Below are the responses I got on my first post here with my comments:
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?
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?
Is this really how it works of JREF? I may have been misled by the subtitle of
the website...
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...
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.
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 X
1 claiming Y
1 ... Y
n". Your response is
(paraphrased) "Look, this guy X
2 who's behind the website, claimed Z
1 which "everyone knows"
is a complete bull and therefore he is discredited and therefore we don't have to
bother with Y
1 ... 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?
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.
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.
