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

[fess]

40
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/40-closeup920.png?t=1278161882

Segment # 40 begins at about 9:20 and, though cropped differently, is the one that I think corresponds to the video segment contained in the PBS documentary that Bill Smith has posted up for discussion. This is the one that contains the "flash" seen to occur as shadow thingy is about to begin its unimpeded glide through the South Tower.

If anyone can grab a still of the flash as it occurs, that might be a fruitful exercise and post.

You do realize that you only have 3 more videos to show some proof of what you claim... don't you?

 

[Dog Town]

1608...

 

[bardamu]

Another version of this photo was posted somewhere earlier, if memory serves me correctly. The claim was what is seen is a part of an aircraft.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/WtcUA175debrisZoom.jpg?t=1278187292[/qimg]

Looked at from the above perspective, it is not at all certain that what is seen is a part of any aircraft, let alone a Boeing 767.

To my knowledge, the basis of the assertion that the above is a part of an aircraft does not originate from any investigative source and is, instead, merely a debunker claim.

I do not know that to be the case, exactly. Rather, I am only saying I know of no official investigation that claims the above is a plane part of any sort, much less a Boeing 767 and still less a Boeing 767 said to be involved in a flight allegedly occuring on 9/11.

This is actually two pieces of fuselage that were originally one piece from near the rear of the plane. To get to the rooftop where they were photographed, they must have gone into the south tower, passed through the exploding jet fuel, squeezed through a window on the north side of the building and crossed the Plaza to land on the roof of WTC 5. It's not clear whether the two pieces are still attatched to each other or not, but the smaller piece just happens to have part of the plane's number on it.

 

[TJM]

Squeezed through a window?

You actually think there was an intact window where that fuselage part came from?

Really?

 

[jammonius]

Hey Lurkers, do your patriotic duty and post up your 9/11 experiences!

41
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/41-hlava926.png?t=1278242204

Segment # 41 has a very indeterminate image of shadow thingy. It begins at about the 9:26mark.

 

[jammonius]

Are you suggesting the airplane debris found on nearby rooftops and on the streets below just happened to be there? The pieces have indeed been identified as having come from the planes that crashed.

If you look at the information available to you, I think you will reach a point where you learn that with respect to plane parts all that you can ever say is that things have been found that are "said to be plane parts." There have not been any identification of anything as plane parts based on valid forensic investigatory techniques, let alone identification of parts from the planes said to have been involved on 9/11.

Instead, the situation has always been centered on presumption. It has been presumed that the claim of jetliner crashes resulting from hijacking of certain flights was correct. Therefore anything that looked like it might possibly have come from a plane, of which there are, perhaps, a sum total of, what, 10 pieces for the 2 jetliners alleged involved at the WTC, have simply been assumed to be that of the hijacked planes, without forensic proof.

Further, a practice that is sometimes employed in this thread by posters has been used more generally as well. You will have noticed that when posters fail to refute a specific NO PLANE claim, a tactic frequently used is to say, rhetorically, of course, "what about all the other evidence from all the other sources." The 9/11 investigation, such as it was, was also premised on that kind of process; namely, that since there is no doubt about what happened, what happened didn't have to be proven.

You do recognize, of course, that that is how deception works.

Are you suggesting the debris was planted?

1--I have previously posted a photo essay showing a process of planting of the so-called jet engine part at Church and Murray.

2--I have called attention to the fact that the photo of the perimeter beam with wheely stuck in it appears to have been planted.

3--I have called attention to the photo deception associated with the Church and Murray so-called jet engine part that makes it look larger than it is.

4--I here also note that the placement of pieces of junk in a dumpster with handwritten letters "plane parts" "FBI" and "NTSB" firmly show that no proper investigation was taking place.

5--The claim that jet engine parts were dropped off, literally at the dump, Fresh Kills dump and left there is stupid, on its face, and confirms that there was no investigation whatsoever.

6--I here assert that the claim of planting evidence cannot ever be falsified because the so-called plane parts were not handled in an investigatory manner. If you dump plane parts into a dumpster without marking them and identifying them, there is nothing at all that prevents someone from walking up and throwing things that weren't there into the pile. If you trace a plane part to the Fresh Kills Dump -- an engine no less -- then you're claim as to where it came from is hopelessly compromised.

Or perhaps you think they were holograms?

