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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DGM said:
If I remember correctly he showed a picture of a water truck hosing down the construction site years later as "proof" that something was wrong. I remember pointing out that it's standard "dust control" (required in US) but he never answered.
Click to expand...

Maybe it came from this production:-


Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE



Jam Andy n Judy on a GZ jolly.

Highlights include:-

1m: 10s: Judy complains of her ears being cold.
2m: 40s Some constuction guys stand around a bit.
4m: 00s: Some empty trucks enter GZ.
6m: 30s: Some full trucks leave GZ.
8m: 00s: Some dust.
8m: 45s: Jam Andy complains of freezing nuts.

Errrr, that's it.

Compus
 
CompusMentus said:
Ahhhh Judy Wood and her Death Beam from Space theory.

Her stock answer when quizzed on the nature of the Space Beam DE weaponry is, "it's energy, that's directed and used as a weapon".

And on the question of replication of such DEW effects (those that destroyed the towers) I remember her being (mildy) quizzed on this subject by Jim Fetzer in an interview. (I paraphrase):-

Jim: Could (what happened at the WTC) be replicated?

Judy: There is no need for replication! Where are the towers? The first tower went poof with a Space Beam Weapon. It was replicated when the second tower went poof with a Space Beam Weapon.

Compus
Click to expand...

The buildings going 'poof' is interesting. Have a look at this video of what they call the ' core remnant'. Of course it is no such thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1 Spire

There are numerous pieces of core column in various pictures of CZ. Nowhere near the 10 miles that there should be but I think I can say that they are all rectangular lengths of clean steel. But look at the core remnants ? They are not rectangular clean steel. And what's more they don't behave like steel either as you can see in the video.. So much so that it is a cast-iron certainty that they are NOT steel.

So what are they then ? They are what they look like. The ossified fireproofing that encased the former massive steel columns that have been melted down into the basemants by their soft-centres of nanothermite incendiary. The fireproofing being partially made of portland cement has been ossified by heat possibly reaching as high as 4,000 degrees centigrade. Even dr.Astaneh-Asl was surprised at it's glassy texture when he examined pieces of it after 9/11. Watching the straight-down collapse of these ''pipes' makes vastly more sense when you realise what they really are.


But to get back to the 'poof' thing. You notice that as the spire appears it is not being struck by anything ? It even looks like everything around it is going 'poof'. Otherwise a lump of steel or something would have knocked the pipes for six.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
My assumption: Insurances generally check the validity of claims before paying, lest they be defrauded
Your assumption: Many fraudulent insurance claims are successful

Both assumptions are correct, would you agree? I do.
However, I claim: There are many more claims are NOT fraudulent than claims that ARE.
From this, I argue, that, prima facie, my assumption carries more weight - it is the default assumption. Yours is less likely true than mine, so you are in more dire need to present evidence to justify your assumption.
Click to expand...

If you want to use your assumption as a basis for refuting the evidence presented by Jammonius in this thread, it needs to do more than "carry more weight" than mine. You haven't been able to show there was a thorough investigation by the insurers, which means you can't assume an insurance payout is proof that planes hit the towers.


Oystein said:
What unknown whereabouts have I been talking about?
Click to expand...

This was your illogical statement:

Oystein said:
In this case, you have to explain what became of the planes, crews and the passengers
Click to expand...


Oystein said:
A total lack of what investigation? What are you talking about? Care to name any event in US history that was more thoroughly investigated and/or had its investigation procedings and results more comprehensively published? So if we don't know the details of business procedings, of the kind that are generally treated confidentially, that does not undermine anything. Again, the report that claims for 4 crashed planes have been settled, and settled quickly, corroborates the OCT which posits that 4 planes crashed with huge mountains of evidence for it. The insurance experts figured out the reality of 9/11 within days, and were so sure about it they payed hundreds of millions on it for the planes alone. Why can't you figure out 9/11 after 9 years??
Click to expand...

I'm saying there's an "almost total lack of documentation" that would verify there was an investigation by the insurers. If you're going to claim that the facts were so obvious that an investigation wasn't needed, your entire argument is circular.


BigAl said:
You can presume anything you want but the fact that insurance fraud happens occasionally does nothing to dismiss any of the massive amount of evidence we have that shows that 19 Arab Islamists lead by bin laden hijacked 4 jets and this caused all the death and destruction on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Why do you choose to use the insurance as an argument for planes hitting the towers if you have much stronger evidence?


jammonius said:
Many thanks to Bardamu for bringing this up and running with it. :)
Click to expand...

Jammonius, you've singlehandedly destroyed the JREFers over the course of this thread, but no one person could possibly address all the lies that have been thrown at you.
 
bardamu said:
Jammonius, you've singlehandedly destroyed the JREFers over the course of this thread, but no one person could possibly address all the lies that have been thrown at you.
Click to expand...

Bwaaahahaha! How did he do that? By showing video of planes hitting the towers as proof that no planes hit the towers, or by insisting that "we" does not include "I"?
 
bardamu said:
If you want to use your assumption as a basis for refuting the evidence presented by Jammonius in this thread, it needs to do more than "carry more weight" than mine. You haven't been able to show there was a thorough investigation by the insurers, which means you can't assume an insurance payout is proof that planes hit the towers.
Click to expand...

Please look up the meaning of the word "assumption".
If I can show proof that a thorough investigation has been done by the inurance companies, I'd no longer have to assume anything. Kinda logical, eh?

I do not have such proof, and sure don't have proof of the opposite, so we both do what I wrote: I assume the insurance would investigate before paying, you assume they let themselves be defrauded.

My assumption is more likely true than yours, if we are not assuming the consequent (namely that planes crashed / no planes crashed). That's all.

bardamu said:
This was your illogical statement:

I'm saying there's an "almost total lack of documentation" that would verify there was an investigation by the insurers. If you're going to claim that the facts were so obvious that an investigation wasn't needed, your entire argument is circular.
Click to expand...

No. I don't say the facts were so clear an investigation wasn't needed. Strawman.


bardamu said:
Why do you choose to use the insurance as an argument for planes hitting the towers if you have much stronger evidence?
Click to expand...

We all, BigAl included, have pointed out many stronger lines of evidence. The insurance issue popped up, and it corroborates the reality of plane crashes. Nothing more, nothing less. Another nail do jammo's coffin.



bardamu said:
Jammonius, you've singlehandedly destroyed the JREFers over the course of this thread, but no one person could possibly address all the lies that have been thrown at you.
Click to expand...

Wha....?
Say, if you think jammomius has argued anything and substantiated whatever he argued with ... ur evidence, logic, whatever... can you explain to us just WHAT it is?

What is jammo's theory?
And urrrr what evidence ever put forward do you consider the most convincing?
Can YOU be specific there? Cause jammo sure as hell cannot.
 
bardamu said:
If you want to use your assumption as a basis for refuting the evidence presented by Jammonius in this thread, it needs to do more than "carry more weight" than mine. You haven't been able to show there was a thorough investigation by the insurers, which means you can't assume an insurance payout is proof that planes hit the towers.

This was your illogical statement:

I'm saying there's an "almost total lack of documentation" that would verify there was an investigation by the insurers. If you're going to claim that the facts were so obvious that an investigation wasn't needed, your entire argument is circular.

Why do you choose to use the insurance as an argument for planes hitting the towers if you have much stronger evidence?


Jammonius, you've singlehandedly destroyed the JREFers over the course of this thread, but no one person could possibly address all the lies that have been thrown at you.
Click to expand...
(emphasis supplied :))

Bardamu,

First of all, thank you for your contributions to this thread. In calling attention to various insurance payout aspects, you have reminded us that in any serious investigation, the solution almost always involves close attention to the ($$)money trail.

Follow the money.

Needless to say, the FBI and other governmental investigatory agencies know how to do that very well when the motivation is to find out what happened in a given event. However, when the motivation is to perpetuate deception, it is likely that the FBI and other governmental agencies will fail at following the money trail.

As you know, there has not ever been any determination made as to how 9/11 was financed.

One commentator has said as follows concerning the failure to determine how, by whom and what means 9/11 was financed:

"Regarding the 9/11 Commission Report: "It was a 580-page avoidance of any serious explanation. The official investigative report says the US has never been able to find the sources of financing for 9/11. And then they say, 'That after all is a matter of no great importance.' I find that astonishing. It is a matter of absolutely central importance. It seems to me extraordinary that the United States with its stupendous military capabilities and the most technologically advanced country in the world completely and totally failed to follow up on these leads." "
Michael Meacher

Source: http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

The 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that the financing of 9/11 remains unknown, despite mentioning the word "finance" over and over again throughout the report.

See, for instance, pg. 186/585 of that report. A sub-part entitled as follows says all:

"A MONEY TRAIL?"

That is to say, the commission made no determination of where the money for 9/11 came from and they say so on that same page of the report:

"The origin of the funds remains unknown."

The same financial uncertainty exists for hull insurance for alleged jetliners. Needless to say, the inept 9/11 commission report makes no reference to insurance payouts for the loss of jetliners and neither does any other governmental report.

Stupid debunker websites obviously don't mention the matter. After all, they like to limit their sourcing of information about 9/11 to "human interest" section of local newspapers, as Compus is demonstrating for us in this thread.

When it comes to FAA documents, SEC filings and things that are actually capable of being considered as legitimate evidence of an event, debunkers offer nothing.

