IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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.
Reply
Old 9th January 2007, 04:45 PM   #1
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Exclamation Apathoid et al. vs Real Truther

A particularly smug know-nothing at 911blogger.com has been peddling the remote-control snake oil to the rubes. Calling himself "Real Truther," he pretends to have "sources" who assure him of all sorts of idiocy. You may find my exchange with him tedious--we've heard it all before--but it offers another opportunity to smack-down one of these disingenuous creeps. When frauds reduce themselves to invoking their "common sense" and their "gut feelings" to prattle about violations of fundamental principles of science, the task of refuting them becomes a bit like shoveling live flies across a room (Lincoln's perfect phrase). But, as the Popular Mechanics book observes, when they dare to say something specific, it is possible to reveal their stupidity, ignorance, and dishonesty for all the world to see.
I turn to the indispensable Apathoid and his learned colleagues to pulverize another liar into his own footprints.

("Real Truther" from the thread "Ghosts of the Firemen"):

I can safely report that all is well in the homeland--I travelled on a plane during an ORANGE alert, but the security was tight--aboslutely NO LIQUIDS were allowed on board. I know because they asked every third person "are you carrying liquids"? And every third person answered "no".
You just don't mess with the Chertoffs.
Now I honestly thought my plane might go down, but apparently I have not been truthing hard enough to be on that kind of hit list.
On my journeys I did do some truthing, and even picked up a copy of a 9/11, or 11-S book by a spanish journalist named Bruno Cardeñosa. It is full MIHOP, I can happily report, and very fairly mentions everything from the dancing Israelis to the Bush/bin Laden ties, the missile at the Pentagon to controlled Demo.
I will be doing a review of it for this site later, there are lots of good details that don't get much play around these parts, like the names of two companies that took the WTC steel, Sims Metal of Sydney, Australia, and a Chinese comapny named Basotell. Also, the names of a few Raytheon employees mysteriously appearing on the passenger lists of the planes headed from Boston to LA, neither city that has Raytheon offices, apparently.
Anyway, glad to see the gang is all here and that there would seem to be little talk of space beams or video fakery. Gosh, you'd think that was like all BS or something...

____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Submitted by Real Truther on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 6:04pm.
» reply | 0 points
it's good to be back

I can safely report that all is well in the homeland--I travelled on a plane during an ORANGE alert, but the security was tight--aboslutely NO LIQUIDS were allowed on board. I know because they asked every third person "are you carrying liquids"? And every third person answered "no".
You just don't mess with the Chertoffs.
Now I honestly thought my plane might go down, but apparently I have not been truthing hard enough to be on that kind of hit list.
On my journeys I did do some truthing, and even picked up a copy of a 9/11, or 11-S book by a spanish journalist named Bruno Cardeñosa. It is full MIHOP, I can happily report, and very fairly mentions everything from the dancing Israelis to the Bush/bin Laden ties, the missile at the Pentagon to controlled Demo.
I will be doing a review of it for this site later, there are lots of good details that don't get much play around these parts, like the names of two companies that took the WTC steel, Sims Metal of Sydney, Australia, and a Chinese comapny named Basotell. Also, the names of a few Raytheon employees mysteriously appearing on the passenger lists of the planes headed from Boston to LA, neither city that has Raytheon offices, apparently.
Anyway, glad to see the gang is all here and that there would seem to be little talk of space beams or video fakery. Gosh, you'd think that was like all BS or something...

____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Submitted by Real Truther on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 6:06pm.
Minor Inconvenience

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]
By the way, your "electronic hijacking" is impossible. Naturally, you have no need to read the paper by Apathoid, an avionics tech, available on 911myths.com ("Investigations, more"). He's just a liar and a shill, right? Of course, it would be easy for you to show us the errors he makes. A conspiracy liar who calls himself Remove_Bush tried that at JREF ("How Loony are the Loons?). He didn't do too well.
Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 4:12pm.


» reply | 1 point
WAIT- Apathoid says it? It MUST be true!

As everyone knows, the Avionics Expert Known as Apathoid (a.k.a. AEKA) is THE authority on remote control technologies developed by Raytheon. And since he is quoted here not just by *A* Ronald Wieck but THE Ronald Wieck (we all know that people who make up names (pseudonymous posters) are more trustworthy than people who post under handles or anonymously) I think we can all hang our truthing hat's and put forks in ourselves, i.e. we're done!
Thanks Ron, copying all those DVDs was starting to eat into my crack money!
Give my regards to Dr. Apathoid and the other good folks at Popular Methaddicts!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Submitted by Real Truther on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 5:52pm.

