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

[twinstead]

and...

We have a 767 missing
We have every single person on that plane missing since that day

anybody else?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Can we just make a thread which has the answers to all the no plane stuff and link the individual posts any time it's being discussed? It's fun to repeat things and all, but not really to rewrite comprehensive stuff, especially after repeating more than 9,000 times :|

 

[Oystein]

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...

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

Hogwash ans ********. In order to determine if people around you saw the same that you saw seconds ago you don't have to look around at that moment - they will happily tell you if what they saw was a plane flying into thw South Tower.

Years ago my sister and I were witness to German's strongest earthquake of the last century. Rest assured, jammonius, that I am not "committing a major error of logic and of judgment" when I testify what other people like my sister experienced that night: "We felt and heard the rattle of an earthquake". Did I look at my sister or anybody else then? No! It was dark and I was in my bed alone, and did not see anybody while I heard and felt the earthquake. However my sister confirmed seconds later that she, too, heard and felt an earthquake.

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.

********. Since "We" means "I and some others", the most a hyper-critical judge might throw out is the "some others" part. However, the "I" in "we" will remain firmly on the record. Every sane person (i.e., everybody except you) will understand that a witness who testifies that "we" saw something implies that he or she saw something, even if you want to doubt that others saw the same.

...
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.

In your world, jammonius, when I say "We felt and heard the rattle of an earthquake", you put me in your NO EARTHQUAKE column , and you would be as wrong as you could possibly get. In fact, I would call you a liar, and everybody would understand my heartfelt indignation about your rotten, filthy distortions.

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

If "rationalization" means "trying to come to a rational" conclusion, then yes, we are all here engaging in "rationalization". All, except you. You are engaging in lies, distortion, misrepresentation and deception.

You folks know most of this, right?

Cut the condescension.

...
Let's all seek to do better, OK?

How about you start, OK?

 

[jammonius]

- 31 - ​

Lurkers:

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

Will this be the page?

Hey, thanks for the big blue 31, I hereby incorporate it by reference and include it as the marker for:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...1-righttoleftslowstraight721.png?t=1277734083

Video segment # 31 begins at about the 7:21 mark. The main contradiction it contains is that of speed. This one is too slow in comparison with some others.

Once again, the issue here is not that of media complicity; rather, the evidence in the form of the acknowledged, but nonetheless obscure, MILITARY EXERCISES represents the key to understanding the methodology of the 9/11 deception. What was seen on teevee likely involved military high tech weaponry of deception. Literally, the ability to override normal teevee signals with signals that were inserted in furtherance of the exercises.

Literally, once again, the main clue here is the declaration by one of the unwitting participants:

"...Is this exercise or real world?..."

The military exercises were a means by which the deception of 9/11 was carried out and a means that could incorporate the activity of a lot of unknowing participants, such that as few as a handful of people might have known what was real and what was not.

Side Note to Corsair:

I hope those, like Corsair, who continue to raise the issue of "media complicity" (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6071575&postcount=1161) will recognize that the military deception and ability to override normal broadcasts with deception means that there is no need to postulate and/or explain why or how the media were involved. They were easily bypassed. It is possible that one or two media personnel, here or there, might have been "in on it" but the MILITARY EXERCISES were a means by which media personnel could have been OUT OF THE LOOP entirely.

Do you grasp what is being said here, Corsair?

 

[carlitos]

What was seen on teevee likely involved military high tech weaponry of deception. Literally, the ability to override normal teevee signals with signals that were inserted in furtherance of the exercises.

Evidence, please? Please include:

• The type of technology used
• Where else it has been used, for comparison
• Who (name of person / persons) employed this technology
• How this technology appeared on 200+ different videos and in the sky over Manhattan
• Why no one has ever had a guilty conscience and confessed
• What actually brought the buildings down if not fire / planes
• Etc.

In other words, please state affirmatively - what is your hypothesis that better explains the events of 9/11/01?

 

[jammonius]

and...

We have a 767 missing
We have every single person on that plane missing since that day

anybody else?

Twinstead,

Yours is the A-Number 1, all time favorite, SHOW STOPPER for NO PLANE discussion.

The most apt way to paraphrase your expressed issue, I think, is:

Whattaboutthepassengers?

That is a sterling bit of fallacious rhetoric, but it is rhetoric that is so emotionally charged that it cannot be recognized as an assumption riddled fallacy.

There is little point in mentioning that the ditty ASSUMES WHAT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN and is, therefore, fallacious because to do that, one's emotional identification with the presumed but not proven crash victims is offended.

And, as is well known, debunkers are easily offended.

I have shown in other threads that there is no reliable DNA identification and no admissible as evidence passenger list. That some people may be known to be missing and presumed dead does not prove they disappeared as a result of a plane crash.

I am not going to repeat this anymore as it is too emotionally charged.

