Refutation of the "plane parts" mantra has been accomplished in a number of ways, not least of which is the fact that
not one single part, piece, element or component of a jetliner has been confirmed by the simple technique of matching a part or piece to a part number or identification number. I have also shown the likelihood of falsity in the planting of supposed, but never identified, plane parts in a number of threads and posts.
See, for example:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5791917&postcount=801
Every issue your debunker website seeks to raise is supported by stupid sourcing, usually consisting in nothing more than "he said/she said/somebody said somebody said" newspaper accounts.
Such accounts fail and fail utterly as evidence.
An explosion
It appears posters still have a hard time grasping that newspapers and stories and articles, especially those designed to have an emotional appeal --
--'New Yorkers Try To Carry On' -- being a perfect example of an emotionally driven piece, are not evidence of what happened because the sourcing is suspect and the motivation is biased.
How many times must I point out that valid and reliable witness sources do not include stories and newspaper and magazine accounts?
The valid sources of witness statements are the PAPD reports and the Task Force Witness Statements and the accounts posted up by witnesses we can consider reliable, like jr343, foolmewunz and BillyRayValentine.
The above is not evidence based on the source. Moreover, with that having been said, note what the right reverend actually says:
""We were on the 24th floor, which has a view of the World Trade Centre, when we heard the sound, and looked up to see a ball of fire coming from one of the towers."
That is a NO PLANE claim, utterly and entirely consistent with what all valid witnesses say. The right reverend has said nothing more and nothing less than that he saw an explosion, just like all other valid witnesses.
True, he then goes on to say "we saw the second plane hit". One supposes that "one out of two ain't bad" perhaps?
Hey lurkers, out of curiosity, I wonder what the response around here would be if I were to post a NO PLANE claim sourced to an Iranian newspaper?
Let me guess: It would be castigated as being obviously false, right?
I am not here willing to say the Iranian newspaper relied on by djlinacee is any worse than any other newspaper.
What I am going to say, however, is that newspaper sources are not acceptable as evidence and are useless as reliable sourcing of claims.
Notice how stupid that quote is. It claims that something not having been established to have happened in the first place, "HAPPENED AGAIN."
With all due respect to Wheaton College, that kind of witness sourcing is hapless.
A stupid, teevee source, put out 2 years after the fact.
The valid witnesses are those that spoke spontaneously, without the benefit or the detriment of an agenda or a psyop, as the event happened and before the onset of the massive propaganda ploy.
I'm sure people here realize the difference between valid and invalid witnesses and reliable sources. In the proper context, I feel quite certain that some of you will use that distinction when it suits your purposes in other threads and on other subjects.
Unfortunately, 9/11 causes most people to suspend their capacity for proper and critical thinking when it comes to assessing the reality of 9/11.
'The New York Metro: WTC Testimonials 6 Months Later'.
What more need I say? Or, put another way, the title betrays the fact that stories are being collected 6 months later in the height of the public propaganda ploy. Stories like that are utterly unreliable and I am sure some of you know that, whether you're willing to admit it or not.
Try this: At least be honest with yourselves and realize the claim there are "1000s of witnesses" is hoplessly false. Also realize the witnesses being relied on by djlunacee are FUBAR.
This person, Rose Arce, appears to know what she heard -- a roar -- just like Asst.Commn. Stephen Gregory. So, there are elements of truth in her statement. Note, too, that linguistically, she does not connect that sound with a jetliner. In fact, what is also very telling, could posters but realize it, she doesn't even say she saw a plane does she?
I know people here probably won't be able to read Rose Arce's statement for what it actually says and that is because people here want to be able to say that Rose Arce says she saw a plane, even though that is not what she says.
Pardon me for this, djlunacee, but thanks for finding yet another NO PLANE witness. I am much obliged.
The problem is, I have to apply the same criteria to this witness as I do others. The source is FUBAR, thus, I will not count Rose Arce as a no plane witness because her statement is not admissible evidence.
Question: Separate and apart from the issue of sorucing and admissibility as evidence, do any of you recognize that Mitchell Simmons statement can be considered a NO PLANE statement?
Or, put another way, I here assert that Mitchell Simmons is, in fact, as much a NO PLANER as he is a PLANE SPOTTER.
Let me know if posters would like for me to explain that claim in greater detail. Hopefully, posters can use their own powers of deduction -- albeit in a 9/11 context -- to figure out why Mitchell Simmons is, in fact, a NO PLANER.
Hey lurkers, djlunacee posted up a witness from something entitled
"...A TALE OF TWO TOWERS".
That is rich.
Here's yet another of the "one out of two" variety claims. The deal that some of these people seem to be making with themselves is that they'll tell the truth about the first explosion, but then go along with the program in re the second explosion.
And, note what happened: There was no reliable video of the first alleged plane. People simply were not convinced by the Naudet video and there was naught else. But, people were innundated with
43 versions of the second explosion and that is what the accounts seem to reveal; to wit: Almost no claims of seeing a jetliner hit the North Tower and agreement that "everybody" (other than the actual witness) saw a plane hit the South Tower.
In an odd sort of way, and unreliable though the witnesses might be from a perspective of what is and is not evidence, these witness accounts are, nonetheless revealing. They reveal information very consistent with the NO PLANE claim, especially, but not exclusively, as it relates to the North Tower.
As to the South Tower, the fact that more than one of the witnesses says, in effect, "we saw" rather than "I saw" is a indicative of not seeing a plane, could more of our dedicated debunkers but realize it.
Here is yet another "we saw" rather than "I saw" claim. Do posters realize the weakness of such claims; and, more importantly, are posters beginning to realize that the witnesses they thought existed simply do not exist?
Answer for yourselves, at least, even if you're unwilling to post your dawning recognition that NO PLANES hit the WTC and that, as a matter of fact, that is what the witnesses actually say.
You appear to have noticed the "we" issue yourself, djlunacee. Good for you. Now deal with the signficance of the issue.
Hey, do we have any fallacy spotters out there?
Let me guess: Are you trying to say that "you are right and I am wrong"?
