Anyone interested in debunking Pandora's Box Chapter Two?

GregoryUrich said:
I thought that's what you guys do. Debunk stuff. I guess I'm at the wrong site.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)
 
GregoryUrich said:
If anyone is interested in watching the video, I'll be interested in discussing it with them. You other guys are totally lame.
Click to expand...
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.
 
GregoryUrich said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
GregoryUrich said:
I won't be providing a summary of the video.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Deleted message :) reason, not reading the entire thread.
 
Last edited:
GregoryUrich said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77910&highlight=NTSB+Animation
 
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.
 
GregoryUrich said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom