You cannot prove the above statement. As a statement of belief, you are welcome to stick with it as long as you can.
-
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?
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
-
- Tags
- no plane theory no planes
- Status
You cannot prove the above statement. As a statement of belief, you are welcome to stick with it as long as you can.
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
I agree, JREF members are exposing your severe lack of intellect and reasoning ability. Although I'm not sure if that is at all important.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
I know one office that had just about its entire staff watching out the windows when the second plane hit. That's about 100 people on 3 floors of a single nearby building. The ones I talked to (that same morning) clearly saw the plane approach and impact. You don't think the most of the other people in that building (40+ stories) and the dozens of other tall buildings surrounding the WTC were watching? It's absurd to think that there weren't thousands of witnesses.
HannibalGroup
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 153
It is noted that again that the coward Jammonius runs in fear from the post of a direct eyewitness.
Liar and fraud, he is. Perhaps he is getting his instructions from the ex-lawyer Leapheart, now awaiting trial?
Liar and fraud, he is. Perhaps he is getting his instructions from the ex-lawyer Leapheart, now awaiting trial?
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
jammonius, are you saying that no one, not a single person, first-handedly witnessed an actual airplane impact WTC2?
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Hypnosis? What hypnosis?Who hypnotized who? This is pure babble from the looney bin,it's about time this thread was brought to a close.
my aunt and my neighbor saw the 2nd plane hit.
and i saw my neighbor's photos of the plane approaching and hitting the tower. this was in early 2002.
Last edited:
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Thousands of people saw a plane hit a towers.
Most residents of lower Manhattan, many hundreds of thousands people, know one or more of those people.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Not to mention the fact, how else would people describe the sound of a plane hitting a building then exploding. A rational person might describe the sound as an "explosion". Jammonius thinks describing it that way could only mean bomb. Another issue jammonius refuses to address.
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Wrong again.
My knowledge is based on first-hand observation. That would be an instance of the primary definition of "empirical."
I totally agree. Unfortunately, this means that interacting with jammonius is unproductive, except as a study of the effect.
I have noted this elsewhere.
Is there anyone posting here, who, if essentially everyone told you that you were wrong about something, wouldn't at least consider the possibility?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I can say for myself, it usually only takes one.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
What you fail to understand is I don't need to prove anything. It is you who is making absurd claims, not I.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Keep telling Jammonious that,it might sink in one day.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
And that alone, aside from the thousand other reasons, is why the No Planers are just,plain, Batcrap Crazy.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
OK, posters and lurkers,
There's no point in my getting derailed with posters who 'believe" there were 1000s of witnesses. They base those claims on "belief" and posters are free to believe there were 1000s of witnesses as long as they can, no problem.
Meanwhile, back to empiricism.
Here are 18 and 19 from ALL 43:
18
18 is interesting because there is some sound, but the sound is not consistent with a Boeing 767 @ 550mph.
19
This one is interesting because the shape of shadow thingy is long and slender, not fat as seen in some other versions. Also, it doesn't explode upon impact. Here it is half-way through, no problem:
Or, as noted in the video that Cyclonic referred us to in post #273 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5952819&postcount=273
I'd say the observable data validates that claim.
There's no point in my getting derailed with posters who 'believe" there were 1000s of witnesses. They base those claims on "belief" and posters are free to believe there were 1000s of witnesses as long as they can, no problem.
Meanwhile, back to empiricism.
Here are 18 and 19 from ALL 43:
18
18 is interesting because there is some sound, but the sound is not consistent with a Boeing 767 @ 550mph.
19
This one is interesting because the shape of shadow thingy is long and slender, not fat as seen in some other versions. Also, it doesn't explode upon impact. Here it is half-way through, no problem:
Or, as noted in the video that Cyclonic referred us to in post #273 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5952819&postcount=273
I'd say the observable data validates that claim.
Last edited:
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
I guess I'm at a loss as to why anyone is engaging this troll. If he had new information or a novel take on the existing info, it'd be understandable. But this thread (and its predecessors) have been examples of chasing one's tail in trying to get an honest answer from jammonius.
At this point, I should think it's self-evident that he isn't here for discussion; just baiting and trolling. What great good is being served in responding to this textbook example of mental masturbation?
At this point, I should think it's self-evident that he isn't here for discussion; just baiting and trolling. What great good is being served in responding to this textbook example of mental masturbation?
Lyrandar
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2010
- Messages
- 211
I'm just going to share an interesting tidbit from a basic psychology class I took: People's perception is rarely as good as they think it is. Eyewitness evidence, for example, is inaccurate relatively frequently compared to scientific conclusions and evidence. This doesn't mean that people that say they did or didn't see a plane are necessarily wrong, only that we need to take their claims with a grain of salt. Those people that say they saw no plane or heard something that didn't sound like a plane - do we know they were looking in the right place at the right time to see as the plane flew above them? Do we know that they know exactly what a jetliner sounds like, even if there was some type of distortion or echo effects from the environment? The people that saw a plane - from how far away, for how long? In general, I choose to trust the people that say they saw a plane. Their potential failure points seem fairly unlikely, whereas it is relatively easy to find a plausible reason why someone that didn't notice a plane could have missed it.
This video evidence of 9/11 that jammonius is focusing on is vulnerable to similar problems, namely that people tend not to realize what extraordinary or unusual events are supposed to look like. Movies and television are not good sources for this. Even actual crash/collision tests or other crashes are only good sources for comparison if the parameters are similar - size and strength of the barrier and the speed of the crashing object. Most of jammonius' examples have featured stronger barricades being hit at lower speeds - with those as a comparison, his assumption that the WTC should have stopped the jetliner is not really surprising (although still erroneous). This also applies to people saying that it didn't look/sound like a jetliner hitting a building - have any of them actually seen it happen before? In most cases, the answer is no. On top of that, with video evidence, the limits of the technology used needs to be taken into account - it can introduce minor inconsistencies like video artifacts obscuring sound or images whose presence is expected. While it is possible that these sounds or images are not in fact present, it is much more likely that their absence is due to the recording technology.
Now that I'm done amusing myself by talking to myself (since jammonius isn't going to listen), I'll finish by saying that jammonius appears to believe in some massive conspiracy that can successfully dupe 95% of the world, getting many very tricky details exactly correct, while still screwing up such incredibly obvious details as he seems to think are present. This strikes me as unlikely.
I'll just go back to lurking now. Not sure why I bothered in the first place; these points have been brought up before.
This video evidence of 9/11 that jammonius is focusing on is vulnerable to similar problems, namely that people tend not to realize what extraordinary or unusual events are supposed to look like. Movies and television are not good sources for this. Even actual crash/collision tests or other crashes are only good sources for comparison if the parameters are similar - size and strength of the barrier and the speed of the crashing object. Most of jammonius' examples have featured stronger barricades being hit at lower speeds - with those as a comparison, his assumption that the WTC should have stopped the jetliner is not really surprising (although still erroneous). This also applies to people saying that it didn't look/sound like a jetliner hitting a building - have any of them actually seen it happen before? In most cases, the answer is no. On top of that, with video evidence, the limits of the technology used needs to be taken into account - it can introduce minor inconsistencies like video artifacts obscuring sound or images whose presence is expected. While it is possible that these sounds or images are not in fact present, it is much more likely that their absence is due to the recording technology.
Now that I'm done amusing myself by talking to myself (since jammonius isn't going to listen), I'll finish by saying that jammonius appears to believe in some massive conspiracy that can successfully dupe 95% of the world, getting many very tricky details exactly correct, while still screwing up such incredibly obvious details as he seems to think are present. This strikes me as unlikely.
I'll just go back to lurking now. Not sure why I bothered in the first place; these points have been brought up before.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
We believe thousands of people seen 175 crash because it is a fact, one that you cannot refute and it cuts to the heart of your hallucination.
- Status