Real Liar

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]
You're a fraud, Real Liar. Your empty tap dancing can't disguise the fact, except to these benighted fools, that you are blowing smoke. You can't dispute a single fact in Apathoid's paper. You are intellectually bankrupt.
Try peddling your fabrications to the engineers, avionics techs, architects, and physicists at JREF. You'd do real well, you pathetic phony.
Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 6:15pm.


» reply | 3 points
Apathoid wrote a paper?

Was it peer-reviewed?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Submitted by Real Truther on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 6:31pm


Real Liar Trapped

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]
Keep the reasoned argument and hard evidence coming, fraud. Apathoid explained why 757s and 767s cannot be flown by remote control. That FACT is devastating to your idiotic fantasies. You reject Apathoid's conclusions because...? (Cue Music. Sounds of Tap Dancing)
We will wait for a long time for you to point out errors in Apathoid's paper, Real Liar.
Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 6:40pm.



Apathoid's paper WASN'T peer reviewed?

Gosh Ronald, do you have any credible sources, or just "papers" by internet wack jobs to back up your claims? And why does this avionics expert not use his real name? Does he write all his avionics papers under the Apathoid brand? You're just not making a very strong case for your bizarre claims is all. Just sayin'...
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Submitted by Real Truther on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 10:40pm.


» reply | -6 points
What Have You Got, Fraud?

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]
The case is laid out in Jay's (Apathoid's) paper. Show us some errors in it. He says VERY specific things. What does he get wrong?
The case he makes is EXTREMELY STRONG. I don't hear any refutations from the conspiracy liars.
Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Sun, 01/07/2007 - 12:24am.



Look Ronald, I realize that this is your job, and so it doesn't really make sense to try to reason with you. But here goes. The technology for seizing control of an airplane's navigation system via remote existed before 9/11, as was revealed after the events when the news were abuzz with stories about how the technology was "being developed" and that it it would help prevent future hijackings. Now quit trying to peddle some amateur's scribbly little report as if it were anything but.
You are someone who expects people to believe not only that Lee Harvey Oswald just one day decided he would kill the President and in fact did the impossible given the circumstances (distance, moving target, type of rifle) but also that building 7 just happened to fall, and though for five years no one has been able to explain it except as controlled demolition with explosives we should trust you that "everyone agrees this was normal". You ignore facts such as that there were explosions in building 7 before either tower collapsed (as reported to the media by one Barry Jennings, ON CAMERA mind you. According to you that didn't happen. You also can't account for Appendix C of the FEMA report--that is a government document, not something posted online by someone named "Apathoid".
Speaking of Apathoid, here's a little trick you should know about. Whenever shills like you start making an effort to discredit something like remote control technology, you just make it clear that we're on the right track. I will now begin researching this issue more and talking more about it. I wasn't sure before but the fact that one of you has gone so far as to concoct an actual paper disputing the facts, I know we're onto something.
Now, my sources say it was something being developed by Raytheon, but I've also heard that Dov Zakheim was involved with a company that was developing it. So which one is it Ron? Or should we just wait for you to give it away despite yourself?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

Submitted by Real Truther on Sun, 01/07/2007 - 9:00pm.


Fraud Called Out

Sorry, Real Liar, you've been exposed as a complete fraud. Your "sources" are ignorant fools like yourself. The Boeing Corporation has stated that their 757s and 767s CANNOT be flown by remote control. Apathoid, who you stupidly and dishonestly call an "amateur," tore the cover off your feeble deceptions in his paper. If you care to dispute the matter with him, feel free to visit JREF.
In fact, I'll make it easier for you to parade your ignorance. I will post a direct challenge on JREF. Let's see how you do. We won't be too impressed by your bravery if you try to pretend, as did the moron Jenny, that you're being "prevented" from posting.
I love your "proof" that Oswald didn't kill JFK. How many times over the decades has the Mannlicher-Carcano been shown to be a highly suitable weapon for the job? How many teams of shooters have concluded that the shot was an easy one?
You lying jackass.
Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Tue, 01/09/2007 - 6:17pm.
pomeroo 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 9th January 2007, 04:47 PM   #2
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Sure wish I could read the thread. My IP was banned by 911 blogger cuz I kept pointing out their idiocy.
CHF 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 9th January 2007, 04:50 PM   #3
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Change in Policy?