I think the evidence of holography is quite strong. The complete lack of the sound of jetliner is a key indicator that a "bad special effect" as it was called by an eyewitness, Evan Fairbanks, was carried out.

Note: 2 types of evidence are mentioned in my post re holograms:

1--Lack of sound;
2--Eyewitness account.

Before asking for "more proof" as is the wont of posters around here, please consider providing an assessment of the evidence already given.

 

[TheRedWorm]

jammonius,

3 questions so that you can more easily frame the basis of your issues with the fuel explosion and its dynamics.

How quickly does jet fuel ignite?

How fast was the jet fuel going when it ignited as part of the impact with the WTC?

How would what you expect differ from what was observed?

Fitz

These are questions that desperately need an answer from J. Avoiding them further reduces creditability in the eyes of the lurkers.

 

[jammonius]

These are questions that desperately need an answer from J. Avoiding them further reduces creditability in the eyes of the lurkers.

That is false. Lurkers know that the difference between rhetoric and wild goose chases on the one hand and the failure of posters to post up their own claims and assertions, free from rhethoric and free from demands that someone go off and answer this question, then another, then two more ad infinitum, world without end, amen, (i.e. 20 questions), on the other.

Fitz has not asked questions, Fitz has asserted claims disguised as questions. If Fizt claims that speed calculations are relevant for assessing whether a jetliner smacked into the South Tower, then, by all means, let Fitz post that claim. If Fitz posts a claim, I would likely comment on it.

 

[TheRedWorm]

That is false. Lurkers know that the difference between rhetoric and wild goose chases on the one hand and the failure of posters to post up their own claims and assertions, free from rhethoric and free from demands that someone go off and answer this question, then another, then two more ad infinitum, world without end, amen, (i.e. 20 questions), on the other.

Fitz has not asked questions, Fitz has asserted claims disguised as questions. If Fizt claims that speed calculations are relevant for assessing whether a jetliner smacked into the South Tower, then, by all means, let Fitz post that claim. If Fitz posts a claim, I would likely comment on it.

You are lying. They are valid questions based on your statements (i.e. the crashes, as seen on video are scientifically impossible). Also, 20 questions is a game designed so that you can figure out an object/person/concept a person is thinking of without asking them what it is directly.

Also, I see no claims disguised as questions. All I see is you claiming that the crashes look (to you) like they violate some physical laws. Since you claimed that, Fitz asked you what should have happened had they not.

Further, I find it ironic that you complain about people not making claims, yet you have yet to post a coherent hypothesis about what happened on 9/11. Can you give us a brief timeline that describes what you think happened on 9/11?

 

[Oystein]

That is false. Lurkers know that the difference between rhetoric and wild goose chases on the one hand and the failure of posters to post up their own claims and assertions, free from rhethoric and free from demands that someone go off and answer this question, then another, then two more ad infinitum, world without end, amen, (i.e. 20 questions), on the other.

Fitz has not asked questions, Fitz has asserted claims disguised as questions. If Fizt claims that speed calculations are relevant for assessing whether a jetliner smacked into the South Tower, then, by all means, let Fitz post that claim. If Fitz posts a claim, I would likely comment on it.

That is false.
Pretty much all lurkers that have come forward so far know the difference between someone makeing false assertions and not backing them up (you) and those who employ the scientific method, critical thinking and honest debate (all others).

Pretty much all lurkers understand that if you make claims and assertions, you must back them up, and if you don't, that asking you to provide answers and evidence is both required and admissable.

Pretty much all lurkers have told you that your narrative is not at all convincing at best, and utter fooloishness at worst, after they judged your words for what they are worth.


And you are wrong: Fitz asked serious questions that do deserve an answer as the answers would serve to support or reject the wild claims and assertions invented by you.


Please do answer Fitz' questions. It can't hurt, can it? There are only 3 possible outcomes of that excercise:
1. You find good arguments that support your cause, and we are convinced at last
2. You find yourself that you can't support your cause with evidence and arguments, and give it up at last.
3. You make up more lies and deceptions, and everybody will know that you are a liar at last.

If you think you are right, please answer, make it case 1., and make your day.

We believe that you avoid answering sensible questions because you know you are wrong and would have to resort to even foolish lies or give up and admit that you have been wrong and a liar all along.

 

[Oystein]

Fitz,

For the final time. Your queries are rhetorical by the common definition of "rhetorical question" as confirmed by the following taken from wikipedia on "rhetorical question":

"...a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something."

