• 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:
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/

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/FOIAFBIAppealDenial.jpg?t=1277939683[/qimg]

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.
Click to expand...

Naw the NTSB didn't do squat.
 
Last edited:
Caaution to posters and lurkers: Post # 1368 is FUBAR. Gross misstatements abound

I think Carlitos may have stumbled badly in lengthy post # 1368. It does not appear that Carlitos examined the material posted in that post.

I may seek to go through the witnesses in that post, one by one.

Next up from the alphabetical listing in post # 1368 is:

Daniel Bang,


"...a 21-year-old financial analyst, was about one block away when he watched the second plane hit the South Tower.

"I had no idea what was going on, I just saw the side of the building explode out,'' he said.

He continued to watch in disbelief as the first tower collapsed like a planned demolition."

The above is a perfect illustration of why newspaper articles are not useable as evidence.

The actual PLANE SPOT declaration does not even come from Daniel Bang, it is written into the story and attributed to him by inference. But, if you take a look at what Bang actually says, and read it for what it is, he says he saw something "explode" which is exactly what almost everyone else verifiably present said.

Here's the newspaper source for that blatantly obvious piece of newspaper manipulation:

http://www.sfgate.com/today/0912_chron_nyscene.shtml

Hey Carlitos, are you sure you want to leave post # 1368 the way it is?
 
DGM said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are stuck. The NTSB often investigates plane crashes that are thought to be criminal. Further, you are being naive to a farethewell. The NTSB is the repository of plane crash expertise in the US. It is a barely plausible "fig leaf" to justify the exclusion of NTSB from determining what happened on 9/11 based on a "not my yob" jurisdictional cop out.

Who are you trying to fool, DGM?
 
jammonius 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.
Click to expand...

Jamm- it is a filthy lie, to call these people "No-Planers".

please quote statements from them, where they state for the record that they do not believe planes flew into the WTC on 9-11.

if you put these posts in a newspaper or an internet blog, you could be sued for libel.
 
by Jamm's logic, anyone who was on the north side of the tower as it got hit, and saw the northside explosion and not the plane impact, is a No-Planer.

:)

I did not see JFK get shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. Does that make me a "second-shooter CTist"?
 
Next up in post # 1368 Rich Bautista does not say he saw a plane

Rich Bautista

Rich Bautista, 56, a construction consultant, was headed to a 9 a.m. appointment on 59 Maiden Lane, two blocks away from the World Trade Center, when he heard the first blast. "It was so fast, it was so loud," he recalls. "I just came out of the Fulton Street subway when I heard this terrifying explosion. I looked up and saw smoke surrounding the World Trade Center. People started running. There was mass hysteria." Bautista's co-worker Ernie Kneuer, 29, saw flames pouring out of the building. They went up to the 40th floor of their building just in time to see the second plane collide. "I saw dozens of people jumping to their deaths from the 80th floor," says Kneuer. "Bodies were landing on nearby rooftops and on the plaza."

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183

It is easy to see, yet again, why newspaper articles are so untrustworthy. Buatista DOES NOT say he saw a plane, and neither does his co-worker, also named in the story.

As to what Bautista actually says, let me double check, can posters and lurkers now figure out what word that starts with the letter "e" Bautista actually used to describe what he saw?


Hint: explosion
 
jammonius said:
You are stuck. The NTSB often investigates plane crashes that are thought to be criminal. Further, you are being naive to a farethewell. The NTSB is the repository of plane crash expertise in the US. It is a barely plausible "fig leaf" to justify the exclusion of NTSB from determining what happened on 9/11 based on a "not my yob" jurisdictional cop out.

Who are you trying to fool, DGM?
Click to expand...

When? Don't try flight 800, it will only show how much of a fool you really are.

ETA: The NTSB did lend it's expertise. Remember the FDR's and CRV's? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Jamm- do you have any evidence that the people you call "No-Planers" actually state for the record that they believe there were no planes at the WTC on 9-11?
 
Thunder said:
by Jamm's logic, anyone who was on the north side of the tower as it got hit, and saw the northside explosion and not the plane impact, is a No-Planer.

:)

I did not see JFK get shot by Lee Harvey Oswald. Does that make me a "second-shooter CTist"?
Click to expand...

Your speculation is epistemologically weak. People have two major organs of perception of information about the world around them. One is sight; the other is hearing. As between the two, what one sees may provide more information and information of a higher quality, perhaps. However, what one hears is extremely important in forming impressions of what is going on.

Had a jetliner been barreling down on either the North or South Tower, people whose view might have been blocked from one or the other or both, but who were nearby, would nevertheless have heard it and likely concluded it was a jetliner. Especially since it was that low and that fast and since jet noise is an everyday, common, easily distinguishable sound from other sounds.

I have gone over the flight particulars numerous times. So posters here know them by now, I would think.

But, just like almost everyone in the Dick Oliver video, that is so revealing, no one appeared to think anything was amiss up until an explosion is heard. We have now seen, even in the accounts posted in support of PLANE SPOTTING by Carlitos, that people almost always say "explosion"and almost never say "plane crash."

Please try to be a little more forthcoming with your own process of thinking about the information that is right in front of you.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Had a jetliner been barreling down on either the North or South Tower, people whose view might have been blocked from one or the other or both, but who were nearby, would nevertheless have heard it and likely concluded it was a jetliner. Especially since it was that low and that fast and since jet noise is an everyday, common, easily distinguishable sound from other sounds.
Click to expand...

at a baseball game, you hear the sound of the ball reach the pitcher, a split second after he actually catches the ball.

why is this? because light moves faster than sound.

this same principle took place on 9-11. the plane hit the tower before the sound of the engines and the explosion/impact hit people's ears. and remember, the plane was moving at least 500 mph. baseballs go around 90 mph.


....Jamm- do you have evidence that any of the folks u call "No-Planers" actually believe there were no planes at the WTC on 9-11?

if not, u should retract this claim.
 
Last edited:
AJM8125 said:
Yeah, newspapers aren't suitable unless they back up your delusion, right jammonius?
Click to expand...

Hey, AJM,

I consistently say I do not rely on NO PLANE accounts from newspapers or truther sites anymore than I would suggest debunkers rely on newspapers or debunker sites for witnesses.

I have been consistent in saying this and in showing my sources. I don't understand why you chose to go in the direction you did in your post. :boggled:
 
AJM8125 said:
Pssst... jammonius:

They went up to the 40th floor of their building just in time to see the second plane collide.
Click to expand...

Forgot something?
Click to expand...

Oh boy, your level of resistance to understanding is incredibly high today for some reason.

That statement is not made by the person it is attributed to, read literally. Instead, it is made by the reporter and attributed to the person.

That is unreliable.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
Jamm- do you have any evidence that the people you call "No-Planers" actually state for the record that they believe there were no planes at the WTC on 9-11?
Click to expand...

Your post is wide of the mark and reflects an elementary misunderstanding of the way information is treated.

You are putting the matter in the context of "belief". I am not naive. I know that most people "believe" they "believe" jetliners crashed into the WTC on 9/11, even if they were standing there when it happened and didn't see a plane, hear a plane or think a plane was present.

My best witness, Asst. Commn. Stephen Gregory probably "believes" he had better "believe" that jetliners hit. David Handschuh has, in fact, stated that he "believes" it happened even though he was standing there, took the picture (of an explosion) and encountered no debris, from right underneath, practically speaking.

The issue is not what the person believes because what a person believes is her business.

How many times have you seen the following sentence in my posts:

You can continue to believe jetliners hit the Twin Towers for as long as you can.

I do not dispute what people believe. I assess what information they have if they are witnesses.

There exists enormous social pressure, in the way of conditioning, as well as in the way of our own xenophobic need for certain kinds of "enemies," to adhere to the common storyline, imho.

Put it this way: What will happen if a large number of people do start re-assessing what they believe they believe about 9/11? What happens then?

In simple terms, and once again speaking for me, my speculation is that such re-assessment might create uncertainty, confusion and, perhaps, fear and loathing.

I think, speaking for me again, that people will continue to believe jetliners were involved on 9/11 for, you guessed it, as long as they can. The recognition that refusal to confront the truth of the matter will lead to other and further such attacks against us is probably the best inducement to re-assessment, imho.

Get it?
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Hey, AJM,

I consistently say I do not rely on NO PLANE accounts from newspapers or truther sites anymore than I would suggest debunkers rely on newspapers or debunker sites for witnesses.

I have been consistent in saying this and in showing my sources. I don't understand why you chose to go in the direction you did in your post. :boggled:
Click to expand...

You've already cited information from a leading newspaper earlier in this thread because why? It supports your delusion, that's why.
 
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