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

[BigAl]

\

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.

Not "thousands", a couple million when we count the people on the Jersey shore of the Hudson River and the Brooklyn side of the East river. all of whom had front-row seats for the for the impact of the second plane and the resulting fires and collapse.

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...

The idea that a few people tried to scam the system for the insurance money doesn't say anything to disprove the fact that 19 Arabs hijacked 4 planes and crashed then and caused all the death and destruction on 9/11.

Your insinuation that they do is an insult to those of us that knew people that died on 0/11.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Oh shoot - I already violated my own suggestion. But not in reply to jammo. Maybe we could add Betty Ong to the list of disappeared people whose whereabouts ought to be explained by any no-planer?

jammonius, how do you explain the disappearing of Ed Felt who boarded flight 93 on 9/11?

And how do you explain the disappearance of Betty Ong, an AA employee who self-assigned herself to Flight 11 on 9/11, placed a call to AA reservations, talked to several people there during 23 minutes, and related what was going on? Betty was missed by her sister in California with whom she had intended to fly to Hawaii on vacation. What is your story of Betty's disappearance for Betty's sisters Cathie Ong Herrera and Gloria Ong Woo? Just imagine Cathie and Gloria were reading your answer!

 

[carlitos]

The idea that a few people tried to scam the system for the insurance money doesn't say anything to disprove the fact that 19 Arabs hijacked 4 planes and crashed then and caused all the death and destruction on 9/11.

Your insinuation that they do is an insult to those of us that knew people that died on 0/11.

Right. People filed false claims after Hurricane Katrina too. Does that mean there was no hurricane?

charmer, I have a question. Do you type so many words, and then hit the "return" or "enter" key? Do you use a word processor and then cut / paste into a browser window? It's a small thing, but people who believe extraordinary things "just ask questions" on this forum often use non-standard formatting, and I'm just curious.

 

[Furcifer]

charmer, I have a question. Do you type so many words, and then hit the "return" or "enter" key? Do you use a word processor and then cut / paste into a browser window? It's a small thing, but people who believe extraordinary things "just ask questions" on this forum often use non-standard formatting, and I'm just curious.

Hey I noticed that too, it's the exact same thing that happens when you cut and paste from Adobe.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

AAAAh! that should come with some kind of health warning!

 

[jammonius]

Thanks to Charmer for post # 2235

Posters and Lurkers,

For those who may not have seen post # 2235, I strongly suggest you review it carefully.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6149076&postcount=2235

In it, you'll find confirmation, by Charmer, of a number of claims that have been made elsewhere in this thread. Among them is the issue of how attaching jingoistic status to victims is a propaganda ploy that is easily manipulated. Charmer references a NYTimes article entitled as follows:

SEPARATING FAKES FROM 9/11 VICTIMS

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/nyregion/separating-fakes-from-9-11-victims.html?pagewanted=1

That article is illustrative of the claim I have been making all along; namely, "whataboutthepassengers" is a fallacy that presumes what has not been proven.

Before any of you decide to jump up and down with some stupid pedantic post about newspapers not being evidence, you should know that I know that as I am the one who has called attention to that fact. I am not here using the NYTimes article, referenced and linked above, as truth about whether or not the person listed in the article was not real, as the article claims. I do not care about that, one way or another.

The point is, names in newspaper articles are just that: NAMES.

That is why the issue of authenticated PASSENGER MANIFESTS is so important. They are a reliable source of whether there were passengers or not.

In 9/11 world, no authenticated PASSENGER MANIFESTS have ever been produced or shown to exist.

That point should begin to resonate with some. The NYTimes article that Charmer called attention to illustrates why the NO PLANE claim has substance. That post is a strong addtion to the information base in the thread, irrespective of the clutter, the put down posts and other trash that Charmer chided posters for doing in post # 2235.

Thank you, Charmer.

all the best


ps

For those posters who want to play "whataboutthepassengers" games, please limit them to names associated with Flight 175. This is a thread about the shadow thingy that is said to have crashed into the South Tower of the WTC at 9:02:59 on 9/11, causing a fireball to appear, first, on the opposite side of the tower from where shadow thingy entered and then on the north side and then on the south side, as seen in various videos.

Posting up "whataboutthepassentger" dittys relating to other claimed, but not proven, crashes is not on topic, imho.

 

[excaza]

Ed Felt, Jammy, where did he go?

 

[Oystein]

..."whataboutthepassengers" is a fallacy that presumes what has not been proven.
...