That is what your questions seek to do. However, you are taking a shortcut. You are seeking to get me to answer the questions that you seek to use to deny the claims I had made.

That is why I have indicated that if you want to make the claims, then by all means make them.

I consider this aspect of the discussion to be fully answered and I will not address the matter further.

The way forward is for you to repost your questions in the form of claims made by you.

No, you are a liar. You have NOT AT ALL answered the valid question what a plane crash would have looked like in a video had it actually occurred. You claim that it would not have looked the way it does in the videos, but that is a negative; you need to describe the positive. Otherwise your claim stands UNSUPPORTED.

Please support your claims by spelling out assumptions and work.

For the final time: That is NOT rhetorical. Every lurker knows this as well as any poster.

 

[Oystein]

...
Do you acknowledge that no part or piece of any plane said to have been involved in the crashes at the WTC were ever identified by part number or serial number?

You are clearly on a wild goose chase here with your rhetorical question. If you have an assertion to make, by all means, make it and don't play gotcha and 2ß questions with us.

BUT

By all means, if you make such an assertion, do NOT fail to support that claim, and do not fail to explain what that assertion MEANS in the context of a THEORY.
What IS your theory, really?

 

[Oystein]

Photos of pieces of junk are not proof of airline parts either generally, much less specific to the aircraft said to have crashed. You know that on some level, I am sure.
...

You are aware that these pieces of junk have in fact been identified by experts as parts of Boing 767s. Right? See the FEMA report to which you commented "I stand corrected"

Do you have an alternative theory about how these large and contorted parts came to the location where they were found and photographed, mixed with debris from the towers?

Because, you see, we are really looking for a theory that best matches the available evidence. The theory that planes crashed in New York City is a very good explanation for the finding of plane debris in New York City. With or without serial numbers. You don't need to add any further unproven assumptions for this explanation to make sense.
The theory that NO PLANEs crashed in New York however needs additional assumptions, or additional evidence, that explains the finding of plane debris in New York City. ETA: With or without serial numbers. /ETA

So if you want to make a claim of NO PLANE, it is up to you to list either assumptions or evidence that explains plane parts. Please do so now.

 

[dafydd]

That is false. Lurkers know that the difference between rhetoric and wild goose chases on the one hand and the failure of posters to post up their own claims and assertions, free from rhethoric and free from demands that someone go off and answer this question, then another, then two more ad infinitum, world without end, amen, (i.e. 20 questions), on the other.

Fitz has not asked questions, Fitz has asserted claims disguised as questions. If Fizt claims that speed calculations are relevant for assessing whether a jetliner smacked into the South Tower, then, by all means, let Fitz post that claim. If Fitz posts a claim, I would likely comment on it.

Liar.All the lurkers know that you are mad as a box of frogs.Will you please stop appealing to them.When in a hole,stop digging.

 

[fitzgibbon]

No, you are a liar. You have NOT AT ALL answered the valid question what a plane crash would have looked like in a video had it actually occurred. You claim that it would not have looked the way it does in the videos, but that is a negative; you need to describe the positive. Otherwise your claim stands UNSUPPORTED.

Please support your claims by spelling out assumptions and work.

For the final time: That is NOT rhetorical. Every lurker knows this as well as any poster.

Oystein,

The irony here is that my questions were referencing this post by jammonius where he seems to find it odd that there isn't a fireball emanating outwards from the left side (west side I believe) of WTC2 on impact. I'm just at a loss as to why he'd expect there to be one and I was hoping he'd demonstrate why one is to be expected.

I guess that qualifies as rhetorical in his book.

Fitz

p.s. dafydd, If you don't mind, I'll purloin that "box of frogs" phrase. Very visual image that.

 

[Oystein]

...
Because, you see, we are really looking for a theory that best matches the available evidence. ...

What jammonius should really be doing is this:

1. Tell us what his theory is
2. Make predictions from theory
3. Find evidence that support those predictions
4. Explain other evidence in light of that theory, or enhance theory if theory so far can not explain that other evidence
5. Count the unsopported assumptions needed to keep theory afloat
6. Stop when count gets ridiculously high.




