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

[Oystein]

...
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.
...

And yet, you can ask me that question, and receive a short, unambiguous, precise and reasoned answer:

"I never stopped beating my spouse because I never had a spouse and never beat a spouse".

There. That was easy. No word salad needed. Just one concise sentence.
Granted, I have not yet provided any prrof that I have never been married, but for the time being we'd be happy if you just answered the question "Where are Ed and Betty if they did not die in plane crashes on 9/11?"

You could try and do the same that I did: Just answer the question concisely! Could be one of the following:
A) "Oh but they did die in those plane crashes, I was only kidding"
B) "Betty and/or Ed never existed" (that would be equivalent to my claim "I never had a spouse")
C) "Betty and/or Ed died before 9/11"
D) "Betty and/or Ed lived after 9/11"
E) "Betty and/or Ed dies on 9/11, but by other means than plane crash"

It has to be one of these. Only takes one sentence, really. Or, well, maybe two, one for Ed, one for Betty.,

Lurkers, do you understand how even questions whose premise you doubt can be answered?

 

[jammonius]

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.




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.




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



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

Respectfully,
Myriad

Greetings Myriad,

Turn about is fair play, to be sure. Aside from that, I am not sure how or in what manner your post advances the search for clarity here. Perhaps you could elaborate if you would not mind doing so.

Respetfully,
jammonius

 

[djlunacee]

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.

refer to rubber stamp number two. ed felt is on the passenger list admitted into evidence in the ZM trial, no video needed, it is understood he was on flight 93

 

[Oystein]

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.

So does that mean you deny that Ed Felt boarded flight 93, ended as DNA'd human remains near Shanksville, and is now missed by his wife and his former workmate Al? Yes or No?

 

[jammonius]

And yet, you can ask me that question, and receive a short, unambiguous, precise and reasoned answer:

"I never stopped beating my spouse because I never had a spouse and never beat a spouse".

There. That was easy. No word salad needed. Just one concise sentence.
Granted, I have not yet provided any prrof that I have never been married, but for the time being we'd be happy if you just answered the question "Where are Ed and Betty if they did not die in plane crashes on 9/11?"

Not so fast, Oystein. You also never provided any proof that you stopped beating the spouse you may or may not have ever had either. And, for those who are hell-bent on claiming you beat your spouse, the answer you gave that you claimed was "one concise sentence" is not acceptable or adequate and will lead, instead, to a theoretically never-ending series of rejoinders.

Another name for that kind of questioning is Loaded questioning; still another name for the type is Misleading questioning.

I implore posters and lurkers and family members of 9/11 victims, alike, not to engage in Loaded and/or Misleading questioning.

You could try and do the same that I did: Just answer the question concisely! Could be one of the following:
A) "Oh but they did die in those plane crashes, I was only kidding"
B) "Betty and/or Ed never existed" (that would be equivalent to my claim "I never had a spouse")
C) "Betty and/or Ed died before 9/11"
D) "Betty and/or Ed lived after 9/11"
E) "Betty and/or Ed dies on 9/11, but by other means than plane crash"

It has to be one of these. Only takes one sentence, really. Or, well, maybe two, one for Ed, one for Betty.,

Lurkers, do you understand how even questions whose premise you doubt can be answered?

Nope, Oystein, you remain hopelessly confused, I am afraid. Your whole intent is to use stupidly misleading questioning to prove the proposition that Ed Felt was a passenger on alleged flight 93 and you will continue to fail and fail utterly for so long as you place your reliance upon questions that are blatantly loaded, false and insipid.

Deal with it now, or deal with it later.

Try to do better.

 

[jammonius]

refer to rubber stamp number two. ed felt is on the passenger list admitted into evidence in the ZM trial, no video needed, it is understood he was on flight 93

Your claim is circular and inconsistent; as such, it represents a complete failure of understanding of the process of proof of a claim. It is up to you to figure out whether you are doing that intentionally or not. After all, our primary obligation is to be true to ourselves, each person, as an individual.

