Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by SPreston
The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.

Yep. UTTER SNAKE OIL.

posted by cogburn
You may very well be correct.

Rejection of the P4T/CIT version of events does not mean an embracing of the NIST report or the 9/11 Commission report.

An alternative explanation that has more holes than the original explanation is less than meaningless... its distracting, it's a waste of resources, and it could potentially ruin valuable witness testimony with shoddy and amateur interrogation techniques.

The road down which P4T/CIT have giddily taken their research (it's a far cry from something I'd qualify as an "investigation") is based upon well constructed nothingness.

Someday P4T/CIT apologists will come to realize this.

So what is your solution; wait 100 years for a state or federal prosecutor to develop the cohones to investigate? CIT are not professionals; they are private citizen investigators. You would rather nobody bothers to do anything; just let the traitors get away with their lying and murders and treason and war crimes? Some fine American you are.

This nonsense about if the plane did or did not fly NoC is a waste of time because it does NOTHING to bring perpetrators to justice.

Stop pretending this is about justice or truth. It's not. We know Dick Armitage was involved and no NoC flight path is necessary for that to be true. All the evidence is there, go arrest him.

I guess if P4T/CIT were dedicating themselves to such a boring pursuit that they would not be able to support their lifestyles by selling DVDs chock full of titillatingly inaccurate information.

Wrapping oneself in the flag (or attempting to remove it from someone else) doesn't make one right. It makes one a sycophant.


[edit on 7-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn


Listen to you lash out and attack us personally simply because we interviewed eyewitnesses and provide independent verifiable evidence.

It is not our claim.

It is what the witnesses who were really there unanimously and independently claim and this is even evidence that you accepted at one point yet tried to foolishly spin into still equaling an impact.

Since you failed at that attempt you have resorted to contradicting yourself by now refusing the same evidence and simply attacking us personally about it.

You say:

We know Dick Armitage was involved and no NoC flight path is necessary for that to be true. All the evidence is there, go arrest him.

Really?

So why don't YOU go arrest him then?

You say you have this evidence yet choose to criticize us for the evidence we uncovered while attacking us for not doing something about evidence that you supposedly have.

I've actually posted it in these forums in another thread. Use the Search feature at the top of the page and search for "Armitage" in this board.

However that is not the topic of this thread, which is the discussion of the latest pseudo-science P4T/CIT has released.

P4T/CIT has the plane nearly 100ft above the Pentagon at the time of explosion. Which witnesses describe the plane being nearly 100ft above the Pentagon at the time of the explosion? Video link and time stamp for verification would be preferable.

Where are the aggregating calculations used to derive the 4 possible flight paths? Was it just a guess? Please post them so your math may be double checked.

By what method was it that you determined the altitude of the aircraft as witnessed by each person? Was it a guess? Please post them so your math may be double checked.

It's not the math that's included that's the problem. It's the assumptions based on the math that isn't included that gives rise to question.

reply to post by cogburn


I have no idea what you are talking about but it certainly isn't the presentation or the tech paper by P4T.

I suggest you take your questions up with them direct because it seems as though you are lost.

Pseudo-skeptics had spread a deceptive lie that it was impossible for a plane to fly north of the citgo at all.

P4T proved them wrong with physics and math.

It is 100% possible and that is a proven fact.

You have not refuted this in the least and are merely spewing a bunch of vitriolic rhetoric as usual.

Originally posted by cogburn
This nonsense about if the plane did or did not fly NoC is a waste of time because it does NOTHING to bring perpetrators to justice.

I partly disagree with this, cogburn. If there was a deception on 9/11, which I know that you believe there was, then any evidence that's put forward by the government should be considered as suspect.

Finding numerous NOC witnesses helps prove that there was a spin put on the official story. All that's needed to show a deception is a deviation from that official flight path. That would show manipulation of both RADAR and black-box data and falsifying official reports, etc.

I also partly agree with you. Assuming these 13 NOC witnesses are correct and the alleged plane did fly NOC, then what can be done? In my mind, nothing can be done. The NOC evidence will be swept away and ignored.

