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

Status
Not open for further replies.
AJM8125 said:
I wonder what jammonius thinks of Wally Miller, you know, the guy who identified Mr Felt and his fellow passengers using their DNA profiles.
Click to expand...

In fact, I'd be even more interested in what Jammonius thinks of Wally than what he thinks of Mr. Felt, because Jammy is in effect calling Mr. Miller at best a liar.
 
What do you think Jammonious, plane or no plane?


146 passengers and six crew alleged to have died.


Originally Posted by BBC News Website
Express 24/7 TV reporter Anjum Rahman said she saw the plane flying over the rooftops of houses where she lives.

"I wondered why the plane wasn't flying higher as it was flying towards the hill. Then within three or four minutes I heard a loud explosion," she told the channel.
Click to expand...







http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Passe...ar-Islamabad/ss/events/wl/072810pakistanplane




:rolleyes:
 
TSR said:
.
It's not ambiguous at all: they paid.

Therefore the claim that the planes were destroyed was found to be valid.

Unless you have evidence that the consortium conspired to commit insurance fraud.

Which you don't, or you would have presented it.

So the point stands: the planes were destroyed on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Oystein said:
The information that insurances did pay for the hulls corroborates the prevailing theory, namely, that 4 planes were lost when they crashed into buildings and and a field. Because that is what the theory would predict: Owners of the planes would try to seek reimbursment and get it, if the insurances were sufficiently convinced the damage was actually done and of the kind covered by the specific insurance terms (such as: airlines did not participate in the intentional destruction, as that would never be covered).

Of course, that information alone is not sufficient to prove that planes crashed. it is just one more nail to the coffin of 9/11 truth.

Because if your theory is "no plane crashed", then you would predict one of the following:
- Insurances would not have accepted the evidence, would not have paid out anything, and someone there would have broken the story eventually that the whole 9/11-story is wrong and become rich man. This did not happen.
- Insurances are in on it and invested many millions into the conspiracy for whatever returns by whomever. You'd have to add assumptions or more proof to your theory!
- Insurances were negligent and allowed themselves to be defrauded by the airlines. The airlines are in on it and invested their reputation and very nearly their existence into the conspiracy for whatever returns by whomever. You'd have to add assumptions or more proof to your theory!
Click to expand...

These arguments are all based on unverifiable assumptions. If the insurers had documented their identification of the plane parts, for example, you might have a hint of some evidence.


Oystein said:
- The perpetrators managed to con the airlines and the insurances into thinking their planes and passengers crashed. In this case, you have to explain what became of the planes, crews and the passengers
Click to expand...

This is just illogical.


TSR said:
Because you're doing your best to insinuate without actually stating that the investigation was insufficient.

So the question stands: What, exactly, do you expect the insurance companies investigations to entail?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what I expect. If a thorough investigation is the norm, normal procedures apparently weren't followed in the case of the 9/11 hull losses. If a thorough investigation is not the norm, an insurance payout is not evidence that the losses happened as reported.


Oystein said:
That would make it a bad investment for AA and UA, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

For their customers, maybe.
 
jammonius said:
Greetings, BigAl,

It's been what, 2 posts since you last repeated the above, as if you do not know my answer?

Here's a little friendly advice:

Whatever you do, do not ask Compus what happened to your work-mate, Ed Felt, because if you do, you are likely to get a barrage of propaganda and I am sure you wouldn't want to suffer that fate, right? :mad:


all the best
Click to expand...


Odd Jammy, your only answer has been a non answer. You have given vague hints you doubt Mr Felt ever existed, but seem too much of a coward to give a direct answer.
 
Posted by: Jammonius
Many of us are Americans. You shouldn't be propagandizing us.
Click to expand...

YOU are calaiming to be an American? That makes me sick to my stomach.

BTW, still haven't heard whether you have gotten your ticket yet. Need help?
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
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.
Click to expand...
Really? Watch the Naudet Video titled "9/11" and start counting the people.
 
triforcharity said:
Really? Watch the Naudet Video titled "9/11" and start counting the people.
Click to expand...

Which he'll never do. For those keeping score at home and need an update, jammonius has hand waved away the following:

  1. The passengers, crew and hijackers of flights 11, 93 and 175
  2. The Port Authority PD*
  3. The FDNY*
  4. The NYPD*
  5. All Media*
  6. Every live television witness*
  7. The Population and workforce of Lower Manhattan (simply does not exist)
  8. The victim's families, who apparently have been paid off, the most vile assertion of all.*
  9. DNA evidence
  10. Wally Miller

*Cherry picked quotes that can be twisted into something resembling support for his hallucination allowed, otherwise witness prohibited.

Wouldn't it have been easier for him just to assert that he did it himself? :boggled:
 
Last edited:
AJM8125 said:
Which he'll never do. For those keeping score at home and need an update, jammonius has hand waved away the following:

  1. The passengers, crew and hijackers of flights 11, 93 and 175
  2. The Port Authority PD*
  3. The FDNY*
  4. The NYPD*
  5. All Media*
  6. Every live television witness*
  7. The Population and workforce of Lower Manhattan (simply does not exist)
  8. The victim's families, who apparently have been paid off, the most vile assertion of all.*
  9. DNA evidence
  10. Wally Miller

*Cherry picked quotes that can be twisted into something resembling support for his hallucination allowed, otherwise witness prohibited.

Wouldn't it have been easier for him just to assert that he did it himself? :boggled:
Click to expand...


My money is on Jammy dismissing the Naudet footage as being fake...
 
Originally Posted by jammonius

[/QUOTE]In addition, the Naudet video is noteworthy for what it does not show; namely, a jetliner. The Naudet video shows a blurry blob. Any other characterization is simply false.[/QUOTE]




The footage not only shows a plane, but the sound of the engines as it roars into the WTC....
Does Jammy have proof that the footage does not show a plane?
 
Big Al once told me that he'd lost a friend on AA77. Do I understand that that friend was Ed Felt?

Al also told me that his friend had called his wife from AA77 and she called Al if I remember rightly .

Maybe Jammonius would like to ask Al some probing questions on this subject?
 
Last edited:
bardamu said:
These arguments are all based on unverifiable assumptions. If the insurers had documented their identification of the plane parts, for example, you might have a hint of some evidence.
Click to expand...

Our assumptions are reasonable:
- Insurances employ people with relevant skills in the subject fields of the insurance policies they offer, otherwise they'd be doing risky business
- Insurances generally have their experts check the validity of claims
- We comclude from this a high probability that the insurances had experts check and confirm the validity of the claims made by the airlines

What are your assumptions, bardamu? Please list, show work, and present conclusions!

May I assume that you assume insurances would NOT check the validity of claims?


bardamu said:
Oystein said:
- The perpetrators managed to con the airlines and the insurances into thinking their planes and passengers crashed. In this case, you have to explain what became of the planes, crews and the passengers
Click to expand...
This is just illogical.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, and a child would see why not:
This case assumes that neither airline nor insurance were in on it. That is, AA and UA were operating scheduled commercial flights that day, business usual. If AA and UA are innocent, it stands to reason that they have records that show they actually operated flights 11, 175, 77 and 93. All 4 flights took off. If the flights arrived at their planned destination, then AA and UA would have records that show this. Apparently, they however have concluded from their records that all four planes were diverted from their flight plans and crashed.
This is most extraordinary: Why woul 2 airlines think that 4 flights which they operated did a) take place and b) crash, when in fact they did not? You would have to account for that by explaining how the real perpetrators either a) tricked the airlines into thinking their 4 flights took off or b) tricked the airlines into thinking their 4 flights crashed.




bardamu said:
It doesn't matter what I expect. If a thorough investigation is the norm, normal procedures apparently weren't followed in the case of the 9/11 hull losses. If a thorough investigation is not the norm, an insurance payout is not evidence that the losses happened as reported.
Click to expand...

You assume the consequent, namely, that no thorough investigation was carried out. That assumption is unsupported and most likely false.


bardamu said:
For their customers, maybe.
Click to expand...

You suggest that higher insurance premiums are not bad for the business that has to pay them? Explain!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom