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

[beachnut]

Zero sounds of explosives on 911. Sorry, all the witnesses agree, they did not hear explosives, they heard sounds like explosives.

Simile is not in the 911 truth tool box along with engineering, logic, knowledge, physics, math, science, fire science, etc... infinite list

THERE WERE A PLANES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Kind of renders your no plane theory useless
You have been proven wrong on every level of this discussion, it is true.

And you told this to someone who sees Plymouth Wheel covers when he looks at jet engine parts.

 

[jammonius]

the significance of the issue is simple, 2 planes flew into new york that day, and struck the twin towers, in a terrorist attack, ALL of the evidence leads to this conclusion, every single witness, I posted, stated they saw the planes, and heard the planes, plane debris was all over Manhattan, as shown in the pictures posted, and your response to this was it came from an explosion, well gee whiz Sherlock, step two is to ask yourself,"what could have exploded over NYC to rain PLANE parts all over the place?"

In short the pieces of the PLANE all over NYC, coming from an explosion as you put it, would tell you that a plane exploded, meaning

Wow. In the face of a specific, witness by witness refutation of your prior post, you articulate, as if by rote, the common storyline as if doing so proves something.

I wonder if you realize you are confirming the hold that the common storyline has upon you?

As for the remainder of your post, it appeared to me to be fluff, literally and figuratively. Accordingly, I don't consider it worthy of response.

 

[332nd]

In defense of this thread, I would like to point out that many of jam's posts are excellent examples of logical fallacies that I use in my speech classes.

 

[jammonius]

But, in all the videos that you claim a plane was not there because of the lack of sound the explosion sound is also absent. How do you explain this apparent lapse of logic?

Your post is erroneous. The sound of the explosion is heard in many. The accurate sound of a jetliner is not heard in any of them.

 

[jammonius]

In defense of this thread, I would like to point out that many of jam's posts are excellent examples of logical fallacies that I use in my speech classes.

Well, to the extent that the word 'excellent' counts for something, thank you for your (left-handed) compliment.

That said, what fallacies are exhibited by your post?

 

[DGM]

Your post is erroneous. The sound of the explosion is heard in many. The accurate sound of a jetliner is not heard in any of them.

And by "accurate" you mean what you think it SHOULD sound like?

 

[jammonius]

And by "accurate" you mean what you think it SHOULD sound like?

That is correct. Pense ergo sum

 

[BigAl]

Your post is erroneous. The sound of the explosion is heard in many.C n 9/22.T The accurate sound of a jetliner is not heard in any of them.

"Explosion" is just a synonym for "loud noise".
There were lots of loud noise heard at WTC on 9/11.

No eyewitness says they heard man-made demolition. "Like" is just a simile.

Nobody.

ex·plo·sion
   /ɪkˈsploʊʒən/ Show Spelled[ik-sploh-zhuhn]
–noun
1. an act or instance of exploding; a violent expansion or bursting with noise, as of gunpowder or a boiler ( opposed to implosion).
2. the noise itself: The loud explosion woke them.
3. a violent outburst, as of laughter or anger.
4. a sudden, rapid, or great increase: a population explosion.
5. the burning of the mixture of fuel and air in an internal-combustion engine.

 

[DGM]

That is correct. Pense ergo sum

So given the fact you have no expertise in the subject, why do you think people should listen to you and not just consider you a loon. If you claim you don't care (I believe you have in the past) then why do you continue to post? Are you just lonely and need someone to talk to?

 

[bill smith]

"Explosion" is just a synonym for "loud noise".
There were lots of loud noise heard at WTC on 9/11.

No eyewitness says they heard man-made demolition. "Like" is just a simile.

Nobody.

Hi Al and all , Long time no see.

Here's a couple of videos on the subject you are discussing.

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/music/watch/v224537xJtJApPr# around 1:15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUT7yup-YIg&NR=1 Around 0:45

 

[djlunacee]

That is correct. Pense ergo sum

That sums it up. Mama always says, "stupid is as stupid does"

 

[djlunacee]

Zero sounds of explosives on 911. Sorry, all the witnesses agree, they did not hear explosives, they heard sounds like explosives.

