Direct challenge to "no-planers"...

[SDuderstadt]

Can even one of you produce a single witness that saw something other than a passenger plane hit either Tower or the Pentagon? The ground rules are simple: Not "looked like" or "I thought it must be" and certainly no clipped quotes (for those of you who try this, I'll simply find the quote and post it in its entirety, so save yourself further embarrassment). For those of you who claim a missile hit the Pentagon and cite, as "evidence" the lack of people who saw a passenger jet hit it (although I have linked numerous times to direct eyewitness acoounts of people who saw exactly that), aren't you embarrassed that you cannot find a SINGLE witness that saw a missile hit it or anyone who found missile debris outside or inside the Pentagon? How many times do you have to be embarrassed before you give this up?


C'mon! I know you can do it!

[Ghost in the Machine]

1. .........

:popcorn:

[SDuderstadt]

2. C'mon, "no-planers"...

Cowboy up....surely ONE of you can produce a witness for your goofy claims!

[jberryhill]

3. That's an easy challenge, and I'll take it up for the "no planers"

There are a number of statements that refer to a "missile" hitting the Pentagon, and I'm sure that someone will remind you that Rumsfeld or some other Pentagon official did indeed refer to a "missile" hitting the Pentagon.

This, of course, is due to the fact that any flown or thrown object is a "missile", including an airplane used as a missile.

A classic no-planer quote is this one, straight from a DoD website:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3845

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld October 12, 2001

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.

There, you see, Rumsfeld said "missile".

They probably left it in the transcript, because they were concentrating on changing "thermite" to "inaudible", because Rumsfeld had a liquid lunch that day and was spilling the beans all over the place.

Although the transcript is pretty bad - leaving "filed" in for "filled". I'm sure there's something that can be read into that.... they weren't real people, they were just characters dug up from our files.... or something along those lines.

[Blocked]

4. Sure...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AfTyOyKEEQ

WTC Eyewitness: No second fly, it was a bomb, bomb in the other building. Not a second plane. It was a bomb. Who said a second plane?

FOX propagandist: That's what we're told, a "second plane." We saw it on television.

WTC eyewitness: No, I saw everything.

What do we win?

[SDuderstadt]

14. Do I really have to specify no anonymous eyewitnesses?

"No second fly"? If I have to get technical here, I am asking for any eyewitness who SAW the impact and says it was anything other than a plane.

[spooked911]

23. David Handschuh, for one

http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=4318

"Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. And the second tower just exploded. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of hostility. I didn’t see the plane hit, although I was looking at the tower at the time. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter, making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower."

He was in fact on the south side of the south tower, in position to see a plane.

Yes, he did say he saw some plane debris in the hoods of "limos", FWIW.

[SDuderstadt]

28. This just gets goofier and goofier....

Here's part of your witness's quote:

I didn’t see the plane hit, although I was looking at the tower at the time. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter, making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower.

Your own witness CONFIRMS that a plane hit the tower! In fact, if he was claiming there as no plane, he would most likely said something like, "I didn't see A plane hit", not "I didn't see THE plane hit". Do I have to post the rules once more?. As I have said repeatedly, I love it when "truthers" actually supply quotes/sources that debunk their own claims. Frickin' amazing.

[spooked911]

50. "I didn’t see the plane hit, although I was looking at the tower at the time."

Enough said.

[SDuderstadt]

53. Except he acknowledges that the plane hit...

This is not an example of something that, in any way, proves the no-plane theory. As always, it is just the "no-planers" taking something and spinning it to mean something the speaker is not saying or implying. By Handschuh's own account (the exact same quote you drew from), he states that he snapped a picture MILLISECONDS after THE plane hit the building. Ask yourself a simple question. How did he snap the picture within milliseconds if he wasn't already looking through the viewfinder? Also note, he's making a general statement, "although I was looking at the tower at the time". Does he say precisely where he was looking? No. He also stated earlier in his account that he was hearing sounds and witnessing people leaping to their death (from the link to the asne website). Accordingly, it's quite possible or even probable that was "looking" at the lower part of the building.


Again, this is what bothers me about CT's and their lack of critical thinking skills. They especially fall prey to a logical fallacy called "unwarranted conclusion". Handschuh simply does not give the listener or reader enough information to conclude that no plane hit the building. If anything, since he states, "I didn't see THE plane hit the building", rather than "I didn't see A plane hit the building" (note at this point, he is simply relating a narrative and is not answering a question as to whether he saw a plane hit the building), it's far more likely that he is, in essence, acknowledging a plane hit the building, he just didn't happen to see it. Why you or anyone else would find this suspicious is beyond me.

I've got a great idea. Why don't you invite Handschuh to join "No-planers for 9/11 Truth" and see what happens. I'm pretty sure you'll find Handschuh firmly in the "a 757 hit both Towers and people who maintain otherwise are delusional" camp.

[Blocked]

5. Direct challenge to "planehuggers"

Can even one of you produce a single news reporter reporting live on the ground that saw or heard a passenger plane hit either Tower?

[Bassman66]

6. Where is the logic

in faking a second impact 20 minutes after the first one that drew the attention of thousands of people?

Wouldn't it be so much easier to fly a plane into the building then control the unknown mass of people watching?

No planes makes no sense.

[Blocked]

7. If real planes hit, then you should have no problem with this challenge:

"Can even one of you produce a single news reporter reporting live on the ground that saw or heard a passenger plane hit either Tower?"

[Bassman66]

8. there are 40+ videos of the second impact

are there any showing an explosion and no plane?

[Blocked]

9. If you can not complete my challenge, just say so.

And btw, videos can be faked.

[Bassman66]

12. No member of the public came forward

with a video of an explosion and no plane.
It's simple.

There are 40+ videos, mostly from the public of the second impact.

Nobody in their right mind would fake the second impact with so many people watching and believe they could ensure that no videos of the fake explosion without a plane became public.

Nobody.

[SDuderstadt]

17. Are you honestly suggesting that the countless videos showing the plane...

hitting the tower have all been faked? Really? How in the world did the confiscators know where every video was, let alone confiscate them? As I've said before, one only needs Logic to completely debunk the "no-planes" nonsense.


P.S. Start your own challenge in your own OP if you want. The rules here are simple. I'm waiting for any "no-planer" to produce a named (non-anonymous) eyewitness to the impact who says it was something other than a plane.

[Blocked]

19. Nice moving of the goal post.

"produce a named (non-anonymous) eyewitness"

That wasn't in your OP and seeing no plane is "something other than a plane".

[Ghost in the Machine]

20. That's his MO. Prove him wrong, he moves the goal posts...

"The ground rules are simple: Not "looked like" or "I thought it must be" and certainly no clipped quotes (for those of you who try this, I'll simply find the quote and post it in its entirety, so save yourself further embarrassment)."

Don't waste your time on that one, ok? Prove him wrong more than once and he'll screech like a banshee, then put you on ignore.

[SDuderstadt]

21. It's right in the first couple of sentences, dude...

"Can even one of you produce a single witness that saw something other than a passenger plane hit either Tower or the Pentagon?" I also said that I would check any quotes so it shouldn't be surprising that anonymous witnesses wouldn't cut it. If you want to go down the path that nothing at all hit either the towers or the Pentagon and that they were any sort of controlled demolition, then produce any pictures or evidence you have of how it was accomplished. We have plenty of pictures of either airplanes hitting the structures and/or debris. It's my question and, thus, my rules. You guys, on the other hand, have nothing. Sorry to ruin your day.

[spooked911]

25. we do have physics -- and a bunch of fake looking videos-- on our side

the no-planers, that is

[SDuderstadt]

29. But you don't have physics on your side....

oh, wait....has "Physicists for 9/11 Truth" been formed and we didn't get the memo?

[Bassman66]

32. No you don't

You have a completely insane scenario where a second impact is faked 20 minutes after the first one, unknown numbers (thousands) are watching, unknown nationalities living in unknown locations, some with cameras and videos.

No faker could control that situation.

It would be far easier to smash a plane into that building than control the aftermath of a fake.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Quit trying to use Logic with hardcore "truthers"....

by hardcore, I mean people who advance silly "no planes" and "DEW". There is nothing at all wrong with seeking answers about what actually happened on 9/11, but much of the more outrageous and, also, seemingly reasonable stuff has been repeatedly debunked. For example, I have a friend whom, no matter how much evidence of the 757 hitting the Pentagon - eyewitness accounts, 757 debris and positive passenger identification - continues to insist that "we don't know what hit the Pentagon". It's extremely frustrating.

[spooked911]

37. I disagree completely-- you are looking at it wrong

Pre-planted explosives and fake videos and planted witnesses are a much more sure thing than getting a plane to hit a target like that and disappear inside.

In any case, the physics are clearly wrong. And the videos are fake.

[SDuderstadt]

39. And, of course...

it would be far more easy just to make sure all the witnesses were "planted". Uh-huh.

[Flatulo]

44. Why didn't anyone see the perps spraying airplane parts all over Manhattan?

[spooked911]

51. gee, amazing that covert ops specialists weren't spotted doing their dirty work

[Flatulo]

52. That's not an explanation. How do you 'plant' tons of airplane debris?

Where were the trucks carrying the turbines? What about the forklifts and cranes needed to lift these massive structures?

What about the massive landing gear that was found embedded in the perimeter columns?

I'm dying to hear how this was pulled off.

[SDuderstadt]

54. You're "begging the question" here....

Explain how someone could plant aircraft parts over a wide area and NOT be seen. Do you honestly expect us to believe that someone was hiding an aircraft engine under their coat? Please stop before you embarrass the "truth movement" even further.

[jberryhill]

45. Nailed it...

...the contortions required to fake the planes are more difficult than just flying a plane into the building.

All those passengers are off sipping pina coladas somewhere, lucky folks.

[Flatulo]

10. That's an interesting challenge. The usual 'no plane' challenge is

to find a Flight 175 witness with NO media connections.

Anyway,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BPZV3EgwtA

[Flatulo]

11. Is this a trick? By 'produce' a reporter, do you mean that I have her

show up at your house?

[SDuderstadt]

16. I'm with you, Bassman...

We've had our disagreements on other things but we both agree that "no-planers" make no sense

[sabbat hunter]

13. I can produce

my friends who were eyewitnesses (NYU students at the time and were in battery park when the planes hit) and saw the second plane hit the south tower.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Yeah, but "no planers" will apparently only count them if...

they were news reporters reporting live from the ground. Oy.

[Flatulo]

22. ... or if they were *not* news reporters. They're also usually excluded.

[SDuderstadt]

15. We've produced plenty....

We're asking the questions here. Simply put, do you have a SINGLE eyewitness that saw anything other than a plane hit either Tower. Nice try at trying to shift the burden of proof.

[spooked911]

24. David Handschuh (see above)

there are a couple of others I could dig up if you really want

[SDuderstadt]

30. Dude....Handschuh actually disproves the claim...

Did you notice that?

[spooked911]

38. he was in a spot to see the plane and didn't

how does that disprove the claim?

[SDuderstadt]

42. Dude....I've already addressed this....

Handschuh stated that he didn't see THE plane, not that he didn't see A plane. Do you get the distinction? He also states "a picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower", referring to a picture he snapped. A millisecond is one-thousandth of a second, right? So, why didn't Handschuh see THE plane. Because he was looking through the viewfinder of his camera (he doesn't say what he was focused on). Do you honestly think he was just staring at the building, then happened to bring the camera up and snap the photo within a few milliseconds. He also states that he doesn't even remember actually taking the photo, yet he obviously did. This is just another example of a "truther" taking a quote and bending it into something the speaker did not quite say. When you have any sort of quote from Handschuh either denying that a plane hit the building or he saw something else hit the building, then you might have something. Go back and read my challenge carefully again.

[spooked911]

49. You're over-interpreting what he says to suit your agenda

He obviously has been conditioned to think there was a plane, like 99.99% of people. He was looking up at the tower when it was hit. He didn't see a plane. If he heard a noise, surely he would have looked up for the massive 767 that was supposely flying right over him.

He is a no plane witness. Of course you're going to say he just missed it, as you have no choice if you believe in the plane.

[SDuderstadt]

55. Show us where he says he was....

"looking UP"...of course, he says no such thing. You also completely ignore his statement about snapping a picture of the impact "milliseconds" after it happened. You also conveniently leave out that he witnessed aircraft parts at street level.


Your claim that I am "over interpreting" what he says is uninended irony, right? The evidence (countless eyewitnesses who DID see the plane hit the building, the physical debris evidence, as well as the simple fact that all those passengers and the corresponding plane are acknowledged by the airline to be missing), makes your "case", to put it mildly, ludicrous.

I have a simple question. Why don't "no-planers" apply the same standard of proof they require from the "official story" to their own goofy and implausible theories? If you claim that "covert agents" spread aircraft parts all over the scene (including imbedding them hundreds of feet off the ground in buildings), and NO ONE saw them, explain how they did it and how that is easier to believe instead of what actually happened. I find it ironic that you could claim there was "no plane" because people like Handschuh didn't happen to see it, yet you claim "covert agents" littered the site with aircraft debris but NO ONE saw it. Do you realize how laughable that is? In other words, you're claiming that the fact that handschuh didn't happen to see the plane proves there wasn't one, but the fact that no one saw anyone planting aircraft parts is evidence it DID happen. Oy.


And, to the "legitimate truthers": You complain all the time that debunkers focus more on "no-planers" and other equally absurd theorists and that they "must be plants" in order to discredit "truthers". If, in fact, that's the case, why don't you take them on yourselves? After all, it's not debunkers' credibility which is slowly circling the drain. You'd seriously better deal with them before the "truth movement" becomes nore of a laughingstock than it already is.

[SDuderstadt]

43. Dude....I've already addressed this....

Handschuh stated that he didn't see THE plane, not that he didn't see A plane. Do you get the distinction? He also states "a picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower", referring to a picture he snapped. A millisecond is one-thousandth of a second, right? So, why didn't Handschuh see THE plane? Because he was obviously looking through the viewfinder of his camera (he doesn't say what he was focused on). Do you honestly think he was just staring at the building, then happened to bring the camera up and snap the photo within a few milliseconds? He also states that he doesn't even remember actually taking the photo, yet he obviously did. This is just another example of a "truther" taking a quote and bending it into something the speaker did not quite say. When you have any sort of quote from Handschuh either denying that a plane hit the building or he saw something else hit the building, then you might have something. Go back and read my challenge carefully again.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

26. "We're asking the questions here"

:rofl:

You're an endless souce of amusement . . .

[SDuderstadt]

31. I always wondered what you look like, Mr. J....

Damned if that isn't EXACTLY what I suspected you look like, although you seem more like Frank Burns. Actually neither Frank Burns NOR Barney Fife were respected by anyone, so you could easily be either one.

[Ghost in the Machine]

34. Well, what do ya know! I found a picture of you at an OCTabot meeting

That's you on the right, right?

[maryf]

35. Steroids??

Doesn't a huge gap like that indicate their use? Wow that explains a lot! ;-)

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. LOL!

I don't know about steroids, but it's a sure sign of using a pacifier intot he teen years...


:hi:

[maryf]

41. oooh and probably bottle fed...

another explanation for "barking" up the wrong tree1! ;-)

[jberryhill]

46. I'm miffed....

I thought you would at least post my centerfold shot from Government Shill Monthly.

[Ghost in the Machine]

48. Damn! Sorry Mr Berryhill! I'll try to do better next time...

But, as I've stated before, I respect you, so I don't do you that way. You and Flatulo have my utmost respect, even though we disagree on some things... at least you guys are civil, and I appreciate that. We may get a little animated sometimes, but I don't think we've ever crossed the line of incivility. AZCat is another one I respect and can't/won't say anything negative about.

I wonder if I should send in my portfolio to "Twoofer Monthly"?


PEACE!

Ghost

[balantz]

27. If the conspiracy includes the media

then access to eyewitness accounts are probably a scrub priority.

[maryf]

36. and now for a different flick, dare ya!

I'm really curious if you've watched this video, if not, its free and not that long, the flight 93 stuff is pretty interesting, and its a totally different, much less incendiary movie than the first:

http://www.loosechange911.com/finalcut/

[jberryhill]

47. Why do you suppose that LC:FC is so different from LC1, LC2, and LC2 director's cut? /nt