|
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. |
17th May 2012, 08:05 AM | #81 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
Sw,
Your post is disengenuous. You try to sneak in through the side door the claim of plane parts and the claim of passenger DNA. There is not one shred of verified evidence of any plane part at all. I have already quoted Chief Pfeifer on not seeing any evidence of a plane upon arriving at WTC 1. Likewise, there is no confirmed, validated evidence of any passenger DNA. All sources of and for DNA claims are second hand, at best, third hand, shrouded in mystery, deception and misrepresentation. And, needless to say, your post offers no sources, no links and no information at all about either plane parts or about passenger DNA. The plight of debunkers in those two matters is quite serious. I seem to recall debunkers falling over one another concerning a piece of junk found in landfill, no less, rusty, dusty and just as easily interpreted as a truck transmission as anything else. Yet, debunkers convinced themselves they were looking at a jet engine part from a Boeing 767. I do not care what debunkers believe about that or any other piece of junk in a landfill, photographed sometime after 9/11. The proper way to identify a jet engine and to relate it to a particular aircraft and flight is through plane part identification and authentication. No such investigation was done for any alleged 9/11 flight. There is no plane part evidence at all. Zero, zilch, zip, nada. Will debunkers admit that? Probably not. Likewise, there is no passenger DNA, similarly authenticated and verified. z,z,z,n. Will debunkers admit it; not likely. Will you? Blessings |
17th May 2012, 08:09 AM | #82 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
|
17th May 2012, 08:10 AM | #83 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
|
17th May 2012, 08:12 AM | #84 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
17th May 2012, 08:14 AM | #85 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
17th May 2012, 08:16 AM | #86 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
And, in so doing, they will point to the flatbed truck seen nearby. They will also discuss the incongruity of something stuck in just the right place to make it look as if it is a plane part.
They will also point out that no part or piece of an aircraft was ever analyzed for its plane part number and thus confirmed as such in the normal way that a forensic evaluation demands. They will aslo indicate that whatever was seen in that photo was not preserved and cannot even be found in the 9/11 Memorial Museum, I don't think; however, as I haven't been to the Museum as yet, I do not know this with certainty. |
17th May 2012, 08:16 AM | #87 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
|
stop feeding the troll
|
17th May 2012, 08:19 AM | #88 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
You haven't got any basis for your claim about motivation. What is certain, however, is that no information was provided to support a claim the poster made. In fact, it is a bit disengenuous to make a claim and then refuse to say what the claim is.
But, then again, debunkers do not seem evah to demand much from each other. They are, well, "true believers" I guess. |
17th May 2012, 08:24 AM | #89 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
|
17th May 2012, 08:36 AM | #90 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
Hey debunkers, The above is the first effort to provide a sourced and linked eye witness account. I can imagine that if the above were a NO PLANE account, then the criticism of the fact that it comes from a website named STORIES OF SEPTEMBER 11 would receive a healthy dose of skeptical analysis, along the lines done by, say, LashL of my firefighter, verified witnesses. Likewise, the other reference for this witness is a newspaper account that is noteworthy for it being written by a reporter where the reporter provides second hand accounts that are simply not very reliable as evidence or as information. That the lengthy Benjamin statement was posted up more than 1 year later might also get some mention if it were a NO PLANE account. I won't do that. I will simply say debunkers have now posted a total of 1 Plane Spotter witnesses. It is up to each person who reviews and/or posts such accounts to make what they will of the value of the eyewitness. As for me, they count as eye witnesses in terms of quantity. Speaking just for me, I do not think the Benjamin account is all that credible for a variety of technical reasons, starting with his calculation he saw the plane when it was "3-4 miles out". I don't think that is credible. I think he made that up. Contributed by: Jeff Benjamin Contributor's location on 9/11: 83rd Floor WTC North Tower Contributed on: September 16, 2002 But, I am not here saying he is lying. He is an eye witness and what he said and what he posted a year later is an eye witness account as far as I am concerned. What I will say, however, is that he does not put much of a dent into the NO PLANE claim at all. Blessings |
17th May 2012, 08:37 AM | #91 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
So what did the witnesses actually see when they watched the planes hitting the buildings?
|
17th May 2012, 08:40 AM | #92 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
|
17th May 2012, 08:44 AM | #93 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
|
17th May 2012, 08:44 AM | #94 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
Another idiotic thread
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
17th May 2012, 08:45 AM | #95 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
17th May 2012, 08:47 AM | #96 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
17th May 2012, 08:47 AM | #97 |
A Little Ugly on the Side
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name)
Posts: 6,844
|
|
__________________
The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead." "Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin |
|
17th May 2012, 08:55 AM | #98 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
|
|
17th May 2012, 08:55 AM | #99 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
|
17th May 2012, 08:56 AM | #100 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
17th May 2012, 08:58 AM | #101 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
NO PLANE WITNESS COUNT: (Ganci,Gregory,jr343,Pfeifer,Sandvik) 5
Firefighter David Sandvik "I never heard the motor of the plane, the sound of the engines. We just heard the explosion, you felt the explosion, and looking straight up and seeing that fireball that you see on the news, but we're underneath looking up now at it." Source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110375.PDF pg 4 |
17th May 2012, 09:02 AM | #102 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
So what about all the other people who saw the planes hit?
|
17th May 2012, 09:07 AM | #103 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
Good tactic, Jamm. You're like a defense lawyer defending a client from a murder that was witnessed by dozens of people and video cameras by bringing in a couple witnesses who didn't see it.
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
17th May 2012, 09:12 AM | #104 |
Man of a Thousand Memes
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
|
No. I've lived near where aircraft operate for most of my life so I know what is happening here. From the ground the further away an aircraft is from you is the slower it seems to move. You can see a similar effect in NASCAR races.
What's the alternative then? You keep on insisting that it wasn't planes so what was it then? |
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner. |
|
17th May 2012, 09:14 AM | #105 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
17th May 2012, 09:15 AM | #106 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,529
|
As I thought. I'd like to add a bit about eyewitnesses, that is somewhat related to the thread. I want to talk about the people I've interviewed, and a little bit about "witnessing" in general, which isn't always about what a person sees. There are four people I've interviewed that I have organized into sort of a "representative group" of the total number of eyewitnesses that I've talked to about what they saw on 9/11. Out of the few dozen people I've spoken to who qualify as witnesses to the NYC attacks, these four stand out. They were all literally eyewitnesses to the attacks, meaning they were outside looking at the World Trade Center at 9:03AM on 9/11/2001. All of these people are people that I knew well in my personal life. Two of them were on the street near the WTC itself, in lower Manhattan. Neither of these individuals saw a plane, even though they both were looking at the buildings at the moment that a plane is said to have hit WTC 2. Two other witnesses insist that they did see a plane. One of them was standing on top of the roof of MontClair college in New Jersey. One of them was looking out a high school window in Brooklyn. Both saw a plane. Both insisted over and over again that they weren't at all confused or mistaken. It looked like a plane to them. What is my take home message from these four examples? There was something in the sky that day that (at least) looked like a plane, but that it wasn't easily visible if you were standing to the WTC. How do these four eyewitness examples fit into your understanding of the attack on NYC? Can you come to another conclusion using these four? The reason I hold these as higher quality evidence is obviously, that I know the people, but also because I had the chance to really grill them about it. The other people I've asked about it do not qualify as quite as rigorous, and I have gotten some responses that I do not characterize as high quality. One woman told me she herself saw a plane with her own eyes and not on TV, but I only talked to her a little bit. I have no reason to doubt her. Another man came up to me insisting there was a plane, when my sign had nothing to do with planes (It said, "Energy weapons destroyed the WTC"). When I asked him about it, eventually it came out that somebody ran in his office saying that he saw plane parts on the ground, and that he himself wasn't in a position to see a plane and didn't actually see a plane or any plane parts. Not everyone has a consistent story who says they were an eyewitness. But lets jump to other types of witnesses. How about nose-witnesses? Millions of people smelled the stench, and that stench lasted for a very long time after the attacks. Smell has a particular character about it that it imprints itself into deep memory centers. I believe that if I am able to reproduce the process that destroyed the WTC, and develop a smell-test of some sort, that there are millions of people alive who can attest to the smell. This could be used as proof. Do you see what I'm getting at here? It didn't smelled like ozone, or burning plastic, or anything else that I've ever smelled before, and I personally know I would recognize it again if I ever encountered it again. I might not have mentioned it in any of my posts that you've read, but I did smell it again, as late as 2009 while walking past the Deutsche Bank before it was demolished. I messaged Dr. Wood that night to mention it to her, because I had previously mentioned to her that I was catching whiffs of it now and again all those years later. Also, remember that the Deutsche Bank kept suffering strange fires and deconstruction shutdowns? Well the Metro published this article about how smoke removal equipment had failed, allowing smoke to accumulate in the Deutsche Bank, forcing deconstruction to stop. This isn't normal in a dead building. Nothing was going on in the Deutsche Bank for years! There's no reason whatsoever for "smoke" to be accumulating in that building, but since it was, I was there to catch whiffs of it as late as 2009. Look at the article and tell me if you think the Deutsche Bank might have been still fuming from the 2001 attacks. It smelled the same to me. I'm not an eyewitness to the attacks, but I am a nose-witness to the aftermath. You can hear, smell, feel, and taste things, all of which are qualities that I've taken into account during my efforts at digging up the truth about what destroyed the WTC. |
__________________
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. |
|
17th May 2012, 09:17 AM | #107 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
17th May 2012, 09:17 AM | #108 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
Post number 5. End of thread. No plane case thrown out of court
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
17th May 2012, 09:20 AM | #109 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
17th May 2012, 09:21 AM | #110 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
|
|
17th May 2012, 09:27 AM | #111 |
Atheist Tergiversator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,103
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
17th May 2012, 09:41 AM | #112 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
|
|
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick |
|
17th May 2012, 09:41 AM | #113 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
Greetings Noah,
Although I think you err in referencing the bolded matters as a lie, the part that you acknowledge as "truth" is actually rather damning of the common storyline. Even that degree of acknowledgment is often lacking from the debunker community as a whole. I sure hope you don't end up getting shunned or scolded by your colleagues. |
17th May 2012, 09:44 AM | #114 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
jammonius:
How did you "confirm and validate" your evidence? |
__________________
"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 |
|
17th May 2012, 09:46 AM | #115 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
|
17th May 2012, 09:47 AM | #116 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
Okay, so except for the massive FBI investigation (PENTBOM) there was no inquiry into the attacks on the WTC.
|
17th May 2012, 09:48 AM | #117 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
|
What you mention is the stuff of "reasonable doubt" is it not?
Next, the witnesses who said they saw a murder are grilled for accuracy and the video is analyzed for validity and authenticity, right? As you may know, video evidence is pretty easy to have tossed out as inadmissible precisely because a lot of videos fail the proper tests of authenticity. That certainly applies to the bulk of the Flight 175 videos, for sure. |
17th May 2012, 09:50 AM | #118 |
Atheist Tergiversator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,103
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
17th May 2012, 09:50 AM | #119 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
17th May 2012, 09:51 AM | #120 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|