Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.

Your logic still makes absolutely no sense Weed . . . why would a building or any obstructions at all that were constructed years after the event have any influence on the flight data recorder?

The blue linkys in your response are unconvincing, sorry.

It would take anyone at least an hour to go through all of the things in my links for this thread.

You responded within several minutes. There’s no way you even looked at everything.

What do you think is unconvincing about them?

I’m dieing to hear this, because I know that there is no way in hell that you looked at everything

Now you’re going to be bashing your brain in trying to find a hole in my logic and you won’t.

This should be interesting.

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

That isn’t a straw man at all. You are claiming the FDR is reliable; I’m saying it may be tainted. That has everything to do with your argument.

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.

Those are your opinions, but for arguments sake, let’s forget the FDR, since I would rather not here any more of you ad hominem attacks directed at Citezen InvestigationTeam and Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

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.

If they’re actually dead it isn’t.

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.

Appealing to emotion . . .

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

Appeal to motive . . .

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

Very true. When you pissed all over their black kettle you must have been high Weed. Pun intended.

in response to your you tube video

Pieces of plane parts are not proof of a plane crash. Try logic next time.

[edit on 12/15/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
The burden of proof is not on me to prove that something didn’t happen.

In this case it is.

The statement "AA77 hit the Pentagon on September 11 2001" is a priori true or false. You believe it to be false. I am asking that you prove that, which you seem unable to do.

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

Absolutely not. I don't acknowledge an OS, so it's you who are using semantics - ones which you and other Truthers have invented. You've brought a term into the debate which only you consider valid.

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

You've completely dodged the question by demanding that I stay within the parameters of the thread. This may be good internet forum practice - in which case I'm happy to start another thread - but it isn't going to help you with the logic of your position.

Once more:

I surmise from this thread that you believe the statement "AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon" to be true.

I require proof in order to believe you. That is all.

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?

As I say I will happily start another thread if you like, or debate you in another medium. As I have also said, I don't believe in something called the "OS". Your evidence for its existence remains on the level of bare assertion.

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.

I'm aware of that. I clearly meant "why is the "OS and its supporters" my friend in the analogy?"

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.”

Then the analogy falls down, because the relationship of "OS Supporters" to me in real life is not equivalent to the "friend" and "me" in the analogy. Indeed I'm struggling to see why you even introduced it.

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.

I don't believe there is such a thing as an "OS Believer". You are tilting at windmills.

It's the equivalent of me asking you to account for the use of lasers from space to destroy the WTC. You may protest that you don't believe it, and I can point you to parts of the 9/11 Truth movement that do. You would then protest that there is no single "TM". In the same way I don't consider there to be a single "OS".

It's simply a convenient lumping together of various reports, investigations and MSM articles and broadcasts which allows people like you to protest at inconsistencies between them. "If it's an Official Story it should be consistent", runs your logic, conveniently forgetting that you invented the notion of an Official Story in the first place.

Furthermore, you are not the only one who gets to "pose questions". I am posing one of you now, and you remain unable to answer it.

Originally posted by JPhish

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

No you won't.

Originally posted by JPhish
“No I am not” is not a valid response.

It is. You asked if I was an "extreme internalist" and my response was that I am not. Which I am not. How is that invalid?

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.

Which would strongly suggest to me that you have no evidence.

"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.”?

Yes. But I don't consider those bodies to constitute a single voice or to agree on all aspects. You simply pretend that they do so you can slay a dragon that doesn't exist.

Furthermore you say it is "The story supported by...". You use a definite article, meaning that the "story" must exist independently of its supporters - they are, after all, merely supporters of it, not the source of it - so where does it exist? Where can I read summary?

Let me give you another example. Here is an article from the Guardian which suggested that Bush was warned about the 9/11 attacks weeks before they happened.

www.guardian.co.uk...

This is in stark contrast to your "OS", and yet the Guardian is a British national newspaper, an integral and traditional part of the MSM. If people within the Official Story can't even get the Official Story straight then it is not evidence that that story is flawed - rather it suggests that it doesn't exist.

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

Bare assertion again.

Originally posted by JPhish

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.

Russell was arguably the eminent logician of his time, so not exactly obscure. His Principia Mathematica is one of the most important works on mathematical logic ever. He was indeed also "into metaphysics". But you might find his more accessible work on the application of logic to human problems quite interesting.

Originally posted by 911files

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.

