Aside from the fact that your post was ungrammatical, what was your point?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Debunkers are scientific skeptics who attempt to disprove and pursue what they consider to be false, unscientific, bizarre or abnormal claims. The ultimate intent of the debunking, according to some, is conclusively to disprove the validity of an event, theory, and/or phenomenon by exposing it as nonsense. According to Wiktionary, debunk means To discredit, or expose to ridicule the falsehood or the exaggerated claims of something.

Topics that many debunkers focus on include U.F.O.s, claimed paranormal phenomena, alternative medicine, research outside mainstream science, or pseudoscientific subjects. The term debunker is applied when a person functions as an activist and performs research, writes articles, holds speeches, conducts seminars, or engages in other activities with the specific intent of disproving a dubious, bizarre, or abnormal claim, such as those about U.F.O.s or other paranormal phenomena, and hopefully conclusively disproves the validity of the event and/or object.

As a slang term, debunking is the act of disproval of a proposal or theory, generally in an academic or scientific sense. The term debunk originated in 1923, when American novelist William Woodward (1874-1950) used it to mean to "take the bunk out of things."

Often the term "debunkery" is not limited to arguments about scientific validity. It can also be used in a more general sense at attempts to discredit any opposing point of view, such as that of a political opponent. However, the further debunkery is removed from objective argument of fact, the more likely it is to become just another form of propaganda. The TV show (as of 2007) MythBusters debunks current urban legends and myths.

<<"i guess my little thread (which ive now removed"

Wow, he is resorting to Seth tactics..... This speaks VOLUMES.....

I'm in posession of the same photographic evidence anyone with internet access has, that of engine components, wheels, pieces of fuselage, bodies etc in the pentagon crash.

The rest is just waffle to pad out your post in a self important fashion.

How To Steal An Airliner *AND* Fake a Hijacking
911review.org/inn.globalf...jacking.html

(Pt.2 now up here)

By WoodyBox -9/11/04

(Check out also
Flight 11-The Twin flight
The Secret Hijacking -The Fifth Plane landed in Cleveland...)

American Airlines Flight 11 departed from Boston as a regular passenger flight. Soon after the departure, it was officially hijacked by five Middle Eastern terrorists, one pilot familiar with small planes and four "muscle hijackers". The terrorists killed some crew and passengers, and in a combined act of murder and suicide they directed the airplane into the WTC North Tower.

This "official" version of what happened on September 11, 2001, has been challenged by many people. Here is a short and incomplete list of objections, most of them still not addressed by officials responsible for the clearing up of the crime:




- The names of the hijackers don't appear on the passenger list
- There is no video footage of the hijackers passing the security check at the airport

- The flying skills of the alleged pilot Mohammed Atta were hardly sufficient to hit the Tower

- The hijackers didn't choose the optimal flight path, i.e., the shortest way to New York City (more...)



- The life conduct of at least some of the hijackers don't point to an Islamistic background, but to sex&drugs&rock'n roll

- The phone calls from the airplane which are meant to be the strongest proof for a hijacking are not genuine

- Some or all of the missed passengers of Flight 11 embarked on the wrong plane



The sheer amount of unexplained contradictions has inevitably led to the development of alternative scenarios for Flight 11, usually embedded in a scenario for the whole 9/11 attacks.



The story of Flight 11 as I present it here avoids the numerous weaknesses of the official version and is empirically better grounded than the existing alternative versions. It is not a scientific, but a criminalistic approach, meant to stimulate researchers to look at new, promising traces left back by the perpetrators of the attacks.



The article consists of two parts. Part I is a comprehensive timeline for Flight 11. In Part II, the timeline will be explained and discussed in more detail.






Part I - The Timeline




Normal letters indicate commonly acknowledged, generally well documented facts. Italic letters indicate comments, conclusions and conjectures to create a lucid picture of the story of Flight 11. All times are EDT.




The embarking of the "hijackers"



September 10, Boston Logan Airport



3:43 p.m. American Airlines Flight 196, coming from San Francisco, arrives at the gate. The airplane's tail number is N334AA. The next day, it will achieve sad prominence as Flight 11. BTS data base



4:25 p.m. A white Mitsubishi Mirage is recorded by surveillance cameras while entering the parking lot.
In the evening of the next day, this car will towed away by the FBI for examining. They will find flight manuals in arabic language, a koran copy, and an airline crew tag. Boston Globe, 9/23/01 There are three persons from Middle Eastern descent in the car, the driver and the two coming pilots of Flight 11, hereafter refered to as "thieves".





4:45 p.m. The thieves embark on N334AA as usual passengers, which is scheduled to leave at 5:10 p.m as Flight 197, with destination San Franciso.



5:05 p.m. After having said goodbye to his fellows, the driver leaves the airport. The Mitsubishi is recorded again by a security camera. Boston Globe, 9/23/01



5:12 p.m. N334AA pushes back from the gate. BTS data base






The preparation flights



September 10/11, Boston, San Francisco, and in between



11:47 p.m. N334AA arrives in San Francisco. It has just a short stay. BTS data base



12:49 a.m. N334AA departs for Boston as Flight 198. BTS data base The thieves are still aboard. Somehow they manage to stay in the cabin - maybe they hided somewhere (not likely), maybe they presented an explanation to the crew why the had to fly back immediately. It's also possible that one of them was in the cockpit on the jump seat, a common service of the airlines for foreign pilots.





6:03 a.m. N334AA arrives at Gate 32, Terminal B, Logan Airport. About 40 passengers and the crew disembark form the plane. Karen Booth The thieves stay. Like in San Francisco, the question is how did they do this, and the possible answers are the same.





The departure



September 11, Boston Logan Airport



Between 6.03 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. After the thieves are sure that they are the only persons left on N334AA, they prepare for the unusual flight that lies before them. One thing they do is to disable ACARS, a system used for data communications with the airline. That's why the departure data don't appear in the data base of the Bureau for Transportation Statistics (BTS) which gets this information via ACARS. BTS



7:45 a.m. The thieves ask the tower for departure clearing and push back a few seconds later. New York Times, 9/16/01 They pretend to work on a normal passenger flight.





7:45 a.m. Al Filipov, passenger of Flight 11, calls his wife from the Admiral's club of AA to tell her that he has switched from Delta Airlines to American Airlines. He is NOT aboard N334AA. Filipov's Flight 11 is supposed to depart from Gate 26 and is delayed. That's why he has enough time to call his wife. CBS News, 9/13/01



Between 7:45 a.m. and 7:59 a.m. N334AA is taxiing to runway 9R along taxiways A, N, K, S, A, K1, B. New York Times, 9/16/01



7:59 a.m. N334AA takes off from the runway. New York Times, 9/16/01






The flight



September 11, the skies over Massachusetts and New York State



8:14 a.m. The thieves begin to pretend a hijacking. They stop talking with the controllers and don't react when they are ordered to climb. Paul Thompson



8:20 a.m. Next step of the fake: The airplane deviates drastically from its projected course. Paul Thompson



8:21 a.m. Next step of the fake: The transponder is turned off. Paul Thompson



8:25 a.m. The thieves send a message over the air traffic control channel which is seemingly meant for the (not existing) passengers: "Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." Paul Thompson But this is just the next step of the deceit: In doing this, they convince the air controllers that the airplane is hijacked, avoiding direct communication with them.





8:27 a.m. N334AA reaches the Northern edge of his flight path and turns South. Paul Thompson The thieves decide to begin their rush towards New York City. They know that around this time a remote controlled plane is started in Poughkeepsie, 70 miles north of the city. Their task is to run up to this plane so that they cross the heart of New York City at the same moment when the remote controlled plane crashes into the North Tower.



8:28 a.m. The thieves begin to push the radio button intermittently.
Paul Thompson
They want to confuse the controllers and strengthen their believe that the hijacking is going on. These intermittent transmissions are repeated until 8:38.





The overflight



September 11, the skies over New York City



8:40 a.m. Ronkonkoma controllers are tracking the path of N334AA, but they don't know its altitude.
New York Times, 9/16/01



8:46 a.m. The plane from Poughkeepsie crashes into the North Tower. The Ronkonkoma controllers still think that N334AA is in the air. Only after the crash of UA 175 they will learn that both WTC towers have been hit. New York Times, 9/13/01






The phantom flight



September 11, the skies over New Jersey



9:21 a.m. Washington Air controllers inform their colleagues from Boston Center that Flight 11 is still in the air, somewhere in Southern New Jersey or even more South. 9/11 report, p. 32



9:24 a.m. NEADS scrambles fighters from Langley AFB to search for Flight 11. 9/11 report, p. 32






The landing (Attention! Highly speculative!)



September 11, Reagan National Airport, Washington D.C.



9:37 p.m. N334AA lands at Reagan National Airport at the same time the pentagon is hit by another flying object.


Who's done it?



This question will be discussed in PART II.) Re: World Premiere New WoodyBox: How to steal an airliner an "The first outside word that controllers received was that a small twin-engine plane had hit one tower of the World Trade Center. They thought it was a twin-engine Cessna that had taken off earlier from Poughkeepsie, N.Y., to fly south under "visual flight rules," meaning the plane was not under direct air traffic control."

www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn

I'm well aware of Stewart International Airport and will address this in Part II which will follow in a few days. The lost terror drills -11B - 9/11 training exercises

______________

Flight 11 - The Twin Flight


An examination on the critical moments of September 11 at Logan Airport
by Woody Box

The efforts necessary to research and formulate this text are dedicated
to the victims of Sept.11 and their loved ones, and especially to the
victims of flight 11.
I know them a bit by now, and I like them.


Where did Flight 11 start? Almost everyone knows the answer: this was in
Boston. But if you want it a bit more precise and ask for the specific
gate the airplane left from, your interview partner most likely will just
raise his eyebrows and present a counter-question: "Why do you want to
know that?"




This is about to change. On closer inspection, the question for the gate
is not trivial at all, but highly intriguing. There are two answers: Gate
26 and Gate 32. And both answers resist any attempt to refute them.


Flight 11 was an institution on Logan, Airport, it used to be the
American Airlines' early morning transcontinental flight for years. The
flight was popular among flight attendants because usually wasn’t full of
passengers, sometimes not even half full. Its departure was scheduled
regularly for 7:45 a.m. at Terminal B, Gate 32. And so it was on Sept.
11, as this radio transcript shows: "7:45:48 -- Ground Control 1:
American eleven heavy boston ground gate thirty two you're going to wait
for a Saab to go by then push back" (1).

This document is encountered by press reports claiming that the
passengers of flight 11 embarked on an airplane at Gate 26 (2). This gate
is located in another wing of Terminal B and about 1000 ft. away from
Gate 32. Gate 26 is the "official version", and apart from one exception,
Gate 32 is never mentioned (3). The confusion is completed by the fact
that this airplane's departure (which I will name "plane-26" as opposed
to "plane-32") was delayed, i.e. it left the gate later than 7:45 a.m
(4). This has been confirmed by several witnesses (5).

Summarizing the diverse reports and witness statements yields the
following double timeline for flight 11:



(x): source x
* No data found; estimated half an hour before scheduled departure
** No data found; estimated quarter an hour before scheduled departure
*** Estimation based on witness statements

Instead of favoring one of the planes and hopelessly trying to invalidate
the evidence for the other one, it's a better idea to get familiar with
the thought that there was a plane labeled "flight 11" at both gates (6).
Then we must realize the consequences of this surprise with regard to the
criminal case of 9/11.



The issue in question is the identity of the doomed plane. Plane-32 is
the jet that crashed into the WTC North Tower. Its flight path is well
documented by the transponder data, the radar data and the radio talk
with the controllers, at least up to a few minutes before the crash. But
there is no evidence of any people embarking, or intending to embark, on
a plane starting at 7:45 from Gate 32, not one report, not one witness.
Whereas it's possible that the passengers boarded partly plane-26, partly
plane-32, it seems to be far more likely that the irregularity of the two
gates is part of a hitherto unknown plan to get control of plane-32
without disturbing passengers or crew members. So in all probability, the
plane was "stolen" from the airport by the so-called hijackers, - with no
passengers aboard.



The people most concerned by this are the relatives of the victims of
flight 11. They must learn that their husbands, wives, fathers, mothers
etc. perhaps did not die in the North Tower. Sadly, there is virtually no
hope that they are still alive because we've never heard of them anymore.
But as every human being wants to know the place where his loved ones
left this earthly world, it's just a matter of time until questions for
their real fate will arise.



The FBI and the 9/11 Commission, apparently unaware of the problem,
should seriously scrutinize the hypothesis of the "hijacked" planes. If
there were no passengers on plane-32, there was no need to hijack it. The
pilot's behavior - deviation from course, no reaction to controllers,
suspicious cockpit talks - was supposed to PRETEND a hijacking. The
resulting question - why did he do that, why did he attract attention so
early instead of calmly following his deadly route as long as necessary -
lacks an answer yet but constitutes a big challenge to every
investigator.



Well, the flight attendants Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney relate a hijacking
in their phone calls (7). The problem is that the contents of the calls
differ considerably, thereby diminishing their conclusiveness. Mrs.
Sweeney, for instance, doesn't mention with one word the mace Mrs. Ong is
talking about. Instead, she describes a bomb with yellow wires, and this
essential detail does not appear in Ong's call. The two women are
seemingly not in contact as they don't exchange information. This is not
the right place to discuss the inconsistencies of these two calls, but
there are many to detect through careful examination. Therefore the
identity of the callers and the authenticity of the calls are highly
doubtful, particularly since they are not recorded, apart from the first
four minutes of the alleged Ong call. The possibility that the calls came
from another person simulating the voices of Mrs. Ong and Mrs. Sweeney
with the help of voice-shaping software should not be dismissed flatly.
It is known that the hijackers did a lot of test flights. Enough
opportunities to record the voice of a flight attendant on a hidden tape.
Enough time for a female terrorist to train imitating the captured
voices.



Plane-26 is a far better candidate for a hijacking than plane-32 as there
were passengers seen waiting in front of Gate 26 (Spiegel, see (2) ).
Unfortunately, the only thing we know from this plane is that it was
scheduled to depart at some point after 7:45 a.m. Its actual departure
time is not known, however, and it's even possible that it didn't start
at all. The official database of the Bureau for Transportation Statistics
(BTS) doesn't help either. This database contains all domestic flights of
the big airlines, but on Sept. 11, flight 11 and its data are missing
completely (8).

Perhaps some FBI investigator should browse his filing cabinet for the
mysterious "5th flight" shortly emerging in the media after September 11.
This transcontinental flight was scheduled to start at 8:10 a.m. in
Boston, but it was canceled in the last minutes due to a mechanical
defect (9). The flight number 43 turned out to be wrong afterwards,
raising the question for the correct number of the canceled flight (10).
In any case, the scheduled departure time 8:10 a.m. perfectly fits the
boarding time 7:35 a.m. of plane-26 (Spiegel, see (4) ), so it's quite
possible that this was the delayed flight 11 at Gate 26. Note that
American Airlines used to offer only one transcontinental flight around 8
a.m: flight 11.

This article raises many questions but fails to provide the answers. This
is not surprising, though, because the author lacks the means to go
deeper in his investigation, be it interviewing witnesses or sifting
documents. Some questions, however, might be answered quickly if certain
important documents are published, for instance the tape corresponding to
the radio transcript in the New York Times. The 9/11 commission already
has proven its openness to such ideas.

