EYEWITNESS CHALLENGE: Are the NO PLANE witnesses better than PLANE SPOTTER witnesses?
The claim that there are THOUSANDS of witnesses to jetliners crashing into buildings in NYC and at the Pentagon and into a landfill area in PA is an accepted generality. That is what most people deeply and sincerely believe.
I do not question what people believe. For some, perhaps most who frequent this forum, there is no felt need to even double check what actual witnesses there are, let alone the particulars of what they said, still less the reliability of what they said. I know that there are many verifiable eye witnesses who were in a position to see a jetliner, if any had been involved, in both incidents in NYC. Some saw "a plane" some didn't. As to the Pentagon, the wonder is that there is not a greater recognition that the claim a jetliner hit that building is simply not supported. As to Shanksville, PA, most of the evidence that is reliable clearly supports the claim no jetliner crashed there. I don't know if one thread can fairly address all 4 plane claims, but it might be able to do so. I know there is some interest in what actual witnesses may have seen and heard, based on this quote from a now discarded thread: Quote:
It is to be hoped that in making claims about witnesses, posters will post up actual witness statements, including sources/links. Further, in doing so, if a witness says "a plane" that is not, in and of itself, proof of the common storyline because the common storyline requires proof of rather large jetliners, not just any old plane. There are a number of verifiable eyewitnesses who said they saw something flying, but the range of sightings varies: small plane large plane missile speck Jack also said the following: Quote:
The poster from Greenwich Villiage "saw a speck", if I recall that poster's claim correctly. I think the thread where those posts can be found is this one: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=175654 Caution: The thread is very long, containing nearly 4000 posts, it might not be easy to find their posts. In another forum, and in response to my request that posters' who were actual witnesses, either eyewitnesses or ear witnesses, post up what they saw or heard, the following post was given: "Yesterday, 11:56 PM Post #157 Intern Group: Members Posts: 88 Joined: 3-February 05 Member No.: 15,080 Ear witness,,, ok this is where I can testify... I was just off of the corner of rector street and trinity walking east towards broadway and i heard ( didnt see) the impact but what i heard was a sound to describe as a quick " zhoop - crack - boom " all of which where about one second long each and a slight pause in between all of maybe the same length. Dont know what it means its just the way i remeber it. I am no expert on what it is suppose to sound like however i have been to enough airshows to know that a jet approaching you very fast you will not hear until it is upon you or past you. In my opinion I thought that a jetliner of those size engines would have been louder and in my mind the sound i heard was from a fighter jet or smaller than commercial size engine. But then again I have never heard a jet going allegedly that fast from any distance so i cannot debate the differences. The first impact wasnt actually that forceful to me on the outside as much as the second one. The second one I was outside nyse on wall and it was so powerful that it rattled my head blurry for a second or 2. Just for information.." I highly value the content of that post, as the poster, jr343, was ideally placed to have seen and heard a jetliner had there been one. Jack next asked: Quote:
My answer is "Yes" to both elements of that query. One of the best witness exchanges on record is that between Firefighter Scott Hollowach and Chief Ganci that serves to illustrate the difference between not seeing a plane and saying there was none. Here's their exchange: "At that time Chief Ganci was behind me and he thought there was another explosion in the north tower and that's when I turned around and said Chief, listen, there is a second plane that hit the other tower. He was like no no no no, we have another explosion." Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110114.PDF pgs 3-4 I place a lot of importance on that exchange. It involves two firefighters, one junior one, one senior one, standing right next to each other. One is a plane spotter and one is a no planer, by conviction, I might add. It could interest posters to know that Chief Ganci died that day. He was a highly respected, well regarded senior fire officer. Quote:
He stated, in a verified statement as follows: "Q. Did you see or hear the second plane before it hit the World Trade Center? A. I never actually saw the plane, but l heard it. You could hear it coming in and then we heard the explosion and you could hear the roar of the plane coming in. At first I didn't realize it was a plane. I thought it was like the roar of fire, like something had just incinerated, like a gas tank or an oil tank. It sounded like a tremendous roar and then you heard boom and then there was a big fire, a lot of fire, a big fireball. I never actually saw a plane hit the building. I never saw that. I saw it on television, but I never saw it while I was standing there." http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110008.PDF pg21/25 To repeat: The above is the single best witness there is as to what happened at the South Tower on 9/11, bar none. And, he is a no planer. Quote:
That said, I suggest you take a look at the segment beginning at about the 3min mark in the following video:
The two people can be presumed to have been looking in the direction of the tower. The camera is zoomed almost immediately after the explosion was seen. The video does not clearly show any plane at all. More importantly, the two people, who were eyewitnesses, recorded their observations. This is what was said: "Male voice: What the **** is that? Female voice: I don't know Male voice: They're ******* bombing it" I should hope that plane spotter posters will post up actual witness accounts as I have done. The claim of NO PLANES hitting either the North Tower or the South Tower on 9/11 are each supported by evidence. The claim a jetliner hit the Pentagon is supported by very little evidence and the claim a jetliner crashed in Shanksville, PA is, for the most part, unsupported. The foregoing paragraph is for "openers". Let's see where this goes, shall we? And oh, by the way: ...May the odds be evah in your favah... :D Thank you
|
How could we know if these people are better? We don't actually know them.
It's absurd that you think you can determine how good a person is this way.. |
Quote:
Hopefully, this will serve as clarification: I'm not saying the people are better or worse; what I'm hoping to get at here is an analysis of the quality of eye witness accounts. We would consider placement, date/time statement was given, source for the quote, if that what is involved, and considerations like that. I'm talking about the quality of the statement; not the attributes of the person giving it. I hope this serves to get the thread off on the right track. Blessings |
Quote:
|
Jammonius, you missed a vital few steps.
Step 1: hit the Back button on your browser. Step 2: click the sticky link which says " Gravysites: Where 9/11 Conspiracies are Laid to Rest ". Step 3: pay attention to the sections and spread sheets covering 9/11 witnesses. Step 4: /Thread |
Not everybody can judge the size of objects in the sky, not everybody is able to identify aircraft as to make or model of airline livery.
Not everybody viewed it from the same angle. All the photographic evidence is consistant and we have physical evidence of the size of the objects which struck the towers. No two people will see the same thing in exactly the same way unless both are in the same exact location and are of exactly equal intelligence and have exactly the same educational and cultural background. See if you can find a video of Akira Kurasawa's movie "Rashomon." Ever lawyer should watch that just for background to understand how eyewitness evidence can or cannot be trusted. (Quick synopsis: Everybody knows who killed whom and with what weapon. From there, witness accounts go off in all directions.) Something tells me you have not. |
Quote:
As you know we do not play "20 questions" or "gotchha" games hear. Unless you have a specific debunking of the air plane factual evidence I'm afraid I can't play. |
Quote:
|
jammonius:
One other thing. All of your witnesses are invalid. They all come from one MSM source or another. Thanks for playing. :p |
Quote:
Baloneyness, If you have a point. make it. |
I'm not going to bother wasting my time. Can I assume that this another one of those threads where jammy doesn't understand the difference between not seeing a plane and thinking there was no plane?
|
Sorry...I don't play gotcha games either.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Jammonious doesn't go far enough with the clarification to "..the quality of the statement". The real issue is not "the statement" but rather the quality of the evidence that the statement presents. And the test of "quality of evidence" is the level of credibility that the assessor of fact (judge, jury OR, on this forum, "Us") gives to the evidence. And definition of what the evidence actually is naturally becomes critical. The primary example here is probably the evidence of the "NO PLANE witnesses". At best their evidence is to the claim that they saw no plane. Given a number of other aspects they simply cannot claim "there was no plane" and any such claim would be worthless in a court of law and should be disregarded here. Even if the Judge allowed the claim into evidence the lawyers for the relevant side would not let it stand. And would quickly show the true limit of the evidence under cross examination. So all the "NO PLANE witnesses have is a statement, probably in three parts after cross examination, viz: 1) I did not see a plane; AND 2) there as a lot of sky I could not see...(or something similar.); AND 3) I cannot state that there was no plane. So these witnesses cannot offer conclusive evidence and what they do offer suffers from logical weaknesses analogous to "proving a negative". Meanwhile the evidence of the "PLANE SPOTTER witnesses" is positive and falls into two or more parts, viz: 1) I saw something; AND (for some of those witnesses) 2) It was an aircraft; AND (for a smaller subset) 3) It was an aircraft of that type. So these witnesses offer conclusive evidence varying from full evidence as to a plane AND the specific plane down to lesser strength evidence the weakest of which says "I saw some flying object". Now in the style beloved of truthers jammonious has limited his OP question to one single factor. viz witness credibility on a single issue. The reality whether in our hypothetical moot court OR in Internet discussions or any other forum is that there are multiple other aspects of evidence which demonstrate "beyond reasonable doubt" that they were both planes and of the specific model and the specific airframes subject to hi-jack. BUT limiting the post to jammonious narrow scoped OP: The evidence of PLANE SPOTTER witnesses is several degrees more credible than the evidence of NO PLANE witnesses. |
More hooey from jammy.
|
I have a challenge for you, Jams (ohh...another fitting word in Norwegian!!). Walk into the firehouse on 124 Liberty St. and challenge the firemen there. Are you man enough to do that?
|
After going through all the evidence, this thread is useless.
|
Quote:
And it took me 422 words to say "the evidence of the no planers is worthless WHILST the evidence of the planers is credible". Still there is very little engineering discussion here these days so I needed to fall back onto this legal topic to give me an excuse for posting AND playing "smart arse" with Jamm's OP. :rolleyes: |
Jammy, is Robert Prey your twin brother? This sounds an awful lot like the "40+" witnesses he quotes in the JFK thread that all are, well, not exactly what is claimed.
|
Quote:
Did you require a ladder for that bit of cherrypicking? Here is what the relevant part actually says: Quote:
Quote:
This is unmitigated nonsense. First, they were not standing next to each other, let alone "right" next to each other; Chief Ganci was, according to Mr. Holowach, somewhere behind him rather than beside him. Second, there is no indication how much distance was between the two. Third, there is no indication of how much time elapsed between the time that Mr. Holowach saw the plane and the time that his conversation with Chief Ganci took place. Fourth, there is no indication of where Chief Ganci was looking or what he was doing at the relevant time. Fifth, the fact that Chief Ganci did not see a plane does not in any way, shape or form = there was no plane, and it does not in any way, shape or form make him a "no planer". It means simply that he did not see the plane that Mr. Holowach saw, and there is a world of difference between that and "there was no plane" (aka being a "no planer"). Had Chief Ganci survived the day, no doubt he would have filled in further details about where he was, what he saw, what he heard, what he thought and why, and what he did (some of which are filled in by the accounts of others) but your attempt to equate Chief Ganci to the minuscule gaggle of delusional "no planers" who so grossly disrespect the victims and their families is an egregious insult to the man. This thread is ridiculous on its face. That is all. |
Those who didn't see a plane didn't see the plane. Those who did, prove the plane existed.
|
Indeed, and in only 17 words.
/thread |
I know I'm just stating the obvious here, but...next Sunday a solar eclipse will take place. By Monday, there will be billions of people around the world who for one reason or another did not personally see the eclipse. But that won't override all the other proof that the eclipse did in fact take place.
