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

[dafydd]

You can't fool me! There ain't no Sanity Claus!

Thank you.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Thank you.

Maybe its a Truth Fairy we need instead

 

[twinstead]

On no he di'int...

 

[dafydd]

Maybe its a Truth Fairy we need instead

To sprinkle some reality dust in the sleeping truther's eyes.

 

[jammonius]

I'd like to ask that perhaps the best course is to just let this thread die the sad, lonely death it deserves.

I will though continue to post facts about the passengers who died on Flight 175 as long as jammonius keeps up the terrible disrespectful nonsense here.

Compus.

Thanks for putting your propaganda, control mechanism out into the open, Compus. You are plainly using fake and fraudulent sympathy for people who are missing and presumed dead as a means of squelching appreciation of the abundant NO PLANE facts, information and proof that has been posted in this thread.

To be sure, you are using a page from my book by posting up information in serial form, a technique I have used more than once in this thread. I did that with the ALL43 video, posting them one at a time. I did the same in refutting Carlitos' attempt to post up 80something alleged witnesses to shadow thingy, showing that, in the event, only a handful of those witness claims could be considered as reliable evidence. There are far more reliable witnesses who show that NO PLANE hit the South Tower and that shadow thingy is, in fact, an illusion.

There are other instances of my having posted serial information, including the flight simulation video.

And, in due course, I will refute your cheap propaganda ploy that seeks to exploit fake sympathy for victims once you've finished your project. Be prepared, Compus.

all the best

 

[BigAl]

Thanks for putting your propaganda, control mechanism out into the open, Compus. You are plainly using fake and fraudulent sympathy for people who are missing and presumed dead as a means of squelching appreciation of the abundant NO PLANE facts, information and proof that has been posted in this thread.

What happened to my work-mate, Ed Felt, last seen boarding Flight 93 and who's body parts were found in the Flight 93 crash site?

 

[CompusMentus]

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

James M. Roux, 43, was a passenger on Flight 175. He lived in Portland, Maine. A divorced father of two sons, Jim Roux was a lawyer, on the way to Northern California to work for his brother David.

An avid trekker, he was so fond of Nepal that he established an office in Katmandu with a Nepalese partner. Jim had recently begun to represent Sherpa guides, hoping to raise their profiles by finding roles for them in Asian advertising.

A few years before 9/11, Mr. Roux quit defending corporate clients in asbestos and lead-paint cases to return home to Portland as a small-time general-interest lawyer. He became a magnet for clients like artists, the homeless and the Sherpas.

Said a friend....

If there was ever a champion of the underdog, it was Jim Roux. He was my friend, neighbor, confidant and attorney. In Portland, Maine, Jim would take cases pro bono so that justice could be served. He was leaving for the West Coast that fateful day so that he could start a job that paid better, as his personal funds were running low due to philanthropy. He would champion the cause of kids with Lead Paint Poisoning, would jump on the stage of the local alehouse and jam, or set off bottle rockets or drop plastic paratroopers from the roof of his apartment building with his sons. He cared. Jimmy, we miss you and we love you.

Source: HERE HERE

Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.


Compus

 

[jammonius]

This is the video, right?:

From the video:

0:40 -0:53 "...We're at 66 York Street [Exchange Place, 66 York Street, Jersey City] and I and a number of my co-workers WERE IN THE OFFICE WHEN WE HAD HEARD THAT THERE WAS A FIRE AT ER A IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS HOW WE HEARD ABOUT IT. Emphasis added.

It never ceases to amaze me how PLANE SPOTTER witnesses are, in fact, NO PLANE witnesses based on what they actually say. Technically speaking, what Dan McOgden says above is useless hearsay and not really evidence. But, with that limitation in mind, it is still an indicator, yet again, what people actually SAW and ACTUALLY REPORTED was a fire or explosion and not a plane crash.

True, right after the above, he delves further into hearsay to indicate someone's husband called in to say 'PLANE CRASH'. Right at the outset, however, even within this person's realm of alleged personal experience, there is a conflict between witnesses. One or one group says FIRE another one says PLANE CRASH.

Once again, one of the things that characterizes DEBUNKER WORLD is that there is NO RECOGNITION, NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT of conflicting witness claims. That is why debunkers cannot be considered reliable researchers. They are agenda driven.

I, on the other hand, have said, many, many times that there are some legitimate PLANE SPOTTER witnesses. And, I have linked and commented on the ones that appear legitimate. I have also consistently shown, however, that the number and the quality of witnesses consistent with the NO PLANE claim outnumber and are of better quality than are those who claim plane.

That, in fact, is what this thread shows and what the DICK OLIVER threads show.

Look at the video yourselves posters, lurkers and victims family members.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTtgK7e-jb4&feature=player_embedded

It might also be helpful to take up Dan's suggestion and post up a Google Maps image to show line of sight. However, there really is little that would be added by that as Dan makes a clear NO PLANE statement, if one really examines what he says and how he says it.

