Please stop with the crazy claims!

reply to post by johnlear

These phone calls have been debunked. None were made. You need to download the Flight Data Recorder tabular data to find out how and when Hani allegedly made the altimeter changes.

So does this mean all calls on all hijacked flights were faked? If so, what makes you think that they were faked?

I said

You'll have a hard time debating folks here if you can't back up what you state.

tep200377 said

Well, there is NO backing up the hologram theory, the hydrogen theory, the Government did it theory etc etc ... So YOU have a hard time telling US that the theories are within reason ..

I never said anyone's theories were reasonable or unreasonable.All I ask from people is to post links,video or pictures to support their claims so I can evaluate the information for myself.You've put the emphasis on something I never said.

If you think a particular theory is in error please post an appropriate link so we can read and come to our own conclusion or ponder the matter further.

This was the sentence that followed what you quoted from me.
I've never,ever said my theories are correct or another theory is incorrect.I remain open to all opinions,do some research,weigh the evidence and come to MY own conclusions.I have not TOLD anybody to believe a particular theory so I'd like to ask you to retract that comment tep200377.
Thanks.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by citizen truth]Edited to add to my post.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by citizen truth]

Originally posted by open mind
Jhon with all due respect, you are starting to get on my nerves, you are not always right no-one is. you say things as a fact simply because you said them. You are not god

You’re getting mighty sassy for a thirteen year old whippersnapper. Where’s all this insolence coming from? John Lear is five times your age and yes, he is a ‘god’ where aviation matters are concerned. Not the god, but a god, mind you. It would behoove you to learn when to listen and when to speak. That would be the smart thing to do.

You ought to be honored that John has taken the time to post in your thread.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 11/11/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by open mind
Jhon with all due respect, you are starting to get on my nerves, you are not always right no-one is. you say things as a fact simply because you said them. You are not god

You’re getting mighty sassy for a thirteen year old whippersnapper. Where’s all this insolence coming from? John Lear is five times your age and yes, he is a ‘god’ where aviation matters are concerned. Not the god, but a god, mind you. It would behoove you to learn when to listen and when to speak. That would be the smart thing to do.

You ought to be honored that John has taken the time to post in your thread.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 11/11/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Right.....
So why doesn't your god answer questions asked of him?
So why doesn't your god back up what he says with actual evidence?
So why does your god need you to defend him?

Just curious...

... John Lear is five times your age and yes, he is a ‘god’ where aviation matters are concerned. Not the god, but a god, mind you. It would behoove you to learn when to listen and when to speak. That would be the smart thing to do.

You ought to be honored that John has taken the time to post in your thread.

[edit on 11/11/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

John's no kind of god, he just has a lot of flight experience. His dad invented the Lear Jet, so he was born to it.

He has some very eccentric ideas about a lot of things. Some contributors to ATS consider he is a government disinformation agent, planted to discredit the 'truth' movement by proclaiming the outrageously improbable so consistently that eventually no-one will accept for example any alternative theory to the 'official' version of the 9/11 attacks.

He's quite a bright guy and free thinker though, always eloquent, polite and respectful to other members. Some of the less eye-popping claims involve hologram-aircraft on 9/11 and the presence of US bases on Mars for the past 40 years.

We won't even get into the giant soul catcher on the Moon, or the claims that the atmosphere on one side is earth-like and breathable and on the other it's not. Most ATS members will agree that supplying evidence to back up these rather unorthodox claims is not John's strong point.

Always good for a lively debate.

He’s answered all the reasonable questions ten times over.
He’s backed up his statements (concerning 9-11) more diligently than anyone else has.
He doesn’t need me to defend him, ATS does. Without posters like John Lear the 9-11 forum is in serious danger of becoming a kindergarten playground of ideas.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods

John Lear is five times your age and yes, he is a ‘god’ where aviation matters are concerned.

John Lear's father started Lear. So what?
If that meant anything, then Paris Hilton must be an incredibly intelligent business woman.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
He’s answered all the reasonable questions ten times over.

No he hasn't

He’s backed up his statements (concerning 9-11) more diligently than anyone else has.

No he hasn't

He doesn’t need me to defend him, ATS does.

He really does because of his unsubstantiated, illogical, unsupportable posts.

Without posters like John Lear the 9-11 forum is in serious danger of becoming a kindergarten playground of ideas.

And with him, it is becoming a pre-school.

I have seen many, many people ask him to simply support his statements and he doesn't. It's very simple. How is it unreasonable to ask someone to back up what they state as fact, WITH FACTS?

So please don't disrespect other posters by saying he does things when he doesn't. Everyone but you, knows better.

reply to post by citizen truth


This is where you are all wrong. As a person post a theory about 911 and states that its a hologram, you will need to back it up with facts. It is NOT the reader or the critics obligation to research and get all the facts to debunk it.

