How NOT to run a debunking site

[Baylor]

Having two popular debunking sites post conflicting stories only gives truthers the fuel they need for the fire.

Conflicting accounts of when and where the black boxes were found abound on debunking sites.

Who found the black boxes?

Debunk911myths.org, along with Newsweek say Burkhammer found the black boxes.

Quote:

Early Friday morning, shortly before 4 a.m., Carlton Burkhammer and another firefighter, Brian Moravitz, were combing through debris near the impact site. Peering at the wreckage with their helmet lights, the two spotted an intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached. Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They’d been told the plane’s “black boxes” would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open.

Popular Mechanics says it was Kilsheimer.

Quote:

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Where were they found?

The Pentagon Building Performance Report puts it "nearly 300 feet" from the impact hole, which would mean it was found in the c-ring, as Kilsheimer claimed. The AP puts it, "right where the plane came into the building."

To sum up, Debunk911myths.org puts it in the e ring and found by Burkhammer.

PM puts it in the c ring and found by Kilsheimer.

This is exactly what CIT & Co. needs to "prove" evidence was planted.

AFAIK, neither PM nor debunk debunk911myth.org has cleared up with one another.

[alexi_drago]

That can only mean one thing, two planes entered through the same hole which would explain the discrepincies in the flightpaths witnessed.

[RedIbis]

I have learned in my experience here that the more precise and specific your post is the less you will receive any semblance of discourse.

The regulars tend to seize upon the goofier aspects of the so called Truth movement. This is likely to be left untouched, unless they chime in with a few cheap shots.

[SDC]

Red I., I gather you mean that the more you avoid facts, the better off you are. Interesting approach.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by SDC

Red I., I gather you mean that the more you avoid facts, the better off you are. Interesting approach.

It's a fairly simple matter. How do you reconcile the two accounts? We're talking about a key piece of evidence. Why such differing accounts?

[Arus808]

and why should PM clear up what they posted vs what Debunk911myths has posted?

All it shows is that on a day of chaos, people will have conflicting reports and also realie when these statements were taken.

The newsweek artcile was written on 9/28/2001 - 17 days after the attack. by that time, was all of the investigation done?


The Pentagon report had more time to do the research, and verify the facts.

[Arus808]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

It's a fairly simple matter. How do you reconcile the two accounts? We're talking about a key piece of evidence. Why such differing accounts?

easy, if you bother to read the sourced articles used, you'll see why the differing accounts.

but we know that you will do no such thing.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Arus808

and why should PM clear up what they posted vs what Debunk911myths has posted?

All it shows is that on a day of chaos, people will have conflicting reports and also realie when these statements were taken.

The newsweek artcile was written on 9/28/2001 - 17 days after the attack. by that time, was all of the investigation done?


The Pentagon report had more time to do the research, and verify the facts.

Slow down. It's still English and we still have to try and make some sense out of what you write.

[uruk]

Which again shows the problem with relying solely on personal account rather than evidence.
The AP an PM account rely on a reporter asking people questions. The Performance report is backed up with physical evidence for confirmation. (something the CIT boys need to learn)

As to why the people interviewed by AP and PM said what they said, only they know.

As for PM and debunk911myth.org, shoot them an e-mail.

[Arus808]

stop reading so fast RI. you missed the article dates and the reason why a well researched report is more reliable than the shot gun asking of questions by reporters.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I have learned in my experience here that the more precise and specific your post is the less you will receive any semblance of discourse.

The regulars tend to seize upon the goofier aspects of the so called Truth movement. This is likely to be left untouched, unless they chime in with a few cheap shots.

And of course there's the ever popular "Take things completely out of context and pretend they mean something they don't" counter-argument technique.

If only everyone had the acumen and passion for truth that you do, maybe someday we'll figure out what actually happened on 9/11.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

And of course there's the ever popular "Take things completely out of context and pretend they mean something they don't" counter-argument technique.

If only everyone had the acumen and passion for truth that you do, maybe someday we'll figure out what actually happened on 9/11.

Then there's the "La La La La- You hate the heroes of 9/11 you terrorist sympathizer- La La La La" technique.

[MarkyX]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin

Then there's the "La La La La- You hate the heroes of 9/11 you terrorist sympathizer- La La La La" technique.

CIT says first responders are part of the coverup.

