Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

reply to post by scott3x


Re the severed + broken light poles and their final location:

Alright, let's say that this is true. It still doesn't explain many of the points raised in the following thread I started over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth that I've mentioned before:

"word Has It..." (traffic Camera Pole "kissed" By Wing)

I wouldn't go there to read the analysis but let me take a guess at the general presentation which would most likely be an attempt to place that camera pole somewhere out of reach of the plane on the 'official' flight path therefore the plane couldn't have hit it and the other poles. Am I close ?
Yet I posted a picture taken on the day (and apparently before noon that day) showing the actual damaged pole less than 40' from 'pole 1' that's said to have hit Lloyd's cab. Before you jump on the distance of 40' I'll clarify that I'm using a plane perpendicular to the 'official' flight path IE if the right wingtip clipped the camera pole then 'pole 1' was hit less than 40' toward the right engine and the damaged tree in the pic fits perfectly with the location of the right engine. The pic also shows the cab between the positions of those 2 poles.

So we have a couple of possibilities here:
1: The picture is genuine and the CIT/PFT analysis is complete bunk as the pole clearly fits the flight path
2: CIT/PFT is trying very hard to make you think the damage is all fabricated to support an otherwise unsupportable theory IE the 'NOC/flyover' in defiance of actual evidence. That 'anti-evidence' again

I think that CIT and PFT are for the most part fairly objective in their analysis. But if you find that there was any flaw(s) in their logic, feel free to point them out.

Just how objective is 'fairly' objective?
The flaw in their logic is that only the things that can be 'bent' toward supporting their theory are used to try to do just that. I call it bias, others may have a harsher assessment of it.

However, I think it's safe to say that Lloyd's objections notwithstanding, the photographic evidence places him at the scene of the crime.

On that we can totally agree - he was there.
The question seems to simply come down to whose crime it was and the physical evidence speaks for itself.

Maybe I'm harping on about physical evidence but it's the best there is. Can you produce any physical evidence in support of a flyover?

I almost burst a blood vessel reading CR's explanation of the rules of pole behaviour but that's not your fault





[edit on 15/12/2009 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by JPhish


You asked me to supply you with an alternative theory.

You falsely assume that an alternative theory would require the tampering of evidence . .

Regardless . . .

An alternative theory is not necessary to disprove a current one.

If there was a theory that cancer was caused by star gazing.

You would not need an alternative theory for what causes cancer to prove that it is not caused by star gazing.

All that you would need to do is prove that it is not caused by star gazing. No alternative theory is necessary.

According to you you can't prove a negative. Nonsense, obviously, as you seem to acknowledge here.

So okay. Prove a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

You are the one claiming something happened. I am demanding you provide evidence for YOUR claim.

You don't know what my claim is. Indeed I'm not making one. You seem to be suggesting that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. I'm asking you to provide me with credible proof.

If I claimed to have a magically invisible dragon that drinks cool-aid and sleeps on my couch; the burden of proof would be on me to prove its existence.

You’re claiming that a 757 hit a light pole which subsequently impaled a taxi cab. I’m asking for proof.

I'm not claiming that at all.

You're claiming that shadowy forces faked an aeroplane's descent towards the Pentagon. I’m not claiming that at all. Have you even read that thread???

Okay. Enlighten me. What are you suggesting?

According to you it actually happened, so it shouldn't be too hard to provide evidence for it.

According to me what happened???

Perhaps you'd like to tell me.


And don't bother with this nonsense about "proving a negative" being impossible. People routinely prove beyond reasonable doubt that they didn't commit murder.

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JPhish
Answer the question.

I've already answered it a few times, but in case you missed it I'll provide you the same answer again.

If you have been giving answers, they have all been invalid.

Nope, I'm saying that eyewitness testimony gathered some 7 years after an event by a bunch of amateur investigators with no credentials is notoriously unreliable.

That is not a valid answer to the question I am presenting.

If you keep asking me the same question over and over you'll get the same response... over and over.

I’ll dumb this down for you . . .

Here’s an analogy . ..

I am asking you:

“Do YOU think ELMO is evil?”

You are responding:

“Puppets that are not bright colors and are adored by Martians are notoriously evil.”

It is not a valid response to the question being asked

For simplification.

Do YOU think LLOYDE is an unreliable witness?

YES or NO




[edit on 12/15/2009 by JPhish]

This thread is 128 pages long!

no one can prove if this guy is reliable or not?

how about this for a pattern buster. a lot of witnesses were deemed unreliable, or part of their testimony was left out.

whats with all the nit picking going on here?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by JPhish

You asked me to supply you with an alternative theory.

You falsely assume that an alternative theory would require the tampering of evidence . .

Regardless . . .

An alternative theory is not necessary to disprove a current one.

If there was a theory that cancer was caused by star gazing.

You would not need an alternative theory for what causes cancer to prove that it is not caused by star gazing.

All that you would need to do is prove that it is not caused by star gazing. No alternative theory is necessary.

According to you you can't prove a negative. Nonsense, obviously, as you seem to acknowledge here.

So okay. Prove a plane didn't hit the Pentagon.

When did I say you can’t “prove a negative”???????????

. . . the burden of proof would fall on the ones claiming that cancer is caused by star gazing. They would perform tests in an attempt to prove their theory, their tests would come back negative, and hence, you will have proven their theory fallacious.

Now, if through their experiments and data you find enough evidence that stargazers and non star gazers have an equal chance of getting cancer. That proves that stargazing does not cause cancer.

You are the one claiming that a plane hit the Pentagon; the burden of proof is yours to prove that one did. If after presenting all of your evidence, none of it proves a plane hit the Pentagon; it would prove that your theory is fallacious.

Now if your evidence and data shows that it was impossible for a plane to hit the Pentagon. It would prove that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

You don't know what my claim is. Indeed I'm not making one. You seem to be suggesting that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. I'm asking you to provide me with credible proof.

It doesn’t work that way.

That’s the equivalent of you saying:

“I have a friend who claims he spoke with God”

Me replying:

“Where’s his evidence?”

And you replying:

“Where’s your evidence that he didn’t?”

You're demanding negative proof from me when the burden of proof is on those making the claim.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If I claimed to have a magically invisible dragon that drinks cool-aid and sleeps on my couch; the burden of proof would be on me to prove its existence.

You’re claiming that a 757 hit a light pole which subsequently impaled a taxi cab. I’m asking for proof.

I'm not claiming that at all.

That’s what the OS says happened. Do you not believe the OS?

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You're claiming that shadowy forces faked an aeroplane's descent towards the Pentagon.

I’m not claiming that at all. Have you even read that thread???

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Okay. Enlighten me. What are you suggesting?

I’m suggesting that Lloyde England’s cab was not impaled by a light pole as the result of a 757 hitting into it as the OS claims. If the OS can not support its claim, then there is not reason to believe it is true.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
According to you it actually happened, so it shouldn't be too hard to provide evidence for it.

According to me what happened???

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Perhaps you'd like to tell me.

I’m not here to tell people what happened. I’m here to help people figure that out on their own.

And don't bother with this nonsense about "proving a negative" being impossible.

People routinely prove beyond reasonable doubt that they didn't commit murder.

That’s because there is presumption of innocence in the United States. Like most things in the U.S., it has nothing to do with being logical.


[edit on 12/15/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish


You are the one claiming that a plane hit the Pentagon;

Am I? Where? I will repeat:

You don't know what my claim is. Indeed I'm not making one. You seem to be suggesting that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. I'm asking you to provide me with credible proof.

It doesn’t work that way.
That’s the equivalent of you saying:

“I have a friend who claims he spoke with God”

Me replying:

“Where’s his evidence?”

And you replying:

“Where’s your evidence that he didn’t?”

That's not equivalent at all. I haven't claimed anything. You repeatedly suggest that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. You're the one with the friend who's talked with God.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If I claimed to have a magically invisible dragon that drinks cool-aid and sleeps on my couch; the burden of proof would be on me to prove its existence.

You’re claiming that a 757 hit a light pole which subsequently impaled a taxi cab. I’m asking for proof.

I'm not claiming that at all.

That’s what the OS says happened. Do you not believe the OS?

Nope. Indeed I don't even believe it exists, so your question is illogical.

I’m not here to tell people what happened. I’m here to help people figure that out on their own.

Well, I'm one of those people. And at the moment it looks to me like you can't prove anything. By your own admission you're not even trying!