No. Ed Felt was a human being whom BigAl knew personally.
Ed Felt was last seen boarding one of the 4 flights.
If no planes crashed that day - how do you explain the disappearance of Ed Felt?

Betty Ong was a human being as well as an employee of AA, who assigned herself to AA11 to get to California and meet her sister for a Hawaiian vacation.
She never got there.
Betty Ong's sister wants to know: What happened to Betty Ong? Can you please explain this to Betty Ong's sister, if you make the claim to Betty Ong's sister that Betty Ong never crashed with AA11 into the WTC? She wants to know, because Betty Ong has been dearly missed by her sisters, Cathie and Gloria, and her brother Harry Ong. Please tell us what you would say to Cathie, Gloria and Harry!

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Posters and Lurkers,



ps

For those posters who want to play "whataboutthepassengers" games, please limit them to names associated with Flight 175. This is a thread about the shadow thingy that is said to have crashed into the South Tower of the WTC at 9:02:59 on 9/11, causing a fireball to appear, first, on the opposite side of the tower from where shadow thingy entered and then on the north side and then on the south side, as seen in various videos.

Posting up "whataboutthepassentger" dittys relating to other claimed, but not proven, crashes is not on topic, imho.

''Games'?? The passengers are related to the the topic of the planes- again, since you do not believe planes hit the towers, you need to explain what happened to the people on the planes. Explain the grieving friends and families left behind.

if you are going to assert there were no planes, then you need to explain the passengers on those planes.

 

[fitzgibbon]

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.

Well, 'truther' "evidence is a bit of an oxymoron, you giving it such weight seems to give quite clear evidence of what your "stance" is despite your claim to have reserved judgment.

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.

Interesting. Exactly what evidence have you availed yourself of thus far?

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

Again, interesting. My opinion's formed by the quality, quantity and rationality of evidence. On all three fronts, 'truther' evidence is wanting.

Anyway, if you insist I'm just a cowardly JAQer,

You seem very much to be walking like a duck

truther in disguise or whatever other label you may have for me, then be my guest,

Absent evidence to the contrary, consider it done.

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...

a) I couldn't care less whether you "submit" to my "self-perceived authority" or not. However, if it makes you feel better to feel like you're taking some sort of righteous stand against a faceless, entrenched force, knock yourself out.

&

b) Consider it done.

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?

Uh.....no. Interesting that you'd dig that rabbit hole for yourself.

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?

By your own words.

In this post even.

To whit:

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.

Bolding mine. Unless you misspoke. And if you did, why don't you lay out for all just what you do know? It's marvellous for establishing common grounds of understanding.

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...

Others will indulge JAQing (as is their wont). There may be some hope for you that you definite "joining the 'truther' club" as a "discrediting" experience.

So here's the newsflash - some things in the official line might be true and
some might not.

Get back to me when you've separated the two out. As is, this whole thread is based on a willing stupidity split-off from an even greater stupidity. I'm not hopeful of some sudden meaningful revelation appearing.

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.

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...

Sorry you find educating yourself about what's been covered repeatedly over the years so onerous.

Yet even at this (apparently) early stage, you claim not to have come to any conclusions. Clearly you have. So obviously you must have some working hypotheses.

But make no mistake - I'm not insulted that you keep trying diverting
my attention to these meta-topics.

I'm sorry but I don't quite get why you consider trying to understand just what you believe as "diverting"? As I said earlier, it's marvellous for establishing common grounds of understanding.

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...

It isn't about novelty; it's about honesty. I believe your entrée to this forum to have been dishonest on its face (having seen no evidence to the contrary). So why would I expect honesty from you elsewhere?

Doesn't make sense

 

[Furcifer]

In 9/11 world, no authenticated PASSENGER MANIFESTS have ever been produced or shown to exist.

lol, who authenticates passenger manifests?

 

[dafydd]

No. Ed Felt was a human being whom BigAl knew personally.
Ed Felt was last seen boarding one of the 4 flights.
If no planes crashed that day - how do you explain the disappearance of Ed Felt?

Betty Ong was a human being as well as an employee of AA, who assigned herself to AA11 to get to California and meet her sister for a Hawaiian vacation.
She never got there.
Betty Ong's sister wants to know: What happened to Betty Ong? Can you please explain this to Betty Ong's sister, if you make the claim to Betty Ong's sister that Betty Ong never crashed with AA11 into the WTC? She wants to know, because Betty Ong has been dearly missed by her sisters, Cathie and Gloria, and her brother Harry Ong. Please tell us what you would say to Cathie, Gloria and Harry!