I'll be candid hee concerning my own efforts. I have tried but have never found any evidence of insurance payouts to United Airlines Ltd. American Airlines or the leasing companies. I am aware that there are SEC filings that mention the losses of airframes but no mention of insurance payout. LLoyds of London and Swiss Re were the principals carrying the policies but they focus on the WTC payout and not jetliner loss claims. The Pentagon did not carry any insurance as it is USG property. To my knowledge, the airlines do not show ever getting paid out for 4 aircraft, airfarmes, hulls, that were supposedly destroyed that day due to air piracy.

Bardamu, have you found anything? The start place for my search was: "airframe hull insurance." Result: Nothing to date.

Oh, one final thing. There's one part of your quoted post # 2885 that I is very much appreciated, personally...

Many thanks :o
 
I have a video of me crashing a scooter into a wall,does that mean that the scooter was a hologram and that I wasn't driving it?
 
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

John Brett Cahill 57, was a passenger on Flight 175. He lived in Wellesley, Massachusetts. John worked for Xerox as a senior executive manager. He had worked with Xerox for over 30 years. Due to retire soon, John planned to establish his own consulting business. He left behind his wife, Sharon, and two sons, Brett, 17, and Sean, 15.

John had gift for languages, as well as English he could speak both Spanish and Portuguese. This interest was picked up by his children, John's son Brett is learning three languages, French, Spanish and German. Sharon Cahill said, "He got that from John, who realized the world was smaller than it seems."

John Cahill had a passion for travel, the family had lived in England and Brazil. He was fond of Latin America, and planned to make it a focus of his new business.


344914c55857490702.jpg



Sources:- HERE HERE HERE


Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.


Compus
 
Last edited:
bill smith How do you manage to hold mutualy exclusive opinions on what happened on 9/11>
You need to keep your agreements with Truthers in different threads in line.
 
bill smith said:
Jammonius you might find this video iteresting around the 8 minutes-odd mark.
Click to expand...

Excellent choices, I like the second one in particular, not because I got a good laugh from Hezerkhani blowing this idiot off and him taking that mean something sinister, not because he relies on the same crap video source as jammonius does, No, the best thing about this video is apparently this genius doesn't understand that trees grow.

9/11 truth at its finest.
 
AJM8125 said:
Excellent choices, I like the second one in particular, not because I got a good laugh from Hezerkhani blowing this idiot off and him taking that mean something sinister, not because he relies on the same crap video source as jammonius does, No, the best thing about this video is apparently this genius doesn't understand that trees grow.
9/11 truth at its finest.
Click to expand...


Also it's interesting to note that the idiot you mention has adopted a complete volte-face and is now an avowed "plane-hugger".

He's also the idiot who produced this:-


344914c561288cbf9b.jpg



The hilariously misspelled dross "Continuos Pieces".

Compus
 
Last edited:
CompusMentus said:
Also it's interesting to note that the idiot you mention has adopted a complete volte-face and is now an avowed "plane-hugger".

He's also the idiot who produced this:-


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/344914c561288cbf9b.jpg[/qimg]


The hilariously misspelled dross "Continuos Pieces".

Compus
Click to expand...

:dl:

I wonder if Ron Wieck has seen that yet.
 
AJM8125 said:
:dl:

I wonder if Ron Wieck has seen that yet.
Click to expand...

Ah, Jeff Hill "the Crazy Canuck"...I haven't heard about him for awhile, but he is notorious for recording phone calls without permission. He also had mental health issues and was involved in some altercations with the law when he stopped taking his meds.
 
Last edited:
TexasJack said:
Ah, Jeff Hill "the Crazy Canuck"...I haven't heard about him for awhile, but he is notorious for recording phone calls without permission. He also had mental health issues and was involved in some altercations with the law when he stopped taking his meds.
Click to expand...

A Truther with mental health issues, you don't say?
 
Titanic Explorer said:
Jamm has avoided my seperate thread about the fate of the people on the planes
Click to expand...



Your cause is just my friend but sadly you are on a trip to nowhere. Do not expect any rational reasoned discourse from jammonius and his ilk.

It matters not what evidence gathered it will all be automatically destined for the "truth" bin.

Here's a mix and match of the various responses you are likely to receive from truthers here or elsewhere:-

DNA evidence? Planted.
Radar tracks? Falsified.
Video? Faked.
Audio? Inconclusive.
Eyewitnesses? Mistaken.
News Reports? Fabricated.
Expert Testimony? Corrupt.

Jammonius cannot (will not) concede that anyone of those poor people I've listed above died on that jet at the World Trade Center. People that were shredded, reduced to carbon and minute bits of flesh, bone, blood and gristle in an instant. People who ate, drank, slept, worked and worried about the kids and the mortgage. People who hugged their loved ones as they hurtled to a terrifying death. People who lived, loved and left behind hundreds of friends and family who mourn their passing still having only precious memories remaining. Everytime he denies the destruction of Flight 175 he soils their dignity and spits on those memories.

Compus
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom