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

[phunk]

What are the odds on Jammonious ever answering a straightforward question with a straightforward answer? Any bookmakers here?

What are the odds he'll find some nonsense reason to dismiss Cyclonic's last post? I bet he does.

 

[aggle-rithm]

During this time, I looked for signs of distress. I was trying to observe the plane, as closely as I could for smoke, fire, or any type of vapor trail. There was none. The landing gear was up and the doors that house the gear closed.

No, no, no! What he saw was a shadowy blob with the landing gear up, a common sight over Manhattan.

 

[TJM]

What are the odds he'll find some nonsense reason to dismiss Cyclonic's last post? I bet he does.

Tactic #1: Toss a word salad at it and hope somebody latches onto another point, thus taking the heat off, or

Tactic #2: Ignore it all together and hope it goes away, along with questions like:

• Why weren't there any broadcast quality shots of Flights 11 & 77 hitting their targets?

• Why did an apparent hologram crash in Pennsylvania?

• Why wasn't the Pentagon destroyed by the DEW?

And so on.

 

[cyclonic]

He thinks that the DEW that dustified the towers is also used to create crop circles,lol.he claims he was levitated in one circle.

 

[GlennB]

What are the odds on Jammonious ever answering a straightforward question with a straightforward answer? Any bookmakers here?

Yes, but only on an amateur level.
But bookmakers mostly stick to non-insane areas. Boxing comes close to insane, and they hate that.

I was going to ask jammonius why it should be surprising that videos that don't include sound have <gasp> an inaudible plane. But then I realised it would be insane.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

... I'm not sure it's merely questioning the plane accounts that is causing other posters to act dismissively. I mean, I've also been pointing out that there are potential failure points in the plane accounts. I think the judgment calls you're making about how likely the plane accounts are false is what makes people treat you poorly.

While that's certainly a component of that (as well as the last straw that caused me to put him on ignore), the majority of the dismissive treatment he's getting is due to his history; back in 2008 we dealt exhaustively with another of his claims in the "Ground Zero is flat" thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115033

Even then, he was using many of the same obsfucative stunts he was using back then. His entire posting style as well as his individual spins on the evidence is nothing more than argumentum ad legerdemain. And it's become tiresome to point out the problems over and over again.

On top of that, he's chosen a particularly stupid stance to throw at people here: The "No plane" one. On the hierarchy of "respectability", that places real low, and it's precisely because of the insanity in claiming that thousands of Manhattanites didn't see what they've all claimed they saw. You have to be particularly oblivious to think about taking that stance. Either that, or you're looking to deliberately provoke a reaction, and some of us think that's actually the case with Jam. Regardless, no plane trutherism doesn't even achieve the level of con artistry that other types do. The "best" of them try to take honest irregularities in the details and make that out to be damning of the entire narrative; that's sort of like someone pointing out that real world inheritance traits don't actually follow the strict patterns that Gregor Mendel set out, therefore the entire field needs to be redone from the beginning. Some are just subtle enough to leave it at that. Others push too far and try to substitute a sort of "Lysenkoism" version of history. Jam here doesn't even follow that pattern; his dribble is more akin to saying that Mendel proved Lysenko's theses. And saying that people who sighted a plane didn't sight a plane is exactly that very type of "black-is-really-white" stance, which is so ridiculous that many here who respect both logic and honesty get annoyed and resort to sarcasm and riducule. He brings it on himself.

So yes, people do get very short and dismissive of Jammonius and his claims. And part of it is indeed because of what you identified - he certainly does know how to put a unique spin on things - but a great deal of it is from some here having experienced the "GZ is flat" thread in real time. Many here, myself included, already tried to communicate sanely and fairly with him, but we never got reciprocation. We only got a parody of that. And that's why many of us have reached the conclusion that his clowning is simply that: Clowning, and not honest argument. It's more that he's been doing this for years now, and less the actual acts themselves.

 

[Drs_Res]

Tom Callan:
I was watching Good Morning America when a news bulletin came on saying that a plane had apparently crashed into the World Trade Center. I stared at the image on the screen for about a minute, not believing. My brain finally kicked in and I grabbed my camera bag and ran to the Brooklyn Heights Promenade, about five blocks away. Papers, hundreds of them, were floating through the air. As I ran, I switched from a wide angle to a 300MM. From the corner of my eye, I saw a huge aircraft approaching the South Tower at a ridiculously low altitude. As I raised my camera to my eye, the South Tower erupted in a ball of flames.

