• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
 
jammonius said:
Sgt. 1st Class Joseph Wall

"Wall and others with him were staying in the Marriott Hotel located in the World Trade Center tower. He had already started his day's work in a windowless room in World Trade Center 7 when he mistook the noise of the first plane crashing for the air conditioning system kicking on. Once he heard the building was being evacuated, he, along with his coworkers, headed for the stairwell and started the five-minute journey from the ninth floor to the lobby. First from the lobby then the loading dock where he and others were allowed to exit the building, he saw an awful spectacle: a fireball from the plane crashing into Tower Two, debris falling from the sky, people falling and jumping from the towers. "I couldn't believe what I was seeing," he said. "I couldn't move and even if I could, there was nowhere for me to go. The crowd had stopped, mostly to see the towers, and was frozen just like I was."

http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/101801/11338-1.shtml

The above statement is a devastating NO PLANE statement as to both the North Tower and the South Tower.
Click to expand...

You quote someone who was in a windowless room during the first crash, and on the wrong side of WTC2 during the second crash, as a no plane witness? Seriously?
 
Yup. People who were at home watching TV are also "no plane witnesses." That's why there are so many of them.
 
Let us cut to the chase, if it wasn't a plane Jammo, then what in blue blazes was it? Or have you thought this far ahead, I have had enough of your little word games, this means this and that means that, Contrary to your popular belief, WE includes I, period, no way around it.

You are accusing the untied states government of conspiracy to commit 3000 counts of murder. I take this quite seriously, it appears you don't. Your comments for the last 35 pages are all speculation based on crappy videos and selective witness lists, you have yet to present a theory and come anywhere near presenting evidence.

Remember your clients, KSM and Company are counting on you, I notice that you have not gone through the evidence from the ZM trial that Carlitos was kind enough to link, very interesting videos, pictures, and a ton of info as to what is admissable as evidence in a court of law, and what is not.

I see by your logic, that if I am in a room with no windows and lightining strikes a tree outside, it really means that even though I know it was a lightining strike, it really didn't happen????

So while your DEW sounds oh so cute and good movie fodder, there is no science to back up your claims. I'm serious, where was this DEW fired from? At what range? What type of energy was used? Can I reheat some lasagna with it? Make popcorn? Bring the Fantasy to life for me.
 
jammonius said:
Your posting style differs from mine. I do not make assumptions about what others have said; let alone try to put words into their mouths or impute to them things they have not said.

Instead, if I think someone means to say something beyond the words they've posted I will "double check" my understanding for accuracy and give the poster the opportunity to clarify, agree, disagree or otherwise say what the poster meant.

You did not do that and you attributed to me things I neither said nor would have said.



I did not say the video was tampered with. I said the image posted from the video was cropped, enlarged and so on. And it was.



Chewy, all you are doing is expressing an emotional outburst. Permit me to suggest you calm down.
Click to expand...

You're logic & theories about 9/11 are illogical! But as Spock once said: "Go to Hell!"
 
excaza said:
Well there was...

[qimg]http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/l9/911-flight175windows-l.jpg[/qimg]
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes
Looks like a plane part to me.

Besides, a plane hitting a building in excess of 500 miles an hour and exploding doesn't tend to leave giant, easy to pick up pieces.

Oh right, it was 'planted.' Silly me. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


To the no-planers here- how do you explain images like this one? Is that not a piece of a plane? Or do you think it's a hologram?
 
jammonius said:
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.
Click to expand...


Allow me to be clear.

The only thing that I care about is whether some fact is correct or incorrect.

I couldn't possibly care less about whether any given piece of info is admissible in court. Because that criteria has NOTHING to do with whether it is true or not.

There are uncountable cases where true, verifiable facts have been barred from introduction.

There are uncountable cases were unquestionably false statements have been introduced as "fact" by "expert witnesses".

IN THEORY, courtrooms should be bastions of truth & justice.

Unfortunately, the people who do the vast majority of the talking, take the vast majority of actions are lawyers. "Legality" supplanted truth & justice in courtrooms a long, long time ago.

For them, "whether it helps me win the case" trumps "true or false" every time.

I'm interested in substance. In correct & incorrect.

You dwell in trivial fluff.

That clear enough for ya?
 
AJM8125 said:
The FBI took the leading role in the investigation and relied on technical assistance from the NTSB. You shouldn't resort to lying to further your halluncination, that's just bad form.
Click to expand...

Your declaration is false. The FBI has produced next to nothing, going so far as to refuse to release any information confirming what planes were involved in 9/11:

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/fbi-refuses-to-confirm-identity-of-911-planes/1875/

FOIAFBIAppealDenial.jpg


So, to start with, the FBI has never confirmed what jetliners crashed on 9/11.

It is to be recalled the FBI is said to have returned aircraft debris from Flight 93 to United who then destroyed such debris as they are said to have received from the FBI.

As investigatory process goes, those facts are enough to create a "reasonable doubt" in acriminal trial because essential evidence to prove what happened was either not turned over or destroyed via a process that violates the most basic norms of criminal investigation. Something the FBI is supposed to be good at.

But let us not be coy here. The FBI is, in fact, not stupid. That which was presented as the FBI's denial of a FOIA request and their handling of the Flight 93 debris makes sense only as a 'cover-story' designed to further the deception that jetliners were involved with 9/11 when no such thing happened.

In addition, as to what the NTSB did and did not do, your paraphrase is inaccurate, to put it no more harshly than that.

The NTSB distanced itself from the 9/11 charade in no uncertain terms, stating as follows:

"The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket."

The NTSB issued 4 identically worded statements for the events of 9/11 making it clear that it did not reach any determination of what happened.

While that statement is undoubtedly crafted so as to avoid making it clear the NTSB had nothing whatever to do with any "investigation" of 9/11 and was certainly not condoning or backing any findings and conclusions about it, the statement is not likely to get the attention of those who want to believe the common storyline of 9/11.

Put simply, the NTSB said we don't know, the FBI knows. And, the FBI won't say.

Come on posters, this should be enough to cause concern for even the most die-hard adherents to the common storyline.
 
We tried a 7 day 9-11 Truth boycott.

How about a 7 day boycott of Jamm and his No-Plane theories?

:)
 
3 out of 4 people interviewed in Carlitos' source are NO PLANERS

Hey posters and lurkers,

I should like to invite everyone to take a second look at the second source (first viewable one) offered up by Carlitos:

http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/101801/11338-1.shtml

I have already quoted NO PLANER Sgt Wall.

If you take a look at a more complete background for St. Atha, quoted by Carlitos, you'll see there's more to Atha's supposed PLANE SPOTTING. What he says he saw does not match with the flight path:

Sgt. 1st Class Stephen Atha

"Although Atha's workday would normally start at 7 a.m., putting him in the basement of Tower One by 8 a.m. Sept. 11, his team's decision to have breakfast to kick off the first of 25 days in the Big Apple had him and another non-military team member firmly stuck in traffic in the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel at 8 a.m. While sitting in the Chevy Suburban, he told his coworker it looked like the World Trade Center was on fire. As he turned on the radio and heard that a "small plane" had crashed into Tower One, "we saw the second plane come in as clear as day over the water right into the building, and ... I said 'This was not an accident,'" Atha said. When the truck emerged from the tunnel, Atha was two blocks from Ground Zero. He tried to call the people he knew were working in the buildings but wasn't able to get a line. When he spotted a payphone a block and a half away, he thought he might have better luck reaching them if he used that. As soon as he got to the payphone, he heard a rumble and saw a stampede of people rushing toward him. "So I turned around and started running too," he said. With a cloud of smoke at his heels, he sprinted four to five blocks until he reached the Hudson River. "I thought the building was tipping over, from the point of impact up," he said. "I just knew I had to run fast enough to clear the building."


In addition to Wall and Atha, two other soldiers were also interviewed at the link.


Staff Sgt. Robert Curtis

"For Curtis, Sept. 11 was "a long day that went on forever, like it was in slow motion." He and other team members were in traffic trying to enter the parking garage for Building 7, when they heard the first airplane fly over. From where he was sitting, he saw the explosion. He and the others got out of the vehicle, walked across the street and saw a plane had hit one of the towers. While standing there, he didn't see the second plane hit the building, but heard the explosion.

Sgt. Justo Andaluz

"After serving in Desert Storm, Andaluz grew accustomed to precarious situations, but after the morning of Sept. 11, "there will be a few images that will not leave my mind," he said. Working with Wall inside Building 7 as the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center, he recalled people were calm as they evacuated, although rumors of car bombs and missiles were beginning to spread. As he looked through the lobby windows, he saw debris falling then realized people were jumping from office windows. "That sight still is in my mind," he said. After the second explosion, the calm was shattered. People were screaming and rushing out of the area. "I have been in combat, I have seen my share of destruction, but when I saw this monumental building engulfed in fire, debris falling all over and more people jumping ... to say the least, it was a very hard thing to see," Andaluz said."

Let's see if posters and lurkers can spot the NO PLANE elements of the "stories" (and that is what they are). This stuff, though interesting, does not rise to the reliability standard that I employ in assessing witnesses.
 
jammonius said:
While that statement is undoubtedly crafted so as to avoid making it clear the NTSB had nothing whatever to do with any "investigation" of 9/11.
Click to expand...


At this point it should be asked. How many times have you been shown that the NTSB only investigates accidents? Why do you ignore everything that's counter to your belief?

I personally believe you only post because your lonely and no one else will talk to you.
 
So, to start with, the FBI has never confirmed what jetliners crashed on 9/11.
... concern for even the most die-hard adherents to the common storyline.
Click to expand...

... this may be a mental health issue. Anyone who does not know which plane crashed on 911 is suffering from delusions. Total disrespect for those who died by spreading insane lies. This person is not as knowledgeable as the terrorists who take responsibility and gladly would repeat 911 if they could find 19 more idiots dumber than 911 truth. Honest terrorists, lying 911 truthers.

Why do terrorist tell the truth and 911 truth tell lies?

The NTSB issued 4 identically worded statements for the events of 9/11 making it clear that it did not reach any determination of what happened.
Click to expand...
Because the NTSB knows 19 terrorists did it! They have nothing to solve you are making up lies because you lack knowledge and make stupid statements, delusional statements.
When the NTSB finds out a crash was on purpose (terrorists did it) they do not do reports on what happen because it was on purpose. They know why the plane crashed, 4 terrorists pilots flew the planes into buildings and the ground. How many idiotic insane statements will you make before you stop posting pure stupid?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom