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

[excaza]

Hey Lurkers,

I have already commented on that very photo containing handwritten lettering and a 'claim' the FBI has something to do with it.

This is what I have already posted in post # 1612:

"If you dump plane parts into a dumpster without marking them and identifying them, there is nothing at all that prevents someone from walking up and throwing things that weren't there into the pile."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6093743&postcount=1612

Now, here comes Mikillini and posts up the very photo, from some dumb debunker website, with that inane photo purportedly showing plane parts, FBI, no less, as proof of jetliner crashes on 9/11.

Demand better, posters and do not settle for cheap propaganda.

That photo is worthy of cartoon status and is completely FUBAR.

Ask yourselves, what the heck kind of investigation is presupposed by the sloppy, slipshod, haphazard, stupidly incompetent investigatory circumstances depicted in that photo?

Yeah, most of Manhattan has a few dozen plane parts they're just itching to get rid of at all times, and nobody investigating could tell the difference between junk and airplane parts.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed incivility

You seem completely ignorant to how crash investigations actually work. The parts are photographed in their original locations, then carted off to a hangar somewhere where they reconstruct as much of the plane they can find. Not like there was much to investigate anyway, they knew the planes were hijacked and got crashed into buildings.

 

[jammonius]

Are you insane?
Are you suggesting that is not landing gear?
2 planes crashed, what else could it be?

For the last time. Either you get it or you do not:

You cannot presume what has not been proven. On the other hand, please remember that I do not question your right to believe whatever you would like to believe. I will say, yet again, you may continue to believe jetliners crashed on 9/11 for as long as you can.

However, you cannot post your beliefs as though they are proven.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Hey Lurkers,

I have already commented on that very photo containing handwritten lettering and a 'claim' the FBI has something to do with it.

This is what I have already posted in post # 1612:

"If you dump plane parts into a dumpster without marking them and identifying them, there is nothing at all that prevents someone from walking up and throwing things that weren't there into the pile."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6093743&postcount=1612

Now, here comes Mikillini and posts up the very photo, from some dumb debunker website, with that inane photo purportedly showing plane parts, FBI, no less, as proof of jetliner crashes on 9/11.

Demand better, posters and do not settle for cheap propaganda.

That photo is worthy of cartoon status and is completely FUBAR.

Ask yourselves, what the heck kind of investigation is presupposed by the sloppy, slipshod, haphazard, stupidly incompetent investigatory circumstances depicted in that photo?

Seems like postulation on your behalf.

The key to that photo is the background, Jammonius. Can you see the X? Do you know what that means?

 

[excaza]

For the last time. Either you get it or you do not:

You cannot presume what has not been proven. On the other hand, please remember that I do not question your right to believe whatever you would like to believe. I will say, yet again, you may continue to believe jetliners crashed on 9/11 for as long as you can.

However, you cannot post your beliefs as though they are proven.

For the last time. Answer the question. What do you believe the landing gear came from? Oops. Sorry. What do you believe the tire, titanium, and steel assembly that looks exactly like the landing gear assembly of a passenger aircraft, came from? Planted is not an option.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Hey Lurkers,

I have already commented on that very photo containing handwritten lettering and a 'claim' the FBI has something to do with it.

This is what I have already posted in post # 1612:

"If you dump plane parts into a dumpster without marking them and identifying them, there is nothing at all that prevents someone from walking up and throwing things that weren't there into the pile."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6093743&postcount=1612

Now, here comes Mikillini and posts up the very photo, from some dumb debunker website, with that inane photo purportedly showing plane parts, FBI, no less, as proof of jetliner crashes on 9/11.

Demand better, posters and do not settle for cheap propaganda.

That photo is worthy of cartoon status and is completely FUBAR.

Ask yourselves, what the heck kind of investigation is presupposed by the sloppy, slipshod, haphazard, stupidly incompetent investigatory circumstances depicted in that photo?

So what is it now- 1 plane crashed, and one holographic plane, or no planes (but rather 2 holographic ones)?

You can't get around the fact readily recognizable plane debris was strewn on the streets after the plane crashes..

 

[jammonius]

You better read that again Jammonius. The object "postulated" is the panel containing columns 329, 330, & 331.
Did you conveniently skip that part?

I have already commented, in depth, on it in the prior thread as previously noted and linked.

The quote begins with an "it is believed" declaration and that sort of declaration is to the same effect as "it is postulated". Belief is not the same as proof, right?

The quote from the NIST report speaks for itself. There is little to be gained by the PLANE SPOTTER crowd in seeking to over-interpret the NIST report. Clearly and without a doubt, that report does not substantiate claims about plane parts. Instead, it merely confirms there has not been any positive identification of plane parts and only speculative, suggestive, propaganda, consistent with ongoing deception.

Sure, the language is probably 'close enough' for those who want to believe; however, it is vague enough for those who require proof to assert that deception and fraud is being practiced in what NIST did. That is, make it seem as if plane parts had been identified, when, in fact, and upon examination of what they actually said, no such thing had happened.

Isn't that rich. No plane parts identified, and NIST admits as much, albeit, in weasle word language.

 

[Thunder]

Jamm- why are you ignoring my very simple question?

its a yes or no question.

have you been to NYC and rode the NYC Subway?

 

[jammonius]

So what is it now- 1 plane crashed, and one holographic plane, or no planes (but rather 2 holographic ones)?

You can't get around the fact readily recognizable plane debris was strewn on the streets after the plane crashes..

Wait a minute. You are off on a very wrong tangent here. You are minimizing and turning the concept of investigation on its ear. Investigation requires proof, not speculation. The words you use form an oxymoron. You state:

You can't get around the fact readily recognizable plane debris was strewn on the streets after the plane crashes..

That is not how investigations proceed. The Latin phrase you need to keep in mind is:

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Where are all those fallacy vigilantes when we need them?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

For the last time. Either you get it or you do not:

You cannot presume what has not been proven. On the other hand, please remember that I do not question your right to believe whatever you would like to believe. I will say, yet again, you may continue to believe jetliners crashed on 9/11 for as long as you can.

However, you cannot post your beliefs as though they are proven.

You may have answered my question regarding your sanity..

There is a difference between 'believing' the planes crashed, and 'knowing'. The sane world knows 2 planes were flown into the WTC by hijackers, that is a fact. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

*sigh*- Once again, I will remind you that it has been proven that 2 planes crashed into the Twin Towers because :

(A) There were thousands of eye witnesses on site

(B) Millions of witnesses saw it live on tv, and dozens recorded it on camcorders

(C)Airplane debris was strewn on the street and nearby rooftops

(D)Remains from people who were on the planes were found at Ground Zero and on nearby rooftops

(E)Radar tracked the planes from the moment they took off to the moment they crashed

(F) Calls from the planes confirmed they were hijacked, Betty Ong's call was cut off the moment the plane crashed.

How much more evidence does one need that the planes crashed?

 

[EventHorizon]

I wonder if being wrong so often physically hurts. Thoughts?

 

[excaza]

Wait a minute. You are off on a very wrong tangent here. You are minimizing and turning the concept of investigation on its ear. Investigation requires proof, not speculation.

Where's your proof? All you've presented is speculation and ignorance.

Also, that's not an oxymoron. And it's 'hoc' not 'haec'

 

[jammonius]

Jamm- why are you ignoring my very simple question?

its a yes or no question.

have you been to NYC and rode the NYC Subway?

Look, Thunder, as per what you've posted here on the board, I gather you may be preparing to do an experiment as to whether the subway can be heard at Park Row and Beekman, and also what the buses there sound like. If you're going to do the experiment, then do it and we can then assess your results for accuracy.

I am not going to play personal Q&A games with you any moreso than I would engage in any other gotcha game process.

If my refusal to play along with your Q&A serves to dis-incentivize you from doing your in person experiment in what sounds can be heard on Park Row, then don't do it.

I am not going to play Q&A with you on the subject.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Look, Thunder, as per what you've posted here on the board, I gather you may be preparing to do an experiment as to whether the subway can be heard at Park Row and Beekman, and also what the buses there sound like. If you're going to do the experiment, then do it and we can then assess your results for accuracy.

I am not going to play personal Q&A games with you any moreso than I would engage in any other gotcha game process.

If my refusal to play along with your Q&A serves to dis-incentivize you from doing your in person experiment in what sounds can be heard on Park Row, then don't do it.

I am not going to play Q&A with you on the subject.

'Gotchya games'?

What is so hard about answering a direct question-

So far you have dodged every single request for PROOF to back your rainman theories..

 

[Thunder]

Jamm-

have.....you....ridden...the....NYC......Subway?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

I suppose every message board needs at least one resident nut..

 

[Thunder]

Look, Thunder, as per what you've posted here on the board, I gather you may be preparing to do an experiment as to whether the subway can be heard at Park Row and Beekman, and also what the buses there sound like. If you're going to do the experiment, then do it and we can then assess your results for accuracy.

you have claimed that the sound in the Dick Oliver video sounds NOT like a jet..but like a Subway.

I am simply trying to establish whether or not you have EVER heard a NYC Subway before.

If you have never heard a NYC Subway with your own ears, then how could you POSSIBLY claim to know what one sounds like?


...one cannot honestly claim something sounds like a NYC Subway, if one has never been to NYC.

...if you do not have the honesty and self-respect to answer this very simple question, why should I go through the work of going to Park Row and recording sounds for you?

if I tell you I heard no subways for 30 minutes....how do I know you will even believe me?

you may just conveniently accuse me of lying, as you have already stated that you believe "debunkers have an agenda".

you show me some decency..and I will return it in kind.

 

[tsig]

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around, did it really fall?

There was no forest there was no tree because nothing exists outside of my range of senses.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

you have claimed that the sound in the Dick Oliver video sounds NOT like a jet..but like a Subway.

I am simply trying to establish whether or not you have EVER heard a NYC Subway before.

If you have never heard a NYC Subway with your own ears, then how could you POSSIBLY claim to know what one sounds like?



...one cannot honestly claim something sounds like a NYC Subway, if one has never been to NYC.

And Jamm, subways dont all sound alike. The New York, Boston, Paris and London subways all have their own distinct sounds

 

[EventHorizon]

Jamm-

have.....you....ridden...the....NYC......Subway?

Keep in mind that an honest person would answer this question jam. Someone who is a deceitful liar would not. So the ball is in your court.

 

[Thunder]

And Jamm, subways dont all sound alike. The New York, Boston, Paris and London subways all have their own distinct sounds

the nyc subway is 110 years old. the 6 train is the oldest one of them all.

and its sound...is disgustingly distinct.