um...no one is buying it Jamm. Not even your make believe fans, aka "Lurkers".
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
-
- Tags
- no plane theory no planes
- Status
um...no one is buying it Jamm. Not even your make believe fans, aka "Lurkers".
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
And you've personally spoken to Mr. Bloom and he told you he didn't see a plane crash when he said that he did, right?
No?
Well then your opinion of his statement is just more babble from you, isn't it.
Ahhhh, the other shoe drops...
Jam's purpose: his little self-delusion of being able to post somewhere "I posted all those videos over at JREF, and nobody could refute me."
Sorry, Jam. This thread consists of you making a horse's ass of yourself. And about 20 people initially pointing out that every one of your contentions falls flat on its face.
And, when you refused to address any of our responses in anything approaching a capable or honest manner, about 20 people subsequently pointing fingers at you & laughing.
Which is precisely what you deserve.
LMAO.
Go ahead, Jam. Tell 'em how you put all of us in our place.
Priceless demonstration of authentic truther delusion.
Tom
Jam's purpose: his little self-delusion of being able to post somewhere "I posted all those videos over at JREF, and nobody could refute me."
Sorry, Jam. This thread consists of you making a horse's ass of yourself. And about 20 people initially pointing out that every one of your contentions falls flat on its face.
And, when you refused to address any of our responses in anything approaching a capable or honest manner, about 20 people subsequently pointing fingers at you & laughing.
Which is precisely what you deserve.
LMAO.
Go ahead, Jam. Tell 'em how you put all of us in our place.
Priceless demonstration of authentic truther delusion.
Tom
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Edited by Gaspode:
Removed breach of Rule 12
Last edited by a moderator:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,941
Great. 44 videos.
Let us summarize:
- every one of the video cameras that was in a position to record the image of a plane flying into the WTC did show ther image of a plane flying into the WTC with the expected degree of clarity, if we take into account equipment, distance, handling, and subsequent quality reduction due to conversions to youtube-format.
- every one of the microphones that was in a position to record the sound of a plane approaching the WTC did in fact record a sound of the kind we would expect to hear if a plane approached the WTC, if we take into account equipment, distance, location, background noises, handling and subsequent reduction of quality
- no witness that appears in these 44 videos who was in a position to see and/or hear a plane has testified explicitly within the video that it was NO plane. Every witness who was in a position to see and/or hear a plane who said anything about the cause of the blast made statements that are in line with the experiences witnesses are likely to make when a plane flies into the WTC
All of these observations have been made by every one actively participating in this thread.
Every one.
With one (1) exception
These observations have not been refuted with reason, argument or valid inferences.
The verdict stands firmer than ever:
Planes flew into the towers.
Let us summarize:
- every one of the video cameras that was in a position to record the image of a plane flying into the WTC did show ther image of a plane flying into the WTC with the expected degree of clarity, if we take into account equipment, distance, handling, and subsequent quality reduction due to conversions to youtube-format.
- every one of the microphones that was in a position to record the sound of a plane approaching the WTC did in fact record a sound of the kind we would expect to hear if a plane approached the WTC, if we take into account equipment, distance, location, background noises, handling and subsequent reduction of quality
- no witness that appears in these 44 videos who was in a position to see and/or hear a plane has testified explicitly within the video that it was NO plane. Every witness who was in a position to see and/or hear a plane who said anything about the cause of the blast made statements that are in line with the experiences witnesses are likely to make when a plane flies into the WTC
All of these observations have been made by every one actively participating in this thread.
Every one.
With one (1) exception
These observations have not been refuted with reason, argument or valid inferences.
The verdict stands firmer than ever:
Planes flew into the towers.
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
no no no no, see this video of an airplane hitting the tower? Proves, beyond a doubt, that no plane hit the tower!
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,941
no no no no, see this video of an airplane hitting the tower? Proves, beyond a doubt, that no plane hit the tower!
Ah yes. And because not only John saw a PLANE, but Jill also, when John says "WE saw a plane" that means "I saw NO plane"
Right
This just in. There are people on the internet who believe crazy stuff. Sometimes they prove their crazy stuff with misinterpretation of blurry photos and logical fallacies. See bigfoot, JFK, UFOs and this thread for examples.
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Don't forget liberal application of font modifications. I'm surprised they don't use Comic Sans or Papyrus.
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
I didn't say those "might have happened", I asked you which you think would be acceptable, or if there is another option. You seem to be of the opinion that evidence should never be touched before it's been documented, even if that means letting people die while they wait. Is that your opinion, or do you think there are circumstances where moving evidence out of the way is necessary?
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Sure, let's take a look at your source:
So there's no credible way to do it, its difficulty scales with size, and they don't even think they'll be able to do it well 15 years from now. And they don't even come remotely close to discussing how it could even work. And no mention of doing it in open air, let alone several miles of sky.
<sarcasm>Great source you have there, really supports your case well </sarcasm>
PB2007
This line left intentionally blank
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 234
But if no-one witnessed any planes what is the role of the holograms?
Is Jam going to argue the holograms only appear on video? I'm sure his arguement was that no-one SAW / WITNESSED the planes. So if there were no planes then what are the holograms for?
Or is i bein' fic?
Is Jam going to argue the holograms only appear on video? I'm sure his arguement was that no-one SAW / WITNESSED the planes. So if there were no planes then what are the holograms for?
Or is i bein' fic?
Last edited:
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Ah yes. And because not only John saw a PLANE, but Jill also, when John says "WE saw a plane" that means "I saw NO plane"
Right
Clearly the fact that we have no video showing no planes at the WTC is also evidence that no plane hit the WTC, its so obvious! You are all illogically incompetent!
Holograms are not "projected" at all, in the same sense that movies or slides are projected onto a screen. They are not projected onto anything; the light is instead projected toward the viewer's eye. Viewing a hologram is more like viewing a printed picture on paper.
And just like no part of a printed image appears beyond the edges of the paper, no part of a hologram appears beyond the edges of the holographic medium.
If you're not looking directly at the holographic medium, you cannot see any image at all, any more than you can see a printed photograph when you're not looking toward it.
Holograms do not work like R2D2 projecting a holographic recording of Princess Leia onto the floor a meter away. That's science fiction, and only works in a galaxy far far away.
The holographic game board on the Millennium Falcon (in the "let the Wookie win" scene) is a little bit more plausible. But it would still only work when you were looking down at the board (assuming it's the surface of the board that's generating the holographic images of the game pieces). From sideways angles, the tops of the holographic images would be cut off anywhere some part of the board is not directly behind them.
The Star Trek holodeck is actually a bit more plausible in that regard, since at least the surfaces on which the holograms are supposedly being generated fully surround the viewer. (Of course, having fist fights with holographically rendered people wouldn't work so well, but punching empty air wouldn't look as good on TV.)
You know those novelty hologram jewelry and sunglasses that were slightly popular a few years ago? They would show things like a three dimensional life size human eye inside a 1" diameter round pendant. It would be cool, wouldn't it, if you could have one where the holographic image is bigger than the piece of jewelry. Like, a finger ring but when you look directly at it you see a fist-sized Buddha statue (or a life-size human skull, or a gigantic 10,000-karat cut diamond, depending on your style preferences) floating above your hand.
Well, you can't buy one of those. Not for any amount of money. Because no one knows any way to make one.
You can't even buy a good looking simulated light saber. That should be the easiest possible thing to make with a "projected" hologram. All you're asking for is a blurred bar of monochromatic light, right next to a big handle that you can put your projection mechanism inside. (Never mind that it would just pass through other similar light sabers. Getting it to just look like the ones in the movies would be a coup for any Star Wars fan -- including the many who work at the MIT Media Lab and in military R&D.)
No such luck. You're stuck with a plastic tube with lights inside, like everyone else currently living in this galaxy.
(Actually, you could make a simulated light saber using a real hologram, with severe limitations. The hologram would have to be on a disk mounted above the handle like the guard of a sword hilt. It would only look right when the "blade" was more or less pointed directly at you. The bigger the disk, the more leeway in the viewing angle, but it would not be visible at all from side-on, and of course the big extra disk sticking out would only look slightly less dorky than the plastic tubes.)
So, what limitations does the reality of what a hologram actually is and how it actually works impose on our holographic airplane over Manhattan?
Well, it means that the physical medium containing the holographic image has to be at least as big as the footprint of the real airplane it depicts, and it has to be in the air where the image of the airplane appears. That means it must either move in the airplane's path at the airplane's speed, or it must be even bigger so as to extend along the airplane's path.
In the former case, it needs propulsion and lift, such as by mounting it on an even bigger airplane. Another possibility is swinging it on cables from a large dirigible higher up. The cables and dirigible must themselves be rendered invisible, of course.
Since the framework supporting the hologram -- think of a horizontal billboard larger than half a football field -- would probably be comparable to the mass of an actual jetliner, it would still crash into the tower and do a lot of damage due to its speed. This rules out the swung-from-a-dirigible possibility because if you were swinging something that large, heavy, and expensive, you might as well swing an actual airplane, doing away with the need for the hologram. And if it's an actual airplane, you might as well just fly it, doing away with the need for the invisible dirigible and cables.
So that leaves us with a hologram of an airplane, attached to an even larger airplane, crashing into a WTC tower. But again, if you're crashing a larger airplane into the tower, you don't need the hologram.
Of course, if you're using a motion hologram, you no longer need to propel it along the airplane's course. Instead, all you have to do is suspend a motion holographic image generating surface 40 meters wide and a mile or so long in mid-air over Manhattan at 1000 feet in broad daylight. Now you need a whole fleet of those invisible dirigibles, just to start.
Sorry. A hologram will not work. Think of something else more plausible. I suggest an airplane, but don't let me stifle your creativity.
Respectfully,
Myriad
And just like no part of a printed image appears beyond the edges of the paper, no part of a hologram appears beyond the edges of the holographic medium.
If you're not looking directly at the holographic medium, you cannot see any image at all, any more than you can see a printed photograph when you're not looking toward it.
Holograms do not work like R2D2 projecting a holographic recording of Princess Leia onto the floor a meter away. That's science fiction, and only works in a galaxy far far away.
The holographic game board on the Millennium Falcon (in the "let the Wookie win" scene) is a little bit more plausible. But it would still only work when you were looking down at the board (assuming it's the surface of the board that's generating the holographic images of the game pieces). From sideways angles, the tops of the holographic images would be cut off anywhere some part of the board is not directly behind them.
The Star Trek holodeck is actually a bit more plausible in that regard, since at least the surfaces on which the holograms are supposedly being generated fully surround the viewer. (Of course, having fist fights with holographically rendered people wouldn't work so well, but punching empty air wouldn't look as good on TV.)
You know those novelty hologram jewelry and sunglasses that were slightly popular a few years ago? They would show things like a three dimensional life size human eye inside a 1" diameter round pendant. It would be cool, wouldn't it, if you could have one where the holographic image is bigger than the piece of jewelry. Like, a finger ring but when you look directly at it you see a fist-sized Buddha statue (or a life-size human skull, or a gigantic 10,000-karat cut diamond, depending on your style preferences) floating above your hand.
Well, you can't buy one of those. Not for any amount of money. Because no one knows any way to make one.
You can't even buy a good looking simulated light saber. That should be the easiest possible thing to make with a "projected" hologram. All you're asking for is a blurred bar of monochromatic light, right next to a big handle that you can put your projection mechanism inside. (Never mind that it would just pass through other similar light sabers. Getting it to just look like the ones in the movies would be a coup for any Star Wars fan -- including the many who work at the MIT Media Lab and in military R&D.)
No such luck. You're stuck with a plastic tube with lights inside, like everyone else currently living in this galaxy.
(Actually, you could make a simulated light saber using a real hologram, with severe limitations. The hologram would have to be on a disk mounted above the handle like the guard of a sword hilt. It would only look right when the "blade" was more or less pointed directly at you. The bigger the disk, the more leeway in the viewing angle, but it would not be visible at all from side-on, and of course the big extra disk sticking out would only look slightly less dorky than the plastic tubes.)
So, what limitations does the reality of what a hologram actually is and how it actually works impose on our holographic airplane over Manhattan?
Well, it means that the physical medium containing the holographic image has to be at least as big as the footprint of the real airplane it depicts, and it has to be in the air where the image of the airplane appears. That means it must either move in the airplane's path at the airplane's speed, or it must be even bigger so as to extend along the airplane's path.
In the former case, it needs propulsion and lift, such as by mounting it on an even bigger airplane. Another possibility is swinging it on cables from a large dirigible higher up. The cables and dirigible must themselves be rendered invisible, of course.
Since the framework supporting the hologram -- think of a horizontal billboard larger than half a football field -- would probably be comparable to the mass of an actual jetliner, it would still crash into the tower and do a lot of damage due to its speed. This rules out the swung-from-a-dirigible possibility because if you were swinging something that large, heavy, and expensive, you might as well swing an actual airplane, doing away with the need for the hologram. And if it's an actual airplane, you might as well just fly it, doing away with the need for the invisible dirigible and cables.
So that leaves us with a hologram of an airplane, attached to an even larger airplane, crashing into a WTC tower. But again, if you're crashing a larger airplane into the tower, you don't need the hologram.
Of course, if you're using a motion hologram, you no longer need to propel it along the airplane's course. Instead, all you have to do is suspend a motion holographic image generating surface 40 meters wide and a mile or so long in mid-air over Manhattan at 1000 feet in broad daylight. Now you need a whole fleet of those invisible dirigibles, just to start.
Sorry. A hologram will not work. Think of something else more plausible. I suggest an airplane, but don't let me stifle your creativity.
Respectfully,
Myriad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk
here is the Naudet video, full of airplane sounds.
Jamm-please debunk.
here is the Naudet video, full of airplane sounds.
Jamm-please debunk.
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
You have no concept of the english language do you?
The statement; Then, as he watched horrified, Bloom saw the second plane approach, this is narrative. The actual quote, which is not hearsay by any means,"For a moment it was pointed directly at me, then about five seconds before impact..." is the quote genius. If Mr. Bloom were to make this direct statement to me or anyone else, I most certainly can testify in a court of law as to what he said.
He saw a plane, you are wrong, pick it apart however you want to, but I suggest you find Mr. Bloom and call him, tell him he didn't see a plane, and see what kind of results you get, tell him his statement is absolutely wrong and that it was just a hologram.
Sorry, the decision still stands, you fail.
Do better.
a-freakin-men
- Status