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

Originally posted by tezzajw

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.

For my paragraph to be false, it would mean Lagasse agrees that Lloyd England is "in on it", the light poles were staged, as well as the generator, the flap track, the fence, the DNA and the directional damage, the exit hole, etc.

Since there is no way in hell Lagasse supports that, given his statements to Dick Eastman, including the light poles, it is YOU who is lying.

Nice try.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
For my paragraph to be false, it would mean Lagasse agrees that Lloyd England is "in on it", the light poles were staged, as well as the generator, the flap track, the fence, the DNA and the directional damage, the exit hole, etc.

snowcrash911, Lagasse stated that he saw the plane NoC and that it impacted. There is no further extrapolation required to understand his point of view.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
...it is YOU who is lying.

Here we go again...

snowcrash911, very early in my ATS posting career, I once called another member a liar. A moderator warned me against it. I lost points for it and was slapped on the wrist. These days, it seems that the term 'lying' or 'liar' are common place, without any moderation.

I did not lie to you. I explained how your paragraph was false. Lagasse's statement does not need extrapolation, for he supports NoC and impact.

Perhaps if any moderators still read these threads, they might like to tighten up on the ridiculous name calling that's been happening. snowcrash911's false assumption that I was lying is a perfect example.

I haven't posted on ATS for a while and it doesn't seem that I've missed much, judging by the recent standard of posts that I've been reading.

Whatever way you try to spin it, snowcrash911, Lagasse supports NoC and impact without any further extrapolation from his point of view.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by snowcrash911
For my paragraph to be false, it would mean Lagasse agrees that Lloyd England is "in on it", the light poles were staged, as well as the generator, the flap track, the fence, the DNA and the directional damage, the exit hole, etc.

snowcrash911, Lagasse stated that he saw the plane NoC and that it impacted. There is no further extrapolation required to understand his point of view.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
...it is YOU who is lying.

Here we go again...

snowcrash911, very early in my ATS posting career, I once called another member a liar. A moderator warned me against it. I lost points for it and was slapped on the wrist. These days, it seems that the term 'lying' or 'liar' are common place, without any moderation.

I did not lie to you. I explained how your paragraph was false. Lagasse's statement does not need extrapolation, for he supports NoC and impact.

Perhaps if any moderators still read these threads, they might like to tighten up on the ridiculous name calling that's been happening. snowcrash911's false assumption that I was lying is a perfect example.

I haven't posted on ATS for a while and it doesn't seem that I've missed much, judging by the recent standard of posts that I've been reading.

Whatever way you try to spin it snowcrash911, Lagasse supports NoC and impact without any required extrapolation from his point of view.

edit on 28-12-2011 by tezzajw because: spelling

Kindly explain the consequences of NoC + impact to the forum, and then explain how you think Lagasse would agree with them.

This time, try to do so without a diversionary wall of text. It isn't complicated, you're fooling no-one.

Go ahead. If there was a rule against lying, you would be in violation of it. It's that simple.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Kindly explain the consequences of NoC + impact to the forum, and then explain how you think Lagasse would agree with them.

Lagasse stated that he saw a plane fly NoC and impact the Pentagon.

There is no further extrapolation required to understand his testimony from his point of view.

Originally posted by Reheat
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.

I just found this:

The black boxes have been physically opened, the magnetic tape has been cut. Normally you put the black boxes into a reading machine without opening them - the same way you read a cassette in a video recorder.

8 seconds are missing in the recording, 4 seconds are missing just before the impact.

Source

They cut the tape... they didn't fake any data... there is a difference! Yet, that article calls it a DFDR.. I guess meaning that although the medium is "analog" (not a solid state chip), it still records digital data...

And look at this beauty!

There is no indication of longitudinal deceleration at the impact. This might be expected in a collision with a mountain, but in Habsheim the recorders should have been able to operate until the aircraft disintegrated. Any crash which could be survived by all but 3 passengers should not have caused an abrupt stop in the DFDR recording.

And what do we have in the final moments of AA 77's DFDR? Severe longitudinal deceleration!

Originally posted by Reheat
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....

Yup.. thought so...

Originally posted by Reheat
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....

I may want to demonstrate that walls of text do not intimidate me. Other times, I simply request a summary if it seems that the wall of text is deliberately crafted to be time consuming, in an attempt to obfuscate the errors and falsehoods by volume. And still other times, there is a legitimate reason for a long argument. If what you say is true, I will find out soon enough. So far, it doesn't bode well.

I've noticed the CIT-ers have gone missing, BTW.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Lagasse stated that he saw a plane fly NoC and impact the Pentagon.

There is no further extrapolation required to understand his testimony from his point of view.

What did I mean when I used the term "extrapolation"? The "inside job" implications pandered by NoC + impact theorists. What are the implications of NoC + impact and what would Lagasse think of that? You think Lagasse supports light pole planting, DNA and body part planting, magical column bending explosives, generator damage and flap track fakery, NWO tree trimming, fence bending, FDR & radar fakery, Elderly Black Ops Cab Drivers, NoC path tree dodging and diagonally oriented C-ring exit hole wall breaching kits?

You have GOT to be kidding.

The issue is crystal clear. The implications of NoC + impact are extrapolated, and Lagasse doesn't agree with them, hence, you lie about me lying.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
What are the implications of NoC + impact and what would Lagasse think of that? You think Lagasse supports light pole planting, DNA and body part planting, magical column bending explosives, generator damage and flap track fakery, NWO tree trimming, fence bending, FDR & radar fakery, Elderly Black Ops Cab Drivers, NoC path tree dodging and diagonally oriented C-ring exit hole wall breaching kits?

Yawn...

I don't know what Lagasse thinks about any of that.

What I do know is that Lagasse claimed that a plane flew NoC and impacted the Pentagon. His statement did not need any further extrapolation to understand what he thinks happened.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
you lie about me lying.

You should note that I never claimed you were lying. You will not be able to quote me doing so. Lying is a deliberate attempt to mislead and I don't know if your false statements were deliberate or not. A person can make false statements accidently, in error, or just not thinking things through properly.

I will never accuse you of lying. I learnt my lesson years ago when I was warned by a moderator, not to call anyone a liar or accuse them of lying. It seems that you need to learn that lesson yourself, judging by your responses to me.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
They cut the tape... they didn't fake any data... there is a difference! Yet, that article calls it a DFDR.. I guess meaning that although the medium is "analog" (not a solid state chip), it still records digital data...

I stand corrected.. I was writing from memory and obviously didn't recall some details... Yes, there is a difference between cutting the tape a modifying it....

Originally posted by tezzajw
Yawn...

I don't know what Lagasse thinks about any of that.

You know very well what Lagasse thinks of Pentagon conspiracy claims, and his reference to the light poles being hit. Which is why Larson wrote:

LAGASSE'S EYES: WHICH SIDE OF HIS HEAD?

..in 2008.

Originally posted by tezzajw
What I do know is that Lagasse claimed that a plane flew NoC and impacted the Pentagon. His statement did not need any further extrapolation to understand what he thinks happened.

Lagasse disagrees with the conspiratorial extrapolations made by either NoC + impact or NoC + flyover theorists. This is an indication of cognitive dissonance rather than anything else, certainly not that he's "secretly on your side".

Contact him and prove me wrong. Do it. He already told Woolsey how pissed off he is about the whole affair. I'm quite certain he wouldn't have done the interview at all, had he known what he was dealing with and what his account would be abused for.

Originally posted by tezzajw
You should note that I never claimed you were lying.

Correct. I apologize and I retract.

See that? That never (prove me wrong LaBTop) happens on the NoC theorist side. Patently impossible. No integrity.

Case in point: Retract your accusation that my assessment of the abuse of Lagasse's testimony was "false".

Clearly it's not, and clearly Lagasse doesn't support or endorse the conspiratorial extrapolations tied to his NoC + impact account, for either flyover or directional damage fakery. Had he known of it beforehand, he would have WALKED.

Period.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Lagasse disagrees with the conspiratorial extrapolations made by either NoC + impact or NoC + flyover theorists. This is an indication of cognitive dissonance rather than anything else, certainly not that he's "secretly on your side".

Yet, to my knowledge, he still claims that a plane flew NoC and impacted the Pentagon. Has he ever retracted that claim? (Genuine question, as I don't know the answer. I've never spoken to the man.)

Any reference of your's to my 'side' is irrelevant and pointless speculation, as you don't know which 'side' I'm on, or if I'm on any 'side' at all. I used to be a very active ATS member, but now this website is not much more of a distraction for when I have some spare moments to kill. Arguing about 911 (or most other conspiracies) is not the centre of my universe any longer. Sometimes watching paint dry is equally as appealing as reading ATS.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Case in point: Retract your accusation that my assessment of the abuse of Lagasse's testimony was "false".

You clarified what you meant by 'extrapolation' in a later post. That helped to explain the tone of your paragraph that I originally quoted.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Clearly it's not, and clearly Lagasse doesn't support or endorse the conspiratorial extrapolations tied to his NoC + impact account, for either flyover or directional damage fakery. Had he known of it beforehand, he would have WALKED.

How can you presume to know that Lagasse 'would have WALKED'?

Let's not discuss what 'would have' happened, as that's irrelevant and pointless speculation.

The fact is that Lagasse is on record stating that he saw a plane fly NoC and then hit the Pentagon. That requires no further extrapolation to understand what he experienced.

I don't beat dead horses any more. There's no point to it. Thanks for the short exchange, snowcrash911. I will continue to read your future posts but I probably won't reply.



[[ Off topic - ProudBird are you weedwhacker? You sure type the same as weedwhacker does/did. Why the name change? Send me a private message and say hi, if you are. ]]

Originally posted by snowcrash911
GEOMETRY POP QUIZ FOR ALDO MARQUIS AND "ONESLICESHORT"

The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB).

- Terry Morin

Source: web.archive.org...://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm

For predictable SPAM responses committing the Nirvana fallacy, please see here.

Please answer either (A) or (B). Do not dodge or deflect. Answer directly, without woolly, self-aggrandizing, diversionary rhetoric and without the usual wall of flyover marketing lies. Take your time.

edit on 27-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

Nice dodge Snowcrash. Is the barrel that you're bent over comfortable?



Neither of those paths will line up with the directional damage.

Both of them will require a LEFT BANK that is nowhere to be seen in the Stutt "data".

You can spam all you want and cry "nirvana fallacy" when you're wriggling to get out of that corner every time I ask the simple question as to whether Morin was looking above his head within the Navy Annex or looking across Columbia Pike at the Navy Annex carpark.It's that simple. Witnesses aren't computers but they're not morons either.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hey, is this path "parallel" to the Navy Annex in any way, shape or form?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by LaBTop

 

LaBTop, ProudBird raises an important point which I have not seen addressed elsewhere ( sorry if it has )

He points out that the radar altitude readings from the FDR would have reflected AA 77's height above the Annexe roof if the aircraft was right over it.

You have indicated a flightpath which puts the plane completely over wing 8. Radar altitude then should show a sharp increase as soon as wing 8 is cleared, at 3 seconds or so before impact.

Is there such a sudden increase ? when we know in fact that the plane was continuing to descend.

Have just seen the obvious flaw in my argument in that I don't know the rate at which radar altitude is recorded but I am sure somebody does.

edit on 28-12-2011 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)

Alfie, according to the official speed the radalt was way over its 330 fps limitations. But I've already told you this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by LaBTop

 

Over his head...

Seems that too many are taking that phrase too literally. As I recall, Morin also said he could see the side of the fuselage, to include the distinctive American Airlines red and blue stripes as part of the paint scheme.

Observe this American Airlines B-757 passing nearly directly above (over) the photographer:




Then, recall the speed of the airplane at that point, upwards of ~700 feet per second.

Finally, if Morin were indeed located in-between two wings of the building itself, in order for this fantasy of the airplane also having flown over the roofs of the building as well?

Then the Radar Altitude from the FDR information kindly provided by Warren Stutt would have indicated such. The Rad Alt would have shown the relative height above the building's roofs.

But of course....referring back to the FDR again, we once more can see why this discussion is futile, can't we?

Oh, and for all reading here who have never actually been to the Pentagon? One look, with your own eyes, and you will realize that the terrain elevations preclude this "flight over the rooftops" of the barracks annex building.

Photos of an area as viewed by those playing along at home on their computers do not adequately convey the physical arrangements and orientations.

But the "over his head" statement isn't the only description he gave Proudbird.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He's adamant that the aircraft flew "over his head" between the Navy Annex building and the fence that runs along Columbia Pike. That it would have struck the Air Force Memorial had it been built.

I don't think he was describing this scenario:

i659.photobucket.com...

Was he?

And you may want to explain the FDR data to Snowcrash. He's still being cryptic as to whether we should accept it as it stands or whether we should ignore parts that don't "fit" with Morin's story. Namely the lack of any left bank in the final 6 seconds of Stutt's "data".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He even patted another poster on the back at another forum when he showed his interpretation of what Morin described.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Namely this manouevre that Snowcrash, Reheat and Genradek (where is he?) have been pushing for the past 20 pages.

img686.imageshack.us...

Do you see the problem here?

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Okay, to respond to both of you, here's some of what I have right now:

The radar altimeter does not indicate height above trees or towers.

Source

PDF page 4, Aug./Nov. 2000

Is tracking capability "groundspeed", No. Is it "vertical speed", Not exactly. What will happen outside this limit of 330 ft/s. Outside the certification limits the accuracy is not guaranteed to be as per specification.

Source

There are also filters that prevent sudden large changes of altitude, such as when passing over another aircraft.

Source

In both those links, from what I know "gravity32" is Frank Legge, and the answers he gets are from RA experts. I won't bore you with the litany of technical papers I also have, which I've parsed for additional RADALT info.

From what I gather, Rockwell Collins' first RA to use a DSP for RA signal processing is the LRA 2100, not the LRA 900. The LRA 900 presumably uses 'dumb' hardware logic/circuits for signal processing.

In any case, P4T's claims that AA 77's RA exceeded tracking capability due to ground speed is false. Tracking capability refers to descent rate, not ground speed.

edit on 28-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

The "vertical limitation" notion can be put to rest with a simple image Snowcrash.



What happens when an aircraft crosses this terrain? Where a 27º slope, according to what you're saying, would send the RADALT into overdrive. Period.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


TPE, can you give me some authority for the assertion that 330 fps relates to horizontal speed over the ground ?

If it does, would you agree that there must therefore be very serious implications for its use in connection with ground proximity warning as 330 fps is a low speed for a jetliner ?

reply to post by hooper

Actually the goverment interviews happened shortly after the incident, the joke interviews were conducted 5 years later. All take shortly thereafter at a different location.

Why do you make crap up?

The ANC witnesses were interviewed on location

Google Video Link

The Citgo witnesses were interviewed on location as well as Ed Paik and Terry Morin



Many interviews conducted in 2006 were simple reinforcements of what the same witnesses described in their 2001 CMH and LOC interviews

Is that clear?

tezzajw:

Read this, and click on the sources to read them in full. From Lagasse's full exchange with Eastman and his crowd it becomes clear what Lagasse thinks of Pentagon conspiracy theories, including those made necessary by NoC + impact, something Lagasse doesn't appear to understand. His account there supports SoC and NoC simultaneously: cognitive dissonance. He vividly explains details he himself witnessed which support SoC. He does the same with NoC. His account has changed slightly over the years.

My response to Nirvana fallacy arguments is here.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Yet, to my knowledge, he still claims that a plane flew NoC and impacted the Pentagon. Has he ever retracted that claim? (Genuine question, as I don't know the answer. I've never spoken to the man.)

Again, read this.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Any reference of your's to my 'side' is irrelevant and pointless speculation, as you don't know which 'side' I'm on, or if I'm on any 'side' at all. I used to be a very active ATS member, but now this website is not much more of a distraction for when I have some spare moments to kill. Arguing about 911 (or most other conspiracies) is not the centre of my universe any longer. Sometimes watching paint dry is equally as appealing as reading ATS.

I'm here because of the ACARS discussion which Aldo Marquis brought to our forum and our long history of disagreement on this topic. To each his own. Turns out this forum is pretty crowded and animated. (Although I probably should have known that since I've been reading it long before I joined)

Originally posted by tezzajw
You clarified what you meant by 'extrapolation' in a later post. That helped to explain the tone of your paragraph that I originally quoted.

I guess that'll have to do.

Originally posted by tezzajw
How can you presume to know that Lagasse 'would have WALKED'?

Because of his exchanges with Dick Eastman and Michael Wolsey. See above.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Let's not discuss what 'would have' happened, as that's irrelevant and pointless speculation.

The fact is that Lagasse is on record stating that he saw a plane fly NoC and then hit the Pentagon. That requires no further extrapolation to understand what he experienced.

You repeat yourself, I'll repeat myself (minus the unfounded accusation of lying)

What did I mean when I used the term "extrapolation"? The "inside job" implications pandered by NoC + impact theorists. What are the implications of NoC + impact and what would Lagasse think of that? You think Lagasse supports light pole planting, DNA and body part planting, magical column bending explosives, generator damage and flap track fakery, NWO tree trimming, fence bending, FDR & radar fakery, Elderly Black Ops Cab Drivers, NoC path tree dodging and diagonally oriented C-ring exit hole wall breaching kits?

You have GOT to be kidding.

The issue is crystal clear. The implications of NoC + impact are extrapolated, and Lagasse doesn't agree with them.

I pretty much know what happened at the Pentagon. I don't have to know every granule of detail surrounding the collision dynamics as long as CIT, P4T and NoCpacters don't do the same with respect to their quixotic fakery scenarios.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

edit on 27-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

Nice dodge Snowcrash. Is the barrel that you're bent over comfortable?

I didn't ask you for comical commentary, I asked you to answer either (A) or (B). Which is why I specifically added:

Please answer either (A) or (B). Do not dodge or deflect. Answer directly, without woolly, self-aggrandizing, diversionary rhetoric and without the usual wall of flyover marketing lies. Take your time.

And then... you failed to answer either (A) or (B) and proceeded to dodge and deflect. I must conclude you fail basic geometry. You are solely responsible for your own credibility, which is by now subzero.

Stay tuned for your next utter fail, related to FDR & RA.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Neither of those paths will line up with the directional damage.

Both of them will require a LEFT BANK that is nowhere to be seen in the Stutt "data".

You can spam all you want and cry "nirvana fallacy" when you're wriggling to get out of that corner every time I ask the simple question as to whether Morin was looking above his head within the Navy Annex or looking across Columbia Pike at the Navy Annex carpark.It's that simple.

For predictable SPAM responses committing the Nirvana fallacy, please see here.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Witnesses aren't computers but they're not morons either.

False dilemma fallacy.

Unless and until you answer my geometry pop quiz, I will ignore some of your questions. In fact, you've failed to answer a whole laundry list, and you attempt to cover it up with polymorphic spam blobs. Quid pro quo, OneSliceShort.

It's not that difficult. Answer either (A) or (B). Now get to it.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Okay, to respond to both of you, here's some of what I have right now:

The radar altimeter does not indicate height above trees or towers.

Source

PDF page 4, Aug./Nov. 2000

Is tracking capability "groundspeed", No. Is it "vertical speed", Not exactly. What will happen outside this limit of 330 ft/s. Outside the certification limits the accuracy is not guaranteed to be as per specification.

Source

There are also filters that prevent sudden large changes of altitude, such as when passing over another aircraft.

Source

In both those links, from what I know "gravity32" is Frank Legge, and the answers he gets are from RA experts. I won't bore you with the litany of technical papers I also have, which I've parsed for additional RADALT info.

From what I gather, Rockwell Collins' first RA to use a DSP for RA signal processing is the LRA 2100, not the LRA 900. The LRA 900 presumably uses 'dumb' hardware logic/circuits for signal processing.

In any case, P4T's claims that AA 77's RA exceeded tracking capability due to ground speed is false. Tracking capability refers to descent rate, not ground speed.

edit on 28-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

The "vertical limitation" notion can be put to rest with a simple image Snowcrash.

What happens when an aircraft crosses this terrain? Where a 27º slope, according to what you're saying, would send the RADALT into overdrive. Period.

You are WRONG. Your photograph is only a diversion from reality. Radar Altimeters only work below 2500' Above Ground Level (AGL). When was the last time a Airliner flew at 2500' over that type of terrain?????

As I said earlier, I've used a Radar Altimeter as fast as Mach 1.2 at 200' and below. It had and has no problem tracking that fast. NONE

You photo and your stateMENT that it is limited by horizontal speed is your hero's (Ballsucker) pure POPPYCOCK!

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

TPE, can you give me some authority for the assertion that 330 fps relates to horizontal speed over the ground ?

If it does, would you agree that there must therefore be very serious implications for its use in connection with ground proximity warning as 330 fps is a low speed for a jetliner ?

It is totally insane to believe this applies to horizontal speed. It would mean that Ground Warning Proximity (GWPS) is unreliable at CLIMB and CRUISE speeds.

It is not a debatable issue at all. It obviously applies to vertical tracking capability, which is no problem at all for the GWPS to handle that rate for some protection. That's the purpose of GWPS that is REQUIRED in all commercial aircraft in FAA 121 operations....

Those mountainous photos are only a distraction for the ignorant and gullible. Aircraft in commercial passenger carrying operations do not fly over that type of terrain below 2500' which is where the radar altimeter and GWPS work to provide some warning...