Was it really John Ogonowski who was sitting in the cockpit of plane-32
and talking with Ground Controller 1? It is said that Mrs. Ogonowski was
never given an opportunity to listen to the tape.

"7:45:58 -- AAL11: After the Saab cleared to push, and we're gonna need
four right today, American eleven heavy."

Sources:

(1)
www.nytimes.com/2001/10/16/national/...

(2)
Gate 26 was reported by several newspapers, especially the Boston Globe.

www.boston.com/news/packa...rattack/...


www.boston.com/news/packa...rattack/...


www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...01Sep15


www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml


A few weeks later, Gate 26 is confirmed by a Spiegel team coming to
Boston and speaking with eyewitnesses (Spiegel 49/2001, cover story: "Was
wirklich geschah" (What really happened) ).


news.globalfreepress.com/ewing...1.pdf, p. 37/38
(3,9 MB)


The crucial text passage is repeated in the 9/11 Spiegel book
Aust/Schnibben (Ed.): 11. September - Geschichte eines Terrorangriffs,
dtv 2002, p. 43/44.

(3)
The exception is the Boston Globe article "Two flights from Logan are
hijacked" by Stephen Kurkjian and Raphael Lewis. This is one of the very
earliest reports on the attacks, published on Sept. 11. It can be found
in the archive and is mirrored here:

news.globalfreepress.com/ewing...p.html


Quote: "One airport employee, who asked not to be identified, said the
American flight left on time from Gate 32 in Terminal B, and that nothing
unusual was apparent." One day later, in the Globe article "Crashes in
NYC had grim origins at Logan", we read: "The American flight left from
Gate 26 in Terminal B, and the United flight from Gate 19 in Terminal C.
One airport employee said nothing unusual was apparent when the American
flight left." Was this the same employee as the day before?

(4)
news.globalfreepress.com/ewing...11.pdf , p. 37/38

According to Der Spiegel, Gate 26 was opened to the passengers at 7:35.
And we learn that flight 11 was 14 minutes late - because the jet lifted
off at 7:59, that is 14 minutes after the scheduled departure time. This
is nonsense, of course, and you might ask yourself whether these
reporters had been coming to Boston by ship because they obviously don't
know the difference between gate departure and take off. Anyway, with a
boarding time of 7:35 the plane surely left the gate later than 7:45.

(5)
Two passengers and one crew member called their spouse before the
departure of flight 11:



www.cbsnews.com/earlyshow/...thwatch/...


Quote: "(David) Filipov's father Alexander, whom he calls Al, was a
passenger on American Airlines, Flight 11, which was the first jet that
crashed into the towers. In an ironic twist of fate, he was supposed to
be on a Delta flight to Los Angeles but switched to American at the last
minute. The last contact Alexander Filipov had with his family was when
he called his wife from American Airline's Admiral's lounge at Boston's
Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. " So Mr. Filipov was not aboard plane-32 which
was just pushing back from the gate at 7:45. Most likely he was going to
take plane-26. Given the time he would need to walk from the club to Gate
26 - at least five minutes, probably more - the boarding was surely
possible until at least 7:55.


www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/...


Quote: "Richard Ross, 58, of Newton Mass., called his wife Tuesday
morning to say his plane was leaving a bit late. He was frustrated,
concerned about arriving in time for a business meeting in Los Angeles,
his son said." So this was a substantial delay, not just five minutes.
And obviously Mr. Ross didn't intend to take plane-32 - this plane was
right on time.


news.globalfreepress.com/ewing...r.html


Quote: "(Amy) Sweeney’s first call from the plane was at 7:11 a.m. on
Sept. 11—the only call in which she displayed emotional upset. Flight 11
was delayed, and she seized the few moments to call home in hopes of
talking to her 5-year-old daughter, Anna, to say how sorry she was not to
be there to put her on the bus to kindergarten." So at 7:11, gate
departure and boarding time already were rescheduled, i.e. shifted back
by some minutes. And Mrs. Sweeney was likely not calling from plane-32.

(6)

This thesis is confirmed by a peculiar scenery taking place one year
later. Time: Sept. 11, 2002, 7:55 a.m. Location: Boston, Logan Airport,
Terminal B. While Sylvio Amorino mourns calmly in front of Gate 26 in
memoriam the victims who left the airport here one year ago, a big
memorial service with 200 American Airlines employees is held at Gate 32.
How many of the employees were eyewitnesses of the boarding procedure of
the last flight 11, and why weren’t any employees with Sylvio Amorino?


ledger.southofboston.com/artic...38.txt


www.boston.com/news/packa...versary/...

(7)
abcnews.go.com/sections/p...ilyNews/...

edition.cnn.com/2004/US/01...ommis.call/



There is one additional oddity concerning Betty Ong's call. According to
Vanessa Minter, the AA employee who has received the call, it commenced
"minutes after 8:00 a.m.", lasted nearly 40 minutes and ended at 8:46
a.m. This contradicts other reports that Mrs. Ong rang her up at 8:21:


abclocal.go.com/wtvd/news/...stCall.html


Why didn't the 9/11 commission invite Mrs. Minter when they were playing
the Ong call to the public?

(8)
www.bts.gov/ntda/oai/index.shtml

sydney.indymedia.org/...

(9)
The Tribune article is to be found in the archive. A copy is here:

www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/...


The Telegraph is better informed: like flight 11, the destination of the
transcontinental flight was Los Angeles.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml

(10)
www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...rld/...

"In fact, the flight under investigation flew out of Newark" writes the
Tribune and apologizes for associating flight 43 with Boston; the AA 43
of Newark, however, didn't have a mechanical problem but started on
point, so it couldn’t have been the "flight under investigation". Does
the Tribune want to spell away the canceled flight?

___________________


What does the FAA have to hide?
911review.org/inn.globalf...konkoma.html

since you refused to address previous evidence that shattered your cherished myths, you've decided to change your focus on some differing conspiracies now?

vast majority? youve interviewed them all? in what fantasy world? you must possess an uncanny ability to hone in on only those who support your story. remarkable.

my experience *personally* is that nearly every single engineer, architect, demolition and construction worker that *I* have personally interviewed all believe an overwhelming amount of evidence points to controlled demolition. maybe one in 20 holds a small reservation but only because there appear to be other unnatural forces at work beyond normal demoliition procedure they are unfamiliar with - the sublimating steel being the reason why in most cases.

When I sense bullshit, yes I dismiss it.


hyp·o·crite /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

probably the same reason people are deluded enough to think they can "prove" something by posting editorialized fiction.

i didnt see any plane hit the pentagon

until you show me footage from the multiple sources that were confiscated

HEARSAY SPECULATION and BULLSHIT

got serial numbers on those recovered plane parts?

inadmissible

bullshit.

By the way, I'd like to hear an explanation for this basically uniform eye witness testimony from the Pentagon missile theorists.

Thanks for the effort Ron. I appreciate the time you invested in answering one of my questions.

Can you answer though why the only security recording floating around out there does not show us anything concrete? I mean, the FBI confiscated a shitload of security recordings. It would be more convincing if we could examine some of them for ourselves, wouldn't it? Surely, there's some footage out there which makes this an indisputable case. After all, there are a few other remaining questions WRT to what hit the Pentagon (see my other questions).

I imagine that the Pentagon and its surroundings are very very well monitored....

who the fuck cares what you said or he said or your dead great grandfather said.

i didnt see anything hit the pentagon, ive been TOLD what happened.

show me the confiscated videotapes of what really happened

if you cant well....

STFU

because you are incapable of rational logic.

you are able to be told something and hold it as truth

opposed to experiencing directly the actual evidence.

Ron hopes to play this characteristic in people to his advantage

and so do you i take it.

it's a cognitive fear-based disorder of denial most people need help with
and something spin artists like you, albeit terribly infantile, prey upon.

if you need more explanation I can recommend a few people.