I leave it to you to determine whether you are trying to fool us or yourself. Either way, you have not proven a darn thing about Ed Felt.

 

[BigAl]

Not so fast, Oystein. You also never provided any proof that you stopped beating the spouse you may or may not have ever had either. And, for those who are hell-bent on claiming you beat your spouse, the answer you gave that you claimed was "one concise sentence" is not acceptable or adequate and will lead, instead, to a theoretically never-ending series of rejoinders.

Another name for that kind of questioning is Loaded questioning; still another name for the type is Misleading questioning.

I implore posters and lurkers and family members of 9/11 victims, alike, not to engage in Loaded and/or Misleading questioning.



Nope, Oystein, you remain hopelessly confused, I am afraid. Your whole intent is to use stupidly misleading questioning to prove the proposition that Ed Felt was a passenger on alleged flight 93

My work-mate was seen boarding flight 93. None of your hand-waving can change that.

What happened to Ed? he was last seen boarding Flight 93, his name is on the Flight 93 manifest and he 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?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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?

If the planes didn't hit the towers what happened to them?

 

[Oystein]

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.

If flight 93 had been videotaped crashing on your head you would deny that that video was admissable, even though it would at the same time explain the transformation of Ed Felt into human remains near Shanksville AND the vastness of your delusions.

However, earlier in this thread you have set two standards for admissability of evidence:
- If it were good enough for a court of law
- If it were published by those with whom the information originated.

These standards have been met by probably not a single of your claims and claimed evidences. However they have been met by the passenger lists that contained the names of Ed Felt and Betty Ong:
- The lists have been good enough for a criminal court in Virginia
- The lists have been published timely and directly by the two airline companies that originally create these documents as a matter of conducting their daily core business.

These pieces evidence are therefore, by YOUR standards, better than any video could be that any poster or lurker might post (unless that video was accepted and published by a court of law).



Hence, it stands to reason that the claim of Betty and Ed dying on planes that crashed on 9/11 is the one to refute, with evidence, and there whereabouts would have to be explained by a different theory. Preferably with proof, but you may for the time being just state your best guess: "What happened to Ed and Betty"?

 

[jammonius]

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.

Hey Myriad,

It appears your reliance on the "turn about is fair play" concept has spawned yet another attempt at that old canard. The one done by Djlunacee is hopelessly confused and will not be responded to in detail as that would merely serve to muddy the waters at a point when we are about to achieve clarity on the false use of whataboutthepassengers? as a way to avoid dealing with NO PLANE claims.

As to you Djlunacee, I think all that needs to be said here is that you can continue to believe the common storyline of 9/11 and to support your belief based on what Zacharias Moussaoui agreed was evidence for as long as you possibly can.

Good luck

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

 

[jammonius]

I will leave open the following request for information contained in post # 2418 through the end of, say, page 62:

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.

Oystein has already quoted the post and then failed utterly to answer the request.

Is anyone else willing to take a shot at it, or is Oystein's post # 2429 going to be the definitive answer for you folks?

Remember, you have about 50 posts to provide video confirmation of Ed Felt boarding alleged Flight 93. Passengers are routinely filmed boarding aircraft aren't they?

 

[jammonius]

[qimg]http://gallery.webwhitenoise.com/albums/userpics/beating-a-dead-horse.gif[/qimg]

In the last thread where blatant imagery of abuse of animals was posted up, I asked that posters consider the implications of what they were doing and requested they refrain from that stupid, tired, shop-worn and insensitive metphor.

Would you consider deleting the image, Ron?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Oystein]

Not so fast, Oystein. You also never provided any proof that you stopped beating the spouse you may or may not have ever had either. And, for those who are hell-bent on claiming you beat your spouse, the answer you gave that you claimed was "one concise sentence" is not acceptable or adequate and will lead, instead, to a theoretically never-ending series of rejoinders.

Another name for that kind of questioning is Loaded questioning; still another name for the type is Misleading questioning.

I implore posters and lurkers and family members of 9/11 victims, alike, not to engage in Loaded and/or Misleading questioning.



Nope, Oystein, you remain hopelessly confused, I am afraid. Your whole intent is to use stupidly misleading questioning to prove the proposition that Ed Felt was a passenger on alleged flight 93 and you will continue to fail and fail utterly for so long as you place your reliance upon questions that are blatantly loaded, false and insipid.

Deal with it now, or deal with it later.

Try to do better.

This is all wrong, from beginning to end.

This is not about proof. Proof comes later. Proof comes in after you have a theory.
This is about theory first.
We have a theory, and we have evidence for that theory.

You deny our theory.
Fine.
So what is yours?

Our theory predicts that Betty and Ed died in plane crashes.
What does your theory predict about the fate of Betty and Ed?

Someone may advance to his heart's content the theory that I beat my wife. That's fine.
From his theory, we can make a prediction: Namely that I HAVE a wife.
I have a different theory: I never had a wife.
From this theory one can other predictions: That I never beat a wife; that I never stopped beating my wife.

You see, I spell out my theory ("I never had a wife") and can use that theory to answer your question, even if it is loaded. I have no problem with that.

However, our question "Where are Ed and Betty if they did not crash on 9/11" isn't loaded the way you pretend it to be. It's only underying assumption is that Ed and Betty existed on 9/11.
So, for the sake of clarity: If you think the question "Where are Ed and Betty if they did not crash on 9/11" is loaded, do you imply that you believe they did not exist on 9/11? Why then did you express your compassion for Ed's wife in another thread?

 

[tuc0]

I know I said I won't argue with you but the flesh is weak. Here goes...

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

OK. Here's just a tiny example from the very post I responded to: "... 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."

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?

No, those don't assume what has not been proven. Those are simple lies.

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

Yes. Also, it's no way a reply to what I have written. Just you repeating yourself without any connection to what other people say.

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

You are wrong. But the funny thing is that, again, your reply isn't in any way connected to anything I have written. What you are replying to analyses your misconceptions about the "beating your wife" gambit. No cognitive dissonance needed. (But your reply does exhibit cognitive dissonance, so you nicely brought it full circle).

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

Ad hominem. Poisoning the well. A bit of begging the question.

 

[jammonius]

If the planes didn't hit the towers what happened to them?

I have answered the above.

See Rubber Stamp # 3

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...43posting/1000s4rubberstamps.jpg?t=1279982554

If after reviewing said rubber stamp # 3 there is anything you require clarification about, let me know and I will do my best to clarify.

Best of British luck to you in your quest for understanding.

 

[Oystein]

In the last thread where blatant imagery of abuse of animals was posted up, I asked that posters consider the implications of what they were doing and requested they refrain from that stupid, tired, shop-worn and insensitive metphor.

Would you consider deleting the image, Ron?

Thanks in advance.

Would you consider answering the questions posted to you, namely:

What happened to Ed felt on 9/11? A one-sentence answer would suffice.
What happened to Betty Ong on 9/11? A one-sentence answer would suffice.
Do you deny that Ed felt ended his life aboard flight 93 on 9/11? A yes or a no would suffice.

 

[jammonius]

I know I said I won't argue with you but the flesh is weak. Here goes...

Double checking for accuracy, do you want to engage in discussion with me or not?

If you do, I will reply. If you prefer not to, then I will not engage further with you.

 

[jammonius]

Would you consider answering the questions posted to you, namely:

What happened to Ed felt on 9/11? A one-sentence answer would suffice.
What happened to Betty Ong on 9/11? A one-sentence answer would suffice.
Do you deny that Ed felt ended his life aboard flight 93 on 9/11? A yes or a no would suffice.

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.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

In the last thread where blatant imagery of abuse of animals was posted up, I asked that posters consider the implications of what they were doing and requested they refrain from that stupid, tired, shop-worn and insensitive metphor.

Would you consider deleting the image, Ron?

Thanks in advance.

Are you kidding me???

You do realize that's not even a real picture, do you?