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

[Dave Rogers]

I see sts75 is trying to pretend I didn't just post a link to a site that lists about 80 witness accounts of the approach and impacts of the planes. It seems that sticking your fingers in your ears is a valid debating technique on this thread.

Dave

 

[dtugg]

I am 100% positive. Especially as there were others around me that also saw. Or perhaps we simultaneously hallucinated the same thing?

 

[sts75]

I am 100% positive. Especially as there were others around me that also saw. Or perhaps we simultaneously hallucinated the same thing?

Repeating yourself will not make your statements any more credible than me claiming to be an astronaut every other posting.

 

[dtugg]

Repeating yourself will not make your statements any more credible than me claiming to be an astronaut every other posting.

This is an odd response considering that I didn't repeat myself. Anyway, you say this like I should care if you find me to be credible or not. And why should I? You're just some random twoofer.

 

[EventHorizon]

Is he really trying to compare eyewitness reliability in determining height, weight, hair color, eye color and things like that with seeing a jetliner flying into a skyscraper?

 

[sts75]

Is he really trying to compare eyewitness reliability in determining height, weight, hair color, eye color and things like that with seeing a jetliner flying into a skyscraper?

I said i will supply the same links the debunkers supply when disputing eye witness reports of large fast moving airborne objects.
Hell i my even be able to quote one or two of the posters here in this thread directly disputing eye witness testimony in a ufo related thread if i bothered to look.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Is he really trying to compare eyewitness reliability in determining height, weight, hair color, eye color and things like that with seeing a jetliner flying into a skyscraper?

Above and beyond that: The eyewitnesses testimony is supported by alternate lines of evidence, such as radar data, debris, video, airphone/cellphone calls, etc. So the witness testimony is validated.

Furthermore, it's one thing to critique overreliance on details of witness testimony, but it's a whole other thing to discard it altogether. That's a mistake people make too often. 5 witnesses to a mugging or purse snatching may not agree on the height, weight, hair color, etc. of the perpetrator, but that doesn't justify someone taking those differences and saying "Nope. No mugging/purse snatching occurred". Ditto 9/11: Some folks weren't sure of the coloration of the jetliners, some folks used different similies to describe what they saw, but add it all up, and you still have a jetliner impact. And that's before you take into account the corroborating evidence from elsewhere.

It's legit to dispute the accuracy of detailed recollections, but people need to realize that the sum of all the witness statements is what matters. And all of them add up to jets being present.

 

[TJM]

Can i read their witness statements anywhere, as i agree there would be 1000s, and their statements would be interesting.

Jammonious has been asking for pages now for someone to supply some statements to back up the bluff and bluster, so where are they??.

1. Perhaps you should go back and read the OP, which lists 43 videos, some of which were shot by amateur and freelance photographers.

2. Perhaps you should go back read jammonius' posting history. He refuses to answer any questions yet demands proof from everyone else.

3. Do learn how to use the quote function properly and get your facts straight before spouting off moronic tripe, unless you really are as ignorant as you sound. Then by all means, do carry on.

 

[sts75]

Start reading Jammonius' post from the beginning (of his time here) like we have. Do you find his argument for DEW and "ground zero" being flat compelling? How about the "Plymouth hubcaps" and horse trailers at Shanksville?

No i wont.

His postings here on this thread is all thats in dispute.
Refute them or his views will be taken seriously by some, and it will be the debunkers fault for taking more pleasure in debasing him, than debunking him.

 

[twinstead]

I mean i am no proffessor but i imagine it wouldnt be hard to prove 2 jet airliners crashed into 2 massive office blocks bringing several down into a 2 story heap, but no you just bitch about him instead.

It shouldn't be, you're right. Unless you're trying to prove it to somebody who sticks his fingers in his ears and says, "la la la" when any evidence that is contrary to his position is brought forward, and might possibly be insane. Then it is pretty much impossible to 'prove' ANYTHING, no matter how obvious.

Do you find his arguments that no planes hit the WTC compelling?

 

[BillyRayValentine]

No i wont.

His postings here on this thread is all thats in dispute.
refute them or his views will be taken seriously by some, and it will be the debunkers fault for taking more pleasure in debasing him, than debunking him.

What would qualify in your mind? What manner of refuting his nonsense do you think people here have been unwilling or unable to employ? What kind of "proof" are you looking for?

 

[sts75]

It shouldn't be, you're right. Unless you're trying to prove it to somebody who sticks his fingers in his ears and says, "la la la" when any evidence that is contrary to his position is brought forward, and might possibly be insane. Then it is pretty much impossible to 'prove' ANYTHING, no matter how obvious.

Do you find his arguments that no planes hit the WTC compelling?