If you want to stop any chance for a rational discussion of the NO PLANE issue, all you have to do is craft a few emotionally driven, and therefore, exploitative, references to missing people who are presumed to have been on board one or another of the aircraft.

In fact, let's do it this way:

Hey Lurkers, how many of you know someone; or, if that doesn't do, know someone who knows someone --up to seven people removed-- who was onboard?

Please post.

And, please know as well, that NO PLANE is not disrespectful of victims. I have as much sympathy for the victims of 9/11 as anyone else does.

I will also answer the question myself.

I do not know of anyone who was a victim of 9/11 directly. I have casually met, but did not have a proper place for in depth discussions with, a number of victims' relatives and with victims of the remediation effort who are ill.

In the informal discussions with the victims relatives, in the settings where I met them, access to them was strictly limited and controlled. Questions were not allowed.

However, there is one lady who has said that she is the only person she has ever met who is related to a victim of Flight 175. Her statements are public knowledge. I have talked with her, but she is now under a strict gag order.

 

[TJM]

- 31 - ​

Lurkers:

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

Will this be the page?

Guess not.

 

[jammonius]

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.

You are not up to speed, (pun intended). I have addressed this issue many times. I only rely on witness statements that are admissible as evidence or that come directly from posters. Mind you, the latter is my own exception. Technically, statements on a message board from anonymous posters is not admissible as evidence, but for our thread's purposes, I see no reason to doubt what posters claim. I have often said, I will take people who were direct witnesses at their word.

The other source that I rely on have in common that they are BUSINESS RECORDS. Such records are a well-recognized EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; and, therefore, such records are ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE.

I rely on the PAPD TRANSCRIPTS; because they are admissible.

I rely on the TASK FORCE WITNESS STATEMENTS; because they are admissible and are, in fact, the single best source of eyewitness evidence. Stephen Gregory, Stephen King, Chief Cassano, among about 500 others, are the best witnesses there are.

I also rely on some of the videos, including the Dick Oliver videos and the ALL43 videos because they are, potentially, admissible as evidence. Mind you, the videos are not automatically admissible, but potentially so.

I do not rely on inadmissible statements; but, if some other posts them, I will comment upon them.

Are you up to speed now, Oystein?

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.

The above is FUBAR. You are engaging in unwarranted propaganda.

We have video of the plane crashing.

That is outright propaganda and an utter contradiction with what the actual witnesses say. We have video of an explosion, seen to occur in the wrong place, caused by a shadow thingy or a blob thingy, that, in some video versions looks like the sillouette of a jet, and in some is too blurry or too dim or too indiscreet to make a valid claim that a jetliner is seen. Further, the shadow thingy does not explode, degrade, or even slow down at the point of impact. Those factors that ARE seen on the video falsify it. Finally, in this respect, something that is ALMOST ALWAYS OVERLOOKED: The sound factor. The videos uniformly DO NOT record the sound of a jetliner accurately or believably. Some try to argue 'til they are blue in the face that a few of the videos contain sound, but their arguments are in vain and are, as well, contradicted by the direct eye and ear witnesses.

We have hundreds of parts from Boeing 767's in and around the WTC site.

That is out and out propaganda. A repitition of a known falsehood. There are -0- aircraft parts that have been identified via serial number. There are no parts that are reliably shown to have come from any aircraft, let alone a Boeing 767, and still less the Boeing 767s (or 757s) said to have been involved in 9/11. There are no black boxes for the ones at the WTC and the ones at the other two locations are almost certainly parts, not of the aircraft, but of "the exercise." Those black boxes have been politely, but firmly, disavowed by the NTSB, who had next to nothing to do with them and do not certify them.

We have jet a large fireball directly after a 767 hits the building.

Once again, repitive propaganda. The explosion is in the wrong place, with the wrong characteristics.

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

List any assumptions and conclusions.

BS rhetoric. Your post is a transparent attempt at obfuscation, to put it no more harshly than that.

Try to do better.

 

[jammonius]

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.

Yours is an a priori declaration, but it is still false in all material respects, I'm afraid.

Once again, however, you can continue to believe that "we saw" means "I saw" for as long as you can. Just keep in mind, for as long as you do that, you render Dr. Matthews' statement useless as evidence. Of course, his statement is doubly doomed, isn't it, as it is unreliably sourced and is inadmissible as evidence.

take care

 

[jammonius]

Do posters agree that IRANIAN newspapers are an "OK" source?

I have elsewhere commented that were I to source some claim I was making to an IRANIAN newspaper or magazine for whatever reason I might do that (something I wouldn't likely do as newspapers and magazines are inadmissible as evidence), I suspect that posters would challenge my sourcing.

However, Corsair sourced one of Corsair's witnesses to an Iranian newspaper:

See post # 1086:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6065369&postcount=1086

Haleh Nazeri

"Then all of a sudden I saw another plane, it was so loud and so low and so wrong. I knew before it even hit in the fraction of a second that something was terribly wrong and that my world would never be the same."

