• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.
djlunacee said:
besides the trains on a subway run on electricity, pretty darn quiet
Click to expand...

no..they can be pretty darn loud.

but they still sound NOTHING like a jet plane. nothing at all.

subway trains have a rythmic sound as the wheels pass over the tracks, something jet sounds do not have.

they are loud...annoying...and very different from a 757.
 
Thunder said:
no..they can be pretty darn loud.

but they still sound NOTHING like a jet plane. nothing at all.

subway trains have a rythmic sound as the wheels pass over the tracks, something jet sounds do not have.

they are loud...annoying...and very different from a 757.
Click to expand...

agreed about the rhythmic sound, the point I was trying to make was that the power plant is nothing like that of a jet, much less to be that loud topside, but yes the absence of the clackity-clack in the video posted shows it was not a subway train.
 
Myriad said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree with you Myriad...Everything Jammonius has shown in this thread compells me to reach the same conclusion.
There is also the evidence Jammonius hasn't addressed, such as plane parts and passengers found within the wreckage. :rolleyes:
 
jammonius said:
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.
Click to expand...
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck... its a damned duck!

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.
Click to expand...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ

Excuse me, but I think the above video clearly identifies it as being the “Dick Oliver” show, who says, what the hell was that! You already know what the cameraman said… don’t you?
 
jammonius said:
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.
Click to expand...

please tell us how ANYTHING from a "Dick Oliver video" thread, could possibly debunk something from the Naudet video.

they are two different videos..you know. taken from very far away from each other.
 
Titanic Explorer said:
Jam thinks no planes hit the towers...
Here are some photos of debris from the planes (all of which Jammy thinks was planted)

[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/TitanicWreck/untitleddd.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/TitanicWreck/untitledddddd.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/TitanicWreck/untitleddddddddd.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/TitanicWreck/untitled.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Titanic,

You really must get a grip here. You are posting photos in willy nilly manner, not distinguishing claims associated with the North Tower from those associated with the South Tower. This is a South Tower thread.

You have already been told by posters that there was another thread, the so-called Dick Oliver thread, that dealt with the plane debris issue as it related to the North Tower.

Your posted photos do not differentiate the one from the other.

Your use of photos published in NIST's NCSTAR1 series is incomplete and misleading.

Please see post nos. 920 and 922 from the first Dick Oliver thread for a proper discussion of the perimeter beam with wheely:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5797153&postcount=920
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5797251&postcount=922

The other photos you have posted have all been shown to be utterly and completely inconclusive. They are not evidence of anything and have not been either identified or traced to any aircraft, let alone those the common storyline mandates to have been involved in 9/11.

Please check your sources and ask yourself whether they present authentic evidence that you can post up with confidence.

This thread is not advanced by simple cut and paste from debunker website compilations. You fool no one but yourself and those who want to be fooled when you do that. Permit me to suggest you rely on more authentic sources for your claims and try to use photos that are verifiable and that have some arguable chance of being considered admissible as evidence.

You realize, of course, that debunkers have an agenda. They engage in stupid propaganda and have not got a very high regard for posting up authentic, reliable and verifiable information.
 
Titanic Explorer said:
Jam said he thinks the wreckage was all planted, and/or were not plane parts at all..
Click to expand...

He just thinks this without any evidence? So, he has addressed this evidence by providing no evidence as the proof for what he thinks?
That isn't compelling at all.
 
jammonius said:
Titanic,

You really must get a grip here. You are posting photos in willy nilly manner, not distinguishing claims associated with the North Tower from those associated with the South Tower. This is a South Tower thread.

You have already been told by posters that there was another thread, the so-called Dick Oliver thread, that dealt with the plane debris issue as it related to the North Tower.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, I didnt realise you were saying they flew a real plane into the South Tower and a no plane into the North Tower.
 
jammonius said:
Titanic,

You really must get a grip here. You are posting photos in willy nilly manner, not distinguishing claims associated with the North Tower from those associated with the South Tower. This is a South Tower thread.

You have already been told by posters that there was another thread, the so-called Dick Oliver thread, that dealt with the plane debris issue as it related to the North Tower.

Your posted photos do not differentiate the one from the other.

Your use of photos published in NIST's NCSTAR1 series is incomplete and misleading.

Please see post nos. 920 and 922 from the first Dick Oliver thread for a proper discussion of the perimeter beam with wheely:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5797153&postcount=920
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5797251&postcount=922

The other photos you have posted have all been shown to be utterly and completely inconclusive. They are not evidence of anything and have not been either identified or traced to any aircraft, let alone those the common storyline mandates to have been involved in 9/11.



.
Click to expand...



are you suggesting the images I posted that were snapped on 9/11 are not airplane debris?? You've got to be kidding...

Look again, this is landing gear:
wedged in some beams:

untitled.jpg


Here is a piece of the fusliage from one of ther planes:

untitleddd.jpg


Are you saying this is not plane debris? Or was it 'planted'?
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
It would appear the thread is taking a turn toward the Dick Oliver video and what it contains.

In order to do that, posters need to spend an hour or so familiarizing themselves with the 60+ pages that have already taken place in the following 2 threads:

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

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

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

True the first one got AAH'd so we cannot add to it. But the second one can be added to if posters want to continue the Dick Oliver discussion.

Here's a google maps photo posted in the earlier threads, that shows where Dick Oliver was. He was on the sidewalk shown here (behind the buses) that borders City Hall Park. The photo was taken in winter/early spring. Obviously the trees were not then in bloom.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/parkrowbus.jpg?t=1278462471[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Jam, this ties in with this thread. You have asserted that planes did not crash into the WTC. But then oddly enough, you seemed to suggest a plane crashed into one of the towers, but not the other- then you backtracked and suggested that no planes crashed at all.

The point of the photos of the wreckage is to give an example of proof that planes did indeed crash into the WTC. It doesn't require a long winded rebuttle.
Planes crashed, the proof is there. Witnesses, plane wreckage, video proof, the flights were tracked on radar, etc.


You have said that the plane debris was planted.
Where is your proof?
 
Titanic Explorer said:
are you suggesting the images I posted that were snapped on 9/11 are not airplane debris?? You've got to be kidding...

Look again, this is landing gear:
wedged in some beams:

[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/TitanicWreck/untitled.jpg[/qimg]

Here is a piece of the fusliage from one of ther planes:

[qimg]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/TitanicWreck/untitleddd.jpg[/qimg]

Are you saying this is not plane debris? Or was it 'planted'?
Click to expand...

You are engaging in misrepresentation. It matters not what I say is in the photo. Clearly, however, what is seen is a twisted piece of junk that could be anything and could come from anywhere. In order to be valid, reliable evidence, we need a claim to be properly made as to what the photo shows, who took it and who made the examination as to what is in it and how was it identified, among other easily discerned criteria for making a valid claim about what is shown in one or more photos.

As I said, do not allow yourself to be taken in by websites with an agenda that engage in wanton, blatant and stupid propaganda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom