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

[jiggeryqua]

how about it No-Planers? put an ad in the NY Daily News and NY Post, and offer $20 per story.

I challenge you.

I realise I'm walking into a minefield, posting here after lurking for so long, but this is probably the silliest post I've seen here or elsewhere in a long time. I've grown accustomed to the usual impeccable standards of JREF being abandoned when it comes to responding to 'twoofers', but this is ridiculous. If you offered money for 'witnesses' to come forward to yesterday's big fight between bigfoot and elvis at the top of the empire state building, even a paltry $20, you'd suddenly have plenty of 'witnesses'. Go on, try it. "I challenge you".

 

[twinstead]

I wouldn't share my story of seeing bigfoot and Elvis at the top of the empire state building for nothing less than $50.

So there.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

$20 for my eyewitness account of a Mothman orgy...

 

[Thunder]

I realise I'm walking into a minefield, posting here after lurking for so long, but this is probably the silliest post I've seen here or elsewhere in a long time. I've grown accustomed to the usual impeccable standards of JREF being abandoned when it comes to responding to 'twoofers', but this is ridiculous. If you offered money for 'witnesses' to come forward to yesterday's big fight between bigfoot and elvis at the top of the empire state building, even a paltry $20, you'd suddenly have plenty of 'witnesses'. Go on, try it. "I challenge you".

one logical conclusion of this is that NO eyewitnesses can be trusted.

if they do not have a monetary insentive, they want fame or attention.

or they simply work for the NWO.

 

[carlitos]

I don't get out of bed for less than $1000, so my firsthand account of Elvis melting the WTC with his upper lip sneer is to remain private.

PS - jiggeryqua, humor aside, you make a good point. We don't need 9-year-old firsthand accounts to something that happened on live TV, for God's sake.

 

[excaza]

I don't get out of bed for less than $1000, so my firsthand account of Elvis melting the WTC with his upper lip sneer is to remain private.

PS - jiggeryqua, humor aside, you make a good point. We don't need 9-year-old firsthand accounts to something that happened on live TV, for God's sake.

They FAKED the moon landing, what's to say they didn't fake the airplanes on TV!? How do you KNOW it happened?




Do I fit in?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The other source that I rely on have in common that they are BUSINESS RECORDS. Such records are a well-recognized EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE; and, therefore, such records are ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE.

jammo in case you missed it...this is not a court of law

If it were then the people who originally made those statements would be called as witnesses. Their testimony would then be admissible evidence.

Please let us know when you have a trial in court re planes hitting the towers, until then they are as valid as evidence as anything on the internet.

 

[PB2007]

never mind....

 

[TJM]

I wouldn't share my story of seeing bigfoot and Elvis at the top of the empire state building for nothing less than $50.

So there.

You could probably make a case for seeing Elvis and Bigfoot consummating their marriage on top of the Empire State Building which was scored by a live performance of The Boston Pops and narrated by the cast of I Love Lucy.

But no planes on 9/11? That's just stupid.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

They FAKED the moon landing, what's to say they didn't fake the airplanes on TV!? How do you KNOW it happened?




Do I fit in?

Can you prove that the moon exists?
It could be a hologram..created by the zionists, in their plan to invade Venus

 

[TJM]

can you prove that the moon exists?
It could be a hologram..created by the zionists, in their plan to invade venusuranus.

ftfy.

 

[carlitos]

Welcome to page 28, 50-post-per-page lurkers!

To sum up the action so far:

 

[sheeplesnshills]

3) Also I remember that at the pentagon there was this Mark Walter figure convincing everyone that upon impact a jetliner compacts its wings:
(see 1st video on youtube searching "mike walter 911")
Why didn't it happen at WTC then?

Because it didn't happen at the pentagon. The wings on the 757 that hit the pentagon simply shredded in a similar manner to the Phantom seen here.

http://www.dipity.com/timetube/YouTube_F4_Phantom_Vs_Wall

The witness was simply wrong. There is no way the wings could have folded back and gone into the building. Simple physics would not allow that. Bear in mind the time from the nose of the plane touching the building to the tail would have been less than 1/3 of a second.......far too fast for the human brain to get an accurate picture of what happened. He saw the wings disappear into the building but there was no hole therefore his mind made up the story that the must have folded up and gone in so thats what he thinks he saw. Humans are not very good eye witnesses.

 

[dafydd]

Wow

After all 26 pages has Jam converted anyone???

No,and he never will,not even if he lives to be one hundred and twenty.

 

[beachnut]

Well, thanks for the youtube link to HD versions. They are no better. Some are not even actual video and are, instead, an additional layer of deception involving out and out simulations:

Who are you trying to convince with simulations, pray tell?

Don't worry jammonius; femr2 thinks your ideas on 911 are insane but his CD ideas are also pure nonsense and insane too. femr2 with insane ideas on 911, calling your insane idea on 911 wrong. Cool.

The planes were tracked by RADAR and impacted the WTC; In your fantasy world of Plymouth Wheel Covers and disrespect for the dead by making up lies about 911, RADAR is not a tool you use, it is real. Your ideas are insane on 911, the same as femr2; it is funny you both can't agree on much more than being liars on 911.

As reality passes you by, the simulations were used to study the damage and build models; to improve buildings!

...
Now please don't stick the labels Noplaner, DEWnut or other on me, I'd just like to have the above points accounted for somehow. Thanks.

Here comes another who does not do RADAR, or understand aircraft parts and people from flight 175 and 11 were at the WTC towers; and the Pentagon. Where do you guys hide for 8 years? Why can't paranoid conspiracy theorists understand RADAR? I assume you and all your paranoid 911 truthers never fly since it is all fake.

Some people did identify a 757. Even the news got it right on 911. Here we are over 8 years later and you and jammonius can't figure out 911. The plane part was figured out on 911. Then RADAR tapes show the exact route, DNA confirms who was on board.

What other nut case ideas do you have on 911; open a thread. Welcome to the forum; a skeptic forum, you need to be more skeptical about your opinions. Your ideas on this issue seem to be rooted in lack of knowledge and lack of experience.

 

[jammonius]

Hi, I'd like to chip in.

By the way, I have not seen so much ad hominem attacks in one thread in a long time. 33 pages, seriously? And yet you all keep coming back...

(On a sidenote, I'm not allowed to post URLs here so I apologize for referencing my sources in a more cumbersome way.)

Well then, I've looked at the videos and after doing some research there are several things that struck me as curious. Maybe some of you could help me out with them.

1) What I find weird is that not in one video segment (maybe save the suspicious "tinacart" clip) there's anyone who would mention noticing the approaching plane before the explosion. What do you make of that?

2) The color "filters" on several segments look also very weird. It was a clear sunny day on 911, right? Yet some of the clips are wholly painted over with unreal colors such as violet, brown or blue... Not to mention that the backdrop in those clips is gone.

3) Also I remember that at the pentagon there was this Mark Walter figure convincing everyone that upon impact a jetliner compacts its wings:
(see 1st video on youtube searching "mike walter 911")
Why didn't it happen at WTC then?

4) About witnesses - I'm sorry but I haven't heard of any "thousands" that would positively identify a 757 to have hit the second tower. I don't doubt some exist though. But as seen here: (look up Brasscheck TV, then navigate "the 9/11 files" and "The 9/11 Solution - RESTORED" )
it was not impossible to have false witnesses planted on the site.
On the other hand there were other witness accounts that are widely being ignored now by the media or the strict followers of the official line:
(see "watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw" on Youtube)

5) In fact there's this website that I'd have expected a self-proclaimed Noplaner would use to their defense, that shows how the videos could have been doctored. Now I'm not saying that I'm buying into everything they have to say but some of it looks serious enough to merit discussion IMHO:
(septembersclues<dot>info)



Now please don't stick the labels Noplaner, DEWnut or other on me, I'd just like to have the above points accounted for somehow. Thanks.

Hey Charmer,

Welcome on board! Your objectivity towards the NO PLANE claim and evidence and your questions concerning some of the videos are all much appreciated for their contribution to the forum and, of course, this thread.

I hope you'll post "early and often" as the saying goes.

I don't know why those who have replied to you have not extended a "welcome on board" to you as yet. While I can speak for the board on, well, next to nothing at all, as I'm sure you've gathered, I can, however, say that I think all here will join me in welcoming you.

glad to have you onboard

 

[jammonius]

Jam,

...

PS. REAL lawyers understand that "inadmissible in court" is not synonymous with "factually incorrect". Or that "admissible" is synonymous with "factually correct".

Tom,

Hadn't you ought to complete your thought, rather than leave it incomplete, misleading and incongruent?

Here's how the thought expressed above is correctly completed:

REAL lawyers understand that "inadmissible in court" is not synonymous with either being "factually correct" or "factually incorrect". Or that "admissible" is synonymous with "factually correct". The rules on admissibility are designed to foster reliable and verifiable fact finding.

 

[jammonius]

Indeed, the onus is on me to prove beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not all doubts, just a reasonable doubt, which you sir, have failed to provide or any other conspiracy theory for that matter, if in doubt refer to the Zacarias Moussaoui trial the evidence was substantial enough to indict and convict in a federal court of law, this conviction alone refutes all of your standards of evidence. Plane parts, DNA, manifests were all ruled admissable by a federal judge. I promise you if we were to go to trial I would win, all day, everyday.
Your case is little more than smoke and mirrors, looks good in hollywood, but all in all, if you were my defense lawyer I would take a plea. You have yet to present a single shred of scientific evidence, so I will ask this question to cut to the chase. If it isn't a plane then what in blue blazes is "shadow thingy"?

Hey Djlunacee,

I need to double check for accuracy of understanding: Do you hold that the Zacharias Moussaoui trial, that depended upon a written agreement between Moussaoui and the prosecution on what would be considered evidence, is a source you would rely on, much less tout? If so, you put Zacharias Moussaoui in the forefront of the effort to prove what happened on 9/11. I don't think he belongs in that spot.

Zacharias Moussaoui!

On the one hand it is factually bizarre as well as ironic that debunkers place any reliance at all on evidence that Zacharias Moussaoui signed off on as proof of what happened on 9/11. However, when one considers there is almost nothing else for debunkers to place reliance on that has some sort of arguable cloak of legitimacy, it is understandable that debunkers would do that.

What is even more interesting to consider is that it often appears that debunkers do not even realize they are placing their reliance on something Zacharias Moussaoui agreed on. Djlunacee, do you consider Moussaoui to be a source that can validate evidence?

Would you agree with me that Moussaoui should not be a source for determining what happened on 9/11?

After all, his trial was not forensic in nature. It was, by all accounts, nothing more than a political show trial with little or no credibility, authenticity and little impact as a venue for imparting the truth of events of 9/11.

 

[twinstead]

Tom,

Hadn't you ought to complete your thought, rather than leave it incomplete, misleading and incongruent?

Here's how the thought expressed above is correctly completed:

REAL lawyers understand that "inadmissible in court" is not synonymous with either being "factually correct" or "factually incorrect". Or that "admissible" is synonymous with "factually correct". The rules on admissibility are designed to foster reliable and verifiable fact finding.

A REAL lawyer and a real courtroom would eat you alive, Jammonius.

 

[jammonius]

Link to exhibits admitted into Moussaui trial is here.** Just reading the list of evidence presented by the prosecution is sad.




**For those impaired by solipsism, I see my mistake. It's not a link to the evidence itself, it's a link to a web page. Which links to another page. Which links to many other documents, pictures and presentations. Therefore, we I have no idea that the evidence actually exists. Or something.

No, Carlitos, you had it right to begin with. It is sad. One of the Moussaoui exhibits is the source data for the "Plymouth Wheelcover" thread. So, for those of you who might like to see a discussion centering on much of the Moussaoui exhibits, please see:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169344