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

[djlunacee]

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 made a claim, now back it up, otherwise your claim is invalid. Fitz's questions, along with every other question you have dodged in this thread,are valid. They deserve to be answered, by the person making the claims, that would be you. Proceed.

 

[djlunacee]

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

Dodge.

 

[fess]

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.

You do realize that you only have 2 more videos to show some proof of what you claim... don't you?

 

[jammonius]

You do realize that you only have 2 more videos to show some proof of what you claim... don't you?

At which time I shall expect you to say "well done."

 

[Hawk one]

At which time I shall expect you to say "well done."

You don't stay much in contact with reality, do you?

 

[Gorgonian]

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

Lurker responding, yet again. No, he has only put forth his own incredulity. Incredulity is not only not sufficient, it is not even merely note-worthy. In other words, nobody really cares if some random guy just can't believe that a plane would behave the way it did and thinks the planes were somehow faked. There are deranged people all over the planet. What people would care about is if this is supported by actual evidence.

In this case, the latter hasn't happened. At all.

 

[excaza]

I back up my claims. Always.

Lurker here:



WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



As to the engine part, you're claiming that someone successfully made a giant hologram projection of a 'shadowey thingey' 'crash' into the WTC, successfully smuggled in the large amount of explosives necessary to take down the tower AND make it look like it was an airplane impact, but couldn't do the basic ballistic projectile calculation necessary to figure out how far away to plant 'evidence'? Not to mention they pulled this off, an operation that would require hundreds of people working together, without any whistleblowers. You've totally lost your marbles.

 

[Oystein]

I have previously provided a couple of photo essays on the planting of plane parts.

There has been no evidence of anyone planting anything.

One was in the Plymouth Wheelcover thread where I provided photo proof that two 'men in black' were either planting evidence in the nature of a piece of tin designed to look like a plane part or they were tampering with evidence from the scene. Either way, they were engaging in fraud and deception.

Wrong.
No proof of planting.
Very weak proof of possible tampering. Tampering is not at all the same as planting.
Do better!

In the forbidden Dick Oliver thread, I posted a photo essay mentioning the Pentagon situation described above

Obviously in the wrong thread.

...and also referencing the photo evidence of the planting of what was supposedly a piece of jet engine debris at Church and Murray in NYC:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5786044&postcount=648

What follows are excerpts from that photo essay or additions to it that show the deliberate attempt to make the piece of junk at Church and Murray appear larger than it was and that understate the obstacles that would have prevented that piece from landing where it supposedly landed based on it having been traced to that firecracker streamer seen in some videos that debunkers like to claim is the piece of jet engine.

No evidence of "deliberation"

No link between "firecracker streamer" and engine found necessary. There mere fact that a jet plane part was found on the streets of lower Manhattan needs an explanation in the context of a theory.
You make an unsupported claim about planting, tampering and deliberate exaggeration. Everybody here realizes your claims are unsupported by the photos you post.

 

[Oystein]

...
As to the engine part, you're claiming that someone successfully made a giant hologram projection of a 'shadowey thingey' 'crash' into the WTC, successfully smuggled in the large amount of explosives necessary to take down the tower AND make it look like it was an airplane impact, but couldn't do the basic ballistic projectile calculation necessary to figure out how far away to plant 'evidence'? You've totally lost your marbles.

jammonius, is that a fair, albeit partial, description of your theory? If not, could you please tell us what that theory is that explains all that we see in the videos, in the photos, all that we here from witnesses and all that was found by official expert inverstigations?

Is it your theory that EVERYTHING has been faked?
Did maybe the WTC never collapse, or never exist?

 

[Oystein]

Yes, Oystein, your post resorts to the stupidity of using the word "liar."

At least I am using a word that is entirely true in this context.

Your post is, then, inane, inept and devoid of reasoning.

No. I list the reasons why I call you a liar. Therefore my post is not devoid of reasoning. The same cannot be said about most of your insane and inept utterings.

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.

You are wrong. I have no particular emotional attachment to any official utterings. I do however have some emotional attachment to the concept of truth, honesty and veracity.

Please do not repeat this falsehood about my emotional states, which you cannot know anything about. If you repeat the false claim that I am strongly emotinally attached to the "common storyline", I shall call you once again a liar, because now you know better.

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.

You howver need to stop your lies and deceptions. Such behaviour is universally considered despicable.

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.

Wrong again. You make claims about things supposedly seen and things that ought to be seen or ought not to be seen, however you have been shown to be wrong time and again, and you hardly ever provide reasons and logically valid arguments for your claims.

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.

Wrong. You typically engage in dodging or moving goal posts or outright lies, deceptions and flat denials.

I have posted claims, and do so on each and every page.

That's correct.

My claims are, occassionally, refuted.

That's grossly wrong. They are nearly all unanimously refuted. "Occasionally" is yet another deception bordering on a lie. Stop the deceptions once and for all.

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.

You never respond fairly and honestly to any refutations and challenges. You dodge many by calling them "gotcha games", "20 questions" or "wild goose chases". Well, in all fairness, they mostly are "gotcha games" indeed you, as you know and we know, because indeed we "gotcha" so many times.

All lurkers except maybe one who have ever come forward have indeed "determined what they think is more correct or less correct": The unanimous determination was: Your claims are less correct; indeed they are not correct at all.

I do not declare "victory" or "defeat" or who is right and who is wrong as doing so is stupid, imho.

When two make mutually exclusive claims about a fact in the real world, at least one of them must be wrong.
It is not stupid to call someone wrong who is wrong. It would be stupid to let the wrong claims stand and not call them wrong. IMHO.

But why would you want to let "people who are observing ... determine what they think is more correct or less correct", but not allow them to write what they think is more correct (our theory) and what is less correct (your delusions)? You surely see the contradiction in your own words?

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."

I don't tell any other posters that you are wrong. I only tell you that you are wrong, and it is you to whom that concerns. I don't tell other posters you are wrong because it is unnecessary: Every other poster already knows you are wrong, they don't need to be told. It is so utterly obvious.

 

[fess]

At which time I shall expect you to say "well done."

That, I might very well have done, or might still do, if; you had, or still do, provide some semblance of viable proof that what you claim in this 43 page fiasco it true.
However, for your practice of making some of the most insane statements I have ever read, skirting the truth with fraudulent claims, and bordering on shear stupidity, I say…Well done.

 

[JohnG]

Another lurker de-lurking to point out how wrong you are...

I think the evidence of holography is quite strong.

Why? Are you an expert in the field of holography? Did you read an article about it in Popular Science? I'm not being snarky or playing "20 Questions" (which as someone else pointed out is yet another term/expression you don't understand). I'm genuinely curious as to how you associated holograms with the 9/11 attacks. Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the subject, hologram technology even today is nowhere near being able to project a convincing 3D image onto a clear blue sky and certainly wasn't capable of such a feat nine years ago. If you believe otherwise please provide a citation. Links to YouTube videos of scenes from Science Fiction or Spy movies don't count.

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.

Skeptics have no "strong emotional attachment to the common storyline of 9/11". They go where the evidence leads them, whether it supports their ideological views or not. The only people here with strong emotional attachments are Truthers, who are forced to go to absurd lengths to come up with counter-theories that diverge as much as possible from the "common storyline of 9/11". It must irritate you to no end that you can't depart from it completely by disputing the location and date of the attacks, but then I suspect no one is that delusional.

Oh, and it's "reeks", not "wreaks". Before you take someone else to task for their "stupid", "inane" and "inept" posts, you might want to proofread your own first. It might save you some embarrassment in future, assuming you are even capable of such an emotion. BTW, apologies in advance if it turns out that you are only a teenager. You certainly express yourself like one. Teenagers are allowed to be idiots. I certainly was.

Have a safe and happy 4th!

 

[Oystein]

...
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.

1. Most of the videos taken from within lower Manhattan during the time of the "explosions" at the twin towers do contain sound, and specifically do contain the sound of jet engine. This specifically includes the Dick Oliver video from the forbidden thread where everybody except you hears the sounds of jet engines swelling up until the explosion.
2. You have to distort and otherwise rape most eyewitness accounts to feed the delusion that those who say they saw and/or heard a plane did not see or hear a plane. When you recruit these plane-witnesses as no-plane witnesses, everybody, without exception, realized that you were telling a falsehood, a deception, a lie.

Now onto your theory "holography".

Can you please explain in rough outlines what holography is - you might consider tackling some of these (less than 20) questions:
* What physical laws are involved?
* How are holograms made? Materials and processes
* What type of hologram could have been used for the special effects you envision
* Where, how and by whom were these holograms placed on that day?
* Any idea about the necessary size?
* Can a hologram be projected?
* On what kind of background can a hologram be projected?

Once we know your theory about holography on 9/11, can you make some predictions on what should or could have been observed on 9/11, and provide some evidence that these predictions are satisfied!

Are you then ready to accept challenges, such as falsifiable predictions from your theory? Will you be willing to rectract your theory if indeed it is falsified?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

1. Most of the videos taken from within lower Manhattan during the time of the "explosions" at the twin towers do contain sound, and specifically do contain the sound of jet engine. This specifically includes the Dick Oliver video from the forbidden thread where everybody except you hears the sounds of jet engines swelling up until the explosion.
2. You have to distort and otherwise rape most eyewitness accounts to feed the delusion that those who say they saw and/or heard a plane did not see or hear a plane. When you recruit these plane-witnesses as no-plane witnesses, everybody, without exception, realized that you were telling a falsehood, a deception, a lie.

Now onto your theory "holography".

Can you please explain in rough outlines what holography is - you might consider tackling some of these (less than 20) questions:
* What physical laws are involved?
* How are holograms made? Materials and processes
* What type of hologram could have been used for the special effects you envision
* Where, how and by whom were these holograms placed on that day?
* Any idea about the necessary size?
* Can a hologram be projected?
* On what kind of background can a hologram be projected?

Once we know your theory about holography on 9/11, can you make some predictions on what should or could have been observed on 9/11, and provide some evidence that these predictions are satisfied!

Are you then ready to accept challenges, such as falsifiable predictions from your theory? Will you be willing to rectract your theory if indeed it is falsified?

I read that the hologram faction of the no-planer crowd think the hologram technolgy is captured alien tech, from a downed ufo, and is under military control.
It's one answerr they give as to why such advanced holograms are not on the public market.

 

[djlunacee]

At which time I shall expect you to say "well done."

For what? Reducing my electricity bill with all of your handwaving? You have not presented any evidence to support your claim, dodged every question put to you, and expect a good job???? If this thread is something you are proud of and you feel like you have proved you case, then you really have lost touch with all that is real.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I back up my claims. Always. But, I do not play "20 quesons" hardly ever.

By the way, posters and lurkers, have a GOOD HOLIDAY for those who are geographically so situated.

More later

What do you mean by '20 questions'? You continue to present ridiculous theories without a shred of proof, yet when asked to back up your claims, you respond with 'I don't play 20 questions'?

Jammy,you clearly don't understand how it works- the burden is on YOU to prove your tinfoil hat theories, and to date, you've offered up zero proof of anything, other than you are (A) a certifiable nut, or (B) someone who is trolling, and trying to make Truthers look even more foolish. Holding an absurd theory is in of itself not 'proof' that there were no planes. Being a no planer is bad enough, but now you think the planes were holograms? A sane person does not conclude that the planes that hit the towers were holograms.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I


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.

The evidence of holography is 'quite strong'? What is this 'evidence' you speak of? There are scores of accounts of people who heard and saw the planes hit the towers. Many people who did not see the moment of impact heard the jet engines.
What is particulary offensive is that are pretty much calling all of the eye witnesses to the attacks liars.
The hologram theory is pure lunacy- we don't have such advanced holographic technology...

What is your proof the planes were holograms?

 

[Thunder]

I back up my claims. Always.

um....no you dont.

but if you wish to go on "believing" that there no planes at the WTC on 9-11, go ahead. the rest of the world...and especially the USA... knows differently.

you have consistently failed to provide any reasonable and convincing evidence, that there were no planes, and none of us expect that to change any time soon.

 

[Oystein]

I read that the hologram faction of the no-planer crowd think the hologram technolgy is captured alien tech, from a downed ufo, and is under military control.
It's one answerr they give as to why such advanced holograms are not on the public market.

As it happens, physics was one of my two major subjects in high school, I was one of the two best, and was therefore given the oportunity and honour to do a 2-hour lecture on "Lasers and Holograms" in my 13th class.

So I dare say I know what a hologram is - the basics that must apply even to alien technology. Holography is a phenomenon whereby optical interference, captured upon recording of a 3D-object, is mirrored by diffraction in such a way that the original 3D-image is recreated.

Wikipedia:
"Diffraction refers to various phenomena which occur when a wave encounters an obstacle"
Holography is a technique that uses diffraction to recreate the light field of a 3D-object.
Thus, there is no holography witout diffraction, there is no diffraction without material obstacles, and consequently, there is no holography without material objects placed somewhere and illuminated in some fashion.

So any theory that postulates the use of holography must say something about illumination and and objects / obstacles that diffract that illumination. Even if it is alien technology.

 

[TJM]

42​

Breakfast. :Similar to the one I had on 9/11


Suspiciously absent from the frame are any noise thought to be that coming from from a jet engine. Moreover, you'd be hard pressed to see any visual evidence of a Boeing in the above picture. The lack of toast and coffee is due to the fact that my girlfriend pinched the toast while I got up to go get my coffee, thus proving there was no bread on 9/11.

Are you beginning to see Lurkers?