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

[MIKILLINI]

wonder how many heads that one will fly over

At least one for sure.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I don't really do the Pentagon myself. It smells too much like a honeypot to attract conspiracy theories.

I occasionally argue it but more for fun than anything else.

One other thing....Not all Truthers are really Truthers in case you didn't know.

Well there's a kitchen table comment for ya!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes, because if I was ever going to commit the sort of murder that would get me life in prison (that is if the jury was feeling charitable and compassionate) by say, shooting someone with a speargun, I'd want to carry it out in such a way as to simultaneously fool all of the experts in the fields of weapons, forensics, etc. while at the same time totally tipping my hand to a relative handful of armchair detectives who posess no knowledge (let alone expertise) in any of the relevant fields whatsoever. Then, just to be extra diabolically clever I'd simultaneously inflict a second fatal injury (maybe poison the victim) in such a way as to remove any doubt in the minds of the armchair detectives that I alone am the guilty party. That way they would argue amongst themselves over whether it was the spear or the poison that killed the victim. In fact they'd be so wrapped up in this disagreement, accusing each other of disinfo that they'd forget to take their respective "slam dunk" cases to the press or law enforcement officials. All the while I'd be hoping against hope that I orchestrated everything so perfectly that not one of the highly trained, intelligent and experienced actual experts would catch on to what I was doing despite all the howlingly obvious clues I deliberately (you know, Psyops...for kids!) left behind just to mess with people.

Yessiree, that's how I would commit a crime that if I was discovered I'd be sure to get locked up for life if not executed and be remembered as one of the most depicable villains in my country's history. That plan isn't "too complicated" at all

ROFLMAO!

 

[MIKILLINI]

Was jammo a hologram? He seems to have just disappeared.....

He's looking for more non-evidence.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Yes, because if I was ever going to commit the sort of murder that would get me life in prison (that is if the jury was feeling charitable and compassionate) by say, shooting someone with a speargun, I'd want to carry it out in such a way as to simultaneously fool all of the experts in the fields of weapons, forensics, etc. while at the same time totally tipping my hand to a relative handful of armchair detectives who posess no knowledge (let alone expertise) in any of the relevant fields whatsoever. Then, just to be extra diabolically clever I'd simultaneously inflict a second fatal injury (maybe poison the victim) in such a way as to remove any doubt in the minds of the armchair detectives that I alone am the guilty party. That way they would argue amongst themselves over whether it was the spear or the poison that killed the victim. In fact they'd be so wrapped up in this disagreement, accusing each other of disinfo that they'd forget to take their respective "slam dunk" cases to the press or law enforcement officials. All the while I'd be hoping against hope that I orchestrated everything so perfectly that not one of the highly trained, intelligent and experienced actual experts would catch on to what I was doing despite all the howlingly obvious clues I deliberately (you know, Psyops...for kids!) left behind just to mess with people.

Yessiree, that's how I would commit a crime that if I was discovered I'd be sure to get locked up for life if not executed and be remembered as one of the most depicable villains in my country's history. That plan isn't "too complicated" at all

Well stated John G, great comparison!

And so 9/11 Conspiracists continue to investigate in this manner; Not even to take a moment with reflection on their storyline and potentially realize how stupid and illogical it has become.

 

[JohnG]

Yes, because if I was ever going to commit the sort of murder that would get me life in prison (that is if the jury was feeling charitable and compassionate) by say, shooting someone with a speargun, I'd want to carry it out in such a way as to simultaneously fool all of the experts in the fields of weapons, forensics, etc. while at the same time totally tipping my hand to a relative handful of armchair detectives who posess no knowledge (let alone expertise) in any of the relevant fields whatsoever. Then, just to be extra diabolically clever I'd simultaneously inflict a second fatal injury (maybe poison the victim) in such a way as to remove any doubt in the minds of the armchair detectives that I alone am the guilty party. That way they would argue amongst themselves over whether it was the spear or the poison that killed the victim. In fact they'd be so wrapped up in this disagreement, accusing each other of disinfo that they'd forget to take their respective "slam dunk" cases to the press or law enforcement officials. All the while I'd be hoping against hope that I orchestrated everything so perfectly that not one of the highly trained, intelligent and experienced actual experts would catch on to what I was doing despite all the howlingly obvious clues I deliberately (you know, Psyops...for kids!) left behind just to mess with people.

Yessiree, that's how I would commit a crime that if I was discovered I'd be sure to get locked up for life if not executed and be remembered as one of the most depicable villains in my country's history. That plan isn't "too complicated" at all

depicable???

 

[twinstead]

Hi Twinstead. I personally opt for real planes just because I happen to believe that no-planes would be too complicated.

But on the other hand I do believe that reams of evidence was deliberately laid to suggest that there were no planes. A piece of the Psy-op in my opinion. A ruse to split opinion and a distraction

What evidence suggests there were no planes? All the evidence supports planes incontrovertibly.

 

[jammonius]

Because all of them were recorded on video cameras sampling the light digitally. Normally, this will only provide a clear image of the target being recorded. The Hezarkani video, however, catches a lot of details of the aircraft and is more than adequate to identify it as an airliner of the type and livery claimed in the official narrative. Game over on that point.

The above is analytically false. Your declaration about what cameras could record is not supported by a single reference to the actual images and obviously lacks supporting data on the type of cameras used, reference to location etc.

Mind you, none of us have posted that kind of data and it is unclear whether that information can be obtained for purposes of posting. Still, if you make a declaration about the recorders, then the declarations have to be supported.

I have only declared what the data show. That is an objective assessment of the available information. You go beyond what is objectively available and make a declaration about why the data show what they show, but you cannot support that claim.

Not a factual statement.

OK, I say one thing and you say another.

Totally false statement. The explosions occur exactly where they should, in exactly the proper sequence. They in no way resembl;e pyrotechnics. That would require massive reservoirs of liquid hydrocarbon fuel to have been stored in the locations where the aircraft hit. Somebody would have noticed that

Once again, the above is no more than a disagreement. You are obviously free to disagree.

The sound recorded on all videos shot from locations close enough, out in the open is in all ways consistant with the sound of a jet aircraft flying at low altitude and striking a building.

The above is not supported by any reference at all to the actual data. As such, it fails as an objectively supported claim.

The Hezarkhani video is perfect in this regard.

The above is false. Further, it is not supported by any data points. The Hezarkhani footage, found (I think) at segment # 25 of the ALL43 video (see 5:41 mark). That is not by any stretch a 'perfect' image. It is, however, the best image of the ALL43. It is still shadowy, still indiscreet and still incapable of supporting a '100%' declaration. Instead, it merely confirms there is no reliable footage of an actual jetliner anywhere to be found. And, by the way, that statement applies not just to the explosion at the South Tower, it also applies to the entire panoply of events of 9/11.

 

[excaza]

I have only declared what the data show.

*BZZZZZZZZZZZZT* Nope, sorry.

You've declared nothing. All you've declared is your interpretation of what the data shows. Your ignorant, uneducated interpretation. Sorry if that's harsh, but it's true. For example, you have stated that you believe the crashes and explosions in the videos/photos do not behave like they should. You do not provide any support for this claim that agrees with reality. Instead, you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about material properties, momentum, aircraft design, etc. When these errors are pointed out to you, they are either ignored or handwaved away with BS and pretend you know what you're talking about.

Newsflash: you don't.

 

[TJM]

is not supported by a single reference to the actual images and obviously lacks supporting data[

Still, if you make a declaration about the recorders, then the declarations have to be supported.

You go beyond what is objectively available and make a declaration about why the data show what they show, but you cannot support that

The above is not supported by any reference at all to the actual data. As such, it fails as an objectively supported claim.



Further, it is not supported by any data

Ooo! Ooo! Question!

Are we supporting our claims now? Then by all means jammonius. You first.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

jamm, I hope you never serve on a jury..
Because if you were a juror on a murder trial, shown close up footage of the perp shooting someone, you would assert nobody was shot...

Jamm, for the 100th time- planes hit the WTC.

*There were witnesss
*The planes were tracked on radar
*Both impacts were caught on film
*Plane debris was strewn everywhere
*People who escaped the towers saw the planes come in.
*The remains and bellonings of people on the planes were found at the site..


What puzzles me is that you have admitted that people saw planes hit the towers, and you have said you 'take them at their word'.

Yet.....you still insist NO planes hit the towers.

What did people see hit the towers?

You suggsted holograms..Even if such technology existed- where is your proof?

 

[phunk]

I have only declared what the data show. That is an objective assessment of the available information. You go beyond what is objectively available and make a declaration about why the data show what they show, but you cannot support that claim.

Sorry, but no. When you declare anything about what the data shows and what it should show, you are implicitly making claims that you can't support about the equipment that recorded that data.

 

[carlitos]

Jammie Dodger recipe

Ingredients:
Basic Cookie Dough Recipe
Ingredients:
2 cups unsalted butter, softened
1 cup firmly packed brown sugar
1 cup granulated or superfine sugar
2 large eggs
7 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
4 teaspoons baking powder
1 teaspoon salt
1/4 cup milk
1 tablespoon vanilla extract

For Filling:
1/4 cup seedless raspberry jam, or seedless strawberry jam
Instructions:
Cookie Dough:
Beat butter at medium speed with an electric mixer until fluffy. Gradually add sugars, beating well. Add eggs, one at a time, beating after each addition.

Combine flour, baking powder, and salt: add to butter mixture alternately with milk, beginning and ending with flour mixture. Beat at low speed after each addition until blended. Stir in vanilla extract.

Divide dough into 4 equal portions; wrap each portion in plastic wrap to prevent drying out. Chill. Proceed with cookie instructions.

Yield: 4 1/2 pounds cookie dough.

To Assemble and Bake:
Roll cookie dough to 1/8-inch thickness on a lightly floured surface. Cut with a 2-inch round cutter, and place on greased baking sheets. Cut center from half of cookies with a 1-inch round or heart shaped cutter.

