• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
jammonius said:
Oh boy, your level of resistance to understanding is incredibly high today for some reason.

That statement is not made by the person it is attributed to, read literally. Instead, it is made by the reporter and attributed to the person.

That is unreliable.
Click to expand...

Then I'll assume you've contacted the men the reporter attributed the statement to find if the reporter is lying or not.

What did you find out?
 
Last edited:
Again, the only person who has any blind belief in this thread is you, J. You must continually twist people's words to suggest the no plane idea. You must dismiss (or ignore) images. You must dismiss (or ignore) DNA evidence. You are the one that denies evidence so that the belief in your idea can be preserved.
 
excaza said:
Well there was...

[qimg]http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/l9/911-flight175windows-l.jpg[/qimg]
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes
Looks like a plane part to me.

Besides, a plane hitting a building in excess of 500 miles an hour and exploding doesn't tend to leave giant, easy to pick up pieces.

Oh right, it was 'planted.' Silly me. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh boy, we are regressing badly.

If there is one thing I would have thought this thread could accomplish it is the ability properly to say what can and cannot be seen in a photograph. There is a method to reading photographs. One has to make sure one has an accurate wy to distinguish the size of the objects seen in the photograph which normally requires knowing something about the camera, the lens and the particulars of the camera setting.

In the above photo, for instance, there is no rational way to make a valid claim that any plane part is seen anywhere in it.

Perhaps you did not participate in the Plymouth Wheelcover thread. But, that was the essential element of that thread as well. You cannot make claims that you see a plane part, let alone a part of a Boeing 767 based on that photo.

True, if you are inclined to "believe" in the common storyline of 9/11, then it is possible you might use a photo like that seen above to further implant that belief in yourself. But, that is a self-inflicted wound.
 
TheRedWorm said:
Again, the only person who has any blind belief in this thread is you, J. You must continually twist people's words to suggest the no plane idea. You must dismiss (or ignore) images. You must dismiss (or ignore) DNA evidence. You are the one that denies evidence so that the belief in your idea can be preserved.
Click to expand...

Your post is off the mark. I have dealt, specifically, with how to read statements and interpret them; how to view photos; and the lack of DNA evidence.

What prevents you from recognizing that the information and the analysis in support of those assertions has been posted?

You are free to believe whatever you want. But, it might behoove you to acknowledge that my claims are supported by information and analysis.

Yet again, this is not about what you or I or anyone else "believes." I am not questioning people's beliefs. Rather, I am offering information for consideration.

Let me try it this way:

You can believe jetliners hit the Twin Towers for as long as you can.
 
jammonius said:
You are putting the matter in the context of "belief". I am not naive. I know that most people "believe" they "believe" jetliners crashed into the WTC on 9/11, even if they were standing there when it happened and didn't see a plane, hear a plane or think a plane was present.
Click to expand...

ah...so you admit they are not...No-Planers?
 
jammonius said:
Your post is wide of the mark and reflects an elementary misunderstanding of the way information is treated.

You are putting the matter in the context of "belief". I am not naive. I know that most people "believe" they "believe" jetliners crashed into the WTC on 9/11, even if they were standing there when it happened and didn't see a plane, hear a plane or think a plane was present.

My best witness, Asst. Commn. Stephen Gregory probably "believes" he had better "believe" that jetliners hit. David Handschuh has, in fact, stated that he "believes" it happened even though he was standing there, took the picture (of an explosion) and encountered no debris, from right underneath, practically speaking.

The issue is not what the person believes because what a person believes is her business.

How many times have you seen the following sentence in my posts:

You can continue to believe jetliners hit the Twin Towers for as long as you can.

I do not dispute what people believe. I assess what information they have if they are witnesses.

There exists enormous social pressure, in the way of conditioning, as well as in the way of our own xenophobic need for certain kinds of "enemies," to adhere to the common storyline, imho.

Put it this way: What will happen if a large number of people do start re-assessing what they believe they believe about 9/11? What happens then?

