Are there any CT talking points that our resident twoofers admit are wrong?

[CHF]

Reading over comments on various message boards I am regularly struck by how twoofers recycle the same discredited talking points over and over again, clinging to every last one despite repeated debunkings.

Now sure, we all know that's how they operate and, granted, just about everything they say has been debunked....but surely there must be some claims that even they think warrant the dust bin.

And I don't mean "laser beams from space" or "no planes hit the WTC" stuff. I mean the stupid crap that is cited by most/all twoofers as if it's a Bible verse.

- "pull it" = demolition
- Payne Stewart 1998 intercept took 21 minutes
- SAM batteries at the Pentagon
- BBC says hijackers are still alive
- faster than free fall
- Flight 93 landed in Cleveland

So my question to twoofers is: are there any popular CT claims that you have given up on and admit are false?

Any at all???

[rwguinn]

Reading over comments on various message boards I am regularly struck by how twoofers recycle the same discredited talking points over and over again, clinging to every last one despite repeated debunkings.

Now sure, we all know that's how they operate and, granted, just about everything they say has been debunked....but surely there must be some claims that even they think warrant the dust bin.

And I don't mean "laser beams from space" or "no planes hit the WTC" stuff. I mean the stupid crap that is cited by most/all twoofers as if it's a Bible verse.

- "pull it" = demolition
- Payne Stewart 1998 intercept took 21 minutes
- SAM batteries at the Pentagon
- BBC says hijackers are still alive
- faster than free fall
- Flight 93 landed in Cleveland

So my question to twoofers is: are there any popular CT claims that you have given up on and admit are false?

Any at all???

Like the Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopaleans, etc, etc--
They are all right. There are no wrongs here, except any report with actual numbers in it, or come from the Gub'mint!

[steve s]

They seem to have given up on the so-called "pod theory." It's been ages since I heard anything about that one.

Steve S.

[Gravy]

Avery has apparently abandoned the flight 93/Cleveland theory, and may accept that a plane hit the Pentagon. He also seems to think that the phone calls made by passengers and crew were real.

Those are three big steps towards sanity, but of course it all depends on what those theories are replaced with. Remember, he dropped the pod theory for LC2E and replaced it with the even more ridiculous Cleveland theory. In the first version flight 93 crashed in Shanksville.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

They seem to have given up on the so-called "pod theory." It's been ages since I heard anything about that one.

Steve S.

Yeah, why did they drop that one? What's the JREF debunk on that?

I think that was one of the early "that sounds so out there" arguments, that caused a rift. Since then we've had space beams, no pkanes, etc, so I don't see why it is so taboo to discuss. Was it thoroughly debunked?

JAQ

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Avery has apparently abandoned the flight 93/Cleveland theory, and may accept that a plane hit the Pentagon. He also seems to think that the phone calls made by passengers and crew were real.

Those are three big steps towards sanity, but of course it all depends on what those theories are replaced with. Remember, he dropped the pod theory for LC2E and replaced it with the even more ridiculous Cleveland theory. In the first version flight 93 crashed in Shanksville.

Is there positive proof that 93 didn't land in Cleveland?

I can't see Avery ever saying that 77 hit the Pentagon.

[Gravy]

Is there positive proof that 93 didn't land in Cleveland?Of course not. Rational people don't consider the witnesses, the radar tracks, the FDR recordings, the CVR recordings, the phone calls, the aircraft, the personal effects, and the remains of every victim "positive evidence." Therefore the Cleveland scenario is wide open. I hope some day someone gets to the bottom of this great mystery.

[ref]

Is there positive proof that 93 didn't land in Cleveland?


Is there positive proof, that 93 didn't crash in Shanksville? You should be answering that, not the other way araound.

Anyway, I copy you my answer, because I have already written one before:

Liz Foreman, whose name was attached to this story, tried to clear it up in February 2006: “The story in question, an Associated Press bulletin, was posted on WCPO.com during the morning of September 11, 2001. The story stated that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. This was not true.
Once the AP issued a retraction a few minutes later, we removed the link. I only removed the link TO the story. We did not remove the story itself. This was my error probably due to the busy nature of the day.”

One plane landed in Cleveland, Delta Flight 1989, which was first misidentified as Flight 93. The other mystery plane, a KC-135, only returned to the hangar.

Vernon "Bill" Wessel, the director of safety and mission assurance at NASA Glenn reports the following:
“A KC-135 had to come back to the hangar," says Wessel, as if realizing for the first time that this aircraft may have caused some undue confusion. A team of scientists from the Johnson Space Center in Houston had flown to Cleveland on this KC-135 to conduct micro-gravity experiments. The visiting scientists could not return to Houston as scheduled on 9/11 once the FAA ordered all planes to land. "After the facility closed, we had to take those scientists to a hotel." The scientists, dressed as civilians, were boarded onto shuttle buses.


ETA: That was just an answer for the part, that something landed in Cleveland. You must of course consider all the evidence Gravy already told you.

[Dave Rogers]

You're missing the point if you think things will be admitted to be false. It's a matter of terminology. Nothing is "wrong", things are just discovered to be "disinfo".

Dave

[zooterkin]

The scientists, dressed as civilians, were boarded onto shuttle buses.


Just curious, but what do scientists normally dress as?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Just curious, but what do scientists normally dress as?

They always look like this:

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/onion_news1186.article.jpg


Its a well known fact.

/S

[Mince]

Is there positive proof that 93 didn't land in Cleveland?

You mean, other than there is no proof that it did land in Cleveland? Is there positive proof that you didn't just PM me for a blowjob?

[The Doc]

Skepticalcriticalguy,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

[steve s]

Yeah, why did they drop that one? What's the JREF debunk on that?


The reason for the pod theory seems to be that they couldn't accept that an aluminum plane could plow through steel beams. But it's not diffucult to show that the energy of a commercial airliner traveling at about 500 mph is equivalent to thousands of pounds of explosives. If the troofers deny that all those explosives could cut through steel beams then they'd have to drop their controlled demolition zaniness.

ETA: Also, the missile fired from the plane would contain explosives which would have to be capable of cutting through the beams.
Steve S.

[defaultdotxbe]

Yeah, why did they drop that one? What's the JREF debunk on that?

I think that was one of the early "that sounds so out there" arguments, that caused a rift. Since then we've had space beams, no pkanes, etc, so I don't see why it is so taboo to discuss. Was it thoroughly debunked?

JAQ
ok, so while the pod theory was once "too out there" to discuss, now that its not the craziest thing truthers have come up with its open for discussion?

am i the only one who thinks that right up there with geggys "we cant find osama so lets blame someone closer to home" thing?

[Calcas]

Just curious, but what do scientists normally dress as?

I'm guessing the reason they threw in the "dressed as civilians" part was because of the A/C.

A KC-135 is a 'tanker', who's normal duty is airborne refueling of other military aircraft. One would usually expect to see uniformed personnel deplaning from such an A/C. But, alas, many military A/C are also ocasionally used to shuttle people around. I "hopped" a tanker flight one time from CA to Key West just for a few days R & R..

Beachnut is an old tanker pilot. I'll bet he could confirm...

[Mr.D]

Is there positive proof that 93 didn't land in Cleveland?

Does anyone have any positive proof that Flight 93 didn't crash into skepticalcriticalguy and kill him?

If not, then he's obviously a shilldiscointelpronwojewzionistbushie

[Mr. Skinny]

I'm guessing the reason they threw in the "dressed as civilians" part was because of the A/C.

A KC-135 is a 'tanker', who's normal duty is airborne refueling of other military aircraft. One would usually expect to see uniformed personnel deplaning from such an A/C. But, alas, many military A/C are also ocasionally used to shuttle people around. I "hopped" a tanker flight one time from CA to Key West just for a few days R & R..

Beachnut is an old tanker pilot. I'll bet he could confirm...
I flew from Wright-Patterson AFB to Edwards AFB on a KC-135.

It was memorable for being the noisiest, coldest, least comfortable flight I ever took.

The toilet facilities consisted of a piss tube located behind the pilots position. The women on board just had to go without facilities for over three hours !!

ETA: About 25 of us were in civilian clothing. Only about 6 people were in uniform.

[pagan]

Reading over comments on various message boards I am regularly struck by how twoofers recycle the same discredited talking points over and over again, clinging to every last one despite repeated debunkings.

Now sure, we all know that's how they operate and, granted, just about everything they say has been debunked....but surely there must be some claims that even they think warrant the dust bin.

And I don't mean "laser beams from space" or "no planes hit the WTC" stuff. I mean the stupid crap that is cited by most/all twoofers as if it's a Bible verse.

- "pull it" = demolition
- Payne Stewart 1998 intercept took 21 minutes
- SAM batteries at the Pentagon
- BBC says hijackers are still alive
- faster than free fall
- Flight 93 landed in Cleveland

So my question to twoofers is: are there any popular CT claims that you have given up on and admit are false?

Any at all???

Are you fukkin nuts? We twoofers wrong? That, my dear gullible Dubya lover is not possible, we are simply to intelligent for that.

Excuse me, but being wrong is your department.

[Unfit4Command]

Are you fukkin nuts? We twoofers wrong? That, my dear gullible Dubya lover is not possible, we are simply to intelligent for that.

Excuse me, but being wrong is your department.

"Dubya lover"?
Are you suggesting that everyone who doesn't believe the conspiracy side is a "Dubya lover"? That's odd, since the "Truth Movement" has 84% support, why isn't Bush's approval rating only 16% or lower? Right now it's still 33-34%
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t181/facebook99/Bushapprovalrating.jpg

So it looks like some of the 84% still approve of Bush! :)

[pagan]

"Dubya lover"?
Are you suggesting that everyone who doesn't believe the conspiracy side is a "Dubya lover"? That's odd, since the "Truth Movement" has 84% support, why isn't Bush's approval rating only 16% or lower? Right now it's still 33-34%
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t181/facebook99/Bushapprovalrating.jpg

So it looks like some of the 84% still approve of Bush! :)

Excuse me, but we have a very special phenomenon in the US. They are called evangelicals. They are not the most critical people on the planet.
What ever Dubya says, they buy it.

They are the 30% who will always support Dubya. I mean, this guy claims he speak to god... Apparently that is enough...

[twinstead]

Excuse me, but we have a very special phenomenon in the US. They are called evangelicals. They are not the most critical people on the planet.
What ever Dubya says, they buy it.

They are the 30% who will always support Dubya. I mean, this guy claims he speak to god... Apparently that is enough...

Frankly pagan you're an idiot. Only an idiot would suggest that everybody who disagrees with him is a blind Bush supporter.

Even after being told time and time again how many of us are totally against the Bush administration's policies.

Your argument is a total cop out. You can't debate the facts, so you have to assassinate our character to make your point.

Pathetic.

[Unfit4Command]

Frankly pagan you're an idiot. Only an idiot would suggest that everybody who disagrees with him is a blind Bush supporter.

Even after being told time and time again how many of us are totally against the Bush administration's policies.

Your argument is a total cop out. You can't debate the facts, so you have to assassinate our character to make your point.

Pathetic.

:bigclap

[pagan]

Frankly pagan you're an idiot. Only an idiot would suggest that everybody who disagrees with him is a blind Bush supporter.

Even after being told time and time again how many of us are totally against the Bush administration's policies.

Your argument is a total cop out. You can't debate the facts, so you have to assassinate our character to make your point.

Pathetic.

You are a Dubya lover, no excuse me. You're a Dubya loving bastid.

Because, the effect of you stopping 911 truth and a new investigation, means Arab hate and warmongering.

911 was falsely used as a "causus belli" for these horrible crimes. 1 million dead Arabs and stealing their oil...

Stop it... Expose 911...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You are a Dubya lover, no excuse me. You're a Dubya loving bastid.

Because, the effect of you stopping 911 truth and a new investigation, means Arab hate and warmongering.

911 was falsely used as a "causus belli" for these horrible crimes. 1 million dead Arabs and stealing their oil...

Stop it... Expose 911...
Who helps you tie your shoes in the morning?

[twinstead]

You are a Dubya lover, no excuse me. You're a Dubya loving bastid.

Because, the effect of you stopping 911 truth and a new investigation, means Arab hate and warmongering.

911 was falsely used as a "causus belli" for these horrible crimes. 1 million dead Arabs and stealing their oil...

Stop it... Expose 911...

Oh, brilliant retort. Did you learn that debate technique at Harvard? Perhaps Yale?

Hyperbole. Nothing but ideologically blind opinion. Yet, somehow, you seem to think that a lame response like this is legitimate?

You have nothing. Your 'investigation' into 911 is suspect due to your extreme bias. Your debate technique is lacking. You probably don't brush your teeth often enough.

You are just some idiot on a web forum who thinks anybody who disagrees with you is blind to the real 'truth'. There are thousands like you, and like all of them you have no impact whatsoever on the REAL truth.

Reality goes on its merry way regardless of your specific 'interpretation' of it.

Good luck with that.

[T.A.M.]

You are a Dubya lover, no excuse me. You're a Dubya loving bastid.

Because, the effect of you stopping 911 truth and a new investigation, means Arab hate and warmongering.

911 was falsely used as a "causus belli" for these horrible crimes. 1 million dead Arabs and stealing their oil...

Stop it... Expose 911...

Please, tell us some more. Rant irrationally some more. Makes my job alot easier.

TAM:)

[LashL]

Are there any CT talking points that our resident twoofers admit are wrong?

The only admissions that twoofers make are to psych wards, and even those are involuntary.

[gumboot]

Yeah, why did they drop that one? What's the JREF debunk on that?


The "pod" is an early example of poor CTer photographic interpretation. The "pod" is infact the bulge in the 767 fuselage at the wing root, which contains, amongst other things, the main undercarriage. It is clearly visible in any under-belly image of a 767, such as these:

Here (http://www.911hoax.com/Boeing767.jpg)

Here (http://www.mythicalireland.com/other/planes/approaching-16/british-airways-767.jpg)

Here (http://www.cruisinaltitude.com/images/b767/b764/DLb764fbfil.jpg)

Here (http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRHeft05/FRH0505/FR0505a1.JPG)

Here (http://avia.russian.ee/pictures/usa/boeing-767.jpg)

Here (http://www.airlinesflightsfares.com/images/British-Airways-Boeing-767-300.jpg)

Here (http://www.xinu.nl/users/edwin/gallery/20060415/mediafiles/l7.jpg)

And Here (http://www.airlinesflightsfares.com/wp-content/themes/plain-vanilla/banner.jpg).

The generally low resolution images of UA175 depict what could be considered an exaggerated bulge due to the combination of poor resolution, pixel bleed, and bright sunlight reflecting off the bulge itself due to the position of the aircraft.

This exaggerated bulge is the alleged "pod".

-Gumboot

[The Doc]

Let me guess... too intelligent to use "too" instead of "to" and you spell "bastid" instead of "bastard".... sorry pagan but you are the last person I would call intelligent.


Pagan
1 million dead Arabs and stealing their oil...
Want to back both of those up chump?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Excuse me, but we have a very special phenomenon in the US. They are called evangelicals. They are not the most critical people on the planet.
What ever Dubya says, they buy it.

They are the 30% who will always support Dubya. I mean, this guy claims he speak to god... Apparently that is enough...

We also have bogus polls, and election fraud.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

OK, here's one: I have to admit that I don't like the way they claim Silverstein admitted to controlled demolition.

Personally, I believe he did. But it should be presented more as (yet another) "thing that makes ya go hmmmm" rather than a definite smoking gun.

[Hokulele]

Excuse me, but we have a very special phenomenon in the US. They are called evangelicals. They are not the most critical people on the planet.
What ever Dubya says, they buy it.

They are the 30% who will always support Dubya. I mean, this guy claims he speak to god... Apparently that is enough...


(Bolding mine.) Who we? I thought you said you were European.

[eddyk]

Avery has apparently abandoned the flight 93/Cleveland theory, and may accept that a plane hit the Pentagon. He also seems to think that the phone calls made by passengers and crew were real.

Those are three big steps towards sanity, but of course it all depends on what those theories are replaced with. Remember, he dropped the pod theory for LC2E and replaced it with the even more ridiculous Cleveland theory. In the first version flight 93 crashed in Shanksville.


I don't think in LCFC that he will say no plane hit the Pentagon.

I mean if this is to go mainstream...that's the easiest theory that many dozens could debunk.
And to have that one easily revealed as being totally and utterly wrong...would damn everything else of his.

Only those that are already twoofers will still believe it.

[uk_dave]

OK, here's one: I have to admit that I don't like the way they claim Silverstein admitted to controlled demolition.

Personally, I believe he did. But it should be presented more as (yet another) "thing that makes ya go hmmmm" rather than a definite smoking gun.

Actually, most normal people hear the CT version of that silverstein and go "hmmmmmmm", normally accompanied by cautious backing away from the CTer exponent.

Unless you listen or read that quote with a preconceived idea that wtc7 was intentionally demolished, all you take from it is that :
WTC7 was too far gone to be worth the trouble of risking lives to save it, therefore the attempt was pulled and then they watched it fall.

Try it sometime with an open mind.

Normal people have to be TOLD by the CTers what Silverstein is 'really' saying, and even then the majority don't agree.

Don't believe me?

Give it a go. Find someone who is completely uninvolved in the 9/11 CT debate (and who doesn't know that you are involved), and just present the quote to them without any interpretation, and then ask them what he was talking about.

I dare ya.

[NeoRicen]

We also have bogus polls, and election fraud.
Well that election fraud really didn't help Bush in the mid-terms did it? I guess it's all part of the conspiracy to make Bush's political life a living hell now hm?

[The Doc]

I don't think in LCFC that he will say no plane hit the Pentagon.

I mean if this is to go mainstream...that's the easiest theory that many dozens could debunk.
And to have that one easily revealed as being totally and utterly wrong...would damn everything else of his.

Only those that are already twoofers will still believe it.

Personally, I think LC:FC will be an "al Qaeda flew the planes, the USG blew up the towers" kind of deal. So yeah... I doubt they'll say no plane hit the Pentagon. It'll be interesting to see what they say about the Pentagon actually...

[TruthSeeker1234]

"Molten metal, flowing and in pools" is from Steven Jones' paper of course, and has become a truther talking point. I can't say for certain that this is wrong, but I am skeptical. The claim is based on eyewitnesses who are all from "official" sources. There are no pictures of this phenomenon. The video of the flowing molten stuff from WTC2 has odd inconsistencies about it, e.g. it switches locations from one shot to another.

It's hard to believe that nobody would bother taking pictures of pools of molten metal, as this would truly be a bizarre and unprecedented finding.

Dr. Wood has published pictures of the cool wet basement.

[pomeroo]

You are a Dubya lover, no excuse me. You're a Dubya loving bastid.

Because, the effect of you stopping 911 truth and a new investigation, means Arab hate and warmongering.

911 was falsely used as a "causus belli" for these horrible crimes. 1 million dead Arabs and stealing their oil...

Stop it... Expose 911...




Forget about exposing 911. Just find me a gas station where I can get some of that stolen oil. I'm paying over three bucks a gallon. Now I read that those bastard Iraqis who are completely under our thumb have awarded oil contracts to Russia and China. I ask you : Is this any way to run a NWO?

Damn!

[pomeroo]

OK, here's one: I have to admit that I don't like the way they claim Silverstein admitted to controlled demolition.

Personally, I believe he did. But it should be presented more as (yet another) "thing that makes ya go hmmmm" rather than a definite smoking gun.




"Wow, you're dumb!"

[uk_dave]

Now I read that those bastard Iraqis who are completely under our thumb have awarded oil contracts to Russia and China. I ask you : Is this any way to run a NWO?

Damn!

It's all part of our cunning plan.... the details of which are...ermmm too complicated to explain here...in english

But it all makes sense to those of us in the know

Honest it does

ummmmm

well........maybe.... kinda sorta.......

[pomeroo]

We also have bogus polls, and election fraud.



Really? Show us an example.

[Dave Rogers]

OK, here's one: I have to admit that I don't like the way they claim Silverstein admitted to controlled demolition.

Personally, I believe he did.

Is that the nearest you can get to admitting something is wrong - stating your personal belief that it's right?

Dave