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

[Woody-]

Its now 32 PLANE, 1 NO PLANE

 

[Longfellow]

+1 plane

 

[shawmutt]

Wow, what's it like to hold on to a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory for nearly 10 years?

 

[Dog Town]

Can't believe you cats are still playing with this toy. Maybe it's the other way around!
But, PLANE, definitely plane!

 

[cyclonic]

ETA: He's got a lot of others up on YouTube, just google Andrew Johnson 9/11.

His user name is 'doyouknowyourdead' he has 24 videos posted 2 years ago

his last one was 'Passing a Controlled Demo "Expert" in traffic' which has 153 views in 2 years.







LMAO! he documents chemtrails too.

 

[TJM]

LMAO! he documents chemtrails too.

Yes, as I've noted earlier, He appears to be a full service woo peddler. His website offers one stop shopping for all psychotic necessities. I won't mention it by name because he apparently collects and analyzes IP addresses from those who visit it.

 

[dafydd]

Don't anyone take this as a critique of the idea of a straw poll here - I'm not attacking anyone - but: What do our votes matter? Really? There are over 80 people listed here that personally witnessed the jets hit, and that perspective completely and totally outweighs any argument that any clueless truther can attempt to impose on them. Furthermore, that 80 is only a very tiny sampling of eyewitnesses. It doesn't matter how we vote here, what matters is that there's not only a plethora of witnesses who personally witnessed the impacts and spoke publicly about it, but their testimonies are backed up by the utter mass of positive evidence.

There's no need to beat this into the ground. No planers have already utterly failed to make a case. Here's what one eyewitness to the FL175 impact - Barry Drogin - wrote about no planers years ago:


There is no "No Plane" case to be made. With what is already known and established to be fact, any stance that begins with the notion of no jets having hit is an automatically doomed to failure. Because of that, there's no need to beat this corpse of a subject any more than it has been. Just let the thread die.

I agree,let the thread die.

 

[dafydd]

Wow, what's it like to hold on to a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory for nearly 10 years?

And maybe hold on to it for the rest of your life,that's the sad part.

 

[dafydd]

Not you,Jammonious.

 

[cyclonic]

Jammy for what reason did you upload the video:
Passing a Controlled Demo "Expert" in traffic.



was it because CONTROLLED DEMOLITION was stenciled on the side of the van?

did this give you a 'stiff upper lip'?

 

[jammonius]

Lets look at the entire picture:

And while we're doing that, let's see what Jim Ryan has to say about planes:



Interesting that you only want to talk about things which support your assertions, instead of presenting the overall picture.

The "entire picture" clearly includes Our Edna Cintron seen standing right there where, supposedly, a Boeing 767 had crashed.

Thanks for posting up a key piece of NO PLANE evidence.

Debunkers are often at their worst in seeking to rationalize how on earth Edna Cintron could have gotten where she is seen in the above photo, that is contained in the FEMA report, thus attesting to the authenticity of the photo and its reliability as evidence.

No Boeing 767 crashed into that location and Edna Cintron's visual presence attests to that fact.

Interesting that you only want to talk about things which support your assertions, instead of presenting the overall picture.

I should like to remind you that I am the one who has said there are people who claim to have seen a plane and have named them. I am also the one who, page in and page out, asks lurkers to post up what they saw and heard, under a promise that I will take them at their word.

By the way, can you provide a link to say, a debunker site or article or anything else that lists the NO PLANE evidence?

What I can also do, however, is provide you with the exact location and relevant excerpts of SGT HOLLAND who was the PAPD dispatch officer on 9/11. The only calls he received claiming a plane hit the WTC was one that said "she said" meaning the claim did not come from the actual caller; and, a claim based on what was seen on teevee.

This transcript, standing alone, puts paid to the claim there were 1000s of witnesses because not one of them called the PAPD.

When asked, toward the end of the transcript, Sgt Holland let it be known that all that was really known was that, you guessed it, there had been EXPLOSIONS. Sgt. Holland is a model of objectivity and of sticking to the facts. He is, therefore, a candidate for the title of FIRST NO PLANER. Please meet Sgt. Holland:

 

[HannibalGroup]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2041454#post2041454

Eyewitness testimony. You fail.

 

[HannibalGroup]

I am also the one who, page in and page out, asks lurkers to post up what they saw and heard, under a promise that I will take them at their word.

"I saw both planes hit. I would commute from NJ. Sometimes I'd take the PATH train from Hoboken, on nice days I'd take the ferry. 9/11 was a beautiful morning, and I took the ferry. I got off the ferry at the World financial center and began walking to my office on 45 Broadway. To do this, you have to walk DIRECTLY toward WTC1 As I was walking I heard a jets roar. I looked up. Now [feel free to delete this if it will make CT’ers take it out of context] I expected it to me some sort of military plane since every now and then military jets do fly down the Hudson river. IT WAS NOT. I saw a huge jetliner fly over me and SLAM IN TO THE TOWER! I had a PERFECT vantage point."

 

[jammonius]

Don't anyone take this as a critique of the idea of a straw poll here - I'm not attacking anyone - but: What do our votes matter? Really? There are over 80 people listed here that personally witnessed the jets hit, and that perspective completely and totally outweighs any argument that any clueless truther can attempt to impose on them. Furthermore, that 80 is only a very tiny sampling of eyewitnesses. It doesn't matter how we vote here, what matters is that there's not only a plethora of witnesses who personally witnessed the impacts and spoke publicly about it, but their testimonies are backed up by the utter mass of positive evidence.

There's no need to beat this into the ground. No planers have already utterly failed to make a case. Here's what one eyewitness to the FL175 impact - Barry Drogin - wrote about no planers years ago:


There is no "No Plane" case to be made. With what is already known and established to be fact, any stance that begins with the notion of no jets having hit is an automatically doomed to failure. Because of that, there's no need to beat this corpse of a subject any more than it has been. Just let the thread die.

Earth to Elmondo:

80 PLANE SPOTTERS, even assuming one should accept the BS indirect, "he said, she said" and newspaper stories contained in that stupid debunker compilation you refer us to, which also admittedly contains some statements that are acceptable as evidence, that pawltry number is a far cry from the 1000s of witnesses claimed.

In fact, the number 80 is about consistent with what I have told you folks over and over again is about all you'll find; and, of that number fewer than 10 are witnesses to the first explosion. Plus, if you look at what people actually say they saw, it is clear they can describe the explosion with confidence and with accuracy, but their PLANE SIGHTINGS are vague, unsure and almost always influenced by what they saw on teevee, thus confirming the likelihood of false memories.

Thank you for confirming the accuracy of my claims Elmondo. In that compilation, only those that come from the Task Force Witness statements and a few of the PAPD accounts have any real validity. Almost all the rest are just BS newspaper or debunker website claims that do not count as evidence because they are either stories written long afterwards or are BS newspaper stories of the "he said, she said" variety.

Perhaps you should simply review your own information and make determinations as to what that information is actually telling you. Either that, or do better in your next post if your purpose is that of supporting the PLANE SPOTTER claim.

 

[HannibalGroup]

Plus, if you look at what people actually say they saw, it is clear they can describe the explosion with confidence and with accuracy, but their PLANE SIGHTINGS are vague, unsure and almost always influenced by what they saw on teevee, thus confirming the likelihood of false memories.

"I saw both planes hit. I would commute from NJ. Sometimes I'd take the PATH train from Hoboken, on nice days I'd take the ferry. 9/11 was a beautiful morning, and I took the ferry. I got off the ferry at the World financial center and began walking to my office on 45 Broadway. To do this, you have to walk DIRECTLY toward WTC1 As I was walking I heard a jets roar. I looked up. Now [feel free to delete this if it will make CT’ers take it out of context] I expected it to me some sort of military plane since every now and then military jets do fly down the Hudson river. IT WAS NOT. I saw a huge jetliner fly over me and SLAM IN TO THE TOWER! I had a PERFECT vantage point."

 

[jammonius]

Our Sgt Holland (OSH), a model of objectivity and a candidate for FIRST NO PLANER:

Sgt Holland was the person receiving telephone calls at the PAPD on 9/11. No one called to say they saw a plane hit the WTC. Not one person.

Deal with it posters.

 

[jammonius]

plane.

and i am gonna email my parent's neighbor...to get those photos.

i will put an end to this "no plane" bull **** once and for all.

I look forward to your posting.

all the best

 

[jammonius]

I vote plane. I saw them with my own eyes.

I have asked you and will continue to ask, nicely of course, what did you see, what did you hear, where were you?

 

[Dumb All Over]

Thank you, A W Smith, alienentity, Woody- and longfellow.

33 PLANE, 1 NO PLANE.

 

[jammonius]

Lurkers,

It is to be noticed in this thread that there exists almost no refutation of the actual information and little or no comment on either the content of the video database or the actual witness statements, like that of, most recently, Sgt Holland.

When a poster posts up a valid witness statement or video claiming "plane" I comment on it in terms of what it actually reveals. Take a look, for instance, at the Weick video and the comments I made on it. Or, the Discovery Channel re-enactment video and the comment I made on it, i.e., that not one person in it claims to have seen a plane, and that included the re-enacted segment. Here's something to consider, did the Discovery Channel not consider it important to include a witness who saw a Boeing 767 hit the WTC; or, did they look for, but fail to find a legitimate witness?

What is known for certain is their video contains no such witness account, none!

That is remarkable.