Anyone interested in debunking Pandora's Box Chapter Two?

[GregoryUrich]

This interesting video was produced by Pilots for 911 Truth and is available at

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

Get your gear, this one will be a tough nut to crack.

[MarkyX]

Are they actual pilots?

[~enigma~]

Tough? You been asleep?

[Pardalis]

I still don't understand why the "conspirators" would plant a fake FDR that contradicts the official story.

[Miragememories]

This interesting video was produced by Pilots for 911 Truth and is available at

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

Get your gear, this one will be a tough nut to crack.

Nice link!

You've raised a great point. If professional pilots can't do it...need I say anymore?

Come on folks.

Cut your losses. Put your egos aside and embrace reality.

MM

[MarkyX]

Really?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-129851858930592160&q=dutch+documentary+9%2F11

28 minute mark, amateur pilot hits the Pentagon 3 times out of 3.

[pomeroo]

Nice link!

You've raised a great point. If professional pilots can't do it...need I say anymore?

Come on folks.

Cut your losses. Put your egos aside and embrace reality.

MM



Have all your bruises healed?

Do you think you might someday be right about something?

Admittedly, that was a funny one about putting egos aside and embracing reality.

If conspiracy liars were smart enough to understand the concept of irony, well, you get the idea...

[pomeroo]

Fantasists never seem to get around to explaining what Giulio Bernacchia got wrong:

http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

[Miragememories]

Really?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-129851858930592160&q=dutch+documentary+9%2F11

28 minute mark, amateur pilot hits the Pentagon 3 times out of 3.

Yes but the crux of the original post was hitting WTC 1 and WTC 2 with a simulator that professional pilots couldn't do in 10 out of 10 attempts, UNLESS they used speeds close to landing speed. NIST needed extreme speeds to make their model work. Think about it!!

A simulator by the way that is so good that once trained on it you can go to a real plane with real passengers!


MM

[Miragememories]

Have all your bruises healed?

Do you think you might someday be right about something?

Admittedly, that was a funny one about putting egos aside and embracing reality.

If conspiracy liars were smart enough to understand the concept of irony, well, you get the idea...

ahh "Castle Dracula"...yes tell me about fantasy.

No bruises here.


MM

[MarkyX]

Yes but the crux of the original post was hitting WTC 1 and WTC 2 with a simulator that professional pilots couldn't do in 10 out of 10 attempts, UNLESS they used speeds close to landing speed. NIST needed extreme speeds to make their model work. Think about it!!


Video evidence says otherwise. Besides, are you suggesting the pilots for 9/11 truth are no-planers now?

[pomeroo]

ahh "Castle Dracula"...yes tell me about fantasy.




Very few people, Ace Baker and Christophera being the obvious exceptions, are qualified to instruct you on the limits of fantasy.




No bruises here.

MM



Don't be so modest. That thread on the loons' petition to NIST was an old-fashioned butt-whompin' for you.

[Par]

Yes but the crux of the original post was hitting WTC 1 and WTC 2 with a simulator that professional pilots couldn't do in 10 out of 10 attempts, UNLESS they used speeds close to landing speed. NIST needed extreme speeds to make their model work. Think about it!!

A simulator by the way that is so good that once trained on it you can go to a real plane with real passengers!


It doesn’t seem likely that both of the following claims can be true:


An amateur pilot managed to hit the Pentagon three times out of three.
Professional pilots were unable to hit the World Trade Centre towers.


Given that we have video evidence supporting the truth of the first claim, shouldn’t we simply assume that second is untrue?

(The question is far from entirely rhetorical, nor is it directed solely at Miragememories, by the way.)

[GregoryUrich]

It doesn’t seem likely that both of the following claims can be true:


An amateur pilot managed to hit the Pentagon three times out of three.
Professional pilots were unable to hit the World Trade Centre towers.


Given that we have video evidence supporting the truth of the first claim, shouldn’t we simply assume that second is untrue?

(The question is far from entirely rhetorical, nor is it directed solely at Miragememories, by the way.)

Have you watched the video?

[GregoryUrich]

Are they actual pilots?

They say they are. Why not check it out?

[uk_dave]

Another bloody 'truther' video.

Jeez

All these videos and still no one cares

I predict the 'truthers' will declare victory when Bush dies of old age

[uk_dave]

Whatever happened to the pentacon researchers edition? Anyone know?

That's my favourite example of 'truther' mentality:

We'll gather together a mass of evidence, with countless interviews with people who support our beliefs, then we'll edit it down to a user friendly version and put that on the internet.

Only the big one, the 'researchers edition' doesn't exist. We have to continue to work on it.

We have to edit to try to counter the debunking of our smoking gun version.

Oh and we have a hollywood chick lined up to do the voice over but we can't afford her until we have sold some 'smoking gun' dvds....and no one is buying.

So now we have the mythical 'pilots for truth'. The fantasists who think they have the rosetta stone which will decode the fdr and prove that the fdr claimed to be from the plane which crashed into the pentagon and is presented in support of that claim, doesn't actually show the plane crashing into the pentagon.

As ever, 'truthers' project on to others what they themselves are thinking.

Truther: The evil govt wants to round up the citizenry and put them in camps
Truther: I really want to round people up and put them in camps

Truther: The government planted faked data which contradicts their case, because they're stupid
Truther: I believe in a conspiracy so full of contradictions I feel stupid

[grmcdorman]

I haven't looked at the video, but it should be pointed out that the difficulty of hitting the target - towers or Pentagon - depends critically on the approach. If the approach is started too close, and isn't lined up with the target, it'll be near impossible to hit it. On the other hand, the farther away you start your approach, the easier it'll be to hit. (Based on my fiddling with flight simulators; I'm not a pilot, myself.)

We also know that one of the aircraft had to bank quite a bit, and even then hit in a corner, so he wasn't perfectly lined up.

[Corsair 115]

Have you watched the video?I haven't, but that's because I have a standing rule stating that I do not visit CT sites. The studity typically on display at such sites causes my brain to scream in protest after only a few moments of exposure.

However, if anyone would like to list the points made by this video, I'd be happy to discuss them.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I nailed the Empire State Building (no WTC in post 2001 versions of Flight Sim) 5 out of 5 times at ~500 kts in Flight Sim 2004.

By the way, I hardly think that an organization that puts people who think that Stargate SG-1 is real (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/03/space-cadet.html) on a pedestal is in any position to be telling people what's true or not.

[GregoryUrich]

Whatever happened to the pentacon researchers edition? Anyone know?

That's my favourite example of 'truther' mentality:

We'll gather together a mass of evidence, with countless interviews with people who support our beliefs, then we'll edit it down to a user friendly version and put that on the internet.

Only the big one, the 'researchers edition' doesn't exist. We have to continue to work on it.

We have to edit to try to counter the debunking of our smoking gun version.

Oh and we have a hollywood chick lined up to do the voice over but we can't afford her until we have sold some 'smoking gun' dvds....and no one is buying.

So now we have the mythical 'pilots for truth'. The fantasists who think they have the rosetta stone which will decode the fdr and prove that the fdr claimed to be from the plane which crashed into the pentagon and is presented in support of that claim, doesn't actually show the plane crashing into the pentagon.

As ever, 'truthers' project on to others what they themselves are thinking.

Truther: The evil govt wants to round up the citizenry and put them in camps
Truther: I really want to round people up and put them in camps

Truther: The government planted faked data which contradicts their case, because they're stupid
Truther: I believe in a conspiracy so full of contradictions I feel stupid

Developing an opinion before you have seen the video might make you seem closed minded or worse--stupid like a twoofer.

Dude, watch the video. Then comment.

[MarkyX]

Sorry but I've watched the "video", it's just a radio interview. It's not scientific and the "evidence" is stricly hearsay from a very bias group of individuals.

Why does your movement use hearsay when the official story uses science?

[Par]

Have you watched the video?

I’ve watched the “Revolution Radio” one and the Pentagon-related section of the Zembla one. Is there something else I need to see?

[GregoryUrich]

I haven't, but that's because I have a standing rule stating that I do not visit CT sites. The studity typically on display at such sites causes my brain to scream in protest after only a few moments of exposure.

However, if anyone would like to list the points made by this video, I'd be happy to discuss them.

Is it the studity that causes you debunkers to be so closed minded? I watched the video and observed no studity. Give it a chance?

[uk_dave]

Developing an opinion before you have seen the video might make you seem closed minded or worse--stupid like a twoofer.

Dude, watch the video. Then comment.

Dude, i couldn't give a flying **** about a 'pilots for truth' video.

Don't you see? It's too late now. Maybe in 2005 or even 2006 it might have mattered. But now making videos to get your biased argument across is just pointless.

Tell me, what do the police say about pandoras chapt 2?

[GregoryUrich]

Sorry but I've watched the "video", it's just a radio interview. It's not scientific and the "evidence" is stricly hearsay from a very bias group of individuals.

Why does your movement use hearsay when the official story uses science?

Pandora's Box Chapter Two analyses the FDR data and animation released by the NTSB from flight 77. It's a little lower on the page.

[uk_dave]

studity?

[GregoryUrich]

Dude, i couldn't give a flying **** about a 'pilots for truth' video.

Don't you see? It's too late now. Maybe in 2005 or even 2006 it might have mattered. But now making videos to get your biased argument across is just pointless.

Tell me, what do the police say about pandoras chapt 2?

Why are you on this thread if you don't care about the topic? I'm beginning to think it's not just the truthers who are stupid.

You've judged the video without seeing it. Brilliant!

[GregoryUrich]

I haven't, but that's because I have a standing rule stating that I do not visit CT sites. The studity typically on display at such sites causes my brain to scream in protest after only a few moments of exposure.

However, if anyone would like to list the points made by this video, I'd be happy to discuss them.

Corsair didn't like the studity.

[MarkyX]

Pandora's Box Chapter Two analyses the FDR data and animation released by the NTSB from flight 77. It's a little lower on the page.

You mean that edited animation by the Pilots for 9/11 Truth based on the FDR that they found at the CRASH SITE INSIDE THE PENTAGON?

The very existence of such data is proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[Par]

Pandora's Box Chapter Two analyses the FDR data and animation released by the NTSB from flight 77. It's a little lower on the page.

Do you mean “Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two Flight Of American 77 (Trailer)”? I learned something about extremely inappropriate music, but very little else.

[MarkyX]

Speaking of which, that reply had nothing to do with the fact that you are using hearsay.

[GregoryUrich]

I’ve watched the “Revolution Radio” one and the Pentagon-related section of the Zembla one. Is there something else I need to see?

The video is came out about a month ago. I personally haven't paid much attention to the pentagon previously due to the lack of evidence but the video is pretty interesting. It's the first public presentation of the FDR data from flight 77.

[GregoryUrich]

Speaking of which, that reply had nothing to do with the fact that you are using hearsay.

I am not using heresay. I just pointed out an interesting video and you watched a different one. Maybe the people who produced that video used heresay.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This entire thread is unnecessary and redundant.

The ground-hugging poseur who founded pseudo-pilots for truth has already had his ass handed to him (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2007858&postcount=46) on basically this exact issue.

It's over, deal with it.

[Corsair 115]

Is it the studity that causes you debunkers to be so closed minded? I won't speak for anyone else 'round here, but stupidity does make me close-minded, yes. I don't react well to it at all, especially when it's self-evident. So this video, whatever its purported usefulness may be, has been tarred by the brush of the CT bandwagon. Not fair, perhaps, but that's life.

I watched the video and observed no studity. Give it a chance? Because I'd rather just discuss the points it makes here. Simpler, easier, and more direct, for me at least. Why should anyone need to actually watch the video to discuss whatever issues it raises? Is there something in it which can only be seen to be understood?

[uk_dave]

Why are you on this thread if you don't care about the topic? I'm beginning to think it's not just the truthers who are stupid.

You've judged the video without seeing it. Brilliant!

Yep, really brilliant.

Just like the 'truthers' who have never read the NIST report
Or the 911 commission report

But happily claim them to be erroneous.

Frustrating aint it?

Summarise the pandora chapt 2 for me, please. Just to prove that you watched it, and understood it.

Oh, and what response did they get from the state and federal law enforcement agencies of the US, the many delegates of the UN and the worlds media when they sent this video to them to prove that 911 was an inside job? Any news on that?

[Par]

The video is came out about a month ago. I personally haven't paid much attention to the pentagon previously due to the lack of evidence but the video is pretty interesting. It's the first public presentation of the FDR data from flight 77.

Well, yes that’s fairly interesting, but I can’t see what bearing it has on my original point.

[GregoryUrich]

Do you mean “Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two Flight Of American 77 (Trailer)”? I learned something about extremely inappropriate music, but very little else.

I don't think it's just a trailer. Maybe the music is the studity that is bothering Corsair.

Now I see it. That's only a trailer. Here's the real thing on google:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&q=pandora%27s+black+box

Sorry about that, and sorry about the music.

[uk_dave]

I don't think it's just a trailer. Maybe the music is the studity that is bothering Corsair.

Now I see it. That's only a trailer. Here's the real thing on google:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&q=pandora%27s+black+box

Soory about that, and sorry about the music.

There's more than that to be sorry for

[kookbreaker]

Why are you on this thread if you don't care about the topic? I'm beginning to think it's not just the truthers who are stupid.

You've judged the video without seeing it. Brilliant!

Sooner or later someone will get around to examining this video. Please have more patience than to expect it to be answered in less than a few minutes.

I, for one, will say that I am *sick* of watching the 'latest, greatest' troother video. I've seen over a dozen of them now, and the ones that aren't sickening are just plain devoid of any facts. To date, I have yet to learn the whole story about something from watching a troother video.

I have been at the stage where I expect that Uwe Boll will produce an Oscar worthy piture before any group with the name 'truth' in its title will produce a video with an actual fact within it.

Don't like it? Tough <rule8>, you troothers have been dropping loads of dung in our laps and telling is it is full of diamonds. You done this over and over, while spreading more and more lies. This is just another pile of dung you have dropped and insisted that we sort it for jewels to your level of satisfaction.

To then turn around and accuse us of 'not being open-minded' just because we don't jump up like your lap-dog and go running to watch a video where JDX once again demonstrates he does not know how to read data from a black box, or that his 'pilots' can't even aim their largest planes at some of the largest structures in the United States.

So, Gregory, please feel free to take your video, and your attitude and flake off. I predict this video, like EVERY OTHER TROOTHER VIDEO, will give nothing new, merely demonstrate their ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the misinformed and idiots. Its the same old, same old. With the same damn pathetic pleas that we are somehow 'obliged' to take and debunk every pile of <rule8> that troothers produce.

[GregoryUrich]

This entire thread is unnecessary and redundant.

The ground-hugging poseur who founded pseudo-pilots for truth has already had his ass handed to him (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2007858&postcount=46) on basically this exact issue.

It's over, deal with it.

A guy found a part. Yep, lets close up shop. Why not examine the new evidence and see how it fits in with the other evidence?

[uk_dave]

Further to kookbreakers excellent response, if this video has anything new to add to the sum of human knowledge, the internet forums are not the place to present it. You think 3000 innocent people were killed by the US govt on 911, and yet you, and the so called 'pilots for truth' think the way to prosecute this crime is with another internet video?

Puuuhlease! Get a sense of proportion.

ETA: This isn't a debate about what hard drive to install, or which airline to travel with, it's about death and destruction.

The deaths of thousands of people, and 'truthers' want to prosecute it on the internet. The more I think about it the more deranged I believe they are

[Skibum]

Well said kookbreaker, that pretty much sums up my sentiments.

[kookbreaker]

A guy found a part. Yep, lets close up shop. Why not examine the new evidence and see how it fits in with the other evidence?

What new evidence? Not only is it going to have nothing new, its stuff that HAS BEEN DEBUNKER HERE AGES AGO:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047&highlight=Pilots+Truth


Sheesh!

[GregoryUrich]

Sooner or later someone will get around to examining this video. Please have more patience than to expect it to be answered in less than a few minutes.

I, for one, will say that I am *sick* of watching the 'latest, greatest' troother video. I've seen over a dozen of them now, and the ones that aren't sickening are just plain devoid of any facts. To date, I have yet to learn the whole story about something from watching a troother video.

I have been at the stage where I expect that Uwe Boll will produce an Oscar worthy piture before any group with the name 'truth' in its title will produce a video with an actual fact within it.

Don't like it? Tough <rule8>, you troothers have been dropping loads of dung in our laps and telling is it is full of diamonds. You done this over and over, while spreading more and more lies. This is just another pile of dung you have dropped and insisted that we sort it for jewels to your level of satisfaction.

To then turn around and accuse us of 'not being open-minded' just because we don't jump up like your lap-dog and go running to watch a video where JDX once again demonstrates he does not know how to read data from a black box, or that his 'pilots' can't even aim their largest planes at some of the largest structures in the United States.

So, Gregory, please feel free to take your video, and your attitude and flake off. I predict this video, like EVERY OTHER TROOTHER VIDEO, will give nothing new, merely demonstrate their ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the misinformed and idiots. Its the same old, same old. With the same damn pathetic pleas that we are somehow 'obliged' to take and debunk every pile of <rule8> that troothers produce.

I haven't complained that no one was watching the video or that reponses weren't forthcoming. I was just pointing out that judging the film without seeing it is closed minded. In some cases I wasn't sure if the person had watched the film so I asked.

The thread is for debunking the video. I assume one would need to watch it to comment intelligently on it.

It's not my video. I won't flake off!

[T.A.M.]

I judge the film with out watching it for this reason...

Their premise is flawed. For them to be correct in their analysis, it means that the very people they are accusing of orchestrating the deaths of 3000 people, their government, had to (A) plant the fake FDR with data, and (B) place the INCORRECT DATA on the FDR. NOW HOW F^&KING STUPID is that? The same evil masterminds who orchestrated 9/11 and pulled the wool over the worlds eyes, were TOO F**KING DUMB to put data on the faked FDR that would prove, beyond doubt, that AA77 struck the 5 light posts, and then hit the Pentagon.

In my opinion, you cannot have it both ways, either the USG had no role in 9/11, and the data or the analysis is incorrect, OR the evil cabal was in on it, and hence they planeted all the evidence, in which case, given how good they were at all other aspects of the attacks, and the cover up, HOW ON GODS EARTH could they be STUPID enough to plant INCORRECT DATA??????

TAM:)

[Corsair 115]

The thread is for debunking the video. I assume one would need to watch it to comment intelligently on it.Not necessarily. Only if there's some particular aspect which needs to be seen in order to be understood would that be the case. Otherwise, whatever points it raises can simply be listed, with whatever supporting evidence from the video similarly listed, and then discussed.

Not everyone has either the time or the inclination to watch a video on the internet. Especially without some discussion of what its contents are.

[Par]

For the record, I took it from the original post that you were asking us to debunk the “Revolution Radio” segment from the linked page. I suspect that’s where a lot of the confusion has stemmed from.

[kookbreaker]

I haven't complained that no one was watching the video or that reponses weren't forthcoming. I wasjjust pointing out that judging the film without seeing it is closed minded.

And I'll point out that our using experience with troother videos lacking content is miles away from 'close-minded'. What you are saying is the equivelant of insisting that you can surivive being hit by a train and to not jump on the tracks is 'close-minded'. That attitude is insulting, patronizing, and frankly were are all freaking sick of that kind of cheap, grade-school-deabte-team pandering tactic.



In some cases I wasn't sure if the person had watched the film so I asked.

The thread is for debunking the video. I assume one would need to watch it to comment intelligently on it.

You are wrong. As the link I produced above shows, the PFT have demonstrated they are unwilling to learn or consult data analysis experts. Yet they have gone on to produce their video anyway. Its a typical troother tactic: Make up your own science and ignore the people who are genuine experts.


It's not my video. I won't flake off!

Then get up to speed. There's a history here, and you are unwilling to stufy it. Instead you play the CTer game of 'ha! debunk this video! bethca can't!!!'

[Skibum]

HOW ON GODS EARTH could they be STUPID enough to plant INCORRECT DATA??????

TAM:)


Add to that, even if they accidentally planted the FDR with the wrong evidence, why wouldn't they fix it before they release it to the public?

[kookbreaker]

A guy found a part. Yep, lets close up shop. Why not examine the new evidence and see how it fits in with the other evidence?

Adding to my previous reply: I find your summary of Hal Bidlack's post to be short-sighted, insulting, and disgusting. I think you owe this board and apology.

[GregoryUrich]

For the record, I took it from the original post that you were asking us to debunk the “Revolution Radio” segment from the linked page. I suspect that’s where a lot of the confusion has stemmed from.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&q=pandora%27s+black+box

Any way to update the thread topic?

[T.A.M.]

Add to that, even if they accidentally planted the FDR with the wrong evidence, why wouldn't they fix it before they release it to the public?

[CT paranoia mode]
You see the whole FDR thing is complete disinfo. The USG via the NTSB purposely put this incorrect info out there, to keep a large part of the 9/11 truth movement busy on a wild goose chase. In a few months they will come out with an apology, and the CORRECT data, but by then it will be too late...[/CT paranoia mode]

TAM;)

[uk_dave]

I haven't complained that no one was watching the video or that reponses weren't forthcoming. I was just pointing out that judging the film without seeing it is closed minded. In some cases I wasn't sure if the person had watched the film so I asked.

