IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th May 2012, 03:21 PM   #1
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
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:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
If "for the most part" they only saw or heard an explosion, I'd be interested to hear what the rest said they saw.
It is interesting that in posing a question, Jack, did not mention how many witness statements or verified witness accounts that he, Jack, knew of.

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:
Are you saying you have never read a claim from anyone in this forum to have been a direct eyewitness who saw a plane?
No, I am not saying that. I recall at least two. One was in Hoboken or Jersey City; the other was in Greenwich Villiage, if I recall correctly. The poster who was in an office building in New Jersey is one of the most definite, certain of those who claim to have seen the plane hit the South Tower. In that poster's initial posting, the claim was made that "I saw the 767 hit..." or words to that effect. As you might imagine, the poster later backed away from that claim, but maintained certainty that a plane was seen.

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:
Do you draw any distinction between witnesses who state they did not see a plane and witnesses who state they saw that there was no plane? (Do any of the latter actually exist?
It would have been better form for Jack to have made a claim by saying whether and why HE draws a distinction between different types of witnesses and different types of statements.

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:
Are there people who were watching from where they should have seen the approaching plane but say they saw empty sky?)
Well, I cannot say they used those words exactly. I will, however, just cut to the chase and share the content of what I think is the single best witness, of whatever type -- plane spotter or no planer -- who, in the event, is a no planer. This refers to Asst Commissioner Stephen Gregory. He was, I believe, if memory serves me correctly, the highest ranking fire officer on duty and was situated at the command center, West, between Liberty and Albany.

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:
By the way, considering the number of video recordings which have been made public (whether you trust them or not) why do you think no no-plane video footage has ever been seen? How, in broad terms, might the suppression of such recordings be achieved, when any resident or tourist for many miles around might have been filming after the first explosion?
Your assumption is not correct. There are several examples amongst the 44 known videos of the South Tower explosion that do not show a jetliner. In fact, none of them reliably show one. The shadows, speed, motion and so on, varies from one video to the next, casting doubt on all of them. None of them are verified; none of them could really be considered valid evidence.

That said, I suggest you take a look at the segment beginning at about the 3min mark in the following video:

YouTube 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


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...



Thank you


Edited by Loss Leader:  Edited for Rule 10

Last edited by Loss Leader; 16th May 2012 at 06:12 PM.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 03:27 PM   #2
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
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..
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 03:34 PM   #3
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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..
Well, DGM, you can forgiven for your literal interpretation of the thread title. Put differently, I admit it is a poor choice of words to have put it in a way that gives rise to your interpretation.

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
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 03:35 PM   #4
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Thank you
I take it you've never been to NYC.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 03:41 PM   #5
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,753
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
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
For my complete compilation of evidence showing AAL77 hit the Pentagon -http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
For my compilation of evidence for UAL93 - http://ual93.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

Last edited by cjnewson88; 16th May 2012 at 03:46 PM.
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 03:46 PM   #6
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
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.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 03:48 PM   #7
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post

I hope this serves to get the thread off on the right track.

Blessings
Thanks for clearing this up.


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.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 03:58 PM   #8
minnemouse
Critical Thinker
 
minnemouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 287
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
I take it you've never been to NYC.
..... nor in the real world?
__________________
It´s good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

Last edited by minnemouse; 16th May 2012 at 03:59 PM. Reason: wording
minnemouse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 03:59 PM   #9
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
jammonius:

One other thing. All of your witnesses are invalid. They all come from one MSM source or another.


Thanks for playing.

__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 03:59 PM   #10
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Thanks for clearing this up.


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.
^^^^This^^^^


Baloneyness, If you have a point. make it.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 16th May 2012 at 04:01 PM.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 04:08 PM   #11
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,103
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?
__________________
"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so."
-Phil Plait
EventHorizon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 04:15 PM   #12
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,164
Sorry...I don't play gotcha games either.
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke."
Macgyver1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 04:39 PM   #13
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 13,903
Quote:
"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."
For absolutely stupid, first off you said he passed away on the horrible day. I am sure he'd be pleased to know you're using his quote out of context. You're taking something from the heat of the moment, from someone that had more pressing things to do than stare at the other building. Absolutely disgusting what people will use to state their case.


Quote:
"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."
Was he looking at the building? Was he like every other firefighter there that day that had a million things on his mind? I found the below quote here that sums it up pretty well.

Quote:
The fine man you bring to our attention clearly states that his first
knowledge of the event was a roar, a sound -- not a sight -- meaning
he heard the event before he saw it -- but sound as you well know
travels slower than light -- so if he didn't look until after he
heard the roar he was too late to see the plane -- but he did see
the progress of the explosion from the three or four seconds it took
for the sound to reach him -- my Dad told me how to estimate the
distance of lightning by the length of interval between flash and
thunder -- but if you first hear the thunder then you missed the
flash. We can be standing there and not see something because we are
not paying attention or we are distracted by something -- he does not
say he was looking at the Towers -- he came in late --he say the
explosion, but -- we know from what he says -- not the initiation of
the explosion.
Meaning, what you're saying is a strawman argument.

Quote:
"Male voice: *** is that?
Female voice: I don't know
Male voice: They're ******* bombing it"
I don't even know what you're trying to do here or what help this is possibly going to lend your case. People we don't know, who could have little to no knowledge of anything claiming something they can't prove. Sounds familiar.
__________________
“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by Loss Leader; 16th May 2012 at 06:14 PM.
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 04:47 PM   #14
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
...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;...
The OP question as partially clarified by jammonious second post is a legal question.

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.

Last edited by ozeco41; 16th May 2012 at 04:49 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 04:56 PM   #15
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
More hooey from jammy.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 04:59 PM   #16
minnemouse
Critical Thinker
 
minnemouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 287
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?
__________________
It´s good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
minnemouse is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 05:05 PM   #17
MIKILLINI
Incromulent Logic
 
MIKILLINI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
After going through all the evidence, this thread is useless.
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me

The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo

Last edited by MIKILLINI; 16th May 2012 at 05:06 PM.
MIKILLINI is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 05:17 PM   #18
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by MIKILLINI View Post
After going through all the evidence, this thread is useless.
Yes.

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.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 05:29 PM   #19
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
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.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 05:43 PM   #20
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36,472
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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

Did you require a ladder for that bit of cherrypicking? Here is what the relevant part actually says:

Originally Posted by Scott Holowach
At that time, I started walking towards Engine 3. Engine 3 drove south to the south pedestrian bridge to make a U turn to come back and as I'm walking towards the Engine to find out what Lieutenant Walsh wanted us to do, I heard the sound of a jet plane. I looked up and saw it pretty close and I was like holy ****. What's going on with the with the flight patterns. All of a sudden, the wings turned and it dove right into the building and it was screwed up. 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. I said no, Chief, I witnessed it. I watched the plane hit the other tower. He is like are you sure. I said Chief, I'm 100 hundred percent positive I watched the second plane hit the other tower.


Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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.

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.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 05:43 PM   #21
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Those who didn't see a plane didn't see the plane. Those who did, prove the plane existed.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 05:46 PM   #22
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36,472
Indeed, and in only 17 words.

/thread
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 06:13 PM   #23
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,368
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.
__________________
"Stellafane! My old partner in crime!" - Kelly J
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 06:26 PM   #24
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20,571
Most Truthers are at least slightly deranged. The no-planers, on the other hand, are bat-crap crazy.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 06:44 PM   #25
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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.
For me, I don't feel the need to double check what other witnesses there are because I know enough of them personally that I have no doubt there were planes. Several of my closest friends work in buildings around the WTC and witnessed one or both crashes live.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 07:01 PM   #26
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by minnemouse View Post
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?
Greetings Minne,

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

Last edited by jammonius; 16th May 2012 at 07:06 PM.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 07:11 PM   #27
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122

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.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 07:14 PM   #28
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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.
Time to first lie: 12 seconds. I've hilited it for you.

Conclusion: The rest of your post is useless.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 07:15 PM   #29
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Yes, people who saw the planes crash make better witnesses to the plane crashes than people who did not see the plane crashes.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 07:33 PM   #30
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
The OP question as partially clarified by jammonious second post is a legal question.
Yes and no. I don't think it proper to pose strictly legal questions here as this is not a forum by or for lawyers. If it were posed as a legal matter, then chances are the issue would be phrased up as one of "reliability" leading to "admissibility."

That is not where we need to go here.

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.
Well, another differentiation is that judges are trained to be impartial; jurors are quizzed on whether they can be impartial, then instructed as to how to be impartial in connection with a given case. They are also instructed as to which side has the burden of proof.

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:
And definition of what the evidence actually is naturally becomes critical.
That's critical here too.

Quote:
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.
While I commend the thoughtfulness of that paragraph, I do not think it accurate. First of all, many of the same issues you claim are limited to the NO PLANE claim apply with equal force to PLANE SPOTTERS. I will not detail that here; but, suffice to say that all witnesses in legal matters are subject to cross examination.

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:
So these witnesses cannot offer conclusive evidence and what they do offer suffers from logical weaknesses analogous to "proving a negative".
No one can reasonably request anyone else to prove a negative. In most contexts, the burden of proof rests squarely with the proponents of the common storyline of 9/11. Thus far, that storyline has not ever been shown by any reliable, validly conducted investigation to have been accurate. NO PLANE evidence could certainly make a huge dent in the credibility of the common storyline, assuming, that is, that the common storyline is ever put to the test in a fair and impartial forum.

Quote:
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.
Perhaps, but the problem, as pointed out in the OP, is that the PLANE SPOTTERS do not agree with one another, thus casting doubt on each other and on the overall claim.

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:
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".
I think you claim too much for reasons mentioned above.

Quote:
Now in the style beloved of truthers jammonious has limited his OP question to one single factor. viz witness credibility on a single issue.
You appear unaware of other threads for which I have either provided the OP or a lot of posts.

You should search.

Quote:
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.
You presume too much in my opinion. As it is with plane-spotting, so it is with other elements of proof of the common storyline of 9/11. There is little or nothing there; and, there has not ever been a properly conducted, valid, forensic determination of what happened, let alone of who did it.

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?

Quote:
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.
No, that is incorrect for the reasons here given.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 07:41 PM   #31
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
Those who didn't see a plane didn't see the plane. Those who did, prove the plane existed.
Twinstead,

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...
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 07:46 PM   #32
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
I was a witness.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 07:55 PM   #33
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,368
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.
__________________
"Stellafane! My old partner in crime!" - Kelly J
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 08:21 PM   #34
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,103
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Twinstead,

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...
Stundilicious! I don't know which part to nominate!
__________________
"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so."
-Phil Plait
EventHorizon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 08:26 PM   #35
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post



In most contexts, the burden of proof rests squarely with the proponents of the common storyline of 9/11. Thus far, that storyline has not ever been shown by any reliable,

No, No it certainly does not. YOU need to PROVE your narrative has more proof than the commonly accepted events of that day.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 08:41 PM   #36
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post

Here is a list of the three firefighters from 124 Liberty Street for whom we have reliable, verifiable witness statements:

Sorry, no good. These are from a MSM source.


You should know better than to try to pull this kind of stunt.


__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 08:44 PM   #37
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
From the quoted material in the OP:

Quote:
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.
Now that's some really positive witness. I'll certainly take his admittedly uninformed opinions over live pictures of a freaking airliner crashing into a building.

Geesh!
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 09:05 PM   #38
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
 
JohnG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Abandon All Hope
Posts: 6,808
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?
__________________
Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison
JohnG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 09:10 PM   #39
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
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!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th May 2012, 09:16 PM   #40
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Did you require a ladder for that bit of cherrypicking? Here is what the relevant part actually says:






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.
LashL's response highlights the extreme context subtraction truthers resort to when making their claims. Look at everything that was removed from the totality of the exchange, and then understand just how much had to be in the first place just to even begin to try to use it to support no-planer nonsense. Our conspiracy fanatic here literally had to subtract the part where one firefighter reported seeing the jet with his own eyes! And imply that the other one, who was simply not in a position to see it incoming, actually was claiming there was no jet there at all.

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:And no engagement with the conspiracy peddler is needed at all. There are very few claims that are more prima facie stupid and false (Space beams, mini-nukes...). One need only provide the correct information for anyone else reading, and end things right there.

/Thread. Seriously. Nothing else is needed.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.