Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

Originally posted by adam_zapple

I never agreed that any of this proved that the plane didn't hit the building. I agreed that these eyewitness statements are inconsistent with all of the other data.

You agreed that it is irreconcilable with all reports, data, and physical damage and below you agreed if valid that they prove the plane did not hit.

Please stop contradicting yourself.

If I accept that the NOC or ONA claims are accurate, that would be the case.

Good. Now stop going back on your own word.

You say their statements prove the plane didn't hit...I say their statements indicate that they're wrong.

Yeah so?

The point is if they are valid they prove the plane did not hit and you agreed to this.

How did you determine that the eyewitnesses who report NOC or ONA were not either inaccurate or mistaken?

Unanimous independent corroboration from all surrounding perspectives and of course the fact that there are MANY other irreconcilable facts and dubious circumstances with the official story including the fact that the official flight path has been proven physically impossible.

You don't really believe that, or you would accept that the plane hit the pentagon "beyond a reasonable doubt" since that claim is corroborated by many more people than NOC or ONA,

False.

You and the officials have presented absolutely zero evidence to this notion.

Out of context 2nd hand media quotes are NOT evidence.

We have demonstrated how someone's belief in an impact does not disprove NoC and ONA and we have also demonstrated how MOST of the previously published witness accounts are from people who could not see the Pentagon or the alleged impact point AT ALL due to the complex topography.

and is also supported by the physical evidence which isn't subject to the same downfalls as eyewitnesses are.

False again.

The physical evidence is anomalous and even admittedly "counter-intuitive" by the State Department.

That's what got people questioning the event to begin with.

The physical evidence is questionable on many levels and is even irreconcilable with official data that has the plane at much too high of an altitude to hit the building.

These accounts are a minority. Of hundreds of people who reported seeing the plane, and out of thousands who were on the scene, a small handful reported something that contradicts every other piece of evidence presented. The case for eyewitness errors is strong.....especially when we see them making other errors in the video.

Your claim is false and completely unsupported.

Out of context media reports are not evidence and there are not even "hundreds" of them anyway.

You are making faith based claims with zero scrutiny or fact checking for verification.

That is not the sign of a true skeptic or critical thinker.

It is the sign of a zealot who is willing to defend the government and the war machine at all cost in the face of hard evidence proving they lied.

I'm not suggesting that they simpy be dismissed...but they certainly aren't strong enough to use to reject every other piece of contradictory evidence....doing so is a prime example of circular logic at work.

Incorrect.

You have provided absolutely ZERO evidence to the contrary.

Your blind faith in what you were told by the government and media is not evidence.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

I never agreed that any of this proved that the plane didn't hit the building. I agreed that these eyewitness statements are inconsistent with all of the other data.

You agreed that it is irreconcilable with all reports, data, and physical damage and below you agreed if valid that they prove the plane did not hit.

Please stop contradicting yourself.

My mistake..I must have responded incorrectly before...allow me to clarify for you:

Even if we accept the claims of these eyewitnesses regarding NOC or ONA...it would not prove that the plane didn't hit the pentagon.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The point is if they are valid they prove the plane did not hit and you agreed to this.

See clarification/correction above.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

How did you determine that the eyewitnesses who report NOC or ONA were not either inaccurate or mistaken?

Unanimous independent corroboration from all surrounding perspectives and of course the fact that there are MANY other irreconcilable facts and dubious circumstances with the official story including the fact that the official flight path has been proven physically impossible

1 - Flight path hasn't been proven impossible
2 - "Dubious" circumstances is speculation
That leaves us with the fact that other eyewitnesses agree and brings us to my next point...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

You don't really believe that, or you would accept that the plane hit the pentagon "beyond a reasonable doubt" since that claim is corroborated by many more people than NOC or ONA,

False.

You and the officials have presented absolutely zero evidence to this notion.

I didn't have to...your own eyewitnesses did...and they unanimously corroborate that claim "beyond a resonable doubt" as you put it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We have demonstrated how someone's belief in an impact does not disprove NoC and ONA

Then the inverse must also hold true.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The physical evidence is questionable on many levels and is even irreconcilable with official data that has the plane at much too high of an altitude to hit the building.

The FDR data stopped prior to impact, a situation not unusual to plane crashes. As far as the evidence being "questionable" that's just your speculation again.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

These accounts are a minority. Of hundreds of people who reported seeing the plane, and out of thousands who were on the scene, a small handful reported something that contradicts every other piece of evidence presented. The case for eyewitness errors is strong.....especially when we see them making other errors in the video.

Your claim is false and completely unsupported.

Out of context media reports are not evidence and there are not even "hundreds" of them anyway.

You are making faith based claims with zero scrutiny or fact checking for verification.

Media reports ARE evidence, whether you like them or not. Hundreds reported the impact, thousands worked the rescue effort.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

I'm not suggesting that they simpy be dismissed...but they certainly aren't strong enough to use to reject every other piece of contradictory evidence....doing so is a prime example of circular logic at work.

Incorrect.

The witness said X...therefore we reject their other statements that disagree with X. Any evidence that contradicts X must be false. - circular logic.

The fact that you're wrong doesn't mean the govermnent is right.

(reached character max)

reply to post by adam_zapple



You are wrong.

2nd hand eyewitness reports are not considered valid evidence.

They are considered hearsay.

Only first-hand eyewitness accounts are acceptable as evidence.

This is an undeniable fact that intellectually honest critical thinkers must acknowledge.

I have presented a large body of independent verifiable evidence supporting the notion that the plane flew ONA and NoC.

You have provided ZERO evidence to refute this and have merely made a bunch fallacious faith based claims regarding what you were told by the government and media.

I have demonstrated true skepticism and held to critical thinking principles.

Until you can provide independent verifiable evidence in support of your argument your faith based claims will be fairly dismissed.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

You are wrong.

2nd hand eyewitness reports are not considered valid evidence.

They are considered hearsay.

That's all you have presented. How are you any different than any other reporter who wrote a story on the scene or interviewed someone on camera on 9/11? Your reports are 2nd hand to us just like any of the media reports.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
I have presented a large body of independent verifiable evidence supporting the notion that the plane flew ONA and NoC.

You have provided ZERO evidence to refute this and have merely made a bunch fallacious faith based claims regarding what you were told by the government and media.

I have demonstrated true skepticism and held to critical thinking principles.

No...a true skeptic would not assume that the plane didn't crash when there is no evidence supporting it.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

ETA: Also, a true skeptic would apply the same skepticism and validation procedures to ALL eyewitness statements equally. He/she would not start with the assumption that one claim is correct and then use circular logic to systematically dismiss all contradictory statements and evidence.

A true skeptic would actually use the scientific method, not just claim that his findings are scientific.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

Originally posted by adam_zapple

The FDR data stopped prior to impact, a situation not unusual to plane crashes.

Not according to the NTSB, L3 Communications (the manufacturer of the FDR), several independent FDR Experts, numerous Aircraft Accident Investigators, ample aviation professionals and pilots, and the data itself.

If you prefer to listen to self-proclaimed "math experts" who arent able to understand basic vector analysis and perhaps one or two anonymous "experts" who cannot be verfied, then i suppose you can hold onto such a claim. But it isnt advised.

Originally posted by adam_zapple

That's all you have presented. How are you any different than any other reporter who wrote a story on the scene or interviewed someone on camera on 9/11? Your reports are 2nd hand to us just like any of the media reports.

Wrong.

I have presented their first-hand accounts mostly video-taped on location or recorded via phone.

That is what makes them first-hand.

No...a true skeptic would not assume that the plane didn't crash when there is no evidence supporting it.

Independently corroborated first-hand eyewitness accounts most certainly are evidence.

Funny how in your last post you tried to argue that hearsay was evidence and now you are trying to argue that first-hand accounts aren't evidence!

You're spiraling into a maze of contradictory logic.

