• 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.
Macgyver1968 said:
Well...im going to break my rule for posting in this thread just to vote only.

Plane.
Click to expand...

Nice to know you've been lurking, Macgyver, have a nice day. :D

Have you also been looking at the ALL 43 videos, by chance? I hope so. I think you'll find them enlightening:



Do you have any substantive comment on the many instances in which I have cited segments from the ALL 43 video in support of the claims I am making?

I know you know how to post substantively, Macgyver, and I do hope you will choose to engage in that manner at some point in this thread.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
I source and back up my claims with video imagery and witness statements.

For example:

"It was jist an explosion."

Cameraman, David Stollick(sp?) 1:01 of Dick Oliver video # 1
Click to expand...

Cherrypicking someone that didn't see the plane does nothing to dismiss the thousands that did.
 
jammonius said:
Lurkers,

I have not refused to respond to a claim concerning a witness statement. I have responded to that repeated claim in a very definitive and specific way:

I stand by that response.
Click to expand...

Lurkers,

Jamm's definitive response was to run away, crying. He cannot address the eyewitness testimony, so he plugs his ears and pretends it isn't there.

In short, he refuses to respond. That he says otherwise cements him as a fraud.
 
Thunder said:
is this your silent army of truthers?
Click to expand...


Look, you still don't get it, so let me reiterate:

It matters not one jot or iota to me whether people believe in PLANE SPOTTING or in NO PLANE SPOTTING. I am only interested in a review of the database consisting in the ALL 43 video and in having a discussion about that data, that can and should include other data, such as witness statements and references to the published investigatory accounts, such as they are, like the NIST NCSTAR 1 report.

I do not question people's beliefs. If you are a PLANE SPOTTER, then, by all means, maintain your belief AS LONG AS YOU CAN.

AND, VICE VERSA FOR NO PLANERS.

For sake of being candid, I acknowledge that I think the evidence favors NO PLANE rather than PLANE SPOTTING. I will acknowledge for sake of discussion I am a no planer. I do that because it does little good to say that what I actually am is someone who asserts there has not ever been an officially sanctioned, validly formed and adeuquately funded and motivated determination of what happened on 9/11. That is what I actually am, but it is ok to just call me a NO PLANER for sake of discussion.

And, once again, I do not question people's beliefs and do not try to get them to change them.

I do, however, engage in forensic discussion of available evidence.

Witness statements are valid anecdotal evidence when, but only when, the witness statements pass a certain threshold for being considered reliable.

I apply that standard to all statements, not merely those that are of one point of view. No plane statements have to pass the same threshold for reliability as do plane spotter statements.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
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.
Click to expand...

dervie - verb: To pull conclusions regarding observed data from one's nether regions. e.g. I dervie that photo of a jet engine actually shows a Plymouth hubcap. (Feel free to post other examples of dervies here.)

VOTE: PLANES

As for the claim of "thousands of witnesses" I have personally met 2 people here in WNY who were in NYC on business on 9/11 and witnessed the second plane. They have no reason to lie or exaggerate their claims. The probability that I would have met (and discussed said event) with the only 2 people from outside the NYC area to have seen it live is, shall I say, unlikely to say the least. Therefore I can easily extrapolate to say that there were thousands of non-NYC area people who also witnessed one or both of the planes.
 
jammonius said:
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:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/weick509.png?t=1274530942[/qimg]

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:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/356refuteweick.png?t=1274531901[/qimg]

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:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/weick516.png?t=1274530433[/qimg]

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

Do better.
Click to expand...

LMAO! "explosion in the wrong place"
where do you think it should be?
on the island in 'lost'?

why in hell would the jet fuel travelling at 590 mph do a u-turn go out the entry hole?
are you comparing the impact to a plane nose diving into the ground where the explosion has nowhere to go but back out the entry hole?

Frank De Martini was the construction manager of WTC, on 9/11/01 he was 5 floors below impact of aa.11 into WTC1 and felt the building sway 20 feet (his estimation)



only the impact of a LARGE aircraft could cause this huge sway.
come on jammy lets hear your theory on this.


I vote: obviously planes.
 
Well Plane of course the other choice is just 'plain' crazy, lol
 
Last edited:
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