I do not accept the above as a witness statement as it is unclear whether it is that of the poster or something someone copied and pasted from a newspaper. Please clarify so that the same standards as are applicable to any other witness statement may be applied to the above to determine whether it is sufficiently reliabel or not.

thanks

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/voices02.htm

 

[DGM]

I was going to ask jammonius why it should be surprising that videos that don't include sound have <gasp> an inaudible plane. But then I realised it would be insane.

The question I'd like to see answered is how should the sound of a plane hitting the towers be described. For some reason he thinks that an "explosion" is not an option.

 

[jammonius]

...

Now, once again, without multiple paragraphs filled with word meaningless salad, would you please answer a few questions? I will keep these questions as simple as I can so as to not confuse you any further.

What experience so you have in air crash investigation, and where did you receive this training?

NO, I will not answer your gotcha questions. Look, this is simple. You are not allowed to use the Q&A process to use me to make claims you want to make and can make on your own.

If, for instance, you want to establish that certain expertise helps in explaining the apparent crashes seen on teevee on 9/11, do that.

If, for another instance, you want to establish that you have such credentials and you find them invaluable in enabling you to make such and such claims about the apparent crash dynamics associated with 9/11, then do that.

If you disagree with what I claim then come right out and scream it.

But, as to stupid gotcha games, I do not play them, either as Questioner (Torquemada) or as Answerer (poor converso).

If there's any part of I do not play gotcha games, in either its '20 questions' version or any other version, that you still fail to grasp, then do let me know and I will clarify as patiently as I can under the circumstances.

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

Your question is not phrased so as to match the observable data, imho.

First of all, it is apparent Edna Cintron is standing there. So, the issue of her having survived is established. I don't think it appropriate to take us off onto a wild goose chase; rather, we need to focus on the fact that her standing where a Boeing 767 is supposed to have crashed falsifies that claim. That is especially true when one considers there was no debris outside, so the common storyline mandates that all the debris was inside.

Yet, there stands Edna Cintron.

I have elsewhere said the explosion was pyrotechnical in nature, meaning it was designed so as to look like a plane hit it, making it even more phony and consistent, not with a plane crash site in actuality, but rather, more consistent with a cartoon:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/road_runner2.jpg?t=1274699686[/qimg]

you didn't answer my question. how could Edna Cindron survive the explosion that was seen?

 

[CORed]

Your question is not phrased so as to match the observable data, imho.

First of all, it is apparent Edna Cintron is standing there. So, the issue of her having survived is established. I don't think it appropriate to take us off onto a wild goose chase; rather, we need to focus on the fact that her standing where a Boeing 767 is supposed to have crashed falsifies that claim. That is especially true when one considers there was no debris outside, so the common storyline mandates that all the debris was inside.

Yet, there stands Edna Cintron.

I have elsewhere said the explosion was pyrotechnical in nature, meaning it was designed so as to look like a plane hit it, making it even more phony and consistent, not with a plane crash site in actuality, but rather, more consistent with a cartoon:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/road_runner2.jpg?t=1274699686[/qimg]

Unless of course, Edna walked to the hole from somewhere else after the impact.

 

[jammonius]

Post # 534 is a cheap screen grab from a well-known debunker website. That website is of extremely poor quality when it comes to sourcing of data.

For instance, the claim associated with this photo is, as indicated, TNT teevee. The photo is, in actuality, a study in desparation. That little teevee screen grab is one of the very few instances in which a claim is made that a piece of debris is identified by part number.

That little ditty is not a part of any investigation and, as seen in the photo itself, that photo does not show a darn thing that can be said, based on content, that it has anything at all to do with a jetliner crash on 9/11 or on any other day.

Look at it, lurkers, and ask yourselves, what on earth does it have to do with 9/11 that can be established on the basis of the image?

The answer is nothing at all.

Everything associated with that image is manufactured in, by and for debunkers with agendas and has nothing at all to do with any investigation of 9/11, such as there were, that exist and is not a part of any determination of what happened at all.

In short, this is not evidence:

I, myself, have posted the following photograph several times, maybe even in this thread, and certainly in the Dick Oliver ones.

It is to be recalled, the photo was used in the NIST report with language that made it quite clear NIST did not know where it came from and made no findings that it was authentic.

I also posted photos showing how it could have been fabricated.

I called it "perimeter beam with wheely" and referred to it so many times that I finally started just using its initials: PBW.

The claim that "truthers" "fear" that photo is utterly and completely false. That photo and its context are utterly and entirely consistent with NO PLANE contentions and is embraced as such.

 

[Thunder]

The claim that "truthers" "fear" that photo is utterly and completely false. That photo and its context are utterly and entirely consistent with NO PLANE contentions and is embraced as such.

laughable. your posts make me laugh.

 

[sylvan8798]

I'm no expert on logic but isn't this (typical) jammonius argument rather circular?:

Me: Why shouldn't I believe Rosa Cordona when she says she saw a plane fly into WTC 1?

Jam: No, she is unreliable.

Me: Why is she unreliable?

Jam: Because she says there was a plane when we know there was not.

Me: How do we know there was not?

Jam: Because no one who is a reliable witness saw one.

Me: What constitutes a reliable witness?

Jam: Anyone who didn't actually SEE a plane.

Me:

 

[DGM]

It is to be recalled, the photo was used in the NIST report with language that made it quite clear NIST did not know where it came from and made no findings that it was authentic.

I also posted photos showing how it could have been fabricated.

Why do you feel the need to lie?

 

[GlennB]

Look at it, lurkers, and ask yourselves, what on earth does it have to do with 9/11 that can be established on the basis of the image?

You are not allowed to ask questions. Those are your rules.

The image stands as evidence

 

[applecorped]

This has been one of the better troll threads in a while!

 

[jammonius]

Just trying to be polite and avoid creating any perception that I was trying to twist your words. I apologize if I gave the wrong impression.

No problema

Not as such, no. I think that accounts of an explosion tend to be inconclusive as to the cause. I haven't reviewed a whole lot, but the task force interviews I've read don't give much conclusive evidence as to the cause. They may be due to a plane, they may not, but without other evidence they tell us nothing more than that something caused an explosion.

I think you infer too little. A crash of a widebody jetliner <1000ft above millions of people with eye and earshot is a dramatic event that would have been noticed with certainty. I think it is on this particular inference that you and I may have our greatest degree of disagreement.

... You have a better opinion of people's perception than I do, then. If nothing else, I think it's certainly possible that you could miss it. Even if logic suggests the sound is within the proper range and loud enough to be audible over any type of background noise, it still might not actually register and get written into memory. Admittedly, I've only taken a basic psychology class, and two years ago, but this still seems quite possible based on what I've learned. This is particularly true for the initial responders and any number of people within sight range - saying they would be a little distracted is putting it mildly. I'll grant that any such problems will cut both ways - these perception problems apply to all of the eyewitnesses. However, I find it more likely that factors such as distraction caused people to miss an element that was there than to make up an element that never existed.

Well, once again, I disagree to the extent you are trying to provide a basis for why people didn't see OR hear a jetliner <1000ft above them.

Basically, all I'm saying is that these valid witnesses that say "explosion" do not constitute conclusive support for the no plane hypothesis. I understand how you could interpret my arguments as holding the no plane ideas to a higher standard, but this is because I am making a judgment call as to how likely it is that the people that say "explosion" missed the plane compared to how likely it is that the people that say "plane" didn't actually see anything.

No single piece of information is likely to be conclusive, especially from eyewitnesses who differ, one with the other. Further, I don't wish to be understood as claiming a single eyewitness constitutes proof of the claim, nor should I be thought of as making that claim. Afterall, this is a thread for which I provided the OP that uses a video database as its primary source of information.

I am open to the use of all forms of evidence and have done so.

Well, at least for the video evidence, I am again more inclined to blame recording technology that can't pick up good sound than the absence of jetliner sound in the first place. As far as people's ability to perceive things in general, I've already stated I believe it's possible for people to miss these things.

Well, ok. However, the audio recorded voices as voices, emergency sirens as emergency sirens and everything else as and for what it was. That such technology would not be able to capture what should have been the single loudest source of sound, jet engines at 140dB at their source, is, to me, inexplicable absent an assertion that no such thing happened.

Well, I'll address b) first, as conformity is a topic that's come up in the psychology class I've mentioned and a more recent leadership class. In short, I don't agree. Conformity is a problem when the observations in question have a high degree of uncertainty, and I would not be surprised if some people that weren't quite sure what they saw said it was a plane later. That said, when the observations in question are very serious in nature, conformity drops as people decide that the correct information about what they observed is more important. Given the nature of 9/11, I don't think conformity is too much of a problem. While I'm sure it's a factor, which might explain away some plane accounts, I doubt it could account for all.

I don't think your above explanation is all that clear or consistent. You seem to vacilate on the essentials. Would you mind clarifying the above?

In so doing, would you please consider the recent psych experiment where people were told to give increasingly powerful electronic jolts based on the authority of a person in a "lab coat." The labcoat was the symbol of authority that needed to be "obeyed." Nearly all gave a jolt on command even when they knew it would be deadly. Such is the power of conformity.

I think you understate that power.

As far as a), I won't deny it's a factor, but I do disagree that it was intentionally manipulated by the government. I'm sure we disagree about the government (I believe it has an interest in keeping the citizens alive and happy and won't kill thousands of them), but do you seriously believe that there is not one person in the chain of command that loves their country enough to blow it wide open?

You've misunderstood me. I am concerned with "what happened" on 9/11, something that has not ever been demonstrated, proven or documented. In short, we do not know, on the basis of a reliable, governmentally sponsored and paid for investigation, what happened on 9/11. (period)

In the absence of knowing what happened, it is foolhardy to say who did it. I do not claim "the government" did 9/11. I do, however, claim that "19 Arabs with boxcutters" did not do it, UNLESS, "19 Arabs" is code for some corporate cabel that included operatives from companies like SAIC and ARA; and unless "boxcutters" is a an acrynym for directed energy weaponry (DEW) just like "daisy cutters" is one for a very large bomb. Do you get my drift here?

It is not at all clear that the government did 9/11, it is clear that the military-industrial-complex (MIC) of which SAIC and ARA are each cream of the crop members and also are developers and testers of DEW, and developers of military PSYOPs, too, each had a powerful financial incentive, as well as the know how and the capacity, to be involved in 9/11.

Upon that claim I stand.

One more points of contention - as a general statement, it is completely false that if you can see a plane, you can hear a plane, which is the impression I get from the one thing you said about "corner of the eye" sightings. Assuming you are referring to this specific instance, it is still false given the presence of distractions; I think the effects of distortion from various solid barriers (for observers in buildings) and distance are large enough to account for that.

There is no need to have generalized as you did above. The particulars overrule the general. In this instance, we are talking about a jetliner that is required by the common storyline to be <1000ft up at full throttle, 550mph, in the case of the South Tower shadow thingy. A jetliner in those conditions would create a sonic disturbance, an environmental impact and a degree of amazement that would not have gone unnoticed by people at all.

In short, it would have grabbed people's attention, based on how it sounded, in no uncertain terms. Posters who disregard that observation engage in nothing other than denial and rationalization.

... I don't understand where the evidence is. Admittedly, I've mostly only seen the claims you've made in this thread, but the comments I've seen from other posters seem to have more actual evidence than yours do.

While it is undoubtedly true that most people have a higher opinion of what they think they may be proving than others do, it is nonetheless, interesting to compare what you think is evidence versus what I think is. More than that, it serves no useful purpose to say.

Why not? Do you believe they are simply liars?

No, the issue has nothing whatever to do with claiming someone is a liar. This is simply a matter of what is or is not "evidence." You need to look up and familiarize yourself with the legal definition of the word "hearsay". Newspapers are not evidence because they are hearsay. However, business records, of which the 503 Task Force Statements and the PAPD statements are examples of, count as evidence.

Also, audio visual info may or may not be evidence, depending on whether they can be shown to be authentic.

So, that is all I'm saying. One has to consider the source so as to determine whether the statements are valid or not from the perspective of "evidence" understood by its legal definition.

As I've said, your theory must, in order to be complete, account for the incorrect views of others - are they lying or simply mistaken? Why are they lying/mistaken? This also goes back to the plane accounts we've been mentioning - even in the sources you gave me, I've found some which mention the existence of a plane. What did they actually see, if the plane theory is incorrect?

I disagree. NO PLANE and PLANE SPOT claims are to be considered by the same standard, not by one that is more favorable to the one than to the other. And, PLANE SPOT claims are not presumed to be correct.

 

[jammonius]

Jammonius,

The only stupidity being displayed is your own. You refuse to even state why you don't consider the explanation as being valid, nor will you even explain why you think the explosion is "in the wrong" place. Hint: is isn't

Momentum WILL carry everything forward into the building, and since the plane impacted at an angle and not straight in, it also makes sense that it was also seen on the side of the building. Oh yea, the above still photo you posted doen't show a "shadow thingy"....it quite clearly shows a plane. You should try looking at original footage instead of compressed goo-tube videos as they don't support your argument one iota.

Momentum is not the issue that needs to be resolved for purposes of understanding the observed data. Impact is.

The observed data show an event that should not happen; namely, a hollow, aluminum jetliner should not penetrate a structural steel building with beams 20" apart as they the building were made of sheetrock, as seen:

If you have engineering expertise, please do not use it to engage in denail and in rationalization.

NIST committed fraud, even though it did so by trying to be truthful. As you know, NIST DID NOT claim that its momentum calculations were validated by the observed data. In other words, NIST made no claim that it was depicting reality in its calculations.

 

[DGM]

Momentum is not the issue that needs to be resolved for purposes of understanding the observed data. Impact is.