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

[triforcharity]

1--People do realize don't they that saying there were passengers presupposes there were planes and does not prove there were any, right?

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

What else would explain their luggage and stuff in the Twin Towers?

2--There is no authentic passenger manifest for Flight 175 that has ever been shown to exist.

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

Do posters contest the claim of fact that there is no authentic (admissible as evidence) flight manifest for Flight 175?

No, because it is a lie -B- Lie.

See here.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200018.html

Click Download. It is safe,as I have it DLed on my computer.

BTW, this is ALL admitted evidence into a FEDERAL court, and was STIPULATED by the defense to be true.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/flightmanifest.png
Here is just 1 screen grab for you.

3--There is no reliable DNA (admissible as evidence) ever produced confirming the death of passengers from Flight 175, the subject of this thread.

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

Do posters contest that claim?

Not proven fact.

And yes.

4--United never even issued a clear statement claiming Flight 175 had crashed; and, instead, merely issued an awkwardly worded, ambiguous declaration that referred all inquiries to the FBI.

Do posters acknowledge or challenge this claim? If so, based on what?

Yes, it is your claim, not back it up. Now, while you are at it, why not care to explain why UA would need to issue a P.R. when everyone knew what planes crashed?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

What else would explain their luggage and stuff in the Twin Towers?



QUOTE]



Jam thinks all of the plane wreckage, luggage and body parts were planted (he has zero proof of course...)

I'd like to know if he thinks the passengers and crew who died never existed.

 

[dafydd]

What else would explain their luggage and stuff in the Twin Towers?



QUOTE]



Jam thinks all of the plane wreckage, luggage and body parts were planted (he has zero proof of course...)

I'd like to know if he thinks the passengers and crew who died never existed.

Jammy can believe six impossible things before breakfast.

 

[carlitos]

I suspect Jam thinks you are lying and thinks you were 'in on it', or he thinks that your stating you knew people who were on the planes 'is your opinion', but as Jam doesn't play '20 questions' as he calls it, don't expect him to elaborate.

Still cameras? Can you please post up your sources for that claim? Thanks. Furthermore, whether they are from still cameras or are cribbed from one or more of the ALL43 videos, which is what I think they are, they are still not proof of "flight 175" as you claimed. So, my refutation of your claim still stands as a proper correction of your over-statement.

I would like an explanation for the still photos. I am not optimistic.

 

[JohnG]

Jammy can believe six impossible things before breakfast.

Well, he's certainly gone down the rabbit hole...

 

[fess]

1--People do realize don't they that saying there were passengers presupposes there were planes and does not prove there were any, right?

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

Total unadulterated crap!

2--There is no authentic passenger manifest for Flight 175 that has ever been shown to exist.

Do posters grasp that fact, or not?

If I remember correctly, at a certain trial, a full passenger manifest was presented for Flight 175. This manifest not only listed the first and last names of the passengers, but also their seating arrangements.

The documentation was accepted by the court as evidence by the prosecution and the defense.

But, I’m sure that you won’t accept a ruling by a court of law as evidence.

4--United never even issued a clear statement claiming Flight 175 had crashed; and, instead, merely issued an awkwardly worded, ambiguous declaration that referred all inquiries to the FBI.

Do posters acknowledge or challenge this claim? If so, based on what?

Why would they issue a “clear” statement about something that is clearly known by all involved?

 

[fess]

Come on Jammonius, we are now more than 10 pages past where this ridiculous should have ended, and you have produced no meaningful evidence that supports you “no plane” theory. When will you get tired of being the laughing stock of this thread?

 

[Ignatowski]

DGM,

As predicted, the discussion of passengers is an emotional issue, as is evident in your two preceding posts. Are you sure you want to discuss this? I have no intention of provoking an emotional reaction from anyone.

It is alright with me if you assert that flight 175 crashed into the South Tower and you brook no challenges to that claim.

How convenient.

 

[jammonius]

What else would explain their luggage and stuff in the Twin Towers?



No, because it is a lie -B- Lie.

See here.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200018.html

Click Download. It is safe,as I have it DLed on my computer.

BTW, this is ALL admitted evidence into a FEDERAL court, and was STIPULATED by the defense to be true.

You are not up-to-date. I have said many times that Zacharias Moussaoui has to rank high as a key source of debunker 9/11 passenger list claims. Almost literally, were it not for Zacharias Moussaoui's signature on a stipulation, there would be no plane list evidence at all.

As it is, however, the actual list that one ends up wasting time downloading is not a list at all. Rather, it is an XL spreadsheet that claims to be a passenger list. As such, it is ordinarily considered INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE in any trial where a defense is being put up. This spreadsheet is only evidence in a phony show trial.

One does not have to be too exacting to see why this is true. Anyone who's ever watched an episode of, say, Perry Mason or Boston Legal will undoubtedly have encountered some drama centering on the "best evidence rule." A spreadsheet is clearly not the best evidence of an authentic passenger manifest.

No such document was produced in Moussaoui, and Moussaoui's signature on a stipulation does not authenticate the document; rather, it merely serves as proof that the Moussaoui trial was the sham that everyone who observed knew it to be in the first place.

But hey, I understand. The debunker world reeks of desparation and of a desire to trump up anything and everything it can to support its pre-conceived determination to support the common storyline at all costs.

It is all rather sad, really, that a key piece of information proving that planes crashed centers solely and exclusively on Zacharias Moussaoui's signature on a stipulation.

That is pitiful.

Now let us turn our attention to something that is beyond pitiful and borders on out and out fraud:

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/flightmanifest.png
Here is just 1 screen grab for you.

In posting up BS screen grabs like the above, all one suceeds in doing is confirming the truth of the fact that no authentic passenger manifest for any 9/11 flight has ever been produced and none can be linked.

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

I'll put it you posters and lurkers this way:

I dare you to post an authenticated passenger manifest for Flight 175. And, if you don't produce it, you will have succeeded in showing that the NO PLANE claim is true.

I dare you.

Not proven fact.

And yes.

The absence of any link to any claimed DNA proof speaks volumes.

Yes, it is your claim, not back it up. Now, while you are at it, why not care to explain why UA would need to issue a P.R. when everyone knew what planes crashed?

The above should have resulted in a 3-alarm emergency amongst the Fallacy Vigilante crowd. Where are those folks when one needs them?

All the above does is show why and how the 9/11 psyop worked as well as it did; namely, no proof was ever really required; and, certainly, none that was valid was ever offered or shown to exist. The failure of proof of the common storyline of 9/11 remains in effect to the present, precisely because "everyone knew what planes crashed" meaning, of course, that no one knew any such thing.

Epistemologically the Q&A that serves to highlight the nature of 9/11 is as follows:

Q. How do you claim to know planes crashed on 9/11?

A. I saw it on teevee.

Teevee is not known as a purveyor of reality, could more of you but acknowledge it when that acknowledgment needs to be made.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Epistemologically the Q&A that serves to highlight the nature of 9/11 is as follows:

Q. How do you claim to know planes crashed on 9/11?

A. I saw it on teevee.

Teevee is not known as a purveyor of reality, could more of you but acknowledge it when that acknowledgment needs to be made.

I'll ask again. Since you don't think planes crashed into the WTC, how do you explain the grieving families and friends of people who were on the planes?

Clearly you choose to ignore the eye witness accounts of people who were in NY and NJ and saw the planes hit the towers- (some of those witnesses were in the towers, saw the planes hit and managed to escape)
Clearly you have never been to NY, because on a weekday on the 8am hour the streets of Manhattan are always packed with people on their way to work, as well as countless numbers of tourists. After the first plane hit, all eyes were focused on the WTC. There were thousands of eye witnesses in NY and NJ to the planes hitting the towers.

You have stated that the plane wreckage was either planted, or was not plane wreckage at all. (you offer no proof of course)

You think all the video footage of the crashes is fake. (You offer no proof )


Since you think there were no witnesses to the planes hitting the towers, and think there were no planes, its stands to reason that you think the people on the planes were fictional. Do you have proof?

How do you explain the families and friends who mourn for the people who were killed on the planes?

 

[240-185]

Still arguing with that 9/11 denier!?

 

[Dumb All Over]

How do you explain the families and friends who mourn for the people who were killed on the planes?

Simple. He doesn't give a rat's patoot about them.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Where are the aircraft and passengers? what do you think happened to them? They were seen to takeoff from their airports with passengers aboard. they never arrived at their destinations.

Where did they go?
If the passengers didn't exist who are all the people claiming to be work colleagues, friends and relatives mourning the people that were killed?

I haven't seen you answer any of these questions yet. All you do is try to shift the burden of proof back onto those asking the questions. You are making the extraordinary claim.It is up to you to provide the support for the claims. It isn't up to anyone else to provide an affermative rebuttal.

 

[EventHorizon]

One does not have to be too exacting to see why this is true. Anyone who's ever watched an episode of, say, Perry Mason or Boston Legal will undoubtedly have encountered some drama centering on the "best evidence rule." A spreadsheet is clearly not the best evidence of an authentic passenger manifest.

That's a new one on me. Argumentum ad fictional TV drama-um.

 

[BigAl]

You are not up-to-date. I have said many times that Zacharias Moussaoui has to rank high as a key source of debunker 9/11 passenger list claims. Almost literally, were it not for Zacharias Moussaoui's signature on a stipulation, there would be no plane list evidence at all.

What happened to my work-mate. Ed Felt, who was last seen boarding Flight 93?

 

[charmer]

Not tangential at all. You can be skeptical all you like but without some logic
or other sensible backstop of an argument, you're just JAQing off like so many
have before you. Have some courage in your own conviction.

One thing that is as close to a conviction as it can get for me is that
I don't discriminate between official and unofficial evidence. Either it
is an evidence or it is a forgery.
Now while we're at this sidetrack, what's your conviction?

See above re. "courage"
...
JAQing off. Like I said earlier.
...
Enlighten yourself. Educate yourself. Analyse what it is that bothers you. Ask
intelligent questions of professionals in the particular field.
In short, do your own fargin' legwork

Coming to this forum is a part of my 'farging legwork', didn't you realize?
I came here specifically to meet skeptics to help me understand things I was not so far been able to conclude upon. I still have other things to do...
So far though there were several attempts made to make me state my 'theory' without addressing the points I had about the videos.

What you're basically saying is that you have more professional knowledge than I
(credentialism) and could explain my points with ease (condescension) but since
I seem to be standing on the wrong side, you're sending me away to educate myself
(handwaving). If that's your position, I don't have a problem with it - it just seems
like JAQing off to me...

If you don’t have a theory, or an opinion, why waste all those words and your
time posting to this thread?

I said I don't have a theory, not an opinion, that's another strawman right there.
My opinion is that both official or unofficial evidence can be wrong and that it
would be very unwise to jump to any conclusions before examining and discussing it
properly.
As to why to 'waste' all those words, it seems I need to set some sort of a common
ground here before anyone would even touch the points I've made. It seems to me I've
already been marked down as a 'truther' by some and that it won't yield me any sensible
discussion because of that alone. If that really proves to be the kind of skepticism
practiced here I will have no problem leaving you to your convictions...

This is the last time I'll respond to this line of questioning as it is not on the thread
topic and the mods have warned us several times to stay on topic. If you wish to continue,
please start your own thread.

Okay but I will at least respond.
I respect that you are not willing to continue this (sub)thread of discussion but as
I've stated above, it seems that we need to tunnel through these sidetracks to be able
to actually touch the point, by setting some sort of a common ground. I came here with
concrete points I wanted to discuss about the topic but since have been subjected to
inquiry as to why do I even ask my questions considering the 'huge' amount of seemingly
contradicting official 'evidence'. To the effect of clarifying it, our conversation is
IMHO far less offtopic than numerous ad hominem and spamy posts in this thread.

You can disagree with my position (which I consider skeptical) that I need not to take
any evidence I have had no opportunity to critically check into account before
discussing other evidence possibly pointing elsewhere. But that doesn't mean that such
position is invalid.

The question here is are you basing your doubts on low quality screen grabs and youtube videos like jammonius is? Then there's your problem.

Not at all. Why do you even say that? Have any of my points from my first post had
anything to do with badly recompressed video? Let me check - no they haven't.
We can move on then...

I've actually met and have worked along side people who were there and saw it with their own eyes. That's just for starters.

I think you'd agree I have absolutely no chance to verify that piece of info. And even
if I choose to believe it, does that make any difference at all? Just because
some of the alleged witnesses are your acquaintances, does that make them more
credible or reliable than other witnesses of that day? With all due respect,
I don't think so.

I'm very familiar with the concept of propaganda. The brasscheck garbage you're pushing is a prime example of it.

I have no affiliations with Brasscheck whatsoever. I'm not 'pushing' anything.

This would be another example of 9/11 truth propaganda you've bought into:
"False flag operations".
"Evidence is routinely tampered with, forged or concealed."
Straight out of the Truther's Buzzword Dictionary and Coloring Book, which assumes
that anyone who agrees with the official narrative is a NWO shill.

And this would be another ad hominem strawman of yours I guess. FFO is just a word
(or a collocation rather) - the fact it plays part in someone's buzzword vocab
doesn't take away its meaning. Anyway you've sidetracked my point again - it was
about fabricated official evidence. Here, let me remind you:
i2<dot>photobucket.com/albums/y44/messiercat/afghanistan/cave.gif

I could reciprocate with offliner buzzwords too: huge amount of evidence, government
expert, disrespect of victims, CT nut, tin hat, and so on. It's in the same league
and serves only one purpose IMHO - to outshout the dissenters...

Oh, and let me assure you I have nothing to do with the coloring book you
mentioned and certainly don't consider you a NWO shill, that's just another
small fallacy on your part.

And you know this... how? Are you one of those "few"?

Come now, this is a part of searching the common ground - surely you are familiar
with concept of compartmentalisation (not the architecture sense). Or do you
disagree that large institutions/corporations/agencies in US generally operate in a
pyramidal structure of leadership with separate supervision over smaller units and
need-to-know basis within them?

But when your brasscheck video tries to draw a conclusion based on "evidence" it fabricates, that's OK then?

I suspect you're not even aware how fallacious your reasoning is. Even if what you wrote
was true, would it overlay my point?? Please stop strawmaning me.
Of course I don't think one bit that it's OK if a brasscheck video draws a conclusion on evidence
it fabricates but I also think it didn't happen in this case. All the hard material
is publicly available TV footage and the rest is the interpretation thereof to the effect
that it stinks when put in the context of the time when it was live on air. I don't
see any fabricated evidence there.

That assumes I've come to a conclusion based on one side of the story, which isn't true. For instance, just as I know case for the war in Iraq was a huge crock, I've come to the same conclusion in regard to 9/11 truth. The case for war relied upon wildly implausible scenarios such as massive ammounts of hidden WMD and bin Laden in cahoots with Saddam. 9/11 truth does that on an expotential scale. 9/11 truth begins at a conclusion - that Cheney masterminded the whole thing for instance - and works backward to find "evidence" to fit their pet theories, disregarding any contradiction that shows up along the way. It's for this reason that there's so many competing theories, but they do have at least have one thing in common: They are highly implausible, every single one of them. I know this because as with Iraq, I've studied both sides of the issue and come to these conclusions on my own.

All right, but what is this '9/11 truth' exactly? You're lumping together too many things here.
Why are you even discussing that particular theory about Cheney as a mastermind? I didn't mention
Cheney at all, did I? I'm just skeptical about certain things in the videos for the sake of this thread.

And about the method, starting with a conclusion... It happened in the official line too after all.
Right on 911 we got this theory (or speculation or an opinion if you will) who did the attack, why
and how the towers fell. Everything that transpired after that turned out to be consistent with the initial
theory 100%. What a coincidence...

No. We were presented with speculation, not facts. I'm not sure what the problem is. Do you think people aren't bright enough to understand what was happening?

Where did I imply that the comments in the TV footage were to be _facts_?? You are, yet
again, attacking a strawman. I said that I think we were presented with a _CT_ which
is not the same as _facts_ at all. A typical CT is a bunch of speculation, that I hope
is something we can agree on at least. But the devil's in the semantics - when someone
you choose to call a 'truther' puts forward something like that, it's a CT, but when
a government insider does basically the same, it's a mere speculation. Unconsistent
terminology imho.

What if I told you I shared his opinion and at about the same time he did? No offense but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened to those buildings.

Then I probably wouldn't really believe you. You can check other media footage from the streets
when it happened. Most people were shocked and had no idea why the towers fell and so quickly
to boot. This guy was absolutely sure and it really sounded like a script line. It took several
years for NIST to come up with their theory, which they have changed several times in the process
and in the end they don't even cover the progression of the fall as if it was the most ordinary thing.
So maybe it takes a rocket scientist to figure it out. But like I said if you find the whole snatch
benign and okay then there's nothing else to discuss about it I guess.

Clearly you choose to ignore the eye witness accounts of people who were in NY and NJ and saw the planes hit the towers- (some of those witnesses were in the towers, saw the planes hit and managed to escape)
Clearly you have never been to NY, because on a weekday on the 8am hour the streets of Manhattan are always packed with people on their way to work, as well as countless numbers of tourists. After the first plane hit, all eyes were focused on the WTC. There were thousands of eye witnesses in NY and NJ to the planes hitting the towers.

By the way, we have already been there. I don't think you have hard evidence of the _thousands_. In my second post here I've tried to argue that the number of first hand witnesses was actually much lower. Looking at the media we have several dozens of published eyewitness accounts. Anything above that can't be reliably checked, I'm afraid.

 

[fitzgibbon]

One thing that is as close to a conviction as it can get for me is that I don't discriminate between official and unofficial evidence. Either it is an evidence or it is a forgery.

Yet you take no stance (at least in so many words). That qualifies as JAQing off in the local parlance (Just Asking Questions, the prelude to many a 'truther' trying to disguise his/her pre-existing biases). So far, everything you've posted bears the hallmarks of a 'truther' without the benefit of courage of conviction.

Now while we're at this sidetrack, what's your conviction?

That planes piloted by Al Qaeda operatives collided with the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and some then-meaningless dirt.

Coming to this forum is a part of my 'farging legwork', didn't you realize?

JAQing off does not (in my lexicon anyway) constitute "legwork".

I came here specifically to meet skeptics to help me understand things I was not so far been able to conclude upon. I still have other things to do...
So far though there were several attempts made to make me state my 'theory' without addressing the points I had about the videos.

Well, given that we're approaching the 9th anniversary of the day in question, I don't think it's too much to expect that (coming into a forum known to rock casual [and not-so-casual] 'truthers' on their heels with probing, knowledgeable opinions) you would have formed an opinion one way or another and be prepared to defend it.

You seem to think this is too much to expect. You might be right (for reasons not immediately apparent to you).

What you're basically saying is that you have more professional knowledge than I (credentialism)

On matters video-related? Extremely likely. On other matters? Maybe not as much (I do have some modesty; we Canucks're like that).

and could explain my points with ease (condescension)

Depending on the 'point', quite possibly

but sinc I seem to be standing on the wrong side, you're sending me away to educate myself (handwaving).

Handwaving=distraction.

You clearly came in knowing nothing (and you've admitted and re-admitted as much). It isn't the job of anyone here to educate you; that falls into your bailiwick. I'm sorry if I'm not going to bother serving-up the answer you seem to seek on a platter. Life's too short to waste on the lazy.

Now if you want to come in with an intelligent, informed question on a particular matter, bully for you. Honest questions will be met with honest answers.

Trouble is, honest questions (from 'truthers' and JAQers are far and away the exception rather than the norm).

I said I don't have a theory, not an opinion, that's another strawman right there.

Uh..no it isn't. However....

My opinion is that both official or unofficial evidence can be wrong and that it would be very unwise to jump to any conclusions before examining and discussing it properly.

I direct you to the search function. Avail yourself of discussions that have been going on here for years. Acquaint yourself with the existing arguments and counter-arguments.

Ensure you're not treading a path already well-trod. Don't expect me (or anyone else) to re-answer for the umteenth time the same question. I (and others who've devoted far more time to this forum than I) have better things to do.

If you can't be bothered, why should anyone else?

As to why to 'waste' all those words, it seems I need to set some sort of a common ground here before anyone would even touch the points I've made. It seems to me I've already been marked down as a 'truther' by some and that it won't yield me any sensible discussion because of that alone.

You seem to be treading a well-trod path. Until and unless that judgment seems ill-founded, is it really so hard for you to understand a certain....scepticism....about your scepticism?

If that really proves to be the kind of skepticism practiced here I will have no problem leaving you to your convictions...

And there's the thin edge of the exit wedge. Either propose something novel or don't be insulted when your JAQing posts get ignored.

Life's too short.

Okay but I will at least respond. I respect that you are not willing to continue this (sub)thread of discussion

Not true. Just not willing to tolerate JAQing-off. My time's worth something to me if not to you.

I came here with concrete points I wanted to discuss about the topic but since have been subjected to inquiry as to why do I even ask my questions considering the 'huge' amount of seemingly contradicting official 'evidence'.

Show some courage of your conviction and post past the challenges (that is to say, if those "challenges" haven't been addressed before. At this stage, it's a little questionable to quail at the most minor of challenges that've been presented.

You can disagree with my position (which I consider skeptical) that I need not to take any evidence I have had no opportunity to critically check into account before discussing other evidence possibly pointing elsewhere.

In which case, you're wasting everyone else's time which clearly you consider of less value than your own...

 

[fitzgibbon]

Double post

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

By the way, we have already been there. I don't think you have hard evidence of the _thousands_. In my second post here I've tried to argue that the number of first hand witnesses was actually much lower. Looking at the media we have several dozens of published eyewitness accounts. Anything above that can't be reliably checked, I'm afraid.

Even if the number of people that saw the planes hit the towers was 'several dozen'- the fact remains people saw the planes hit the towers.
Plane debris was found on site, as were remains from people who were on the planes.

New York is a huge city- THOUSANDS of people saw the planes hit the towers, particularly when the the 2nd plane hit, and the event was filmed from multiple angles.

The burden is on you to prove otherwise.

 

[Dog Town]

(which I consider skeptical)... I'm afraid.

(Well there's your problem right there)...You should be!