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

[jammonius]

You show a man carrying a piece of debris.

This is not proof of planting evidence

It most certainly is proof of planting. The photo shows that planting is a possibility that cannot be refuted by a naked, unsupported claim "no it wasn't" as you have done. Your declaration does not refute a darn thing.

The claim stands.

This is not proof of tampering evidence.

It most certainly is proof of tampering, and as to that, it is proof positive. Tampering can be both planting and removing. That is why the actions seen to be taking place is proof positive of tampering. It is only partial proof of planting because the action seen could be consistent with either bringing the piece of tin to the scene (planting/tampering) or removing it (tampering). In any crime scene, parts and pieces are carefully photographed, marked and taken away in such a manner as to prove a "chain of custody" and is done so by people who are clearly identified and outfitted as investigators. They wear identifying jackets and gloves and they place evidence into carefully marked packages.

What the two bozos are seen doing in the photograph is completely forbidden at a crime scene. They are, therefore, planting or tampering, one the other or both.

But it is proof that plane debris was on the scene.

That is false as the piece of bent junk could be any one of a million things. It is stupidly naive to assert that what is seen is plane debris.

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

Your assertion has been demonstrated to be false.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

43
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...ightleftangledownBINLaden942.png?t=1278287696

Well, posters we did it, could more of you but realize it. We have set out in this one thread a valid basis for assessing the single most important part of the 9/11 psyop deception. The use of a shadowy image and a pyrotechnical explosion to convince people that jetliners had been hijacked by 19 Muslim hijackers, thus justifying a claim of attack for which the only response was to give unto the military-industrial-complex, led by SAIC and ARA, all the money they wanted for warring from that point forward until either the US is bankrupt (already achieved) or until the deception is discovered and revealed for what it was (not yet achieved).

The final one of the ALL 43 begins at about 9:42, it is indistinguishable from most in being both shadowy and blurry and in being silent, of course.

As to the issue of sound, fully 36 out of the 43 either have no sound at all or no sound at all of a jetliner. Of the remaining 7 the sound that some will no doubt strain to say sounds like a jet, really do not sound like a jetliner at 800ft above street level at 550mph.

The best one for a claim of jetliner sound is probably segment # 25.

Incidentally, side note to Bill Smith. Segment # 19 appears to have flashes occuring long before shadow thingy gets there.

For purposes of objectivity, from my side, I can let posters know the ones that might be said to have a semblance of jetliner sound are:

9,17,18,19,22,25and32.

All others do not.

The very best of the lot for purposes of the NO PLANE claim is segment # 12. There, the real time eyewitnesses, who are right there where the camera is do not think they've witnessed a plane crash and, instead, say they've seen a bombing.

The best one with sound that confirms there was no jetliner sound at all is segment # 10.

Another one giving rise to an apparent dispute between witnesses as to whether a plane was there or not is segment # 35.

The one with the person who screams like she's being attacked by Jason is segment # 7. That one is a good candidate for video fakery, as is segment # 26 which is obviously a fake video. That one is not even worth arguing about. It is blatantly fake.

One might fairly ask, how many fake videos are required to prove 9/11 was an exercise in deception?

The issue about video quality is a false issue. The ALL43 version is a good piece of evidence. HD might be a little different, but those videos have almost all been modified or tampered with, such that, as evidence, they are not as reliable. I don't mind comparing the HD to the scruffy videos, but the scruffy ones may be better as evidence precisely because they haven't been knowingly tampered with. True, you can argue the scruffy ones may also have been tampered with and that is fair game.

Video can be admissible as evidence sometimes and sometimes not. It is as simple as that.

The ALL43 exercise provides data, Lurkers. You have but to consider it.

The single most important indicator of deception is the absence of sound confirming a jetliner was involved in the video imagery of the explosion at the South Tower.

you heard it here first, lurkers

Pure gibberish.

Try as you may, you cannot brush aside the reality that there were eye witnesses to the planes hitting the towers,(from people on the ground, and in other buildings and inside the towers); the planes had been tracked via radar during their entire flight, plane debris (and bodyparts of passengers) were strewn on rooftops and the streets below, the crashes were filmed, etc, etc....

Your arguemts seem to be:

(1)There were no 19 hijackers
(2) There were no planes
(3) The planes were holograms
(4) Airplane debris was planted
(5) Video footage of the crashes are manipualted or fakes
(6)Eye witnesses to the crashes are liars or delusional.


