The 9/11 Forum

SanderO wrote:This is not a truther site Oystein. It is a site which attempts scientific and engineering based analyses. Occasionally a theory or part of it will be debunked here... including aspects of the official narrative.

All BS is treated equally here. (even mine)

I wouldn't expect much of an attitude adjustment, many if not most JREFers have an almost pathological desire to debunk by associative guilt. The previous statement might sound paradoxical, even hypocritical, but JREF is much more homogeneous than the Truth Movement, and there is an entire spectrum in between, many of whom feel attracted to this forum.

I'm guessing what keeps Oystein here right now is the diversity of opinion.

What keeps me here is in two words: intelligence and honesty.

Yes, this forum is different. I hope we can keep it that way.

It seems to me not having read but only read about jref that is all about supporting the OCT has a siege mentality.

911FF simply tries to look at the observations, the science and engineering without an agenda in a more dispassionate approach... def more science based than the 911 truth movement. There are scientific analytical attempts coming from the truth movement... but much of it seems to be flawed, not well vetted and lots of cherry picking. The whole reductionist Block analysis is a perfect example. It sounds scientific, even references Newton's laws and so forth, but it completely is irrelevant to the actual event. Regardless of whether or not the science is correct any conclusion is meaningless because the towers were no blocks. Lots of sound and fury signifying nothing.

So what is the big picture that Heretic has hinted at? There exists one big picture, as far as I can see (the "OCT"), and not a second. Am I right or wrong?

ETA: Intersting that Heretic has chosen not to continue the topic and argument he raised and instead focusses on my character. I hope you two don't think that this is a good example of what this forum is all about. Because, quite frankly, you are mistaken about me.

Oystein,
One's character is not at issue. It's the content and of course the manner or presentation. When you come to someone's house you show respect. N'est pas?

Oystein wrote:ETA: Intersting that Heretic has chosen not to continue the topic and argument he raised and instead focusses on my character. I hope you two don't think that this is a good example of what this forum is all about. Because, quite frankly, you are mistaken about me.

I'm sure you've noticed Heretic is new?

SnowCrash wrote:...
I'm sure you've noticed Heretic is new?

So am I.
More importantly, I misattributed a reply to Heretic which was written by Sander. Nevermind.

Oystein wrote:

SnowCrash wrote:...
I'm sure you've noticed Heretic is new?

So am I.

Exactly, and although you are doing better than Heretic in some respects, both of you don't represent the general tenure of this forum (yet).

I think it would be best to limit this topic to the passport, to keep things neatly categorized in place and informative.

Heretic76 wrote:Right, I'm not discussing ACARS re: Woody, but what he has represented regarding the records of radio transmissions at Boston that day. His analysis indicates that 2 different aircraft were using the callsign United 175.

I strongly suggest you locate the source, because that's an absolute imperative, besides it courteous towards those you expect to evaluate this claim, and then open a new thread in the appropriate section.

Here would probably be best:

flight-paths-and-fdrs-f8.html

Let's not keep deviating from the topic.

Several pertinent arguments regarding the passport have been put forth, well sourced, it's only fair if these arguments were met with equally well sourced and scientifically well founded material. Arguments from incredulity add little to the debate.

Oystein

In that June 3 issue, there is nothing said about the Otis flight holding. On the contrary, they went as fast as they could, and when still 8 minutes out the second aircraft struck, according to AW&ST.

"Confusion was rampant, but officers and enlisted troops immediately reverted to their professional roles, trying to sort rumor from fact." p. 50 So contrary to the articles first claim, that VG actually made the response quicker, it now says that confusion was rampant. So it goes with large scale training exercises.

Heretic76 wrote:Oystein

In that June 3 issue, there is nothing said about the Otis flight holding. On the contrary, they went as fast as they could, and when still 8 minutes out the second aircraft struck, according to AW&ST.

"Confusion was rampant, but officers and enlisted troops immediately reverted to their professional roles, trying to sort rumor from fact." p. 50 So contrary to the articles first claim, that VG actually made the response quicker, it now says that confusion was rampant. So it goes with large scale training exercises.

For this discussion, there is an appropriate category too:

response-f51.html

Please move it there. I will request a split if not.