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

[carlitos]

earth to jammonius

...when we turn the page

In the "User CP" interface, under "Edit Options," we can set preferences to view threads any number of ways, including viewing 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 posts per page. You have no idea when "turn the page" happens. All the best.

 

[jammonius]

Lurkers, new page, etc. and so forth ...

In the "User CP" interface, under "Edit Options," we can set preferences to view threads any number of ways, including viewing 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 posts per page. You have no idea when "turn the page" happens. All the best.

What an ironic post. I have pg. 21 as per my settings

21
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/21-evanfairbanks454.png?t=1276187186

As mentioned, video segment 21 of the ALL43 is the one known as the Evan Fairbanks video. It is utterly absurd, on its face, and clearly wreaking of falsity. Evan, himself, described his in person experience as being a witness to a "bad special effect."

And so it was.

The video interview with Peter Jennings, in which Evan used the descriptor "bad special effect" and also the descriptor that the jetliner image "disappeared into the building" can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bclQyWqp-dA

That 55second video is very enlightening, posters and lurkers. Paying attention to it can help in the process of coming to grips with what happened on 9/11

good luck

 

[jammonius]

I think you don't understand what that says.

Yet another ironic statement. I have already indicated the statement is consistent with the intent to commit science fraud and obfuscation.

It stands for the proposition that there was no discernible fire in the South Tower, and uses that factor as a reason not to investigate the meaning and the signficance of the lack of fire.

That meaning and that significance consist precisely in the fact that there is no proof a jetliner hit the WTC, let alone proof that even if a jetliner had hit the tower, it would not have been sufficient to cause the building to self-anihilate in <10 seconds.

The whole NIST report, including the quote that was given, confirm fraud.

 

[TJM]

Hey, thanks for clearing that up. Now I'm certain you don't understand what it says.

Then there's those thousands of eyewitnesses. I see you're still having difficulty hand waving them away. Just in case you're having trouble understanding that too, allow me to clarify:

You can't.

 

[fess]

What an ironic post. I have pg. 21 as per my settings

Ironic indeed that you have taken the time to write on 21 pages to convince us that you are a fool, something we already knew.

21
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/21-evanfairbanks454.png?t=1276187186

As mentioned, video segment 21 of the ALL43 is the one known as the Evan Fairbanks video. It is utterly absurd, on its face, and clearly wreaking of falsity. Evan, himself, described his in person experience as being a witness to a "bad special effect."

And so it was.

The video interview with Peter Jennings, in which Evan used the descriptor "bad special effect" and also the descriptor that the jetliner image "disappeared into the building" can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bclQyWqp-dA

That 55second video is very enlightening, posters and lurkers. Paying attention to it can help in the process of coming to grips with what happened on 9/11

good luck

Yep, the video is wrong. In reality, using the low end of the speeds quotes by you, the aircraft would have taken less than one second from the time it appears in the video to the time your fizzled firecracker exits the north side of the building.
By the way, they found your fizzled firecracker over on Murray Street. It was disguised as a Plymouth hubcap.

 

[fess]

Earth to Fess,

Hey, Fess, look, it's alright, one supposes, to express an appreciation for exactitude, that is fine. But, if that is the direction you want to go in, why did you not post up what the actual altitude or height is with respect to shadow thingy and/or blob thingy?

Evidently, looking at your altitude and speed figures, you don’t care for exactitude. Wouldn’t you be a joy to work with in an accident investigation?

Our lurkers might not know exactly how high the alleged planes were or what actual height corresponds to the floors where the explosions occurred.

And, it appears, neither do you.

By the way, what do you think of the very first sentence of NCSTAR 1-5A Ch 9 in terms of how stupid the NIST report actually is:

"This chapter describes the fire behaviors observed in World Trade Center (WTC)2 during the period following the impact of United airlines Flight 175 at 9:02:59 a.m. until the tower collapsed at 9:58:59 a.m. The fires had very different behaviors than those observed for WTC 1. In general, there was much less fire spread, and the total area of the outer facade where fires were observed was much smaller. For this reason, the discussion will focus on general characteristics and major changes in fire distribution instead of the details of the fire spread as in Chapter 8 describing the fires in WTC 1."

