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

[Tinfoil Hater]

However, by choosing to lower your level of dialogue to that of personal insult and invective, a reasonable inference to be drawn is that you either cannot refute reason with reason, do not know how to do so; or, are having an emotional reaction to the fact that something you cherish as a belief has been shown to be false.


:

Yes, I'll admit I do get annoyed with people like you who question whether people actually died on 9/11, who are apologists for the the 19 hijackers, or who imply the New Yorkers who saw this tragedy unfold in the heart of their city are liars. I am also annoyed that you have presented all of these absurd theories without a shred of proof.
What exactly is the thing 'I cherish as a belief has been shown to be false"?

You haven't provided any proof to back up your theories.

Do you deny that the people who were on the planes died? Are you one of these lunatics who think they never existed?

Try again, come back with proof.

What proof do you have the planes were holograms?


What would you say to any New Yorker who said they saw the planes hit the towers on 9/11? Would you call them a liar?

 

[TheRedWorm]

<snip>

In that post you wrote a whole bunch of waffle and sophistry trying to say that there we holograms, without going into how such an effect would be pulled off in front of a live populace with video cameras.

"What is your proof the planes were holograms?"

 

[jammonius]

Neither this post nor any post linked to therein contains anything that could even vaguely be comsidered such proof. You see...

The above is a quote from post # 1661

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6094948&postcount=1661

I will here and now call a halt to attempts to get away with crap like that. My earlier post, post # 1654 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6094864&postcount=1654), is a validly framed evidentiary post.

Oystein's denial is just that-- a denail-- that does not refute and that does not substantiate any opposition to what post # 1654 claims. We can surmise that Oystein might not like the content of post # 1654, but Oystein's likes and dislikes are not refutation of the claims I have made of planting of plane parts.

That evidence stands as unrefuted. Page in and page out, posters do not refute the claims I make. Instead, they hurl insults and jokes, but they do not offer evidence that refutes the claims I am making.

Lurkers, look at this while we are still on page 42 and before the failure of refutation of the planting of plane parts claim gets buried by subsequent pages.

Oystein has offered nothing in the way of refutation. Had Oystein done so, I would have responded to the refutation. Alas, there's nothing to respond to; hence, the claim of planting of plane parts stands.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Yours is an almost verbatim repitition of claims made early in this thread. My response then was as follows:

Your claim there are "1000s of witnesses' is false. You have not proven your claim. You have not shown a source for '1000s of witnesses'. You will not show such a source because none exists. In fact, as to actual, verifiable and reliable witnesses, the only thing you will be able to show is that the consensus viewpoint on what people actually saw and acually heard was:

an explosion

You have not, cannot and will not prove the claim there are 1000s of witnesses because your claim is false. Your claim is false because 9/11 was a deception centered on the appearance of plane crashes that did not happen.

Unless and until the factor of deception is recognized and dealt with, other and more devastating occurrences centered in high tech deception will happen.

This may be a difficult concept for you, so I'll try to keep it simple- When 2 jet planes, loaded with fuel, slammed into the WTC traveling at full throttle, they.....EXPLODED


Not only that, it was caught on film, from multiple angles. Airplane debris and body parts (Including people who were on the planes) were strewn on rooftops and on the streets below. There were likely thousands of eye witnesses in the area in and surrounding Manhattan, and millions of witnesses saw the horror unfold live on tv.

You claim that "9/11 was a deception centered on the appearance of plane crashes that did not happen.
Where is your proof?

The burden is on YOU to prove your case. Eye witnesses to 9/11 have posted their accounts online of the planes hitting the WTC in book form, blog form , etc- they are on the public record- To deny this is ignorance. You just choose to dismiss the eye witness accounts as being lies.

Make such a claim to New Yorkers who saw it all go down that day, and you will either be laughed at or recieve a beating.

Sorry Rainman, you FAIL.

Try and come back with proof next time..

I'm still waiting for your proof that the planes were holograms.

 

[jammonius]

Yes, I'll admit I do get annoyed with people like you who question whether people actually died on 9/11, who are apologists for the the 19 hijackers, or who imply the New Yorkers who saw this tragedy unfold in the heart of their city are liars. I am also annoyed that you have presented all of these absurd theories without a shred of proof.
What exactly is the thing 'I cherish as a belief has been shown to be false"?

The above quoted part of your post reveals that you remain stuck in an emotional attachment to the xenophobic aspects of the common storyline of 9/11. Please try to regain a footing based on reason.

