• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

jammonius

Master Poster
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
2,708
It is claimed there are 43 known video clips of the explosion at Tower 2 or WTC2 or the South Tower.

There is a convenient youtuber that contains these 43 known versions available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg

Looked at as a whole, the compilation that runs for <10min. provides a variety of looks, angles, and degrees of quality concerning what happened to the South Tower.

Posters and Lurkers here know me as a NO PLANER and I know that designation puts me at 6s&7s with most who post here, where it is thought that >80% of you self-identify as 9/11 debunkers and very few of you self-identify as 9/11 truthers and an even smaller percentage self-identify as NO PLANERS even if you self-identify as a truther.

This might, then, be a short thread and there might be little or no interest in pursuing it. It will be possible to post up a still image for use as a "title page" so to speak for each of the 43 versions. I would consider that a group project in which I could participate jointly with others.

We could ask, say, a group of 4 posters to each post up 10 title page stills, for instance.

The first three in the video look like this;

1
1--shadowthingy001.png


2
2--lefttorightblurry018.png


3
3--cbsexplosionnoplaneseen.png


IMHO, one can find more support for the NO PLANE claim when one considers ALL 43 as a group, with some being more consistent with the no plane claim than others. For instance, in a majority of them, it is very apparent that the explosion occurs in the "wrong" place. Basically, there is no explosion upon impact and when an explosion is seen, it is on the opposite sides of the buildings from impact, showing an internal rather than external source of explosion. Thus, the event was pyrotechnic in nature, as a NO PLANER sees it. Note that phrase: as a no planer sees it.

Almost all of you see it differently, probably. However, the drill here is to examine what the video shows. Let me repeat: The drill here is to examine what the video shows. People have the capacity to view information and say what they see and what they hear and draw conclusions from it.

It is likely those who are PLANE SPOTTERS, meaning, of course, they support the viewpoint that Flight 175, a Boeing 767 slammed into the South Tower is supported by all videos. I get that.

No planers, on the other hand, claim no such thing happened. Most people are offended by that. I get that, too.

However, let's look at what the video shows.

Oh, by the way, here's an example of what I mean when I say the explosion is in the wrong place:

217-10soundheard4.png


The above is but one example of the explosion occurring on the east face of the South Tower with nothing much occurring at the point of impact, as though the tower were made of papermache, rather than structural steel.

OK, if there's interest in discussion we can proceed.

I, personally, am not seeking here to convince anyone of anything. I hope we can look at the information and post up claims about what we see and what we hear in this video compilation, thus making this a discussion about the information and not about beliefs.
 
Last edited:
wow, you put maybe an hour or two into this.

too bad it was all for nothing.
 
wow, you put maybe an hour or two into this.

too bad it was all for nothing.

Take a look at this sequence:

800-2bbcstilletto.png


800-3bbcstillettoallinexplosionbegi.png


All in and no explosion seen at point of presumed impact, yet explosion already emerging on east face.

Interesting, right?
 
That does it, I'm convinced!!!



















That Jammie is a troll. Only a troll would take 43 different views from widely varied sources showing that a plane hit a building is evidence of no plane hitting a building.
 
wow, low rez, frame rate limited videos of a 500 mph impact over a space of several 100 yards.

I am convinced also...

TAM;)
 
All in and no explosion seen at point of presumed impact, yet explosion already emerging on east face.

Interesting, right?

INTERESTING! Particularly, as you can't see the point of impact.

Great thread No Planer.
 
Here are the title segments for the next four of the 43:

4
4--stagnesschool.png


5
5--bluegoldlive.png


6
6--fatshadow131.png


7
7--shadowgroupy.png


Once again, the exercise consists in simply looking at and listening to the content of the videos. Video is, afterall, a medium conveying visual images and sound. For purposes of this exercise, the quality of the video, whether it is low or high resolution or whatever is not a determining factor in how useful the process can be.

There's no point in me not owning up to being a NO PLANER, but that is not the issue. It doesn't matter what your perspective is. The point is to look at the data and see what it can be said to reveal.
 
It is claimed there are 43 known video clips of the explosion at Tower 2 or WTC2 or the South Tower.

There is a convenient youtuber that contains these 43 known versions available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg

Looked at as a whole, the compilation that runs for <10min. provides a variety of looks, angles, and degrees of quality concerning what happened to the South Tower.

Posters and Lurkers here know me as a NO PLANER and I know that designation puts me at 6s&7s with most who post here, where it is thought that >80% of you self-identify as 9/11 debunkers and very few of you self-identify as 9/11 truthers and an even smaller percentage self-identify as NO PLANERS even if you self-identify as a truther.

This might, then, be a short thread and there might be little or no interest in pursuing it. It will be possible to post up a still image for use as a "title page" so to speak for each of the 43 versions. I would consider that a group project in which I could participate jointly with others.

We could ask, say, a group of 4 posters to each post up 10 title page stills, for instance.

The first three in the video look like this;

1
[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/1--shadowthingy001.png?t=1273959849[/qimg]

2
[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/2--lefttorightblurry018.png?t=1273959999[/qimg]

3
[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/3--cbsexplosionnoplaneseen.png?t=1273960073[/qimg]

IMHO, one can find more support for the NO PLANE claim when one considers ALL 43 as a group, with some being more consistent with the no plane claim than others. For instance, in a majority of them, it is very apparent that the explosion occurs in the "wrong" place. Basically, there is no explosion upon impact and when an explosion is seen, it is on the opposite sides of the buildings from impact, showing an internal rather than external source of explosion. Thus, the event was pyrotechnic in nature, as a NO PLANER sees it. Note that phrase: as a no planer sees it.