In case your propensity for denial is too strong, let me just inform you that the above quoted sentence describes an intent to engage in science fraud and in blatant obfuscation and that is what NIST did.

If there was no fire in WTC 2 worth mentioning, then a couple of things need to be considered:

1--The reason why no fire was there; namely, no jetliner hit it; and

2--the annihilation of the tower wasn't caused by the fire that wasn't there in the first place; as NIST acknowledges.

Come on, Fess, if you want to engage in exactitude, do it where it matters; namely, in exposing the NIST fraud.

I think I will agree with the majority, “I think you don't understand what that says”.
And, if you don’t mind me saying; the only fraud being exposed here is… you!

 

[triforcharity]

By the way, what do you think of the very first sentence of NCSTAR 1-5A Ch 9 in terms of how stupid the NIST report actually is:

"This chapter describes the fire behaviors observed in World Trade Center (WTC)2 during the period following the impact of United airlines Flight 175 at 9:02:59 a.m. until the tower collapsed at 9:58:59 a.m. The fires had very different behaviors than those observed for WTC 1. In general, there was much less fire spread, and the total area of the outer facade where fires were observed was much smaller. For this reason, the discussion will focus on general characteristics and major changes in fire distribution instead of the details of the fire spread as in Chapter 8 describing the fires in WTC 1."

In case your propensity for denial is too strong, let me just inform you that the above quoted sentence describes an intent to engage in science fraud and in blatant obfuscation and that is what NIST did.

If there was no fire in WTC 2 worth mentioning, then a couple of things need to be considered:
1--The reason why no fire was there; namely, no jetliner hit it; and

2--the annihilation of the tower wasn't caused by the fire that wasn't there in the first place; as NIST acknowledges.

Come on, Fess, if you want to engage in exactitude, do it where it matters; namely, in exposing the NIST fraud.

No fire in WTC 2 worth mentioning? So a 392 page report JUST ON THE FIRES ALONE, is "Not worth mentioning?"

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-5A Ch 1-8.pdf

Goddamn, some people's kids......

 

[Macgyver1968]

There is no point to responding to this thread...just let it die. Jam said he would only post one example per page....so if no one posts...no more silliness.

 

[jammonius]

No fire in WTC 2 worth mentioning? So a 392 page report JUST ON THE FIRES ALONE, is "Not worth mentioning?"

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-5A Ch 1-8.pdf

Goddamn, some people's kids......

As a point of information, NCSTAR1-5A Ch 1-8, the document cited above, does not deal at all with the fires in WTC 2.

There is a separate NIST document, NCSTAR1-5A Ch. 9 that deals with what little fire there was in WTC 2. Clearly, the quoted attempt to refute what was posted in # 799 fails and fails utterly. The following is from NCSTAR1-5A Ch 9:

"This chapter describes the fire behaviors observed in World Trade Center (WTC)2 during the period following the impact of United airlines Flight 175 at 9:02:59 a.m. until the tower collapsed at 9:58:59 a.m. The fires had very different behaviors than those observed for WTC 1. In general, there was much less fire spread, and the total area of the outer facade where fires were observed was much smaller. For this reason, the discussion will focus on general characteristics and major changes in fire distribution instead of the details of the fire spread as in Chapter 8 describing the fires in WTC 1."

There have been a few other, feeble attempts to counter the plain meaning of the above quote, not merely the erroneous one to which this replies.

That sort of error is completely understandable, lurkers. NCSTAR is set up so as to be mind-bogglingly complex, assine and obscure. That is the nature of the science fraud it engages in.

