IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Cit Publishes Response To David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement About The 9/11 Pentagon Attack

jfetzer
post Feb 9 2011, 10:06 PM
Post #121





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Others have observed, as I have observed, that you are MASSIVELY POSSESSIVE AND TERRITORIAL about the Pentagon. Give us a break, Craig. You are not the only one who has noticed something was wrong at the Pentagon. Thierry Meyssan was way ahead of the rest of us, to cite one example.

Why you have to launch an all-out TAKE NO PRISONERS approach for asking a question about whether on not you had replied to a post on ATS is beyond me! I did not see any response there and supposed--my mistake!--that it was a separate piece to which you had not already replied. SO WHAT?

I came to support you and made a statement on your behalf. I like the fact that you found witnesses who confirm the fly over hypothesis that PILOTS HAD ALREADY DISCOVERED based upon the NTSB's FDR data. So that is good work, but it is hardly earthshaking. Yet you act like IT'S A HUGE EVENT.

It seems to me your response to Chandler and Cole was a considerable overreaction and your response to me is a MASSIVE overreaction. WHAT ENTITLES YOU TO ACT SO ARROGANT? I asked what I took to be a simple question and I have been met with an OBNOXIOUS AND MASSIVE ASSAULT.

Just to make a general point, there is no reason why different students of 9/11--or any other complicated subject, for that matter--should converge in their findings unless they are considering the same body of evidence and the same alternative hypotheses using the same rules of reasoning.

Since that is seldom the case, equally serious students of complex issues like 9/11 can arrive at different conclusions based upon the evidence that has been available to them and the hypotheses that they have considered, often without even understanding the principles of scientific reasoning.

You seem to think--this is called JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS--that if someone differs with you, then they are either mentally retarded, sloppy in their research (one of your favorites!), of some kind of disinfo op! But that is simply one more manifestation of your (Craig Ranke) paranoid cast of mind.

You don't own the Pentagon. Others beside you have done good work on it. We all agree that the official account is corrupt. I and Mike Sparks spent three two-hour shows going through the purported Pentagon witnesses, sorting them out, and finding there is no much there. Have you done that?

I would argue that what we did--and it was Mike Sparks' research, which I highlighted by featuring him--is as important as what you and Aldo have done, where you were strengthening the evidence for the fly-over and we--he, principally--was weakening the evidence for a plane having crashed there.

We all bring different strengths and weaknesses to the study of 9/11. None of us knows it all. So I think it would be more becoming if you were to tone down you act and assume the role of an actual human being and does not mistake himself--as do you!--for SOME KIND OF GOD! Get over it, Craig.

QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 9 2011, 07:35 PM) *
I never said it was sinister.

I said it didn't make any sense because it doesn't. You were not paying attention and were incorrect in your assumption that what you saw at ATS was something new and therefore unaddressed. It was not.

You said:

Of course you had already been actively posting in this thread where the exact thing you were referencing at Above Top Secret HAD BEEN addressed so obviously if you had actually read the entire rebuttal that this thread is about you would have been well aware that you did NOT "just discover" anything new at ATS at all and you would have been well aware that we HAD already addressed the "issues that they raise" in this rebuttal and you would have not needed to ask the question.

So either you didn't bother to read our entire rebuttal before choosing to so energetically insert your uneducated opinion in this discussion or you have a very low capacity to retain information.

This type of absent-minded approach to a simple discussion and failure to admit when you have made an error is indicative of the woefully inadequate and fallacious information you have published regarding the Pentagon attack in the past. THIS is the problem we have with you Jim: perpetually sloppy research and a stubborn failure to admit errors.

Whether or not your motive for this is "sinister" is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KP50
post Feb 9 2011, 10:14 PM
Post #122



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 843
Joined: 14-May 07
From: New Zealand
Member No.: 1,044



QUOTE
OBNOXIOUS AND MASSIVE ASSAULT.

Don't be a drama queen Jim, grow a pair and move on. Somewhere in that long rant, I believe you conceded you made an error - good. Now please leave this thread alone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 9 2011, 11:03 PM
Post #123





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



For those who want to assess the witness evidence,
the interviews with Mike Sparks were conducted on

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2010

Mike Sparks
Pentagon witnesses, Part III

MONDAY, JANUARY 18, 2010

Mike Sparks
More 9/11 Pentagon witnesses

MONDAY, JANUARY 4, 2010

Mike Sparks
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses, Part I

They are archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 9 2011, 11:14 PM
Post #124



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 9 2011, 09:06 PM) *
I like the fact that you found witnesses who confirm the fly over hypothesis that PILOTS HAD ALREADY DISCOVERED based upon the NTSB's FDR data.



Psst... Jim.

