| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | As you have said previously, all of the physical evidence appears to support it, however unlikely the damage to the Pentagon is following collision with a large jet. |
I suppose this is progress from "you must be in denial" at least.
| Quote: | | How happy are you to have a world view that depends on a confused cab driver saying he climbed out of a cab that had been struck by a 200 pound lightpole struck by a fast-moving jet and escaped without a scratch? |
I've already said that the OT is not dependant on this one witness. Neither is my worldview, which is hardly relevant here. There are hundreds (including many of the CIT ones) who saw the plane impact, which can only support the South flightpath. You make out as if Lloyd England is the only bit of evidence supporting the OT... again. This is not true and I would like you to admit that.
| Quote: | | And that on a supposedly busy highway, not a single other eye-witness claims to have seen it happen. |
Again this is utterly twisted logic. How many 'witnesses' were asked about lightpoles? Can you imagine the journalists on the scene asking...
"Excuse me, ignoring the plane that hit the pentagon for a moment, can you describe for me the crucial moment where it hit the lightpoles?"
This explains the lack of accounts of the lightpoles lifted from the hundreds of news reports. Wouldn't you agree?
As for the probable hundreds of witnesses stuck in a traffic jam on that road on the morning of the attack, CIT have interviewed two to my knowledge. One of whom CIT brand a liar. The other they brand a liar involved in a death cult with connections in Washington. There are many more witnesses they brand liars because they don't fit CIT's theory (see my third link). I don't think that is reasonable behaviour - you cannot just accuse anyone whose evidence doesn't fit your pet theory of being a liar. At least you cannot do that and retain any credibility imo.
All witnesses seem to agree that the plane hit the building. The witness count on that simple statement of fact seems to be 100s vs 0!!! Do you accept that the plane hit the building?
If not, then what is going on in your mind? You rely on 13 supposed witnesses with vague recollections of a different flightpath, yet cannot accept hundreds of witnesses plus a wealth of physical evidence that establishes the fact that the plane hit the building? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | Quote: | | As you have said previously, all of the physical evidence appears to support it, however unlikely the damage to the Pentagon is following collision with a large jet. |
I suppose this is progress from "you must be in denial" at least. |
I have no idea how your mind works - I mean there is damage to the Pentagon. Not the type of damage I would expect from a large jet but that isn't a discussion I want to have right now.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | How happy are you to have a world view that depends on a confused cab driver saying he climbed out of a cab that had been struck by a 200 pound lightpole struck by a fast-moving jet and escaped without a scratch? |
I've already said that the OT is not dependant on this one witness. Neither is my worldview, which is hardly relevant here. There are hundreds (including many of the CIT ones) who saw the plane impact, which can only support the South flightpath. You make out as if Lloyd England is the only bit of evidence supporting the OT... again. This is not true and I would like you to admit that. |
So you are saying if the cab driver was lying you would still believe 9/11 wasn't an inside job? Simple question, yes or no?
| Quote: | | Quote: | | And that on a supposedly busy highway, not a single other eye-witness claims to have seen it happen. |
Again this is utterly twisted logic. How many 'witnesses' were asked about lightpoles? Can you imagine the journalists on the scene asking...
"Excuse me, ignoring the plane that hit the pentagon for a moment, can you describe for me the crucial moment where it hit the lightpoles?"
|
Are you typing this with a straight face? TV reporters were all over the place interviewing all sorts of people who didn't see anything at all. Are you seriously suggesting that one of the most wonderful things to have happened on a terrible day (cab driver gets lightpole in window struck by hijacked plane and walks away without a scratch) wouldn't have got a little bit of attention. Why wasn't it all over the news for the next few days? Why was nobody paying any attention to the cab as it sat there all alone after the event?
| Quote: | This explains the lack of accounts of the lightpoles lifted from the hundreds of news reports. Wouldn't you agree?
As for the probable hundreds of witnesses stuck in a traffic jam on that road on the morning of the attack, CIT have interviewed two to my knowledge. One of whom CIT brand a liar. The other they brand a liar involved in a death cult with connections in Washington. There are many more witnesses they brand liars because they don't fit CIT's theory (see my third link). I don't think that is reasonable behaviour - you cannot just accuse anyone whose evidence doesn't fit your pet theory of being a liar. At least you cannot do that and retain any credibility imo.
All witnesses seem to agree that the plane hit the building. The witness count on that simple statement of fact seems to be 100s vs 0!!! Do you accept that the plane hit the building?
If not, then what is going on in your mind? You rely on 13 supposed witnesses with vague recollections of a different flightpath, yet cannot accept hundreds of witnesses plus a wealth of physical evidence that establishes the fact that the plane hit the building? |
They aren't vague recollections, some of them have been saying the same thing since the day it happened. I don't accept that the plane hit the building because there is no evidence that a plane flying the North of Citgo flightpath hit the building. Sean Boger was in the heliport tower with a plane coming towards him, do you honestly think he would forget which direction the plane came from? But exactly share this forgetfulness with people who can't work out right from left? Please post any eye-witnesses who support the "official" flightpath. Because you can't just keep throwing "100s" of accounts out there of vagueness and try to minimise 13 detailed accounts. 13 is not a small number. If 13 people say something happened, there is a high probability that it happened or they are all colluding.
You question what is going on in my mind? Maybe I have just looked into this more than you and your mind is already closed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't accept that the plane hit the building because there is no evidence that a plane flying the North of Citgo flightpath hit the building. |
The fact is that every witness within view saw the plane hit the building, including all the CIT-interviewed witnesses in position to see it. The physical evidence confirms that the plane hit the building. No witness saw a flyover.
You are putting selective parts of some witnesses' accounts on a pedestal above all other evidence, including their own.
In the thread I referred to earlier a specialisist in witness psychology revealed that witnesses to such events are notoriously unreliable, for example that
| Quote: | | HUNDREDS of people watched the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 near Kennedy International Airport in New York on Nov. 12, and in the course of 93 seconds they apparently saw hundreds of different things. |
Whether there's a conspiracy or not, there is nothing abnormal about witnesses who might recall a different flight-path.
I think the discussion ends here. I wish you luck with whatever it is you want to believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | Quote: | | I don't accept that the plane hit the building because there is no evidence that a plane flying the North of Citgo flightpath hit the building. |
The fact is that every witness within view saw the plane hit the building, including all the CIT-interviewed witnesses in position to see it. The physical evidence confirms that the plane hit the building. No witness saw a flyover.
You are putting selective parts of some witnesses' accounts on a pedestal above all other evidence, including their own.
In the thread I referred to earlier a specialisist in witness psychology revealed that witnesses to such events are notoriously unreliable, for example that
| Quote: | | HUNDREDS of people watched the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 near Kennedy International Airport in New York on Nov. 12, and in the course of 93 seconds they apparently saw hundreds of different things. |
Whether there's a conspiracy or not, there is nothing abnormal about witnesses who might recall a different flight-path.
I think the discussion ends here. I wish you luck with whatever it is you want to believe. |
I am happy to end it as you appear to have no interest in discussing the event at hand - you keep talking about Flight 587 as if it is relevant. You couldn't even answer my simple question about the cab driver with a YES/NO. It is pretty lame Alex, I would get yourself a new hobby. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I am happy to end it as you appear to have no interest in discussing the event at hand - you keep talking about Flight 587 as if it is relevant. |
Pure obfuscation. That is the first time I've mentioned that flight. You are pretending not to understand the point I was making, which was fairly clear.
| Quote: | | You couldn't even answer my simple question about the cab driver with a YES/NO. It is pretty lame Alex, I would get yourself a new hobby. |
Because I considered it irrelevant, a leading question, and one which I cannot answer with a simple yes or no. If hypothetically there was no doubt whatsoever that Lloyd England was lying (impossible to prove), it would not confirm an inside job on its own. Just as his honesty doesn't prove the OT alone.
I think basically you're just trying to deflect the discussion away from your own indefensible position, which depends on rejecting all the witness accounts you do not like, and promoting certain sections of certain witness accounts that you do like.
It only confirms my conclusion that the discussion has run its course - the theories you cling to bear no scrutiny whatsoever, and even the truth movement has largely disowned them it seems. I think it is they who you should be debating with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | Quote: | | I am happy to end it as you appear to have no interest in discussing the event at hand - you keep talking about Flight 587 as if it is relevant. |
Pure obfuscation. That is the first time I've mentioned that flight. You are pretending not to understand the point I was making, which was fairly clear. |
You already posted the link so it is the second time. The point you were making is that you don't want to look into what the witnesses actually say.
| Alex_V wrote: | | Quote: | | You couldn't even answer my simple question about the cab driver with a YES/NO. It is pretty lame Alex, I would get yourself a new hobby. |
Because I considered it irrelevant, a leading question, and one which I cannot answer with a simple yes or no. If hypothetically there was no doubt whatsoever that Lloyd England was lying (impossible to prove), it would not confirm an inside job on its own. Just as his honesty doesn't prove the OT alone. |
OK so to summarise you are quite happy with Lloyd England lying - come on Alex, if it could be proved he was lying of course it is an inside job. Why can't you just say it?
| Alex_V wrote: | | I think basically you're just trying to deflect the discussion away from your own indefensible position, which depends on rejecting all the witness accounts you do not like, and promoting certain sections of certain witness accounts that you do like. |
I am trying to determine the flightpath of the plane - please post the southside/lightpole accounts (which I have asked for all along) so I can reject them. I haven't rejected anything, because you haven't put anything forward for me to reject.
| Alex_V wrote: | | It only confirms my conclusion that the discussion has run its course - the theories you cling to bear no scrutiny whatsoever, and even the truth movement has largely disowned them it seems. I think it is they who you should be debating with. |
It isn't a theory, it is corroborating witnesses saying the plane flew a particular path. In the absence of witnesses saying the plane flew another path, it starts to become proof. 13 to 1 is the score here Alex, where are your eye-witnesses so I can examine their evidence? Evidence please, not hand-waving. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | It isn't a theory, it is corroborating witnesses saying the plane flew a particular path. In the absence of witnesses saying the plane flew another path, it starts to become proof. 13 to 1 is the score here Alex, where are your eye-witnesses so I can examine their evidence? Evidence please, not hand-waving. |
I have provided information that witness accounts are not considered strong evidence in incidents such as these. You have ignored it - worse, you have pretended not to understand the point I am making. If you disagree, just say so, don't squirm around trying to ignore the point.
I have tried to explain why your 13 to 1 proposition is a ludicrous misrepresentation of both the witnesses, and the evidence from the pentagon. You have ignored it - worse you choose to ignore ALL THE WITNESSES who are unanimous that the plane hit the building. Taken as a whole the north of citgo witnesses are a tiny minority of the witnesses to the event.
I have provided south-of-citgo witnesses in the first link from the frustrating fraud blog. Albert Hemphill, Terry Morin, Madelyn Zakhem, Keith Wheelhouse, Alan Wallace to name just the first few on that list. You ignore them, and seem to pretend they don't even exist. This not only blows apart this 13 to 1 nonsense, but shows how underhand CIT are being with the available evidence.
I have asked YOU to name the 13 witnesses that CIT are claiming - you don't seem to be able to do that. I presume you are taking it on faith that a full 13 exist because CIT announced it. Let's see you name them before we discuss further. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | It isn't a theory, it is corroborating witnesses saying the plane flew a particular path. In the absence of witnesses saying the plane flew another path, it starts to become proof. 13 to 1 is the score here Alex, where are your eye-witnesses so I can examine their evidence? Evidence please, not hand-waving. |
I have provided information that witness accounts are not considered strong evidence in incidents such as these. You have ignored it - worse, you have pretended not to understand the point I am making. If you disagree, just say so, don't squirm around trying to ignore the point. |
Well whoop-dee-doo. Seriously Alex, it is not relevant to the issue at hand and that is why I ignore it. Sure witnesses do not always exactly agree but all of the eye-witnesses interviewed so far who give a flightpath do not give a south of Citgo flightpath. They are not all exactly the same ...... except they all agree it wasn't near those lightpoles. Doesn't this strike you as odd? That the one thing they all agree on is that the plane wasn't near the point that it HAS TO BE for the OCT to be correct. And the other point is that these witnesses had a good vantage point to see the flightpath. 3 people in a gas station choosing between left and right and you believe all 3 of them got it wrong.
