• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

FLT 77 Flight Recorder Data - Pilots for Truth

AMTMAN said:
I think iAmerican knows that if he says how wonderful DRG is he is going to get a response. Just another way of trolling, nothing more nothing less.
Click to expand...
Please cite the errors you allege in "The New Pearl Harbor," by page number. Professor Griffin's proof of Bush/Cheney's treason is multi-faceted, and multi-layered, like any strong legal prosecution, relying on no single element. Your minutiae should be openly noted, however, should it need correction.
 
Last edited:
iAmerican said:
Please cite the errors you allege in "The New Pearl Harbor," by page number. Professor Griffin's proof of Bush/Cheney's treason is multi-faceted, and multi-layered, like any strong legal prosecution, relying on no single element. Your minutiae should be openly noted, however, should it need correction.
Click to expand...

It never seases to amaze me that the same sort of people who say we should be asking questions will never think to ask questions of their hero DRG.
 
iAmerican said:
Professor Griffin's proof of Bush/Cheney's treason is multi-faceted, and multi-layered, like any strong legal prosecution, relying on no single element.
Click to expand...

Ie, it's based on alot of hand-waiving, false implication, and requires substantial preconception in order to get the brain primed for false pattern matching.

When DRG, or you, or anyone, can come up with, ya know, some evidence, I'll be inclined to pay more attention.

Weaving a fanciful and highly improbable tale doesn't impress me. Especially when no effort whatsoever is made to eliminate prosaic explanation. At that point it becomes a simple exercise in pseudo-science (-history, etc).
 
Last edited:
Jesus, Not "The New Pearl Harbor" again. Yea, iAmerican. Start a new thread about it. We haven't discussed it in oh, hours I guess. Maybe the 100th time a thread is started might just do the trick, huh?

Meanwhile, it is OT for this thread.
 
SpitfireIX said:
As you may recall, that's what Jay Windley has dubbed the If I Ran the Zoo fallacy.
Click to expand...

Yup. Probably one of THE most common fallacies, and one that transcends conspiracy theories.

As an aside, it's too bad that Jay doesn't like to deal with 911 deniers; his work dealing with Apollo HBs is brilliant.
 
Garb said:
How exactly is that statement proof of a standown or inside job theory?
Click to expand...

It is not proof of anything.....I was just merely saying that this was shameful hearing what they said about Hijacking being cool....wether it meant a trip to Cuba...or if they didnt know the pilots had been killed....I just think that the response by these people should not have been COOL......I think it should be lets respond ASAP.....think of the innocent people on the plane....
 
iAmerican said:
Those open to enlightenment regarding 9-11 need only read Emeritus Professor David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbor." Though his manner is gentle and academic, his reputation is unimpeachable and through his inexorable and exhaustive heuristic the only possible conclusion, for a reasonable person, incontrovertible: Bush and Cheney committed 9-11.
Click to expand...

All of David Ray Griffin's books are excellent.....Very well written....Especially The New Pearl Harbor....
 
wtcconspiracy said:
I dont think they are fiction. I think they are a very good evaluation of the events of 9/11. I think they offer people an insight into the events of the day in terms easy to understand....
Click to expand...

To each his own, I suppose. It really just depends on what you are predisposed to believe. Have you considered you think they are a very good evaluation of the events of 9/11 because it supports what you believe? There are also very good evaluations of the events of 9/11 from other sources that come to different conclusions.

Personally, I think most of his writings are ideologically biased. Like I said: to each his own.
 
Last edited:
wtcconspiracy said:
I dont think they are fiction. I think they are a very good evaluation of the events of 9/11. I think they offer people an insight into the events of the day in terms easy to understand....

Ben
Click to expand...

twinstead said:
Personally, I think most of his writings are ideologically biased. Like I said: to each his own.
Click to expand...

Forgive me for saying this directly, but: That's not the proper way to evaluate DRG's work. The whole argument behind his work rests on its accuracy or lack thereof, and many of his works have been found to be inaccurate. For example, his errors in his work "The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie" have been discussed in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80841

Ryan Mackey illustrates DRG's mistakes regarding the WTC collapse in his book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_0.doc

The point behind DRG's work is not the ideological slant, it's whether it's objectively, factually correct. And in regards to the two specific works cited here, DRG's work is not. They are not regardless of idealogical bias or intent or lack of either; his work fails at the level of non-idealogical facts and due to that, conclusions he's drawn in those works do not rise to the level of being "accurate" or "correct".

Twin, forgive me for including you in there too. I know you don't buy DRG's work at all. It's just that I saw danger in allowing the subdiscussion to evolve into a question of DRG's vs. anyone else's ideology, and at that point, the fact that Griffin's been shown many times to be factually wrong gets lost. I meant nothing personal in including your statement.

ETA: I need to slap my own wrist here. This post, and the subtopic we're discussing, is every bit as off topic as iAmerican's above, and what I wrote about his post applies to my own as well. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. Therefore, I need to declare myself off topic :( and recommend that, if anyone wants to continue discussing DRG's work, those posts should be split off into that topic's own thread.
 
Last edited:
wtcconspiracy said:
I dont think they are fiction. I think they are a very good evaluation of the events of 9/11. I think they offer people an insight into the events of the day in terms easy to understand....

Ben
Click to expand...
No facts, no evidence, just hearsay and conspiracy talk by the hearsay master. Fiction? No Fraud is a better term. Truly the stuff to make a fool part with his money; I present DRG, the man who has nothing right about 9/11. What a dolt, how can he get everything wrong?

The worst evaluation of 9/11! Bet he has no clue on the FDR either. I would ask you to mention something he got right but that would be impossible for you to do. Any FDR stuff?
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
Twin, forgive me for including you in there too. I know you don't buy DRG's work at all. It's just that I saw danger in allowing the subdiscussion to evolve into a question of DRG's vs. anyone else's ideology, and at that point, the fact that Griffin's been shown many times to be factually wrong gets lost. I meant nothing personal in including your statement.
Click to expand...

You are correct, of course. I was being diplomatic toward wtcconspiracy in my response--perhaps too much so. I agree that any discussion of DRGs stuff that doesn't include the fact that he is often factually wrong isn't complete.
 
I posted a youtube video almost a year ago. Using X-Plane, a software certified for training by the FAA, I put in as much of the parameters as possible of AA77. I did not know T/O weight or altimeter settings so I maxed out the weight, and set altimeter to 30.01. I then flew the route normally, taking into consideration times of events, such as, hijack, altitude changes, time of impact, etc. I did not go as far beyond the HNN vortac as AA77 did, probably because of my fuel weight. Time to Pentagon was 1 minute off. The thing about this flight that interested me was in making the 330 degree turn, I lost sight of the pentagon. When I found it....I was at the same angle to the building as AA77. Also encountered ALOT of stability issues as I got closer. The video is under my Youtube Profile of Jumpa31, same as here.
 
Reheat said:
The one thing you need to keep in mind as you examine the technical minutiae is that the FDR Data is NOT NEEDED to know that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. There is a mountain of evidence that it did.
Click to expand...


Nice circular logic there - a mountain of evidence? No, because if there was, nobody would care about examining the FDR data. Let's see, we have:
- little or no visible debris usually found in areas where a plane has crashed.

- a hole in the side of the building that didn't appear to be large enough for a commercial airliner.

- conflicting reports from eye-witnesses, some even reporting seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon.
​
Sorry, but that's not a mountain of evidence.

Oh, and for those of you who claim there was some sort of delay - aside from the federal regulations prohibiting the use of FDRs with more than a .5 second delay, that claim isn't technically sound. Even personal computers with their cache-heavy file systems will retain data that was written up to the point of a power failure (within .5s).

Are you telling me that the FDRs used on commercial airliners are using some inferior technology? Please explain to me, in technical terms, how that would be possible? Given the fact that FDRs are writing a steady stream of data that does not vary in size, there would be no benefit in caching it. So what caused the delay?

Sorry folks, but that is evidence. Please stop with your erroneous claims that there isn't any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom