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

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

OK, you have turned my attempt at humor on its ear.



You haven't refuted the confusion that was caused by the inability to distinguish "real" from "exercise" in a situation that involved simulated hijackings.

In fact, you have not openly acknowledged that the military exercises taking place on 9/11 involved simulated hijackings.

You appear to be avoiding that key factor. You shouldn't.



Hey, that is one of the more creative ways to declare "you are right and I am wrong" to have appeared recently.

When are you going to learn that self-congratulatory declarations by a poster that that poster is right are useless? They are, if anything, indicators of a lack of self-confidence and of a need to reassure oneself.

Earth to Fess: It's alright with me if you think you are right. You may continue to think that for as long as you can.

Actually the military openly admitted that they were training that Tues. morning. But it's a coincidence that they would train that day when real world events are happening. You have to understand the military, they train everyday, which isn't really surprising at all. That's why when the military asked if it was real world, FAA said that it was & it was confirmed by the military looking at their radar screens.

You like to attack the people who've actually researched about 9/11. You don't attack the Military for some reason, why is that? There are Truthers out there who are cowards ya know!

 

[jammonius]

What is your standing in requesting these records?

When did you request them?
You did request them yourself, right?

No, Carlitos, I didn't FOIA them. The person who I rely on for DNA FOIA request info is Aidan Monaghan.

See: http://911blogger.com/node/22200

As of December, 2009, his request for DNA info for Flights 77 and 93 had resulted in the following reply (page 1 only):

I consider the document admissible as evidence because it is a business record.

Perhaps you could post the FOIA that you filed here, so that we could all see it?

See above. The actual request might also be available online for those who might be interested in that and who are willing to look for it.

Let's just say that I give your word exactly as much credence as you give newspaper articles. Please provide a summary of where and how you have "looked" for these records.

I have shown them to you.

I have also previously commented on the DMORT and AFIP records, such as they exist. The DMORT report is published as an "opinion" piece and is completely FUBAR and inconclusive. The AFIP piece is published as an inconclusive "experiment" and not as a forensic report.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5690304&postcount=868

I have highlighted and emphasized the important bits of the above text. This problem you have appears to be unique to one individual.

I don't understand your claim of "problem." I am merely refering to what I know and how I think I know it. That is what epistemology is all about, right?

The logical fallacy you have employed here is known as affirming the consequent^WP. You are welcome.

I thought we had agreed to each identify our own fallacies...

It is an interesting planet that you inhabit, whereby claims made by Judy Wood have credence, but claims made by coroners do not.

What kind of fallacy(ies) is entailed in the above, pray tell...

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I consider the document admissible as evidence because it is a business record.

It's military business, and the reason why he was denied was because of Homeland Security purposes. Sure, you Truthers are willing to let the terrorist see holes in our countries defenses. Goes to show who you Truthers are for!

 

[jammonius]

No-planers tend to make sure they use only the poorest quality footage available.

You are very unlikely to find a collection of impact videos of higher quality than those enclosed within this playlist...

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DC1AE6E3F5C7FF8D

Most are in HD 1280*720 format.

Here's a wee aircraft...

That is a nice version of shadow thingy. Were it a real jetliner it would not look opague, vague, obscure, shadowy and/or blurry.

Plus, of all the images of shadow thingy I have ever seen, the above is, perhaps, one of the least blurry there is. Note that phrasing. It is still blurry and still shadowy.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

That is a nice version of shadow thingy. Were it a real jetliner it would not look opague, vague, obscure, shadowy and/or blurry.

Plus, of all the images of shadow thingy I have ever seen, the above is, perhaps, one of the least blurry there is. Note that phrasing. It is still blurry and still shadowy.

Then you need glasses or contacts! It's a plane you ***!

 

[jammonius]

It's military business, and the reason why he was denied was because of Homeland Security purposes. Sure, you Truthers are willing to let the terrorist see holes in our countries defenses. Goes to show who you Truthers are for!

Hey Chewy,

Let me double check for sake of accuracy of understanding. Are you claiming you are more patriotic than I?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Hey Chewy,

Let me double check for sake of accuracy of understanding. Are you claiming you are more patriotic than I?

I'm for my country, who are you for? Oh wait, the terrorist, that's who!

 

[twinstead]

That is a nice version of shadow thingy. Were it a real jetliner it would not look opague, vague, obscure, shadowy and/or blurry.

Plus, of all the images of shadow thingy I have ever seen, the above is, perhaps, one of the least blurry there is. Note that phrasing. It is still blurry and still shadowy.

LOL Dude. It's a freakin' plane. Coupled with the physical evidence and eye witness accounts, what the hell else COULD it be?

 

[jammonius]

Then you need glasses or contacts! It's a plane you ***!

It's not a plane and you cannot fly in it. Be accurate Chewy.

Here's how to be accurate, true and correct:

It is an image posted on a message board, apparently extracted from a video, source likely unknown, ultimately, or only indirectly known at best. The image is not in its original form or context and is, instead, tampered with by virtue of being cropped and enlarged and fooled around with in goodness knows how many other ways that, in terms of color, contrast, brightness and so on, change it.

That is what it is.

And, even with the tampering, it remains blurry, shadowy, obscure and all but indeterminate.

It is completely useless as proof of the proposition that Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower.

This is a true and correct post.

 

[carlitos]

That is a nice version of shadow thingy. Were it a real jetliner it would not look opague, vague, obscure, shadowy and/or blurry.

Plus, of all the images of shadow thingy I have ever seen, the above is, perhaps, one of the least blurry there is. Note that phrasing. It is still blurry and still shadowy.

Well, that's enough for me. I really do hope that you get help, as many posters here have urged. All the best.

 

[jammonius]

I'm for my country, who are you for? Oh wait, the terrorist, that's who!

Your post is false and offensive. Yet, at the end of the day, it merely exemplifies the correctness of the observation that Samuel Johnson is best known for; to wit:

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"

Do better, Chewy

 

[jammonius]

Well, that's enough for me. I really do hope that you get help, as many posters here have urged. All the best.

and to you

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It's not a plane and you cannot fly in it. Be accurate Chewy.

Here's how to be accurate, true and correct:

It is an image posted on a message board, apparently extracted from a video, source likely unknown, ultimately, or only indirectly known at best. The image is not in its original form or context and is, instead, tampered with by virtue of being cropped and enlarged and fooled around with in goodness knows how many other ways that, in terms of color, contrast, brightness and so on, change it.

That is what it is.

And, even with the tampering, it remains blurry, shadowy, obscure and all but indeterminate.

It is completely useless as proof of the proposition that Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower.

This is a true and correct post.

So you're saying that it was a toy R/C Plane? OMG! LOL!

If you think that the video was "tampered" with, then might I suggest that when you went to go see the doctor, didn't he say something about your brain being tampered by little green men & getting an anal probe?

You have nothing but words to counter the picture of that plane you just showed. You have no evidnece of any kind to so that the picture you supplied doesn't contain a plane in it. Are you blind or just mentally challenged?

 

[femr2]

That is a nice version of shadow thingy. Were it a real jetliner it would not look opague, vague, obscure, shadowy and/or blurry.

Plus, of all the images of shadow thingy I have ever seen, the above is, perhaps, one of the least blurry there is. Note that phrasing. It is still blurry and still shadowy.

Watch the playlist...

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DC1AE6E3F5C7FF8D

Plenty of the clearest views you'll find.

Can't stand no-planer jibberish.

Even tho locals are not too fond of me, by all means feel free to use the enclosed videos. They really are the best quality set you'll find.

Or how about...

 

[HyJinX]

Really folks...over 1300 posts about no-planer issues? Really?

I understand that Jammi needs the attention in order feel like he has some foothold on his life...but c'mon people...continuing to engage in this behavior is borderline insanity.

Stop the madness.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Watch the playlist...

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DC1AE6E3F5C7FF8D

Plenty of the clearest views you'll find.

Can't stand no-planer jibberish.

Even tho locals are not too fond of me, by all means feel free to use the enclosed videos. They really are the best quality set you'll find.

Or how about...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/pod_zoom1.bmp[/qimg]
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/pod_zoom2.bmp[/qimg]

Thanks femr2 ... cant stand the no-planers myself, it is beyond disgraceful to pretend that there were no victims by indulging in the no-brainer no-planer fantasy.

But our Jammie Dodger here is a spectacularly special kind of obtuse !!!

 

[femr2]

Thanks femr2 ... cant stand the no-planers myself, it is beyond disgraceful to pretend that there were no victims by indulging in the no-brainer no-planer fantasy.

But our Jammie Dodger here is a spectacularly special kind of obtuse !!!

No worries. And before anyone starts banging on about pods (just filenames from external source)...optical illusion. Here's a render to make the point...

 

[carlitos]

mmm

 

[TheRedWorm]

So J basically has a standard of evidence so outrageous as to never be met.

Lurkers, do any of you find J to be in any way convincing?

 

[dafydd]

That is a nice version of shadow thingy. Were it a real jetliner it would not look opague, vague, obscure, shadowy and/or blurry.

Plus, of all the images of shadow thingy I have ever seen, the above is, perhaps, one of the least blurry there is. Note that phrasing. It is still blurry and still shadowy.

It's a *********** airplane!