IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Reply
Old 20th May 2012, 08:57 AM   #481
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
I turned on my TV after the first tower had been hit. I watched the 2nd tower get hit, LIVE.

Go ahead....tell me I wasn't a witness.
Me too. I am a witness.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 10:40 AM   #482
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Liar
Dear Animal,

My, my, my, do you feel better now?

As you may know, I do not play gotcha games. Instead, if I perceive that a poster may have either said something in error, contradicted a prior post or succh like, I will usually call the poster's attention to the apparent error/contradiction/whatever, with the suggestion that they confirm the meaning of whatever it is that might otherwise result in a gotcha claim.

I don't see what advantage playing gotcha confers on anyone who plays it. Quite frankly, it seems a rather juvenile, playground-type tactic, to me.

OK, let me here illustrate how I would handled the posts in question.

I would have said,

Dear Jammonius,

You claim you do not evah call plane spotters liars, correct?

I should like to call your attention to post #---- where you specifically said:

"I think he made that up"

Do you realize that statement can be considered calling someone a liar?

Please advise [Add boggled symbol or some other icon]

That is how I would have handled the situation, but hey, that is just me. You preferred to play 'gotcha' on the matter.

As such, the possibility of having a meaningful discussion is reduced, as you appear to be on guard, vigilantly perusing everything I post so as to say "gotcha."

Suffice it to say, I was actually challenging the way that witness described his spotting of zee plane. He posted up his account 1 year later at a website called "September 11 Stories" that obviously put the whole issue of accuracy in question on the basis of what the website calls itself.

In any event, to say that he made up the claim "3-4 miles out" actually confirms I was not challenging his claim of PLANE SPOTTING, but rather, was calling attention to the absurdity of how he choose to go about describing what he saw.


Blessings

Last edited by jammonius; 20th May 2012 at 10:43 AM.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 10:47 AM   #483
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
I turned on my TV after the first tower had been hit. I watched the 2nd tower get hit, LIVE.

Go ahead....tell me I wasn't a witness.
You "wasn't a witness."

If there is anything unclear about my having gone ahead and told you "you wasn't a witness," let me know, and I will make it clearer, still, that you were not a witness because what you saw was on a media source that I call teevee. That source is one of illusion more often than not, such that whatever is seen on it cannot be presumed to be true and accurate. In some instances, what is on teevee is true and accurate, but the process of distinguishing the real from the unreal, especially if teevee is the source, is, for good reason, an exacting one.


Blessings
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 10:48 AM   #484
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Me too. I am a witness.
No you are not.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 10:57 AM   #485
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=6083

I have indicated location on the image if this helps jammonius.

It does help. Well done. I gather you spotted the plane when it was about 670m (2200ft) south of the South Tower, correct?

I am basing that on your statement that it was 3 seconds from spotting to impact. The accepted speed given for the event is about 538mph, if I recall correctly, but I normally just round that to 500mph. In any event, the distance covered in 3 seconds at that speed is as indicated above.

Please advise.

Last edited by jammonius; 20th May 2012 at 10:59 AM.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 10:58 AM   #486
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
You "wasn't a witness."

If there is anything unclear about my having gone ahead and told you "you wasn't a witness," let me know, and I will make it clearer, still, that you were not a witness because what you saw was on a media source that I call teevee. That source is one of illusion more often than not, such that whatever is seen on it cannot be presumed to be true and accurate. In some instances, what is on teevee is true and accurate, but the process of distinguishing the real from the unreal, especially if teevee is the source, is, for good reason, an exacting one.


Blessings
As what was seen on "teevee" matches eyewitness statements and evidence, I'd say it counts as witnessing... Technically.
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 11:03 AM   #487
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
As what was seen on "teevee" matches eyewitness statements and evidence, I'd say it counts as witnessing... Technically.
Actually, what was seen on teevee does not match what many witnesses said, including not just those who saw no plane, despite being in a position to do so; but, it also fails to match those who said it was a small plane and those who said it was a missile.

In addition, there were various teevee shots; what was seen did not match between and among the various teevee versions. In one example of this, zee plane is seem to dive before hitting the South Tower. In another, the plane seems to rise a bit. In still another, it seems to come from straight on.

So, in that sense, the claim that teevee 'matches' what witnesses saw is, in my view, inaccurate. Teevee didn't even match other teevee, let alone witnesses.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 11:03 AM   #488
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
It does help. Well done. I gather you spotted the plane when it was about 670m (2200ft) south of the South Tower, correct?