The thread is for debunking the video. I assume one would need to watch it to comment intelligently on it.

It's not my video. I won't flake off!

Please provide a summary of the video

[GregoryUrich]

If anyone is interested in watching the video, I'll be interested in discussing it with them. You other guys are totally lame.

[uk_dave]

If anyone is interested in watching the video, I'll be interested in discussing it with them. You other guys are totally lame.

Please provide a summary of the video. Thanks.

[GregoryUrich]

Please provide a summary of the video. Thanks.

I won't be providing a summary of the video.

[kookbreaker]

If anyone is interested in watching the video, I'll be interested in discussing it with them. You other guys are totally lame.

On what basis should we consider watching this video? Beyond your taunts, that is?

[GregoryUrich]

On what basis should we consider watching this video? Beyond your taunts, that is?

I thought that's what you guys do. Debunk stuff. I guess I'm at the wrong site.

[kookbreaker]

I thought that's what you guys do. Debunk stuff. I guess I'm at the wrong site.

If you actually followed the links provided up the page, you would see that all the 'work' done by PFT has already been debunked. Unless your video offers something new, which you have refused to comply with, there is little to discuss.

A lack of homework on your part does not require us to gear up our engines for Yet another Fact-Free Troother Video.

You are wasting out time, you are insulting us in the process, and you complain when you fail to give reasons for us to repeat the work already done here.

Had you been honestly wanting to discuss this video, you would have brought up points made be happily. You have refused to do so, which indicates that you are dishonest in wishing to discuss the video and merely wish to use it as some kind of 'one step ahead' game where if JREF hasn't debunked the latest pile of troofer youtube nonsense then somehow it is considered a 'win'.

I for one am sick of this attitude that you can waltz into this forum, fail to do basic homework, and demand that people bow to your demands for debunking of one thing or the other when it is painfully obvious you are not willing to contribute to any such conversation in good faith.

[Rika]

I think what some people are trying to say is that no one is interested in watching the video without a reason (such as good evidence) that makes it worth watching.

[T.A.M.]

As someone with no expertese in how to read data from an FDR, or how to interpret it, I think my ability to debate the video would be...a little rediculous. Others here, with said expertese, have already written very long, detailed essays/debunkings of the alleged FDR CT. Look up posts by Apathoid and Anti-sophist and you will find them.

How do you propose to debate the merits of their analysis Mr. Urich? Are you an expert in the reading and analysis of Flight Recorder Data?

TAM:) (one of the "Totally Lame" guys I guess)

[WildCat]

I won't be providing a summary of the video.
Of course not. :rolleyes:

[pomeroo]

Getting a twoofer to comment on Bernacchia's paper is like squeezing toothpaste back into the tube. A experienced pilot and flight instructor is saying that Hanjour could have hit the Pentagon. Where does he go wrong?

http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf (http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf)

[qarnos]

I still don't understand why the "conspirators" would plant a fake FDR that contradicts the official story.

and if the data is fake then you can't use it to prove anything.

[Corsair 115]

If anyone is interested in watching the video, I'll be interested in discussing it with them. You other guys are totally lame.Wow, providing at the very least a synopsis of the video in question is that overwhelmingly difficult for you? I'll say it again: not everyone has either the time or the inclination to watch some video off the internet without at least some idea of what its contents are.

I'd rather not waste valuable minutes of my time watching a video only to determine the subject matter is pointless, irrelevant, or what have you. I could have spent that time reading other interesting threads on these forums, for example.

If you can't even provide a brief list of its points, then I suspect the video isn't worth my time.

[beachnut]

This interesting video was produced by Pilots for 911 Truth and is available at

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

Get your gear, this one will be a tough nut to crack.Only idiots will not be able to debunk a PFT video. Who can not see through such a lack of facts and evidence?

If there were any doubts in your letter being in the correct journal, it is now confirmed.

If you find one fact in the video, please list it. I check the video and found this many facts to support the conclusions.

1.


The list was very short. The video may have more errors than your mass paper.

[beachnut]

I won't be providing a summary of the video.
We know you can not give a summary of any facts that support any conclusion.