That’s because there is presumption of innocence in the United States. Like most things in this country, it has nothing to do with being logical.

Have a look at Bertrand Russell. See what he thought of logic - of which he knew a bit - and its ability to solve complex human problems.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You don't know what my claim is. Indeed I'm not making one. You seem to be suggesting that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. I'm asking you to provide me with credible proof.

You are demanding negative proof again . . .

The OS and it’s supporters make the claim that a 757 struck a light pole which subsequently impaled a cab.

It is their job to prove that it happened.

Not mine.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by JPhish
It doesn’t work that way.
That’s the equivalent of you saying:

“I have a friend who claims he spoke with God”

Me replying:

“Where’s his evidence?”

And you replying:

“Where’s your evidence that he didn’t?”

That's not equivalent at all. I haven't claimed anything. You repeatedly suggest that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. You're the one with the friend who's talked with God.

It might help if you actually READ the analogy;
In the analogy your FRIEND claims to have spoken with God.
Not you.

Your friend in the analogy is the OS and its supporters.

They are the ones who are claiming a 757 struck a light pole which subsequently impaled a cab.

The Burden of Proof is theirs.

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
That’s what the OS says happened. Do you not believe the OS?

Nope. Indeed I don't even believe it exists, so your question is illogical.

If you didn’t believe in cake and I asked you

“Would you like a piece of cake?”

Simply because you don’t believe in cake, doesn’t mean that the question is illogical.

That would be your logic failing again by the way . . .

Well, I'm one of those people.

You don’t even believe that there is an Official Story; how do you expect me to help you discover truths when you fail to see such an unchallenged and obvious one. Do you even believe that cake exists? If you are an extreme internalist who only acknowledges his/her own existence and nothing else. We’re done here and now.

And at the moment it looks to me like you can't prove anything. By your own admission you're not even trying!

I am in a “debate” and the burden of proof is my opponents.
I can not win the “debate” before my opponent presents their proof.
I refuse to provide negative proof because that would be illogical.

Here's another analogy . . .

I am playing a game of chess and it is my opponents turn.
I can not win the game until my opponent makes his turn.
I refuse to make a move out of turn because that would be cheating.

This is true,

I can not win the game until my opponent makes a move.

Which is why the OS supporters refuse to answer questions, refuse to supply reliable evidence, and refuse to accept my challenge to a member debate.

Do they sense my next move is checkmate?

Have a look at Bertrand Russell. See what he thought of logic - of which he knew a bit - and its ability to solve complex human problems.

Just as I suspected . . . we’re not discussing metaphysics, i think you’re in the wrong thread.

[edit on 12/15/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
Which is why the OS supporters refuse to answer questions, refuse to supply reliable evidence, and refuse to accept my challenge to a member debate. [edit on 12/15/2009 by JPhish]

Actually, I'm not an OS supporter, but the evidence is overwhelming in regards to the flight path of AAL77. If radar data from 4 ASR and 3 ARSR radar sites is not 'reliable evidence', then I guess there is none. If changes in the long and lateral acc in the FDR corresponding to pole strikes is not 'reliable evidence', then what can I say? Not to mention the vast majority of eyewitness accounts supporting the physical damage at the scene in the conclusion of a plane hitting the Pentagon.

So yeah, in the twisted 'fly over' mindset, there is no such thing as 'reliable evidence'. But the 'evidence' would win in Court (already has), so I guess forum talk is cheap.

Originally posted by JPhish

You are demanding negative proof again . . .

No I'm precisely not. I'm asking you to prove your claim - that the aircraft didn't hit the Pentagon.

From Wikipedia:

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone... stating a claim must provide evidence to support it

Ironically this is actually from the entry concerning negative proof!

I surmise from this thread that you believe the statement "AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon" to be true. I am asking you to provide me with evidence to support this assertion, and you are singularly unable to do so.

Unless of course you don't think that the above statement is true.

The OS and it’s supporters make the claim

Exactly. They do. Not me.

that a 757 struck a light pole which subsequently impaled a cab. It is their job to prove that it happened. Not mine.

I have no concern with "The OS and it's [sic] supporters". This debate is between you and me.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by JPhish
It doesn’t work that way.
That’s the equivalent of you saying:

“I have a friend who claims he spoke with God”

Me replying:

“Where’s his evidence?”

And you replying:

“Where’s your evidence that he didn’t?”

That's not equivalent at all. I haven't claimed anything. You repeatedly suggest that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon. You're the one with the friend who's talked with God.

It might help if you actually READ the analogy;
In the analogy your FRIEND claims to have spoken with God.
Not you.

Your friend in the analogy is the OS and its supporters.

This is tortured reasoning. Why is the "OS and its supporters" my friend?

They are the ones who are claiming a 757 struck a light pole which subsequently impaled a cab.

So? That has nothing to do with the discussion. You are making a bare assertion fallacy that they are my "friend" and therefore implying that I have some responsibility for their pronouncements.

Originally posted by JPhish
If you didn’t believe in cake and I asked you

“Would you like a piece of cake?”

Simply because you don’t believe in cake doesn’t mean that the question is illogical.

That would be your logic failing again by the way . . .

Wrong again. You're making another bare assertion fallacy that the "OS" - an artifact that you have brought to the discussion - is real. I contend that it is not.

It is no way analogous to "cake". I can prove swiftly that "cake" exists. I doubt you can do the same with your "OS".

You don’t even believe that there is an Official Story; how do you expect me to help you discover truths when you fail to see such an unchallenged and obvious one. Do you even believe that cake exists? If you are an extreme internalist who only acknowledges his/her own existence and nothing else. We’re done here and now.

No I am not. You assert that the statement

"There is an Official Story regarding the events 9/11"

is true.

Prove it.

Have a look at Bertrand Russell. See what he thought of logic - of which he knew a bit - and its ability to solve complex human problems.

Just as I suspected . . . we’re not discussing metaphysics, i think you’re in the wrong thread.

[edit on 12/15/2009 by JPhish]

Do you understand what I meant by this?

reply to post by JPhish

According to my satellite photos it’s a “four leaf clover”, not a three.

Really?

look again:

maps.google.com...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by JPhish

You are demanding negative proof again . . .

No I'm precisely not. I'm asking you to prove your claim - that the aircraft didn't hit the Pentagon.

From Wikipedia:

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone... stating a claim must provide evidence to support it

Ironically this is actually from the entry concerning negative proof!

I surmise from this thread that you believe the statement "AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon" to be true. I am asking you to provide me with evidence to support this assertion, and you are singularly unable to do so.

The burden of proof is not on me to prove that something didn’t happen. They have to prove that it happened first. This is pretty basic stuff.

Exactly. They do. Not me.

If you are not an OS supporter then you’re wasting my time with semantics.

If you are genuinely looking for the truth, read the thread in its entirety.

I’m not going to reiterate all of the evidence that has been presented in this thread for you when you can easily read it yourself.

CIT has already proven that the plane came in North of the Citgo and all the OS believers have been unable to refute it. Read the thread and all of the evidence available within it.

I’ve pointed you in what I believe is the right direction. Good luck.

I have no concern with "The OS and it's [sic] supporters". This debate is between you and me.

This thread is about the OS and it’s supporters having no ground to stand upon. So if you are not concerned with the OS why are you here?

This is tortured reasoning. Why is the "OS and its supporters" my friend?

Because you are the one demanding I provide negative proof when the burden is theirs. I never said that the OS and its supporters are you friend. They would be the equivalent of “your friend” in the analogy. There is a difference.

So? That has nothing to do with the discussion. You are making a bare assertion fallacy that they are my "friend" and therefore implying that I have some responsibility for their pronouncements.

Um I would have to make the assertion before you could call it bare. I never said that the OS supporters are your “friend” nor did I imply you have “responsibility for their pronouncements.” I posed a question for OS believers and you responded. If you are not an OS believer, then I was never addressing you to begin with. It is no fault of mine that you misrepresented yourself.

Originally posted by JPhish
If you didn’t believe in cake and I asked you

“Would you like a piece of cake?”

Simply because you don’t believe in cake doesn’t mean that the question is illogical.

That would be your logic failing again by the way . . .

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Wrong again. You're making another bare assertion fallacy that the "OS" - an artifact that you have brought to the discussion - is real. I contend that it is not.

What I said is 100% valid.

“If you didn’t believe in cake and I asked you

“Would you like a piece of cake?”

Simply because you don’t believe in cake, doesn’t mean that the question is illogical.”

