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

[fess]

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

Since when does the defendant in a criminal trial make the decision as to what evidence may be allowed to be entered?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

According to the Federal Law of Evidence, Jam must provide evidence of what he claims.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

Since Jam is saying this & that & not providing said evidence, then under accordance with the Federal Law of Evidence, his statements are inadmissible since they are hearsay.

Rule 802. Hearsay Rule

Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress.

Under the Federal Law of Evidence, Jam's credibility is rightfully being attacked, if Jam had a witness then his arguements wouldn't be attacked.

Rule 806. Attacking and Supporting Credibility of Declarant

When a hearsay statement, or a statement defined in Rule 801(d)(2)(C), (D), or (E), has been admitted in evidence, the credibility of the declarant may be attacked, and if attacked may be supported, by any evidence which would be admissible for those purposes if declarant had testified as a witness. Evidence of a statement or conduct by the declarant at any time, inconsistent with the declarant's hearsay statement, is not subject to any requirement that the declarant may have been afforded an opportunity to deny or explain. If the party against whom a hearsay statement has been admitted calls the declarant as a witness, the party is entitled to examine the declarant on the statement as if under cross-examination.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Rubber stamp 3 assumes, without proof, that
- American Airlines and United Airlines would accept without proof that 4 of their planes crashed, along with all people aboard, creating liabilities
- The insurances who paid AA and UA 500 million US$ did accept the theory of their crashes without proof
- The FBI and the NTSB would not conduct a thorough investigation into the biggest crime and worst air traffic incident in US history, or come up emty handed
- A US court would publish as court exhibit fraudulent lists
- The airline companies and the FAA could be fooled into losing track of 4 large planes, and instead believing in fake tracks
- or, alternatively, that each and every piece of evidence has been faked.

Since all these implications are nonsense at their face, rubber stamp 3 ought to be thrown out. If you believe the latter item to be true, than naturally, you are left with nothing at all. Then you can't be sure if even the city of Ney York exists. Your claim to have been there would have to be thrown out as probably fraud as well.

Do oyu understand that?

Do better.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Dodging still.

BigAl would be grateful if you provided a theory about the whereabouts of Ed felt. Am I right, Al?

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

What do you think happened to the missing aircraft and passengers then?
Even if I accept your idea that they didn't hit the towers, where did they go?

Where are they now?

 

[CompusMentus]

Christine Lee Hanson. The youngest victim.

Never to be forgotten:

Christine was the 2 1/2 years old daughter of Peter and Sue Hanson. She was born on Feb 22, 1999. She was the granddaughter of Eunice and Lee Hanson of Easton, Connecticut, and the great-granddaughter of Ok-Hee Kim of California. She was a beautiful, happy, outgoing little girl who loved to talk on the phone with her “Namma” Eunice, telling her of her time at day care and ending the conversation with “I love you, Namma.” She was attending Knowledge Beginnings in Chelmsford, MA.

On September 11th, 2001, they were on Flight 195 bound for California on their way to a Disneyland vacation and a trip to visit Sue’s relatives when their plane was hijacked and flown into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. Her father held her and her mommy in one arm while expressing his love and saying goodbye on the cellphone to her grandfather Lee.

Christine Lee Hanson is the youngest victim of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

I have no doubt Christine Hanson died in the arms of her mother and father on flight 175. Neither would her grandparents who spoke to the childs father moments before her death. I also have no doubt that those grandparents, if they were ever to read the heartless ramblings of the OP here, would want the sane among us to stop engaging with this idiocy.

Every time jammonius denies the existence of the planes that hit the towers this odious spiteful person spits on the memory of that child, her parents all the others that died and suffered on the eleventh of September nearly 10 years ago.

Please, let's all remember Christine whenever he trolls here looking for his pathetic little thrills.

Don't pick the scab, eventually it will just fade and go away.


Compus

 

[tuc0]

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

No.

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

Thanks a lot.

 

[jammonius]

Since when does the defendant in a criminal trial make the decision as to what evidence may be allowed to be entered?

In the case of Zacharias Moussaoui, the exact answer is that the so-called evidence was allowed in by stipulation with Moussaoui on March 9, 2006 at 9:30AM, to be more or less exact.

