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

[TJM]

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.

Sheesh, hasn't he already won once? There's more to come though; He hasn't even got to the centerpiece of the delusion yet: Holograms. All of this has been just leading up to that.

This is why we aren't discussing clear shots of 175 like this one:

(wrapped in spoilers for those of you who are sick of seeing them)

or this one:

Or why people aren't saying what they actually meant.

Or why they didn't really hear a jet.

Or why there wasn't thousand of eyewitnesses, a small percentage in a city of millions of people, most of whom were probably focussed on the events unfolding in their city.

Nope, all this is now about how jammonius will try to explain the use of the non-existent technologies of real-time holograms and voice morphing to explain the use of another non-existent technology, at least as jammonius wants to understand it, DEW.

This is why the videos are crap, the jets are silent and there are no witnesses other than the ones he's cherry picked. It has to be that way in order for jammonius to put forward his delusion.

It would be hard enough for him to come up with a viable 3D hologram that can move across the sky at high sub sonic speeds, but impossible for him to explain one that also has omni-directional sound coming from it.

But I'm sure he'll try.

 

[TJM]

- 31 - ​

Lurkers:

31 pages and jammonius has not backed up one single assertion.

Will this be the page?

 

[carlitos]

It's page 25 for me.

 

[TJM]

It's page 25 for me.

Do keep up.

 

[332nd]

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

No he didn't say "i" but "we" includes him.

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?

Well you're the one that seems to think "we saw the plane" means they didn't.

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.

You are wrong in thinking that.

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

Only if you don't follow with a subject like "the game" or "the plane"... hey! That's what the witness said! "we saw the plane".

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.

So we doesn't include him? Amazing.

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



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?

Wrong jammonious.

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

No need. I understand the concepts quite well. Your attempt at applying them to anyone who doesn't agree with you is rather poor but if its the best you can do...

 

[TheRedWorm]

Witnesses saw the plane, video captured the plane, physical evidence of the plane and passengers were found. Tell me (briefly), if a murder was committed, and the police had eyewitnesses, video, and DNA that confirmed the identity of the murderer, would this be enough evidence to convict said murderer?

 

[carlitos]

Do keep up.

I changed my settings to 50 posts per page a long time ago, which makes jammonius' "Welcome to a new page" announcements pretty funny. He and I see the same "new page" every 200 posts, if my math serves me right.

 

[TJM]

Witnesses saw the plane, video captured the plane, physical evidence of the plane and passengers were found. Tell me (briefly), if a murder was committed, and the police had eyewitnesses, video, and DNA that confirmed the identity of the murderer, would this be enough evidence to convict said murderer?

Not in jammiland.

According to him, you'd have enough evidence to prove the murderer was a digital image derived from who knows what technologies, thus proving the cops did it.

Welcome back, btw. How the hell are you?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Not in jammiland.

According to him, you'd have enough evidence to prove the murderer was a digital image derived from who knows what technologies, thus proving the cops did it.

I know that, but I've always loved the chase, as it were.

Welcome back, btw. How the hell are you?

Thank you! I'm about the same, but this time around, I've mostly been lurking in R&P and science. It's actually pretty funny, the parallels between denialists of all stripes; I thought it was mostly a 9/11 thing, but you see many of the same tactics elsewhere.

 

[Corsair 115]

Let me illustrate this by restating a key assumption upon which the claim rests, but which assumption is not openly acknowledged:

--That NO PLANE claim depends upon an alleged international media conspiracy--

The underlying assumption requires that which was seen and heard on teevee and radio to have originated from the commercial and quasi-governmental media outlets, both in the US and abroad. Or, put simply, that the commercial/governmental media outlets were in charge of the signals disseminated and broadcast.

I'm still waiting for any kind of evidence that shows the Canadian news media outlets I mentioned are part of a conspiracy, and why they are not uncovering the "truth" that you are claiming to have uncovered. What, there isn't a single journalist anywhere who wants to win a Pulitzer Prize for uncovering the story of the century?

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

A couple of videos for you to think about Jammonius.

B52 Bomber crash

this video basically shows that if a plane hits something solid like the ground at high speed, it will explode on impact. I think the flash of light before the airplane hits the ground was the end of the wing clipping a powerline.

Air France Crash in Trees

on the other hand, this video shows that a plane can smash through lots of trees before exploding. this is like one of the twin towers, where the steel structure is NOT solid like the ground, but more like a whole bunch of tree trunks, which would still take a lot of force to break. this proves that airplanes don't always explode immediately ON IMPACT with something, like trees or a steel structure.

the airplanes that hit the twin towers were travelling a lot faster, so the would have a lot more force to punch through the structure, which they did. the side effect of smashing through the steel structure was that the airplane broke up, causing the fuel to explode, but only after the fuel had mixed with the air. this was less than a second after the plane hit, which is pretty much an explosion on impact in my mind.

 

[fess]

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.

After watching the crappy video you posted as “evidence”, there isn’t any chance that’ll happen. As I have said, you are nothing but a fraud, and you post nothing at all to refute that statement.

In fact, I am starting to think that you may be a politician, you know, an individual that can speak for ten minutes straight and not say anything understandable, or reasonable.

But, now that you have recognized that I am still around, and not on your ignore list, would you mind answering some of the questions posed to you in order to begin a sensible discussion of your beliefs.

 

[fess]

Side note to Our Sherlock Holmes - Fess:

You understand this, right?

Yes my dear Watson, I do understand that you are an arrogant ass.

 

[jammonius]

No he didn't say "i" but "we" includes him.

If you insist on having it your way you do realize you render Dr. Matthews totally useless as a witness don't you? Dr. Matthews cannot give testimony that would survive a "hearsay" objection if he postulates his claim as "we saw." By doing that he seeks to speak for other people and that he may not do as a witness.

The reason for that is quite obvious and quite legitimate.

Firstly, if Dr. Matthews was so busy looking around to make sure he knew what other people saw, then his attention was split and quite possibly diverted thus making his own capacity to observe somewhat questionable. Ask Fess, he'll tell you that that is true.

Secondly, if he is basing his claim on what he assumes other people saw then he is committing a major error of logic and of judgment. This is best illustrated by the Lone Ranger and Tonto:

What do you mean "we" Kemosabe?

Do posters now grasp the weakness of the "we saw" declaration, yet?

Well you're the one that seems to think "we saw the plane" means they didn't.

Not exactly. What I mean is that for certain, any witness who says "we saw the plane" in a court or other official witness arena will not be paid attention to at all. Instead, their statement will be tossed out, set aside, ignored and stricken from the record.

Is that what you want?

It's better, I think, to recognize the weakness on your own rather than get a nasty surprise when later you seek to rely on Our Dr. Matthews, or any of the others who said "we saw" as witnesses. That claim makes your witnesses FUBAR.

You are wrong in thinking that.

Think again.

Only if you don't follow with a subject like "the game" or "the plane"... hey! That's what the witness said! "we saw the plane".

You are needlessly expending energy on a hopeless cause. By the way, Dr. Matthews was successfully converted to a NO PLANE witness as to the North Tower, first explosion.

Small wonder, perhaps, that posters here are trying for all they're worth to hold onto him as a witness for the South Tower. Unfortunately, he's useless there, I'm afraid.

So, into the NO PLANE column Dr. Matthews has been brought and there he shall remain.

So we doesn't include him? Amazing.

You protest too much. I'd be quite surprised if this is the first time you've ever encountered Tonto's famous "what you mean we, Kemosabe" declaration. Humorous though it may be, it is intended to convey the fact that a person cannot assume agreement by another in some observation, claim, idea or plan that the first person, in this instance, Dr. Matthews, claims.

This is not abstract or obscure, posters and lurkers. Please let go of the tendency towards rationalization.

You folks know most of this, right?

Wrong jammonious.

There you go again...

No need. I understand the concepts quite well. Your attempt at applying them to anyone who doesn't agree with you is rather poor but if its the best you can do...

Let's all seek to do better, OK?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Answer the question.

 

[TJM]

Do posters now grasp the weakness of the "we saw" declaration, yet?

Yep, your attempt to wriggle out of that was pretty weak.

 

[fess]

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.

What you are actually posting is a conglomeration of cherry picked videos that do nothing to advance your claims. Even though some of your some of your videos do indeed show shadowy, blurry, blobs, most are unmistakably identified as being a 767-200 that slams into the south tower. And I might add, at a speed of over 700ft per second, or, a blink of an eye. Do you really believe that an object traveling at that speed would show up crystal clear on a camera that is stationary?
However, you wish that we would accept your videos while you vehemently deny the videos that others have posted, sound and all.

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?

How many thousands of people do you think are involved in this "psyop"?

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.

And realize it is bunk.

 

[332nd]

If you insist on having it your way you do realize you render Dr. Matthews totally useless as a witness don't you? Dr. Matthews cannot give testimony that would survive a "hearsay" objection if he postulates his claim as "we saw." By doing that he seeks to speak for other people and that he may not do as a witness.

The reason for that is quite obvious and quite legitimate.

Firstly, if Dr. Matthews was so busy looking around to make sure he knew what other people saw, then his attention was split and quite possibly diverted thus making his own capacity to observe somewhat questionable. Ask Fess, he'll tell you that that is true.

Secondly, if he is basing his claim on what he assumes other people saw then he is committing a major error of logic and of judgment. This is best illustrated by the Lone Ranger and Tonto:

What do you mean "we" Kemosabe?
[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/Lone20Ranger20larger.jpg?t=1277686767[/qimg]


Do posters now grasp the weakness of the "we saw" declaration, yet?



Not exactly. What I mean is that for certain, any witness who says "we saw the plane" in a court or other official witness arena will not be paid attention to at all. Instead, their statement will be tossed out, set aside, ignored and stricken from the record.

Is that what you want?

It's better, I think, to recognize the weakness on your own rather than get a nasty surprise when later you seek to rely on Our Dr. Matthews, or any of the others who said "we saw" as witnesses. That claim makes your witnesses FUBAR.



Think again.



You are needlessly expending energy on a hopeless cause. By the way, Dr. Matthews was successfully converted to a NO PLANE witness as to the North Tower, first explosion.

Small wonder, perhaps, that posters here are trying for all they're worth to hold onto him as a witness for the South Tower. Unfortunately, he's useless there, I'm afraid.

So, into the NO PLANE column Dr. Matthews has been brought and there he shall remain.



You protest too much. I'd be quite surprised if this is the first time you've ever encountered Tonto's famous "what you mean we, Kemosabe" declaration. Humorous though it may be, it is intended to convey the fact that a person cannot assume agreement by another in some observation, claim, idea or plan that the first person, in this instance, Dr. Matthews, claims.

This is not abstract or obscure, posters and lurkers. Please let go of the tendency towards rationalization.

You folks know most of this, right?



There you go again...



Let's all seek to do better, OK?

Hmmmm.... Nope. Sorry. "we" still includes him. Therefore "we saw the plane" means he saw the plane. You'll have to revise your theory I'm afraid.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Fine, based on that statement, EVERY SINGLE EYEWITNESS statement is thrown out. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Including the one's that you like to twist to mean that they didn't see a plane.

Now, that leaves physical evidence.

We have video of the plane crashing.
We have hundreds of parts from Boeing 767's in and around the WTC site.
We have jet a large fireball directly after a 767 hits the building.

Now, using that alone, what else could it have been?

List any assumptions and conclusions.

 

[twinstead]

Fine, based on that statement, EVERY SINGLE EYEWITNESS statement is thrown out. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Including the one's that you like to twist to mean that they didn't see a plane.

Now, that leaves physical evidence.

We have video of the plane crashing.
We have hundreds of parts from Boeing 767's in and around the WTC site.
We have jet a large fireball directly after a 767 hits the building.

Now, using that alone, what else could it have been?

List any assumptions and conclusions.

This really needs to be bumpted