I would like a summary of your favorite woo stuff from the video. Why do you believe the misinformation? What fooled you?

You show up because you have a mass paper you posted on a woo journal. I thought you were interested in getting the facts. You now appear to be just a truth movement follower with no ability to research 9/11.

[uk_dave]

I won't be providing a summary of the video.

Well, there's a surprise.:rolleyes:

[tsig]

Corsair didn't like the studity.

hard to undrstand.

[tsig]

A guy found a part. Yep, lets close up shop. Why not examine the new evidence and see how it fits in with the other evidence?

What part of gravity.

[ref]

Deleted message :) reason, not reading the entire thread.

[CptColumbo]

I won't be providing a summary of the video.

Why? Don't you understand it to the point where you can sum it up?

[Civilized Worm]

I am not using heresay. I just pointed out an interesting video and you watched a different one. Maybe the people who produced that video used heresay.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hearsay

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=heresy

[CptColumbo]

I am not using heresay. I just pointed out an interesting video and you watched a different one. Maybe the people who produced that video used heresay.Then why should I watch it?

Just write out what you believe is the strongest arguement from the video, and if it stands up to constructive skepticism (being actual objective evidence and not conjecture) I'll give it a shot.

[GregoryUrich]

The video contains the animation released by the NTSB based on the FDR data along with commentary from the pilots of woo. The animation ostensibly released by NTSB doesn't fly over the downed lamp poles or hit the Pentagon at the angle described by NIST. Moreover the airplane is to high to come across the lawn as seen in the video frames released by the FBI.

I don't claim the film is valid as I know very little about the material produced by the NTSB. For the record, I have never claimed "no AA 77 (Boeing 757)" at the Pentagon.

I'm not completely ignorant regarding flying as my father was an instructor and my sister an airline pilot. As they say, a little knowledge is dangerous so for me the film is pretty convincing.

[kookbreaker]

Now, was that so hard? All that petty 'do my homework for me' nonsense and tantrums and it turns out to be the same-old same-old.

Well now. You might want to know for starters that the 'NTSB' animation they are using was a working copy. Not an official release. There are major errors in it as they never intended for it for public consumption.

You may find a further analysis on the May 11 entry on this debunking blog:

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/

(Italian version above the English version)

This was discussed here in some detail at this URL

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77910&highlight=NTSB+Animation

[CptColumbo]

Greg, if I may call you Greg,

CTers often come to this forum and post a link to a video and proclaim "DEBUNK THIS!" I'm not saying that you did this, but you were close. Many of the regular members have seen the information, that is usually in those links many times before, and don't wish to waste the time to view it again just so they can respond to the same questions. It's also IMO a very lazy way to present evidence.

A better idea is to use the search function and see if this was covered already on the forum. Then if you need further clarification, ask a question.

There will be less impatience and more discussion.

[beachnut]

The video contains the animation released by the NTSB based on the FDR data along with commentary from the pilots of woo. The animation ostensibly released by NTSB doesn't fly over the downed lamp poles or hit the Pentagon at the angle described by NIST. Moreover the airplane is to high to come across the lawn as seen in the video frames released by the FBI.

I don't claim the film is valid as I know very little about the material produced by the NTSB. For the record, I have never claimed "no AA 77 (Boeing 757)" at the Pentagon.

I'm not completely ignorant regarding flying as my father was an instructor and my sister an airline pilot. As they say, a little knowledge is dangerous so for me the film is pretty convincing.
Do some research on PFT, you will find their products are not based on facts or evidence. If you find something new from them, it would be ignored unless you have some new information about their stuff or that they are now telling the truth. PFT ignore real evidence and they have a knack for manufacturing false information.

You would have to study and research the history of PFT products and what the truth is before you could expect to equal the basic knowledge most possess on PFT lies. You are behind on this topic by months.

Why do you think their information is so compelling for someone to come to what ever conclusion you have. What makes you believe PFT information? How and why do people fall for false information?

I find PFT challenged to find a fact on 9/11. They are the only group of pilots who lack the ability to fly into building using a simulator. I am a pilot, and I have trained many pilots to be “Captains” in the USAF in large jet aircraft. Not a single maneuver done on 9/11 required any special aviation skill. Any kid off the street could fly a jet into a large building as seen on 9/11. PFT seem to be the only great pilots who can not fly jets into buildings. If you can not study and find enough information to debunk the PFT information, you need help in your research. I find it easy to debunk the Pilots for Truth, why do you have problems doing the same? Why do you believe the PFT information?

[Disbelief]

I'm not completely ignorant regarding flying as my father was an instructor and my sister an airline pilot. As they say, a little knowledge is dangerous so for me the film is pretty convincing.

So, what do they think? Are they able to take FDR data and understand it?

[apathoid]

The video contains the animation released by the NTSB based on the FDR data along with commentary from the pilots of woo. The animation ostensibly released by NTSB doesn't fly over the downed lamp poles or hit the Pentagon at the angle described by NIST. Moreover the airplane is to high to come across the lawn as seen in the video frames released by the FBI.



Gregory, this subject has been beaten to death. All of your concerns are covered in the following threads.....


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77910
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79762
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78744
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77323
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77938
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77937
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77989
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77939
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77841
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77046
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76327
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73961
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71697


I'd suggest you browse through these and if there's a specific issue/talking point of Pandora's Box which hasn't been thoroughly dealt with, feel free to bring it to our attention.

[tsig]

The video contains the animation released by the NTSB based on the FDR data along with commentary from the pilots of woo. The animation ostensibly released by NTSB doesn't fly over the downed lamp poles or hit the Pentagon at the angle described by NIST. Moreover the airplane is to high to come across the lawn as seen in the video frames released by the FBI.

I don't claim the film is valid as I know very little about the material produced by the NTSB. For the record, I have never claimed "no AA 77 (Boeing 757)" at the Pentagon.

I'm not completely ignorant regarding flying as my father was an instructor and my sister an airline pilot. As they say, a little knowledge is dangerous so for me the film is pretty convincing.

Yeah and my mother was my mother.

I would not use the word "ignorant".

Stupid maybe.

[Architect]

Manners cost nothing, lads.

[CptColumbo]

Yeah and my mother was my mother.

I would not use the word "ignorant".

Stupid maybe.
I don't think he was claiming any special knowledge of aviation, in fact I think he was saying that his passing familiarity with the subject may be detrimental to his understanding.

As with a number of the members of PFT, a person with some specialized knowledge of a subject may believe they understand the overall subject better than others and not do further research.

[tsig]

that his passing familiarity with the subject may be detrimental to his understanding.

<snip>.
Having passing familiarity with your food does not make you a chef.

[tsig]

Manners cost nothing, lads.

And wisdom is cheap but bought with great price.

Don't btibg to a don to a flig.

[CptColumbo]

Having passing familiarity with your food does not make you a chef.But it doesn't stop you from thinking that you can cook.

[tsig]

But it doesn't stop you from thinking that you can cook.

The empty bowl is the best compliet

[Architect]

I think your keyboard is knackered.

[tsig]

[QUOTE=Architect;2620923]I think your keyboard is knackered.[/QUOTE

love you]

[beachnut]

GregoryUrich is trying to act like he is on the fence? He fell off the fence into the dense fields of misinformation.

Wonder which points he thinks are valid.

[pomeroo]

GregoryUrich is trying to act like he is on the fence? He fell off the fence into the dense fields of misinformation.

Wonder which points he thinks are valid.




I used to wonder why he wouldn't look at Giulio Bernacchia's straightforward paper. I no longer wonder.

[tsig]

Developing an opinion before you have seen the video might make you seem closed minded or worse--stupid like a twoofer.

Dude, watch the video. Then comment.

Dude videos are not truh.

[tsig]

If anyone is interested in watching the video, I'll be interested in discussing it with them. You other guys are totally lame.

I charge one hundred an hour.

[Architect]

Dude videos are not truh.

Seriously, get a new keyboard.

[Mashuna]

Don't btibg to a don to a flig.

I have no idea what this means, but I'm really tempted to use it as a sig.

[CptColumbo]

I have no idea what this means, but I'm really tempted to use it as a sig.Posting while medicated is never a good idea.

On the other hand, posting drunk is fun for everyone.

[tsig]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&q=pandora%27s+black+box

Any way to update the thread topic?


From figures to lying then crying.

Usual troother arc.

[tsig]

Seriously, get a new keyboard.

You might want to look at the sig.

We own the night.
But we will rent it out.

[Par]

Is "tsig" some sort of unexceptional AI bot?

[tsig]

Is "tsig" some sort of unexceptional AI bot?


no