Tinfoil Hater
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,440
Still waiting for Jammy to explain away the families and friends who mourned for lost loved ones who were on the planes..
-
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?
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
-
- Tags
- no plane theory no planes
- Status
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Since I did report your post as off topic and the Mods did not take action, I'll assume that it's OK to respond within this thread.
Concrete points?
If these are your idea of "concrete points" then I think I see the problem.
That would be your concrete point #2.
You aren't required to verify anything, and most truthers won't do that anyway.
You brought it up, so yes you are.
Your "fabricated official evidence" is from a piece which ran in The Times. It is not "official evidence" or official anything.
I'll ask again: You know this how? And I'll add: Why do you think this is significant?
Well there's your problem.
I said "for instance" meaning I was using that as an argument a truther MIGHT make.
Wrong. bin Laden was thought to be a leading suspect at the time of the attacks. Because he was the guy who was, you know, blowing up our embassies and ships, killing a lot of folks, declaring jihad, stuff like that.
It was also suspected that structural damage and fire were the cause of the towers collapse. This is where truthers go off the rails. Whereas science asks "Why did the towers fall? We know two large airliners plowed into them, let's work forward from there."; Truthers ask "Why did the towers fall? We know there's a pod under the wing therefore the government did it. Let's find more stuff to fit this theory."
See the difference?
We have a rocket scientist here too, and he didn't have too much trouble figuring it out either.
Ask a New Yorker. I've heard there's dozens of them.
Last edited:
Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation 3/31
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368
Alright, posters and lurkers, we will here assess a rather large group of 9 potential witnesses from Carlitos' post # 1368, pg. 35 to see how many of them might qualify as verifiable, reliable witnesses claiming to have seen and heard a jetliner hit the South Tower.
Ingrid Ernst
Ingrid Ernst, a flight attendant on Lufthansa Airlines, was looking out her hotel window across the Hudson River from New York City on Tuesday morning when she saw a jumbo jet penetrate the second World Trade Center building.
``It was going as fast as a regular plane. I didn't realize what was happening, Ernst, 23, of Hamburg, Germany, told the Daily News by phone from the Sheraton Hotel in Weehawken, New Jersey.
Ernst was relaxing by her window, planning her vacation in Los Angeles today, when she saw one of the hijacked passenger planes crash into the middle-to-upper floors of one of America's tallest landmarks.
``You saw the plane disappear, then fire on the other side, she said of the jet, which appeared small from her vantage across the river. ``It was like you are in a movie - it takes you awhile to realize what's happening. You're just shocked, you can't think anything at the moment.
Daily News, September 12 2001
By now, even the most recalcitrant posters and lurkers will recognize that Ingrid Ernst is not a reliable or verifiable witness because hers is merely newspaper hearsay where the claim of seeing a jetliner is actually constructed by the reporter and is, if anything, contradicted by what the person actually said. Her statement is actually more consistent with what all other verifiable witnesses said: See/hear explosion, see fireball.
Evan Fairbanks
(VO) In a day filled with images we may never forget, this one stands out. The extraordinary footage of an American Airlines jet slicing through the number two tower of the World Trade Center. That image was captured by 40-year-old freelance cameraman Evan Fairbanks who had been working two blocks away.
Mr. EVAN FAIRBANKS: I suddenly saw a white flash from the left side of the frame, and I--and it lasted long enough for me to be able to identify it as a--as a jet.
CHUNG: When you saw that plane hitting the Trade Center tower, could you actually fathom what you were viewing?
Mr. FAIRBANKS: Not at all. It was very surreal. I felt like I was in another dimension, and, you know, we weren't even on the same planet. I guess as the human stories start to emerge, and we see more people, and we hear more names, it will become a lot more real to me. But right now, I feel like I'm still in the bubble of--of the day, and the whole experience is just kind of numbing.
CHUNG: (VO) Fairbanks has been a cameraman for 16 years. But today he wasn't operating on ex-perience; it was instinct. And that's what drew him back for one last shot. That's when the tower began to collapse.
Mr. FAIRBANKS: I was looking in the view finder, and I just saw this reverse mushroom cloud billowing down, and I realized my proximity, and immediately just turned and started running north.
CHUNG: (VO) But for Evan Fairbanks, this is the image that will haunt him and us for the rest of our lives.
Mr. FAIRBANKS: The image of that plane, just coming out of nowhere, coming into the frame and dis-appearing into the side, into the south side of the tower as if a floor had been hollowed out and it was a hanger that it was just landing in. We've seen these images in movies, and we know that it's all artificial, and Hollywood makes it. And it's hard to put together that it's real this time.
America Under Attack, ABC News, 10pm September 11 2001
For reasons elsewhere explained, Evan Fairbanks is actually a NO PLANE witness. He is the person who described the event as a bad special effect.
EMT JARJEAN FELTON
...I seen the second plane coming. I'm thinking isn't that plane too low? I'm like... then I noticed, I seen it turn. It turned and went right in the building. But we're behind, like this is the building, it went in, and you see the explosion in the front...
Q: On the other side than you?
A: Yeah...
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005...ean_felton.pdf
While the source to which the quote is attributed is not the right source, this witness, Jarjean Felton, is an emt whose statement can be found in the Task Force Witness Statement compilation. As posters and lurkers know, that is the single best source of reliable and verifiable witnesses there is.
As Jarjean Felton said he saw a plane, and even though he describes a flight path that is incongruent with the claimed path of the shadow thingy, I am going to count Felton as a witness. He is, then, # 2.
FIREFIGHTER THOMAS GABY
Q. The second plane?
A. I saw it coming in, I heard it, and bang, it hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110140.PDF
Firefighter Gaby's statement is properly sourced, making him a potentially reliable and verifiable witness. His statement is among the 503 Task Force Witness statements (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110140.PDF). Therefore, so far so good.
However, Gaby fails as a witness because of both what he actually says and because of where he actually was. He was at West and Vesey and it is doubtful he could see a jet from where he says he was. Plus, more importantly, he actually invites us not to believe him:
"I took the -- which I had the radio on, I also
took the cell phone with me, headed back towards the
command center outside, and believe it or not,
somewhere in between there the plane had hit, the
second plane.
Q. The second plane?A. I saw it coming in, I heard it, and bang, it
hit. I proceeded to try to call my wife to tell her to
stay home on the cell phone. It didn't work. I went
into I believe the American Express Building and called
her from there. I left a message at work for her to go
home if she could, and then I went back towards the
command board. I didn't know exactly where Chief Burns
was, but watching all the outside activities going on,
I was trying to get a feel for where he would be."
Based on Gaby's invitation to us to "believe it or not" I don't think we can accredit him with being believable.
FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH GALASSO
After the first plane hit, we were here, actually. We could see the towers actually from here. So after the first plane hit, we saw it on the news. So we came up here to look out the window, and we saw it. We watched the second plane hit. Just as the second plane hit, that's when we received the alarm.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110322.PDF
This is another one of your "what you mean we Kemosabe" witnesses. While his statement is validly sourced, verifiable and reliable as to what he says, we cannot credit this person with being a witness because he, like several others we have encountered, insists on making himself FUBAR as a witness by refusing to say what he, himself saw, and only saying what a group saw and thus making his statement invalid as hearsay.
I know posters here think it's ok for one witness to speak for an undifferentiated group, but that is not how real evidence works. So, this person does not count as a PLANE SPOTTER.
Nicholas Gasper
Nicholas Gasper, a city transit employee who was standing on the Brooklyn side of the Brooklyn Bridge, said he watched the second plane "doing a tilt into the building. From what I saw, it looked like the plane sliced into the tower."
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, September 12 2001
The above is useless hearsay, improperly sourced and it is not possible to even know what part Gasper actually said versus what part is attributed to him by the reporter.
Karen Lane Gilsenan
Then, it happened again. We saw an airplane, coming from the south and headed right toward the second WTC tower. It looked so odd there. Planes are never flying in the middle of Manhattan like that. We were so close that I knew that it was a United Airlines plane. Yet the moment I saw the plane, it was clear that terrorists were attacking NYC. We all screamed. I grabbed my bag and ran for the stairs. "Get out, get out," we yelled as we ran.
www.wheaton.edu (Web Archive copy)
Another we saw [sittin on a see saw...]
This person does not count as a witness based on that and on its source.
John Del Giorno, Helicopter Reporter, WABC-TV New York
We were climbing through eleven hundred feet towards an assigned altitude of fifteen hundred feet, and then we saw it. Paul Smith, my pilot, saw it before I did - an airliner, traveling from south to north, traveling low and fast.
"Now what's this guy doing?" I asked Paul.
"You see this yahoo?" he shot back...
I could see the rear profile with engines on both wings as it approached the statue [of Liberty]. A Boeing 737, I thought. And then it dipped. Not a graceful, gradual airliner turn like you see in commercials; this was a sharp, abrupt turn that put the plane into a forty-five-degree bank, and it flew into the shade being created by the smoke plume from the north tower...
I moved and focused the camera, placed the remote in my lap, pressed "play" and "record," and looked back up my camera monitor. It now contained the image of a huge fireball.
"Did he just...?"...
"Holy ****," Paul said calmly. "Yeah. He just hit the building!"
Covering Catastrophe: Broadcast Journalists Report September 11
The above does not count as a witness based on the source and based on the fact that what he actually captured in his camera was the fireball and not a plane.
Police Officer James E. Hall
While assisting a female burn victim, I observed PO Rivero look up towards the WTC tower #2. At this time the undersigned heard the sound of jet engines and observed an aircraft with a blue color tail fly directly into the south face of WTC Tower #2.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports01.pdf
Hall is one of the PAPD witnesses, whose statement is validly sourced. While I, myself, have doubts about Hall's statement, he counts as a witness. He is # 3.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368
Alright, posters and lurkers, we will here assess a rather large group of 9 potential witnesses from Carlitos' post # 1368, pg. 35 to see how many of them might qualify as verifiable, reliable witnesses claiming to have seen and heard a jetliner hit the South Tower.
Ingrid Ernst
Ingrid Ernst, a flight attendant on Lufthansa Airlines, was looking out her hotel window across the Hudson River from New York City on Tuesday morning when she saw a jumbo jet penetrate the second World Trade Center building.
``It was going as fast as a regular plane. I didn't realize what was happening, Ernst, 23, of Hamburg, Germany, told the Daily News by phone from the Sheraton Hotel in Weehawken, New Jersey.
Ernst was relaxing by her window, planning her vacation in Los Angeles today, when she saw one of the hijacked passenger planes crash into the middle-to-upper floors of one of America's tallest landmarks.
``You saw the plane disappear, then fire on the other side, she said of the jet, which appeared small from her vantage across the river. ``It was like you are in a movie - it takes you awhile to realize what's happening. You're just shocked, you can't think anything at the moment.
Daily News, September 12 2001
By now, even the most recalcitrant posters and lurkers will recognize that Ingrid Ernst is not a reliable or verifiable witness because hers is merely newspaper hearsay where the claim of seeing a jetliner is actually constructed by the reporter and is, if anything, contradicted by what the person actually said. Her statement is actually more consistent with what all other verifiable witnesses said: See/hear explosion, see fireball.
Evan Fairbanks
(VO) In a day filled with images we may never forget, this one stands out. The extraordinary footage of an American Airlines jet slicing through the number two tower of the World Trade Center. That image was captured by 40-year-old freelance cameraman Evan Fairbanks who had been working two blocks away.
Mr. EVAN FAIRBANKS: I suddenly saw a white flash from the left side of the frame, and I--and it lasted long enough for me to be able to identify it as a--as a jet.
CHUNG: When you saw that plane hitting the Trade Center tower, could you actually fathom what you were viewing?
Mr. FAIRBANKS: Not at all. It was very surreal. I felt like I was in another dimension, and, you know, we weren't even on the same planet. I guess as the human stories start to emerge, and we see more people, and we hear more names, it will become a lot more real to me. But right now, I feel like I'm still in the bubble of--of the day, and the whole experience is just kind of numbing.
CHUNG: (VO) Fairbanks has been a cameraman for 16 years. But today he wasn't operating on ex-perience; it was instinct. And that's what drew him back for one last shot. That's when the tower began to collapse.
Mr. FAIRBANKS: I was looking in the view finder, and I just saw this reverse mushroom cloud billowing down, and I realized my proximity, and immediately just turned and started running north.
CHUNG: (VO) But for Evan Fairbanks, this is the image that will haunt him and us for the rest of our lives.
Mr. FAIRBANKS: The image of that plane, just coming out of nowhere, coming into the frame and dis-appearing into the side, into the south side of the tower as if a floor had been hollowed out and it was a hanger that it was just landing in. We've seen these images in movies, and we know that it's all artificial, and Hollywood makes it. And it's hard to put together that it's real this time.
America Under Attack, ABC News, 10pm September 11 2001
For reasons elsewhere explained, Evan Fairbanks is actually a NO PLANE witness. He is the person who described the event as a bad special effect.
EMT JARJEAN FELTON
...I seen the second plane coming. I'm thinking isn't that plane too low? I'm like... then I noticed, I seen it turn. It turned and went right in the building. But we're behind, like this is the building, it went in, and you see the explosion in the front...
Q: On the other side than you?
A: Yeah...
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005...ean_felton.pdf
While the source to which the quote is attributed is not the right source, this witness, Jarjean Felton, is an emt whose statement can be found in the Task Force Witness Statement compilation. As posters and lurkers know, that is the single best source of reliable and verifiable witnesses there is.
As Jarjean Felton said he saw a plane, and even though he describes a flight path that is incongruent with the claimed path of the shadow thingy, I am going to count Felton as a witness. He is, then, # 2.
FIREFIGHTER THOMAS GABY
Q. The second plane?
A. I saw it coming in, I heard it, and bang, it hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110140.PDF
Firefighter Gaby's statement is properly sourced, making him a potentially reliable and verifiable witness. His statement is among the 503 Task Force Witness statements (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110140.PDF). Therefore, so far so good.
However, Gaby fails as a witness because of both what he actually says and because of where he actually was. He was at West and Vesey and it is doubtful he could see a jet from where he says he was. Plus, more importantly, he actually invites us not to believe him:
"I took the -- which I had the radio on, I also
took the cell phone with me, headed back towards the
command center outside, and believe it or not,
somewhere in between there the plane had hit, the
second plane.
Q. The second plane?A. I saw it coming in, I heard it, and bang, it
hit. I proceeded to try to call my wife to tell her to
stay home on the cell phone. It didn't work. I went
into I believe the American Express Building and called
her from there. I left a message at work for her to go
home if she could, and then I went back towards the
command board. I didn't know exactly where Chief Burns
was, but watching all the outside activities going on,
I was trying to get a feel for where he would be."
Based on Gaby's invitation to us to "believe it or not" I don't think we can accredit him with being believable.
FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH GALASSO
After the first plane hit, we were here, actually. We could see the towers actually from here. So after the first plane hit, we saw it on the news. So we came up here to look out the window, and we saw it. We watched the second plane hit. Just as the second plane hit, that's when we received the alarm.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110322.PDF
This is another one of your "what you mean we Kemosabe" witnesses. While his statement is validly sourced, verifiable and reliable as to what he says, we cannot credit this person with being a witness because he, like several others we have encountered, insists on making himself FUBAR as a witness by refusing to say what he, himself saw, and only saying what a group saw and thus making his statement invalid as hearsay.
I know posters here think it's ok for one witness to speak for an undifferentiated group, but that is not how real evidence works. So, this person does not count as a PLANE SPOTTER.
Nicholas Gasper
Nicholas Gasper, a city transit employee who was standing on the Brooklyn side of the Brooklyn Bridge, said he watched the second plane "doing a tilt into the building. From what I saw, it looked like the plane sliced into the tower."
Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, September 12 2001
The above is useless hearsay, improperly sourced and it is not possible to even know what part Gasper actually said versus what part is attributed to him by the reporter.
Karen Lane Gilsenan
Then, it happened again. We saw an airplane, coming from the south and headed right toward the second WTC tower. It looked so odd there. Planes are never flying in the middle of Manhattan like that. We were so close that I knew that it was a United Airlines plane. Yet the moment I saw the plane, it was clear that terrorists were attacking NYC. We all screamed. I grabbed my bag and ran for the stairs. "Get out, get out," we yelled as we ran.
www.wheaton.edu (Web Archive copy)
Another we saw [sittin on a see saw...]
This person does not count as a witness based on that and on its source.
John Del Giorno, Helicopter Reporter, WABC-TV New York
We were climbing through eleven hundred feet towards an assigned altitude of fifteen hundred feet, and then we saw it. Paul Smith, my pilot, saw it before I did - an airliner, traveling from south to north, traveling low and fast.
"Now what's this guy doing?" I asked Paul.
"You see this yahoo?" he shot back...
I could see the rear profile with engines on both wings as it approached the statue [of Liberty]. A Boeing 737, I thought. And then it dipped. Not a graceful, gradual airliner turn like you see in commercials; this was a sharp, abrupt turn that put the plane into a forty-five-degree bank, and it flew into the shade being created by the smoke plume from the north tower...
I moved and focused the camera, placed the remote in my lap, pressed "play" and "record," and looked back up my camera monitor. It now contained the image of a huge fireball.
"Did he just...?"...
"Holy ****," Paul said calmly. "Yeah. He just hit the building!"
Covering Catastrophe: Broadcast Journalists Report September 11
The above does not count as a witness based on the source and based on the fact that what he actually captured in his camera was the fireball and not a plane.
Police Officer James E. Hall
While assisting a female burn victim, I observed PO Rivero look up towards the WTC tower #2. At this time the undersigned heard the sound of jet engines and observed an aircraft with a blue color tail fly directly into the south face of WTC Tower #2.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports01.pdf
Hall is one of the PAPD witnesses, whose statement is validly sourced. While I, myself, have doubts about Hall's statement, he counts as a witness. He is # 3.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Her quotes describe the speed of the plane and watching it disappear into the tower, and you call the claim that she witnessed it "hearsay"? You take cognitive dissonance to new levels Jam.
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Idiotic "refutation" aside, now you have 3 people you claim present valid stories of airplanes hitting the towers. Since 3 is more than 0, airplanes hit the towers. Why is this thread still going?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Come on Jammonius! We already know you can find an EXCUSE to dismiss any witness.
When can you actually back up your assertions (you know, the "planes should have bounced off", "plane crashes don't sound like explosions", "planes sound like city busses" you know, these things)?
When can you actually back up your assertions (you know, the "planes should have bounced off", "plane crashes don't sound like explosions", "planes sound like city busses" you know, these things)?
Last edited:
Tinfoil Hater
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,440
Jam won't address this because there is NO way he can explain away the family members and friends of the passengers and crew from the doomed flights.
Odds are Jam will claim
(A) They don't exist.
(B) They are lying.
Whatever theory Jammy fabricates to wish the plane passengers and their families away into the cornfield will be further examples of Jam's madness.
Last edited:
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 84,148
But that has to be fundamental to his 'theory' without an answer he has a big problem.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
well the newspaper account is just hearsay but since she could be called as a witness and testify the same in court then her evidence would be as good as anyones. Unless Jammo can show that she is obviously lying/does not actually exist then there is no valid reason to discount her evidence. This is not a court of law.
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
Are you an adult, jam? I ask this because I learned what a metaphor was in 3rd grade. But here you are, presumably an adult, and you have no idea what a metaphor is. It's astonishing to me that someone would be willing to show that they are less intelligent than a 3rd grader. Isn't that embarrassing?
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
Jammonius takes more than that to new levels, like... stupidity.
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
Derpa...
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
I was only referring to the parts that were in quotation marks, which indicates they were her actual words. If that qualifies as hearsay, so does every bit of testimony in this whole thread.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Don't you just hate it when you bring the evidence of the existence of planes against your "no planes" theory BS, Jamster?
Sticking your own foot in your mouth again, ain't ya??
Hello Chewy,
I think you have missed the point badly. I have always said there are valid, viable, reliable witnesses who claim to have seen and heard a plane. Do you recall the origin of this aspect of the discussion? It centered on my saying that those posters who chanted, mantra-like, the claim there are "1000s of witnesses to a plane hitting the South Tower" (or similar words), could not possibly prove their claim and that the claim is flat out false.
I said that, at most, they might be able to come with fewer than 100 and maybe fewer than 50. I told posters, also, that they could find viable witnesses in the Task Force Witness compilation of reliable statements and in the PAPD reports. I said they could find about 20 in those sources.
I have also said that in contrast to acknowledging there are viable PLANE SPOTTER witnesses, the debunkers betray their propagandistic agenda by not ever acknowledging (to my knowledge anyway) the existence of valid NO PLANE witnesses.
Witnesses almost always conflict with one another (remember my references to Rashomon?). Thus, it does not hurt the NO PLANE claim to acknowledge there are some valid PLANE SPOTTER witnesses. Likewise, it would not hurt the debunkers to acknowledge the existence of valid NO PLANE witnesses. Do you know of any debunkers who have done that? I do not know of any, other than a few grudging admissions contained in this thread. But, even there, the tendency amongst posters here is to try to explain-away the valid NO PLANE witnesses or to argue with the meaning of what they have said for the purpose of minmizing the NO PLANE aspects of the statements.
Lurkers, you will notice here that the NO PLANE claims made in this thread have the objective of being balanced, rational, reasonable and found in reliable sources. As my ongoing refutation of post # 1368 demonstrates, the same cannot be said for the PLANE SPOTTER adherents.
- Status