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

[tsig]

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

Well if you were looking at other posts you couldn't have seen that post so your post is discounted.


_{tsig wanders off kicking Plymouth hubcaps}

 

[djlunacee]

Well if you were looking at other posts you couldn't have seen that post so your post is discounted.


_{tsig wanders off kicking Plymouth hubcaps}

We all saw me do it, which in Jammo's world I really didn't.

Sorry Jammo every single witness I listed is valid and can be brought into a court of law to testify, regardless of where the source of the quote comes from.

You asked for witnesses, you got em, deal with it this farce is over, can you not hear the lurkers laughing at you in the distance? No matter how hard you try 1+1 will never equal 3, never. We refers to a group of people, if you want to get technical in a court of law, no, he would not be able to say we, but then the witness list grows, and grows, and this is how you reach 1000's of witnesses, that watched the effects of that day unfold. 32 pages (for me, WE know you are on a different page number Carlitos)and you have yet to present one shred of evidence, not one.


Try to do better.

 

[jammonius]

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.

The tone of the above expresses disagreement with what I have said about Dr. Matthews' statement, as it is quoted. The content of the quoted post, however, largely agrees with what I have said.

That is interesting.

In summary, TraneWreck agrees with me that Dr. Matthews' quoted statement is hearsay.

TraneWreck, however, puts in a couple of other claims that do not survive scrutiny:

That is a bizarre claim. Why would a witness speaking out of court be held to evidentiary standards as though they were testifying?

The issue is whether or not it has been reliably proven that jetliners hit the WTC on 9/11. We all know that the main proof, the thing that convinces people, is what they saw on teevee. Yet, there exists a significant grouping of reliable witnesses who report neither seeing nor hearing a jetliner when they were in a position to have seen and heard one.

Thus the issue is that of distinguishing the real from the unreal; or, the real from the exercise; or, the real from the deception.

Because of the level of deception and its sophistication, one way to ferret out the real is to apply evidentiary standards for assessing witness statements. I, myself, do not use hearsay statements in support of the NO PLANE claim; or, to be more accurate, I rely on statements that come within one or another recognized exception to the rule. I do that to be able to say, accurately, that the NO PLANE claim is supported by reliable and verifiable witness statements, rather than unreliable unverifiable ones.

Doing so makes the NO PLANE claim stronger.

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."

Claims that rely on untested assumptions are inherently unclear. Your attempt at analogy is too inexact to be applied to Dr. Matthews' declaration. In fact, yours is the second attempt at an inexact analogy. Why did you do that?

Your analogy is obviously inexact because an objective action is mandated by the statement "[w]e went to the park." Whether or not the people went to the park is independently verifiable based on your movements.

But, a declaration "we saw" does not involve an objective action that can be independently seen. What a person perceives via a sense apparatus -- sight, hearing -- for instance is subjective. By virtue of that subjectivity, a decaration "we saw" is not so easily curable as you have articulated.

The ambiguity inherent in the statement "we saw" will result in the serious undermining of the credibility and the reliability of the person who said it.

Do you need me to illustrate that for you?

 

[jammonius]

We all saw me do it, which in Jammo's world I really didn't.

Sorry Jammo every single witness I listed is valid and can be brought into a court of law to testify, regardless of where the source of the quote comes from.

You asked for witnesses, you got em, deal with it this farce is over, can you not hear the lurkers laughing at you in the distance? No matter how hard you try 1+1 will never equal 3, never. We refers to a group of people, if you want to get technical in a court of law, no, he would not be able to say we, but then the witness list grows, and grows, and this is how you reach 1000's of witnesses, that watched the effects of that day unfold. 32 pages (for me, WE know you are on a different page number Carlitos)and you have yet to present one shred of evidence, not one.


Try to do better.

Wait a minute. I have posted up more witnesses who are of the NO PLANE variety than you have posted up of the PLANE SPOTTER variety.

Your declaration fails.

 

[carlitos]

Wait a minute. I have posted up more witnesses who are of the NO PLANE variety than you have posted up of the PLANE SPOTTER variety.

Your declaration fails.

argumentum ad populum. Your argument fails.

 

[jammonius]

argumentum ad populum. Your argument fails

OK, you might be technically correct that merely having more reliable and verifiable NO PLANE witnesses than there are reliable and verifiable PLANE SPOTTER witnesses does not, in and of itself, prove the propostion that NO PLANES hit the WTC on 9/11, it still does not address the context of the post.

The post responded to djlunacee who stood by his (puny) witnesses.

Your observation clearly does not provide proof of PLANE SPOTTING, rather, you engage in milque toast, pedantic criticism of a post of mine.

Query: When is the last time you engaged in that kind of criticism of a debunker post?

Logic and the elements of dialogue are not weapons to be used by one side against another. Rather, they are guides to reason that each person should seek to use in their own posting to make sure what they say is rational, reasonable and worthy of consideration.

 

[jammonius]

Hey Lurkers, how about some posts, eh?

32
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...ryvideonorthnodebrisnoengine.png?t=1277762850

Video segment # 32 begins at about 7:38 and only records an explosion and some good sound and some conversation. I hasten to add that it doesn't record a jetliner but it was probably not at an angle where the lens could capture it.

However, that limitation is not true of the passersby. They had full vision. No one in the video is heard to say "plane".

Thus, on balance, this version is a NO PLANE version for a variety of reasons.

 

[Macgyver1968]

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

Welcome back Bill! I was worried about you. Hope you have been well. Did they let you out early for good behavior?

 

[djlunacee]

The tone of the above expresses disagreement with what I have said about Dr. Matthews' statement, as it is quoted. The content of the quoted post, however, largely agrees with what I have said.

That is interesting.

In summary, TraneWreck agrees with me that Dr. Matthews' quoted statement is hearsay.

TraneWreck, however, puts in a couple of other claims that do not survive scrutiny:



The issue is whether or not it has been reliably proven that jetliners hit the WTC on 9/11. We all know that the main proof, the thing that convinces people, is what they saw on teevee. Yet, there exists a significant grouping of reliable witnesses who report neither seeing nor hearing a jetliner when they were in a position to have seen and heard one.

Thus the issue is that of distinguishing the real from the unreal; or, the real from the exercise; or, the real from the deception.

Because of the level of deception and its sophistication, one way to ferret out the real is to apply evidentiary standards for assessing witness statements. I, myself, do not use hearsay statements in support of the NO PLANE claim; or, to be more accurate, I rely on statements that come within one or another recognized exception to the rule. I do that to be able to say, accurately, that the NO PLANE claim is supported by reliable and verifiable witness statements, rather than unreliable unverifiable ones.

Doing so makes the NO PLANE claim stronger.



Claims that rely on untested assumptions are inherently unclear. Your attempt at analogy is too inexact to be applied to Dr. Matthews' declaration. In fact, yours is the second attempt at an inexact analogy. Why did you do that?

Your analogy is obviously inexact because an objective action is mandated by the statement "[w]e went to the park." Whether or not the people went to the park is independently verifiable based on your movements.

But, a declaration "we saw" does not involve an objective action that can be independently seen. What a person perceives via a sense apparatus -- sight, hearing -- for instance is subjective. By virtue of that subjectivity, a decaration "we saw" is not so easily curable as you have articulated.

The ambiguity inherent in the statement "we saw" will result in the serious undermining of the credibility and the reliability of the person who said it.

Do you need me to illustrate that for you?

wrong.

 

[jammonius]

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 was not disregarding your post. I had already answered your query, albeit indirectly, just one page earlier, on page 30.

Please review the following post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6072024&postcount=1168

If you do not consider that answer to be fully responsive, please let me know what you think requires further discussion.

all the best

 

[djlunacee]

jammy, I find it amazing that you are not locked up in a rubber room.

amazing isn't it?

 

[jammonius]

Welcome back Bill! I was worried about you. Hope you have been well. Did they let you out early for good behavior?

And, welcome back to you too, Macgyver. A lot of folks went into the "timeout corner" on their own for about a week. You've been away a bit longer; and, speaking for me, you were missed.

We're moving right along. We're now into the last 2minutes of the ALL43 video because version # 32, corresponding with this page for those who have their threads set up in a certain way, ends at the 8:00mark.

