One of the biggest lies of the 9/11 "truth movement" has been that

[SDuderstadt]

AA77 was "not even scheduled to fly" on 9/11. The putative source for this goofy claim is the Bureau of Transportation Statistics on-time performance database. Now, besides the idiocy of using an after-the-fact on-time performance database and trying to conflate it into a "schedule", the "truth movement" omits one very important fact they don't want you to know because it destroys their goofy claim. The BTS database can be accessed by anyone at http://www.bts.gov and allows the user to access both summary and detailed information about every major carrier. This is like kryptonite to the "truth movement" because, not only can you see that AA 77 was regularly scheduled on that day for quite some time prior to 9/11, it also states that AA 77 was scheduled to depart Dulles that day at 8:10 AM. So, now the "truthers" have to defend their lie and explain why a flight that was supposedly "not even scheduled to fly on 9/11" would even be listed that day and the scheduled departure time noted. It's beyond stupid to claim that "AA 77 wasn't even scheduled to fly on 9/11". The deceit from the so-called "truth movement" is simply stunning.

Carrier Code Date (MM/DD/YYYY) Flight Number Tail Number Destination Airport Scheduled Departure Time

AA 09/11/2001 0075 UNKNOW LAX 18:00
AA 09/11/2001 0077 UNKNOW LAX 08:10

[OnTheOtherHand]

1. it's a handy place to document that AA77 was a daily flight

You touch on this point, but it's sort of interesting to go back a month and see the flight scheduled day after day after day. I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that the flight was canceled on 9/11. "Never scheduled" is some weird talisman that certain people clutch.

I think a fair number of folks (I have no idea what proportion) in the truth movement accept that AA 77 was scheduled to fly. What seems to be scant, at least here, is the willingness to call bullshit on their own "team" -- although, in fairness, it seems to me there is at least one person generally on that side who has called bullshit on no-plane arguments generally.

[achtung_circus]

2. Fiddling around I found this

On September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight #11 and #77 and United Airlines #93 and #175 were hijacked by terrorists. Therefore, these flights are not included in the on-time summary statistics.

http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/ddisp/OntimeSummaryDataDisp.xml">BTS

[spooked911]

3. not true

First of all, this original finding was by Gerard Holmgren, and it was always an oddity more than specific proof of anything. Second, the listing clearly said AA11 and AA77 didn't take off (or weren't scheduled, don't remember for sure), though BTS had wheels off times for UA93 and UA175, so the database oddity didn't correlate with hijacking per se. Third, the listings disappeared for a while after Holmgren found those, as if to hide the fact. I know they were deleted initially, because I tried searching for the flight records after I read Holmgren's piece, and could not find the info. Now the listings have been brought back, who knows how they might have been manipulated.

To say your finding is "kryptonite" is simply dumb, as most 9/11 skeptics don't even buy the no-planes argument anyway, and this was never a linchpin for proof of conspiracy.

[William Seger]

5. Not true

> "Second, the listing clearly said AA11 and AA77 didn't take off (or weren't scheduled, don't remember for sure), though BTS had wheels off times for UA93 and UA175, so the database oddity didn't correlate with hijacking per se."

Absolutely not true. Holmgren's original story is still online; go look it up. The listing didn't show anything at all for AA11 and AA77. That's because American didn't submit a report for those flights, because they were hijacked. Look on the BTS site for information about where and how they get their data. It's NOT a flight scheduling system.

[spooked911]

6. The flights were hijacked before they were even scheduled?

The entry in BTS was automated -- AA used the automated ACARS system.

The flights should have been listed there as scheduled and taking off.

Possibly someone at AA got into the automated system and deleted the AA11 and AA77 records, but that would be odd and possibly illegal.

[William Seger]

7. No, BTS does not get data directly from ACARS

By statute, the largest carriers are required to report their on-time data to the BTS once a month. That's why you won't find any information in that database right now for any flight since March.

Airline on-time data are reported each month to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) by the 18 U.S. air carriers that have at least 1 percent of total domestic scheduled-service passenger revenues, plus two other carriers that report voluntarily.

http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/index.xml

If American didn't include AA11 and AA77 in their monthly report, then it wouldn't be in the BTS database.

Got it now?