| Alex_V wrote: | | I have tried to explain why your 13 to 1 proposition is a ludicrous misrepresentation of both the witnesses, and the evidence from the pentagon. You have ignored it - worse you choose to ignore ALL THE WITNESSES who are unanimous that the plane hit the building. Taken as a whole the north of citgo witnesses are a tiny minority of the witnesses to the event. |
We are discussing the flightpath Alex. How can you keep forgetting such an important detail. I asked you to post eye-witness accounts that support the official flightpath but you have failed to do that. In the absence of these eye-witnesses it is 13 to 1 in favour of the North of Citgo flightpath. Or can the plane miss the lightpoles and it still not be an inside job?
| Alex_V wrote: | | I have provided south-of-citgo witnesses in the first link from the frustrating fraud blog. Albert Hemphill, Terry Morin, Madelyn Zakhem, Keith Wheelhouse, Alan Wallace to name just the first few on that list. You ignore them, and seem to pretend they don't even exist. This not only blows apart this 13 to 1 nonsense, but shows how underhand CIT are being with the available evidence. |
Show me how they are south-of-citgo witnesses Alex, so we can debate it. Point out their location and the words that they say that confirm the flightpath. And don't use words like nonsense and underhand Alex, it makes you look silly. I fail to see how CIT are being underhand when they interview people (including Wheelhouse and Morin) and publish the accounts.
| Alex_V wrote: | | I have asked YOU to name the 13 witnesses that CIT are claiming - you don't seem to be able to do that. I presume you are taking it on faith that a full 13 exist because CIT announced it. Let's see you name them before we discuss further. |
Can you actually use the internet Alex? Read this if you can't get that mouse thing to do what you want.
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic11.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Sure witnesses do not always exactly agree but all of the eye-witnesses interviewed so far who give a flightpath do not give a south of Citgo flightpath. |
This is absolutely not true. I listed a few of the many listed on that blog. McGraw and England also. Unless you mean that their evidence is inadmissable because they didn't draw on a piece of paper for CIT? Did CIT offer pieces of paper to McGraw and England? If not, why not?
I honestly had great trouble finding the reference to the actual accounts.
I have read that webpage - I would appreciate it if you read the first of the blog links I posted on south-side witnesses rather than have me repeat the information here. I'm happy to hear any reservations you have about the points made there.
Of the 11 accounts referred directly to on that pentacon page, 1 refers only to a possible C-130 (Russell Roy), and one refers to a sighting of a plane to the south of the pentagon that CIT feel may be evidence of a flyover (Roosevelt Roberts). They are not directly relevant to the North of Citgo flightpath claims.
CIT's interpretation of Terry Morin's account is totally bizarre, and I strongly reject their claim that he is a north of citgo witness. There doesn't seem to be any physical way that the plane could pass over his position and then get to the north of the citgo station, and there is certainly no reason to assume it. He is a South-side witness in my opinion.
Maria De La Cerda is covered well on the 2nd blog link I provided, and CIT even acknowledge that her account is weak. I just don't think, looking from her position well to the North, that she could possibly say exactly where the plane was from a position well to the side, especially as she couldn't even see the gas station. What do you think?
The Levi Stephens account is just as weak, and seems to be mainly based on this quote - "I was driving away from the Pentagon in the South Pentagon lot when I hear this huge rumble, the ground started shaking … I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex. It flew over the van and I looked back and I saw this huge explosion, black smoke everywhere.". The trouble is that being in the South parking lot and having the plane pass over him is even further south than the official flightpath, and certainly not north. The plane coming over the navy annex is ambiguous, and you could also make a case that looking from the South lot it is entirely possible to see points on the official flightpath where the plane was closer to the pentagon but could have looked as if it were over the annex.
Sean Boger definitely supports a north of citgo flightpath according to his comments quoted here.
CIT are very cryptic about George Aman in this article, peculiarly so. I couldn't find anything else about him on the net... apart from on the same blog as before, The Frustrating Fraud. Their article confirms (a) that he is actually a lightpoles witness and (b) from the angle he is looking at, it would seem impossible to definitely place the plane anywhere looking from the side. There's a very good image on the blog showing how impossible this would be (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/ ANC_southview_panoramic_full_res.jpg). It's also worth mentioning that he also thinks the plane passed right over the parking lot he was in, which is way off either flightpath.
The other four witnesses are staff at the cemetery, and all seem to agree on a north of citgo path.
So of the accounts on that article, I accept that 5 of them genuinely describe a North of Citgo flightpath - Sean Boger and the four staff at the cemetery. And you can add Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios to that from the first round of CIT videos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Sure witnesses do not always exactly agree but all of the eye-witnesses interviewed so far who give a flightpath do not give a south of Citgo flightpath. |
This is absolutely not true. I listed a few of the many listed on that blog. McGraw and England also. Unless you mean that their evidence is inadmissable because they didn't draw on a piece of paper for CIT? Did CIT offer pieces of paper to McGraw and England? If not, why not?
I honestly had great trouble finding the reference to the actual accounts.
I have read that webpage - I would appreciate it if you read the first of the blog links I posted on south-side witnesses rather than have me repeat the information here. I'm happy to hear any reservations you have about the points made there.
Of the 11 accounts referred directly to on that pentacon page, 1 refers only to a possible C-130 (Russell Roy), and one refers to a sighting of a plane to the south of the pentagon that CIT feel may be evidence of a flyover (Roosevelt Roberts). They are not directly relevant to the North of Citgo flightpath claims.
CIT's interpretation of Terry Morin's account is totally bizarre, and I strongly reject their claim that he is a north of citgo witness. There doesn't seem to be any physical way that the plane could pass over his position and then get to the north of the citgo station, and there is certainly no reason to assume it. He is a South-side witness in my opinion.
Maria De La Cerda is covered well on the 2nd blog link I provided, and CIT even acknowledge that her account is weak. I just don't think, looking from her position well to the North, that she could possibly say exactly where the plane was from a position well to the side, especially as she couldn't even see the gas station. What do you think?
The Levi Stephens account is just as weak, and seems to be mainly based on this quote - "I was driving away from the Pentagon in the South Pentagon lot when I hear this huge rumble, the ground started shaking … I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex. It flew over the van and I looked back and I saw this huge explosion, black smoke everywhere.". The trouble is that being in the South parking lot and having the plane pass over him is even further south than the official flightpath, and certainly not north. The plane coming over the navy annex is ambiguous, and you could also make a case that looking from the South lot it is entirely possible to see points on the official flightpath where the plane was closer to the pentagon but could have looked as if it were over the annex.