Your emotional appeal to "victims" and to "19 hijackers" puts you on a level that makes it very difficult to reason with you. You are not more patriotic than I am. You are not more concerned about people who died on 9/11 than I am. I do not know if a relative of yours died in the events of that day, but, if so, I feel very deeply for your loss and I wish it had not happened. Equally important, I hope what happens becomes more widely known quickly so that those who did it may then be pursued and brought to justice. At present, it is not known who did it. They are still out there lurking, no pun intended, as to our lurkers.

I have quoted a lot of New Yorkers who neither saw nor heard a jetliner and who said so.

Do you grasp that fact or not?

You haven't provided any proof to back up your theories.

That is objectively false and false utterly. What may be true is that you are not convinced by what I post.

Hear this: I am not trying to convince you of a darn thing. The information I post stands or falls on its own merits. Make of it what you will. Hold onto your own beliefs for as long as you can.

Do you deny that the people who were on the planes died? Are you one of these lunatics who think they never existed?

Re-phrase your rhetoric so as not to ask a misleading "gotcha question" please and I will respond.

Try again, come back with proof.

What are you talking about?

What proof do you have the planes were holograms?

I have offered the way forward in assessing the hologram claim. Have you reviewed the material mentioned in post # 1660?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6094947&postcount=1660

I will respond to those who either post up information they have found or who delve into the content offered in post # 1660.

I am not going off on any wild goose chases, though.

What would you say to any New Yorker who said they saw the planes hit the towers on 9/11? Would you call them a liar?

I have consistently said and have consistently proven that I take all eyewitnesses at their word.

In this and other forum, I, personally, have constantly, page in and page out, asked lurkers who may have been witnesses to post what they saw and heard.

And some have done so:

Two recent examples: foolmewunz, BillyRayValentine. As to both, I have taken them at their word.

 

[fess]

The above post is much appreciated for the big red and centered number 42. It serves as a reference for:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/42-shadowblob935.png?t=1278278851

Version # 42, from Fox News, has no sound and has a shadow thingy that is both blurry and a blob.

You do realize that you only have 1 more video to show some proof of what you claim... don't you?

 

[Thunder]

I have quoted a lot of New Yorkers who neither saw nor heard a jetliner and who said so.

I was in Hong Kong on 9-11. Therefore, I did not see the plane or hear the impact or explosion, with my own eyes or ears.

Does this make me, a No-Planer?

My mother was at home, when the 2nd plane hit. She did not see it with her own eyes.

Is she too...a No-Planer?

 

[jammonius]

Post # 1673 does not refute and engages in rank speculation. Once again, I am not seeking to convince you of anything. It is not incumbent upon me to prove you with "more proof". You have not refuted the information already posted.

Once again, you may continue to believe jetliners crashed into the WTC for as long as you can. I am not challenging your beliefs. Your emotional response is misdirected. The information I have posted, including the ALL43 video segments, posted one at a time do that.

Why don't you take a look at some of them. 'Why don't you ask questions about why not one of them shows a discreet, recognizable Boeing 767, instead of a shadowly, blurry, blob, IN ALL OF THEM, without exception?

 

[jammonius]

Hey Lurkers,

Oystein concedes there is no proof of "1000s of witnesses" at this time.

Oystein says:

"At most we'd have to concede that at this time we can only produce scores and not 1000s of such witnesses and their statements. Many people undoubtedly witnesses the sun rise this morning, but I have to concede that I can not at this time present even a singel such witness. Does that mean the sun did not rise this morning? Foolishness!"

True, Oystein's admission is followed by an attempt to minimize its signficance, but his use of analogy to do so is falsely premised. The rising and the setting of the sun is an occurrence associated with the norm of planetary existence; the crashing of jetliners into buildings is not. Hence, a comparison of the one with the other is an utterly false comparison.

By the way, lurkers, the above is an example of what is meant by refutation. If a reason is given by someone, then the way to dael with that is to post a countering of that reason with reason. Oystein likened the crash of jetliners onto the rise/set of the sun. I pointed out why that comparison was a false one.

No need for emotional ranting, just reason.

 

[Thunder]

Why don't you take a look at some of them. 'Why don't you ask questions about why not one of them shows a discreet, recognizable Boeing 767, instead of a shadowly, blurry, blob, IN ALL OF THEM, without exception?

what kind of conspiracy provides blurry shadowy blobby images of a plane, to make everyone believe there was a plane?

come on Jamm, use a little common sense.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Oystein concedes there is no proof of "1000s of witnesses" at this time.

So what, you've offered no proof of just about anything you claim.

