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

[Thunder]

The video does not show a plane. The video shows a shadowy, blurry, blob.

you have been shown videos and photos that clearly show an airplane.

 

[DGM]

44
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...-nosoundofjetjustfireball159.png?t=1278338974

Hey posters, early on in this thread, AJM linked us to a new version, posted to youtube only in 2008, that actually contains a previously unknown version of the second explosion. Accordingly, there are 44 versions now, rather than 43.

The explosion occurs at about the 1:55mark of the video. You can link to the video that AJM provided by going to post # 70 in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5939593&postcount=70

This one has good sound and, predictably, THERE IS NO JETLINER SOUND at all. Instead, and as we all know, based on the historically signficant words of Our David Stollick(sp), a legitimate candidate for the title of FIRST NO PLANER:

"it was jist an explosion..."

That is what video version # 44 reveals.

Take a look, Lurkers, and let us know what you think.

Didn't you hear the guy in the blue shirt say he saw the plane? Did you also notice the explosion made no (recorded) sound? Are you saying the guy in the blue shirt is a liar?

 

[phunk]

Your claim is false.

On holograms:

See post # 1660

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

I envision a valid and thorough going discussion on holograms and I have pointed to the direction the discussion can take. I don't think this thread is the proper place for a full-on discussion of holograms, as I think that is a separate topic. I do think holograms are related to this thread.

Your claims of "shadow thing" and "hologram" are mutually exclusive. There is no way to holographically project an opaque object. It's impossible to project something that appears darker than the background behind it. A hologram projected on the sky, if such a thing was even possible, could only appear brighter than the sky.

 

[phunk]

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.

Bull. A picture of 2 guys moving debris does not in any way prove planting. Planting would require that thousands of pieces of debris were carried in to the crash site. Show me a single witness of a single piece of debris being carried into the crash site.

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.

No, it is not completely forbidden. In fact it's often required. For example in the case of the pentagon, would you rather they moved debris out of the way, or just ran it over with the firetrucks that had to get on the scene?

 

[phunk]

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.

Hey guess what, planes explode in high speed crashes. So every one of your explosion witnesses is consistent with the "official" story.

 

[phunk]

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 would he have a clear view from inside the command post?

 

[Myriad]

Your claims of "shadow thing" and "hologram" are mutually exclusive. There is no way to holographically project an opaque object. It's impossible to project something that appears darker than the background behind it. A hologram projected on the sky, if such a thing was even possible, could only appear brighter than the sky.

An excellent point. That rules out any possibility of the "shadow thing" being a hologram.

(Unless perhaps it was actually nighttime, or heavily overcast, and the entire blue sky seen by witnesses and in recorded images for miles around throughout the day was the hologram, with one darker jetliner-shaped hole.)

(By the way, the idea presented in the previous parenthetical is not the slightest bit plausible.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[jammonius]

Your claims of "shadow thing" and "hologram" are mutually exclusive. There is no way to holographically project an opaque object. It's impossible to project something that appears darker than the background behind it. A hologram projected on the sky, if such a thing was even possible, could only appear brighter than the sky.

Can you provide a source/link in support of your claim that we might take a look at?

 

[TJM]

Are we supporting claims now?

 

[beachnut]

Can you provide a source/link in support of your claim that we might take a look at?

lol, you become more delusional after you proved planes hit the WTC. You debunk your own insane lies and don't have a clue you did it. What will you waste time typing to spread your insanity and be exposed to more lurkers as the best at spreading crazy delusions on 911 with visions of Plymouth Wheel covers dancing in your head?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I have addressed the NYC debris with a photo essay every bit as revealing as is the Pentagon photo. The so-called engine at Church and Murray was visibly planted.

In addition, I have relied on the official NIST report for unrefutable proof that the perimeter beam with wheely stuck in it has not ever been identified as coming from a plane. The NIST report acknowledges and confirms that claim is "postulated" but not, therefore, proven. In other words, that claim is a guess. A guess is not a fact.


....The video does not show a plane. The video shows a shadowy, blurry, blob. The video contains no sound that accurately depicts a jetliner 800ft up at 550mph.



You are not a witness. You are a teevee viewer.



Reason speaks for itself.

Do you have proof the engine at church street was planted? Very odd that there are no witnesses of a crew going around planting thousands of peioces of plane debris on the street level and on nearby roof tops.
Here is a question for you- If as you think the towers were rigged with explosives, why an elaborate charade of creating holographic planes?
(with technology that doesn't exist btw)

Odd you have zero evidence to support your absurd theories.
The photos clearly show part of the landing gear wedged in some beams lying askew on the street level...oh let me giess, it was planted?

Your most absurd comment is "The video does not show a plane. The video shows a shadowy, blurry, blob. The video contains no sound that accurately depicts a jetliner 800ft up at 550mph"

First off, multiple examples of footage shows the planes, clear as a bell. Secondly, there were thousands of witnesses WHO WERE THERE who saw and heard the planes crash into the towers. Thirdly, airplane debris and body parts were blown out on nearby rooftops and on the street level.

Why is it the remmains of some of the people who were on the planes were found at Ground Zero? Since you think the planes were holograms, I assume you think the planes- and the passengers never existed.

What would you say to the family of the people who were on the planes that were flown into the WTC? Whould you insist their love one never existed, or would you accuse them of being in on your tinfoil hat conspiracy?

 

[tfk]

Plane

Plane

You guys are sooooooo unlawyerly...
(Remember, we charge by the hour.)

Video|Conclusion|Video|Conclusion|Video|Conclusion|Video|Conclusion|Video|Conclusion|Video|Conclusion|Video|Conclusion|Video|Conclusion
1|Plane|2|Plane|3|Plane|4|Plane|5|Plane|6|Plane|7|Plane|8|Plane
9|Plane|10|Plane|11|Plane|12|Plane|13|Plane|14|Plane|15|Plane|16|Plane
17|Plane|18|Plane|19|Plane|20|Plane|21|Plane|22|Plane|23|Plane|24|Plane
25|Plane|26|Plane|27|Plane|28|Plane|29|Plane|30|Plane|31|Plane|32|Plane
33|Plane|34|Plane|35|Plane|36|Plane|37|Plane|38|Plane|39|Plane|40|Plane
41|Plane|42|Plane|43|Plane||||||||||

One guess for my vote on #44...


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?

You are not a witness. You are a teevee viewer.

According to your chucklehead view of the world, there are no witnesses. There have never been any witnesses to any event.

There are only "photon viewers".
Like Vermonter, I am a "photon-electron-photon viewer" of the events of 9/11.

BTW, the courts - the real courts, not your ludicrous pantomime - have rules that discriminating against leptons to be invalid.

Although perhaps you could dress up the corpse of your credibility by citing a precedence of a court rejecting a security guard's testimony based upon what he witnessed on security cameras. Or perhaps your laughable position on admissibility of video evidence explains why the FBI / police etc. are NEVER interested in viewing security cameras that might have recorded a crime.

Oh wait...

Given 1000s of real eyewitnesses who viewed both the real event & the televised videotapes of the real event and confirmed their concurrence, I consider myself to be an eyewitness as well. If there were even a small number of people who stepped forward and said "Hey, I was there. I saw everything, and there were significant differences between the videos & what I saw", then I would consider discounting the video tapes as clear, honest representations.

Oh wait...
There aren't any such witnesses.

Reason speaks for itself.

"Reason..."??

Did you just use the word "reason"???

How, uh, amusing...


Tom

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Your claims of "shadow thing" and "hologram" are mutually exclusive. There is no way to holographically project an opaque object. It's impossible to project something that appears darker than the background behind it. A hologram projected on the sky, if such a thing was even possible, could only appear brighter than the sky.

Not if it's alien technology- many of the tinfoil hat no planers/holgramers think the holgram technology used was extra terrestrial in origin, and taken from a downed UFO. Somthing akin to a cloaking devise...

 

[DGM]

Odd you have zero evidence to support your absurd theories.
The photos clearly show part of the landing gear wedged in some beams lying askew on the street level...oh let me guess, it was planted?

Judging from the size of the steel members this piece also weights several tons. I wonder if anyone noticed the freaking crane dropping it off!

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Judging from the size of the steel members this piece also weights several tons. I wonder if anyone noticed the freaking crane dropping it off!

Then again, perhaps he thinks it was a hologram...

 

[phunk]

Can you provide a source/link in support of your claim that we might take a look at?

No, I doubt anyone has taken the time to write a proof of something so obvious.

You can't project an image on open air, it needs a screen of some sort.

You can't shine 'darkness' on something (have you ever seen something like a lightbulb that darkens a room when activated? didn't think so).

So you can only shine light on the screen, making it brighter. Therefore the darkest part of the projection will be the part with no light shining on it, which will be as dark as the screen itself.

If you could somehow project a hologram on transparent air, the darkest part of it could only be as dark as what you see behind it. In this case, the sky.

 

[phunk]

Not if it's alien technology- many of the tinfoil hat no planers/holgramers think the holgram technology used was extra terrestrial in origin, and taken from a downed UFO. Somthing akin to a cloaking devise...

Aliens have to obey the same laws of physics that we do. I don't care if truthers think that anything we can do with special effects in sci-fi movies must be real.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I saw 9/11 unfold on tv- and oddly enough, Howard Stern had superb coverage on the radio- I wound up turning down the volume of cnn, and turning up Stern..

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oy... this thread's become Realistice Redux, but with an even more annoying truther

And that's saying something, given how aggravatingly dense Christophera chose to be. Folks, we should just let this peter out. We've established what we've needed to establish, and our resident loon has failed to support his point. Verbal legerdemain is no winning argument, and that's all that Jam is putting forth here. We ought to just leave things be.

 

[phunk]

No, it is not completely forbidden. In fact it's often required. For example in the case of the pentagon, would you rather they moved debris out of the way, or just ran it over with the firetrucks that had to get on the scene?

Why didn't you reply to this one Jam?

Which do you approve of, or is there another option:

1) Drive firetrucks over the evidence
2) Move some of it out of the way
3) Let the pentagon and any potential survivors burn