The NCSTAR process consists in 10,000pgs of BS that tells you next to nothing at all about how the WTC complex was destroyed. What little merit it does have is contained in the admissions like the one quoted here that explains there was no meaningful fire in WTC 2 and thus no rational connection between an alleged smack by an alleged Boeing 767 and the subsequent annihilation that took <10seconds to utterly wipe-out the skyscrapers leaving mostly dust and a debris pile of <2 storys, on average, where once had stood a combined total of 289 storys of skyscraper (WTC 1,2,3 and 7).

Come on lurkers, is anyone inclined to begin the process of waking up yet?

Once again, what little is said about what little fire there was at WTC 2 can be found at the following location and not at the location linked by triforcharity:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...9_Appx C.pdf

 

[DGM]

NCSTAR is set up so as to be mind-bogglingly complex, assine and obscure.

The NIST report was never intended to convince the laymen. The NIST report is intended for the professionals that actually work in the field. If you had a clue you would already know this. You need to stop analyzing things you don't know anything about, the fact your clueless is obvious to everyone that still reads your rantings.

That is the nature of the science fraud it engages in.

The fraud here is painfully obvious, just look in the mirror and you will see what everyone else sees.

 

[jammonius]

The NIST report was never intended to convince the laymen. The NIST report is intended for the professionals that actually work in the field.

Hey lurkers, look at the above. That is precisely how science fraud is carried out. The claim is that the obfuscation is not intended for lay persons and can only be understood by professionals. DGM, your statement is a blatant attempt to justify fraud.

Were I you, I'd edit that post. It is insipid, lame and a poor excuse for science fraud.

 

[DavidJames]

The NIST report was never intended to convince the laymen. The NIST report is intended for the professionals that actually work in the field. If you had a clue you would already know this. You need to stop analyzing things you don't know anything about, the fact your clueless is obvious to everyone that still reads your rantings.

So true. The ignorant have a couple of options. They could education themselves, or consult with those who aren't so ignorant. Their second option is best personified by jammonius' response. Refuse to learn and further show their ignorance by whining and complaining that their ignorance is actually being used against them. Paranoia and ignorance often work hand in hand.

 

[DGM]

Hey lurkers, look at the above. That is precisely how science fraud is carried out. The claim is that the obfuscation is not intended for lay persons and can only be understood by professionals. DGM, your statement is a blatant attempt to justify fraud.

Were I you, I'd edit that post. It is insipid, lame and a poor excuse for science fraud.

No need to edit. (See DavidJames post above).

ETA: Why do you think it would be good to "edit my post"? Do you think that in the real world you can rewind when other people think what you said is wrong? I have never "edited" my posts because what I said may not "go over well" and I don't plan to in the future. Nothing bothers me more then when people go back and change what they said after the fact.

 

[fess]

Hey lurkers, look at the above. That is precisely how science fraud is carried out.

How ironic that the one person that would know about fraud more than any other would claim this.

The claim is that the obfuscation is not intended for lay persons and can only be understood by professionals. DGM, your statement is a blatant attempt to justify fraud.

Actually, I don’t think that was the exact meaning of DGM’s statement. I think that anyone with a half way decent high school education, and the ability to think in a logical manner, would have no problem understanding the documents.
Of course, all of those who possess the ability to think logically already believe that both towers were struck by a 757/767 type aircraft. The evidence is overwhelming.

One thing you don’t seem to realize; not one “lurker” that you keep begging to come forward has yet to show up to support you. In fact, no one in this thread supports you.

 

[triforcharity]

Once again, what little is said about what little fire there was at WTC 2 can be found at the following location and not at the location linked by triforcharity:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...9_Appx C.pdf

My bad. It deals mostly with WTC 1. I did post the wrong link.

Here, try this.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-5A Chap 9_Appx C.pdf

258 pages is nothing.....sure.....

 

[dafydd]

Hey lurkers, look at the above. That is precisely how science fraud is carried out. The claim is that the obfuscation is not intended for lay persons and can only be understood by professionals. DGM, your statement is a blatant attempt to justify fraud.

Were I you, I'd edit that post. It is insipid, lame and a poor excuse for science fraud.

There are no lurkers,at least none that agree with you.Hasn't that sunk in yet?

 

[jammonius]

Hey, thanks for clearing that up. Now I'm certain you don't understand what it says.

Then there's those thousands of eyewitnesses. I see you're still having difficulty hand waving them away. Just in case you're having trouble understanding that too, allow me to clarify:

You can't.

Hey Lurkers,

Note the irony. On the page that features one of the most telling of all of the videos, the one taken by Evan Fairbanks, himself a legitimate eyewitness, AJM chooses to re-post the "1000s of witnesses" mantra that posters here no longer even try to prove.

They believe there are "1000s of witnesses" just because and that is all the reason they need. I have said many times, I don't question people's beliefs. People are free to believe there are "1000s of witnesses" as long as they can.

One who isn't among them, however, is Evan Fairbanks, who correctly noted the alleged plane disappeared into the building like a "bad special effect."

And so it was. Take a look for yourselves:

21
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1276187186

 

[jammonius]

There are no lurkers,at least none that agree with you.Hasn't that sunk in yet?

Well, speaking of what has or hasn't "sunk in" yet; quick, how many witnesses are there who reliably and verifiably claim they saw and heard a jetliner hit one or the other of the Twin Towers?

You don't have to post your answer, just be true to yourself, ...

if you can be.

 

[twinstead]

Well, speaking of what has or hasn't "sunk in" yet; quick, how many witnesses are there who reliably and verifiably claim they saw and heard a jetliner hit one or the other of the Twin Towers?

You don't have to post your answer, just be true to yourself, ...

if you can be.

See, that's your problem: You think that you get to decide what witnesses "reliably and verifiably claim" and which ones don't. And you would be wrong, because everybody else knows that's just a way for you to hand wave away any witness who contradicts you.

You can be shown a list of on-the-record accounts of people who saw the plane hit the building and think that your decision on their "reliably and verifiably" is final. It is not.

 

[jammonius]

See, that's your problem: You think that you get to decide what witnesses "reliably and verifiably claim" and which ones don't. And you would be wrong, because everybody else knows that's just a way for you to hand wave away any witness who contradicts you.

What on earth are you talking about? Are you seeking to support claims just because they appear in newspapers and begin with sentences like "someone told this reporter that they know someone who knows someone who saw...?

Reliable and verifiable are not difficult terms to come to grips with and they apply to all witnesses.

Look, debunker websites are not reliable sources for witnesses because such sites have an agenda. Ask yourself, how many debunker sites point out that there are witnesses who claim they neither saw nor heard a jetliner?

Answer: Few, if any, as that is not what debunker websites do. They do not report true and accurate information; rather, they seek out ways to try to confirm the stupid common storyline of 9/11.

I've already shown you that the police reports reference witnesses to "an explosion." The first responders include about as many who say they saw a plane as those who say the opposite.

Virtually no witness that can be found anywhere has a reliable description of HEARING a jetliner. Hearing is the second most revealing human sense apparatus; and, as to 9/11, next to no one reports accurately hearing what a jetliner should have sounded like. And that is because no such thing was there.

We are now almost at the midway point of the ALL43 videos, Twinstead. Ask yourself, how many of them record a jetliner sound? Answer, none.

You can be shown a list of on-the-record accounts of people who saw the plane hit the building and think that your decision on their "reliably and verifiably" is final. It is not.

No, I do not claim finality. People can differ and disagree, that is fine. My rationale for what is or isn't reliable applies equally to all claims. Using that standard, the plain fact of the matter is that there are more reliable accounts consistent with NO PLANE than there are reliable accounts consistent with PLANE SPOTTING.