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

[twinstead]

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.

You can think what ever you want. In the words of this hokey country song I just heard, "my give a damn's busted". The only evidence you bring forth is your skill at arguing a totally untenable position forever.

 

[sts75]

How many people were on the streets jammy.
How many people had a view of the towers.
How many people were on the low flying airliners flight paths.

Would a non americans estimate of half a million be about right please.

 

[dtugg]

More baseless accusation,

Nope it's a fact. When confronted with evidence, that is all your hero jammy does. For proof, read any of his posts.

you have made several of these baseless postings now, would proving your point be to much trouble.

If you want proof, watch a video of it happening. Your hero has kindly posted some of them.

Wash rinse repeat.

Yeah, how dare I point out that your hero proved himself wrong in his moronic op.

 

[sts75]

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"?

Indisputable proof cannot be hard to find surely, they were allegedly 2 jet airliners, they dont just dissapear into thin air. poof now you see me now you dont, i mean the guys{terrorists} passport allegedly survived the impact with nothing more than a singe.

 

[X]

I said he has put his case well, you have contributed no such thing, the quote above is the standard at which most of you operate to, witless unimaginitive rinse wash repeat garbbarge and innuendo, mixed with the constant linking to woo of anyone who dares even remotely to remonstrate with any of you.

"He's put his case well"?
You really think so?

Remember, you are talking about a person who believes that a direct witness to the crash is a valid no-plane witness. A person who believes that a witness who was on an underground train at the time is a valid no-plane witness. A person who thinks clear video of airplanes impacting the towers is evidence of there not being any planes. A person who asserts that all the evidence points to Directed Energy Weapons, but cannot (or will not) define what DEWs are, or how they work, or how the evidence points to that conclusion.

We have responded to his posts, and his "arguments". Repeatedly. That's part of the reason for telling you to look up his old posts (which you refuse to do).

Jammonious, however, does not acknowledge his errors. He merely twists things to his perverted views.

And most of us aren't interested in re-hashing long-since debunked claims from an person who is, by all observations possible here, not sane.

So, go read his old posts, and our replies to them. Instead of whining about how we aren't repeating ourselves for the umpteenth time. Because Jammonious really is not the crazy-train you want to hitch your wagon to. And we aren't impressed by your hissy-fit.



Case-in-point:

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.

Been done. He just hand waves it all away.

More baseless accusation, you have made several of these baseless postings now, would proving your point be to much trouble.

The accusation is not baseless. You merely refuse to look through old posts to see the proof you claim to crave.

We aren't going to spoon-feed you. Do a little reading for yourself.

 

[jammonius]

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

The debunker site you mention is of very poor quality in terms of its overall witness statements, let alone its agenda. I have commented that the only valid sources it mentions are the PAPD accounts, most of which suppport the NO PLANE claim because the actual call ins to the police said "explosion" and not "plane crash"; and, the Task Force witnesses, who, as I have shown, support the NO PLANE claim as much or moreso than they support PLANE SPOTTING.

It is to be recalled, for instance, that the best of the task force witnesses, in terms of their location and their duty to be observant were those at that Command Post at West Street between Liberty and Albany. Chief among them, no pun intended, was Asst. Commissioner Stephen Gregory, who described seeing no plane and hearing no sound that was consistent with one.

His statement is about the best there is for the proposition of what happened at 9:02:59 on 9/11 at the South Tower, bar none.

 

[Thunder]

How many people were on the streets jammy.
How many people had a view of the towers.
How many people were on the low flying airliners flight paths.

Would a non americans estimate of half a million be about right please.

my aunt and neighbor saw the second plane hit. my neighbor took photos of the 2nd plane.

are you calling them liars or delusional?

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Would a non americans estimate of half a million be about right please.

Sure, sounds close enough. The point is, we agree that the number of people was HUGE. And for these viewers, certain locations offered vantage points from which it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to miss the second jet as it screamed toward WTC2. So why is there not one single case of a witness saying "I was in a prefect position to see, and there was no second jet. I COULDN'T HVE MISSED IT"?

 

[sts75]

"He's put his case well"?
You really think so?

Remember, you are talking about a person who believes that a direct witness to the crash is a valid no-plane witness. A person who believes that a witness who was on an underground train at the time is a valid no-plane witness. A person who thinks clear video of airplanes impacting the towers is evidence of there not being any planes. A person who asserts that all the evidence points to Directed Energy Weapons, but cannot (or will not) define what DEWs are, or how they work, or how the evidence points to that conclusion.

We have responded to his posts, and his "arguments". Repeatedly. That's part of the reason for telling you to look up his old posts (which you refuse to do).

Jammonious, however, does not acknowledge his errors. He merely twists things to his perverted views.

And most of us aren't interested in re-hashing long-since debunked claims from an person who is, by all observations possible here, not sane.

No interest yet here you are with the schoolboy banter.


So, go read his old posts, and our replies to them. Instead of whining about how we aren't repeating ourselves for the umpteenth time. Because Jammonious really isn't the person you want to hitch your crazy-train to. And we aren't impressed by your hissy-fit.



Case-in-point:




The accusation is not baseless. You merely refuse to look through old posts to see the proof you claim to crave.

We aren't going to spoon-feed you. Do a little reading for yourself.

I am not interested in your views of his views,
I am not interested in his theories or any other musings he may have made.

This is the first time i have ever come across him and so far he has out argued the lot of you.

A few alleged witnesses to the event from a debunking site giving personal anecdotes do not disprove his no plane theory.

Jet airliners at that height near bust ear drums, with long long thousands of potential witnesses i find it incredulous that you debunkers cannot silence him with direct evidence of your stance.

 

[X]

i am not interested in your views of his views,
i am not interested in his theories or any other musings he may have made.

this is the first time i have ever come across him and so far he has out argued the lot of you.

a few alledged witnesses to the event from a debunking site giving personal anectdotes do not disprove his no plane theory.

jet airliners at that height near bust ear drums, with long long thousands of potential witnesses i find it incredulous that you debunkers cannot silence him with direct evidence of your stance.

Did you even read my post?

Did you read that bit about having addressed - and refuted - his arguments many times before?

 

[jammonius]

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.

Check! Your claim is utterly false. All other lines of supposed evidence are just as inconclusive, weak, insipid and stupid as is the PLANE SPOTTING video. I have shown this in other threads.

The radar, for instance, has been exposed earlier IN THIS thread and in a companion thread that has been running this month, to be based on utterly inadmissible speculation and recollection from what controllers said or thought they remembered in an overall context where they absolutely could not tell whether what they thought they saw was "real" or "exercise".

The debris issue is a total loser for you and you know it. No plane part was identified by part number. Perhaps the greatest absurdity of all is the claim that a rusty piece of junk found at the Fresh Kills dump is a jet engine:

The debunker website literally states with respect to the above piece of rusty junk:

Below: Engine part after being removed to Fresh Kills

That is a stupid claim that proves nothing at all other than there is no reliable determination, proven anywhere by anyone, that jetliners crashed at the WTC.

You next lay claim to "video" in this a thread in which I have shown, page in and page out, that the video proves nothing other than the existence of a high tech and pyrotechnical process of fraud and deception.

Last, and least, you reference 'cell phones' that are nothing more and nothing less than part and parcel of the deception that proves nothing at all. You cannot prove the reliability of the cell phone claim, let alone distinguish it from planned on fraud.

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.

The witnesses uniformly say "explosion" or "bomb" in the absence of being influenced by teevee. I have shown that to be the truth of the matter, six ways to Sunday.

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.

Your claim as to technique is fair enough; your conclusion is factually wrong. The verifiable and reliable witnesses all say "explosion" or "bomb."

That much has been proven.

 

[EventHorizon]

The witnesses uniformly say "explosion" or "bomb" in the absence of being influenced by teevee. I have shown that to be the truth of the matter, six ways to Sunday.



Your claim as to technique is fair enough; your conclusion is factually wrong. The verifiable and reliable witnesses all say "explosion" or "bomb."

Translation: I don't understand metaphors.

 

[jammonius]

sts75 thanks again. Now we know what lurkers can do. Come on folks, come on!!

23
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/23-longshot514.png?t=1276626052

Wow, posters, I must say. This thread has certainly picked up in intensity since Our sts75 came along.

I am ecstatic.

Video segment # 23 begins around the 5:14 marker. Look at it yourselves.

 

[sts75]

Sure, sounds close enough. The point is, we agree that the number of people was HUGE. And for these viewers, certain locations offered vantage points from which it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to miss the second jet as it screamed toward WTC2. So why is there not one single case of a witness saying "I was in a prefect position to see, and there was no second jet. I COULDN'T HVE MISSED IT"?

No that doesnt work.
Either they witnessed a jet strike the tower and report it or they didnt.

 

[EventHorizon]

No that doesnt work.
Either they witnessed a jet strike the tower and report it or they didnt.

Whether people reported or not has nothing to do with whether or not they saw it.

I live next to an airport, all you have to do is visit one, viola all the proof you will ever need.
And if one flew over you at that height, you would lookup, not withstanding the echo factor in a city.

So you've changed your argument then. Convenient.

 

[Dumb All Over]

sts75, earlier in the thread I asked people to answer the title of the thread by voting PLANE or NO PLANE based on the evidence presented in the 43 Videos video. Care to vote?

 

[sts75]

Whether people reported or not has nothing to do with whether or not they saw it.





So you've changed your argument then. Convenient.

Your wrong, if they didnt make a statement at the time it is now just hearsay.

 

[jammonius]

Thanks for another thoughtful post. You say:

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.

Parsing of what posters say is fine. Without knowing exactly what post of mine you are referring to, I do not know whether something needs to be modified or not.

My overall point is that no video accurately depicts the sound of a jetliner <1000ft up at 550mph. On that statement I stand.

I did comment, albeit indirectly, on your reference to the source of the videos. My comment was that you were seeking to rationalize or justify the lack of accurate sound. Fine, you are engaging in rationalization and/or excuse making. The fact remains, the videos do not depict the sound of a low, fast, widebody jetliner.

That is the fact of the matter.

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.

Once again, you have engaged in a textbook example of rationalization, in explaining why a highly disturbing and extreme attention-getting, environmentally distracting event was not seen or heard. Jetliners do not fly at maximum speed at low altitude. The 9/11 common storyline mandates jetliners at <1000ft above street level at or exceeding 500mph.

And, no one heard it as there are no reports I know of damaged eardrums, which such an event would have caused on a widespread basis.

A jetliner at 550mph would split eardrums, literally, and cause severe pain. People were absolutely oblivious to the event, as evidenced by, say, the Dick Oliver video, about which we have had 60+pgs of posting.

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.

I have elsewhere addressed the Naudet video, blob thingy, in some detail. You might benefit from taking a look at the two Dick Oliver threads:

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

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

Thanks, again, for your thoughtful posting.

 

[sts75]

sts75, earlier in the thread I asked people to answer the title of the thread by voting PLANE or NO PLANE based on the evidence presented in the 43 Videos video. Care to vote?

If i do you will be the first one i inform.

 

[EventHorizon]

Your wrong, if they didnt make a statement at the time it is now just hearsay.

No you're (note that using correct spelling and punctuation makes your posts easier to read) wrong. Making a statement has nothing to do with hearsay. They either saw it or they didn't.