 

[TJM]

Why don't you take a look at some of them. 'Why don't you ask questions about why not one of them shows a discreet, recognizable Boeing 767, instead of a shadowly, blurry, blob, IN ALL OF THEM, without exception?

We've looked at them and concluded you're just showing us what you'd like us to see.

 

[TJM]

43​

No plane can be seen in this picture at all. If it weren't for the constant meowing I'm sure one could argue that a Boeing could be heard.

Or not.

 

[Oystein]

As we have now a thread containing 42 of the 43 video versions conveniently posted and linked with time markers, it is incomplete to post a claim that most contain sound without asserting how many do and how many don't Accordingly, your post is not substantiated in a context where it easily could be.

Accordingly, a refutation of like-kind and quality, and therefore of equal validity, is to say, as I now do: Your claim is false. Less than half of the videos contain sound and fewer than 10 contain a sound prior to the explosion that can even give rise to a claim that the sound might be that of a jetliner.

Ok, I have to correct myself and admit that only 11 of the 43 video segments in that sample contain the sound of the explosion, and not "most". The others either have no live sound, or were taken from a vantage point too far away from WTC to pick up sound, or ended too soon for the sound wave to have reached the camera.

However, I count an additional 3 videos (#28, #32, #41) that capture the sound of a plane, but not the sound of the explosion. This coould be due to the fact that the video segment ended before the sound wave of the explosion reached the camera and after the sound of the plane reached the camera.

Of the 11 videos having the sound of the explosion (#6, #9, #10, #12, #14, #16, #17, #18, #19, #22, #25), 10 (91%) also picked up the sound of jet engines. The exception is #12, starting at 2:52, which was taken from very far away in probably Brooklyn and barely picked up the explosion, which was much louder than the jets in all other sound videos. So it is no surprise that the plane sound is missing on that one.

So I restate my claim as follows:

ALL 13 cameras that recorded the explosions and were close enough to pick up the sound of a plane, and whose videos do countain sound at all, DID in fact record a sound prior to the explosion that can reasonably be described as that of a jet plane.

No video camera that was in a position to pick up such a sound and had the sound on at all failed to pick up jet noises.

Finally, as the sound of a jetliner is an everyday experience, people know and can articulate correctly when they have heard that sound. I here assert there are none that sound like a jetliner. I here also assert that eye and ear witness Stephen Gregory who both described the particulars of the sound he heard and who said he didn't think that what he heard was the sound of a plane is true and correct.

This lone witness, if you represent his testimony at all fairly, stands against a host of others, such as Dick Oliver or his camera man who said on live TV that what they heard sounded like an airplane or a plane crash.

I have here refuted Oystein fully. The eye and ear witness, Stephen Gregory, trumps anything Oystein has posted as Oystein has not posted a single witness or even linked to a single video segment for that matter.

A single witness does not trump all the other witnesses, the physical sound recording of all video cameras that were in a position to pick up jet noises, and all the other physical evidence that points towards planes.

...
The Dick Oliver discussion took place over the course of 60+ pages of discussion in two threads:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171082

-------------------------

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174043

Those threads confirm that the consensus was that an explosion had occured, not a plane crash.

You are once again a liar, plainly and clearly, as no such consensus was reached at all. You were and are the only one making that claim. The consensus among all other posters and lurkers very clearly was that a plane crash occured, as this is what everybody heard, and this is what Oliver, himself an earwitness, reported.

The sound was that of the subway atop which the camera sat and next to which the buses parked.

You are once again a liar, as you know that there is no subway station where the Oliver camera crew was locetd.

Plus, all witnesses were nonchalant to that sound, with one exception, Our Lady in Blue, who looked to her side and who appears to have seen the explosion.

"Who appears to have heard a plane" is just as reasonable.

...Let me here double check for accuracy: Oystein, are you speaking about Dr. Matthews, the person who did not see a plane hit the North Tower and who, with respect to the South Tower said "we saw" rather than "I saw"?

Yes indeed. "We saw" = "I, Dr. Matthews saw, plus one or more others saw". Which implies in everyone's understanding except yours that "I, Dr. Matthews, saw".

If so, fine. I posted my reasons for challenging the "we saw" declaration that was uttered by both Matthews and others, as I will demonstrate, by and by. I have said the declaration "we saw" makes his statement inadmissible as evidence.

Your saying so does not make it so. Everybody knows what the English word "we" means, and lawyers have told you in that discussion that your assertions about such testimonies being inadmissable as evidence are grossly false.

It is stupidly false to calim that doing so "distort or rape ...eyewitnesses." That is a factual statement. Someone who identified him/herself as a lawyer agreed with that, albeit, reluctantly.

That is yet another lie.

Accordingly, your continued use of the word "liar" makes your post stupid, insidid and inane.

I am speaking the truth.

I suspect it might be better to start a new thread on the holography issue and I will give consideration to doing so. That said, I consider the issue of holograms to be part and parcel of this thread as it does provide a necessary corrollary to the issue of what, exactly, is shadow thingy? A question that does cry out for answering.

Absolutely. I shall look forward to that thread, your theory, and your evidences that inform that theory.

We, as a society, have an interest in knowing what it was that appeared to have some, but not many, characteristics of a jetliner that could be projected on teevee, seen by some, but not by most.

Not just TV, you liar. Also many private video cameras and the eyes of scores of witnesses.

So, to get started on this process, here's what I can suggest for group consideration:

Firstly, a primary source of information about military holograms would appear to be the Air Force 2025 survey, a document prepared almost 15 years ago.
...Sun Tzu said "all war is based on deception."91 Military commanders have always sought to hide their intentions, capabilities, and forces from their opponents. The most prominent modern example of deceptive techniques is stealth technology, which seeks to hide platforms from sensors by reducing the various sensor cross sections (i.e., radar, optical, infrared, acoustic, etc.). Modern advances in holographic technologies suggest another possibility: weapons that project false images to deceive the opponent.92

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c14/v3c14-3c.htm

As to the existence of such weapons in 2001, it is often said that whatever the military says about weapons it wants 25 years hence, it likely already has them.

So you have a private speculation about things the military might have had at its disposal in 2001.
Fine.
You need to draw a line from that private speculation to the events of 9/11. Just because you privately believe something existed somewhere sometime does not by any stretch mean that that something was employed that day.
This entire name-dropping and salad-tossing clearly is no evidence for any holographic theory of 9/11. You need to do a lot better, jammomius.

Let's revisit your list of queries after we get some feedback on the starting informational sources that I have posted up. In the meantime, you might like to take a crack at providing us with some source information that you think it is useful. As you know, you are not my teacher, I am not your student and I sure as heck am not going off on any wild goose chases at your behest.

You are invited to be my teacher and I will gladly be your student.
Before we get into the specifics of military visionaries and their desired future weapons, I really think we ought to FIRST look at the BASICS of holography, if holography is part of your theory.

So please do teach me about holography, and what evidence you have that holography was a part of the events depicted in the 43 videos!

 

[Pantaz]

At this point, I can't understand why anyone DOESN'T have jammonius on ignore.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

My rebuttle to Jammy- his comments are highlighted in black.

The above quoted part of your post reveals that you remain stuck in an emotional attachment to the xenophobic aspects of the common storyline of 9/11. Please try to regain a footing based on reason.

You prove my point, you are an apologist for the hijackers. They carried out mass murder in the name of radical Islam- that is a fact, hardly xenophobic.
Obviously you have no 'emotional attachments' when it comes to the events of 9/11, as you seem to exhibit a dismissive indifference towards the people who were murdered.







Your emotional appeal to "victims" and to "19 hijackers" puts you on a level that makes it very difficult to reason with you.



I can't share your emotional indifference to those murdered on 9/11, I'm not that heartless. You seem to have the habit of responding not with proof, with with dismissive arrogant babble. You may think those rooted in reality are beneath you, but you are the one who clearly is not of sound mind.



You are not more patriotic than I am. You are not more concerned about people who died on 9/11 than I am.



Really? Please elaborate? You seem to question whether the planes ever existed (and by extension of the passengers ever existed). You accuse the American government and military of commiting mass murder on it's own citizens. How are such twisted beliefs 'patriotic'?



I do not know if a relative of yours died in the events of that day, but, if so, I feel very deeply for your loss and I wish it had not happened.



Your words ring hollow. I suspect your comments to family members of the people on the planes would be to insist their murdered loved ones never existed.





Equally important, I hope what happens becomes more widely known quickly so that those who did it may then be pursued and brought to justice. At present, it is not known who did it. They are still out there lurking, no pun intended, as to our lurkers.

Yes, we do know who did it, 19 radical Islamic hijackers, with backing from Al-Qaeda. George W Bush and Dick Cheney were not behind 9/11, nor were the Jews. I suspect you would blame Bush and the Jews for everything.




I have quoted a lot of New Yorkers who neither saw nor heard a jetliner and who said so.

Do you grasp that fact or not?

A lot of New Yorkers did see the planes hit the towers. You really think the fact that some people did not see the planes hit the towers negates the people who did see the plane crashes? New York city is a very big city. Keith Olbermann mentioned he was in bed and missed the whole thing. He didn't see planes hit the towers- does that support your 'no-planer; theory?You cannot skirt around the details that the crashes were caught on film, plane debris was strewn everywhere, and there were thousands of eye witnesses who were there.



That is objectively false and false utterly. What may be true is that you are not convinced by what I post.
Hear this: I am not trying to convince you of a darn thing. The information I post stands or falls on its own merits. Make of it what you will. Hold onto your own beliefs for as long as you can.


There is a difference between beliefs and facts. 2 planes were deliberatly flown into the WTC, that is a fact. If you choose not to believe that, that just makes you ignorant and wrong.


[I]Re-phrase your rhetoric so as not to ask a misleading "gotcha question" please and I will respond.[/I]


By 'gotcha questions', do you mean asking for proof to back your absurd assertion?



What are you talking about?
I have offered the way forward in assessing the hologram claim. Have you reviewed the material mentioned in post # 1660?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6094947&postcount=1660


Rambling gibberish


I will respond to those who either post up information they have found or who delve into the content offered in post # 1660.

I am not going off on any wild goose chases, though.


Yoiu have offered one of two things- (1) No prooof, and (2) rambling gibberish


I have consistently said and have consistently proven that I take all eyewitnesses at their word.

How can this be true, since you refuse to accept the eye witness accounts of people who saw the planes hit the towers? (many of whom filmed the tragedy as it unfolded)



In this and other forum, I, personally, have constantly, page in and page out, asked lurkers who may have been witnesses to post what they saw and heard. And some have done so: Two recent examples: foolmewunz, BillyRayValentine. As to both, I have taken them at their word

Yet you assert that people who saw the planes hit the towers were liars and wrong. Many of them filmed the crashes- Do you think they faked the footage?

Still, you have offered zero proof..Just ramling gibberish and paranoia.

 

[Oystein]

Neither this post nor any post linked to therein contains anything that could even vaguely be comsidered such proof. You see...

The above is a quote from post # 1661

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6094948&postcount=1661

I will here and now call a halt to attempts to get away with crap like that. My earlier post, post # 1654 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6094864&postcount=1654), is a validly framed evidentiary post.

Oystein's denial is just that-- a denail-- that does not refute and that does not substantiate any opposition to what post # 1654 claims. We can surmise that Oystein might not like the content of post # 1654, but Oystein's likes and dislikes are not refutation of the claims I have made of planting of plane parts.

That evidence stands as unrefuted. Page in and page out, posters do not refute the claims I make. Instead, they hurl insults and jokes, but they do not offer evidence that refutes the claims I am making.

Lurkers, look at this while we are still on page 42 and before the failure of refutation of the planting of plane parts claim gets buried by subsequent pages.

Oystein has offered nothing in the way of refutation. Had Oystein done so, I would have responded to the refutation. Alas, there's nothing to respond to; hence, the claim of planting of plane parts stands.

You show a man carrying a piece of debris.

This is not proof of planting evidence
This is not proof of tampering evidence.
But it is proof that plane debris was on the scene.

Your evidence does NOT stand as unrefuted. It falls as unsupported.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

At this point, I can't understand why anyone DOESN'T have jammonius on ignore.

He's a fascinating, if not disturbing case study of how far out on the fringes of madness Truthers will stray...He's like watching a trainwreck in motion- I want to look away, but can't seem to avert my gaze..

 

[Oystein]

...
Why don't you take a look at some of them. 'Why don't you ask questions about why not one of them shows a discreet, recognizable Boeing 767, instead of a shadowly, blurry, blob, IN ALL OF THEM, without exception?

We HAVE looked at all of them
We HAVE asked that question
And we HAVE provided answers to that question:
1. Because video quality is poor on many youtube videos
2. Because most videos were taken from too far away and/or with too poor equipement to show as much detail as you's wish them to show.

However, you have so far failed to produce a narrative that explains what ELSE is seen in these videos. Clearly, your so far unsubstantiated claim about fantasy holograms doesn't cut it, as you have not even outlines the very basics of holography, let alone even hinted at what evidence you have that the video show holograms instead of planes.

You have avoided the obvious point-out that each and every "shadowy thingy" and each and every sound heard in each and every one of the 43 videos is entirely in line with the "plane" theory.

 

[EventHorizon]

At this point, I can't understand why anyone DOESN'T have jammonius on ignore.

It's the old slowing down on the highway to see a car crash thing. It's astonishing to believe that anybody can be this stupid. I can't look away.