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

[TheRedWorm]

You post pictures of a plane, and expect the lurkers to think there wasn't one?

 

[jammonius]

Blah, Blah, Blah.....are you going to post anything that has any scientific value?

Let me see if I can read between the lines. Are you saying "you are right and I am wrong"?

So far in this thread, You have made a claim that there is no sound of a jet airliner, when pointed out in your own videos that there is, you just hand wave it away saying its not loud enough as the decibel level as you think would should have made everyone on the island of Manhattan deaf, with permanent ear damage, in spite of all the evidence I and many others have presented, both logical and scientific, you hold on to this notion, even scoffing at people who work with planes everyday. Conclusion: Dumb.

I stand by the proposition that a jetliner at <1000ft@550mph above Manhattan would have been clearly and hurtfully heard as a jetliner and not as an explosion.

I have proven that the witnesses who are reliable nearly universally describe having heard an explosion and seen a fireball.

The witnesses prove no Boeing 767 jetliners were involved.

The audio/video evidence likewise proves the same thing.

Some of the witnesses go further and acknowledge that what they saw was a 'bad special effect."

That is what the evidence confirms, irrespective of your desire to see yourself as being 'right'.

Your inability to be rational and understand that while there may not be 1000's of documented witness statements, there were 1000's of witnesses, just by proxy here is how you handled the very first witness statement I gave you,

As you appear to be questioning how I interpreted Dr. Matthews, let's see if your questioning withstands scrutiny:

Quote:
Reverend Doctor Daniel P Matthews

"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. A few minutes later, we saw the second plane hit, and again a ball of fire erupted."

From 'Eyewitness To Disaster' by John Allen. Tuesday 11th September 2001. Episcopal News Service.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_20738_ENG_HTM.htm

The first thing I said was:

The above is not evidence based on the source.

Do you acknowledge that your witness, Dr. Matthews is first quoted by someone named John Allen in something called 'Eyewitness to Disaster'? That same title has probably been used countless times to describe countless things. That sort of reporting is not known for reliability and, in any event, reports like that are not admissible as evidence, not because they might or might not be true, but simply because they are too indirect. In legal terms, that sort of reporting is "hearsay" and hearsay is not admissible as evidence.

You may want to believe it, you may want to say it, you may want lurkers to be convinced by it, but it is inadmissible as evidence.

So, my statement "[t]he above is not evidence based on the source" is true and correct, if I do venture so far as to say so myself in this one instance.

I next said:

Moreover, with that having been said, note what the right reverend actually says:

""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.

True, he then goes on to say "we saw the second plane hit". One supposes that "one out of two ain't bad" perhaps?

You do not directly challenge what I said, rather you pose an interesting epistemological dilemma as follows:

The presence of one plane is all it takes to render your NO plane theory useless. Conclusion: Stupid.

That is an arbitrary declaration. It is just as valid to say that all it takes is the lack of one plane to render the common storyline of 9/11 false. Come on, djlunacee, are you willing to believe the common storyline of 9/11 if, say, no Boeing 767 crashed into, say, the North Tower, but you're nonetheless pretty sure one did strike the South Tower?

I don't think you've posted very smartly by putting yourself onto the horns of that dilemma.

Then there was this gem:


Originally Posted by DGM View Post
And by "accurate" you mean what you think it SHOULD sound like?


Your response: That is correct. Pense ergo sum

Conclusion: Arrogant.

Well, you might have been better off asking whether the more accurate way of quoting Descartes is: "cogito ergo sum"

However, apart from that, thinking about what a jetliner should sound like and how it should be reported by witnesses is, of necessity, a circumstance that cannot be known one way or the other absent some process of thinking about the event and giving it objective meaning based on subjective experience.

Or, put simply, as I have done several times, you can believe jetliners hit the WTC on 9/11 for as long as you can.

Finally once again when you were proven wrong on the fuel placement in a Boeing 767, and as to whether or not the structural steel at WTC was hollow or solid, you continue to cling to you claims that the planes should have bounced off the towers or should have exploded on impact.

Conclusion: Foolish

Posters here have a passion for belief in their rightness and my wrongness. I do not engage in gotcha games of trying to prove people wrong. I encourage the exchange of information, which, in fact, is what I did in re the fuel tanks onboard a Boeing 767. I said they were not only in the wings, but that is a fact that you conveniently overlook.

In any event, let's be clear here: You are seeking to lower the level of discussion into a pedantic "right/wrong" discussion on a detail that is easily looked up. Aren't we past that sort of thing yet?

No real interest is served by proving yourself right about such matters.

The explosion at the South Tower was in the wrong place at the wrong time and the graphic display of a jetliner gliding through steel perimeter beams was, as Evan Fairbanks, who was there, said: " a bad special effect."

In effect, you are not arguing with me so much as you are with the valid eyewitnesses.

You have accused the opposite site of the debate as being rational and logical. Thanks. We have also given you evidence that we base our conclusions on.

So to sum up this entire thread we have you:

Dumb, Stupid, Arrogant, and Foolish.


VS.


Everyone else:

Rational, logical, and conclusions based on evidence and research.



Just to catch the lurkers and casual readers on this thread up.

On the side, wasn't there a poll going on as to plane or no plane? If so, where do we stand on that count? How many lurkers has Jammonius convinced that there were no planes?

Why do you place so much emphasis on convincing yourself that you are right?

 

[jammonius]

I must say Jammonius, you are getting much better at posting. So far, you have only had to edit 3 posts on this page, 3 out of 6 isn’t really that bad I guess. However, it took 29 minutes to realize that you made a double post. That means you spent 67 minutes editing the other 2 posts. No wonder you have no life.
Why not just keep all of your inane comments in a separate file so you can copy and paste them to your posts and save some time.
Just trying to help you out here Buddy… and, you certainly need help.

Ah, so, you can engage in deductive reasoning after all. Were you to apply the same investigative interpretation process to the events of 9/11, you'd be a NO PLANER in no time.

 

[jammonius]

sure:
Originally Posted by Rev. Daniel Matthews
we saw the second plane hit

Well, the context here is you're asking for help in interpreting what Dr. Matthews said. So I will help you, as I already have done when I first called attention to the no plane aspects of his statement:

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6069782&postcount=1125

In that post I said the following that relates to Dr. Matthews' third person declaration:

As to the South Tower, the fact that more than one of the witnesses says, in effect, "we saw" rather than "I saw" is (sic) indicative of not seeing a plane, could more of our dedicated debunkers but realize it.
...
Here is yet another "we saw" rather than "I saw" claim. Do posters realize the weakness of such claims; and, more importantly, are posters beginning to realize that the witnesses they thought existed simply do not exist?

I will elaborate a bit further on this "We saw" phenomenon: Basically, as evidence, no person has the right to ipso facto say what someone else saw, without being put into the "gotcha chair" and asked "gotcha" questions, right posters? Since some many of you love to play "gotcha" I am sure I do not have to explain to you in detail how "gotcha" would work with respect to someone who makes a "we saw" declaration in a context where all we're really interested in is what did the person actually see. That person, not someone else.

Secondly in this respect, the claim "we saw" serves to buttress what the person in question might actually not have seen; and, in re 9/11, did not see. We can easily see and understand that the claim "we saw" is a cover for the fact that the person in question did not see a plane but would like to be included within a group that did so. This is precisely what is meant by "group think" and by the old saying: "there's safety in numbers."

Side note to Our Sherlock Holmes - Fess:

You understand this, right?

 

[jammonius]

You post pictures of a plane, and expect the lurkers to think there wasn't one?

I have posted a video showing the 43 versions of the explosion at the South Tower. In not one of them is there a clear and unambiguous image of an actual Boeing 767. The very best of the images shown in the very best of the 43 videos is inconclusive at best.

For the most part, the images are not that of a plane; rather thay are a)shadowy; or, b)blurry; or, c)cloudy; or, d) not there at all. And that goes for all of them.

It is a psyop to say that the videos show a Boeing 767. They show no such thing. In reviewing video, one has to put oneself into an objective place and ask oneself:

What do I see and what do I hear in this video?

Ask yourselves that posters. Then, see if you can answer objectively and accurately what you see and what you hear.

Remember, make no assumption about what is seen and what is heard; merely describe it to yourselves.

Good luck

 

[332nd]

Well, the context here is you're asking for help in interpreting what Dr. Matthews said. So I will help you, as I already have done when I first called attention to the no plane aspects of his statement:

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6069782&postcount=1125

In that post I said the following that relates to Dr. Matthews' third person declaration:

As to the South Tower, the fact that more than one of the witnesses says, in effect, "we saw" rather than "I saw" is (sic) indicative of not seeing a plane, could more of our dedicated debunkers but realize it.
...
Here is yet another "we saw" rather than "I saw" claim. Do posters realize the weakness of such claims; and, more importantly, are posters beginning to realize that the witnesses they thought existed simply do not exist?

I will elaborate a bit further on this "We saw" phenomenon: Basically, as evidence, no person has the right to ipso facto say what someone else saw, without being put into the "gotcha chair" and asked "gotcha" questions, right posters? Since some many of you love to play "gotcha" I am sure I do not have to explain to you in detail how "gotcha" would work with respect to someone who makes a "we saw" declaration in a context where all we're really interested in is what did the person actually see. That person, not someone else.

Secondly in this respect, the claim "we saw" serves to buttress what the person in question might actually not have seen; and, I
n re 9/11, did not see. We can easily see and understand that the claim "we saw" is a cover for the fact that the person in question did not see a plane but would like to be included within a group that did so. This is precisely what is meant by "group think" and by the old saying: "there's safety in numbers."

Side note to Our Sherlock Holmes - Fess:

You understand this, right?

See what I mean by excellent examples of logical fallacies? Not to mention the mental gymnastics needed to reach the conclusion that by saying they saw the plane, the witness really means he didn't see the plane.

 

[jammonius]

See what I mean by excellent examples of logical fallacies? Not to mention the mental gymnastics needed to reach the conclusion that by saying they saw the plane, the witness really means he didn't see the plane.

Would you agree with me the witness did not say: "I saw the plane" or not?

Mind you, I am not here playing "gotcha". I do not do that. This is simply an exercise in understanding. You've indicated a keen interest in fallacies. Isn't it a fallacy to interpret a person as saying one thing when they have, in fact, said another?

I don't think it asking too much or reaching too far to simply note that if a person says "we saw" it is, at best, unclear as to what the person in question actually saw, absent more probing for understanding.

On its face, a declaration 'we saw' is ambiguous, is it not, Redtail?

Once again, I am here asking for purposes of understanding. It is alright with me if you stick with your position and say that "we saw" means "I saw." If that is what you hold to be true, then fine, you may do so for as long as you can.

It saddens me that you have responded to what I say is an example of "group think" by saying, as you have:

Not to mention the mental gymnastics needed to reach the conclusion that by saying they saw the plane, the witness really means he didn't see the plane

You do not follow your contrary declaration with anything in the way of actual refutation, thus engaging in a, you guessed it, fallacy, right Redtail?

Even though you have not refuted the "group think" danger I have pointed to, you have sought to undermine it. So, let me conclude this post with the following additional support for the claim I have made.

Try this: Google the expression "group think safety in numbers" and check out your results.

all the best

 

[Gorgonian]

I can absolutely say that that post is one of the funniest I've seen on any forum at any time.

"We went to the store" means I and others went to the store together. It is not unclear. It is not ambiguous.

"We saw the plane" means I and others saw the plane. It is not unclear. It is not ambiguous.

Do you really think this is convincing?

 

[jammonius]

I can absolutely say that that post is one of the funniest I've seen on any forum at any time.

"We went to the store" means I and others went to the store together. It is not unclear. It is not ambiguous.

"We saw the plane" means I and others saw the plane. It is not unclear. It is not ambiguous.

Do you really think this is convincing?

Come on Gorgonian, you are not doing my post full justice here. I plainly said:

Once again, I am here asking for purposes of understanding. It is alright with me if you stick with your position and say that "we saw" means "I saw." If that is what you hold to be true, then fine, you may do so for as long as you can."

Gorgonian, it is alright with me if you proclaim that "We saw" means the same thing as "I saw" and that there is no ambiguity in the matter. You may hold to your belief for as long as you can.

 

[Oystein]

Come on Gorgonian, you are not doing my post full justice here. I plainly said:

Once again, I am here asking for purposes of understanding. It is alright with me if you stick with your position and say that "we saw" means "I saw." If that is what you hold to be true, then fine, you may do so for as long as you can."

Gorgonian, it is alright with me if you proclaim that "We saw" means the same thing as "I saw" and that there is no ambiguity in the matter. You may hold to your belief for as long as you can.

"We" means "I" + "one or more others".
"We saw a plane" means "I saw a plane" + "one or more others saw a plane".

This implies logically the single statement "I saw a plane".



So YES: "We saw a plane" logically means "I saw a plane" (and some more, not less).


Agreed?

 

[Oystein]

An exercise in strict logic

If (A And B) Then A is a logically true conclusion. Always.

"We" equals "I and one or more others"
therefore
"We saw a plane" equals "(I and some others) saw a plane" equals "I saw plane" AND "some others saw a plane"

Let A = "I saw a plane"
Let B = "Some others saw a plane"
A And B = "We saw a plane"

If ("I saw a plane" And "some others saw plane") Then "I saw a plane"

this is equivalent to

If ("We saw a plane") Then "I saw a plane"

 

[jammonius]

"We" means "I" + "one or more others".
"We saw a plane" means "I saw a plane" + "one or more others saw a plane".

This implies logically the single statement "I saw a plane".



So YES: "We saw a plane" logically means "I saw a plane" (and some more, not less).


Agreed?

Respectfully, I disagree. I will illustrate this disagreement by also incorporating elements of Gorgonian's post.

Gorgonian stated:

I can absolutely say that that post is one of the funniest I've seen on any forum at any time.

"We went to the store" means I and others went to the store together. It is not unclear. It is not ambiguous.

"We saw the plane" means I and others saw the plane. It is not unclear. It is not ambiguous.

Do you really think this is convincing?

There is a very large and very important distinction in the statement "We went to the store" relied on by Gorgonian and the statement "We saw a jetliner hit the South Tower"

Going to the store is an action, verifiable objectively; what an individual sees is subjective and has to be vetted by a process. This is what I meant when I said that Dr. Matthews would have to undergo a "gotcha" process before we could accredit his statement "We saw"; and, as you well know Oystein, the "gotcha" process does not end until a contradiction is found, created, implied or otherwise asserted. You are a "gotcha" poster so I know I am not telling you anything you do not already know.

I will hold open the possibility that you need me to illustrate how "gotcha" would work on Dr. Matthews by inviting you to put yourself into Dr. Matthews shoes and then, let me put myself into yours and play "gotcha". Let me know if you need me to do that to demonstrate to our lurkers how 'gotcha' would work on Dr. Matthews' "we saw" ditty.

Here's a tip for you Oystein: Without question, there is no way in Hades that Dr. Matthews could survive a "gotcha" challenge; you know that and I know that. And, as subjective impression IS inherently QUESTIONABLE (meaning, can be questioned), it follows that a statement "...we saw..." is ambiguous.

Once again, it is alright with me, Oystein, if you disagree. You may do so for as long as you can.

 

[jammonius]

If (A And B) Then A is a logically true conclusion. Always.

"We" equals "I and one or more others"
therefore
"We saw a plane" equals "(I and some others) saw a plane" equals "I saw plane" AND "some others saw a plane"

Let A = "I saw a plane"
Let B = "Some others saw a plane"
A And B = "We saw a plane"

If ("I saw a plane" And "some others saw plane") Then "I saw a plane"

this is equivalent to

If ("We saw a plane") Then "I saw a plane"

I think you better ask Redtail whether or not you just articulated an inconclusive syllogism.

 

[Oystein]

I think you better ask Redtail whether or not you just articulated an inconclusive syllogism.

Are you on a wild goose chase here or playing gotcha with me? Why post a question to someone else? Why don't you state your answer (and give reasons) if you think you know it?

Do better, jammonius!

 

[TJM]

Still having problems handwaving away those pesky eyewitnesses jammonius?

There's thousands of them. Do you plan to seek out and address each case individually? That's going to take a long time.

Never mind.

Why don't you cut to the chase for once and tell us all about this grand PSYOP of yours. Obviously, we aren't buying your lousy videos and insane commentary. (and by saying "we" I do mean everyone except you)

 

[Oystein]

Respectfully, I disagree. I will illustrate this disagreement by also incorporating elements of Gorgonian's post.

Gorgonian stated:




There is a very large and very important distinction in the statement "We went to the store" relied on by Gorgonian and the statement "We saw a jetliner hit the South Tower"

Going to the store is an action, verifiable objectively; what an individual sees is subjective and has to be vetted by a process. This is what I meant when I said that Dr. Matthews would have to undergo a "gotcha" process before we could accredit his statement "We saw"; and, as you well know Oystein, the "gotcha" process does not end until a contradiction is found, created, implied or otherwise asserted. You are a "gotcha" poster so I know I am not telling you anything you do not already know.

I will hold open the possibility that you need me to illustrate how "gotcha" would work on Dr. Matthews by inviting you to put yourself into Dr. Matthews shoes and then, let me put myself into yours and play "gotcha". Let me know if you need me to do that to demonstrate to our lurkers how 'gotcha' would work on Dr. Matthews' "we saw" ditty.

Here's a tip for you Oystein: Without question, there is no way in Hades that Dr. Matthews could survive a "gotcha" challenge; you know that and I know that. And, as subjective impression IS inherently QUESTIONABLE (meaning, can be questioned), it follows that a statement "...we saw..." is ambiguous.

Once again, it is alright with me, Oystein, if you disagree. You may do so for as long as you can.

You are not at all addressing the question to which I provided an answer: Does the statement "We saw a plane" imply "I saw a plane"?

I was mot talking about any action at all such as "going to a store".

What difference does it make if seeing is a subjective thing or not? Is it a gotcha-game every time someone sees something and says so? We are not discussing at here all if Dr. Matthews observation and recollection is accurate or not - we are discussing whether Dr. Matthews is telling us that HE saw a plane, and the answer is YES! Because "We" = "I" + "some others", he clearly implies that HE saw a plane when he claims that WE saw a plane, regardless of whether he really saw a plane, or whether some others really saw plane.

Please do better next time and address the points made. Do not refute claims that were not made.

 

[djlunacee]

UNFREAKIN BELIEVABLE!!!!!! I STAND IN AWE.

 

[carlitos]

The mental gymnastics above is what makes jammonius truly special. Thanks.

I went with some people to a baseball game yesterday. We saw a home run hit. Therefore, I didn't see a home run hit. Awesome.

 

[Gorgonian]

At some point this has to be put to a stop. I mean, look at that nonsense. At some point he is just flooding the message board with gibberish.

I don't believe for a second we need to be teaching remedial english to this clown.

One of you guys had better get a stundie nomination out of this at least.

 

[fitzgibbon]

At some point he is just flooding the message board with gibberish.

At some point? That point was passed with jammonius' 2nd post.