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

[Oystein]

It's not rocket science, Carlitos: Issued by the party that generated it. In re Flight 175, that would be United Airlines. They have issued no such document that is publicly available....

On september 13, 2001, American Airlines published on their official website amrcorp.com a list of most human beings aboard flight 11 who perished on 9/11. It contained the name of Betty Ong:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010913051644/http://www.amrcorp.com/default2.html
"American Airlines is releasing a preliminary, partial passenger list and a crew list for its flights involved in yesterday’s terrorist attacks."

On september 12, 2001, United Airlines published on their official website ual.com a list of the names of human beings aboard flights 175 and 93 who perished on 9/11. It contained the name of Ed Felt:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010912...onse/PressReleases/0,11641,-1__1812_1,00.html
"With deep sadness, United Airlines now is confirming a partial list of the names of passengers and a full list of crew members onboard UA Flights 93 and 175. Both aircraft were confirmed to have crashed in yesterday's unprecedented acts of terrorism."

Insurances have paid half a billion US$ to the two airline companies for the loss of 4 planes:
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=90342
"the Insurance Information Institute estimates that the total insurance loss from September 11 will ultimately be about $40.2 billion dollars.
...
The I.I.I. estimate of $40.2 billion dollars in insured losses includes:
...
* $500 million (1 percent) in hull claims for the loss of the four commercial aircraft."

The presentations that are linked as Exhibits of the Prosecution to the Moussaoui-trial bear the company logos of United Airlines and American Airlines. As you know, jammonius, the use of such trademarks is restricted and requires the acceptance of the owner. Do you understand what that means? It means that the passenger data published by the United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia is authorized by the two companies where the data originated.

 

[EventHorizon]

Oystein, you must be mistaken. That makes it look like jammonius is lying, and we of course know that he wouldn't do anything dishonest.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein, you must be mistaken. That makes it look like jammonius is lying, and we of course know that he wouldn't do anything dishonest.

You don't say...!?!

 

[jammonius]

Complete FUBAR reliance on incomplete, false, misleading Airline Website psyop posts.

On september 13, 2001, American Airlines published on their official website amrcorp.com a list of most human beings aboard flight 11 who perished on 9/11. It contained the name of Betty Ong:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010913051644/http://www.amrcorp.com/default2.html
"American Airlines is releasing a preliminary, partial passenger list and a crew list for its flights involved in yesterday’s terrorist attacks."

On september 12, 2001, United Airlines published on their official website ual.com a list of the names of human beings aboard flights 175 and 93 who perished on 9/11. It contained the name of Ed Felt:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010912...onse/PressReleases/0,11641,-1__1812_1,00.html
"With deep sadness, United Airlines now is confirming a partial list of the names of passengers and a full list of crew members onboard UA Flights 93 and 175. Both aircraft were confirmed to have crashed in yesterday's unprecedented acts of terrorism."

Insurances have paid half a billion US$ to the two airline companies for the loss of 4 planes:
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=90342
"the Insurance Information Institute estimates that the total insurance loss from September 11 will ultimately be about $40.2 billion dollars.
...
The I.I.I. estimate of $40.2 billion dollars in insured losses includes:
...
* $500 million (1 percent) in hull claims for the loss of the four commercial aircraft."

Hey Lurkers,

This is rich. I post up a claim that the airlines have not ever released an authenticated passenger manifest and Oystein seeks to refute that claim by posting up proof the airlines issued, via websites, unverified, partial, incomplete listing claims.

In the one instance United claims it is providing "a list of most human beings aboard flight 11 who perished on 9/11"; and, in the other it is claimed that"...American Airlines is releasing a preliminary, partial passenger list and a crew list for its flights involved in yesterday’s terrorist attacks".

While Oystein didn't mention it, the American website claim that he relied on also said as follows:

"Updated information about Tuesday's incidents will be available here as soon as it is verified."

See: http://web.archive.org/web/20010913051644/http://www.amrcorp.com/default2.html

As to verification, we are still waiting.

The presentations that are linked as Exhibits of the Prosecution to the Moussaoui-trial bear the company logos of United Airlines and American Airlines. As you know, jammonius, the use of such trademarks is restricted and requires the acceptance of the owner. Do you understand what that means? It means that the passenger data published by the United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia is authorized by the two companies where the data originated.

The above is a false construct, a desparte attempt to assert a claim of authenticity where none exists. In fact, the document is not even introduced as or even claimed to be an authentic list. Here is all that is said about it, confirming that it is not authentic:

P200018 Summary from Flight 11: identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight [Listener discretion is advised. This exhibit also includes information about the other three flights hijacked on September 11]

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

I have previously said the document was an XL spreadsheet. In fact, it is some sort of flash player presentation that isn't even as valid as a spreadsheet. It would have been out and out fraud to put that document forward as an authentic passenger list and that is almost certainly why the claim about what it is was worded the way it was, and quoted above.

That way, those who want to be fooled can be fooled.

Thank you, Oystein, for confirming my claim.

 

[BigAl]

What happened to my work-mate, Ed Felt, who was last seen boarding Flight 93, who's name is on the Flight 93 manifest and who made a call from the plane while it was over Western PA describing the hijacking and who's DNA was recovered along with the DNA of everyone else listed on the boarding manifest and with essentially the entire plane, Flight 93?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

What happened to my work-mate, Ed Felt, who was last seen boarding Flight 93, who's name is on the Flight 93 manifest and who made a call from the plane while it was over Western PA describing the hijacking and who's DNA was recovered along with the DNA of everyone else listed on the boarding manifest and with essentially the entire plane, Flight 93?

I find it very telling that jam is side stepping the reality of the people on the planes. He simply won't address the issue, as he clearly doesn't have an answer that he wants.

Jammy simply chooses to ignore reality. He finds the existance of people on the planes inconvenient to his 'no planer' ideas, so he chooses to pretend those people never existed. He clearly doesn't think they were of any importance.


His no-planer delusion is based on paranoia, possible insanity and willfull ignorance.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

What happened to my work-mate, Ed Felt, who was last seen boarding Flight 93, who's name is on the Flight 93 manifest and who made a call from the plane while it was over Western PA describing the hijacking and who's DNA was recovered along with the DNA of everyone else listed on the boarding manifest and with essentially the entire plane, Flight 93?

As a lurker, I'd like to see jammonius answer this question without the usual word (jam) salad sidestep that seems to be his only means of defense for his indefensible "no-planes" postion.

 

[Oystein]

Hey Lurkers,

This is rich. I post up a claim that the airlines have not ever released an authenticated passenger manifest and Oystein seeks to refute that claim by posting up proof the airlines issued, via websites, unverified, partial, incomplete listing claims.

You asked for a publication of passenger lists by the companies which originally compiled and created these lists.
I gave you the publications you required.
If you want to make a claim that the information therein is false, you would have to present an argument, not just a bold and extraordinary claim.

In the one instance United claims it is providing "a list of most human beings aboard flight 11 who perished on 9/11"; and, in the other it is claimed that"...American Airlines is releasing a preliminary, partial passenger list and a crew list for its flights involved in yesterday’s terrorist attacks".

While Oystein didn't mention it, the American website claim that he relied on also said as follows:

"Updated information about Tuesday's incidents will be available here as soon as it is verified."

People with a basic grasp of the English language understand two things very clearly when reading above quoted sentence:
a) The it "as soon as it is verified" relates to the further information that is yet to come. It does not mean the information already included. It specifically does not mean that the information already posted was not verified.
b) It was both American Airlines' and united Airlines' convivtion a day or two after 9/11, that they lost 2 airplanes each along with all passengers and crews aboard it.

Since airlines tend to have very good and timely information about the whereabouts of their planes and passengers, you have a lot to explain away here, jammonius. How do you think the PR unit and CEO of an airline company would get the idea they lost a plane and passengers and pilots and cabin crew, if they in fact did not? Clearly, American Airlines was convinced on september 13, that their employee Betty Ong had perished on 9/11.
So no you, jammomius: Where is Betty Ong? Did she every exist? Did she die before 9/11? Did she live beyond 9/11? If so, why did she not go on a Hawaiian vacation with her sister? What would you tell her sister, jammonius? Come on, give us your best rhetorics!

...
I have previously said the document was an XL spreadsheet. In fact, it is some sort of flash player presentation that isn't even as valid as a spreadsheet. It would have been out and out fraud to put that document forward as an authentic passenger list and that is almost certainly why the claim about what it is was worded the way it was, and quoted above...

Do you assert that the United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia hosts fraudulent lists on its servers, infringes upon the trademark rights of two major companies in doing so, and claims this fraudulent information was used in criminal court procedings?

That, my dear jammonius, is rich!

 

[The Platypus]

It's funny how the CT nutjobs on this forum are always playing to the "lurkers". This reveals to me that their real intent for these constant performances and rants which is like any other cult member. They are only putting on the song and dance as a sales pitch, hoping to fool and recruit some gullible sucker out there. It's all too obvious too considering that the only plan they ever seem to have, in which to foil these paranoid plots they come up with, is too rant like lunatics daily all over the internet instead of actually doing something. Recruit, recruit, recruit, is all they care about.

I'm a lurker, and what allot of us lurkers see is that, it's quite obvious to me that jammonius and others here, are either insane, or totally brainwashed by nutjob websites, or severely dishonest and paranoid people, or some combination of the above.

I'm betting it's a combo.

 

[332nd]

Hey Lurkers,

This is rich. I post up a claim that the airlines have not ever released an authenticated passenger manifest and Oystein seeks to refute that claim by posting up proof the airlines issued, via websites, unverified, partial, incomplete listing claims.

In the one instance United claims it is providing "a list of most human beings aboard flight 11 who perished on 9/11"; and, in the other it is claimed that"...American Airlines is releasing a preliminary, partial passenger list and a crew list for its flights involved in yesterday’s terrorist attacks".

While Oystein didn't mention it, the American website claim that he relied on also said as follows:

"Updated information about Tuesday's incidents will be available here as soon as it is verified."

See: http://web.archive.org/web/20010913051644/http://www.amrcorp.com/default2.html

As to verification, we are still waiting.



The above is a false construct, a desparte attempt to assert a claim of authenticity where none exists. In fact, the document is not even introduced as or even claimed to be an authentic list. Here is all that is said about it, confirming that it is not authentic:

P200018 Summary from Flight 11: identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight [Listener discretion is advised. This exhibit also includes information about the other three flights hijacked on September 11]

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

I have previously said the document was an XL spreadsheet. In fact, it is some sort of flash player presentation that isn't even as valid as a spreadsheet. It would have been out and out fraud to put that document forward as an authentic passenger list and that is almost certainly why the claim about what it is was worded the way it was, and quoted above.

That way, those who want to be fooled can be fooled.

Thank you, Oystein, for confirming my claim.

So the airlines put out a list containing the names of Felt and Ong showing that they were on the planes and you ignore the list by insisting in must be part of a psyop... Amazing. Not as good as "we doesn't include I " but still...

 

[jammonius]

Oystein,

As I said several times, the best replies to ideas or claims that you find offensive, for whatever reason you claim gives rise to offense, are those ideas or claims that refute the ones you do not like.

Your problem is that you cannot refute the NO PLANE claim. I do, however, give you some credit for at least trying to do so from time to time. For that reason, I will not report your post. Your recent attempt to rely on the totally FUBAR Moussaoui trial exhibits in general and the passenger list component of those FUBAR exhibits in particular was noble. So was your attempt to use press releases from the two airlines.

However, try as you might, you cannot ever and will not ever post up proof of authenticated flight manifests. I know you may not like the fact that you will continue to fail in that respect for howsoever long you might try, but that is not my fault.

You do not have evidence to substantiate the false claim that jetliners crashed in NYC on 9/11 and you are not going to be able to refute that claim.

Let me here double check for accuracy of understanding: Have you now posted up the very best you know how to post up with respect to the passenger list claim; or, do you want more time to see if you can post up something that passes for real evidence?

If you are done trying to post up evidence, then why not just say so directly, rather than waste your and my time with mindless epithets?

Good luck

 

[BigAl]

Oystein,

As I said several times, the best replies to ideas or claims that you find offensive, for whatever reason you claim gives rise to offense, are those ideas or claims that refute the ones you do not like.

Your problem is that you cannot refute the NO PLANE claim.

What happened to my work-mate, Ed Felt, who was last seen boarding Flight 93, who's name is on the Flight 93 manifest and who made a call from the plane while it was over Western PA describing the hijacking and who's DNA was recovered along with the DNA of everyone else listed on the boarding manifest and with essentially the entire plane, Flight 93?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

You do not have evidence to substantiate the false claim that jetliners crashed in NYC on 9/11 and you are not going to be able to refute that claim.

Lets see...thousands of eye witnesses in NY and NJ saw the planes hit the WTC, video footage caught multiple angles of the planes crashing, live tv coverage caught the 2nd impact, plane wreckage and body parts of people on the planes found at the crash sites, the flights tracked by radar from beginning to end, calls from the planes, etc...

Oh sure, 'no proof'

I have to ask you this jammy- in your world view, what would you concider to be acceptable evidence or proof that planes were flown into the WTC? What proof do you think is missing? I don't see how anyone could doubt planes hit the WTC....
What would convince you that planes did hit the WTC?

Like all 9/11 Truthers, you have drawn a fanciful conclusion without any evidence to back you up, and choose to dismiss the mountain of evidence that contradicts your assertions.

Jam, this is getting to be a circular argument- You propose your insane theories without proof, yet dismiss the tangible evidence that planes crashed on 9/11.

You keep avoiding the one question that totally deflates your theories- What happened to the people on the planes? Indulge us! Do you doubt they existed?

Where is Betty Ong?
Where is Ed Felt??
Why do families and friends still mourn the people who were on the planes

Jam, the burden is on you to prove your theories.
If you are going to claim no planes crashed into the WTC, then you need to explain what happened to the people on the planes. Do you doubt they existed? Do you think they were 'in on it'? Do you think their families are liars?

The world knows what happened on 9/11. Psychotic Islamic terrorists hijacked 4 planes and commited mass murder.

 

[TJM]

You do not have evidence to substantiate the false claim that jetliners crashed in NYC on 9/11 and you are not going to be able to refute that claim.

Sure we do. We have thousands of people in New York and New Jersey who saw it with their own eyes and they aren't going away, now matter how desperately you'd like them to.

 

[jammonius]

As a lurker, I'd like to see jammonius answer this question without the usual word (jam) salad sidestep that seems to be his only means of defense for his indefensible "no-planes" postion.

Greetings, Porkpie Hat,

As you may know, I have a high regard for lurkers and am pleased to say that some of the most enlightening posts we've had have come from that group. While I think your request that I reply to BigAl's incessant demand for a response on Ed Felt is a bit disengenuous, I will reply nonetheless. In so doing, I am making an exception to posting about Ed Felt in a thread that is about the All 43 video of the explosion at the South Tower. I am doing this because BigAl has been allowed to post and re-post the same thing over and over again, and now you've exercised your right as a lurker to ask for an answer. I try to accomodate lurkers whenever I can.

In replying this one time to the repetitive Ed Felt question, I need to tell you that BigAl has been repeating his Ed Felt post since at least last February in this and in several other threads. I answered BigAl clearly and directly last February.

I responded to BigAl on February 18th with a specific proposal that would, in essence, offer to the Felt family to become lurkers and to be the source of the answers that BigAl appears to want.

That reply to BigAl can be found at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5631283&postcount=204

BigAl declined to accept my offer as can be plainly seen here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5631351&postcount=207

In addition to BigAl refusing to engage in a process where his own question could be answered by Ed Felt's family, BigAl continues to just repeat, endlessly his same question. I do not think BigAl's question is being posed in good faith.

Here's why:

BigAl is in a position to ask the family about what happened. Perhaps BigAl has already done so. If that is the case then it smacks of deception to endlessly ask me a question to which BigAl either already has the answer; or, if not the answer, has access, according to BigAl, to an original source and can get answers if BigAl would like.

So, therein lies the difference between a question and rhetoric. Because BigAl claims personal contact with Ed Felt and Ed Felt's family, it is disengenuous, at best, for BigAl to ask me what happened to Ed Felt. BigAl could ask the Felt family the following questions, if BigAl wanted to, either some of them, one of them or some variation on the theme:

Felt Family:

As you may know, there is a lot of uncertainty swirling around the events of 9/11, can you please let me know:

1--Are you at liberty to discuss what happened to your loved one, Ed Felt, or are you bound by a confidentiality agreement requiring you to say nothing much?

2--What, if anything, can you say about 9/11?

3--Did a United Airlines person call you on 9/11; and, if so, what did the representative say?

4--Did a representative of the U S government contact you about your loss instead of an airline?

5--Is the status of your loved one that he is missing and presumed dead or is his status that he died as a result of a plane crash?

6--Did you accompany him to the airport on 9/11?

7--What else can you say about what happened on 9/11?

Porkpie Hat, are there questions you think should be asked of the Felt family; and, if so, what are your questions?

Thanks

 

[George 152]

From the inanities and the denial of the jam things postings I have a feeling that he could be an apologist (or worse) for those who perpetrated 911

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Greetings, Porkpie Hat,

As you may know, I have a high regard for lurkers and am pleased to say that some of the most enlightening posts we've had have come from that group. While I think your request that I reply to BigAl's incessant demand for a response on Ed Felt is a bit disengenuous, I will reply nonetheless.

In replying I need to tell you that BigAl has been repeating his Ed Felt post since at least last February.

I responded to BigAl on February 18th with a specific proposal that would, in essence, offer to the Felt family to become lurkers.

That reply to BigAl can be found at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5631283&postcount=204

BigAl declined to accept my offer as can be plainly seen here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5631351&postcount=207

In addition to BigAl refusing to engage in a process where his own question could be answered by Ed Felt's family, BigAl continues to just repeat, endlessly his same question. I do not think BigAl's question is being posed in good faith.

Here's why:

BigAl is in a position to ask the family about what happened. Perhaps BigAl has already done so. If that is the case then it smacks of deception to endlessly ask me a question to which BigAl either already has the answer; or, if not the answer, has access, according to BigAl, to an original source and can get answers if BigAl would like.

So, therein lies the difference between a question and rhetoric. Because BigAl claims personal contact with Ed Felt and Ed Felt's family, it is disengenuous, at best, for BigAl to ask me what happened to Ed Felt. BigAl could ask the Felt family the following questions, if BigAl wanted to, either some of them, one of them or some variation on the theme:

Felt Family:

As you may know, there is a lot of uncertainty swirling around the events of 9/11, can you please let me know:

1--Are you at liberty to discuss what happened to your loved one, Ed Felt, or are you bound by a confidentiality agreement requiring you to say nothing much?

2--What, if anything, can you say about 9/11?

3--Did a United Airlines person call you on 9/11; and, if so, what did the representative say?

4--Did a representative of the U S government contact you about your loss instead of an airline?

5--Is the status of your loved one that he is missing and presumed dead or is his status that he died as a result of a plane crash?

6--Did you accompany him to the airport on 9/11?

7--What else can you say about what happened on 9/11?

Porkpie Hat, are there questions you think should be asked of the Felt family; and, if so, what are your questions?

Thanks

This post is so disgusting I'm not even sure how to respond...

 

[jammonius]

Sure we do. We have thousands of people in New York and New Jersey who saw it with their own eyes and they aren't going away, now matter how desperately you'd like them to.

You may continue to repeat your false mantra as long as you can. You have not, will not, and cannot prove there are "...thousands of people in New York and New Jersey who saw it with their own eyes ...".

You appear to be unable to face the reality that you cannot prove that claim.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

From the inanities and the denial of the jam things postings I have a feeling that he could be an apologist (or worse) for those who perpetrated 911

Most 9/11 Truthers are unabashed apologists for the terrorists, and in particular of radical Islam. Given the number of blatent Jew bashers in the Truther cult, no shock they side with the enemies of Jews, ranging from the neo Nazi groups of militant Islam groups.

 

[jammonius]

This post is so disgusting I'm not even sure how to respond...

Let me suggest that you try rational discussion, reason and proper dialogue. Let me also suggest that you consider checking for emotional content and setting it aside. You are not holier than I am; you are not more concerned about victims than I am; and you are not more patriotic than I am.

Furthermore, BigAl cannot, on the one hand, claim to know the Felt family and, on the other, continue to ask the same question over-and-over again.

I am here and now going to bring this matter to a head.

Let's get it on.

ps

I posted this before seeing your most recent post. I think you should retract your last post. You are way over the top, imho. Unless you retract your last post, I will not respond to you anymore, anytime soon.