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

[excaza]

If you want to make a claim about a specific image, then, permit me to suggest you post a link to a specific post.

Don't play ignorant.

If you want to post up higher resolution images, do so.

It has already been done, multiple times. You've ignored them all.

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

Your constant dodging smacks of mental deficiency. Permit me to suggest you try to provide some shred of evidence to support any claim you have made in this thread. Discussion of what actually hit the tower is perfectly relevant to the subject of this thread. You made the claims, you back them up. I'm sick of you presenting science fiction instead of reality. I'm sick of your constant dodging. Bring something of substance instead of ignorance. You presented SAIC as a company who had the capability of projecting a holographic image, sound, and/or a DEW from some source. You have offered no proof of this.

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.

You have not supported anything you posted. You have, instead, sought to argue semantics and play word games instead. If you spent half your mental gymnastics effort on supporting your claims, maybe you would have presented something of worth in this thread by now.

 

[excaza]

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.

In what world are those pictures unclear? Every single one looks like an airplane. You can see United's livery, clear as day, in the second image. You are aware of what an airplane looks like, right?

 

[carlitos]

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.

No jammonius.

Those are photographs. From about a dozen different still cameras.

They are not "enhanced."

They are not "from videos," whether on youtube or teevee or anywhere else.

Carry on.

 

[jammonius]

No jammonius.

Those are photographs. From about a dozen different still cameras.

They are not "enhanced."

They are not "from videos," whether on youtube or teevee or anywhere else.

Carry on.

Still cameras? Can you please post up your sources for that claim? Thanks. Furthermore, whether they are from still cameras or are cribbed from one or more of the ALL43 videos, which is what I think they are, they are still not proof of "flight 175" as you claimed. So, my refutation of your claim still stands as a proper correction of your over-statement.

 

[carlitos]

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/United_Airlines_Flight_175_Crash_Evidence

 

[TJM]

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 question here is are you basing your doubts on low quality screen grabs and youtube videos like jammonius is? Then there's your problem.

I've actually met and have worked along side people who were there and saw it with their own eyes. That's just for starters.

You don't seem to be familiar with concepts of propaganda where opinions are
routinely presented as facts<snip>

I'm very familiar with the concept of propaganda. The brasscheck garbage you're pushing is a prime example of it.

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 -<snip>

This would be another example of 9/11 truth propaganda you've bought into:

"False flag operations".

"Evidence is routinely tampered with, forged or concealed."

Straight out of the Truther's Buzzword Dictionary and Coloring Book, which assumes that anyone who agrees with the official narrative is a NWO shill.

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...

And you know this... how? Are you one of those "few"?

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.

But when your brasscheck video tries to draw a conclusion based on "evidence" it fabricates, that's OK then?

IMHO a true
skeptic won't ever accept a piece of evidence, be it official or not, for its face
value.

That assumes I've come to a conclusion based on one side of the story, which isn't true. For instance, just as I know case for the war in Iraq was a huge crock, I've come to the same conclusion in regard to 9/11 truth. The case for war relied upon wildly implausible scenarios such as massive ammounts of hidden WMD and bin Laden in cahoots with Saddam. 9/11 truth does that on an expotential scale. 9/11 truth begins at a conclusion - that Cheney masterminded the whole thing for instance - and works backward to find "evidence" to fit their pet theories, disregarding any contradiction that shows up along the way. It's for this reason that there's so many competing theories, but they do have at least have one thing in common: They are highly implausible, every single one of them. I know this because as with Iraq, I've studied both sides of the issue and come to these conclusions on my own.

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?

No. We were presented with speculation, not facts. I'm not sure what the problem is. Do you think people aren't bright enough to understand what was happening?

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.

What if I told you I shared his opinion and at about the same time he did? No offense but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened to those buildings.

This is the last time I'll respond to this line of questioning as it is not on the thread topic and the mods have warned us several times to stay on topic. If you wish to continue, please start your own thread.

 

[carlitos]

I know that I'll regret this, but...


What would be proof that United Airlines flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center on 11 September, 2001?

 

[excaza]

What would be proof that United Airlines flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center on 11 September, 2001?

Five bucks on the "I don't play rhetorical games" response

 

[dafydd]

Plane.17 plane 1 no plane.This has already been done on another thread and Jammy just ignored it as usual.

 

[Tricky]

Discussion of SAIC and ARA split to it's own thread. Please do not start new topics within threads. Start a new thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[fitzgibbon]

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.

1. Pool your pennies.

2. Get a high resolution dub of the broadcast masters.

3. Realise that your professed belief in "shadow thingy" hangs on poor-quality, multi-generationally-compressed low resolution YouTube video, the video equivalent of seeing the face of Jesus or Mary in a splash of water.

 

[dafydd]

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.

You know that Jammy regards any questions about Ed Felt as ''gotchas''? Answering that question truthfully would shatter his insane delusion.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

How can any sane person think that nobody in NY or NJ noticed planes hitting the Twin towers at morning rush hour?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Jam, I have a direct question for you- please if you can, answer it-

If you don't think planes hit the twin towers- then what happened to the people who were on the planes? Do you doubt they ever existed? Do you think the grieving families and friends are putting on an act? Or do you think they were delivered to a different location, and if so, what is your proof?

We have a small memorial in Boston for the MA residents killed on 9/11, most of whom were on the planes that left Boston (A few worked at the WTC). Are you suggesting most of those names are fictional?

 

[djlunacee]

Those are gotcha questions, and we all know how those go.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Those are gotcha questions, and we all know how those go.

I suspect Jam thinks we are all characters in his dream...So I am certain he thinks the people who were on the planes never existed. This is the one thing no planers can never explain- if they really think no planes crashed, the must think the passengers didn't exist. If they do think the planes were real- where are the passengers? Shanksville no-planers often assert there was a plane, but it landed somewhere else, and the passengers were killed. Their proof? Nothing.

For no planer crackpots, No planes = no passengers, so Jam must think all of the grieving friends, family and coworkers of the murder victims on those planes never existed...It's only a matter of time before one of the more mentally ill 9/11 Truther cult members threatens family members of people who were killed on the planes with violence.

Odds are Jam will not answer my questions about the passengers on the planes, because in his world view, they don't exist, i don't exist, and you don't exist. Only jammy exists.

I'm beginning to suspect we are dealing with a crazy person...

 

[dafydd]

I suspect Jam thinks we are all characters in his dream...So I am certain he thinks the people who were on the planes never existed. This is the one thing no planers can never explain- if they really think no planes crashed, the must think the passengers didn't exist. If they do think the planes were real- where are the passengers? Shanksville no-planers often assert there was a plane, but it landed somewhere else, and the passengers were killed. Their proof? Nothing.

For no planer crackpots, No planes = no passengers, so Jam must think all of the grieving friends, family and coworkers of the murder victims on those planes never existed...It's only a matter of time before one of the more mentally ill 9/11 Truther cult members threatens family members of people who were killed on the planes with violence.

Odds are Jam will not answer my questions about the passengers on the planes, because in his world view, they don't exist, i don't exist, and you don't exist. Only jammy exists.

I'm beginning to suspect we are dealing with a crazy person...

Let's have a vote.Crazy 1 Sane 0

 

[fitzgibbon]

Let's have a vote.Crazy 1 Sane 0

Let's not and let this ridiculous thread drop.

 

[jammonius]

1. Pool your pennies.

2. Get a high resolution dub of the broadcast masters.

3. Realise that your professed belief in "shadow thingy" hangs on poor-quality, multi-generationally-compressed low resolution YouTube video, the video equivalent of seeing the face of Jesus or Mary in a splash of water.

The above is a false assertion about what the data show.

That said, there is certainly nothing wrong with basing one's interpretation on videos that are enhanced, so long as the enhancement does not alter the original. Posters here have made surprisingly little effort to provide examples of high resolution imagery, let alone offering up proof of integrity of such alterations.
I have said before that Femr2 started along that path, but did not develop it. Before Femr2, I think it was DGM who offered up a good weblink for high resolution videos but did not advance the discussion by posting up much, if anything, in the way of comparison.

If posters want to rely on HD, then do so. As the record in this thread now stands, shadow thingy = shadow thingy. There has been no proof offered that HD changes the nature of the image such that anything more or anything less can be said about the image; namely, that in the very best version available, the image is indiscreet and it interacts with the South Tower without exploding, degrading, slowing, etc. upon impact. Instead, an explosion develops on the opposite side of the building at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

The issue with HD versions is that while some may show a slightly sharper shadow thingy, they continue to show absurd crash dynamics.

I'm not sure posters grasp that what HD appears to allow in connection with a slightly clearer image, that same video still casts as much doubt on the event as does any other video by virtue of the false crash dynamics that are seen.

 

[DGM]

The issue with HD versions is that while some may show a slightly sharper shadow thingy, they continue to show absurd crash dynamics.

And you base this on what? Please show us what it SHOULD have looked like and explain.


Sorry, I forgot, you don't back-up your assertions