I don't believe in the 'Justice' system. To me, it's a practical way for the powerful to maintain and abuse their power. In a truly, just, open and honest society, then the strength of evidence provided by the 13 NOC witnesses would be properly investigated and questions asked. However, to believe that this will happen is like living in a fairytale.

The 9/11 perps will get away with it, no matter how much evidence will be uncovered. We can all see cracks in the official story, but nothing is done about it. They didn't cover their arses 'perfectly', yet they still got away with it.

Does it mean we should give up on the NOC evidence? Nope. I think it is worth pursuing. It might not eventuate to anything, but at least some people tried, against the odds, to open more cracks in the official story.

Originally posted by cogburn
Stop pretending this is about justice or truth. It's not. We know Dick Armitage was involved and no NoC flight path is necessary for that to be true.

I remember that thread where you mentioned Armitage's involvement. A good read, it was. I do believe that 'follow the money' should lead to somewhere.

Again, though, in an open and honest justice system, shouldn't Armitage already be answering some very tough questions about that money trail? He hasn't, so for now, he's also got away with it.

When the POTUS and VPOTUS effectively grant themselves immunity from any form of real accountable questioning (appearing together, no transcripts, etc), we can see that justice won't be done or be seen to be done.

I also agree with you that the real 9/11 perps sit so far above any government, that they're virtually untouchable.

posted by cogburn

However that is not the topic of this thread, which is the discussion of the latest pseudo-science P4T/CIT has released.

P4T/CIT has the plane nearly 100ft above the Pentagon at the time of explosion. Which witnesses describe the plane being nearly 100ft above the Pentagon at the time of the explosion? Video link and time stamp for verification would be preferable.

Where are the aggregating calculations used to derive the 4 possible flight paths? Was it just a guess? Please post them so your math may be double checked.

By what method was it that you determined the altitude of the aircraft as witnessed by each person? Was it a guess? Please post them so your math may be double checked.

It's not the math that's included that's the problem. It's the assumptions based on the math that isn't included that gives rise to question.

cogburn why don't you head on over to P4T with your bogus claims? Are you afraid you will be made to look like a fool for such blatant BS?

You know the paper/video covers lateral/horizontal turns. Perhaps you should actually read the technical supplement and watch the video.

I have even offered to meet with members of CIT in person and video recorded to debate my points, a request which was refused.

I have considered visiting the forums, however in all honesty I do not visit the P4T or CIT forums because of their Nixon-style enemies list, the link to which was provided to me via private messaging. I am a private individual and do not wish to expose myself to online or offline harassment. It is for this reason I have refused any telephone contact with CIT and will only debate these topics face-to-face or on these neutral forums.

Barring all that, ATS is the perfect forum to debate this topic in that there are a wide variety of disinterested parties available to vet any information posted.... both by myself and anyone else. Last I checked ATS registration was open to the public. If there's anyone at P4T that would like to address my points please provide them a link to this thread.

@tezz: I see your point, however private resources are hard to come by to provide for any investigation. I am opposed to wasting such resources on amateurish interviews on theories that promise to do nothing other than refute the official story. The official story needs no refuting as it is full of holes that cannot be reconciled. It makes for an interesting footnote, nothing more.

If anyone still needs the NoC story to be real for them to be able to believe that factions within our government were responsible through action or inaction for those events to take place, is it really worth trying to convince them? Isn't there enough information already in the public domain that is infinitely better supported by facts and evidence?

Honest investigators, even amateurs, provide all of their data for peer review in an open, forthcoming manner. Honest investigators, even amateurs, do not need enemies lists in order to prove their point to their detractors. P4T/CIT are not honest investigators, even as amateurs.

Originally posted by cogburn
If anyone still needs the NoC story to be real for them to be able to believe that factions within our government were responsible through action or inaction for those events to take place, is it really worth trying to convince them? Isn't there enough information already in the public domain that is infinitely better supported by facts and evidence?