It was done in the following manner:

" MR. SPENCER: They all have the -- they are all
2 Government Exhibit FO-5521.1, and they will range from .10, they
3 go all the way up to .70. But I am not going to go into all of
4 those, Your Honor. I am going to take a look at eight of those
5 only.
6 THE COURT: But are those the only ones that are going
7 to go into evidence to the jury?
8 MR. SPENCER: No, there are other ones that have gone in
9 by stipulation, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: But we are going to look at just eight right
11 now?
12 MR. SPENCER: Correct.
13 MR. MAC MAHON: That's correct, Your Honor. We have
14 stipulated to the authenticity and admissibility of all those
15 documents."

Source: http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/usa-v-zm-030906-01.htm

If you have any questions, or find anything difficult to understand, let me know.

all the best

 

[jammonius]

According to the Federal Law of Evidence, Jam must provide evidence of what he claims.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

Since Jam is saying this & that & not providing said evidence, then under accordance with the Federal Law of Evidence, his statements are inadmissible since they are hearsay.



Under the Federal Law of Evidence, Jam's credibility is rightfully being attacked, if Jam had a witness then his arguements wouldn't be attacked.

Boy, a little research appears to be hazardous to your level of understanding, Chewy. Your post is hopelessly confused as to wherein lies the burden of proof and as to the meaning of hearsay. Nonetheless, if you keep at it, you might get yourself onto the right track.

Best wishes

 

[jammonius]

Rubber stamp 3 assumes, without proof, that
- American Airlines and United Airlines would accept without proof that 4 of their planes crashed, along with all people aboard, creating liabilities
- The insurances who paid AA and UA 500 million US$ did accept the theory of their crashes without proof
- The FBI and the NTSB would not conduct a thorough investigation into the biggest crime and worst air traffic incident in US history, or come up emty handed
- A US court would publish as court exhibit fraudulent lists
- The airline companies and the FAA could be fooled into losing track of 4 large planes, and instead believing in fake tracks
- or, alternatively, that each and every piece of evidence has been faked.

Since all these implications are nonsense at their face, rubber stamp 3 ought to be thrown out. If you believe the latter item to be true, than naturally, you are left with nothing at all. Then you can't be sure if even the city of Ney York exists. Your claim to have been there would have to be thrown out as probably fraud as well.

Do oyu understand that?

Do better.

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.

For those using 40 posts/page, might I remind you that we are now on page 62. Stated differently, you have until post # 2480 to post a link to the requested video, if you can.

Has your enthusiasm for posting and reposting your Ed Felt claim begun to wane?

Will that enthusiasm dissipate altogether by post # 2480?

 

[carlitos]

If a tree fell in the forest, but there was no internet link to a video of it, did it really fall? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Boy, a little research appears to be hazardous to your health, Chewy. Your post is hopelessly confused as to wherein lies the burden of proof and as to the meaning of hearsay. Nonetheless, if you keep at it, you might get yourself onto the right track.

Best wishes

As you are the one meaking the extraordinary claim you have the burden of proof.
It seems you are in a minority of one as regard the aircraft hitting the towers. I would say that makes your claim not the ordinary one but the estraordinary one. You need to supply us as the saying goes with extraordinary proof.

I haven't seen you give a straight answer to any question yet or provide a single piece of support for your claims other than you think everyone else is wrong. Even if they were that woudln't make you right without some support.

 

[jammonius]

Christine Lee Hanson. The youngest victim.





I have no doubt Christine Hanson died in the arms of her mother and father on flight 175. Neither would her grandparents who spoke to the childs father moments before her death. I also have no doubt that those grandparents, if they were ever to read the heartless ramblings of the OP here, would want the sane among us to stop engaging with this idiocy.

Every time jammonius denies the existence of the planes that hit the towers this odious spiteful person spits on the memory of that child, her parents all the others that died and suffered on the eleventh of September nearly 10 years ago.

Please, let's all remember Christine whenever he trolls here looking for his pathetic little thrills.

Don't pick the scab, eventually it will just fade and go away.


Compus

Let me double check for accuracy, Compus. Surely you are not posting the above as proof of a plane crash, are you?

If you are, then you are engaging in blatant misuse of the memory of a small person, an infant, tender of age, who is apparently missing and presumed to be no longer among the living.

Doing what you have done lends credence to the claim I have repeatedly made that belief in the common storyline of 9/11 is connected to emotion and to emotional appeals.

It is too bad tuc0 chose not to engage in discussion with me. I would have used your post, among many other examples that are to be found in this thread, of proof of my emotion-related assertion that Tuc0 sought, in vain, to challenge.

I might here point out, as well, that in choosing to challenge that claim, rather than the substantive ones I made about why the NO PLANE claim is valid, all Tuc0 really did was to confirm the validity of those claims by choosing to place emphasis on a secondary issue of poster motive in a context where the primary issue is the proof of the NO PLANE claim.

Compus, permit me to suggest you try another, and hopefully more effective, discussion tactic.

Thanks

 

[TJM]

We may be making some progress here.

No. No we aren't. What a horrible existence you've created for yourself. An existence that leads rational people to wonder if you're insane or just a common liar.

I don't know about you, but many of us who live outside of the matrix like to base our beliefs on a concept we call "reality". Many of us, especially those of us with a skeptical nature, tend to support our realities with things that we call "facts". I will now give you examples of these "facts":

The technology to make moving holograms appear in daylight, from several angles with sound convincing enough to fool people at variable distances away from it does not exist and therefore was not implemented on the morning of September 11th, 2001.

Additionally, the technology to implant said image over nearly every live television feed in the world in real time does not exist and therefore was not implemented on the morning of September 11th, 2001.

Need more? Let's see...

According to the US Census for the year 2000, there were roughly 1.5 million of a mammal species known as homo sapiens living in Manhattan. This species, for whatever reason, like to refer to themselves as "People", which I will also do from here on out.

There are 31 square miles of Manhattan with roughly 66,000 of these people per square mile.

Additionally, if you refer to your map of Manhattan, you will notice that people have ways of moving about from outlying areas using things called streets, bridges and tunnels. People use these streets, bridges and tunnels, or transportation systems if you will, to migrate to an area of Manhattan where the people then congregate and indulge in a daily ritual called "work". This generally causes a temporary surge in the people per square mile (PPSM) which lasts for roughly eight hours, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mondays through Fridays excluding holidays and weekends.

This surge in the PPSM creates something of a dilemma because Manhattan is an island and there really isn't enough room to sprawl out like one could do in the suburbs. There simply isn't enough room on the ground for all these people. Earlier in the 20th Century, a sub-group of people who call themselves "architects" arrived at a clever solution. They concluded that the best way to manage the people was to stack them in tall structures they called "buildings". To facilitate this, the architects would have to appeal to another sub-group know as "Rich Bastards". The architects reasoned that if the Rich Bastards built these structures, they can lure people into to them to do their bidding if they were promised some of the Rich Bastard's "money", which is a substance people currently use to sustain their existence.

This has proved to be a viable solution. By 2001, hundreds of these structures had sprung up, a good lot of them in an area of Manhattan people like to call "The Financial District", where a great deal of money can be acquired here but sadly, many people can't seem accumulate enough of it and only manage to get the minimum daily requirement. These people are known as "wage slaves" or "peons". These peons survive by serving coffee and bagels, cutting hair, selling shoes, driving taxis, caring for future generations of Rich Bastards, washing windows and so on. This has created a symbiotic relationship and businesses have thrived from it, drawing even more peons to support the buildings that hold the other peons who are in them doing the Rich Bastard's bidding.

This, of course, supports the fact that there were thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people who were in Manhattan on the morning of September 11th, 2001 who saw Flights 11 and 175 crash into the World Trade Center. With their own eyes.

You cannot dismiss them.

You cannot hand wave them away.

They aren't going away.

They were in the buildings. They were in the streets. They were in their apartments. In bakeries. Coffee shops. Schools. Everywhere.

They were in their offices and in the World Trade Center, for some, the sight of 767s filling their windows was the last thing they saw.

This is reality supported by facts.

In the reality you've created for yourself, all these people simply cannot be allowed to exist because they cut straight to the heart of your lie or delusion, whichever it is.

Now you've just gone over into belief in Santa territory.

True story; When I was five my father had lost his job and couldn't afford Christmas presents that year. He tried to soften that up a by asking me if I believe in Santa Claus. I told him "That's stupid Dad, reindeer can't fly."

Neither can holograms.

I might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer or the most articulate, but I was blessed with a natural BS detector and buddy, I can smell you all the way from Derbyshire.

Do you also keep up with the Kardashians?

No. I don't usually watch a lot of TV. I like reading, the internet and music, most of which I enjoy outdoors. You should try it sometime, or are you allowed to be outside unattended?

I am not questioning your beliefs and I am not touching your emotional need to believe the common storyline of 9/11 with a ten foot pole.

Get it?

You've never questioned my beliefs. You've either ignored them or hand waved them away but never questioned them. The reason being is you won't like the answers because they shatter your reality, which is not based on any fact at all.

Do grasp that.

 

[jammonius]

If a tree fell in the forest, but there was no internet link to a video of it, did it really fall? Enquiring minds want to know.

Well, Carlitos,

I think the best way to address your epistemological query is to continue the process of refuting your claim about witnesses, posted back at # 1368.


Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation 3/34
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368

Tara L. Harper

I was actually six blocks south of the World Trade Center at work when this attack happened. I heard about the first plane, and SAW the second plane hit. Once the second plane hit we knew it was terrorism and left our building.
http://unbound.intrasun.tcnj.edu/unb...al/miracle.htm

That witness fails based on the now familiar reason that it comes from an unreliable source and because, as to what it says, it is as much an admission that the person didn't see a plane hit the North Tower as it is a claim the person saw something hit the South Tower. It is unreliable. Even Chewy will now admit this, as Chewy posted up the hearsay rule for us. Thanks, Chewy.

Stuart Hoffman

I happened to look up just as the other plane came in and crashed into the World Trade Center. I saw the plane, I saw it crash through, the ball of flame.
www.nationalstudent.tv (Web Archive copy)

Ditto re uselessness as evidence. Plus, once again, to the extent the person can be said to have seen anything, the person saw the fireball.


FIREFIGHTER SCOTT HOLOWACH
At that time, I started walking towards Engine 3. Engine 3 drove south to the south pedestrian bridge to make a U turn to come back and as I'm walking towards the Engine to find out what Lieutenant Walsh wanted us to do, I heard the sound of a jet plane. I looked up and saw it pretty close and I was like holy ****. What's going on with the with the flight patterns. All of a sudden, the wings turned and it dove right into the building and it was screwed up.
At that time Chief Ganci was behind me and he thought there was another explosion in the north tower and that's when I turned around and said Chief, listen, there is a second plane that hit the other tower. He was like no no no no, we have another explosion. I said no, Chief, I witnessed it. I watched the plane hit the other tower. He is like are you sure. I said Chief, I'm 100 hundred percent positive I watched the second plane hit the other tower.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110114.PDF

Bingo. Scott Holowach is, perhaps, one of the very best NO PLANE witnesses there is, bar none.

This witness comes from a reliable source, the Task Force Witness Statements. As such, his statement is actual, valid evidence. But, what does he say? He actually says that the higher ranking firefighter, Chief Ganci openly contradicted him (Holowach) concerning the claim a plane hit; and, what is evend more important, Chief Ganci confirmed that the first incident likewise involved an, you guessed it, EXPLOSION:

"...He was like no no no no, we have another explosion..."

That is as rich as it gets.

I think it fair to say that the higher ranking officer, Chief Ganci, is the more reliable of the two. Rank has its privileges, right, posters, lurkers and victims' family members?

Your list has added 0 valid witnesses to the ongoing enumeration, Carlitos.

 

[jammonius]

Captain Swoop,

As to what you have or haven't seen, permit me to suggest you take your blinders off and review the thread. My claims are consistently backed by actual evidence. See, for instance, witness Scott Holowach.

Did you see that; or, did you miss it?

Hint: Look for the EXPLOSION quote. Let me know if you can't find it.

 

[BigAl]

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.

No. So what?

What do you think happened to Ed?

 

[jammonius]

No. So what?

Thank you for your candor, BigAl. Your credibility has gone up a bit. I will address the "so what" element by and by. Let's wait a bit, until post # 2480 to see if anyone else might have any luck finding the requested video (they probably won't, but let's abide the event).

all the best

 

[Andy_Ross]

Captain Swoop,

As to what you have or haven't seen, permit me to suggest you take your blinders off and review the thread. My claims are consistently backed by actual evidence. See, for instance, witness Scott Holowach.

Did you see that; or, did you miss it?

Hint: Look for the EXPLOSION quote. Let me know if you can't find it.

Someone who saw an aircraft hit the tower is evidence of your claim?
Ok
So if he was wrong, what happend tp the aircraft? Where did it go after it took off and disappeared from the Radar over New York?

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

If you are, then you are engaging in blatant misuse of the memory of a small person, an infant, tender of age, who is apparently missing and presumed to be no longer among the living.

Thanks

Disgusting. What you are doing Jam is what all Truthers do- You are an apologist for the 19 radical Islamic terrorist hijackers .
It amazes me how little the people who were killed on 9/11 mean to you.