[spooked911]

10. the point remains that it is an automated system

meaning someone from AA would have had to manually go in there and delete AA11 and AA77.

Plus the BTS data was clearly manipulated at some point to add the flights back in.

I've never been one to say this BTS business really proves anything, but the initial finding by Holmgren was consistent with the idea of those planes not being scheduled to fly that day.

[SDuderstadt]

11. First of all, Spooked.....

Please explain how it is an "automated system". Secondly, how would American Airlines have been able to "manually go in there and delete AA11 and AA77"? This is just more of your bullshit speculation.

[spooked911]

63. ACARS

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

excerpt:
"One of the initial applications for ACARS was to automatically detect and report changes to the major flight phases (Out of the gate, Off the ground, On the ground and Into the Gate); referred to in the industry, as OOOI. These OOOI events were determined by algorithms in the ACARS MUs that used aircraft sensors (such as doors, parking brake and strut switch sensors) as inputs. At the start of each flight phase, the ACARS MU would transmit a digital message to the ground containing the flight phase, the time at which it occurred, and other related information such as fuel on board or origin and destination. "

[SDuderstadt]

66. Spooked....

how does that show it's used by the BTS???

[spooked911]

68. the point is that the airlines don't have someone typing all flight info onto a piece of paper

the aircraft flight data is automatically sent to a computer either at the FAA or at airline headquarters. The BTS report would be compiled from this data, probably through an automated algorithm, given the number of flights AA has to keep track of.

Get it?

[SDuderstadt]

75. No...

Why do you pretend to know how the BTS system works?

[NowHearThis]

79. Why won't you debate the issue, instead of pretending that...

you are being sincere when you ask stupid questions over and over and over?

C'mon, SDude: Don't Be a Kentucky Fried Chicken.

If you think that BUSHCO's 9/11 fairy tale is the truth,
then you should be Untruther-man enough to debate an opponent, instead of hiding behind a forum where all
you do is take stupid pot shots at people who disagree with the BUSHCO version and then hope to God that
you can bait your opponent into something that everyone in the chicken coop can then cry about and cause
the moderators to feel like they have to delete posts to shut you up.

[William Seger]

23. The point remains that American didn't include those flights in their monthly report

... and regardless of why, that's the reason they weren't in the BTS database. To know if they were scheduled, you'd need to look in American's Sabre scheduling system, not the BTS database. Homgren's "initial finding" was junk because he didn't know what he was talking about, just like all his other "finding."

[NowHearThis]

24. That ISSUE is irrelevant and has been for many years

The perps would certainly have enough sense to make sure that records reflect that 77 was scheduled and if they didn't think of
that prior to 9/11, they certainly could have doctored the records.

In either case, it matters not, because the issue is whether or not 77 FLEW and crashed and THAT puzzle was solved many years ago.
The plain and simple fact is that there is no credible evidence that 77 flew and crashed. All of the official evidence has been
found wanting, in one way or another. All of the physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, and alleged eyewitness accounts.

Any reasonable person with a lick of common sense and knowledge of the facts, can only agree that the OCT of 77, like the rest
of the 9/11 OCT, is unsupported by the evidence.

If the OCT was true, there would be plenty of undisputed evidence to support it. Anyone is entitled to be a faith-based
believer in the OCT, but they should keep in mind that it was the same lying BUSHCO outfit who told the WMD lies that also
told them the OCT.

[William Seger]

25. So sez Mr. Credibility

... who either seems to have a fuzzy memory or has trouble distinguishing reality from delusion.

> "In either case, it matters not, because the issue is whether or not 77 FLEW and crashed and THAT puzzle was solved many years ago.
The plain and simple fact is that there is no credible evidence that 77 flew and crashed. All of the official evidence has been
found wanting, in one way or another. All of the physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, and alleged eyewitness accounts."

And all of this is "solved" by http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=246042&mesg_id=247067">Mr. Credibility's vivid imagination and ass-backwards logic? Let's just take a couple of examples, just to demonstrate how woefully inadequate you are to the task of substantiating what you just claimed:

1. Flight attendant Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, and told her that AA77 had been hijacked.

2. The DNA of all 64 people listed on the AA77 flight manifest were identified in the human remains found in the Pentagon.

3. The AA77 Flight Data Recorder was recovered from the Pentagon.

Please explain how this evidence "has been found wanting, in one way or another." :popcorn:
(I shall now place my prediction in a sealed envelope.)
Something along the lines of, "That evidence must be fake because AA77 didn't even fly that day."

[NowHearThis]

27. Here you go, Mr. Wimp

1. Ms. May may well have called her mother and told her that AA77 had been hijacked. Like the calls from Mrs. Olson, the most likely
place from which she placed her call was from inside the Pentagon.

2. DNA - found exactly where you said, because inside the Pentagon is where those people were at the time they perished from the explosions and fires.

3. AA77 FDRecorder - found exactly where it was planted inside the Pentagon.

[William Seger]

30. LOL, in other words...

... you've got exactly zero support for your assertion that "all of the official evidence has been found wanting, in one way or another." All you've got is denial of the evidence, yet without being able to substantiate why your are doing that, you've substituted in your completely unsubstantiated and highly implausible speculations. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I have to wonder if that's because you lack the mental faculties to distinguish the difference? That might explain why you http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=246042&mesg_id=247067">tell lies about people: You don't even realize you're doing it?

[NowHearThis]

31. Is that your rebuttal of my answers to your questions?

No wonder you wimped out on the invitation to debate.

[William Seger]

LOL! If you call that an "answer" to my question...

... then it's no wonder that nobody takes you seriously. You claimed that "all of the official evidence has been found wanting, in one way or another." Since I believe that's a pantload and that you can't begin to support it, I challenged you do so. Instead of doing that, your "answer" is to begin pulling, um, "alternate scenarios" straight out of your ass. That's some of that ass-backward "logic" I've been talking about, unless you think that what the evidence was "wanting" was to be shat upon. But since you obviously can't answer my question, as expected, I'll ask a slightly different one: Tell me why any sane person should prefer your explanation of the evidence over the obvious explanation?

But nope, I've never "wimped out on the invitation to debate" PentaCON -- in fact, we've "debated" his nonsense many times before these recent exchanges of compliments. And since I suspect he'll show up again when he has a new DVD for sale, I suspect we'll do it again.

But one thing I've noticed: You never really have much to contribute around here except a lot empty assertions, a lot of punk mouth, and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=246042&mesg_id=247067">some lies. Why is that? You don't really know very much about 9/11, do you?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

34. If you distinctly remember telling Spooked911

you should be able to provide a link to back it up.

The truth is you have nothing BUT empty assertions. You repeat the same nonsense over and over sounding very convinced and authoritative, but it's all just empty words spoken by a no-planer with zero evidence.

Frankly it's so bad and you're so abrasive it's a wonder anyone even responds.

[OnTheOtherHand]

36. I think you now get to call "personal jinx"

but I would have to check with my daughters.

[LARED]

38. I checked the Urban Dictionary

and if I understand correctly, you need to say my name in order to remove the jinx.

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. but, wait, I'm not allowed to ta-- oh, snap.

OK, well....

LARED.

I repeat: LARED.

Good enough? ;)

[LARED]

41. Thanks, I was sweating it for a few minutes :) nt

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. evidence trumps what you "distinctly remember"

Many of us distinctly remember that you are dead wrong about that. But if you are right, it would be easy to prove -- unless you think maybe the moderators have doctored the website?

When will you hold yourself accountable for what you post? Now would be good.

[NowHearThis]

42. My answers must have upset you. Here they are again.

1. Ms. May may well have called her mother and told her that AA77 had been hijacked. Like the calls from Mrs. Olson, the most likely
place from which she placed her call was from inside the Pentagon.

2. DNA - found exactly where you said, because inside the Pentagon is where those people were at the time they perished from the explosions and fires.

3. AA77 FDRecorder - found exactly where it was planted inside the Pentagon.



Today you wrote: "You never really have much to contribute around here except a lot empty assertions, a lot of punk mouth, and some lies. Why is that? You don't really know very much about 9/11, do you?"

I remember what you wrote, so if it wasn't true, then it is YOU who is responsible. I haven't lied and I haven't CHICKENED OUT
on a debate invitation like you have. I've OFFERED to debate any Untruther here on 9/11 issues or the JFK assassination.

[OnTheOtherHand]

44. you're still failing to reply

It's one thing to assert that "the most likely place from which (Ms. May) placed her call was from inside the Pentagon." It's another thing to support the assertion.

No one is preventing you from stepping up to the debate on your assertions. You just don't seem to have any idea how to do it.

[NowHearThis]

48. Do you have a better explanation? No. You don't have an...

explanation that meets the test of plausibility. All you have is an assertion that is premised on a lie which you repeat endlessly
as though the repetition alone overcomes the lack of CREDIBLE evidence.

My explanation fits with the known evidence. YOUR assertion is based on UNPROVEN evidence and unreliable witness accounts - all of which was debunked YEARS ago. And you well know it.

If Ms. May or anyone else placed a call from AA77, where is the proof of that? If you have any, produce it. You don't. All you
have is excuses and insults. You'd get creamed in a debate where you'd be forced to play fair, and you know it. If you had any
confidence in your OCT positions, you would agree to debate and not wimp-out like the other KFchickens.

[OnTheOtherHand]

51. your mindreading is not the best

Not only do I not "well know" that all the evidence against your view "was debunked YEARS ago," I think it's a crock. And your apparent inability to support or retract your attack on Seger supports that view.

The debate is happening right here, with or without you. Step up, or not.

[NowHearThis]

53. World's first Untruther Comedian

You're a hoot. More! More!

[William Seger]

50. Fail

You fail to find that post you persist in lying about, because it doesn't exist.

You fail to show that "all of the official evidence has been found wanting, in one way or another," because it has not.

You fail to give any reason why a sane person should prefer your absurd explanations for the evidence over the obvious explanation, because there isn't any.

You fail to actually engage in any "real debate" around here, on any subject, apparently because you lack the necessary knowledge.

You fail to back up any of the assertions you make around here, in fact, apparently because they are complete nonsense.

And you fail to distract attention from all these failures.

The really funny thing about you, NowHearThis, is you ironic user name. You fail to say anything that's worth the time it takes to read.

[NowHearThis]

52. You FAIL to prove you have the courage of your convictions

You can't explain why my answers aren't logical, reasonable, and plausible explanations for what happened and you chickened-out
whenever you were invited to debate with ThePentaCon. Another Untruher unmasked as lacking confidence in what he says he believes.

[OnTheOtherHand]

54. status: false

Thanks for sharing.

[SDuderstadt]

55. "You can't explain why my answers aren't logical, reasonable, and plausible explanations"

If you can't recall NowHearThis' goofy claim, I've reproduced it below. Now, after you've stopped laughing, if you really think it needs to be debunked, let me know. Hopefully, I will have stopped laughing long enough so I can point out the obvious flaws in his "theory".

Was Barbara Olson an innocent Patsy?

This is a possible solution to the mysteries surrounding the death of Barbara Olson and everyone else who was allegedly aboard AA FL 77.

In my opinion, Barbara Olson (along with everyone else listed as passengers/crew aboard FL 77) died at the Pentagon. But not in an airplane. Rather, as the result of the explosions and fire that occurred at the time FL 77 allegedly crashed into the building.

I believe that Mrs. Olson and the others were all innocent Patsies who were taking part in what they had been told was a Top Secret military exercise.

Furthermore, I think that it’s even possible that Mrs. Olson DID make phone calls to her husband as claimed by the Government. I think she probably was reading from a script during the calls. They were most likely made from the site inside the Pentagon where she perished.

This scenario would explain how it’s possible that her DNA and that of her co-Patsies could have been found at the Pentagon. The group was probably told to meet at a secure location at Dulles airport and from there they were whisked to the Pentagon, either individually or as a group.
Once at the Pentagon, they were led to the reinforced portion of the building where they all perished in the horrific explosions and fires which consumed the area they were in.

[LARED]

56. prima facie evidence that no rebuttal is required nt

[NowHearThis]

58. Thanks for reposting my explanation

I gather that since neither you or any other Untruther has a better explanation, you agree that mine is the most likely one.

BTW - that invitation to you to join me in a debate about JFK's assassination is still open if you ever summon up the courage
to show up. I promise not to make you like a fool. You do that well enough on your own.


Don't Be a Kentucky Fried Chicken -- agree to DEBATE.

[SDuderstadt]

59. I posted your "explanation" so everyone could see...

how absolutely goofy it is, dude. I doubt if anyone besides yourself and maybe two other people think it is even remotely plausible. It's silly to pretend I "agree" with it or you in any way.

