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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, why should WE contact Ed's family? We don't disagree with them. Jammonius is the one who has a problem. In his mind these people are lying.

Jammy doesn't think he needs proof.
This is a common with most Trutherbots- they have ridiculous theories they pull out of thin air, and when asked for proof- they have none to offer.

I tangled with a few that thought the footage of the planes hitting the towers was fake. 'Prove the footage was faked; I told them.

'Prove the footage wasn't faked' is always the Truther response.

I think Jam would expect the burden is on the 9/11 families to prove to him their loved ones killed on 9/11 really existed
 
Last edited:
Yes, why should WE contact Ed's family? We don't disagree with them. Jammonius is the one who has a problem. In his mind these people are lying.

One could almost think that Jam is afraid of making that call. I know it's hard to believe that any of our stalwart, relentless truth-seekers would show fear but I have to reluctantly conclude that that must be the case.
 
I don't think it such a hot idea to instruct jammonius to contact relatives of 9/11 victims. I very much doubt they have the patience required to deal with nutjobs who doubt the very existence of their deceased loved ones.
 
Now please don't stick the labels Noplaner, DEWnut or other on me, I'd just like to have the above points accounted for somehow. Thanks.


... in the 9/11 omission report...


"Omission report!" I get it. You see, the word "commission" meaning (in this context) a committee or deputation such as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, which issued a report of its findings in 2004, is very similar in spelling and phonetics to the word "omission" meaning something left out. One need only change a couple of letters.

Note how effectively this implies -- without any need to offer any analysis, evidence, fact-based argument, or rationale whatsoever -- that the 9/11 Commission Report "omits" relevant and important information or findings within its purview.

This is so clever and so darned persuasive, it's no wonder Truthers can't resist using it at every opportunity, even when they're trying to pretend to be unbiased critical thinkers who just want to have a few points accounted for.

Ingenious persuasive methods like that probably explain how Truthers have been so successful, in so short a time, at bringing 9/11 truth to the forefront of public political attention in the U.S. and around the world.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Jammy doesn't think he needs proof.
This is a common with most Trutherbots- they have ridiculous theories they pull out of thin air, and when asked for proof- they have none to offer.

I tangled with a few that thought the footage of the planes hitting the towers was fake. 'Prove the footage was faked; I told them.

'Prove the footage wasn't faked' is always the Truther response.

I think Jam would expect the burden is on the 9/11 families to prove to him their loved ones killed on 9/11 really existed

Call between CTer and family:

Phone rings

Family: Hello. this is (insert family name here)

CTer: Hello, I'm calling about your (insert relationship here)

Family: What do you want?

CTer: Do you have any proof the your (insert relationship here) was on (insert flight # here)?

Family: Who are you and why are you asking such a question?

CTer: I'm a researcher and I'm trying to find any proof that your(insert relationship here) was on (insert flight # here)

Family: Of course he was on that flight, we saw him board

CTer: Do you have any videos? Can you even prove your (insert relationship here) existed?

Family: What kind of vile,sick,twisted individual are you? (hangs up in anger then calls police to report a crank call)

CTer: (sits back in smug satisfaction)
 
Last edited:
Call between CTer and family:

Phone rings

Family: Hello. this is (insert family name here)

CTer: Hello, I'm calling about your (insert relationship here)

Family: What do you want?

CTer: Do you have any proof the your (insert relationship here) was on (insert flight # here)?

Family: Who are you and why are you asking such a question?

CTer: I'm a researcher and I'm trying to find any proof that your(insert relationship here) was on (insert flight # here)

Family: Of course he was on that flight, we saw him board

CTer: Do you have any videos? Can you even prove your (insert relationship here) existed?

Family: What kind of vile,sick,twisted individual are you? (hangs up in anger then calls police to report a crank call)

CTer: (sits back in smug satisfaction)

You nailed it, but I think the word 'alleged' would be used quite a bit..
 
I don't think it such a hot idea to instruct jammonius to contact relatives of 9/11 victims. I very much doubt they have the patience required to deal with nutjobs who doubt the very existence of their deceased loved ones.

Never give Truthers contact info of 9/11 families.
I'd be concerned with Truthers threatening the families of 9/11 murder victims
 
You nailed it, but I think the word 'alleged' would be used quite a bit..

You're probably right but that would make for a much shorter conversation.

If someone asked me about my alleged wife the exchange would not end well.
 
I believe that Jam already had the info.

Truthers are known for harassing people who reject their paranoia. The person who snapped the photo of the smoke cloud above the crash site in Shanksville has been harassed nonstop by Truther nutjobs.
 
Look, first you need to study and acknowledge the historical record and the post WWII period is probably the most important one (Power of Nightmares, Secrets of the CIA, Confessions of the Economic Hitman, War Made Easy etc.). Those who are not in denial of this know that to gobble up the official line every single time is not the smartest thing to do.

Then you can look at the recent Washington Post report Top Secret America. US is quite possibly the most secretive country in the world, with biggest number of fulltime jobs dedicated to some unseen agenda. What is not flat out secret is often buried and obstacled by arguably the biggest red tape in the world. What the damn for anyway and, more importatnly, what's truly off-limits in this environment?
And by the way, what's the best breeding ground for CTs? That's right, the secrets of the state. And so, no wonder, US has the biggest number of CTs brewing as well.

Maybe you approve of the most recent wars, Patriot Act and the Homeland Security legislation but it's still not the work of any terrorist. The govt does all the work. Besides, IMHO the old Jefferson's quote still holds:
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."

And all this is just a _premise_, the background knowledge to consider when dealing with CTs. Or it is for me. Another way to deal with the cognitive dissonance is to muffle it behind faith, patriotism or, oddly enough, alleged lack of evidence. Other than that you can call me a truman all you wish...

 
Note how effectively this implies -- without any need to offer any analysis, evidence, fact-based argument, or rationale whatsoever -- that the 9/11 Commission Report "omits" relevant and important information or findings within its purview.

Erm, have you noticed I have provided two examples of what is effectively missing or was omitted in the official line? Might as well address it if you're so sure with _your_ analysis. In this case it's very easy - either it is in the official report or it is not. Wanna make it a case for a separate thread?



---

Thanks for the video, AJM - even if you can't resist to post spam, at least it made me laugh.
 
...... As you should know, but might not know, given the 9/11 denial syndrome, there has not ever been an official determination of what happened on 9/11 arrived at through a valid investigation..

Incorrect, this is one of the most investigated events in history, you just refuse to accept any of them because you have zero understanding of anything contained in them.

That is to say, what happened on 9/11 was never officially reviewed based on standard investigatory process as to whether or not any flying object, let alone a plane, still less a jetliner and most especially still less a Boeing 767 designated United Flight 175, hit the South Tower. None.

I wonder what those darn air traffic controlers were tracking on radar then?

Therefore, the shadow thingy seen in one video version of the event after another remains best described on the basis of the visual characteristics of what is seen, described accurately and precisely.

Only to the clinically insane, or the visually impaired.


What is seen is a moving object, sometimes reasonably characterized as the image of a jetliner and sometimes too blurry to be so characterized.

That is what is seen and it is folly to claim otherwise..

see above

This should be obvious, but, for some reason isn't. For example, separate and apart from whether one seeks to place any reliance on, say, the 9/11 Commission Report, that commission was not even formed until 2004, far too long after the event to be a proper investigation. The Commission did not have any evidence, to speak of, to go on that was not already totally tainted by actual destruction, passage of time, undue influence by propaganda; and, most especially, by the commencement of a freakin' war that mandated adherence to the common storyline, standing alone.

There was no way in hades for an actual investigation of 9/11, let alone for questioning of the common storyline, to take place while the USA was bankrupting itself bombing the beejeezus out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Remember the bombing of Afghanistan started on 10/7/01 while the WTC was still smoldering, to be sure, but no investigation was necessary.

Opinion, useless drivel.


And, remember, the impetus for an investigation came from VICTIMS FAMILIES who knew, first hand and full well that there had not been any official determination of what happened to their loved ones up to the formation, amid great fanfare, of that commission.

Despite all the supposed sympathy for victims families, their request for investigation was stonewalled, successfully, for nearly 3 years.

And, even when a commission finally did get underway, it was hamstrung from the outset and did not carryout any real investigation and almost no one, except, perhaps, proponents of propaganda even pretend otherwise.

Think about that in terms of time alone. 9/11/01 was investigation in 2004 pursuant to a haphazard, politically rigged "commission.".

Ask any one of the victims families if there were planes or shadow thingys in the videos, I dare you. As far as time passing, someone tell a cold case detective that you can't investigate a crime 10-15 years after the fact.

The first substitute for the commission is, apparently, the Moussaoui trial exhibits which were not the product of an investigation, but rather, were a grab bag compilation of what the US Attorney could get Zacharias Moussaoui to sign off on. And that wasn't done until 2006, even later than the so-called commission.

Investigations are done as soon after an event as possible, while the evidence is still fresh.

That did not happen in re 9/11. First up in the sham investigatory process was FEMA. They acknowledge that as they were investigating, evidence was being removed, tampered with and otherwise made unavailable to them, irrespective of their limited investigatory mandate. FEMA made no finding as to what happened precisely because they could not do so because the evidence was tampered with.

I don't think I need to reiterate the NIST limitations contained in their report issued in late 2005.

Still no idea how investigations work I see, or how the court system works.

Hello. Is anyone at home?

No, I am at work.

What passes for proof of 9/11 centers almost exclusively on accepting what was seen on teevee and said by commentators, again, on teevee. From that starting point, all other elements of the common storyline of 9/11 have been drummed into the public consicousness via propaganda, in furtherance of the deadly and gruesomely destructive, shock and awe psyop carried out on 9/11 by persons and entities unknown.

Unproven drivel, more opinion, useless.

Propaganda remains the key element in the dogged determination of some to further the common storyline of 9/11. Some appear to not care that they are relying on propaganda.

However, it is no longer possible for anyone viewing this thread to pretend that the common storyline of 9/11 is maintained any other way than by the spread and the repetition of propaganda, pure and simple..

Again, simply, wrong. The words you were looking for is that it is no longer possible for anyone reading this thread to doubt that planes were used by 19 hijackers to commit a terrorist attack against america, you have proven it yourself, congratulations.

Compus continues to try to buttress the claim a Boeing 767, designated Flight 175 hit the South Tower by posting up any human interest story, any memorial eulogy and any photograph of a person said, but not proven, to have been onboard Flight 175, as posted on any DOD or SAIC shadow website, that Compus can scrape up.

Compus is posting up shameless exploitation of victims and of persons who are interested in knowing what happened on 9/11. The exploitation of victims is obvious. I do wish a family member would post up here.

The exploitation of posters and lurkers by Compus is a bit more subtle. The expoitation factor there consists in the necessary subtext of Compus' posting.

That subtext is that anyone who calls attention to the fact there exists no official determination of what happened on 9/11 is not paying proper homage to the victims.

That is shameless exploitation of victims in at least two different ways.

Shame on Compus for posting like that.

Like it or not this was a human event, people lost their lives, families lost loved ones. Squirm much???? You have shown no proof these human beings, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, husbands and wives did not exist. instead you attack the messenger, what a coward.
 
But mind you, OCT is by no means complete, NIST didn't cover the progression of the towers' fall and there's virtually nothing about WTC7 in the 9/11 omission report,

So what?

It's computationally impossible to show how the debris pile landed and it's irrelevant to understanding the important part, what lead up to the onset of collapse.

There was and is no question as to the basic cause of the WTC7 collapse; fire and lack of water for firefighting.
 
So what?

It's computationally impossible to show how the debris pile landed and it's irrelevant to understanding the important part, what lead up to the onset of collapse.

There was and is no question as to the basic cause of the WTC7 collapse; fire and lack of water for firefighting.
Let's not forget that WTC7 was not attacked that day as the twoofers love to point out. They have zero understanding what the scope of the investigations were nor their intentions. They think that the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports were some sort of all encompassing, forensic criminal investigations.
 
Erm, have you noticed I have provided two examples of what is effectively missing or was omitted in the official line? Might as well address it if you're so sure with _your_ analysis. In this case it's very easy - either it is in the official report or it is not. Wanna make it a case for a separate thread?



---

Thanks for the video, AJM - even if you can't resist to post spam, at least it made me laugh.
You mentioned for one building 7. Why do you think it SHOULD have been included in the report? You do know what the commission was tasked to do, don't you? You might not be aware but NIST did a very nice report on it.

You also mentioned that NIST did not continue their report after the collapse had started. Why do you think they SHOULD have (don't forget the report was geared toward professionals)?
 
Last edited:
Erm, have you noticed I have provided two examples of what is effectively missing or was omitted in the official line? Might as well address it if you're so sure with _your_ analysis. In this case it's very easy - either it is in the official report or it is not. Wanna make it a case for a separate thread?


No, there's no need. The cleverness of changing "commission" to "omission" outweighs any and all facts of the matter and is therefore more than sufficient to prove your case. That's why 9/11 Truth is currently the subject of urgent debate, intense scientific investigation, and public outcry at all levels of society.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
No, there's no need. The cleverness of changing "commission" to "omission" outweighs any and all facts of the matter and is therefore more than sufficient to prove your case. That's why 9/11 Truth is currently the subject of urgent debate, intense scientific investigation, and public outcry at all levels of society.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Or in short: quack.
 
By the way what _do_ you count in the historical record? Your words sound like the sole reliance on some "official" sources (and I'd gladly be wrong in that).
There are people called "historians." They write books.


charmer said:
... there's virtually nothing about WTC7 in the 9/11 Commission report,
The 9/11 Commission investigated a terrorist attack on the World Trade center towers and the Pentagon. Why would they have printed something about the Salomon Brothers building, which wasn't attacked by anyone? They also didn't write about the Reischtag fire, or Pearl Harbor. What is your point?

Nice job butchering the non-Jefferson / Ben Franklin quote, BTW. Truthers never do that here. ;)

ETA - I fixed the Commission / omission thing before I read the posts immediately above. I hadn't realized that this was the point charmer was trying to make. We have seen this a thousand times here, nothing new.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom