EYEWITNESS CHALLENGE: Are the NO PLANE witnesses better than PLANE SPOTTER witnesses?

[Dash80]

Oh a video jammy, what's the title?

Bonkers Bollocks Redux?

[swright777]

Originally Posted by jammonius

...
2--The military radar is thought to have tracked a stealth object that was projecting the plane image with military image projection technology about which little is known via publicly available information, but about which there are many hints and clues that can be considered.
...

This is the limit of military image projection technology:

Originally Posted by jammonius

...
3--Directed energy weaponry were used to create the holes in the Twin Towers.
...

Only if by 'directed energy weaponry' you mean 'hijacked airliners'.

Originally Posted by jammonius

...
Oh, one final clue:

The video does have a segment featuring Dr. Judy Wood.
...

Thanks for the warning.

[swright777]

Oh goody! Video analysis of radar on 911 from a site about UFOs, free energy and transporters. I think I'll pass.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

This thread puts me more in mind of things coming from under a bridge.

Can you show us the footage of your blob circling the tower yet? Or the nice and clear blob picture you tantalised us with?

No. You can't.

Where's the big billy goat gruff when you need him?

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by jammonius

Greetings, among Posters and Lurkers,

<snipped>

Jammonius

7forever screwed it up for all of you, didn't he?

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by jammonius

Greetings, among Posters and Lurkers,

I would like to thank posters for posting and lurkers for lurking. This thread has been useful. At the top of the list of useful elements is the posting of a legitimate eyewitness--Dash 80. Near the top of useful elements is the demonstrated unwillingness of debunkers to post up actual, verifiable PLANE SPOTTER eye witnesses; at least up until this point, with more than 800 surviving posts already in the thread. As posters can imagine, I and other NO PLANERS might well mention that the very next time some dedicated debunker says "there were thousands of eye witnesses who saw the plane hit the South Tower."

The reason I am signing off of this thread is that I am aware of the recent posting of a new video analysis that relies on 3-D modeling and careful use of radar data, civilian and military and that comes to the following conclusions, among others:

1--26 of the known videos, using NIST data as the video source, show an identical flight path that match the civilian radar data, but which contradict the military radar data.

2--The military radar is thought to have tracked a stealth object that was projecting the plane image with military image projection technology about which little is known via publicly available information, but about which there are many hints and clues that can be considered.

3--Directed energy weaponry were used to create the holes in the Twin Towers.

My initial impression is that the video is superb and will be essential for anyone who takes 9/11 seriously to consider, be they debunker, truther, or some other category, including the category of not wanting to be labeled in any particular way. The video was prepared by Richard D. Hall and can be accessed, at the moment, at:

http://www.richplanet.net/911.php

It may be that some other poster will find it useful to open a thread on the new video before I do. That would be fine. I need to study the video in some depth before considering opening a thread.

Oh, one final clue:

The video does have a segment featuring Dr. Judy Wood.

Enjoy and Learn,

Jammonius

Meh, can't be bothered. It's just Judy Wood and she's nobody.

[JohnG]

Originally Posted by jammonius

Oh, one final clue:

The video does have a segment featuring Dr. Judy Wood.

Enjoy and Learn,

Jammonius

Whenever I see a 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist trying to be arch and condescending, I envision a chimpanzee wearing a monocle. The monocle may make the chimp appear more intelligent and urbane, but at the end of the day he's still a chimp.

[Wolrab]

Hey, 7forever, here is your chance to shine. The driver (pilot) did it!

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Hey, 7forever, here is your chance to shine. The driver (pilot) did it!

7forever is now 7fornever

[Wolrab]

Smack down by da man godess!
I have only skimmed this thread. Still just cherry picking and quotes from people that didn't happen to be looking up for the infamous millisecond?

[EventHorizon]

Originally Posted by jammonius

"there were thousands of eye witnesses who saw the plane hit the South Tower."

Actually it's probably more like tens of thousands. I mean, the towers were visible from most of NE NJ, and then there's the people in Manhattan and Staten Island and Long Island. Yeah, tens of thousands at least.

Quote:

Enjoy and Learn,

An odd thing for somebody who has shown no ability to learn anything to say.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Why are you showing us a video of a plane crashing into a building?

