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

[excaza]

E)I have refuted the radar claims showing that a) they are based on recollection of what some individuals recall being on the screens and b) the blips on the screen could not be differentiated from the military exercises simulating hijackings then and there taking place.

Utter nonsense

F)Calls were received. The declaration "from planes" has not been proven and cannot be proven. In fact, with respect to calls and voices, those could easily have been part of the "exercise" and, more than that, those receiving them acknowledged, in some instances, that they did not know where the voices were coming from.

This...this is a despicable statement.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Utter nonsense



This...this is a despicable statement.

It's no shock no-planers think the calls were fake- because they think think passengers never existed. It's the height of insanity.

 

[dtugg]

The NWO has superhuman powers but is incompetent at the same time. They were somehow able to fake a bunch of videos, some of them live, implant the image in the brains of eyewitnesses, create plane shaped holes in the towers, plant fake plane wreckage, fake the radar tracks, fake phone calls, disappear the real planes and passengers, ect. But they forgot to add the fake plane noises. And if it weren't for jammy, they would have got away with it too.

 

[lapman]

C) I have already shown that not one single part or piece of a plane was positively identified and within the last 10 posts have re-confirmed that claims about plane parts are characterized by weasle words ("it is believed"; and "it is postulated") in the one official investigation, the NIST report. Thus, C) is a repitition of something that has been refuted; and, more than that, not shown to exist in the first place.

This has been shown to you in other threads that this proof is not required by any agency in the world. Your insistance on this is only a diversionary tactic since the existence of the obvious aircraft parts are inconvenient to your fantasy. You have yet to prove that the parts could have been from another source.

D) The "remains" claim is utterly and completely false. The degree of annihilation at the WTC was so severe that very few intact remains were found. Those in the building have not been differentiated from those who were said to be passengers. And, if one looks, there is no official claim to the contrary. NIST does not go there. Neither does AFIP or any other official source. True, you can find some DNA claims posted on stupid debunker websites, sourced to newspapers containing DNA claims, but those are not evidence.

Diversionary tacitc #2. You have no problem using newspaper sources to prove your claims. This blatant hypocricy only shows that you have no intrest in the truth.

E)I have refuted the radar claims showing that a) they are based on recollection of what some individuals recall being on the screens and b) the blips on the screen could not be differentiated from the military exercises simulating hijackings then and there taking place.

100% false. The military inputs are not transmitted to FAA. So your contention is only based on your absolute need to hold on to your fantasy at all costs.

F)Calls were received. The declaration "from planes" has not been proven and cannot be proven. In fact, with respect to calls and voices, those could easily have been part of the "exercise" and, more than that, those receiving them acknowledged, in some instances, that they did not know where the voices were coming from.

This is a blatant lie. You have yet to show that phone calls were a part of any exercise. The family members that received the calls would know that the person on the other end was not their loved one due to the personal exchanges on the calls. Why do you lie so much?

 

[Oystein]

jammomius, have you ever been to NYC, and have you ever heard a NYC subway?




Posters, this is really the only thing we should be asking of jammonius now. Every post of his should either be completely ignored, or countered by this request for an honest yes/no answer: has he ever been to NYC.

 

[jammonius]

Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation of Carlitos' witness list
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6083054&postcount=1368

Jennifer Bodner

When she saw the second plane, she thought it was some sort of rescue plane, coming to help, or to put out the fire.
“I don’t know what I was thinking,” she said. “Then it hit the second building. I don’t even remember what happened after that. We all looked at each other and said, ‘We have to get out.’”
www.dailyhome.com (Web Archive copy)

1) The statement opens with a suggestion rather than a quote. Moreover, the actual quote does not say a plane hit and does not say she saw a plane. To come to that conclusion, one must accept as valid the suggestion planted at the beginning of the quote.

That is deceptive.

As such I would consider this statement unreliable. Further, in any other realm, other than 9/11 common storyline world, most people would look at a quote like the above and recognize it for what it is: newspaper fluff, virtually worthless.

2) The link is dead.


-----------------------x

Jena Bridges

Jena Bridges, a fifth-year law associate, was in a partner’s office at Broadway and 42nd Street waiting for a conference call when smoke and flames erupted from the north tower.
"One of the partners said, ‘Holy ******’ I turned around and looked out the window and said, ‘Oh my God,’" Bridges said. "Then as we were watching, we saw the second plane bank around into the second building, and there was this huge ball of fire."
http://www.cdalumni.org/news/vii1/No...c-attacks.html

1) OK, Broadway and 42nd Street. That is not an ideal location for seeing a jetliner hit the South Tower.

2) The link is a highly informal, student newspaper. That is not evidence.

Neither of these two witnesses can satisfy the elementary demands of what would be considered reliable witness statements. The common storyline is not advanced by reliance on crap like that.

 

[Oystein]

...
Neither of these two witnesses can satisfy the elementary demands of what would be considered reliable witness statements. The common storyline is not advanced by reliance on crap like that.

As long as you don't tell us if you have ever been to NYC and have ever heard a NYC subway, you are in no objective position to identify any sounds in the Dick Oliver video as those of a subway. The common storyline is not refuted by reliance on crap like that.



So you better answer now: Have you ever been to NYC and head NYC subways?

 

[jammonius]

This has been shown to you in other threads that this proof is not required by any agency in the world. Your insistance on this is only a diversionary tactic since the existence of the obvious aircraft parts are inconvenient to your fantasy. You have yet to prove that the parts could have been from another source.

The above can only be described as Orwellian. You laud the lack of proof of the existence of actual jetliner parts from the flights said to have been involved, then assert the claim of plane parts has been proven to your satisfaction, nonetheless, Lapman.

And, I understand where that might be coming from. You believe there were plane parts and you don't require forensic proof. A photo from goodness knows where, upon which a supposition can be based, about which someone can say "it is believed" or "it is postulated" is apparently good enough for you and for folk music and maybe close enough for "government work" albeit a little bit shy of what is required for "jazz."

I have no argument with you, Lapman, your standard of proof is not the same as mine is.

Diversionary tacitc #2. You have no problem using newspaper sources to prove your claims. This blatant hypocricy only shows that you have no intrest in the truth.

The above also follows from your different proof standard. You attribute things to me that I have not said. In fact, I have carefully pointed out that I do not rely on newspaper articles as sources of claims. That does not mean I will not discuss those sourced by others, or occasionally mention newspaper articles. But I do not rely on them as sources of claims that I am backing up with evidence.

I apply the same standard to all claims, whether they are for or against, so to speak.

100% false. The military inputs are not transmitted to FAA. So your contention is only based on your absolute need to hold on to your fantasy at all costs.

You cannot make the above claim on the basis of a '100%' declaration. You do not know the extent of the exercises because much of what was done remains secret and classified. And some ow what was made public was lied about, as per the 9/11 Commission Report and the commentary on that report by its participants, John Farmer being the most recent example.

This is a blatant lie. You have yet to show that phone calls were a part of any exercise. The family members that received the calls would know that the person on the other end was not their loved one due to the personal exchanges on the calls. Why do you lie so much?

OK, I tend to shy away from posts that use sympathy for victims as a weapon against me.

I wouldn't do crap like that, but that is just me. Your standards for posting differ from mine.

That said, your speculation about what calls were or were not made and to whom they were made is just that: Your speculation.

 

[bill smith]

As long as you don't tell us if you have ever been to NYC and have ever heard a NYC subway, you are in no objective position to identify any sounds in the Dick Oliver video as those of a subway. The common storyline is not refuted by reliance on crap like that.



So you better answer now: Have you ever been to NYC and head NYC subways?

Do you think that was the shadow of the plane passing over in the Dick Oliver video Oystein ?

 

[excaza]

Do you think that was the shadow of the plane passing over in the Dick Oliver video Oystein ?

No, it was the shadow of a subway car.

 

[bill smith]

No, it was the shadow of a subway car.

Do they really go that fast in NY. ? In London they just trundle along at 60-70 mph at a guess.

 

[Dog Town]

And if it weren't for jammy, they would have got away with it too.

Actually they are still going to get away with it. Jammy doesn't care either. That's why he spends his time arguing here. It is only an attention based argument, out of "concern''!

 

[excaza]

Do they really go that fast in NY. ? In London they just trundle along at 60-70 mph at a guess.

I was being facetious, the subway tracks near the WTC are all underground.

 

[Thunder]

jammomius, have you ever been to NYC, and have you ever heard a NYC subway?
.

clearly, the answer is NO.

if he had been to NYC and rode the Subway, he would have announced it as evidence that he knows what a NYC Subway sounds like.

so, he has not been on a NYC Subway, and yet he claims to know what they sound like.

pretty funny huh?





Jamm- how can someone who has NEVER rode a NYC Subway, claim to know what they sound like?

 

[twinstead]

I still am REALLY curious as to what Jammonius would consider compelling evidence that planes crashed into the WTC. How much more evidence COULD there be?

 

[excaza]

I still am REALLY curious as to what Jammonius would consider compelling evidence that planes crashed into the WTC. How much more evidence COULD there be?

Him being on the plane is about the only thing left.

 

[twinstead]

Him being on the plane is about the only thing left.

Yea, if so I can only imagine him arriving in whatever place people like that go when they perish and arguing with all the other poor passengers that none of them was on a plane, and probably never existed in the first place.

 

[DGM]

I still am REALLY curious as to what Jammonius would consider compelling evidence that planes crashed into the WTC. How much more evidence COULD there be?

This has nothing to do with evidence. As long as he holds this belief and keeps posting people will pay attention to him. Simple.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

This has nothing to do with evidence. As long as he holds this belief and keeps posting people will pay attention to him. Simple.

I still have some suspicion Jammy knows full well he's spinning a web of BS- He's a troll of the highest order. If not, someone needs to break out a butterfly net..

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

This has nothing to do with evidence. As long as he holds this belief and keeps posting people will pay attention to him. Simple.

But do 'people' exist in jammy's world? Does he concider us characters in his fantasy, that go out like a switched off light when we leave the room?