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

[phunk]

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?

The second one approached from the south, over the water. It wasn't a low flying plane over lower manhattan until a couple seconds before it hit. There wasn't a whole lot of time to react.

 

[phunk]

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]

He might have seen the fireball, to be sure, and I wouldn't doubt he did. But, I am not sure how likely it is for a jetliner to have been visible from that location. However, if others think the WTC was visible from there, then that is fine. Needless to say, this is not the kind of witness I would put forward, based on the source and the style. The article is clearly a story and not a statement focused on an accurate assessment of what happened. Mr. Belair seeks to set up an emotional appeal, if you ask me concerning the impact of 9/11 on his life and times.

Jam, you need to make up your mind. You claim it would be hard to see the plane from this location, but you also say the plane isn't clear enough in videos taken from 2 or 3 times as far away. Which is it?

 

[TJM]

• 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.

• 
  
  What of the many who were?
  
  

  [*]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.

  
  What of the many who could?
  
  

  [*]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.

  
  What of those with an unobstructed view?
  
  

  [*]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.

  
  What of those who weren't close but who could see 175 on the skyline?
  
  

  [*]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.

  
  Don't forget at our current level level of technology, the only man made objects flying around at low altitudes are likely to be airplanes.
  
  

  [*]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?

  
  Right. Then there are those who correctly identified it as a commercial airliner. What about them?
  
  

  [*]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.

You'll have to be more specific, I don't wish to sit through another truther video.

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.

Glad to see you aren't having any trouble reaching the goalposts from your seat on the fence.

 

[dafydd]

The camera's tilted to the left.

A truther would never think of that.

 

[Dumb All Over]

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?

By opining that you find it weird, it was clear to me you were not concluding that clouds are made of cotton candy. Please, don't let me put words into your mouth. Based on the notion that few people (if any) failed to mention an approaching plane, what do you conclude?

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

I do not represent the JREF in any way, shape, or form. The opinions expressed here are my own. That's generally how it works on most internet forums.

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.

For the person who created this thread, it is a black/white issue. Just read the title of the thread. He has asked you, charmer, to look at the 43 Videos video and, based on your viewing, to conclude whether there was a PLANE or NO PLANE. You have reviewed the video, yes? So, what is your answer? Sitting on the fence causes hemorrhoids.

 

[twinstead]

Sitting on the fence causes hemorrhoids.

Ouch

 

[Thunder]

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

to this date, Jamm has failed to present any evidence whatsoever, that the photos or videos are fake, or that the eyewitnesses are liars.

so yes, he has failed to prove that there were no planes at the WTC.

do you see this Lurkers? Jamm has failed in his mission to prove that there were no planes at the WTC on 9-11.

 

[DGM]

Why are people responding to charmer? This is Jammonius' thread, all attention should be directed toward him, thecritta you back off too.

We have to respect the wishes of these guys.

 

[Thunder]

Lurkers- I suggest you demand that Jamm. provide evidence that the pictures and videos he has been presented, are fakes. Otherwise, you should insist he not make accusations of fraud.

 

[twinstead]

You mean Jammonius may be hand waving away evidence that is contrary to his position as faked with NO evidence to support the accusations?

Say it isn't so jamm.

 

[DGM]

You mean Jammonius may be hand waving away evidence that is contrary to his position as faked with NO evidence to support the accusations?

Say it isn't so jamm.

Let's look at this for accuracy of understanding. You say "hand-wave" yet you have no verifiable video or evidence for that matter that Jammonius even has hands.

Are we to then assume that you have some sort of bias toward people with disabilities? In this country we try to treat everyone equally. You need to be more compassionate toward his disability.

So, from now on any suggestion of "hand-waving" will be dealt with like we have in the past.




WAKE-UP

 

[Thunder]

Lurkers- this is JREF. We expect evidence for debunking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Jamm suggests that all the videos, all the photos, are fake. They do not show an airplane. The images may be fraudulent.

and yet, he has provided ZERO evidence of fraud.

Lurkers- do you think this is an example of true scientific skepticism?

 

[twinstead]

Are we to then assume that you have some sort of bias toward people with disabilities? In this country we try to treat everyone equally. You need to be more compassionate toward his disability.

I stand chastised. Or I sit chastised. But then, you have no video evidence that I am sitting or standing, now DO you? Hmmmmm?

 

[DGM]

I stand chastised. Or I sit chastised. But then, you have no video evidence that I am sitting or standing, now DO you? Hmmmmm?

Let's examine this for accuracy of understanding. The poster twinstead seems to be confused whether or not he is standing or sitting. Therefore we MUSTassume he has no legs.

I am truly sorry to accuse you of not respecting Jammonius' disability given the disability you yourself are afflicted with.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Can a person with no legs really be considered as sitting? I mean it's not like they would have the option of standing...

 

[twinstead]

Wow. You see? Who would ever accuse us of not being sublime.

 

[jammonius]

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.

You are on an apparent roll in seeking to put words into my mouth that I have not said, let alone ideas that I have not presented.

I treat each witness objectively and by the same standards.

 

[jammonius]

Hey Lurkers, come on post up. You're likely better witnesses than than those in 1368

38
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...itle/38-blobwithlittleboy904.png?t=1278100071

Video segment # 38, as copied into the ALL43 you tube video is too brief in duration to provide much useful information. Does anyone have a link for the longer version from which # 38 was excerpted?

Thanks in advance.

 

[jammonius]

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#

Not sure I follow the logic; and, would you please provide a time marker to the segment you are talking about. That is a 56min. video clip...

thanks

 

[jammonius]

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?

More rhetoric. Fess, are you afraid to make a point, assert a claim in your own right? If it is your claim that the Twin Towers were in plain sight from 6th and 4th, then come right out and say it, please.