AA77 FDR Data, Explained

[BCR]

Yes, we know. Everyone who comes here to argue points of CIT or P4T are Craig or Rob or Turbofan.

Heck, I'm sure if you say it enough even the mods will believe it and ban on a technicality without any proof as they did TLB?

Still doesn't change the fact that the NTSB doesn't claim any errors your so-called "experts" claim who cannot be verified as experts.

Looking through this thread, every single "troofer" has been banned. Not for personal attacks, not for being impolite, but for accusations of socks sans proof.

Makes you all look really good to lurkers.

At least we don't have to pretend to be someone else

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Look HI may be the resident truther cheerleader, but even he has his limits. I mean he is, if nothing else, sane.

TAM

I still don't know anything about it. I think it means if the plane was NOC that it couldn't have knocked over the light poles or something like that. And that's just a guess that's probably wrong.

It really doesn't interest me.

I just know that this Bob or CIT or whoever they are sure has the attention of all the debunkers around here.

I'm jealous. Maybe I should look into it a little more just to see what they have you all in such a hissy fit about.

I don't know. Maybe. But I doubt it. I haven't needed to yet. There are so many other aspects of 9/11 that none of you can seem to explain so why bother?

 

[BCR]

We all know that you are Cap'n Bob, you haven't even denied it. Personally, I would prefer that you don't get banned. The forum is a funnier place with you guys around. It sure was before Craig's sock got banned.

I agree, it is boring without them

 

[T.A.M.]

I still don't know anything about it. I think it means if the plane was NOC that it couldn't have knocked over the light poles or something like that. And that's just a guess that's probably wrong.

It really doesn't interest me.

I just know that this Bob or CIT or whoever they are sure has the attention of all the debunkers around here.

I'm jealous. Maybe I should look into it a little more just to see what they have you all in such a hissy fit about.

I don't know. Maybe. But I doubt it. I haven't needed to yet. There are so many other aspects of 9/11 that none of you can seem to explain so why bother?

They are simply a more colorful, more responsive ball of wool...thats all.

TAM

 

[dtugg]

HI is jealous of Ranquisamo. LOL. About the funniest thing ever.

 

[Hokulele]

They are simply a more colorful, more responsive ball of wool...thats all.

TAM

In a sense, this is true. Unlike the bulk of the CTists currently posting here, they do actually make claims and try to prove them. Granted, the claims are ludicrous and the efforts at proof are laughable, but at least they try to make some kind of discussion.

If they took it one step further and managed to bring in reliable evidence, discuss it in a generally civil manner, and not make 1001 socks, they might even get the level of attention and, shock, respect given to the self-proclaimed truthers such as GregoryUrich and 911files.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am still finding the word "truther" used with 911files odd.

Have I missed a post where he confesses other beliefs that place him in the truther camp?

TAM

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

In a sense, this is true. Unlike the bulk of the CTists currently posting here, they do actually make claims and try to prove them. Granted, the claims are ludicrous and the efforts at proof are laughable, but at least they try to make some kind of discussion.

If they took it one step further and managed to bring in reliable evidence, discuss it in a generally civil manner, and not make 1001 socks, they might even get the level of attention and, shock, respect given to the self-proclaimed truthers such as GregoryUrich and 911files.

Why do they have to make socks? Why can't you just let them expose themselves if it's really all so foolish? Doesn't anyone around here really want a debate?

 

[jtribby]

well if they were banned, then the accusations were true.

I was going to quote the Ban notice of TLB from darat. But that may be against the rules. Darat admits he doesn't have absolute proof but banned him anyway. It appears people get banned here on technicalities and disagreements, not for being trolls. I also understand this forum requires 3 forms of ID to post when enough members complain of socks due to the obvious fact members cannot debate the topic. Since when does any forum require forms of ID to post, let alone a real name and zip code? Making a list?

Do you need me to copy/paste the notice here? Or can you find it on your own.

In conclusion, topic derailment is an apparent agenda. Most here would rather ban opposing debate on a technicality sans proof so they won't have to face the facts that the NTSB does not claim any errors as claimed by your "experts" who cannot be verfied as such.

 

[dtugg]

I am still finding the word "truther" used with 911files odd.

