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 17th May 2012, 08:05 AM   #81
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
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.
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
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, 08:09 AM   #82
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
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.
Nope, you do not have a monoply on sympathy for victims. The NO PLANE claim is sympathetic to victims as is every other facet of showing that 9/11 was a PSYOP and that the common storyline of it is utterly false.

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, 08:10 AM   #83
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
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?
Do you have a claim you'd like to make; if so, please make it.

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, 08:12 AM   #84
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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
Then how do you explain that the impacts were both captured on tape and witnessed by people both in the buildings and on the ground?
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 17th May 2012, 08:14 AM   #85
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Nope, you do not have a monoply on sympathy for victims. The NO PLANE claim is sympathetic to victims as is every other facet of showing that 9/11 was a PSYOP and that the common storyline of it is utterly false.

Blessings
What about the victims on the planes your delusion dismisses? This is a simple question requiring a simple answer.
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, 08:16 AM   #86
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ccb7d3c0cf.jpg

Of course the bat crap crazy no planers will claim that this was "planted"
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.
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, 08:16 AM   #87
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
stop feeding the troll
sheeplesnshills 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, 08:19 AM   #88
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by tsig View Post


The questions are not asked to get information but to provide hooks for further baiting.
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.
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, 08:24 AM   #89
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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.
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, 08:36 AM   #90
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
<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

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
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, 08:37 AM   #91
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
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?
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 17th May 2012, 08:40 AM   #92
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
What about the victims on the planes your delusion dismisses? This is a simple question requiring a simple answer.
Yes, the question is simple. The answer is concise. The proper characterization is "missing, presumed dead" or "cause of death, undetermined."
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, 08:44 AM   #93
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
So what did the witnesses actually see when they watched the planes hitting the buildings?
The debunker cause is not aided much by misrepresentation. Craig, you do realize you are engaging in a deceptive form of questioning, right?
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, 08:44 AM   #94
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
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
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 17th May 2012, 08:45 AM   #95
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
The debunker cause is not aided much by misrepresentation. Craig, you do realize you are engaging in a deceptive form of questioning, right?
Project much?
__________________
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 17th May 2012, 08:47 AM   #96
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
The debunker cause is not aided much by misrepresentation. Craig, you do realize you are engaging in a deceptive form of questioning, right?
Answer my question.
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 17th May 2012, 08:47 AM   #97
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
 
Dumb All Over's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name)
Posts: 6,844
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
speck
So, the towers were hit by specks. OK.
__________________
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
Dumb All Over 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, 08:55 AM   #98
swright777
Muse
 
swright777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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.
ftfy (bolding mine)
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, 08:55 AM   #99
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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
I see the hand waving competition is heating up among the troofers.
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, 08:56 AM   #100
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
The proper characterization is "missing, presumed dead" or "cause of death, undetermined."
That is an improper characterization unless you've been disassociated with reality since, I dunno, 9/12/01.
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, 08:58 AM   #101
jammonius
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

Last edited by jammonius; 17th May 2012 at 09:29 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, 09:02 AM   #102
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
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?
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 17th May 2012, 09:07 AM   #103
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
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
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 17th May 2012, 09:12 AM   #104
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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.
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.
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, 09:14 AM   #105
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
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
No. You're lying and you know it.
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, 09:15 AM   #106
WTC Dust
Illuminator
 
WTC Dust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,529
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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

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.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg The Last Days of the Deutsche Bank.JPG (54.6 KB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg Deutsche Bank 2.jpg (26.9 KB, 115 views)
File Type: jpg deutsche bank article.jpg (115.3 KB, 3 views)
__________________
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, 09:17 AM   #107
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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
Bolded = Lie.
Highlighted = Truth.
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, 09:17 AM   #108
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
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
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 17th May 2012, 09:20 AM   #109
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
Another idiotic thread
When SHC's suspension ends, which one magically goes away? Dusty or Jammie?
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, 09:21 AM   #110
swright777
Muse
 
swright777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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
Why would I admit to something that is false?

I didn't post links because you have probably been provided with them many times and just choose not to follow them.

But...

Plane part evidence here.

Victim and hijacker identification here.
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, 09:27 AM   #111
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,103
Originally Posted by EventHorizon View Post
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?
Well, I lied. I wasted my time reading through the thread. It appears I was correct about the second part though.
__________________
"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

Last edited by EventHorizon; 17th May 2012 at 09:32 AM.
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 17th May 2012, 09:41 AM   #112
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
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 forgot the part where the defendant has confessed and plead guilty in court.
__________________
"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 17th May 2012, 09:41 AM   #113
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Bolded = Lie.
Highlighted = Truth.
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.

Last edited by jammonius; 17th May 2012 at 09:44 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, 09:44 AM   #114
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
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
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 17th May 2012, 09:46 AM   #115
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Do you have a claim you'd like to make; if so, please make it.

Blessings
Yes: When a person says he heard a plane and didn't see it, I claim that it is absurd and utterly illogical to infer from that statement that the person believes there was no plane.
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, 09:47 AM   #116
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
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.
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 17th May 2012, 09:48 AM   #117
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
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.
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.
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, 09:50 AM   #118
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,103
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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.
You don't really know the definition of the word "reasonable" do you?
__________________
"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 17th May 2012, 09:50 AM   #119
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
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.
Show us the fake planes in the videos.
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 17th May 2012, 09:51 AM   #120
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
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.
I hilited the word you don't understand.

__________________
"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
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 01:00 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.