• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
jammonius said:
...The foregoing is, in part, symbolic; and, in part forensic. There may actually be photographs of the 69 year old alleged passenger. The point, however, is that no such depiction was posted by Compus. Thus, posters here are required to infer a person from a stone image of one. I assume you'll allow as how what is said here is true, right?
Click to expand...


djlunacee said:
Okay, I get it now, so if there is no picture of the a person, they do not exist.
Click to expand...


Thanks DJ, but it does seem, in jammonius' case, the old proverb still holds true, "there are none so blind as those who will not see".

SEE HERE

344914c51ac3ac3d5e.jpg



Compus
 
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.

There were no survivors.


UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175 PASSENGERS

The Reverend Francis E. Grogan 76, was a passenger on Flight 175. He lived in Easton, Massachusetts. Reverend Grogan served as a parish priest, a chaplain and teacher at Holy Cross schools. A World War II veteran, he served as a sonar expert on a Navy destroyer during that conflict.

He was on his way to see his sister, Anne Browne, in Ramona, California, when he died. She said, "He had the best personality in the world, I don't think he had a person in the world who didn't like him".

The Reverend J. Robert Rioux, a friend of 50 years, envisioned Father Grogan ministering to others until the last moment. In the cockpit of the jet, "evil was personified," Father Rioux said, "but personified goodness entered the scene, a person who loved people, a person of great faith".


344914c5c43f295c88.jpg



Source:- HERE HERE

Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.


Compus
 
I'm amused that jammonius uses the "'gotcha' games" excuse. To me, that shows a lack of faith in his own evidence and his analysis.

If his position was as solid as he'd like everyone to believe, there's absolutely no way we could "gotcha" him.

Like others have said, he's simply afraid.
 
Last edited:
Question for jammonius: Which vids do you consider not to be fake? Please list them, thanks.
 
CompusMentus said:
Thanks DJ, but it does seem, in jammonius' case, the old proverb still holds true, "there are none so blind as those who will not see".

SEE HERE

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/344914c51ac3ac3d5e.jpg[/qimg]


Compus
Click to expand...


Note the above. Subect to double checking for accuracy, it appears to me that Compus has tried to refute my claim that the image of one alleged passenger-- Touri Bolourchi -- was based on a "stone image" by saying that in addition to" the stone image, there was, in fact, a photo image of alleged victim, Ms. Bolourchi, in Compus' post, after all.

Is that what you sought to do, Compus? If so, please advise.

Compus appears to suggest there was a second photo that needed to be considered, right Compus?

And so there was. But, let's be a little more precise and a tad bit more forensic in our approach, here. After all, in the absence of any real investigation of what happened to these people, we need to take a close look at what is presented, don't we? Surely you folks are not going to just wallow in the emotion of sympathy and congratulate each other on how nice and thoughtful you are in accepting the common storyline, are you? :boggled:

Surely we don't want it said about Compus' posting that he is exploiting sympathy for victims in order to divert attention from the fact that the common storyline of 9/11 has not ever been adequately proven, as this overall thread has, indeed, shown, do we? :eye-poppi

So, what of the attempt to refute and/or to rehabilitate the information about Ms. Bolourchi?

Well, the attempt to rehabilitate is actually a photograph of 2 ladies that happens to include within the photo a second photo; or, a photo within a photo. The photo within the photo contains a picture of a lady that we must assume is Ms. Bolourchi. But, who are the principal subjects of the photo? What is the name of the ladies standing there? When one introduces a photo having a variety of information, all of the information has to be considered. That is especially true if the main part of what the photo shows is not even the reason or the subject for which it is used.

It is proper not to have relied or mentioned the photo that Compus now draws our attention to because the main subject matter of the photo was not Ms. Bolourchi and no attempt was made, nor has any yet been made, to say who in hades the two ladies that are the largest images in the photo are?

You cannot foist information upon us without any explanation as to what it shows, Compus. When you do that, you engage in cheap exploitation and mere propaganda.

Once again, deceptive, incomplete, BS info is being posted up by Compus that does not answer anything at all. Rather, the attempt at rehabilitation merely raises more questions, which is what any attempt to rely on the common storyline of 9/11 will ultimately do.

That is because the common storyline of 9/11 is just that: A story. The common storyline is not a circumstance that has been reliably proven with proper evidence obtained by way of a rational, reasonable investigatory process.

Thanks, Compus, for proving the truth of the foregoing, yet again.

You know what's coming next, right?


Do better
 
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.

There were no survivors.


UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175 PASSENGERS

Carl Max Hammond 37, was a passenger on Flight 175. Known as "Max", He lived in Derry, New Hampshire. Unmarried, Max Hammond was a physicist working for a short time for MIT, he had previously spent 5 years in the Applied Electromagnetic Laboratory at SRI. Max Hammond left behind his parents, Carl Max Snr, and mother, Sue Hammond of Geneva, Alabama.

Debbie Musselman, a friend of Max, writes, "I will always remember the way he laughed and the way he would hitch up his pants when he would play the role of the southern good ole boy. When I think of what happened it's with great sadness but I can't help but smile when I think of him. That will always be my memory of Max".

344914c5d682e1056f.jpg


Source:- HERE HERE HERE


Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.


Compus
 
Obwon said:
Question for jammonius: Which vids do you consider not to be fake? Please list them, thanks.
Click to expand...

Welcome on board, Obwon. It appears your first post was above. It is good to have you posting and I look forward to dialogue with you. It appears my appeal to Lurkers continues to meet with some objective success and I am grateful that new posters are choosing to engage here.

I am generally a bit more lenient with lurkers, especially with those with very few posts, than I am with seasoned, veteran posters. Normally, I do not cotton too much to questions that seek to send me off on wild goose chases of answering questions that posters can answer themselves.

However, you are an erstwhile lurker, and this is a response to your first post.

Accordingly, I might be inclined to take a lookback through the 3000+ posts in this thread an compile a list for you. I won't be able to do that instantly because, after all, 3000+ is a fairly large number of posts. I will consider your request. In fact, I will share the following thought process about your post:

Generally, a good part of this process has already been done. In the first half of this thread, the ALL43 videos were presented, one-by-one. Have you reviewed the first 1400 posts or so? Please advise.

In the review of each video segment of the ALL43 videos, a brief description of what the video showed was given. In those that I thought were obvious fakes, I mentioned that.

In post # 10, the question "do you think all the videos were faked" was raised for the first time, I think:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5936998&postcount=10

I answered that question right away in post # 13:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5937038&postcount=13

Two posts later, I also gave the first example of one that I think is fake:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5937092&postcount=15

One reason why I have not placed emphasis on a count of which or how many are fake and how many are not was discussed, by me, in post # 18:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5937107&postcount=18

I hope this reply will be useful to you. I will consider charting out which I think are fake and which I think are not fake as a project for this thread. Of course, you could just as easily undertake this on your own, listing out whether you think any are fake or not as well. Have you considered doing that; or, do you just assume they're all valid? If you make that assumption, you might want to consider stating your reasons why you think they are all valid.

One reason why I am hesitant to say they are all fake is because there are a few reliable witnesses who said they saw "a plane." Mind you, the best witnesses report merely seeing a fireball and hearing an explosion. So, while it is difficult for me to say all the videos are fake, I want to be clear here: All the videos could be fake, but I don't think that is so because there are a sufficient number of witnesses who report seeing a flying object.

As is being shown in this thread, I calculate that of the witness claims made by Carlitos, there are 5 that are legitimate witness sightings.

Mind you, the psyop of 9/11 successfully implanted the plane image right away via "shock & awe." It is quite possible that anyone who saw teevee is automatically not a reliable witness because of the conditioning factor.

The subject is a complex one. In a sense, it is too bad so many posts in this thread have been of the stupid putdown variety, wasting time and space by not addressing the issues associated with the 9/11 psyop.

I hope that tendency may change and that real and useful discussion will be the rule, rather than (for many) the exception.

That said, and before I go off on the task you have requested permit me to condition any further work on this by me on your engaging in the following:

Please review the posts mentioned here; namel: posts ## 10, 13, 15 and 18 and let me know if you agree or disagree that the one I said was fake is or is not fake in your view. After that, we'll see where we go.

OK?

Once again, welcome onboard. Your first post was a good one that adds value to this thread, imho.

all the best
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Welcome on board, Obwon. <snipped long drawn out dribble>
Click to expand...
For god sake! He/she asked you a simple question, considering this thread is about the 43 videos why would you think he/she wanted you to go through 3000 posts?

Which of the 43 do you think were faked?

Obwon Welcome! Did I get that right? (for accuracy of understanding :rolleyes:)
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Welcome on board, Obwon. It appears your first post was above. It is good to have you posting and I look forward to dialogue with you. It appears my appeal to Lurkers continues to meet with some objective success and I am grateful that new posters are choosing to engage here.

I am generally a bit more lenient with lurkers, especially with those with very few posts, than I am with seasoned, veteran posters. Normally, I do not cotton too much to questions that seek to send me off on wild goose chases of answering questions that posters can answer themselves.
...
Click to expand...

