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

[jammonius]

Ed Felt and Betty Ong

For those posters wanting to discuss Ed Felt, permit me to suggest posting in the following thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167169

To my knowledge, the forum has not had a thread entitled Flight 11. However, the forum has had two recent threads dealing with the Dick Oliver videos that deal with the explosion at the North Tower. Hence, any discussion about Betty Ong can be done in a new thread entitled, perhaps, "Flight 11" or the Dick Oliver threads are an atlernative:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171082

-------------------------

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174043

If necessary, I will turn this post into a rubber stamp as there seems to be a concerted effort to post and re-post the same ditty over and over:

whataboutedfeltbettyong

That one is, perhaps, a creative way to re-state the famous A-1 NO PLANE show stopper:

whataboutthepassengers

Do better

 

[Oystein]

There is no reason for you to be dense about this. I am saying there is no valid DNA evidence and I have proven that to be the case. The last objective proof I posted on this can be found somewhere in this now 60 page thread. I am here referring to the FOIA requests for DNA information and the response to the request that confirms, on its face, that there is no publicly available proof of DNA.

I have also plainly said that for those, like BigAl, who claim to know victims families, it is vital that such families be asked questions.

In the absence of publicly available information and in the absence of a proper investigation, asking questions of those who might know something is the only rational way to proceed.

Hiding behind false emotional concern for victims is a farce. Doing that insults the integrity of victims and is nothing more than a convenient way of continuing to avoid finding out what happened on 9/11.

I will say this to you plainly, Oystein:

You do not know what happened on 9/11 because there is no valid proof of what happened derived from any proper investigation of the event.

Based on some of the content of some of your posting, you have a chance of making a breakthrough of sorts and of being able to admit the truth of what I have just said concerning the lack of a proper investigation.

I am rooting for you in that respect.

Mind you, I have readily acknowledged that you can believe whatever you choose to believe. But, you cannot pretend you KNOW what happened on 9/11 because you do not know what happened.

I here re-assert that while I do not know what happened on 9/11 exactly, just like everyone else, except those who controlled the event, I do know that the common storyline is based on illusion.

For the sake of clarification: Are you denying that Ed Felt ended as a DNA sample scratched from the rubble of flight 93's crash?

Yes, I have asked that question verbatim before. I hoped to get something along a yes/no reply. Are you or are you not denying that Ed Felt ended as a DNA sample scratched from the rubble of flight 93's crash? You either are, then say "yes", or you are not, then say "no"! You tossed me one of your usual word salads that are nothing but dodges.

See: http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...43posting/1000s4rubberstamps.jpg?t=1279971901

My answer is contained both in rubber stamp 1-4 and throughout this thread.

No, it is not.

 

[jammonius]

For the sake of clarification: Are you denying that Ed Felt ended as a DNA sample scratched from the rubble of flight 93's crash?

Yes, I have asked that question verbatim before. I hoped to get something along a yes/no reply. Are you or are you not denying that Ed Felt ended as a DNA sample scratched from the rubble of flight 93's crash? You either are, then say "yes", or you are not, then say "no"! You tossed me one of your usual word salads that are nothing but dodges.




No, it is not.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6156027&postcount=2401

 

[Andy_Ross]

My answer is contained both in rubber stamp 1-4 and throughout this thread.

So now provide some support for your answers.

What leads you to think what you think about 9/11. What one piece of evidence can youy point to

 

[Oystein]

For those posters wanting to discuss Ed Felt, permit me to suggest posting in the following thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167169

In this thread, you have been asked the same question and dodged it. Since you already located the thread, why don't you just answer the damned question: Why is Ed Felt's wife mourning her husband? Al has told you already that the likes of you and their silly ideas make her sick. But that should not stop you, as you know you make everyone here sick with your lies and twists; that consideration never stopped you.

You might was well answer here: What became of Ed felt?

To my knowledge, the forum has not had a thread entitled Flight 11. However, the forum has had two recent threads dealing with the Dick Oliver videos that deal with the explosion at the North Tower. Hence, any discussion about Betty Ong can be done in a new thread entitled, perhaps, "Flight 11" or the Dick Oliver threads are an atlernative:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171082

That thread, as you know, is in AAH. But this here thread is yours and still open. So please feel free to answer here: What happened to Betty Ong in light of your no-plane-but-DEW theory?

...as there seems to be a concerted effort to post and re-post the same ditty over and over:

whataboutedfeltbettyong

That one is, perhaps, a creative way to re-state the famous A-1 NO PLANE show stopper:

whataboutthepassengers

Do better

It is not a show stopper at all. Your theory, if you have any, must explain how more than 200 people on 4 planes can have been listed in the public record as having perished aboard these planes when they crashed on 9/11, when you make the claim that no planes crashed? Why is Ed Felt's wife mourning, if Ed did not perish in a plane crash that day? If you can't answer that question, we must conclude you have no theory, no evidence, and thus nothing that supercedes the theory we all consider to describe reality the best: 4 planes were crashed on 9/11.

 

[Oystein]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6156027&postcount=2401

I am sorry, I did not see a "yes" or a "no" in that reply. So may I restate:

Are you denying that Ed Felt ended as a DNA sample scratched from the rubble of flight 93's crash? YES, or NO?

 

[jammonius]

Originally Posted by jammonius
If you want our Lurkers to know what on earth you're talking about, BigAl, then you'll need to post up the links to the posts where the following can be found:

BigAl Claim:

Of course there is. I posted it weeks ago along with email and phone # that you could call for more information and confirmation.

And the link is:_________________________

BigAl Claim:

You dismissed it with lies.

And the link is:_________________________


Fair enough?

No.

The fair thing would be to state what your claim is about the fate of the four planes and their passengers and crews that were officially reported by the relevant companies and authorities as having crashed in NY, PA and VA on 9/11.

Lurkers understand perfectly well what BigAl is talking about: His workmate Ed felt boarded one of the four planes and has been missing since. Lurkers understand perfectly well that you must explain the disappearence of Ed Felt if you make a claim of "no planes". This is not dependent upon BigAl publishing any numbers or linking any posts. This is only dependent on you, jammonius, making predictions from your theory and testing them. I.e., the scientific method. You make a claim, you back it up and defend it against valid challenges. Every lurker understands this.

Hey Oystein,

I need to double check for accuracy of understanding: In saying "No" as quoted above, are you claiming that BigAl does not have to post up links confirming where and when the claims BigAl made are to be found?

 

[fitzgibbon]

Just to reiterate the sentiments in post #2369

Sorry but is anything accomplished by engaging this modern-day equivalent to a Holocaust Denier? Posting here's a game for jammonius. He isn't even JAQing-off. He's just here to troll.

This thread lost any semblance of serving a useful purpose many, many pages ago.

 

[BigAl]

Hey Oystein,

I need to double check for accuracy of understanding: In saying "No" as quoted above, are you claiming that BigAl does not have to post up links confirming where and when the claims BigAl made are to be found?

Here's the only link you need.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf​

The 9/11 Commission report and the millions of pages of supporting testimony documents the claim that 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?

How did Ed wind up in that hole in the ground in Shanksville?

 

[jammonius]

In this thread, you have been asked the same question and dodged it. Since you already located the thread, why don't you just answer the damned question: Why is Ed Felt's wife mourning her husband? Al has told you already that the likes of you and their silly ideas make her sick. But that should not stop you, as you know you make everyone here sick with your lies and twists; that consideration never stopped you.

You might was well answer here: What became of Ed felt?

Lurkers,

I will take a moment to elaborate something here in plain terms:

I have frequently posted the following:

One cannot assume what has not been proven.

