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

[excaza]

Here is a link to witnesses testimony claiming there was no plane on 9/11

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

 

[djlunacee]

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?

1000's but you ignore this fact, plane debris? yep but you ignore this fact. Radar confirmation? yep, but you ignore this fact. Actual science? yep but you ignore this fact. you say that your claims stand or fall on their own merit....judging from the lurkers who came in this 43 videos was an epic fail on your behalf, case closed.

 

[Thunder]

Here is a link to witnesses testimony claiming there was no plane on 9/11

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

lolololo!!!!!

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

1000's but you ignore this fact, plane debris? yep but you ignore this fact. Radar confirmation? yep, but you ignore this fact. Actual science? yep but you ignore this fact. you say that your claims stand or fall on their own merit....judging from the lurkers who came in this 43 videos was an epic fail on your behalf, case closed.

Apparently he thinks the thousands of pieces of debris from the 'holographic planes' were planted, or just happened to be there. . Eye witness accounts are dismissed- How can he ignore the fact radar tracked the planes?

 

[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?

my Aunt saw the plane hit the tower.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Here is a link to witnesses testimony claiming there was no plane on 9/11

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

my Aunt saw the plane hit the tower.

Can you prove she's not a hologram?

jamm will dismiss her account as fiction or delusional...

Seriously, is she doing okay? People who went through that day will have nightmares for life..

 

[djlunacee]

Here is a link to witnesses testimony claiming there was no plane on 9/11

http://tinyurl.com/yjm842

that about sums it up!

 

[Thunder]

on 9-11, they were talking to eye witnesses who saw the whole event. they interviewed one guy who saw the 2nd plane come in, and was asked something "how do you feel?"

he said something like "how do you think I feel? my heart is in my mouth. i helped build those buildings".

does anyone remember that quote? I want to find it on the archive website, but I can't recall what channel it was.

 

[fess]

an explosion

Ok Jammonius, JIST WHAT WAS IT THAT EXPLODED in both of the buildings.

Do DEW weapons resemble and react in the same manner as do hydrocarbon products like Jet A fuel?

OK, maybe it wasn’t a DEW weapon, maybe it was real hydrocarbon liquids. If so, how did they get to the upper floors of the towers?

Ok, maybe it was a holographic explosion, like “bad special effects”, as you say. Then why are the towers not still standing?

Maybe the military really did have something to do with it, but if they did, why weren’t they painted on radar? And I might add, you failed to mention that high jacked aircraft wasn’t the only part of the exercises being carried out on that day.

And while in the failed to mention mode, why is it that you failed to mention that; in the video that you so kindly dished, you can see the damage being done to the perimeter of the east wall as the aircraft penetrates the building? What was there on the east side of the building that would have stopped an aircraft the size of a 767? Not a thing. Nothing but some desks, partitions, computers, filing cabinets, and oh yes, humans.

Unless and until the factor of deception is recognized and dealt with,

Rest assured that we have spotted your puny attempt at deception, and have dealt with it quite effectively.

 

[fess]

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.

Why would anyone want to try to refute such a ridiculous claim that the various aircraft parts scattered throughout South Manhattan were planted? You still have failed to answer the question posed several pages ago; who planted the parts?

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.

I think not.

 

[Vermonter]

Jammonius,

I've seen the Pentagon image you linked, as well as many others. I find it odd that your immediate reaction to that picture is that "they're planting it, and this is proof". You wouldn't think the more realistic solution is, "hey, someone's picking up pieces of the object that just slammed into our building". No, your reaction is instead, "They're planting evidence!". That does not explain how They would plant things like engine pieces of fusilage debris in NYC. Do you think that they decided to keep a jet inside the WTC and then scatter the parts with an explosion? Or, maybe, just maybe, the more reasonable solution is that the debris is the result of an object slamming into another object?

You are asserting a belief from the standpoint that there were no planes that impacted the WTC and Pentagon, and that what had been witnessed was in fact, an elaborate hologram. This is not an objective point of view. You are asserting that there were no planes, and as such, you cherry-pick your "evidence" that supports your theory to reach a pre-destined conclusion, and ignore everything that is to the contrary. I happened to witness the second impact live on television. Am I a liar for saying that I distinctly saw what appeared to be a jet plane?

I watched the video you initially linked. There were -many- segments in which there is no "shadowy blob-thing" but a rather good view of a jet flying into the building. At that point the first tower had been on fire for a little while, so most available cameras were pointing to the Very Bad Thing in view. You know very well of what I am asking, and you refuse to answer it. Fine, then. Do you, Jammonius, believe that every individual that witnessed the impact, including myself, are lying? If so, do you believe that they, including myself, are part of some sort of coverup? Yes/no is fine.

In witnessing the videos again, as a person with a scientific mind, I saw, and continue to see, no reason to doubt that a plane indeed impact the tower on both occasions. You don't seem to take momentum into account. Do you believe that an object would merely bounce off the tower like a baseball against brick? In your mind, what would happen if you took a jet plane that is similar to the one that hit the tower and had it impact? Honestly. What would happen, in your point of view? Would it shatter against the facade and have a great fireball at the point of impact? Would the tower tip over? I truly am curious to know.

Also, do you believe that this supposed hologram technology exists? If so, how and where was it implemented? Where were the emitters? Why did we not see signs of this emitter? I have examined this thread, but I have not read all 42 pages, nor do I need to.

Regarding the witnesses, no wonder they heard an explosion! Some big, fuel-laden object just slammed into the tower! That'd make for one hell of an explosion. Do you believe that the witnesses that supposedly did not see a plane are more reliable than ones that did? Despite the numerous segments that show a plane impacting the tower? Is this because you need to ignore any evidence to the contrary? Remember, even one sole verified video or witness that says there was a plane means that there was in fact a plane, no matter how many say otherwise.

Do you truly think that after the first impact, no one paid attention to the sky? Remember now, I witnessed it on television. Does this make me a liar?

I'm sorry, but this is a jet plane. Not a shadow thingy.

Oh look, another one. Do you think these are fake? If so, you are beyond reason.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Jammonius,

Do you truly think that after the first impact, no one paid attention to the sky? Remember now, I witnessed it on television. Does this make me a liar?

.

I think he thinks it makes you a hologram...

I think at this stage, Jam is beyong hope of being reached- If he truely believes the crazy bthings that he posted, we are dealing with a person who does not have a grasp on reality.
I think mental illness may be at play...
Then again, perhaps he's a troll, looking for attention.

 

[fess]

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?

Yes lurkers, the video segments that were cherry picked by Jammonius does show a Boeing 767/200 disguised as a shadowy, blurry, blob, but in most cases, it is unmistakably recognized as an aircraft. But lurkers, I implore you to not look at the crappy video that was posted by Jammonius. Instead, look at some of the other videos that were posted that clearly show that the “blurry” object that hit the building was indeed identifiable as an aircraft. And that is irrefutable.

 

[fess]

Well, posters we did it, could more of you but realize it...
you heard it here first, lurkers

You realize that you have no more videos to prove what you claim... don't you?
What an epic failure and a total waste of time. I guess you can return to abusing that small child while producing another You Tube video.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

"Also, do you believe that this supposed hologram technology exists? If so, how and where was it implemented? Where were the emitters? Why did we not see signs of this emitter? I have examined this thread, but I have not read all 42 pages, nor do I need to."


Don't expect Jam to have an answer- I do now some his peers in who think that planes that hit the WTC were holograms think the holographic tech is alien technology from a downed UFO, that the US military conciders top secret.
This is hardcore black hellicopter, men in black, pure tinfoil hat paranoia...
To even suggest the planes were holograms is a clear sign a person is nuttier than a Granola bar...

 

[dafydd]

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..

Me too.How insane can one person get? I feel sorry for that kid on the Youtube video though.

 

[dafydd]

No.



You heard it there first.

No matter how desperately you want to believe there wasn't, there are millions of people who do, in fact, live in New York City. Thousands of those people saw and / or heard Flights 11 and 175 with their eyes and ears. Millions more saw it on TV.

Jammy,why do you need to believe that there were no planes?

 

[Oystein]

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.

Here we a have car that keeps on crashing and crashing.
What a bizarre view to behold indeed!

 

[Oystein]

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.

Yes, planting is a possibility. A possibility is not certainty. Can we agree on that semantics? You surely would use the word "certainty" if you meant "100% possibilty", but instead you merely said "possibilty", which linguistically implies "<100% possibility", and that in turn logically implies ">0% possibility that it was NOT planting".
Therefore, while the picture does not refute a claim of planting, it neither proves planting. And you know that, jammonius.

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.

You have not shown that these pieces of evidence were NOT "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", and indeed that would be near impossible to show.
Therefore, your claim of "tampering" is inconclusive.

However, I might agree for the moment that the person you like to refer to as "bozo" is handling that piece of evidence inappropriately, and that you may call this "tampering". That gives us logically several mutually exclusive but possible explanations:
a) The guy is a conspirator consciously and illegally removing evidence
b) The guy is a conspirator consciously and illegally planting evidence
c) The guy is a law-abiding citizen inadvertantly but illegally removing evidence
d) The guy is a law-abiding citizen inadvertantly but illegally planting evidence

Explanation d) seems a long shot - hardly anyone with an innocent mind could be manipulated into planting such high-profil evidence and not suspect a thing.
The other 3 in my mind seem to be rather possible explanations. Only one (1) of them involves "planting" evidence. The other two must logically assume that the evidence (plane debris) was already at the scene before tampering commenced.

However, there is yet another possibilty that you can't rule out and in fact have not ruled out: That an authorized invastigation team had already done all the forensic identification required in situ and had this man, whether he is a member of that forensic team or not, carry away the piece to clear up the site. In that case, no planting and no tampering took place.
It is both perfectly legal and perfectly possible that an authorized investigator does not wear the kind of clothes that you'd expect, jammonius. At the heart of your "outfitted as investigators"-argument is really nothing but an argument from incredulity or ignorance 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.

Hahaha

jammonius, you are usually quite clever enough to avoid direct contradiction within your own posts.

Above, you have argued that plane debris was planted.
Now you argue that we don't even know it was plane debris.
If you think it highly likely that it wasn't plane debris at all, then logically you must think it highly that plane debris was NOT planted.

You can't have it both ways.

Your assertion has been demonstrated to be false.

Your word salad has been demonstrated to contain faulty reasoning, false dilemmas, internal contradictions, logical non-sequiturs, arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity.

You fail. Big time. As always.