ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags black boxes , rob balsamo

Reply
Old 28th February 2011, 03:52 AM   #1
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,633
The PF9/11 Truth Video

It seems that two of my co-workers are Truthers. I had thought this was dying out but it seems there may be a new generation of them.

Anyway, I've been sent a video of what one of my co-workers thinks is the most compelling argument for saying that the "official story" is wrong and having watched two and half parts of it I am somewhat staggered by the banality of Rob Balsamo (I take it he's the one narrating).

I'll post a bit of our correspondence:

Originally Posted by Co-worker
Watch these videos. I'd like to hear you take on them.

Here's part 1 of 5.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUbVbmpblFk

I think it is impossible to refute what they say.
So, I decided to watch it...

Originally Posted by angrysoba
I see that sources from Rense.com (an anti-semitic conspiracy theory site) and Counterpunch are being used as evidence for the recovery of the black boxes. Personally I don't find these sources very convincing. If I remember rightly there were numerous victims in the attacks who were never positively identified because they didn't discover any of their body parts (maybe up to 1000 of them). But the most important thing is that although there are web pages on the Internet saying the black boxes had been found it seems that DeMasi and Bellone are the sources. Are they trustworthy? Bellone is actually a charlatan. He pretends to be a firefighter and yet he isn't one. This doesn't stop Lindorff in the Counterpunch article from calling him one: "There has always been some skepticism about this assertion [that the black boxes were never found], particularly as two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them. (The FBI denies the whole story.) "

9/11 Myths has something on the black boxes here:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Black_Boxes

To be honest I don't get what his point is about the speed of the plane. Apparently mach 1 is supposed to be well over 600 knots at sea level. The speed of Flt 11 and 175 were supposedly over 500 knots but I didn't get why he starts chuckling about how that makes it over mach one. He's already explained that the data that the ATSB (?) were using were not necessarily accurate as they didn't have the black box data and had to be estimated. But instead he starts chuckling again and asking if the modifications to the plane that would be necessary had been done by the Arabs in their caves. (This is really irritating! The people who flew the planes were fairly well-off middle class men with educations and pilot's licenses. They weren't troglodytes.)

It seems like a dumb argument. That the "official government" story involves making up speeds that a 767 couldn't achieve and that it must have been a modified plane. Modified how? With stronger wings? It was demonstrably a 767, it would have been even more insane for the US government to fly in a plane that isn't a 767 and yet to claim it was one. And what purpose could be achieved by modifying the plane? Conspiracy theorists seem to believe that conspirators are always dreaming up completely pointless embellishments like this on the logic that if they can prove there was pointless embellishment X then the "official story" falls apart and leaves the field open to simply making up an alternative narrative like "Da gubmint dunnit!"

I watched two parts of it but got bored of his droning voice and irritating chuckling. FAIL!
I don't really understand Balsamo's argument and am having trouble seeing what his point is. It seems like one of the crappiest premises of a 9/11 conspiracy theory I have ever heard (although he takes a leaf out of Richard Gage's book and pretends he has no theory about 9/11).

Anyway, my co-worker wrote back:

Originally Posted by co-worker
Actually I think they do an excellent job explaining how it was impossible with the data provided and how experienced professional pilot couldn't do what was supposedly done with the commercial plane.

I suggest watching another 30 minutes to the end.
So, I asked:

Quote:
So, you think it wasn't a 767 that crashed into the World Trade Center?

Or it was a modified one?

If this is true then what happened to the actual AA 11 and UA 175? Where are the passengers?
Apologies if there is already a thread on this video. I couldn't find a thread which dealt with precisely this video.

Also, I have little to no knowledge about flying and can't work out what it is Balsamo thinks he has discovered. It seems like he has made an artform out of pettiness.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 04:10 AM   #2
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Where do I start? You might want to tell your friend that even the most ardent 'truthers' who are engineers (such as Gage) say that P4T (Cpt'n Bob) are full of crap. So since your friend probably won't listen to a government disinfo 'debunker', just point him to what the 'truthers' have to say about them.

Personally I have not wasted my time watching their latest. I don't think my blood pressure could take it.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 04:30 AM   #3
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,633
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Where do I start? You might want to tell your friend that even the most ardent 'truthers' who are engineers (such as Gage) say that P4T (Cpt'n Bob) are full of crap. So since your friend probably won't listen to a government disinfo 'debunker', just point him to what the 'truthers' have to say about them.

Personally I have not wasted my time watching their latest. I don't think my blood pressure could take it.
Well, I'd never watched any of the Pilots for 9/11 Truth stuff before as I've pretty much had my fill from watching Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, the Richard Gage presentation and Zeitgeist. I really think that should be more than anyone should have to ever see but with Truthers and conspiracy theorists in general there are always more videos that you absolutely MUST watch and all the others are disinfo. (Actually I don't think my co-workers are completely down the rabbit hole yet. They were even surprised when I told them that WTC7 had been burning for seven hours. They seemed to think it had collapsed immediately after the Twin Towers).

When I questioned the credentials of AE9/11 Truth and just how many of them were actually qualified structural engineers my co-worker sent me the website "Patriots Question 9/11" or something. I spent a bit too much time working my way through the list:

Quote:
On Patriots Question 9/11 the first name on the list is a real howler

Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret)
This is the guy who was featured in Jon Ronson's book, The Men Who Stare at Goats. He believed that he could walk through the walls using the logic that we're just atoms and the wall is just atoms so basically the atoms should just pass by each other as we're mostly empty space. He also thought he could stop a goat's heart by staring at it and wanted to train a bunch of soldiers to become invisible at will and read minds etc...

General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret)
Is not a Truther. Truthers do this type of thing all the time though. If someone says that they want to see someone fired for faulty intelligence or they think the investigation protected senior figures instead of revealing their incompetence then they get lumped in with Truthers. Wesley Clark believes al-Qaeda was responsible.

Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret)
His argument just seems to be, "I can't believe he managed to pull off that maneuvre even if it is possible." It's the arument from incredulity. The thing is that Hani Hanjour wasn't flying normally and he had no interest in preserving the plane since his idea was to crash it. Plenty of witnesses said they saw the plane being steered crazily. This is what I would expect for an amateur. Also his flight instructor said he had no problem believing he could have flown the plane into the Pentagon.

Barbara Honegger, MS
She's a serial conspiracy theorist.

Wayne Madsen
Ditto

Commander James R. Compton, III, U.S. Navy (ret)
He's praising the Citizens Investigation Team. As far as I know this is one of the weirdest conspiracy theories. They believe the actual 757 was there but it flew OVER the Pentagon by about five metres and then a missile was fired at the Pentagon and then some airplane parts were scattered around the impact zone. Apparently nobody knows where the plane went.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve (ret)
This guy isn't really a full-on Truther. He believes that al-Qaeda did it, as far as I know, but that there are questions about the competence of the Bush administration officials.

Capt. Stephen M. Gann, PhD, U.S. Navy Reserve (ret)

"Having witnessed the collapse of the second tower on television, I noticed brilliant white flashes on the lower floors immediately before collapse. Why was that? Why was that film clip never seen on TV again?"

Because there weren't any. All of the major TV stations archived all their film of the day and they can be seen online. There were no flashes. He's obviously seeing things.

"During clean up at site zero, there was radioactivity detected, radionuclides that could only be present from a fission event. But due to the general public lack of understanding of nuclear "stuff", this was passed off as a result of the intense heat of the fire, a scientifically impossible scenario. I would, as a nuclear chemist, like for this particular anomaly to be properly explained."

I think he's making this up. The towers were not demolished by nukes. Surely that is pretty obvious.

Michael Scheuer, PhD
Is not a Truther. He was part of the bin Laden Unit of the CIA and he thinks bin Laden did it. His main beef is with the "cowardly politicians" who wouldn't order bin Laden's assassination or turning the Middle East to glass.

Milton Bearden
He's not really a Truther either. In fact, if anything he explodes some of the myths that Truthers like to tell such as:

"I feel slightly uncomfortable because I spent so many years wondering how the myth of Osama bin Laden got started. We have the Osama bin Laden who was the great war hero in Afghanistan. We have Osama bin Laden who was trained by CIA, funded and supported by CIA during three years of war. I was there at the same time bin Laden was there. He was not the great warrior that went and fought the Soviet Union to a standstill. The CIA had nothing to do with him."

Senator Max Cleland
He's not a Truther.

Gov. Jesse Ventura
Oh dear! Ventura's TV show is pretty embarrassing. Here's a funny video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrGxzsxSqMk

I think it is fair to say that the Ventura Conspiracy Theory show is utterly dishonest in how its presentation.

Vladamir Putin
"Russian President Vladimir Putin has said publicly that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the United States last summer [2001] that suicide pilots were training for attacks on U.S. targets."

Well, that somewhat debunks the inside job, doesn't it?

Gen. Hosni Mubarak
Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad
What is not included on that page is that Mahatir Mohammad thinks 9/11 was done by "The Jews". Why? Well, because that's what Jews do, right? He's an utter loony.

John J. Farmer, Jr.
Most certainly not a Truther.

Anyway, the problem is that because I don't know enough about so many of the others I can't be sure how many of them are genuine Truthers and whether or not the questions they have can be answered easily or not. I don't really trust that website though because I can see that some of it is padded.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

Last edited by angrysoba; 28th February 2011 at 04:32 AM.
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 04:33 AM   #4
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,633
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Where do I start? You might want to tell your friend that even the most ardent 'truthers' who are engineers (such as Gage) say that P4T (Cpt'n Bob) are full of crap.
Actually I would be grateful for any links of Gage saying Balsamo's full of crap.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 04:51 AM   #5
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Just follow the thread I just bumped for you. P4T is crying about Gage and someone else has a whole thread here about it somewhere. Gotta run off to work right now myself, so no time to pull it up for you.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 05:05 AM   #6
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,633
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Just follow the thread I just bumped for you. P4T is crying about Gage and someone else has a whole thread here about it somewhere. Gotta run off to work right now myself, so no time to pull it up for you.
Okay, thanks very much.

I'll look through it.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 05:46 AM   #7
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Bumped the other one for you.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 06:13 AM   #8
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,565
I only watched about a minute of the video and won't be going back to it again. It actually makes me sick to my stomach to watch the crap. However, I've heard the arguments and I'm sure there is nothing new in this piece of garbage from pffft.

Most laymen don't have the knowledge or ability to even understand what the idiot contends, let alone refute it. He uses "appeal to authority" throughout and if one assumes the premise is correct it is difficult to refute. The problem is the basic premise is not an absolute.

The bastard twists and turns facts to fit his mold somewhat similar to, but not quite as stupid as the "clowns investigation team" which he supports.

He attempts to convince the reader of aeronautical absolutes when, in fact, he stretches his "evidence" by twisting just enough to convince the layman with his typical techno-babble.

It should be obvious that what he's contending is purely theoretical, but out of the other side of his mouth he states they have no theory, but only use facts. That is a BLATANT LIE.

Most (if not all) of this stuff has been addressed here already in various threads, so it's nothing new or revolutionary.

Similar to what Gage does (as well as other twoofer organizations) anyone who has ever expressed any questions or doubts about the events of 9/11 goes on their list as a member or supporter. A little research beyond the surface will show that most of his group have purely political motivations. Several are established long-time misfits, some even fringe lunatics.

I'm not going to watch one of his stupid videos again, but if various questions arise I'll try to address them again as I have time. I'm sure beachnut will be along soon and address them, as well.

Again, this stuff has been discussed at length already, so please forgive me for not being enthusiastic about going through it again.
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 06:22 AM   #9
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Where do I start? You might want to tell your friend that even the most ardent 'truthers' who are engineers (such as Gage) say that P4T (Cpt'n Bob) are full of crap. So since your friend probably won't listen to a government disinfo 'debunker', just point him to what the 'truthers' have to say about them.

Personally I have not wasted my time watching their latest. I don't think my blood pressure could take it.

Gage is NOT an engineer! he is an architect, essentially an artist, they decide what a building should look like but the serious "engineering" is done by Structural Engineers.


I, however, am a mech Eng and yes P4T are full of steaming crap. Balsamo is a (failed) pilot, he has never flown big jets and even if he had that does not mean he has a clue about the engineering limitations of a big jet as they are trained to avoid getting even close to them!
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 06:32 AM   #10
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills View Post
Gage is NOT an engineer! he is an architect, essentially an artist, they decide what a building should look like but the serious "engineering" is done by Structural Engineers.


I, however, am a mech Eng and yes P4T are full of steaming crap. Balsamo is a (failed) pilot, he has never flown big jets and even if he had that does not mean he has a clue about the engineering limitations of a big jet as they are trained to avoid getting even close to them!
Not exactly true.......my architectural license allows me to design the building structures as well as mechanical and electrical to "the extent of my competence" (In practice, I rarely do however because it is far quicker to have engineers to the work that they do every day.) "Artist" is one of the least applicable descriptions of what I do.

What Gage is doing is basically a "make work" project for someone that cannot survive in the real world.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 06:40 AM   #11
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,884
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
He attempts to convince the reader of aeronautical absolutes when, in fact, he stretches his "evidence" by twisting just enough to convince the layman with his typical techno-babble.

Fine show of projection there, Reheat. That's exactly what you do in the deceptive piece of junk science you link to in your signature - debunked about three years ago but still peddled by 911myths.
__________________
De-Putin-Nazify America!
...progress updates [1] [2] [...] [5]...

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 28th February 2011 at 06:42 AM.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 06:43 AM   #12
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Oh my, I think I have hurt Cpt'n Bob's feelings again

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...#entry10795494
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 07:11 AM   #13
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,565
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Fine show of projection there, Reheat. That's exactly what you do in the deceptive piece of junk science you link to in your signature - debunked about three years ago but still peddled by 911myths.
Wrong. Your heroes have debunked nothing. Last I checked the laws of aerodynamics haven't been changed by your idiot heroes. They do exactly what you do, fill pages of internet Forums with crap and delusions.
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 07:20 AM   #14
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,565
BTW CE,

You haven't brought us up to date on "Operation Accountability". I understand it's not going well.

__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 07:28 AM   #15
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,884
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Wrong. Your heroes have debunked nothing. Last I checked the laws of aerodynamics haven't been changed by your idiot heroes. They do exactly what you do, fill pages of internet Forums with crap and delusions.

You have no data to plug into your formula. You made it up by taking parts of witness testimonies over literal while ignoring other parts. Out of this you construct an artificial impossible scenario and run it through your formula to prove that it is impossible. Then you turn around and claim that the same witnesses you cherrypicked couldn't have seen what they report at all and would be mistaken about such a basic detail as the side on which they saw the plane pass. BS in, BS out. The OP of the thread I linked is a more than sufficient debunk. A few lines like those I just have written would have sufficed.
__________________
De-Putin-Nazify America!
...progress updates [1] [2] [...] [5]...
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 07:36 AM   #16
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
And yet amazingly enough every single CIT witness states that they saw the airplane crash into the pentagon while PFFT claims that a performing a maneuver that was the equivalent of landing an airplane is impossible even for a skilled pilot.

And you wonder why people laugh at people like you.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 07:40 AM   #17
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,884
Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am View Post
And yet

Wait a minute - you admit that Reheat's piece is junk science?
__________________
De-Putin-Nazify America!
...progress updates [1] [2] [...] [5]...
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 07:45 AM   #18
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 13,698
Still banging the broken drum CE?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 07:50 AM   #19
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,884
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Wrong. Your heroes have debunked nothing. Last I checked the laws of aerodynamics haven't been changed by your idiot heroes. They do exactly what you do, fill pages of internet Forums with crap and delusions.
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
You have no data to plug into your formula. You made it up by taking parts of witness testimonies over literal while ignoring other parts. Out of this you construct an artificial impossible scenario and run it through your formula to prove that it is impossible. Then you turn around and claim that the same witnesses you cherrypicked couldn't have seen what they report at all and would be mistaken about such a basic detail as the side on which they saw the plane pass. BS in, BS out. The OP of the thread I linked is a more than sufficient debunk. A few lines like those I just have written would have sufficed.

The bolded in his own projecting words:

Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
He attempts to convince the reader of aeronautical absolutes when, in fact, he stretches his "evidence" by twisting just enough to convince the layman with his typical techno-babble.
__________________
De-Putin-Nazify America!
...progress updates [1] [2] [...] [5]...
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 07:51 AM   #20
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,565
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
You have no data to plug into your formula. You made it up by taking parts of witness testimonies over literal while ignoring other parts. Out of this you construct an artificial impossible scenario and run it through your formula to prove that it is impossible. Then you turn around and claim that the same witnesses you cherrypicked couldn't have seen what they report at all and would be mistaken about such a basic detail as the side on which they saw the plane pass. BS in, BS out. The OP of the thread I linked is a more than sufficient debunk. A few lines like those I just have written would have sufficed.
Data? Data, you say? You must be addressing the pure unadulterated spin (crrap) that distorts what both Paik and Morin stated. I can read the English Language, CE, and I certainly don't need either Ranke or you to tell me what someone said.

It has absolutely nothing to do with which side of anything the aircraft passed because the aircraft can not get to those points at all. Even if it could, NO ONE, NOT a single ONE described the horrendous bank angle required to do so.

It's too late to try to put words into those folks mouths, so don't even try. Your crap might work in your make believe world, but not in the real world and the fact that you and you cohorts can't convince more than a deluded few substantiates that. Now about "Operation Accountability"? Why don't you want to talk about the results of that farce?
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 07:59 AM   #21
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
CE, regardless of yours, P4T and CIT rhetoric, it is impossible for a 757 to get from where Paik saw the plane and where Lagasse says he saw it.

That means the CIT eyewitnesses are lying or they are making errors in recall. Take your pick, but I prefer the later.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 08:13 AM   #22
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 14,884
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Data? Data, you say? You must be addressing the pure unadulterated spin (crrap) that distorts what both Paik and Morin stated. I can read the English Language, CE, and I certainly don't need either Ranke or you to tell me what someone said.

It has absolutely nothing to do with which side of anything the aircraft passed because the aircraft can not get to those points at all. Even if it could, NO ONE, NOT a single ONE described the horrendous bank angle required to do so.

Exactly. No one describes the artifical scenario you made up and plugged into your formula to prove that the witnesses couldn't have seen what they didn't describe.
__________________
De-Putin-Nazify America!
...progress updates [1] [2] [...] [5]...
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 08:18 AM   #23
mercian
Scholar
 
mercian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills View Post
Gage is NOT an engineer! he is an architect, essentially an artist, they decide what a building should look like but the serious "engineering" is done by Structural Engineers.
Sheeplesnshills is right. Plus if you look at the list of names, many of them aren't qualified architects; they're just students. There are also many Landscape Architects listed! That's like asking Alan Titchmarsh what he thinks about the controlled demolition theory!
mercian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 08:21 AM   #24
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Wait a minute - you admit that Reheat's piece is junk science?
lol. Uhm, the "And yet" is clearly part of a sarcastic device. He obviously does not admit that. How you could misread this is beyond me... wait, no it makes perfect sense.

It's quite telling how the mindset works. Every little victory or psychological triumph sends torrents of pleasure chemicals through your brain, even when nothing has been debunked or proven at all. I noticed the same parallel with the creationists who claimed to have "Stumped Dawkins" when in reality he was just realizing they had lied about their identity and was contemplating throwing them out of his house.

The mind demands psychological rewards for maintaining theories. We've all noticed that the truthers waltz around like hotshots, "I know something you don't know!" calling people sheeple etc. They have to keep the pleasure chemicals up. I've started to see the truthers as drug addicts in this way.

Those processes probably evolved to help you take care of your family and do things that were positive for the community. Now these people have got their reward systems all tied up into this stuff and they are trapped.

For a perfect example of this, watch Alex Jones freak out on CNN's cameras about building 7. It was leaning over and creaking loudly for over an hour and yet still he is convinced the CIA/MI6 told the media it was going to be exploded. just because they reported it had fallen already. Just watch the addiction in action. (only 30 sec clip)

It seems like the truthers who still bother to agitate are more addicted to the process than anything else. You can tell by where the place their emphasis during the exchanges.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 28th February 2011 at 08:28 AM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 08:30 AM   #25
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,565
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Exactly. No one describes the artifical scenario you made up and plugged into your formula to prove that the witnesses couldn't have seen what they didn't describe.
Paik and Morin described EXACTLY what I depicted in my diagrams. It's the others you are upset about. You know, all of those that said the aircraft impacted the building! Those are the ones you should be concerned about instead of me.

A moronic idiot is the only one who would say they were correct about the path, but yet they were wrong about an impact with the building. Why are they correct about one aspect and wrong about the other?????

No one else saw an aircraft fly over the building either, so there is % 100 corroboration on what ALL of the physical evidence shows in addition to what the witnesses saw - Yes, the CIT witnesses describe EXACTLY what happened and morons with an agenda try to spin it otherwise. How does it feel to be a loser, CE? You can always come to your senses and no one will hold it against you.
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 08:56 AM   #26
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by mercian View Post
Sheeplesnshills is right. Plus if you look at the list of names, many of them aren't qualified architects; they're just students. There are also many Landscape Architects listed! That's like asking Alan Titchmarsh what he thinks about the controlled demolition theory!
If you guys don't wish to consider them engineers, then suite youself. All I know is, my engineering school (which trained them) considered them as such and those who went through some of the same classes I did would strongly disagree with you.

You could also say that the same holds true for JREF. Many comment on issues here for which they are unqualified to speak. That is why I stay away from the WTC debate, and reserve my critique to measurement system analysis, basic physics and other issues for which I am qualified. I even stay away from the Pentagon damage analysis debates for the same reason.

I don't malign people in the 'truth movement'. I make an exception for Cpt'n Bob and CIT because they exhibit a lack of character and reasoning ability. I don't see the case for CD except perhaps in the case of WTC7, but even there it is a weak case. But then again, my opinion on that subject is really not worth much.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 09:54 AM   #27
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by mercian View Post
Sheeplesnshills is right. Plus if you look at the list of names, many of them aren't qualified architects; they're just students. There are also many Landscape Architects listed! That's like asking [ .alantitchmarsh.com/"]Alan Titchmarsh[/url] what he thinks about the controlled demolition theory!
In most states, one cannot call themselves' an Architect unless the presonn is licensed. They cannot offer architectural services if the person is not licensed.
The last time I looked at the AE list, only about 130 were actually licensed architects and about 250 were licensed engineers of any type.

There are currently about 90k licensed architects in the U.S. based on the last statistics I saw, and over 200k engineers. The licensed individuals of the AE group represent less than 0.2% of the profession. Every profession has their crackpots....The AE group makes up a good percentage of the crackpots that are architects and engineers.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 12:30 PM   #28
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Not exactly true.......my architectural license allows me to design the building structures as well as mechanical and electrical to "the extent of my competence" (In practice, I rarely do however because it is far quicker to have engineers to the work that they do every day.) "Artist" is one of the least applicable descriptions of what I do.

What Gage is doing is basically a "make work" project for someone that cannot survive in the real world.
I apologize if I overstated. My BIL is an architect and he is certainly no engineer. he knows enough to know how to build say a house...ie what distance you can span with what size timber etc. meet code etc.
But he does design a good looking, nice to live in house. However there is no way he would even try to design a Skyscraper without a structural engineer.

Gage certainly is not competent, or he would NEVER have done that silly cardboard box stunt. So the idea that he is competent to even comment of the structure of the WTC towers is ludicrous.

He is NOT an Engineer.

Last edited by sheeplesnshills; 28th February 2011 at 12:47 PM.
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 12:37 PM   #29
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
You have no data to plug into your formula. You made it up by taking parts of witness testimonies over literal while ignoring other parts. Out of this you construct an artificial impossible scenario and run it through your formula to prove that it is impossible. Then you turn around and claim that the same witnesses you cherrypicked couldn't have seen what they report at all and would be mistaken about such a basic detail as the side on which they saw the plane pass. BS in, BS out. The OP of the thread I linked is a more than sufficient debunk. A few lines like those I just have written would have sufficed.
CE its you that keeps insisting that Morin and Paik are NOC witnesses. If you handwave them away like you do Penny Elgas, Deb Anlauf and ms Zakhem the NoC route becomes more plausible. Why do you insist on keeping the very witness (Morin) that makes NoC impossible?

Of course they all saw the plane hit but you already handwaved that already so no change there
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 12:55 PM   #30
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills View Post
I apologize if I overstated. My BIL is an architect and he is certainly no engineer. he knows enough to know how to build say a house...ie what distance you can span with what size timber etc. meet code etc.
But he does design a good looking, nice to live in house. However there is no way he would even try to design a Skyscraper without a structural engineer.

Gage certainly is not competent, or he would NEVER have done that silly cardboard box stunt. So the idea that he is competent to even comment of the structure of the WTC towers is ludicrous.

He is NOT an Engineer.

Gage isn't much of an architect either, based on his CV....though he certainly makes claims to a lot more than he has done.

I would not consider myself competent to design a high structure either . High rise structures are so specialized. The sway dampening systems fro example.

Personally, I think that Gage should lose his AIA "credentials" for his unethical stunts, but then being a member of the AIA just means you write a check once a year. It is mostly a political action group.....one I choose not to belong to.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 01:36 PM   #31
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Wait a minute - you admit that Reheat's piece is junk science?
How are all those CIT flight paths? Impossible to fly, and yet you support the idiots with... wait for it... talk.


CIT witnesses all have 77 impacting the Pentagon. What is new on the failed flyover delusion? What drugs did CIT take to make up the wild lies?

A film by morons, to fool morons. Balsamo and his moron math pack of failed pilots did the video. There are the only idiots on earth (p4t pilots with moronic lies on 911) who could make up stuff this stupid. The best part, Balsamo is captured as he is, a moron on 911 issues. Balsamo, never will be left seat heavy jet, something thousands of USAF pilots did at the age of 26. He is not happy being a failure, he is working at being a bigger failure.

Last edited by beachnut; 28th February 2011 at 01:43 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 01:43 PM   #32
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Oh my, I think I have hurt Cpt'n Bob's feelings again

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...#entry10795494
I think you have a fan over there with all the visits he does here to see what you're doing :-)
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 02:09 PM   #33
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
You have no data to plug into your formula. You made it up by taking parts of witness testimonies over literal while ignoring other parts. Out of this you construct an artificial impossible scenario and run it through your formula to prove that it is impossible. Then you turn around and claim that the same witnesses you cherrypicked couldn't have seen what they report at all and would be mistaken about such a basic detail as the side on which they saw the plane pass. BS in, BS out. The OP of the thread I linked is a more than sufficient debunk. A few lines like those I just have written would have sufficed.
Epic fail.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 02:17 PM   #34
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Oh my, I think I have hurt Cpt'n Bob's feelings again

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...#entry10795494
And he proves he is clueless on IN's.

I used to run them up and shut them down at least three or four times a day on our jets. The man is an imbecile
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 02:45 PM   #35
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Oh my, I think I have hurt Cpt'n Bob's feelings again

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...#entry10795494
His pilot for truth expert pilot who flew one of the aircraft used on 911 says the INS can't be updated in flight. Balsamo lies again as he offers no theory, just moronic claptrap he pulls out of a place other than thin air.

The following pilots from Balsamo's moron club can't figure out a 757 updates from VOR, using algortims, based on math. It must be the math the morons at Balsamo club can't figure out, 11.2gs of it.
Balsamo say these flying failures agree with him, the INS can't be updated in flight.
Captain Ross "Rusty" Aimer - got fired for woo, had to start his own woo
Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad - could his nickname be for the BS he spews?

Poor Rusty can't hit the Pentagon in a simulator, this is how expert these guys are, where terrorists pilots crash, these guys can't hit a 900 foot wide target, how do they land on 150 foot wide runway? Nuts.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...#entry10795490
Balsamo say no INS update, Reality says...
Quote:

D. NAVIGATION SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION AND ACTIVITY
The Boeing 757 keeps track of its own position using the Inertial Navigation System (INS),
which uses acceleration sensors to calculate the motion of the airplane over the ground. The
INS position calculation is periodically updated and corrected using data from ground based
radio navigation stations, called “very high frequency omnirange stations” (VORs). By tuning
a receiver to the signals broadcast from a VOR, the bearing from the airplane to the VOR
can be determined. Tuning in two or more stations and knowing the positions of each, a fix
of the airplane position can be obtained.
The 757 has two VOR receivers. The crew can manually tune each of these receivers to a
desired station (provided the station is in range), and view the airplane’s bearing relative to
the station on a special display mode on the Electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator (EHSI).
This mode is most often used when the crew wants to fly either towards or away from the
selected VOR station, along a specific bearing or “radial” to or from the station. In other
modes, the airplane will automatically tune in VOR stations along the airplane’s route in
order to obtain position fixes. The system generally selects stations whose bearings from the
airplane differ by about 90 degrees; this configuration results in the most accurate position
fixes.
Darn, everything Balsamo says ends up being a lie, or the result of moron math, 11.2gs or worse. Don't forget he has promised to kill, which is about as good as his promise of truth.

Take the sign up to post at Balsamo's nut house, and present the truth, see how long it takes to be banned. By banned I mean he takes away the right to post, but he does not label your Avatar as banned, so people think you are silent, and don't know you have been banned. Balsam is the truthNAZI, a moron on math, and a traitor to the United States as he spreads lies against the military, FAA, NTSB, FBI, and more.

Sign up and post some truth... BTW, you can't post links to JREF, the links are banned. Freedom to link to Balsamo's lies, no freedom to link to real discussion... http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...#entry10795490
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 03:42 PM   #36
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by mercian View Post
Sheeplesnshills is right. Plus if you look at the list of names, many of them aren't qualified architects; they're just students. There are also many Landscape Architects listed! That's like asking Alan Titchmarsh what he thinks about the controlled demolition theory!
Hey... the WTC had a lottttt of planters.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 03:58 PM   #37
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Hey Beachnut. Could copy your comment to the other thread. I can't do it on my Blackberry and a few of Cpt'n Bob's peers are monitoring the other thread
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 07:47 PM   #38
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,633
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Oh my, I think I have hurt Cpt'n Bob's feelings again

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...#entry10795494
It appears you have:

Quote:
I also took a stroll over to the cesspit to see if Farmer in his true obsessive fashion has already attempted to deceive his minions regarding this analysis by tume. Sure enough, Farmer is in full bloom spouting lies and trying to spin it any way he can.

There is also one of Randi's kids upset that his co-workers are sourcing our "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" presentation. Farmer in his true obsessive form tries to debunk the analysis with the only thing he has to offer... "Gage thinks P4T work is crap!" because as we all know, Farmer hasnt a clue when it comes to anything regarding aviation. The kid asks Farmer for a link source, Farmer does a song and dance failing to provide one. The reason being that not only is Farmer obsessed with us, but he is also a compulsive liar.

Gage actually bought our "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" DVD because he wanted to support our work. I told Gage i would have sent it to him for free, but Gage insisted on paying for it.

Farmer, dont you ever get tired of being caught in your obsessive compulsive lies? And he wonders why I wont let him post his libelous claims here. Go crawl back into your hole Farmer.
If JREF is a cesspit, I wonder why Rob Balsamo can't stay away and even has to make up some new nicknames such as "Pretty in Pink" to let him swim around here.

Anyway, now I at least know the name of the film "9/11 World Trade Center Attack".

Is there a thread dedicated to this film?

Just a quick question, BCR, if you're John Farmer then was I correct in saying you are not Truther or do you consider yourself to be a Truther?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 08:03 PM   #39
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,633
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Captain Ross "Rusty" Aimer - got fired for woo, had to start his own woo
Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad - could his nickname be for the BS he spews?
I understand that these two are condsidered PFT's resident experts.

What did Rusty get fired for?

What are Balsamo's qualifications?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2011, 08:11 PM   #40
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,633
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Again, this stuff has been discussed at length already, so please forgive me for not being enthusiastic about going through it again.
Yeah, no problem. I expected that it will already have been chewed up and spat out, several times. For some reason, PFT was always something that I had completely ignored (along with Judy Wood and Daivd Icke) so I don't even know what their main contentions are. It seems they are either no-planers or at least no-commericial-airliners. In other words I think their conspiracy theories are even dafter than the more common ones about controlled demolition (although we're talking degrees of lunacy here).
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.