BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
I know what they said and would say again if asked.
I still don't know how Jam believes that Ed and Flight 93 did anything but get hijacked and crashed into a field in PA.
Jam?
Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
-
- Tags
- no plane theory no planes
- Status
I know what they said and would say again if asked.
I still don't know how Jam believes that Ed and Flight 93 did anything but get hijacked and crashed into a field in PA.
Jam?
It doesn't matter what BigAl does, the question is being posed to you, it is your stance that Ed Felt, Betty Ong, and all of the other passengers didn't exist, never boarded planes, and that the families were paid off. The onus is on you, I understand that these passengers and crew of the 4 hijacked planes are an inconvenience for you and your kind. Your cowardice to answer the question shows, Let's take it from a different angle, What happened to Peter Hanson who was on the phone with his father at the time of impact?
Almost 70 Pages Jammonious, 70 and you have yet to provide one viable fact to support your no plane theory, none, nada, zip, zilch. Let's see, Do you still think trains, planes and buses all sound the same? Do you still believe that fuel payloads for boeing jets are not carried in the wings? Do you still contend that the perimeter colums were solid steel? Still think technology is so advanced that we can project holograms on a clear blue sky? Still think the planes should have bounced off of the towers and fallen to the ground?
Are there anymore ridiculously stupid claims, let's get it all out on the table, because 70 more pages of the verbal gymnastics you are performing, frankly while being amusing, would drive me to need as much professional help as you do.
Do you understand what Compus is doing?????? I do. His Facts are immutable, and reason unassailable, you're just to far gone to get it.
Greetings Myriad
Thank you for your post.
The assertion that it looks like I'm saying "...Alicia Titus was actually a terrible person, requiring the eulogy her friend wrote to be dishonest in order to make her sound valued, loved, and missed..." can scarcely be considered to be even slightly within the scope and meaning of what I have consistently posted.
At this stage, it is abundantly clear that I am saying that human interest stories, including by way of example, eulogies and memorial testimonials, are being blatantly misused by adherents of the common storyline of 9/11 as a substitute for actual investigative accounts of what happened on 9/11.
Thus, it is also very clear for those who want to be clear that those who are being disrespectful of alleged victims are those who seek to use the apparent deaths of people said to be onboard 9/11 alleged flights as a front to garner support for the otherwise unproven claim they died in 9/11 plane crashes. The series being posted up by Compus focuses on alleged Flight 175 crew members.
Compus is, imho, engaging in blatant propaganda and that is what I have said, clearly and unequivocally. It is very clear, as well, that Compus is linking us to propaganda websites, pure and simple.
I have shown this by, for example, showing the connection between DOD, MIC funding for some of the websites and the blatant, overt, acknowledged war-mongering purpose of one of them, all as more fully documented on this and the last couple of pages in this thread.
I do not think it asking too much to have my posts interpreted in their proper context.
That said, I commend you for double checking with me for accurfacy of meaning. That was fair and proper. In so doing, I hope I have now made even clearer exactly why I have designated Compus' exploitation of alleged victims as propaganda.
To reiterate: Compus is engaging in propaganda because Compus is putting forward human interest stories as proof of that aspect of the common storyline of 9/11 that holds that a jetliner, designated United Flight 175 crashed into the WTC. Such human interest stories, compelling, heart-rending though they may be, are not a substitute for investigative findings, of which, there are none that are validly conducted and/or authenticated.
There is no proper investigatory finding concerning either Flight 175 or any other claimed 9/11 flight. Furthermore, eulogies, memorials and other forms of human interest story are not a substitute for such an investigation.
I am not in the least commenting on the lives of the alleged victims as should, I believe, have been apparent all along.
Respectfully,
jammonius
Claim= "Immutable facts. Unassailable reason."
Fact= "Blatant Propaganda, planted story as a substitute for investigatory finding."
See post # 2709 for more details concerning the deception engaged in by Compus.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6167823&postcount=2709
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Dr. Wood has given you the honor of accompanying her on her morning jog through the beautiful Derbyshire countryside. It's a crispy morning, the kind that's makes you just wish you could've stayed in bed, if only to hold her awhile longer. As the jog progresses, Dr Wood as gained a considerable lead over you. But you don't care; the sight of her spider like limbs flailing about makes you forget about your struggle as you wheeze along. Soon you're lost in the moment and you drift back to a simpler time, when everything still made sense. You barely notice the pack of wild dogs closing on Dr Wood from the west.
Once the largest one pins the Doctor to the ground, she's easy prey for the others as they begin a swarming assault. Remembering your karate moves that you learned watching teevee, you leap into the fray a deliver a series of punishing kicks and blows. Sadly, in the heat of battle you mistake Dr Wood for one of the beasts. Too late to control your fury, she's beaten to death. Just then the dog's owner arrives and fearing a lengthy prison term, offers to buy your silence.
Your price is?
Once the largest one pins the Doctor to the ground, she's easy prey for the others as they begin a swarming assault. Remembering your karate moves that you learned watching teevee, you leap into the fray a deliver a series of punishing kicks and blows. Sadly, in the heat of battle you mistake Dr Wood for one of the beasts. Too late to control your fury, she's beaten to death. Just then the dog's owner arrives and fearing a lengthy prison term, offers to buy your silence.
Your price is?
Last edited:
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
I do not think your claimed request for information is true. Rather, you are engaging in rhetoric. Not only that, your rhetoric contains not just an unproven assumption -- 1000s of witnesses--but also an assumption that has been conclusively shown to be false.
That is not proper dialogue, Captain, imho. You are continuing down a path that is simply resistant to the truth of the matter. Fine. That is your perrogative.
I have continuously said you may continue to believe in any aspect of the common storyline of 9/11, including, by way of example, that part of it that maintains jeltiners crashed into the WTC, for as long as you can.
I have no problem with the fact that you sincerely, truely, deeply, madly believe jetliners crashed into the WTC. I am also not trying to convince you otherwise.
I am posting up data, information and analysis for consideration. The best form of reply to the data, information and analysis so posted is data, information and analysis that refutes.
More than a few posters have mentioned that very little in the way of refutation of what I claim is being posted.
Your post does not refute anything I have said. Instead, it is an example of pure rhetoric.
Your rhetoric is destroyed by the following observation:
You very likely have the inability, on your own and in within your own capacity, to try to find out what happened on 9/11 if what happened is something you have an interest in.
If you have a dispute with some aspect of the NO PLANE claim that I have posted, such as, for instance, the fact there are more witnesses claiming "an explosion" than there are claiming "a plane crash" then post your information.
The claim there are 1000s of witnesses without posting even 50, let alone 100s and still less -- 1000s puts paid to your claim.
Your claim is false.
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
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 PASSENGERS
Garnet Edward "Ace" Bailey, 54, was a passenger on Flight 175 travelling together with Mark Bavis. He lived in Lynnfield, Massachusetts. Director of Pro Scouting with the Los Angeles Kings' hockey team, he was flying to Los Angeles to begin training camp. He left behind his wife, Katherine, and son, Todd. He was a family man who would rather be at home with his wife and son than anywhere else on earth. Ace had a special love for children and children in turn took an immediate liking to him. Kids could instantly recognize his lack of pretense and his sense of mischief. In Ace's name a childrens foundation has been established "to bring smiles to children's faces"
Source:- HERE HERE HERE HERE
Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.
Compus
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 PASSENGERS
Garnet Edward "Ace" Bailey, 54, was a passenger on Flight 175 travelling together with Mark Bavis. He lived in Lynnfield, Massachusetts. Director of Pro Scouting with the Los Angeles Kings' hockey team, he was flying to Los Angeles to begin training camp. He left behind his wife, Katherine, and son, Todd. He was a family man who would rather be at home with his wife and son than anywhere else on earth. Ace had a special love for children and children in turn took an immediate liking to him. Kids could instantly recognize his lack of pretense and his sense of mischief. In Ace's name a childrens foundation has been established "to bring smiles to children's faces"
Source:- HERE HERE HERE HERE
Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.
Compus
Last edited:
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
What happened to my work-mate, Ed Felt? How did his DNA wind up at the Flight 93 crash site?
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,212
How many witnesses claim 'an explosion'?
Do they claim this because they don't think an aircraft was involved?
Do they claim this because they were on the opposite sode of the tower and only saw the emergeant fireball?
Do they claim this because they looked up just after the impact?
Hoe do those that say an 'explosion' disprove those that saw a crash?
How does any of this post answer my question?
Your reply, as excerpted above, is not based in proper reality. You are engaging in an unfortunate game, one that seeks to put a distance between legitimate 9/11-related inquiry on the one hand, and a presumed validity of the common storyline on the other.
That is no way to conduct a dialogue. We can do better than that. We can delve deeper. And, we can be truer to where we are at this point. This is, as you say, a 70 page thread.
So, for starters, let's be clear:
My perspective is that the available evidence confirms NO PLANES were involved in 9/11, and, in particular for this thread, no Boeing 767, designated as United Flight 175, or otherwise, crashed into the South Tower.
Are we clear so far? That is the subject matter of this thread.
Ed Felt was not an alleged passenger on Flight 175. Ed Felt is claimed to have been the work-mate of a regular and valued poster here, BigAl.
BigAl, starting in February of this year, in a thread that was about Flight 93 has continuously and reptitively posted up a rhetorical query based on having had a personal relationship with Ed Felt and based on having an ongoing personal relationship with the Felt family. The rhetorical query so posted by BigAl is "where is my work-mate Ed Felt" or "what happened to him" or such like.
Within minutes or hours at most of BigAl first posing his rhetorical query, I responded with a request for dialogue with the Felt family in order to establish a basis for understanding.
BigAl refused.
I here will continue to claim that I have done my part to get to the bottom of this and that BigAl's rhetoric has been exposed for what it is: A query designed to further belief in the common storyline and not a legitimate inquiry to try to find out what happened.
There is no onus. I have been forthcoming in sharing available data, information and analysis and will continue to do so. Pursuit of accuracy of understanding is not burdensome to me. I welcome attempts to refute what I have posted. However, self-righteous claims about what I haven't done, and about some poster or another being right, in their own estimation; and, me being wrong, once again, in their estimation, are not a form of refutation.
So it is here. You have not established hijacked planes. Your have not posed questions that need to be answered. Rather, you have posed assumptions that have not been proven and have pretended as if you are posting facts.
Hear this:
In your next post, would you please post up something factual, and demonstrate the proof of whatever the claimed fact is.
I will be waiting, but I will not hold my breath.
Hear this as well:
You are not going to be able to post up a single verifiable fact in support of the claim United Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower, try as you might. I doubt you'll even try.
Your summary is stupidly wide of the mark. Just within the last few pages I posted up one of the best possible candidates for the title of FIRST NO PLANER there is.
Do you recall his name?
As you sit here today, do you really claim the above is an accurate portrayal of all that was posted on the issue of audio and sound? If that is what you claim, then you are engaging in intentional misrepresentation.
Let's here exemplify this by going back to the relative beginning, the 1:16 Dick Oliver video.
Take a look, it only takes a little more than a minute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ
IMHO, the assertions one can make about the sound are best supported by the manner in which the passersby responded to the sound; by the presence of the buses; by the location of the camera atop the subway; and by David Stollick's(sp) NO PLANE declaration: "...it was jist an explosion..."
You have no right to assert I have not given proof of my assertions. I have supported them fully.
As I provided valid data, information and analysis of my claims the answer to your rhetoric is "yes."
And, I continue to post up valid information. For instance, I have recently shown, in another thread, the link between SAIC and 3-D holograms:
See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6169342&postcount=149
You do not refute by simply saying I have not proven my claims; or, if you do refute that way, then your refutation is overcome by my saying, "yes I have proven my claims."
So, if that is how you think you have refuted my claims, then here this:
I have proven my claims and you have not refuted them.
As of the current 70 pages, my claims stand.
I have already expressed doubt that you will post up a single verified fact in support of the Flight 175 claim.
Go ahead, make my day...
Your attempt to buttress the propaganda Compus is engaging in is weak and insipid.
Do better
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
I know what the family has said and would say if asked.
We don't know how Jam can explain how Ed's DNA got to the flight 93 crash site.
What say you, Jam?
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
You post videos of planes hitting the towers as evidence no planes hit the towers. You try to hand wave away every piece of physical evidence by insisting that it wouldn't hold up in a court of law then when you're shown that it did you try to hand wave that. You get so emotionally wrapped up in your theory that you insist that "we" does not include "I" ...Your reply, as excerpted above, is not based in proper reality. You are engaging in an unfortunate game, one that seeks to put a distance between legitimate 9/11-related inquiry on the one hand, and a presumed validity of the common storyline on the other.
That is no way to conduct a dialogue. We can do better than that. We can delve deeper. And, we can be truer to where we are at this point. This is, as you say, a 70 page thread.
So, for starters, let's be clear:
My perspective is that the available evidence confirms NO PLANES were involved in 9/11, and, in particular for this thread, no Boeing 767, designated as United Flight 175, or otherwise, crashed into the South Tower.
Are we clear so far? That is the subject matter of this thread.
Ed Felt was not an alleged passenger on Flight 175. Ed Felt is claimed to have been the work-mate of a regular and valued poster here, BigAl.
BigAl, starting in February of this year, in a thread that was about Flight 93 has continuously and reptitively posted up a rhetorical query based on having had a personal relationship with Ed Felt and based on having an ongoing personal relationship with the Felt family. The rhetorical query so posted by BigAl is "where is my work-mate Ed Felt" or "what happened to him" or such like.
Within minutes or hours at most of BigAl first posing his rhetorical query, I responded with a request for dialogue with the Felt family in order to establish a basis for understanding.
BigAl refused.
I here will continue to claim that I have done my part to get to the bottom of this and that BigAl's rhetoric has been exposed for what it is: A query designed to further belief in the common storyline and not a legitimate inquiry to try to find out what happened.
There is no onus. I have been forthcoming in sharing available data, information and analysis and will continue to do so. Pursuit of accuracy of understanding is not burdensome to me. I welcome attempts to refute what I have posted. However, self-righteous claims about what I haven't done, and about some poster or another being right, in their own estimation; and, me being wrong, once again, in their estimation, are not a form of refutation.
So it is here. You have not established hijacked planes. Your have not posed questions that need to be answered. Rather, you have posed assumptions that have not been proven and have pretended as if you are posting facts.
Hear this:
In your next post, would you please post up something factual, and demonstrate the proof of whatever the claimed fact is.
I will be waiting, but I will not hold my breath.
Hear this as well:
You are not going to be able to post up a single verifiable fact in support of the claim United Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower, try as you might. I doubt you'll even try.
Your summary is stupidly wide of the mark. Just within the last few pages I posted up one of the best possible candidates for the title of FIRST NO PLANER there is.
Do you recall his name?
As you sit here today, do you really claim the above is an accurate portrayal of all that was posted on the issue of audio and sound? If that is what you claim, then you are engaging in intentional misrepresentation.
Let's here exemplify this by going back to the relative beginning, the 1:16 Dick Oliver video.
Take a look, it only takes a little more than a minute:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ
IMHO, the assertions one can make about the sound are best supported by the manner in which the passersby responded to the sound; by the presence of the buses; by the location of the camera atop the subway; and by David Stollick's(sp) NO PLANE declaration: "...it was jist an explosion..."
You have no right to assert I have not given proof of my assertions. I have supported them fully.
As I provided valid data, information and analysis of my claims the answer to your rhetoric is "yes."
And, I continue to post up valid information. For instance, I have recently shown, in another thread, the link between SAIC and 3-D holograms:
See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6169342&postcount=149
You do not refute by simply saying I have not proven my claims; or, if you do refute that way, then your refutation is overcome by my saying, "yes I have proven my claims."
So, if that is how you think you have refuted my claims, then here this:
I have proven my claims and you have not refuted them.
As of the current 70 pages, my claims stand.
I have already expressed doubt that you will post up a single verified fact in support of the Flight 175 claim.
Go ahead, make my day...
Your attempt to buttress the propaganda Compus is engaging in is weak and insipid.
Do better
Sad thing is you think you're being logical. It's been proven over and over that planes hit the towers and you just don't want to see it. Does it hurt you that much to be wrong?
Look, on Ed Felt: I have given my answer. You may say you do not like my answer, but I have given it. From this point forward, everytime the following is posted:
What happened to my work-mate, Ed Felt?
The following rubber stamp will be posted:
Edited by Gaspode: Edited for rule 6. A link to the original post would suffice.
[Rubber stamp edited out]
As instructed, try this instead:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6168740&postcount=2729
BigAl, please arrange for dialogue with the Felt family.
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
Why does he need to talk to the Felts when you just handwave the question of what happened to Ed Felt? Provide something more than a handwave, and maybe, just maybe, people will stop bringing it up.
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
Breaking News.....No-plane crash in Pakistan today?
146 passengers and six crew alleged to have died.
Saw the plane + heard an explosion = no-plane = no passengers =
Compus
146 passengers and six crew alleged to have died.
BBC News Website said:
Saw the plane + heard an explosion = no-plane = no passengers =
Compus
Last edited:
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
I wonder what jammonius thinks of Wally Miller, you know, the guy who identified Mr Felt and his fellow passengers using their DNA profiles.
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
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 PASSENGERS
Mark Bavis, 31, was a passenger on Flight 175 travelling together with Garnet Bailey. He lived in West Newton, Massachusetts, Mark was about to enter his second season as an amateur scout for the Los Angeles Kings. He left behind his mother, Mary, his twin brother Michael, two other brothers, Pat and Johnny and three sisters, Kelly, Mary Ellen and Kathy. After his death a foundation was set up in the name of Mark. The aims of the foundation are, "to perpetuate the principles by which Bavis lived every day, and through which he touched the lives of many."
Source:- HERE HERE HERE
Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.
Compus
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 PASSENGERS
Mark Bavis, 31, was a passenger on Flight 175 travelling together with Garnet Bailey. He lived in West Newton, Massachusetts, Mark was about to enter his second season as an amateur scout for the Los Angeles Kings. He left behind his mother, Mary, his twin brother Michael, two other brothers, Pat and Johnny and three sisters, Kelly, Mary Ellen and Kathy. After his death a foundation was set up in the name of Mark. The aims of the foundation are, "to perpetuate the principles by which Bavis lived every day, and through which he touched the lives of many."
Source:- HERE HERE HERE
Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.
Compus
- Status