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

[dafydd]

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.

You wouldn't know the truth even if it jumped up and bit you in the arse.

 

[Dumb All Over]

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.

(bolding mine)

Folks, do you now see why it is imperative to stop posting in this thread? Do you see what it is that jammonius really wants?

jammonius wants to post one plane video per page until this thread reaches at least 43 pages.

Please, I know the urge is strong. When faced with lunatic arguments, it is hard not to post reasoned counter-arguments. But in so doing, you're just feeding the troll.

Don't give him what he wants. Fight the urge. Just let it die.

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

jammonius, have you ever thought about the fact that a lot of people didn't see the planes because they weren't looking in the right direction, or because there was buildings in the way?

there is a huge difference between not being able to see the plane hit the building and seeing clearly that no plane hit the building.

 

[jammonius]

...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?

Your observations do not really require a detailed response. If you're interested in examining the evidence confirming DEW destroyed the WTC, you can find it.

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.

There are a number of DEW threads in this forum.

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.

You're right that the pie chart represents a world sampling. I didn't notice that until after I posted it.

A review suggests you can find wide variations in the percentage of Americans who doubt the official storyline of 9/11. I imagine you'll find those on the lower range more persuasive while I might accredit those on the higher end.

The range appears to be from a low of 1/3 to a high of 4/5. I'm not sure the polling is essential. Falsity believed is false nonetheless; truth doubted is true nonetheless. The fact remains, there has not ever been a reliable, funded and adequately carried out determination of what happened on 9/11, let alone a determination of who did it.

For that matter, there's no clearly proven answer as to who even funded 9/11, as per the 9/11 Commission Report. But, like the percentage of Americans who believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11, the number of posters here who believe a determination has been made as to how 9/11 was financed is quite high. Similarly, and as you can see in this thread, posters believe there are 1000s of eyewitnesses to planes, which is false, but they believe it anyway and don't even think they have any obligation whatsoever to even source their beliefs. This thread confirms the accuracy of that assertion.

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.

If that is what you have been doing, then you are obliged to conclude there are more and better witnesses who say "explosion" than there are who say "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.

OK.

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.

I have done that many, many times, including in my responses to you. I will here only reiterate that reality is almost always subject to confounding claims from witnesses. I have here shown that the power of suggestion was very strongly weighted on the side of making people believe planes were involved in 9/11.

Look this is a thread about 43 video versions of what is said to have happened. I am responsible for the OP in the thread. I am offering up the evidence relied on to make the plane assertion and am showing that evidence is tainted, contradictory, bogus and lame.

The evidence is, however, video in nature and it is strongly suggestive. Most people are thought to have formed their opinions on the basis of one or more of those video clips and upon the jingoistic PSYOP that followed and on the requirement to support one's country in wartime without question, even though the essence of war is the reliance upon force and fraud and the curtailment of thought, especially thought that questions the underlying validity of the war.

Small wonder, then, that those who were in the Pentagon have been largely silent. They had better be, or else...

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.

But I have told you the common storyline mandates a Boeing 767 @ 800ft @ 550mph above millions of people. Next to no one saw it and even fewer heard it and what they did hear led them to conclude an explosion had taken place.

Sooner or later something is likely to hit home with a few people. Mightn't one of them be you?

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.

Someone might, but the pool of witnesses was in the millions.

Yet, Our Sgt Holland was able to say, after fielding numerous telephone calls that what was known was that explosions had occurred. That factor is all but determinative that no jetliners were involved.

The above is from a PAPD record and is "evidence." Ask your brother.

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.

I sense that we are nearing completion. If you like you may have the last post on this matter. It is not my practice to declare "victory" or "defeat." That is not my purpose in posting.

all the best

 

[jammonius]

jammonius, have you ever thought about the fact that a lot of people didn't see the planes because they weren't looking in the right direction, or because there was buildings in the way?

there is a huge difference between not being able to see the plane hit the building and seeing clearly that no plane hit the building.

Yes, I have thought about the issues you raised. Have you applied those queries to those who claimed they SAW a plane?

Basically, I think Sgt Holland's quote that after fielding numerous calls he was able to say all that was known was that explosions had occurred is, by and large, among the best evidence we have as to what happened. The pool of potential witnesses was large; yet, the consensus amongst those who called and those who stepped up to Dick Oliver's mic was that an explosion had occurred.

One of the strongest candidates for the title of FIRST NO PLANER is David Stollick(sp), Dick Oliver's cameraman who, as you may have seen in my earlier posting, said:

"...it was jist an explosion..."

David Stollick made that statement at about 8:47AM, before the onset of the PSYOP of suggestive video could be imposed upon us.

IMHO, David Stollick is absolutely correct.

 

[George 152]

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

In the strange world that he inhabits reality isn't fixed but meanders as required by its only inhabitant !
His claims are becoming stranger by the week

 

[sylvan8798]

IMHO, David Stollick is absolutely correct.

IMHO, you are absolutely cracked.

 

[EventHorizon]

Yes, I have thought about the issues you raised. Have you applied those queries to those who claimed they SAW a plane?

Basically, I think Sgt Holland's quote that after fielding numerous calls he was able to say all that was known was that explosions had occurred is, by and large, among the best evidence we have as to what happened. The pool of potential witnesses was large; yet, the consensus amongst those who called and those who stepped up to Dick Oliver's mic was that an explosion had occurred.

One of the strongest candidates for the title of FIRST NO PLANER is David Stollick(sp), Dick Oliver's cameraman who, as you may have seen in my earlier posting, said:

"...it was jist an explosion..."

David Stollick made that statement at about 8:47AM, before the onset of the PSYOP of suggestive video could be imposed upon us.

IMHO, David Stollick is absolutely correct.

I'm still confused as to why you think a plane crashing into a building would NOT explode. Could you please explain?

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

right, I have just watched all the videos and come to the conclusion that you have to be clinically insane to believe that a plane didn't hit.
Jammonius, how do you account for the fact that a lot of the videos are 'home movies', so they could not have been edited?

 

[twinstead]

Yup. How can ANYBODY who has seen ALL the videos of the planes hitting the buildings and read ALL of the eye witness accounts claim that there were no planes? Only and idiot or a crazy person would think that.

 

[Resume]

Yup. How can ANYBODY who has seen ALL the videos of the planes hitting the buildings and read ALL of the eye witness accounts claim that there were no planes? Only and idiot or a crazy person would think that.

Or a troll with lots of spare time>

 

[Alan]

jammonius, have you ever thought about the fact that a lot of people didn't see the planes because they weren't looking in the right direction, or because there was buildings in the way?

there is a huge difference between not being able to see the plane hit the building and seeing clearly that no plane hit the building.

I admit to not seeing any planes. There was an approximately oblate spheroid (possibly planted there) obscuring my view.

 

[TJM]

The above is from a PAPD record and is "evidence." Ask your brother.

You keep posting that but it doesn't say what you think it does.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Jammo, is just spamming the same excreta over and over again.
We have given him ample opportunity to prove his assertions and he does even attempt to do so.

Surely this is a violation of the rules?

 

[Macgyver1968]

Unfortunately, being delusional is not a violation of the MA

 

[fess]

Shadow thingy means shadow thingy:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/secondhit10minallversionexcerpts/146-10minvoicesloudnoplanesound.png?t=1274786944[/qimg]

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

Thank you once again for proving me correct. You have no clue whatsoever!!

 

[cyclonic]

Maybe it was the giant claw hey jammy?

or was it the infamous MOTHMAN!

 

[cyclonic]

which image has the correct contrast jammy?

 

[Oystein]

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?

During shocking, traumatic events people often do not remember perceiving, or do not perceive, even the strongest sensory input. Like soldiers who have their leg shot off at the hip, who don't feel or see it and never heard the artillery blast or grenade explode, until they try to run, and fall because one leg simple isn't there anymore.

You don't need much additional noise to perceive a loud plane crash as noiseless.

 

[cyclonic]

The background noise in manhatten on 9.00am 9-11-01 would have been phenomenal, roaring fire in wtc1,numerous sirens,speeding firetrucks,normal traffic,crowd chatter would easily mask the sound of approaching plane until the last few seconds which would reach observers after the plane had struck the tower due to the slow speed of sound and was drowned out by the crowds reaction to the impact.