Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

While you're at it Q, let's define what you mean by "uplink". Specifically, do you mean mere communication between the units, or the exchange of human generated messages between the units?

Both/either – I mean any attempted communication from the ground to the aircraft. There are rules in place for these attempted uplinks to take place even when the aircraft is unresponsive. So answer my question? If the aircraft stops communicating, how do ARINC decide which ground station to route attempted communications to the aircraft? It is based upon predicted data supplied by the airline (and these are the records we see), which is not necessarily a match to the actual aircraft physical location as you believe. Again, this is all described in ACARS documentation and has been discussed here previously. Please see link for example and quote from ACARS manual regarding process when aircraft tracking information is unavailable: -

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=213916&st=1875#entry4153612

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both/either – I mean any attempted communication from the ground to the aircraft. There are rules in place for these attempted uplinks to take place even when the aircraft is unresponsive. So answer my question? If the aircraft stops communicating, how do ARINC decide which ground station to route attempted communications to the aircraft? It is based upon predicted data supplied by the airline (and these are the records we see), which is not necessarily a match to the actual aircraft physical location as you believe. Again, this is all described in ACARS documentation and has been discussed here previously. Please see link for example and quote from ACARS manual regarding process when aircraft tracking information is unavailable: -

http://www.unexplain...75#entry4153612

There are 2 types of communications performed by the ACARS system, just as with the cellphone system.

The first is the ongoing and basically silent communication between the computers at the ground station and the computer on the airborne (mobile) units.

The second is the communications between the humans at dispatch (ground stations) and the humans in the cockpit.

Both/either is rather an ambiguous choice, but let's go with it.

If you mean by "uplink" the exchange of messages between the humans, then your statement regarding no commo after the time of the alleged crash is correct.

If we also count the communications between the 2 sets of computers, then the records show that the unit identified as Flight 93 was still "in the loop" 30 minutes later, somewhere in Illinois.

It was that distinction that was revealed by the work done by Stutts and the further examination done by Woody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just ludicrous. I mean really, guys. Boony, Cz, Sky, Frenat ... (Did I miss anyone?) ... 2800+ messages and no progress. Brer Rabbit (Sorry but I have too much respect for the original Babe Ruth to attach that name to BR.) couldn't get a clue if he were in the middle of a clue field during the height of clue mating season. I see he's still trying to pass himself as an aeronautical god who taught the Wright Brothers how to fly even though he's been caught out so many times it's not funny. Actually, it is funny since every time he tries, he just gets himself in deeper.

Anyway, I just buzzed through to see what condition the thread's condition was in expecting to find it long dead and overgrown with weeds and icky stuff. Maybe I'll join the fun for a while since it looks like the gang's pretty much all here. :st

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just ludicrous. I mean really, guys. Boony, Cz, Sky, Frenat ... (Did I miss anyone?) ... 2800+ messages and no progress. Brer Rabbit (Sorry but I have too much respect for the original Babe Ruth to attach that name to BR.) couldn't get a clue if he were in the middle of a clue field during the height of clue mating season. I see he's still trying to pass himself as an aeronautical god who taught the Wright Brothers how to fly even though he's been caught out so many times it's not funny. Actually, it is funny since every time he tries, he just gets himself in deeper.

Anyway, I just buzzed through to see what condition the thread's condition was in expecting to find it long dead and overgrown with weeds and icky stuff. Maybe I'll join the fun for a while since it looks like the gang's pretty much all here. :st

Welcome back Kludge.

Glad to have you back!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2 types of communications performed by the ACARS system, just as with the cellphone system.

The first is the ongoing and basically silent communication between the computers at the ground station and the computer on the airborne (mobile) units.

The second is the communications between the humans at dispatch (ground stations) and the humans in the cockpit.

Both/either is rather an ambiguous choice, but let's go with it.

If you mean by "uplink" the exchange of messages between the humans, then your statement regarding no commo after the time of the alleged crash is correct.

If we also count the communications between the 2 sets of computers, then the records show that the unit identified as Flight 93 was still "in the loop" 30 minutes later, somewhere in Illinois.

It was that distinction that was revealed by the work done by Stutts and the further examination done by Woody.

BR,

Can you tell me where the intended flight path of flight UA 93 was supposed to be if *hypothetically* the plane did not meet its demise in Shanksville?

I saw the map of the intended flight path and it shows UA 93 passing through Illinois.

Now given the situation presented by Q24, regarding the ACARS communication, if the system was still trying to get in contact with UA 93 even after the crash, it would try to continue contacting the flight based on its intended path.

Wouldn't 30 minutes put flight 93 around Illinois (its intended flight path)?

Makes me wonder where your entire argument is going at this point.

*removed*

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 2 types of communications performed by the ACARS system, just as with the cellphone system.

The first is the ongoing and basically silent communication between the computers at the ground station and the computer on the airborne (mobile) units.

The second is the communications between the humans at dispatch (ground stations) and the humans in the cockpit.

Both/either is rather an ambiguous choice, but let's go with it.

If you mean by "uplink" the exchange of messages between the humans, then your statement regarding no commo after the time of the alleged crash is correct.

If we also count the communications between the 2 sets of computers, then the records show that the unit identified as Flight 93 was still "in the loop" 30 minutes later, somewhere in Illinois.

It was that distinction that was revealed by the work done by Stutts

and the further examination done by Woody.

Please BR... learn how the ACARS system worked IN 2001... You are again making it extremely obvious that you have not researched this beyond whatever PFT911 has spoon-fed you and you are just embarrassing yourself.

I have read through the actual protocols specific to what was in place in 2001 (ARINC 618) and I can tell you beyond any doubt that there was no "ongoing and basically silent communication" as you claim.

I know its a hard thing for you to do, but please, stop making yourself look like an even more willfully ignorant fool "Truther" than you already have.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please BR... learn how the ACARS system worked IN 2001... You are again making it extremely obvious that you have not researched this beyond whatever PFT911 has spoon-fed you and you are just embarrassing yourself.

I have read through the actual protocols specific to what was in place in 2001 (ARINC 618) and I can tell you beyond any doubt that there was no "ongoing and basically silent communication" as you claim.

I know its a hard thing for you to do, but please, stop making yourself look like an even more willfully ignorant fool "Truther" than you already have.

Cz

Watch it CZ, he will come back with some statement regarding Cimino and how he and those at PF911T have more experience in aviation and that trumps actual understanding of ARINC documentation.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back Kludge.

Glad to have you back!

Kinda sorta back although I do need to hit 1000 posts somehow and that won't happen this millennium at my present rate. I do apologize for missing you in the "gang's all here" rundown. There are probably more I've missed but it's been a day or two and I've been busy with several rather intense projects. Anyway, I read back to page 185 or so which was all the further I needed to go to "catch up" on the current status. I have to admit it was entertaining. Pathetic on "certain people's" parts but entertaining none the less. The comment about "grammar and spelling" gave me a huge grin, mostly because anyone who has to play that card has nothing else.

Let's see ... the Waldo project needs motors so I'm looking for as many old computer drives - any type, any size - to strip down for the motors and any other handy hardware. Webcams and old/broken camcorders - the latter for an assortment of parts - are also on the list.

Noelle's hanging in - still the fighter with occasional little victories in a war we both know she's going to lose. Her Christmas present arrived already and I told her to go ahead and open it. Happy tears! God, I love when that happens. They beat the ones from pain etc my a long shot.

The freakin' clutch slave cylinder is installed in the truck once I got a way to mix metric & fractional inch fittings. Part of the electrical system went wacky for a while but I've got that under control now too. I may lose the sides & front of the bed then lay down a wooden deck over the original deck rather than try to fix the original coachwork. That'll just leave the cab which doesn't need half what the bed does.

So now, CTists & believers, entertain me with your nonsense and ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please BR... learn how the ACARS system worked IN 2001... You are again making it extremely obvious that you have not researched this beyond whatever PFT911 has spoon-fed you and you are just embarrassing yourself.

This is in keeping with his passing himself off as a pilot and overall aviation genius. Everything - everything - he knows about aviation came from the truther sites. This has been obvious almost from the outset.

I know its a hard thing for you to do, but please, stop making yourself look like an even more willfully ignorant fool "Truther" than you already have.

The first version was accurate already. But then, the two terms are synonymous.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch it CZ, he will come back with some statement regarding Cimino and how he and those at PF911T have more experience in aviation and that trumps actual understanding of ARINC documentation.

Ah, appeal to [faulty ... to keep it polite] authority. This is, at best, the closest he's ever come to presenting evidence anywhere in this or any other thread. Unfortunately it fall short of being anything close. What a shame he can't see that himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BR,

Can you tell me where the intended flight path of flight UA 93 was supposed to be if *hypothetically* the plane did not meet its demise in Shanksville?

I saw the map of the intended flight path and it shows UA 93 passing through Illinois.

Now given the situation presented by Q24, regarding the ACARS communication, if the system was still trying to get in contact with UA 93 even after the crash, it would try to continue contacting the flight based on its intended path.

Wouldn't 30 minutes put flight 93 around Illinois (its intended flight path)?

Makes me wonder where your entire argument is going at this point.

*removed*

We've been through this before Raptor, but I discovered long ago that repetition is sometimes necessary for everybody to "get it."

I don't know where 93 ended up. I'm not 100% certain that it even left Newark. I know that at least one security checkpoint at EWR was unmanned that morning, and I know it from a Continental pilot who strolled through and wondered why the checkpoint was unmanned.

If a certain professional athlete is right, can't think of his name or sport, he observed that flight being boarded from the ramp instead of the jetway, an unusual event even in 2001. That, as he boarded his team's charter flight to wherever they were going. On a subsequent flight the flight attendant told them that the unusual ramp boarding had been the fateful 93.

All I really know Raptor, for the umpteenth time, is that there was no wrecked Boeing in or near that field at Shanksville. I know that from the overhead videos and audio commentary on that day, and from the comments made to TV news people by Wally Miller and his gang of first responders.

Where it went I do not know. Now, given the information Woody has found, it appears it was still flying somewhere in Illinois 30 minutes later. There is no evidence as to where it landed, but it was still airborne and communicating electronically with ARINC after the time of the supposed crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please BR... learn how the ACARS system worked IN 2001... You are again making it extremely obvious that you have not researched this beyond whatever PFT911 has spoon-fed you and you are just embarrassing yourself.

I have read through the actual protocols specific to what was in place in 2001 (ARINC 618) and I can tell you beyond any doubt that there was no "ongoing and basically silent communication" as you claim.

I know its a hard thing for you to do, but please, stop making yourself look like an even more willfully ignorant fool "Truther" than you already have.

Cz

Well, I greatly appreciate your heartfelt concern Cz, but I'm a big boy now. :yes:

And since you are so familiar with ARINC 618, I'm sure you've read several of the appendices there. But if you read real closely, you will discover that parts of it work against the official story, as far as whether 93 was "in the loop" or not after its supposed crash in Shanksville.

Indeed, the deposition of Winter and Knerr reflect that they were very familiar with 618 and its various protocols.

It's such a hot topic, and such a smoking gun, that it seems some Italian researchers are now also into the research and analysis. Woody Box covers it quite well, if you're interested.

The work of Warren Stutts was most helpful in that it focused the discussion in a good way. Trouble is, close examination ends up working against the preliminary conclusion reached by Mr. Stutts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I greatly appreciate your heartfelt concern Cz, but I'm a big boy now. :yes:

And since you are so familiar with ARINC 618, I'm sure you've read several of the appendices there. But if you read real closely, you will discover that parts of it work against the official story, as far as whether 93 was "in the loop" or not after its supposed crash in Shanksville.

Indeed, the deposition of Winter and Knerr reflect that they were very familiar with 618 and its various protocols.

It's such a hot topic, and such a smoking gun, that it seems some Italian researchers are now also into the research and analysis. Woody Box covers it quite well, if you're interested.

The work of Warren Stutts was most helpful in that it focused the discussion in a good way. Trouble is, close examination ends up working against the preliminary conclusion reached by Mr. Stutts.

Such as the fact that Stutts himself was not able to locate the preamble where the plane identifier is on several legitimate flights?

Yes, even Stutts himself claimed that several legitimate flights also had zero'd out identifiers in their FDR.

What was your smoking gun about flight 77 again? Oh yah, the fact that Cimino saw a zero'd out flight identifier in flight 77's FDR........

WOW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been through this before Raptor, but I discovered long ago that repetition is sometimes necessary for everybody to "get it."

Apperantly, repetition doesn't work in your case.

I don't know where 93 ended up. I'm not 100% certain that it even left Newark. I know that at least one security checkpoint at EWR was unmanned that morning, and I know it from a Continental pilot who strolled through and wondered why the checkpoint was unmanned.

As I stated previously.....speculation

If a certain professional athlete is right, can't think of his name or sport, he observed that flight being boarded from the ramp instead of the jetway, an unusual event even in 2001. That, as he boarded his team's charter flight to wherever they were going. On a subsequent flight the flight attendant told them that the unusual ramp boarding had been the fateful 93.

Speculation again. Your points seem to suggest that all witnesses are infallible, which in the case of flight 77 witnesses that state a North of Citgo approach.

Am I to assume that even flight attendants are trained in identifying planes by sight? It seems to me that you are piecing parts of your theories based on the rumor mill.

All I really know Raptor, for the umpteenth time, is that there was no wrecked Boeing in or near that field at Shanksville. I know that from the overhead videos and audio commentary on that day, and from the comments made to TV news people by Wally Miller and his gang of first responders.

When are you going to understand or even begin to realize that Wally Miller was misquoted based on his first response of the scene? Later on he made a public statement that his words were taken out of context. Sky has shown you that video multiple times. All you claim is he was coerced by the evil gubmint. That isn't good enough BR.

Where it went I do not know. Now, given the information Woody has found, it appears it was still flying somewhere in Illinois 30 minutes later. There is no evidence as to where it landed, but it was still airborne and communicating electronically with ARINC after the time of the supposed crash.

But.....you said flight 93 may never have left Newark........

/facepalm

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They couldn't cover up zippergate but they managed to stage all this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such as the fact that Stutts himself was not able to locate the preamble where the plane identifier is on several legitimate flights?

Yes, even Stutts himself claimed that several legitimate flights also had zero'd out identifiers in their FDR.

What was your smoking gun about flight 77 again? Oh yah, the fact that Cimino saw a zero'd out flight identifier in flight 77's FDR........

WOW

I was not aware that Stutts had examined FDRs. I thought his most famous work was on the ARINC material?

Which FDRs did he get to analyze?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apperantly, repetition doesn't work in your case.

As I stated previously.....speculation

Speculation again. Your points seem to suggest that all witnesses are infallible, which in the case of flight 77 witnesses that state a North of Citgo approach.

Am I to assume that even flight attendants are trained in identifying planes by sight? It seems to me that you are piecing parts of your theories based on the rumor mill.

When are you going to understand or even begin to realize that Wally Miller was misquoted based on his first response of the scene? Later on he made a public statement that his words were taken out of context. Sky has shown you that video multiple times. All you claim is he was coerced by the evil gubmint. That isn't good enough BR.

But.....you said flight 93 may never have left Newark........

/facepalm

I have both seen Wally Miller's statements, and read the transcript of them. I have seen the statements on video of several of his assistants. I have also listened to a telephone interview with him. So please don't tell me what I know or don't know Raptor.

No, all witnesses are not infallible. In aviation matters, they seem to be quite fallible.

It is NOT speculation that at least 1 checkpoint at EWR was unmanned that day. It is a fact, as reported by an airline pilot who walked right through it. Why do you guys unable to tell the difference between speculation and fact? (I think I know the answer :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.911woodybox.blogspot.com

So it seems that Warren Stutt has suggested that UA dispatcher Michael Winter, and his supervisor Mr. Knerr, in their deposition with the FBI, were in error. That suggests that Mr. Stutt is more of an expert in the field of ACARS than 2 men who work in the field for a living, and who understand the ACARS protocol so well they don't even need to reference the 618 protocol in their deposition.

The information received and analyzed by Stutt suggests that 93 circled in the vicinity of Pittsburgh for about 50 minutes, and that conflicts with every other part of even the OCT.

Woody's next project is a close analysis of the Airfone data. Should be interesting, eh? :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not aware that Stutts had examined FDRs. I thought his most famous work was on the ARINC material?

Which FDRs did he get to analyze?

Funny that you mention Warren Stutt. Since it was him who released the decompressor program for the FDR data.

http://journalof911s...ltimeter_92.pdf

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both seen Wally Miller's statements, and read the transcript of them. I have seen the statements on video of several of his assistants. I have also listened to a telephone interview with him. So please don't tell me what I know or don't know Raptor.

No, all witnesses are not infallible. In aviation matters, they seem to be quite fallible.

It is NOT speculation that at least 1 checkpoint at EWR was unmanned that day. It is a fact, as reported by an airline pilot who walked right through it. Why do you guys unable to tell the difference between speculation and fact? (I think I know the answer :yes:

Why do you continue to mis-interpret Wally Miller's statements?

Don't even bother answering that. We all know the reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that you mention Warren Stutt. Since it was him who released the decompressor program for the FDR data.

http://journalof911s...ltimeter_92.pdf

Yes, I've read that one before Raptor, and understand it to be sort of a decoding error that was exposed by Stutt and others.

Unless I misunderstood your earlier post, you claimed that Stutt has also worked with OTHER Flight Data Recorders from OTHER aircraft, and found that an unassigned FDR is a common thing.

Did I misunderstand you? Can you offer any information regarding the other FDRs examined by Stutt?

With his computer science degree, does he work with FDR in his employment?

Heck, we're friends, so I will go ahead and answer your question about my interpretation of Wally Miller's remarks, if I may.

Hate to have to repeat again, but I understand how it works....

I saw video of Wally's remarks that first day, and I have read transcripts of his comments too.

Yes, I read, speak, write and understand the English language. And the body language on the video was most helpful.

I also saw video of the comments of Wally's assistants that were with him that day. Yeah, somehow they got them on TV. Go figure. :whistle:

So I did not misinterpret Wally's remarks--they were perfectly straightforward. His role as coroner was not needed because there was nothing there, including blood, to suggest that a passenger-carrying 757 had crashed in that field. Just as the overhead videos showed, and just as the news people described.

Edited by Babe Ruth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps that particular part of the Pentagon was a target for what was there...What was going on at that part of the building at that time?

Just food for thought.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wally's role as coroner ended because there were no bodies there. His role as Medical Examiner picked up instead which he also stated. Selective hearing/reading at it's finest there, folks.

This is typical of the sort of cherry picking CTists & Truthers do and why they continue to spout their garbage. Put reality in front of them and they fall back on "Da ebil gummint lies!" for lack of anything else. Show them where their "truth" fails and they add another layer to the conspiracy - more people, more organizations ... more anything to cover their tracks and continue the conspiracy.

I like conspiracy theories. I really do. They're fantastic entertainment especially when several about the same subject collide. Just the Pentagon alone has an airplane dressed to look like AAL77 but flying under remote control (from the C-130 apparently) to 77 but also under remote control to Tomahawk cruise missiles to a Russian anti-shipping missile to planted explosives to ... hmmm, what have I missed? I'm sure there were others. Freaking CTists & Truthers can't even agree on what blew up at the Pentagon yet they expect everyone to believe only they know the Real Truth. Shanksville has its own maze of amazing contradictions which are vaguely reminiscent of the ones at the Pentagon. Again, the only thing they agree on is "Da Ebil Gummint Lies!"

Another part I love is the whole "free thinker" schtick. To qualify as a CTist Free Thinker, all one has to do is say, "Da Ebil Gummint Lies!" then follow blindly along on the assorted CT & Truther sites. "Free thinking" means not thinking for themselves but simply accepting that their "experts" are infallible and, in fact, are gods to whom they must bear allegiance and total fealty. To do otherwise gets them branded as infidels and makes them subject to drive-by shunnings and horrors too horrible to mention. Even moving to another CTist camp causes them to be subject to being put to The Question. The Spanish Inquisition was a walk in the park by comparison. Yet there they are, believing that they are "free thinkers" all the while.

The Official Version of what happened on 11 September, 2001, has a number of advantages. First, it answers all of the evidence available. Second, it stands on its own merit without having to add more layers along the line when challenged. Third, it is backed by the greatest number of organizations and individuals who investigated the events of that day. Expanding on that last, these were people & organizations who were actually there "boots on the ground" as soon as they could be and who worked individually & collectively to piece together what happened as professionals, Is it perfect? No one associated with it or who has actually read and researched it would say that it is. But it does have the three advantages listed over any CT going. Probably more but that's adequate for now.

Oh, and it didn't require cherry picking witness statements but rather used convergence of testimony (We all know what this is, right?) to help determine what happened. So, for example, with over a hundred statements that place the airplane South of the Citgo and maybe a dozen at best that put it North of the Citgo, where do you think that convergence goes? Yep, South of the Citgo and all the arm waving and finger pointing and yelling, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" doesn't change that. Yet that is precisely what CTists & Truthers do. Amazing, isn't it. [Phrase deleted so as not to get the Evil Eye from my beloved DotNM] but amazing.

Did I blindly accept it at face value? Hell, no! Parts of it puzzled me and none of my own background in aviation and engineering could accept - or at least understand - them. So I asked questions of people with more experience and knowledge to help fill in those gaps. Admittedly, some of the questions were pretty dumb, on reflection, but I couldn't see the answers that were in front of me so having another perspective helped a lot. The end result was that, while I still have a couple questions, the vast majority of the Official Version made sense. At the same time, absolutely none of the CTs made sense at all once I had my answers although initially several of the possibilities presented couldn't be rejected out of hand. And, yes, that means I reviewed the assorted CTs as well. The more I reviewed them in light of what I learned on my own, the less sense they made.

Hmmm ... so who's the free thinker again?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps that particular part of the Pentagon was a target for what was there...What was going on at that part of the building at that time?

Just food for thought.

You have hit the nail on the head. That part of the Pentagon was targeted because of an investigation by congressional auditors and the Office of Naval Investigation regarding financial irregularities spanning back some number of years.

In the best demonstration of a stonewalling witness I have ever seen, Rumsfeld was deposed on that subject matter just the day before by Cynthia McKinney's committee.

For rocking the boat too much, McKinney was punished by the system and ended up leaving congress.

Dick Eastman and Tom Flocco and associates also cover this in their recent analysis regarding certain covert US Securities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wally's role as coroner ended because there were no bodies there. His role as Medical Examiner picked up instead which he also stated. Selective hearing/reading at it's finest there, folks.

This is typical of the sort of cherry picking CTists & Truthers do and why they continue to spout their garbage. Put reality in front of them and they fall back on "Da ebil gummint lies!" for lack of anything else. Show them where their "truth" fails and they add another layer to the conspiracy - more people, more organizations ... more anything to cover their tracks and continue the conspiracy.

I like conspiracy theories. I really do. They're fantastic entertainment especially when several about the same subject collide. Just the Pentagon alone has an airplane dressed to look like AAL77 but flying under remote control (from the C-130 apparently) to 77 but also under remote control to Tomahawk cruise missiles to a Russian anti-shipping missile to planted explosives to ... hmmm, what have I missed? I'm sure there were others. Freaking CTists & Truthers can't even agree on what blew up at the Pentagon yet they expect everyone to believe only they know the Real Truth. Shanksville has its own maze of amazing contradictions which are vaguely reminiscent of the ones at the Pentagon. Again, the only thing they agree on is "Da Ebil Gummint Lies!"

Another part I love is the whole "free thinker" schtick. To qualify as a CTist Free Thinker, all one has to do is say, "Da Ebil Gummint Lies!" then follow blindly along on the assorted CT & Truther sites. "Free thinking" means not thinking for themselves but simply accepting that their "experts" are infallible and, in fact, are gods to whom they must bear allegiance and total fealty. To do otherwise gets them branded as infidels and makes them subject to drive-by shunnings and horrors too horrible to mention. Even moving to another CTist camp causes them to be subject to being put to The Question. The Spanish Inquisition was a walk in the park by comparison. Yet there they are, believing that they are "free thinkers" all the while.

The Official Version of what happened on 11 September, 2001, has a number of advantages. First, it answers all of the evidence available. Second, it stands on its own merit without having to add more layers along the line when challenged. Third, it is backed by the greatest number of organizations and individuals who investigated the events of that day. Expanding on that last, these were people & organizations who were actually there "boots on the ground" as soon as they could be and who worked individually & collectively to piece together what happened as professionals, Is it perfect? No one associated with it or who has actually read and researched it would say that it is. But it does have the three advantages listed over any CT going. Probably more but that's adequate for now.

Oh, and it didn't require cherry picking witness statements but rather used convergence of testimony (We all know what this is, right?) to help determine what happened. So, for example, with over a hundred statements that place the airplane South of the Citgo and maybe a dozen at best that put it North of the Citgo, where do you think that convergence goes? Yep, South of the Citgo and all the arm waving and finger pointing and yelling, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" doesn't change that. Yet that is precisely what CTists & Truthers do. Amazing, isn't it. [Phrase deleted so as not to get the Evil Eye from my beloved DotNM] but amazing.

Did I blindly accept it at face value? Hell, no! Parts of it puzzled me and none of my own background in aviation and engineering could accept - or at least understand - them. So I asked questions of people with more experience and knowledge to help fill in those gaps. Admittedly, some of the questions were pretty dumb, on reflection, but I couldn't see the answers that were in front of me so having another perspective helped a lot. The end result was that, while I still have a couple questions, the vast majority of the Official Version made sense. At the same time, absolutely none of the CTs made sense at all once I had my answers although initially several of the possibilities presented couldn't be rejected out of hand. And, yes, that means I reviewed the assorted CTs as well. The more I reviewed them in light of what I learned on my own, the less sense they made.

Hmmm ... so who's the free thinker again?

You're a free thinker like Dubya was a free thinker. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.