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

[jammonius]

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...

I have addressed the "whataboutthepassengers" fallacy many, many times, including several times in this thread.

I have said that the NUMBER ONE SHOW STOPPER for NO PLANE discussion is that ditty -- whataboutthepassengers -- howsoever it may be phrased. Titanic's version is as good or, rather, as bad as any other version of it.

I have also said it does little good to really engage in refutation of that ditty, despite it being an obvious fallacy, because it carries too much emotional charge. People cannot discuss it rationally precisely because it is too easily turned into a jingoistic, holier than thou, "I care more about the victims than you do" descent into uselessness.

With those cautions in mind, let me here double check for accuracy of understanding of the following basic facts:

1--People do realize don't they that saying there were passengers presupposes there were planes and does not prove there were any, right?

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

2--There is no authentic passenger manifest for Flight 175 that has ever been shown to exist.

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

Do posters contest the claim of fact that there is no authentic (admissible as evidence) flight manifest for Flight 175?

3--There is no reliable DNA (admissible as evidence) ever produced confirming the death of passengers from Flight 175, the subject of this thread.

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

Do posters contest that claim?

4--United never even issued a clear statement claiming Flight 175 had crashed; and, instead, merely issued an awkwardly worded, ambiguous declaration that referred all inquiries to the FBI.

Do posters acknowledge or challenge this claim? If so, based on what?

In conclusion, while "whataboutthepassengers" is the A-1 show stopper for NO PLANE discussion, it is a simple fallacy that does not withstand the elementary rigors of rational discussion and should not be relied upon by those who are serious about discussion.

On the other hand, for those who are seeking to hold on to their belief in the common storyline of 9/11, I can tell you that there is no better way to do so than to wrap yourself fully and firmly into the ditty: "whataboutthepassengers" and stay there for as long as doing so provides you with the comfort you need.

be my guest

 

[DGM]

1--People do realize don't they that saying there were passengers presupposes there were planes and does not prove there were any, right?

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

The pilot of AA flight 11 John Ogonowski lived in the next town over from me. I met his wife (along with other victims families from the area) at a local memorial.

Were they "in on it"?

 

[DGM]

jammonius:

Just to let you know, this is the fields I fly my planes (sometimes) at. I was at the dedication.

http://www.495thsquadron.org/Fields.htm

 

[jammonius]

DGM,

As predicted, the discussion of passengers is an emotional issue, as is evident in your two preceding posts. Are you sure you want to discuss this? I have no intention of provoking an emotional reaction from anyone.

It is alright with me if you assert that flight 175 crashed into the South Tower and you brook no challenges to that claim.

 

[DGM]

DGM,

As predicted, the discussion of passengers is an emotional issue, as is evident in your two preceding posts. Are you sure you want to discuss this? I have no intention of provoking an emotional reaction from anyone.

It is alright with me if you assert that flight 175 crashed into the South Tower and you brook no challenges to that claim.

I have no problem discussing this issue. The fact I mentioned I live in the area that both AA11 and UA175 departed was only to let you know I have attended memorials and met family members of those who perished. Here's another link to a memorial I attended the dedication.



http://www.tewksbury911memorial.org/

I've met the people (and families of) you claim don't exist.

 

[DGM]

.






The site is paved with red pavers with all the victims names arranged around the central structure. For a small town it's quite moving

 

[BigAl]

I have addressed the "whataboutthepassengers" fallacy many, many times, including several times in this thread.

I have said that the NUMBER ONE SHOW STOPPER for NO PLANE discussion is that ditty -- whataboutthepassengers -- howsoever it may be phrased. Titanic's version is as good or, rather, as bad as any other version of it.

I have also said it does little good to really engage in refutation of that ditty, despite it being an obvious fallacy, because it carries too much emotional charge. People cannot discuss it rationally precisely because it is too easily turned into a jingoistic, holier than thou, "I care more about the victims than you do" descent into uselessness.

With those cautions in mind, let me here double check for accuracy of understanding of the following basic facts:

1--People do realize don't they that saying there were passengers presupposes there were planes and does not prove there were any, right?

Some of us know people that boarded flight 11, 93, 175 or 77 and were never seen again.

I do.

Some of know people that made cellphone/airphone calls and reported hijackings in progress.

I do.

 

[djlunacee]

I have addressed the "whataboutthepassengers" fallacy many, many times, including several times in this thread.

I have said that the NUMBER ONE SHOW STOPPER for NO PLANE discussion is that ditty -- whataboutthepassengers -- howsoever it may be phrased. Titanic's version is as good or, rather, as bad as any other version of it.

I have also said it does little good to really engage in refutation of that ditty, despite it being an obvious fallacy, because it carries too much emotional charge. People cannot discuss it rationally precisely because it is too easily turned into a jingoistic, holier than thou, "I care more about the victims than you do" descent into uselessness.

With those cautions in mind, let me here double check for accuracy of understanding of the following basic facts:

1--People do realize don't they that saying there were passengers presupposes there were planes and does not prove there were any, right?

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

2--There is no authentic passenger manifest for Flight 175 that has ever been shown to exist.

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

Do posters contest the claim of fact that there is no authentic (admissible as evidence) flight manifest for Flight 175?

3--There is no reliable DNA (admissible as evidence) ever produced confirming the death of passengers from Flight 175, the subject of this thread.

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

Do posters contest that claim?

4--United never even issued a clear statement claiming Flight 175 had crashed; and, instead, merely issued an awkwardly worded, ambiguous declaration that referred all inquiries to the FBI.

Do posters acknowledge or challenge this claim? If so, based on what?

In conclusion, while "whataboutthepassengers" is the A-1 show stopper for NO PLANE discussion, it is a simple fallacy that does not withstand the elementary rigors of rational discussion and should not be relied upon by those who are serious about discussion.

On the other hand, for those who are seeking to hold on to their belief in the common storyline of 9/11, I can tell you that there is no better way to do so than to wrap yourself fully and firmly into the ditty: "whataboutthepassengers" and stay there for as long as doing so provides you with the comfort you need.

be my guest

This has to be the most pathetic thing I have ever read. You are very right in one respect, it is an emotional issue, that is very clear. However we don't have to suppose that there were anything but planes, that contained passengers, that supposition is supported by every shred of evidence in this thread. You don't wish to discuss it, simply because that would shatter your fabricated little world, because then you would realize the humanization of the event and it would become a reality, which anyone reading this thread, lurkers, posters, the pillsbury doughboy, all the way up to santa claus will tell you you have no concept of.

 

[excaza]

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.

Ah yes, the crash dynamics are "absurd" because it didn't do what you think would happen, which has been shown numerous times to be completely out of touch with reality.

 

[phunk]

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.

See, there's your problem. No one is asking you to look at enhanced video. We're asking you to stop looking at DEGRADED video and get the originals.

 

[jammonius]

Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation 1/22
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368

I doubt much in the way of rational discussion can come from "whataboutthepassengers" and so absent some indication of a willingness to use reason and data, I'm inclined to rely on what I have already posted on that one. And, as I've said, I've already addressed it many, many times.

What I can usefully do is return to the one-by-one process of refuting Carlitos' post # 1368, containing claims of witnesses to a plane hitting the South Tower. I have already shown that most witness accounts cited by Carlitos are unreliable or inconclusive in some way or another. The next 4 are easily identified as being both unreliable and inconclusive. Thus, at this point, Carlitos' post has yielded a grand total of 1 valid witness.

The next four are:

PARAMEDIC KEVIN DARNOWSKI
Right before the tolls on the Brooklyn side heading towards Manhattan at the Battery Tunnel, we were sitting in traffic and we watched United Flight 175 hit tower two, which was the south tower of the World Trade Center.
At that time everybody was just in shock. The firefighters and I were just really trying to get through the traffic when the plane hit, and we were just standing there in like awe of what was happening.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110202.PDF

The above is easily dismissed as unreliable because he says he "watched United Flight 175 hit tower two." That is obviously a fabrication; or, to put it more generously, a statement aided by other information and not a declaration of what he saw. Neither he nor anyone else saw "United Flight 175" for obvious reasons. Posters know that to be true. What Darnowski saw, if he saw anything from where he was, was a fireball and, perhaps, some sort of flying object. From where he was he could not possibly have seen "United Flight 175" because the specific flight cannot be identified by sight, once again, obviously.

