|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
17th May 2012, 09:55 AM | #121 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
Jack,
Thank you for making a proper claim. Please verify that you are speaking of eye witness Asst. Comm. Stephen Gregory. That is who I am assuming you are referring to. I posted his account in the OP. Here is the OP quote for ready reference: "Q. Did you see or hear the second plane before it hit the World Trade Center? A. I never actually saw the plane, but l heard it. You could hear it coming in and then we heard the explosion and you could hear the roar of the plane coming in. At first I didn't realize it was a plane. I thought it was like the roar of fire, like something had just incinerated, like a gas tank or an oil tank. It sounded like a tremendous roar and then you heard boom and then there was a big fire, a lot of fire, a big fireball. I never actually saw a plane hit the building. I never saw that. I saw it on television, but I never saw it while I was standing there."http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110008.PDF pg21/25 If you apply the analytic technique employed by LashL, I think you'll be able to see that he is not unequivocally saying "he heard a plane" as you claim. In the interest of brevity, I won't here elaborate this claim of equivocality further, as the actual statement is quoted and I think you'll readily agree that his statement about what he heard is equivocal or ambiguous, at best. It can actually be interpreted as him saying he did not hear a plane, correct? |
17th May 2012, 09:58 AM | #122 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
|
Is jammonius a proponent of holographic planes?
If so, I honestly don't understand what significance "this person didn't see a plane" has as support for that particular fantasy. The implication of the argument is, obviously, that someone didn't see a plane when they should have seen a plane. However, with the whole holographic plane nonsense, it just comes off as this additionally bizarre claim that the holographic projection was simply not perceptible to certain individuals. It's just pure nonsense all around. |
17th May 2012, 09:59 AM | #123 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,529
|
|
__________________
The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground. |
|
17th May 2012, 09:59 AM | #124 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:02 AM | #125 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,529
|
|
__________________
The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground. |
|
17th May 2012, 10:02 AM | #126 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
Been there, done that. I do not claim all videos are fake. I claim some are. I claim most are inconclusive.
I did all that six ways to Sunday in a thread that I provided the OP for that ran for 3875 posts: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...175654&page=97 If you start from the beginning and go through that thread, you will find an assessment of all 44 known video clips of the shadow thingy said to have been, but not proven, FL 175. This thread is different. It involves posting up eye witness accounts, sourced and linked. So far, debunkers have not done much posting, have they? |
17th May 2012, 10:04 AM | #127 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,529
|
|
__________________
The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground. |
|
17th May 2012, 10:04 AM | #128 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:08 AM | #129 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:09 AM | #130 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
No. Wrong. That's the very thing which cannot be inferred.
On the contrary, the fact that he explains that he was initially unable to discern that what he was hearing was indeed another plane, yet he refers in his statement to its being a plane directly implies that he does in fact, at the time of his statement, believe it was a plane. Therefore he cannot be inferred to be a no-planer as the two states of mind described are 1) he was at first unaware that what he was hearing was a plane and 2) he later believes that what he heard was a plane. Neither of those is consistent with believing there was no plane. I think you'll readily agree this must be the case. |
17th May 2012, 10:11 AM | #131 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:11 AM | #132 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
The eye witness accounts I am relying on are properly transcribed, officially authorized statements. They are business records. They are not newspaper accounts or blog postings, with the exception of jr343's statement that was posted to a website at my suggestion.
To be sure, that is not an authenticated statement. I have, however, used the same technique in this forum where at least three people have said they were eyewitnesses. The most recent one just posted that claim today; but, alas, that person would not post up any details, which is fine with me. As I'm willing to count eyewitnesses who post their claims on this forum, I am inclined to include jr343's claim, even though it is not authenticated in the same way as the other 4 that I have posted. So far, debunkers have posted 0 that match that standard of authenticity. But, I am willing to openly acknowledge there are some authentic witnesses who claim they saw some kind of plane or flying object. I've said that. In fact, I posted up Scott Holowach. But, as I posted him, it doesn't count towards the debunker tabulation because the debunkers didn't post him up, I did. Note, too, that it is very rare for debunkers to even acknowledge there are people who didn't see a plane or who claim they didn't observe (see, hear) information consistent with one. For some reason, that is a very difficult thing for debunkers to do. Look at it this way, if I can say there are eyewitnesses who said they saw a plane, why shouldn't debunkers be able to say 'there are eyewitnesses who were in a position to see one and didn't think there was one there'? I don't think it would hurt debunkers to make that acknowledgment, do you? |
17th May 2012, 10:13 AM | #133 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:15 AM | #134 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
Quote:
You lie. Of course not everybody in NYC saw the planes. Some were inside the towers at the time. However, when you HEAR the noise, then look up and see an explosion and a friggin jet engine lands at your feet, it doesn't take much detective work to figure out what just happened. |
17th May 2012, 10:16 AM | #135 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:16 AM | #136 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
|
This is entirely consistant with an aircraft impact. They were in NYC, surrounded by tall, noise-baffling buildings. They were surrounded by very large trucks with very loud engines, some of them running full-blast to run pumps. They would not have heard the plane coming in time to look up.
Even if they did know something was coming, they would not all have been in a position to see it. A few feet to either side of a structure would be enough to block one's line of sight to an aircraft even as big as a 767.
Quote:
|
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat. |
|
17th May 2012, 10:16 AM | #137 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:17 AM | #138 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
Jack, I think you're going too far afield in the above. However, fear not, I don't tbink LashL will take you to task for saying, by way of example, "another plane" in a context where no such thing has been established. Furthermore, you seem unaware that the drill here is not to speculate about what people "believe". The point here is to assess what information they provide, not their beliefs. Stephen Gregory plainly describes what he heard in a context where those sounds were not those of a plane, as per his description, and certainly not a widebody jetliner <1000ft above ground @ 500+mph. |
17th May 2012, 10:17 AM | #139 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:20 AM | #140 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
|
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/m04.jpg
"And then heard this noise that seemed to come from everywhere but didn't...had no idea what it was and then the south tower just exploded, it just it just, it just blew up. And somebody said that was a plane and I was like, "I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane." David, did not hear or see an approaching plane and didn't photograph one. He would've heard the roaring engines and plane coming in at over 500 mph. NO REAL PLANE HIT THE SOUTH TOWER. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHrbQ...8D8AE&index=25 |
17th May 2012, 10:23 AM | #141 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,529
|
|
__________________
The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground. |
|
17th May 2012, 10:24 AM | #142 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
17th May 2012, 10:24 AM | #143 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
If the plane was a holographic projection, how come some people could not see it?
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
17th May 2012, 10:26 AM | #144 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:26 AM | #145 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:27 AM | #146 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:29 AM | #147 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
|
Cloud, obliterates the absurd conclusion that dumb arabs really flew planes into buildings on 911. His real-time account combined with 4 news broadcasts that show an object 5-10 times smaller than a chopper prove the NRPT. He says it over and over and over. He was watching the towers and didn't see any plane because there was no plane to see.
"I just caught the second explosion on videotape...No, a bomb, I saw it, no plane hit nothin', the building exploded from the other tower floors down." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2unT...ure=plpp_video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTkzxaHAcNc |
17th May 2012, 10:32 AM | #148 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
|
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
17th May 2012, 10:33 AM | #149 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 626
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:34 AM | #150 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:34 AM | #151 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:35 AM | #152 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:36 AM | #153 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
Is it the first sign of the apocalypse when they throw open the gates of the Asylum?
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
17th May 2012, 10:39 AM | #154 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:39 AM | #155 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
|
17th May 2012, 10:41 AM | #156 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
|
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
17th May 2012, 10:44 AM | #157 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,278
|
|
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail |
|
17th May 2012, 10:55 AM | #158 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
|
That's pretty weird. At about 11:00:24 in the gif you posted (according to the time stamp on the video) a plane comes into the picture from the left and hits the building.
It's pretty clear. What are you suggesting with this? The plane in the video proves there was no plane? ETA: "This video shows no plane hitting a building. And when I say NO PLANE, I mean ONLY ONE." |
17th May 2012, 11:13 AM | #159 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
17th May 2012, 11:14 AM | #160 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|