Bring the evidence forward and we will see what he does, unless your claiming phychic abilities, is this the case please.
What i or anyone thinks is irrelevant.

 

[DGM]

I am not interested in your vain attempts to demonise him, what he has said elsewhere is irrelevant to this thread, disprove him here.

It's already been done, long ago. Your just late to the party and expect everyone to restart for you. Read back a few years if you want to know about "no-planers". You didn't answer how you felt about his views on.......well everything. Besides it was not "elsewhere" it was here!

 

[dtugg]

Bring the evidence forward and we will see what he does, unless your claiming phychic abilities, is this the case please.
What i think is irrelevant.

Been done. He just hand waves it all away.

 

[sts75]

What would qualify in your mind? What manner of refuting his nonsense do you think people here have been unwilling or unable to employ? What kind of "proof" are you looking for?

Would proving 2 jet airliners struck the towers be to much trouble < please.

 

[djlunacee]

The above is a substantive reply that adds to the quality of the discussion. It has been awhile since a poster other than yours truly has made an actual reference to the content of the ALL43 videos. I was wondering when someone would do that.

As to your overall excuse making for the videos as a whole, I think you are engaging in improper rationalization. Each of the segments needs to be viewed to determine what its merits are, without a bias towards explaining away (rationalizing) the probems they entail in terms of whether they can be said to accurately depict a jetliner crash. They do no such thing. Instead, they depict a pyrotechnical display. That is the point of the them.

OK, the video at the 2:16 mark is number 9 in the sequence.

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/th_9--swifty.png?t=1276602621

The shadow thingy does come in swiftly and the sound of explosion is quite discernible. This one runs from about 2:14-2:27. It sounds like window glass breaking. There is a background hist that I assume is what you mean when you say there is jetliner noise. However, that hiss does not correlate with the crash, in that it continues after the crash. The hiss is not loud enough to be the jet engine sound of a Boeing 767@550mph from as close as that camera appears to have been. Further, all of the other problems with the pyrotechnical display are seen in this version too, including the explosion in the wrong place and the paper debris and fizzling out in midair of the flares that were a part of the display.

The second video referenced begins at the 5:40 mark and is number 25.

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...milartobestanglemoneyshot541.png?t=1276603361

It begins at about 5:41 and goes to about 5:52. It is one of the better ones in that it does have some semblance of sound, but the sound is nowhere near loud enough to be a Boeing767@550mph. This version has all the well known visual problems that confirm that what is seen is not an actual jetliner.

Thanks again for your post. It is appropriate to take a look at the video segments, compare them, contrast them and view them from a perspective of asking "what is seen; what is heard" from a rational perspective.

Sorry, but you posted to twinstead that there is no audible sounds in ANY of the videos, I pointed out clearly why for most of them, I notice that you failed to address the fact that most of them are from the news broadcasts where sound from the live feed would not be broadcast, so not to drown out the anchors.

Let's put this in some kind of perspective, we are talking about the island of Manhattan at any given time there are 7-10 million people on that small island. In the vicinity of the island are three major airports, La Guardia, JFK, and Newark, the sounds of jet airliners are nothing new to NYers, so frankly it doesn't surprise me that not a whole lot of folk look up whenever a plane passes overhead, however, after the first strike the vicinity of WTC was trained and all eyes were there, so it is safe, and reasonable to say that, yes indeed, 1000's of people saw and heard the plane.

Think about this, watch the Naudet video of the first strike, it is evident that you can see and hear the plane which makes both the fireman and the camera man look up and see the plane.

To argue against these points and claim there were no planes, is simply plain dishonest, and a tragic disservice to those who lost their lives on that day, period.

 

[dtugg]

Would proving 2 jet airliners struck the towers be to much trouble < please.

Your hero jammy posted proof himself in the OP, genius.

 

[djlunacee]

Would proving 2 jet airliners struck the towers be to much trouble < please.

Prove they didn't.

 

[jammonius]

Not thousands, but a fair sized sample:

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheysaw:eyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

I haven't seen jammonius go point-by-point through all these and explain why he rejects every single one, but I'm sure he's capable of that level of self-delusion.

Dave

Hey Lurkers,

Note the above:

Not thousands, but a fair sized sample...

Earth to Dave, you cannot find 1000s because they do not exist. Plus, your claim "fair sized sample" does not come from an objective site. I have commented, in detail, on that debunker site in other posts. I have pointed out that it only references about two credible sources, the police reports (that mainly say "explosion" and DO NOT confirm jetliner crashes) and the Task Force witnesses that I have elsewhere analyzed in detail.

 

[twinstead]

Jesus sts75, answer our question to you: Where did we drop the ball in this thread according to you? What in your mind would be the coup de grâce proof that would make jammonius suddenly stop and say, "oh, yea. I guess I was wrong"?