So, jammo:
1. What's your theory?
2. What kind of pictures in the 43 videos would that theory predict?
3. What is your evidence for that prediction - physical or engineering principles etc.? Show work!
4.1.1 Would that theory predict shadowy things approaching the towers in these videos?
4.1.2 If not, how do you expand your theory to account for all shadowy things seen in the actual evidence - what are these shadowy things?
4.1.3 Do you have any evidence for that explanation of shadowy things, or would that constitute an unsupported additional assumption?
5.1 If the latter, increase count by one for each such assumption (might get as high as 43 if you need a separate entity fpr each video with shadowy thing in it)
4.2.1 Would your theory predict finding plane debris in the streets and on the roofs of Lower Manhattan?
4.2.2 If not, how do you expand your theory to explain the finding of plane debris in the streets and on the roofs of Manhattan?
4.2.3 Do you have any evidence for that explanation of plane debris, or would that constitute an unsupported additional assumption?
5.2 If the latter, increase count by one for each such assumption
4.3.1 Would your theory predict recorded radar tracks that show to airliners approaching Manhatten rapidly and getting lost close to the WTC in ground clutter?
4.3.2 If not, what are your additional assumptions and your evidence for these assumptions?
4.4.1 Would your theory predict that forensic experts identify by DNA several of the passengers who departed Boston Intl. aboard AA11 and UA175 from human remains found in the rubble of Ground Zero?
4.4.2 If not, what are your additional assumptions and your evidence for these assumptions?

etc.

 

[djlunacee]

41
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/41-hlava926.png?t=1278242204

Segment # 41 has a very indeterminate image of shadow thingy. It begins at about the 9:26mark.

it's a plane.

 

[djlunacee]

You are aware that these pieces of junk have in fact been identified by experts as parts of Boing 767s. Right? See the FEMA report to which you commented "I stand corrected"

Do you have an alternative theory about how these large and contorted parts came to the location where they were found and photographed, mixed with debris from the towers?

Because, you see, we are really looking for a theory that best matches the available evidence. The theory that planes crashed in New York City is a very good explanation for the finding of plane debris in New York City. With or without serial numbers. You don't need to add any further unproven assumptions for this explanation to make sense.
The theory that NO PLANEs crashed in New York however needs additional assumptions, or additional evidence, that explains the finding of plane debris in New York City. ETA: With or without serial numbers. /ETA

So if you want to make a claim of NO PLANE, it is up to you to list either assumptions or evidence that explains plane parts. Please do so now.

I've been saying the same thing for, oh I don't know, 16 pages now?

 

[jammonius]

No, you are a liar. You have NOT AT ALL answered the valid question what a plane crash would have looked like in a video had it actually occurred. You claim that it would not have looked the way it does in the videos, but that is a negative; you need to describe the positive. Otherwise your claim stands UNSUPPORTED.

Please support your claims by spelling out assumptions and work.

For the final time: That is NOT rhetorical. Every lurker knows this as well as any poster.

Yes, Oystein, your post resorts to the stupidity of using the word "liar." Your post is, then, inane, inept and devoid of reasoning. Instead, your post wreaks of a failure in the ability to engage in rational discourse and of a strong emotional attachment to the common storyline of 9/11. As to the latter, the strong emotional attachment to deception, I have told you, many times, that your are free to believe the common storyline for as long as you can. Accordingly, you can relax, you do not have to hold onto the deception that you are choosing to believe so hard because I am not suggesting you need to change your belief. You may keep it. So relax.

As to proof of the claims I am making, let me remind you and the lurkers that I am doing so, post in and post out; page in and page out. I offer up at least one new data set with each passing page and will do so until at least page 44.

Thereafter, I will continue to address the witnesses put forward in post #1368 and will address each and every one of them. If someone posts a claim, then I will engage in refutation. I have posted claims, and do so on each and every page. My claims are, occassionally, refuted. When that happens, dialogue ensues. If an attempt is made at refutation, I usually respond vigorously and then let the exchange form the record from which people who are observing can determine what they think is more correct or less correct.

I do not declare "victory" or "defeat" or who is right and who is wrong as doing so is stupid, imho. Rather, the information can stand on its own, from which those who might review it can form their own conclusions, without having to be told by a poster that that poster is "right" and that another poster is "wrong." Once again, that is stupid. Needless to say, all that is said here about pointless declarations of who is right and who is wrong applies all the moreso to inane declarations that use the word "liar."

Do better

 

[Thunder]

Lurkers- has Jamm presented ANY evidence, whatsoever, that any of the videos or photos are faudulent?

No. He has not.