I am basing that on your statement that it was 3 seconds from spotting to impact. The accepted speed given for the event is about 538mph, if I recall correctly, but I normally just round that to 500mph. In any event, the distance covered in 3 seconds at that speed is as indicated above.

By the way, let me here double check whether you meant to put the line on the south face of the south tower, rather than what appears to me to be the west face of it?

Please advise.
No I'm indicating the general sightline to the wtc complex from my location and where my attention was near when I saw the plane.
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 11:10 AM   #489
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
...there were various teevee shots; what was seen did not match between and among the various teevee versions.
I would be interested in seeing the video clips you refer to here, to assess for myself whatever mismatches you claim to see.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 11:12 AM   #490
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
TJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,899
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
You "wasn't a witness."

If there is anything unclear about my having gone ahead and told you "you wasn't a witness," let me know, and I will make it clearer, still, that you were not a witness because what you saw was on a media source that I call teevee. That source is one of illusion more often than not, such that whatever is seen on it cannot be presumed to be true and accurate. In some instances, what is on teevee is true and accurate, but the process of distinguishing the real from the unreal, especially if teevee is the source, is, for good reason, an exacting one.


Blessings
Well, no.

Thousands of people in and around GZ saw it with their own eyes. Thousands didn't. Millions more saw it on TV.

Since the technology to produce the effects required to support the no-plane delusion doesn't exist, your argument is rejected.

The television witnesses are allowed.
__________________

Last edited by TJM; 20th May 2012 at 11:13 AM.
TJM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 11:16 AM   #491
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
So, in that sense, the claim that teevee 'matches' what witnesses saw is, in my view, inaccurate.
There's your "problem"...no one here gives a damn what your "view" is.


You are a biased, credulous believer...and you will NEVER CONVINCE ME that I didn't witness what I witnessed...
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 11:16 AM   #492
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
It does help. Well done. I gather you spotted the plane when it was about 670m (2200ft) south of the South Tower, correct?

I am basing that on your statement that it was 3 seconds from spotting to impact. The accepted speed given for the event is about 538mph, if I recall correctly, but I normally just round that to 500mph. In any event, the distance covered in 3 seconds at that speed is as indicated above.

Please advise.
I have tried not to give my account the benefit of hindsight, specifically trying to recall my reactions and perceptions at that time. I think this is a problem, because it's very easy to confuse an accepted version of events with initial reactions.

For example: It would be easy for me to say "I saw the United Airlines plane" but my initial thought was of another airline.

As I am sure you are well aware of, witness statements by themselves could be unreliable. One person might report a blue car running someone over in an accident, another might say it was green.
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 11:20 AM   #493
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I would be interested in seeing the video clips you refer to here, to assess for myself whatever mismatches you claim to see.
I don't think "jammy" is much for evidence...he believes it's "enough" to just assert something, and ignore anyone who demands evidence for that assertion.


Typical conspirisist behavior...
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 11:22 AM   #494
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I would be interested in seeing the video clips you refer to here, to assess for myself whatever mismatches you claim to see.
It is talking about all the different angles of view, from the ground, from on top buildings, from choppers. From the foot of the World Trade Center, from across the East River, from midtown. Apparently it can't fathom that we get very different views from those.
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 11:23 AM   #495
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
I don't think "jammy" is much for evidence...he believes it's "enough" to just assert something, and ignore anyone who demands evidence for that assertion.


Typical conspirisist behavior...
I wonder how many (if any) cases it has won in court, then.
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 11:33 AM   #496
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by Bell View Post
I wonder how many (if any) cases it has won in court, then.
Well, I've personally witnessed weak willed jurors being "swayed" by lies...and attorneys lie as much as politicians.

Last edited by R.A.F.; 20th May 2012 at 11:34 AM.
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 11:48 AM   #497
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Actually, what was seen on teevee does not match what many witnesses said, including not just those who saw no plane, despite being in a position to do so...
How else can I say this....this is a lie.

Why must you employ lies, if the evidence supports your contention(s)???


Quote:
...it also fails to match those who said it was a small plane and those who said it was a missile.
It wasn't a small plane, and it wasn't a missle, so "not matching" is irrelevant.

Why must you employ irrelevancies, if the evidence supports your contention(s)???


Quote:
...there were various teevee shots; what was seen did not match between and among the various teevee versions.
Another lie....


Quote:
In one example of this, zee plane is seem to dive before hitting the South Tower. In another, the plane seems to rise a bit. In still another, it seems to come from straight on.
More lies...


Quote:
...the claim that teevee 'matches' what witnesses saw is, in my view, inaccurate. Teevee didn't even match other teevee, let alone witnesses.

The evidence simply does not support that contention. Making it all the WORSE, is the lies you tell because you think it supports those contentions.


When I discover I'm being lied to, as I have found with you, I tend to disbelieve anything else you have to say...


Congratulations...

Last edited by R.A.F.; 20th May 2012 at 11:50 AM.
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 01:47 PM   #498
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
I have tried not to give my account the benefit of hindsight, specifically trying to recall my reactions and perceptions at that time. I think this is a problem, because it's very easy to confuse an accepted version of events with initial reactions.

For example: It would be easy for me to say "I saw the United Airlines plane" but my initial thought was of another airline.

As I am sure you are well aware of, witness statements by themselves could be unreliable. One person might report a blue car running someone over in an accident, another might say it was green.
I agree with your insight concerning the impact of suggestion; or, as you put it: '...an accepted version of events...". Between you and me, Dash, posters like, say, RAF, might do well to come to grips with the power of suggestion as it relates to events.

9/11 is in actuality a PSYOP. That is to say, an example of the "power of suggestion" phenomenon taken to the extremes of military perception management technology, circa 2001. It's more all inclusive now than it was then.

The power of suggestion concept that you articulate is a quintessentially important recognition to have with respect to an event like 9/11 that gets immediately tied into xenophobia, identification of an "enemy" and of one that "hates us for our freedoms" no less. As I have elsewhere said, once the invasion of Afghanistan began (10/7/01), if not well before then, it was almost impossible to call attention to any 9/11 anamoly because doing so was deemed unpatriotic or not in "support of the troops" and such like.

You wrote that you "heard a roaring sound" and you noted that your sister is a flight attendant. If I may, Dash, are you also employed in the airline industry in some capacity? Dash 80 is a kind of passenger aircraft, correct?

But the interesting thing here is that based on your location, as you mapped it out, I wonder if there is any significance at all in your descriptor of "roaring sound" as being the way you described what you heard, versus "a jet aircraft sound" that you might also have used, presumably if that is what it sounded like to you.

Blessings

Last edited by jammonius; 20th May 2012 at 01:55 PM.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 01:54 PM   #499
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
But the interesting thing here is that based on your location, as you mapped it out, I wonder if there is any significance at all in your descriptor of "roaring sound" as being the way you described what you heard, versus "a jet aircraft sound" that you might also have used, presumably if that is what it sounded like to you.

Blessings
I have to laugh. This sounds like a TV defense lawyer from a 1970's crime drama.


Are you trying for a "gotcha"?

Don't forget. You got a claim to back-up.


__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 01:56 PM   #500
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by Bell View Post
It is talking about all the different angles of view, from the ground, from on top buildings, from choppers. From the foot of the World Trade Center, from across the East River, from midtown. Apparently it can't fathom that we get very different views from those.
I suspected as much, but it's nice to have it confirmed. Well, maybe not nice. More disappointing, however inevitable.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 01:56 PM   #501
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
...I wonder if there is any significance at all in your descriptor of "roaring sound" as being the way you described what you heard, versus "a jet aircraft sound" that you might also have used, presumably if that is what it sounded like to you.

Irrelevant NITPICK noted...
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 01:59 PM   #502
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
Originally Posted by 7forever View Post
You are inferring that you can prove how a huge plane showed up as a black blob with no discernable parts of plane? Go for it.

The very same reason the towers look like solid grey pillars with no windows in this image of yours:

Originally Posted by 7forever View Post

Distance, insufficient detail in the initial recording device, and loss of detail due to video compression.

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 20th May 2012 at 02:02 PM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:02 PM   #503
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I would be interested in seeing the video clips you refer to here, to assess for myself whatever mismatches you claim to see.
Jack,

With all due respect, you are not up to speed. A video where you can do that is linked in the OP.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...20&postcount=1

We've had a thread in this forum containing 3875 posts on the subject of comparing the 43 then known video versions of the South Tower explosion. If necessary, I can find the link for you. It might already have been linked by Elmundo, I think. Key words from its title are "All43 videos".

I, personally, posted up a critique of all of the videos in that thread. I thought the thread was quite educational. It includes radar analysis, dB level disputation, obituaries for claimed passengers, discussion of proper forensic evaluation of plane crashes, eyewitness accounts apparently posted up for the first time, lurkers coming into the discussion from out of the blue and so on.

Oh, and yes, it also includes lots of insults, as you might expect.

Last edited by jammonius; 20th May 2012 at 02:03 PM.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:06 PM   #504
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Jack,

With all due respect, you are not up to speed. A video where you can do that is linked in the OP.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...20&postcount=1

We've had a thread in this forum containing 3875 posts on the subject of comparing the 43 then known video versions of the South Tower explosion. If necessary, I can find the link for you. It might already have been linked by Elmundo, I think. Key words from its title are "All43 videos".

I, personally, posted up a critique of all of the videos in that thread. I thought the thread was quite educational. It includes radar analysis, dB level disputation, obituaries for claimed passengers, discussion of proper forensic evaluation of plane crashes, eyewitness accounts apparently posted up for the first time, lurkers coming into the discussion from out of the blue and so on.

Oh, and yes, it also includes lots of insults, as you might expect.
I noticed you are still relying on second (possibly third) hand testimony. I thought you said that was not allowed. Do I detect a double standard?


__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:10 PM   #505
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
...obituaries for claimed passengers...
Why the "claimed" qualifier??....do you deny that these people died?
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:13 PM   #506
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Good you made a claim.

Now. in dB's what would be the sound level at the expected (stated) exposure distance?

You posted a video (the reporter) and Naudet both have the sound of a plane.

Your turn.
DGM,

Unfortunately, your post is more in the nature of a 20 question gambit. Yes, I made a claim and yes I am willing to support the claim. But, I do not play 20 questions.

Here is what I suggest.

If you want to turn these words into a claim, then do so:

"...the sound level at the expected (stated) exposure distance?..."

I have based my claim on observation, where the observed phenomenon is the sound made by jet aircraft. That phenomenon is an everyday experience. Most people are quite accustomed to it and very familiar with it. We are all pretty adept in distinguishing high flying aircraft from low flying ones; fast ones from slow ones.

Hence, observation trumps disputation about dB level in my opinion. But, if there is a claim you want to make about dB level, as it relates to alleged Flight 175, then you may do so.

I will not play 20 questions where you get to ask for more proof with every answer. No, I will not evah do that.

But, if you really want to get some dB disputation, go back to the All43 thread. I seem to recall we went up one side and down the other of that issue in that thread.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:17 PM   #507
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
I agree with your insight concerning the impact of suggestion; or, as you put it: '...an accepted version of events...". Between you and me, Dash, posters like, say, RAF, might do well to come to grips with the power of suggestion as it relates to events.

9/11 is in actuality a PSYOP. That is to say, an example of the "power of suggestion" phenomenon taken to the extremes of military perception management technology, circa 2001. It's more all inclusive now than it was then.

The power of suggestion concept that you articulate is a quintessentially important recognition to have with respect to an event like 9/11 that gets immediately tied into xenophobia, identification of an "enemy" and of one that "hates us for our freedoms" no less. As I have elsewhere said, once the invasion of Afghanistan began (10/7/01), if not well before then, it was almost impossible to call attention to any 9/11 anamoly because doing so was deemed unpatriotic or not in "support of the troops" and such like.

You wrote that you "heard a roaring sound" and you noted that your sister is a flight attendant. If I may, Dash, are you also employed in the airline industry in some capacity? Dash 80 is a kind of passenger aircraft, correct?

But the interesting thing here is that based on your location, as you mapped it out, I wonder if there is any significance at all in your descriptor of "roaring sound" as being the way you described what you heard, versus "a jet aircraft sound" that you might also have used, presumably if that is what it sounded like to you.

Blessings
I was not employed in the airline industry at that time. Dash 80 was the nickname of the Boeing 707 prototype, the plane in my picture.

Hmmm Jammonius I don't think you realize how a human mind works. Should everyone make an instant conclusion as to what they're hearing? Not specifically describing a loud roaring sound as a jet means it wasn't a jet? Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Many describe tornadoes sounding like freight trains but they are not literally trains are they?
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:18 PM   #508
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Bell View Post
It is talking about all the different angles of view, from the ground, from on top buildings, from choppers. From the foot of the World Trade Center, from across the East River, from midtown. Apparently it can't fathom that we get very different views from those.
I did post videos with several of those views in 472 which, curiously, he has not responded to. I wonder if he rationalizes them away, or if he can't comprehend their existence?

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
DGM,

Unfortunately, your post is more in the nature of a 20 question gambit. Yes, I made a claim and yes I am willing to support the claim. But, I do not play 20 questions.

Here is what I suggest.

If you want to turn these words into a claim, then do so:

"...the sound level at the expected (stated) exposure distance?..."

I have based my claim on observation, where the observed phenomenon is the sound made by jet aircraft. That phenomenon is an everyday experience. Most people are quite accustomed to it and very familiar with it. We are all pretty adept in distinguishing high flying aircraft from low flying ones; fast ones from slow ones.
Except, as I have pointed out, few hear planes flying low over buildings in New York.

Quote:
Hence, observation trumps disputation about dB level in my opinion. But, if there is a claim you want to make about dB level, as it relates to alleged Flight 175, then you may do so.
You just made such a claim. You did. For you so say observation trumps dB level, you have to know how dB level would or wouldn't be relevant.

Quote:
I will not play 20 questions where you get to ask for more proof with every answer. No, I will not evah do that.
This is a new one. Refusing to provide even basic proof and claiming you want to avoid goalpost moving. Of course, the reason you won't provide proof is because the dB proof doesn't back you up.

Quote:
But, if you really want to get some dB disputation, go back to the All43 thread. I seem to recall we went up one side and down the other of that issue in that thread.
Curious how you don't link to it for us all to see.

Not to mention your studious ignorance of any closer or higher-res videos that do not show a blob. Strange how witnesses are reliable when they say they see a blob but not a plane, even though there are more of the latter.

Last edited by 000063; 20th May 2012 at 02:20 PM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:20 PM   #509
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I noticed you are still relying on second (possibly third) hand testimony. I thought you said that was not allowed. Do I detect a double standard?


What are you talking about? I have only counted 10 accounts as valid NO PLANE claims so far. It has been my objective to apply a consistent process in distinguishing the real from the unreal; or, at a minimum, the reliable from the unreliable.

I must say, however, that debunkers have yet to post up a single verifiable eye witness based on the criteria I have used.

That said, I do consider Dash a valid PLANE SPOTTER (South Tower) and a valid NO PLANER (North Tower). However, I also consider Jr343 in that same category. I didn't count Jr343 in my official total because the plain fact is, anonymous posting on internet message boards would not pass muster as actual evidence.

This is not to say that I consider Dash 80 or Jr343 unreliable. To me, they are almost as real as are people I might stand in front of, face to face. But, the reality is that cyberspace does not count as real evidence.

You agree?

Blessings
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:25 PM   #510
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
DGM,

Unfortunately, your post is more in the nature of a 20 question gambit. Yes, I made a claim and yes I am willing to support the claim. But, I do not play 20 questions.

Here is what I suggest.

If you want to turn these words into a claim, then do so:

"...the sound level at the expected (stated) exposure distance?..."

I have based my claim on observation, where the observed phenomenon is the sound made by jet aircraft. That phenomenon is an everyday experience. Most people are quite accustomed to it and very familiar with it. We are all pretty adept in distinguishing high flying aircraft from low flying ones; fast ones from slow ones.

Hence, observation trumps disputation about dB level in my opinion. But, if there is a claim you want to make about dB level, as it relates to alleged Flight 175, then you may do so.

I will not play 20 questions where you get to ask for more proof with every answer. No, I will not evah do that.

But, if you really want to get some dB disputation, go back to the All43 thread. I seem to recall we went up one side and down the other of that issue in that thread.
The problem is you claimed:
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post

Now for a claim:

The lack of recording, reporting on and damage from ultra loud, deafening noise from a jetliner said to have been <1000ft above, traveling at >500mph FALSIFIES the common storyline of 9/11.

That is my claim.

You have not supported your claim that the sound would be "ultra loud" or "deafening".

Why don't you try again?

If you want to concede you pulled this out of your butt, that's all good, I'll drop it right here.

Well?
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:28 PM   #511
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Asking me to find the link to the All43 thread is but another, more subtle perhaps, version of 20 questions. Anyone here can look that up.

That said, and in this one instance only; and since I have made mention of the thread, here it is:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=175654

Consider this an acknowledgment of the 2 year anniversary of that thread
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:28 PM   #512
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
I must say, however, that debunkers have yet to post up a single verifiable eye witness based on the criteria I have used.
Is there some reason why we have to "abide" by your criteria?

You are a credulous, biased believer, and we would be FOOLS to allow YOU to determine what criteria we must follow...


In other words, nice try, but once again, a BIG FAIL.


Quote:
...the reality is that cyberspace does not count as real evidence.
What I witnessed was a plane hit the 2nd tower. Those ON THE INTERNET who disagree do not count as evidence.


Thanks for clearing that up for us...
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:29 PM   #513
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,189
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
What are you talking about? I have only counted 10 accounts as valid NO PLANE claims so far. It has been my objective to apply a consistent process in distinguishing the real from the unreal; or, at a minimum, the reliable from the unreliable.

I must say, however, that debunkers have yet to post up a single verifiable eye witness based on the criteria I have used.

That said, I do consider Dash a valid PLANE SPOTTER (South Tower) and a valid NO PLANER (North Tower). However, I also consider Jr343 in that same category. I didn't count Jr343 in my official total because the plain fact is, anonymous posting on internet message boards would not pass muster as actual evidence.

This is not to say that I consider Dash 80 or Jr343 unreliable. To me, they are almost as real as are people I might stand in front of, face to face. But, the reality is that cyberspace does not count as real evidence.

You agree?

Blessings
This is hilarious. Being asleep at the time counts as a no planer?

Trollollollol
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:31 PM   #514
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The problem is you claimed:



You have not supported your claim that the sound would be "ultra loud" or "deafening".

Why don't you try again?

If you want to concede you pulled this out of your butt, that's all good, I'll drop it right here.

Well?
I wonder what is it that is unclear that I am here relying on general, common experience and common sense?

People are readily capable of observing that a jetliner at <1000ft up and traveling at 500+mph is ultra loud. On that claim and on that basis for supporting that claim

I STAND

I also stand on the proposition that more often than not

SENSE OBSERVATION AND DEDUCTION DRAWN FROM THAT OBSERVATION TRUMPS OTHER, MORE REMOTE FORMS OF DEDUCTION.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:32 PM   #515
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Anyone here can look that up.
But we're asking YOU...this "lazyness" of yours only serves to demonstrate an unwillingness to discuss this topic in good faith.


If you're too lazy to "back up" your claims, then STOP MAKING THOSE CLAIMS.
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:34 PM   #516
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
People are readily capable of observing that a jetliner at <1000ft up and traveling at 500+mph is ultra loud.
No...that is not evidenced...

Once again...lazy bones...do your own damn work, or stop making claims you can't back up.


Do you understand?
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:34 PM   #517
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
This is hilarious. Being asleep at the time counts as a no planer?

Trollollollol
Wait, Dash. I think something has gone wrong here. We already discussed this. I based my claim on your words that were to the effect that I could count you as a no planer, notwithstanding that you were asleep. I thought the basis for that was a recognition that had it been loud as a jetliner should be, it would have awakened you and you would have known it was a jetliner.

I withdraw my inclusion of you as a NO PLANER. I am afraid I misunderstood you and for that I am sorry.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:35 PM   #518
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Consider this an acknowledgment of the 2 year anniversary of that thread
Not something to be "proud" of.
R.A.F. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:36 PM   #519
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
I wonder what is it that is unclear that I am here relying on general, common experience and common sense?

People are readily capable of observing that a jetliner at <1000ft up and traveling at 500+mph is ultra loud. On that claim and on that basis for supporting that claim

I STAND

I also stand on the proposition that more often than not

SENSE OBSERVATION AND DEDUCTION DRAWN FROM THAT OBSERVATION TRUMPS OTHER, MORE REMOTE FORMS OF DEDUCTION.
By the same logic, How can you claim someone that thinks they saw/heard a plane didn't?

Wouldn't this logic nullify all the "no-plane" witnesses you now claim?
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2012, 02:38 PM   #520
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
I was not employed in the airline industry at that time. Dash 80 was the nickname of the Boeing 707 prototype, the plane in my picture.

Hmmm Jammonius I don't think you realize how a human mind works. Should everyone make an instant conclusion as to what they're hearing? Not specifically describing a loud roaring sound as a jet means it wasn't a jet? Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Many describe tornadoes sounding like freight trains but they are not literally trains are they?
There are various forms of proper analytic technique. Tornadoes are not daily occurrences, fortunately. Thus, I don't think it is apt to use the analogy you put forward. Jetliners are heard daily by almost all people who live in the developed world and most especially those who live in the urban or more densely populated areas of such countries.

For that reason, the sound of jetliners is more easily understood, recognized and described as such.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.