|
Most Truthers are at least slightly deranged. The no-planers, on the other hand, are bat-crap crazy.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
While I cannot be sure, I must assume you post what you consider to be a manly "challenge" because the claim there is little or no evidence 767 jetliners hit the WTC on 9/11 will be upsetting to the firefighters at the firehouse at 124 Liberty St. From that surmise, I can only guess that you are somehow taking the position that those who do not think the common storyline of 9/11 has been proven are somehow offending the firefighters, other victims, etc. If so, that is a tiresome refrain. As I've elsewhere said, those who support the common storyline of 9/11 do not own the flag, patriotism or apple pie. I claim equal ownership of the flag, of patriotism and virtue derived from consumption of apple pie (in moderation, of course). But, getting back to the main point; namely the firehouse at 124 Liberty St. That would be the home of Engine Company No. 10. In records that are readily available and highly recommended, it can be seen that there are 3 firefighters from Company 10 whose witness statements are a part of the evidentiary record. The overall records I am referring to here are the 500+ witness statements duly and properly recorded by the World Trade Center Task Force. The witnesses are among the first responders who were on duty at GZ. I do highly recommend posters review those witness statements. Link: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...s_full_01.html Here is a list of the three firefighters from 124 Liberty Street for whom we have reliable, verifiable witness statements: 1--Captain Eugene Kelty http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110261.PDF "My name is Captain Gene Kelty. I'm the Company Commander for Engine Company 10, which is located at 124 Liberty Street, which is the firehouse right opposite the World Trade Center." His statement is interesting in that he speaks of being able to walk in and around most parts of GZ up until the mid-afternoon, at which time he was evacuated to NJ for eye-wash treatment. He then returned to GZ as WTC 7 was being annihilated. Those interested might want to take a look at his full statement in order to get a better understanding of the flatness of GZ. Certainly, were I to go to 124 Liberty St., I would inquire as to the whereabouts of Capt. Kelty. I'd be interested in his assessment of whether GZ was flat or not. 2--Lt. Sean O'Malley http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110259.PDF "A. On the morning of the 11th sometime around, shortly after 9 o'clock, I was in my apartment on the west side, at 72 Street. Just turned on Channel 1 news and they had a live video feed from, I think a traffic camera someplace north of the Trade Center complex. It showed a heavy smoke condition issuing from tower one, the north tower of the World Trade Center. Details were very sketchy at that point. The person was trying to get some information. There were still vague reports as to what caused the fire." I have quoted that part of O'Malley's statement because it confirms that he did not have any basis for assuming a plane of any type, let alone a widebody, 767 jetliner had hit the WTC North Tower as 9:00AM as that is not what was being reported at that time. I am not seeking to make a large point of that. I am not here asserting that proves there was NO PLANE. I am only looking at what the man actually said. 3--Firefighter Terence Rivera, http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110343.PDF "A. I was standing outside the quarters about to go home when the first plane hit. I heard a loud noise and then all of a sudden an explosion, looked up. I couldn't even tell really which tower was hit. There was debris flying. There was a lot of smoke and fire. I ran back inside, let everybody know we knew there was an explosion, grabbed my gear. ... We went around the corner on West Street and the Ladder pulled right up in front of tower -- the north tower. The engine took the hydrant on the middle of West Street.As I got off the back -- the back step, there were a few individuals that were civilians that were outside that were burnt. There was a -- he wasn't a regular security guard. He had a weapon on him. I don't know if he was FBI or Secret Service and he was trying to put the pants out on one individual that was conscious. His pants were still smoldering. ... Sometime while we were doing that, that same individual that was -- when we first got there, that was trying to put the pants out, he came over and he is saying to us that it's a terrorist attack. You guys are too close. It's a terrorist attack. So once we got hooked up, I kept that in the back of my mind. Get on trying to get water going." I recommend Rivera's statement to all. It is clear he believed a plane had hit as that is how he begins his statement. But, what he actually saw and heard is quite different. He heard an explosion. Once again, keep your shirts on everyone, I am not here saying this man is a NO PLANER. I am merely taking note of what he actually saw and heard as per his officially transcribed and recorded statement. All are welcome to make of it what they will. According to Rivera, three other firefighters from Engine Co. 10 were on duty on 9/11. Alas, there are no recorded statements by them in the 500+ witness statement compilation linked at the beginning of this post. Rivera says: Q. When you met the guys from Engine 10 that were going to jump in the water, who were they? A. There was Mark Dulski and John Schroeder. Q. And the guy from 10 with chest pains? A. Serge Pilipczuk. Q. -- Pilipczuk? A. Yes. He went to Jersey, from Ladder 10. One thing of note about the 500+ statements is that they were taken beginning about 2 or 3 weeks AFTER 9/11, not contemporaneously. Most were taken after 10/7/01 which is an important date in my opinion. That is when the US and its cronies invaded Afghanistan. Obviously, once that invasion began, war conditions prevailed. Then it did become difficult to question 9/11 precisely because doing so could be construed as a violation of the old "my country right or wrong" doctrine that has particular applicability during warring. I, however, have made it clear that I do not permit supporters of the common storyline to get away with monopolizing patriotism. I own the flag equally. So, Minnie, would you agree with me that were I to go to 124 Liberty St. I would at least be properly prepared to have a conversation? And, oh, by the way, I would fully expect the conversation to be cordial, friendly and polite. That is the way it's been with every firefighter I've talked to so far. Blessings |
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...lanceproof.jpg
This with RADAR data prove 175 with passengers and crew, plus murderers you apologize for, impacted the WTC. Why do you try to spread lies and fail? This is real evidence, RADAR is real evidence, you have zero evidence. |
Quote:
Conclusion: The rest of your post is useless. |
Yes, people who saw the planes crash make better witnesses to the plane crashes than people who did not see the plane crashes.
|
Quote:
That is not where we need to go here. Quote:
The "Us" you refer to here are not, imho, all that atuned to being impartial. They are, mostly, self-professed 'debunkers' meaning they side with the common storyline of 9/11 come hell or high water. Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, not seeing a widebody 767 jetliner that was said to be <1000ft above ground, traveling at near or above 500mph could be described as hard to miss, if it were there. So, for that reason, I don't think your characterization of NO PLANE information is at all accurate. Not in that context. Quote:
Quote:
The sound characteristics, alone, of a widebody jetliner <1000ft above ground @ 500+/-mph should have been unmistakable and should have resulted in widespread agreement as to what was heard, over a relatively large and densely populated area. It didn't. Quote:
Quote:
You should search. Quote:
I think you'll agree with on that, right? Certainly, you will not offer up either the 9/11 Commission or the NIST report as proper determinations of what happened, will you? :boggled: Quote:
|
Quote:
No, you are oversimplifying. Those who said they saw a small plane contradict the common storyline. Those who said they saw a missile, ditto. Those who said they saw a jetliner are very few in number. Come to think of it, for all the certainty being uttered by debunkers around here, it must be noted that as we come close on to 40 posts in this thread, no one has posted up a witness statement, except me. Mind you, LashL did post up other parts of a witness statement that I had earlier posted up. But, the fact remains, I'm the only poster to have posted up an actual witness so far. Watch out: ...the odds are not in your favah... :eye-poppi |
I was a witness.
|
Here's one eyewitness statement:
"Something is wrong. We are in a rapid descent… we are all over the place...I see the water. I see the buildings. I see buildings...We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low...Oh my God, we are way too low.” These are the last recorded words of American Airlines Flight 11 flight attendant Amy Sweeney, on 8:44 AM EDT, September 11, 2001. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html |
Quote:
You should know better than to try to pull this kind of stunt. :( |
From the quoted material in the OP:
Quote:
Geesh! :boggled: |
No planers are in full-blown Oliver Sacks territory. Maybe he'll devote his next book to a study of them:
"The Man Who Mistook His Lie For A Fact" Wouldn't it have been simpler to just crash planes into the buildings? |
Man the no planers are really *********** it up for the truthers.
The next time some truther asks me about about 9/11, I'll just link them to this pants on head thread. Thanks Jerry! |
Quote:
Cherries are not picked with that much surrounding material removed. Claims like this have been disproven from the moment eyewitness accounts were published, much less when imagry of the wreckage was published, and even less so when lines of evidence, such as the flight path studies, the verification of the hijackings by the ATC personnel, and so on where published. Only three links are needed to see the stupidity of the no-plane claims:
/Thread. Seriously. Nothing else is needed. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.