Almost all of you see it differently, probably. However, the drill here is to examine what the video shows. Let me repeat: The drill here is to examine what the video shows. People have the capacity to view information and say what they see and what they hear and draw conclusions from it.

It is likely those who are PLANE SPOTTERS, meaning, of course, they support the viewpoint that Flight 175, a Boeing 767 slammed into the South Tower is supported by all videos. I get that.

No planers, on the other hand, claim no such thing happened. Most people are offended by that. I get that, too.

However, let's look at what the video shows.

Oh, by the way, here's an example of what I mean when I say the explosion is in the wrong place:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/217-10soundheard4.png?t=1273960739[/qimg]

The above is but one example of the explosion occurring on the east face of the South Tower with nothing much occurring at the point of impact, as though the tower were made of papermache, rather than structural steel.

OK, if there's interest in discussion we can proceed.

I, personally, am not seeking here to convince anyone of anything. I hope we can look at the information and post up claims about what we see and what we hear in this video compilation, thus making this a discussion about the information and not about beliefs.
Do you think all the videos were faked??
 
oooh....copyright infringement?

maybe CNN and BBC and ABC and NY1 and CBS woud like a little email.
 
OK, here's one more, this is number 8:

8
8--bridge154.png


In the 8th one, the shadow thing streaks straight across pretty rapidly and then impacts the South Tower. This is yet another instance in which there is no explosion upon impact and when the explosion starts, it is first seen on the south side.

202mostlyinnoexplosionseen.png


202-2allinnoexplosion.png


202-3explosionformingsouthsideonly.png


Note the progression from plane visible at apparent impact; to plane being all in, so to speak; to explosion forming on south face of the tower.

All three have the same 202 time signature. Granted, the resolution is low, but you can verify this by simply looking at the video at the time frames noted; or at whatever segment is of interest to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg


Do posters and lurkers see how the process can work. It is not necessary to make declarations, only to show what the information actually reveals.

It is also possible and useful to post up statements about the sound that can be heard. In connection with the second explosion videos, it seems to me that most of them are either silent or of very poor quality when it comes to picking up the sound of the shadowy moving image.
 
Last edited:
Basically, there is no explosion upon impact and when an explosion is seen, it is on the opposite sides of the buildings from impact, showing an internal rather than external source of explosion.

Yeah, I guess the concept of conservation of momentum doesn't apply to airplane fuel, just everything else in the known universe. :boggled::boggled::boggled:

Should the plane have been see to bounce too? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
9
9--swifty.png


OK, one more for tonight and it's a revealing one. In number 9 there is both intriguing, close up video as well as some sound. I don't think the sound is consistent with a jetliner, but at least the sound is consistent with other descriptions given; like, say, that of Asst. Commis. Stephen Gregory and like that heard in CMs video.

The link for what is called "CMs video" is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuIACIpon7w&feature=player_embedded#!

That video has what I think is the best sound capture of the event that I know of.

IMHO, the sound heard is neither of the type made by a Boeing 767 at full throttle, nor is it heard for a long enough time period to be said to be a jetliner and to match the video imagery.

Now, in an earlier post, I said "no" as my short answer to the question of whether I think the videos are faked. I think some of them might be, but certainly not all of them.

Among those that I think might well be faked includes the one called Chopper 5. I think some of you know that one Ace Baker has made that claim and has done so effectively.

It is easy to see that something is amiss in that video as demonstrated by the following sequence from it:

602chopper5allinnoexplosionJimFried.png


602-2noseoutnoexplosionwherecrashed.png


602-3blackoutafternoseout.png


603explosionafterblankoutafternoseo.png


The above is referred to as evidence of video fakery. I think one can see why and how that claim is made. It is basically a version of FTFY, one supposes.

Again, I don't think all the videos are fake. I think the Chopper 5 one might be.

I also suggest, however, close study of the Number 9 video. The one beginning at the 2:14 time marker in the All 43 video.

good night
 
Yeah, I guess the concept of conservation of momentum doesn't apply to airplane fuel, just everything else in the known universe. :boggled::boggled::boggled:

Should the plane have been see to bounce too? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

In this thread, would you consider being a little more forthcoming and informative in your posting? If there's something you'd like to say about the conseration of momentum as it relates to the crash and explosion video information, why not just do so and add to the substance of the thread?

Once again, I see no reason why PLANE SPOTTERS and NO PLANERS cannot discuss the video data, as data. You know my position, I know yours. No one is trying to change anyone's mind here, I don't imagine. Rather, let's assess the data.

What say you?
 
No need. If they weren't all faked, then obviously at least some were real which deep-sixes your entire no-plane theory.

Thank you for personally putting the spike into two threads with one post. :bigclap

One could just as easily make a claim that proof of 1 being a fake reveals an intentional deception that puts paid to the entire common storyline, one supposes.

Again, I am not here to engage in a food fight centering on PLANE versus NO PLANE; rather, I foresee a discussion of the videos, singly and in the aggregate. The compiled videos are, after all, a source of information. Let's take a look at them; shall we?

OK, I have to stop for now, running late.
 
Last edited:
Take a look at this sequence:




All in and no explosion seen at point of presumed impact, yet explosion already emerging on east face.

Interesting, right?
That is part of the plane which was moving at 800 feet per second. You don't do reality, do you?

You are showing proof of a plane hitting the WTC and the results of the impact. You talk nonsense about an event and have no idea why jet fuel burns along the side of the building.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom