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

[Tinfoil Hater]

So Jammy's 'proof' that no planes hit the towers are videos that show planes hitting the towers?


Jam, you never answered my question- what do you feel for the people who were killed on 9/11?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

There has not ever been an official, valid, properly investigated determination of what happened.

]

A flat out lie. You just choose not to believe the findings.

Jam, what would YOU concider to be a 'valid, proper investigation into 9/11'?
Would it be one, that like you, has already drawn a conclusion, with no facts to support it?

ps- where is Ed Felt? I'm still awaiting an answer

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

As to sanity, as it relates to common, ordinary emotional well being among people in a society, I would say that strong belief in common storyline of 9/11is a form of coping mechanism.

Consider, if you would, the impact on your emotional well-being of coming to the recognition that the common storyline is false. How much of an emotional investment in the common storyline do you have? What would happen to you if you were to stop believing in the common storyline? Needless to say you do not have to post answers here. These are things you can consider, think about, or reject as you see fit.

What do you have to say about the human beings who boarded the planes on 9/11 and have not been seen alive since? What do you think happened to them?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Let me check for accuracy: Are you saying you are right and they are wrong, or what?

Yes. I am as equally qualified or more so than the vast majority of them.
and you realise the list is simply those that signed a petition not active members. Also do you know that not a single peer reviewed paper has emerged from these groups.

The above is not in the least bit logical. You have not proven that 1000s saw anything.

And you have not proven they did not. Simply put no one has ever asked them to come forward and testify to what they saw.

Even your cohorts will tell you that the above is factually inaccurate. As for me, I will go further and say that your quoted claim is not merely inaccurate, it is delusional, as to yourself; and, misleading as to the rest of us.

What cohorts??? Please name a single gov. agency that asked for members of the public to come forward and give sworn depositions to say what they witnessed. No appeal was made because no appeal was necessary. The videos and physical evidence plus the official reports of Fire and policemen, DNA etc makes eyewitness testimony from the public utterly superfluous. Do you really imagine your fantasy version would last 5 minutes in any court?

Yes I not only doubt, I here assert that when put into a position where telling the truth matters, next to no one will claim they saw and heard a widebody jetliner.

Why? If 40 or so people filmed it, is it not likely that at least 10X saw it?
We have at least one eye witness that posts here. How many eye witnesses do you have that did not see a plane when they should have...zero!

Let me know if anything in the preceding sentence is unclear to you and I will clarify it for you as best I can.

I understand you perfectly. You are simply mistaken

I have said many, many times that the people who were documented to be in the best possible place to observe and who had either a duty or a professional reason to be observant report neither seeing nor hearing a plane, let alone a jetliner.

Nonsense, everyone who was looking in the right direction reports seeing the plane. If they were looking in a different direction they merely heard the sound. Since the impact was hundreds of feet above their heads, by the time they heard either the plane or the impact all they would have seen is the explosion, which is what they report.

Two of the best who fit the description of being in the best documented place and who had a duty to be observant and who report neither seeing nor hearing a jetliner are:

Asst. Commissioner Stephen Gregory
Photographer David Handschuh

Let me know if anything in the above list naming Stephen Gregory and David Handschuh as quinessentially important NO PLANE witnesses is unclear to you and I will do what I can to clarify further.

How are they the best? please clarify why you think this is the case.

Yes. I have documented that very issue in this thread. Video segment # 12 of the ALL43 shows no plane and, equally significant, the people in the video, i.e., the people behind the camera also do not comment on a plane; and, instead, make the statement that is consistent with the best witnesses referring solely to an explosion; or, to use the exact words in that video segment:

"...they're bombing it..."

I documented this early on. See post # 68

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5939580&postcount=68



There are two to four of the ALL43 videos that do not show a plane. This is already documented in this thread. You are not up to speed.

Get back to you tomorrow on that when I have had the time to plough throught them again (but I'm sure others have already refuted your assertion)
please give us the time of the two clips.

You apparently still do not realize that beliefs are not being questioned. People can continue to believe in the common storyline of 9/11 for as long as they can as far as I am concerned.

They are being questioned! what do you think truthers have been doing for 9 years! And those questions have been satisfactorily answered for 9 years.

As to sanity, as it relates to common, ordinary emotional well being among people in a society, I would say that strong belief in common storyline of 9/11is a form of coping mechanism.

And I would say irrational disbelief is a sign of insanity. Maybe the official story line is all force but there is no compelling evidence for that being the case and none at all for the insane no plane idea.

Consider, if you would, the impact on your emotional well-being of coming to the recognition that the common storyline is false. How much of an emotional investment in the common storyline do you have? What would happen to you if you were to stop believing in the common storyline? Needless to say you do not have to post answers here. These are things you can consider, think about, or reject as you see fit.

I have considered it and barring a credible alternative I see no reason to disbelieve it. What is your credible alternative? I have no emotional attachment to it at all. I am an engineer, things make engineering sense or they don't. The official theory has zero engineering problems, yours has nothing but......so rationally which one should I regard as more correct?

Anecdotally, I here assert that I am aware of many people who simply do not wish to go there. That is, many people who do not wish to think deeply about 9/11 because they don't think they can do anything about it and deeper thought would only "depress" them.

I don't get depressed. It would simply be an interesting problem for me to solve. I'm not American so I really have no stake in whether or not the Gov. did it...I can get on a plane and go back to UK anytime I please.

It is not so much that they believe the common storyline, rather, they simply do not want to take the risks to their sense of well-being that consideration of the falsity of that storyline would entail.

I believe in it as far as the tech subjects go. Sure W might have fooled some terrorist into thinking they were doing this for some Islamic reason but I have no way to say one way or the other so its of little interest to me. It would affect my well being not one iota.

That is understandable. That is one reason why I always reiterate that I do not question people's beliefs and that I am very comfortable with people continuing to believe the common storyline for as long as they can.

You question them all the time and we question yours. All we are asking you for is for you to back up your assertions with solid research. hand waving away questions and other people testimony is not research, its wild guesswork.

Let me put it plainly: The people who post here are obviously willing to put their emotional attachment to the common storyline to some degree of risk. That is commendable. Others are not willing to do that. Some come here, but block out my posts. One has to ask: Does that make them feel better?

who knows? You are quite obviously mentally ill, some have more time for the mentally ill than others.

Goodness knows I am not here seeking to upset anyone.

Then why are you here? you are convincing no one.

 

[lapman]

There are two to four of the ALL43 videos that do not show a plane. This is already documented in this thread. You are not up to speed.

That means that 39 to 41 of the ALL43 videos do show a plane. Thank you for confirming what you have been vehemently denying for so long. By your standard and you clear admission, the fact that 2 to 4 don't show a plane means specifically that all the others show a plane and your "shadow-thingy" was only a denial tactic to what you do in fact know. This shows that your "assertion" that there were no planes is actually a lie, since your statement clearly shows that you, in fact, believe that there were planes that crashed that day. So, the question now is, what is the point of this thread?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

As the digest that I am doing is nearing its end

Please let it be so!

There is so much NO PLANE data and information that one can confidently say "no widebody jetliners hit the WTC on 9/11, and none crashed in Shanksville or at the Pentagon either."

Then why have you not shown us it then????? EWhy have you wasted your time and ours on thing s that all clearly show a plane???

Upon that statement I stand.

who cares?

Now, back to the digest:

37--8:20-8:26 Aircraft rate of descent continues, flight does not level off.
38--8:26-8:30 Descent of 6300ft in last 40 seconds per NTSB
39--8:30-8:31 Rate is 157ft/sec
40--8:32-8:36 Rate is 785ft in last 5 secs before "impact"

RADAR DATA ends at about 1500 to 2000 feet high. So tells us nothing about the path for those last second other than it was in a rapid descent towards the south tower

41--8:36-8:38 Here begins the comparison with the video. Shadow thingy comes in straight in the version shown. I suppose I should make a determination as to which of the ALL43, per our numbering system, are being shown in the video. I will endeavor to do that once the impact of this video is disgested by posters, lurkers and victims family members.

yep definitely a plane hitting a building

42--8:39-8:42 Another version showing a level approach, completely at odds with NTSB data.
43--8:42-8:44 Another version, level approach, therefore video must be fake (or radar is).
44--8:44-8:52 Another version "according to NTSB report this is fake"
45--8:52-9:01 Another version "according to NTSB report this video shown by BBC is fake"

At odds with what? the RADAR data does not cover the last few seconds and last 1000 feet of descent so is irrelevant as to whether or not the videos are faked or not.

Why did you and your friend not spot the height that the RADAR data ends is much higher than the impact point on the south tower? This must be really embarrassing for you and him. All that time making a video and covering up his voice just to make it clear to all that he is an fool.

