It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 11
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
That's easy:

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

and:


'Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice' and 'patriotsquestion911.com' were only too happy to add me to their lists of scholars who support the 9/11 troof movement. They asked for no evidence that I was a real Professor, such as a CV, publications list, or faculty web page link. They obviously didn't check a citation index or even any online book sellers, because if they did they would have found no results for 'Michael Rotch'. No articles, no books, no mention on academic websites, no mention on academic discussion forums, no evidence 'Michael Rotch' exists at all. He doesn't, I made him up, with a name taken straight from a Bart Simpson prank call ('Mike Rotch' = 'My Crotch').

Edmund Standing
www.youtube.com...




So this is all you psuedoskeptics can come up with? Placing false names on an online list? Pathetic at best, showing your stupidity at worst.


You mean you can't stand being made fun of.




posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
So you deny what McIntyre actually said?


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.



Do you? Since when is American Airlines painted green and red?


So now you doubt AA77 hit the Pentagon after saying it did???

Do you ever think about the implications of what you write, Griff?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaceBits
 


SpaceBits, I just now signed on, saw your recent post.

As you know, the destruction in the WTC was so severe, none of the 'recorders' were able to be salvaged, nor even found. As far as I understand.

I always refer to the two recorders....the DFDR and the CVR.

Back to your question, and I will have to mention the recovered DFDRs from AAL77 and UAL93 in order to surmise....these guys were at least sufficiently familiar with the cockpit layout, and the MCP and the FMC, to know how to navigate back to the New York City area, from where they took over....and I'm not looking much into the WTC story, but I can if you want me to.

From BOS to LAX....well, my airline didn't fly that particular route....but if they took over about 45 to 60 minutes after take-off, then I'm thinking they were in upper New York State....but, anyway, it is easy to type in a new destination into the FMC, once someone shows you how.

Then, the software directs you back....heck, even a moron could realize that if you just flew East, you'd eventually hit the Coast, and either turn left or right!!!! But, I joked there. They knew how to use the onboard systems. Then, get close, descend, acquire the target visually. Target, in this case, being these two really tall skyscrapers....on a beautifully clear day....ain't that hard to line up.

Ever thought about how hard it would be to hit a bridge abutment, while you're driving your car down the highway at 80 MPH??? Or 160 MPH???

(If you had a suicide wish......)

Thanks for your question.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


From my look at the AA77 DFDR recording, the 180 degree turn after the plane was hijacked was done using the autopilot, perfectly smooth with a constant 15 degree bank. As opposed to the sloppy turn at the Pentagon under manual control. They definitely knew how to use the available systems even if their skills and experience were way under average as we've seen.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Thanks for your reply. Which was faster than I had expected...


So your saying "I" would be able to easily pull this off if "I" had a bit of knowledge of how a cockpit works, and "not knowing" where "I" was "located" in the US? Although I do know how to use a compass.

OK I just thought it would have been allot more difficult to do. Maybe they shouldn't make these planes so easy to fly.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaceBits
 


SpaceBits.....when you say "I" you are referring you yourself, I assume?

Now.....let's say you had some money, learned to fly (by the way, then you'd learn how to use a compass)....

SpaceBits....do you drive a car? Can you know the difference between North and South? Even simpler.....the Sun rises in the West, and sets in the East....does that help you???

Well....if you lived at one of the poles, it wouldn't help much, of course...but at virtually any Latitude between, say....50 degrees North to 50 degrees South....the 'temperate zone'....you'd be pretty well set, to navigate, on your own.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SpaceBits
 


SpaceBits.....when you say "I" you are referring you yourself, I assume?

Now.....let's say you had some money, learned to fly (by the way, then you'd learn how to use a compass)....

SpaceBits....do you drive a car? Can you know the difference between North and South? Even simpler.....the Sun rises in the West, and sets in the East....does that help you???

Well....if you lived at one of the poles, it wouldn't help much, of course...but at virtually any Latitude between, say....50 degrees North to 50 degrees South....the 'temperate zone'....you'd be pretty well set, to navigate, on your own.


Yes, "I" refers to myself.

I already know how to use a compass... it's pretty simple really. BTW I would never fly, I'm terrified of heights, I can only climb the 3rd step in a ladder after that my knees start to buckle and my hands sweat really bad. No, I'm not scared of heights, I'm terrified....


Yes, I drive and no I don't know North from South when I'm driving, sitting here I know where North is, but if I moved myself to a new location it would take me some time to figure out where North is.

Not sure what you mean by 50 degrees North to 50 degrees South....the 'temperate zone' I live near the top of the great lakes in Canada.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SpaceBits
 

Then, the software directs you back....heck, even a moron could realize that if you just flew East, you'd eventually hit the Coast, and either turn left or right!!!! But, I joked there. They knew how to use the onboard systems. Then, get close, descend, acquire the target visually. Target, in this case, being these two really tall skyscrapers....on a beautifully clear day....ain't that hard to line up.

Ever thought about how hard it would be to hit a bridge abutment, while you're driving your car down the highway at 80 MPH??? Or 160 MPH???

My friend, I apologize for the interruption, but this goes to the very heart of the controversy. According to all published accounts, I'm not sure these particular morons were capable of hitting a bridge abutment at any speed [fighting urge to make Corvair quip.]

www.whatreallyhappened.com...


Hani Hanjour:
9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire
From the ridiculous to the sublime...


Federal Aviation Administration records show [Hanjour] obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. His limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots. [Cape Cod Times]

[Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all." [New York Times]

Hani Hanjour as a Cessna 172 pilot

At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington, flight instructor Sheri Baxter instantly recognized the name of alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour when the FBI released a list of 19 suspects in the four hijackings. Hanjour, the only suspect on Flight 77 the FBI listed as a pilot, had come to the airport one month earlier seeking to rent a small plane.

However, when Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons...
[Newsday]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Do you ever think about the implications of what you write, Griff?


I didn't know this was some sort of game of winner and loser? I'm just asking questions. If you feel you need to "win" every single time we communicate, there's not much more I'll ever say to you. I thought you might know the answer to that question since you believe you are the expert of 9/11 on here. Instead, I get vitriol. Good day to you.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


I agree, I don't see it as a win/lose... I only see people wanting the truth so that everyone can know the truth. If we find out in 2 weeks from now that the Official story is true, I won't see it as a win/lose situation. Same goes for if the CT's find out they were right, I won't consider myself as a winner.

I'll simply be happy that the truth is finally out and those responsible are held accountable, no matter who it is, and that those who have lost loved one's in this tragedy will have peace in knowing the truth. I don't believe the official story for many reason's which may or may not be why others CT's don't believe the official story. Just like I don't believe some of what other CT's claim. But it doesn't mean they are wrong either.

All in all, I can honestly say I just want the truth.

I would really like to see 2 independent groups to be allowed to do there own investigations with out influence's, and then compare the 2 groups findings.
No matter what the cost is, and it seems that allot of tax payers are willing to pay any price to know the truth.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Hey, we're 11 pages in now, so tell me what all I've missed.


Has jthomas got around to posting anything validating NIST, etc., or are we all still pissing in the wind?

Did jthomas accept that invitation to debate head-to-head, Griff?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Do you ever think about the implications of what you write, Griff?


I didn't know this was some sort of game of winner and loser? I'm just asking questions. If you feel you need to "win" every single time we communicate, there's not much more I'll ever say to you. I thought you might know the answer to that question since you believe you are the expert of 9/11 on here. Instead, I get vitriol. Good day to you.


Another Griff evasion.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Griff
 


Hey, we're 11 pages in now, so tell me what all I've missed.


Has jthomas got around to posting anything validating NIST, etc., or are we all still pissing in the wind?


Sorry, your evasion doesn't work. You have to refute NIST. You can't haven't. You know it.


Did jthomas accept that invitation to debate head-to-head, Griff?


Boy, you really ARE in denial. Do catch up on this lesson about 9/11 Denial:

media.radiophonic.org.uk...

That goes for Griff and GoldenFleece as well.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You have to refute NIST. You can't haven't. You know it.


Sorry, there is nothing to refute in the first place. This is best illustrated by your inability to post anything conclusive from it.

I am the one with questions about 9/11, not you. Enlighten me, and stop trying to turn the tables. The people with questions, are the ones that should have them answered.




Did jthomas accept that invitation to debate head-to-head, Griff?


Boy, you really ARE in denial.


Are we in too much denial for you to have an ATS-sponsored debate in the debate forum with Griff as to what the NIST report does and does not show?



Sounds like you got on one of your ego/vitriol trips and now you don't wanna get off. Earth is calling again, jthomas.

What in the NIST report is so freaking conclusive, or any other report for that matter? I swear to god this has to be the 20th time I've asked this on this thread alone.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
You have to refute NIST. You can't haven't. You know it.


Sorry, there is nothing to refute in the first place.


Another illustration of 9/11 denial in action. Great.

You want us to believe no NIST Report exists to refute. No evidence exists. No conclusions reached. Nothing to refute.

I rest my case.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Another Griff evasion.


Talk about evasion. Why don't you tell us when American Airlines started to paint their planes green and red?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You have to refute NIST. You can't haven't. You know it.


Yes. We know it. You know why? Because NIST hasn't released their data yet. And I'm not talking about just the structural documentation. I'm talking about their data.

But, I'm sure I'll be accused of "evading" again.

If anyone's "evading" anything it's the government bodies not forthcomming with all the data.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You want us to believe no NIST Report exists to refute.


Now you're putting words in my mouth. This is getting pathetic; between this and the first two posts on this page, when do mods step in?

The report exists. The "proof" supposedly contained within it, does not.

Don't even ask me to prove a negative. My "proof" is that you, and everyone else, will always fail to show where the conclusive evidence is within that report. Because it does not exist. You believe a lie.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff, I think I did see ONE person who said they saw green. But, you do know what zinc chromate is, correct? To an amateur person, unfamiliar with airplanes and aviation, it could account for that person's comments, perhaps.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Griff, I think I did see ONE person who said they saw green. But, you do know what zinc chromate is, correct? To an amateur person, unfamiliar with airplanes and aviation, it could account for that person's comments, perhaps.


See jthomas. This is how we discuss things at ATS. If you're looking for vitriol and a circle jerk of ego stroking, I suggest you find JREF. There's plenty of that over there.

Thanks weedwhacker.

Actually, I've seen pictures of the zinc chromate on the plane parts. I supposse it could account for a reporter not knowing that it wasn't paint.

Star for your ability to discuss without vitriol.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join