Anyhoo, here's what the guy actually says for those who are influenced by such things as reason and actual content, rather than what they want to believe.

For those who are a bit more advanced, check out eyes, voice inflection and other clues in discerning when he's speaking about what he observed versus when he's trying to convince himself of the common storyline:

all the best

 

[jammonius]

Yea, the problem with Schopenhauer's quote is that in order for it to go through those processes it has to be truth in the first place. If you don't start with truth you'll always get the first, and quite often the second, but never the third.

Stage One

 

[jammonius]

Hey Compus,

While it is not up to me to tell you how to do your propaganda project, I will note, however, that you've gone out of alphabetical order a bit and have skipped a few.

Here's what I have, including who's been left out, so to speak, so far.

Hanson's seated in 19C,D,E 3/51 Ages: 21/2, 32, 34
Avraham, 22G 4/51 Age: 30
Bailey, 6F 5/51 Age: 54
Bavis, 19F 6/51 Age: 31
Berkeley, 6B 7/51 Age: 37
Bolourchi, 15C 8/51 Age: 69
Brandhurst, Gamboa, Gamboa-Brandhurst 8A,B,C 11/51 Ages: 41, 33, 3
Cahill, 6E 12/51 Age: 57
Carstanjen, 20A 13/51 Age: 33
Corcoran, 21G 14/51 Age: 43
Dorothy Alma deAraujo, 17C 15/51 Age: 80
Lisa Frost, 22A 16/51 Age: 22
Lynn Catherine Goodchild, 23F 17/51 Age: 25
Peter Morgan Goodrich, 23B 18/51 Age: 33
Douglas A. Gowell, 22B 19/51 Age: 52
The Reverend Francis E., Grogan, 1C 20/51 Age: 76
Carl Max Hammond, 16C 21/51 Age: 37
Gerald F. Hardacre, 24F 22/51 Age: 61
Eric Samadikan Hartono, 24B 23/51 Age: 20
James E. Hayden, 2C 24/51 Age: 47
Herbert W. Homer, 17E 25/51 Age: 48
Ralph Francis Kershaw, 22C 26/51 Age: 52
Brian Kinney, 19A 27/51 Age: 29
Robert George LeBlanc, 16G 28/51 Age: 70
Maclovio "Joe" Lopez, Jr., 19G 29/51 Age: 41
Marianne MacFarlane, 1E 30/51 Age:34
Louis Neil Mariani, 20G 31/51 Age: 59
Ruth Magdaline McCourt, 26A 32/51 Age: 45,
Juliana Valentine McCourt, 26B 33/51 Age: 4
Shawn M. Nassaney, 23E 34/51 Age: 25
Marie Pappalardo, 20F 35/51 Age: 53
Patrick Quigley, 1A 36/51 Age: 40,
Frederick Charles Rimmele, 25B 37/51 Age: 32
James M. Roux, 22F 38/51 Age: 43

Left out of alphabetical order:
Klaus Bothe 21A
Ana Gloria DeBarrera 9A
Ronald Gamboa 8C
Heinrich Kimmig 21B
Deborah Medwig 28C
Wolfgang Menzel 21C

You know what's coming next, right?


Do better

 

[jammonius]

http://www.healthline.com/adamcontent/schizophrenia



Yeah,, good luck

And good luck to you in getting out of Stage One.

 

[EventHorizon]

From the video:

0:40 -0:53 "...We're at 66 York Street [Exchange Place, 66 York Street, Jersey City] and I and a number of my co-workers WERE IN THE OFFICE WHEN WE HAD HEARD THAT THERE WAS A FIRE AT ER A IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WAS HOW WE HEARD ABOUT IT. Emphasis added.

It never ceases to amaze me how PLANE SPOTTER witnesses are, in fact, NO PLANE witnesses based on what they actually say. Technically speaking, what Dan McOgden says above is useless hearsay and not really evidence. But, with that limitation in mind, it is still an indicator, yet again, what people actually SAW and ACTUALLY REPORTED was a fire or explosion and not a plane crash.

True, right after the above, he delves further into hearsay to indicate someone's husband called in to say 'PLANE CRASH'. Right at the outset, however, even within this person's realm of alleged personal experience, there is a conflict between witnesses. One or one group says FIRE another one says PLANE CRASH.

Once again, one of the things that characterizes DEBUNKER WORLD is that there is NO RECOGNITION, NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT of conflicting witness claims. That is why debunkers cannot be considered reliable researchers. They are agenda driven.

I, on the other hand, have said, many, many times that there are some legitimate PLANE SPOTTER witnesses. And, I have linked and commented on the ones that appear legitimate. I have also consistently shown, however, that the number and the quality of witnesses consistent with the NO PLANE claim outnumber and are of better quality than are those who claim plane.

That, in fact, is what this thread shows and what the DICK OLIVER threads show.

Look at the video yourselves posters, lurkers and victims family members.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTtgK7e-jb4&feature=player_embedded

It might also be helpful to take up Dan's suggestion and post up a Google Maps image to show line of sight. However, there really is little that would be added by that as Dan makes a clear NO PLANE statement, if one really examines what he says and how he says it.

Anyhoo, here's what the guy actually says for those who are influenced by such things as reason and actual content, rather than what they want to believe.

For those who are a bit more advanced, check out eyes, voice inflection and other clues in discerning when he's speaking about what he observed versus when he's trying to convince himself of the common storyline:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/mcogden.jpg?t=1283613926[/qimg]

all the best

Here's the definition of schizophrenia that A W Smith posted earlier:

Schizophrenia is a mental disorder that makes it difficult to tell the difference between real and unreal experiences, to think logically, to have normal emotional responses, and to behave normally in social situations.

Jammy fits the definition perfectly.

 

[jammonius]

It is, of course, both a violation of board rules as well as a stupid tactic to post personal attacks. Clearly, no one here can make a mental health diagnosis about anyone else based on what is posted.

Even that bit of elementary reason seems to be lost on many who try to post otherwise.

Talk about reality versus illusion?

There it is, could a few of you but see it. If all you can do is post stupid, ad hoc, personal claims about those you disagree with being 'crazy' in some general or specific way, you are only revealing your own illusions. So, if that is what some need to do, then, have at it either as long as you can or as long as the mods allow such attacks.

What can usefully be posted on, however, is the social tendency and/or the societal issue presented by what we post up about 9/11.

In connection with that event -- 9/11 -- there is a constant need in our civilization to prefer illusions over reality, a need to deny our perceptions. Indeed, we actually see that process unfold before our very eyes in the video of Senior Dan McOgden; once again, could a few of you but realize it.

Compus' exercise in propaganda is another example of the preference for illusion over reality. Compus does not even deny that he is seeking to use a false construct of victim sympathy, designed to evoke a strong emotional attachment, as a clear and palpable substitute for reasoned discussion.

Compus, could s/he but realize it, is seeking, persistently, I might add, to make sure that issues associated with stupid shadow thingy be set aside and not subjected to rational discourse. Instead, only look at the victims, feel sorry for them and, above all else, do not question in the least the common storyline of what happened to them.

Talk about dirty tricks; talk about deception; talk about exploitation.

Well, there it is. A little dose of reality ought to result in a bit of a sting amongst those who continue to buy into the illusion.

splash

 

[Andy_Ross]

What's the obsession with posting the ages of those killed?

 

[jammonius]

What's the obsession with posting the ages of those killed?

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding.

Logically, you should specify to whom you are addressing your query. Was it to Compus or was it to me?

Compus' formulaic posting of these people who are missing and presumed dead, includes, usually at the beginning of the second or third sentence of each post, the name,age of the missing person. Compus is, therefore, the source of that obsession with age, if that is what it is.

However, since you used the word "obsession" you were almost certainly NOT addressing your query to the one who originated the practice, were you, as doing so would be indirectly critical of Compus? Instead, you were almost certainly directing your query to my post that merely summarizes what Compus had posted. I have indicated I will be engaging in a process of refutation when Compus completes the propaganda exercise.

So, wait and see

 

[Oystein]

From the video:
...
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTtgK7e-jb4&feature=player_embedded
...

Please post a video response to Dan's video, so we can study your facial expressions and what not and say without impunity: That you, jammonius, lie the very moment you speak.

 

[DGM]

I will be engaging in a process of refutation when Compus completes the propaganda exercise.

So you going to "refute" these people. I know a couple of the families. I can't wait.



Could you please let us know in advance so I can be sure to have you on "ignore"?

 

[jammonius]

So you going to "refute" these people. I know a couple of the families. I can't wait.

Could you please let us know in advance so I can be sure to have you on "ignore"?

DGM,

Yours is yet another revealing post. Let me ask, for sake of clarity of understanding: Do you or do you not realize your post contains an internal contradiction involving your own process of information gathering?

sheesh

 

[jammonius]

Please post a video response to Dan's video, so we can study your facial expressions and what not and say without impunity: That you, jammonius, lie the very moment you speak.

Stage One, yet again.

Why must you focus solely on an attempt to engage in personal antagonism? The truth of Dan's video is staring you right in the face. Dan is a NO PLANE witness, by the obvious nature and content of the video. As I have shown.

 

[DGM]

DGM,

Yours is yet another revealing post. Let me ask, for sake of clarity of understanding: Do you or do you not realize your post contains an internal contradiction involving your own process of information gathering?

sheesh

Your right. I forgot to put the "sarcastic" smilie after "I can't wait.

Thanks for the heads up.