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

[Tinfoil Hater]

One thing about Jam that puzzles me- he says he takes witnesses of the the plane crashes 'at their word', and admits people saw planes hit the towers.......yet he goes on to saw planes DIDN'T hit the towers...
He's not that easy to follow..

 

[Oystein]

i tink I knows what a subway does sound like.

You are clearly engaging in rationlization here. An objective assessment of the video however will reveal this: When the cameraman yells "sounded like a plane crash" - you KNOW that really means "I just heard a subway train", don't you?

You have been psy-oped into following the group-think. Do better!

 

[Thunder]

when do folks on the street turn around in puzzlement, at the sound of a subway?

 

[TJM]

when do folks on the street turn around in puzzlement, at the sound of a subway?

Here in San Francisco, we always run like hell when a subway car goes underneath us. That's due an utter lack of aircraft over head. They really should do something about those damned silent holograms. Additionally, they really need to something about our airport. It's current use, a death camp for liberals, is beginning to smell.

 

[DGM]

what if Jammy doesn't come back?

Who cares?

 

[Thunder]

yup....sounds like a jet to me. I just listened with my earphones.

but I am a Jew and a NYC employee, so what do I know?

 

[jammonius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

here is the Naudet video, full of airplane sounds.

Jamm-please debunk.

1) This thread deals with the explosion at the South Tower. Thus, insertion of the Naudet video here is not sufficiently relevant for in-depth response as I see it.

2) Two recent threads, centering on the "Dick Oliver" videos have served to fully refute the Naudet video and have specifically including numerous posts on and about that video.

See:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171082

-------------------------

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174043

 

[TheRedWorm]

And what of the sheer lunacy of the holograms brought up in this thread? If you wish to make another thread about just that, feel free.

 

[jammonius]

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.

I did better. You did not. You chopped his statement up (as usual, claims that I cherry-pick are followed up by splendid examples of just that by others). You do not consider the statement in its proper context and you do not address the refutation I engaged in at all.

My refutation stands as posted. If you would like to continue this process, fine, we can do that. However, as things now stand, let's see what we have.

First, my post needs to be recalled for its actual content.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6099204&postcount=1802

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

I quoted Bloom's full statement. I did not chop it up as you have done. Furthermore, you treat a part of it as if it is his statement, but that is not how the statement actually reads. Take a look at the above, full statement, in proper context.

You do not address either the salient portion of his comment, let alone the interpretation of it that I provided.

 

[jammonius]

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?

Now you're giving an interpretation to your posting that would take us further afield, beyond speculation and into the realm of hypotheticals.

sheesh

Do better.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

And what of the sheer lunacy of the holograms brought up in this thread? If you wish to make another thread about just that, feel free.

Don't expect him to give you a direct answer...

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I did better. You did not. You chopped his statement up (as usual, claims that I cherry-pick are followed up by splendid examples of just that by others). You do not consider the statement in its proper context and you do not address the refutation I engaged in at all.

My refutation stands as posted. If you would like to continue this process, fine, we can do that. However, as things now stand, let's see what we have.

First, my post needs to be recalled for its actual content.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6099204&postcount=1802

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

I quoted Bloom's full statement. I did not chop it up as you have done. Furthermore, you treat a part of it as if it is his statement, but that is not how the statement actually reads. Take a look at the above, full statement, in proper context.

You do not address either the salient portion of his comment, let alone the interpretation of it that I provided.

So you admit planes hit the towers?

 

[DGM]

So you admit planes hit the towers?

He has proven it over and over again. I just wonder why he wants us to refute that.




Jammonius, we agree, planes hit the towers.

 

[djlunacee]

I did better. You did not. You chopped his statement up (as usual, claims that I cherry-pick are followed up by splendid examples of just that by others). You do not consider the statement in its proper context and you do not address the refutation I engaged in at all.

My refutation stands as posted. If you would like to continue this process, fine, we can do that. However, as things now stand, let's see what we have.

First, my post needs to be recalled for its actual content.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6099204&postcount=1802

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

I quoted Bloom's full statement. I did not chop it up as you have done. Furthermore, you treat a part of it as if it is his statement, but that is not how the statement actually reads. Take a look at the above, full statement, in proper context.

You do not address either the salient portion of his comment, let alone the interpretation of it that I provided.

You missed this part. Again, do better.

 

[DGM]

This confirms the camera sat next to a bus stop:

What does this have to do with the sound of the plane? You can't make that go away.

 

[djlunacee]

Oh my goodness. This is rich. Thunder, you have posted the 1:16 Dick Oliver video that I started an epic 40+ page thread on that consisted in a thorough-going exchange about its significance as one of the single best pieces of NO PLANE information in existence.

The thread was, unfortunately consigned to AAH, but the topic of the Dick Oliver video re-emerged and broadened to include a second Dick Oliver video that picked up where the 1:16 one left off.

In total the two Dick Oliver threads comprise more than 60+ pages of posting:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171082

-------------------------

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174043

Up to the moment of the explosion sound in the Dick Oliver video, all passersby, save one, were completely nonchalant, completely oblivious to any suggestion a jetliner was approaching at near onto 500mph, 1000ft above them, and two or so blocks away from them, over a relatively open sky (all of which information is confirmed in the two threads). Furthermore, the camera sat atop the intersection of two subways and alongside a multi-bus bus stop.

The sound in the video was not that of a jetliner as that is not what it sounded like. As the alternative explanation of bus/subway was confirmed by location and re-confirmed by the actions of the passersby. Finally, the 1:16 video, at about the 1:01 mark or so, if memory serves me correctly, is the source of one of our candidates for the title of FIRST NO PLANER. David Stollick(sp), in his inimitable way says:

"...it was jist an explosion..."

And so it was.

Here are the passersby just prior to the explosion sound. They give no indication that a jetliner is close to them at full throttle. You can see a passerby going away from the camera, lady in black slacks; and you can see oncoming passengers somewhat in the distance but closer, actually to the North Tower and with a view of the sky in the direction from which the common storyline's (nonexistent) jetliner was coming:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/Slide2-3.jpg?t=1278449692[/qimg]

This confirms the camera sat next to a bus stop:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/00857.jpg?t=1278449599[/qimg]


Your posting of the Dick Oliver video link is one of the most ironic things that could possibly have happened.

Thank you

That noise was not from a subway (you can not hear them from topside), and if you think that noise was from a bus, you truly are the most deluded person alive today.

 

[jammonius]

One thing about Jam that puzzles me- he says he takes witnesses of the the plane crashes 'at their word', and admits people saw planes hit the towers.......yet he goes on to saw planes DIDN'T hit the towers...
He's not that easy to follow..

No, I am easy to follow. I have posted about this at length. Even Elmondo chimed in and added a few helpful details. For instance, Elmondo posted up a synopsis of the Japanese classic film Rashomon, after I had used the film title as a way of explaining the fact that witnesses to an event almost always issue contradictory statements.

That is what Rashomon was about.

I am very comfortable with the fact that there are witnesses who say they saw a plane, including reliable ones.

What is at play here is that debunkers have an incredibly hard time admitting there are valid and viable NO PLANE witnesses.

Where do you stand on that Titanic? Do you acknowledge the existence of valid NO PLANE witnesses; or, are you among the crowd that can neither acknowledge the existence of such witnesses, let alone take them (the NO PLANE witnesses) at their word?

Many posters here will not accept NO PLANE declarations; and, instead, always seek to minimize the signficance of no plane statements, or interpret them differently, or say they are not clear enough, or try to change their witness statements into "belief" statements, to name some of the irrational and emotionally-driven responses that one can find to the NO PLANE witnesses I have posted up.

So, to reiterate. It is not me that is hard to follow. I recognize there are witnesses who say things that contradict one another. The task is to sort out the real from the unreal.

The fact is, there are more viable, reliable and verifiable NO PLANE declarations than there are PLANE SPOTTER ones. Furthermore, as was shown on this page and the last couple, one witness, John Bloom (separate and apart from the admissibility problems associated with his statement) was put forward as a PLANE SPOTTER. However, upon assessment, Bloom is easily a NO PLANE witness.

One has to review the information with objectivity and with a capacity for reasoned assessment.

all the best

 

[Thunder]

The sound in the video was not that of a jetliner as that is not what it sounded like.

you are wrong. and in denial.

but you know what I am gonna do...just for you?

I will go...to that EXACT SAME location, and record the sound of a subway, if indeed there is indeed subway sounds from tha location.

see how nice I am?

oh...and btw...I just checked on Google Earth, and there are NO subway grills by that street. the nearest one is a good 30 feet away, and even if that is a subway grill, there is NO way the sound of a subway train would be THAT LOUD...at that distance.

but still..for you..I shall go to that location...and record for you what I hear.

I will put it on Youtube, and post the video. Just to PROVE how VERY WRONG YOU ARE.





............btw Jamm...have you EVER been to NYC? Have you EVER heard a NYC subway train?

and did you hear the guy say: "it SOUNDED like a plane crash"???

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

He has proven it over and over again. I just wonder why he wants us to refute that.




Jammonius, we agree, planes hit the towers.

Now he's back to arguing no planes hit the towers...

Jam, the 'evidence' you put forward to 'prove' no planes hit the towers in fact confirm planes hit the towers...
I'm still amazed you don't concider the eye witnesses accounts and plane debris as proof the planes hit the towers

 

[Myriad]

In the face of the overwhelming evidence that Jammonius has presented showing that the planes hit the towers, I can no longer deny that planes hit the towers.

I apologize for being such a stickler, insisting on evidence too massive for any doubt whatsoever including demanding to be shown "at least 40" videographic recordings of the event, but even that impossibly high evidentiary standard having now been met, I can now in good conscience cast my "vote" (with the proviso that it's understood that votes decide decisions, not reality; reality exists independently of opinions or votes) for planes.

Respectfully,
Myriad