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

[jammonius]

... Frankly, I begin to see why. My patience for the polite argument is waning fast, particularly given that we are rapidly reaching a point where further polite discussion is pointless (we can go back and forth at each other saying "well I think this is reasonable" and "well I don't" for far longer than I care to).

I am very, very sorry that your patience is waning fast. I assume there might be no further polite responses from you. That is too bad.

In all honesty, what I posted was really just supposed to be a polite way to tell him I think his conclusions are, well, fairly stupid, without actually saying so.

Thank you for being candid in expressing how you really feel about the discussion we have been having. For my part, I do not consider your posts to be stupid in the least. Furthermore, I don't think opinions that are, of necessity, based on the available 9/11 informational database can serve as adequate measuring devices for intelligence or mental capacity.

The database is too manipulated, too scattered and too unreliable for people to come to a right answer or a wrong one. Furthermore, who is to judge? Supporters of the common storyline? Truthers? Debunkers? Who? Add to that the lack of any validly performed, adequately funded and properly carried out investigation of the matter, there is simply no source to which one can point and say "this is what happened on 9/11" in my opinion.

If you care to say, do you agree with the foregoing claim that there is simply no source to which one can point and say "this is what happened on 9/11"?

Mind you, I am not here saying you are obliged to answer that query. You can if you like; or, if your patience is too far gone, you can disregard it.

Without knowing what technology was used to make the recordings, I can't say with any degree of certainty why it would or would not have been able to pick up the noise from the jetliner. Simple distance is a major factor, though - sound, like any number of other things, decreases in intensity very quickly with distance.

I don't think you have to impose that particular nearly impossible burden upon yourself. I think you can make a reasoned judgment on sound quality based on how a particular video clip records other sounds that seem to emanate from the video, match the sounds to the visual images, and so on.

Ah, you're quoting the Milgram experiments at me.

Thank you for naming the experiment. That is helpful. Your phraseology "at me" is suggestive of a hostile intent. Mind you, that is my speculation and your intent may be anything but hostile. So, as is my wont, for what reason did you phrase the matter with the words "at me"?

That has more to do with obedience - obeying what is thought to be a legitimate authority. Which, come to think of it, might be a factor if the government had anything to do with this. Even so, "nearly all" is not true. It was about 60%, if I remember correctly (yeah, Wikipedia says 65%, 26 out of 40.) Still a majority, but there would be a significant number of dissenters. I'll also point out that in one of the variations, in which there were two more participants who disagreed with the authority, the rate at which people agreed to go along with the authority drops to 10%. If we compare this to 9/11, with the government's official story as the authority and the public in general as the participants... well, truthers should comprise anywhere from the 40% that disagreed in the first to the 90% that disagreed in the second. This doesn't appear to be the case.

Well, wait a minute. Your analysis is incomplete, imho. You would need to assess what percentage of people accept the common storyline of 9/11 in order to determine if the same "obiedence" factor can be seen in the data.

I think the data match rather well in that a roughly similar percentage of Americans doubt the validity of the common storyline according to a wiki article, from which the following pie chart is taken:

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_opinion_polls

And as long as I'm discussing psychology, the Asch conformity experiments^WP are also relevant, perhaps more so given the circumstances. In short, people had to look at three lines, then say which was the longest. When people before them consistently gave the wrong answer, about 75% did so on at least some of the questions. Again, there were variations; there are two important effects that they illustrate. One I already mentioned - when the "lines" problem was replaced with a simulated police lineup, conformity dropped as the test subjects decided to value correctness instead. Also, even one dissenter in the group caused the test subjects' resistance to conformity to rise dramatically. Neither of these phenomena is visible in the real world, if we regard the main population's plane theory as the "incorrect" answer and the no plane theory as the "correct" answer. In short, if the plane theory was actually false, these experiments tell us to expect reasonably high resistance no matter what the "official" answer is. Maybe not a majority, but not the relatively insignificant minority which the truthers appear to be at the moment.

Thanks for the above. That is interesting.

