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

[BigAl]

it would be very very cool..if we had the technology to project a hologram like this on to thin air. a hologram that could be seen hundreds of feet away, and miles away.

In brilliant direct sunlight.

 

[Blaupunkt69]

In brilliant direct sunlight.

Yes, we can't even solve the problem of backlit screen like on tv's, computers, etc being interfered with by natural light. Its the reason radar and sonar rooms on naval ships are in dark windowless rooms or so I assume. Any viewing screen I've seen the military employ in direct sunlight attempts to create its own darkroom with tall walls to create shade.

 

[dafydd]

On the subject of holograms, where is the evidence that the technology exists at anywhere near the level needed to confuse so many people? Where are the previous generations of this technology, ones that wouldn't be believable enough to fool everyone on 9/11? You would think we would have seen real world applications of such a technological achievement. Just imagine how valuable a tool like this would be for use by militaries on the battlefield. Usually they are the first to get to use the most advanced technologies before the public and even so they will often show them off to the public without giving up too many details.

The conspirators had the help of their little alien buddies from Area 51.Piece of cake.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Arguments from personal ignorance and beliefs rock!!

Why do assert that a plane crashing into the buiding would have created smoke and flames from the IMPACT hole, where there is NOTHING TO BURN?

Not to mention the fact that most of the stuff that WAS in the area, would have been pushed to the OPPOSITE side of the building, due to the fact that a HUGE AIRLINER traveling at ~733 FPS impacted there?

I wanna know Jam. Please state your evidence as to why you think otherwise.

Thanks.

 

[charmer]

Were you actually making a point?

Why, yes. My point was that I know there are numerous posts of yours in this thread alone that bring absolutely no substance to the discussion and whose sole purpose is to ridicule, harass or distract. In other message boards I frequent you'd be most likely issued warnings for spam... Even if this conduct seems to be tolerated here, I think it is not encouraged.

Truthers do not understand skepticism. if they did, they would understand that a
true skeptic does not make claims...he only seeks to provide evidence that a
claim is wrong or faulty or fallible.

but instead of just suggesting the govt. story about 9-11 is wrong, they go on
to suggest that there was a huge evil NWO Mossad conspiracy to stand down the
air force, launch a missile into the Pentagon, get all the people of 3 planes
and put them all into the plane that crashed at shanksville, put themite in wtc
1, 2, & 7, etc etc.

and when you make an amazing claim like this....the low burden of proof for a
skeptic is no longer valid. when you make amazing claims, amazing evidence is
required.

and when it comes to providing amazing evidence for their amazing claims,
Truthers have failed..miserably.

this is why there has not been a new investigation. this is why no one of
any real significance takes them seriously.

Oh, this I think is so true. I'd just add that some of the offliners (short for
hardcase official line defenders or suck-ups) don't seem
understand skepticism either. Instead of admiting that they couldn't verify all the
official evidence, they just accept it, possibly being the victim to 'appeal to
authority' fallacy, and use it to thrash anyone who happens to be skeptical of
it for whatever reason.

charmer, do you have an alternative explanation as to what plane impacted the
WTC on 9/11? Posting that might be easier than trying to guess what your point
is.

No, I don't. And I suspect you and the other members keep asking this to make me
do the stupid thing Thunder mentioned. I don't have a theory, I don't know what
exactly happened. I'm just a skeptic looking at the evidence others tell me not
to look at and try to find an explanation. That's what I think being skeptical
means...

The problem is, charmer, is we see what you're doing. You see, not only do you
have no explanation for the HUGE amount of evidence that supports the
commonly-held narrative of that day without some lame "they faked it" crap, you
have absolutely NO narrative to submit in its place that fits ALL the available
evidence better than the one that rational people all over the world accept.

Couple that with a delightful arrogance in the face of this. This intrigues me.

Are you speaking for others then? I think you have about the same chance to
critically examine and verify the official evidence as any random "truther" and
while some of them tend to do the stupid thing of creating a theory which they
proceed to present as the only explanation without hard evidence, you seem to do
the similar thing - hide behind the pile of "huge" evidence you let yourself
convinced with and ignore everything else. I'm sorry but that to me looks like a
biased position, not skeptical.

See what?

I guess I'm gonna have to repeat myself again. Above I have acknowledged the plane
eyewitnesses in my response to Carlitos in my previous post. You've asked basically
the same thing.

