• 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.
Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation: 0/11
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368

It is to be recalled that the ongoing assessment of Carlitos' list of claimed witnesses to the explosion at the South Tower, posted at #1368, is in the process of a detailed review.

We are up to witness number 11, including those mentioned below.

So far, there has not been one valid witness. There have been a variety of holes, incongruities and stupid sourcing of the witnesses so far mentioned. As well, some of them have made statements that are as consistent with the NO PLANE claim as they are with the PLANE SPOTTER claim, all as has been specifically discussed in connection with each witness, one by one. However, as I have noted, I do not accredit the NO PLANE claims any moreso than I accredit the PLANE SPOTTER claims if they are from unreliable sources. Merely mentioning the NO PLANE aspects of the statements or attributed statements is not the same as endorsing them. I do not endorse statements that come from unreliable, third hand, or 'he said/she said' type sources.

The latest three fail and fail utterly as reliable witnesses for the reasons set out beneath their statments:

Richard and Cathy Brown

It was then that we heard and saw the second plane. As soon as we saw it, the basic shape of the attack became clear to me. We saw the pilot level the wings and heard him gun the engines, as if on takeoff. We couldn't see the actual impact, because of a building in front of us, but it exploded right above us.
September 11: An Oral History, Dean E. Murphy

Posters and lurkers will easily recognize that the claimed source is not even linked, but assuming the quote is from that source, it is easy to see that the statements are pure hearsay and are not, therefore, good as evidence.

Ralph Buchalter

"I thought I was a goner," said Ralph Buchalter, a friend of this reporter who works at the American Stock Exchange. "I saw the second plane hit. I was late going to work. The towers are two blocks from where I work.
http://members.aol.com/wockner/attack.html

This quote is sourced to a defunct aol. memberservice blog. That is totally unreliable. I am surprised that Carlitos would post up a claim of witness sourced to something as stupid as that source is; or, rather, was.

That is rich.
websiteshutdown.jpg
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
Guys,

We have all been doing WAY too much work here. We're swatting mosquitoes with sledge hammers.

Jam has done all the heavy lifting for all of us. We owe him a giant, sloppy "thank you".

This is trivially simple:

As everyone (including Jam) agrees, Jam looks at his "44 videos"...

He reads in the NIST report about the 6 separate analyses (done by 5 independent groups) to get the speed of impact, using at least 7 distinct videos of Ft. 175 flying into WTC2...

he sees this still:
[qimg]http://www.911familiesforamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/flight-175-just-before-impacting-the-south-tower.jpg[/qimg]

and these:
[qimg]http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/podimages/4pods.jpg[/qimg]

and this one:
[qimg]http://www.wtcconspiracy.co.uk/flight175/ua175-4.jpg[/qimg]

and this:
[qimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/10/article-1160905-0558BA6A0000044D-567_468x527.jpg[/qimg]

... and hundreds of others ...

... each one confirming all the others ...

... and he concludes that "there was no jet".

Our job is done, guys.

Time to hit the bar. Who's buying the first round?


Tom

PS. After writing this, I had a rather uncomfortable revelation ...

"Only a moron would get dragged into even a momentary debate with a moron proposing such a moronic contention."

Ouch. That one stung.

From an "intellectual self-respect" point of view, I feel it is acceptable (perhaps obligatory) to point fingers & laugh at Jam & his nonsense.

But attempting any "reasoned argument" is demeaning.
Click to expand...

The photos you have posted are inconclusive. You can make this determination for yourselves, posters and lurkers, by engaging in analysis and comparison.

This is a thread of more than 50 pages. It contains a lot of photos of the event, excerpted from the ALL43 videos, among other sources. The post to which this replies is but one post of more than 2000.

Because of the way I have been led to understand the rules of posting, I cannot repost photos that appear elsewhere in this thread. Accordingly, a convenient starting point for refutation of the broad claim made in the post to which this responds is the OP:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5936647&postcount=1

Among the examples of information set out there is the photo showing the explosion developing in the wrong place at the wrong time and the utter lack of plane debris at the point of impact.

The post to which this responds very carefully ignores the information associated with the initial impact that shows a jetliner literally melting into the south face of the South Tower without exploding, degrading, slowing, from nose to and including wings, through aft section and entire tail, without so much as a quiver, let alone creating huge amounts of debris, both large and small, including some identifiable plane parts.

None of that happened. Hence, what was seen and heard (or, rather, not heard) was not a crash of a jetliner.
 
AJM8125 said:
I see. Verifiable statements from actual people can be disqualified by lack of a link but you can pull things from your backside as you see fit.

THAT is rich.
Click to expand...

"Verifiable statements from actual people can be disqualified by lack of a link..."

That is an oxymoron.
 
Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation 0/15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368


Carlitos' post #1368 has not yet yielded a single valid PLANE SPOTTER witness. And, as will be seen below, at least as it relates to the South Tower, Carlitos will remain 0fer.

James Calcagnini

James Calcagnini '84, president of East Coast Options Services, a commodities brokerage firm, worked in Building 4, adjacent to the second tower... As he walked across the courtyard, he looked up to see first tower ablaze and minutes later heard a roar and saw the second plane strike....
http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/w2001-02/9-11survive.html

Ted Campanello

Ted Campanello '85 worked on the 29th floor of WTC Building 7 (the smaller, third building to collapse) as a vice president for Salomon Smith Barney. He was on his way to the building and looking up at the smoke coming from the first tower when he saw the second plane coming out of the corner of his eye. When it hit, he ran into the basement of the Hilton Millennium Hotel but after about five minutes went back outside and headed east...
http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/w2001-02/9-11survive.html

Both of the above come from some dumb alumni magazine and are utterly unreliable. Both links are dead.


Dana Carey

‘There's another plane,’ I exclaimed. We watched as it disappeared behind the first tower and was transformed into a ball of fire...
http://www.sygeplejersken.dk/sygeple...ArticleID=7006

The above comes from a Swedish language social website of some sort and is utterly unreliable, not because it is Swedish, but because it is an article, a story and therefore second hand.

FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH CASALIGGI
I left my rollup and my standpipe kit in the lobby. I went outside to the rig, changed the cylinder. While I was changing the cylinder, I was keeping an eye because the chauffeur was hooking up to the standpipe. I was keeping an eye, making sure he didn't get hit with anything.
It was at that time when I saw the second plane hit the building. I called a mayday. I told them the second plane hit the south tower of the building. I wasn't sure which floors it was, but I knew it hit the upper floors of the south tower.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110430.PDF

Well, at last, a VALID SOURCE. Firefighter Casliggi is a valid witness, comes from a valid source, the Task Force Witness Statements (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html). He is a valid witness for the claim a plane hit the North Tower. I think he was with Chief Pfeifer and is a part of the crew filmed by Naudet.

However, as to the second tower, the excerpt relied on by Carlitos is incomplete and is misleading. I do not think Casliggi is a valid witness for what happened at the South Tower, based on his statement, as seen in its proper context.

Here's Casaliggi's statement in its proper context:

"We were actually one of the first
companies on the scene. We pulled up right in
front of One World Trade Center, right into the
cul-de-sac right in front of the canopy.
So we got off the rig. I noticed there
were several people sitting in the grass in front
of the building burned head to toe, gray, just
staring at us. The captain ordered us to grab
four rollups. We went into the building. We
went into the lobby.
The lobby actually looked like the
plane hit the lobby. From what I understand, I
was told afterwards, that a fireball shot down
the elevator shaft and blew out all the windows
in the lobby and blew out the elevator doors.
We searched for an elevator to see if
there was one operating. There was none. The
captain said we were going to walk up the stairs.
At that point my mask had started leaking air
from the high pressure coupling, and I had to go
out and change my cylinder.
I left my rollup and my standpipe kit
in the lobby. I went outside to the rig, changed
the cylinder. While I was changing the cylinder,
J. CASALISSI 4
I was keeping an eye because the chauffeur was
hooking up to the standpipe. I was keeping an
eye, making sure he didn't get hit with anything.
It was at that time when I saw the
second plane hit the building. I called a
mayday. I told them the second plane hit the
south tower of the building. I wasn't sure which
floors it was, but I knew it hit the upper floors
of the south tower."
pgs 3-4


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110430.PDF

Based on where Casaliggi says he was:

"...I went outside to the rig, changed the cylinder. While I was changing the cylinder,..."

He could not have seen a plane on the path that the Shadow thingy was on because he had earlier said, in a part of his statement excluded by Carlitos, that:

"We pulled up right in
front of One World Trade Center, right into the
cul-de-sac right in front of the canopy.
So we got off the rig."

I do not think it would have been possible to see a plane from where that rig was parked, I do not think. Posters are free to argue otherwise and I could be wrong. So, let me repeat what I am here claiming "I do not think it would have been possible...". I am open for discussion. If posters can show that he could have seen a plane from that vantage point, or that he is basing his claim on what he heard, or if there's some other way to accredit his claim, then I will change the count from 0/15 to 1/15 :D
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
I do not think.
Click to expand...
It's fun to play with quotes!

In another 10 years, all of these links will be dead, and there will be no witness to the debate that took place in this thread. Therefore "No Thread."

As an aside, given all of the American grammar we have seen in these threads, coupled with the fact that he didn't recognize the ".dk" domain, referring to it as "Swedish" language, I don't think that the original poster here can be Andrew Johnson. I could be wrong, but I don't think that most Europeans would miss that.
 
jammonius said:
"Verifiable statements from actual people can be disqualified by lack of a link..."

That is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

This is without a doubt one of the top, absolutely dumbest post I have ever seen in my life.

He implies a "link" is the only way something can be "verifiable".

No wonder Britain lost her empire if they were exporting people of this astounding and eye-watering intellectual caliber.
 
Originally Posted by jammonius
"Verifiable statements from actual people can be disqualified by lack of a link..."

That is an oxymoron.


I smell stundie material....
 
Wait, wait, I get it. I get it.

This is like a Monty Python skit. Any second now, Graham Chapman is going out come out in his officer uniform saying "Stop the skit! Stop the skit! It's just too silly!"
 
HawksFan said:
Wait, wait, I get it. I get it.

This is like a Monty Python skit. Any second now, Graham Chapman is going out come out in his officer uniform saying "Stop the skit! Stop the skit! It's just too silly!"
Click to expand...
I have to admit. Since I've been reading his posts with an over emphasized English (with pauses added for effect) accent he's made more sense.


:)
 
Last edited:
Pinch said:
This is without a doubt one of the top, absolutely dumbest post I have ever seen in my life.

He implies a "link" is the only way something can be "verifiable".

No wonder Britain lost her empire if they were exporting people of this astounding and eye-watering intellectual caliber.
Click to expand...


And with most Truthers, the only links they see as containing evidence are the ones that link to Truther blogs or Truther Youtube videos
 
TSR said:
Then why make unsupportable assertions as if they were fact?
Click to expand...


The thing about any claim that is supported by evidence is that those supports can be knocked away. However, if you construct a claim with no supports, there's nothing to knock away. And since, without supports, the claim lays low to the ground, it can typically weather any assault of hurricane-force debunkings.

These features make unsupported claims preferable to supported claims, especially in a hostile environment.

;)
 
Last edited:
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