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

[twinstead]

Ed Felt, Jammy, where did he go?

What's funny is some truthers would pull some irrational, cockamamie story out of their nether regions about what could have happened to Ed and the others, bill smith-like, but Jam barely even acknowledges the question.

Jammonius you need to get more of an imagination; I'm sure you can come up with something, right?

 

[dafydd]

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

Eels could take your correspondence course.What about actually answering some questions?

 

[dafydd]

What happened to Ed Felt,Jammo?

 

[dafydd]

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

In the real world we can assume passengers because there were passengers.You are a coward and a liar.It's not your fault,you have a serious mental condition,please seek help.

 

[TJM]

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.

It might be helpful if you provided links to videos you're on about. Here, pick one:

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

Have a blast.

And where did Times get that?

The source, IIRC, was an article written by a soviet-era soldier for a Russian military magazine in the 1990's.

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.

Rumsfeld is an idiot, and I'd hardly consider that an endorsement.

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?

Apparently I do. Please go on.

Indeed you have, my apologies.

Thank you.

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?

Moving the goal posts. Check.

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...

Walking. Quacking. Check.

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

Knock yourself out.

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

Handwave. Check.

Question: Is the fence your sitting on still standing, or has it been knocked over in a certain direction?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Jamster is still living the 2006 dream where Truthers roamed the internet in search of a "mystery" to 9/11. We've covered the "no-planes" & "where are the passenger manifest" retards since 2006. Why on earth would Jamster still bring up something that was debunked almost 4 yrs. ago? I see what Jamsters problem is, he's like a hamster whose been on the excersize wheel & won't get off.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

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

I take that to mean you don't think the passengers ever existed. What is your proof?
Do you think the families are liars? Do you have have proof the families are lying?

What about Ed Felt? Do you doubt he existed? Someone on this board knew Ed Felt. Do you think he is lying? And if so, what is your proof?

 

[TJM]

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

Another attempt to marginalize the victims. Vile.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Hi charmer,

No, not really.

May I put you down as PLANE then?

DAO

 

[Andy_Ross]

Jammonius Where are the planes if they didn't hitthe towers? We know they existed, the manufacturers have records, they have workers who actualy builtthem. Contracting companies have records of where their parts went. There are airline records going back to their date of purchase showing all the servicing and overhaul details. Engineers and fitters worked on the aircraft and signed their names to the records. Contractors supplied parts and recieved parts back to refurbish from these aircraft. Pilots have logged alltheir hours flying these aircraft. Civil Aviation is very tightly controlled for safety reasons. Recording the movement, use and repair of parts is very tightly controlled by legal procedures. Pilots are legaly bound to record all their flying hours.
Airport records going back to the date of purchase show the movements of the aircraft, their fuelling, servicing, landings and take offs.
There are thousands of passengers and hundreds of crew, hundreds of groundstaff and thousand of employees at the manufacturers who all saw and flew or worked on these aircraft.

Where are they?

Where are all the passengers that were aboard on 9/11? their famly, friends and work colleagues all say they are missing. Where are they?

 

[dafydd]

Where are they Jammo?

 

[EventHorizon]

Wait a minute. Is your objection to these questions merely the use of the word 'passengers'? Because if there were no planes there would be no passengers? You know what everyone means. Stop being intentionally dense. Some people might construe that as you being dishonest.

Here, I'll simplify this for you since you don't want us to use the word 'passengers':

There were many people scheduled to get on planes on 9/11. All of those people are now missing including Ed Felt and Betty Ong. What happened to those people jammy?

If you are an honest person you should be able to answer this question.

 

[Andy_Ross]

But there were planes, they are missing just as much as the passengers are.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Jamm, there is no way you can explain away the missing passengers and crew from the planes. It deflates the no-planer insanity to it's core.That is why you ignore them. You seem to think by ignoring the fact people died on those planes, they'll go away.

Pathetic.

 

[triforcharity]

JFSNG,

Hey Jam, where is Ed Felt and Betty Ong? We know they were alive at one point, yet, to this day, not one person, including their friends and family, have heard from them. So, where are they?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

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.

Clinical insanity on full display.

Jam, we know planes crashed into the WTC. Only crazy people believe otherwise. What is your proof that the people who were on the planes didn't die on 9/11?

Where is Ed Felt and Betty Ong?
Jam, do you think they are still alive, or do you doubt they ever existed?
This is not off topic as you claim, but directly related to your no planer delusion. You don't want to talk about the people on the planes, because you don't have an answer. If no planes hit the WTC (or the Pentagon or Shanksville) - then explain the people that boarded the planes on 9/11 and haven't been seen since-and how did pieces of their bodies, luggage and the planes wind up at the crash sites? Why are families and friends still mourning for loved ones who were killed on the planes- if as you claim the planes never crashed?

 

[fess]

Jammy, the passenger manifests for all four flights were submitted to a court of law as evidence, they were accepted by both the prosecution and the defense as evidence, and you know that.

So, with that in mind, where is Ed Felt, the passenger who sat in seat 2D on Flight 93?

 

[alienentity]

OMG
You guys are still entertaining this troll after months? I vowed not to check back until June, made it to July.

Nothing to see here. Jammonius is wasting your time folks, he's insane. He's not worthy of your attention.

Surely y'all must have more productive things to do than engage this troll further. Go and enjoy the summer.

peace

AE

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

OMG
You guys are still entertaining this troll after months? I vowed not to check back until June, made it to July.

Nothing to see here. Jammonius is wasting your time folks, he's insane. He's not worthy of your attention.

Surely y'all must have more productive things to do than engage this troll further. Go and enjoy the summer.

peace

AE

Yes, his madness is clear, but it's like driving past an accicdent on the highway- i have to slow down and look...
I don't think he's trolling (as trolls know full well they are full of bs) At this point I think Jamm really believes his no-planer theory. I just hope he can see the utter lack of logic in his theory.

 

[dafydd]

Jammo,do think that Ed Felt and Betty Ong disappeared voluntarily? Were they part of the conspiracy or did the evil government spirit them away? Are their families in on it?Are all the families of the victims only pretending to be mourning? Many hundreds of people would have to be involved in the conspiracy if you were correct.How many?