Fight . . . fight . . . fight

[Alferd_Packer]

Edward S. Boylan (www.rutgersobserver.com/media/storage/paper822/news/2007/10/16/Observations/Debate.Boils.Boylan.Steps.In-3041775.shtml)

And

Barry Komisaruk (http://www.rutgersobserver.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=60282743-eaff-48ef-8b84-395b4a385eb7)

Duke it out at Rutgers!

[Drudgewire]

Barry Komisaruk (http://www.rutgersobserver.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=60282743-eaff-48ef-8b84-395b4a385eb7)

< "The Pentagon was hit by that plane." Prof. Boylan's assertion is not evidence.
Oh this will be good. :rolleyes:

[CHF]

Another unqualified twoofer parrotting the usual talking points.

Sigh...

[Disbelief]

Boylan's rebuttal was not the best, but Komisaruk has done crappy research. Someone should invite him here to see what he thinks.

[OldTigerCub]

Boylan's rebuttal was not the best, but Komisaruk has done crappy research. Someone should invite him here to see what he thinks.

I agree that Professor Boylan did not present a very effective argument. One would hope he takes a look at Gravy's website and maybe spend a little time here at the jref to do a little more research before he tries to further debunk 9-11 idiocy.

[ElMondoHummus]

Couple of additions to this thread:

1. Original essay by Komisaruk here (http://media.www.rutgersobserver.com/media/storage/paper822/news/2007/09/11/Observations/A.View.On.091101-2967793.shtml).

2. Komisaruk writes further justification attempts here (http://media.www.rutgersobserver.com/media/storage/paper822/news/2007/10/09/Observations/Komisaruks.Response.To.The.203.Commentaries.On.The .Rutgers.Observer.Website.Foll-3021704.shtml). Note that they're quite old arguments; for example, free-fall and pulverization.

3. Painfully heartrending response from the daughter of one of the Flight 93 victims in the "Komisaruk Rebuts Prof. Boylan" article:


Carole

posted 10/23/07 @ 3:49 PM EST

Just a couple of comments/corrections in the comments made above re Flight 93. First, my Mother was a passenger on that Flight and I have attended a number of FBI briefings as to what took place, and I heard the cockpit voice recorder so I was able to hear a lot of what happened during that horrific event.

1. There were in-seat air phones on Flight 93 (a Boeing 757). Many of the calls were made from those phones, and a number of those calls were recorded because the messages the passengers/crew left were on answering machines and saved by their loved ones.

2. Cell phone calls could be made in-flight; however, they were not allowed by the FAA because of interference with satellites, etc. Who cared at that point about interference; these people were trying to communicate for the last time with their loved ones. Wouldn't you use a cell phone?

3. Put yourself in the position of being on that plane -- you are sitting in your seat and people other than the pilots are flying the plane, erratically and at highspeed and low altitude. If someone calls their Mom and happens to identify themselves by their first and last name, well, maybe, just maybe they are under enormous amounts of stress and fear.

If there's anything else I can clear up for you, kindly let me know; I'll be happy to oblige.

Just remember this plane never reached its intended target; these people are heroes and should be remembered as such. I agree there are things our government should provide to us in the way of info; maybe some day they will, maybe not. It doesn't take away the fact that our good citizens were subjected to horrendous acts by a bunch of sick people. I really wish the plane's CVR could be released publicly so you can hear for yourself.

[Alferd_Packer]

He's at it agian

[/url]http://media.www.rutgersobserver.com/media/storage/paper822/news/2007/10/09/Observations/Komisaruks.Response.To.The.203.Commentaries.On.The .Rutgers.Observer.Website.Foll-3021704.shtml?reffeature=recentlycommentedstoriest ab]new article[/url]


What a smug twit.

[ElMondoHummus]

He's not using the newest of arguments either. Free fall? Pulverization? Molten steel?

I'm the EMH responding, and I've only tackled his first page so far. I peeked ahead and saw some "expert" and/or "witness" quotes. Man, I'm not looking forward to having to dig up and double-check those sources. I may put this aside for a while; the rest of my week is busy. But I saw the original article (the "OA"?? :) ), and there was so much sycophantic behavior I wanted to get the points in early. Still, though, I haven't researched those "PatriotsQuestion911" quotes yet... meh...

[HL7442]

Is it possible for a 9/11 tinfoiler to get a clue about aviation? I've had many arguments with them on "aircraft wreckage" concerning both AA 77 and UA 93. I try to tell them that wreckage was found albeit small pieces because of the nature of both impacts. I've studied commercial aircraft accidents since 1984 and these nutters are clueless on crashes. They all seem to believe that when an airliner goes down it leaves big recognizable pieces like some disassembled model airplane.

[Alferd_Packer]

Boylan responds (http://www.rutgersobserver.com/media/storage/paper822/news/2007/11/06/Observations/911-Debate-3082478.shtml?reffeature=recentlycommentedstoriest ab), then bows out.

Komisaruk fires back (http://media.www.rutgersobserver.com/media/storage/paper822/news/2007/11/13/PageOne/Its-Informed.Skepticism.Not.Paranoia-3094925.shtml)

[leftysergeant]

One needn't read much farther than the comments about the Pentagon that someone has swallowed the woo-woo off the "patriots" site hook, line and sinker and is choking on the bobber.

I hope someone looks into this dreck when his next review comes up. I don't care in what discipline he teaches; if this is the kind of research he does, he does not need to be teaching at his apparent level.