Wings, tail, fuselage, yep, it's a plane.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...99681e4d0b.jpg

Zoomed in, it is even more clearly in focus as it passed the gap between the north and south towers on screen.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by jammonius

Greetings, among Posters and Lurkers,

...

1--26 of the known videos, using NIST data as the video source, show an identical flight path that match the civilian radar data, but which contradict the military radar data.

... Enjoy and Learn,

Jammonius

How far off was the military RADAR? What is the average error, and which RADAR site was the data from? It appears someone plotted the data wrong. What RADAR site was the civilian RADAR from?

Wow, your holographic fantasy has a RADAR track? Is each RADAR site seeing a different plane? You are going to use the RADAR tracks of the same plane to make up more, or believe more insane claims?

Originally Posted by jammonius

2--The military radar is thought to have tracked a stealth object that was projecting the plane image with military image projection technology about which little is known via publicly available information, but about which there are many hints and clues that can be considered.

This is fantasy.


Why did people fail to see the Stealth Object flying right next to the holographic fantasy image you speak of?

Oh, the planes are Black and you can't see them at night?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft

OOPS, they are not invisible, and 911 happened in daylight, the black plane would standout! You have 911 nonsense down to an art.

The video fails to make a valid point

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by beachnut

How far off was the military RADAR? What is the average error, and which RADAR site was the data from? It appears someone plotted the data wrong. What RADAR site was the civilian RADAR from?

Wow, your holographic fantasy has a RADAR track? Is each RADAR site seeing a different plane? You are going to use the RADAR tracks of the same plane to make up more, or believe more insane claims?


This is fantasy.


Why did people fail to see the Stealth Object flying right next to the holographic fantasy image you speak of?

Oh, the planes are Black and you can't see them at night?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft

OOPS, they are not invisible, and 911 happened in daylight, the black plane would standout! You have 911 nonsense down to an art.

The video fails to make a valid point

The best colour to camouflage planes in the daytime is pink.
http://io9.com/5872484/why-world-war...ink-camouflage

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Zoomed in, it is even more clearly in focus as it passed the gap between the north and south towers on screen.

Yes, it is clearly a plane. I blame bad eyesight on the part of 7forever.

[George 152]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Yes, it is clearly a plane. I blame bad eyesight on the part of 7forever.

I put it down to a sad case of wishful thinking and a lack of empathy for those murdered on 911

[minnemouse]

Originally Posted by dafydd

The best colour to camouflage planes in the daytime is pink.
http://io9.com/5872484/why-world-war...ink-camouflage

Cool, Dafydd That was new to me.

Hmmmm. It just hit me... Pink hair, pink clothes.... That probably makes for being invisible amongst real scientist?

[MIKILLINI]

Originally Posted by jammonius

<snip>
3--Directed energy weaponry were used to create the holes in the Twin Towers.



The video does have a segment featuring Dr. Judy Wood.

Enjoy and Learn,

Jammonius

Translation: There's a whole bucket of epic fail yet to come.

[TJM]

Originally Posted by jammonius

Greetings, among Posters and Lurkers,<blather snipped>

The reason I am signing off of this thread is that I am aware of the recent posting of a new video analysis that relies on 3-D modeling and careful use of radar data, civilian and military<snip>

Video review, AJM8125
San Francisco, Ca
21 May 2012

Before I begin, my hat's off to the video's creator for giving me the best laugh I've had in years from a truther video. It's a true delusional masterpiece and one that I'll cherish for as long as my evening's supply of beer holds out.

The video, which I don't recommend watching, is apparently a 22 minute infomercial promoting Judy Wood's book and for that reason alone it should be shunned. On the other hand, It does contain pure no-planer comedy gold, which is why I'll bother with a synopsis:

Apparently, two separate radar tracks have been obtained: One from civilian authorities and the other from the 84th RADES. We know it's from the 84th RADES because there's a screen grab from a spreadsheet with numbers and "84th RADES" on it, so naturally it's genuine.

The civilian radar track matches all the existing video footage of Flight 175's approach and impact. The 84th RADES track shows a completely different track to impact, until it converges with the civilian radar track, suggesting that a "stealth" aircraft was flying a parallel course.

It's left for the viewer to decide if this "stealth" aircraft is actually projecting the "hologram" of UAL 175 - The one that nobody saw with their owns eyes - and now we have to consider a second aircraft, a stealth version which apparently crashed into the same place as the hologram 175 did.

I'll leave the obvious holes in logic for my readers to work out. My head hurts now.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Video review, AJM8125
San Francisco, Ca
21 May 2012

Before I begin, my hat's off to the video's creator for giving me the best laugh I've had in years from a truther video. It's a true delusional masterpiece and one that I'll cherish for as long as my evening's supply of beer holds out.

The video, which I don't recommend watching, is apparently a 22 minute infomercial promoting Judy Wood's book and for that reason alone it should be shunned. On the other hand, It does contain pure no-planer comedy gold, which is why I'll bother with a synopsis:

Apparently, two separate radar tracks have been obtained: One from civilian authorities and the other from the 84th RADES. We know it's from the 84th RADES because there's a screen grab from a spreadsheet with numbers and "84th RADES" on it, so naturally it's genuine.

The civilian radar track matches all the existing video footage of Flight 175's approach and impact. The 84th RADES track shows a completely different track to impact, until it converges with the civilian radar track, suggesting that a "stealth" aircraft was flying a parallel course.

It's left for the viewer to decide if this "stealth" aircraft is actually projecting the "hologram" of UAL 175 - The one that nobody saw with their owns eyes - and now we have to consider a second aircraft, a stealth version which apparently crashed into the same place as the hologram 175 did.

I'll leave the obvious holes in logic for my readers to work out. My head hurts now.

A stealth aircraft that shows up on radar? That's some radar!

Here, have a beer.

[Dash80]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Video review, AJM8125
San Francisco, Ca
21 May 2012

Before I begin, my hat's off to the video's creator for giving me the best laugh I've had in years from a truther video. It's a true delusional masterpiece and one that I'll cherish for as long as my evening's supply of beer holds out.

The video, which I don't recommend watching, is apparently a 22 minute infomercial promoting Judy Wood's book and for that reason alone it should be shunned. On the other hand, It does contain pure no-planer comedy gold, which is why I'll bother with a synopsis:

Apparently, two separate radar tracks have been obtained: One from civilian authorities and the other from the 84th RADES. We know it's from the 84th RADES because there's a screen grab from a spreadsheet with numbers and "84th RADES" on it, so naturally it's genuine.

The civilian radar track matches all the existing video footage of Flight 175's approach and impact. The 84th RADES track shows a completely different track to impact, until it converges with the civilian radar track, suggesting that a "stealth" aircraft was flying a parallel course.

It's left for the viewer to decide if this "stealth" aircraft is actually projecting the "hologram" of UAL 175 - The one that nobody saw with their owns eyes - and now we have to consider a second aircraft, a stealth version which apparently crashed into the same place as the hologram 175 did.

I'll leave the obvious holes in logic for my readers to work out. My head hurts now.

I'm glad I didn't watch this, the website was bad enough. BTW is jammy Andrew Johnson?

[brazenlilraisin]

Nope, Jerry Leaphart.

[Dash80]

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin

Nope, Jerry Leaphart.

Oh. I stumbled into Andrew's site after jammy linked to the stupid video.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php

Seems like Trademark jammy to me.

[TJM]

Originally Posted by Bell

A stealth aircraft that shows up on radar? That's some radar!

Here, have a beer.

A radar track and stealth aircraft brought to us by the the Military Industrial Complex^TM, which isn't to be believed.

Here's your beer back.

Originally Posted by Dash80

I'm glad I didn't watch this, the website was bad enough. BTW is jammy Andrew Johnson?

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin

Nope, Jerry Leaphart.

Personally I think jammy is Andy, though Jerry is also a very strong candidate.

[Jack by the hedge]

A stealth plane that does show up on radar, but can't be seen with the naked eye?

Obviously they installed the stealth module back-to-front.

[leftysergeant]

Maybe 7forever is Andrew.

[Dash80]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Maybe 7forever is Andrew.

Doubtful. Our dear 7 has a very immature posting style. Andrew/jammy atleast TRY to convince us they are clever with their (his?) verbose waffling.

[phunk]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

A stealth plane that does show up on radar, but can't be seen with the naked eye?

Obviously they installed the stealth module back-to-front.

They borrowed it from wonder woman.

[WTC Dust]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

A radar track and stealth aircraft brought to us by the the Military Industrial Complex^TM, which isn't to be believed.

Here's your beer back.





Personally I think jammy is Andy, though Jerry is also a very strong candidate.

This shows your lack of research skills. The two people are not the same people. One lives in the United States. The other lives in the UK.

[Dash80]

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

This shows your lack of research skills. The two people are not the same people. One lives in the United States. The other lives in the UK.

Which ones? Jerry and Jammy? Andy and Jammy? You didn't specify.

Not that it matters, I couldn't care less who is who. I just noticed Andrew Johnson's "style" is very similar to Jammy's.

[TJM]

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

This shows your lack of research skills. The two people are not the same people. One lives in the United States. The other lives in the UK.

Sherlock ******* Holmes everyone!

*AJM8125 applauds*

[Bell]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Personally I think jammy is Andy, though Jerry is also a very strong candidate.

No, he *is* Jerry Leaphart. I investigated this myself back in the day. I've lost that research now, maybe Oystein still has it? I forwarded it to him.

[jaydeehess]

well I see that Canada's long weekend caused me to miss some action here

What really strikes me is jamms continuance of referring to King as a no plane witness despite no other report of a helicopter impact nor anyone referring to the sound of a helicopter. Since this makes it patently obvious that King's impression of the sound was in error and since King in fact had zero ability to visually check what he was hearing he simply cannot be a no plane witness.
The reason this is so striking is that it illustrates the extent to which jamm's is willing to distort, misrepresent, and twist witness statements to shoehorn them to his own purposes.

He compounds this by rejecting a witness who states he was "100% " certain that he watched a plane hit because the person next to him did not see it and was most likely not looking up, was a superior NYFD officer.

It would be funny if not for the fact that he is claiming that the dozens of people who died on those planes were fakes. Urinating on graves is the epitome of unfunny

[Macgyver1968]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Sherlock ******* Holmes everyone!

*AJM8125 applauds*

Ha!!!

[jaydeehess]

then there is the sad saga offorever who asserts that I (ok he says"no one so I include myself") saw a recognizable plane hit the tower.
Too bad he was unable to prove it, but suffering the same delusions that jammonius and Ms. Wood is just not evidence that such delusions are valid

btw, after friday and saturdays rains, sunday and monday were very nice days off

[Dash80]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

well I see that Canada's long weekend caused me to miss some action here

What really strikes me is jamms continuance of referring to King as a no plane witness despite no other report of a helicopter impact nor anyone referring to the sound of a helicopter. Since this makes it patently obvious that King's impression of the sound was in error and since King in fact had zero ability to visually check what he was hearing he simply cannot be a no plane witness.
The reason this is so striking is that it illustrates the extent to which jamm's is willing to distort, misrepresent, and twist witness statements to shoehorn them to his own purposes.

He compounds this by rejecting a witness who states he was "100% " certain that he watched a plane hit because the person next to him did not see it and was most likely not looking up, was a superior NYFD officer.

It would be funny if not for the fact that he is claiming that the dozens of people who died on those planes were fakes. Urinating on graves is the epitome of unfunny

Jammy is willing to twist things whichever way he likes to get his desired result.

He tried this with my witness account too, he just winds up looking like a twat.

[MIKILLINI]

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

This shows your lack of research skills. The two people are not the same people. One lives in the United States. The other lives in the UK.

Oh no Tracy, did you really write this? I'm shocked! Shocked I say!

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

then there is the sad saga that whoever asserts that anyone (He says "no one" so I include myself as being accused of lying) saw a recognizable plane hit the tower is lying. The assertion being that in no video that played on 9/11 or seen afterwards, does a recognizable passenger aircraft appear. I take some umbrage at being told I am a liar.

Too bad he was unable to prove it, but suffering the same delusions that jammonius and Ms. Wood is just not evidence that such delusions are valid

Re-written to make a modicum of sense

[yankee451]

Originally Posted by Dash80

Ok, fair enough.

Who: Myself, obviously. Also my sister.

When: 8:47am-9:03am

Where: Battery Park City apartment (visiting my sister who had married a New Yorker and moved there in 1999) with a good view of the towers to the North East and of West Street.

What: I guess you would class this first part as a so-called no-plane witness but I was asleep at the time of the first crash. Something woke me, the sound of the explosion maybe. I saw something out the window and went over for a closer look, seeing debris and paper raining down, flames and smoke shooting from the south side of the North Tower.

My sister had woken at the same time, she had that same feeling of being suddenly wrenched from sleep by a loud noise. We watched in horror as the building burned. It was just a couple minutes later when people started to jump, my brain couldn't immediately process that those falling shapes were people. The window was open slightly, sirens blaring all around us.


We were so paralyzed by what we were seeing neither of us even thought of turning on a tv. There was a faint smell of something, my sister (a flight attendant) recognized it as jet fuel. We couldn't see the gaping hole in the North face but it seemed possible a plane had struck the building.

I heard a roaring sound and looked out to try and find the source. A large blue-looking plane streaked by. I also thought I saw a flash of red and being a Brit it made me think of a BA plane's livery. The plane hit the South Tower within about 3 seconds of seeing it. We evacuated our building right after this.

Why: Not exactly sure what you mean here but why did I see a plane? Because I was looking at it, no mistaking what it was to me even if my initial thought on it's airline livery was wrong.

Hope this helps, whatever you make of it.



Anneliese.

EDIT: I would like to add that although my instinctual thought was British Airways, my sister had no doubt which airline it belonged to. The very same one she worked for, United. She was very sure of this.

What's with the French names.

I have met many online characters who have claimed they saw the jets enter the buildings with their own eyes. One even claimed he was a fireman evacuating people from WTC7, standing directly below the south tower, looking straight up when 175 hit.

Mostly the tactic is to use some perspective they read about or saw on T.V., and make it sound unique by putting their own personal twist in the story. In the fireman's case he was obviously using the perspective of a couple other Frenchmen, Jules and Gedeon Naudet, who filmed the first AND second strikes. I don't know if he was a pro or just disturbed, but his story didn't add up and sure enough, after enough contradictions were exposed, he finally admitted he hadn't seen squat.

So you can understand my excitement to meet you. You make my fifth online personality eyewitness! And you even gave me a map and a good description of your experiences, for which I am grateful. Alas it turns out your apartment complex isn't where you pointed to, but that's an easy mistake to make so I won't hold that against you.

You were amazingly close to yet another Frenchman, Luc Courchesne who had set up shop to film the second strike just up the street from where you were. You could have hit him with a spitball, imagine the coincedence! You sure you don't know him?

Luc's footage was on the Naudet film "9/11" a full two years before it was released to the public, so I'm assuming you folks with the French names must like to stick together.

Anyhoo, since Luc immortalized the time period you described, and ironically enough, from practically the same perspective, we can see a couple things immediately.

One, you have eagle eyes to be able to recognize jumpers at that distance.

Two, there were no jumpers, watch the video and see. You'll also see how distant you were.

Here we see your location:



I got the impression you just woke up and got out of bed, but you must have meant you were in the street. No matter though, this is how it looks today:



Eagle eyes Anneliese



Here's Luc Courchesne's perspective - just up the street from you.



Here's the closest I could get to the same spot in Google Earth:



Which puts you both right like so:



Here's Luc's footage, including the second strike.


I have the full length footage too, which includes the audio, but there is no mention of the jumpers; but he was very excited to catch the plane. This footage doesn't include the sound but as you can see - it was quite some distance, and there were no jumpers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggH89ssUw7I

In conclusion, your description of events uses evocative, emotional language, as propagandists usually do, your perspective mimics that of Luc Courchesne's, and you were too far away to identify jumpers even if there had been jumpers.

I'm pretty sure you didn't see a jet fly through a steel skyscraper with your own two eyes.

[brazenlilraisin]

There are no words.




(none that wouldn't violate the MA anyway)