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

[Gorgonian]

Real jetliners would not look opaque!

 

[carlitos]

Real jetliners would not look opaque!

or "opague."

Also:

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

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

Nope ... WE the lurkers find him to be insane ... absolutely bonkers !!!

 

[jammonius]

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

Your posting style differs from mine. I do not make assumptions about what others have said; let alone try to put words into their mouths or impute to them things they have not said.

Instead, if I think someone means to say something beyond the words they've posted I will "double check" my understanding for accuracy and give the poster the opportunity to clarify, agree, disagree or otherwise say what the poster meant.

You did not do that and you attributed to me things I neither said nor would have said.

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?

I did not say the video was tampered with. I said the image posted from the video was cropped, enlarged and so on. And it was.

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?

Chewy, all you are doing is expressing an emotional outburst. Permit me to suggest you calm down.

 

[jammonius]

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]

Well, thanks for the youtube link to HD versions. They are no better. Some are not even actual video and are, instead, an additional layer of deception involving out and out simulations:

Who are you trying to convince with simulations, pray tell?

 

[jammonius]

Hey Lurkers, no one refuted the claims about video # 33. Now let's try # 34

34
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...-riseuppathwingwrongangle807.png?t=1277844891

Version # 34 of the ALL43 videos of the second explosion contains a blurry, shadow thing that does all the wrong things, like rise instead of descend and come in on the wrong angle.

Check it out. It begins at about 8:07.

 

[jammonius]

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...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/2/144540098.jpg[/qimg]

You do realize you posted a simulation, right, Femr2?

Exercise or real...

Do you get it yet?

 

[tfk]

Jam,

You think that you're being clever.
You think that you offer valid legal arguments.
You think that you are Perry Mason.

You're wrong on all counts.

You offer only your personal, grotesque pantomime of real legal scholarship.

Further discussion with you is a waste of time.


Tom

PS. REAL lawyers understand that "inadmissible in court" is not synonymous with "factually incorrect". Or that "admissible" is synonymous with "factually correct".

 

[djlunacee]

OK, have it your way. Do you realize, however, that in putting it in that context, namely, that of murder, the burden of proving what happened becomes more difficult.

To prove someone committed murder, the level of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," right?

The prosecution side has the burden of proof, right?

The defense side does not have to prove a darn thing and does not even have to account for their actions.

The defendants are presumed innocent.

Let me know if you disagree with any of this.

Finally, if you want to think about how a prosecution would go about proving what happened on 9/11 -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- you might begin to have a moment of awakening as to why there haven't been any real trials.

Good luck

Indeed, the onus is on me to prove beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not all doubts, just a reasonable doubt, which you sir, have failed to provide or any other conspiracy theory for that matter, if in doubt refer to the Zacarias Moussaoui trial the evidence was substantial enough to indict and convict in a federal court of law, this conviction alone refutes all of your standards of evidence. Plane parts, DNA, manifests were all ruled admissable by a federal judge. I promise you if we were to go to trial I would win, all day, everyday.
Your case is little more than smoke and mirrors, looks good in hollywood, but all in all, if you were my defense lawyer I would take a plea. You have yet to present a single shred of scientific evidence, so I will ask this question to cut to the chase. If it isn't a plane then what in blue blazes is "shadow thingy"?

 

[carlitos]

Link to exhibits admitted into Moussaui trial is here.** Just reading the list of evidence presented by the prosecution is sad.




**For those impaired by solipsism, I see my mistake. It's not a link to the evidence itself, it's a link to a web page. Which links to another page. Which links to many other documents, pictures and presentations. Therefore, we I have no idea that the evidence actually exists. Or something.

 

[femr2]

Well, thanks for the youtube link to HD versions.

You're welcome. Please note the geet big aircraft in each of them.

They are no better.

Better than the deliberately p*** poor quality versions you've been peddling. Pretty sure there's none better out there.

Some are not even actual video and are, instead, an additional layer of deception involving out and out simulations:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/th_default.jpg?t=1277844659[/qimg]

Who are you trying to convince with simulations, pray tell?

HA HA HA. I've done a lot of work determining that the NIST impact orientation and trajectory used in their model was wrong.

The videos should have a link to the forum thread where such is discussed.

By the way...ask any folk here...they ain't too fond of me...twooofer y'see...well, I still ask questions...you, however, are, I think, beyond help.

The videos are not fake. They show a big aircraft. Get over it.

 

[charmer]

Hi, I'd like to chip in.

By the way, I have not seen so much ad hominem attacks in one thread in a long time. 33 pages, seriously? And yet you all keep coming back...

(On a sidenote, I'm not allowed to post URLs here so I apologize for referencing my sources in a more cumbersome way.)

Well then, I've looked at the videos and after doing some research there are several things that struck me as curious. Maybe some of you could help me out with them.

1) What I find weird is that not in one video segment (maybe save the suspicious "tinacart" clip) there's anyone who would mention noticing the approaching plane before the explosion. What do you make of that?

2) The color "filters" on several segments look also very weird. It was a clear sunny day on 911, right? Yet some of the clips are wholly painted over with unreal colors such as violet, brown or blue... Not to mention that the backdrop in those clips is gone.

3) Also I remember that at the pentagon there was this Mark Walter figure convincing everyone that upon impact a jetliner compacts its wings:
(see 1st video on youtube searching "mike walter 911")
Why didn't it happen at WTC then?

4) About witnesses - I'm sorry but I haven't heard of any "thousands" that would positively identify a 757 to have hit the second tower. I don't doubt some exist though. But as seen here: (look up Brasscheck TV, then navigate "the 9/11 files" and "The 9/11 Solution - RESTORED" )
it was not impossible to have false witnesses planted on the site.
On the other hand there were other witness accounts that are widely being ignored now by the media or the strict followers of the official line:
(see "watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw" on Youtube)

5) In fact there's this website that I'd have expected a self-proclaimed Noplaner would use to their defense, that shows how the videos could have been doctored. Now I'm not saying that I'm buying into everything they have to say but some of it looks serious enough to merit discussion IMHO:
(septembersclues<dot>info)



Now please don't stick the labels Noplaner, DEWnut or other on me, I'd just like to have the above points accounted for somehow. Thanks.

 

[carlitos]

4) About witnesses - I'm sorry but I haven't heard of any "thousands" that would positively identify a 757 to hit the second tower. I don't doubt some exist though.

This is what is known as "argument from ignorance" or "argument from personal incredulity. (I am not calling you names, just faulting the argument)

It is possible that you haven't heard of "thousands" that would positively identify United Airlines flight 175, which was a Boeing 767. The New York Metro area has around 15 million people. The North World Trade Center tower had been hit by a plane 18 minutes earlier, and every news station in NYC was talking about it. Certainly, there were thousands if not millions of people in New York and New Jersey with their head craned upwards to see the areas tallest building burning on fire, debris and even people raining down on lower Manhattan at the exact moment when the second plane hit. Could they all say for 100% certainty that it was a 767? Probably not. But since every piece of documentary, RADAR, physical and other evidence tells us that this was indeed Flight 175, we don't need to go visit the websites that you recommend. There was never, ever a reason for anyone to go find "thousands" of witnesses to make a statement, or whatever you think would convince you.

Thoughts?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Any 'No Planer' who asserts that there were no witnesses to the planes hittting the towers clearly has NEVER been to Manhattan.
Most 'no-planers' I have seen peddling their idiotic theory online tend to be European or Australian.

There are thousands of people wandering about the streets on New York City every morning, particulalry at rush hour- plus it is a major tourist center...NY is always a busy place.

 

[twinstead]

Exactly how many eye witnesses combined with the physical evidence and images SHOULD it take to convince somebody that perhaps there were planes that day?

 

[332nd]

1) What I find weird is that not in one video segment (maybe save the suspicious "tinacart" clip) there's anyone who would mention noticing the approaching plane before the explosion. What do you make of that?

No one had realized at that point that there was an attack yet. It seemed like a horrible accident until the second hit. With all of the planes in and out of NYC it wouldn't raise much attention until one realized it was on a line to hit the WTC.

3) Also I remember that at the pentagon there was this Mark Walter figure convincing everyone that upon impact a jetliner compacts its wings:
(see 1st video on youtube searching "mike walter 911")
Why didn't it happen at WTC then?
.

Different buildings.

 

[DGM]

Exactly how many eye witnesses combined with the physical evidence and images SHOULD it take to convince somebody that perhaps there were planes that day?

Personally I (and I think a lot of other people) don't need any! The reason being, no other explanation even comes close to consideration.

 

[carlitos]

Personally I (and I think a lot of other people) don't need any! The reason being, no other explanation even comes close to consideration.

That "September Clues" site (dot info - Referred to above as #5), besides being offensive in their disrespect for the victims, is run by a guy who has some bizarre form of solipsism. At one point he was musing that Barack Obama (and other public figures) didn't really exist, because not every American had seen him live.

Ah, found it:

I personally have never seen Obama in person, and in this age of fakery it should be a REQUISITE that we all get to meet the person supposedly leading us.

If that turns out to be physically impossible due to their inability to meet 300,000,000 people, I think we have to ask: why exactly do we have such a "leader" who cannot possibly represent us in any way, shape or form?

Democracy is becoming Holocracy!

Yes, IF it's impossible to meet 300 million people in person.

As someone here put it, these guys think that The Matrix is a documentary.

 

[fess]

33
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...owblurryhelicopterNoseOut800.png?t=1277822684

OK posters and lurkers. Please take a look, if you would, at version # 33. One of the more interesting aspects of this one is that the shadow thingy looks more like a whirly craft than a jetliner and also hits at the wrong angle.

Further, among the more interesting aspects of this one is that it refutes those who claim a jet engine came out the north face. What this video shows at about the 8:06 mark is that the firecracker burnt out completely and the streams that some debunkers used to create all sorts of debris claims out of, complete with graphic diagrams, are FUBAR. The streams burn out in midair.

This is another instance of a stationary camera trying to capture the image of an object moving at 700+ feet per second.
Can’t you do any better than this Jammo?

 

[Thunder]

Any 'No Planer' who asserts that there were no witnesses to the planes hittting the towers clearly has NEVER been to Manhattan.

it is a bit silly...

hell..I'll say it. it is INSANE to assert that there are no witnesses to the planes hitting the towers.

clearly, some No-Planers are trying to make 9-11 Truth look insane.

if No-Planers put an ad in the NY Daily News and NY Post, offering $20 for folks who work in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and New Jersey to share their story of seeing the 2nd plane crash into the tower, they would get hundreds if not thousands of offers.

how about it No-Planers? put an ad in the NY Daily News and NY Post, and offer $20 per story.

I challenge you.