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

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jthomas
What does that quote tell me? Exactly what he said -- there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

Yes, since 9/11 I've become a firm skeptic of what the government and corporate media tell me (except at the very beginning when the media sometimes unwittingly tells the truth, like Jamie McIntyre did.) Oh yeah, I'm also skeptical of what government shills on the internet tell me.

Originally posted by jthomas Let's look at the whole story and why the 9/11 Truth Movement counts on you not questioning them. Watch the whole thing:

youtube.com...

Now this was broadcast live on 9/11 and the transcript has been available on CNN's website since 9/11:

transcripts.cnn.com...

What we skeptics want to know is how the actual information can be available since 9/11 but 9/11 Truthers can believe a misrepresentation so blatantly dishonest.

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.

Your reply is a fine example of 9/11 Denial in action. Now you know why the 9/11 "Truth" Movement became the 9/11 Denial Movement back in early 2002.

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.

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

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

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.

Only childish and small minded dick heads would do such a thing.

BTW, I see no Michael Rotch on that list. Try again.

Edit: Mr. Edmund Standing must be a real genius:



He was wasn't?

No wonder they don't know how to spell truth.

[edit on 6/18/2008 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?

Unless he's color blind?

Try again.

[edit on 6/18/2008 by Griff]

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?

What will you try to twist next? The "very small pieces of the plane" -- again, nothing specific or identifiable -- and a "large piece of shattered glass" that appeared to be some kind of window?

When you consider the massive wreckage of a 757, that's literally nothing. But I read something interesting on What Really Happened:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

The "Pod People" And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon

Right now, government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that a passenger jet did not really hit the Pentagon.

This is an old intelligence trick called "Poisoning the well", the intentional promotion of lies to blend with an embarrassing truth to discredit it. The government shills are trying to conceal real news stories such as the Israeli Spy Ring and its connections to the attacks on the World Trade Towers. So, we get hoax stories poured onto the net by government propagandists, to be used by the media to attack the credibility of anyone who dares doubt the official story.

At some point in the near future, photographs, or video will be "discovered" clearly showing the impact, and the mainstream media will have a field day ridiculing those "kooky Internet web sites" and their "silly conspiracy theories", all based on a silly theory the government is itself planting on the web.

But if you think about it, common sense tells you their claims are just plain silly. After all, if the passenger jet didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did it go? And since the people behind 9-11 had to get rid of the passenger jet and its contents anyway, there was no reason for them NOT to ram it into the Pentagon. Why risk a swap? Why complicate matters even further?

Interesting, even though a swap was planned between Miami/Cuba for "Operation Northwoods." The physical and photographic evidence of a passenger jet at the Pentagon is still slim to none, but government psy-ops are sophisticated, so I'm gonna keep an open mind on this one.

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.

I rarely post to agree, but this has to be one of the most pathetic debunking attempts I've ever seen.

jthomas, combined with a rather lame attempt to twist my words, it appears you're getting desperate. I don't think you're representing yourself. Nobody could be that obsessed or strident.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Yes, isn't it amazing that the only attempt to "debunk" scholars for 9/11, patriots for 9/11 and architects and engineers for 9/11 is placing false names on the list and then turning around and saying "lookey, lookey, they don't even verify their members". But, yet when confirmed, these names are taken off the list.

Yes, let's be childish and do that instead of trying to debate the information.



Pathetic.

reply to post by Griff


Ummmm.....I found a guy who posts on YouTube who has a pretty good UAL93 video. Wish I knew how to bring it here....you can search for his username, RKOwens4.

Cheers

reply to post by Griff


[edit] double post.....grrrr!

[edit on 6/18/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Ummmm.....I found a guy who posts on YouTube who has a pretty good UAL93 video. Wish I knew how to bring it here....you can search for his username, RKOwens4.

Could you be more specific? There are about 10 videos that come up with that user name.

You don't have to imbed the video, just copy the link to the video and post it. I can then watch it. Thanks.

Originally posted by jthomas


Actually, not so. We agree that the FBI has the right to confiscate any videos that might exist. Legally, it has the right to withhold them as evidence in any possible future prosecution. These videos are not hidden. They are legally held. By law. And your claim that a "hidden" video is a criminal act certainly cannot be applied to the FBI as you claim. Furthermore, any video confiscated by the FBI that is not from a government source may not be released by the government or its agencies without the express permission of the original owner.


I deal in facts and evidence. I challenge those who don't think critically about their claims.

Now show me how I am a liar or apologize to me right here.

You see, here is where I have a serious problem. First off, why is there ANY NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS with this event? What I mean is, a LOT of evidence is being withheld from the public on the grounds of 'national security' which is so commonly used nowadays that its a joke. Every time someone commits a crime in this administration they hide behind the 'national security' blanket.

What about these videos MUST be withheld for national security? Maybe because they would show that the 'official story' is not so official? And that it would endanger this nation because the people would overthrow the government?

You see, there is NO REASON to keep evidence of these events from ANYONE in this country because it is over. It happened. There isn't anything in the evidence that can be used against the nation because according to the government it was planes. That's it. Planes and boxcutters. What are they hiding?

Yeah, one thing about the FBI that still bugs me. On all of the charges they want Osama for the events of this day are NOT on there. Why? Because there is NO PROOF! It's just boy George and his band of cronies insisting that it was this guy and his CIA backed group.

What gets me about Truthers is their apparent lack of deconstructive logic, they always make broad claims without thinking about the nuts and bolts of it all. It basically becomes a "It doesn't matter how exactly, it happened, that it happened is what's important!" argument that doesn't explain anything.

If the conspiracy is broken down into it's fundamental parts and scrutinized it quickly becomes apparent just how implausible the whole idea is. A step-by-step person-to-person timeline from brainstorming to execution would clearly demonstrate this.

Take a lesson from history: Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Enron - leaks are virtually impossible to contain.

reply to post by Kulturcidist

Tell us the nuts and bolts of your theory.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

....Not sure I could've executed Atta's 7500 ft, 270 degree spiral that lined up perfectly to a grass-kissing final. Hey, what ground effect?! I'm sure you were equally impressed...

Well, you're obviously a researcher who knows what he's talking about.

AA77 was flown into The Pentagon by Hani Hanjour, a qualified commercial pilot with >600 logged flight hours including plenty of multi and 757 sim time. He should have been easily capable of doing what he did. I only have 122 logged hours and haven't flown for 8 months, but I could do it (with a couple of hours' cockpit familiarization in a sim).

The recovered FDR shows a 330 degree left turn: where d'you get '270' from? Anyway, if you're JAA-PPL qualified, or higher, you will know that a turning descent of 3500ft/min is an absolutely normal, standard rate of descent requiring an angle of bank no greater than 40deg, possibly as little as 30. This is in no way anything abnormal, and I could perform this manoever after about 7 or 8 flight hours because it's so easy to do. To state otherwise is laughable, and obviously disinfo designed to fool the gullible into thinking this simple, basic manoever might be beyond the skill of a pilot of Hanjour's experience. But as a pilot, you would know that. Wouldn't you?

Mohamed Atta, to whom you mistakenly refer as the pilot of AA77, (allegedly) is believed to have flown AA11 into WTC North Tower. He certainly boarded AA11, because he was IDd by airline ticket staff and also on CCTV.

But I suppose if you're determined to make up your own version of everything which is at variance with the facts, and spread this disinfo, then it doesn't matter if you get everything wrong.



[edit on 18/6/2008 by bovarcher]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by Kulturcidist

 

Tell us the nuts and bolts of your theory.

OK, here's my take on the story:

Circa 1999: A bunch of Islamic terrorists are sitting around the campfire somehwere in Afghanistan pondering their next strike on US interests.

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

"Hey, y'all know what's big? Them WTC towers in that den of Jews, New York."

"Word up, G-had, but remember, we already tried taking one of em down back in '93."

"Well, you know what they say in the Great Satan? If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

"Fo sho, it'd be quite satisfying to see them towers fall, the failure of the previous operation has been taunting me for years. OK, let's do this."

So a plot is gradually hatched, willing martyrs are handpicked and dispathed to Amrika for infiltration and planning, the Islamic doctrine of Al-Taqiyya enabling them to drink and party like infidels to maintain their cover. They take flying lessons, only they don't seem very interested in learning how to take off and land. Oh well, that's foreigners for ya!

The big day comes. They've gone over the plan countless times. They have their tickets. They have concealable box cutters. A few are carrying an innocuous box of Play-Doh as well. Everything's ready. They synchronize watches, say a prayer and off they go.

They board their respective flights and sit down, nervously glancing at their watches every few minutes. But nobody notices or cares. The aircraft take off and it's business as usual. Until.....

At the alloted time a plotter on each flight enters the onboard toilet, ostensibly to take a leak. But what they actually do is strap the aforementioned C4-colored Play-Doh to their chests, inserting some wiring and batteries to the contraption and voila, now they have what appears to be an explosive device.

They exit the john and proceed to flash the "bomb" to the rest of the now totally freaked-out passengers while shouting very loudly, thus establishing that they are now running things. And just to make sure the infidels know they mean business they grab a flight attendant or random passenger and using a box cutter they slit their throats in full view of horrified onlookers.

"Any questions?"

They then proceed to barge into the cockpit, taking out the pilots by whatever means necessary. They switch off the planes' transponders making it exteremly difficult for Air Traffic Control to track them.

Because they specifically trained for this task, they know how to steer the aircraft in the desired direction. They don't have to worry about landing cuz that's not even an option.

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

5, 4, 3, 2, 1, IMPACT.

This happens perfectly with 3 of the 4 flights. On flight 93 a brave group of passengers, having learned of the WTC hits via airphone communication with the ground and realizing their own flight is most likely going to be used as a missle, decide, having nothing to lose at this point, to attempt to take back control of the situation. They manage to thwart the objective but at the cost of their own lives.


Sounds pretty simple, but then, any conspiracy that has a chance in Hell at actually succeeding always is.

OK, here's my take on the story:

Circa 1999: A bunch of Islamic terrorists are sitting around the campfire somehwere in Afghanistan pondering their next strike on US interests.

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

"Hey, y'all know what's big? Them WTC towers in that den of Jews, New York."

"Word up, G-had, but remember, we already tried taking one of em down back in '93."

Well, nice fantasy, but research it in depth and you'll discover the operation was almost certainly conceived and planned in Hamburg and finalised in the Tarragona area of Spain. Virtually all the hijackers were western-educated and spent most of their lives in Europe, as of course did OBL until his 30s. Most never visited Afghanistan, though possibly three did on one occasion.

The operation was financed partly by OBL, who is a hereditary US$ billionaire and has financed more than 200 similar sophisticated simultaneous multi-point attacks, some on US interests, and partly by elements inside the Pakistani Government who used money transferred covertly from the US Government for the purpose.

'Truthers' by and large do not want to deal in these uncomfortable truths, that the conspiracy is far deeper than they suspect. Thery prefer the shallow and easily refutable nonsense like NPT and thermite demolitions. Complete crap, all of it. So the 'Truth' movement remains marginalized and the real truth remains hidden.

Job done, INTELS. Nice one. 'The Truth Movement' ensures the truth will never be known. They've done it with the ET issue, and they've successfully done it with 9/11. Marginalize the advocates, make the more gullible believe in benign space brothers from Venus, or 'no plane hit The Pentagon', or whatever other preposterous garbage these fools go along with. Give the more wild stupidities plenty of media exposure, and the truth of the matter will always be safe.

It's a very, very successful strategy.

[edit on 18/6/2008 by bovarcher]

Originally posted by bovarcher

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

....Not sure I could've executed Atta's 7500 ft, 270 degree spiral that lined up perfectly to a grass-kissing final. Hey, what ground effect?! I'm sure you were equally impressed...

Well, you're obviously a researcher who knows what he's talking about.

AA77 was flown into The Pentagon by Hani Hanjour, a qualified commercial pilot with >600 logged flight hours including plenty of multi and 757 sim time. He should have been easily capable of doing what he did. I only have 122 logged hours and haven't flown for 8 months, but I could do it (with a couple of hours' cockpit familiarization in a sim).

The recovered FDR shows a 330 degree left turn: where d'you get '270' from? Anyway, if you're JAA-PPL qualified, or higher, you will know that a turning descent of 3500ft/min is an absolutely normal, standard rate of descent requiring an angle of bank no greater than 40deg, possibly as little as 30. This is in no way anything abnormal, and I could perform this manoever after about 7 or 8 flight hours because it's so easy to do. To state otherwise is laughable, and obviously disinfo designed to fool the gullible into thinking this simple, basic manoever might be beyond the skill of a pilot of Hanjour's experience. But as a pilot, you would know that. Wouldn't you?

Settle down, Captain Picayune. I held a private license years ago, but I haven't been current for a while. I even realized my mistake in confusing Atta with Hanjour, but was too lazy to correct it.

The fact is, NONE of them could've performed this maneuver, including you, even with First Officer Weedwhacker telling you what to do. Your pumped-up description of Hani Hanjour's abilities with his Commercial/Multi ratings and 757 sim. time is absolutely laughable.

Hani Hanjour is a man who, three weeks before September 11, attempted to rent a Cessna 172 at an airfield in Maryland. Suspicious of his dubious 'pilot's license', officials at the airfield insisted he take a test-flight before rental would be approved. He failed his test flight miserably. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had hardly ever driven a car. He could not fly at all."

But as a pilot, you knew that, didn't you?

Even the director of the flight school at which the supposed hijackers trained found it impossible to believe the expert aviation maneuvers pulled off on the morning of 9/11 could have been executed by any of the alleged pilots. "My opinion is I don't think it is possible. I have spoken to many captains from the airlines and they say there is no way they could've done that. They changed altitude. They changed speed. They changed direction. They had to know about the equipment to do what they had to do and there is no way that could have been done." There is, in fact, an entire website and organization of pilots and aeronautical engineers who have banded together to demand an open, public inquiry into ALL the unbelievable flight maneuvers pulled off on the morning of September 11. They have done studies and experiments, and have offered their expert opinions and analyses on many of the events of 9/11. Their excellent website is: www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

These experts and professionals in the field of aviation with nothing to gain from the exposure of 9/11 have concluded that the official story is bogus, and that the officially blamed perpetrators and hijackers had no chance of pulling off the maneuvers we saw on the morning of 9/11.

Defenders of the official story say over and over and over again, if 9/11 was truly an inside job, if these planes truly did pull off unreasonable maneuvers, if this conspiracy really was hatched, there would be a litany of whistle blowers trying to expose these crimes. The simple response to this comment is, there is. There is an enormous number of pilots, aeronautical engineers, FAA flight controllers, military officers, military intelligence operatives, intelligence analysts, FBI employees, and others with expertise in these fields who have come together into organizations with the explicit intent of exposing the crimes of 9/11. Here is a very short list of a few members of one of these 'whistle-blower' organizations, 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' -- www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

Robert Balsamo 4000+ Total Flight Time Former: Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines

Glen Stanish 15,000+ Total Flight Time American Airlines, ATA, TWA, Continental

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret) 30,000+ Total Flight Time Former Pan Am, United United States Air Force (ret) Over 100 Combat Missions Flown??

John Lear Son of Bill Lear Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation More than 40 years of Flying 19,000+ Total Flight Time

Captain Jeff Latas USAF (ret) Captain - JetBlue Airways

Ted Muga Naval Aviator - Retired Commander, USNR

Col Robert Bowman USAF (ret) Directed all the 'Star Wars' programs under Presidents Ford and Carter - 101 combat missions

Alfons Olszewski Founder Veterans For Truth US Army (ret) Aircraft Maintenance Crew Chief

Robin Hordon Former Boston Center Controller Commercial Pilot

John Panarelli Friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski - Capt. AA #1111,000+ Total Flight Time Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo

Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford United States Marine Corps (ret) 10,000+ Total Flight Time 303 Combat Missions

Captain Dan Govatos 10,000+ Total Flight Time Former Chief Pilot of Casino Express airlines Director of Operations Training at Polar Air George

Nelson Colonel USAF (Ret.) Licensed Commercial Pilot and Aircraft Mechanic

Dennis Spear Army Aviator (ret) 7000+ Total Flight Time Operations Officer, Aviation Safety Officer

Captain Joe H. Ferguson 30,000+ Total Flight Time (ret) USAF (ret)

For a full list, click here

reply to post by GoldenFleece


GF, who ***SNIP***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.

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?

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

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???????

[edit on 6/18/0808 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 6/18/0808 by weedwhacker]


edit: removed profanity circumvention

[edit on 18-6-2008 by Crakeur]

Originally posted by bovarcher
'Truthers' by and large do not want to deal in these uncomfortable truths, that the conspiracy is far deeper than they suspect. Thery prefer the shallow and easily refutable nonsense like NPT and thermite demolitions. Complete crap, all of it. So the 'Truth' movement remains marginalized and the real truth remains hidden.

No kidding, the conspiracy is far deeper than I suspect? You mean it goes beyond Osama been DeadSince2001, the highest cutout organizations of Pakistani stoogedom and al-CIAduh?

Wow man, that must be really deep. If you know as much about this as you did about Hani Hanjour's piloting skills, this is gonna be one fascinating thread!

Unless of course, you don't know much of anything and are simply Googling debunker websites to sound knowledgeable by rattling off meaningless minutiae like 270 vs. 330 degree spirals and rates of descent when NONE of the "hijackers" could've flown those planes, or remembering the correct "hijacker" flights when NONE of them appeared on any airline passenger manifest.

Let's see, based on that ridiculous Hani Hanjour propaganda, supercilious attitude and spouting scripted information that couldn't fool my dog, I gotta go with the regurgitated debunker website theory.

reply to post by Griff


OK, Griff....let's see if this works.





Mod Edit - imbedded video



[edit on 18-6-2008 by elevatedone]

[edit on 6/18/2008 by kinglizard]