Can anyone of you debunk the debunkers?????

reply to post by weedwhacker


sorry....still not sure how the linky thingy works....well, you can type it in yourselves, for a start....and I'll go try to read the ATS Handbook again.

I just wish I could print selected pages from the Handbook, not the whole ten yards!!!

WW

edit....thanks, and sorry, elevated....

[edit on 6/18/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Kulturcidist

There's a lot of "broad claims" in this story. Here's your story again but I've modified it to only include the things that I've been able to confirm with my own research. As for what I left out, I haven't found evidence for it yet.


Circa 1999: A bunch of Islamic terrorists ..... pondering their next strike on US interests.

... they would like to one-up their previous effort, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania so ....

...

... we already tried taking one of em down back in '93.

....

it'd be quite satisfying to see them towers fall

....

So a plot is gradually hatched, ... martyrs are handpicked and dispathed to Amrika for infiltration and planning, ... They take flying lessons, only they don't seem very interested in learning how to take off and land.

...

The ... day comes. They've gone over the plan ... times. They have their tickets. They have concealable ...(knives) ...

They board their respective flights and sit down ... The aircraft take off ... Until.....

....

... they grab a flight attendant or ... passenger and ... they slit ...(his) throat ...

....

They ... proceed ... into the cockpit.... They switch off the planes' transponders making it ... difficult for Air Traffic Control to track them.

.... they know how to steer the aircraft in the desired direction ...

... plot their course and home in on their targets, which just happen to be ... large and conspicious.

... IMPACT.

This happens ... with 3 of the 4 flights. On flight 93 a brave group of passengers, ... learned of the WTC hits via airphone communication with the ground ..., decide, having nothing to lose at this point, to attempt to take back control of the situation .... at the cost of their own lives.

That obviously wasn't meant to be a 100% accurate account of how it went down, I was just demonstrating how plausible such a scenario is as opposed to the Inside Job theory.

Less people & simple plan = higher chances of success.

reply to post by Griff


OK, Griff....I've searchecd and searched in the ATS Handbook, and at the YouTube website.....the only 'link' I see is the url.....and that results in an embed, and we know we don't want that....so, I'm at a bit of a loss -- EXCEPT

here, type it in yourself (sorry)....NjaN8Nqn8CE

Thanks

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What, are you some other ATS member in disquise?? Are you a stalker?? No, because if you had bothered to read, you'd have known I flew for 12+ years in the left seat for a major airline....before leaving. So, you WILL NOT INSULT me, sir.

Shall we check your IP address??? Perhaps a Mod may wish to look into it...of course, what's the point if it's just some troll who uses an internet cafe?

Let's stick to the topic and not focus on who a member may, or may not, be. We're a bit LEARy of him as well but that is our job.

Back to the topic at hand.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

GF, who in the #!@$ are you to call me "First Officer Weedwhacker"!!!!!!

What, are you some other ATS member in disquise?? Are you a stalker?? No, because if you had bothered to read, you'd have known I flew for 12+ years in the left seat for a major airline....before leaving. So, you WILL NOT INSULT me, sir.

My apologies, oh four-striped one. I gave your debunking partner in crime a temporary promotion to make him feel better about his 180 TT hours. But he's starting to annoy me with all his Trivial Pursuit BS. You should feel lucky I didn't confuse you with Hani Hanjour.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Methinks I detect a fairly similar tone, here, to someone else.....but I will name no names.

Name away. I'm a newbie who's never been here before. Interested in a lot more than 9/11, but it's kinda my specialty and it's too easy to get caught up in debates.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
EDIT for personal info....my timeline...upgrade from Right to Left seat B737, late 1992. Transfer to left seat, DC9/MD80 for a better commuting experience, circa 1995. Circa 1997, switch to the B757 (later the B767-400 were introduced to the fleet, then the B767-200s). Skip ahead to 2002...post 9/11, big changes in the business, cutbacks. Better to be a VERY SENIOR F/O for a while, until conditions improve...2003, back to CA on the B737.....Had enough yet? Satisfied???????

Very cool, even as an ideological opponent. The only guys I have no respect for are the paid debunkers, who unfortunately abound. I hope you're not one of them. Selling your soul to become a professional liar for TPTB is despicable. I guess someone's gotta do it, but they already control every media outlet in America and they won't be happy until they control all the information on the internet too.

Anyway, for a B737 in Cawleefornia, I'd guess Southwest, cause they're the only ones who can afford fuel these days.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


OK Fleece....back to topic, now that we've both had our say.

PS...ummm....I do not get paid while I sit here and type my personal thoughts and opinions. I come with certain knowledge, see others who see to lack what I know...conversely, I am ignorant of what others know, and I learn from them. If it's possible for someone else to learn from me, than I feel a bit of satisfaction.

(I think there's a thread....probably long-lost...about ATS being addictive. Well, I resemble that remark!!! ... it's a little joke......)

oops....hit the 'button' before finishing my on-topic thought!!

For Mr. Golden....I was an acquaintance of F/O David Charlebois....friend of a friend...this is AAL77 I'm referring to...I felt it only fitting that I could attend his funeral service, here in DC. It was very moving to see his friends and colleagues.

But, aside from that....I was home that morning, in Arlington VA. Had a five-day trip for the next day, the 12th, down to Sao Paulo, Rio, back to Sao Paulo and back to NY. Only flew the last two days of that....(so, ummmm...no, not WN here).

I have printouts of the DFDRs from AAL77 and UAL93, from NTSB. The ones I have focus on the Nav radios and AutoPilots, and the various tuning and engagement modes. As you well know, the DFDRs were completely destroyed in the WTC mess.

If you are at all familiar with the B757/767 then you will know some of the terms, as I've written in various posts....feel free to read any of them here, at ATS.

What I see, from a pilot's perspective, is a cohesive digital 'narrative' from the DFDRs. I know, I know.....you linked a host of fellows from the pilots911truth site...but, and I say but.....while I find a few of them credible, especially the ones who flew in the military or for an airline....if I haven't met them, then I can't judge their ability to understand the systems and aviaonics, and how a B757 flies. we see so much baloney spouted on this subject.....it's like playing 'Whack-a-Mole" at the carnival.

Example...."ground effect". So many times, people who know nothing, spout off about the impossibility of flying close to the ground, because 'someone' else said so. Baloney! You can see high-speed, low-level passes at virtually any airshow you wish to attend.

That's only one example, but I have written too much for one post (I have 7499...no, 7488....characters left, but I won't use them.....this time).




[edit on 6/18/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by Crakeur
Let's stick to the topic and not focus on who a member may, or may not, be. We're a bit LEARy of him as well but that is our job.

Back to the topic at hand.

No prob, Captain Weedwhackers a friend.

So does that mean you think I'm John Lear or Denis Leary? I guess that's a compliment -- I wish.

No need to be suspicious. Just a newbie refugee from GLoP. I like it here a lot better. Faster servers than Commodore 64s, organized threads, better posters, overall a much classier place.

My compliments...

reply to post by GoldenFleece


the topic, stick to the topic. thanks. now, let me get that official, autographed by you (know who) tin hat out and polish it up to a nice shine.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Again, sorry for a personal observation to a 'new' member....but I've been here since, oh last Fall, and still haven't mastered the use of 'quotes' to pick apart another poster's comments. I've tried, but it fails miserably, and to tell the truth, I don't like it when people do it to me. I take notes, then write a response. I especially hate those things...are they called 'nested' quotes?? Makes my brain hurt!!!

Ya know, what I probably need is 80 or so hours of ATS Ground School, maybe even a formal CBT course, like we get when transitioning to a new piece of equipment? Then, of course the 40 or more hours of Simulator (depending on the syllabus) time ? Then a little personal observation (25 hours), Initial Operating Experience, before figuring out how to use ATS?

Naw! Let's leave all that to the professionals....I'm just a hack behind a computer screen, trying to type into an old keyboard with one-and-a-half good hands.

Topic alert....back on track...I've seen many who are in the movement to call all of 9/11 a 'False Flag' Op...the so-called 'truthers'. What I believe, though, is an example of too many cooks in the kitchen spoiling the soup, if you'll forgive that awkward analogy. What I mean is, there is a rule to the game 'tug-of-war'.....you have one rope, and two teams oppose each other in an attempt to win.

How many 'ropes' have we seen being suggested in the last (nearly) seven years? From both sides? (Please bear with me, it is a new thought....throw the fire at me later).

OK, keeping with this analogy, there is a mud pit in the center, (sorry, I keep getting interrupted...construction)...maybe we can imagine the mudpit, in the center, as the 'real' truth. BUT, staying in the analogy.....everyone else who's pulling on their rope, thnks they see another version of the truth behind them. And they are pulling, with all their might, in THAT direction.

I just wrote an entire paragraph to simply say....there should be a consensus.

Just thought the imagery would be fun.....

OK, kids, carry on!!

reply to post by Crakeur


Question: Since the topic is "Can anyone of you debunk the debunkers", what exactly is the topic? I would assume that the topic at hand is anything related to 9/11 and what the debunkers say?

Or am I off topic?

reply to post by Griff


yes, you are. the topic is NOT whether or not GF is John Lear.

reply to post by Crakeur


Should I remind you that you are the one who brought it up?

Originally posted by Crakeur
We're a bit LEARy of him as well but that is our job.

BTW, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if the rules apply to us and mods are members first, shouldn't the rules also apply to them?

reply to post by Crakeur


Well, Crakeur.....Super Mod of Mods....you are of course, correct.

I say this now, for all to see....GF is NOT JL!!!!

For some reason, GF decided to refer to me with some sarcasm, as is plainly evident if you scroll up....but, I have a thick skin.

AND....lest I be pummeled; is that the correct spelling(?)...no matter. This thread has, like a river, just taken a short eddy into further exposition.

See! If I could have written like that, when I was younger, ...........I'd...still....be a pilot.....sigh.....

As to 'debunking the debunkers', which we all agree, IS the point....hmmmmm.

Almost sounds like a double negative, doesn't it? AND anyone who graduated from High School knows that two negative integers, when added together, produce a positive integer!!

So...no more negativity!! I say, let's find the Common Grounds!!!

OK, I will get slapped for that....it's a coffee shop in DC....but it was hard to resist.

Look....seriously, I lived through 9/11, from being in the industry....we all lived through it, in many, many ways...each differently, I think. It (9/11) had repercussions all over the USA, and beyond. I did not lose any personal friends....I had a tenuous connection to one pilot, F/O Charlebois, as I've mentioned already.

I think....it's like, when a soldier returns from a battle, and cannot speak of what he has done or seen, but carries the secrets in him....then others come along, who weren't there, have never been there, and start to second-guess. I thnk that is what we may be seeing, in this example....

Personal thought, no copyright, no need to accept, no need to deny......

reply to post by Griff


Griff....you're on my 'friends' list, of course....though we don't agree on everything. But don't poke sticks into the cage!!!!

Teasing, I am!!

Oh, and Griff....nice job on the other thread, but did you get a chance to see the YT (link)??....you have to type it, sorry....because I end up doing the 'embed', which is bad....

ps....it's the UAL93 YT vid

WW

reply to post by Kulturcidist

I know you didn't mean it literally, but I was trying to show how much is not known from what has been released. I definitely don't consider myself a "truther" but, when I go to fill in those gaps (along with others), I certainly see the possibility of an "inside job," or the possibility of a number of other scenarios.

I should have responded to your previous post when you said "It doesn't matter how exactly, it happened, that it happened is what's important!" That's how I feel the government thinks (along with a lot of people on either side of the issue). I think they're using it more for political purposes, rather than trying to uncover all that happened.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
That shows your claims' weakness. Facts are not debatable. Until you get them right, there is no reason anyone would give your side credibility by agreeing to a "debate." Try to make a case here.

But yet we hear how the "truth movement" is scaredy cats to debate Mark "Gravy" Roberts and that proves them wrong.

I'm not Mark Roberts. Sorry to ruin your argument.

And we keep asking you for these "facts" which you duck and dodge at every turn. Who has lost credibility?

You. You just admitted that you have never bothered to study the evidence. What, pray tell, do you think that says about you?

As I said before and I'll say it again. I'm done speaking with fools and trolls.

I know it must anger you that your arguments keep getting squashed. We'll note for the record that I've shown your claims to be factually and logically flawed.

Ciao, Griff.

WeedWacker, Your YT video has been deleted so i couldn't watch it. But I have a question for you... it's rather a long one though and the answer you provide might have to be a long one as well so I hope you can help me out. Sorry if I miss spelled your nick BTW.

Something that has been bothering me for some time and I'm hopping your experience as a pilot could help me out.

Q: Could you please describe to me in great detail on how the 2 planes going to NY flown by 2 none experienced pilots flying at an altitude of ??(sorry I don't know the exact altitude) and at a speed of ??(sorry not sure about that either) and being at the farthest away from NY ??(not sure of that either). I would like you to basically describe "without your experience as a pilot" or as an "American" from the time the planes started to turn towards NY what would be going on in the cockpit and what they could or would see out the cockpit windows right up till the impact.

Basically I'm interested in you answering this "just on the experience you have in a cockpit and what your able to see out of the windows".

I do know the planes were pretty far from NY so I don't think they could see the WTC buildings, though I could be wrong. How did they navigate towards NY with out help from the flight tower(if thats whats it's called). What land marks could they have used that someone even like myself(never been to America) could have used to direct them towards NY? Also what noises would be going off in the cockpit, flashing lights, commotion from passangers etc...

Basically I would like you to put yourself in there place using only the experience that you actually have been inside a cockpit, no other experience, niether can you use your knowledge as an American to locate small towns to guide you towards NY.

Focus hard on being a "tourist" who has "never flown a plane"....

Also from the time the planes turned towards NY would the curvature of the earth obscured the view of NY?

I don't think "I" would have been able to do what these pilots have done.

Sorry if you don't understand the question completely, I'm trying my hardest not to write a book here, but I'm just having a hard time trying to justify how exactly they managed to pull it off, not only once but 2 times.

I mean at that Altitude and Speed and Distance they would have allot of thinking to do and allot of compensating..?

Thanks in advance, Hope your able to help me out here.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by jthomas

I watched the whole thing. What makes you think an extended version of the exact same clip I posted will lead anyone to a different conclusion? McIntyre repeatedly said there were no pieces of wreckage larger than what he could hold in his hand and he saw nothing that was identifiable from an American Airlines jetliner. Your rhetoric is much ado about nothing.

So you deny what McIntyre actually said?

A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane.

Nope, but you continue to misrepresent what I've said. I'll bold the pertinent McIntyre line for your benefit. Now compare it to my statement: McIntyre repeatedly said there were no pieces of wreckage larger than what he could hold in his hand and he saw nothing that was identifiable from an American Airlines jetliner.

Any contradictions?

Of course you contradicted yourself.

You don't dissemble too well. It's clear that you never saw the entire McIntyre clip or read the transcript until I pointed it out to you. This is actually the norm for 9/11 Truthers. Ever since, you're efforts to deny that fact have fallen flat.

That, my friend, is the nature of 9/11 Denial.

A little lesson for you, both on your illogical thinking and why 9/11 Truth has never gone anywhere and never will:

The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.

www.sciam.com...