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

Please Denounce the Whoppers (big lies)

funk de fino said:
He came back, after not posting since 2006, to produce a double face palm OP like that?

Really?
Click to expand...

I remember watching a Law & Order episode wherein a serial killer went silent for six years. His mom found him out and got him psychiatric treatment and medication. After she died, he stopped taking his meds and went active again resulting in his almost immediate capture and arrest.
 
I would honestly pay 50 dollars for a straight forward answer to the following question by a truther.

Why is it, just because a different person says it, that suddenly we have to debunk the information in a different way?

The information in the op has been looked at and debunked in many different places, but the truthers act as if " okay, well Tim Smith said that, and you debunked him, but now John thompson is saying it, so what do you have to say to that?"

It seems as if the truthers just want us to waste some time posting links and get a giggle out of it. Which, i mean is exactly what i would do if i had information that could save the world.
 
Fantastic post, well done.

Don't expect any of the pseudoskeptics here to actually address your points but I will certainly settle down with some popcorn and watch them dance.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much! It's nice to see an actual supporting response. I am not going to reply often in this thread, if at all. My plan was similar: settle down and watch them dance. There are further points in my plan, which I won't reveal now.

This isn't the only place I published this open letter. I've mailed it (both email and snail-mail) to many recipients, including James Randi himself. We shall see how it turns out.
 
the plan to expose complete lack of knowledge on 911

JohnM307 said:
Thank you very much! It's nice to see an actual supporting response. I am not going to reply often in this thread, if at all. My plan was similar: settle down and watch them dance. There are further points in my plan, which I won't reveal now.

This isn't the only place I published this open letter. I've mailed it (both email and snail-mail) to many recipients, including James Randi himself. We shall see how it turns out.
Click to expand...
Did you send your moronic tripe to the Pulitzer Prize committee? They too should spew soda all over their keyboards.

Oh no, further points to your plan! I am scared now, you and vinniem have exactly the same evidence to support your idiotic delusions. the empty set


vinniem said:
Fantastic post, well done.

Don't expect any of the pseudoskeptics here to actually address your points but I will certainly settle down with some popcorn and watch them dance.

You really should post more often.
Click to expand...
Typical support for the failed delusions of 911 truth, offer support for the idiotic tripe by attacking other people since your bag of evidence is empty and your paranoid conspiracy theories are all you have. With John's failed ideas and your support, you guys are not far from declaring victory and leaving.

You know all about RADAR (in another thread you implied great knowledge and I can't wait for you to detail your vast resources on RADAR and ATC), can you save John with some facts? Next, vinniem saves John's delusions with vast knowledge of RADAR and how ATC works; or exposes how to cherry-pick junk and make up failed conclusions.

Evidence will flow freely and 911 truth will??? fail
 
Last edited:
JohnM307 said:
Thank you very much! It's nice to see an actual supporting response. I am not going to reply often in this thread, if at all. My plan was similar: settle down and watch them dance. There are further points in my plan, which I won't reveal now.

This isn't the only place I published this open letter. I've mailed it (both email and snail-mail) to many recipients, including James Randi himself. We shall see how it turns out.
Click to expand...
Just to level set you John. You've said nothing in your "open letter" that hasn't been said dozens of times by clones of yours.

You offer nothing more. Sorry John, your aren't special, you are a very very basic garden variety 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist.
 
Well at least its nice to know that the truthers are more concerned with internet lulz than actually fighting the big evil entity.
 
JohnM307 said:
Thank you very much! It's nice to see an actual supporting response. I am not going to reply often in this thread, if at all. My plan was similar: settle down and watch them dance. There are further points in my plan, which I won't reveal now.

This isn't the only place I published this open letter. I've mailed it (both email and snail-mail) to many recipients, including James Randi himself. We shall see how it turns out.
Click to expand...
Why does that post give me a sense of Deja Moo?
 
JohnM307 said:
Thank you very much! It's nice to see an actual supporting response. I am not going to reply often in this thread, if at all. My plan was similar: settle down and watch them dance. There are further points in my plan, which I won't reveal now.

This isn't the only place I published this open letter. I've mailed it (both email and snail-mail) to many recipients, including James Randi himself. We shall see how it turns out.
Click to expand...

Posting random crap and not having the chutzpah to actually defend your views or answer legitimate questions is not something that is praise worthy. It is a tactic of either a troll, or an individual who cares nothing for facts and only wants to see the reaction of people to his ignorant post.

But i am glad that there are still people who don't want to live in a world where rational debate trumps passionate ranting about imaginary evils, its refreshing.
 
sadhatter said:
Well at least its nice to know that the truthers are more concerned with internet lulz than actually fighting the big evil entity.
Click to expand...

YEs but don't you see in their paranoid teenage created world, we are part of that big bad entity. Hez fightin da big bro wit his wit master Z!

TAM:)
 
JohnM307 said:
I've mailed it (both email and snail-mail) to many recipients, including James Randi himself.
Click to expand...

James Randi has been receiving hate-mail from freaks since before the internet granted the worlds freaks an unlimited supply of ink, paper and stamps.

I predict yours will have had zero impact on him (if he even saw it).
 
Thanks, I think this is the first reasonable response from anyone objecting to what I was saying. The vast majority of responders, as predicted, seem oblivious to basic logic and basic literacy.
progge said:
Sounds correct to me for all planes except AA 77.
Click to expand...
Yes, AA 77 was the only one that ATC didn't track, because it turned around while being transferred between controller stations, and ATC was continuing to search westward. Which of course means that PM blatantly lied about ATC's inability to track the hijacked planes.

progge said:
This “idiocy” claim seems to be based on the false assumption that primary signals and secondary signals were displayed together on the radar screen of FAA controllers on 9/11. Therefore misleading.
Click to expand...

I think that the notion of ATC being unable to look at both primary radar and transponder info simultaneously is propaganda infesting the official story. If it were true, it would be almost a willful avoidance of information useful in monitoring the skies. In any case, if one chooses to look, the aircraft without a transponder stands out blatantly among those with transponders.

http://www.indybay.org/olduploads/20040825-wed1400.mp3

About 3/4 the way through this radio broadcast (from public radio), the pilot interviewee discusses ATC.

OK, here’s my two cents on this. Herndon Tapes indicate that a new flight plan for UA 93 was entered into the system at 9:58. This was done by Linda Justice and is confirmed at least by John Werth, both at ZOB. Also staff members from the 9/11 Commission looked at the TSD Tapes to check.
Flight paths continue to move on the TSD for a while even after the plane they are associated with stopped to move (e.g. landed or crashed). The TSD path for UA 93 ended at Reagan National at 10:28, according to the Commission’s staff member Miles Kara. Furthermore, Lynn Spencer claims she visited controllers at Washington National Airport who told here they were calling out the position of United 93, based on the projected track on their TSD to the White House, the FBI at the Pentagon and DC Guard F-16 pilot Billy Hutchison.
Such a projected path from the UA 93 crash scene to D.C. fits with the path Mineta described in an interview to the Acadmey of Achievement as the path of a plane unaccounted for and going to D.C. There is no other such path known of a plane unaccounted for on 9/11. Therefore we have no better hypothesis than the hypothesis that Mineta was referring to the projected path for UA 93. The plane Mineta spoke about was the plane the Secret Service referred to. Therefore, we have no better hypothesis than the hypothesis that the Secret Service was referring to the projected path of UA 93, too.
To conclude, until there is a better hypothesis what plane the Secret Service could have referred to, the projected flight path for UA 93 is the best available one.
Click to expand...

Did the 9/11 Commission Report discuss all of this? I couldn't find anything. There was absolutely nothing near that passage I quoted. Was there any discussion of coast mode or any kind of projection? Or did the Report just slip something over on us? As far as I can tell, there was no careful discussion, which they would have if they were actually trying to tell an honest account.

Possibilities for the "approaching aircraft" identified as Flight 93:

1. Coast mode projection, which is clearly indicated in ATC displays.
2. The actual Flight 93, not having actually crashed.
3. Another aircraft approaching, perhaps part of the military hijack exercises.
4. A phony insert from the military hijack exercises -- Delta 1898, Delta 89, United 177, may be such examples.
5. The story itself is false -- an alternate version, perhaps, of stories told by Mineta and Woodward.

Which is most likely, given that the 9/11 Commission sloughed off any discussion of the evidence and only said, "may have"?
 
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