Simile is not in the 911 truth tool box along with engineering, logic, knowledge, physics, math, science, fire science, etc... infinite list




And you told this to someone who sees Plymouth Wheel covers when he looks at jet engine parts.

Yep, cause we all know that two plymouth hubcap covers zooming past your head at 1000 ft would be earsplitting!!!!!!!

 

[Edx]

1. There is also no sound of an explosion, does that mean there was no explosion?

Could it be that the camera was too far away? Maybe it was inside a building facing a window?

2. You ignore the guy saying "what's this other jet doing?"

He is a witness and this is a video of the plane. Your only argument is that its all fake, the witness and the video. You ignore and twist what you're given jammonius. There is absolutely no way to falsify your theories, you can be given everything you ever ask for and it still isn't enough. This is why even other truthers think you guys are nuts.

bump.

 

[lapman]

That is correct. Pense ergo sum

The onus is on you to provide what the aircraft should have sounded like. You have failed to do so and generally run away from requests like this. As someone that lives near a busy airport, I can state with some authority that the sound on the videos is of an jet airliner. There is nothing else that makes that sound that I have found. You have been asked repeatedly to prove your contention that it sounded like something else. You have failed to provide this prove and usually move the goal posts.

 

[Woody-]

jammonius, I guess my imagination is not up to the task, I can't figure out why anyone would go to all the trouble of faking two plane crashes when its thousands of times easier to just come up with a couple of jets. Regardless of how good you think your evidence is of no planes what idiot would think that faking planes is better than just using a couple of them to fly into the towers.

 

[fess]

Your posting style differs from mine. I have posted data and have explained what the data means, signifies and/or implies. That is what the thread reveals.

All of us, lurkers and everyone else, knows you disagree with the proposition that I am here articulating; namely, that the data do not substantiate the claim Boeing 767 jetliners hit the WTC on 9/11. And that, conversely, the data falsify that claim.

In case you haven’t noticed, AJM8125 is not the only one who disagrees with you. And as far as I am concerned, you have yet to show any credible evidence that proves your “no plane” theory.
You have been asked several valid questions concerning your theories, but you either refuse to answer them, or you push them aside as though they are invalid… with no reasonable or sensible explanation as to why.

This is an important exercise, imho, because we live in an era where the ability to distinguish the real from the unreal and to accurately distinguish reality from illusion is compromised by high tech media devices and mass deception techniques.

Are you proposing that every media source including the BBC, has intentionally tried to deceive the general public on the events of 9/11?

 

[fess]

For some reason, people think it ok if there is no reliable sound of a jetliner <1000ft@550mph in Manhattan in the videos that convinced them.

That is incorrect at best. Several videos have been posted that clearly have the sound of a jetliner in them. I am starting to believe that you have no idea of what a jet engine even sounds like, unless of course it is well above you.
Do us all a favor; take your home video camera out to the approach end of a jetport near you and take some videos of approaching jet aircraft. Then post them on your favorite media source… YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQsBggYIUUU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPDCa6aep9E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6TtDwmmwY4&feature=related

Now try to be honest.

 

[fess]

by Jammonious
Refutation of the "plane parts" mantra has been accomplished in a number of ways, not least of which is the fact that not one single part, piece, element or component of a jetliner has been confirmed by the simple technique of matching a part or piece to a part number or identification number. I have also shown the likelihood of falsity in the planting of supposed, but never identified, plane parts in a number of threads and posts.

Would you mind explaining to me, and the rest of the posters, just where all of the aircraft parts scattered throughout lower Manhattan, some on the tops of buildings, came from? And, who put them there?

 

[djlunacee]

Would you mind explaining to me, and the rest of the posters, just where all of the aircraft parts scattered throughout lower Manhattan, some on the tops of buildings, came from? And, who put them there?

I have been asking the same thing for 2 pages now. It's futile.

 

[triforcharity]

""We were on the 24th floor, which has a view of the World Trade Centre, when we heard the sound, and looked up to see a ball of fire coming from one of the towers."

That is a NO PLANE claim, utterly and entirely consistent with what all valid witnesses say. The right reverend has said nothing more and nothing less than that he saw an explosion, just like all other valid witnesses.

Wait, What is "the" sound that she heard??