So, Darnowski is decidedly not a reliable witness.

Daya-Dominguez
Gabriella Daya-Dominquez (Husband worked in the South Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11)
"My husband in the meantime, what was occurring with him at that moment was he was just entering his office. He was about 200 yards from the building. He saw the plane coming very low overhead. He saw it make a U-turn and bank right into his building. At that point he said he knew that this was not an accident, this was an attack and all hell broke lose. The pandemonium in the city was already going on. First with the North Tower. People were just standing there staring. They weren't really running, they were just watching. But by the second tower hitting people started running frantically.
http://www.arlingtonva.us/department...1Citizens.aspx (Currently Broken)

The above is easily dismissed as unreliable because it does not even refer to what the witness saw, but rather to what her husband said he saw. That is not evidence.


Police Officer Tracey Donahoo

"One of the officers behind me said, 'Oh my God, Tracey, another airplane is coming!' I could hear the plane just coming and coming, and the engine was getting louder and louder. Then I heard it hit the South Tower. There was a shower of debris and parts of the plane... Airplane parts were falling and crushing police cars...
Women at Ground Zero, Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba


Tracey Donahoo is likewise not an eyewitness and doesn't claim to be one. She only claims hearing a plane and relies for the claimed sighting of one by someone else. She is not a witness who claims to have seen a plane.


Greg Dubinsky

At the time, I was on the eighth floor, watching through the window, after we were informed that the first plane had hit. And I actually saw the second plane vanish behind the building. And the building just erupted in a cloud, a huge cloud of explosion. And I witnessed people jumping, I guess out of desperation from the towers.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...15/smn.12.html

This witness is arguably a valid witness, provided one accepts teevee interviews as reliable and also adopts a number of other assumptions required by this witness' statement. I will reserve judgment on this one. If we get to the end and the PLANE SPOTTERS feel like they need an addition to whatever the final count might be, I'll reconsider this one. At present however, there are too many untested assumptions to credit this one right away.

 

[excaza]

 

[excaza]

so absent some indication of a willingness to use reason and data

Well, at least you admit it.

Thus, at this point, Carlitos' post has yielded a grand total of 1 valid witness

One person saw an airplane hit the tower, so no airplanes hit the tower.

 

[jammonius]

See, there's your problem. No one is asking you to look at enhanced video. We're asking you to stop looking at DEGRADED video and get the originals.

In connection with "originals" we know that the NIST investigation relied on a grand total of 7 videos of the South Tower incident, after which they issued an inconclusive declaration about what was observed. To my knowledge, there has not ever been any officially conducted review of the ALL 43 videos that was used to prove a jetliner hit the WTC in the first place.

I wonder whether you have made your observation about video quality to those who claim a jetliner hit the WTC; or, are you just using the quality claim against those, like me, who you disagree with?

"Quality of evidence" is not a one-way street. Rather, it applies to all who are partiicpating. As I said before, someone posted up links to HD versions, but I can't find it right now. If someone would please re-post the link to the HD versions, I think we can all benefit by examining them and making claims about what the HD versions show.

I have no problem doing that if that is what posters would like to do.

I have said many times, the advantage of the ALL 43 video that is linked in the OP is that it contains all versions in a user friendly format that facilitates discussion. I don't think such a version has been done in HD as yet, but I would imagine that something like that will emerge sooner or later.

The burden to use the best available data applies to all sides, not to just one.

I have used the best available, user friendly data. That data show an indeterminate object at best. Claims about "better data" are only claims about the existence of data. If there are those who claim the HD versions show a better version, then post them.

The ones Carlitos posted have already been refuted.

 

[excaza]

The ones Carlitos posted have already been refuted.

Despite your best effort, no, they haven't.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I have addressed the "whataboutthepassengers" fallacy many, many times, including several times in this thread.

I have said that the NUMBER ONE SHOW STOPPER for NO PLANE discussion is that ditty -- whataboutthepassengers -- howsoever it may be phrased. Titanic's version is as good or, rather, as bad as any other version of it.

I have also said it does little good to really engage in refutation of that ditty, despite it being an obvious fallacy, because it carries too much emotional charge. People cannot discuss it rationally precisely because it is too easily turned into a jingoistic, holier than thou, "I care more about the victims than you do" descent into uselessness.

With those cautions in mind, let me here double check for accuracy of understanding of the following basic facts:

1--People do realize don't they that saying there were passengers presupposes there were planes and does not prove there were any, right?

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

2--There is no authentic passenger manifest for Flight 175 that has ever been shown to exist.

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

Do posters contest the claim of fact that there is no authentic (admissible as evidence) flight manifest for Flight 175?

3--There is no reliable DNA (admissible as evidence) ever produced confirming the death of passengers from Flight 175, the subject of this thread.

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

Do posters contest that claim?

4--United never even issued a clear statement claiming Flight 175 had crashed; and, instead, merely issued an awkwardly worded, ambiguous declaration that referred all inquiries to the FBI.

Do posters acknowledge or challenge this claim? If so, based on what?

In conclusion, while "whataboutthepassengers" is the A-1 show stopper for NO PLANE discussion, it is a simple fallacy that does not withstand the elementary rigors of rational discussion and should not be relied upon by those who are serious about discussion.

On the other hand, for those who are seeking to hold on to their belief in the common storyline of 9/11, I can tell you that there is no better way to do so than to wrap yourself fully and firmly into the ditty: "whataboutthepassengers" and stay there for as long as doing so provides you with the comfort you need.

be my guest

Sounds to me like you don't think the passengers existed. I've met about 20 people who were friends with or related to someone on one of the planes. 9 years on, they are still fu**ing devistated. A co-worker at a former job used to date one of the flight attendents that was killed, he was an emotional basketcase for a couple years, and still can't even talk about 9/11 without crying. His sorrow was NO act.

Do you think everyone who is mouring for people on the planes are putting on 'an act'?

Its a strange world when the likes of hardcore Truther Alex Jones would concider Jam to be a total nut...

Jam, the issue of people on the planes is related to the issue of the planes themselves-
Plane debris, and body parts of victims from the planes were found at all 3 crash sites.


Jam, Let me be clear in asksing a question:

Many people, including people on this board knew people who were on the planes- Are the people who said they were related to and/or knew people on the planes 'liars' and 'in on it'? Or is your insanity so nebulous, that you doubt the existance of the family members?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Some of us know people that boarded flight 11, 93, 175 or 77 and were never seen again.

I do.

Some of know people that made cellphone/airphone calls and reported hijackings in progress.

I do.

I suspect Jam thinks you are lying and thinks you were 'in on it', or he thinks that your stating you knew people who were on the planes 'is your opinion', but as Jam doesn't play '20 questions' as he calls it, don't expect him to elaborate.

 

[djlunacee]

"Quality of evidence" is not a one-way street. Rather, it applies to all who are partiicpating. As I said before, someone posted up links to HD versions, but I can't find it right now. If someone would please re-post the link to the HD versions, I think we can all benefit by examining them and making claims about what the HD versions show.

I have no problem doing that if that is what posters would like to do.

Using your standards, and logic, this means you really won't

I have said many times, the advantage of the ALL 43 video that is linked in the OP is that it contains all versions in a user friendly format that facilitates discussion. I don't think such a version has been done in HD as yet, but I would imagine that something like that will emerge sooner or later.

Really? Then where did the 44th video come from?

The burden to use the best available data applies to all sides, not to just one.

We have, you really need to keep up.

I have used the best available, user friendly data. That data show an indeterminate object at best. Claims about "better data" are only claims about the existence of data. If there are those who claim the HD versions show a better version, then post them.

No, you really have not, the links have been posted in this thread several times, you just choose to ignore them, over and over again.

The ones Carlitos posted have already been refuted.

With what the wave of your hand? Contrary to your beliefs, you really haven't, and your foolishness is convincing no one.

 

[fitzgibbon]

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

And you base this on what exactly? You've seen first-generation broadcast masters of the incidents? If not, yours is the false assertion.

That said, there is certainly nothing wrong with basing one's interpretation on videos that are enhanced,

Which would be meaningful in YouTube videos were an 'enhancement' on the original video.

Except they aren't.

YouTube compression throws away information every time a video is downloaded, reused as part of another video and re-uploaded. It's the digital equivalent of pulling an audio cassette dub of an LP and then dubbing the dub and then dubbing the dub of the dub.

If this is how you define "enhance", perhaps I should introduce you to an English dictionary.

so long as the enhancement does not alter the original.

Which it does. It throws away information at every pass. Which is why you have your beloved splash "shadow thingy".

But you don't seem to want to understand that. You want "shadow thingy" because it seems to answer something in you.

Posters here have made surprisingly little effort to provide examples of high resolution imagery, let alone offering up proof of integrity of such alterations.

Nobody HAS "high resolution imagery" (at least not video) for reasons which I've made clear. Unless they work in the tape library of broadcaster, the best they could have hoped for is digitising from a VHS or maybe Tivo recorded on the day. But even a VHS or Tivo hooked right up to a broadcast tape player is only going to record a signal that's half the resolution of what's being fed to it because they're consumer machines not meant to record hi-bandwidth signals.

So right off the bat in an optimal situation, in a BEST POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE, you have signal loss on the order of about 50%. I won't even go into the additional avenues of signal loss for videos recorded at home.

If posters want to rely on HD, then do so.

They can't because by-and-large, HD wasn't shot on the day in any sort of quantity. NTSC? Yes in copious quantities. But your usual YouTube video is about a tenth the resolution of NTSC and NTSC is about half-to-three-quarters the resolution of HD.

Lots of room for "shadow thingy" to happen.

As the record in this thread now stands, shadow thingy = shadow thingy.

"Shadow thingy" equals a jammonius strawman. Nothing more, nothing less. It's denial on its face.

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;

Actually, a first generation copy (or viewing the original footage) gives you access to the information that YouTube has thrown away over the generations.

Digital (in the consumer sphere) =/= lossless.

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.

And herein you demonstrate your lack of understanding about physics and the fact that can't answer the questions raised my post #985 in this thread. An explosion takes a certain amount of time to happen. When the object of that explosion is going something on the order of 500mph, how does that time and speed change where a reasonable person would expect the artifacts of that explosion to occur?

And BTW, they aren't the "best version available". They're just the "best version available" for free.

Big difference.

Instead, an explosion develops on the opposite side of the building at the wrong time and in the wrong place.

Because you seem to feel that an explosion should've jetted out along the direction that UA175 approached. Which (had it happened) in and of itself would demonstrate conclusive proof that some type of explosives would have had to be in-place at the WTC.

Trouble is, the explosion path conformed to physics, not giving you the Road Runner outcome you seem to desire.

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

They're still at very best half-resolution NTSC copies dubbed down multiple generations rendering your "shadow thingy" assertion continually meaningless.

I'm not sure posters grasp that what HD appears to allow in connection with a slightly clearer image,

HD YouTube is kinda like a F1 Chevy Nova. That is to say, it's an oxymoron.

GIGO.

I'll let you figure out the meaning of that acronym.

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.

No, the video shows a clearly discernible, lower-resolution copy of the broadcast originals from the day.

Television professionals find no fault in them; are you asserting that television professionals world-wide are in on it too?

p.s.

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.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Jam, people on this board knew people (and family members/friends therof ) who were on the planes.

How can you explain away that reality?

Those friends that boarded the 4 planes have not been seen since 9/11. The body parts of many of those victims were found at all 3 crash sites, and returned to the families. What would you say to the people mourining the people who were killed on the planes?

Do you think the mourners don't exist? Do you think they are 'in on it'?