Do you have a favorite video segment from among the ALL43 compilation; if so, which one?

 

[jammonius]

wrong.

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding. Do you claim that your 1 word declaration serves to refute anything, anything at all that I have posted?

I can tell you that if you think your 1 word declaration serves to refute something I have said, you are mistaken. The reason you are mistaken is that your declaration is not self-actualizing. You have failed to post up any objective reasoning in support of your declaration. Accordingly, everything I said in post # 1243 stands as valid and unchallenged as of this point in the thread.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6077002&postcount=1243

 

[carlitos]

OK, you might be technically correct that merely having more reliable and verifiable NO PLANE witnesses than there are reliable and verifiable PLANE SPOTTER witnesses does not, in and of itself, prove the propostion that NO PLANES hit the WTC on 9/11, it still does not address the context of the post.

The post responded to djlunacee who stood by his (puny) witnesses.

Your observation clearly does not provide proof of PLANE SPOTTING, rather, you engage in milque toast, pedantic criticism of a post of mine.

Query: When is the last time you engaged in that kind of criticism of a debunker post?

June 23. Coincidentally, it was a response to djlunacee.

Just to be fair, calling all truthers misogynistic based on this one example seems like a blanket generalization. I haven't seen that attitude from the posters here.

Logic and the elements of dialogue are not weapons to be used by one side against another. Rather, they are guides to reason that each person should seek to use in their own posting to make sure what they say is rational, reasonable and worthy of consideration.

That is true.

 

[jammonius]

June 23. Coincidentally, it was a response to djlunacee.





That is true.

While I don't like the "jaw drop" emoticon because I don't think it accurately reflects the emotion behind the "jaw dropping" effect, suffice to say that if there were what I consider an accurate jaw-drop emoticon, I would use it here. It caught me by surprise. I am impressed.

Thank you for your post. I think it adds to the quality of the dialogue in this thread.

Well done, Carlitos

 

[Oystein]

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

We think jammonius is dealing in delusions, therefore I think he's the brain here.

 

[Macgyver1968]

And, welcome back to you too, Macgyver. A lot of folks went into the "timeout corner" on their own for about a week. You've been away a bit longer; and, speaking for me, you were missed.

We're moving right along. We're now into the last 2minutes of the ALL43 video because version # 32, corresponding with this page for those who have their threads set up in a certain way, ends at the 8:00mark.

Do you have a favorite video segment from among the ALL43 compilation; if so, which one?

Well, thanks Jam. I've been lurking this thread, but really haven't felt the need to post anything. I mean..come on..."we saw the plane" somehow means they didn't see the plane? Even for you Jam, that's a stretch.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I was not disregarding your post. I had already answered your query, albeit indirectly, just one page earlier, on page 30.

Please review the following post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6072024&postcount=1168

If you do not consider that answer to be fully responsive, please let me know what you think requires further discussion.

all the best

I think that a direct answer can be summed up with two sentences, the first being a one word answer (Yes, no, maybe), the second a very brief reason why. This would eliminate the need to sift through a 500 word post for an answer that should be under 40 or so.

 

[332nd]

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

No, it's not. I can understand why you would want it to be but alas, wishing doesn't make it so.

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

No, "we" still includes him. I know that it throws your theory off, but you're just going to have to revise your theory.

(Not a big deal I assure you. I had to go through many revisions on my masters thesis.)

 

[fess]

And, welcome back to you too, Macgyver. A lot of folks went into the "timeout corner" on their own for about a week. You've been away a bit longer; and, speaking for me, you were missed.

We're moving right along. We're now into the last 2minutes of the ALL43 video because version # 32, corresponding with this page for those who have their threads set up in a certain way, ends at the 8:00mark.

Do you have a favorite video segment from among the ALL43 compilation; if so, which one?

You can “kiss up” to Macgyver1968 until the cows come home, but, I don’t think he will turn into the “lurker” like sts75 that comes forth to pull you out of the hole you have dug for yourself. Not that sts75 managed to do that.

My apologies to you Macgyver1968, I meant no disrespect in using your name in this post.