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.

 

The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Does this kind of mindless blather pass for your conception of an argument? Read my posts and respond with logic and evidence, if you can. I am confident you are posing without any idea of what you are talking about. I don't want to insult you, but your posts are drivel.

reply to post by hooper
 



Sorry, but this statement of yours:

Indeed, there is also no evidence that a plane crashed in a field in Shanksville.

Pretty much seals the deal on you being serious. Talk about drivel.




posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
 

Sorry, but this statement of yours:

"Indeed, there is also no evidence that a plane crashed in a field in Shanksville."
Pretty much seals the deal on you being serious. Talk about drivel.


Come now, hoop, if you're going to quote him then quote the entire statement, not just a single sentence out of context. His full paragraph states:

"Even though Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the FDR data it obtained from the NTSB shows that a plane flew toward the Pentagon on a different trajectory and too high to have hit any of the lampposts and, rather than crashing into the building, swerved over it—for which there is a great deal of evidence—Kevin Ryan and his friends are intolerant of anyone who suggests that no plane hit the Pentagon. Indeed, there is also no evidence that a plane crashed in a field in Shanksville. Even though Elias Davidsson has shown the government has never proven the hijackers were aboard any of those planes and David Ray Griffin has established that all of the alleged phone calls were faked, Kevin’s society refuses to even consider questions they raise for the prospect of “phantom flights”. "

So NOT ONLY does he claim no plane crashed in Shanksville, he also claims that no plane hit the Pentagon, there was a flyover, and thousands of people from Ted Olson to a C-130 pilot to an immigrant from El Salvador to even a guy working in a junk yard are all co-conspirators who are lying to cover up this sinister secret plot...all because he read it in David Ray Griffin's book.

This goes way beyond drivel. This is outright living in his own alternative make believe reality. But hey, at least we're quoting the guy properly now.
edit on 2-2-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Yes, of course you're right. It goes much, much deeper than just a Shanksville No Planer.

Do you believe this guy is actually educated? I mean little things always stick out to me like "proving allege phone calls were fake".

Really, the guy is telling me in the same breath that the phone calls may or may not have happened (alleged) but either way they have been proven to be fake! Its one or the other. If you can't prove something exist then you can't prove that its not genuine.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

and thousands of people from Ted Olson to a C-130 pilot to an immigrant from El Salvador to even a guy working in a junk yard are all co-conspirators who are lying to cover up this sinister secret plot

Nice lie, GoodOlLiar.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Are you giving this your best thought? He had not even published his attack on me when I jointed ATS. I came because I wanted to share my latest research on JFK, "Who's telling the truth: Clint HIll or the Zapruder film?", which I have also posted here. Check it out. When I rebutted Robert Parry for his unwarranted assault on 9/11 Truth, I had no idea that Kevin Ryan would use that as the occasion for an UNWARRANTED ASSAULT UPON ME!

Take a serious look at his reasons for criticizing me. Ask yourself if they are GOOD REASONS, which requires that they be both relevant and true. Since they concern my views about what happened at the Pentagon, how the Twin Towers were destroyed, and the possible use of video fakery in New York, they are relevant. But as I have explained, they are uniformly based upon rumors and misrepresentations. None of them is even true!

So what should I do when I am being assaulted on false and unjustifiable grounds by someone whom I, in the past, have admired? Suppose it were you instead of me and that very nasty things were being said about you, BUT THEY WERE NOT TRUE. Should I just dismiss them and write them off to Kevin Ryan's seeming lack of ability to research ON THE VERY ISSUES HE WAS ATTACKING? That was grossly irresponsible of him.

reply to post by shortywarn
 



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Obviously, I have made the mistake of assuming more of you were current with research on 9/11. If you go to the versions of the articles I have linked, they have active links to supporting studies. Meanwhile, here's a sampler. Plus I do interviews about 9/11, JFK, etc. almost every week: radiofetzer.blogspot.com....

ON CONSPIRACIES AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES:

"Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK"
www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

"Conspiracies and Conspiracism"
onlinejournal.com...

"7/7 Ripple Effect" (a "false flag" attack from beginning to end)
video.google.com...#

ON WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11:

"Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"
twilightpines.com...

"Unanswered Questions: Was 9/11 an 'Inside Job'?"
jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

"Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?"
noliesradio.org...

ON WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TWIN TOWERS:

"9/11 Truth is No 'Parlor Game'"
jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

"An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11"
911scholars.ning.com...

"Thinking Critically about Conspiracy Theories"
jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

ON WHAT HAPPENED AT THE PENTAGON:

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon"
jamesfetzer.blogspot.com...

"Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2"
video.google.com...#

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American77
pilotsfor911truth.org...

ON PLANES OR NO PLANES:

Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11"
www.opednews.com...

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
www.globalresearch.ca...

Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
www.serendipity.li...

"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
www.opednews.com...

"9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed"
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Killtown on Shanksville,
killtown.blogspot.com...

reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
 


Yes, of course you're right. It goes much, much deeper than just a Shanksville No Planer.

Do you believe this guy is actually educated? I mean little things always stick out to me like "proving allege phone calls were fake".

Really, the guy is telling me in the same breath that the phone calls may or may not have happened (alleged) but either way they have been proven to be fake! Its one or the other. If you can't prove something exist then you can't prove that its not genuine.


In truth, yes I do believe he is educated. There's a quote from George Orwell that says, "There are some ideas so very wrong that only someone so very intelligent would believe in them." In short, a well educated person is much more adept at inventing convincing sounding excuses for why he should believe something really, really, foolish than a dullard is .

You've noticed their penchant to accuse everyone from Silverstein to Ted Olson to even the Red Cross of being preplanted secret gov't agents, I hope. In all honesty, I can't see an someone with a low IQ being able to come up with that....It requires someone who reads too much and who's paranoid as hell.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Obviously, I have made the mistake of assuming more of you were current with research on 9/11. If you go to the versions of the articles I have linked, they have active links to supporting studies. Meanwhile, here's a sampler. Plus I do interviews about 9/11, JFK, etc. almost every week: radiofetzer.blogspot.com....


So in other words, you're insisting I'm wrong when I say you're just getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy web sites...and to prove it you're quoting the two dozen or so damned fool conspiracy web sites you're getting all your information from. You do realize that Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, et al are being discussed and are shown to be spreading clueless drivel on a near weekly basis here on ATS, right?

The claim that the Naudet brothers are really secret govt disinformation agents is a new one on me, though. Just how many co-conspirators are involved in this supposedly "secret conspiracy" of yours, anyway?


edit on 2-2-2011 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Jim if you joined ats for a chance to explain your side its pointless . There are some great posters here but most here dont see the bigger picture and prefer to argue about specifics .
I see no harm in you advocating "study" of different possibilities . The very essence of this research is to come to ones own conclusion . I was saying on this site recently about your case , that it is sad to see progress being halted because of disputing specifics . we All agree that there are major holes in the official story , They will never tell us the truth and it is YOUR right Jim to research as you see fit .
Please ignore the unecessary malice of the posters above .



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Excellent! What are your views about the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC-7? The whole point of organizing a research group or founding a research society is to take advantage of the different backgrounds and abilities of its members. 11 experts on different aspects of the death of JFK contributed to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), 9 to MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and 6 to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Their expertise in their areas of specialization far exceeded mine.

The members of Scholars include pilots, aeronautical engineers, structural engineers, mechanical engineers, and physicists. Today, there are separate research societies for different professions, including Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11, and many more. Visit patriotsquestion911.com... for a sampling. And take a look at "Why doubt 9/11?" on the Scholars home page, which will give you some idea of the extent to which I have drawn upon the expertise of others across the board. This is collaborative research.

reply to post by hooper
 



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
"GoodOlDave" ought to change his handle to "LazyThoughtlessOlDave". What he is implying is that none of the studies accessible via the internet is worth reading!? That is so thoughtless that I find it incredible he bothers to post. And since the study of the staging of the Naudet video would take at least a half-hour to read, I can see he prefers the short-cut of simply substituting his gut-feeling for actual research. I hope he doesn't think anyone is impressed by the arrogance he displays here, which is a stunning reflection of his massive degree of ignorance.

reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Welcome to the forum Dr. Fetzer!

Nice rebuttal to Kevin Ryan's hit-piece against you. Not sure what crawled up his butt? (I think it might start with a "9" and end with an "R".) Too bad he reduced himself to the hater crowd at all the Truth Nazi sites.


PS -

Don't bother with posters like GoodOlDave and hooper. They are just some of the resident skeptic trolls here that seem to have immunity from the rules for some reason. There's a feature here to put certain people on ignore. I recommend you take advantage of it, so as to not waste your time with people like them. The only good posters like them are to help keep threads bumped!

And don't bother with BoneZ either. He's the resident angry 9/11 Truth Cop who tries to scare people away from research he thinks is not worthy (apparently he's the smartest truther here!). He preaches censorship. I think 911flogger sent him over here to police the place.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
when I DEFEND THE 9/11 MOVEMENT

You can't defend the 9/11 truth movement when you advocate or are associated with anything that has to do with DEW or video fakery. It makes it look like you have ulterior motives.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
Doesn't it strike you as THE LEAST BIT ODD that, when I DEFEND THE 9/11 MOVEMENT, Kevin Ryan ATTACKS ME?

