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

[djlunacee]

We need a new word for Jammy's mental condition.

Ignorance.

 

[djlunacee]

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.

Prime example.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

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.

Jammy, if there were no planes, please explain what happened to the people on the planes. If you don't think the people existed, how do you explain the family and friends who mourn for their loved ones who were on the planes?

 

[TJM]

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.

Awww jammy I knew you care! Thanks for thinking of me!

There are, of course, thousands of people that seen it with their own eyes. You desperately don't want to believe that because it cuts straight to the heart of your hallucination. When you come to the realization that not everyone who witnessed the airplane impacts will have given a statement to the authorities, it will be a giant step forward for you. Don't fear it jammonius, you can do it!

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

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.

So you admit people saw the planes hit the towers? This deflates your no planer theory. Your not believing that thousands of people saw the planes hit just tell me you have never been to New York City. Are you aware of the population in the New York city area? Do you know how many tourists are waking about the street level on any given day? Do you realize how busy the streets are in the 8am hour of people going to work in Manhattan area? Clearly more people saw the 2nd plane hit, because once one one of the towers was on fire, all eyes were focused on the WTC. And people saw the planes hit. Both impacts were caught on film, body parts and plane debris from BOTH planes were found on site.
I have met a number of New Yorkers who saw the planes hit.
I saw the 2nd plane hit live on tv.
2 planes crashed into the WTC

PROVE OTHERWISE

To date you have zero proof .

And again, if planes didn't crash, what happned to the people that were on the planes?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation 3/31
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368

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[/B]

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.

It's called a metaphor, genius.


Lets looks at what Evan Fairbanks said:

"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."

How do you take this as no-planer evidence? He was shocked at what he saw, it was like what you see in the movies, but this time it was real. He did not suggest what was happening wasn't real. I find it fascinating how you choose to accept or dismiss eye witness testimony with the wave of your hand. It's a prime example of cherrypicking, and deliberately misinterpreting eye witness accounts.

 

[Andy_Ross]

IF the planes didn't hit the towers where are they? Where are the people that were aboard them?

There are records showing that the planes were built and all the logs from the time that they were built that show they were serviced by both the owners and the manufacturers. There are all the pilots log books from the time they were built showing that they flew, there are all the airport records showing that they flew in and out of airports over the years.

Are all the pilots, service crews, airport staff that dealt with the planes over the years , not forgetting all the passengers and plane spotters who must be part of the conspiracy? If they are it just got a whole lot bigger.
Wnd the people that manufactured the aircraft? those that actualy worked on it at the factory, are they all part of the conspiracy? How about the Engine manufacturers and comanies that provided service parts and spares? They all keep exact records of where every part went, what aircraft they are on and when they were returned for refurb etc. Are they all in on it as well? It just got a whole lot bigger again.

this is beofre we mention all the families, friends and work colleagues of the people who were killed.

Not a single one of these thousands of people has ever come forward in 9 years? N oone has noticed that someone has gone back and inserted all those false records perfectly into all those filing systems of all those companies and organisations? Not for just 1 aircraft but for 4 aircraft.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

IF the planes didn't hit the towers where are they? Where are the people that were aboard them?

There are records showing that the planes were built and all the logs from the time that they were built that show they were serviced by both the owners and the manufacturers. There are all the pilots log books from the time they were built showing that they flew, there are all the airport records showing that they flew in and out of airports over the years.

Are all the pilots, service crews, airport staff that dealt with the planes over the years , not forgetting all the passengers and plane spotters who must be part of the conspiracy? If they are it just got a whole lot bigger.
Wnd the people that manufactured the aircraft? those that actualy worked on it at the factory, are they all part of the conspiracy? How about the Engine manufacturers and comanies that provided service parts and spares? They all keep exact records of where every part went, what aircraft they are on and when they were returned for refurb etc. Are they all in on it as well? It just got a whole lot bigger again.

this is beofre we mention all the families, friends and work colleagues of the people who were killed.

Not a single one of these thousands of people has ever come forward in 9 years? N oone has noticed that someone has gone back and inserted all those false records perfectly into all those filing systems of all those companies and organisations? Not for just 1 aircraft but for 4 aircraft.

I have a hunch Jammo doubts the planes, their passengers and crew (and friends and familes thereof) never existed. His proof? Nothing of course......

Shanksville and Pentagon no-planers who assert the planes existed, but didn't crash, usually suggest the planes were flown to a different location, and the occupants killed by government agents. No proof of course....

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

My answers in bold:

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.

What point have I missed & can you name one that's valid? I can see right through you Jam, I can see that you won't accept your responcibilities for your own actions. You deny that planes exist, but yet you proven that with your own posts through the words of the witnesses which you have quoted. Do you know what is false? Every statement & denial that you have made on JREF is a false accusation against the Government for which you have no evidence to prove that they "did" 9/11.

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.

You didn't tell posters squat. The posters on this forum, alone, have enough circumstantual evidence to prove you 100% wrong each & every time. You just can't take the hint that what you say, every word, is an utter failure.

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.

Us debunkers, aren't out for propaghanda. Nor do we take peoples' money & spend it on wild vacations, like your mentor Richard Gage does constantly. You Truthers say that your organisation is non-profit, who does profit from the 9/11 dead? You claim innocence, I claim that you Truthers are a bunch of thieves & frauds.

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.

Prove that there were "no-planes" on 9/11. Don't give us fraudulent claims from pure insanity.

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.

Stop it with your "lurkers" postings. The lurkers know that you're part of an insane group who makes fradulent claims. You don't have any evidence to disprove that there weren't any planes on 9/11. You are barking up the wrong tree, more like you're barking up the tree of insanity.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

It probably is. But that does not really matter as this is not a court just a debating forum............if these issues ever come to a real court, people will testify in person, after swearing in..........the her story would cease to be hearsay and could be used to prove that indeed planes hit the towers.
Jammo is using legal definitions of admissibility of evidence which are irrelevant in this forum. He could check that she is who she said she was, check that she was indeed in NYC on that day and was indeed in a position to see what she said she saw. He won't do so.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I have a hunch Jammo doubts the planes, their passengers and crew (and friends and familes thereof) never existed. His proof? Nothing of course......

Shanksville and Pentagon no-planers who assert the planes existed, but didn't crash, usually suggest the planes were flown to a different location, and the occupants killed by government agents. No proof of course....

Why? what is the point of doing that? Why not just crash them as advertised?

A good example of ignoring the majority of evidence and contorting the rest to fit your one little nugget.

They seem only able to see a few trees, not the woods.

 

[dafydd]

Jammy,what happened to Ed Felt? You've avoided that question for a long time now.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Jammy,what happened to Ed Felt? You've avoided that question for a long time now.

I'll be shocked if he answers this..

 

[Oystein]

I'll be shocked if he answers this..

Maybe we should all resist the temptation of addressing any other point and all keep insisting that jammi answer this one question:

jammonius, what happened to Ed Felt, who was last seen boarding one of the doomed flights?

 

[charmer]

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

Well I think that reserving my judgment, not jumping to conclusions and being
skeptical of both official and 'truther' evidence is pretty clear stance, thank
you very much. I've had no chance to examine and check most of the evidence of
whatever kind so it seems only reasonable to me to say that I really don't know the
grand truth. By examining more and more evidence I may sometime reach the point you
seem to be at already, i.e. the absolute certainty - but I'm skeptical
See my response to AJM8125 concerning the power of labels for further reference.

Anyway, if you insist I'm just a cowardly JAQer, truther in disguise or
whatever other label you may have for me, then be my guest, but I'm not going to
submit to your self-perceived authority just because you claim your conviction
is stronger than mine. Feel free to ignore my posts...

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).

Are you weaving some kind of CT right there?

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.

"Knowing nothing"? How did you conclude that? Or you know what? Never mind.
Life's too short yet you keep educating me how pathetic I am for not joining
your offliner club or discrediting myself by joining the 'truther' club...

So here's the newsflash - some things in the official line might be true and
some might not. If I debunk something or uncover a lie, it just might crumble
the whole particular narrative or it might not. If this is beyond your
comprehension then I'm sorry for you.

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.

Just look at this thread alone - so much spam, ad hominem, sidetracks,
meta-discussions and other noise. I browsed some of them briefly and really don't consider them to be
any better plus we need to consider that a lot of info there is obsolete,
debunked, buried or otherwise hidden or invalid. Digging for info in old
threads seems like a sisyphean toil to me...

But make no mistake - I'm not insulted that you keep trying diverting
my attention to these meta-topics. I just find it curious. I have no problem
if you choose to ignore my posts - maybe we will meet in another thread where I
post something you'll find 'novel' enough to respond to in a tad more
substantive manner...

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.

Look, all I'm saying is that we only have several dozens of _documented_
eyewitness accounts in total at best. You can't possibly _prove_ that there were
_thousands_ of first hand witnesses. You can assume it, you can wish for it to
be so, others may agree with it etc., but you don't have the evidence. I've
already argued the point, please look it up.

Still waiting for Jammy to explain away the families and friends who mourned for
lost loved ones who were on the planes..

By the way, are you aware that there actually were fake victims already reported? I didn't
know that until recently:
www<dot>nytimes.com/2002/12/31/nyregion/separating-fakes-from-9-11-victims.html?pagewanted=1
It just gives me the perspective what of all things _can_ be faked...

That would be your concrete point #2.

Wrong. My point #2 is about washover colors, not blurry shapes caused by
TV footage processed and encoded multiple times. I think the colors themselves
were part of the original footage. Do you claim that
they were not? I just want to be sure what you're saying.

Your "fabricated official evidence" is from a piece which ran in The Times. It is not "official evidence" or official anything.

And where did Times get that? Did they make it up or do they have their
own intelligence agency mayhaps? It was also commented by the former secretary
of defense. Here you go:
www<dot>youtube.com/watch?v=FGhGHxw0mSo

Means nothing right ? Maybe if I have said "fabricated evidence endorsed by officials"
then it could have been more acceptable for you.

And before you go on and back up the good ol' Rummie, let me recommend you
a documentary to watch: BBC's Power of Nightmares - very well sourced and revealing
about certain... authorities, so to speak. You can find it on Viddler.

I'll ask again: You know this how? And I'll add: Why do you think this is significant?

Are you really serious? Oh, look here, so many trees one might not see the forest:
www<dot>google.com/images?oe=UTF-8&gfns=1&q=administration+structure&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=ocFFTIrkI4qRjAe9wI31Bg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CD4QsAQwAw
You might also want to consult National Security Council Intelligence Directive
No. 11 from the year of 1950 when need-to-know principle was established. It was
also "tested" before in Project Manhattan and it was the key component of it that
kept the whole effort secret at the crucial time. Not even vice-president of the
time was aware...

Now how is this significant? Long story short, you can utilize
compartmentalization to positive effects and you can also exploit and abuse it.
Do you need more clues?

I said "for instance" meaning I was using that as an argument a truther MIGHT make.

Indeed you have, my apologies.

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?

You've switched from 'opinion' to 'speculation' to 'suspicion'. That's just a
wordplay. You might as well call it a CT and nothing would change, really. The real
problem here is not the term we choose but whether we jump to a conclusion
before investigating. And there comes _your_ big problem as of a victim of
divide-and-conquer paradigm aka power of labels. Your obsession with 'truthers'.
It seems to me you're currently unable to recognize anything between an 'offliner'
and a 'truther'. "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists" ... and
it works so damn well, doesn't it? Black and white, good and evil, truth and
lie, right?

The real problem is the method, whether it is scientific or political:
www<dot>sullivan-county.com/images/sci.gif
Once you realize that it's quite simple to see that we can have 'truthers' using
the scientific method and 'offliners' using the political method. But they can
both pretend - that's why we should concentrate on the arguments and not the
persons themselves. So, as a consequence, the 'truthers' and the 'offliners' who
prefer to defend their position regardless of contradictions are really
in the same camp whereas skeptics _don't care_ where does any particular evidence
lead and just examine it for what it is. I think this is pretty trivial...

So to be a 'truther' who is using the political method is quite different from
someone who is opposing the official line in general. But then come in the issues
that are political from the start and can't be scientifically proven. And there goes
the fine line. Add some notorious manipulation techniques and the whole thing is
a mess in no time. That's why I think that one needs to be careful with the labels
and that's far more reasonable to focus on the arguments themselves...

We have a rocket scientist here too, and he didn't have too much trouble figuring it out either.

Whatever, but it still took NIST ages to produce something that is not even
complete. I might return to that in a separate thread.

Ask a New Yorker. I've heard there's dozens of them.

Whatever. You still don't have the evidence of the thousands.

Charmer, are you actualy entertaining the idea that aircraft didn't in fact hit the towers?

No, not really.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

By the way, I have not seen so much ad hominem attacks in one thread in a long time. 33 pages, seriously? And yet you all keep coming back...

Before addressing the substance of the trutheristic claims you posted, you'd better understand something: There's history here with Jammonius that you're ignorant of. Years ago - yes, years - we did treat him seriously. Here's the thread as proof: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115033. Yet, not only did that get nowhere, but it simply produced more bizzare and fundamentally idiotic claims.

I don't agree with beating a mentally ill poster to the degree that's been happening in this thread, which is why I have Jam on ignore and have been minimizing my participation. But you had better understand that the fundamental problem is that he brings ridicule onto himself. Don't stop at merely identifying half of the problem; there wouldn't be so much ad hom if Jam were even being remotely sensible.

Well then, I've looked at the videos and after doing some research there are several things that struck me as curious. Maybe some of you could help me out with them.

1) What I find weird is that not in one video segment (maybe save the suspicious "tinacart" clip) there's anyone who would mention noticing the approaching plane before the explosion. What do you make of that?

Jets fly over New York all the time. There are at least 3 airports in the general metropolitan area: Teterboro, La Guardia, and JFK (that is ignoring the smaller, general aviation airports like Floyd Bennet). There is nothing unusual about the mere sound of jetliners.

Besides which, the one video segment does not summarize the totality of the witness reactions. See here for a roundup of many statements made by witnesses to the press regarding what they saw:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheysaw:eyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

2) The color "filters" on several segments look also very weird. It was a clear sunny day on 911, right? Yet some of the clips are wholly painted over with unreal colors such as violet, brown or blue... Not to mention that the backdrop in those clips is gone.

You're judging the quality of video(s) that have been compressed and delivered over the internet? Furthermore: What's that supposed to signify, besides poor compression for web delivery?

3) Also I remember that at the pentagon there was this Mark Walter figure convincing everyone that upon impact a jetliner compacts its wings:
(see 1st video on youtube searching "mike walter 911")
Why didn't it happen at WTC then?

Thread from 2007: "Mike Walter (USA Today) Responds to Conspiracists Misquoting Him"

4) About witnesses - I'm sorry but I haven't heard of any "thousands" that would positively identify a 757 to have hit the second tower. I don't doubt some exist though. But as seen here: (look up Brasscheck TV, then navigate "the 9/11 files" and "The 9/11 Solution - RESTORED" )
it was not impossible to have false witnesses planted on the site.
On the other hand there were other witness accounts that are widely being ignored now by the media or the strict followers of the official line:
(see "watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw" on Youtube)

Before providing a link to many of those witnesses, here's some fair warning: Statements like "strict followers of the official line" reveal your sympathies towards conspiracy fantasy. What you have are people who believe in evidence and fact over people who twist such to fit fantasy. You're indicating that you're in the latter camp. I suggest you do research before posting further claims.

And here's the link; it's the same one I posted earlier:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

5) In fact there's this website that I'd have expected a self-proclaimed Noplaner would use to their defense, that shows how the videos could have been doctored. Now I'm not saying that I'm buying into everything they have to say but some of it looks serious enough to merit discussion IMHO:
(septembersclues<dot>info)

Refutations of the September Clues work:

• http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Nose_out
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84197
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97636

Now please don't stick the labels Noplaner, DEWnut or other on me, I'd just like to have the above points accounted for somehow. Thanks.

Too late. If you don't want to be stuck with the labels, don't act in a the same manner as a no planer by posting the same claims as they do. The points have been well accounted for in the past; note that the links I've provided date back at least two years or so. If you want to discuss points here, use the search feature to research before rehashing old myths long refuted by others in this board.

 

[dafydd]

Maybe we should all resist the temptation of addressing any other point and all keep insisting that jammi answer this one question:

jammonius, what happened to Ed Felt, who was last seen boarding one of the doomed flights?

Good idea,I vote that we ask Jammy that question until he comes up with a straight answer or buggers off back down his rabbit hole.

 

[Furcifer]

Anyway, if you insist I'm just a cowardly JAQer, truther in disguise or
whatever other label you may have for me, then be my guest, but I'm not going to submit to your self-perceived authority just because you claim your conviction is stronger than mine. Feel free to ignore my posts...

No offence, but you've managed to hit upon a few fallacies in the few posts you've made here, notably your appeal to ignorance.

It's going to be a long journey to the truth if you truly believe you can't prove thousands of people saw the planes hit the towers. I can almost prove this using YouTube, go through the videos and count the number of people in the street. For the first hit no, but certainly the second one.

The lack of confirmed reports of the planes hitting means nothing. It's just an appeal to ignorance.

What if I said I didn't believe in gravity? Could you give me a list of people on the record confirming gravity exists? What if I said it's magnetism's effect on non metals. Do you have any studies refuting this? Is anyone on the record saying magnetism is not gravity on non metals? No? Well I'm not saying it is, I'm just going to leave all my options open.

Hopefully this gives you a sense of how frustrating it can be trying to explain things to people with a faulty logic circuit. Beyond frustrating, it's maddening.

 

[TSR]

By the way, are you aware that there actually were fake victims already reported? I didn't know that until recently:
www<dot>nytimes.com/2002/12/31/nyregion/separating-fakes-from-9-11-victims.html?pagewanted=1
It just gives me the perspective what of all things _can_ be faked...

.
Fixed the URL for you, so I can ask:

The fact that some individuals have attempted fraudulent behavior in the aftermath of 9/11 says *what* about the factuality of 9/11 itself, exactly?

I mean, there are real estate swindles happening regularly -- does this mean that the Earth doesn't exist, or that no legitimate deeds exist?
.

 

[Oystein]

...
Look, all I'm saying is that we only have several dozens of _documented_
eyewitness accounts in total at best. You can't possibly _prove_ that there were
_thousands_ of first hand witnesses. You can assume it, you can wish for it to
be so, others may agree with it etc., but you don't have the evidence. I've
already argued the point, please look it up.

The interesting point here is that we do in fact have a substantial number of documented eyewitnesses, and can infer with some certainty, given the topographics and demographics of NYC and the immense interest that the first burning tower must have drawn, that tens of thousands of potential witnesses were out there looking. And yet, there is no documented eyewitness who demonstrably was in a position to see the plane, was looking, and did NOT see a plane.
This is the situation of the eyewitness account: Many positive sightings, en enormous number of possible witnesses, and no testimony against.
And this is the situation of the physical evidence:
- 43 videos in the OP, every one of which is entirely consistent with a plane crashing; many of them actually showing a plane
- Plane parts found strewn near the towers
- Two airlines missing planes
- hundreds of relatives, friends and coworkers missing passengers whom they knew to have planned on flying on one of the 4 flights
- Remains of many of these passengers DNA-ID'd in the rubble
- Seismic records entirely consistent with energy and impulse of passenger planes at cruise speed
- Radar tracks of 2 commercial planes getting lost in ground clutter near Manhattan

The eyewitness record alone as we have it would be more than sufficient in any court of law to establish as fact that planes crashed.
The video recordings alone as we have them would be more than sufficient in any court of law to establish as fact that planes crashed
If we had no eyewitness report whatsover and no images whatsoever, the remaining physical evidence would STILL be more than sufficient to convince every court of law that planes crashed into the towers. You see, many planes crash without witnesses around, but routinely their crashes are proven by the same kind of evidence found at ground zero: plane parts and body parts and radar tracks.

By the way, are you aware that there actually were fake victims already reported? I didn't
know that until recently:
www<dot>nytimes.com/2002/12/31/nyregion/separating-fakes-from-9-11-victims.html?pagewanted=1
It just gives me the perspective what of all things _can_ be faked...

You weren't aware that insurance fraud happens? You must live in a happier world than I do.
However, the existence of such fraud in the aftermath of 9/11 informs us in no way about the reliability of the eyewitness accounts. Everybody knows that every eyewitness account is subject to error of perception, of recollection, of context, and to embellishment and figments of imagination. As such, every single account ought to be taken with a good deal of skepticism.
However we have more than enough accounts to piece together the relevant fact: Planes flew into the towers. Some witnesses are mistaken about the identity of the plane, some are mistaken about such details as size, speed, altitude, direction, sound or banking. Some saw flying objects and thought they were not planes but missiles. Certainly, some people reported seeing a plane who really did not see one as they weren't in a position to do so; these witnesses may have consciously lied, or may honestly believe they witnessed the event (it is not unknown that we sometimes remember things related to us by others as if we saw them with our own eyes. We remember our imagination then). All this is possible, but all witnesses together paint a clear picture, that is more than confirmed by physical evidence.

You might also want to consult National Security Council Intelligence Directive
No. 11 from the year of 1950 when need-to-know principle was established. It was also "tested" before in Project Manhattan and it was the key component of it that kept the whole effort secret at the crucial time. Not even vice-president of the time was aware...

Now how is this significant? Long story short, you can utilize
compartmentalization to positive effects and you can also exploit and abuse it.
Do you need more clues?

Just because a principle existes somewhere does not constitute proof it was used in a specific event.
This is very obviously a total non sequitur. There is exactly zero connection between the two.

It happened merely in the imagination of truthers.

You see, I was trained to aim a rifle at a person's head and kill him thus.
This might be clou that I shot JFK.
It just isn't, and you know why - not only because I wasn't born then. (Funny how directives from 2 generations ago are recruited as clues in the criminal investigation of a crime in 2001. This is really like saying "the soviet army trained sharp shooters in WW2, therefore the soviet army is likely behind the JFK assassination.")