Bake at 350 degrees F (180 C) for 8 to 10 minutes or until lightly browned. Remove to wire racks to cool. Spread 1/2 teaspoon seedless raspberry jam on solid cookies; top with cutout cookies.

Makes 2 dozen cookies.

 

[jammonius]

Proper Context for Carlitos' Post # 1368

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110138.PDF

So far, rebuttal of Carlitos' Post # 1368 has proceeded up to Jennifer Bodner. Before continuing on, it is a good idea to set the proper context for Carlitos' post.

Prior to post # 1368, two other posts were made. The actual starting point might be Post # 1363 because that is where I posted up the valid sources of admissible (as evidence) witness statements.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6082970&postcount=1363

Carlitos first attempt to post up a PLANE SPOTTER witness was a good one, Chief Joseph Pfeifer. Carlitos posted an excerpt from Chief Pfeifer in post # 1364:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6082996&postcount=1364

However, what Carlitos did not acknowledge or quote is that part of Chief Pfeifer's statement that casts doubt on whether an actual jetliner crashed into the North Tower.

In addition to being a PLANE SPOTTER, Chief Pfeifer also has something to offer to the NO PLANE claim:

"I pulled in front of the building. I looked
up and I saw no fire coming out, no smoke coming out,
which would have been the west side of the building.
If I can back up, as we went down the street
after the initial explosion of the plane hitting, we
saw there was somewhat of a hole, from our position,
certainly, maybe three or four of the stories, three
stories I think I said. Again, there was no fire
coming out. So, when we got there, there was no fire
and on the west side there was no smoke. But there was
an obvious hole in the building."
pg 3

Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110138.PDF

If a jetliner actually crashed into the North Tower, then smoke and fire, rather than a mere hole, should have been the outcome. Yet, Pfeifer reports no smoke, no fire, merely a hole in the building.

 

[332nd]

So far, rebuttal of Carlitos' Post # 1368 has proceeded up to Jennifer Bodner. Before continuing on, it is a good idea to set the proper context for Carlitos' post.

Prior to post # 1368, two other posts were made. The actual starting point might be Post # 1363 because that is where I posted up the valid sources of admissible (as evidence) witness statements.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6082970&postcount=1363

Carlitos first attempt to post up a PLANE SPOTTER witness was a good one, Chief Joseph Pfeifer. Carlitos posted an excerpt from Chief Pfeifer in post # 1364:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6082996&postcount=1364

However, what Carlitos did not acknowledge or quote is that part of Chief Pfeifer's statement that casts doubt on whether an actual jetliner crashed into the North Tower.

In addition to being a PLANE SPOTTER, Chief Pfeifer also has something to offer to the NO PLANE claim:

"I pulled in front of the building. I looked
up and I saw no fire coming out, no smoke coming out,
which would have been the west side of the building.
If I can back up, as we went down the street
after the initial explosion of the plane hitting, we
saw there was somewhat of a hole, from our position,
certainly, maybe three or four of the stories, three
stories I think I said. Again, there was no fire
coming out. So, when we got there, there was no fire
and on the west side there was no smoke. But there was
an obvious hole in the building."
pg 3

Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110138.PDF

If a jetliner actually crashed into the North Tower, then smoke and fire, rather than a mere hole, should have been the outcome. Yet, Pfeifer reports no smoke, no fire, merely a hole in the building.

So now west is the only direction?

 

[TJM]

Because you can pull up to one side of a building and instantly know what's happening on the other. For instance, right now I'm having my lunch - a loco moco if you must know - on the north side of my building. I can't actually see Market Street but I can hear the holographic traffic and the jet engine noises coming from the subway. Therefore it's clear that I don't exist and am a figment of your imagination, placed there by joos.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I was wondering why people were feeding the troll.

Someone else mentioned it's a bit addictive...
I need a daily dose of Truther quackery.
Jammy's madness help's to remind me I'm sane in comparison...

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Because you can pull up to one side of a building and instantly know what's happening on the other. For instance, right now I'm having my lunch - a loco moco if you must know - on the north side of my building. I can't actually see Market Street but I can hear the holographic traffic and the jet engine noises coming from the subway. Therefore it's clear that I don't exist and am a figment of your imagination, placed there by joos.

How do i know you are not a character in some holodeck program?
Perhaps I'm trapped on the holodeck!! Holodecks are known to malfunction!

Could Jam think he is trapped on a malfunctioning holodeck- and think EVERTHING, from the earth to the sun above are all holograms?

He may need to preform a level 1 self diagnostic.

 

[Oystein]

Someone else mentioned it's a bit addictive...
I need a daily dose of Truther quackery.
Jammy's madness help's to remind me I'm sane in comparison...

My condolences. You must be very very sick indeed if you need jammo to feel relatively sane

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

My condolences. You must be very very sick indeed if you need jammo to feel relatively sane

I suppose that didn't come out right...

If I ever feel like I'm losing my mind, I know ill never be as bad as pajamajamma