From 'The Iranian: Eyewitness, Attack On New York', 21st September 2001.

http://www.iranian.com/Features/2001/September/911

So, why haven't any of you posters taken Corsair to task for relying on an Iranian newspaper?

Do posters agree that Iranian newspapers are no more and no less reliable than are any other newspapers?

 

[carlitos]

Do posters agree that Iranian newspapers are no more and no less reliable than are any other newspapers?

Yes. What's your point?

 

[TJM]

Why do you hate Iran jammonius?

 

[phunk]

Video segment # 31 begins at about the 7:21 mark. The main contradiction it contains is that of speed. This one is too slow in comparison with some others.

You understand the concept of perspective, right? And that the apparent speed of the plane will depend on the distance to the camera and the angle it's viewing from? For example, a plane seen head-on will move through the frame much slower than one seen from the side, all other things being equal? And one seen twice as far away will move at half the speed?

Have you taken ANY of this into account when you say the speed doesn't match in different videos?

 

[tsig]

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.

But you don't do "gotchas".

 

[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?

I know that this style must tire on people, so this is the last time I'll post this (unless I get really drunk and forget). Also, Jam, there is an alternative if you don't feel like answering this question; tell me why you won't answer it.

 

[tsig]

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

I absolutely and completely deny you posted that.

 

[TraneWreck]

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.

Yeah, I'm a lawyer, I've passed the bar in two states. That is a bizarre claim. Why would a witness speaking out of court be held to evidentiary standards as though they were testifying? Especially when the meaning is clear. If I say, "We went to the park." How on Earth could that NOT mean "I went to the park."

Not to mention it's a comically trivial problem even in court. How's that going to go:

Dr. M: "We saw a plane."

Attn: "I OBJECT!!!! HE SPEAKS ON THE BEHALF OF OTHERS!!!"

Judge: "Just testify to what you saw yourself, don't speak for others."

Dr. M: "Sorry, I saw a plane..."

And problem solved.

 

[carlitos]

I absolutely and completely deny you posted that.

We saw the post, therefore I didn't see it.

 

[tsig]

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?

So the whole truth about 911 depends on a choice of words?

 

[tsig]

You are not up to speed, (pun intended). I have addressed this issue many times. I only rely on witness statements that are admissible as evidence or that come directly from posters. Mind you, the latter is my own exception. Technically, statements on a message board from anonymous posters is not admissible as evidence, but for our thread's purposes, I see no reason to doubt what posters claim. I have often said, I will take people who were direct witnesses at their word.

The other source that I rely on have in common that they are BUSINESS RECORDS. Such records are a well-recognized EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; and, therefore, such records are ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE.

I rely on the PAPD TRANSCRIPTS; because they are admissible.

I rely on the TASK FORCE WITNESS STATEMENTS; because they are admissible and are, in fact, the single best source of eyewitness evidence. Stephen Gregory, Stephen King, Chief Cassano, among about 500 others, are the best witnesses there are.

I also rely on some of the videos, including the Dick Oliver videos and the ALL43 videos because they are, potentially, admissible as evidence. Mind you, the videos are not automatically admissible, but potentially so.

I do not rely on inadmissible statements; but, if some other posts them, I will comment upon them.

Are you up to speed now, Oystein?



The above is FUBAR. You are engaging in unwarranted propaganda.



That is outright propaganda and an utter contradiction with what the actual witnesses say. We have video of an explosion, seen to occur in the wrong place, caused by a shadow thingy or a blob thingy, that, in some video versions looks like the sillouette of a jet, and in some is too blurry or too dim or too indiscreet to make a valid claim that a jetliner is seen. Further, the shadow thingy does not explode, degrade, or even slow down at the point of impact. Those factors that ARE seen on the video falsify it. Finally, in this respect, something that is ALMOST ALWAYS OVERLOOKED: The sound factor. The videos uniformly DO NOT record the sound of a jetliner accurately or believably. Some try to argue 'til they are blue in the face that a few of the videos contain sound, but their arguments are in vain and are, as well, contradicted by the direct eye and ear witnesses.




That is out and out propaganda. A repitition of a known falsehood. There are -0- aircraft parts that have been identified via serial number. There are no parts that are reliably shown to have come from any aircraft, let alone a Boeing 767, and still less the Boeing 767s (or 757s) said to have been involved in 9/11. There are no black boxes for the ones at the WTC and the ones at the other two locations are almost certainly parts, not of the aircraft, but of "the exercise." Those black boxes have been politely, but firmly, disavowed by the NTSB, who had next to nothing to do with them and do not certify them.



Once again, repitive propaganda. The explosion is in the wrong place, with the wrong characteristics.



BS rhetoric. Your post is a transparent attempt at obfuscation, to put it no more harshly than that.

Try to do better.

I think I see your problem.