Sean Boger definitely supports a north of citgo flightpath according to his comments quoted here.
CIT are very cryptic about George Aman in this article, peculiarly so. I couldn't find anything else about him on the net... apart from on the same blog as before, The Frustrating Fraud. Their article confirms (a) that he is actually a lightpoles witness and (b) from the angle he is looking at, it would seem impossible to definitely place the plane anywhere looking from the side. There's a very good image on the blog showing how impossible this would be (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/FrustratingFraud/ ANC_southview_panoramic_full_res.jpg). It's also worth mentioning that he also thinks the plane passed right over the parking lot he was in, which is way off either flightpath.
The other four witnesses are staff at the cemetery, and all seem to agree on a north of citgo path.
So of the accounts on that article, I accept that 5 of them genuinely describe a North of Citgo flightpath - Sean Boger and the four staff at the cemetery. And you can add Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios to that from the first round of CIT videos. |
Righto now we're getting somewhere. Here's my take on the blog you linked to :-
| Quote: | | In fact, it could be said that all witnesses who saw the plane at all, whatever they may say later, saw it on the south path. |
Well that is plainly not true.
Witnesses
Hemphill - this appears to come from a message board posted the day after 9/11. Would need to be confirmed.
Morin - CIT interviewed him but he didn't let them release the tape. He has the plane going straight over the Navy Annex and not south of Columbia Pike. As shown his view of the Pentagon is limited from his vantage point, on the official path he would have seen nothing of the plane. You state that his account makes NoC difficult but any account of the plane going over the Navy Annex makes SoC very difficult also.
Zackhem - does appear to be a south-side witness although her location was not great for seeing the approach of the plane or the subsequent path.
Paik - nothing much offered there other than The Fraud thinks he didn't mean the path he drew - which is an odd sort of argument.
Wheelhouse - didn't have much of a view and also claims a second plane was shadowing the first one which nobody else agrees with.
Wallace - from his account he didn't see the plane for more than an instant before diving for cover. A location interview would be required to determine from which direction he thought it came.
Timmerman/Vignola - not even sure what his point is here. CIT interviewed the lady on location and have photos to show that they had no real view of the Annex etc and thus not a panoramic vista to observe the final approach to the Pentagon.
McGraw - didn't claim to see the approach of the plane.
Elgas - Another strange account that has been on the internet for years. Would be good to have her interviewed and get more details.
Maria - not a great witness for NoC or SoC. I'd be happy to dump her and settle for 12 to 1.
Riskus - not an approach witness.
Ramey - when interviewed cannot remember the lightpoles being clipped.
England - he's already your 1.
Stephens - CIT says he claims NoC but their interview was blocked from release. Should have clearly seen SoC and lightpoles but didn't.
Roberts - couldn't see the approach.
16. Needs more info.
Aman - No idea of his point here.
Overall a very shabby piece of writing which tries to give the impression of refuting CIT's claims without actually saying very much.
The Citgo station and the ANC (cemetery) witnesses give a very compelling case for the NoC flightpath. The ANC witnesses have a view of the approach over the Annex and the Citgo witnesses to state north or south of the gas station. Just by looking at at Google Earth you can tell that some of them would have had no clear view of the plane if it was on the path indicated by the downed lightpoles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I could respond to some of the points you made there but I don't think it would really get us anywhere. I'm happy that we have many examples of CIT and this Caustic Logic blogger looking at witness accounts, and illustrating the wide variety of their claims and the way in which they can be interpreted.
For example, 8 of the 9 accounts on the CIT webpage have said at one time or another that the plane passed right over their position. Despite being from a wide variety of locations. Paik, Turcios, Brooks and McGraw claim the same. This seems to be a common symptom of the sort of heartstopping couple of seconds all witnessed, and obviously the majority of them simply cannot be correct, whatever the flightpath. Either we take them at their word and plot a flightpath that zigzags north and south like mad, or we accept that witnesses are simply not all that reliable.
You can add the other inconsistencies to the mix. Brooks said initially he saw the lightpoles and the taxi incidents in full, and later changed his account. If Stephens now says NOC (in private) that completely contradicts his earlier interviews. Morin has updated his account.
And we could argue over each case individually, but I think the general message here is surely that a bunch of witnesses build up a muddled picture. For what it's worth I think you have 8 witnesses (not 13) who support a North of Citgo flightpath, and I have at least 5 that support a South flightpath. If we went and found 20 more of the witnesses to the event we'd have more divergence of opinion no doubt - I had a look at some of the other accounts in the public domain, and I can pick out others from the first few I found that support a south of citgo path - Penny Elgas, Gary Bauer, Richard Benedetto.
On my part I have indulged your claims about how certain parts of certain witness accounts are more crucial than the majority, and have looked at some of CIT's evidence on this. I don't think it's conclusive - apart from the cemetery workers who stood together and might well have discussed their proposed flightpath as a group, none of the other north of citgo flightpaths really match each other with any preciseness anyway.
I don't know where else to go on the issue, because I don't see where it leads, other than nowhere. Even if we ignore all the other evidence, we simply do not have any agreement between witnesses on the flightpath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | I could respond to some of the points you made there but I don't think it would really get us anywhere. I'm happy that we have many examples of CIT and this Caustic Logic blogger looking at witness accounts, and illustrating the wide variety of their claims and the way in which they can be interpreted.
For example, 8 of the 9 accounts on the CIT webpage have said at one time or another that the plane passed right over their position. Despite being from a wide variety of locations. Paik, Turcios, Brooks and McGraw claim the same. This seems to be a common symptom of the sort of heartstopping couple of seconds all witnessed, and obviously the majority of them simply cannot be correct, whatever the flightpath. Either we take them at their word and plot a flightpath that zigzags north and south like mad, or we accept that witnesses are simply not all that reliable.
You can add the other inconsistencies to the mix. Brooks said initially he saw the lightpoles and the taxi incidents in full, and later changed his account. If Stephens now says NOC (in private) that completely contradicts his earlier interviews. Morin has updated his account.
And we could argue over each case individually, but I think the general message here is surely that a bunch of witnesses build up a muddled picture. For what it's worth I think you have 8 witnesses (not 13) who support a North of Citgo flightpath, and I have at least 5 that support a South flightpath. If we went and found 20 more of the witnesses to the event we'd have more divergence of opinion no doubt - I had a look at some of the other accounts in the public domain, and I can pick out others from the first few I found that support a south of citgo path - Penny Elgas, Gary Bauer, Richard Benedetto.
On my part I have indulged your claims about how certain parts of certain witness accounts are more crucial than the majority, and have looked at some of CIT's evidence on this. I don't think it's conclusive - apart from the cemetery workers who stood together and might well have discussed their proposed flightpath as a group, none of the other north of citgo flightpaths really match each other with any preciseness anyway.
I don't know where else to go on the issue, because I don't see where it leads, other than nowhere. Even if we ignore all the other evidence, we simply do not have any agreement between witnesses on the flightpath. |
You have some implied south side claims but not a single account that gives a clear description of the flight path as the plane approached. You can say there is no agreement but you are incorrect. From the Citgo gas station, 3 people picked left when they should have picked right. Their later confusion is understandable, given they witnessed the lightpoles etc which weren't on the path they observed. The fact that they say the plane passed over their heads means there is a range of paths that the plane could take where a person would think it was directly above them, planes are large things. But none of them would think it was directly over their head if it was slamming into the lightpoles. Do you understand that?
You do know that if the plane flew over the Navy Annex, that is incredibly problematic for it to drop down low enough to hit the lightpoles and strike the Pentagon as low as it is meant to have done?
And what do you think about the cab driver's story? Does it really not trouble you at all that absolutely nobody else on a busy highway saw it? You say yourself that there are 100s of eye-witness accounts - why none from that highway as the pole impales the cab? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | You have some implied south side claims but not a single account that gives a clear description of the flight path as the plane approached. |
The reason for that is simple - there is no debunker equivalent of CIT going out interviewing witnesses and asking them to complete diagrams of their proposed flightpaths.
Another point - I'm concerned (but not certain) that CIT is restricting its flight path predictions only to those who they are sure will draw a north path. I don't remember McGraw or England being asked to draw a path - if they did we would probably have the clear descriptions you were after. Maybe they were and I have forgotten. Did Morin ever draw a flightpath for them?
| Quote: | | You can say there is no agreement but you are incorrect. From the Citgo gas station, 3 people picked left when they should have picked right. |
Agreement among those three, yes (although they drew different flightpaths). I was talking about the level of agreement between the witnesses as a whole, cited in both articles and elsewhere. There is no agreement among the witnesses as a whole. Again you are cherry-picking witnesses to suit the point you want to make, but that is not rational.
You cannot just ignore the witnesses who don't suit your case.
| Quote: | | Their later confusion is understandable, given they witnessed the lightpoles etc which weren't on the path they observed. |
Who says it is understandable? Which bit of the account is right - the lightpoles or the flightpath? Who decides? You have already decided, but what gives you or CIT the right to be judge and jury? These anomalies should at the very least be noted and not pre-judged upon by internet amateurs.
| Quote: | | The fact that they say the plane passed over their heads means there is a range of paths that the plane could take where a person would think it was directly above them, planes are large things. |
They are standing in totally different positions though. Zackhem and Brooks and the cemetery workers and Aman and Stephens and the others - totally different positions. You cannot explain that by simply saying a plane is large. A large proportion of these people are simply wrong that the plane passed over them. Brooks and the cemetery workers for example directly contradict themselves on the path of the plane - at least one person there is wrong with a key aspect of their flightpath.
| Quote: | | But none of them would think it was directly over their head if it was slamming into the lightpoles. Do you understand that? |
Apart from those by the lightpoles - McGraw and England. Or the south witnesses (Hemphill, Zackhem). Or the many other people on the road (uninterviewed by CIT). Supported by those who say they saw the lightpoles hit (Aman, and Brooks in an earlier interview). Some witnesses are right and some are wrong, that is a FACT!
| Quote: | | You do know that if the plane flew over the Navy Annex, that is incredibly problematic for it to drop down low enough to hit the lightpoles and strike the Pentagon as low as it is meant to have done? |
A different debate, but the same basic principle applies. Lagasse and Boger and Middleton say the plane passed North of the annex, others say it was over the annex, and Hemphill, Mcgraw, Zackhem etc say South of the Annex. Which of them are right and which are wrong?
| Quote: | | And what do you think about the cab driver's story? Does it really not trouble you at all that absolutely nobody else on a busy highway saw it? |
A mind-boggling assumption. How many people from the highway have CIT interviewed - two. One was the cab driver and the other didn't directly see it but corroborates the official flightpath.
| Quote: | | You say yourself that there are 100s of eye-witness accounts - why none from that highway as the pole impales the cab? |
The three accounts I referred to in my last post are people on the highway - perhaps CIT could interview them and see if they give a north of Citgo flightpath. Perhaps one of them saw the taxi?
Has any one witness from the highway (other than Mcgraw) EVER been asked if they saw the cab be struck? Be precise with your answer, because it is crucial to the point you are making - I want names. If (as is the case) you have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER if any one further witness from the highway has ever been asked this question, then your argument has totally collapsed. You cannot make grand claims about what tens if not hundreds of witnesses saw in absolutely 100% complete ignorance of their response to a question they have (almost certainly) never been asked.
We might as well simply close our eyes and stare at a wall and dream up what their answers might be - but that is not good enough to make these sort of accusations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Has KP50 disappeared again? There of several threads like this now where he just disappears when the going gets tough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | Has KP50 disappeared again? There of several threads like this now where he just disappears when the going gets tough. |
Has Wibble reappeared again to question whether I have disappeared?
I dabble in Critics' Corner like a man with an alcohol problem is occasionally seduced by having just a few glasses. The time spent arguing with people like Alex is so hugely unproductive that after a few exchanges the sheer pointlessness of it is brought home to me and I go cold turkey again. Yet compared to Wibble, Alex is fair and open-minded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 I have been waiting your replies on other threads for many months now. Where are they? If you don't reply how can we finish of the discussion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | KP50 I have been waiting your replies on other threads for many months now. Where are they? If you don't reply how can we finish of the discussion? |
Sleepless nights is it? I am so sorry. The guilt is almost overwhelming me.