Doesn't it strike YOU the least bit odd that this is what's going to happen when you advocate DEW and video fakery, then try to defend the 9/11 truth movement? Those are oxymorons and again, make it look like you have ulterior motives.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
uch as that I ADVOCATE "SPACE BEAMS" when I only ADVOCATE THEIR STUDY.

Same thing. They were studied years ago and debunked. There's nothing left to study today what wasn't done years ago. There's no verifiable, repeatable, scientific proof that DEW were used at the WTC. Let it go.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
I identify evidence supporting video fakery in my rebuttal

--the impossible speed

It's only impossible to those that have no knowledge or understanding of flight dynamics or mechanics. There are, however, professional pilots posting in this very thread that can tell you that the "impossible speed" claim is, in fact, very possible.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
and the plane passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames that it passes through its own length in air, which implies that a 500,000-ton steel and concrete structure provided no more resistance to the planes trajectory than air.

This statement suggests that you have absolutely no idea how the towers were constructed. I'll give you a brief lesson.

The towers' outer walls were assembled in sections. Each section was 3 columns wide by 3 stories high:



The sections were welded together by a spandrel plate (steel plate). Then the column sections were bolted together with four bolts:





The columns were then bolted to the floor trusses as well. The floor trusses were very light-weight but strong:




When the planes entered the buildings, the only thing that provided any resistance is the bolts and welds holding the outer columns together. You should know with that Ph.D. of yours that bolts and welds don't offer much resistance against a 250,000 pound, 500mph object. The floor trusses were probably the only real resistance (before and besides the cores) in those buildings as they helped start the destruction process of the planes.

In the case of the south tower, the floor trusses were mostly responsible for the destruction of the second plane as the second plane missed most of the core. The rest of the plane was stopped by the trusses and the north and east wall columns.

To summarize, bolts and welds will not offer much resistance against a jetliner. And while the floor trusses were strong, they didn't offer too much more resistance due to the speed of the planes.

Another thing that bugs the hell out of me: the no-planers claims of "steel and concrete building". There was no concrete in those buildings except for the bases of the towers, and the 4" of aggregate on top of the floor trusses. Four inches of lightweight aggregate is not very much. A ten-pound sledge hammer can easily break up and destroy four inches of lightweight aggregate, let alone a 250,000 pound object traveling at 500mph.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
I cite a article where I discuss all of this, "More Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11", in case you didn't notice.

Video fakery was debunked by myself and others years ago, in case you haven't noticed. I have a few good links to those debunkings in my thread here.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
I also observed in passing that we have additional proof that the plane shown is not real from the absence of any strobe lights on the top or bottom of its fuselage and on its wing tips.

Absence of strobe lights, albeit very interesting, doesn't prove that there were no planes at all. Most witnesses that were outside watching the north tower burn saw the second plane, and all of the home videos show the second plane.

Until you or any other video fakery proponent can explain how an invisible, CGI plane got on dozens of home videos, then you really don't have any proof.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
My inference is that your imagination is too limited to realize that what we are seeing has to be faked, either by the use of computer-generated images, video compositing, or a hologram.

Well it couldn't possibly be CGI, unless you accuse dozens of New York citizens of purchasing high-dollar computer equipment or software to add the CGI to their videos.

It also couldn't possibly be holograms because for the holes to have been made by holographic planes, the explosives would have to have been on the outside of the buildings for all to see.

Since neither CGI or holograms can be logically explained or shown to be remotely possible, those "theories" can be immediately discounted.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
Our only advantage over you in a case like this is that we have been studying the evidence and you have not.

You can only claim I have not looked at the "evidence" due to your not being privy to 9/11 truth movement circles.

There's a moderated debate forum here at ATS. Any time you would like to have a debate about no-planes or video fakery, you can contact "semperfortis" and have him set up the debate. Here is a link to the last time I debated a no-planer/video fakery proponent.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
Posts like yours, however, are suggesting that perhaps I was mistaken and had excessive expectations for reason and rationality on this forum .

There's more than plenty of reason and rationality on this forum. It's just that those of us in the 9/11 truth movement have little tolerance for those peddling the DEW, no-planes, or video fakery disinformation.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
You do understand that I have a Ph,D

That becomes a worthless piece of paper when you start peddling DEW, no-planes at the WTC, or video fakery. Those subjects have been debunked for so many years that it's obvious that anyone who still peddles them to this day is deliberately trying to destroy the credibility of the truth movement.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
but it might suggest that there it more than a remote possibility that I actually am right.

Having a Ph.D does not automatically make it possible that you are correct about anything. When you or Judy Wood start peddling DEW, no-planes, or video fakery, it baffles peoples' minds of how either of you could possibly have a Ph.D and peddle such blatant disinformation.



Originally posted by JimFetzer
"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
www.opednews.com...

Those "new proofs" are not new and have been debunked ad-nauseum on this forum and others. Just take a look through the no-planer threads already here. Or you can start your own thread with these "new proofs" and I'll debunk them in more detail there. Or you can have a moderated debate set up in the debate forum and I'll debunk them there. Anywhere you like, I'll debunk your "new proof of video fakery" for you. There are other pilots on this forum that I'm sure would love to add to my debunkings.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
And don't bother with BoneZ either. He's the resident angry 9/11 Truth Cop

Angry?




Originally posted by ATH911
He preaches censorship.

Please show everyone where I've advocated or "preached" censorship. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
OK. I think you are simply a very ignorant fellow who thinks he is smarter than anyone else. We have all known people like you since the 2nd grade. So I am going to call your bluff. Since you think you know all there is to know about video fakery, for example, let's start there. I have a piece that I linked above to "More Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11". Take that as your target and tell me what we have wrong. Then we'll see who has their head where the sun does not shine! Give it your best shot. Fire away, BoneZ!

reply to post by _BoneZ_
 



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


Hey lay off Bonez, I've read lots of his/her threads and posts and they have always been well thought out and researched and balanced too - then I read you posts on this thread and you don't come over very well at all.

I read a story about a prince who was seeking spiritual advice in India and he met a mystic who said he believed there is no such thing as right and wrong, good and bad, true and not true and the prince saw this man as a fool. After 10 years the theories of 9/11 should be bullet proof but here you are talking about planes and no planes and fake video footage. Get it together and present some good arguments please because what you're saying is too easy to debunk and now your attacking ATS users who I respect.

For a person with so much academic smarts your not very well clued up on how the world works on t'internet.

PS

As ATS user impressme focuses on, and I hope I am not mis-representing their work but it's all about the take down of towers 1 and 2.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So in other words, you're insisting I'm wrong when I say you're just getting all your information from those damned fool conspiracy web sites


Even the damned fool NIST report is on damned fool websites.

There isn't much to be said about 9/11 that you won't find online. That doesn't mean the internet itself spawned this information or that at least half of it isn't easily observable with nothing but two eyes, a brain, and a clear enough video or photograph.

And where is the proof for the "official story" or even the NIST report again? The Achilles heel of every argument you make, is at least that you're a hypocrite.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 





Obviously, I have made the mistake of assuming more of you were current with research on 9/11


Well I guess that depends what you mean by current. I clicked on your blog, the one labeled what did not happen at the Pentagon, assuming I would find something factual. I was highly disappointed when I read that you also are lying about Mr McIntyre's statements that day.

For those interested in the truth about what Mr McIntyre had to say that day I direct you here...

transcripts.cnn.com...

The part most often used by 9/11 Truthers and Mr Fetzer..is this...




MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon


It tends to make people think that Mr McIntyre doesnt think Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. What they will neglect to tell you is that THIS is the question Mr McIntyre was replying to...




WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon. Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?


So Mr McIntyre was responding to the reports that Flight 77 had hit the ground first and then the Pentagon. This was Mr McIntyre's COMPLETE answer....



MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.


"which would indicate the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon"

In other words, Mr McIntyre was not saying that no plane had hit the Pentagon. He was saying that there was no evidence the the plane had hit the ground FIRST before hitting the building.


edit on 2-2-2011 by vipertech0596 because: grammar mistake



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
This was Mr McIntyre's COMPLETE answer....



MCINTYRE: You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.


"which would indicate the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon"

In other words, Mr McIntyre was not saying that no plane had hit the Pentagon. He was saying that there was no evidence the the plane had hit the ground FIRST before hitting the building.



Include the whole sentence.

"There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse."


You are doing just what you accused Jim of doing: butchering the guy's words.

He didn't just say "which would indicate the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon," he said there was NOT evidence "which would indicate the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon."


Not to mention if your interpretation were correct, he would contradict himself within the same paragraph. After all he did also say this:

"You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."


How do you go from "there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon" and "the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand" and "There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around" turn into him saying that he does think a plane hit the Pentagon?


I don't know what did or didn't hit the Pentagon, but I can read what this guy was saying and if anyone is distorting his word, it's obviously you.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 


Yes. Clarity, and full context.

What a concept!!!


And the "truther" lies go 'round and 'round, 'round and 'round.......

"truther".....Heh! This century's most insidious oxymoron.......




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join