[beachnut]

Which black box? There are two boxes. There are other things that look like black boxes, kind of. So unless your source is the NTSB expert, it is hearsay and if the source is the news people, it may be flawed and twisted. This is why CIT can't figure out 9/11, like RI can't, they are unable to use logic and rational thinking to piece together the event.

7 years; CIT, TLB and RI have no clue on 9/11.

[WildCat]

There are 2 "black boxes" per plane - a CVR and an FDR.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin

Then there's the "La La La La- You hate the heroes of 9/11 you terrorist sympathizer- La La La La" technique.

I wouldn't go so far as to say you actually hate "the heroes of 9/11", but you certainly have shown an incredible lack of respect for them in some of your posts.

Then again, maybe you do hate them. I don't know.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by Arus808

and why should PM clear up what they posted vs what Debunk911myths has posted?

All it shows is that on a day of chaos, people will have conflicting reports and also realie when these statements were taken.

I like my debunking sites how I like my women: no loose ends.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by WildCat

There are 2 "black boxes" per plane - a CVR and an FDR.

Debunk911myths says Burkhammer found two. PM says Kilsheimer found at least one, so that's at least one too many. The ASCE report says black boxes (plural) were found in the c ring. Now we're up to four.

[CurtC]

From reading Kilsheimer's statement, it's not clear that he's saying he was the first person to find the recorder(s). He's listing off the things that he saw, and a recorder is among them. He was talking to reporters, not making a careful statement (as evidence by his saying that he held the tail section of the plane in his hands).

I think you're trying to make a contradiction where one doesn't really exist.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by CurtC

From reading Kilsheimer's statement, it's not clear that he's saying he was the first person to find the recorder(s). He's listing off the things that he saw, and a recorder is among them. He was talking to reporters, not making a careful statement (as evidence by his saying that he held the tail section of the plane in his hands).

I think you're trying to make a contradiction where one doesn't really exist.

Kilsheimer does take credit for finding the black boxes, even the history channel says this. I hate to sound like a truther, but why do debunk911myths and Mark Roberts say Burkhammer (the firefighter) found it?

Quote:

Mark Roberts Firefighters discover Pentagon black box FDR Flight data recorder

[Jonnyclueless]

But wait, how can to black boxes be in two places in space and time? 3 objects maybe, but 2 objects in two locations? What are the chances of that happening?

[Kryptos]

I'm cool with discrepancies being pointed out so they can be sorted out. The key thing of interest is that an "intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached" was found, but to clarify about black boxes, look in Patrick Creed's book. Sounds like the fire fighter, thought that they found the black boxes but on further examination by experts, what they found were not the black boxes. Creed gives another story which can be added and further examined

I can't update right now. I'm having problems typing since spilling some coffee on my computer but should have it fixed soon. i'm pecking away on my on screen keyboard which is very slow

[Kryptos]

My delete key still works but can't post new info now

[1337m4n]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

I have learned in my experience here that the more precise and specific your post is the less you will receive any semblance of discourse.

On the contrary. Every time I've "yelled" at you, so to speak, it has been due to the fact that you were being painfully vague and cryptic, and I was struggling in vain to convince you to make a clear, concise point. You never did.

In fact, I can't think of a time when you've ever been specific about anything.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by Kryptos

I'm cool with discrepancies being pointed out so they can be sorted out. The key thing of interest is that an "intact seat from the plane’s cockpit with a chunk of the floor still attached" was found, but to clarify about black boxes, look in Patrick Creed's book. Sounds like the fire fighter, thought that they found the black boxes but on further examination by experts, what they found were not the black boxes. Creed gives another story which can be added and further examined

I don't have Creed's book, but I've read that from other sources. It does look like the firefighters mistook some debris for the black boxes. Yet, here we are, 7+ years later, and debunking sites are posting wrong information.

[Arus808]

Not that its a huge priority at this point in time. Private sites are not obligated to keep the information "up to date'. Its up to the visitor to find the information if they feel that the wrong information is being disseminated.

Why haven't you emailed the owner of Debunk911myths and let him know of the discrepancy?

Remember, many of these debunking sites are done , when the persson has time to update it. Doen'st mean that its gong to have up to date information 24/7

The best resources are always the OFFICIAL reports.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by Arus808

Not that its a huge priority at this point in time. Private sites are not obligated to keep the information "up to date'. Its up to the visitor to find the information if they feel that the wrong information is being disseminated.

Why haven't you emailed the owner of Debunk911myths and let him know of the discrepancy?

Remember, many of these debunking sites are done , when the persson has time to update it. Doen'st mean that its gong to have up to date information 24/7

The best resources are always the OFFICIAL reports.

Debunk911myths.org caught on to this thread which is the subject of my next post.

[Baylor]

_______________BREAKING NEWS___________________

Debunk911myths has just caught on to this thread and removed the following...

Quote:

Then they saw two odd-shaped dark boxes, about 1.5 by 2 feet long. They’d been told the plane’s “black boxes” would in fact be bright orange, but these were charred black. The boxes had handles on one end and one was torn open.

Now all we need is for Mark Roberts to rid his website of wrong information.

[Arus808]

Uloved. its nice that you point this out, but you should have pM'ed or contacted the individuals who own those websites FIRST, and wait for a reply from them.

You are basically airing the dirty laundry, when all of htis could have been dealt with privately, and quickly, without bringing "drama" to it.


PM Gravy, and be done with it.

[jhunter1163]

IIRC, poster Kryptos runs the debunk911myths site.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by Arus808

Uloved. its nice that you point this out, but you should have pM'ed or contacted the individuals who own those websites FIRST, and wait for a reply from them.

You are basically airing the dirty laundry, when all of htis could have been dealt with privately, and quickly, without bringing "drama" to it.


PM Gravy, and be done with it.

Debunking sites should not post anything that supports that "official story." Remember Unsecured Coins and "Mike Rotch" (does a link to that vid still exist)? Debunkers should be a little more careful as to not make idiots out of themselves like the truthers do constantly.

Some moron truther claiming to be a pilot could write a paper and submit it to a debunking site, and that site could post it, only to have it exposed by 911flogger or whatever.

[phunk]

It's my understanding that the 2 black boxes in a plane are nowhere near each other. So what Burkhammer found was very unlikely to be both black boxes. Maybe it was one of them and another piece of equipment? That would allow both quotes to be true.

[JamesB]

Firefight, the most definitive account of the Pentagon I have read, describes it thusly, from page 401:

Quote:

Whitworth had positioned himself at the edge of the punch-out hole to eyeball everything searchers were hauling out. Hill walked by with square object, blackened with soot, headed for the bin, when he stopped her. "Hey, gimmee that," he said, pulling the burnt object out of her hands.

The device was roughly the size of a shoe box, melted on one end. It was ashen-colored and looked nothing like the pictures of the black boxes- which were orange- but Whitworth could tell that it wasn't part of the building. "We need to let the NTSB look at this," he declared.

Whitworth found one of the NTSB analysts. "Oh *******," she groaned when she looked at the mangled device. She identified it as the airplane's cockpit voice recorder, which captured sounds in the cockpit. It looked to be nearly demolished- there was a marginal chance they'd be able to get any information from it.

Still it was a breakthrough. Whitworth returned to the punch-out hole a moment later, empty-handed. "Hey, that was a great find," he told Hill. "That was one of the black boxes. Where'd you find it?"

"Right over here," she said, pointing to a stack of jumbled rubble. Searchers formed a circle around the pile and started digging, since the black boxes on 757s were both in the same section of the airplane.

About half an hour later another NTSB expert uncovered a device that looked like it could be the other black box. It turned out to be the flight data recorder, which collected electronic information about the operation of the jet. Both of the black boxes had finally been found, pulled like two broken shells from an ocean of debris.

[phunk]

Ah interesting, guess I was mistaken about them being in different areas of the plane.

[Arus808]

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

Debunking sites should not post anything that supports that "official story." Remember Unsecured Coins and "Mike Rotch" (does a link to that vid still exist)? Debunkers should be a little more careful as to not make idiots out of themselves like the truthers do constantly.

Some moron truther claiming to be a pilot could write a paper and submit it to a debunking site, and that site could post it, only to have it exposed by 911flogger or whatever.

Again, the point IM trying to make is that if you have a problem with what one site says versus another, bring it up with the owners of those sites, instead making a drama filled thread over it here.

Remember, THESE Sites are privately owned, privately updated and updated when the owners HAVE TIME.

some may just abandon and could care less about the site, or dont even know what new information is out there, because its NOT THEIR TOP PRIORITY to find out if there is new information

One site relied on the report from 9/28/2008
Another decided to do some basic investigation,
and a final report, showed that someone else entirely found the black boxes.

It happens, when you've had years of time to do research and investigate.

Again, take it up with the people who own the sites.


and you shouldn't care about what the conspiracy sites state or if some idniot troofer is saying this because one site says someting and one sites says another thing: BECAUSE WE HAVE four official REPORTS that debunk their insane claims to begin with.

[TheDaver]

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

Kilsheimer does take credit for finding the black boxes, even the history channel says this.

You say that as if History Channel is supposed to be infallible.…

[Magenta]

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

_______________BREAKING NEWS___________________

Debunk911myths has just caught on to this thread and removed the following...

But that section was about witnesses who sighted and/or handled aircraft debris, not about the recovery of the CVR and FDR. Your protest looks like a storm in a teacup to me.

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

Now all we need is for Mark Roberts to rid his website of wrong information.

Did you let Mark know what is the "wrong information"? There's no guarantee he will see this as the thread title is not exactly illuminating.

Originally Posted by phunk

Ah interesting, guess I was mistaken about them being in different areas of the plane.

They're usually together at the rear of the plane. From the FAA regs for the FDR:

Quote:

(b) Each nonejectable record container must be located and mounted so as to minimize the probability of container rupture resulting from crash impact and subsequent damage to the record from fire. In meeting this requirement the record container must be located as far aft as practicable, but need not be aft of the pressurized compartment, and may not be where aft-mounted engines may crush the container upon impact.

and CVR:

Quote:

(e) The record container must be located and mounted to minimize the probability of rupture of the container as a result of crash impact and consequent heat damage to the record from fire. In meeting this requirement, the record container must be as far aft as practicable, but may not be where aft mounted engines may crush the container during impact. However, it need not be outside of the pressurized compartment.

[Baylor]

Originally Posted by Magenta

But that section was about witnesses who sighted and/or handled aircraft debris, not about the recovery of the CVR and FDR. Your protest looks like a storm in a teacup to me.

The section is irrelevant. The site, citing dead link, claims Burkhammer found the black boxes. PM says Kilsheimer found at least one. Now JamesB, citing Firefight, claims NTSB employees found them. As I said in my OP, this is exactly the kind of stuff CIT loves to dig up and use as "proof" of planted evidence.

Originally Posted by Magenta

Did you let Mark know what is the "wrong information"? There's no guarantee he will see this as the thread title is not exactly illuminating.

This is not a "call out" thread. This is to show that debunkers are just as obligated to debunk faulty information in debunking sites. I hope it doesn't lead to hard feelings, but if it does, the end justifies the means.

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

The section is irrelevant. The site, citing dead link, claims Burkhammer found the black boxes. PM says Kilsheimer found at least one. Now JamesB, citing Firefight, claims NTSB employees found them. As I said in my OP, this is exactly the kind of stuff CIT loves to dig up and use as "proof" of planted evidence.

If they find discrepancies, they latch onto these as proof of a cover-up. if they find none, they latch onto the "lockstep" official-story support as unnaturaly consistent and proof of a cover-up. if you start this thread, that's a sign of debunker "desparation," which is proof of cover-up. If you abandon it, then you're running scared, which means a cover-up.

You cannot change this basic principle any more than you can gravity.

So, that said, I also feel this is a non-issue. Along with the rest of the plane and its passengers, the boxes were found, perhaps found again and seen again, by different people, in one or two spots, that were perhaps mis-reported by a journalist who became confused somehow.

It would be neat to sort this out and put confusion to rest (in minds where that's even possible) but Arus is right. My site for example, is full of little errors I haven't the time or inspiration to go back and change. Some people can sort things out for themselves, the rest are screwed anyways.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

The section is irrelevant. The site, citing dead link, claims Burkhammer found the black boxes. PM says Kilsheimer found at least one. Now JamesB, citing Firefight, claims NTSB employees found them. As I said in my OP, this is exactly the kind of stuff CIT loves to dig up and use as "proof" of planted evidence.

All it is "proof" of is that different reporters can cover the same story and get something wrong.
the beef is not betweem PM and any debunking site. It is between PM and AP.
In a recent child kidnapping in Western Canada the child was found safe. A newspaper and a television station reported extremly differing accounts of where the child was found. One said a hotel restaurant, the other a serice station and they put them in different towns.

Quote:

This is not a "call out" thread. This is to show that debunkers are just as obligated to debunk faulty information in debunking sites. I hope it doesn't lead to hard feelings, but if it does, the end justifies the means.

Well if there was any real significance to who and where the recorders were found exactly then perhaps it would be considered worthy of such a vetting.