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

[jammonius]

Looks like thousands of NYC people are witnesses to the jet flying low on 911, and the videos prove it, and RADAR data backs it up. Flying at 700 feet gets attention. You make up lies and deny terrorists flew planes into buildings at high speed. Making a kinetic energy weapon out of each plane using the people, the jet, the fuel, the baggage as a kinectic energy weapon; something you can't grasp due to a bias against physics, science, math and a hatetred of people who died on 911; you deny it all so you can make insane claims based on nothing but 8 years of lies, twisting testimony, and delusions.

Sources for RADAR data and more, this is proof Flight 175 impacted the WTC; why can't you comprehend? http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

Ah, so, at long last an attempt (feeble though it may actually be), to source the RADAR claims that Beachnut likes to make over and over again, but never with any sourcing.

The above source is but an index, of sorts, and not an actual source of the radar claim. For those posters and lurkers who might actually like to see the source of the radar claims you have to go here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

The title of the 59 pg document is: "FAA SUMMARY OF AIR TRAFFIC HIJACK EVENTS"

The problem with the document is that it makes no attempt to determine whether the information and statements it summarizes (and that is all it does) are or are not related to the various military exercises taking place that day. It is a collection of conversations and such, based largely on what individual controllers remember.

The statement that Beachnut likes to make over and over again that there is radar showing Flight 175 crashing into the South Tower is based almost exclusively on the following little ditty that speaks for itself in terms of how inexact and unsubstantiated it is:

pg. 14/59

That doesn't prove a darn thing. At most, the person to whom the statement is attributed was giving an interpretation of blips on a screen that could have come from anywhere, including one or more of the military exercise then and there taking place.

Debunkers use crap like that and then spread claims far and wide when no one in authority would do any such thing. NIST does not rely on that crap and NTSB all but disclaims it.

Lurkers, look, you may WANT to believe the common storyline of 9/11, but belief is not the same as proof.

The proof of what happened is FUBAR. Debunkers may take a lot of credit and they may delight in congratulating one another on how right they are all the time, but their proofs are pure BS and what you see demonstrated here is almost always the case upon examination.

Take a look at the document yourselves, lurkers, then get back to me with your questions and comments.

As you can see in the discussion had with Lyrander, you can continue to disagree with me, but we can at least discuss the merits of the actual data, free from bogus, self-righteous claims. Let us alllow the data to speak for itself in all instances.

 

[jammonius]

Lurkers, you know what to do...

18

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...8-canyoneffect415NOSOOUND415.png?t=1274911579


Well, posters and lurkers, although much of what people believe about 9/11 comes from the video images, I gather we are not to post up imagery here. However, in truth, use of links is almost as good, it merely requires an additional click or two.

Review of the imagery allows one gradually to come to grips with the obvious indicators of falsity. By comparing them from one video segment to the next, one can see that shadow thingy has too many different characteristics to be real. In some videos it is fat, in others skinny, in still others it is not there at all.

Let me repeat that: In some of the ALL43 videos, shadow thingy is not there at all.

In some it moves fast, in others slow, in some it comes it at an angle, others, straight on.

Sure, one can say that is because of the differing camera locations. Fine, we can argue about that. However, it is too bad we cannot view the images closely and fully on the page. In most contexts, other than 9/11, seeing is believing. Most reliable witnesses didn't see a plane. Most of us know that most of what we see on teevee is manipulated in some way or another. Yet, the imagery of 9/11, phony though it may actually look, fooled most of us for a long time.

That will be overcome and probably sooner than most posters may suspect.

OK, in the absence of imagery, I will here do what I can to summarize # 18:

I give name of"canyon shot" to the version that begins at about the 4:15 mark. It runs for about 17 seconds and has pretty good sound of the explosion, as well as screams. The plane image looks phony and there is no sound that comes close to a jetliner at full throttle that low.

If you'll pause at the 4:19 mark, you'll see that the jet image has been fully swallowed, hook, line and sinker, with not one shred of debris.

The WTC was made of solid steel (at least 3/8inch thick on each side of each box beam at that level of the building.

I have elsewhere posted an image of the perimeter steel beam as have other posters. A hollow aluminum tube could not have penetrated that structure hook, line and sinker without shredding and without depositing most of it on the OUTSIDE of the building.

This little video clip does a good job of falsifying the claim a jetliner crashed into the South Tower.

ALL43

 

[jammonius]

You have already seen it Jammy. It is the one where the girl cries "Jesus ******* Christ!!" in her apartment after witnessing flight 175 impact the south tower. No need for me to spam the thread with it again. If I recall you already hand-waved it off as part of the "psyop". You had reached the point of irreducible delusion long ago for your ever growing "psyop"

Not an "emotional" diatribe at all jammy. It is an accurate description of what we observe as your thought process.

Are you going to post up a link to the full length version?

Mind you, if you do not want to, you do not have to.

 

[jammonius]

I can't comment on 43 videos at once, we'll have to do one at a time. In this case, you thought that it was strange that the guy in the helcopter a few hundred feet away didn't hear the plane. Helicopters are quite noisy, and the pilots and passengers generally wear headsets to block that noise and allow them to talk to each other. This makes it very difficult to hear anything else. Do you agree?

Can you say which segment you're referring to by number or time segment? The post of mine that you linked doesn't actually discuss a video segment.

When you indicate which one you're referring to, I'll review the video and then we can engage in dialogue about what we think should or should not be audible.

I welcome dialogue of that nature.

 

[Thunder]

Jamm,

-could you possibly enlighten us as to the technology that could have been used to make thousands of NYers see a jetliner crash into the WTC, without a plane being actually there?

-could you please provide evidence that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FNC, BBC, and NY1, conspired to present CGI images of a plane crashing into the WTC, when no such event occured?

-could you find it in your heart to show us how all of the photographs of the plane hitting the WTC, were all from the same Photoshopped NWO images? (including my neighbor's).

 

[fess]

The problem with the document is that it makes no attempt to determine whether the information and statements it summarizes (and that is all it does) are or are not related to the various military exercises taking place that day. It is a collection of conversations and such, based largely on what individual controllers remember.

In your never ending quest for truth, I would suppose that you have some valid proof that military jets were operating in commercial airspace?

Let us add one or more witnesses as to the location of Flight 175;

On September 11, 2001, Midwest Airlines Flight 7 (Midex 7) narrowly missed a collision with hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 over the Hudson River at approximately 09:01 a.m. local time. The pilot of Midex 7 was forced to maneuver the aircraft, under the direction of an air traffic controller, out of the flight path of Flight 175. One minute later, Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center killing all 65 passengers and crew on board and resulting in the collapse of the South Tower.

The complete PDF file is on line if you wish to read it, or I’ll gladly send it to you.

And, in keeping with the playing of your little game(s), thanks for the opportunity to once again show that you have idea of what you are talking about.

 

[fess]

Lets add a few more witnesses to the mix, the ones that shot these photos.

And, what was that you said about no debris?

 

[jammonius]

In your never ending quest for truth, I would suppose that you have some valid proof that military jets were operating in commercial airspace?

The above is a non sequitur if intended as a question. If there's a claim you want to make, would you please make it.

Let us add one or more witnesses as to the location of Flight 175;
Quote:
On September 11, 2001, Midwest Airlines Flight 7 (Midex 7) narrowly missed a collision with hijacked United Airlines Flight 175 over the Hudson River at approximately 09:01 a.m. local time. The pilot of Midex 7 was forced to maneuver the aircraft, under the direction of an air traffic controller, out of the flight path of Flight 175. One minute later, Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center killing all 65 passengers and crew on board and resulting in the collapse of the South Tower.

You do not source the above and therefore it does not qualify as a valid witness statement.

What I think you may be referring to, but failing to source, is a "story" about a claimed "near collision" that didn't even make its way into the public domain until 2008 and is very weakly sourced in some newspapers here and there and probably picked up by debunker websites.

As such, the information does not qualify as evidence.

The pilot of the aircraft said to have been involved in the claimed near miss, Gerald Earwood, is seen here, lurkers:

Much of the radar data comes from a controller by the name of David Battaglia, seen here:

Neither the radar claims nor the near-miss claims have any stronger sourcing than controller statements, many obtained months afterwards, and none corroborated by NEADS, the NORAD sector operating in the Northeast.

The NTSB "flight path studies" that debunkers are fond of using as a way of saying the NTSB was involved in the investigation are nothing other than a rehash of the 59pg FAA summary that I linked for you in post #681.

"FAA SUMMARY OF AIR TRAFFIC HIJACK EVENTS"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

The NTSB flight path studies do not represent or result from independent research undertaken by NTSB.

Lurkers, please do not be drawn in by debunker claims. Almost none of those claims can qualify as evidence because they are by and large based on newspaper hearsay, guess work and secondary sources, many of which were obtained AFTER the effects of the PSYOP had already been implanted via teevee.

The complete PDF file is on line if you wish to read it, or I’ll gladly send it to you.

In my view posting like that quoted above does the thread a disservice. If you're going to source your claims properly, then do it at the outset. No one should have to ask you to source what you base your claims on. Either you undertake to post substantively in that manner, or you don't.

And, in keeping with the playing of your little game(s), thanks for the opportunity to once again show that you have idea of what you are talking about.

Posts speak for themselves.

 

[Thunder]

Jamm,

-could you possibly enlighten us as to the technology that could have been used to make thousands of NYers see a jetliner crash into the WTC, without a plane being actually there?

-could you please provide evidence that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FNC, BBC, and NY1, conspired to present CGI images of a plane crashing into the WTC, when no such event occured?

-could you find it in your heart to show us how all of the photographs of the plane hitting the WTC, were all from the same Photoshopped NWO images? (including my neighbor's).

Jamm?

 

[jammonius]

Lets add a few more witnesses to the mix, the ones that shot these photos.

1
[qimg]http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff72/fess_1/1537499_approach_300.jpg[/qimg]
2
[qimg]http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff72/fess_1/1537499_impact_300.jpg[/qimg]
3
[qimg]http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff72/fess_1/1200_ua175.jpg[/qimg]
4
[qimg]http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff72/fess_1/6588.jpg[/qimg]
5
[qimg]http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff72/fess_1/2876.jpg[/qimg]

And, what was that you said about no debris?
6
[qimg]http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff72/fess_1/earlydays10_200.jpg[/qimg]
7
[qimg]http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff72/fess_1/911firesmoke.jpg[/qimg]

Thank you for posting up images. I assume since you're posting them, it will be ok.

The shadow thingy in images 1,2, 4 and 5 do not match one with the other in terms of shape or angle of approach.

The claim of debris in images 6 and 7 does not match that of image 2. The fact that the debris seen is mostly paper is utterly stupid and is consistent solely and exclusively with a pyrotechnical display.

At some point people will realize that plane crashes do not spew paper; plane crashes spew deadly shrapnel and large remnants of the aircraft involved. That is especially true when an aluminum aircraft runs into a building made from sturdy, reinforced structrual steel, in the case of the Twin Towers, buildings that were the tallest in the world when built. Such structures are uniquely strong, well-built and have the capacity easily to repel airplanes and certainly not allow them to enter, nose to midsection, midsection to wings, beyond the intact wings, through the aft section, and all of the tail without spewing a single identifiable part on the outside.

Your photos, like those that I had posted show a "bad special effects," just as Evan Fairbanks, who was standing below, said.

By the way, the Evan Fairbanks video also utterly contradicts the claim of debris.

Let me repeat that. The Evan Fairbanks video utterly contradicts the claim of debris.

A fuller, 55second version of the Fairbanks video, where he states and repeats disappears like a bad special effects more than once can be found here and is highly recommended to posters and lurkers alike:



As lurkers can easily see, the claims set out in this post are either based on what the images reveal or are otherwise sourced as to where the quote can be found and where the confounding video images (no debris) can be found.

 

[jammonius]

Jamm?

Clean up the questions if you want to engage in dialogue. You are not a lurker, so I am not going to re-write your questions for you. You know I do not respond to BS rhetoric.

If you want to engage in dialogue do not ask questions that presuppose facts that aren't shown to exist.

 

[BigAl]

Thank you for posting up images. I assume since you're posting them, it will be ok.

Each and every claim made by J in this post is either wrong or irrelevant.

 

[Alan]

Clean up the questions if you want to engage in dialogue. You are not a lurker, so I am not going to re-write your questions for you. You know I do not respond to BS rhetoric.

If you want to engage in dialogue do not ask questions that presuppose facts that aren't shown to exist.

We know you don't respond to BS rhetoric. You respond with BS rhetoric.

What would prove to you that your no-planer ideas are incorrect?

 

[beachnut]

Clean up the questions if you want to engage in dialogue. You are not a lurker, so I am not going to re-write your questions for you. You know I do not respond to BS rhetoric.

If you want to engage in dialogue do not ask questions that presuppose facts that aren't shown to exist.

Is there an end to your delusional commentary. You know two planes hit the WTC towers, it is a fact. Your idiotic insane claims do not change 175 and 11 impacting the WTC towers. Insane dolts and dirt dumb neoNAZIs are the only people who who support or believe your delusions. Why are you trying to mislead the insane?

Proof 175 hit the WTC and it confirms to the second each photo, every video, and all the eye witnesses. http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1175Flightpathbasedonevidence.jpg

For the lurkers, this diagram was derived from RADAR data. Each RADAR site is recorded and the NTSB and FAA use RADAR data after an event to see what happened. How many lurkers are insane enough to believe in no planes? A few nut cases?

Two plane hitting the WTC towers are facts you can't refute with your insane lies and delusions. How long have you had these delusions?

 

[Thunder]

If you want to engage in dialogue do not ask questions that presuppose facts that aren't shown to exist.

please provide evidence that various tv networks were provided with a video of CGI plane crashing into the WTC.

please provide evidence that plane parts were planted on the streets of NYC.

please provide evidence that people were given photos showing a plane crash into the WTC, for them to later "release" to the media.

 

[Gorgonian]

The shadow thingy

What shadow thingy? Do you mean the airplane?

in images 1,2, 4 and 5 do not match one with the other in terms of shape or angle of approach.

They are taken from different angles at different times. There should be no expectation that their shapes (from different angles) or angles should match.

The claim of debris in images 6 and 7 does not match that of image 2. The fact that the debris seen is mostly paper is utterly stupid and is consistent solely and exclusively with a pyrotechnical display.

The debris seen in that photograph is not mostly paper. Most of those little rectangles are the length of an entire story of the building.

The rest of your post is even more ridiculous than the nonsense above. Do you think this input is valuable to anyone? It isn't. When are you going to stop desperately fooling yourself?

 

[fess]

Originally Posted by fess
In your never ending quest for truth, I would suppose that you have some valid proof that military jets were operating in commercial airspace?

The above is a non sequitur if intended as a question. If there's a claim you want to make, would you please make it.
Nice hand wave. I see I have to go back to the simplified version of asking question, so; Do military aircraft on training exercises operate in commercial airspace?

You do not source the above and therefore it does not qualify as a valid witness statement.
Another hand wave.

What I think you may be referring to, but failing to source, is a "story" about a claimed "near collision" that didn't even make its way into the public domain until 2008 and is very weakly sourced in some newspapers here and there and probably picked up by debunker websites.

As such, the information does not qualify as evidence.
More hand waving.

The pilot of the aircraft said to have been involved in the claimed near miss, Gerald Earwood, is seen here, lurkers:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/Gerald_Earwood_2050081722-26174.jpg?t=1274919022[/qimg]
Nice copy and paste.

Much of the radar data comes from a controller by the name of David Battaglia, seen here:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/716_dave_bottoglia2050081722-9118.jpg?t=1274919213[/qimg]
Are you saying that David Battaglia was handling Midex 7?

Neither the radar claims nor the near-miss claims have any stronger sourcing than controller statements, many obtained months afterwards, and none corroborated by NEADS, the NORAD sector operating in the Northeast.
Why would NEADS or NORAD be looking at Midex 7?

The NTSB "flight path studies" that debunkers are fond of using as a way of saying the NTSB was involved in the investigation are nothing other than a rehash of the 59pg FAA summary that I linked for you in post #681.

"FAA SUMMARY OF AIR TRAFFIC HIJACK EVENTS"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

The NTSB flight path studies do not represent or result from independent research undertaken by NTSB.
?????????????????????????????
Or are you relating to P4T as an independent researcher?

Lurkers, please do not be drawn in by debunker claims. Almost none of those claims can qualify as evidence because they are by and large based on newspaper hearsay, guess work and secondary sources, many of which were obtained AFTER the effects of the PSYOP had already been implanted via teevee.
Good God, even more hand waving. Aren't your arms getting sore?

In my view posting like that quoted above does the thread a disservice. If you're going to source your claims properly, then do it at the outset. No one should have to ask you to source what you base your claims on. Either you undertake to post substantively in that manner, or you don't.
No, you do this thread a disservice by posting untruthful and unsubstantiated information on a daily basis.


Posts speak for themselves.
And you speak very little. Actually, you speak quite a lot, but say very little.

 

[fess]

What shadow thingy? Do you mean the airplane?



They are taken from different angles at different times. There should be no expectation that their shapes (from different angles) or angles should match.



The debris seen in that photograph is not mostly paper. Most of those little rectangles are the length of an entire story of the building.

The rest of your post is even more ridiculous than the nonsense above. Do you think this input is valuable to anyone? It isn't. When are you going to stop desperately fooling yourself?

Thank you Gorgonian, I was going to comment on his post, but you did a very good job of covering it.

 

[fess]

As lurkers can easily see, the claims set out in this post are either based on what the images reveal or are otherwise sourced as to where the quote can be found and where the confounding video images (no debris) can be found.

If, and I must reiterate, IF, there are any lurkers out there, please speak up so Jammy doesn’t feel so alone.

BTW, where are all of these “no debris” photos at?

 

[triforcharity]

We are gonna have a LOT of reward bananas left over by page 43, Perhaps we can send out for Ice Cream?

Already got you cover my friend....

http://transfairusa.org/ftm2009/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/banana-split.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Do not hotlink images. See Rule 5.