Ah, this seems like a contradiction to me. You start by saying it's foolhardy to say who did it and then advance a theory as to agencies responsible... which seems to me like you're trying to say who did it.

I have been quite consistent in a number of threads in suggesting people take a look at the MIC and, in particular, at the companies SAIC and ARA. One of the reasons for doing so is that those two were the leading contractors hired by (or imposed on) NIST in connection with the fraudulent NCSTAR 1 study that I have cited, quoted, posted up images from, elsewhere.

SAIC and ARA are manufacturers and developers of DEW. The individuals who worked on the NIST team including SAIC's lead investigator is a physicist who's primary expertise is in the area of DEW. SAIC is also a leading PSYOP military contractor and developer. I am not sure how much PSYOP expertise ARA has, but its internal company magazine is called WAVES (if I remember correctly) denoting a strong involvement in DEW. Both SAIC and ARA are charter and founding members of the Directed Energy Professional Society, whose internal magazine is called WAVE FRONT (once again, if remembered correctly) and which details a rather astonishing degree of claims as to capacity and as to location of DEW. In short, if you think of a geographic area, then it is likely that some aspect of DEW is deployed there, according to WAVE FRONT.

So, if you are at all inclined to research, heed this: Investigate SAIC, ARA, DEPS and the US Directed Energy Directorate.

All of that said, I here assert DEW destroyed the WTC. SAIC and ARA are manufacturers of DEW and had a lead role in the fraudulent NIST study. SAIC and ARA, like the rest of the cream of the crop of the MIC, have benefited financially enormously over the last decade of hyper and blatant militarism where $$trillions have been spent, without question or pause, irrespective of national bankrupcy and impending destruction of the US Middle Class.

I won't claim to know the full definition of the hearsay rules, but I assure you, having participated in mock trial and having a brother who still does so, I have at least a passing familiarity with hearsay and several other rules of evidence. You are right in that those newspaper accounts wouldn't be accepted in court due to the possibility that the person lied (or was otherwise inaccurate).

I don't think the rule places emphasis on whether the statements are true or false. In other words, the rule is not accusatory. Rather, the question is merely one of "reliability." Hearsay information is not considered reliable enough to be allowed.

That, in any event, is how I see the matter. The issue is that of putting into the thread information that can reasonably be considered to be reliable. I insist on basing my claims upon reliable information.

Let me repeat that: I insist upon basing my claims upon reliable information, from which I draw reasoned inferences. That is my practice, my intent and my track recored in posting.

However, that person quoted by the newspaper could then be called into court and questioned on their observations, which would then be direct testimony subject to cross-examination and not blocked by hearsay. Simply calling hearsay, for this logical argument, is akin to saying the possibility exists - it doesn't provide any explanation for why that person would have lied or made a mistake.

Your hypothetical is correct. However, because it is hypothetical, it does not alter the fact that hearsay information is unreliable.

... Of course, this completely ignores the fact that the definitions of evidence for legal arguments and logical arguments are different.

Logic would not allow use of hearsay.

And that still doesn't account for the reports in the sources you do trust which mention a plane.

I have always acknowledged, quoted and shown the sources of PLANE SPOT claims. Reality is almost always confounded by contradictions. I am comfortable with the fact that there are reliable reports by people claiming to have seen a plane.

However, in contrast, I don't think you'll find any supporters who are willing to acknowledge the existence of legitimate NO PLANE accounts. I have often said that those who are less certain of their claims are often the most adamant and strident in asserting their beliefs.

Example: Posters here have insisted there are 1000s of PLANE SPOT witnesses even though they know they cannot source the claim.

Example: Offhand, I know of not one single post by a PLANE SPOT supporter in this thread who has so much as acknowledged the existence of a valid NO PLANE witness. In all instances where such accounts are mentioned, they are subjected to the process of denial or rationalization or attack or some form of minimalization of importance.

I do not do that in all instances. For instance, I have openly acknowledged that Chief Pfiefer and Lt. Walsh are legitimate PLANE SPOT witnesses. In each of their cases, however, there are other aspects of their actual testimony that cast doubt on the plane claim. So, in truth, those two witnesses are actually good ones for the NO PLANE claim even though they can be said, and I do say, that they saw what they thought was a plane.