If a poster states a fact without backing it up with sources, we are all in a position to debunk it in the same way ..

Originally posted by johnlear

Any why did he set the copilots altimeter first?

On this one point, I think the answer might be simple.

I don't know how well you know the Islamic world, John, or how much time you spend there, or how familiar you are with al Quran:

# Right hand: The Holy Qur'an, 90:17 to 18 - Then will he be of those who believe, and enjoin patience, (constancy, and self-restraint), and enjoin deeds of kindness and compassion. Such are the Companions of the Right Hand

# Left hand: The Holy Qur'an, 90:19 to 20 - But those who reject Our Signs, they are the (unhappy) Companions of the Left Hand. On them will be Fire vaulted over


Hani Hanjour was a very devout Moslem - perhaps an understatement.

Facing imminent death, and about to come face to face with 'Allah The Compassionate, Allah the Merciful' any minute following the ultimate act of martyrdom, IMHO he decided to fly right, rather than left. As a devout Moslem, in the circumstances, this would have been the place of honour and the rightful station.

Never mind international pilot convention of 'Captain in charge'. This is not important, compared to religious duty.

This will explain to you precisely why Hani 'set the co-pilot's altimeter first'. That's exactly what you would expect him to do. That's where he was sitting.

Of course, if you were to attempt to falsify a flight recorder, unless you were a devout Moslem steeped in Quranic practice, you would never think of that.

The flight recorder is obviously genuine.

[edit on 11/11/2007 by bovarcher]

[edit on 11/11/2007 by bovarcher]

reply to post by tep200377

This is where you are all wrong. As a person post a theory about 911 and states that its a hologram, you will need to back it up with facts. It is NOT the reader or the critics obligation to research and get all the facts to debunk it.

I'm trying really hard to grasp your train of thought and it eludes me.Once again,this thread is NOT a hologram thread.It's a thread about "crazy claims".
It's seems apparent you don't have a solid understanding of a debate or debunking for that matter.
If a person proposes a theory or evidence and a person wishes to counter that claim, the ball falls in the court of the debunker to prove the theorist wrong.Just because you say it's wrong doesn't make it so,YOU have to provide SOMETHING.
Haven't you ever been to a court room?Why have two lawyers if only one side has to present a case?The judge weighs the evidence given by both sides and comes to a conclusion based on the evidence and any hard facts presented.Lawyer1= theorist, Lawyer2=debunker.The judge is the individual reading.
I would hope that any person who is curious for the truth in any given area takes the time to research on his/her own.
If you don't research anything then how can you debunk a claim?How do you know what the "facts" are if you just read the forum or watch T.V.?
I don't agree with every single theory BUT I actually take the time (sometimes hours) to look into the matter for myself.If a person provides a link then it gives me a starting point and I go from there to other sites.
I respectfully say that your logic is flawed and I'm still waiting for your retraction from your earlier post.
Those who think they know everything will learn nothing.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by citizen truth]edited for typos

[edit on 11-11-2007 by citizen truth]

reply to post by open mind


I would like for you to look at your name.

I would like to remind you that if you stop people from posting what you perceive to be fantasy, then ATS would cease to exist.

Enjoy the show.

reply to post by citizen truth

Originally posted by citizen truth
It's seems apparent you don't have a solid understanding of a debate or debunking for that matter.
If a person proposes a theory or evidence and a person wishes to counter that claim, the ball falls in the court of the debunker to prove the theorist wrong.Just because you say it's wrong doesn't make it so,YOU have to provide SOMETHING.
Haven't you ever been to a court room?Why have two lawyers if only one side has to present a case?The judge weighs the evidence given by both sides and comes to a conclusion based on the evidence and any hard facts presented.Lawyer1= theorist, Lawyer2=debunker.The judge is the individual reading.
I would hope that any person who is curious for the truth in any given area takes the time to research on his/her own.
If you don't research anything then how can you debunk a claim?How do you know what the "facts" are if you just read the forum or watch T.V.?
I don't agree with every single theory BUT I actually take the time (sometimes hours) to look into the matter for myself.If a person provides a link then it gives me a starting point and I go from there to other sites.
I respectfully say that your logic is flawed and I'm still waiting for your retraction from your earlier post.
Those who think they know everything will learn nothing.

I think you're actually supporting tep200377's position here.

You cannot prove a negative.

If I say that little faeries picnic on my lawn at night, and the dew you see in the morning is actually their piss, it's not up to tep to prove me wrong.

It's up to me to provide photographs of faeries picnicking, or a urinalysis proving that it's faerie piss, or whatever.

That is why a courthouse is the perfect example:

I do not have to prove my innocence. It is up to the state to prove me wrong. It is my right to sit there and not say a word in my own defense.

Logic dictates that we approach things that way, not the other way around.

Shame we don't have WATS anymore...

JSOBecky, you sure deserve one...

That is the meat of the matter complete and well said...

Semper

reply to post by jsobecky


I most certainly am not supporting his position.I guess using court as an example was a bad idea.Where I'm from people in court will usually respond to a query by the opposing lawyer or the judge.Sitting there silently seems kind of strange.
Most people usually post sources for their claim,ideas or theories.If a person has done a reasonable job doing so and another person wants to call it wrong, then that person should show why it's wrong.
I try to make myself clear when I post so I don't know how to make my point clearer without having a 100,000 word essay on it.I never thought such a simple concept would have to be painstakingly spelled to some people.
In the end I for one cannot take a debunker seriously if the person can't show how the theory posted is in error.
Have a nice day.

reply to post by citizen truth

Originally posted by citizen truth
I most certainly am not supporting his position.I guess using court as an example was a bad idea.Where I'm from people in court will usually respond to a query by the opposing lawyer or the judge.Sitting there silently seems kind of strange.

Well...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

en.wikipedia.org...
Emphasis added.


That's right...it's the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

So you see, sitting there silently isn't so strange after all.

Originally posted by citizen truth
Most people usually post sources for their claim,ideas or theories.If a person has done a reasonable job doing so and another person wants to call it wrong, then that person should show why it's wrong.

Well now, now you're changing the game. This is not what you stated originally.

I agree that if I debunk your sources, I've effectively debunked your theory. Right?

Its so funny how some people demand evidence from people to support their theory but they will not provide evidence for debate or support their theory.

Sorry people but it is a 2 way street if you are going to demand evidence you must also supply evidence.

Just think about if we were in court, boith sides need to supply evidence to support their sides.

Open mind, you shouldn't call any theory to far fetched or unrealistic because it doesn't match your basic beliefs or what is possible and not. I thing i do know is that truth are many times stranger then fiction. I would never say holographic projections are impossible. I have that theory in question and i do keep and open mind about it.

Originally posted by citizen truth
reply to post by tep200377

I'm trying really hard to grasp your train of thought and it eludes me.Once again,this thread is NOT a hologram thread.It's a thread about "crazy claims".

If you really cant understand what I am trying to say, then you are more off the track than I am. The OP is about crazy claims, thus about people making theories far fetched from reality. When doing so, GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT before posting.

It's seems apparent you don't have a solid understanding of a debate or debunking for that matter.

Again, you try do make this personal and try to lower the impression of my intelligence by saying "you don't have a solid understanding!" This is a common way for debaters who really dont have anything usefull to say. When that is said, can you please tell me what i really don't understand?

If a person proposes a theory or evidence and a person wishes to counter that claim, the ball falls in the court of the debunker to prove the theorist wrong.Just because you say it's wrong doesn't make it so,YOU have to provide SOMETHING.

Again , the OP is about that. DONT come up with a theory without any facts or evidence.. Why cant you understand that logic ?

Haven't you ever been to a court room?Why have two lawyers if only one side has to present a case?The judge weighs the evidence given by both sides and comes to a conclusion based on the evidence and any hard facts presented.Lawyer1= theorist, Lawyer2=debunker.The judge is the individual reading.

What has that to do with this? When you are in a court, I really do hope you come prepared in court with solid evidence. If IE Jhon Lear where in a court trial with his hologram theory, I think you know what would happend. I really dont think I would have needed a lawyer to win that case

I would hope that any person who is curious for the truth in any given area takes the time to research on his/her own.

I would hope that too, whats your point ? This is what I'm trying to tell you...

If you don't research anything then how can you debunk a claim?How do you know what the "facts" are if you just read the forum or watch T.V.?

If you dont research anything, why would you post a far fetched theory ?
In this case, John Lears theories.

I don't agree with every single theory BUT I actually take the time (sometimes hours) to look into the matter for myself.If a person provides a link then it gives me a starting point and I go from there to other sites.

If you have used hours on researching IE Jhon Lears Hologram theory or soulcatcher, theories as aknowledgeable as a fairytail, and come up with some solid evidence or facts that they are within reasonable theories, well good for you, please post linkes with facts. If NOT, then you really should know what I am talking about.

I respectfully say that your logic is flawed and I'm still waiting for your retraction from your earlier post.

I respectfully say that you are waisting your time with this jibberish statement.

As the OP says, "Please come up with some solid evidence or facts before posting those far fetched theories!"

Do you really mean that all the posters should throw out hundreds of crazy theories without facts or evidence and leave the responsebility to the readers to come up with facts to debunk it?

We are really not looking for jobs, I think most of us have alot of other things to do than to apply for debunker missions on ATS.

Those who think they know everything will learn nothing.

You are a wery fine example of that my friend ..


[edit on 12-11-2007 by tep200377]

reply to post by jsobecky


Thanks, I was beginning to think ( by his way of debating ) that I had forgotten to take my medicine