Anyone who's looked a little deeper into 9/11 doesn't need the NOC evidence to prove some kind of deception took place.

However, used as a 'hook' (for want of a better word), the NOC evidence could be an initial stimulus for disinterested people to consider.

If you take the average person from the street and can show them that the alleged plane flew NOC or ONA, which directly contradicts the official story, then they might start asking questions and digging deeper. However, if you show them a paper-trail that they might not follow, or where they need to join the dots, they'll probably show less interest.

The average person on the street is both smart and dumb. They're dumb enough to believe anything, but they're smart enough to only believe what they understand. There's only so much evidence and BS that you can baffle them with before they switch off.

I can see merit in offering the average person on the street something tangible and 'easy' to understand. Given that, most of us on the 9/11 threads (all sides) are not the average person on the street. We've read more, we've argued more and many of us have formed our opinions.

Any new evidence, to me, is important. It may help sway my opinion a little. I'm not as fixed in concrete as I used to be. These days, I'm not sure about where I stand with regards to the LIHOP or MIHOP position, I don't have an agenda either way. While I have my personal opinions about what might have happened, I can't prove it, so it's better to keep an open mind. If I'm still not certain about what happened, then how can the average person on the street be convinced either way?

That's where small details, like the NOC flight path or the completely unverified story about Lloyd's magical light pole, can help some people grasp a tangible reality that the official story is bunk.

I know that you call CIT amateurish, but at the very least, they were probably one of the few who have tried to do something to uncover evidence, many of the CIT also detractors acknowledge their determination. Even if CIT can prove something simple, such as NOC or ONA, then that might be useful for the average person on the street to understand.

I agree with you that there could be other, better, investigations. However, without people willing to put their name and face online, many of us find it easier to type from the shadows, if you will.

While I know we agree on several key topics, I think this is where you and I simply agree to disagree.

Beyond wasting time and money and providing technically inaccurate and misleading presentations, P4T/CIT have done more to harm the dissemination of information than they have helped it. Through either ignorance or design, the highly qualified information that they could have gathered was either damaged, incomplete or perverted into fitting a preconceived notion of events. Who would ever want to come forward with solid, even if contradictory, information after viewing this circus? Out of 100's documented witnesses, only 13 were interviewed. Assuming only 100 witnesses total, that's 13%.

What kind of decision making would you do in your own life based on a 13% probability, with 87% of the available information left uninvestigated and potentially contradictory to that 13%?

I submit to you that convincing the average man on the street is less important than convincing the few that are best suited to initiate a redress of grievances, if convincing anyone of anything is even required.

If I consult the Che Guevara within me, the answer is to simply walk up to those whom we have evidence were involved and end the discussion with the well-placed application of 1oz of molten lead. My research is far too inadequate and incomplete to post a list of these individuals beyond two names: Dick Armitage and Dick Cheney.

If I consult my Buddah nature, the answer is to trust that there are no events in the universe that occur which aren't required for the maturation of our souls. That the events of 9/11 were a global call for introspection and self-evaluation, not only in the events themselves but also our reactions and emotions to them and each other, and on a global scale.

Who's right? Che or Buddah?

I don't claim to yet be wise enough to know.

I am, however, able to recognize an intellectual diversion when presented with one. It's insulting that we are expected to believe the outrageous claims that come from certain quarters of the twoofer cult. It's the same mindset (and supporting tactics) that are employed by such august institutions like Scientology, the Moonies, and even the 9/11 conspirators themselves. That makes any and all research, qualified or not, fruit of the poisonous tree.

That's no kind of activity that I can support in any way, shape or form.

Originally posted by djeminy

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by djeminy

 

No, sir. I do not believe you understood what I was saying in that statement. Allow me to clarify.

It means that CIT's interrogation of the witnesses was misleading and incomplete; to the point of annoyance if you have a trained eye.

It means that P4T used "facts" to derive suspect flight paths are wholly uncorroborated. They demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the maths involved when they correctly utilized calculations on incorrectly aggregated make-believe data. There is a distinct and important difference between knowing how to apply an equation and understanding what it means.

It means that the various involved government agencies refuse all requests at clarification of inconsistent information.

There is not one single party that has presented a scenario that stands up to scrutiny.

That, sir, is my point.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by cogburn]

I come from a poor working class family, so I don't really fit in to your "sir" thing!
It just doesn't "feel" right!
Hope you'll address me hereafter in a more condescending and patronizing tone
befitting my true standing in society!

You state that: "I do not believe you understood what I was saying in that statement.
Allow me to clarify."

Here is your statement again:

"To deny the P4T/CIT version of events does not mean you accept the version posited by government agencies. It means that neither explanation fits the series of events. The gov't reports are crap and so is P4T/CIT's version of events, period."

Could you please tell me what is was that I didn't understand in your above
statement?

You state further that: "there is not one single party that has presented a scenario
that stands up to scrutiny."

Obviously, for you to state this so categorically, you must be the one who got all the
answers!

So again, what is the answer - please!!

"Ohhhhh now I see.

Sitting around and posing oversimplified and incongruent thought experiments are not a substitute for hard facts and solid computations to surround them. Thought experiments are a compliment used to provide easier assimilation of complex subjects."



Well, cogburn, if you do not feel like answering my question above above, then I hope
you don't mind me using your own words above taken from another thread!

At least I got an answer, even though it was not quite the way I had anticipated it,
and not quite the answer I would have expected!

Someone else has already provided the link in this thread to the exact mathematics that proves the failure of the P4T/CIT scenario and how it contradicts the majority of their eye witnesses.

I don't believe in re-inventing the wheel. So rather than cover ground that others have already trodden, I've addressed other problems that are implied by P4T/CIT's faulty application of mathematics.

Perhaps you should spend time reading the whole thread before asserting that the information you're looking for isn't there.

posted by cogburn

I am, however, able to recognize an intellectual diversion when presented with one. It's insulting that we are expected to believe the outrageous claims that come from certain quarters of the twoofer cult.

As well you should, as that is exactly what you are doing here. Be gone with you as you are extremely boring.

reply to post by SPreston


Let's make it exciting for you.

I can't find the P4T/CIT witness that places the plane at the point nearly 100 feet above the Pentagon as indicated in the PDF supplement.

Could you help?

Originally posted by cogburn
Someone else has already provided the link in this thread to the exact mathematics that proves the failure of the P4T/CIT scenario and how it contradicts the majority of their eye witnesses.

So far I haven't seen any math that proves any failure of the PT4 scenario, and neither
in the link you refer to!

In your view then, this math contradicts the majority of the CIT eye witnesses.
Obviously this means that it doesn't contradict the minority of the CIT eye witnesses.

Could you please give me the names of some of the CIT minority witnesses you
think the aforementioned math does not contradict, such that one can get a better
understanding of what you're actually talking about??

Thanks!

Originally posted by djeminy
Could you please give me the names of some of the CIT minority witnesses you
think the aforementioned math does not contradict, such that one can get a better
understanding of what you're actually talking about??

Thanks!

Maybe I misspoke. Let's review for a second....

Turcios: did not state seeing a plane 100ft above the Pentagon, specifically said he did NOT see a plane above the Pentagon
Brooks: did not state seeing a plane 100ft above the Pentagon
Lagasse: did not state seeing a plane 100ft above the Pentagon (Although nobody asked him, so maybe he did. That seems to be how his memory works.)
The ANC Crew: did not state seeing a plane 100ft above the Pentagon
Roberts: do you really want to go rounds on this guy? C'mon.

So let's say there are 100 witnesses total that were able to view the non-impact (estimates are actually higher). P4T/CIT interviewed 13%. Out of those 100 total witnesses, only 1% made any statements that could be construed as indicating a plane above the building, and that witness's statements are easily questioned and no followup has been performed.

Sorry.. I did say something that was not entirely accurate. Allow me to correct my statement completely.

All P4T/CIT witness statements, with the exception of one questionable witness, do not support the version of event posed in the PDF supplement. It must be said that the P4T/CIT interviews only comprise no more than 13% of all witnesses of the events that day and is far from a comprehensive collection of information.

How's that?

[edit on 8-1-2009 by cogburn]

It has been proven that Morin could not have been in between the wings where CIT placed him.

We're just waiting for CIT to admit it.

reply to post by jthomas
I've noticed the other threads that are just ripping this apart. I was working on just one more angle that wasn't covered yet.

That's the thing that makes this entire video/PDF extravaganza something truly epic. This goes beyond the realm of 9/11 research and into the realm of 4chan.

There are so many holes in the argument as posed that one can't help but be just astounded that they even released it.

Disinformation campaign or just ignorance on an epic scale? You decide.

reply to post by cogburn


You are using a lot of vitriolic rhetoric while not addressing the topic or the information direct.

You seem real confused as to the purpose of this scientific presentation even though P4T was very clear.

The purpose is not to prove a flyover or even to prove anything at all about what happened at the Pentagon.

P4T does not present theory.

The purpose of the presentation is to answer to critics who erroneously and furiously tried spreading a propaganda campaign to push the false claim that it is not physically possible for any fixed-wing aircraft to come from south of Columbia Pike, cross directly over the Navy Annex, and bank north of the citgo towards the Pentagon at any speed.

Period.

They have successfully done this with flying colors.

P4T was merely debunking their claim.

So unless you are here to demonstrate exactly how P4T is wrong about this and unless you plan to demonstrate with your own calculations how it is supposedly impossible for any plane on earth to do this you really have no argument at all and should simply concede that P4T is correct in this regard and move on.

But all the hollow rhetoric filled with anger, resentment, and off-topic sweeping generalizations and accusations is not very becoming.

Or conducive to civil discussion.








[edit on 8-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by jthomas

 

I've noticed the other threads that are just ripping this apart. I was working on just one more angle that wasn't covered yet.

That's the thing that makes this entire video/PDF extravaganza something truly epic. This goes beyond the realm of 9/11 research and into the realm of 4chan.

There are so many holes in the argument as posed that one can't help but be just astounded that they even released it.

Disinformation campaign or just ignorance on an epic scale? You decide.

It's always been a CIT fairy tale for whatever reason. But as history and ethics show us, in order to maintain a fiction one has to keep adding new fiction to explain the previous one.

CIT long ago got into the inevitable trap of contradicting themselves in each new fiction. As you've seen, they have spent the last year trying to explain their previous mistakes, but with increasingly disastrous results.

They really blew it by placing Morin in a spot between two wings of the Naval Annex where Morin would be unable to react in time to look UP to see a jet passing overhead. Clearly, if Morin were actually where CIT places him, he could have ONLY seen a SoC flight path. This is so fundamental fact as to make CIT look foolish--again.

It goes without saying that those people at the CITGO would be startled--remember CIT said the Arlington Cemetary workers ducked, a natural reaction to a sudden and loud noise as AA77 passed on the SoC flight path, just like what they do at air shows to scare the willies out of observers. It is understandable that witnesses would try to reconstruct events after the fact and believe a NoC flight path, but a NoC flight path is clearly not consistent with those very eyewitnesses own claims that they saw or believed AA77 hit the Pentagon. Much less with all of the other evidence.

We are witnessing the final denouement in the CIT fairy tale saga. Right now, they are on the wrong end of a Turkey Shoot on JREF, and its quite entertaining. Go see.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So unless you are here to demonstrate exactly how P4T is wrong about this...

Done. Over and over and over. You couldn't support your case.

...and unless you plan to demonstrate with your own calculations how it is supposedly impossible for any plane on earth to do this....

Done. Many times by many more qualified people than amateur investigators. Completely demonstrated that CIT has no case.

...you really have no argument at all and should simply concede that P4T is correct in this regard and move on.

You're still confused. Let me remind you again that we are waiting for your concession speech, Craig. Better now to face the music and get it over with.