In simple terms, and once again speaking for me, my speculation is that such re-assessment might create uncertainty, confusion and, perhaps, fear and loathing.

I think, speaking for me again, that people will continue to believe jetliners were involved on 9/11 for, you guessed it, as long as they can. The recognition that refusal to confront the truth of the matter will lead to other and further such attacks against us is probably the best inducement to re-assessment, imho.

Get it?
Click to expand...
What will happen when we/they can no lover believe it?
 
"I have dealt, specifically, with how to read statements and interpret them; how to view photos;"

Did I just read that correctly? Did J just admit to twisting evidence to fit his belief?
 
Jamm- have lurkers every come to your defense on this issue?

I'm curious as to why you keep requesting their help, as if they are some silent majority or calvery that will some day rally to your defense.

:)
 
This thread makes Randi's accounts sad. Wasting his bandwidth talking to people like this.
 
jammonius said:
Oh boy, we are regressing badly.

If there is one thing I would have thought this thread could accomplish it is the ability properly to say what can and cannot be seen in a photograph. There is a method to reading photographs. One has to make sure one has an accurate wy to distinguish the size of the objects seen in the photograph which normally requires knowing something about the camera, the lens and the particulars of the camera setting.
Click to expand...
You are really, really grasping at straws now. You have no problem using ****** quality youtube videos to make your claim that it was not an airplane that hit the towers, but a 'shadow thingey,' and dismiss the reams of good photographs and videos from completely independent sources showing an airplane impacting the tower? You're absolutely bonkers.

In the above photo, for instance, there is no rational way to make a valid claim that any plane part is seen anywhere in it.

Perhaps you did not participate in the Plymouth Wheelcover thread. But, that was the essential element of that thread as well. You cannot make claims that you see a plane part, let alone a part of a Boeing 767 based on that photo.
Click to expand...
There is no way you can claim it came from anything other than an aircraft fuselage. That window geometry would not exist anywhere else but on an aircraft.

I've uploaded a new copy of it that should help quell your suspicion.
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1003/911flight175windowsl.jpg
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
This thread makes Randi's accounts sad. Wasting his bandwidth talking to people like this.
Click to expand...

On the flip side, he's writing many examples of what not to do in a debate that I plan to use in my public speaking classes, as well as writing the exam on fallacies. Seriously, I'm going to use quotes from his posts and ask what fallacy they can spot.
 
jammonius said:
You are stuck. The NTSB often investigates plane crashes that are thought to be criminal. Further, you are being naive to a farethewell. The NTSB is the repository of plane crash expertise in the US. It is a barely plausible "fig leaf" to justify the exclusion of NTSB from determining what happened on 9/11 based on a "not my yob" jurisdictional cop out.

Who are you trying to fool, DGM?
Click to expand...

WRONG!! Once NTSB determines that a plane crash is criminal, it turns everything over to the FBI, and only acts as a support role.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/invest.htm#criminal


In fact, when it comes to the events of 9/11, the NTSB did not investigate one bit of the crashes.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X00106&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X00105&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...23X00104&key=1


Wanna try again?
 
Thunder said:
We tried a 7 day 9-11 Truth boycott.

How about a 7 day boycott of Jamm and his No-Plane theories?

:)
Click to expand...

What about a 9 year boycott? They've had 9 years already. See what they produce after another 9 years.

It appears the only thing that keeps the TM going is the Debunkers. This forum was dead for the Boycott Week because they didn't have anyone to argue with.

Look at the Truther forums where the membership is almost exclusively Truthers - all they do is virtual high-5 each other and stroke each others egos. Nothing really happens.

Goto a forum like JREF where debunkers and truthers mix and everyone spends a lot of time chasing their tails.

How many Lurkers did the TM convert during the Week Boycott?? My money is on zero, nada, ziltch.......
 
How can a rational person reject that planes hit the towers, despite the seemingly infinite ammount of evidence...

Using no-planer logic- I was in Boston when the planes hit-I can't see New York from Boston, so I didn't see planes hit the towers. Is that proof that there were no planes?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom