Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

This video confirms United Airlines flight 175 was still flying after it allegedly flew into the tower.

No it doesn't. Not unless that's what you want it to confirm.

There are plenty of other explanations.

And they are?

You do this a lot in this thread: make claims and assertions that you yourself haven't / won't substantiate; expect others to disprove it / them; and then claim that as proof itself.

Case in point:

Originally Posted by ENT

So no funerals,.....all make believe and burial of left over war-victims' body parts obtained from Dover AF Base morgue.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

And what of the victims' immediate and extended families ? There were lots of them.

Originally Posted by ENT

Drag up the mortuary lists and name them.

Check that several names aren't double entered as in the passenger lists, then c0-relate them to the named body counts given by the civic authorities, death registry etc.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ENT

Tell us all about yer eyewitnesses

They weren't my eyewitnesses.

They were the people that were there on the day and saw what happened.

Originally Posted by ENT

You really don't know sh*t from clay do ya?

I know that you've currently got a thread running in TDH where you're whining about "ad hominem masquerading as intelligent discussion".

Don't try and blackmail me with your screwball innuendos.

You still don't know shit from clay.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

And they are?

Is that clip time-stamped? Maybe it was prior to UA175 hitting the tower? What's the display thing he was using, 'Flight Tracker' or something? How do you know that wasn't incorrect/wrong? MH370 has subsequently shown that flight tracking isn't anywhere near as high-tech or infallible as people assume.

Point being there are plenty of perfectly reasonable and rational possible explanations if you're so inclined to look for them.

And posting some fuzzy vdo as 'conclusive proof' tends to suggest you aren't.

Originally Posted by ENT

Don't try and blackmail me with your screwball innuendos.

No blackmail, you're being paranoid again.

And if you think that was an innuendo then I'll make it perfectly clear for you: you're a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Point being there are plenty of perfectly reasonable and rational possible explanations if you're so inclined to look for them.

Selective cognizance in play?

Originally Posted by ENT

Selective cognizance in play?

You're trying to turn the phrase cognitive bias around and failing to even apply it correctly.

Examining all possibilities isn't "selective cognizance", it is in fact the complete opposite. Deciding on only one and then interpreting everything else to match is "selective cognizance".

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ENT

Don't try and blackmail me with your screwball innuendos.

No blackmail, you're being paranoid again.

And if you think that was an innuendo then I'll make it perfectly clear for you: you're a hypocrite.

Not at all, Aunty, you;re just being manipulative or trying to be.

And yup, you're trolling as much as you can, as usual.

Nothing better can be expected from you though, as it's in your nature to bully people.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ENT

Selective cognizance in play?

You're trying to turn the phrase cognitive bias around and failing to even apply it correctly.

Examining all possibilities isn't "selective cognizance", it is in fact the complete opposite. Deciding on only one and then interpreting everything else to match is "selective cognizance".

You obviously don't understand the theory,...try to steer away from pedantic use of terminology and you might be OK.

Originally Posted by ENT

Not at all, Aunty

You would describe whining about "ad hominem masquerading as intelligent discussion" and then resorting to ad hominem as what then?

That's your MO on the forum and this thread in particular: you apply your logical fallacies and when called on them resort to name-calling and a slew of other disingenuous tactics.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ENT

Selective cognizance in play?

You're trying to turn the phrase cognitive bias around and failing to even apply it correctly.

Examining all possibilities isn't "selective cognizance", it is in fact the complete opposite. Deciding on only one and then interpreting everything else to match is "selective cognizance".

"Point being there are plenty of perfectly reasonable and rational possible explanations if you're so inclined to look for them."

Cherry picking is what you're suggesting, as in searching for the answers you want out of all the possibles you can dream of.

But y're not looking for facts, just selected hair-brained explanations to suit your bias.

Another point of view,

Originally Posted by ENT

Cherry picking is what you're suggesting

I'm suggesting looking at all possibilities, examining them, applying logic and reason, and coming to a conclusion.

You keep using terms like "cheery picking" but it's obvious you don't know what they mean and/or apply them incorrectly. Looking at one vdo and deciding it's conclusive proof of something is the cherry picking.

Once again you accuse others of what it is that you yourself do.

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

The rest of the report is on

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by ENT

Not at all, Aunty

You would describe whining about "ad hominem masquerading as intelligent discussion" and then resorting to ad hominem as what then?

That's your MO on the forum and this thread in particular: you apply your logical fallacies and when called on them resort to name-calling and a slew of other disingenuous tactics.

And apparently your MO on this forum is to stalk and troll, to bully and prod anyone into a negative reaction, if you can.

As I've said before, come around goading and insulting and I'm likely to return your uncalled for remarks in like vein.

Now, kindly get lost.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

The rest of the report is on

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

Good find!

Originally Posted by ENT

And apparently your MO on this forum is to stalk and troll, to bully and prod anyone into a negative reaction, if you can.

Stalk and bully?! Sheesh, you need to harden up ENT. Why is it you like to dish it out but start crying when you even think you're getting some back.

Your application of logic and reason in this thread is demonstrably flawed. And now what, you only want to hear views/opinions that accord with your own or else you'll start crying about being stalked and bullied and tell people to go away??

Originally Posted by ENT

As I've said before, come around goading and insulting and I'm likely to return your uncalled for remarks in like vein.

You're the one resorting to name-calling as per usual, hypocrite.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

The rest of the report is on

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

Good find!

Yeah, good one. He has managed to Google up a blog and, quelle surprise, it supports his previously held contention.

Amazing.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

This video confirms United Airlines flight 175 was still flying after it allegedly flew into the tower.

No it doesn't. Not unless that's what you want it to confirm.

There are plenty of other explanations.

And they are?

Once again Ant. And they are? If you don't want to answer then say so.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.

The rest of the report is on

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

Good find!

If you're a completely gullible fucking idiot that knows nothing about ACARS yes.

The messages in question were sent TO the aircraft, not from it you fucking chimp.

As such they'd keep sending even after the aircraft was down, until a timeout or a response.

Let's be clear: No ACARS messages were received from the aircraft after the time they crashed.

Honestly you are so fucking stupid it's unbelievable. You'll literally believe any old tosh whether you understand it or not.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Once again Ant. And they are? If you don't want to answer then say so.

I've already answered that.

Did you miss it or are you deliberately ignoring it to fit the narrative you want.

^^
^

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

The messages in question were sent TO the aircraft, not from it you fucking chimp.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages

Okay Harry.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Did you miss it or are you deliberately ignoring it to fit the narrative you want.

If I missed it I apologise. Can you run it again please?

Post #6529, plenty enough repetition in this thread already.