BTW, I accepted your debate challenge, dude...I just don't agree to the idea of a "phone debate" and, to be frank, I wouldn't trust either you or Mr. "Pentacon" not to "debate" among yourselves, then falsely claim I was part of it. See, this is yet one more example of how your lack of credibility gets in your way.

P.S. If, as you claim, all of my proof has been debunked yars ago, I still don't understand why you struggle so much trying to debunk it. You should have facts and figures, as well as documentary evidence, at your fingertips. Instead, we just get more of your bluster and more of your easily debunked goofy assertions.

[NowHearThis]

61. Why won't you participate in a fair debate, SDude?

What are you afraid of, besides having your lunch eaten by the truth? I think you're acting like a Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Isn't there ONE Untruther who isn't afraid to debate? Look at it this way: it would give you a break from what must be
a boring task. Don't you ever tire of posting the same tired insults, not saying anything new, and generally making your
side look bad by your failure to offer anything other than "show me the proof that only BUSHCO has and could release, but
won't because it would show that the whole 9/11 OCT is a fairy tale".

Don't be a Kentucky Fried Chicken. Debate, SDude. DEBATE.

[SDuderstadt]

64. "show me the proof that only BUSHCO has and could release, but...

won't because it would show that the whole 9/11 OCT is a fairy tale".

I see. Now you're blaming Bush because he's withholding evidence you need to prove your goofy claims? Dude, there was an election. We won. Are you seriously claiming you can't get the "evidence" you need from the Obama administration?

Also, for the last time, dude, I accept your challenge to debate anything your little heart desires, except not on the phone. You keep setting silly conditions for having this "debate" then, when your opponent declines those conditions, you try to conflate it into refusing to debate at all. Do you really think people are so stupid they don't see right through your goofy claim?

[William Seger]

71. Gee, why would a Large-mouth Bullshitter prefer a phone debate...

... instead of a detailed and comprehensive written one with nice links, etc., so that all the evidence and arguments can be scrutinized. Oh, like maybe on the Web or something. What a mystery...

:rofl:

[spooked911]

65. so you're saying a flight could be cancelled for some reason, say mechanical problems

but then the airline could simply not report the flight as being scheduled to BTS?

I guess that is one way to keep your on-time percentage high!

But it doesn't sound very ethical.

And the point still remains that AA deleted those flights from their report-- assuming they really flew-- without any proper explanation.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Dude...

do you understand the term "on-time performance database"? Why in the world would anyone expect an airline to report any data at all for a flight that never arrived at its destination because it was hijacked and crashed? Your ability to read all kinds of nefarious intent into things that have a simple, innocent explanation is astounding.

[spooked911]

70. well, the airline was to a large extent culpable for a hijacking (assuming there was a hijacking)--

so they should still report that flight!

And again, another point is that the flight data should be automated so the airline can't game the system, as I outlined in the post before.

This isn't that complicated.

[SDuderstadt]

72. The fucking purpose of the system is to track on-time departures AND arrivals, Spooked...

why anyone would think it strange that an airline would not report stats for a flight which never even arrived is beyond me. But, in your world, it's proof of some nefarious behavior on the airlines part.

[spooked911]

74. clearly you aren't getting the point

whether you want to get it or not, I can't say.

I gave you an example where the airline should report a scheduled flight that never even took off-- clearly that flight should be reported in the on-time statistics, as should even a hijacked plane should. Note United at least noted their 9/11 flights in the system. The other issue is that this info is automated, meaning that the airline would have to go out of their way to delete the info-- which may or may not be illegal. But it is extraordinary.

[SDuderstadt]

84. Clearly you aren't making one...

it might help if you actually learned how the system works before you start spouting nonsense.

[spooked911]

86. all evidence so far points to that I know more about this

than you do. Sorry to rain on your parade.

[SDuderstadt]

87. Then explain PRECISELY how the BTS system works...

rather than the way you THINK it works. It's really silly to contend that an after-the-fact on-time performance system tells us anything about whether a flight was scheduled because it was hijacked and crashed.

