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

[bardamu]

Well that's not the point is it?

Some one you love more than life itself has been murdered in the cruelest of ways. You know you aren't being told the truth about it.

How much money buys your silence?

Well, if you only discover the truth after you've signed the document, there's not a lot you can do.

 

[TSR]

but no press reports.

.
Wrong

The insured value of the hijacked planes totals $128.8 million, ranging from $21 million to $45 million each, according to market sources. The hull war risk market paid those losses just days after the terrorist attacks, sources said.

.

 

[TSR]

Well, if you only discover the truth after you've signed the document, there's not a lot you can do.

.
Of course, that doesn't answer the question as put.

Is there a particular reason you are so reluctant to do so?
.

 

[TJM]

Well, if you only discover the truth after you've signed the document, there's not a lot you can do.

You'd do best if you ignore me like jammonius is. You aren't doing yourself any favors here.

 

[bardamu]

.
Wrong

The insured value of the hijacked planes totals $128.8 million, ranging from $21 million to $45 million each, according to market sources. The hull war risk market paid those losses just days after the terrorist attacks, sources said.

If that source is reliable, it suggests the insurers paid out without much of an investigation. That means the insurance pay-out itself is not independent verification that the planes actually flew into the buildings, which is what Oystein was implying. If anything, the information would indicate that 9/11 was a massive insurance scam, amongst other things.

 

[X]

Or perhaps it means that the insurers were able to figure out rather rapidly something that has eluded you, Jammonius, and Bill Smith for years.


Are you at all familiar with the ways in which aircraft are tracked?

 

[djlunacee]

Let me guess: Are you saying you are right and I am wrong, Djlunacee?

Indeed. Should we poll the lurkers again to see which argument is more convincing? Whose evidence is more valid?(sorry forgot you don't have any, guess I win that by default) Who would win in a court of law?(with no physical evidence and nothing but pure speculation on your side, this one really isn't fair either)

Does that make you feel better, pray tell?

Irrelevant.

Here's a suggestion for you: Let's see if you're willing to put the traits you mention to a legitimate examination of the websites relied on by Compus to further the common storyline of 9/11... Be prepared to use common sense, logic and rationality, though not necessarily in that order. Can you do that?

Proof positive that you lack the skills necessary to understand what Compus is doing, along with AJM8125. Let me ask you this, do you still believe that trains, planes and buses still sound the same? Do you still believe that the perimeter columns of the towers were solid steel? Do you still believe that fuel payloads on boeing jets are not carried in the wings of the plane, and not the nose? Do you still believe that all of the passengers did not exist? Do you still believe that when I say "WE think you are insane" that means everyone but me?

The funny thing is Jammonious, you are asking me to do something, that you won't do yourself. I am sure you will have a 50,000 word salad essay of a response, but the simple fact remains, How dare you ask me a direct question and expect a response, when you have yet to do so in this entire thread?

 

[charmer]

Before addressing the substance of the trutheristic claims you posted, you'd better understand something: There's history here with Jammonius that you're ignorant of. Years ago - yes, years - we did treat him seriously. Here's the thread as proof: forums<dot>randi.org/showthread.php?t=115033. Yet, not only did that get nowhere, but it simply produced more bizzare and fundamentally idiotic claims.

I don't agree with beating a mentally ill poster to the degree that's been happening in this thread, which is why I have Jam on ignore and have been minimizing my participation. But you had better understand that the fundamental problem is that he brings ridicule onto himself. Don't stop at merely identifying half of the problem; there wouldn't be so much ad hom if Jam were even being remotely sensible.

Okay, I have browsed the thread you linked a little and it resembles this one
quite a bit. Many sidetracks, a huge amount of ad hominem even then and even a
mod was involved. Jammonius is persistent and tirelessly posts responces but I
don't recall that he would throw insults around like many others do over
and over... It's mostly _them_ who get offended by something and seem to be
unable to restrain themselves and just go away, not post their sneering
one-liner and possibly let the thread die. Instead many come back and post their
one-liner again and again one hundred more times. It's a paradox, almost everyone
who frequents this thread would agree that this thread should not go on...

But let's drop this tangent, I've got an army of strawmans to fend off.

Jets fly over New York all the time. There are at least 3 airports in the general metropolitan area: Teterboro, La Guardia, and JFK (that is ignoring the smaller, general aviation airports like Floyd Bennet). There is nothing unusual about the mere sound of jetliners.
Besides which, the one video segment does not summarize the totality of the witness reactions. See here for a roundup of many statements made by witnesses to the press regarding what they saw:
sites<dot>google.com/site/wtc7lie...untsofthenycai

(1) I basically agree with you there. But that was an answer to a different question.
My point #1 was about no one mentioning the approaching plane in the videos or
in live footage. And while there's nothing unusual about the mere sound of
jetliners, there's nothing usual about jetliners flying _that_ low. AFAIK it's
even forbidden.

You're judging the quality of video(s) that have been compressed and delivered over the internet? Furthermore: What's that supposed to signify, besides poor compression for web delivery?

(2) Not at all. That's a completely different issue and I have already had to
explain it to AJM8125. My point was about washover colors not compression loss.
See below. And until we're talking about the same thing I'm not jumping to any
conclusions.

Thread from 2007: "Mike Walter (USA Today) Responds to Conspiracists Misquoting Him"

(3) What of it? The clip is down. But again, my point was not about any
misquotations. I have provided a link to a video where he himself is reading the
explanation script to the effect that it is _obvious_ that the Boeing folded its
wings upon impact.

Before providing a link to many of those witnesses, here's some fair warning: Statements like "strict followers of the official line" reveal your sympathies towards conspiracy fantasy. What you have are people who believe in evidence and fact over people who twist such to fit fantasy. You're indicating that you're in the latter camp. I suggest you do research before posting further claims.
And here's the link; it's the same one I posted earlier:
sites<dot>google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheysaw%3Aeyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

(4) Thanks for the warning, but it's a miss again. I too believe in evidence and
fact and I don't twist anything into anything here. I'm sorry to see that
there seems to be virtually no tolerance here for anyone who's at odds with the
official line one way or another and so I'm called a 'truther' from the very start.
But never mind that.

About the link: the number of the second hit witness accounts there amounts to
around 50, well within the realm of several dozens as I've argued before. I am
ignoring the fact that only a small minority of them is properly sourced. So it
doesn't seem to constitute the proof of the "thousands". And I said it before,
this is a separate thing, I'm not implying this supports the noplane theory, I'm
not implying there may not have been other witnesses not covered in media, I'm
not implying anything. I'm just saying that we indeed seem to have only around
several dozens documented first hand witnesses to the second hit.

Refutations of the September Clues work:
* www<dot>911myths.com/index.php/Nose_out
* forums<dot>randi.org/showthread.php?t=84197
* forums<dot>randi.org/showthread.php?t=97636

And like I said before, I don't even touch everything they have to say, particularly
not the nose-out thing. The second link was quite something. Three pages of
offtopic posts, sneering outcrys and stupid pictures. Only in the very last post there's
something that resembles debunking. And I have already seen the video in the third post.
And as always, more interesting is what's not covered there. I can acknowledge that authors
of September Clues were quite overzealous but there are still things that look fishy and
to my knowledge were not debunked. Maybe some here will help to complete the record.

Too late. If you don't want to be stuck with the labels, don't act in a the same manner as a no planer by posting the same claims as they do. The points have been well accounted for in the past; note that the links I've provided date back at least two years or so. If you want to discuss points here, use the search feature to research before rehashing old myths long refuted by others in this board.

I guess you're right that it's too late. But you're still wrong that I've posted any 'truther'
claims. I do some research before posting but considering the level of noise on these forums,
(and I have browsed some more threads), I might as well discuss my findings online as many
posters here don't have a problem to come back. And I will most likely tire before they do...

No offence, but you've managed to hit upon a few fallacies in the few posts you've made here, notably your appeal to ignorance.
It's going to be a long journey to the truth if you truly believe you can't prove thousands of people saw the planes hit the towers. I can almost prove this using YouTube, go through the videos and count the number of people in the street. For the first hit no, but certainly the second one.

I don't think so. (5) I didn't appeal to something I don't know - I don't even see how that would make sense.
My argument, as I've already stated it before, is that I don't have to take into account any evidence that
I've had no opportunity to check and examine (yet), out of ignorance or otherwise. From the skeptical point of
view, no piece of evidence has the property of outweighing a genuine piece of contradicting evidence.
Then again not every 'proven' piece of contradicting evidence will crumble the
whole narrative. Therefore I'm trying to go step by step, if anything.

The lack of confirmed reports of the planes hitting means nothing. It's just an appeal to ignorance.
What if I said I didn't believe in gravity? Could you give me a list of people on the record confirming gravity exists? What if I said it's magnetism's effect on non metals. Do you have any studies refuting this? Is anyone on the record saying magnetism is not gravity on non metals? No? Well I'm not saying it is, I'm just going to leave all my options open.
Hopefully this gives you a sense of how frustrating it can be trying to explain things to people with a faulty logic circuit. Beyond frustrating, it's maddening.

