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

[CompusMentus]

Lee Hanson the grandfather of Christine Hanson giving testomy at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (from HERE):-

Lee Hanson, 73, described how he watched on television as his son, Peter, 32, daughter-in-law, Sue Kim, 35, and granddaughter, Christine, perished aboard United Airlines Flight 175 as it slammed into the trade center's south tower.

Christine, 2 1/2 years old, was the youngest of the 2,973 victims.

"She was the sweetest little girl," her grandfather recalled. "She was love personified."

Peter had planned to combine a business trip with a family visit to Disneyland and his in-laws, who are Korean immigrants.

He called his father as the hijackings unfolded, describing in a soft voice how a flight attendant had been stabbed, Hanson testified.

When he called a second time, Peter said the hijackers' flying was so bumpy that passengers were vomiting.

"I think they're going to try to crash this plane into a building," the son told his father. " 'Don't worry, Dad. If it happens, it will be quick,' " Hanson quoted his son as saying.

Moments later, as his son whispered, "Oh, my God," into the phone three times, Lee Hanson watched on television as the plane struck the tower and burst into a fireball.
'They took away our dreams'

"They took away our dreams. They took away our future," Hanson testified.

He described how he later went to his son's house to collect toothbrushes and picked hair off brushes so medical examiners could obtain DNA samples to identify remains.

A six inch bone was recovered at the WTC site and identified by DNA analysis as being part of the remains of Peter Hanson.

The seating plan (from HERE) of flight 175 shows the seats Peter, his wife and little Christine occupied seats 19e 19d 19c during the flight. Peter Hanson was proven to have made the phonecalls from one of the phones in row 30 just before the impacts:-

Peter Hanson died with his loved ones on Flight 175 when it was deliberately crashed into the WTC tower.

I will not join in with any discussion with jammonius here. He is beyond reason. I know that, whatever I write, Jammonius still will be repeating the same idiotic drivel even if this thread went to a million pages.

I will though, present the facts as to what happened on 9/11.

The facts are there above for all to see, they are immutable, locked into history forever. Jammonius can never change that fact.


Compus

 

[CompusMentus]

The "ignore" feature can make this happen much quicker.
If you pay no attention he goes away (just look at how many times he posted during the "boycott").

I do think that if we stop engaging with jammonius he will go away eventually. I think this happened in the monstrous "realistice" thread (although it took a banning to stop christophera).

It is plain that no amount of discussion will alter jammonius' views here. He has Sagan's dragon in his garage. However, I do think it is a worthy endeavour to just present plain facts as a counter to his poisonous drivel. I have never felt the need to use the ignore function but I will join in a total boycott of his posts if enough people subscribe to it.


Compus

 

[Myriad]

So, you took what I think can only fairly be described as a narrow, pedantic exception to my comment about the fallacy of assumption, in the context of a loaded question where, as noted, you omitted the "loaded question" part of my post.

I showed that you were unable to apply the principle you claim to apply (and demand that others apply), "one cannot assume what has not been proven," to your own claims. There was no need to point out every example of this throughout the entire post. Instead, I mercifully stopped after one paragraph. That is sufficient.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tsig]

I do think that if we stop engaging with jammonius he will go away eventually. I think this happened in the monstrous "realistice" thread (although it took a banning to stop christophera).

It is plain that no amount of discussion will alter jammonius' views here. He has Sagan's dragon in his garage. However, I do think it is a worthy endeavour to just present plain facts as a counter to his poisonous drivel. I have never felt the need to use the ignore function but I will join in a total boycott of his posts if enough people subscribe to it.


Compus

Raises hand.

 

[fess]

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

Thank you for you answer Jammonius. I find it somewhat curious that Mr. Moussaoui' lawyer states that the evidence used in the trial was authentic, and should be entered as evidence in the trial.

First of all, there are rules regarding stipulations of evidence.

Admissions and stipulations by the defendant are types of evidence that may be used in a criminal trial. Rules of evidence and rules of criminal procedure provide guidelines for how admissions and stipulations may be admitted into evidence and what a judge must consider in deciding whether to admit them.

Was Mr. Moussaoui coerced into the stipulation? I don’t think so…

One effect of a stipulation is that the defendant waives his/her constitutional trial rights regarding that fact. Rules of criminal procedure provide guidelines for judges to follow in deciding whether to accept a stipulation. These guidelines include questioning the defendant to ensure that he/she is aware of the rights he/she is giving up by stipulating to some fact and to make sure he/she is giving up those rights voluntarily.

Admissions and stipulations will not likely be admitted in the trial of a criminal case if they were entered into due to pressure, threats or bribes. Guidelines regarding admissions and stipulations in criminal cases only let these points into evidence if they were entered into of the defendant's own free will.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Jam is on ignore

 

[Oystein]

I do think that if we stop engaging with jammonius he will go away eventually. I think this happened in the monstrous "realistice" thread (although it took a banning to stop christophera).

It is plain that no amount of discussion will alter jammonius' views here. He has Sagan's dragon in his garage. However, I do think it is a worthy endeavour to just present plain facts as a counter to his poisonous drivel. I have never felt the need to use the ignore function but I will join in a total boycott of his posts if enough people subscribe to it.


Compus

I am in.

 

[bill smith]

I showed that you were unable to apply the principle you claim to apply (and demand that others apply), "one cannot assume what has not been proven," to your own claims. There was no need to point out every example of this throughout the entire post. Instead, I mercifully stopped after one paragraph. That is sufficient.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Well Myriad I don't know what Jammonius is doing to you guys over here but I pick up a very worried tone among debunkers what with Compus atarting play the violin and the like. That's a sure and certain sign.

 

[DavidJames]

I do think that if we stop engaging with jammonius he will go away eventually. I think this happened in the monstrous "realistice" thread (although it took a banning to stop christophera).

It is plain that no amount of discussion will alter jammonius' views here. He has Sagan's dragon in his garage. However, I do think it is a worthy endeavour to just present plain facts as a counter to his poisonous drivel. I have never felt the need to use the ignore function but I will join in a total boycott of his posts if enough people subscribe to it.


Compus

A boycott was performed for almost a week, the results...

No new threads by 9/11 CTists, very few posts by them as well. Most of the posts and all the new threads were from "debunkers".

That was pretty clear, but anyone watching this forum would also realize this forum is kept alive by debunkers. When debunkers step away 9/11 CTists pretty much disappear.

The notion they respond for the benefit of the lurkers is a red herring. The reality is there are no arguments being posited by 9/11 CTists which would be believed by anyone other then other 9/11 CTists.

 

[dafydd]

Your questions are fallaciously loaded, imho. For a more complete understanding of what I mean by "loaded" I would refer you to post # 2488.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6157244&postcount=2488

More bollocks,they are not loaded,they are very simple questions which you are unable to answer truthfully.Have you sought medical help yet for your mental condition?

 

[dafydd]

Well Myriad I don't know what Jammonius is doing to you guys over here but I pick up a very worried tone among debunkers what with Compus atarting play the violin and the like. That's a sure and certain sign.

If that's your best effort at trolling,don't bother anymore.

 

[dafydd]

A boycott was performed for almost a week, the results...

No new threads by 9/11 CTists, very few posts by them as well. Most of the posts and all the new threads were from "debunkers".

That was pretty clear, but anyone watching this forum would also realize this forum is kept alive by debunkers. When debunkers step away 9/11 CTists pretty much disappear.

The notion they respond for the benefit of the lurkers is a red herring. The reality is there are no arguments being posited by 9/11 CTists which would be believed by anyone other then other 9/11 CTists.

Perhaps we should just all stop replying to Jammo? It is a waste of time.

 

[dafydd]

Jam is on ignore

I have him on ignore too.Best thing.

 

[jammonius]

There is no video of me being born, does that mean I wasn't?

No, it does not mean you were not born. Would you like to discuss the question further, from a perspective of logic, reason and its relationship to 9/11 issues?

Let me know

 

[jammonius]

Jam, in your opinion, what happened to Ed Felt?

I have answered this with Rubber Stamp # 3. I don't think giving "an opinion" is an appropriate response to a matter that comes within the scope of that which could have been, but was not, properly investigated.

Do you recall seeing a post of mine, here or there, that said "I do not care about or challenge what people believe"? I also do not post on the basis of "belief" as to the events of 9/11. I post on the basis of what information is available, what conclusions can be drawn from the information based on a range of factors. Some information can allow for direct conclusions, other information can only allow indirect ones. Still other types of available information consists in "circumstantial" information that requires use of some or a combination of factors including, by way of example, deduction, induction, inference and other forms of reasoning, from which claims can be made.

 

[jammonius]

So what happened to him?

See post # 2515

 

[TJM]

No, it does not mean you were not born. Would you like to discuss the question further, from a perspective of logic, reason and its relationship to 9/11 issues?

Let me know

I'd love for somebody to come up with a video of Mr. Felt boarding his flight.

Well! Isn't this a fine how do you do! Why is there a Video of Mr. Felt boarding this particular flight on this particular day, Hmmmmm?? I've flown dozens of times, where's my video??

Voices Lurking in My Head:

This is clearly proof of the 9/11 PSYOP in action. Come on folks, this video exist solely to be played on teevee in an endless loop until you finally accept the lie you're being spoon fed.

Wake up!

Logic and reason my ass.

 

[CompusMentus]

September 11, 2001: Flight 175 Nearly Collides with Two Other Planes

Flight 175 almost collides in mid-air with at least two other planes as it descends towards Manhattan. At the FAA’s New York Center, air traffic controller Chris Tucker sees it turn toward the path of Delta Flight 2315, a Boeing 737 heading southwest at 28,000 feet. He tells the Delta pilot: “Traffic 2 o’clock. Ten miles. I think he’s been hijacked. I don’t know his intentions. Take any evasive action necessary.”

The Delta plane begins to turn to get out of the way, but Flight 175 turns as well. According to the Washington Post, the two planes’ radar targets actually merge on the radar screen. Controller Dave Bottiglia later says, “It was a terrifying moment just to watch the two airplanes miss by less than, I think it was 200 feet.”

Shortly after this near miss, Flight 175 almost collides with US Airways Flight 542, another 737, flying just below and four miles behind Delta 2315. This plane’s onboard collision alert system sounds an alarm as Flight 175 comes closer and closer to it. Its pilot descends, managing to avoid a collision.

According to an early FAA report, after this incident, several New York air traffic controllers speculate that the unknown aircraft heading towards New York City—only later confirmed to be Flight 175—is an emergency and is heading for an airport to land.

Earlier on, Flight 175 nearly collided with Flight 11, and minutes later it will narrowly avoid another collision, with Midwest Airlines Flight 7.

The immutable facts. The unassailable reason.


Compus

 

[carlitos]

I probably won't be participating further as I am about to hop on a shadowy thingy and fly to a hologram that looks like New York. I'll let you know if they videotape me boarding and post it online somewhere.

 

[TJM]

I probably won't be participating further as I am about to hop on a shadowy thingy and fly to a hologram that looks like New York. I'll let you know if they videotape me boarding and post it online somewhere.

G'bye!