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

[DGM]

I guess I'm at a loss as to why anyone is engaging this troll.

For the most part he's all that's left. If he came on this forum 4 years ago he would have been ignored as nuts and that would be that. This would be because, then there were new theories and "truthers" were plentiful. For all it's worth jammonius is all that's left. You have to admit everything he says is new (bat-crap crazy but new). Plymouth wheel covers as jet engine! It's a train wreck you just can't ignore.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

And you are the best example of this that I have ever seen. I take it you finally realize what you have been saying is utter tripe. Way to go!

 

[Scott Sommers]

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.

I think this is a really good point.

When i first started reading about the Truth Movement, I was confused by the their seeming lack of interest in politics. Here are people claiming the 'government' murders thousands, commands unbelievable technology and follows a command structure not determined by elections. Yet, they hardly seem to care and hardly seem worried for their own personal safety. It made no sense at all.

I have since come to conclude that ideas like Jammi are not folk science. This is not his attempt to reformulate physics or construction engineering. I've come to see these as ideas about expertise and the media. There issue here is really about why anyone would listen to MacKay and Bazant and not him.

 

[hokie]

Jammonius obviously understands that this 9/11 baloney is fading from interest and he is desperately misrepresenting and lying and being a troll in the hopes that this fading silliness will stay of interest. Somehow he took this miserable nonsense to heart and can't let go. The hook is lodged deep in his inability to reason and that is the end of the story for him.

 

[HannibalGroup]

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

Here is the eyewitness testimony once again for Jam. My guess is he will continue to dodge.

 

[fess]

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:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/437halfinnoexplosion.png?t=1274473810[/qimg]

Like I have said before, I won’t call you a liar, mainly because I don’t think you are knowledgeable enough about the subject to lie. You keep posting these video stills that are meaningless trying to prove a point, and instead, prove nothing whatsoever. Your trying to prove your point by showing a B-52 in an out of control crash further proves my point.

In your above video still, you state that the aircraft is half way into the building; that is totally false. In fact, the aircraft is about 1/3 into the building. The wings have not entered at the moment this still was captured. Knowing where the fuel is stored in the aircraft, how could a fuel explosion take place?

Even as the wings contact the building, you can’t expect the explosion to take place immediately because the fuel is well outside of its LEL/UEL limits. In fact, you seem to forget that this whole sequence of events from the time of the original contact with the building, to the time of the explosion, was less than one second! Your video stills don’t show that time frame… do they?

 

[cyclonic]

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?

Poor,poor little ole jammy jamm, unable to debunk steve wrights enhanced video of the 'ghost' plane impacting WTC2 he does the twoofer shuffle and attacks Ron Wieck instead.
jamm think carefully about the following quotation and get help.

"The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four is suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you."

its you jamm, it really is you.

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

OK Jammonius, do you agree that jet fuel needs oxygen to burn or explode, and that it would take (a small amount of) time for the fuel to mix with the oxygen in the air?

 

[fitzgibbon]

For the most part he's all that's left. If he came on this forum 4 years ago he would have been ignored as nuts and that would be that.

I agree and I think that's the crux of things. He's clearly presenting arguments and 'evidence' that would make a Bellevue inmate blush. Truthfully (so to speak), I think jammonius is just phoning this stuff in. Why I can't begin to guess. He clearly doesn't actually believe any of the tripe he posts.

For all it's worth jammonius is all that's left.

Our own little Dodo.

You have to admit everything he says is new (bat-crap crazy but new). Plymouth wheel covers as jet engine! It's a train wreck you just can't ignore.

This is one of those occasions where "new" doesn't translate to "better". Kind of like New Coke©.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Jammonius obviously understands that this 9/11 baloney is fading from interest and he is desperately misrepresenting and lying and being a troll in the hopes that this fading silliness will stay of interest.

The logic of trolling here as a method of generating interest in twoofery in the real world outside the confines of this sub-forum strikes me as pissing into the wind. Nine years after the event, every twoofer argument I've ever seen has its own thread and anyone new to the board could have their posts addressed with a link to the requisite thread.

That isn't a movement on life support; that's a corpse.

Somehow he took this miserable nonsense to heart and can't let go. The hook is lodged deep in his inability to reason and that is the end of the story for him.

Nothing a good proctologist couldn't fix.

 

[jammonius]

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.

Posters and Lurkers,

As we are now on a new page, I would like to renew the call for more lurkers to post up, especially, but not only, if you saw or heard or otherwise experienced some aspect of 9/11.

The constant call for lurkers appears to be working rather well. The above quoted post is from someone with 19 posts that comes within the scope of what is meant by "lurkers;" namely, new posters.

Lyrander, welcome to the thread. Your above post adds greatly to the quality and substance of the thread. Now let's take a look at why that is so:

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.

Those who support the common storyline of 9/11 have repeated versions of what I call the hypnotically implanted suggestion* claiming that "...thousands saw zee plane...."

This trance-like demonstration culminated in the declaration that it is not necessary to prove the claim that 1000s saw the plane,** even though the actual, reliable witness statements show that not to be the case.

The same claim was also made in a debunker youtube video that one poster thought we needed to see.***

Point blank: The claim that 1000s saw the plane is false. The reason it is false is that there were no planes there, if by plane we mean Boeing 767 jetliners.

That did not happen and the evidence confirms it did not happen.

What happened was that a PSYOP ensued, employing the latest in military technology in the realm of deception.

Afterall, posters, war is deception. That is what war entails.

Here is a mere representative sampling of posts from just the last couple of pages of posting, starting at pg. 6, claiming, in substance, "1000s saw zee plane":

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5948930&postcount=203
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5949893&postcount=227
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5949911&postcount=229
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5949985&postcount=235
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5950005&postcount=236
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5950020&postcount=237
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5950386&postcount=258
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5955575&postcount=289
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5955711&postcount=294
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5955897&postcount=297

It is precisely in a context like that that your statement makes sense. I, myself, distinguish between eyewitness accounts that are reliably reported and those that are not. Newspaper clips that read like propaganda stories or movie scripts are unreliable because they are motivated by either biases or other ulterior motives where different INTERESTS, including hopes for financial gain, or fame, or both are present.

I rely mostly on either police records, official business records of interviews with first responders, spontaneous utterances in real time video and audio clips, and similar sources that have a rational basis for relying on the source. I also rely on lurkers and posters here.

I assume what people say about 9/11 will be true, even though, in a certain sense, posters are anonymous.

Here are the main sources of witness statements that I consider reliable (there are others, but these are the main ones):

1--

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

The above is the best source of witness statements.


2--

http://adam.pra.to/public/mir/www.th...a-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

3--
The Dick Oliver videos

4--
The Ginny Carr audio

5--
The ALL 43 video

6--
The CM video

In those sources, the number of people who either saw no plane, or report seeing or hearing only an explosion outnumbers those who say they saw a big widebody jetliner and it is not even close.

Plus, the total number of reliable witnesses who report either seeing/hearing or not seeing/hearing a plane is less than 500.

There simply aren't that many reliable witnesses one way or the other.

Eyewitness evidence, for example, is inaccurate relatively frequently compared to scientific conclusions and evidence.

Actually, one needs to be careful here. Scientific conclusions and evidence can be more reliable than eyewitness information, but that is not always true. Furthermore, the most important element here is that scientifc conclusions and evidence still need to either MATCH that for which reliable observations have been made; or, at a minimum, explain and acknowledge when, how and by what means the scientific data do not match the observable data.

Observable data are more important than scientific abstractions, when such abstractions either stand alone, with no observable data backing them, or do not match the data dervied from observed phenomena.

The above is a statement of epistemological preference. I will defend it as needed.

I will address more of your post in other posts and I hope you will choose to broaden the discussion that your excellent post has opened up.

Welcome to the thread.

*http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5949942&postcount=234

**http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5955898&postcount=298

***http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5955483&postcount=281

 

[BigAl]

Posters and Lurkers,

As we are now on a new page, I would like to renew the call for more lurkers to post up, especially, but not only, if you saw or heard or otherwise experienced some aspect of 9/11.

Reported for abusing rule 6.

6. You will not spam, flood or otherwise post in a manner that disrupts the functioning of the Forum, this includes using disruptive formatting in your posts

The constant call for lurkers appears to be working rather well. The above quoted post is from someone with 19 posts that comes within the scope of what is meant by "lurkers;" namely, new posters.

Lyrander, welcome to the thread. Your above post adds greatly to the quality and substance of the thread. Now let's take a look at why that is so:


Those who support the common storyline of 9/11 have repeated versions of what I call the hypnotically implanted suggestion* claiming that "...thousands saw zee plane...."

Thousands of New Yorkers saw a plane hit a tower on the morning of 9/11.

No amount of cherrypicking quotes from people that didn't see a plane can change that fact.

 

[dafydd]

Reported for abusing rule 6.



Thousands of New Yorkers saw a plane hit a tower on the morning of 9/11.

In the real world yes,not in the Jammyverse.

 

[jammonius]

Poor,poor little ole jammy jamm, unable to debunk steve wrights enhanced video of the 'ghost' plane impacting WTC2 he does the twoofer shuffle and attacks Ron Wieck instead.
jamm think carefully about the following quotation and get help.

"The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four is suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you."

its you jamm, it really is you.

Let me see if I can reformulate the above into a proper discussion, absent the hyperbole and the apparent lack of self-esteem, as expressed above, as it relates to the poster.

As ever, whatever a poster says about another poster reflects upon and says something about the person who makes the post and nothing whatever about the other person. In the above quote, Cyclonic is telling us something about Cyclonic.

Separate and apart from what Cyclonic is saying about Cyclonic, here is what I think is being requested of me:

"The video link contains an "enhanced version' of the ghostplane video segment, would you please comment upon that enhanced version because the person who made the enhanced version claims, in the video, in substance, that:

"I've stabilized the shots so that you can see the action better..." 5:00 +/-"

Well, Cyclonic, if that is what you meant to say, then let me address that as follows.

In the next sequence, following the assertion of "stabilization of video" the person narrating (and I didn't get his name, but I'm sure that the debunkers who might be lurking can provide the person's name), shows that he has done more than "stabilize" the video. He has, in fact, cropped it and distorted it. By virtue of the changes made to the video, its reliability has been put into question. He has literally altered the data and thus engaged in deception.

Finally, in this respect, I must say that I am not at all sure that "stabilization" has resulted in better quality video. Frankly, if you look at the ALL 43 version segment (beginning at 3:54) I think you'll see the ALL 43 version is clearer.

Furthermore, in his narration he makes false claims about what is seen. He claims we can see "debris" when, in fact, what we see is paper:

The paper seen is not at all consistent with a jetliner explosion and what is seen cannot be said to be jetliner debris, merely because there is a fireball with some semblance of debris coming from it. Your narrator, Cyclonic, is engaging in blatant and wanton deception and I, quite frankly, am surprised you take pride in a video of that nature. It is FUBAR and reflects very, very badly upon the debunker community, imho, especially if you think you gain something by calling attention to it.

Further, the narrator does not mention, as I have, that the explosion develops first and most rapidly on the east face and not at the point of impact. That fact is important for being able to say, with certainty, that the observable data do not comport with the claim a jetliner crashed into that tower.

The explosion is, literally, in the wrong place.

Here is a segment from the ALL 43 version that may confirm that the debunker who "stabilized" the video also falsified it. One can clearly see in the ALL 43 version that the explosion develops first and more rapidly and is larger in the wrong place, namely, on the east face and not at the point of impact. Plus, this version is clearer than the cropped or altered one:

The cropping in the photo from the debunker video serves to minimize the fact that the fireball develops first and more rapidly on the side opposite that of impact.

Furthermore, the plane is still seen not degrading or twisting or slowing, even in the so-called "enhanced" version, which doesn't really enhance the video; rather, it obscures the fact that the tail section is still intact:

Cyclonic, your attempt at rehabilitation of PLANE SPOTTING, by reliance upon a faked and deceptive debunker video, fails and fails utterly.

Do better.

 

[HannibalGroup]

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

I was at the WTC on 9/11.

I witnessed the entire chain of events.

I wrote a summary of what I saw for Gravy's WTC7 paper. I'll post it here (its a little long though):

I saw both planes hit. I would commute from NJ. Sometimes I'd take the PATH train from Hoboken, on nice days I'd take the ferry. 9/11 was a beautiful morning, and I took the ferry. I got off the ferry at the World financial center and began walking to my office on 45 Broadway. To do this, you have to walk DIRECTLY toward WTC1 As I was walking I heard a jets roar. I looked up. Now [feel free to delete this if it will make CT’ers take it out of context] I expected it to me some sort of military plane since every now and then military jets do fly down the Hudson river. IT WAS NOT. I saw a huge jetliner fly over me and SLAM IN TO THE TOWER!!! I had a PERFECT vantage point. Even then, I couldn’t actually process what I had seen. I kept thinking it couldn’t have been an American Airlines plane, sure that’s what I saw, but it just couldn’t have been. It had to be something else.

I didn't know what to do. Should I get back on the ferry and go home or should I go to my office? I went to my office. I found a group of co-workers standing behind our building on Greenwich and Rector street looking at the burning building, and we started talking about what happened. Some saw the crash, and some just saw the fire. The ones that didn't see the crash didn't believe me and those of us that did see it that it was a jetliner. They assumed, as I did before I saw the plane, that it was a private or military plane. They couldn't imagine it was a jetliner. Of course, they didn't actually see what I and the others did.

We all thought it had to be an accident. I was talking about how the buildings are designed to survive a hit like this and how it would be OK.

Smoke was pouring out, debris was flying everywhere, we were joking around saying its like Godzilla has attacked. We were all looking up at the towers. From our vantage point we had a perfect view of both towers (google map 45 Broadway and you'll see where I was).

It was then when the second plane flew over us and slammed in to the south tower. The force of the blast knocked a couple of people standing with to the ground.

 

[BigAl]

Let me see if I can reformulate the above into a proper discussion, absent the hyperbole and the apparent lack of self-esteem, as expressed above, as it relates to the poster.

Thousands of New Yorkers saw a plane hit a tower on the morning of 9/11.

No amount of cherrypicking quotes from people that didn't see a plane can change that fact.

 

[jammonius]

OK Jammonius, do you agree that jet fuel needs oxygen to burn or explode, and that it would take (a small amount of) time for the fuel to mix with the oxygen in the air?

You are new, so you apparently can be forgiven for not knowing that I do not engage in "20 questions" with posters. If you want to make a claim about when, where, how or in what manner the explosion should have occurred at the South Tower, MattTheTubaGuy, then, please, by all means do it.

I do not play 20 question BS games or otherwise engage in stupid "gotcha" games in posting.

I am not in a class being taught by you and even if you were a teacher and I a student, I'd take the class from someone else because your teaching style is boring to me.

If there is anything unclear about my suggestion you post up substantive claims and conclusions of your own, absent the "sit in the chair and answer by questions" control tactic, then let me know and I will clarify for you, if I can.

 

[HannibalGroup]

You are new, so you apparently can be forgiven for not knowing that I do not answer any questions.

Fixed that for you. Now go get a juice and sit in time out.

Bad student.

 

[jammonius]

The statement quoted in post #335 is unreliable and does not qualify as evidence and I do not accept it as a valid witness account. That said posters and lurkers here know that it is my practice to take what posters themselves post up as to their experience at face value. I do not challenge them or seek to refute them. At most, I will ask them questions to clarify certain things, if they are inclined to do so. I always give them the option of just leaving their statements as they are.

So, if whosoever the person is who posted up the quote in post # 335 would post it up under their own name in their own post, I will consider it to be just like any other poster account of what happened. But, in the absence of that, I do not accept secondhand sourcing of that nature.

So far, my request for posters to post up what they saw and heard has resulted in several valid responses.

Two recent examples of this of posters in this very forum are:


foolmewunz
BillyRayValentine

 

[HannibalGroup]

The statement quoted in post #335 is unreliable and does not qualify as evidence and I do not accept it as a valid witness account.

That's a dodge. You fail, miserably. Leapheart is crying in his cell - you are letting him down.