Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,420 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
-
And Pilots for 9/11 Truth had studied the black box data provided to them by the NTSB and discovered that a plane corresponding to the data would have approached on an easterly trajectory, been 300 feet in the air approaching the building (too high to have taken out any lampposts) and was still 100 feet higher than the Pentagon at one second from impact, which suggests that it flew over the building and did not hit it. Indeed, the absence of massive debris from the plane, including the absence of the wings, the tail, bodies, seats and luggage—not to mention that the massive engines, which are virtually indestructible, were never recovered—indicates that, once again, it is Parry who is propagating myths about 9/11, not 9/11 experts.
Ignoring that Balsamo and his cohorts faked some data in order to get the result he wanted, that people ignore that seats and bodies were found, ignoring all reality.... well, I suppose it could have happened that way.
http://forums.randi....ad.php?t=197206
http://www.911myths....al_effects.html
http://www.911myths....7_wreckage.html
-
I know they found some TBMs but I believe that they were confirmed as being from another loss; the BuNo numbers (which were still visible) did not match Flight 19.
-
Thank you for allowing us to read it, Dean; I'll get to it when I have time and comment on the material within the book. Unfortunately I'm in hospital for a few days.
-
Oh lordy lordy - Jack is going to raise Von Daniken and stuff like Flight 19 next.
-
One more thing, Len. You said in post #8 that another version of the same book "is available online." That is not true. I have removed all previous versions, which were rough drafts, from the Internet quite some time ago.
I don't believe that is what Len said; he said:
You yourself said, "I debated some of [the books] ideas here at the Forum and used the feedback", it has the same absurd premise as the previously linked essay. Since you failed to a) deal on the other thread with the flaws that invalidate your "thesis" or
make the text of your book available it was a reasonable to assume there was little (if any) substantive difference between the essay and the book. If you want to discuss the book here you should make it available, I doubt many people will spend money on a book with an absurd premise when an essay by the same author with the same premise is available online. Perhaps that's why you could not get any one to publish it.
PS - I just noticed you posted the book's footnotes on your blog. There are only 64 and almost none are from reliable sources. Few are primary sources and many are sources that even with in the truth movement are considered crackpots (Webfairy, Holmgren, CIT,WoodyBox etc). Several make long debunked claims SSDI,too few passengers, no Arab names on manifests. As to the former the SSDI only lists people who were collecting Social Security, Joey Ramone died in 2001 and he's not on it, perhaps he's hanging out with Elvis and Jim Morrison!! As to the latter what cited are names victims.
I don't see anywhere where he said "that another version of the same book " is available online. In fact he said that if you wanted to discuss the book you should make it available. The closest he came was to say that there didn't appear to be any substantive difference between the essay and the book.
Based on your reluctance to discuss the book, I have to come to a similar conclusion.
-
Thank you Craig.
-
Nice "debate" Evan and Len. Too bad it is not about the contents of my book, which is the point of this thread. Your comments really belong on another page.
I'm sorry Dean, but is it not one of the book's contentions that some of the aircraft claimed to have flown that day never actually took to the air, and this is partially based on missing BTS records, that people say that there is no wreckage associated with those aircraft?
If I am wrong, I am more than happy to be corrected and debate the issues the book does raise.
-
Dean,
No offence but I will not be buying your book; I believe you are wrong. IMO, what you are doing is anomaly hunting - looking for anything that isn't perfect or doesn't conform with what you think should be.
I'm not aware of all the claims you are making in the book but I get the general impression you are saying there were not any planes that day. Based on your Amazon author comments, I think you are making at least two points: the BTS database didn't show two of the aircraft, and you don't believe there was any aircraft wreckage.
Let's deal with the first. Mistakes happen - the database may not have been updated because the responsible person knew those aircraft had been destroyed that day. That's just one explanation. I know this from first hand knowledge. There are a couple of databases I deal with that don't list 805 SQN or the SH-2G(A) aircraft. That's because the aircraft was removed from service and the relevant sections were no longer required and moved to an archive. If someone claimed that 805 SQN never existed and the SH-2G(A) never was in Australian service based on these databases, would they be correct? No - they would not. There are a couple of maintenance databases that have open or unusual entries for Sea King 902. Does that mean that the aircraft never flew, never existed? No - it was destroyed in a tragic accident that claimed 11 lives on 2 Apr 2005. The databases have not been closed off, that is all. So is there any evidence to refute the missing BTS entries? What about the airlines own records - do they show the aircraft having been scheduled? What about ATC records? Do they show aircraft taking off from the departure point?
Next is the wreckage. There are numerous examples of the wreckage from all the crash sites: engines, fuselage, landing gear. Not available on the internet are pictures of some bodies still in their seats. Now, I have heard the nonsense claims that we can't be sure because no-one has matched any serial numbers. Why should you do that? The aircraft are missing and people saw the aircraft (with one exception) crash. Serial numbers are not required unless a particular part is suspected of failure and therefore maintenance records are needed; you know what aircraft went down and there is no requirement to check every part... though they may have done one or two checks to confirm. If they did, I can guess it will not satisfy many hard core 'truthers'. If evidence is presented that serial numbers were checked and matched, I believe that the true believers would just say it is faked and move onto another area.
Sorry, but those aircraft did crash as stated that day.
Congratulations on getting your book published.
-
LOL! I disagree, so you are uninformed!
-
-
Of course though, I would hope that it was true. If cold fusion were a reality, much of our energy concerns would be addressed.
-
Whilst we are waiting for Jack to prepare his replies (
), here are some vids explaining why various hoax theories are wrong: -
At this time I am calling scam. If it were real, they would be pushing the details out to scientists worldwide, and those scientists would be scrambling to reproduce the experiment. If they can't reproduce the experiment, then there is something seriously wrong: errors in calculations, deliberate deceptions, who knows.... but without reproducibility, you got nothing.
After all, remember Fleischmann and Pons?
-
Okay,
Another answer to one of my questions is the Army rejected JLL because he failed a drug test.
Bill,
Has that been confirmed or is it a guess by someone?
-
Craig does raise a good point about being made illegal and availability. In my understanding, guns are pervasive in US society. If laws were change, there would still be a large pool of black market weapons available for purchase. Additionally a number of people might refuse to relinquish their weapons, and that refusal might be the only thing that makes them a 'criminal'.
The circumstances are different here in Australia; a black market weapon would be far harder to obtain. It would not be impossible but it would take knowledge of underworld contacts.
Despite the difficulties and questionable efficacy associated with the initial tightening of gun laws in the US, I believe it can be argued that society would begin to change, that new generations would grow up without the belief that it is their right to own an automatic weapon, etc. Generational change to a society with far less weapons.
-
Craig,
As a gun owner / pro-gun person, can you explain why you, as an individual, want the current gun laws to remain and why you own a gun? Is it protection? Is it simply what you believe to be a right, which you are exercising, and don't need a reason for?
People can quote statistics all day long, but I'm interested in discussing why people hold their views. As I mentioned earlier, despite my anti-gun stance, I don't think anyone can say "I am right on this matter - you are wrong"; all we can say is we disagree.
-
Bill, they haven't said for what reason. For the moment, people are simply speculating.
-
Correction: non sports shooter or hunter. I started learning weapons safety from about 15, when I was in the Air Training Corps. In the Navy I qualified as a marksman with the SLR (perhaps known to others as the FN 7.62mm or the L1A1). I also qualified on the F1 SMG and the Browning 9mm pistol. I've also fired the Steyr 5.56mm a few times, but never formally qualified.
-
Much as I'd like to, I can't say I am right and Craig is wrong about this issue.
I live in a society where guns are heavily restricted, and we don't have any problems with it, so that is how I base my opinion... as a non-gun owner / non-shooter. Others may have a different opinion.
It's just my opinion that some the US really does need to rethink its gun laws. Too many Americans seem to be being killed with them every day.
-
Bill,
That's fair enough but you have to admit that there are people out there who are, plain and simple, crazy. Some might extend to simple wacky beliefs and pose no threat to anyone.... but there are some people who - without having been subject to brainwashing or mind control or any other sort of control - lose it and do very bad things. Those very bad things can extend to taking it upon themselves to kill people for whatever reason: because the voices told them to, God told them, they had to rid the world of a threat, whatever.
There are some people who can carry out a "political" assassination with no other catalyst but their own mental state. They might hurt / kill one person or perhaps many people.
Craig has rightly pointed out that various items can be used to kill people. What we need to consider is the risk / benefit from those items, and then let that guide their availability and / or employment.
A car, in a single planned event, wouldn't normally be able to kill that many people. To completely restrict the use of the car would have severe ramifications.
Explosives can kill many people in a single event, and restricting its availability has very little effect.
We have examples of where restricting gun availability has little negative impact, and a measurable benefit to society.
Even if you don't want to completely ban gun ownership, why not at least restrict it? Farmers should be allowed to own rifles, but why does anyone need automatic weapons? Sport shooters can own specialised rifles, but they don't need them at home; why not have them kept, securely, at the range where they use the weapon?
Isn't there a compromise between public safety and reasonable use?
-
Nonsense. The truth cannot be libelous. You are uninformed.
Jack
But, as always, you don't provide any proof that he is lying, that what you are saying is truth. This is typical behaviour from you: you call people names but don't offer any proof as to why that name is apt or justified.
IF you can PROVE what Mr Pettersson is wrong AND PROVE that he is knowingly stating untruths, then it would be justified.... but you have failed to do that.
(I also notice another of your standard tactics: if someone disagrees with you, they are "uninformed", etc)
-
Don,
If interested, would you like to start a thread on gun control? Considering what has happened, I think it might be a good subject for all members to air their views.
-
Jack, you ignore the fact that a photographic expert from Hasselblad has told you that you are wrong.
All you are doing is trying to smear them, trying to cast aspersions upon the person whilst you have not explained how he is wrong.
If you cannot provide scientific evidence as to why you are right and Mr Pettersson is wrong, then why should we believe you?
Mr Pettersson is the Product Manager and optics expert at Hasselblad. He is know world-wide for his expertise in photography, in particular Hasselblad cameras, and is the primary inventor in at least three photographic patents. His expertise and qualifications are known.
Please prove how he is wrong.
make the text of your book available it was a reasonable to assume there was little (if any) substantive difference between the essay and the book.
Planes without Passengers
in History and Political Books: Debates with Authors
Posted
Len,
The font size or publishing method has nothing to do with the premises or claims Dean makes. Other authors might be able to reduce publishing costs by volume, but again that has nothing to do with the claims.
The only times publishing method is relevant is when things are claimed to be in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, when in fact they are simply 'pay-to-publish' magazines.