Where is the proof? Not your opinions, but soild, tangible proof.


All you need now is a street corner and a cardboard sign...

 

[TheRedWorm]

...like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition...

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

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.

the funny thing is that most 9/11 Truthers would concider his theories crazy...

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

It most certainly is proof of planting. The photo shows that planting is a possibility that cannot be refuted by a naked, unsupported claim "no it wasn't" as you have done. Your declaration does not refute a darn thing.

The claim stands.



It most certainly is proof of tampering, and as to that, it is proof positive. Tampering can be both planting and removing. That is why the actions seen to be taking place is proof positive of tampering. It is only partial proof of planting because the action seen could be consistent with either bringing the piece of tin to the scene (planting/tampering) or removing it (tampering). In any crime scene, parts and pieces are carefully photographed, marked and taken away in such a manner as to prove a "chain of custody" and is done so by people who are clearly identified and outfitted as investigators. They wear identifying jackets and gloves and they place evidence into carefully marked packages.

What the two bozos are seen doing in the photograph is completely forbidden at a crime scene. They are, therefore, planting or tampering, one the other or both.



That is false as the piece of bent junk could be any one of a million things. It is stupidly naive to assert that what is seen is plane debris.



Your assertion has been demonstrated to be false.

How is a picture of a person holding a piece of plane debris proof of it being planted? You don't think he could be picking up a piece of debris, rather than putting it down? How odd that wreckage was 'planted' out in the open, while the press was taking photos.....

FAIL

Again, the burden is on YOU to prove you case, which you have yet to do..

 

[Thunder]

a guy in a suit holding a piece of metal, is evidence that he has hands. that's about it.

 

[djlunacee]

Hey Lurkers,

We are making progress!

Titanic Explorer says, and I quote:

"...There are scores of accounts of people who heard and saw the planes hit the towers..."

That is a far cry from what posters claimed in the first 30+ pages of this thread, or so. There, they all claimed there were "1000s of witnesses" despite my having refuted that claim six ways to Sunday (and July 4th too!).

So, progress has indeed been made when posters around here realize they have nowhere near the ""1000s of witnesses" that the 9/11 deception otherwise likes to implant into the consciousness of those who are willing to be deceived.

Hey Lurkers!!!!!

We are making progress, Jammonious just admitted to many witnesses seeing and hearing a plane!!!!! Makes the rest of his ramblings useless now doesn't it?

 

[jammonius]

Congratulations again, we are finally LOOKING AT and LISTENING TO the AUDIOVIDEO DATA

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.

OK, Oystein, we may be making some progress here. As you know, I assert 7 contain a sound consistent with a possible jet claim. I will listen again.

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.

I will listen again and report my findings.

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.

I think you are correct in placing some focus on segment # 12. That is the one that devastes the plane spotter claim. Video segment # 12, as I have said from early on, is the one that posters and lurkers need to concentrate on.

You have focused on #12, and that is commendable. But, your analysis of it is flawed. The sound of the jetliner should have been as loud or louder than the explosion and for a longer time. Furthermore, the people there should have heard a jet. Yet, as I am sure you will acknowledge, they do not say anything consistent with a plane crash. They say "they're bombing it."

I think video segment # 12 destroys the claim a jetliner crashed into the South Tower.

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.

Your claim is false. You have engaged in over generalization and have thus not dealt adequately with what the data actually show.

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.

That is demonstrably false,imho. However, as we go forward, I think we may need to post an assessement of the video segment sound, one by one. After all, that is what data are for. There has never been any useful point served by posters ranting and raving about what they believe. All we need do is LOOK at and LISTEN to the video and then post our findings.

At long last, we are doing that.

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.

OK, you are seeking to minimize the importance of the witness claiming there are others who contradict him. But, you do not post any who do. I have repeatedly said that there are more reliable NO PLANE witnesses then PLANE SPOTTERS.

The witnesses INSIDE THE DICK OLIVER VIDEOS are one source of proof of that claim. All witnesses INSIDE THE DICK OLIVER VIDEOS, said "explosion" in one or another. True, a couple of them speculated about planes, including Dick Oliver himself, but a fair representation of what he said requires the conclusion that a) he didn't know what happened; and b) ultimately agreed that what happened was an explosion originating from inside the building.

So, ultimately, it is wrong to seek to isolate my best witness. Stephen Gregory is not alone by any means. As to reliable and verifiable witnesses, he is, in fact, in the majority.

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.

As noted, you have not properly characterized either the witnesses nor the nature of the information on the videos.

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.

Your claim is stupidly false. The consensus I referred to was among the actual witnesses, those inside the Dick Oliver video who stepped up and said what they saw. Furthermore, you had no basis to be confused about that. As you know, I don't get involved in what people who post "believe". I neither question beliefs nor engage in disputes about what people believe. So, you had no basis for confusing consensus among posters with anything I was referring to. Once again, I was referring to the "explosion" consensus that was shown, objectively and verifiably, to have existed among the actual, on the scene witnesses.

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

Once again your claim is stupidly false. I posted the subway map to show that not one but two subways intersect right underneath where Dick Oliver stood. sheesh

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

That is weak.

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 you insist on that, then you render Matthews useless as a witness. His statement is 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.

Hearsay is inadmissible. Lawyers agree with that.

That is yet another lie.

No it is not.

I am speaking the truth.

That is false.

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

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

It was a real stretch for you to come up with yet another way to call me a liar. Your posting in that vein is stupid.

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.



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!

Teach yourself.

 

[jammonius]

How is a picture of a person holding a piece of plane debris proof of it being planted? You don't think he could be picking up a piece of debris, rather than putting it down? How odd that wreckage was 'planted' out in the open, while the press was taking photos.....

FAIL

Again, the burden is on YOU to prove you case, which you have yet to do..

Wait a minute. Your post represents a fundamental misapprehension of what I posted.

Re-read what I posted.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Why do you discount so many witnesses and videos that go against your faulty assumptions?

 

[Thunder]

Jamm- do you have any witnesses who state that they had a clear view of the south side of the tower, and saw NO plane impact b4 the explosion?

thought not.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Why do you discount so many witnesses and videos that go against your faulty assumptions?

Perhaps he thinks the witnesses are holograms

 

[TheRedWorm]

Perhaps he thinks the witnesses are holograms

*snicker*

 

[jammonius]

Why do you discount so many witnesses and videos that go against your faulty assumptions?

Cut the rhetorical crap. Do you know how to post a reasoned claim or not?

 

[EventHorizon]

Cut the rhetorical crap. Do you know how to post a reasoned claim or not?

You first.

 

[Thunder]

Jamm- I'd like an answer to my very clear and direct question:

do you have any witnesses who state that they had a clear view of the south side of the tower, and saw NO plane impact b4 the explosion?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Cut the rhetorical crap. Do you know how to post a reasoned claim or not?

Do you know what rhetorical means? Do you know what timeline means? Do you have any evidence to suggest that holograms were used during 9/11? Can you offer a timeline of 9/11 that involves holograms that wouldn't be laughed out of court?

 

[jammonius]

Jamm- do you have any witnesses who state that they had a clear view of the south side of the tower, and saw NO plane impact b4 the explosion?

thought not.

The above is inane. I have said many times that Stephen Gregory is the single best witness there is. He was at West Street between Liberty and Albany at the command post. He and all others with him, for whom there are accounts confirm either not seeing a plane or not hearing one or neither seeing nor hearing a plane.

Does the above help you confirm that Stephen Gregory and others with him had a clear view of the south side of the tower?

Now, as turnabout is fair play, let me ask you, Thunder:

Do you have any witnesses who state that they had a clear view of the south side of the tower, and saw A Boeing 767 impact b4 the explosion?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Cut the rhetorical crap. Do you know how to post a reasoned claim or not?

Nice projection.
All i've seen you post are half baked crackpot conspiracy theories- none of which have been backed by facts. You totally dismiss eyewitness accounts and physical evidence that planes hit the towers.

I'm still awaiting proof that the planes were holograms.


Do you reject all the footage of planes hitting the towers? Do you think all the footage is fake?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

The above is inane. I have said many times that Stephen Gregory is the single best witness there is. He was at West Street between Liberty and Albany at the command post. He and all others with him, for whom there are accounts confirm either not seeing a plane or not hearing one or neither seeing nor hearing a plane.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/fig1.jpg?t=1278292973[/qimg]

Does the above help you confirm that Stephen Gregory and others with him had a clear view of the south side of the tower?

Now, as turnabout is fair play, let me ask you, Thunder:

Do you have any witnesses who state that they had a clear view of the south side of the tower, and saw A Boeing 767 impact b4 the explosion?

How does this discredit the people who saw the planes hit the towers, not to mention the film footage of the crashes?
You do realize both crashes were caught on film?..oh that right, you think the planes were holograms..