(6) And I've never said it meant anything - thus I didn't appeal to anything. I simply didn't like
the inflated estimates presented here by some. It was appeal to popularity among other things no matter
how probable the claim is without direct evidence.

On my side though, I'm somewhat frustrated I have to fend off so many strawmans. Partly it's because
I was simply marked down as a truther just for raising some issues that loosely relate to jamm's
no plane theory. And so anything I say is often extrapolated to implications I've never made. Like
everyone was paranoid here... I'm not afraid of being wrong I just don't approve
of this verbal lynch I'm getting from some.

The fact that some individuals have attempted fraudulent behavior in the aftermath of 9/11 says *what* about the factuality of 9/11 itself, exactly?
I mean, there are real estate swindles happening regularly -- does this mean that the Earth doesn't exist, or that no legitimate deeds exist?

You see, when I was browsing various resources on 9/11 before, by people of
various beliefs, one thing I remember was that an issue of fake victims was
considered taboo especially for hardcore offliners. Some went on and on that
to claim otherwise is a 'vile disrespect' to the victims etc. And here we
have it, dozens of frauds, reported in mainstream media, some of them even
never to be conclusively explained as the article stated. Like I said it tells
us what of all things _can_ be faked...

The interesting point here is that we do in fact have a substantial number of documented eyewitnesses, and can infer with some certainty, given the topographics and demographics of NYC and the immense interest that the first burning tower must have drawn, that tens of thousands of potential witnesses were out there looking. And yet, there is no documented eyewitness who demonstrably was in a position to see the plane, was looking, and did NOT see a plane.
This is the situation of the eyewitness account: Many positive sightings, en enormous number of possible witnesses, and no testimony against.
And this is the situation of the physical evidence:
- 43 videos in the OP, every one of which is entirely consistent with a plane crashing; many of them actually showing a plane
- Plane parts found strewn near the towers
- Two airlines missing planes
- hundreds of relatives, friends and coworkers missing passengers whom they knew to have planned on flying on one of the 4 flights
- Remains of many of these passengers DNA-ID'd in the rubble
- Seismic records entirely consistent with energy and impulse of passenger planes at cruise speed
- Radar tracks of 2 commercial planes getting lost in ground clutter near Manhattan

The eyewitness record alone as we have it would be more than sufficient in any court of law to establish as fact that planes crashed.
The video recordings alone as we have them would be more than sufficient in any court of law to establish as fact that planes crashed
If we had no eyewitness report whatsover and no images whatsoever, the remaining physical evidence would STILL be more than sufficient to convince every court of law that planes crashed into the towers. You see, many planes crash without witnesses around, but routinely their crashes are proven by the same kind of evidence found at ground zero: plane parts and body parts and radar tracks.

(7) And here I have to repeat myself _again_. From what I wrote I've never implied I
supported no plane theory in any way. You can infer and point to other evidence all you
want but that is not what I have argued. I've only discussed the question of how
many verifiable first hand eyewitnesses do we have. Overloading the issue by lumping
it together with all the other relating stuff to disprove a nonexistent claim is quite
obviously a fallacy.

You weren't aware that insurance fraud happens? You must live in a happier world than I do.
However, the existence of such fraud in the aftermath of 9/11 informs us in no way about the reliability of the eyewitness accounts. Everybody knows that every eyewitness account is subject to error of perception, of recollection, of context, and to embellishment and figments of imagination. As such, every single account ought to be taken with a good deal of skepticism.
However we have more than enough accounts to piece together the relevant fact: Planes flew into the towers. Some witnesses are mistaken about the identity of the plane, some are mistaken about such details as size, speed, altitude, direction, sound or banking. Some saw flying objects and thought they were not planes but missiles. Certainly, some people reported seeing a plane who really did not see one as they weren't in a position to do so; these witnesses may have consciously lied, or may honestly believe they witnessed the event (it is not unknown that we sometimes remember things related to us by others as if we saw them with our own eyes. We remember our imagination then). All this is possible, but all witnesses together paint a clear picture, that is more than confirmed by physical evidence.

(8) Just look at this mess. I have simply stated that there were fake 9/11 victims reported
and have provided a link. And you respond that "the existence of such fraud in the aftermath
of 9/11 informs us in no way about the reliability of the eyewitness accounts". Again you're
disproving something that I haven't insinuated in the slightest...

Just because a principle existes somewhere does not constitute proof it was used in a specific event.
This is very obviously a total non sequitur. There is exactly zero connection between the two.
It happened merely in the imagination of truthers.
You see, I was trained to aim a rifle at a person's head and kill him thus.
This might be clou that I shot JFK.
It just isn't, and you know why - not only because I wasn't born then. (Funny how directives from 2 generations ago are recruited as clues in the criminal investigation of a crime in 2001. This is really like saying "the soviet army trained sharp shooters in WW2, therefore the soviet army is likely behind the JFK assassination.")

(9) And there shambles another strawman... Non sequitur it would be if I actually made that
conclusion. But look closely - it was you who made it! I still haven't even come to my point
on this issue yet.

blah blah blah...
Absent evidence to the contrary, consider it done.
<snip>

Since you seem to have granted me the last word in our conversation, let me conclude it as such:
I haven't had a chance to discuss any evidence yet - or not with you anyway. Your first reaction
was "choose your camp or begone". That's just stupid. If my mind was already made up I would have
had no reason to even come here.

... Bolding mine. Unless you misspoke. And if you did, why don't you lay out for all just what you do know? It's marvellous for establishing common grounds of understanding.

So from my statement that I didn't know the grand truth (about 9/11) you concluded that I
came here "knowing nothing"? Interesting logic - but since you're done with me already I'm
not going to ask.

As I said earlier, it's marvellous for establishing common grounds of understanding.

I too think that common grounds in discussion is useful but for me its the factual one not
the ideological. I wouldn't vet my partner in discussion whether they believe the same general
things on a broad topic as I do before engaging in the discussion with them. But obviously
that's just a matter of taste...

It isn't about novelty; it's about honesty. I believe your entrée to this forum to have been dishonest on its face (having seen no evidence to the contrary). So why would I expect honesty from you elsewhere?

You yourself wrote 'novel'. But put that aside, it is basically your judgment
that I cannot be doubtful of the official line, be honest and not call myself a
'truther' at the same time. If it works for you to not address my points, fine.
Goodbye then.


----

I have another question to which I really don't have an answer (or a theory).
The two names, Ed Felt and Betty Ong have been mentioned a lot here lately.
Neither is recorded in SSDI after almost nine years. Could that be normal?


----

It might be helpful if you provided links to videos you're on about. Here, pick one:
www<dot>archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive
Have a blast.

Let's see. First segments on all major channels.

ABC: 8:58 (real time) brown
9:03 white/blue

CBS: 22:09 (playtime) brown
24:02 blue/green
24:10 light brown
25:22 blue

FOX: 21:48 grey
23:46 grey/brown
29:42 blue

NBC: 22:38 violet/brown
31:29 light violet

CNN: 16:03 white
some other rehashed footage

So, is this normal? Also there's notable amount of footage that's shared among
the broadcasts. On several occasions at least two or even three of the major
channels share the same footage, save the color hue. Again, is this normal?

Rumsfeld is an idiot, and I'd hardly consider that an endorsement.

And that's part of my point. There are idiots in governments and administrations.
But not only that, some are liars too - also, these people are in power, have their
office generally deemed as respectable and there are millions of people who would
never question when these people claim something like what you could have heard in
that clip. So no matter how 'hardly' you would consider that an endorsement,
it _was_ an endorsement on his part, I'm afraid.

Apparently I do. Please go on.

Let me check first though. Do you now acknowledge existence of organizational
pyramids and need-to-know basis as a standard modus operandi for large
institutions and organizations? If I'm to go on I'd rather be sure that you
don't consider it some kind of 'truther' fantasy or something...

Moving the goal posts. Check.
Walking. Quacking. Check.
Handwave. Check.
Question: Is the fence your sitting on still standing, or has it been knocked over in a certain direction?

Handwave, check. Condescension, check. Sneering one-liner, check. Label-happy
poster, check. Are you getting the hint ?

 

[triforcharity]

If that source is reliable, it suggests the insurers paid out without much of an investigation. That means the insurance pay-out itself is not independent verification that the planes actually flew into the buildings, which is what Oystein was implying. If anything, the information would indicate that 9/11 was a massive insurance scam, amongst other things.

Right, because, you know, 128.8 million dollars is nothing for the insurers to cover. Yeah, right....

 

[TJM]

Handwave, check. Condescension, check. Sneering one-liner, check. Label-happy
poster, check. Are you getting the hint ?

Sorry you don't care to be labeled, but you've come here claiming to be on the fence while hinting at things like faked videos, secret power schemes and the like under the guise of "just asking questions", something that we've seen a hundred times. Face it, you're a truther. The upside to that is whether it's a permanent condition or not is entirely up to you. The first real question you need to ask is:

How do you expect us to take you seriously when you can't even be honest with yourself?

Only you can answer that, until then, quack quack baby.

 

[CompusMentus]

The crew and passengers of United Airlines Flight 175

On the morning of September 11 2001, United Airlines Flight 175 was flying to Los Angeles from Boston, and was hijacked by Islamic terrorists. Shortly after taking off it was deliberately flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, New York.

59 passengers and crew were on board (not counting the hijackers).

All were killed.


UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175 CREW

Kathryn L. LaBorie, 44 was a flight attendant on Flight 175. She lived in Providence, Rhode Island. She was the only daughter of Gene and Flo Yancey. Kathryn had worked for United Airlines for nearly seven years.

"I tried to call on her cellphone. It was just silence" said her father, Gene. "United called us fairly soon that day, 9:55 a.m. our time, but we knew. She loved to fly.....There are no words to describe how we feel."

Source:- HERE

Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.


Compus

 

[bardamu]

Right, because, you know, 128.8 million dollars is nothing for the insurers to cover. Yeah, right....

Potentially a good investment.

http://www.avweb.com/news/insure/181610-1.html

Should I Buy War-Risk Hull Insurance?

Following the September 11 terrorist attack, all aviation insurers ordered the mid-term cancellation of war risk insurance from all aviation policies that were endorsed to include the coverage. They then offered to sell the coverage back for an additional and much more expensive premium charge. This action has stirred a variety of questions, which should be discussed with your agent at renewal.

 

[TSR]

If that source is reliable, it suggests the insurers paid out without much of an investigation. That means the insurance pay-out itself is not independent verification that the planes actually flew into the buildings, which is what Oystein was implying. If anything, the information would indicate that 9/11 was a massive insurance scam, amongst other things.

.
Because, of course, insurance companies always cooperate fully while participating in insurance fraud.

What, exactly, do you expect the insurance companies investigations to entail?
.

 

[TSR]

Potentially a good investment.

Following the September 11 terrorist attack ...

.
But not immediately after, so this "investment" does not apply to the payouts made as a direct result of 9/11.

Making it irrelevant to your insinuations about hull insurance for AA 11, UA 175, AA 77 and UA 93.
.

 

[triforcharity]

I have another question to which I really don't have an answer (or a theory).
The two names, Ed Felt and Betty Ong have been mentioned a lot here lately.
Neither is recorded in SSDI after almost nine years. Could that be normal?

Sure. My sister passed away in 1996 and is not in there.

My grandfather, not in there.


Also, see here.
http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/ssdi/index.html#reasons

and here

http://helpdesk.rootsweb.com/ssdi/missing.html

 

[triforcharity]

Potentially a good investment.

http://www.avweb.com/news/insure/181610-1.html

Your point? How is paying 128 million on a false claim, good for business?

 

[bardamu]

.
What, exactly, do you expect the insurance companies investigations to entail?

That's something you should ask Oystein. He assumed the insurance pay-out was confirmation that planes really did fly into the buildings. If it turns out that an investigation by the insurers wouldn't be that thorough anyway, it just makes his argument even more bogus.

 

[TSR]

That's something you should ask Oystein. He assumed the insurance pay-out was confirmation that planes really did fly into the buildings. If it turns out that an investigation by the insurers wouldn't be that thorough anyway, it just makes his argument even more bogus.

.
One can assume it was thorough enough to justify a multi-million dollar payout since that is what happened, unless one has evidence to the contrary (and no, a new rate schedule which post-dates 9/11 is not such evidence) or proof that the insurance companies were "in on it."

Do you dispute this, and if so on what basis?
.

 

[bardamu]

.
But not immediately after, so this "investment" does not apply to the payouts made as a direct result of 9/11.

Making it irrelevant to your insinuations about hull insurance for AA 11, UA 175, AA 77 and UA 93.

Your point? How is paying 128 million on a false claim, good for business?

Investment: One-off payment on false claims.

Yield: Ongoing "much more expensive" premiums.

 

[TSR]

Investment: One-off payment on false claims.

Yield: Ongoing "much more expensive" premiums.

.
Are you saying that they could not have upped the premiums without the fraudulent payment?

You *do* realize that they are regulated, and would have been prosecuted under RICO since this was a consortium of companies sharing the risk, all of which would have had to conspire to this fraud?
.