I think you slightly misunderstand me. I am not saying that the plane theory is presumed to be correct. I am saying that any theory, particularly a contentious one like this, must include some way to account for why competing ideas are mistaken.

No matter how you slice it, I interpret what you say as incorporating a bias in favor of PLANE SPOTTING. The way you do it in the above is by labeling NO PLANE claims as contentious. Claims are claims. What people say they saw and heard in connection with 9/11 is neither more nor less contentious based on what they actually said. What they saw and what they heard are data. The one type of data are not more, or less, contentious than the other, imho.

So, we have a disagreement when it comes to labeling NO PLANE data one way and PLANE SPOT data, another.

I am challenging the no plane theory's ability to explain why the plane theory advocates are incorrect. I have already pointed out that relatively simple perception problems and distraction could cause someone to miss a plane, particularly in a chaotic environment, which is the plane theory's explanation for the no planers. Even if you disagree, pointing out that the plane theory's explanation may be faulty does nothing to explain why the plane theory is wrong as a whole.

Once again, a jetliner @ <1000ft @ 550mph is an attention grabbing (sight, sound, vibration, impact on environment) event that would not be missed or guessed about if it occurred. That is a fact.

You have yet to acknowledge it. Instead, you have sought to rationalize in favor of PLANE SPOT and against NO PLANE.

ETA: Forgot to mention that I used my brother as a source regarding the hearsay rule. Maybe not necessary, but I'd rather be cautious... and he pointed out something I forgot to mention. You can treat my discussion of hearsay above as largely his words.

Fair enough. Give your brother my regards and ask him to consider posting up if that would be of interest to him.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Thank you, applecorped.

34 PLANE, 1 NO PLANE.

 

[BigAl]

However, in contrast, I don't think you'll find any supporters who are willing to acknowledge the existence of legitimate NO PLANE accounts. I have often said that those who are less certain of their claims are often the most adamant and strident in asserting their beliefs.

Example: Posters here have insisted there are 1000s of PLANE SPOT witnesses even though they know they cannot source the claim.

Example: Offhand, I know of not one single post by a PLANE SPOT supporter in this thread who has so much as acknowledged the existence of a valid NO PLANE witness.

Then you ignored the several times I posted this;

By what logic do you decide that the people that didn't see the plane trump the people that did? Lots of people saw a plane. It was visible for only a few seconds and only from about 1/3rd of the compass and only if you were outdoors and only if you have an unobstructed view and happen to be looking in the right direction. If you had your Walkman on and cranked up you might not hear the jet at all.

 

[jammonius]

Lurkers, New page, do your thing...

16
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...efttorightmeltintobldgKEY354.png?t=1274791705

Edited by LashL: 

Removed repetitive image.

Video clip number 16 from the ALL 43 compilation is a 10 second clip beginning at about the 3:54 mark, as noted in the title shot.

This one is the most famous of the second hit videos, because, unlike most, it has an image that looks more or less like a Boeing 767. It has sounds, too; but the sounds completely contradict the claim a Boeing 767 is in the picture because the sound does not match that of a jetliner @ 800ft @ 550mph at all.

What one can say without fear of contradiction at all is that the sound in the video falsifies the claim it is a Boeing 767.

The clip is sometimes referred to as "best angle" and as "money shot". It was taken by Michael Hezarkhani. I do not know the exact location the footage comes from. Perhaps there are posters who frequent debunker sites where the Hezarkhani video has been praised and where the location is mentioned. As nearly as I've been able to tell, Hezarrhani appears to have been in Battery Park, near to, but to the left of, Carmen Taylor.

To be honest, the video has been attacked as a forgery, with many attempts to document why that is so. Posters can look that up if it is of interest to them. The video has likewise been defended to the hilt and posters can likewise look up the defense of the Hezarkhani video if that is what they want to do.

I do not know whether the arguments favor CGI placement of the image in the video or whether the image is holographic or whatever.

What I assert, for what it's worth, in addition to it being falsified by the lack of the right sound, is that the imact or crash is not consistent with an actual Boeing 767 crashing into a structural steel building that was the tallest building in the world when built.

No jetliner could penetrate that building without explosion and disentegration upon impact. The plane glided through the tower from nose to midsection, from midsection to wing, through the wings, through the aft section and completely through the tail without ever slowing or bending or breaking or exploding or creating any debris, let alone large sections that should have snapped off. The imagery is utterly phony, as I see it, and cannot be defended.

The video imagery is phony. The reasons for its phoniness, e.g., computer graphics, holographics, other, is not clearly determined, in my opinion, based on my review of the data.

ALL 43

 

[jammonius]

...

And no, I don’t play word games, whether they be your “gotcha games” or “20 question” version, or any other manner that may enter your feeble mind. I ask very simple questions, just like any other individual would to verify the veracity of claims made by an individual such as you.

You are being disengenuous. You do not ask questions to "verify the veracity of claims made by an individual such as

." The truth is, you play "gotcha" by which is meant you ask questions solely and exclusively in order to then assert that an answer given you is false or incorrect.

Your game does not stop UNTIL an answer is given to which you can attach the label "FALSE." That is what "gotcha" games consists in. That is the drill.

Your disengenuity in this respect does not become you. You are not so naive as to assert that you are here merely trying to determine if I, a NO PLANER, am correct after all, after which you will congratulate me. Your mind is made up about that matter and you'd be doing yourself a favor to come right out and scream it.

Come on, cut the crap.

I certainly don’t have to play 20 questions, or gotcha games to prove that you have no knowledge of the subject matter; you do that on your own every time you post!

Am I to assume, basis the above, you will not play "gotcha' anymore, that you've had enough of that stupid game? I hope so.

You keep stating, to prove your point, that you can hardly hear any noise from the aircraft involved. Well, a few things come to mind; name one video camera that has a decent sound reinforcement mechanism in it. Also, what is the sound pressure of a 757/767 type aircraft equipped with high bypass-ratio turbofans, at full thrust, approaching you head on? Care to take a stab at it?

The approach is not head on in all videos; and, whether it's head on or not, at some point in any particular video the sound and environmental disturbance of a jet at 550mph, 800ft up would be seen, heard or demonstrated by the camera shaking violently or something. The remarkable thing is that at no point in any of them, is there a sound or vibratory effect consistent with a Boeing 767 @ 800ft @ 550mph.

Upon that claim I stand.

Jets are an everyday experience and people know what they sound like. Almost all reliable witnesses report hearing an explosion and almost no reliable witnesses report hearing a jet. Thus, the evidence against the presence of a jetliner is rather overwhelming.

Once again, if there is information of a technical nature you'd like to post, come on out and scream it.

In one of the Dick Oliver threads, I think the first one, there's a video clip of some stupid dude standing in front of an oncoming old jet fighter, an F-102, if I'm not mistaken, and I might be mistaken. In truth, it doesn't sound very loud, but it nonetheless sounds like a jet. You might want to hunt for that clip if that would be helpful in whatever point you might like eventually to get around to making. That said, I am not here suggesting you go off on that wild goose chase if you don't want to.

The thread link is:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171082

It's possible the clip I'm referencing is in the second Dick Oliver thread, but I think it's the first. If you do not find it in the above, try this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174043

Or, post up your own data if you do not want to go off on the wild goose chase I am suggesting.

Now, on to what seems to be one of your favorite assumptions, namely the thought in your mind that the “explosion” happened in the wrong place. In one of your stills from a video, you show a very low resolution picture of a 757/767, a “blurry thing”, entering into the south face of WTC2. Unless the pilot, or the co-pilot had a fifty gallon drum of jet fuel sitting on his/her lap, no explosion could take place at this time. The aircraft has not entered the building up to its wing root, much less the fuel tanks.

Your claims are contradicted by the observable data:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/355-1meltin1.png?t=1274794605

Edited for Rule 6. Do not post the same images many times. Post once, then link, as above. Repeated posting of images or text is considered spamming.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

As the aircraft enters the building, at approximately 700’ per second (rounded off for simplicity), the starboard engine and various other parts of the aircraft separate from the aircraft and exits the building on the northeast side, well before (in your time frame) the “explosion” takes place. The fuel, now free of its confines in the wings and fuselage, and moving at a high rate toward the north side of the building, CANNOT burn at this time because it is too rich to burn. As the fuel reaches its explosive limits, it ignites creating a massive fireball, at the NORTH side of the building!

BS. Planes explode upon impact.

All of this takes place in less than one half second. Try looking at your own videos.

 

[triforcharity]

No jetliner could penetrate that building without explosion and disentegration upon impact. The plane glided through the tower from nose to midsection, from midsection to wing, through the wings, through the aft section and completely through the tail without ever slowing or bending or breaking or exploding or creating any debris, let alone large sections that should have snapped off. The imagery is utterly phony, as I see it, and cannot be defended.

Word salad and pile of manure removed.

So, what you're claiming it that it remained intact even inside the building? How do you know? Do you have x-ray vision?

Have you google momentum yet? Has Boeing started putting the fuel tanks of their 767's in the nose?

 

[TJM]

No jetliner could penetrate that building without explosion and disentegration upon impact. The plane glided through the tower from nose to midsection, from midsection to wing, through the wings, through the aft section and completely through the tail without ever slowing or bending or breaking or exploding or creating any debris, let alone large sections that should have snapped off. The imagery is utterly phony, as I see it, and cannot be defended.

Yes, I can defend it. The plane did explode upon impact. An impact zone created by an aircraft weighing several hundred thousands of pounds and traveling at high speed will be quite wide and the aircraft will carry enough forward momentum to penetrate a building. It happened three times on September 11, 2001. Thousands saw it with their own eyes.

 

[fess]

I certainly don’t have to play 20 questions, or gotcha games to prove that you have no knowledge of the subject matter; you do that on your own every time you post!

Thank you Jammonius for proving my above statement to be true.

Have the moderators returned from their annual meeting in Aruba yet?

 

[beachnut]

...
BS. Planes explode upon impact. ...

In your delusions. Prove it. The fire starts after 175 enters the WTC, it is called chemistry and physics, two things you don't use when you make up idiotic lies.

There is nothing in the plane that blows up in the first section of the plane, you have to have fuel and ignition to blow up, and jet fuel burns at a specific rate for specific conditions and does not start on fire until specific conditions are met and this was after fuel was scattered all over the WTC.

You are a disrespectful liar who can't figure out 911 so you make up lies. Why do you hate those who were murdered on 911 by 19 terrorists?




How can planes explode? What is in the plane that explodes? Please remember your previous lie about jet fuel not burning. Make up some more lies and show your hate for those who died; does your mom and dad help you make up these moronic lies? Who did 911 in your delusions?

Now you did it, please state what in a plane explodes, and the speed of the chemical reaction for 911 which are close to a standard day. You have no clue! You don't do science you do lies. You can't explain kinetic energy, you post delusions. What a great legacy you will have to show your kids and grandkids, moronic delusions to disrespect and hate people.

...
Jet fuel is not flammable and a spark should not cause ignition. But, if memory serves me correctly, the claim was that kerosene vapor might, if a lot of other circumstances worked out just right and the moon was full and in alignment with jupiter and mars, that it might explode, or something.

You get my drift, right?

You make up fantasy junk ideas, and debunked yourself with other delusions you posted out of ignorance.
Where to you get and how do you come up with insane ideas? Who is helping you lie?

You posted photos of 175 impacting the WTC; self-debunking.

 

[CORed]

Lurkers,

I have an idea. Since there are 43 known video segments of the second hit, I'll just post up the one corresponding to the page we are on.

We've just turned to page 14 (remember lurkers: post up your own witness experiences if you saw or heard some aspect of 9/11 in person), so here's the 14th video clip "title page."

14
[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/14-behindbldgs330.png?t=1274125752[/qimg]

That one runs for about 14 seconds. The shadow thingy is an odd shape, clearly different from other versions of shadow thingy that appear in other video clips. In this one, shadow thingy moves along at what appears to be a slow pace in comparison with some others. There's no jet sound, but the explosion sound can be heard; albeit faintly.

The imagery supports some sort of animation or holographic process and does not support the claim the shadow thingy is an actual Boeing 767, as I see it.

It starts at 3:30+/- and goes for about 14 seconds. Posters are welcome to view it and offer their comments as to what they think the audio visual information reveals.

So, when you say "shadow thingy", are you referring to the clear image of an airliner?

 

[A W Smith]

how long did it take for the fireball in this low speed plane crash?

http://www.myvideo.de/watch/4399759/Airbus_A320_Plane_Crash

 

[jammonius]

Yes, I can defend it. The plane did explode upon impact. An impact zone created by an aircraft weighing several hundred thousands of pounds and traveling at high speed will be quite wide and the aircraft will carry enough forward momentum to penetrate a building. It happened three times on September 11, 2001. Thousands saw it with their own eyes.

The observable video that I have posted falsifies the above observational claims.

The statements of Evan Fairbanks "bad special effect" and of Steven Bienkowski, NYPD Harbor Unit Scuba Team who said it "looked like an evil magician's trick..." also refute your speculation.

Bienkowski also said it didn't sound right either, going so far as to say he didn't hear it, albeit, also saying it should have been very loud, he said: "...I don't remember hearing an explosion, although it must have been extremely loud."

To be sure, Bienkowski also describes seeing a plane, but in a context where it did not behave as he thought a plane should behave. As I've said many times, reality almost always includes confounding variables and apparent contradictions. He said:

"I happened to be sitting in the back left side of the (helicopter) ship. There were two pilots, two crew chiefs, my partner, and I. We were on the southwest side of the South Tower, and I glanced over my shoulder and there came a United Airlines aircraft right at us, a little bit underneath where we were. And I do mean a little bit underneath us. It probably missed us by about three hundred feet, and it proceeded to fly right through the building, right in front of us. I must have gone numb. I don't remember hearing an explosion, although it must have been extremely loud. I don't remember the helicopter moving...When that second plane went into the building, it just looked like an evil magician's trick. It looked nothing like what I would have imagined a plane crashing into a building would look like. The plane just completely disappeared and turned into a giant fireball. Being there was surreal."

Your speculation is contradicted by observational data and by witnesses. One further issue here is that the helicopter didn't move, despite a supposed jetliner passing 300ft from it @ 550mph. The wake of a jet that close that fast should have disturbed the helicopter and freightened the beejeezus out of the occupants. Thus, the evidence of some sort of faked plane, perhaps using holographic imaging, is indicated by the quoted statement.

And, as said before, you cannot source your "1000s of witnesses" claim.

 

[phunk]

"I happened to be sitting in the back left side of the (helicopter) ship. There were two pilots, two crew chiefs, my partner, and I. We were on the southwest side of the South Tower, and I glanced over my shoulder and there came a United Airlines aircraft right at us, a little bit underneath where we were. And I do mean a little bit underneath us. It probably missed us by about three hundred feet, and it proceeded to fly right through the building, right in front of us. I must have gone numb. I don't remember hearing an explosion, although it must have been extremely loud. I don't remember the helicopter moving...When that second plane went into the building, it just looked like an evil magician's trick. It looked nothing like what I would have imagined a plane crashing into a building would look like. The plane just completely disappeared and turned into a giant fireball. Being there was surreal."

Thanks for posting more eyewitness testimony of the plane crash.

Did it occur to you that since he was in a helicopter, there was a loud engine right next to him and he was wearing ear protection?

 

[beachnut]

... To be sure, Bienkowski also describes seeing a plane, but in a context where it did not behave as he thought a plane should behave. As I've said many times, reality almost always includes confounding variables and apparent contradictions. He said:


Your speculation is contradicted by observational data and by witnesses. One further issue here is that the helicopter didn't move, despite a supposed jetliner passing 300ft from it @ 550mph. The wake of a jet that close that fast should have disturbed the helicopter and freightened the beejeezus out of the occupants. Thus, the evidence of some sort of faked plane, perhaps using holographic imaging, is indicated by the quoted statement.

And, as said before, you cannot source your "1000s of witnesses" claim.

You are delusional. Planes do not fly at 700 feet, it is against the law; why he said planes to not behave that way. Plus 175 was over the 250 KIAS speed limit; planes don't behave that way. You have no knowledge, and you prove it on each post with the insane tripe dripping from your open mind. You don't have a clue on anything but how to make up lies and hate those murdered on 911.

The wake of a jet at 550 mph is not going to affect a helicopter off to the side. Your ignorance of aerodynamics is like all your knowledge on 911, zero. Are all you ideas on 911 this stupid?

Wake from the jet, below them, travels to the side and DOWN. Good job making up more idiotic opinions based on ignorance.

 

[phunk]

Oh by the way, the wake of a jet is not 600 feet wide, why would the helicopter be affected?

 

[TJM]

Jammonius, stop posting for a moment and look what you've written. You're attempting to refute my claim of eyewitnesses... by quoting someone who saw 175 go into WTC 2 with his own eyes.

Are you feeling well today?

 

[TraneWreck]

The observable video that I have posted falsifies the above observational claims.

[...]

And, as said before, you cannot source your "1000s of witnesses" claim.

Lo these many years later, we're still stuck on an inability to separate simile from factual claims?

"Like" vs. "to be"

 

[Lyrandar]

I have been quite consistent in a number of threads in suggesting people take a look at the MIC and, in particular, at the companies SAIC and ARA. One of the reasons for doing so is that those two were the leading contractors hired by (or imposed on) NIST in connection with the fraudulent NCSTAR 1 study that I have cited, quoted, posted up images from, elsewhere.

SAIC and ARA are manufacturers and developers of DEW. The individuals who worked on the NIST team including SAIC's lead investigator is a physicist who's primary expertise is in the area of DEW. SAIC is also a leading PSYOP military contractor and developer. I am not sure how much PSYOP expertise ARA has, but its internal company magazine is called WAVES (if I remember correctly) denoting a strong involvement in DEW. Both SAIC and ARA are charter and founding members of the Directed Energy Professional Society, whose internal magazine is called WAVE FRONT (once again, if remembered correctly) and which details a rather astonishing degree of claims as to capacity and as to location of DEW. In short, if you think of a geographic area, then it is likely that some aspect of DEW is deployed there, according to WAVE FRONT.

So, if you are at all inclined to research, heed this: Investigate SAIC, ARA, DEPS and the US Directed Energy Directorate.

All of that said, I here assert DEW destroyed the WTC. SAIC and ARA are manufacturers of DEW and had a lead role in the fraudulent NIST study. SAIC and ARA, like the rest of the cream of the crop of the MIC, have benefited financially enormously over the last decade of hyper and blatant militarism where $$trillions have been spent, without question or pause, irrespective of national bankrupcy and impending destruction of the US Middle Class.

...Attempting to make conclusions about these companies based off of the names of internal publications is a far cry from actual evidence about them. I'm also curious - Wikipedia has some information about DEW technology which the military is currently working on, and none of it has the range or power required to blast such a large hole in the WTC. If we had something that good eight years ago, then why are we still in the middle of developing crappier stuff now?

I would not be surprised if those two companies have benefited from the U.S. embarking on more military actions, so you do have a possible motive. Your assertion is a bit weak, though, without any further evidence that they even had the means or the opportunity to do so, never mind any evidence that they actually did it.

Well, wait a minute. Your analysis is incomplete, imho. You would need to assess what percentage of people accept the common storyline of 9/11 in order to determine if the same "obiedence" factor can be seen in the data.

I think the data match rather well in that a roughly similar percentage of Americans doubt the validity of the common storyline according to a wiki article, from which the following pie chart is taken:

Thanks for the data, but it doesn't actually support your point. That's from a world opinion poll and includes countries such as Egypt and Jordan. As a way to determine what the U.S. populace thinks about 9/11, it's worthless. The Wikipedia page you linked to includes data for several recent surveys, most of which show a comfortable majority against truthers. I'd say my earlier point stands.

Your hypothetical is correct. However, because it is hypothetical, it does not alter the fact that hearsay information is unreliable.

Logic would not allow use of hearsay.

In a logical argument, we can make judgments regarding whether or not we think the person is mistaken. This is what I've been doing this entire time with all the witness accounts: looking at what factors we have and deciding how reliable they are and whether they contradict either theory.

I do not do that in all instances. For instance, I have openly acknowledged that Chief Pfiefer and Lt. Walsh are legitimate PLANE SPOT witnesses. In each of their cases, however, there are other aspects of their actual testimony that cast doubt on the plane claim. So, in truth, those two witnesses are actually good ones for the NO PLANE claim even though they can be said, and I do say, that they saw what they thought was a plane.

Okay, now we're making progress. So you do have a counterargument for why plane accounts might be false. Of course, without knowing what it is or how likely it is that it can account for other plane accounts, I can't really say anything further.

No matter how you slice it, I interpret what you say as incorporating a bias in favor of PLANE SPOTTING. The way you do it in the above is by labeling NO PLANE claims as contentious. Claims are claims. What people say they saw and heard in connection with 9/11 is neither more nor less contentious based on what they actually said. What they saw and what they heard are data. The one type of data are not more, or less, contentious than the other, imho.

So, we have a disagreement when it comes to labeling NO PLANE data one way and PLANE SPOT data, another.

I'm labeling the entire argument as contentious, and I've done for the plane theory what I'm asking you to do for the no plane theory: post a possible explanation for why the people that disagree with you are wrong, particularly why there are witness accounts that disagree with you.

Once again, a jetliner @ <1000ft @ 550mph is an attention grabbing (sight, sound, vibration, impact on environment) event that would not be missed or guessed about if it occurred. That is a fact.

You have yet to acknowledge it. Instead, you have sought to rationalize in favor of PLANE SPOT and against NO PLANE.

First, I find it amusing that I'm discussing this with fighter jets making an impressive racket overhead. You can point at that and say that it shows that a jetliner would also make such a racket... but, I haven't told you how high these jets are, how fast they're going, how much ambient noise is in my environment, or what distractions might be affecting me. This "fact" you cite depends rather heavily on those factors and probably more that I haven't thought of. What both of us are doing is making relative judgments based on our own experiences regarding both the source and the interfering factors. I certainly think it would be noticeable, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone in a busy urban environment managed to miss it.

I am very, very sorry that your patience is waning fast. I assume there might be no further polite responses from you. That is too bad.

This may be my last post in this thread (certainly will be my last long one). I don't have enough spare time to spend debating these points when I feel your knowledge of physics and aerodynamics has already doomed your point.

 

[jammonius]

So, when you say "shadow thingy", are you referring to the clear image of an airliner?

Shadow thingy means shadow thingy:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...-10minvoicesloudnoplanesound.png?t=1274786944

Edited by Tricky: 

changing picture to link. Do not spam with photos.

The above is one of the least obscure of the bunch.

 

[jammonius]

Thanks for posting more eyewitness testimony of the plane crash.

Did it occur to you that since he was in a helicopter, there was a loud engine right next to him and he was wearing ear protection?

I have posted a lot of witnesses who claim they saw a plane. On the other hand, those who support the common storyline of 9/11 do not post up evidence that might be troublesome to the PLANE SPOT theory hardly ever.

I have said, many times, I consider supporters of the common storyline to be fearful of contrary indicators, thus suggesting their own inner doubts.

I have, however, pointed out there are numerically MORE verifiable NO PLANE accounts than there are PLANE SPOT ones and you have not refuted that claim, nor can you.

Even when the ALL 43 videos that show contradictions and indicators of falsity are only posted one per page, matching the number of the page thread, posters here cannot refute the claims being made that suggest the videos are evidence of some sort of false imagery.

All of that data stands as unrefuted.

Truth matters.