@ Obwon:

Welcome to jammo's word salad bar!

In case you are not yet familier with jammomius' posting style, here is a brief translation of the above word salad du jour:

"I, jammonnius, have every intention to totally disrespect you in a very short time. Lies are already cooking for you. In the mean time I will bombard you with thousands of meaningless words for the following two purposes only: To not ever answer any question you'll ever post, and to not substantiate with evidence any of the claims I ever made or will make. I hope that you will be the first lurker here dumb enough to not see through my games of deception and distortion"


And here's a short dictionary of phrases, Jammonese to English:

  • I will not answer any gotcha question: I realise that your argument fully refutes mine. However I am not willing to admit this and therefore run away.
  • Wild goose chase: I understand that you clearly see through my veils of deceptions. Please spare me the embarrassment
  • 20 questions: If I answer your one question honestly, I would admit that I am wrong and you are right. I'll consequently elect to dodge your one question
  • For accuracy of understanding: To set you up for lies, distortions, let me start disrespecting you
 
jammonius said:
Further, if you take a look at the actions of the airlines, it is clear they do not endorse the common storyline of 9/11; rather they merely, you guessed it, go along and get along.

This assertion has been proven by the following means:

1--No insurance payouts.
2--Governmental slush fund for airlines (hush money).
3--No authenicated passenger lists.
4--No actual statement of plane crashes.

I have elsewhere confirmed all of the above with the proper links and sources.

.
Click to expand...


Notice how Jam never cites evidence to back his claims, he just asserts he already proved his case(which is a lie). Hence his dodging questions about the people on the planes- he always lies and claimed he already discussed their fates.
I have yet to read a post where he detailed what he thinks happened to Betty ong and Ed Felt.
 
jammonius said:
The claim of "body parts" or, putting it more politely, the DNA claims put forth by debunkers are false constructs supported, to the extent they are, by propaganda ploys. Such claims exploit victims family members, pure and simple.

.
Click to expand...

Another lie.
Can you back up your claim with evidence?
Prove your assertion!
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
The fact is, we do not know what happened because the event has not ever been investigated. Instead, the actual available information confirms 9/11 was a vicious shock&awe psyop that simulated plane hijacking and used pyrotechnics and high energy weaponry in the onslaught, coupled with an appeal to American xenophobia and Islamophobia.
.
Click to expand...


I think the above gives us a good glimpse into Jamm's fragile state of mind...
I can overlook his obvious mental instability-mentally ill people can't help being the way they are, but I am very annoyed with anyone who is a shameless apologist for the terrorists. Calling 9/11 a conspiracy that "appeal(s) to American xenophobia and Islamophobia" is total BS.
 
Last edited:
Titanic Explorer's post, above, brought this to my attention...

jammonius said:
The fact is, we do not know what happened because the event has not ever been investigated. Instead, the actual available information confirms 9/11 was a vicious shock&awe psyop that simulated plane hijacking [...]
Click to expand...


If we don't know what happened, then how is it confirmed that the hijackings were simulated? If no investigation was carried out, then how has it been confirmed that 9/11 was a psyop?

I know I don't really need to point this stuff out because jammonious idiotic statements speak for themselves, but... sometimes I just can't help it. Your brain is not working properly, jammonious. Seek professional help.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Let me double check for sake of accuracy, are you saying the following is a valid witness claim concerning alleged Flight 175:

Gene McGillian (unspecific - could be either plane)

"I saw (the plane) maybe 200 yards before it hit," said Gene McGillian of Dobbs Ferry, a broker at the New York Mercantile Exchange. "I saw all kinds of debris and body parts on the ground and on car hoods. You had to move pretty quickly because there were pieces of metal hitting the ground. It was horrible."
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...-1/SPECIAL0106

Do you dispute that the quintessential words in that quote "(the plane)" were inserted, thus confirming that is not what the person can be attributed as saying?

Do you dispute that the quote is uncertain as to what it is even referencing?

Is there any way that you can think of to post to claim the quoted statement is a valid witness statement as to a jetliner hitting the South Tower, which is what Carlitos claims was being posted in post # 1368?

If so, please post it.
Click to expand...


She saw something hit....are DEWs visible beams? Perhaps you think she saw a subway train or a bus hit? In any case if it ever comes to a trial do you doubt for a second she would fill the missing word "plane" in? or if we had a complete transcript it would clear she was talking about a plane....what else could she be talking about????

Looking forward to you presenting your "evidence" to a court......you would be lucky if you didn't end up in a straight jacket.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom