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, 11:19 PM   #41
firecoins
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 3,206
The video evidence shows jetliners. The videos showing United 175 comes from numerous sources including live news footage and individual citizens. AA 11 is clearly shown hitting the North tower on the Naudet film.

Nothing show by the poster starting the thread puts any doubt whatsoever in the recordings.
firecoins 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 17th May 2012, 12:01 AM   #42
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Jam, it's like this. I am a skeptically minded individual, cynical even. Until you can come up with a conclusion that's better than the 'official story' and back it up with actual evidence then the only conclusion I can draw is that you story is the false one.

That's why we have such things as the null hypothesis and burden of proof. You understand this?
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.
Mudcat 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 17th May 2012, 12:43 AM   #43
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,831
No-planers still wandering around lost in 2012? Truly pathetic.
Sceptic-PK 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 17th May 2012, 01:23 AM   #44
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Jammonious.

My personal "Rules of Engagement" mean that I don't give more than two posts to those who are trolling...

UNLESS

The person desists from trolling and engages in reasoned debate.

Since all of your response is evasive and illogical crap this will be my second and last response unless you lift your game and address the single simple central point of my post. And this response is primarily intended for those who are intelligently engaging with the topic.

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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....
Evasive hogwash. What you claim to think is not the test of discussion standards here. Translated what you are saying is "we don't need reasoned arguments which are valid use of evidence and valid logic" - but you are not brave enough to put it so clearly.
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
...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....
And you claim that those standards should not apply here? Don't make such idiotic claims.
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
...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....
Your OP as a simple proposition but poorly expressed. You attempted a clarification. I clarified it further.
The characteristic which you identify of "impartial" applies to what is said not to who says it.
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
...That's critical here too.
Well that is right. Glad to see you agree. Why the change of mind after your first bits of nonsense?
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
....While I commend the thoughtfulness of that paragraph, I do not think it accurate....
It is accurate - your bold assertion of inaccuracy is unsupported and wrong. And your next sentences show you do not understand the simple and unrebuttable point I made about the difference between the two types of evidence. Feel free to put reasoned claims as to any error you think you detect. Go away and read what I posted before your try.
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
... First of all, many of the same issues you claim are limited to the NO PLANE claim apply with equal force to PLANE SPOTTERS....
Not so. I don't at this stage think you are being deliberately untruthful - I give benefit of doubt that you do not understand the simple distinction I made. Go back and read again. I may be able to put it even simpler but.....
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
I will not detail that here;...
Is that because you cannot support your false and illogical claim? [quote=jammonius;8292051]... but, suffice to say that all witnesses in legal matters are subject to cross examination. [/QUOTE} WOW! So what? What are you trying to claim by that bit of irrelevancy?
[quote=jammonius;8292051]...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] Not the issue under discussion. The OP and my response are about credibility of witnesses. Not about the evidence they may or may not put. Read the OP. So it goes to the logical structure of the presentation of evidence. Not to the facts which certain witnesses may state.
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
No one can reasonably request anyone else to prove a negative....
Which is part of what I said. AND the fundamental difficulty facing those who argue "NO PLANE" Their problem. Just because I clearly identified it does not somehow make it my problem
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, 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....
You are wrong on burden of proof and wrong if you expected me to fall for your false claim on that legal matter. The rest of the paragraph does not deserve a response.
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
...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....
Addressed in detail in my first response. Repeating your false claim without addressing my explanation leaves the ball firmly in your court. Address the issues and stop evading.
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
...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...
Irrelevant to the topic which you defined which is not the facts of evidence BUT the credibility of witnesses. And I clearly explained the problem you face with the different "structure of evidence" for the two sides you defined. BUT it is your dichotomy - not mine. I merely showed you the main problems of YOUR scenario.

You set the OP - don't try to pass blame to me when you cannot defend a claim.
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
I think you claim too much for reasons mentioned above....
You think wrong and so far have not supported your claim.
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
...You appear unaware of other threads for which I have either provided the OP or a lot of posts.

You should search....
Irrelevant. AND
Why? It's your OP and I am strictly following your OP.

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
....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?
Irrelevant, off topic and garbage.
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
...No, that is incorrect for the reasons here given.
Not so and so far you have not given any relevant reasons which address my claims and cast a single legitimate doubt.
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 17th May 2012, 01:26 AM   #45
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,220
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A...8psychology%29

"An idée fixe is a preoccupation of mind held so firmly as to resist any attempt to modify it, a fixation. The name originates from the French [French : idée, idea + fixe, fixed]. Although not used technically to denote a particular disorder in psychology, idée fixe is used often in the description of disorders, and is employed widely in literature and everyday English.

...

"Molière also used the idée fixe repeatedly:[25]

Molière's more celebrated comic characters, Arnolphe, Orgon, Alceste, Harpagon, Monsieur Jourdain, Argan: each of them displays to the very end the obsession or idée fixe which colors his outlook on life. It is a characteristic of Molière's heroes that they are never ‘converted’: in every case the dénouement, far from curing them of their folly, merely confirms them in it."


No-planers cling to the no plane theory for dear life, and it becomes their life. They twist any and all evidence that disproves their theory to suit their one false truth.

Debating them online doesn't help them at all. It only gives them a chance to invent more false reasons to believe in their delusion.

Please get professional help, jammonius.
Orphia Nay 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 17th May 2012, 02:35 AM   #46
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
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?
Let me just remind you that advocating suicide is a breach of the MA .

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers 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 17th May 2012, 04:42 AM   #47
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
 
CompusMentus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Swansea UK
Posts: 1,798
^ :=]

Nominated


Compus
__________________
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earth-bound misfit

Last edited by CompusMentus; 17th May 2012 at 04:50 AM.
CompusMentus 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 17th May 2012, 05:09 AM   #48
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
I now await the Jammed One attempt to pass off part of a jet engine as a Plymouth wheel cover, an errror comparable to mistaking a living room ceiling fan for P-51 Mustang prop.

Even the simplest of simpletons isn't buying it jammy, so leave it out por favor.
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 17th May 2012, 05:31 AM   #49
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Did you require a ladder for that bit of cherrypicking? Here is what the relevant part actually says:


Greetings LashL,

Thank you for your analytical, deductive post. Addition of quoted material is not necessarily supportive of a claim of "cherrypicking". In the example you use, the additions do not serve the purpose you are claiming, which is that the addition clarifies and strengthens the claim a jetliner crashed into the South Tower. The quote you offer does not do that.

Instead, the quote you offer casts doubt on the accuracy of Firefighter Holowach's account. What on earth did he see? His account is quite confusing. In particular, you lift that part of his multipage statement wherein he claims:

"..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. .."

That description is rather unique and also rather incongruent. It disagrees with video depictions and it seems to presuppose a much slower speed than that claimed by the common storyline of 500+mph.

I am not here challenging the veracity of the account. I am making an attempt to interpret what the witness says solely on the basis of the plain meaning of the words used. That is what I do for all witnesses. I am not seeking to interpret the words favorably or unfavorably to a NO PLANE claim or a PLANE SPOTTER claim.

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").
Unmitigated nonsense? OK, I take it you disagree with the concept that the concept of one person standing behind another is not sufficiently analogous to saying "right next" to each other. That is fine. The statement says what it says and I do not quarrel with it.

Mind you, however, that it might look a bit odd for you to take exception to my substitution of "right next" for "behind" on one hand; and then you insert the word "somewhere" behind in the same sentence, on the other.

I here claim that if it is unreasonable to use the words "right next" as a resonable interpretation of Holowach's statement; then it is equally unreasonable to insert the word "somewhere" where it likewise is not to be found in his statement.

Your second claim "there is no indication of how much distance there is between the two" is useful I suppose. But that is not a valid criticism of my use of the witness. He said what he said. It is up to us to consider it and make what we can of it. Based on the tenor of your analytic, LashL, it would seem as though you are blaming me for what he said. I can here assure you I did not coach him on what to say.

Your claim concerning the time factor is likewise an accurate one. However, what interest are you advancing? Are you seeking to claim Holowach is useless as an eye witness or what?

You next claim there is no indication of what Chief Ganci was looking at, etc., all of which is true. What we are sure of, however, is that he was adamant an explosion had occurred, if his repitition of the word "no" can fairly be interpreted as an indicator of adamance.

Your fifth claim simply does not follow. It is not a reasonable interpretation of the witness exchange. You assume Holowach's version is correct, which is improper. Those in this thread that claim that spotting a plane is assumed to be correct are, in fact, merely making an assumption. That and no more.

It is equally reasonable to assume Ganci was spot on correct as it is to assume Holowach was spot on correct.

Wanting to believe the common storyline; and, in truth, wanting not to suspend disbelief (i.e., a skeptical stance) are each forms of bias. However, the one form of bias is not better than the other form of bias. Each are a factor in what a person may "believe". But, as I have said over and over again, I am not here questioning anyone's belief and I am not here making claims based on what I "believe." I am simply posting up claims based on data, information and rationally based proof.

Quote:
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.
Quoting Chief Ganci is neither an insult nor a disrespect.
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 17th May 2012, 05:38 AM   #50
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I was a witness.
Where were you located?
At what time did you arrive at that location?
Who were you with?
What did you see?
What did you hear?
What did you do?


Thanks
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 17th May 2012, 05:41 AM   #51
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
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,

Good on you. It can be very nice not to have doubt, correct?
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 17th May 2012, 05:44 AM   #52
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Quoting Chief Ganci is neither an insult nor a disrespect.
Your entire no-planer menu is an insult, a disrespect. Handwaving the murders of the passengers and crews of UA175, AA77, AA11 and UA93 based on a delusional fiction that has been debunked utterly and thoroughly is wantonly disrespectful.

Stop it.
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 17th May 2012, 05:46 AM   #53
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
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.

Source? Link?

Thank you
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 17th May 2012, 05:54 AM   #54
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by firecoins View Post
The video evidence shows jetliners. The videos showing United 175 comes from numerous sources including live news footage and individual citizens. AA 11 is clearly shown hitting the North tower on the Naudet film.

Nothing show by the poster starting the thread puts any doubt whatsoever in the recordings.
Your generalities lack sources and links. Your claim concerning the Naudet Bros. video is utterly false. That video is not at all clear; it is blurry, inconclusive and incongruent. It is almost never cited and it is not considered valid evidence.

Even one of the firefighters said to be in the video contradicts it in one important way. Chief Pfeifer says:

"I pulled in front of the building. I looked
up and I saw no fire coming out, no smoke coming out,
which would have been the west side of the building.
If I can back up, as we went down the street
after the initial explosion of the plane hitting, we
saw there was somewhat of a hole, from our position,
certainly, maybe three or four of the stories, three
stories I think I said. Again, there was no fire
coming out. So, when we got there, there was no fire
and on the west side there was no smoke. But there was
an obvious hole in the building."
Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110138.PDF pg. 3
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 17th May 2012, 05:57 AM   #55
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Where were you located?
At what time did you arrive at that location?
Who were you with?
What did you see?
What did you hear?
What did you do?


Thanks
None of your damn business.
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 17th May 2012, 05:58 AM   #56
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Mudcat View Post
Jam, it's like this. I am a skeptically minded individual, cynical even. Until you can come up with a conclusion that's better than the 'official story' and back it up with actual evidence then the only conclusion I can draw is that you story is the false one.

That's why we have such things as the null hypothesis and burden of proof. You understand this?

You might want to consider posting up an explanaation or outline of the level of proof you required or relied on for accepting the common storyline, together with some listing of factors that satisfied that level of proof. That, at least, would be consistent with your claim of being a skeptic.

It is my understanding that, for most people, seeing the shadowy image of a jetliner on teevee was sufficient proof that 4 jetliners were hijacked that day; and sufficient proof that two of them crashed, respectively, into WTC 1 and WTC 2; and, that one crashed into the Pentagon; and, that one crashed into a field at Shanksville Pa. No reliable teevee footage of any of the events other than the shadow thingy is thought to exist, but the teevee imagery for alleged FL 175 appears to have been the clincher for all 4 for many.

Last edited by jammonius; 17th May 2012 at 06:01 AM.
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 17th May 2012, 06:02 AM   #57
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
None of your damn business.
Very well.
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 17th May 2012, 06:03 AM   #58
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
What level of proof did you require for accepting the common storyline and how was that level of proof satisfied?
What is necessary to accept the common storyline is to be a sentient human being. A lot less is necessary of course if you are a no-plane enthusiast. As a matter of fact, I think less is required.
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 17th May 2012, 06:08 AM   #59
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Orphia Nay View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A...8psychology%29

"An idée fixe is a preoccupation of mind held so firmly as to resist any attempt to modify it, a fixation. The name originates from the French [French : idée, idea + fixe, fixed]. Although not used technically to denote a particular disorder in psychology, idée fixe is used often in the description of disorders, and is employed widely in literature and everyday English.

...

"Molière also used the idée fixe repeatedly:[25]

Molière's more celebrated comic characters, Arnolphe, Orgon, Alceste, Harpagon, Monsieur Jourdain, Argan: each of them displays to the very end the obsession or idée fixe which colors his outlook on life. It is a characteristic of Molière's heroes that they are never ‘converted’: in every case the dénouement, far from curing them of their folly, merely confirms them in it."


No-planers cling to the no plane theory for dear life, and it becomes their life. They twist any and all evidence that disproves their theory to suit their one false truth.

Debating them online doesn't help them at all. It only gives them a chance to invent more false reasons to believe in their delusion.

Please get professional help, jammonius.
This is rich. Here we have a quote about the meaning of an idee fixe set out in a forum where almost all are 'debunkers' who have nevah, evah, seen a piece of information that they will admit contradicts the common storyline of 9/11.

R e a l l y, Orphia
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 17th May 2012, 06:12 AM   #60
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Ozeco,

Would you agree with me that in more than 50 posts on this thread, I am the only poster who has sourced and linked any actual eye witnesses?

And, would you agree with me that the witnesses I have sourced and linked say things that contradict the common storyline?

Finally, Ozeco whether you post replies to me or not is your choice. If you know of any reliable witnesses sources, do please consider posting up quotes, properly sourced and linked.

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 17th May 2012, 06:15 AM   #61
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Your entire no-planer menu is an insult, a disrespect. Handwaving the murders of the passengers and crews of UA175, AA77, AA11 and UA93 based on a delusional fiction that has been debunked utterly and thoroughly is wantonly disrespectful.

Stop it.
No, I will not stop it. I do not tire of pointing out that you do not have any right to wrap yourself up into a claim of superior respect for victims. In fact, your doing so is utterly consistent with that bit of wisdom that states:

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Samuel Johnson

You do not own sympathy for victims.

Stop it.
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 17th May 2012, 06:17 AM   #62
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
What is necessary to accept the common storyline is to be a sentient human being. A lot less is necessary of course if you are a no-plane enthusiast. As a matter of fact, I think less is required.
What on earth are you talking about? Your post does not make any sense whatever.

Do better.
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 17th May 2012, 06:23 AM   #63
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
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.
No witnesses at all are offered in the above. The reluctance on the part of debunkers to review and assess what actual witnesses said is hard to understand in the context of the absolute certainty that witnesses who say the spotted a plane are so numerous; but, none have been quoted and properly linked in this thread at all.

I have elsewhere addressed the claim of "cherrypicking". That claim is false.
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 17th May 2012, 06:26 AM   #64
WTC Dust
Illuminator
 
WTC Dust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,529
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
No witnesses at all are offered in the above. The reluctance on the part of debunkers to review and assess what actual witnesses said is hard to understand in the context of the absolute certainty that witnesses who say the spotted a plane are so numerous; but, none have been quoted and properly linked in this thread at all.

I have elsewhere addressed the claim of "cherrypicking". That claim is false.
Jammonius,

What do you think about the possibility of a projected image of an airplane? This theory accommodates the video evidence and the eyewitness evidence. It doesn't say anyone is confused or lying when they report that they saw a plane. It also doesn't require complicity among the producers of the video evidence.