It is no way analogous to "cake". I can prove swiftly that "cake" exists. I doubt you can do the same with your "OS".

It is 100% a valid analogy. Sorry to disappoint, but I’ll prove that an OS exists by the end of this post.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by JPhish
If you are an extreme internalist who only acknowledges his/her own existence and nothing else. We’re done here and now.

No I am not. You assert that the statement

“No I am not” is not a valid response.

You would have no choice in the matter. You need ME for there to be a WE. So If I decide to no longer speak with you. WE are done here and now.

"There is an Official Story regarding the events 9/11"

is true.

Prove it.

You do realize that Official Story is synonymous with “The story supported by the National Transportation Safety Board, Mainstream News Media (The Times, Fox News, NBC etc.), The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, and various other government organizations.”?

Unless you believe that these organizations had no opinion regarding 9-11. I have just proved that there is an Official Story.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Have a look at Bertrand Russell. See what he thought of logic - of which he knew a bit - and its ability to solve complex human problems.

Just as I suspected . . . we’re not discussing metaphysics, i think you’re in the wrong thread.

Do you understand what I meant by this?

What you said was rather ambiguous. Since all I know of Russell is that he was into metaphysics, you’ll have to explain your obscure reference.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JPhish

 

According to my satellite photos it’s a “four leaf clover”, not a three.

Really?

look again:

maps.google.com...

Didn't feel like uploading the ones i have but here are some older satellite pictures i was able to find with a quick goodimage search.

1.bp.blogspot.com...

files.abovetopsecret.com...

www.911-strike.com...

opendb.com...

It was a four leaf clover.

According to google earth right now, it has since been changed . . .

Not sure if you were actually cherry picking there or just trying to have a little fun, but my original statement is still valid.

According to my satellite photos it's (it was) a “four leaf clover”, not a three.



[edit on 12/15/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by 911files


You're right! talk IS cheap.

I challenge you to a member debate on the subject. If you believe the evidence is overwhelming surely you can employ that evidence in a debate against me and win easily?!

*i'll bite my tongue*

[edit on 12/15/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by JPhish


Well, that helps a lot.

Knowing that in 2001 the NorthEast quadrant was one 'leaf' of the interchange clover means there are no buildings there, in the way, as shown in today's Sat photos. The fact that the loop has since been closed down, and built on, just helps with the true story.

It also fits the FDR data...the heading and altitude.

Not ONE assertion of a ground track taking the airplane 'north' of the gas station by the crack team known as 'CIT' has ever been proven.

The airplane's heading, from the FDR, shows that entire allegation to be impossible. The geometry doesn't fit.

Of course, it isn't worth mentioning that the crack-shot "investigation" team only sought out those individuals who they could either ask leading questions of, or otherwise bamboozle to spout what the CIT wanted to thear, in order to support their fantasy. Ignoring, all the while, dozens of other witnesses when what they had to say was inconvenient...

Talk about an "Inconvenient Truth"!!!

reply to Pilgrum's post #2502, Part 2 (last part)

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Incredulity over minute details (like the bonnet seemingly undamaged) does not nullify the whole picture though

Not up on the bonnet issue, so I'll let this pass. But it's not really the minute details, whether from your side or from mine, that I'm interested in addressing anyway. It's the big issues, such as the witness testimonies.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
and he has not confessed to anything other than what he's been saying all along IE the pole went through the windshield and he's extremely lucky to have survived it.

In his last CIT interview, he decided that he was not on the bridge that everyone who has researched the issue knows he was on and steadfastly stuck to this new story, despite being shown evidence that this clearly wasn't the case. Why do you suppose that is?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
A thought experiment: try deleting Lloyd and cab from the scene (like he had a flat tyre down the road or something along those lines) so he simply wasn't there and no vehicles were hit by pieces of light poles and fittings - would it have made any difference?

Most definitely. In the face of the dearth of evidence to support the official story, witness testimonies like that given by Lloyd help bolster the official story's claims. The problem, ofcourse, is that upon close examination it becomes clear that Lloyd's story apparently contradicts the laws of physics themselves, and his testimony has now changed now that he knows that so many witnesses place the flight path of the pentaplane on the north side of the Citgo gas station.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Can you show me a single piece of physical evidence supporting a flyover that hasn't been manufactured by the sources you've been quoting from?

First, let's start with your assumption; you assume that CIT and/or PFT have manufactured some physical evidence. I would like to hear what evidence, precisely, you believe they have manufactured. Secondly, you genearlly can't produce physical evidence for something -not- occuring. If the plane didn't crash into the pentagon, therefore, we must look at the evidence that it -did- crash and try to ascertain whether this alleged evidence survives close scrutiny. I don't believe it does. I think it's also important to note that CIT claims that it wasn't looking to support a north of Citgo flight path when it first arrived in Arlington; it was the witnesses themselves that painted this picture. People who haven't studied the issue might simply assume that the plane took a north of the citgo gas station approach, and yet still crashed into the pentagon. The problem of this theory, though, is that if the plane took a north of citgo flight path, the damage done to the pentagon couldn't have been done by the plane.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The only one I can think of is the original decode of the FDR which was the basis of the 'G calc' fiasco but that has turned into a train wreck with another 4 seconds of data (an incomplete frame) being exposed within that same FDR record which shows a far lower final altitude reading among other things.

I'm not so up on the whole FDR data thing. I notice that there's still an FDR data thread going on in this forum and I assume that that would be a better place to bring that particular issue up.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Not to sound self-righteous or anything but I believe I haven't used info from sources pro or con to any theory in reaching my conclusions.

I don't believe you've linked to any page for or against any particular theory, if that's what you mean. You yourself can be considered a source of information, though, and I think I know what way you lean :-p.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
With regard to the witnesses I quoted just 2 that do not describe either NOC or flyover or right banking and there are many others describing the exact same thing IE through the area of the damaged poles banking left and impacting the building.

Have I already addressed these witnesses of yours?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I see attempts to discard those accounts for reasons like 'works for the govt', 'conflict of interest', 'member of a secret sect', etc and the list goes on.

I think you might consider the reasons given.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Some are a bit ambiguous due to their location and either flightpath could be made to fit their description due to reasons like parallax and those are the ones being 'interpreted' for you.

Ultimately, I interpret the quotes from the witnesses too, and I while I don't always agree with CIT or PFT, I do agree with them on their north of Citgo flight path theory.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by scott3x


scott, you're a thorough researcher and seem level-headed. I fear that you don't have all of the pieces, though. You did mention that you aren't up to date on the FDR data.

while I don't always agree with CIT or PFT, I do agree with them on their north of Citgo flight path theory.

Many, many pages and a lot of electrons have been wasted about this, and yes, this is NOT the FDR thread, but it relates to the problem for CIT's crediblity.

The geometry is wrong to support their claims. It is that simple.

The FDR has the heading information, relative to both magnetic and true north. The heading was fairly steady until recording stopped. Warren Stutt, a researcher from Australia who has become quite teh expert in decoding the 1s and 0s from the digital FDR data has coaxed out a bit more of the final seconds of the flight.

This data has severely threatened the CIT and P4T crowd, so they have scrambled with yet more nonsense smokescreens and non-sequitors in an attempt to prop up their failed claims.

So, in essence...when you know the airplane's heading, then you know its track over the ground. (Wind effect is taken into account, and since the winds were so light --- less than 10 knots --- then the effect is negligible).

The track over the ground, when aligned with the impact point, shows that north of the gas station is fantasy.

Any 'eyewitness' testimony saying otherwise (and, again...only certain peoples' testimony were included...anything different from the desired result was rejected by CIT)...any 'north of Citgo' testimony is probably in error, whether from faulty memory, msleading (and leading) questioning, or point-of-view and perspective issues, depending on the person involved.

It's important to note that many, many other people, NOT part of the small handful that CIT trot out, saw the airplane hit the Pentagon. Withtheir own eyes. This fact tends to get shoved aside, when the CIT and P4T proclaim loudly so many differnt scenarios...they have so many, by now, that I've lost track. I think they have too....
__________________________________________________________

ETA, member 'JPhish' has conveniently supplied good visuals, in just a few posts up, to help picture what I mean about the ground track geometry.





[edit on 15 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JPhish

 

Well, that helps a lot.

Knowing that in 2001 the NorthEast quadrant was one 'leaf' of the interchange clover means there are no buildings there, in the way, as shown in today's Sat photos. The fact that the loop has since been closed down, and built on, just helps with the true story.

It doesn’t help either story, except the story of how it’s a 3 leaf clover now instead of a 4.

I never claimed there was a building in the way. That’s a gigantic straw man Weed.

It also fits the FDR data...the heading and altitude.

Why would a building being there ex post facto affect the heading and altitude on the FDR. It wouldn’t. Come on Weed, you’re simply being silly now.

Not ONE assertion of a ground track taking the airplane 'north' of the gas station by the crack team known as 'CIT' has ever been proven.

It was proven in this thread, you should try reading it.

Happy reading

The airplane's heading, from the FDR, shows that entire allegation to be impossible. The geometry doesn't fit.

Well if what you say is true, it’s a good thing the FDR which may very well have been tainted evidence, isn’t the only evidence available.

Of course, it isn't worth mentioning that the crack-shot "investigation" team only sought out those individuals who they could either ask leading questions of, or otherwise bamboozle to spout what the CIT wanted to thear, in order to support their fantasy. Ignoring, all the while, dozens of other witnesses when what they had to say was inconvenient...

What about these witnesses who also support a flyover? I suppose CIT magically influenced them on 9/11 too and distorted their testimonies before they aired on the News that day right?

Talk about an "Inconvenient Truth"!!!

There’s nothing funny about what happened that day, nor are the repercussions that followed . . .

[edit on 12/15/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x

 

ETA, member 'JPhish' has conveniently supplied good visuals, in just a few posts up, to help picture what I mean about the ground track geometry.

Your welcome . . . but hold your horses . . . .

I understand that if the building had been there it would have posed problems with the OS flight path . . .

But the building wasn't there on 9-11 Weed . . .

So there is no problem concerning the recently constructed building . . .

Unless i'm missing something?



Did you have someone trying to tell you the 9-11 Commission's proposed flight path was erroneous because of that building or something???

[edit on 12/15/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
You do realize that Official Story is synonymous with “The story supported by the National Transportation Safety Board, Mainstream News Media (The Times, Fox News, NBC etc.), The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, and various other government organizations.”?

Unless you believe that these organizations had no opinion regarding 9-11. I have just proved that there is an Official Story.

90% of what we know of 9/11 initially came from what you call 'Official Story' sources. How did you find out what happened that day? Did your on the spot agents inform you?

A 90 ton passenger plane leaving a public airport and an hour later flying into the Pentagon would be impossible to fake.

The media covered the immediate aftermath, ordinary people in the area recorded and recounted what they saw, ordinary people involved in cleaning up the mess saw massive destruction, plane parts, remains of passengers.

Since about mid-day Sept 11, 2001, there has never been a serious question this was an event as real as other widely reported events like the hurricane that hit Louisiana, the eruption of Mt St Helens, etc.

You posit something different occurred. If you are right and an airliner did not fly into the Pentagon then people who say it is so know are in denial.

A classic definition of denial is "an outright refusal or inability to accept some aspect of reality that is troubling. For example: 'this thing has not happened' when it actually has."

Maybe you can help answer these two questions. Are the people who accept what you call the "Official Story" all in denial? Is it possible you and others who believe in the existence of an alternative story possibly in denial?

reply to post by JPhish


No strawmans. You are reading into it.

IN fact, the older aerial view photos show fewer obstructions than currently exist. That is nat a straw fact.

The blue linkys in your response are unconvincing, sorry.

There is NO valid evidence of a "tainted" FDR. Talk about a "strawman"!

What has been shown by P4T, in concert with CIT (since they seem to be joined at the hip) is a pattern of obfuscation, misdirection and outright lying when it concerns the FDR.

AND, the 'Inconvenient Truth" quip was not intended to diminish the tragedy of the Pentagon, nor of the events of that day. Recall, please, that I was acquanted with the First Officer (co-pilot) of American Airlines flight 77, David Charlesbois. Noone's death is alaughing matter, of course.

CIT and P4T, however, are. In the sense that they are ridiculous and, indeed, it is they who are shamelessly stirring the pot and causing pain by their very actions.

And all, it would seem most likely, NOT in the pursuit of any "truth", but instead while chasing the Almighty $$$$$$$$$.

Because the truth is lost so often, lately, by the lies and misdeeds of some....