CHF, you might want to try again. I was banned, but they've been letting me post.
pomeroo 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 9th January 2007, 05:59 PM   #4
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
This guy, like Jenny, will use the same excuse, and then claim victory (how they come to this conclusion I do not know).

I hope I am wrong. Would be nice to see another dumbass in experts clothing get an asswhoopin'

TAM
T.A.M. 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 9th January 2007, 06:26 PM   #5
JAStewart
Graduate Poster
Tagger
 
JAStewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,521
Originally Posted by CHF View Post
Sure wish I could read the thread. My IP was banned by 911 blogger cuz I kept pointing out their idiocy.

www.secure-tunnel.com

proxify.
__________________
Ignorance and google is a horrible combination. - BigAl

Argumentum ad YouTubeum - sts60
JAStewart 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 9th January 2007, 06:45 PM   #6
rebel
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 41
Ronald Weick it is time you grew up. JAStewart you are showing what an experienced troll you are with that proxy suggestion.
rebel 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 9th January 2007, 06:55 PM   #7
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by rebel View Post
Ronald Weick it is time you grew up. JAStewart you are showing what an experienced troll you are with that proxy suggestion.
Are you the gentleman from the first post?
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 9th January 2007, 06:57 PM   #8
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by rebel View Post
Ronald Weick it is time you grew up. JAStewart you are showing what an experienced troll you are with that proxy suggestion.
Welcome to the forum. Why don't you introduce yourself. Tell us a bit about your background, education, work experience. Maybe you could also share with us your thoughts on what you think happened on 9/11.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames 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 9th January 2007, 07:04 PM   #9
Calcas
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,466
Originally Posted by rebel View Post
Ronald Weick it is time you grew up. JAStewart you are showing what an experienced troll you are with that proxy suggestion.
Ha ha.

proxy.org is actually better. You can use any one of a hundred random proxys.

Good luck blocking them all.

IP banning is a thing of the past...
Calcas 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 9th January 2007, 07:22 PM   #10
ktesibios
Worthless Aging Hippie
 
ktesibios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,493
rebel, if you want to offer specific criticism of Apathoid's paper, and can provide evidence in support of what you contend, please, by all means, write it up and post it.

There are a number of engineers and technicians here who would probably find a technical discussion of this highly enjoyable, as I did reading Apathoid's work.
__________________
Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a small, bristly mustache.

Last edited by ktesibios; 9th January 2007 at 07:22 PM. Reason: fixed bold tags
ktesibios 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 9th January 2007, 07:26 PM   #11
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by rebel View Post
Ronald Weick it is time you grew up. JAStewart you are showing what an experienced troll you are with that proxy suggestion.
Finally! Is this the first wave of the 911blogger invasion? The guys who are gonna set us straight and school us all on the vast gov't/NWO/Zionist/CIA/Mossad/Free Mason/military/neocon conspiracy? Dazzle us, oh enlightened ones!
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 9th January 2007, 07:36 PM   #12
rebel
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by ktesibios View Post
rebel, if you want to offer specific criticism of Apathoid's paper, and can provide evidence in support of what you contend, please, by all means, write it up and post it.

There are a number of engineers and technicians here who would probably find a technical discussion of this highly enjoyable, as I did reading Apathoid's work.

Do you have a link to this paper?

As discussed in the OP, could you give me Apathoid's real name and and tell me which journals the paper has been peer reviewed in.
rebel 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 9th January 2007, 07:45 PM   #13
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
I'm not sure whether Real Truther's complaints of my paper not being peer-reviewed were facetious or not. Obviously, my paper is far from scientific and I have no intention to get it published(in Avionics magazine maybe?). My paper and the Protec paper(Blanchard) were written from experience in our respective fields and were never intended to be included in some scientific journal. And strictly speaking, my paper was actually peer-reviewed by several other mechanics, and two experienced airline pilots, whom I asked to read it and give their comments.
apathoid 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 9th January 2007, 07:47 PM   #14
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by rebel View Post
Do you have a link to this paper?

As discussed in the OP, could you give me Apathoid's real name and and tell me which journals the paper has been peer reviewed in.
My name is Jay, the paper hasn't been published in any journals. Now, what are your objections?
apathoid 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 9th January 2007, 07:48 PM   #15
rebel
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
I'm not sure whether Real Truther's complaints of my paper not being peer-reviewed were facetious or not. Obviously, my paper is far from scientific and I have no intention to get it published(in Avionics magazine maybe?). My paper and the Protec paper(Blanchard) were written from experience in our respective fields and were never intended to be included in some scientific journal. And strictly speaking, my paper was actually peer-reviewed by several other mechanics, and two experienced airline pilots, whom I asked to read it and give their comments.

You are an anonymous internet poster who has written a paper that was peer reviewed by a couple of your poker buddies giving it the nod. Am I meant to take this seriously?
rebel 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 9th January 2007, 07:54 PM   #16
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by rebel View Post
You are an anonymous internet poster who has written a paper that was peer reviewed by a couple of your poker buddies giving it the nod. Am I meant to take this seriously?
If there are errors, please point them out. If I'm just "some internet wack job", it should be easy to do. I'll give you a head start - join pprune.org and start a thread about my paper, if there are errors, these folks will spot them.
apathoid 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 9th January 2007, 07:55 PM   #17
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by rebel View Post
You are an anonymous internet poster who has written a paper that was peer reviewed by a couple of your poker buddies giving it the nod. Am I meant to take this seriously?
Why don't you read it, analyze and comment about it yourself or take it to your "sources" for their comments. If it's not worthy, the analysis will show that.

Well?
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames 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 9th January 2007, 07:56 PM   #18
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
Originally Posted by rebel View Post
You are an anonymous internet poster who has written a paper that was peer reviewed by a couple of your poker buddies giving it the nod. Am I meant to take this seriously?
So, there are problems with it where? Point out the inaccuracies. Come on, you are so sure that you can't take it seriously, show what the flaws in it are.

ETA:Late
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm 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 9th January 2007, 07:59 PM   #19
Paul
Illuminator
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,070
Originally Posted by rebel View Post
You are an anonymous internet poster who has written a paper that was peer reviewed by a couple of your poker buddies giving it the nod. Am I meant to take this seriously?
Whereas you are an anonymous internet poster who hasn't written a paper and probably can't play poker without getting into an argument about the secret illuminati messages in the cards. Are we meant to take you seriously?
Paul 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 9th January 2007, 08:00 PM   #20
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
ahha, is that all they can do? send one guy to say "you guys suck!" and then say "YOU are all wrong" and do nothing to back up those claims?
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 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 9th January 2007, 08:09 PM   #21
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Pages 23 and 24 of my non published, poker buddy peer-reviewed paper. Knock yourself out Rebel.

Originally Posted by some internet wack job
Raytheon and JPALS

Looking into the "remote drone" theory in regard to 9/11, I happened upon an interesting claim. The claim is that
a new remote control system is currently be tested by the Air Force and Raytheon and has made pilotless flight
possible. Is this claim accurate? From Killtown's Smoking Guns:

"Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force successfully auto lands a pilot-less FedEx Boeing 727 six times at Holloman
AFB, NM using a military GPS landing system that will enable ground control to take control of a hijacked
airplane and force land it."

http://killtown.911review.org/odditi...,2001-Raytheon

This is completely incorrect. I took the liberty of reading the press release from Raytheon and nowhere does it
mention a pilotless 727 or "remote control".
Here is where the confusion arises:

...The FedEx Express 727-200 aircraft at Holloman successfully conducted a total of sixteen Category I
approaches. After completing a number of pilot flown approaches for reference the aircraft conducted six full
autolands using the JPALS ground station....

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/mi.../www/story/10-
01-2001/0001582324&EDATE=Oct+1,+2001

The aircraft was not pilotless, it merely flew an automated approach and landing. Most people are quite ignorant
of aviation and this is a example of how nonsensical claims arise and later mutate. This is not a super-secret
system being used to turn commercial aircraft into drones, it's merely a replacement for the aging ILS system
already in place. It’s called JPALS and it uses GPS for approach guidance instead of ILS, which uses radio
signals. The FAA has already been developing similar systems to JPALS; WAAS(Wide Area Augmentation
System) and now LAAS (Local Area Augmentation System) will be the way forward. WAAS will be a
replacement for the VOR/NDBs systems which are used in enroute navigation. LAAS will used for approach
guidance and will replace ILS.

In addition to a slightly misleading Raytheon press release, apparently Der Spiegel has perpetuated the claim by
insinuating that this system can be used to free an aircraft from a hijackers control.

(TRANSLATED): "A forced landing system developed in the USA will make plane hijackings more difficult: in
case of emergency the crew operates a switch - and the machine steers automatically to the next airport.
The times for an airplane kidnapper are becoming harder: in America engineers are working to land kidnapped
machines in the future by an improved autopilot without assistance of the cockpit on the nearest airport - an
emergency switch, that a ground control operates crew; the levers in the airplane are then blocked and the
kidnappers can no longer control the plane from the hand controls.

According to a recent news release, technicians of US aviation and arms company Raytheon already in August
landed a passenger aircraft six times successfully on the military airport at Holloman, New Mexico. The plane
was equipped with a special forced landing system without any pilots.
The Boeing 727 oriented itself not, as usual, with the radar signals at the end of the runway, but by a combination
of GPS satellite and ground signals, which help, to exactly compute the altitude _ and thus the necessary angle of
approach _ with deviation no greater than one meter." - Der Spiegel (10/28/01) [Reprinted and translated at:
Cooperative Research]

(I got this excerpt from Killtown's Smoking Guns link above - Cooperative Research provided the translation as the original article was published in German. I cannot find any direct links to the Der Spiegel article, nor can I find the translation on Cooperative Research's site - but I felt that the claim needed addressing)

This is totally inaccurate. Again, the aircraft are in no way being flown remotely from ground stations. They are,
however, using ground station Differential GPS signals for guidance in the same manner that ILS uses VHF radio
signals for guidance. This is, of course, a very different concept and Der Spiegel mischaracterized it, it has
nothing to do with hijackings or "remote control". The pilots have complete control over the airplane and can
disengage the autopilot at any time.

Also, reading various conspiracy threads throughout the internet on this very subject, all I can do is shake my
head. Now I know how structural engineers and demolitionists must feel about "controlled demolition" claims. I get the sense that people(outside of the aviation industry) believe that autoland = no pilots = remote control.
Completely incorrect. Furthermore, it seems that they think autolands are still a super secret USAF/NASA test
project. Commercial airliners have been doing autolands since the '70s and the 757/767 were delivered fully
autoland capable in the early '80s. An autoland is a landing performed by an aircrafts autopilot computers(FCCs
in the case of the 757/767) referencing the ILS radio signals. Autolands are performed routinely, and if you are a
frequent flier, you've likely experienced one. Autolands are not the result of ground control. I cannot stress that
enough. A remote controlled landing is a remote controlled landing. Two different animals altogether.

Last edited by apathoid; 9th January 2007 at 08:12 PM. Reason: Had to do a little formatting
apathoid 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 9th January 2007, 08:09 PM   #22
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
ahha, is that all they can do? send one guy to say "you guys suck!" and then say "YOU are all wrong" and do nothing to back up those claims?
That's pretty much all they ever do, isn't it?

It's like those old karate movies, where the bad guys always attack the hero one at a time.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 9th January 2007, 08:17 PM   #23
ktesibios
Worthless Aging Hippie
 
ktesibios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,493
Originally Posted by rebel View Post
Do you have a link to this paper?

As discussed in the OP, could you give me Apathoid's real name and and tell me which journals the paper has been peer reviewed in.
Thank you for disclosing that you haven't read it. You can download it by clicking on this link.

As for disclosing Apathoid's name, I wouldn't if I could.

If you browse around here a bit, you will discover that the tendency here is to consider, and criticize, arguments on their own merits. Posers don't last long in that situation- just read this thread and see how RemoveBush's claim to be an engineer fared.

Apathoid's paper is illustrated with material straight from Boeing's technical documentation, which supports the assertions made in the text. Since it wasn't intended to be a scientific research paper, your demand for peer review is irrelevant; a failed attempt at a tu quoque argument and a red herring.

Now, if you can either prove that Apathoid's explanation of how the systems he works on for a living operate is false, or that the conclusions he draws from that information are incorrect, hop to it.

I'll await your technical critique with bated breath.
__________________
Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a small, bristly mustache.
ktesibios 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 9th January 2007, 08:28 PM   #24
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
You see what's cool is that in CT fantasy land, apathoids paper is just "wrong". Rebel does not need to give any explanations other than it is wrong and full of lies. I wonder what it is like in CT fantasy land...they sure do have it pretty easy, not having to provide evidence and all.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 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 9th January 2007, 08:39 PM   #25
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36,471
So, is "rebel" the extent of the 911blogger forum's "full on information assault"?

Funny, I didn't see any "information" posted by him whatsoever. I wonder when rebel's reinforcements will show up.


Last edited by LashL; 9th January 2007 at 08:42 PM.
LashL 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 9th January 2007, 08:44 PM   #26
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
So, is "rebel" the extent of the 911blogger forum's "full on information assault"?

What the hell is a full on information assault?
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 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 9th January 2007, 08:47 PM   #27
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
I predict that Rebel will not directly answer any question put to him, will bring forth no actual facts to support a CT, and certainly will not be able to flesh out a plausible CT as to what exactly happened on 9/11.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 9th January 2007, 08:55 PM   #28
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36,471
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
What the hell is a full on information assault?
Apparently, some new twoofer term that means they think they are going to come here and show us the real twoof and provide us with their staggering, earth shattering evidence that proves the inside job.

Or it just means that there will be a few more new twoofers coming over to have their butts handed to them.

It should be added to the Twooferism thread once we define it
LashL 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 9th January 2007, 08:58 PM   #29
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36,471
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
I predict that Rebel will not directly answer any question put to him, will bring forth no actual facts to support a CT, and certainly will not be able to flesh out a plausible CT as to what exactly happened on 9/11.
I suspect that your prediction will prove to be entirely correct, Wildcat. Unfortunately, it is also so bleeding obvious that it will not qualify for the $1,000,000 Challenge
LashL 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 9th January 2007, 09:00 PM   #30
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
I predict that Rebel will not directly answer any question put to him, will bring forth no actual facts to support a CT, and certainly will not be able to flesh out a plausible CT as to what exactly happened on 9/11.
Then of course he will claim victory for himself and tell everyone the JREFers are a bunch of shills. Nothing new here.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 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 9th January 2007, 09:03 PM   #31
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
Apparently, some new twoofer term that means they think they are going to come here and show us the real twoof and provide us with their staggering, earth shattering evidence that proves the inside job.

Or it just means that there will be a few more new twoofers coming over to have their butts handed to them.

It should be added to the Twooferism thread once we define it
Ah I see. I think I remember reading them saying something like that. Well it sounds kind of fun to me. A "full on information assault". That sounds like I should be getting very enlightened in a few days.

Then again, my guess would be like you said that a few more woowoos will be coming over here spouting the exact same theories that they have been for the past 6 years. No new evidence, no new anything. Just tired old garbage. *Yawn*
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 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 9th January 2007, 09:16 PM   #32
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by ktesibios View Post

If you browse around here a bit, you will discover that the tendency here is to consider, and criticize, arguments on their own merits. Posers don't last long in that situation- just read this thread and see how RemoveBush's claim to be an engineer fared.

Apathoid's paper is illustrated with material straight from Boeing's technical documentation, which supports the assertions made in the text. Since it wasn't intended to be a scientific research paper, your demand for peer review is irrelevant; a failed attempt at a tu quoque argument and a red herring.
I find the Twoofers demands for peer review to be highly hypocritical, given that their best and only peer reviewed paper was published in a economics periodical and the author was suspended for failing to have the paper properly peer-reviewed. Or maybe this is just another case of a Twoofer projecting.....
apathoid 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 9th January 2007, 09:18 PM   #33
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
What the hell is a full on information assault?
My take on this is a twoofer points a gun at you, pulls the trigger, and out pops a little flag that has a youtube url on it.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 9th January 2007, 09:40 PM   #34
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
My take on this is a twoofer points a gun at you, pulls the trigger, and out pops a little flag that has a youtube url on it.
Haha. Well put!
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 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 9th January 2007, 10:05 PM   #35
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by Ron
The Boeing Corporation has stated that their 757s and 767s CANNOT be flown by remote control.
Don't take my word for it, Rebel...

And Ron, who did you speak to at Boeing and do you have a link(or if it was email, perhaps you could paste the reply)?
apathoid 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 9th January 2007, 10:52 PM   #36
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Unusual Standard

Originally Posted by rebel View Post
Ronald Weick it is time you grew up. JAStewart you are showing what an experienced troll you are with that proxy suggestion.

Allowing frauds to get away with their lies is a sign of maturity? I don't think so.
pomeroo 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 9th January 2007, 10:56 PM   #37
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Links

Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
Don't take my word for it, Rebel...

And Ron, who did you speak to at Boeing and do you have a link(or if it was email, perhaps you could paste the reply)?

Apathoid, I talked to a Boeing rep named Liz Verdier. Incidentally, I have mentioned several times on 911blogger.com that your paper is available on 911myths.com, in the section "Investigations, more."
pomeroo 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 9th January 2007, 11:13 PM   #38
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36,471
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Ah I see. I think I remember reading them saying something like that. Well it sounds kind of fun to me. A "full on information assault". That sounds like I should be getting very enlightened in a few days.

Then again, my guess would be like you said that a few more woowoos will be coming over here spouting the exact same theories that they have been for the past 6 years. No new evidence, no new anything. Just tired old garbage. *Yawn*
They planned their "full on information assault" for Monday, January 8. Sadly, it has not yet materialized. So, we may all be waiting quite a while for the big, bad twoofer enlightenment (which will, of course, amount to nothing at all but the same old, tired, long debunked nonsense, as usual, if they ever manage to pull their act together at all - which is, in turn, highly unlikely)

Last edited by LashL; 9th January 2007 at 11:15 PM.
LashL 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 9th January 2007, 11:25 PM   #39
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
I find the Twoofers demands for peer review to be highly hypocritical, given that their best and only peer reviewed paper was published in a economics periodical and the author was suspended for failing to have the paper properly peer-reviewed. Or maybe this is just another case of a Twoofer projecting.....
Bingo.

I was going to say to newcomer and apparent malcontent rebel that, if he's willing to throw out everything that isn't peer-reviewed, we'll play that game. Because his side will be left with absolutely zilch, while we'll still have NIST, Bazant&Zhou, and the Pentagon BPR among a plethora of others. There won't even be a contest.

On the other hand, if rebel wants to find errors in your paper, he is welcome to do so, if he can. We'll be more than happy to discuss and improve the paper. Similarly, he can bring whatever counterarguments he likes, provided we get to analyze them in kind.

I'll do my part. On the off-chance there's a single shred of doubt brought to light, I'll be more than happy to discuss it with NASA Dryden -- you know, that place where automatic flight gets tested in the first place -- and the NASA test pilots. I happen to know about 3/4 of the folks there and can easily find the rest through them. Find something dramatic enough, and I'll even author a paper, and have it reviewed in the AIAA.

How about your side, rebel? Is that the game you'd like to play? Just name the field, we're more than ready for you.
R.Mackey 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 10th January 2007, 12:30 AM   #40
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Bingo.

I was going to say to newcomer and apparent malcontent rebel that, if he's willing to throw out everything that isn't peer-reviewed, we'll play that game. Because his side will be left with absolutely zilch, while we'll still have NIST, Bazant&Zhou, and the Pentagon BPR among a plethora of others. There won't even be a contest.

On the other hand, if rebel wants to find errors in your paper, he is welcome to do so, if he can. We'll be more than happy to discuss and improve the paper. Similarly, he can bring whatever counterarguments he likes, provided we get to analyze them in kind.

I'll do my part. On the off-chance there's a single shred of doubt brought to light, I'll be more than happy to discuss it with NASA Dryden -- you know, that place where automatic flight gets tested in the first place -- and the NASA test pilots. I happen to know about 3/4 of the folks there and can easily find the rest through them. Find something dramatic enough, and I'll even author a paper, and have it reviewed in the AIAA.

How about your side, rebel? Is that the game you'd like to play? Just name the field, we're more than ready for you.
I hope he does step up to the plate, I haven't had too much interest in my paper. So far, the only critiques have been from this website and skeptosis from the Conspiracy Smasher blog, and those two left satisfied customers. I've also had a number of people drop me a line to say that the essay was helpful and educational. As yet, the paper hasn't needed to be corrected because noone has offered anything that refutes any of the points made. However, I did miss a few things that would've helped drive the point home(as if it wasnt already driven home) in scenario 1. Its also worth noting that only assumptions I made(and there were a few of them) were to the benefit of the "remote control" theory.

In the near future, I am going to eventually do another paper on JPALs and it'll be a bit more in depth because my airline will be installing the civilian version of the system on our 757/767 fleet soon.

BTW Rebel, you might want to scroll through that last link about 30-40 responses from the bottom as skeptosis and I debate the likelihood of a JPALs modification to the 9/11 aircraft. Read through it because your "sources" are probably the same as skeps...
apathoid 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

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 05:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.