This is where the truth lies. In careful examination of the physical evidence, examination of the radar data, teasing out more and more information from the FDR.

It pains me that 911 files can make a post amongst all this useless verbiage and it is virtually ignored in the haste to post some speculative rubbish.

So truthers, if you are indeed seeking truth, what do you think of the radar data, what do you think of the new data from AA 77's FDR. Do you care ?

Originally posted by JPhish

reply to post by JPhish

Your logic still makes absolutely no sense Weed . . . why would a building or any obstructions at all that were constructed years after the event have any influence on the flight data recorder?

Again....not sure where this jumped the shark. I had thought that somewhere, somebody NOW is looking at Google Map NOW and saying that the buildings there that they see NOW somehow "prove" that the FDR was invalid. I should have made that more clear, I suppose.

So, even though I thought I said it clearly enough the first time, will say again, using different words: It appears, from the aerial photos shown that date from the months just AFTER 9/11 attacks, the lack of obstructions seen TODAY indicates that the argument that some have made based on what they see TODAY is invalid.

Capisce?

It would take anyone at least an hour to go through all of the things in my links for this thread. You responded within several minutes. There’s no way you even looked at everything.

You may find it surprising, but I actually HAVE been reading along on this thread, for a while. I choose to post only occasionally.

Not sure which of your many blue linkys are broken, but one of the web posts you linkyed to had a few that went nowhere...might be a new development.

You are claiming the FDR is reliable; I’m saying it may be tainted. That has everything to do with your argument.

I wonder if I should refer you to the FDR thread. The discussion there is far more involved than we can get into here, and that would be duplication anyway...and urinating into a strong wind, to boot.

But, just in a nutshell: Since you have now laid the claim that a Flight Data Recorder may somehow have "tainted" information, it is encumbent upon you to find any source, example, anything at all to support that claim. There are many, many instances of FDR data being published (from other accidents/incidents), and much is on the Web. If you could find just one case where the data was called into question, then your claim would merit some examination. Otherwise? Bupkis.

Oh...while researching, an additional place to look would be the manufacturers. (Honeywell or Fairchild, to name two).

... but for arguments sake, let’s forget the FDR...

OK, fair dinkum, since it is only tangentally applicable to this thread. For now, I've included it for clarity.

If they’re actually dead it isn’t.

Huh? That doesn't even deserve a response.


AS TO:

Appealing to emotion . . .

and. . .

Appeal to motive . . .

You said it best, if unintentionally . . .

When you [redacted] all over their black kettle you must have been high Weed. Pun intended.

Except for the violation of T&C with a controlled substance reference, your black kettle analogy fits your arguments to a tee.

Pieces of plane parts are not proof of a plane crash. Try logic next time.

Ah huh. Huh....the tortured "logic" of the TM. Quaint.
___________________________________________________________
[BB]



[edit on 15 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to pteridine's post #2519

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x

 

Credible evidence for AA77 striking the Pentagon:
Physical damage and fuel fire.

If it's credible, I think you should be able to answer all of the following questions:
1- Where's the bulk of AA 77s massive wings? For that matter, why was there so little airplane debris in general?
2- Why did the wings not damage the pentagon?
3- Probably most important of all, if all the North of citgo gas station witnesses are correct, how can you account for -all- of the physical damage, since none of it lines up with such a flight path?

Concerning the fuel fire, could not the generator tank account next to the pentagon account for it?

Originally posted by pteridine
Aircraft parts consistent with the aircraft.

I've heard from PFT that an engine allegedly found there was -not- that of a 757. Furthermore, why was none of the debris positively identified as coming from AA 77?

Originally posted by pteridine
Recovered human remains with DNA testing verifying identities.

DNA evidence can be planted. Do you have any evidence that it wasn't? For that matter, do you know who, precisely, picked up this evidence?

Originally posted by pteridine
No evidence of high explosives, evidence planting, or collusion.

There was atleast one witness who smelled cordite. I know you have claimed that it was something else they smelled, but you have presented no evidence that this was in fact the case.

Originally posted by pteridine
Lack of alternate explanations consistent with the above.

I maintain that the flyover theory eliminates the need to explain any of the above questions I've posed, as the whole thing was just staged to make it -look- like the plane crashed there. Perhaps more importantly, it also explains all those north of the citgo flight path witnesses.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by scott3x


1.The wings went with the airplane. See witness statements posted previously. Airplane debris was scattered and airplane pieces were found outside and inside the Pentagon.
2.The wings did damage the Pentagon. 911review.com...

3.Obviously, the NOC witnesses must be in error or their testimony was distorted by CIT.

The generator tank could not account for the fire. The tank that was struck was small and was burning outside. How did thousands of gallons of fuel get inside?

PFT is wrong. See Catherder’s thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

DNA evidence can be planted. Do you have evidence that it was? I don't know who picked up the remains. Are you a voyeur like some other members who want to see pictures and then demand to know who the poor soul was? Try this: NOC witnesses can be bought. Can you prove that they weren't?

One witness claims to have smelled “cordite.” Cordite is a smokeless nitrocellulose based propellant and burned cordite smells of nitrogen oxides, not surprisingly. Indoor shooting ranges and power plants smell of nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen oxides are common in high temperature fires and form from combustion air. Read up on stack gas scrubbers for the details. The witness would have no way of knowing the source of the nitrogen oxides. The only way to prove explosives would be to find physical evidence of explosives. None was found here or at the WTC.

Why are you basing everything on the NOC witnesses who provide the least accurate information by estimating a flight path? What about the NOC witnesses who say a the plane hit the Pentagon? Are they correct at guessing a flight path and wrong about where they watched the plane fly? All the other evidence supports a plane striking the Pentagon.

Please provide a rationale of why there would have to be such a tortuous plot when crashing a plane into the building is much easier.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Originally posted by JPhish

reply to post by JPhish

 

Your logic still makes absolutely no sense Weed . . . why would a building or any obstructions at all that were constructed years after the event have any influence on the flight data recorder?

Again....not sure where this jumped the shark. I had thought that somewhere, somebody NOW is looking at Google Map NOW and saying that the buildings there that they see NOW somehow "prove" that the FDR was invalid. I should have made that more clear, I suppose.

So, even though I thought I said it clearly enough the first time, will say again, using different words: It appears, from the aerial photos shown that date from the months just AFTER 9/11 attacks, the lack of obstructions seen TODAY indicates that the argument that some have made based on what they see TODAY is invalid. Capisce?

Yeah, I get it, but I believe you have been misinformed; No one to my knowledge has made an argument based on what you are saying. That’s why I said it’s a straw man.

You may find it surprising, but I actually HAVE been reading along on this thread, for a while. I choose to post only occasionally.

Well at least that’s believable.

Not sure which of your many blue linkys are broken, but one of the web posts you linkyed to had a few that went nowhere...might be a new development.

Thanks for the heads up . . . I’ll check it out . . . they were all working originally.

I wonder if I should refer you to the FDR thread. The discussion there is far more involved than we can get into here, and that would be duplication anyway...and urinating into a strong wind, to boot.

I’m not a pilot nor am I able to interpret a FDR.

But, just in a nutshell: Since you have now laid the claim that a Flight Data Recorder may somehow have "tainted" information, it is encumbent upon you to find any source, example, anything at all to support that claim.

I never said that the FDR was tainted. I said that it may be tainted. There is a difference. The logic behind why it may be tainted is the NTSB would have a conflict of interest in regards to releasing authentic data, if indeed the government was involved in the attacks.

There are many, many instances of FDR data being published (from other accidents/incidents), and much is on the Web. If you could find just one case where the data was called into question, then your claim would merit some examination. Otherwise? Bupkis.

Other examples are not needed. Conflict of Interest. That is enough reason to doubt the authenticity of the FDR.

Oh...while researching, an additional place to look would be the manufacturers. (Honeywell or Fairchild, to name two).

Not needed.

OK, fair dinkum, since it is only tangentally applicable to this thread. For now, I've included it for clarity.

Glad you agree.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Originally posted by JPhish
You said it best, if unintentionally . . .

When you [redacted] all over their black kettle you must have been high Weed. Pun intended.

It was a play on words; don’t read too much into it.

Except for the violation of T&C with a controlled substance reference, your black kettle analogy fits your arguments to a tee.

I haven’t broken any T&C. What I typed are lyrics to a song. They are open to interpretation.

Originally posted 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]

I don't debate people who have no clue what they are talking about. You do the time, go get 500 gigs of electronic data (radar, audio, documents) and boxes of hard copy like I did, take a few field trips to Arlington and talk to the folks who where there. Then actually reveiw the material. Then come see me, we might then have something to debate. Otherwise you are just another internet troll not worth my time.

Originally posted by 911files
I don't debate people who have no clue what they are talking about. You do the time, go get 500 gigs of electronic data (radar, audio, documents) and boxes of hard copy like I did, take a few field trips to Arlington and talk to the folks who where there. Then actually reveiw the material. Then come see me, we might then have something to debate. Otherwise you are just another internet troll not worth my time.

Thanks for your input.

Of course you're talking about the plane crash at the Pentagon on 9/11.

These people are talking about some bizarre fairy tale they truly believe happened that day - cooked up by people who've never been 50 miles from home and couldn't figure out what happened if someone dropped a bomb on the house next door. They'd think it was some government scheme.


M

[edit on 16-12-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by 911files


That's a joke and a half.

If you have 500 gigs of data and you know what you are talking about; how long could it possibly take you to dispatch someone like myself in a debate when you claim I have no idea what I'm talking about?

Sounds like you're afraid to find out to me.

Data is about quality, not quantity by the way.

Do you believe Lloyde England's cab was impaled by a light-pole as the result of a 757 hitting it?

I can answer this question and provide reliable proof. Can you? Does any of your FIVE HUNDRED GIGS of data give you the answer to this question?

[edit on 12/16/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
If you have 500 gigs of data and you know what you are talking about; how long could it possibly take you to dispatch someone like myself in a debate when you claim I have no idea what I'm talking about?

Sounds like you're afraid to find out to me.

Data is about quality, not quantity by the way.

Do you believe Lloyde England's cab was impaled by a light-pole as the result of a 757 hitting it?

I can answer this question and provide reliable proof. Can you? Does any of your FIVE HUNDRED GIGS of data give you the answer to this question?

Debate has come and gone. You scored zero.

You probably delude yourself into thinking you've impressed anybody.

Fallacy (99)

reply to Pilgrum's post #2541

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Re the severed + broken light poles and their final location:

Originally posted by scott3x
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

Why is that?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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 ?

Since you won't go to the link, I guess the link will have to come to you. I'll give you Rob Balsamo's take on it:

If a wingtip did hit that pole at 500 mph, impacting more than half the diameter of the pole as the photo suggests, do you really think there would just be a scuff and no dent?
...

By the way, if they... view the links we provided in the other thread [I can't remember what thread he was referring to, but video coming up], they would realize the final heading has the VDOT pole well within the wingspan. In other words, the VDOT pole should have been toast! The heading doesn't contact pole 2 either... If we incorporate Pitch and bank, the aircraft doesn't hit anything. The people... are cherry picking heading and disregarding all other data. If they use heading, they have to use pitch and bank as well. This is an airplane, not a car.

Instead of posting a link this time since people refused to click it last time... here is the video itself...

Google Video Link

Now, i wonder if they'll spend 8 mins watching a video presentation, or 2 weeks and numerous convoluted posts of why they didnt... lol

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by scott3x
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?

Perhaps I should have simply stated that I find their logic concerning the flight path to be sound. I have had differences with them on the possible motives of witnesses, or forum posters for that matter, concerning why they've stated what they've stated, but I fully agree with their north of the citgo gas station flight path theory.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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 have seen no such bending. They have stated that when they went down to Arlington, they had no idea that so many witnesses would claim a north of citgo flight path, but when they saw they were doing this, they went with it.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by scott3x
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.

Yes. Now, don't you think it's reasonable that, after he had been told of the many North of Citgo flight path witnesses, he would want to fit into them, and that's why he changed his story -during- his second interview?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The question seems to simply come down to whose crime it was and the physical evidence speaks for itself.

The physical evidence shouts "staged" in my view, but I know you see things differently.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
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?

The north of citgo witnesses themselves, ofcourse. And evidence of staging the physical evidence found is also strong evidence. There was also a story at PFT that some people were trying to sell AA 77 -years- after the event. Quite doable if the plane never crashed into the pentagon.

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

I'm sorry to hear that. However, I noticed that you didn't point out any flaws in his analysis. Did you not find any?

[edit on 16-12-2009 by scott3x]

Originally posted by JPhish
I can answer this question and provide reliable proof. Can you? Does any of your FIVE HUNDRED GIGS of data give you the answer to this question?

[edit on 12/16/2009 by JPhish]

Yep....

Radar and NTSB Time Normalization

Of course I don't expect you to understand any of it though.

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted 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]

I don't debate people who have no clue what they are talking about. You do the time, go get 500 gigs of electronic data (radar, audio, documents) and boxes of hard copy like I did, take a few field trips to Arlington and talk to the folks who where there. Then actually reveiw the material. Then come see me, we might then have something to debate. Otherwise you are just another internet troll not worth my time.

911files that was a troll like post. You think JPhish has no clue? Well then step up and debate. Good to hear you have plenty of information, it is def quality over quantity in this situation.

JPhish, I have been occasionally popping into this thread to watch you tear the OS crew apart. Mad respect, it has been entertaining, educational and at times awesomely brutal. Better a cruel truth than a gentle lie.

It has been good to see this ATS BIG thread continue. It has allowed for a clear divide between the two sides and exposed debating skills or lack thereof.

There has been some great posts from both camps but I would have to say that it appears the OS believers have been coming up a bit short and shying away from the heavy questions. That was a slightly biased view, given with an attempted emphasis on impartiality.

IMO, 9/11 screams INSIDE JOB. The PentaCon is a huge part of it but when you combine that with all of the other evidence it becomes quite obvious.

Great thread, great posting, and great skills all round. Keep it real and let the truth be known. Peace

See, there ya go. Instead of dealing with the evidence, you go into your opinion and speculation. Debating you guys on the CIT foolishness would be like debating a 5 year old about Santa Claus. You argue subjective opinion, not objective facts.

reply to post by JPhish


It seems that you dismiss uncomfortable evidence with a "conflict of interest claim." If CIT is making money on their story, do they not also have a "conflict of interest?"
You claim plot involvement by the NTSB. At what level is the NTSB involved and who would be able to change or supress data from the FDR?

reply to weedwhacker's post #2556

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x

 

scott, you're a thorough researcher and seem level-headed.

Thanks for the complement :-)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.

I admit that the FDR data is a part where I'm not completely informed, yes. I believe that the rest of the data is sufficient to understand that the flyover theory is the most probable, but I'm certainly willing to discuss whether this is true or not with you :-)

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x
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 track over the ground, when aligned with the impact point, shows that north of the gas station is fantasy.

Personally, I believe that the FDR data was fabricated. But as mentioned in the past, the FDR data isn't my strong point; I see JP has responded to your post on one of your points, however. I'm more into the witnesses, Lloyd England in particular.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Any 'eyewitness' testimony saying otherwise (and, again...only certain peoples' testimony were included...anything different from the desired result was rejected by CIT)

I believe they showed that most of the witnesses were consistent with a North of Citgo flight path; there were a few that weren't, but I believe their credibility is highly suspect.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...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.

I don't agree with this...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.

CIT has covered all the witnesses of note, not just the ones they interviewed. Here is their complete list of alleged witnesses:
Witness List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 "impact" witnesses

Originally posted by weedwhacker
With their own eyes. This fact tends to get shoved aside, when the CIT and P4T proclaim loudly so many different scenarios...they have so many, by now, that I've lost track. I think they have too....

I only recall 2- that a missile hit the pentagon was one that PFT had considered for a while, but since then, it's essentially been that the plane didn't hit the pentagon. CIT and many within PFT believe the plane flew over, but some refuse to comment on what became of the plane if it didn't, in fact, crash into the pentagon.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.

I see JP's responded to that point of yours...

reply to pteridine's post #2566

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by scott3x

 

1.The wings went with the airplane.

I have seen very little alleged wing debris, and none of it has been confirmed as coming from a 757. Why do you suppose that is?

Originally posted by pteridine
See witness statements posted previously.

There's a lot of posts, and I'm not sure what you'd have me looking for...

Originally posted by pteridine
Airplane debris was scattered and airplane pieces were found outside and inside the Pentagon.

Mostly the size that you could pick up by hand; in other words, the type that could easily be planted and easily removed. Don't you find this atleast slightly suspicious?

Originally posted by pteridine
2.The wings did damage the Pentagon. 911review.com...

From your link:

One deficiency of analyses purporting to show that a 757 impact could not have produced the observed damage to the Pentagon is a failure to take into account the blast hardening of the facade. The nature of that hardening remains, like all information about the structural composition of the buildings attacked on 9/11/01, the subject of considerable uncertainty. For example, if the windows were composed of thick carbonate panes, they may have been able to repel lighter fragments of the plane without breaking. Nonetheless, the apparently unscored limestone in the supposed path of the wing ends and tail section seem difficult to reconcile with such a crash. However, if [emphasis mine] these portions of the jetliner were destroyed just before impact, as proposed by French researcher Eric Bart, it is conceivable that they would have been reduced to small debris so as to leave no impression on the facade. Meanwhile the punctured areas of the facade were large enough to admit the vast majority of the aircraft into the building.

Your site offers no evidence that that 'if' was true. If it's not, even your site makes it clear that the lack of damage to the windows is highly suspect.

Originally posted by pteridine
3.Obviously, the NOC witnesses must be in error or their testimony was distorted by CIT.

I strongly disagree. I think that the NOC witnesses are mortal to the official story; I really don't understand how you can see it differently.

Originally posted by pteridine
The generator tank could not account for the fire. The tank that was struck was small and was burning outside. How did thousands of gallons of fuel get inside?

Here I admit I don't have an answer.

Originally posted by pteridine
PFT is wrong. See Catherder’s thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seems to have stopped, but I took a look at the last 2 posts. Have you? Here they are:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
DNA evidence can be planted. Do you have evidence that it was?

No, I don't. My point is that there is no evidence that it wasn't. A proper investigation would have carefully scrutinized if this might have occured. Do you have any evidence that this was done?

Originally posted by pteridine
I don't know who picked up the remains. Are you a voyeur like some other members who want to see pictures and then demand to know who the poor soul was?

I have heard it was a team. If a team, or a member or 2 of this team -did- plant evidence in various forms, be it DNA or plane debris, wouldn't you want to know about it?

Originally posted by pteridine
Try this: NOC witnesses can be bought. Can you prove that they weren't?

Think about motive; why on earth would anyone -want- to do that? As to why someone would want to cover up the fact that various elements of 9/11 were an inside, I think the motive for such a thing is obvious, don't you? Since there's a potential motive, there's that much more of a reason to investigate to find out whether or not it happened.

Originally posted by pteridine
One witness claims to have smelled “cordite.” Cordite is a smokeless nitrocellulose based propellant and burned cordite smells of nitrogen oxides, not surprisingly. Indoor shooting ranges and power plants smell of nitrogen oxides. Nitrogen oxides are common in high temperature fires and form from combustion air. Read up on stack gas scrubbers for the details. The witness would have no way of knowing the source of the nitrogen oxides.

My point is that he believed he smelled cordite, which adds another piece of evidence that lends support to the theory that explosives were used.

Originally posted by pteridine
The only way to prove explosives would be to find physical evidence of explosives. None was found here or at the WTC.

As far as I know, you're right that no explosive residues were found at the pentagon; but then, do you have any evidence that anyone ever looked to see if any residues could be found? Over at the WTC buildings, NIST admits it never looked for such residues, claiming that there was no evidence that they had been used. Meanwhile, lots of explosive residues, in the form of unexploded nanothermite, was found by independent investigators at the WTC buildings. If NIST truly wanted to uncover the truth, don't you think that atleast -after- explosive residues had been found by these independent investigators, they should have gone back and looked for explosive residues from the debris they still had?

Originally posted by pteridine
Why are you basing everything on the NOC witnesses who provide the least accurate information by estimating a flight path?

Why do you believe that the NOC witnesses provide the least accurate information? And as to why they would have staged this scenario instead of just crashing into the building, I'm not sure. However, I asked for theories in a thread I started over at PFT back in February, and got some interesting responses:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 16-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by PsykoOps


It's good enough to convict people murder, especially if you can show MOTIVE and MEANS, which we know are both present in spades!

Originally posted by 911files
Instead of dealing with the evidence, you go into your opinion and speculation. Debating you guys on the CIT foolishness would be like debating a 5 year old about Santa Claus. You argue subjective opinion, not objective facts.

Alternately amusing, spooky, disturbing dealing with people who truly think if they close their eyes to whatever conflicts with their beliefs their wish will come true. Religious faith here not data analysis.

As more and more information and data has come in to look at, we're now just dealing with the last holdouts suspending reality to keep the Inside Job myth alive. I noted they're like the Japanese soldiers on found on Pacific islands in the 50s who didn't know WWII was over. Never surrender.

They'll continue to get outraged and indignant when you point out the facts claiming it's faked.

Even kids figure things out after a while. Not these guys.