a sound to describe as a quick " zhoop - crack - boom " all of which where about one second long each and a slight pause in between all of maybe the same length. Dont know what it means its just the way i remeber it.

I am no expert on what it is suppose to sound like however i have been to enough airshows to know that a jet approaching you very fast you will not hear until it is upon you or past you.

In my opinion I thought that a jetliner of those size engines would have been louder and in my mind the sound i heard was from a fighter jet or smaller than commercial size engine. But then again I have never heard a jet going allegedly that fast from any distance so i cannot debate the differences.

The first impact wasnt actually that forceful to me on the outside as much as the second one. The second one I was outside nyse on wall and it was so powerful that it rattled my head blurry for a second or 2.

Just for information..

Note, too, that there are probably Pentagon witnesses as well. However, they are most likely under a gag order, being in the military and all.

As for Shanksville; well, we've already devoted, what, 40 pages to that and it is quite clear there is little or no verifiable, valid evidence of any Boeing 757 crash there at all. All there is consists in shoddy evidence and one contradiction and deception after another.

Has the effect of hypnosis started wearing off yet?

 

[TJM]

The fact still remains that there are thousands who seen it with their own eyes.

 

[BigAl]

BigAl,

The above is nothing short of obstinate. Even our own eyewitness posters, of which I, myself, am responsible for requesting and obtaining posts from them, based on my constant call for Lurkers to post up, have shown that what people actually saw was an explosion.

Which has nothing to do the fact that most people that live or work in lower Manhattan know someone that saw a plane ht a tower.

The vast majority of eyewitnesses were never quoted in the press or on video.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

and on jammo flog and flogs.....convincing no one........

Get your Jammo tee shirt here www.deviantart.com

 

[jammonius]

Which has nothing to do the fact that most people that live or work in lower Manhattan know someone that saw a plane ht a tower.

The vast majority of eyewitnesses were never quoted in the press or on video.

OK, Posters and Lurkers alike, this is crucial and vital.

In the above post, we now have a solid demonstration of what I've been saying all along; namely, people's beliefs about 9/11 have little to do with reason, rational thought and/or reality.

Our BigAl states:

"...The vast majority of eyewitnesses were never quoted in the press or on video..."

That is obviously a statement that contains a strong inference of reliance upon belief and/or faith-based reasoning. Missing from that statement is a reliance upon emipiricism. Therein lies the difference in approach.

I am here basing all claims on what the database of information, namely, the ALL 43 videos show; as well as actual, verifiable witness statements, as opposed to newspaper bs, or other unreliable sources of statements about what witnesses claim to have said, or seen. I have also been quite clear in saying I do not challenge what people "believe" as beliefs are personal. I am also not here seeking to convince anyone of anything. Rather, from my perspective, this is an exercise in empiricism. "What does the actual informational database reveal;" that is the question.

BigAl, on the other hand, has jumped right into a faith-based position and declares there are witnesses, just because that is what is believed, and, by the content of BigAl's highlighted statement, verification is simply not essential. OK, BigAl, if that is what you believe fine; I do not challenge people's beliefs. Furthermore, if you "believe' Boeing 767 jetliners hit the Twin Towers, and I am sure you do believe that, please know I am not challenging your beliefs along those lines.

OK, posters and lurkers, this thread is obviously one that is capable of revealing important information.

When I can, I will next post up video # 18.

all the best