That she was a shadowy thing,a hologram?

 

[carlitos]

If a cargo plane crashes, would missing cargo be evidence for the crash?

ETA - Heck, when a plane crashes, isn't a missing plane evidence of something? Missing pilot? As mentioned, missing employee?

 

[dafydd]

Jammo,where is Betty Ong?

 

[BigAl]

Posters and Lurkers,

For those who may not have seen post # 2235, I strongly suggest you review it carefully.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6149076&postcount=2235

In it, you'll find confirmation, by Charmer, of a number of claims that have been made elsewhere in this thread. Among them is the issue of how attaching jingoistic status to victims is a propaganda ploy that is easily manipulated. Charmer references a NYTimes article entitled as follows:

.

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

 

[Oystein]

If a cargo plane crashes, would missing cargo be evidence for the crash?

ETA - Heck, when a plane crashes, isn't a missing plane evidence of something? Missing pilot? As mentioned, missing employee?

Well, I once heard a story from a guy at Hewlett Packard: They had a planeload of notebook computers and parts at an airport, ready to be loaded onto a cargo plane. It went on the wrong plane and disappeared to Bulgaria.

So, cargo missing, but no plane crash...



Maybe jammomius heard a similar story about Ed Felt and Betty Ong? If so, I'd like to know. If not, I see a serious hole in his theory (if it may be so called, given the little he has explained so far with oh so many words)

 

[jammonius]

''Games'?? The passengers are related to the the topic of the planes- again, since you do not believe planes hit the towers, you need to explain what happened to the people on the planes. Explain the grieving friends and families left behind.

if you are going to assert there were no planes, then you need to explain the passengers on those planes.

This is becoming sad; here's why:

"if you are going to assert there were no planes, then you need to explain the passengers on those planes."

There are only so many ways to explain, re-explain, point out, re-point out, that the quoted statement is pure fallacy. Here's what I think is going to have to happen: I think some poster or lurker that debunkers trust is going to have to explain to you folks that in this instance, and in the narrow since of what is or is not a fallacy, that I am correct about this. That is to say, that the claim whatabouthepassengers in whatever form or guise that ditty might be phrased is a fallacy. It is such because it is an assumption that is used as a way of establishing the truth of a claim not otherwise proven. Put simply, you cannot assume passengers without proving there were planes and you cannot assume people who are said to be missing and presumed dead died on board planes that are not shown to have crashed.

It's really as simple or as complicated as the desire to believe something is strong. If you have a strong desire to believe the common storyline of 9/11, then, in that event, you might not ever realize that "whataboutthepassengers dittys are nothing but fallacies.

Good luck

 

[BigAl]

This is becoming sad; here's why:

"if you are going to assert there were no planes, then you need to explain the passengers on those planes."

There are only so many ways to explain, re-explain, point out, re-point out, that the quoted statement is pure fallacy. Here's what I think is going to have to happen: I think some poster or lurker that debunkers trust is going to have to explain to you folks that in this instance, and in the narrow since of what is or is not a fallacy, that I am correct about this. That is to say, that the claim whatabouthepassengers in whatever form or guise that ditty might be phrased is a fallacy.
Good luck

What happened to my work-mate, Ed Felt who was last seen boarding Flight 93 and made an in-flight phone call reporting the hijacking?

 

[excaza]

Ed Felt, Jammy, where did he go?

 

[Oystein]

This is becoming sad; ...

Indeed. Tell Carrie, Gloria and Harry Ong about it. They are real human beings you know. They used to have a sister, Betty. Betty was supposed to fly to Los Angeles on 9/11 on AA11 to meet her sister for a Hawaiian vacation. Betty never got there. Do you have an explanation for the siblings what became of Betty Ong, if flight AA11 never crashed?

BigAl used to have a workmate, Ed Felt. Ed Felt was a real human being, with family, friends and workmates. Sadly for all of these, Ed Felt is missing since 9/11. Last thing they knew was that Ed was going to fly on flight 93. What happened to Ed Felt, if flight 93 never crashed?

You really should have explanations for Al, Carrie, Gloria and Harry. They are all real human beings missing a real human being.

It is becoming increasingly sad that you insinuate these human beings might not be human beings at all. If that is what you insinuate, for we can't really know what you insinuateif your lengthy word salads all but dodge this important question, pertaining to human dignity.

For the sake of human dignity, please answer what you think are the whereabouts of Ed and Betty!