Have I missed a post where he confesses other beliefs that place him in the truther camp?

TAM

He has said that he is a truther, but I don't think that his definition of truther and ours is the same.

 

[BCR]

I am still finding the word "truther" used with 911files odd.

Have I missed a post where he confesses other beliefs that place him in the truther camp?

TAM

Ah .... I am doing my research to find out the truth behind the events of 9/11. I still have a lot of lingering issues, including the NTSB data among other things. So that makes me a truther...right?

 

[T.A.M.]

I was going to quote the Ban notice of TLB from darat. But that may be against the rules. Darat admits he doesn't have absolute proof but banned him anyway. It appears people get banned here on technicalities and disagreements, not for being trolls. I also understand this forum requires 3 forms of ID to post when enough members complain of socks die to the obvious fact members cannot debate the topic.

Do you need me to copy/paste the notice here? Or can you find it on your own.

In conclusion, topic derailment is an apparent agenda. Most here would rather ban opposing debate on a technicality sans proof so they won't have to face the facts that the NTSB doesn not claim any errors as claimed by your "experts" who cannot be verfied as such.

1. Pot meet kettle. You have been as much a part of the derailment as anyone tribby.
2. I could care less about the "notice". Sock Puppets are against the forum rules, and like most sane, sensible people, the mods use a collection evidence to decide who is and who is not.

TAM

 

[dtugg]

Why do they have to make socks? Why can't you just let them expose themselves if it's really all so foolish? Doesn't anyone around here really want a debate?

Personally I would rather that those idiots not have their socks banned, just for entertainment value.

But since you are not smart enough to figure out why they are not allowed to have socks, I will explain. If a person is banned here, it is that person, not the account. Otherwise, a ban would mean nothing, every banned person would be free to come here to break the rules over and over again.

 

[T.A.M.]

Ah .... I am doing my research to find out the truth behind the events of 9/11. I still have a lot of lingering issues, including the NTSB data among other things. So that makes me a truther...right?

no,

in my mind that makes you human. What separates you from what I would label a truther, is that you present your evidence, without agenda, without bias. I have seen none of the "the big bad govt did it" come out of you.

So far, All I have seen you do is collect, in a mature and responsible fashion, evidence via FOIA requests and other means, and present it here for others to digest.

TAM

 

[Hokulele]

Ah .... I am doing my research to find out the truth behind the events of 9/11. I still have a lot of lingering issues, including the NTSB data among other things. So that makes me a truther...right?

Frankly, you can call yourself Mary, Queen of Scots for all I care. As long as you have something interesting to share and are at least capable of discussing it like an adult.

 

[BCR]

 

[JimBenArm]

Why do they have to make socks? Why can't you just let them expose themselves if it's really all so foolish? Doesn't anyone around here really want a debate?

Not our call. It's the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum. Don't like the rules? Take it up in Forum Management. The admins and mods are more than happy to discuss it with you. In there. Not here.

Go now. Before Darat falls asleep.

 

[jtribby]

1. Pot meet kettle. You have been as much a part of the derailment as anyone tribby.

Agreed. But when people deliberately lie/libel/attempt character assassination to derail threads, it's just so easy to be roped into exposing the lie. Perhaps part of the agenda of derailment?

2. I could care less about the "notice". Sock Puppets are against the forum rules, and like most sane, sensible people, the mods use a collection evidence to decide who is and who is not.

TAM

But without absolute proof, even after asking for 3 forms of ID, to post on a forum.


Does P4T ask for 3 forms of ID? Do they ask for your zip code and real name to register? Not sure as I havent registered there yet.

 

[T.A.M.]

Agreed. But when people delibirately lie to derail threads, it's just so easy to be roped into exposing the lie. Perhaps part of the agenda of derailment?



But without absolute proof, even after asking for 3 forms of ID, to post on a forum.


Does P4T ask for 3 forms of ID? Do they ask for your zip code and real name to register? Not sure as I havent registered there yet.

No, they simply record any conversations they have with you.

TAM

 

[dtugg]

Does P4T ask for 3 forms of ID? Do they ask for your zip code and real name to register? Not sure as I havent registered there yet.

If you own the forum, I suppose you don't really have to register.