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.
As previously indicated, I think the above quote by newcomer Lyrandar, adds a lot to this thread and deserves serious consideration from posters who might be inclined to engage in substantive posting, of the type that I always call for.
In this post, I should like to take up the following:
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.
I think the above merely expresses a bias in favor of PLANE SPOTTING but does not contain an adequate basis for granting that bias to PLANE SPOTTING while denying it to NO PLANERS. There are more reasons for PLANE SPOTTING to be inaccurate and more compelling ones at that, than is the case for NO PLANE claims.
The main reason why PLANE SPOTTING is subject to inaccuracy consists in one word:
TEEVEE.
That medium was used to confirm two crashes of Boeing 767s into the Twin Towers on the basis of one video clip.
Recall the words:
"...there's another one..."
Up to that point, there was little information, none reliably sourced, claiming a jetliner had hit the North Tower. Yet, with theteevee imagery that we are discussing in this thread, the claim all of sudden became implanted that two such events had occurred.
We did not have a factual basis for that assertion.
Teevee served to implant a false memory. We saw from the police reports that up until the teevee episode, almost all accounts of what happened centered on a claim of
explosion as had ALL of the accounts in the Dick Oliver videos. There were
0 claims a jetliner had hit the North Tower in the Dick Oliver videos.
Plus, the common storyline of 9/11 fits well within the overall fabric of xenophobia that adversely affects US society. Having Muslims as enemies fits us. Furthermore, once binLaden was fingered, i.e.,
about 2 seconds after the
shadow thingy was shown on teevee, the die was cast.
It then became a patriotic duty to assume alQaeda done it and that was that.
Those factors are deeply influential and serve to create a strong bias in favor of PLANE SPOTTING and an almost PAVLOVIAN resistance to NO PLANE claims as we have seen, for instance, err, how shall we say this, IN THIS THREAD.
Look at this, binLaden blamed on 9/11, as shown in the following replay, occurring as the second explosion is forming and as the nose of shadow thingy is coming out, intact, on the opposite side of where it supposedly had hit the South Tower:
That is graphic, posters, and shows that PLANE SPOTTING is the element that is subject to the influence of undue bias and prejudice.
Looked at forensically, the above photo, from the 9:47 mark of the ALL 43 video, and therefore, one of the last of the clips is vital for confirming falsity.
Look at it, please.
What do you see?
You see the explosion forming on the freakin' NORTH side of the tower BEFORE it even forms on the EAST side, where, as we know, it formed BEFORE it formed a visible explosion at the point of IMPACT.
You are therefore seeing explosions that have nothing whatever to do with a jetliner crash.
Your own eyes are all that is needed to determine that what you are observing in the videos is not a jetliner crash at all.