Frankly I have resigned from all sorts of debunker debating due to the sheer futility of it - maybe if i saw a comment like "now that is odd how a building designed to support the top 25 stories suddenly turned to dust because those self-same 25 stories fell on it" then I might be encouraged to engage again - but I fear I will be disappointed, won't I Wibble? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You "truther types" can tell yourselves what you like but it seems more like that when there are questions about, or holes in, your theories and you can not, or do not want to answer, you disappear. Or when you miss quote the miss quotes or only supply references to other conspiracy sites as these are the only references you believe and so on and this is pointed out you all disappear. Or when you pick and choose which whiteness's (see the post on Apr 3 that you still have not replied to) or evidence to believe based purely on whether it supports your version of events or not and so on you disappear
With regards to 25 story buildings falling etc etc we have been here before but.....well just read paragraph one or the many threads in this part of the forum.
In all seriousness I am not a big fan of George W and co I am not really a big fan of US Foreign Policy in various ways and circumstances. I would like to blame them all for 9/11 and see them all brought to justice etc. But after reading endless "evidence" on various websites like this and watching many, many youtube type videos showing "evidence" of foul play, missiles, squibs and so on I am yet to one single thing that is anything like proof, evidence or a smoking gun. I keep coming back to this forum and others like it from time to time in all hope that you have found the smoking gun but all I see is the same regurgitated stuff and nothing new.
Nearly 8 years has gone by and that is a long time for the truthers to get their act together and have Bush and co in court. When is all the evidence you have all found going to lead to a conviction? Or anything at all? Surely you have enough stuff now to present you very own 1000 page NIST style report(s) to various neutral and credible experts for review?
| Quote: | | Take a look at Pilots for 911truth website. They seem to have some pretty good research on it about eyewitnesses and black box data. |
This is the black box found in the aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon that they have "analysed" and say it proves that the aircraft never actually flew into the Pentagon? Well if it did not hit the Pentagon then the black box must be fake so the data on it is irrelevant. The data just proves Bush is nonsense at faking black box data. Or maybe, just maybe, they messed up in their analysis because they are not trained aircraft crash investigators, do not have the correct resources and data and are extremely biased?
It could be the first time a Crash Data Recorder has been used to prove the aircraft did not actually crash though which will be quite impressive. I await the court case in due course?????? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | You "truther types" can tell yourselves what you like but it seems more like that when there are questions about, or holes in, your theories and you can not, or do not want to answer, you disappear.
|
Shame that you have to misinterpret lack of replies as avoiding the problems you raise. Has it never occurred to you that the real reason might be that 9/11 truthers find your arguments and criticisms so inane that they cannot be bothered to respond to them and only do so when they visit Critics Corner occasionally?
| Wibble wrote: | ] Or when you miss quote the miss quotes or only supply references to other conspiracy sites as these are the only references you believe and so on and this is pointed out you all disappear. Or when you pick and choose which whiteness's (see the post on Apr 3 that you still have not replied to) or evidence to believe based purely on whether it supports your version of events or not and so on you disappear
|
I guess you never ever do that. 
| Wibble wrote: |
In all seriousness I am not a big fan of George W and co I am not really a big fan of US Foreign Policy in various ways and circumstances. I would like to blame them all for 9/11 and see them all brought to justice etc. But after reading endless "evidence" on various websites like this and watching many, many youtube type videos showing "evidence" of foul play, missiles, squibs and so on I am yet to one single thing that is anything like proof, evidence or a smoking gun. I keep coming back to this forum and others like it from time to time in all hope that you have found the smoking gun but all I see is the same regurgitated stuff and nothing new.
|
Why does it have to be new? It is regurgitated because some of it is real evidence of inconsistencies with the official story of 9/11. You may disagree that it amounts to such, but most of us don't think your criticisms are valid.
| Wibble wrote: |
Nearly 8 years has gone by and that is a long time for the truthers to get their act together and have Bush and co in court. When is all the evidence you have all found going to lead to a conviction? Or anything at all? Surely you have enough stuff now to present you very own 1000 page NIST style report(s) to various neutral and credible experts for review? |
But your naive argument deliberately ignores the obvious fact that this explosive issue is highly political and every attempt will be made by powerful politicians and officials to stop a court case starting up.
| Quote: | | Take a look at Pilots for 911truth website. They seem to have some pretty good research on it about eyewitnesses and black box data. |
This is the black box found in the aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon that they have "analysed" and say it proves that the aircraft never actually flew into the Pentagon? Well if it did not hit the Pentagon then the black box must be fake so the data on it is irrelevant.
[/quote]
Nooo! Not irrelevant. Use some logic. The very implication of their analysis that the black box data Pilots for 9/11 Truth were provided with must be fake proves conspiracy.
| Wibble wrote: |
The data just proves Bush is nonsense at faking black box data. |
Excuse me. Who was talking about Bush faking data?
| Wibble wrote: |
Or maybe, just maybe, they messed up in their analysis because they are not trained aircraft crash investigators, do not have the correct resources and data and are extremely biased?
|
No. If you had understood the analysis by Pilots for 9/11 Truth properly, you would realise that they proved that the data showed the plane was flying too high shortly before the supposed impact to have gone into the Pentagon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No. If you had understood the analysis by Pilots for 9/11 Truth properly, you would realise that they proved that the data showed the plane was flying too high shortly before the supposed impact to have gone into the Pentagon. |
I work in aviation and am trained in Post Crash Management and have read hundreds of crash reports etc spanning decades. I am no expert but I know enough to see through the rubbish put out by Pilots for 9/11 Truth. The fact that Pilots for 9/11 on constantly trying to flogg over priced DVD on all there so called evidence shows that these sick people are just in it for the money.
If the data proves the aircraft flew over the pentagon then the data must be fake. All other analysis of the data is then irrelevant. Why on earth would the government, who have just pulled off the biggest conspiracies in history, mess up and give out badly faked evidence that a bunch of wannabe Crash Investigators can pull apart in seconds?
Go read some other crash reports and you will see the Black Box data is not black and white and transalting it is often more art than science. If you ever bothered to do some real research you will find documented cases were the Black Box data was wrong due to such things as sensor faults and even sensors incorrectly installed. And of course the black box was never really designed to prove where the aircraft crashed because if you dont know that you will never find the black box in the first place. Do you ever step back and think about these things properly? Are you really that blinkered?
| Quote: | Has it never occurred to you that the real reason might be that 9/11 truthers find your arguments and criticisms so inane that they cannot be bothered to respond to them and only do so when they visit Critics Corner occasionally?
|
The fact that you have a Critics Corners says it all about the truth movement. You only want to "debate" with people who agree that 9/11 etc are conspiracies!!! That is not debating!! This is the same as PMQ only being held with the Labour MPs asking the questions!!! To be fair at least this forum does not ban everyone who does not agree in the conspiracies but this is still poor. However, people are still banned and censored for not agreeing with the truth movement which makes you worse than the governments you so readily accuse of censorship and cover ups!! It is so ironic I chuckle every time I check in |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jesussdad
Banned
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 49
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The fact that you have a Critics Corners says it all about the truth movement. You only want to "debate" with people who agree that 9/11 etc are conspiracies!!! That is not debating!! This is the same as PMQ only being held with the Labour MPs asking the questions!!! |
Actually, it was because of appealing behaviour from critics trolling and trashing the forum that a critics section to force proper debate was established. It's worked very well and been most successful. You may feel you dont get the attention you deserve, but in fact this is a highly read section, and their are critic sites like JREF you can go hang out at if you feel the need for the comfort of being surrounded by those YOU agree with
| Quote: | | To be fair at least this forum does not ban everyone who does not agree in the conspiracies |
Gosh. Debate.
| Quote: | | but this is still poor. However, people are still banned and censored for not agreeing with the truth movement which makes you worse than the governments you so readily accuse of censorship and cover ups!! It is so ironic I chuckle every time I check in |
Private members club, not public property. No rights here, only privilege, and you signed the contract when you joined
If its not a deal you are happy to have made, you don't have to come here
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jesussdad wrote: | is this by one of the critics from here because its weak.
|
It is poorly done.
But the CIT 'North of Citgo' (NoC) theory destroys itself. The NoC flightpath is physically impossible for a fixed-wing aircraft.
Let's stretch credulity in favour of CIT NoC ...
1. It's a fact that, in order to turn, aircraft need to bank. And that the more severe the turn the steeper the bank required. Both turn radius and turn speed come into play here.
2. So .. assume the gentlest possible turn that reasonably covers NoC witness testimony as presented by CIT. You'll find it's in the region of 1 statute mile.
3. Assume the plane doesn't need to waste time levelling up and climbing to make the flyover.
4. Assume that banked wings pose no hazard, such as clipping the annexe, the Pentagon lawn etc.
5. Assume a very low approach speed, say 300mph
If you do this you end up with a bank angle of some 50° to make the approach. Something, that is, that not a single one of the many witnesses (including CIT's) reports. Not even close, in fact.
Once you start factoring in reality (levelling-up, stall speeds for banking aircraft, time to climb and speed required to climb, control response times etc etc) the bank angle gets into the 80°+ range.
When it comes to plain old-fashioned physics, NoC is as rational as space-beams and dustification.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Still pushing that old barrow there Sam?
There are many corroborating witnesses stating that the plane flew over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo gas station and then on towards the Pentagon. There is only Lloyd England who gives an account that matches where the plane had to be to hit the lightpoles and his story defies the law of physics in a fair few ways. His story is not helped by having no other witnesses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | Still pushing that old barrow there Sam?
There are many corroborating witnesses stating that the plane flew over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo gas station and then on towards the Pentagon. |
What point are you making?
That the easiest turn could be achieved with less bank?
That Pentagon witnesses all forgot to mention the 80° bank?
What?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | Quote: | | No. If you had understood the analysis by Pilots for 9/11 Truth properly, you would realise that they proved that the data showed the plane was flying too high shortly before the supposed impact to have gone into the Pentagon. |
I work in aviation and am trained in Post Crash Management and have read hundreds of crash reports etc spanning decades. I am no expert
|
Quite. So stop pretending that you know what you are talking about concerning black boxes. You don't fool us.
| Wibble wrote: |
but I know enough to see through the rubbish put out by Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
|
You know so much yet cannot provide any scientific argument refuting their case and so have to resort to the usual ad hominems typical of those who have lost the argument. 
| Wibble wrote: |
The fact that Pilots for 9/11 on constantly trying to flogg over priced DVD on all there so called evidence shows that these sick people are just in it for the money.
|
Sheesh! Is that the best argument you can make against them? Now you know why I hardly ever visit Critics Corner. Such a waste of time.
| Wibble wrote: |
If the data proves the aircraft flew over the pentagon then the data must be fake.
|
Er, no. Actually all the data proves is that it did not come from a plane that crashed into the Pentagon, as officially claimed, which proves some kind of cover-up is at work. And, even if the data had proved the plane carrying the black box flew over the Pentagon, it is totally unscientific to dismiss such data without good reason or evidence merely because it happens to conflicts with your belief about what happened at the Pentagon That's simply being dogmatic. You really do need to improve your logic and understanding of scientific methodology.
| Wibble wrote: |
All other analysis of the data is then irrelevant. Why on earth would the government, who have just pulled off the biggest conspiracies in history, mess up and give out badly faked evidence that a bunch of wannabe Crash Investigators can pull apart in seconds?
|
First of all, it was not "the government" who carried out 9/11. Just a small cabal of the top politicians, military, FBI and intelligence agents, aided and abetted by well-placed people in the media. Secondly, the evidence was not badly faked. It was the real data. The perps never bothered to fake the data because they never anticipated expert and sceptical pilots analysing it.
| Wibble wrote: |
Go read some other crash reports and you will see the Black Box data is not black and white and transalting it is often more art than science. If you ever bothered to do some real research you will find documented cases were the Black Box data was wrong due to such things as sensor faults and even sensors incorrectly installed. And of course the black box was never really designed to prove where the aircraft crashed because if you dont know that you will never find the black box in the first place. Do you ever step back and think about these things properly? Are you really that blinkered?
|
Your points are irrelevant to the issue. Pilots For 9/11 Truth discovered totally unambiguous evidence for the plane being too high to hit the Pentagon in time. Only of course you are too blinkered to accept their evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | Still pushing that old barrow there Sam?
There are many corroborating witnesses stating that the plane flew over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo gas station and then on towards the Pentagon. |
What point are you making?
That the easiest turn could be achieved with less bank?
That Pentagon witnesses all forgot to mention the 80° bank?
What? |
Well firstly, do you accept that the plane flew over the Navy Annex? I can post multiple accounts from many different sources that place the plane coming over the Navy Annex towards the Pentagon. Can you provide one that contradicts that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | sam wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | Still pushing that old barrow there Sam?
There are many corroborating witnesses stating that the plane flew over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo gas station and then on towards the Pentagon. |
What point are you making?
That the easiest turn could be achieved with less bank?
That Pentagon witnesses all forgot to mention the 80° bank?
What? |
Well firstly, do you accept that the plane flew over the Navy Annex? |
Do you accept that the plane began to fly over the annexe at its most SW point? (Paik/Morin, by CIT reckoning)
Do you accept that it barely got N of Citgo?
Do you accept that it 'flew over' at or close to the explosion point?
Do you accept that this requires a curved approach?
If you do, then you require 50° of bank for a 300mph approach, with no time to level and climb.
If you accept a faster approach - non-stalling, that is - with levelling etc, then the bank angle rises to 75+°. Aerobatics. With a 757. To some observers the plane would be seen as vertical.
This would be very remarkable indeed for a 757 close to the ground, yet nobody mentions anything even barely resembling this.
This is physics, KP50. I don't expect you to understand it, but you might be able to understand that eyewitness testimony cannot cause planes to break the laws of physics.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | sam wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | Still pushing that old barrow there Sam?
There are many corroborating witnesses stating that the plane flew over the Navy Annex and north of the Citgo gas station and then on towards the Pentagon. |
What point are you making?
That the easiest turn could be achieved with less bank?
That Pentagon witnesses all forgot to mention the 80° bank?
What? |
Well firstly, do you accept that the plane flew over the Navy Annex? |
Do you accept that the plane began to fly over the annexe at its most SW point? (Paik/Morin, by CIT reckoning)
Do you accept that it barely got N of Citgo?
Do you accept that it 'flew over' at or close to the explosion point?
Do you accept that this requires a curved approach?
If you do, then you require 50° of bank for a 300mph approach, with no time to level and climb.
If you accept a faster approach - non-stalling, that is - with levelling etc, then the bank angle rises to 75+°. Aerobatics. With a 757. To some observers the plane would be seen as vertical.
This would be very remarkable indeed for a 757 close to the ground, yet nobody mentions anything even barely resembling this.
This is physics, KP50. I don't expect you to understand it, but you might be able to understand that eyewitness testimony cannot cause planes to break the laws of physics. |
So you are saying that what they saw didn't happen and something else completely different happened that for some reason they (and all the other witnesses) were unable to see? That the plane was never over the Navy Annex at all as multiple witnesses say? You must be saying that because the route from the mid-point of the Navy Annex to the lightpole path is a much more difficult one.
What's your best guess? Optical illusion or brain-washing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Micpsi
So you dont think there is anything wrong with Pilots For Truth making money from selling their DVDs?
| Quote: | | Er, no. Actually all the data proves is that it did not come from a plane that crashed into the Pentagon, as officially claimed, which proves some kind of cover-up is at work. And, even if the data had proved the plane carrying the black box flew over the Pentagon, it is totally unscientific to dismiss such data without good reason or evidence merely because it happens to conflicts with your belief about what happened at the Pentagon That's simply being dogmatic. You really do need to improve your logic and understanding of scientific methodology. |
This does not make sense. You state that the data did not come from the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon. Then imply the data does not prove that the aircraft overflew the Pentagon. What is your point?
| Quote: | | First of all, it was not "the government" who carried out 9/11. Just a small cabal of the top politicians, military, FBI and intelligence agents, aided and abetted by well-placed people in the media. Secondly, the evidence was not badly faked. It was the real data. The perps never bothered to fake the data because they never anticipated expert and sceptical pilots analysing it. |
This does not make sense either. So they overflew the Pentagon, then downloaded the Blackbox data and gave it to the Pilots for Truth? Please define small?
| Quote: | | Your points are irrelevant to the issue. Pilots For 9/11 Truth discovered totally unambiguous evidence for the plane being too high to hit the Pentagon in time. Only of course you are too blinkered to accept their evidence. |
The "evidence" is unambiguous as I have already stated that translating black box data is more art than science. It isn't, as Pilots for Truth imply, a case of feeding the data into a computer and pressing go.
Aircraft sensors can give incorrect or false readings to, they are not supposed to be that is life. This is why airlines are required to keep a set of "control" data for each aircraft. This involves downloading blackbox data after and aircraft has carried out a flight of certain profile for each individual aircraft. If that aircraft is then in a crash the control data can then be compared with the data from the crash. This is partly to reveal such things as sensor faults and errors. Pilots for Truth do not have the control data for N644AA so have not done proper scientific analysis of the data. In case you don't believe me about BlackBox recorder faults here is an extract from the NTSB report into Federal Express Flight 647 December 18, 2003.
| Quote: | 1.11.2.1 FDR Recording of Aileron Positions
During its investigation, the Safety Board observed that, although the FDR
sampled each aileron position four times per second (more frequently than required by 14 CFR 121.344, appendix M), the aileron position data were not being updated from the data source at the rate required by the regulation. The Board's flight data study showed that, as a result of the inadequate update rate, the data for all four ailerons (inboard and outboard on the right and left wings) showed inaccurate repeated values. For example,
examination of 5-second spans of plotted aileron data revealed that they contained six sets of data in which a recorded value was repeated three times, followed by one set of data in which a recorded value was repeated twice. an approximate update rate of once per 700 milliseconds (ms) instead of the once-per-500-ms rate that is required by Federal regulation. The Safety Board has found similar problems regarding FDR data update rates with other airplane FDR systems and, as a result, issued two safety recommendations to the FAA on May 16, 2003, recommending the following:
Require that all Embraer 145, Embraer 135, Canadair CL-600 RJ, Canadair Challenger CL-600, and Fairchild Dornier 328-300 airplanes be modified with a digital flight data recorder system that meets the sampling rate, range, and accuracy requirements specified in 14 Code of Federal Regulations 121.344, Appendix M. (A-03-015)
Survey all aircraft required by Federal regulation to have a flight data recorder to ensure that the data recorded meets the rate, range, and accuracy requirements specified in 14 Code of Federal Regulations 121.344, Appendix M. (A-03-016) |
Proper crash investigators will also look at other details such as has the blackbox had proper software updates etc which I doubt Pilots for Truth bothered with either.
Please remind me of your aviation experience? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