[William Seger]

76. There is a reporting category for "canceled"

... and another one for "diverted," which is what United used for reporting UA175 and UA93. That's obviously not an accurate status, but there isn't a status in that database for either "hijacked" or "crashed." (Plane crashes are http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp#query_start">tracked by NTSB, which does record all 4 as crashed scheduled flights.) Sorry, I fail to see anything sinister in American not reporting hijacked flights to an on-time performance tracking system. There aren't very many people around who don't know what happened to them.

ETA: Just to see if American was consistent, I used the NTSB database to find that there was an American plane that crashed two months after 9/11, on 11/12/2001: Flight 587 crashed shortly after take-off from JFK International, killing 260 passengers and 5 people on the ground. That flight is also not in the BTS on-time performance tracking database.

[NowHearThis]

80. Years ago, here on DU, there was a detailed explanation ...

which showed that AA77 wasn't scheduled for 9/11. It was also included evidence which proves that one or two (maybe three) of the allegedly hijacked planes were still registered and flying long after they supposedly crashed on 9/11. And the system that is in
place for pilots to use to signal that their aircraft was being hijacked presumably was working as well as it did on 9/11.

Most of the major questions have been answered a long time ago. The remaining issues include things like what kind
of explosives were used to destroy the WTC buildings etc.

There's nothing to be gained from arguing from false evidence such as whether a flight recorder proves that FL77 crashed at the Pentagon. Who knows where that flight recorder came from and what proof is there that it came from AA77? What proof is there
that the data in it hasn't been tampered with?

Likewise, since those aircraft pieces that were "found" at the Pentagon, at the WTC, and at Shanksville all have inventory
numbers on them, if they weren't planted evidence, we would have seen proof that the parts numbers match pieces from 9/11
flights.

Years ago, it was proven that the pieces allegedly from AA77 were not authentic because the primer on them was of a different
color than it should have been if it was actually from an AA plane that was allegedly flown on 9/11.

Untruthers know all of this. That's why they won't debate, because in a fair debate, they'd lose since all they would be able
to do is what they do here.

[AZCat]

81. Where is this explanation?

I seem to remember some of these claims being discussed, but I don't remember them being particularly compelling. Perhaps you could provide a link to the relevant threads? You seem to have some familiarity with this forum prior to your join date, so you must have read them at some point. If you did, you can find them again.

[William Seger]

82. What you mean is...

... years ago you read something here or elsewhere on the Web and you uncritically accepted it as "9/11 truth." Well, I think there's a reason the "truth movement" is only a shadow of what it was in those watershed years of unrestrained bullshit: The truth caught up with it. For example, perhaps you're having some difficulty trying to read this page through your navel, but some of us are debating the "not scheduled" nonsense right here, in a perfectly fair debate.

Don't think so? Prove me wrong; I'll debate any part of it with you. Your naked assertions aren't worth jackshit and certainly don't constitute a "debate."

[William Seger]

83. And, I forgot to mention...

... if you want a "fair debate," http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=246042&mesg_id=247067">please stop lying.

[BeFree]

4. Oh?

What difference is there between this painting of all 'truthers' as buying into this and the posts here that paints OCTers as Bushco supporters?

I can only think of one.

[LARED]

8. So why are truthers so inept at policing themselves

(on this board) of the no plane wackadoodles. How come no one on the truthers side rarely challenges no-planers?

[BeFree]

9. We're too busy...

...going after Bushco to worry about a few individuals. We know who the enemy is and it isn't no-planers.

[SDuderstadt]

16. YOU'RE a "no-planer", BeFree....

why don't you, at least, be honest enough to disclose that before you make it sound like you're not a part of it? And, the silly reference to we "know who the enemy is" is just another version of the either/or argument which assumes that one can't both pursue the crimes of the Bush administration while also pointing out the outright deception of the "truth movement". I say we can easily do both.

[OnTheOtherHand]

17. a "semi-planer," perhaps?

There were no hijackers and two planes were guided remotely into the World Trade Centre. What brought the towers down, however was a “controlled demolition” using explosives planted there at some earlier time by the Bushco owned security company in charge.

The Pentagon was hit by a guided missile after a jet flyover. (...)

The planes were guided into exact locations away from the explosives so that the crash did not set them off.

The towers had to come down because if they didn't the evidence of remote controlled airliners would be found out as soon as the fires went out.

link

[SDuderstadt]

18. My apologies to BeFree for confusing a "semi-planer" with...

a "no-planer", but his "theories" are equally goofy.

[NowHearThis]

21. So why are Untruthers so inept at policing themselves

(on this board) of the cartoon plane wackadoodles? How come no one on the Untruthers side never challenges
cartoon-planers? Have they all watched so many cartoons that they believe that's what real planes look like?

[LARED]

26. Gee I thought you had me on ignore

as you seem to be avoiding my question about your educational background.

[AZCat]

29. It would be nice to know that.

Especially since you answered his question. Will NowHearThis reciprocate, or do different rules apply to him?

[LARED]

37. Still crickets regarding your background

no surprise.

[Subdivisions]

22. I don't buy the OCT. I also don't buy the no-planes scenario. Why

don't I police the no-planers? Because I don't have time for two debates on this issue. For me, though I disagree with the OCT it at least has some elements of plausibility from which to engage a debate whereas no-planes is a non-starter. I consider no-planers, though they also don't buy the OCT, to be a seperate group from that you so disdainfully refer to as "truthers", of which I'm apparently a part, and OCTers - a third group if you will.

I've been following NowHearThis's argument though and even though we agree that the OCT is bullshit-on-a-bun, I cannot agree that there were no planes (or that the planes were CGI) involved in the attacks of 9/11. The closest the two of us come is the scenario that no plane hit the Pentagon. And I'm still working that one over in my head.

[AZCat]

28. For what it's worth...

I don't agree with the others that "truthers" (a soi-disant term, by the way) need to police members of "truth movement" (another soi-disant term). Why would someone else's beliefs be your responsibility? If spooked911 decides that nukes were used in the collapse of the WTC towers, what control do you have over his opinion?

[BeFree]

39. Dif?

The Bushco ones get deleted.

[NowHearThis]

43. So do others that Untruthers dislike

It's almost as if they're like a bunch of Kentucky Fried Chickens.

[NowHearThis]

45. I just figured out how they do it

Since they're all members of the same flock, whenever someone posts the truth about a BUSHCO lie, they all press the "alert" button
in sync - or as soon as they see the truth post.

[BeFree]

46. Man

You are just asking for it, eh?

Oh, what the hell, let it all get deleted.... they do conspire to manufacture consent, eh? They can't take the arguments so they turn to censoring.

[OnTheOtherHand]

47. hey, I can't FIND the arguments

If you want to explain to me how it is that all the people who supposedly crashed into the Pentagon actually were sequestered there in advance, go for it.

Or if you agree with me that that's just a little bit weird, you could say that.

[BeFree]

49. What is weird

Is the missing topics. ALERT!!

[NowHearThis]

12. I see that you still can't prove that FL77 flew and crashed on 9/11

You can't prove FL77 crashed into the Pentagon for the simple reason that if it had happened, there would be credible evidence of the event, but most people believe that Mrs. Olson is deceased. Since she wasn't on a non-existent plane crash, people have wondered
how she perished. I explained how that likely happened and no one has refuted my explanation as being implausible or unreasonable.

Even if some people wish to believe that AA FL77 was a scheduled flight on 9/11, it doesn't mean that it actually took off and
later crashed at the Pentagon. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that ANY kind of plane or missile crashed there.

[SDuderstadt]

13. "I explained how that likely happened and...

no one has refuted my explanation as being implausible or unreasonable". What unadulterated bullshit. The refutation for your goofy claim is 1) eyewitness testimony of more than 100 people who saw AA 77 hit the Pentagon 2)surveillance tape of multiple passengers as they made their way through the security checkpoint 3) the FDR for AA 77 4)the numerous pieces of AA77 recovered from the scene 5) the eyewitness testimony of numerous first responders to the crash scene, etc.

Why your "truther" compadres continue to let you sout this nonsense unchallenged is truly a mystery, because it essentially undermines what little credibility the "9/11 truth movement" has left, which is a shame because there are legitimate questions about that day. You're well known for making false claims (the bullshit about Seger supposedly having claimed to be a pilot comes to mind) and, when challenged for proof or having your claim absolutely rebutted, you just make up more bullshit. It's truly a hoot.

[NowHearThis]

19. Your "proof" was ALL debunked YEARS ago

No one has thus far come up with a better explanation than the one I gave and no one thus far has challenged any of the
major points in my explanation. My explanation is reasonable and fits with the known evidence and common sense.

[SDuderstadt]

57. If, as you claim, my "proof was ALL debunked YEARS ago"...

than why are you struggling so much now? One would think you'd have an easy time of it rather than flailing about and inventing even goofier explanations.

[Ghost in the Machine]

85. Did you notice the irony/hypocrisy of him mentioning "eye witness testimony" twice in one paragraph?

These are the same guys who ran around hollering "physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony" every chance they got, and they're break their necks jumping up to tell tell you how unreliable eyewitness testimony is and how traumatized the witness was by events and that they are "mistaken" when it's something they don't want to hear. When they cite the witnesses near the Pentagon, they fail to realize that many of those witnesses *could* have been influenced by news reports over their car radios. They hear something like "AA77 hijacked, traveling towards D.C." on the radio, then something big blows past them at 500MPH and they think "hey, I just saw flight 77!".

You're throwing spears at airplanes, dude. You're trying to convince someone of something... and their purpose here is to try to convince *you* of something else. You are NEVER going to convince them. Period. Once you realize and accept this fact you'll find it easier to ignore the nuisance/distraction brigade and engage the ones here who are truly interested in "debate". I'll give some props to AZCat and jberryhill for this.... and Flatulo... he was a good one. I haven't seen him posting in this forum for a while, but saw he made a post in General Discussion the other day. Flatulo!?!? Where are you, dude?


Peace,

Ghost

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. listen very carefully, I will say this only once

"no one has refuted my explanation" basically means "no one can convince me that I'm wrong." You haven't even walked back the canard that William Seger claimed to be a pilot, so why should anyone believe that you would admit to being wrong about anything else?

[SDuderstadt]

15. You just hit the nail on the head with NowHearThis....

and we should continue to ask the question of him, "what would convince you that you're wrong?". And, if the answer is, as I suspect, "there is nothing that would convince me I am wrong", he needs to watch the video on open-mindedness, while the rest of us realize that it is essentially fruitless trying to reason with a hardcore truther who isn't really interested in the truth.

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. the whole "falsifiability" thang takes some getting used to

but once one develops a taste for it, it's hard to go back.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Subdivisions]

60. Your claims are goofy idiocy. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

62. Well, just for right now....

I'm working hard to get them into the "serious idiocy" category. If you have any tips, I'd love to hear them.

BTW, thanks for the "drive-by".

[Subdivisions]

69. And your

"Truther" Top Ten wasn't just that, a "drive by"? I see it got deleted. As it should have, considering the rules also apply to you. More on that later.

[SDuderstadt]

73. "More on that later"

2 questions. How was the Top Ten a "drive-by"? And how did it break any rule whatsoever?

[Subdivisions]

77. How was my post above a 'drive by'. You said "truthers'" claims

are "goofy" and "idiocy" and I'm saying your claims are "goofy" and "idiocy".

I've seen this term "drive by" posted before. Perhaps this particular sub-thread could serve as a resource for your definition of a "drive-by post". That, or point me to an already-posted definition. Until then, as far as I am concerned, all your posts are "drive-by" posts.

[OnTheOtherHand]

78. certainly cd. be construed as flame bait

In my work on election fraud allegations, I encounter certain egregious errors over and over. It's often hard to communicate my frustration with the recurring fraudster blunders (and worse) without gratuitously offending folks who may have swallowed some misinformation along the line but basically are good folks with legitimate concerns. (Of course the object can't be to avoid offending anyone -- some people really are full of bunk, and they don't like to hear about it.)

[spooked911]

88. Truth is-- if this IS actually one of the biggest lies of the truth movement

then the INSIDE JOB thesis must be on very solid ground.

:)

[SDuderstadt]

89. Huh?

n/t

[LARED]

90. Were you expecting coherent rational thought? - nt

[spooked911]

91. If this is one of the BIGGEST lies, then all the other conspiracy stuff

such as no planes, demolition, etc aren't lies-- as they are even bigger claims, but are beat out by the smaller lie of AA11 and AA77 not being scheduled.

Get it?

[NowHearThis]

92. That must be a little too nuanced for their taste, no matter how...

delicious it is for the rest of us.

[LARED]

93. Simply amazing - nt

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.