While that declaration is simple enough to understand, it apparently cannot be understood in the context of 9/11, which is almost certainly a result of the fact that there exists a strong emotional need to believe in the common storyline of 9/11, including, most assuredly, the belief in planes and in hijacking of them.

So, let's back up and illustrate the truth of the proposition that...:

One cannot assume what has not been proven.

... by doing so with an easier example to fathom. One that is devoid of the emotional baggage.

Put it this way:

When did you stop beating your spouse?

Is there anyone here, poster or lurker or family member of a 9/11 victim, alike, that does not understand that the above "wife-beating" question assumes what has not been proven?

Anyone at all?

The wife-beating proposition is assumed in the question as one cannot stop beating the crap out of a person absent a showing that one was doing so.

Could some of you but realize it, the questions about passengers of 9/11 flights is of exactly the same scope and the same magnitude and the same structure as is the "wife-beating" question.

I have addressed the multiple facts confirming that there are:

1--no validated, authenticated passenger lists;
2--no proven plane parts, verified by serial number;
3--no validly conducted investigatory finding of plane crashes;
4--no validated, authenticated DNA proof of identity of passengers.

We have also addressed the multiple facts that there were:

1--military exercises taking place on 9/11 simulating hijackings of planes, the full nature and extent of which is not known;
2--videos that are inconclusive as to what they show about jetliners;
3--vidoes that are conclusive as to showing a jetliner doing what no jetliner can do in terms of crash dynamics;
4--an abundance of witnesses all of whom say they saw and heard "an explsion" in a context where had they seen a jetliner crash, then, in that event, they would more normally and naturally have said they saw and heard one crash.

Posters and lurkers who ignore the above are simply stuck in their beliefs in a context where, as I have repeatedly said, I am not questioning your beliefs; and, you can continue to believe jetliners crashed on 9/11 for as long as you can.

That thread, as you know, is in AAH. But this here thread is yours and still open. So please feel free to answer here: What happened to Betty Ong in light of your no-plane-but-DEW theory?

Only one of the Dick Oliver threads is in AAH. The second one is still very much open and available. Furthermore, even though the one is in AAH, it can still be viewed for reference and guidance.

It is not a show stopper at all. Your theory, if you have any, must explain how more than 200 people on 4 planes can have been listed in the public record as having perished aboard these planes when they crashed on 9/11, when you make the claim that no planes crashed? Why is Ed Felt's wife mourning, if Ed did not perish in a plane crash that day? If you can't answer that question, we must conclude you have no theory, no evidence, and thus nothing that supercedes the theory we all consider to describe reality the best: 4 planes were crashed on 9/11.

In the above, you are still stuck on the failure to apprehend that:

One cannot assume what has not been proven.

Good luck

 

[BigAl]

Lurkers,

I will take a moment to elaborate something here in plain terms:

I have frequently posted the following:

One cannot assume what has not been proven.

I have first-hand proof that my work-mate, Ed Felt was last seem alive boarding Flight 93 and proof that his remains were found in the crash site in Shanksville.

What is your theory that explains his remains got there?

 

[jammonius]

Here's the only link you need.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf​

The 9/11 Commission report and the millions of pages of supporting testimony documents the claim that 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?

How did Ed wind up in that hole in the ground in Shanksville?

BigAl,

You are being disengenuous in the extreme here. You are changing the subject on virtually the same page as your original claim is found as posted by you:

BigAl Claim:

"Of course there is. I posted it weeks ago along with email and phone # that you could call for more information and confirmation."

And the link is:_________________________

BigAl Claim:

"You dismissed it with lies."

And the link is:_________________________

BigAl, either you are going to post up links to your claims or you are not. Posting a link to the discredited 9/11 commission report is, by definition, a failure to post up a link to the quoted claims that you made.

Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission Report has been almost totally discredited and is not taken seriously as it is fatally flawed, false, stupid and useless.

 

[Oystein]

Hey Oystein,

I need to double check for accuracy of understanding: In saying "No" as quoted above, are you claiming that BigAl does not have to post up links confirming where and when the claims BigAl made are to be found?

No, that is obviously a misrepresentation of my posting.

I answered "no" to the "fair enough".
Because ultimately, the thread and "theory" under discussion here are not Al's and are not about Al. They are yours and about your version of "reality".

As per the OP, you pretend to "prove" that no planes crashed on 9/11.
It is logical to predict from that theory (which is solely yours), that no human being died in plane crashes that day.
You know there are claims that aim to refute your theory. In particular, that planes did crash, and that Ed Felt and Betty Ong were aboard 2 of these planes.

From our theory, we predict: Betty Ong and Ed Felt died on 9/11, would have been reported by those who'd have known best if they were aboord the planes or not, are today missed by their real-life acquaintences, and would be mentioned in court procedings dealing with the events of 9/11 and culpability thereof.
We test this hypothesis, and find at least circumstantial evidence, that all predictions are true: Betty Ong is missed by her family and company; Ed Felt is missed by his wife and by Al. AA and UA published them on lists as persons who perished aboard said flights. A court in Virginia publishes exhibits used in procedings against Mr. Moussaoui that list both of them as victims of said plane crashes.

Your theory, as you have presented it so far, would predict none of this. In fact, your theory would predict that
- AA and UA were not missing planes
- AA and UA would not have reported Betty and Ed as missing
- Al would not be missing Ed
- Carrie, Gloria and Harry would not be missing Betty.
- The court in Virginia would not have accepted and published said exhibit.
So your theory, as you have presented it outright so far, would be falsified on at least 5 counts of testing concerning the fate of Ed and Betty alone.
Therefore, you need to improve and expand on your theory to account for the falsifications of predictions made from YOUR theory.
To do you, you must add claims, by spelling them out, and then either providing positive proof for them, or mark them as assumptions.
Our insistence touches exactly these claims: What claims do you make that explain the apparent disappearance of Ed and Betty as per the test results itemzed above, in light of your theory of "no plane crashes"?

 

[jammonius]

I have first-hand proof that my work-mate, Ed Felt was last seem alive boarding Flight 93 and proof that his remains were found in the crash site in Shanksville.

What is your theory that explains his remains got there?

I have invited you multiple times to post up confirmation that you "...have first-hand proof that my work-mate, Ed Felt was last seem alive boarding Flight 93 and proof that his remains were found in the crash site in Shanksville..."

In the absence of proof, you are asking us to accept your a priori declaration as true. As most here want to believe the common storyline of 9/11 is true, and have said as much, in a variety of ways, your a priori declaration is no doubt acceptable to many.

However, in terms of reason, dialogue, rational discourse, evidence and proof, your a priori declaration fails and fails utterly as proof.

Your a priori declaration is refuted in like kind by the following statement:

Your assertion is unproven, absent a posteriori proof.

If there is any part of the statement "...[y]our assertion is unproven, absent a posteriori proof..." that you do not understand, please let me know and I will clarify it for you as best I can.

 

[Oystein]

Lurkers,

I will take a moment to elaborate something here in plain terms:

I have frequently posted the following:

One cannot assume what has not been proven.

Wrong! Oh silliness!

In scientific theories, you insert assumptions when you don't (can't or don't want to) prove a premise.
The moment you prove your premise, it ceases to be an assumption, it is elevated to fact.

We don't care at this time if you make assumptions about Ed and Betty or elevate any claims you want to make to facts by proving them. It would be nice if you just answered:

How do you explain the claimed disappearance of Betty and Ed, if they did not perish on 9/11? Did they never exist? Did they die before 9/11? Did they live after 9/11? Or did they disappear on 9/11 by other means than plane crashes? Any other possibility that you want to claim?

 

[Myriad]

One cannot assume what has not been proven.

While that declaration is simple enough to understand,

You are assuming that that declaration is valid, which has not been proven.

You are assuming that the declaration is simple, which has not been proven.

You are assuming that the declaration can be understood (that is, that it is meaningful) which has not been proven.

it apparently cannot be understood in the context of 9/11,

You are assuming that it cannot be understood (as opposed to, for instance, having been fully understood but not believed) which has not been proven.

which is almost certainly a result of the fact that there exists a strong emotional need to believe in the common storyline of 9/11, including, most assuredly, the belief in planes and in hijacking of them.

You are assuming the existence of such a strong emotional need, which has not been proven.

One cannot assume what has not been proven.

By "one" do you mean "people other than yourself?"

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tuc0]

One cannot assume what has not been proven.

Yet you yourself do nothing but assume what has not been proven.

The cognitive dissonance is very strong with you.

Oh, and the question Why is Ed Felt's wife mourning, if Ed did not perish in a plane crash that day? isn't even equivalent to "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" even if we accept your lies about the investigation and the evidence. It's more like "If you don't beat your wife, then why is she lying on the floor, sobbing and covered in bruises while you are standing above her with blood on your hands?".

But since arguing with you is pointless I will stop now.

 

[jammonius]

Hey debunkers,

Do any of the debunker websites contain video, blurry or otherwise, of Ed Felt boarding Flight 93? If so, I would be grateful for that link; and so might BigAl.

 

[jammonius]

Yet you yourself do nothing but assume what has not been proven.

Please provide an example, rather than yet another a priori declaration.

Thanks in advance. I would be more than willing to discuss any example that you might choose to illustrate the otherwise unsupported claim you have made. For instance, do you claim that one or more of the two separate 1-4 groupings of claims I have made and found in post # 2410, right here on this page, are such examples?

The cognitive dissonance is very strong with you.

Do you assert that the query whataboutthepassengers? in whatever form it might take is not an example of cognitive dissonance?

Oh, and the question Why is Ed Felt's wife mourning, if Ed did not perish in a plane crash that day? isn't even equivalent to "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" even if we accept your lies about the investigation and the evidence. It's more like "If you don't beat your wife, then why is she lying on the floor, sobbing and covered in bruises while you are standing above her with blood on your hands?".

It appears you have not got the foggiest clue what cognitive dissonance is, I am sorry to say.

But since arguing with you is pointless I will stop now.

Hey fallacy vigilantes, of what type or category of fallacy is the above?

 

[djlunacee]

If you were honestly applying these rubberstamped principles, you would FIRST throw out any claim you ever made, foremost of which these:
- "no plane"
- "DEW"
- "PsyOp"
as they are absurd on their face.
Are you ready to admit as much?

But one thing remains: Ed Felt and Betty Ong are no more. Where are they?




P.S.: reported for spamming.

I have taken the liberty of creating my own rubber stamps:

rubber stamp #1

The claim of no planes being involved in the attacks on 9/11 despite jammo's emotional attachment holds no supporting evidence and is therefore no longer a valid theory. Any reference to the planes as being shadow thingys, blobs, or anything other than planes, is completely unsupported, and should be reported to the fraud department.


rubber stamp #2

If evidence has been deemed admissible by a court of law, used in a court law, it has been judged already on its value by officials who are qualified to do so, there are no words that changes this fact.


disclaimer:

keep in mind folks we are wasting our time arguing with someone who has made the claims in this very thread that

1.) the perimeter columns were solid.....wrong
2.) that if I say "we saw a plane", it really doesn't include me, or that if I say I saw a plane, it means I really didn't.
3.) has made the claim that the planes should not have acted the way they did and should have either exploded at the initial point of contact and bounced off the towers
4.) made the claim that the fuel payload for a jet is not carried in its wings
5.) thinks that a plane, a train and a bus all sound same
6.) has made numerous appeals to the lurkers, all for naught, as not one buys into his theory of no planes.


That about sums it up. I am not going to tell you to get help Jammy, you are to far gone for that.