...
The person that produced the video took these "opinions" as somebody trying to
pass them off as facts and tried to make that a fact, rather than his "opinion".
This is what's known as a paranoid delusion. Again, a rational person will
consider the source.

You don't seem to be familiar with concepts of propaganda where opinions are
routinely presented as facts and of abuse of power and false flag operations where
evidence is routinely tampered with, forged or concealed. Let me give you two
examples right from the top of my head - Colin Powell's "official evidence" about
WMDs in Iraq and Pentagon's official and elaborate diagram about the super modern
underground cave complexes in Afganistan - both have been heavily disseminated through
media which I believe you are very well aware of. In effect these were the
examples of lies presented as evidence. And manufactured in a perfectly
compartmentalized environments of government, administration, military and secret
services where everyone but a few just do their jobs without questions...

It happened before many times in history - the people in power _will_ lie and
fabricate evidence if they choose to and if it suits their ends. IMHO a true
skeptic won't ever accept a piece of evidence, be it official or not, for its face
value.

But let's get back on track here - of course I've considered the source of the clip
to the effect that they present an interpretation of the media coverage of
911. I didn't know the footage of the last two thirds and after examining it and
considering it was on air right on 911, I conclude we were presented with a
_conspiracy theory_. Do you agree?

About the eyewitness from the clip. If you honestly believe that the guy was a
genuine eyewitness with a prophetic _opinion_, then I guess it answers my
question and I won't pester you with it again. I just remain skeptical.

Incorrect. The burden of proof is on the Truthers to back their conspiracy
theories. The facts of what happened on 9/11 are on the public record. 19
hijackers crashed 4 planes- 2 in NY, one in PA and one in Washington.
The planes crashed, people called from the planes, airplane wreckage was found
at each crash site, the WTC and Washington crashes were filmed, body parts of
the plane passengers were recovered from each site. There were witnesses for all
of the plane crashes.
19 Islamic psychopaths commited mass murder that day. That is fact, the proof is
ironclad.
Why do Truthers feel the need to be apologists for radical Islam? Most truthers
seem extra eager to blame the Jews..
Truthers have ONLY speculation of an inside job, and they pull insane theorires
out of their asses without any proof.

If you think 9/11 was some kind of conspiracy, the burden is on YOU to back your
claims.

This is the reason why Truthers NEVER provide proof to back their claims...they
don't think they need proof.

About the "ironclad evidence" you mentioned - we don't discuss it here and
there's no reason to bring it up. This is a Red Herring fallacy. Besides in
principle, we can have all the evidence in the world supporting something but if
we can find contradicting piece of evidence to that, all of it becomes dubious.
That I believe is a skeptical approach. We can't look the other way no matter how
inconvenient the conclusion might be.

I'm also afraid you're lumping radical truthers and skeptics together here.
Some of them have theories of an inside jobs, some are skeptical of certain aspects of
reasoning and evidence in the official line. And then you go off and call them
"apologists for radical Islam"?? Seriously? Can't imagine a bigger strawman
right now...

Anyway, how would you back up your emotional claim that the burden of proof is
on me? I didn't present any conclusive theory as to what the problems with the
videos might mean. I merely tried to argue that they are there. If we are to
remain factual and on topic, we should discuss the videos or don't discuss them,
but all this ranting about maniac truthers brings nothing to the discussion
except for the display of their counterparts - the Offliners.

 

[excaza]

Airplanes flew into the towers.

/thread

 

[Dog Town]

snip...
I merely tried to argue that they are there.

BINGO!
Now back it up!

 

[excaza]

About the "ironclad evidence" you mentioned - we don't discuss it here and
there's no reason to bring it up. This is a Red Herring fallacy.

A red herring attempts to change the subject. Bringing up the evidence of the airplanes hitting the towers (body parts, airplane parts, videos, photographs, eyewitnesses) is not changing the subject of whether or not airplanes hit the tower. I don't know how you can get more relevant to the topic. I know it's fun to throw around 'xxxx fallacy' to sound cool, but try to understand them first.

Besides in
principle, we can have all the evidence in the world supporting something but if
we can find contradicting piece of evidence to that, all of it becomes dubious.
That I believe is a skeptical approach. We can't look the other way no matter how
inconvenient the conclusion might be.

Argue principles all you want, it's irrelevant.

Other than arguments from incredulity and ignorance, pretty much the only argument used is 'we can't just accept everything we hear or see on TV' along with absolutely no evidence to support the conspiracy theory that the evil government or jews did everything. Arguing for the sake of argument, it's stupid.

