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

[jammonius]

So your calling this man a liar. Why don't you just come out and say it?

No, that is not what I am doing. I am assessing his statement, to the extent it can be called such (it is actually a story). I have no basis to make an accusation and no useful purpose is served by doing that.

Once again, information can be assessed on its merits to determine how reliable or unreliable it appears to be.

I seek reliable and verifiable information and to draw reasoned inferences from that information.

With that frame of reference in mind, it appears to me that it would be difficult to PLANE SPOT from 6th Ave and West 4th Street.

 

[DGM]

No, that is not what I am doing. I am assessing his statement, to the extent it can be called such (it is actually a story). I have no basis to make an accusation and no useful purpose is served by doing that.

Once again, information can be assessed on its merits to determine how reliable or unreliable it appears to be.

I seek reliable and verifiable information and to draw reasoned inferences from that information.

With that frame of reference in mind, it appears to me that it would be difficult to PLANE SPOT from 6th Ave and West 4th Street.

So you reserve the right to discount witnesses if they are "inconvenient" to your belief.

Why don't you just spell out these things that are obvious to us all.

 

[bill smith]

I don't think a speculative exercise of that nature will lead into any useful discussion area, Bill, and so I don't think I can advance that query at all.

If there are 'truthers' who are opposed to the information put forward in this thread by me, either in the aggregate or in one or more posts, I'd be pleased if some of them would post up their claims, concerns or observations.

For instance, if some of them would like to know whether or not I am a disinformation agent, then, I can tell them the answer is "No."

The evidence in support of the NO PLANE claim, as it relates to the Twin Towers, speaks for itself, Bill. If truthers would like to refute that evidence, or comment on it in some way, that would be welcomed.

all the best

This PBS movie came out in 2002.If you click it through for several seconds from the very beginning you will see that there is initially no plane to be seen and then it suddenly appears coming out from behind a building. I can hardly believe that the makers were unaware of the missing plane- and of course they could easily have edited out that little section. But they didn't.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402347900887643799#

 

[TheRedWorm]

Dear J,

If I told you that JFK was not shot and killed, but rather he was poisoned and died peacefully in his sleep, and that all eyewitnesses that saw him get shot were either lying or mistaken, and the photographs (and movies) of him were faked, what would you think of me? Do you think this is a rational position to hold?

 

[TJM]

Dear J,

If I told you that JFK was not shot and killed, but rather he was poisoned and died peacefully in his sleep, and that all eyewitnesses that saw him get shot were either lying or mistaken, and the photographs (and movies) of him were faked, what would you think of me? Do you think this is a rational position to hold?

This might not be a good time to mention it, but our jammonius is, in fact, a full on woo. Chemtrails, moon landings, big pharma etc. If he's also bought into the JFK conspiracies it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

This might not be a good time to mention it, but our jammonius is, in fact, a full on woo. Chemtrails, moon landings, big pharma etc. If he's also bought into the JFK conspiracies it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

He sounds like like tinfoil hat material...
Does he also think the moon landing was fake?
Does he think Tony Blair was behind the 7/7 bombings in London?

With the conspiracy crowd, i wonder at what point paranoia and ignorance ends and metal illness begin..

Some of these people are not that far removed from the piss soaked schizophrenic homeless people that hold carboard signs on street corners,and babble Biblical passages and argue with invisible demons..

 

[fess]

Next up for consideration from the list of "witnesses" posted by Carlitos is:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368


Mark Belair

"I saw the second plane hit. I had just come out of the subway at Sixth Avenue and West Fourth and noticed everyone on the sidewalk looking up. I followed their gaze to see a tremendous black gash in the north tower, about 30 blocks away, and overheard someone say a plane had just crashed into the building. At first we thought it must have been an accident, a small plane that lost control. Then it dawned on me that the damage was too great for a small plane or an accident. I figured it must have been an act of terrorism - horrible, but over. Then the second plane banked in low and, as I watched, slammed through the south tower and exploded into a fireball."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/parents/st...554123,00.html

Mark Belair (I am not making that up, Mark be l---)

From 6th Avenue and West 4th Street, it would appear to have been very difficult to see a plane, let alone one that was at 800ft and 550mph hit the South Tower.

This is the google street map view:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/6thwest4th.jpg?t=1278021614[/qimg]

Well, something else just became evident; you’ve never been to NYC, especially 6th Ave. and W. 4th street, have you Jammy? The towers were about a mile away from that location, and you mean to tell me that you can’t see a 767 from a mile away?

 

[excaza]

Well, something else just became evident; you’ve never been to NYC, especially 6th Ave. and W. 4th street, have you Jammy? The towers were about a mile away from that location, and you mean to tell me that you can’t see a 767 from a mile away?

Should also add that you can easily discern jetliners flying at altitude (~35k feet)

 

[fess]

This PBS movie came out in 2002.If you click it through for several seconds from the very beginning you will see that there is initially no plane to be seen and then it suddenly appears coming out from behind a building. I can hardly believe that the makers were unaware of the missing plane- and of course they could easily have edited out that little section. But they didn't.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402347900887643799#

Thank you for posting this video. I must say that I had seen it on tv, but missed a very important part. Watch at 13:06 in the video... it is a very good shot of the aircraft penetrating the structure. Jammo... what say ye?

 

[fess]

Should also add that you can easily discern jetliners flying at altitude (~35k feet)

Have you noticed that Jammo can't get the altitude or the speed of the aircraft consistantly right?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

[/QUOTE] seek reliable and verifiable information and to draw reasoned inferences from that information.[/QUOTE]



What type of eye witness accounts do you concider reliable?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

So jammy, do you think the people who said they the planes hit the towers were lying?
Do you really think all of the videos fakes?

You still have not addressed the issue of airplane debris found in the street near the WTC and on nearby rooftops.
Plus how is it that the remains of some of the people from those planes were latster discovered at ground zero?

Let me guess.....You think the NYFD planted the remains

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Would you believe I am doing research in behavioral studies?

That or anti-psychotic drug trials.

 

[charmer]

Below are the responses I got on my first post here with my comments:

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?

Gee, that's a tough one. I guess the only conclusion to be drawn is there were
no planes that hit the WTC towers.

So instead of stating that you personally think this is of no import, you
rather ridicule me and imply a conclusion that I never made?

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.

Are you saying that after the first _low-flying_ jetliner hit the first tower,
ANOTHER low-flying jetliner approaching WTC "wouldn't raise much attention"
for anyone taping the area or watching live feed on air? Is that what you're
saying? Low-flying jetliners surely aren't a commonplace over Lower Manhattan, are they?

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.

When we were rendering the animated planes over the stock footage backdrop of
New York, it just didn't look right. The particular frames I was in charge of
looked particularly cartoonish. We were told by our superiors that we needed to
blur the finalized renderings so that they didn't look so much like a Porky Pig
cartoon. I chose a sepia brown wash over mine.

Is this really how it works of JREF? I may have been misled by the subtitle of
the website...

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.

Care to expand on that a little more? I find it hard to accept that physics
would care so much about similarities of buildings and fail to produce similar
effects for similar events...

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)

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.

You, on the other hand, seem to be using the "appeal to popularity" and
"wishful thinking" arguments. You assume that because "there were thousands
if not _millions_ of people in New York and New Jersey with their head craned
upwards" is some sort of obvious triviality, we don't need to do anything else to
investigate the matter even if we cannot properly source the claim of the
"thousands". I'll try to show you why I'm skeptical.

There was a certain number of people in the streets (and in buildings) who could
have theoretically seen the plane approaching the building. Out of the pool of
these potential witnesses we need to subtract the following:

• Many people weren't even looking the right way at the crucial time. After all, most
  people supposedly thought the first hit an accident so some of them (out of
  the whole pool) wouldn't even scan the area of the first impact.
  
• Some people couldn't have possibly seen anything because the whole area is full
  of tall buildings which block the view from the street level.
  
• Also many people who were looking the right way were standing in the areas where
  the towers themselves were blocking the view on the impact or the flight path of
  the plane.
  
• Most people who were close enough and with their head craned upwards certainly
  weren't looking directly at the second tower (contrary to several of the videos
  where the camera was conveniently trained on the impact spot). It all happened
  very quickly so unless a person looked directly at the right place, they would
  have trouble describing what exactly happened.
  
• Don't forget the people that were standing too far to be able to positively
  distinguish the approaching object even if they were able to spot it.
  
• Also eyewitness accounts are said to be unreliable. AFAIK, we have
  small planes, Cessnas, military planes, cruise missiles, unmarked jetliners,
  unspecified "big planes" and possibly some other accounts among the testimonies, right?
  
• Then there's this matter of planted eyewitnesses. Have you watched the
  Brasscheck TV clip? I personally remember I saw that particular guy on TV back
  in 2001. Do you believe it was a genuine eyewitness? I certainly don't.

So how many people do we have left now to positively identify an UA-marked
jetliner? I read some of the reports, yes...

Remember I only discuss "the thousands eyewitnesses" here. I don't jump to any
conclusions as to what the false witnesses or fabricated video clips might mean.

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)

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.

Well, this is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack and poison-the-well fallacy,
isn't it? I said "There's this website X₁ claiming Y₁ ... Y_n". Your response is
(paraphrased) "Look, this guy X₂ who's behind the website, claimed Z₁ which "everyone knows"
is a complete bull and therefore he is discredited and therefore we don't have to
bother with Y₁ ... Y_n at all".

I think every single one of us talks nonsense sometimes, has ulterior
motives sometimes or falls for a myth, scam or illusion. That is why we have this
thing, a critical discussion, where we should dissect facts, matters and circumstances
rather than the messengers. If someone is told to have said something I feel is an absurd
comment on something, I can argument against it or don't touch it. Either way the
comment itself shouldn't divert my attention away from other comments of the
same person, especially if they appear to be relevant to the topic discussed,
would you agree?

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.

Here comes another who does not do RADAR, or understand aircraft parts and
people from flight 175 and 11 were at the WTC towers; and the Pentagon. Where do
you guys hide for 8 years? Why can't paranoid conspiracy theorists understand
RADAR? I assume you and all your paranoid 911 truthers never fly since it is all
fake.
Some people did identify a 757. Even the news got it right on 911. Here we are
over 8 years later and you and jammonius can't figure out 911. The plane part
was figured out on 911. Then RADAR tapes show the exact route, DNA confirms who
was on board.
What other nut case ideas do you have on 911; open a thread. Welcome to the
forum; a skeptic forum, you need to be more skeptical about your opinions. Your
ideas on this issue seem to be rooted in lack of knowledge and lack of
experience.

What a warm welcome, thanks. On the RADAR angle: UA175 was lost from the
RADAR for about half a minute. Is that correct? When it returned back, its
transponder code was changed. Is that correct? How do you know it was the same
plane from then on?

FAA and NORAD seemed to have been in total disarray on 911 morning. They have
both been covering their asses since and according to senator Dayton, NORAD even
doctored reports and lied to 911 commission. (see videoplay?docid=6356376062706860949# on Google video)
What exactly convinced you that everything they had to say about anything was
worthy the "Enron pension"?

BTW, by lumping me together with jammonius you are doing a bandwagon fallacy. I am
not here for his sake though watching the videos in OP and after doing some subsequent
research I came up with my own questions. And please, kindly stop implying that
it is my conclusion that no planes hit the towers.

Charmer, within this thread I've been conducting a little poll and was wondering
if you might like to participate as the rest of us have. In your opinion, based
on the 43 Videos video, would you vote PLANE or NO PLANE?

Well, if anything, I'm a skeptic and I don't play this kind of
divide-and-conquer minigames. This is not a left-right, black-white, good-bad or what have
you dichotomy issue for me. It was before when I knew next to nothing about this
mess of an attack. Now I'm on the fence.

 

[NutCracker]

[snip]

Cut the pseudo-intellectual bable. Physical evidence, RADAR data, photographic evidence, phone-calls from the planes, FDR data, CVR recordings, etc.

Conversion of evidence.

Give me a single piece of evidence contradicting the accepted narritive. You can't.

Give me a single piece of evidence in support of an alternative narrative. You can't.

Give me an alternative narative. You won't.

 

[thecritta]

As previously indicated, I think the above quote by newcomer Lyrandar, adds a lot to this thread and deserves serious consideration from posters who might be inclined to engage in substantive posting, of the type that I always call for.

In this post, I should like to take up the following:



I think the above merely expresses a bias in favor of PLANE SPOTTING but does not contain an adequate basis for granting that bias to PLANE SPOTTING while denying it to NO PLANERS. There are more reasons for PLANE SPOTTING to be inaccurate and more compelling ones at that, than is the case for NO PLANE claims.

The main reason why PLANE SPOTTING is subject to inaccuracy consists in one word: TEEVEE.

That medium was used to confirm two crashes of Boeing 767s into the Twin Towers on the basis of one video clip.

Recall the words: "...there's another one..."

Up to that point, there was little information, none reliably sourced, claiming a jetliner had hit the North Tower. Yet, with theteevee imagery that we are discussing in this thread, the claim all of sudden became implanted that two such events had occurred.

We did not have a factual basis for that assertion.

Teevee served to implant a false memory. We saw from the police reports that up until the teevee episode, almost all accounts of what happened centered on a claim of explosion as had ALL of the accounts in the Dick Oliver videos. There were 0 claims a jetliner had hit the North Tower in the Dick Oliver videos.

Plus, the common storyline of 9/11 fits well within the overall fabric of xenophobia that adversely affects US society. Having Muslims as enemies fits us. Furthermore, once binLaden was fingered, i.e., about 2 seconds after the shadow thingy was shown on teevee, the die was cast.

It then became a patriotic duty to assume alQaeda done it and that was that.

Those factors are deeply influential and serve to create a strong bias in favor of PLANE SPOTTING and an almost PAVLOVIAN resistance to NO PLANE claims as we have seen, for instance, err, how shall we say this, IN THIS THREAD.

Look at this, binLaden blamed on 9/11, as shown in the following replay, occurring as the second explosion is forming and as the nose of shadow thingy is coming out, intact, on the opposite side of where it supposedly had hit the South Tower:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/947nbcrightleftexplobeginBinLadenBl.png?t=1274537056[/qimg]

That is graphic, posters, and shows that PLANE SPOTTING is the element that is subject to the influence of undue bias and prejudice.

Looked at forensically, the above photo, from the 9:47 mark of the ALL 43 video, and therefore, one of the last of the clips is vital for confirming falsity.

Look at it, please.

What do you see?

You see the explosion forming on the freakin' NORTH side of the tower BEFORE it even forms on the EAST side, where, as we know, it formed BEFORE it formed a visible explosion at the point of IMPACT.

You are therefore seeing explosions that have nothing whatever to do with a jetliner crash.

Your own eyes are all that is needed to determine that what you are observing in the videos is not a jetliner crash at all.

Ummm why are the towers leaning to right in this shot that I would
like to know, not that I believe in no planes or holographs I am just
curious and would like to know anyone got an explanation?

 

[Reactor drone]

Ummm why are the towers leaning to right in this shot that I would
like to know, not that I believe in no planes or holographs I am just
curious and would like to know anyone got an explanation?

The camera's tilted to the left.

 

[carlitos]

Well, if anything, I'm a skeptic and I don't play this kind of
divide-and-conquer minigames. This is not a left-right, black-white, good-bad or what have
you dichotomy issue for me. It was before when I knew next to nothing about this
mess of an attack. Now I'm on the fence.

You knew "next to nothing."

You read some truther sites, including "September Clues" (dot info), etc.

You came here, where 43 individual videos of the second plane impact are posted in this thread, plus additional "hi res video" (posted by femr2), along with dozens of firsthand witness accounts of both planes impacting the towers, along with dozens of photographs of planes impacting the towers, along with links to RADAR and even seismic evidence, along with photographs of physical evidence, and links to all of the evidence presented in the Moussaui trial.

And now you are "on the fence."

Thanks for the logic lesson.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

What a warm welcome, thanks.

Welcome to JREF, charmer.

BTW, by lumping me together with jammonius you are doing a bandwagon fallacy. I am
not here for his sake though watching the videos in OP and after doing some subsequent
research I came up with my own questions. And please, kindly stop implying that
it is my conclusion that no planes hit the towers.

If you were hoping to have a sensible discussion of reality, then your choice of thread was most unfortunate. Sorry.

Charmer, within this thread I've been conducting a little poll and was wondering
if you might like to participate as the rest of us have. In your opinion, based
on the 43 Videos video, would you vote PLANE or NO PLANE?

Well, if anything, I'm a skeptic and I don't play this kind of
divide-and-conquer minigames. This is not a left-right, black-white, good-bad or what have
you dichotomy issue for me. It was before when I knew next to nothing about this
mess of an attack. Now I'm on the fence.

Okay, that helps by clarifying your current state of knowledge. You honestly don't know whether the WTC towers were struck by aircraft on 11 September 2001.

Before we recommend evidence that will increase your knowledge of what happened that day, it would help to know what evidence you have already considered, and why you consider it inconclusive. If you refuse to answer questions that would help us to diagnose your current knowledge, it will be harder for us to respond appropriately.

 

[twinstead]

You knew "next to nothing."

You read some truther sites, including "September Clues" (dot info), etc.

You came here, where 43 individual videos of the second plane impact are posted in this thread, plus additional "hi res video" (posted by femr2), along with dozens of firsthand witness accounts of both planes impacting the towers, along with dozens of photographs of planes impacting the towers, along with links to RADAR and even seismic evidence, along with photographs of physical evidence, and links to all of the evidence presented in the Moussaui trial.

And now you are "on the fence."

Thanks for the logic lesson.

Indeed.