Trailer for the upcoming presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth

Originally posted by discombobulator
I will repeat it in case you missed it the first time.

John Leer.

Holograms.

Crackpot.

Edit: That's without even mentioning your merry band of no-planers and pod people.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by discombobulator]

To use the official dogma, can you disprove with solid evidence that holograms, DEW, et cetera weren't used

Technically it is possible that in the deeper crevices of the military exist all manner of exotic weapons, paraphernalia and techniques that outstrip public technologies by a factor of decades.

That being said, it is an extreeeeemely outside possibility; a highly improbable scenario about on the level of likelihood of the official story.

Originally posted by habu71

Some of these posts are disgusting in that they were posted on September 11.

I don't mean to nitpick, but if you are referring to my comments then you are in fact incorrect when you claim that I posted them on September 11.

Rob Balsamo,

I would have responded sooner, but I made a promise to myself that I would not get into any bickering on the 7th anniversary. I even started a thread about it. I did read a few posts, and then went back to work. I watched the memorial at the Pentagon. I read and watched interviews from survivors and victims families. I left a little early to visit the memorial created at Logan Airport. I was unable to find parking...so I decided against going in it. I sat up late last night watching a couple documentaries regarding 911. It was the first time in 7 years my wife could sit through anything like that. I wept like I did on 9-11.

You obviously took the anniversary as an opportunity to spread your filth. This does not surprise me in the least. It shows your character. But hey, it takes all kinds to make the world "go round" I guess. That is also what is so fantastic about how lucky we are. Lucky to live in a country where on a day of remembrance, some can dismiss that option and do and say pretty much what they want. Yes, we still have those rights.

I chuckled at your entire post. Then I paused. It is quite sad and blatantly obvious what your agenda here is. You have no intentions of holding anyone responsible for the information you claim to have. Your information is broadcast to those with minimal (at best) aviation experience. I can not debate FDR facts with you sir. As you know 99% of the people that read your forum or watch your videos can't either. This is how you do it. When you are questioned by those with similar credentials, you discredit them for staying anonymous. Reheat and Beachnut are both here at ATS. They do not only "hide out" at JREF. They have offered very important facts on several threads regarding planes/FDR/Rades...etc. JREF has also kept you there. Aren't you TURBOFAN at JREF? If not, he is clearly a member of PFFT.

I stay anonymous for the same reasons they do: There are too many people around the internet that are crazy. You sir, have made two death threats to Mark Roberts. This is a fact. I don't care if you were drunk at a Super Bowl party. In addition to the death threats, you track visitors IP addresses at your website. (Another reason why I don't go there.) I believe it was you that posted Beachnuts real name once? (I could be mistaken) You know what city I work in. That is already too much info.

Let me know when you take these videos and documentation to the proper authorities.


-TY-

Well said, TY.

As far as "anonymity" is concerned, there is a strong desire to remain so when dealing with the "rapers of truth" crowd, but to stay engaged with these sometimes means sacrificing some at times.

Anyone with half a clue can read my blog and get plenty of information about me, who I am, what my background is, etc, making a certain amount of anonymity a moot point. Doesn't stop Captain Bob, though, from hurling that accusation about like so much projectile vomitus.

Notice I said "half a clue". Perhaps that's why Captain Bob still claims to not know anything about me and what my background is.

Why the frenzy of excited posts about a new video? Is the interest of the 9-11 CT movement slick YouTube videos, or presenting seven years and counting of 'smoking gun evidence' to the authorities?

If Cpt. Bob can make a few bucks off of his new video; it’s a free country. Personally, I find this brand of …….marketing horrendously offensive.

Having said that, why do 9-11 CT’ers remain fixed on producing videos? If your cause is as noble as I have heard locally famous 9-11 CT’ers claim, why are you continuing to waste time on this kind of stuff? To what end? For what purpose?

When will you be getting this information before the proper authorities? Surly they aren’t ALL in on it?

It’s a completely legitimate question and at this late, late point in the game inescapable: Why aren’t you focused on the legal battle needed to bring the perpetrators of almost 3,000 innocents to justice?.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by almighty bob


Burden of proof reversal. It is not up to 9-11 CT skeptics to refute any crackpot, absurd notion put forward.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. Your position is the absence of counter-evidence is proof of evidence, even if none exists. As an example: prove Martians didn’t cause 9-11. Of course you can’t (as no such evidence exists) and using the burden of proof reversal that dictates Martians did do it. Completely backwards logic.

No sir, the burden is upon those who put forth the assertion. This is a basic tenant of sound, accepted logic that escapes 9-11 CT’ers to this day.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I would have responded sooner, but I made a promise to myself that I would not get into any bickering on the 7th anniversary.

Yes i also watched some things on TV, but still kept the vigilance of finding the truth.

BTW i have e-mailed the FOIA office and they are working on my request, hopefully i will have it soon. Enjoy the rest of your time online.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof.

Thats correct, even claims of the official story need proof. But so far we have not seen much.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by almighty bob

 

Burden of proof reversal. It is not up to 9-11 CT skeptics to refute any crackpot, absurd notion put forward.

Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. Your position is the absence of counter-evidence is proof of evidence, even if none exists. As an example: prove Martians didn’t cause 9-11. Of course you can’t (as no such evidence exists) and using the burden of proof reversal that dictates Martians did do it. Completely backwards logic.

No sir, the burden is upon those who put forth the assertion. This is a basic tenant of sound, accepted logic that escapes 9-11 CT’ers to this day.

Which is why I said I was using dogma

But I am not claiming anything, merely observing that until an acceptible scenario, backed up with extraordinary evidence (because in a subjective world there can not truly be anything that is proof beyond to any individual), and this has not been achieved by the official story, is brought to light, it is limiting and blinkered to discount any possibility no matter how improbable it may seem.

In the end, as subjective individuals, all we can do is observe the given evidence, heed the given theories, and best make our subjective and individual judgements on them.

Then, with enough awareness, with extraordinary evidence enough to subjectively, individually prove that there was a conspiracy on that day, perhaps the collective individual will rise up and take to task those that have deceived them, murdered them and raped their individual resource for personal benefit, because the judicial system is in the pocket of the government and not the people, and as such cannot be trusted.

But what will realistically happen will be a brief blaze on forums of people screaming 'It's a bloody outrage! Someone [else] oughta do something!' and then it will be dropped for a couple of generations.

So, regarding extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence, with their research and postings CIT have done both in an adept manner (but, sorry Craig I do wish you would not bandy the word proof around with the flyover. You may have compelling evidence, but mostly compelling to the investigators. For me it has yet to carry overwhelming weight but I accept it as a very real possibility). The counter arguments have not shown any overwhelming or extraordinary evidence to the contrary or evidence that cannot be considered untainted (independently collected eyewitness testimony is an excellent device, well done CIT) and range anywhere from well structured measured arguments (rare) to deflections, personal attacks and abuse (common).

Edited to close italic tag.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by almighty bob]

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by habu71
reply to post by johndoex

 

And as far as the "sanity of the members of [PffT]", I found out a long, long time ago that regardless of the discipline, you will *always* have morons, idiots, moonbats and lunatics as members, sometimes in good standing. The fact that there are the aforementioned souls in the aviation community surprises me none - none in the least. I would expect it. Most disciplines are indeed a microcosm of society, to one degree or another. The fact that you (or anyone) can master the discipline necessary to 'fly" an aircraft does not in any way guarantee you (or anyone) sound judgment or common sense.

great, if not obvious, statement of fact!!!
especially to those prone to falling into the trap of "appealing to authority"
I think of it as the "Steven Jones" syndrome..
sound judgment and common sense are a rarity these days..

Originally posted by pccat
sound judgment and common sense are a rarity these days..

Yes, just look at all the people that still beleive the official story with no real evidence to support it.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


A better example is look at all the people that think there is a conspiracy, with no evidence to back their claims. Eager to spread rumors and theories, but with no evidence to back them up, no balls to take anything to court.

When even an analyst with the NSA cannot bring forth concrete proof of a conspiracy after 7 years, thats quite telling. I know, I know, you have FOIA requests out, yada yada. But if you have the data (or access to it) and still refuse to bring it forward now....you are just as bad as the govt you claim is covering it up.

reply to post by almighty bob


That's great, and still a burden of proof reversal.

It's not up to 9-11 skeptics to embrace nebulous, granola-crunch, existential nonsense. It's up to 9-11 CT'ers to prove their case.

Beyond that, to the larger question: again, why the emphasis on YouTube videos? Get this 'smoking gun evidence' before a court for goodness sake. Stop wasting time high-fiving each other on Internet forums and get to it.

After all, it's been seven years, mountains of smoking gun evidence, claims of the movement growing by leaps and bounds and many, many slick Internet videos – why no court action? Why no interest in brining the perps to justice?

The answer? At the end of the day, even 9-11 CT'ers know their claims are utter B.S. They simpiliy lack the conviction of their professed beliefs. Stop talking to skeptics like me. Stop wasting time. Bring the perps to justice.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by almighty bob

 

That's great, and still a burden of proof reversal.

No it isn't, it is showing how a claim has been made and the burden of proof has been met, provided we are talking about the Northside witnesses, and as the rest of my post was obviously speculative and conjecture, beyond that, it is an individual endeavour to make judgement on the facts, both facts presented and facts obscured.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
It's not up to 9-11 skeptics to embrace nebulous, granola-crunch, existential nonsense. It's up to 9-11 CT'ers to prove their case.

This then becomes debunking. A skeptic, a true skeptic, would keep their mind open to all possibilities until absolute and incontrovertible evidence to a single scenario is presented, and even then be skeptical. Anything beyond that is selecting evidence to fit a personally preconceived conclusion or to fit an agenda. And your use of language here (granola-crunch, existential nonsense) does seem to indicate a preconceived bias, closed-mindedness or an agenda, but I admit this is purely my take on it and may be wrong. Because I am a skeptic and I hold no bias.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Beyond that, to the larger question: again, why the emphasis on YouTube videos? Get this 'smoking gun evidence' before a court for goodness sake. Stop wasting time high-fiving each other on Internet forums and get to it.

Perhaps because a wider recognition of the anomalies in the official story needs to be raised first? Perhaps because, as I mentioned in my previous post, the judicial system and, indeed, mainstream media are in the pockets of those in control, those speculated to have been responsible for the 9-11 atrocities?

Ultimately resolution of this, especially if a conspiracy theory is correct (and I admit that there are a lot of them, ranging from highly probable to markedly unfeasible - but this only highlights the lack of cohesion and the anomalies of the official take on events), will depend on the people themselves and not the culpable authorities. Taking it to the courts would be like the police saying "Tell you what, lets hand over the investigation of the Tate murder to this Manson fellow".

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
After all, it's been seven years, mountains of smoking gun evidence, claims of the movement growing by leaps and bounds and many, many slick Internet videos – why no court action? Why no interest in brining the perps to justice?

The answer? At the end of the day, even 9-11 CT'ers know their claims are utter B.S. They simpiliy lack the conviction of their professed beliefs. Stop talking to skeptics like me. Stop wasting time. Bring the perps to justice.

A very bold statement and basically rhetoric. I could say "even 9-11 official theory believers realise that their arguments are hollow because of the holes in the official theories". But that would also be pointless rhetoric, so I won't. And read my previous paragraph. People need to care enough for it to become an issue enough. This needs awareness, and awareness needs exposure, and you aren't going to get that from Fox News.

But then read, again, my previous post. I doubt they will. If no-one they knew or cared about was affected then why get involved? It's the Kitty Genovese syndrome.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by almighty bob]

reply to post by almighty bob


I am open to other possibilities, based on evidence, not speculation.

You offer a lot of excuses (sorry) as to why skeptics like me should ignore the obvious: that is, 9-11 CT'ers are exceptionally good at speculation and have zero evidence of some grand, over-arching conspiracy.

Please don't try to suggest to me what a 'real' skeptic should do. That's argumentative technique and yet another attempt to shift the burden from them, to me. It’s not up to me to see what isn’t there. It’s up to 9-11 CT’ers to prove their case. Because they haven’t (and wont) doesn’t mean I “don’t get it”.

Again, it's not about me. It's about evidence and 9-11 CT'ers lack of it.

EDIT: none of what I say is aimed at you, personally.


[edit on 14-9-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
reply to post by almighty bob

 

I am open to other possibilities, based on evidence, not speculation.

You offer a lot of excuses (sorry) as to why skeptics like me should ignore the obvious: that is, 9-11 CT'ers are exceptionally good at speculation and have zero evidence of some grand, over-arching conspiracy.

And that is a very fair statement, but I would hardly say there is zero evidence. There is evidence that can be argued against using the official statements, but not absolutely refuted. And, I ask this genuinely and without rhetoric, do you honestly think that the evidence, and more importantly the masking and suppressing of evidence (for example the shipping off of the WTC rubble to, from my recollection of reports, to China. As I understand it, not even NIST had access to much evidence - i.e. the steel) entirely corroborates the official story? Do the many coincidences (NORAD exercises on the same day, three first cases of total structural failure from impact/fire to name but two) not stir the skeptic in you to pondering that more occured that day than is admitted?

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Please don't try to suggest to me what a 'real' skeptic should do. That's argumentative technique and yet another attempt to shift the burden from them, to me. It’s not up to me to see what isn’t there. It’s up to 9-11 CT’ers to prove their case. Because they haven’t (and wont) doesn’t mean I “don’t get it”.

Why not? I am saying that a 'real' skeptic will always be skeptical (as opposed to a paranoiac who would see conspiracy for conspiracies sake - but that's not me). And the whole 'burden of proof' thing is also an argumentative technique, not an analytical one. Again, Northside of Citgo Flightpath - Extraordinary theory. Eyewitness testimony - Extraordinary proof. The burden of proof has been met, so the burden of proof has shifted to those that would refute it to provide a greater degree of extraordinary proof against it. That would have to be a greater number of independant and impartial eyewitness testimonies to the contrary, to support the official flightpath.

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Again, it's not about me. It's about evidence and 9-11 CT'ers lack of it.

Well, considering the alleged treatment of the evidence, what are the CT'ists to use as evidence. Impartial and indepently collected eyewitness testimony? Well, they've done that. And much of the evidence presented to support the official story, to my skeptics eye, seems lacking. Shaky at best.

So it all boils down to the subjective and individual analysis of the evidence provided and that individuals conclusions reached by that evidence, and obviously we do not come to the same conclusion for whatever reasons.

Originally posted by gavron
A better example is look at all the people that think there is a conspiracy, with no evidence to back their claims. .

I hate to break it to you but there is a lot more evidnece that questions the official story then supports it.

The only conspiracy is the offical story since it it is based on a conspiracy.

I have already shown lots of evidence but as usual the believers living in a fantasy world will not accept anything that does not agree with what the media has told them to believe.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Shown lots of evidence? 7 years have passed, and the results have not changed. Apparently your efforts of finding a conspiracy are not working. Perhaps if you made your evidence public, and not just in a internet forum, then you could get the word out.

You say you have classified information, but are not releasing it. Sounds like the information not released before Pearl harbor? And you think you are any different? If anything, you are a co-conspirator.

How many more years do we have to wait for your evidence, ULTIMA1? Its already been 7. You waiting for the 10th anniversary? 20th?

Looks like the official story wins again!

Originally posted by gavron
Apparently your efforts of finding a conspiracy are not working.

What conspiracy? How is looking for the truth a conspiracy?

The only real conspiracy is the official story since it is based on a real conspiracy.

You say you have classified information, but are not releasing it.

I am getting a declassified version of the document to post, i have shown the FOIA request for it.

How many more years do we have to wait for your evidence, ULTIMA1? Its already been 7. You waiting for the 10th anniversary? 20th?

That is a good question, how many more years do we have to wait for the facts and evidnece to be released? The facts and evidence believers like you already think you know or have?


[edit on 15-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


But you yourself said the information regarding shooting down flight 93 was not the classified part, correct? Why not release that portion? What are you hiding?