If you can show evidence that no planes crashed into the towers, present it. It hasn't happened yet.

You don't seem to be familiar with concepts of propaganda where opinions are
routinely presented as facts and of abuse of power and false flag operations where
evidence is routinely tampered with, forged or concealed. Let me give you two
examples right from the top of my head - Colin Powell's "official evidence" about
WMDs in Iraq and Pentagon's official and elaborate diagram about the super modern
underground cave complexes in Afganistan - both have been heavily disseminated through
media which I believe you are very well aware of. In effect these were the
examples of lies presented as evidence. And manufactured in a perfectly
compartmentalized environments of government, administration, military and secret
services where everyone but a few just do their jobs without questions...

It happened before many times in history - the people in power _will_ lie and
fabricate evidence if they choose to and if it suits their ends. IMHO a true
skeptic won't ever accept a piece of evidence, be it official or not, for its face
value.

So the people in power lied and fabricated everything that happened on 9/11 and covered it up so perfectly that there's no whistleblowers or evidence to show they dropped the towers on purpose, but couldn't plant some nukes or biological weapons in Iraq as 'evidence' of WMDs in order to justify the invasion? Yeah, that makes loads of sense.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I'm just a skeptic looking at the evidence others tell me not to look at and try to find an explanation. That's what I think being skeptical means...

Most people would define "being skeptical" as looking for and finding an explanation that better fits observed phenomenon than the accepted explanation does.

You're just being a curmudgeon. Big difference.

Anyway, how would you back up your emotional claim that the burden of proof is on me? I didn't present any conclusive theory as to what the problems with the videos might mean.

You doubt. With or without an actual contrary argument, t'is up to you to provide meaning to the doubt, not for others to put meat for you on your skeleton of an argument.

I merely tried to argue that they are there. If we are to remain factual and on topic, we should discuss the videos or don't discuss them, but all this ranting about maniac truthers brings nothing to the discussion except for the display of their counterparts - the Offliners.

Meaningful discussion of the videos means that both sides have to have individuals who know what their talking about as concerns the videos, individuals who see through the smoke screen that is jammonius and his repetitive, know-nothing repetition of "shadow thingy" or Ace Baker and his wacked-out Avid realtime effects excuses. JREF sports individuals who work professionally in television, who understand that downloads of multipass encoded-decoded video of footage that has gone through FSM-knows-what-sort-of-transmission-and-recording-chain with who-how-many passes of information being thrown away (not to mention being blown-up in ways that would seriously degrade first-generation footage) are meaningless. Posters like jaydeehess, Gumboot, myself.

If 'truthers' were actually interested in dissecting the video they claim is so vital to proving their point about no-plane or RC plane or whatever new nuttery, they'd pool their pennies, license first-generation clones of the footage they hang their YouTube hats on and preserve quality. Instead, they prefer to pursue the video equivalent of seeing the face of Jesus or Mary in a splash of water, all the while mocking those who recognise a splash for a splash.

It really is all about faith with them because if they ever stepped back from their Church of Dylan, they'd realise what fools they actually are.

 

[DGM]

It happened before many times in history - the people in power _will_ lie and
fabricate evidence if they choose to and if it suits their ends. IMHO a true
skeptic won't ever accept a piece of evidence, be it official or not, for its face
value.

I believe the word you wanted is cynic not skeptic.

 

[charmer]

A red herring attempts to change the subject. Bringing up the evidence of the
airplanes hitting the towers (body parts, airplane parts, videos, photographs,
eyewitnesses) is not changing the subject of
whether or not airplanes hit the tower. I don't know how you can get more
relevant to the topic. I know it's fun to throw around 'xxxx fallacy' to sound
cool, but try to understand them first.

Actually, this thread is supposed to examine the
videos of the second hit. Correct? Some argue that the OP's question is to
decide whether there was a plane involved in real world. It is my opinion, as
I've stated before, that the question of a plane should apply for the videos
themselves. In any case, bringing up body parts or airplane parts, as well as
bringing up 19 Islamic psychopaths does only very loosely relate to the topic of
the videos. Maybe not loosely enough for you to accept it but in any case, I
responded to NutCracker that I'm not responsible to provide alternative
narrative as a skeptic, to which Titanic Explorer replied that, paraphrased,
if truthers come up with their wild claims they have to prove them. Textbook Red
Herring, sorry. I didn't come up with any CTs and only came here to discuss the
videos of the second hit. Instead I seem to be mired in an slightly off-topic
meta-discussion.

Argue principles all you want, it's irrelevant.

Other than arguments from incredulity and ignorance, pretty much the only
argument used is 'we can't just accept everything we hear or see on TV' along
with absolutely no evidence to support the conspiracy theory that the evil
government or jews did everything. Arguing for the sake of argument, it's
stupid.

If you can show evidence that no planes crashed into the towers, present it. It
hasn't happened yet.

I wonder why do you keep talking about jews and whatnot? In this thread I only
want to examine the videos of the second hit. Are you interested in that or not?
There are questions I addressed to Dumb_all_over along with the link to a video
analysis in my posts above. I'd be glad if you could comment on them (or tear
them apart, so to speak ).

So the people in power lied and fabricated everything that happened on 9/11 and
covered it up so perfectly that there's no whistleblowers or evidence to show
they dropped the towers on purpose, but couldn't plant some nukes or biological
weapons in Iraq as 'evidence' of WMDs in order to justify the invasion? Yeah,
that makes loads of sense.

You see, now you're constructing a conspiracy theory. I never suggested such a
thing nor am I interested to bog down in this doesn't-make-sense-to-me argument.
False official evidence was there for all eyes to see, no need to wrap it up in
some kind of a theory. Investigation is another matter though.

All I know is that people in power are perfectly capable to do nearly anything
they damn please and to manipulate people is one thing they excel in. Read
Propaganda, read 1984. In the information war you can have not only doublethink
but triplethink or worse. There are provocateurs in the truth movement for all
I know and there are also false debunkers. You know how it is with spys,
especially in US, right? But I don't want to go there, let's stick with the actual
topic...

Most people would define "being skeptical" as looking for and finding an
explanation that better fits observed phenomenon than the accepted explanation
does. You're just being a curmudgeon. Big difference.

Thanks for the judgment but apart from it being another tangent, we might have a
confusion in definition here. From what I'm told skepticism is any questioning
attitude, or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for
granted. In this case, that all the videos we have of the second hit are
genuine.

You doubt. With or without an actual contrary argument, t'is up to you to
provide meaning to the doubt, not for others to put meat for you on your
skeleton of an argument.

Sure, the skeleton of my argument was in my first post here. I just don't consider
myself responsible to prove a theory I didn't make. I don't analyse the motives,
I don't weave theories, I just don't believe or understand certain aspects of
the videos - feel free to enlighten me.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Most people would define "being skeptical" as looking for and finding an explanation that better fits observed phenomenon than the accepted explanation does.

You're just being a curmudgeon. Big difference.

Thanks for the judgment but apart from it being another tangent, we might have a confusion in definition here. From what I'm told skepticism is any questioning attitude, or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted. In this case, that all the videos we have of the second hit are genuine.

Not tangential at all. You can be skeptical all you like but without some logic or other sensible backstop of an argument, you're just JAQing off like so many have before you.

Have some courage in your own conviction.

Sure, the skeleton of my argument was in my first post here. I just don't consider myself responsible to prove a theory I didn't make.

See above re. "courage"

I don't analyse the motives, I don't weave theories,....

JAQing off. Like I said earlier.

I just don't believe or understand certain aspects of the videos - feel free to enlighten me.

Enlighten yourself. Educate yourself. Analyse what it is that bothers you. Ask intelligent questions of professionals in the particular field.

In short, do your own fargin' legwork

 

[fess]

Charmer;
All of those words to basically say;

“I don't have a theory, I don't know what
exactly happened. I'm just a skeptic looking at the evidence others tell me not
to look at and try to find an explanation. That's what I think being skeptical
means...”

If you don’t have a theory, or an opinion, why waste all those words and your time posting to this thread?

 

[BigAl]

I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11.

.

How did a hologram make my workmate, Ed Felt and 4 757/767 jets disappear on the morning of 9/11? We know he boarded a plane that was hijacked and the last thing we know was that he made a cell call while the plane was over PA.

 

[jammonius]

Most people would define "being skeptical" as looking for and finding an explanation that better fits observed phenomenon than the accepted explanation does.

I agree with that expressed above. However, as we shall see below, it is not at all clear that Fitzgibbon agrees with that which s/he has actually posted. That is interesting.

Fitz may live with a rather significant internal contradiction. That is too bad.

...

Let us here cut to the chase and examine the apparent contradiction in what Fitzgibbon expressed above compared with what follows:

Meaningful discussion of the videos means that both sides have to have individuals who know what their talking about as concerns the videos, individuals who see through the smoke screen that is jammonius and his repetitive, know-nothing repetition of "shadow thingy" or Ace Baker and his wacked-out Avid realtime effects excuses.

The above contradicts the first quote from Fitzgibbon precisely because actual observation demands that we refer to the image of a supposed jetliner seen in the ALL43 videos precisely as a "shadow thingy" because that is what the image looks like. It is reactionary in the extreme to say that what is seen in the image is a jetliner, let alone a Boeing 767 and still less a specific flight of a specific airline because there is no rational way to infer those claims from what is seen.

Look at the video. What the video consistently and uniformly show is an indiscreet, undeciperable blob that could be any one or two of a large number of things. Not only skepticism, but science, forensics, investigation, and the search for accuracy of assertion all demand that we refer to what is seen in the ALL43 videos as "a shadow thingy" because that is the most accurate way to describe what is seen. True, the word 'thingy" is colloquial, but meaningful in the context. The more exacting, but boring nonetheless, way of describing it would be as follows:

A shaded and/or blurry object that is sometimes discreet enough to say it might be a plane of some sort and sometimes not discreet enough to make that claim. Another way of describing what is seen is that it is an unclear moving object.

So, shadow thingy = unclear moving object

And that is the truth of the matter in the context of the ALL43 videos.

JREF sports individuals who work professionally in television, who understand that downloads of multipass encoded-decoded video of footage that has gone through FSM-knows-what-sort-of-transmission-and-recording-chain with who-how-many passes of information being thrown away (not to mention being blown-up in ways that would seriously degrade first-generation footage) are meaningless. Posters like jaydeehess, Gumboot, myself.

Fitz, you have not posted up any visual evidence that makes the shadow thingy or the unclear moving object any less shadowy or any more clear than it is in the ALL43 video. There have been some posts, by Fem42, of some visually altered images from one or two of the ALL43 videos. However, altering them from a perspective of confirming they are a Boeing 767 is a highly tainted, flawed and seriously deficient process. Doing that is a form of tampering.

If 'truthers' were actually interested in dissecting the video they claim is so vital to proving their point about no-plane or RC plane or whatever new nuttery, they'd pool their pennies, license first-generation clones of the footage they hang their YouTube hats on and preserve quality. Instead, they prefer to pursue the video equivalent of seeing the face of Jesus or Mary in a splash of water, all the while mocking those who recognise a splash for a splash.

The quality issue expressed above is misguided. One cannot change the video and make claims about what it shows. As posters, we all deal with the information and the data-sets that are available to us. In this respect, NIST, in its use of video data available to it, made no strong assertion that what was seen was an actual Boeing 767. Rather, it merely said, in substance, that what it inferred was partially validated (and therefore partially invalidated) by the observational data.

We have a right to rely on that admission of contradiction issued by NIST. The NO PLANE claim is supported by valid evidence.

It really is all about faith with them because if they ever stepped back from their Church of Dylan, they'd realise what fools they actually are.

Hey Fitzgibbon, have you just declared yourself right and someone else wrong?

It appears as though you have done that. One wonders exactly what interest you seek to advance with that sort of self-congratulatory declaration.

Permit me to suggest you refrain from that sort of posting, if you can.

 

[excaza]

There have been some posts, by Fem42, of some visually altered images from one or two of the ALL43 videos. However, altering them from a perspective of confirming they are a Boeing 767 is a highly tainted, flawed and seriously deficient process. Doing that is a form of tampering.

Of course it looks unclear, do you know how much youtube compresses videos? You have been provided multiple high resolution photographs and images, yet you consistently revert back to the awful quality youtube videos you first latched on to. Wake up. Using low quality youtube videos to make conclusions about 9/11 is a form of stupidity.

The quality issue expressed above is misguided. One cannot change the video and make claims about what it shows. As posters, we all deal with the information and the data-sets that are available to us. In this respect, NIST, in its use of video data available to it, made no strong assertion that what was seen was an actual Boeing 767. Rather, it merely said, in substance, that what it inferred was partially validated (and therefore partially invalidated) by the observational data.

You seem to be glossing over the fact that the compression used by youtube (particularly those from before youtube started accepting higher resolutions) is changing the video. Unless you've got the original footage, or higher quality media, you're making conclusions based on bad information. You're making your conclusions based on cherry-picked media. You have ignored the higher resolution media provided to you. Media that shows an airplane hitting the tower. It looks like an airplane, sounds like an airplane, it's an airplane. Not a hologram and sound beamed from a satellite or whatever other ludicrous idea you've come up with.

We have a right to rely on that admission of contradiction issued by NIST. The NO PLANE claim is supported by valid evidence.

No, it's not. You have argued only semantics, and have provided no evidence to support your claims of DEW, holograms, and other nonsense. The only things supported here are your delusions.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Why don't you answer some very pertinent questions from upthread, J? Oh, and don't dismiss them until you understand what "rhetorical" "20 questions" and "gotcha" actually mean.

 

[jammonius]

Of course it looks unclear, do you know how much youtube compresses videos? You have been provided multiple high resolution photographs and images, yet you consistently revert back to the awful quality youtube videos you first latched on to. Wake up. Using low quality youtube videos to make conclusions about 9/11 is a form of stupidity.

Once again you engage in a priori assertion. The very best of the images posted in this thread continue to only show an unclear moving object i.e., "shadow thingy." This is a thread about observational data. The first few pages contain the most images. After that, limits were placed on the posting of images. The images are there. If you want to make a claim about a specific image, then, permit me to suggest you post a link to a specific post.

For instance, the following two posts can be used to provide a contrast between similar quality videos. The one is from the ALL43 compilation, set out in the OP; the other is from a hijacking offshore the Indian Ocean:

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5939412&postcount=59

Each video is of similar quality and is from the same source. Yet, the characteristics of the one offshore Indian Ocean is much more clearly identified as a jetliner than are most of the ones from the ALL43.

What is at stake here is a differentiation between what "quality" stands for. In the enhanced versions of shadow thingy the assumption has been to slant the enhancements toward making the blurry, unclear moving object, appear more like a jetliner. That is not quality. That is alteration.

You seem to be glossing over the fact that the compression used by youtube (particularly those from before youtube started accepting higher resolutions) is changing the video. Unless you've got the original footage, or higher quality media, you're making conclusions based on bad information. You're making your conclusions based on cherry-picked media. You have ignored the higher resolution media provided to you. Media that shows an airplane hitting the tower. It looks like an airplane, sounds like an airplane, it's an airplane. Not a hologram and sound beamed from a satellite or whatever other ludicrous idea you've come up with.

If you want to post up higher resolution images, do so. I have addressed the issue of how quality works and of how comparison of like-kind quality still allows us to see a more discreet jetliner in youtube videos of jetliners versus youtube videos of shadow thingy, about which the claim it is a jetliner simply cannot be made because that is not what it looks like in most of the videos.

No, it's not. You have argued only semantics, and have provided no evidence to support your claims of DEW, holograms, and other nonsense. The only things supported here are your delusions.

Your "catch-all" concluding paragraph smacks of desparation. Permit me to suggest you try to stick to the subject at hand.

You have not refuted what has been posted. You have, instead, sought to use the issue of "quality" in a way that supports falsification of data, rather than accurate representation of what the data show.

 

[carlitos]

Claim:

These are photos of flight 175, which impacted the WTC.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Luke_Cremin.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Traub1.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Myers.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Rob_Howard.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Taylor.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Unnamed_2.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Unnamed_6.jpg

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:Flight_175_Unnamed_4.jpg

 

[jammonius]

These are photos of flight 175, which impacted the WTC.

Posters and Lurkers,

In the above, we can now see very clearly how delusion and misrepresentation work. Note Carlitos' declaration. There is no way that altered images that retain, as their primary characteristic that of a shadowy object, that Carlitos posted up can be said to be "flight 175." That is a factually false claim. Carlitos has over-interpreted the images Carlitos posted.

An accurate description of what can be said about the images Carlitos posted is that they are enhanced versions of the unclear moving object, which enhancements are taken from video ## __, ___, ___ and ___ of the ALL43 video.

Carlitos shunned a chance to be accurate about the information at hand; and, instead, made a claim that overstates what the data can reliably and verifiably be said to show.

That is too bad. Further, the need to overstate the data is a symptom of a desire to hold onto the common storyline of 9/11. Carlitos is advocating the common storyline rather than allowing the data to speak for itself.