Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

reply to post by ProudBird


If I may elaborate on the above ^ ^ ^:

The "contributors" at the so-called "P4T"?

I would go so far as to claim, here and now, that they are INDEED an "argument to authority" because the tiny, tiny TINY and miniscule aspect of "actual" pilots who have contributed to the "P4T" is...well, exceedingly small...and tiny.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ProudBird

 

If I may elaborate on the above ^ ^ ^:

The "contributors" at the so-called "P4T"?

I would go so far as to claim, here and now, that they are INDEED an "argument to authority" because the tiny, tiny TINY and miniscule aspect of "actual" pilots who have contributed to the "P4T" is...well, exceedingly small...and tiny.

Would it be fair to say that since it's unthinkable for a decent pilot to fly his plane (with passengers on board) outside its safety margins, some pilots can't fathom the things they saw two 767's and a 757 (through reconstruction) do on 9/11?

Might that explain the "hijackers couldn't have done it" claims? (Which do have some semblance of legitimacy, at least, but it's still falsification-speculation, and let's be honest, Hanjour flew that plane like a blind man driving a truck)

Originally posted by talisman

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by talisman

Reheat,,

If you call someone delusional, that only proves that you called someone 'delusional.'
You can give some evidence to show why their point of view is ludicrous, and argue against the evidence, not against the person with terms that are meant to inflame.

Look fellow,

This stuff has been discussed for years. There is no longer legitimate debate. It was settled years ago over and over again... It has been settled in this thread too... The fact that you are obviously not aware of that is not my fault.. You can do it your way, I'll do it mine. Now either stay on topic or remove yourself from the thread. See, I can play moderator too....

edit on 28-12-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Even *IF* what your saying is true, it does not give you the right to insult and call others stupid. You also made mention of "conspiracy forums"--Obviously, there is some real bias and intolerance of other ideas.

I prefer to "call a spade a spade." Many of those other ideas are STUPID. See, I did it again...

Originally posted by talisman
So if don't mind, take your insults elsewhere. (btw, my suggestion is NOT playing "moderator" but trying to abide by the rules here). I suggest you abide by those same rules.

edit on 28-12-2011 by talisman because: (no reason given)

But, I do mind. You can go suck on a lemon. That probably won't help you to understand the difference between attacking an IDEA as opposed to attacking an individual or a conspiracy site for that matter. You see, some ideas are stupid and some people think they can prove something by garbage that written on a conspiracy site.. Of course, none of that applies to you because you're smarter than that.

The following posts also answer the question by Alfie, who asked why the FDR seems not to show the Radio height above the Annex roofs.
Alfie, the fast answer : I do not trust that portion of the FDR. So I give a damn about what those last seconds of that FDR showed. I can not use them, because the witnesses I TRUST, let me believe that these seconds must be falsified.
I gladly accept any ROCK-SOLID counter argumentation that proves my gut feeling when listening to all these NoC witnesses, wrong.
I'm not a blockhead, I am open for ANY solid counter arguments.
I did not hear them to this moment, regarding the core of the NoC witnesses.
In short : I think the Trusters have a lot of good arguments brought to the table, but none regarding these core NoC witnesses. (The south, east, west and north positioned ones I will bring up a few posts further).

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Reheat
It is not that important to discuss it further because the FDR data was fake anyway!

You have to laugh if you realize the circularity of P4T (and historically, CIT) trying to prove a plane flew over the Pentagon using incomplete FDR data from an FDR found inside the Pentagon.

At last we arrive at the heart of the matter.

1. I firmly believe a plane impacted the Pentagon, but not at the official angle of 60.25° true north. It must have been more towards an 80° to 90° angle.

2. I also believe that it is not too far fetched that a monstrous military apparatus aided by numerous agencies which were threatened with enormous cuts in their trillions of dollars heavy annual budgets for several years already, will indirectly hit back on those who they deem responsible for the endangering of their inherent murderous military species its existence.

3. I believe a powerful faction of that huge military hit back on the politicians who decided to cut their "allowances", and consequently, their might and power and influence. And how do you do that? By freaking their backbone, the US voters, into an all out bloodthirsty revenge and war hunger.
Bomb their biggest symbols. Use patsies to execute it. Northwood style.

4. We will always be divided in three parts, the Truthers, the Trusters and the Undecided.
And it is a constant struggle by both two T-parties, to win the souls of the undecided.

I'm not here to win souls, the historical truth is of my main importance.
And if one of the T-parties here can convince me that there was or wasn't a 9/11 conspiracy, I will lay the keyboard aside, and go enjoy life again, as I did so peacefully before 9/11.
In short, I still doubt many aspects of BOTH T-parties.

Snowcrash, I starred you for that priceless remark about PfT and CIT their circular logic pitfall.
Let's now bring your and my circular logic to the table too.

Your circular logic begins with the C-ring "exit" hole, then the internal damage, then the west wall's entrance hole upper part above the second floor slab (two window areas wide), then the 5 downed light poles, and finally a recovered FDR (flight data recorder) black box and a CVR (cockpit voice recorder) in the same black box.
All combined show a straight SoC flight path in the last 6 to 10 seconds.
I agree with you that for a pure technical evidence based person, this is strong evidence on its own.
However, you disregard all NoC witnesses by declaring them all as delusional persons and all situated to the north of the flight path. I'll prove you wrong on that.

Note that these are all "hardware" items to conclude the official SoC flight path, to stay in your IT vocabulary.
Hardware can be changed, repaired, moved, copied or shredded.
Or falsified.

Bottom line, you Trust that FDR, based on all the hard evidence.
It must appeal to you, that if any entity has played us all for fool, and if it were the ones we suspect the most, with the biggest annual budget any organization on earth ever got, don't you think they were not capable to plan in advance for all the hardware damage? And pay a ridiculous small amount of money, in their eyes, for the executing of it.
I can understand that you follow the "hard" evidence, you're a self declared IT hardware man. Who uses software to get it to work.....
But still, to this moment, do I disagree strongly with your rigid conclusion.


My circular logic begins with the statements of at least 20 eyewitnesses, who all can be suspected more or less to be NoC witnesses. I bring up a long list of these people in the first 3 pages of my 7 pages long thread at PfT (and then I got banned) named The Pentagon Attack Arguments List : Fly-over, Or Head-on Impact?, Just two options left : NoC fly-over, or NoC 90° impact, with the relevant text parts highlighted which do lead me to conclude, on a scale from slightly to quite seriously, that they describe a north of the CITGO gas station flown flight path, by the 9/11 attack plane.

I even have a security video from the CITGO cameras, in my thread named ""Body-language in CITGO video - North path indication?"", where you can see the star witness Lagasse at his gas pump, beside his car, when the plane flies by on the north side, evidenced by a sudden intense flash of reflected light from the shiny aluminum skin of AA77. Directly after that, all persons in that video which are inside run outside. And our star witness dives in his car, radios in that a plane impacted the west wall of the Pentagon, and drove backwards, turned and sped off the CITGO grounds towards the Pentagon over Columbia Pike. His colleague star witness Brooks who had parked on the opposite side of St Joyce Street in the parking lot there, under the "Morin northeastern row of trees", told us on video that the plane flew essentially exactly at the same spot where our star witness Lagasse also placed it in a years later video interview at that CITGO station.

And that the top leafs and branches of the northeastern row of trees where Brooks stood under, and Terry Morin talked about, were rattled in the wake of the jet engines.
That low did the plane pass over those trees, north of the gas station's roof rim, according to him.
Both insist to this day, that that plane flew at least 100 feet / 30 meters north of the CITGO canopy where our star witness stood under its northern rim.

Based on all these reliable witnesses, there can be but only one conclusion for me and many with me.
That FDR found at the Pentagon impact area its last 6 to 10 seconds data, does not reflect the facts laid before us by all these witnesses. Thus you must not trust these last seconds.
They were doctored before in another plane crash I linked to, that earliest test flight crash from one of the first new Airbus planes in Mulhouse, France, where the pilot got the blame, while a software glitch turned out years later, to be the culprit for that crash. Several European governments were involved with that crime, they could not risk to halt the first orders for the new Airbus passenger planes. The saddest victim was the experienced pilot, he never flew again. Bastards.

Note that these are all "people" items, to stay in a "in humans we trust" vocabulary.
People can be wrong, mislead, mistaken, but not all these people as a group on one simple positional item.
The conclusion build on all the NoC remarks mound up to a too big heap of evidence that that FDR's last 6 to 10 seconds is doctored by a "hardware" specialist.
I introduced you already to several witnesses, who all stood in positions, compared to the plane's flight path, on the compass rose its four main directions.

South : Levi Stephens (CIT interviewed) stood where the Pike ends at Lane One of the Pentagon South Parking.
East : Sean Boger (CIT interviewed) saw the plane come towards him.
West : Albert Hemphill (CIT interviewed) saw the plane descend after it passed over the Annex roofs.
North : William Middleton, stood at the southern long fence of the ANC grounds, do include also his 3 colleagues at the ANC maintenance buildings grounds, also north of the plane's path.

So stop repeating that argument, that all these witnesses were mistaken by a distorted view, because you think they all stood north of the flight path.

Snowcrash, that's your phrase, and you are definitely mistaken, and you could know it very well, I gave you all necessary information in all my previous posts. I just compiled the positions for you above, you could have concluded for yourself that you were exaggerating

reply to post by Reheat



You went further then attacking an idea, you made your attack personal.

Yet, the FDR isn't incomplete anymore.

I can read and understand Warren Stutt's source code, so there is no mystery for me there. The FDR, like the radar data, the camera footage, the witnesses and the physical & DNA evidence supports impact from SoC.

There is no scientific basis for witness accuracy claims. The physical evidence fakery proposed is impossible. The witnesses didn't see anything out of the ordinary with the generator, for example, before it got struck. The only drawing we have of a witness located to the south of the OFP is dismissed on the basis that the witness in question is supposedly Jewish but dares wear a crucifix.

There are no south of OFP drawings but one which was rejected for BS reasons. LaBTop, you are drawing conclusions on an extremely skewed data set.

CIT didn't interview the first responders inside the building who saw the damage trail nor the people who collected the plane and body parts strewn in a directional trail consistent with the OFP.

NoC + impact is equally morally and intellectually bankrupt as flyover, and unless and until NoC + impact theorists uncover direct evidence for physical evidence staging (witnesses, right?), they have no case.

Falsification-speculation about light poles does not fit the bill.

reply to post by snowcrash911

Would it be fair to say that since it's unthinkable for a decent pilot to fly his plane (with passengers on board) outside its safety margins, some pilots can't fathom the things they saw two 767's and a 757 (through reconstruction) do on 9/11?

Yes.

About sums it up.

Yes.

reply to post by snowcrash911

Yet, the FDR isn't incomplete anymore

POINT!!!!


And......SCOOOOOORE!


'nuf said.

I suppose you both misread my first lines in my above post about those 6 to 10 last seconds of the AA77 FDR.
Of course I am talking about the period that includes the now already years known extra 4 seconds unearthed by Warren Stutt, which were more and more garbled up towards the end of that FDR.
And the CSV (comma separated value) files by Warren are quite logically arranged, and not really difficult to read and to be interpret.

But the positional data in these last full 6 to 10 seconds do not cover at all CIT's and my NoC witness statements.
So your remark about the FDR being now complete, is in fact futile for explaining our differences.

I was fully aware of Warren's great work, and he can not be blamed for a falsified work of art he got delivered through his FOIA request from the NTSB and the FAA.
Neither can we blame those agencies, when they got those black boxes later than supposed, just as was the case in the Mulhouse Airbus crash FDR falsified case, where they were absent from the police history reports for a full day and night, until they miraculously reappeared at a small police station.

Do realize that just one or two men in the right places could have falsified those last seconds, more was not needed. They needed only 36 hours in France.

We already established enough evidence that the radar returns up till the Sheraton Hotel were quite honestly evidencing the real flight path up to that point, and then suddenly the radar returns for the rest of the path were absent, explained away as caused by blockage through the buildings in Crystal City.
That's already pointing in the direction of a possible quick falsification job, where further radar returns would complicate such a con job immensely.

That's why I ask you again, where did "JFK" in his Loose Change thread, got these two last radar(?) returns from, which were too close together to be rational. (see my page 48 and 49 posts)

Since the radar dish at Washington National did a full revolution every 12 seconds, so how could there be two of them so damn near each other, one NoC and one SoC, but the SoC one 10.95 seconds later registered than the NoC one?

Why do you guys neglect all my posts on page 48 and49 regarding this subject?
Can't you explain such a mystery...is that the reason?

Reheat, I do expect that you have given sort of evidence to the owners and mods here that you are what you told us what you are, an experienced aviator with many years of flight hours in various planes up to Mach 1.2.
But that does not give you the right to insult everybody here in a manner that is breaking nearly every forum rule at this place.

You and some others again succeeded to bury all my SUBSTANTIAL posts at page 48 and 49 where I gave calculated responses to your repeated accusations that I am not understanding your posted arguments, and you followed up by posting rows of insulting posts in THREE consecutive long pages, together with your compatriots. Filled up with only lines of text, without any calculated rebuttal, or even a shimmer of helpful assistance to my questions posed in those posts.

That's not how it works here, we are not stupid as you like to insult us with, and do not follow appeals on authority, this is a 9/11 forum devoted to eventual to be proven 9/11 conspiracies. Or disproved ones. Just as good for me, only the truly proven results count.

One of you, try to be helpful in answering me those nagging questions I posted. Why were there two last radar returns drawn in that huge aerial photo with AA77's radar returns drawn in it. And one of them is irrational.
Why this thundering silence regarding my extensive posting on that subject?
Do I miss some former posts in this site, or other forums, where it was already addressed and explained? I can't find any more posts about these two last radar returns given by JFK at the Loose Change forum.


I have not found one solid rebuttal by you, Reheat, of all my arguments in which I used your own posted simple to use formulas and online calculator, posted in your own signature link.
Which link's subject is by the way so far fetched that it is an insult to everyones intelligence. I know you already explained it by stating that it was an obvious try to show the ridiculous theory that a NoC plane could return to the SoC path in such a short distance, by introducing idiotic short arc radii that can not be flown by any passenger plane, but we knew that already intuitively. We did not need your exercise in futility to understand that immediately.
That futile exercise was totally lost on us, and was never proposed by CIT neither, and I really wonder why you still seem to use that futile write up of yours, as your so-called rebuttal of my calculated turn and bank examples on pages 48 and 49.

I did show you that a descending curved flight path as described by several experienced aviation specialists who witnessed the Pentagon attack plane its DESCENDING and CURVED flight path, is very viable and can be executed at very small bank angles around 20° and increasing speeds up to 400 MPH, calculated by your own handed over online bank and turn calculator. The pilot could have corrected any increasing curve radius while descending.

In a car, I would step on the gas pedal in a curve to force my car to follow the curve, instead of drifting to the outside of that road curve. But a plane has not such dense surface to get more grip on.
How does a pilot correct his plane, so he keeps on track in his planned curve towards his intended aim and doesn't drift aside to the left side of his performed curve?

Instead of insulting, for one time give a reasonable answer.
ProudBird can help me too, he has proved in many posts to me to be a patient and helpfull professional.

I fulfilled all your requests, Reheat, and you keep using evasive responses packed in ever more increasing insults and hand-waving.
You repeatedly point me to former posts by you which should have debunked my calculations, however, you NEVER gave any links back to these posts of you. Show me your rebuttals, or shut up.

I do not understand the moderators or site owners flexibility with your constant insulting manner of posting at all. Are you one of the site owners, highly decorated father or uncle?
That I can understand. Keep on going then, but do not expect more respect.

Perhaps they are willing to try to explain to us, the member population where this place is build on, why in heavens name they are so unhealthy tolerant to your increasing insults.
I like civil professional answers, but I hate the vitriolic sauce used in the unprofessional ones. Take an example at ProudBird, he gets exited at times, but manages to keep up appearances and answer in a civil attitude, and give a lot of professional, helpful hints on top.

You are the biggest violator of ATS forum rules that has ever registered here and still managed to stay tolerated in a forum with such strict posting rules. We start wondering what miracle protects you. Not your attitude, that's for sure.
I do not confront your knowledge, but your attitude. Your a piss poor teacher, with a piss poor attitude, and if you are not here to teach us from your years long aviation experience, then I can only conclude that you are not the helping kind of member I hoped you were.

There is a strict border line in the 9/11 sand written on top of each of this 9/11 forum its pages, and it has been violated to the extreme lately by you, Reheat.

And all these official story trusters all over the INTERNET do not seem to take in consideration that there were immense military and political and economical profit arguments for a false flag operation led by, perhaps, US factions in the military and government power places, or Israeli factions, or Chinese, Indian or Pakistani factions. We still don't know the real culprits, and when we will know, it probably is after a major global war. So, it is not so healthy at all to want to know who really did 9/11.

But we are a very curious species, and that curiosity could become the end of us as a species. We like to play with lots of fire, atomic fire even. But we still manage to stay on top of the food chain, as far as I can see, we are still balancing our way towards our mutual future on a very thin line.

Just look at who profited from 9/11. The US military got huge new budgets and won the foothold in the Middle East and the oil rich new former Russian states they so eagerly thought after for so many decades.
The politicians introduced the "Big Brother Is Watching You" legislations, and Israel, the only state 100% backed by the US at all times, gained the biggest profits. They were safe for massive attacks by their old enemies for decades to come.

Balance that off to a few thousand civilian victims of such a grand scale plan, and start to contemplate if there really was no heinous conspiracy planned and then executed on 9/11 by some people who are trained and get paid to eradicate any opposition of their beloved country. Whatever amount of lives it may cost. National Security is the magic phrase used by them, in abundance.
Be it at war or in black operations. In their mindset, everything is allowed, to reach a perceived "patriotic" goal. And if that goal is the same goal as the ruling class of every country adapts as their own, then this class will lend support to these kinds of plans.

Explain to me why a fundamentalist Islamic Iranian state in possession of a few atomic bombs would be a bigger thread to world peace than a known fundamentalist Muslim populated state as Pakistan, who already proved for many years to understand the futility of really using their atomic weapons on their arch enemy India, who also is in possession of loads of the same bombs.

I do not believe at all that Iran would ever use their atomic bombs in an aggressive attack on whomever. They also know what awaits them then.
Iran only wanted to balance the scale with the other A-bombs collecting states, such as Israel, Russia, the USA, Britain, France, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea. And Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela and who knows more, waiting in line to enter the ranks.

reply to post by snowcrash911


Could you direct me to multiple links to these quotes by you? I never saw such remarks.

Which of course does not indicate that they do not exist. This sentence added just to avert any physical damage to your health, caused by getting winded up again. Teasing...

CIT didn't interview the first responders inside the building who saw the damage trail nor the people who collected the plane and body parts strewn in a directional trail consistent with the OFP.

I know from your posting attitude that you, snowcrash, are a sharp fellow, but too fixed on winning any discussion, instead of concentrating on the issue if there was even a shimmer of a conspiracy evidence on 9/11. This time I have the feeling that that remark of you about all the NoC witnesses being positioned north of the NoC flight path was not based on honesty, but on trying to win again.
Do not underestimate your opponents, I know you can do better than using quasi-arguments.

And could you please stop hammering a dead horse with that parallel argument, it does not further the discussion anymore, we have heard you, and we disagree. Get used to it.
There were many more words and path descriptions used by Terry Morin in all his interviews, be so flexible and truly neutral, to consider an overall interpretation of all his words.
I hope you are not using the "kill all good posts in a flood of irrational following posts" technique either, by repeated non-argument posts. We heard you the first time, you can do better than that.

Bottom line, I distrust that FDR, and that's why a 9/11 witnesses Truster like me can't use those FDR data's last 10 seconds. They are too heavy discredited by the human factor, which are all these quite convincing NoC witnesses.

It's because I trust humans, not hardware. They both break and have an end of use stamp attached at birth. The humans tend to hold on longer in most cases.
Do never forget, that the humans were first, than came the hardware.

And, I ask you again, try to keep it civil, it gives you better leverage in any discussion.
I did not lie as you said, I was the victim of a misconception, and you pointed me at it. And I agree it was a good point. It seems that Morin wrote that piece himself, I'll check the link later.
But I feel insulted by you, by your very bad last accusation, of me using a lie, that was totally unnecessary in a civil and respectful discussion.
I'm not your enemy, I'm not stupid, and I try to keep it civil.

I however agree with you, that especially that is quite a task at a forum such as PfT or JREF.
The moment you step out of the "party" line in each forum, you are bathed in vitriolic responses by clearly unintelligent "party" followers.
There's a full blown "comrades party religion" developing in both forums. Sad, because both have some very bright members, who can't open up and post all their arguments. They know they will inevitably being quickly "cleansed" by the forum Apparatchiks.

PS :
Meam vide umbram tuam videbis vitam.
Look at my shadow and you will see your life.
See my shadow, see your life
Guarda la mia ombra, vedrai la tua vita.
Sieh mein Schatten, und Du wirst Dein eigenes Leben sehen.

Als je mijn schaduw ziet, zul je jouw eigen schimmige leven zien.
( My interpretation. )

Transit umbra, lux permanet.
The shadow passes, the light remains.

Wisdom will Win, inevitably.
I truly wish you lots of wisdom in your life.
You're gonna need it. And use it.....

Originally posted by LaBTop
I suppose you both misread my first lines in my above post about those 6 to 10 last seconds of the AA77 FDR.
Of course I am talking about the period that includes the now already years known extra 4 seconds unearthed by Warren Stutt, which were more and more garbled up towards the end of that FDR.

Please provide evidence for your claim that the extra 4 seconds were "more and more garbled up towards the end".

Originally posted by LaBTop
And the CSV (comma separated value) files by Warren are quite logically arranged, and not really difficult to read and to be interpret.

You may have noticed I wasn't talking about the CSV file.

Originally posted by LaBTop
But the positional data in these last full 6 to 10 seconds do not cover at all CIT's and my NoC witness statements.

That's because the NoC witnesses are wrong. As are witnesses who place the plane too far south, Roosevelt Roberts. They all saw the OFP. Witnesses are not computers.

Originally posted by LaBTop
So your remark about the FDR being now complete, is in fact futile for explaining our differences.

I beg to differ.

Originally posted by LaBTop
I was fully aware of Warren's great work, and he can not be blamed for a falsified work of art he got delivered through his FOIA request from the NTSB and the FAA.

There is no direct evidence of forgery, so you simply have no claim whatsoever.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Neither can we blame those agencies, when they got those black boxes later than supposed, just as was the case in the Mulhouse Airbus crash FDR falsified case, where they were absent from the police history reports for a full day and night, until they miraculously reappeared at a small police station.

Yes, I saw that on the telly a while ago. I too remember sympathizing with the pilot. Would you mind citing some links to credible sources expounding on how the FDR was faked to refresh my memory?

Originally posted by LaBTop
Do realize that just one or two men in the right places could have falsified those last seconds, more was not needed. They needed only 36 hours in France.

I don't realize. You hardly understand the complications involved. I've had some time to think them through. Especially the software decoding bug uncovered by Stutt is evidence against forgery. A bug which I understand. Do you?

Originally posted by LaBTop
We already established enough evidence that the radar returns up till the Sheraton Hotel were quite honestly evidencing the real flight path up to that point, and then suddenly the radar returns for the rest of the path were absent, explained away as caused by blockage through the buildings in Crystal City.
That's already pointing in the direction of a possible quick falsification job, where further radar returns would complicate such a con job immensely.

I doubt it.

Originally posted by LaBTop
That's why I ask you again, where did "JFK" in his Loose Change thread, got these two last radar(?) returns from, which were too close together to be rational. (see my page 48 and 49 posts)

False blips, the plane was too low. They tried to look for any and all returns available. They probably selected two candidates, both of which were likely noise.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Why do you guys neglect all my posts on page 48 and49 regarding this subject?
Can't you explain such a mystery...is that the reason?

I was discouraged from replying to them by the long wall of text and the avoidance of the Terry Morin issue. The radar question has been covered by Larson @ FF, Beachnut (yes I know) & Farmer (yes, yes, he once said it was fake, he was wrong and he changed his mind) @ JREF, etc.etc.

I just don't feel like looking it all up right now, sorry.

Originally posted by LaBTop
I know from your posting attitude that you, snowcrash, are a sharp fellow,

Why thanks!

Originally posted by LaBTop
but too fixed on winning any discussion, instead of concentrating on the issue if there was even a shimmer of a conspiracy evidence on 9/11. This time I have the feeling that that remark of you about all the NoC witnesses being positioned north of the NoC flight path was not based on honesty, but on trying to win again.
Do not underestimate your opponents, I know you can do better than using quasi-arguments.

So where are those signed drawings from witnesses located to the south of the OFP?

Originally posted by LaBTop
And could you please stop hammering a dead horse with that parallel argument, it does not further the discussion anymore, we have heard you, and we disagree. Get used to it.

Uhh.... Riiight. That won't do, sorry.

Originally posted by LaBTop
There were many more words and path descriptions used by Terry Morin in all his interviews, be so flexible and truly neutral, to consider an overall interpretation of all his words.

Are you trying to seduce me into cherry picking? Is that what this is? Sorry, no.

Originally posted by LaBTop
I hope you are not using the "kill all good posts in a flood of irrational following posts" technique either, by repeated non-argument posts. We heard you the first time, you can do better than that.

It's easy: if lies are not repeated, truth does not have to repeated either. I am well experienced with CIT's spam tactics (hoping some of their shit will stick, while deliberately ignoring arguments they can't answer.)

Originally posted by LaBTop
Bottom line, I distrust that FDR, and that's why a 9/11 witnesses Truster like me can't use those FDR data's last 10 seconds. They are too heavy discredited by the human factor, which are all these quite convincing NoC witnesses.

There is no direct evidence for FDR forgery. There is, however, evidence for witness inaccuracy and inconsistency, e.g. Lagasse, Morin, Paik, Hemphill and Turcios. Not to mention Middleton. What a crock!

Originally posted by LaBTop
It's because I trust humans, not hardware. They both break and have an end of use stamp attached at birth. The humans tend to hold on longer in most cases.
Do never forget, that the humans were first, than came the hardware.

I fail to see the relevance of this argumentation. Witnesses are generally totally inaccurate. Especially tracing flying objects.

Originally posted by LaBTop
And, I ask you again, try to keep it civil, it gives you better leverage in any discussion.
I did not lie as you said, I was the victim of a misconception, and you pointed me at it. And I agree it was a good point. It seems that Morin wrote that piece himself, I'll check the link later.
But I feel insulted by you, by your very bad last accusation, of me using a lie, that was totally unnecessary in a civil and respectful discussion.
I'm not your enemy, I'm not stupid, and I try to keep it civil.

You've been studying this evidence for years, clearly. How could you possibly not have known Morin wrote this himself? Have you never read it before?

I readily admit Lagasse, Brooks, Middleton, Turcios, Prather, Carter and Stafford believed they saw the plane fly NoC. They drew it on a map and signed it. Paik is too contradictory from what I know now, and Morin is clearly a SoC witness. I'll admit Boger is a NoC witness (QUOTE MINE PROTECTION: there is a catch though: the SoC plane inevitably flies NoC before impact) according to his words, if you'll admit Roberts is a SoC witness, according to his words.

None of these witnesses, though, could have ever envisioned their flight path descriptions would be endlessly debated over because none of them had a clue their witness testimony would be extrapolated to support NoC + flyover / NoC + impact, based on a biased selection, cherry picking, and the Nirvana fallacy.

The directional damage locks in a SoC path. NoC + impact is impossible in the rational realm. In the irrational realm, however, CIT cannot and may not exclude your alternative explanation, that is NoC + impact.

reply to post by snowcrash911


Snowcrash, the French accident and modified FDR tape he's all hot and bothered about was not a DFDR. The data on magnetic tape was modified either by Airbus or Govt Officials (I'm not sure which) because there was a problem with the flight controls and the tape modifications attempted to covered up that problem because it would have adversely affected Airbus sales. As you know a tape is easy to modify, but a DFDR is not. There is no evidence of modifications at all.....NONE.

You are bang on with those two anomalous returns near the Pentagon. They were either false artifacts or part of enough bulk of material from the explosion and fire that they produced a weak return. The smoke was so thick and heavy with suspended material that that itself may have provided enough of a return, so that 84 RADES noted it on the radar record. One might presume that would be obvious to most folks with a clue....

You have more patience than I do responding to these walls of text, especially the jumbled ones... I have tried, but all I have gotten is more walls of text over and over again.... The intended recipient has shown no real desire to learn unless it confirms a conspiracy and his pet theory.... Good luck with what I believe is a futile effort....

Originally posted by snowcrash911
None of these witnesses, though, could have ever envisioned their flight path descriptions would be endlessly debated over because none of them had a clue their witness testimony would be extrapolated to support NoC + flyover / NoC + impact...

Your paragraph is false, snowcrash911.

Lagasse directly claims NoC and impact. There is no extrapolation required from his testimony to understand what he states happened that day.