Perhaps when you invest so much of your time on a CT video you might actually check it carefully first

 

[excaza]

A big super secret government agency is capable of secretly creating and powering space-based lasers, creating volumetric projection, firing a laser beam at a tower without damaging any other building, and undertake the most comprehensive propaganda in human history without anybody but the truthers noticing. However, they are not capable enough to falsify the radar data to show the airplane isn't going faster than the Vne (after which the plane apparently just disintegrates according to the youtube experts) or just pick an airplane that wouldn't disintegrate at that speed.

Makes sense. Glad super-crusader jammonius is here to point out the obvious inconsistencies that mere mortals miss.

 

[EventHorizon]

I haven't checked this thread since yesterday. Has jammy still not figured out that a 747 and 767 are two different planes?

 

[fess]

Jammy;
It fascinates me that you place all of your faith on an idiotic video produced by an aviation idiot to try and prove your theory. You did this while not doing any research on your own to see if this video was indeed flawed or not. And, indeed it is flawed in more ways than just one.
BTW, I found the video below on my own, no thanks to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jop84CpeFrk&feature=channel

The video is flawed from the very beginning when the producer states that the 747 and the 757/767 have the same flight characteristics. That is a total, inexcusable lie. Just look at the difference in the spec’s of the two aircraft. Not to mention the fact that the 747 has a wing area of 5825 sq/ft, while the 757/767 wing area is 1994 sq/ft. the thrust to weight ratio of the 747 is .27 to .29, while the 757/767 is .32 to .34. And one lie leads to others if you really watch the video.

Like I said, basing your theories on falsities only makes you theories false.

If you sincerely consider this video a valid source, I have this bridge I own in NYC that you may be interested in buying. It has a perfect view of where the towers once stood.

One other thing, people keep talking about these terrorists “flying” the aircraft, they weren’t flying, they were aiming!

 

[BigAl]

A big super secret government agency is capable of secretly creating and powering space-based lasers, creating volumetric projection, firing a laser beam at a tower without damaging any other building,

And making noises indistinguishable from those of a 757/767 running flat out.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

And making noises indistinguishable from those of a 757/767 running flat out.

or apparently a subway train or a bus according to Jammo. Makes you wonder if he has ever heard any of them in real life.

 

[jammonius]

Please let it be so!

It appears you are sick and tired of having to consider analysis and data concerning what the available data actually show. That may be understandable as the data are confirming no Boeing 767 hit the South Tower. Is that why you're eager for this to end?

Then why have you not shown us it then????? EWhy have you wasted your time and ours on thing s that all clearly show a plane???

I have shown it, post in and post out; including this one as we shall very soon see.

who cares?

No planes hit the WTC.

Now, back to the digest:

RADAR DATA ends at about 1500 to 2000 feet high. So tells us nothing about the path for those last second other than it was in a rapid descent towards the south tower

Sheeples, you do not know what you are talking about. There is no rational reason for you to spout such erroneous drivel, all the while continuing to refuse to source your claims.

This is basic. The chart from the video, derived from the NTSB flight path study, is not unclear. It is depicted in # 37 in the digest. Here it is again, slightly larger so that it cannot be missed. It clearly shows that the data end at a point where the alleged jetliner is no more than 1000ft in altitude and the time of that last altitude reading is between 9:02 and 9:03.

See the chart?

Furthermore, the NTSB report, also quoted above plainly, says that the last radar reading was at 1000ft.

For further reference, see the NTSB report itself, which I will here, you guessed it, source:

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_ Path _Study_UA175.pdf

See pg. 2

So, once again, lurkers and victims family members. Claims made (by me) are documented and sourced and shown to be correct.

Posters here are likely to just plain overlook that I document my claims. But, here it is, right in front for all to see.

Sheeples claims are both wrong AND unconfirmed, in any event.

That is why the video has validity. It is accurate as to what it claims and what it simulates and what it compares the simulation to; namely, the videos that do not show a descent, rapid or otherwise; and, instead, show a level path for shadow thingy, with one or two exceptions.

yep definitely a plane hitting a building

The problem is the ALL 43 videos generally show a level flight path for shadow thingy. This means there is a clear and unmistakable contradiction between the teevee shadow thingy and the NTSB flight path study that is simulated in the video under consideration.

At odds with what? the RADAR data does not cover the last few seconds and last 1000 feet of descent so is irrelevant as to whether or not the videos are faked or not.

There is no basis for the above statement. It is wrong. It is not sourced. The alleged impact was not a 0 altitude. The explosion and claimed impact was at the 80th to 81st floor (where our Stanley Praimnath was camped out). That is, the explosion and claimed impact was at or near 1000ft, just as the radar shows. The problem is that the radar do not permit a claim of a level flight path into the South Tower. There was no level flight as per the radar, but there was level flight as per shadow thingy, thus a basic contradiction clearly exists.

Why did you and your friend not spot the height that the RADAR data ends is much higher than the impact point on the south tower? This must be really embarrassing for you and him. All that time making a video and covering up his voice just to make it clear to all that he is an fool.

Your claim is neither true nor sourced.

Perhaps when you invest so much of your time on a CT video you might actually check it carefully first

You've got a lot of nerve, not having sourced a single claim you've made on this matter.

The basic fact is now out in the open. The videos and the radar data do not match.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

No planes hit the WTC.

Why don't you visit Manhattan and say this to people, see how many teeth you still have at the end of the day..
Thousands of people who were there saw the planes hit the towers . I dare you to visit New York and call the eye witnesses liars.

 

[EventHorizon]

Why don't you visit Manhattan and say this to people, see how many teeth you still have at the end of the day..

Is it possible to possess a negative amount of teeth?

 

[lapman]

No planes hit the WTC.

We now know that this is a lie. Even you stated:

There are two to four of the ALL43 videos that do not show a plane.

This clearly shows that you believe that a plane is in all the other videos or you would have refered to your usual denial tactict of stating "shadow thingy." So, jamm, what is the purpose to this thread?

 

[dafydd]

I haven't checked this thread since yesterday. Has jammy still not figured out that a 747 and 767 are two different planes?

He's probably still working that one out.

 

[Andy_Ross]

A big super secret government agency is capable of secretly creating and powering space-based lasers, creating volumetric projection, firing a laser beam at a tower without damaging any other building, and undertake the most comprehensive propaganda in human history without anybody but the truthers noticing. However, they are not capable enough to falsify the radar data to show the airplane isn't going faster than the Vne (after which the plane apparently just disintegrates according to the youtube experts) or just pick an airplane that wouldn't disintegrate at that speed.

Makes sense. Glad super-crusader jammonius is here to point out the obvious inconsistencies that mere mortals miss.

Exactly the same as Apollo Hoaxers. Only they can see the evidence, all the worlds experts and professionals are hoodwinked by the conspiracy but a few lone trhuthers on the internet can see right through it.

 

[jammonius]

Only according to you, that doesn't make it a valid point.

This is the point made by me that you are referring to:

"Originally Posted by jammonius
There has not ever been an official, valid, properly investigated determination of what happened. "

Your reply is blatantly incomplete. If you are going to take exception to my claim, and do it validly, then, you must list what you assert constitutes a "proper investigation."

I have gone over that many times by indicating that the limitations associated with the following investigations that are the only ones that have been done:

1--FEMA report
2--Congressional Committee bruhaha in 2002, led by Sen. Graham
3--9/11 Commission Report
4--NIST Report

Not one of those was a properly conducted, validly carried out investigation of what happened, and scarcely anyone claims otherwise.

So, if you are going to claim entitlement to contradict the claim I have made, it would behoove you to list the investigation you think was valid and proper and let us at least have the opportunity to take a look at your -- you guessed it -- "source."

Your post fails to do that.

This statement actually made me laugh out loud. I've never been so throughly convinced that I'm attempting to debate facts with a certified looney.

What do you think you have accomplished in the foregoing?

How, pray tell, are we to have a debate with you when you clearly don't operate on the same reality plane as the rest of us?

You appear to be declaring that you are right and I am wrong, Sabretooth. I say "appearing" because you actually pose your declaration as a rhetorical question. As you are relatively new, I will here indicate that I have frequently admonished posters for engaging in rhetoric as a substitute process for making claims. If you've got something you want to say, come right out and say it.

Secondly, I have likewise admonished posters for finding it necessary to make self-congratulatory statements about how "right" they are and how "wrong" I am. Instead, it is a better practice to simply post up your claims, source them, prove them on an a posteriori basis and let those who are reviewing the thread form their own conclusions about what is being posted. It can be presumed that you think what you post is true, correct, virtuous and such like. You don't have to say that you think you are right. We presume that. And, you don't have to say I'm wrong. All you have to do is validate your claims.

Got it?

 

[TSR]

Not one of those was a properly conducted, validly carried out investigation of what happened, and scarcely anyone claims otherwise.

.
Citation?

What does it take to get you to source your claims?
.

 

[jammonius]

A flat out lie. You just choose not to believe the findings.

Jam, what would YOU concider to be a 'valid, proper investigation into 9/11'?
Would it be one, that like you, has already drawn a conclusion, with no facts to support it?

ps- where is Ed Felt? I'm still awaiting an answer

What does it take to get you to source your claims?