ETA: Also, a true skeptic would apply the same skepticism and validation procedures to ALL eyewitness statements equally. He/she would not start with the assumption that one claim is correct and then use circular logic to systematically dismiss all contradictory statements and evidence.

A true skeptic would actually use the scientific method, not just claim that his findings are scientific.

We most certainly HAVE applied the same skepticism to all eyewitness statements equally. We have adhered to a strict scientific method throughout and did NOT start with an assumption regarding what happened at all.

You have no evidence to demonstrate otherwise so your statement is reduced to nothing but an unsupported personal attack.

If the witnesses placed the plane where it needed to be we would have reported this.

They did not yet they all corroborate each other.

That is not our fault.

Anyone else find it amusing that some people would rathr argue with Craig online than actually seek out these witnesses themselves and interview them?

Its clear people like Adam would rather shift this thread off topic and get it mired down into an endless circular debate on witnesses via cherry picking statements, but i suppose by default, Adam is admitting the OP and premise of this thread is accurate and he has no where else to go but to cherry pick witness statements.

Adam,

Craig and Aldo are just regular guys from the opposite coast of Arlington. They were able to seek out witnesses for interview. Why cant you? Why do you refuse to confront witnesses who observed the aircraft on the north path and instead spend your days and nights making excuses online? Go contact them and you will have your own first hand account. Be sure to record it and post it here on ATS.

Let me expand on the above a bit further...

Boone was in Arlington. Why didnt he confront the witnesses? Or did he... but doesnt want to share his experience....?

911Files was in Arlington. Why didnt he confront the witnesses? Or did he... but doesnt want to share his experience....?


jthomas claimed he had a trip booked to Arlington. Why didnt he confront the witnesses? Well we know why. Its because jthomas lied.

Did i miss anyone else who makes excuse for the govt story and went to Arlington (or lied about it...)?

edited for typo

[edit on 13-1-2009 by RockHound757]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

That's all you have presented. How are you any different than any other reporter who wrote a story on the scene or interviewed someone on camera on 9/11? Your reports are 2nd hand to us just like any of the media reports.

Wrong.

I have presented their first-hand accounts mostly video-taped on location or recorded via phone.

That is what makes them first-hand.

How is that any different than radio or TV interviews conducted on 9/11?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

No...a true skeptic would not assume that the plane didn't crash when there is no evidence supporting it.

Independently corroborated first-hand eyewitness accounts most certainly are evidence. Funny how in your last post you tried to argue that hearsay was evidence and now you are trying to argue that first-hand accounts aren't evidence!

All eyewitness statements are evidence.

But which eyewitnesses said that the plane did not crash?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

ETA: Also, a true skeptic would apply the same skepticism and validation procedures to ALL eyewitness statements equally. He/she would not start with the assumption that one claim is correct and then use circular logic to systematically dismiss all contradictory statements and evidence.

A true skeptic would actually use the scientific method, not just claim that his findings are scientific.

We most certainly HAVE applied the same skepticism to all eyewitness statements equally.

No...you use their claims of ONA and NOC to unilaterally dismiss any claims of airplane impact.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
We have adhered to a strict scientific method throughout and did NOT start with an assumption regarding what happened at all.

You have no evidence to demonstrate otherwise so your statement is reduced to nothing but an unsupported personal attack.

As stated above...you use the eyewitness claims of ONA and NOC to unilaterally dismiss any claims of impact, as well as any evidence of impact.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If the witnesses placed the plane where it needed to be we would have reported this.

They did not yet they all corroborate each other.

They also corroborate each other with regard to the impact, yet this claim is not treated equally.

Originally posted by RockHound757
Adam,

Craig and Aldo are just regular guys from the opposite coast of Arlington. They were able to seek out witnesses for interview. Why cant you?

I don't need to. I'm not trying to challenge the accepted theory of what happened. The biggest FBI investigation in history did a better job than I would be able to do, anyways.

Originally posted by RockHound757Why do you refuse to confront witnesses who observed the aircraft on the north path and instead spend your days and nights making excuses online? Go contact them and you will have your own first hand account.

See above. I have no need to do this. Until Craig & Aldo can prove that these eyewitnesses didn't simply misjudge the location of the airplane they haven't proven anything.

Originally posted by adam_zapple


I don't need to. I'm not trying to challenge the accepted theory of what happened.

"Accepted Theory"? You sure about it being "accepted"?

"Accepted" by who? You?

Shall i start to quote some polls showing 84% of Americans Reject the "Accepted Theory"?

You have an opportunity to confront witnesses who place the aircraft opposite the physical damage. Instead of confronting such witnesses, you waste your energy online day and night making excuses for said witnesses. You obviously have the time to seek them out and confront them, but its clear the reasons you refuse.

Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by adam_zapple


I don't need to. I'm not trying to challenge the accepted theory of what happened.

"Accepted Theory"? You sure about it being "accepted"?

"Accepted" by who? You?

By the government, by the FBI, by the NTSB, by American Airlines, by the insurance providers for American Airlines, by the families of the victims, by the general public, etc.

Originally posted by RockHound757
Shall i start to quote some polls showing 84% of Americans Reject the "Accepted Theory"?

84% of them reject all of it? Or 84% of them reject part of it?

I'm sure most people understand that the Accepted theory is not 100% accurate, but a significant majority of Americans also accepts the fact that it's about as close as we're going to get. And the number of 9/11 truthers in this country is certainly a small minority.

Originally posted by RockHound757
You have an opportunity to confront witnesses who place the aircraft opposite the physical damage. Instead of confronting such witnesses, you waste your energy online day and night making excuses for said witnesses. You obviously have the time to seek them out and confront them, but its clear the reasons you refuse.

I'm not making excuses for anyone. What they claim to have seen is contradicted by all of the other evidence available. (Google DNA exhonnerations to learn a little bit about how eyewitness testimony can be wrong)

Originally posted by adam_zapple
By the government,

This government/Agencies?

by American Airlines,

These people from American?

by the families of the victims

These families of the victims (and survivors)?

by the general public, etc.

This general public?

Adam, have you done any research at all?

I'm sure most people understand that the Accepted theory is not 100% accurate

Contradict yourself much?

eyewitness testimony can be wrong

I agree. Watch the P4T presentations as its covered. Mainly with independent corroboration.

Edit: Fixed link

[edit on 13-1-2009 by RockHound757]

Originally posted by adam_zapple

How is that any different than radio or TV interviews conducted on 9/11?

It's not.

Any first-hand eyewitness accounts can fairly be considered evidence.

What's unfortunate for your argument is that you have not provided a single radio or TV interview of a witness where they definitively place the plane SoC or on the official flight path.

So until you can provide one you have no choice but to admit that you have presented ZERO evidence to refute the 13 confirmed and corroborated witnesses who definitively place the plane NoC and ONA.

All eyewitness statements are evidence.

But which eyewitnesses said that the plane did not crash?

Only first-hand eyewitness statements are evidence.

2nd hand reports are hearsay and therefore not eviedence.

This is a fact that is easily acknowledged by true skeptics and intellectually honest critical thinkers.

Since you have provided ZERO first hand accounts directly placing the plane SoC you are forced to admit that you have no evidence in this regard at all and that your claim is merely faith based.

No...you use their claims of ONA and NOC to unilaterally dismiss any claims of airplane impact.

You are making false accusations about me personally without providing evidence to back it up.

No independent verifiable evidence has been "unilaterally dismissed".

As stated above...you use the eyewitness claims of ONA and NOC to unilaterally dismiss any claims of impact, as well as any evidence of impact.

Your hollow accusation is not a valid argument.

You have presented zero independent verifiable evidence to counter NoC and ONA.

They also corroborate each other with regard to the impact, yet this claim is not treated equally.

Circular logic.

The claims are mutually exclusive and most could not see the alleged impact point or the Pentagon at all so this is a moot point in most cases and faulty logic in all cases.

Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by adam_zapple
By the government,

This government/Agencies?

The government. THat doesn't mean every single person within the government has to agree.

Originally posted by RockHound757

by American Airlines,

These people from American?

By American Airlines, the corporation. As with any policy enacted or endorsed by American Airlines, total agreement by every employee is not required.

Originally posted by RockHound757

by the families of the victims

These families of the victims (and survivors)?

As with the others...total agreement by every single person is not required....but a majority of family members are satisfied. (Including me)

Originally posted by RockHound757

by the general public, etc.

This [url=

Originally posted by RockHound757general public[/url]?

"Hiding something 53%" - THat doesn't mean they reject the entire scenario.

Originally posted by RockHound757
Adam, have you done any research at all?

Plenty. Links to polls from 2006 or truther sites don't prove what you already know. Those who think the government was responsible for 9/11 are a small fringe minority group of people.

Originally posted by RockHound757

I'm sure most people understand that the Accepted theory is not 100% accurate

Contradict yourself much?

Nope. Understanding that the theory is not 100% accurate doesn't mean that you reject it completely. No 9/11 theory can be expected to have 100% accuracy.

I wont bother responding to every single point as i think its already proven, with sourced claims, the govt story is not an "accepted theory" . However...

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Those who think the government was responsible for 9/11 are a small fringe minority group of people.

So, why do you (and many others, such as the JREF) spend almost every hour of your day and night with a small "fringe minority group of people"?

Each post you make validates the "fringe" argument.

Perhaps your time would be better suited fighting 419 scams?

Originally posted by RockHound757
I wont bother responding to every single point as i think its already proven, with sourced claims, the govt story is not an "accepted theory" .

You've claimed that it's not accepted by pointing to lists of people who don't accept it. These don't represent the majority of those groups mentioned.

Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Those who think the government was responsible for 9/11 are a small fringe minority group of people.

So, why do you (and many others, such as the JREF) spend almost every hour of your day and night with a small "fringe minority group of people"?
Perhaps your time would be better suited fighting 419 scams?

I don't. I've spent a decent amount of time here today due to work being slow...but I haven't spent NEARLY as much time here as Craig, etc (just look at our post counts)

I personally think many so-called "truthers" are frauds, and like 419 scammers, I enjoy exposing frauds.

reply to post by RockHound757

Boone was in Arlington. Why didnt he confront the witnesses? Or did he... but doesnt want to share his experience....?

Nope, I didn't confront any witnesses, didn't feel like it really. However, I did have Ed Paik diagnose a check engine light of my vehicle and it turns out that it was only a vacuum line leak between the engine compartment and fuel filler neck.

How about Roberts placing the decoy jet over lane 1 in south parking?

Turbo blew me off... Craig is ducking and weaving all over the place... will you address the contradictions between his statements and what is represented in the video?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Boone 870

 

Roosevelt Roberts is not a witness to the approach at all and could not see the citgo gas station from his location at all either.

His account is therefore irrelevant to any approach "flight path".

Here is merely a witness to a plane immediately after the explosion at less than 100 feet.

Never.

He only saw plane :flying around the south parking lot at around "9:12, 9/11." And you agreed you could not tell what Roberts meant when you interviewed him.

It's all on your audio tape. Roberts only discredits himself and CIT.

It's over for CIT. Really. And you know it.

Originally posted by adam_zapple

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Not a single independent witness we spoke with supported SoC.

2 words: Lloyd England

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Lloyd England doesn't corroborate either claim.

Surely, adam, you jest.

Are you referring to the same Lloyde Englande who changed his story and placed his taxi further North along the bridge than where it was allegedly struck?

Are you referring to the same Lloyde Englande who is the ONLY person on this planet to have witnessed the light pole smashing his windscreen. No other person on the planet has verified Lloyde's light pole story. He is completely alone with that one, all by himself with zero corroboration.

Rather than drag this thread off topic, I suggest that you read the numerous threads about Lloyde Englande, his taxi and the light pole. It's a simple search term to type into the search box.