I favor the projected image theory because of these reasons.
__________________
The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.
WTC Dust 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 17th May 2012, 06:30 AM   #65
swright777
Muse
 
swright777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
What on earth are you talking about? Your post does not make any sense whatever.

Do better.
I think that post makes perfect sense. And I agree with what Resume posted.
swright777 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 17th May 2012, 06:35 AM   #66
swright777
Muse
 
swright777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by WTC Dust View Post
Jammonius,

What do you think about the possibility of a projected image of an airplane? This theory accommodates the video evidence and the eyewitness evidence. It doesn't say anyone is confused or lying when they report that they saw a plane. It also doesn't require complicity among the producers of the video evidence.

I favor the projected image theory because of these reasons.
It does say that the people who found plane parts and passenger DNA are lying. Also, it was impossible then and is still impossible now. That's why I'll go with reality instead.
swright777 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 17th May 2012, 06:38 AM   #67
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
No, I will not stop it. I do not tire of pointing out that you do not have any right to wrap yourself up into a claim of superior respect for victims. In fact, your doing so is utterly consistent with that bit of wisdom that states:

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Samuel Johnson

You do not own sympathy for victims.
Who's being patriotic? I am expressing sympathy, human empathy, kindness. You do not tire of pointing out a lot of things, including your bat-crap crazy no-plane ideas that deny reality. They also deny the dignity of the truth, the dignity of those lost on that day.

Do no-planers display sociopathic behavior? Maybe.
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 17th May 2012, 06:39 AM   #68
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by WTC Dust View Post
I favor the projected image theory because of these reasons.
You favor of lot of . . . eccentricities regarding 9/11.
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 17th May 2012, 06:41 AM   #69
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
What on earth are you talking about? Your post does not make any sense whatever.

Do better.
I'm sorry, I don't possess an English to jammy dictionary.
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 17th May 2012, 06:45 AM   #70
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Greetings LashL,

Thank you for your analytical, deductive post. Addition of quoted material is not necessarily supportive of a claim of "cherrypicking". In the example you use, the additions do not serve the purpose you are claiming, which is that the addition clarifies and strengthens the claim a jetliner crashed into the South Tower. The quote you offer does not do that.

Instead, the quote you offer casts doubt on the accuracy of Firefighter Holowach's account. What on earth did he see? His account is quite confusing. In particular, you lift that part of his multipage statement wherein he claims:

"..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. .."

That description is rather unique and also rather incongruent. It disagrees with video depictions and it seems to presuppose a much slower speed than that claimed by the common storyline of 500+mph.

I am not here challenging the veracity of the account. I am making an attempt to interpret what the witness says solely on the basis of the plain meaning of the words used. That is what I do for all witnesses. I am not seeking to interpret the words favorably or unfavorably to a NO PLANE claim or a PLANE SPOTTER claim.



Unmitigated nonsense? OK, I take it you disagree with the concept that the concept of one person standing behind another is not sufficiently analogous to saying "right next" to each other. That is fine. The statement says what it says and I do not quarrel with it.

Mind you, however, that it might look a bit odd for you to take exception to my substitution of "right next" for "behind" on one hand; and then you insert the word "somewhere" behind in the same sentence, on the other.

I here claim that if it is unreasonable to use the words "right next" as a resonable interpretation of Holowach's statement; then it is equally unreasonable to insert the word "somewhere" where it likewise is not to be found in his statement.

Your second claim "there is no indication of how much distance there is between the two" is useful I suppose. But that is not a valid criticism of my use of the witness. He said what he said. It is up to us to consider it and make what we can of it. Based on the tenor of your analytic, LashL, it would seem as though you are blaming me for what he said. I can here assure you I did not coach him on what to say.

Your claim concerning the time factor is likewise an accurate one. However, what interest are you advancing? Are you seeking to claim Holowach is useless as an eye witness or what?

You next claim there is no indication of what Chief Ganci was looking at, etc., all of which is true. What we are sure of, however, is that he was adamant an explosion had occurred, if his repitition of the word "no" can fairly be interpreted as an indicator of adamance.

Your fifth claim simply does not follow. It is not a reasonable interpretation of the witness exchange. You assume Holowach's version is correct, which is improper. Those in this thread that claim that spotting a plane is assumed to be correct are, in fact, merely making an assumption. That and no more.

It is equally reasonable to assume Ganci was spot on correct as it is to assume Holowach was spot on correct.

Wanting to believe the common storyline; and, in truth, wanting not to suspend disbelief (i.e., a skeptical stance) are each forms of bias. However, the one form of bias is not better than the other form of bias. Each are a factor in what a person may "believe". But, as I have said over and over again, I am not here questioning anyone's belief and I am not here making claims based on what I "believe." I am simply posting up claims based on data, information and rationally based proof.



Quoting Chief Ganci is neither an insult nor a disrespect.
I think the legal term for this post is pettifogging.
tsig 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 17th May 2012, 06:46 AM   #71
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
By what perverted logic is a witness who says "I didn't actually see the plane but I heard it" any kind of no-planer?
Jack by the hedge 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 17th May 2012, 06:47 AM   #72
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by swright777 View Post
It does say that the people who found plane parts and passenger DNA are lying. Also, it was impossible then and is still impossible now. That's why I'll go with reality instead.


Of course the bat crap crazy no planers will claim that this was "planted"
Animal 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 17th May 2012, 06:51 AM   #73
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
None of your damn business.


The questions are not asked to get information but to provide hooks for further baiting.
tsig 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 17th May 2012, 06:55 AM   #74
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
What is necessary to accept the common storyline is to be a sentient human being. A lot less is necessary of course if you are a no-plane enthusiast. As a matter of fact, I think less is required.
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
What on earth are you talking about? Your post does not make any sense whatever.

Do better.
Stumbled over the first hurdle.
tsig 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 17th May 2012, 07:03 AM   #75
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
By what perverted logic is a witness who says "I didn't actually see the plane but I heard it" any kind of no-planer?
It's better than that, anyone who was there and doesn't say specifically "I saw an airplane hit the towers" is a no planer. Every one who saw it on 'teevee' was fooled by an illusion.
tsig 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 17th May 2012, 07:04 AM   #76
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Ozeco,

Would you agree with me that in more than 50 posts on this thread, I am the only poster who has sourced and linked any actual eye witnesses?

And, would you agree with me that the witnesses I have sourced and linked say things that contradict the common storyline?

Finally, Ozeco whether you post replies to me or not is your choice. If you know of any reliable witnesses sources, do please consider posting up quotes, properly sourced and linked.

Blessings
<sigh> willfull ignorance of terminal stupidity from troofers never ceases.

"83rd floor: saw plane from 3-4 miles out, describes approach until impact, firefighters made it up to the 83rd floor?
My name is Jeff Benjamin and I was visiting a client, Axcelera Specialty Risk, on the 83rd floor of the North Tower when we observed an approaching aircraft (American Airlines Flt.11)from a distance of aprox. 3-4 miles. At the time we initially spotted the plane, it appeared to be level with us. We could distinctly identify the American airlines insignia and my client commented that perhaps the plane had taken off from Kennedy and was experiencing mechanical problems. As the plane approached us it seemed to climb. I stood up from the conference table and walked over to the window assuming as everyone did that there was no imminent danger. As the plane came closer we could see that it was traveling at a high rate of speed and the sound of the engines intensified. Immediately before impact we could see images in the cockpit and the plane banked sharply. A split second later we heard an echoing shot, fell to the floor and observed a fireball followed by debris which struck the side of the building. At the same time you could feel the building sway every so slightly for a brief moment. We immediately retreated towards the main part of the office where we noticed a huge fireball shooting out of the elevator shaft which quickly disappeared. Fortunately, the glass door between our office and the elevator lobby remained intact as the drywall and ceiling tiles caught fire. The fire burned off leaving thick acrid black smoke some of which entered the office through the ceiling where some tiles had collapsed above the reception desk. We immediately went to the kitchenette in the office to locate hand towels and paper towels which we wet down in the sink to stuff under the door and to cover our mouths to prevent as much smoke as possible from entering our lungs. No one seemed to know for sure where the stairways were, and since the smoke was heavy in the elevator lobby, we decided to stay in the office for the time being. Almost as if on cue the phones began to ring. Relatives and co-workers called to provide assurance and to let us know they had contacted 911 operators and advised them there were people located on the 83rd floor that need to be rescued. I personally contacted a 911 operator and let them know our location. The operator stated we should remain in the office as they would provide our whereabouts to the firemen which were already in the building and on their way up. Shortly thereafter the phones stopped ringing. Minutes passed which seemed like hours. We closed the office doors located by the exterior windows as we were afraid some of the debris crashing against the side of the building could break some windows and physically located near the walls bordering the elevator lobby. It became eerily quiet as everyone seemed to pause in reflection. I specifically recall a woman, who entered our office from the elevator lobby immediately after impact, stating "If you think we are in bad shape you should see the South Tower". We had heard a large explosion but were not aware that it came from the South Tower. I proceeded to go to the far end of the office where I could see the South Tower. When I looked down I observed fire which totally engulfed one of the lower floors. It was the most frightening sight I had ever seen. Aprox. 30 minutes had passed when we decided to attempt to escape. We exited the office holding paper towels over our face to shield us from the smoke and began to walk slowly down the hall carefully avoiding smoldering drywall and ceiling panels that had fallen. We had walked only about 20 steps when we heard an explosion in the building and the lights went out. Immediately, everyone turned around and stumbled back into the office. We waited in panicked silence starring towards the lobby. No one spoke as we stood there clutching our possessions. Five minutes passed, and then miraculously, we saw the beam of a flashlight in the lobby. We all shouted as we watched the ray of light approach the glass office door. The door opened and a fireman appeared along with a building worker. They were very calm and advised
http://911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/7639

Jeff Benjamin of Manchester, N.H., was visiting clients on the 83rd floor of the World Trade Center when he saw the plane heading straight into the building.

"It slammed into the window," Benjamin said. "Debris spilled. I don't know how we got out of the there alive. All the lights went out. We walked down the flight of stairs." http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091101/ter_012.shtml
Animal 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 17th May 2012, 07:40 AM   #77
WTC Dust
Illuminator
 
WTC Dust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,529
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
By what perverted logic is a witness who says "I didn't actually see the plane but I heard it" any kind of no-planer?
It falls into the category of "someone nearby who did not see a plane."
__________________
The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.
WTC Dust 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 17th May 2012, 07:53 AM   #78
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
It is my understanding that, for most people, seeing the shadowy image of a jetliner on teevee was sufficient proof that 4 jetliners were hijacked that day; and sufficient proof that two of them crashed, respectively, into WTC 1 and WTC 2; and, that one crashed into the Pentagon; and, that one crashed into a field at Shanksville Pa.
[citation needed]
MarkLindeman 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 17th May 2012, 07:57 AM   #79
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by WTC Dust View Post
Jammonius,

What do you think about the possibility of a projected image of an airplane? This theory accommodates the video evidence and the eyewitness evidence. It doesn't say anyone is confused or lying when they report that they saw a plane. It also doesn't require complicity among the producers of the video evidence.

I favor the projected image theory because of these reasons.
WTC Dust,

Yes, that is a reasonable inference and would be worthy of discussion in a forum where projection warfare could be taken seriously. It obviously takes little or no insight to know full well that contemporary warfare places a very high value on high tech means of deception and on psychological warfare.

9/11 was a PSYOP.

Have you taken a look at the information concerning the "face of Allah" idea that has received a fair amount of discussion in mainstream media sources?

For me, research on perception warfare is a fruitful area. There is quite a lot of publicly available information, but we are also hampered by military industrial complex secrecy on the technologies.

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 17th May 2012, 07:57 AM   #80
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by WTC Dust View Post
It falls into the category of "someone nearby who did not see a plane."
So what? It also falls into the category of someone nearby who heard a plane. That is obviously not a person who thinks there was no plane.

I did not see the 2005 Buncefield fuel depot explosion, but I certainly heard it. So I am not a no-explosioner. Do you understand?
Jack by the hedge 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 01:53 AM.
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.