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

[jammonius]

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

This one being:

Originally Posted by 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?

Well, for one thing, there is little point in responding to unsupported speculation.

Phunk took the position that the following things MIGHT HAVE happened:

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

Given the photographic record of the event, Phunk could have, should have, but did not support the speculative claims made with so much as a single photo or other source documenting the rank speculation put forward in that post.

I doubt many Lurkers needed to have that explained to them as the failure to support the speculation offered was clear.

 

[dafydd]

This one being:



Well, for one thing, there is little point in responding to unsupported speculation.

Phunk took the position that the following things MIGHT HAVE happened:

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

Given the photographic record of the event, Phunk could have, should have, but did not support the speculative claims made with so much as a single photo or other source documenting the rank speculation put forward in that post.

I doubt many Lurkers needed to have that explained to them as the failure to support the speculation offered was clear.

I am so glad that you don't live near me.

 

[Oystein]

As you do not have a source for your claim, permit me to suggest posters continue to take a look at the source links provided in post # 1660 in order to get up to speed on military holograms.

If you knew and understood what holography is, you'd understand that phunk's claim is as obvious as a claim that the sun is brighter than the moon. But obviously you either don't know or don't understand what holography is. This is underscored by the fact that you have so far dodged any requests to explain what holography is and what reasons you have to assume that the plane is not a plane but a holographic shadowy thingy.


Furthermore I must say you are an impertinent man for requesting sources for others' claims, as you routinely and without fail reject any such requests directed at you as "wild goose chases", "gotcha-games" or "20 questions". For example, you have claimed (wrongly) that a plane's engines at speed X would be louder than the same plane crashing at speed X, yet you have not spupported that claim in any way, nor provided any sources. You have claimed (wrongly) numerous times that a plane cruising by at 500mph 1000 ft up and several blocks away would cause an earsplitting noise and strong environmental impact, yet you have many many many times dodged requests to source that claim, state assumptions and show work. You have claimed variously (and wrongly), that the "shadowy thingy" (really a passenger jetplane) in videos and photographs was a holographic trick, but you have time and again actively rejected and dodged any requests to show sources, assumptions and work that would form a reasonable basis for such an outrageous claim. But really it IS your claim that holography could project a "shadowy thingy" on the blue sky that is darker than the blue sky (i.e., "shadowy"). That is YOUR claim. YOU must source that claim and construct an argument from your sources. You have not done that.
And now you come along, asking someone to source something that truly is obvious to anybody who knows the first thing about a topic (holography) that YOU, entered into the discussion as YOUR claim.

That, jammomius, is RICH.

Do better.

 

[jammonius]

Thanks for the link.

That video was shot from an outside location. We may assume (even though that is not certain) that the people we hear talking have at this time no access to media reports, certainly not TV. So it is possible they were not yet informed by any media about what happened. So let's listen to what the people say:

0:40-0:51: A lady says "and the PLANE wasn't on fire, so..."
0:51-0:56: A man, responding to that lady, says: "It did not appear to be, to be on fire when it went in, I mean I only saw it..."
1:10-1:31: A man in a blue t-shirt with straw hat and beard explains: "Uhh, I was standing here, talking with a couple of people, and then I heard the jet, it was very low, it came right over through here [points up, moving arm to indicate a path in the sky], and then it made a slight twist and dove right into the building. It was a medium size passenger airliner, and when it went in it did not appear to be on fire or anything like that"
1:31-1:33: A man in a green t-shirt chimes in: "In fact [?] a 737"
1:33-1:40: Man with straw had continues: "I couldn't identify the craft. It was medium sized jetliner. I could not identidy the markings on it."
1:47: "Pieces of it flew out the other side"

So here you very clearly have a PLANE WITNESS - can we agree on that, jammomius? I mean, before you disect the credibility of that witness, can you admit that the man with the straw hat very clearly describes that what he heard and saw was a medium sized passenger jet plane flying over and into the the buiding? Thanks.

Now let's go to the sights and sounds of the second explosion:
When the time counter changes from 1:55 to 1:56, the first frame showing the fireball on WTC2 appears.
When would we expect to hear the corresponding explosion? This would depend on the distance to the camera.
The scene was shot on the intersection of Greenwich St. and Duane St. - for proof of that, please compare Google Street View...
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.717321,-74.010872&spn=0,0.001742&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.717467,-74.010642&panoid=k2p5xiQIURrl39dMC84_zw&cbp=12,277.21,,0,-12.6

...with this screenshot from 1:14 in the above video:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_368864c32600a90523.jpg[/qimg]

That intersection is about 600 meters away from the South Tower. The explosion occurred at a height of about 300 meters, so distance from explosion to camera is about 670 meters.
Sound travels at a speed of about 343 m/s, so we should expect to hear the explosion about 2 seconds after we see it. That would be at the end of the 1:57 second.
jammonius, do you follow and agree?

Now what do we hear, and when?
People are talking, while there is a constant background noise, most likely the usual city hum of New York (car traffic, air conditioning, maybe some wind...).
When I start the video around 1:50, close my eyes, concentrate on the background hum, I do pick up an increase of that hum at some point. I stop the video then: The time counter shows 1:55, and no fireball yet to be seen.
I hear a slightly more marked sound in the middle of the 1:57 second, but it is hard to tell as the sudden screaming of people suppresses the microphone level. So it is slightly surprising, but explainable that we can't discern the explosion clearly. But since you, jammonius, agree (don't you?) that an explosion did in fact occur, you will not take this lack of a marked explosion sound as evidence that there was no explosion, right?

Ok so at 1:55, we hear a swelling hum, at 1:57 we here a maximum sound in the distance (explosion).
What was the swelling hum between 1:55 and 1:57?
Answer: Since we would, in the context of a PLANE theory, predict a swelling hum of jet enginges just before the explosion, and we do in fact hear a swelling hum, we take that as supporting evidence that in fact we do hear jet engines before the explosion.

Oystein,

You are not up to speed. I acknowledged the video and its contents way back on page 2 of this thread, post # 73:

Please take a look:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5939611&postcount=73

Post # 73 by and large addresses and acknowledges both the valid existence of a plane witness as to the North Tower and my concerns with it. I conclude by saying I treat that witness like all others, and take him at his word.

The present discussion does center more on the content of the video from the 1:55mark forward as that is the part of the video that qualifies it as the 44th version of the explosion at the South Tower.

Oystein, you have made a reasoned attempt at assessment of the information found from and after the 1:55 mark. The methodology you employed in doing so was fair and objective, imho. You did not seek either to under interpret or to overinterpret the information. You do not make a strong claim that a jetliner is heard; and, for that, I commend you.

The one difference I think I would have with you is that I would continue with the assessment of the signficance of the fact that, at most, a "hum" can be heard, as you say, 1:55-57. Had a jetliner been approaching at 550mph, I remain convinced that an unmistakable sound of a jetliner would have been heard. For that reason, I will offer up the conclusion that this video segment, dubbed in this thread as version # 44, like most of the others, puts paid to the claim a jetliner crashed into the South Tower based on the sound. The lack of reliable jetliner sound in a context where a jetliner sound was required, falsifies the claim a jetliner crashed into that tower.

In addition, let us be still more honest with ourselves concerning sound in the roughly six second time frame of 1:55 to 2:01 of video # 44.

As you know, at about the 2:00mark, the video pans away from the towers. Prior to that and at about the 1:59 mark the fireball has reached its apex and the streamer that debunkers try to claim is the Church and Murray engine piece is seen to have flared out and died, showing it was nothing but a pyrotechnical display.

Here is a still showing conditions at 1:59:

While we can post stills here, I'm not sure if we can post the actual audio, standing alone. I imagine we can post the video snipet from 1:55-2:01 because femr2 said we could. I must say, I don't think I can do that, Oystein. If you can, would you kindly isolate and post up, say, 1:50--2:02 of video # 44?

What I can say is that the sound betrays the common storyline in more than just the jetliner sound aspect, even though that is the most dramatic betrayal.

The sound also betrays the event and shows it is pyrotechnical in nature because there is no crash sound. There should be three distinct and horrifying crashes. The impact at the south face -- the most horrific; nothing heard. The explosion on the east face, which is actually the first explosion to be seen; yet again, nothing crashing out of the east side; and, most importantly for video # 44, there should be a distinct crash sound heard emitting from the north face.

After all, Oystein, the common storyline postulates (as NIST might say), a jet engine emerging from the building and landing at Church and Murray. There is no horrifying crash of a metallic object ejecting itself at over 100mph from a steel and concrete structure.

There is no crash at all in addition to no jetliner sound.

Here is a still of the 1:55 mark, just as the north side explosion is beginning:

Oystein, video # 44 falsifies the claim a jetliner of any kind, let alone a Boeing 767 and still less a Flight 175 hit that tower.

Thank you for your post. As indicated earlier, its analytical methodology is considered very helpful.

 

[Oystein]

This one being:



Well, for one thing, there is little point in responding to unsupported speculation.

Phunk took the position that the following things MIGHT HAVE happened:

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

Given the photographic record of the event, Phunk could have, should have, but did not support the speculative claims made with so much as a single photo or other source documenting the rank speculation put forward in that post.

I doubt many Lurkers needed to have that explained to them as the failure to support the speculation offered was clear.

phunk did not engange in speculation. Rather he tried a complete enumeration of all possible scenarios, given the "common storyline".

You don't have to buy the "common storyline" to argue with it. The "common storyline" can be stated in the scientific meaning as a theory which, with regard to debris at the Pentagon goes like this:

"A passenger plane flew into the Pentagon at cruising speed, after clipping some lamp posts and hitting objects on the ground near the building. Because of these minor collisions, some plane debris was dropped on the Pentagon lawn along the flight path. The crash set the building on fire."

Within that theory ("frame of reference"), the theory would predict that rescue teams (Fire Departments, medical personel, others) would rush to the building with cars (ambulances...), trucks (fire engines...), and possibly other heavy equipment.
We would further predict that some of the debris strewn on the lawn would be in the way of such personel and equipment. This led phunk to his complete enumeration of possibilities related to rescue efforts vs. debris vs. forensic investigation:

"1) Drive firetrucks over the evidence
2) Move some of the evidence out of the way (so it would damage the trucks, or get destroyed by trucks)
3) Let the pentagon and any potential survivors burn"

phunk asks you if you agree that this is a complete enumeration of the possibilities, given the theory of the common storyline, or not. He further asks you what YOU would have the rescue teams and investigators do after such a desaster has happened: Would you rather save the evidence and endanger people, or would you rather save people and endanger the evidence?
In other words, do you think it is admissable to remove evidence if that is necessary to save people, or do you claim it would be illegal to save people's lives if that came at the cost of touching evidence?

This is not speculation, this is the scientific method at work, coupled with an ethics decision.

 

[Oystein]

...
The sound also betrays the event and shows it is pyrotechnical in nature because there is no crash sound...

For the sake of clarification and better understanding jammonius: Do you mean "crash sound", or do you mean "explosion"?

I am asking because we SEE an explosionm, right? Whether caused by a plane crash or a pyrotechnical show is a distinct question. It suffices to say that we do SEE an explosion, and just like the explosion at the North Tower, it ought to SOUND like an explosion.

So, are you saying there is no EXPLOSION sound, either?

 

[jammonius]

For the sake of clarification and better understanding jammonius: Do you mean "crash sound", or do you mean "explosion"?

I am asking because we SEE an explosionm, right? Whether caused by a plane crash or a pyrotechnical show is a distinct question. It suffices to say that we do SEE an explosion, and just like the explosion at the North Tower, it ought to SOUND like an explosion.

So, are you saying there is no EXPLOSION sound, either?

I am surprised you require clarification on this issue. A cursory review of this thread and the two Dick Oliver ones will reveal that I have consistently said an explosion occured as is verified by nearly all the reliable and verifiable witnesses.

An explosion sound is separate and distinct from the sound of metal (as in, say, a postulated jet engine) crashing into, then in the midst of and finally outside of a steel beam perimeter, interlaced with concrete and rebar. That sort of event is a crash and is distinct from an explosion. True, the two could be intermingled, but the elements of both would most definitely emit sound, and therefore be heard. The analogy here would be an orchestra or, for that matter, virtually any musical combo of 2 or more instruments. One hears aspects of each, even as they blend together to form a cohesive whole.

all the best

 

[jammonius]

phunk did not engange in speculation. Rather he tried a complete enumeration of all possible scenarios, given the "common storyline".

You appear to have attempted to carve out a distinction of speculation from "enumeration" that does not serve to change the speculation. Put simply, the distinction you rely on does not articulate a valid difference.

Phunk does not, by any stretch of the imagination, "enumerate all scenarios". That is firstly impossible to do as the possibilities are too numerous to list.

It is more accurate to say that Phunk picked and chose some possible scenarios (speculative selection) with an added agenda of seeking to contradict or seeking to refute the interpretation of the photo as evidence of tampering/planting. That is what Phunk did. His objective was not enumeration of all possible scenarios; or, if that was Phunk's objective, that objective was not accomplished.

Phunk engaged in refutation based on speculation. As such, the attempt at refutation failed.

You don't have to buy the "common storyline" to argue with it. The "common storyline" can be stated in the scientific meaning as a theory which, with regard to debris at the Pentagon goes like this:

"A passenger plane flew into the Pentagon at cruising speed, after clipping some lamp posts and hitting objects on the ground near the building. Because of these minor collisions, some plane debris was dropped on the Pentagon lawn along the flight path. The crash set the building on fire."

Within that theory ("frame of reference"), the theory would predict that rescue teams (Fire Departments, medical personel, others) would rush to the building with cars (ambulances...), trucks (fire engines...), and possibly other heavy equipment.
We would further predict that some of the debris strewn on the lawn would be in the way of such personel and equipment. This led phunk to his complete enumeration of possibilities related to rescue efforts vs. debris vs. forensic investigation:

"1) Drive firetrucks over the evidence
2) Move some of the evidence out of the way (so it would damage the trucks, or get destroyed by trucks)
3) Let the pentagon and any potential survivors burn"

phunk asks you if you agree that this is a complete enumeration of the possibilities, given the theory of the common storyline, or not. He further asks you what YOU would have the rescue teams and investigators do after such a desaster has happened: Would you rather save the evidence and endanger people, or would you rather save people and endanger the evidence?
In other words, do you think it is admissable to remove evidence if that is necessary to save people, or do you claim it would be illegal to save people's lives if that came at the cost of touching evidence?

This is not speculation, this is the scientific method at work, coupled with an ethics decision.

That quoted above is horribly violative of the first requirement of logic. You cannot assume facts that have not been proven. Yet, that is exactly what you did.

 

[Oystein]

I am surprised you require clarification on this issue. A cursory review of this thread and the two Dick Oliver ones will reveal that I have consistently said an explosion occured as is verified by nearly all the reliable and verifiable witnesses.

An explosion sound is separate and distinct from the sound of metal (as in, say, a postulated jet engine) crashing into, then in the midst of and finally outside of a steel beam perimeter, interlaced with concrete and rebar. That sort of event is a crash and is distinct from an explosion. True, the two could be intermingled, but the elements of both would most definitely emit sound, and therefore be heard. The analogy here would be an orchestra or, for that matter, virtually any musical combo of 2 or more instruments. One hears aspects of each, even as they blend together to form a cohesive whole.

all the best

You conveniently avoided answering the interesting final question, which was:

So, are you saying there is no EXPLOSION sound, either?

 

[dafydd]

Give it up folks,he's a lost cause.Let him waste the rest of life pursuing a delusion.This thread just keeps going round in circles.

 

[jammonius]

An invalid witness: 1)Indirect quote; 2)incongruent content; 3)dead link

I will here continue with the process of refutation of Carlitos' claim of PLANE SPOTTER witnesses.

Pg. 35 post # 1368 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368

John Bloom

Then, as he watched horrified, Bloom saw the second plane approach: "For a moment it was pointed directly at me, then about five seconds before impact the pilot made an adjustment and banked about 20 degrees. He was making a correction! To go in at an angle? To make sure he hit the center?
"He sailed in so smoothly. There was that little moment when you see a plane level out before it touches down. It almost eased into the building. I waited for the blast, and it was strangely delayed. He entered on the opposite side of the tower but I saw the fire shoot out of my side before I heard the explosion. He had hit much lower, around the 50th floor, and this time the gash was infinitely worse."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_n16707300

1)Indirect quote

The statement is useless as evidence because it is hearsay. "Then, as he watched horrified, Bloom saw the second plane approach:" That is hearsay, not even said by Bloom, but attributed to him.

2)Incongruent content

The part that Bloom is said to have actually said is incongruent and is more consistent with a NO PLANE witness, by its literal content, because the witness describes events that he thinks are inconsistent with a jetliner. He is said to have said:

""He sailed in so smoothly. There was that little moment when you see a plane level out before it touches down. It almost eased into the building. I waited for the blast, and it was strangely delayed. He entered on the opposite side of the tower but I saw the fire shoot out of my side before I heard the explosion"

That witness account is incongruent with the claim a jetliner was involved, by virtue of the witness' own alleged statement that must be interpreted as the witness saying he saw things he did not believe should have happened were it a jetliner crash. I can anticipate that posters and lurkers might seek to interpret the statement differently so as to make it seem consistent with a jetliner crash. However, doing so would only serve to change the plain meaning of what the witness said.

"Strange" in the context of this witness' description of what he expected to occur can only reasonably be interpreted as having the following aspect of the definition of the word:

a. Out of the ordinary; unusual or striking.
b. Differing from the normal.

As such, John Bloom is a NO PLANE witness.


3) Dead link

We cannot double check the accuracy of the statement or otherwise review it because the link is dead.

Carlitos, you cannot count this person, John Bloom, as a valid witness. If you insist on doing so, then this witness is equally valid as a NO PLANE witness because of what he is said to have said that clearly and unequivocally indicates his own doubts about what he was seeing.

Moreover, this person describes the explosion occuring at the wrong place and as much as says it was in the wrong place.

This is rich, Carlitos. Thank you

 

[Oystein]

You appear to have attempted to carve out a distinction of speculation from "enumeration" that does not serve to change the speculation. Put simply, the distinction you rely on does not articulate a valid difference.

Word salad. Meaning: I, jammomius, do not want to admit any differences

Phunk does not, by any stretch of the imagination, "enumerate all scenarios". That is firstly impossible to do as the possibilities are too numerous to list.

Then surely you are able to add one more distinct possibility to the list? That would answer phunk's first question.

You cannot assume facts that have not been proven. Yet, that is exactly what you did.

No one is assuming anything but you. You are assuming that the "bozos" are planting fact. Phunk is really just pointing out that there are more possibilities that you ignored, such as saving debris lest it get destroyed by emergency vehicles.
You do realize that these pictures were taken while a major rescue operation was taking place at the same scene, right?

 

[dtugg]

 

[dafydd]

I will here continue with the process of refutation of Carlitos' claim of PLANE SPOTTER witnesses.

Pg. 35 post # 1368 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368

John Bloom

Then, as he watched horrified, Bloom saw the second plane approach: "For a moment it was pointed directly at me, then about five seconds before impact the pilot made an adjustment and banked about 20 degrees. He was making a correction! To go in at an angle? To make sure he hit the center?
"He sailed in so smoothly. There was that little moment when you see a plane level out before it touches down. It almost eased into the building. I waited for the blast, and it was strangely delayed. He entered on the opposite side of the tower but I saw the fire shoot out of my side before I heard the explosion. He had hit much lower, around the 50th floor, and this time the gash was infinitely worse."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_n16707300

1)Indirect quote

The statement is useless as evidence because it is hearsay. "Then, as he watched horrified, Bloom saw the second plane approach:" That is hearsay, not even said by Bloom, but attributed to him.

2)Incongruent content

The part that Bloom is said to have actually said is incongruent and is more consistent with a NO PLANE witness, by its literal content, because the witness describes events that he thinks are inconsistent with a jetliner. He is said to have said:

""He sailed in so smoothly. There was that little moment when you see a plane level out before it touches down. It almost eased into the building. I waited for the blast, and it was strangely delayed. He entered on the opposite side of the tower but I saw the fire shoot out of my side before I heard the explosion"

That witness account is incongruent with the claim a jetliner was involved, by virtue of the witness' own alleged statement that must be interpreted as the witness saying he saw things he did not believe should have happened were it a jetliner crash. I can anticipate that posters and lurkers might seek to interpret the statement differently so as to make it seem consistent with a jetliner crash. However, doing so would only serve to change the plain meaning of what the witness said.

"Strange" in the context of this witness' description of what he expected to occur can only reasonably be interpreted as having the following aspect of the definition of the word:

a. Out of the ordinary; unusual or striking.
b. Differing from the normal.

As such, John Bloom is a NO PLANE witness.


3) Dead link

We cannot double check the accuracy of the statement or otherwise review it because the link is dead.

Carlitos, you cannot count this person, John Bloom, as a valid witness. If you insist on doing so, then this witness is equally valid as a NO PLANE witness because of what he is said to have said that clearly and unequivocally indicates his own doubts about what he was seeing.

Moreover, this person describes the explosion occuring at the wrong place and as much as says it was in the wrong place.

This is rich, Carlitos. Thank you

 

[jammonius]

Hey Lurkers, post up. This is a key summary post of pgs. 1-44

1-44

Hey everyone,

This thread now contains a valid database consisting in some discussion of the content of ALL43 of the originally known video versions of the second explosion, the one occuring at the South Tower on 9/11 at about 9:03AM that day.

Added to it is a 44th version, not publicly disclosed until posted in 2008.

Taken separately, as has been done, taken in smaller groupings, also as has been done and taken as a whole, the videos support the following declaration made by me in post # 1689:

"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."

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6095226&postcount=1689

We started focusing in on the fact that the sound component of the videos is that which betrays the event as not being a jetliner crash on about page 41, 42. That is when we began to grasp that the "shadowy thingy" was an illusion because it was not accompanied by the right sound.

Those who perpetrated 9/11 discounted the importance of human hearing and presumed that a pyrotechnical explosive display and the projection of teevee imagery of a blob, along with the explosions (east face, then south and north faces) would be strong enough to implant the suggestion and confirm the deception,without providing a sound component to sell the illusion.

It is likely that the state of the art of military deception i n 2001 did not include the ability to realistically project sound; or, if the technology did exist (and there's no reason why it should not have), then, in that event, the military exercises contained a glitch. That glitch was the complete absence of a proper soundtrack.

Grasp this, posters and lurkers. The utter and complete failure to include a proper sound component to the video and pyrotechnical deception is the main epistemological clue that we have for successfully unraveling the 9/11 hoax. In order to continue adherence in the common storyline of 9/11, one has to discount one's own sense of hearing and understanding of sound. The only question that remains is this:

For how long can posters continue to disregard their own capacity for hearing and their own ability to analyze the information imparted by the sounds that are in the record of events of what happened at the South Tower on 9/11 at 9:03AM?

Good luck

 

[excaza]

welcome home

 

[DGM]

1-44

Hey everyone..............<snip>

Are you done now?

Good bye.

 

[dtugg]

jammy, good job. You have thoroughly debunked the absolutely crazy idea that no planes hit the WTC on 9/11 by posting dozens of videos of the event happening. No sane person could possibility dispute the fact that airliners hit the towers now.

 

[jammonius]

Hey Lurkers, still no refutation of what I am posting is taking place.

The best response to ideas that are disagreeable are ideas that refute. Posters here do not engage in refutation; rather, they post up stupid jokes and dumb cartoons.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Or, you know, questions that you can't answer.