The FDR Data is not 'proof' of anything. I've explained this ad nauseam not only on this site, but in almost every interview i have ever done, including my interview on your show several years ago.

Let me break it down again.

The FDR data does not support the govt story, but it should (if the govt story were correct).

Some make excuses.

Some attempt to say "Nothing to see here folks.... move along"...

Others want answers.... and the list is growing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 9 2011, 11:24 PM
Post #125



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (jfetzer)
I came to support you and made a statement on your behalf. I like the fact that you found witnesses who confirm the fly over hypothesis that PILOTS HAD ALREADY DISCOVERED based upon the NTSB's FDR data. So that is good work, but it is hardly earthshaking. Yet you act like IT'S A HUGE EVENT.


Sorry Jim, but the NTSB's FDR data is a manually fabricated concoction or taken from another flight before 9/11 based on witnesses not only around the Pentagon basin but from miles before it entered that area and further disproved by witnesses in Washington, on the Potomac river itself and confrmed by many ATCs.

Pilots proved that the data itself does not add up to "impact" given the PA readings. CIT's work further reinforced that the FDR is a heap of ambiguous crap that has no bearing on reality.
Both organizations treat this data with the same mistrust and only make the conclusion that it didn't come from "Flight 77" and certainly haven't used it as proof of anything AFAIK, let alone flyover.
The questionable data indeed adds up to flyover, but the preceding data follows the OCT "loop" that fails to pass East of Potomac which makes it look totally manufactured.

This is in a long line of "data" and "simulated flightpaths" released both officially and unofficially by RADES, NORAD, the FAA and even National geographic. Also rejected as proof of anything due to this "loop" and the non witness compatible "SOC path".

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794254

2cents
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 9 2011, 11:35 PM
Post #126





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Well, sure it does. It proves that the government's own "evidence" contradicts the government's "official account". That is quite significant. In the law, it's know as "an admission contrary to interest" and receives special weight. So you should not be remotely apologetic about this. IT IS A MAJOR DISCOVERY. The only way the government could discount your discovery is by denying the authenticity of the data, yet it came to you from the NTSB. I am not a pilot, Rob, but I am a student of logic and argumentation. What other explanation could there be than that the data provided by the NTSB to you--which is official government data but contradicts the government's official account--CONTRADICTS THE GOVERNMENT'S OFFICIAL ACCOUNT? Now I certainly agree that CIT's discovery of witnesses who confirm what you have determined to be the actual flight path ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA is empirical confirmation of that alternative account. Mike Spark's critique of the witnesses who support the official account is also significant, since their number and the strength of their testimony is vastly reduced by his study. But none of us would have any idea of the significance of the CIT witnesses were it not for having a theory about the actual flight trajectory WHICH RESULTED FROM YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE NTSB DATA. The combination of the alternative theory plus confirming witnesses plus studies showing that the strength of the witnesses supporting the official account is very powerful. I think you have not appreciated the importance of your own discovery and that you have therefore thought I was exaggerating it. But your discovery already nullified the official account, even without the witnesses. What you found established that the official account was contradicted by the official data, which meant that the government has no coherent explanation for what happened at the Pentagon. Which was very good work.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 9 2011, 11:14 PM) *
Psst... Jim.

The FDR Data is not 'proof' of anything. I've explained this ad nauseam not only on this site, but in almost every interview i have ever done, including my interview on your show several years ago.

Let me break it down again.

The FDR data does not support the govt story, but it should (if the govt story were correct).

Some make excuses.

Some attempt to say "Nothing to see here folks.... move along"...

Others want answers.... and the list is growing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 9 2011, 11:42 PM
Post #127





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



It may have been fabricated, but (a) it came from the NTSB in response from a FOIA request from Pilots for the FDR data for Flight 77 and (b) it turned out to support a completely different flight path and altitude, did it not? That has been my understanding from scratch. What am I missing? Is this not the government's own data? and does it not contradict the government's own "official account"? What have I got wrong? That has been my understanding from the beginning. I wrote a press release from Scholars that was even linked to Pilots and the only feedback I received was that Pilots was not maintaining, on that basis, that no plane hit the Pentagon, only that the FDR data it was given for Flight 77 contradicted the official account. If it was data for some other flight, why would anyone care? Why would Pilots even study it? Here's a link to that original article. If I had something as significant as that wrong, surely Pilots would have said as much:
http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option...0&Itemid=67 Here's the abstract:

ABSTRACT: Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained black box data from the government under the Freedom of Information Act for AA Flight 77, which The 9/11 Report claims hit the Pentagon. Analysis of the data contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude. The plane was too high to hit lamp posts and would have flown over the Pentagon, not impacted with its ground floor. This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the building.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 9 2011, 11:24 PM) *
Sorry Jim, but the NTSB's FDR data is a manually fabricated concoction or taken from another flight before 9/11 based on witnesses not only around the Pentagon basin but from miles before it entered that area and further disproved by witnesses in Washington, on the Potomac river itself and confrmed by many ATCs.

Pilots proved that the data itself does not add up to "impact" given the PA readings. CIT's work further reinforced that the FDR is a heap of ambiguous crap that has no bearing on reality.
Both organizations treat this data with the same mistrust and only make the conclusion that it didn't come from "Flight 77" and certainly haven't used it as proof of anything AFAIK, let alone flyover.
The questionable data indeed adds up to flyover, but the preceding data follows the OCT "loop" that fails to pass East of Potomac which makes it look totally manufactured.

This is in a long line of "data" and "simulated flightpaths" released both officially and unofficially by RADES, NORAD, the FAA and even National geographic. Also rejected as proof of anything due to this "loop" and the non witness compatible "SOC path".

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794254

2cents


This post has been edited by jfetzer: Feb 9 2011, 11:45 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 9 2011, 11:51 PM
Post #128



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 9 2011, 10:35 PM) *
The only way the government could discount your discovery is by denying the authenticity of the data, yet it came to you from the NTSB.



Correct.

Some do not understand this as they make the excuse, "Well, if the data is not authentic, why are we even looking at it...?"

Either way,. it's a felony.

Also known as Checkmate.

But again, the data is not 'proof' of what actually happened. It is 'proof' that the govt story does not add up. We need subpoena power to get further details, which we have been trying. We just need to find a Judge willing to look at the evidence.

People like Cole, Chandler, Legge and Stutt (and now as I understand it, Gage), feels we should not be pursuing this evidence.

To each their own i guess. Their name isnt on our work so they shouldnt have anything to fear. Nor do we wish to have such names without the credentials in aviation and the ability to debate the topic in front of a willing Judge, Jury and perhaps new and independent commission. Nor do i wish to debate WTC CD in the same context. Pilots for 9/11 Truth will never be called as an Expert Witness on WTC CD (nor do we expect to), just as Chandler, Cole, Legge, Stutt nor Gage will ever be called as an Expert Witness on aviation related issues.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if Bob McIllvaine filed any lawsuits.... with Cole, Chandler, Gage et al signed on with affidavits, as we did with April Gallop?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 9 2011, 11:58 PM
Post #129





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



My ability to edit is being cut off after one pass, so I am adding this here. Notice that I said, "This result confirms and strengthens the previous findings of SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH that no Boeing 757 hit the building." I did not attribute that finding to PILOTS. I have had a long-standing interest in the Pentagon from my first paper about 9/11, "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", to my more recent, "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon". The absence of a massive pile of debris from a 100-ton airliner, the missing wings and tail, the lack of bodies, seats, and luggage, and the smooth and unblemished lawn as the lime-green fire trucks were extinguishing the rather modest fires--and that not even the massive and virtually indestructible engines were recovered--has led me to believe that it is far more easily understood by the public than the complexities of the controlled demolitions in New York. And because it happened at the command and control center of the US government, if the government would lie about the Pentagon, it would lie about any other aspect of 9/11! Which means that the government has no credibility about 9/11, once the public understands WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN THERE. And when you throw in the use of those gigantic dumpsters to create the fires that produced the billowing black smoke to impress the members of Congress when they rushed out of the Capital building, when told it might be the next target, the case is made!

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 9 2011, 11:24 PM) *
Sorry Jim, but the NTSB's FDR data is a manually fabricated concoction or taken from another flight before 9/11 based on witnesses not only around the Pentagon basin but from miles before it entered that area and further disproved by witnesses in Washington, on the Potomac river itself and confrmed by many ATCs.

Pilots proved that the data itself does not add up to "impact" given the PA readings. CIT's work further reinforced that the FDR is a heap of ambiguous crap that has no bearing on reality.
Both organizations treat this data with the same mistrust and only make the conclusion that it didn't come from "Flight 77" and certainly haven't used it as proof of anything AFAIK, let alone flyover.
The questionable data indeed adds up to flyover, but the preceding data follows the OCT "loop" that fails to pass East of Potomac which makes it look totally manufactured.

This is in a long line of "data" and "simulated flightpaths" released both officially and unofficially by RADES, NORAD, the FAA and even National geographic. Also rejected as proof of anything due to this "loop" and the non witness compatible "SOC path".

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794254

2cents
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 10 2011, 12:08 AM
Post #130





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



That's why this is a point of logic. When you are confronted with inconsistent propositions, you know you are dealing with a false claim since both cannot be true at the same time. Discovering a contradiction in an official account--especially one as blatant as this!--is A MAJOR EVENT. You have proven that to be the case without having to prove which of the contradictory propositions is true. With the addition of witnesses from CIT, you have further support that the NTSB trajectory is true, and with the critique of the other witnesses by Mike Sparks, you have further support that the official trajectory is false. The argument for the NTSB trajectory is therefore very strong. As I mention here and there, a friend of mine from JFK research, Roy Schaeffer, had a buddy, Dave Ball, who was a trucker and who was in front of the Pentagon when it happened. He told Roy that he had seen a huge plane head directly toward the building and then swerve off and fly over it. Roy wrote me to tell me that he could not understand why Dave still insisted that a plane HAD HIT THE PENTAGON, WHEN HE HADN'T SEEN THAT HAPPEN. I tried to get Dave on the air to discuss what he had seen, but he was skittish and wouldn't do it. He was later found dead in an abandoned building. A lot of witnesses think they are safer if they don't come forward and make their knowledge public, but it works the other way around. Once you have made what you know public, there is far less motive to take you out, since your testimony is already in the record and, if you now die, that may create a great deal more public interest in what you had to say.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 9 2011, 11:51 PM) *
Correct.

Some do not understand this as they make the excuse, "Well, if the data is not authentic, why are we even looking at it...?"

Either way,. it's a felony.

Also known as Checkmate.

But again, the data is not 'proof' of what actually happened. It is 'proof' that the govt story does not add up. We need subpoena power to get further details, which we have been trying. We just need to find a Judge willing to look at the evidence.

People like Cole, Chandler, Legge and Stutt (and now as I understand it, Gage), feels we should not be pursuing this evidence.

To each their own i guess. Their name isnt on our work so they shouldnt have anything to fear. Nor do we wish to have such names without the credentials in aviation and the ability to debate the topic in front of a willing Judge, Jury and perhaps new and independent commission. Nor do i wish to debate WTC CD in the same context.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if Bob McIllvane filed any lawsuits.... with Cole, Chandler, Gage et al signed on with affidavits, as we did with April Gallop?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 10 2011, 12:20 AM
Post #131



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 9 2011, 11:08 PM) *
With the addition of witnesses from CIT, you have further support that the NTSB trajectory is true,



The NTSB "trajectory" does not match the witnesses interviewed by CIT.

Both sets of data conflict with each other, and both sets of data conflict with the govt story.

With that said, Stutt's new "additional" data is what one would expect to see if a "flyover" occurred, but his data has the aircraft on the south approach (based on heading), and is inconclusive based on lat/long. If taken into consideration with Radar, it does favor a Northern approach. However, a new independent investigation is needed for ALL the details, including witnesses.

Some are hard at work attempting to suppress such evidence. They claim it is because it makes them "look bad". Yet, their name isnt even on the work, nor do they have the expertise to analyze the information.

Go figure.

They do have a little amount of understanding... but as the old saying goes in aviation, "...having a little understanding is more dangerous than having none...". Legge and Stutt's latest paper demonstrate this perfectly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 10 2011, 12:27 AM
Post #132





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



And the fact that the "official account" is a fantasy since no Boeing 757 could fly that fast that close to the ground or even come that close to the ground, much less take out lampposts without their wings being ripped apart or bursting into flame and their trajectories being dramatically altered shows that the government has been trading in gross falsehoods. It is one thing to claim that an account IS FALSE because it is inconsistent with the facts of the case (the lack of debris and all that), but a far stronger point to observe that it not only is false (given the evidence) but that IT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE TRUE because it violates the laws of aerodynamics and of physics, which cannot be violated and cannot be changed. The proof that the official account is false does not merely derive from being incompatible with the absence of the kinds of debris that would be expected but also from the fact that NO BOEING 757 could have done what this one is alleged to have done. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE, which is far stronger than merely claiming that IT IS FALSE. So you have always had a massively stronger case than you have supposed you have. Not only is the government's official account contradicted by the government's own data but the alternative flight path has been confirmed by the CIT witnesses and the government's witnesses have been weakened in number and credibility by Mike Sparks' studies but, in addition, the official account could never have been true because that would entail violations of laws of aerodynamics and of physics that cannot be violated and cannot be changed. If I were an attorney, I would salivate at the prospect of taking this to trial--apart from the politics of the case, since the government would go "all out" to prevent it from being heard by a jury.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 9 2011, 11:51 PM) *
Correct.

Some do not understand this as they make the excuse, "Well, if the data is not authentic, why are we even looking at it...?"

Either way,. it's a felony.

Also known as Checkmate.

But again, the data is not 'proof' of what actually happened. It is 'proof' that the govt story does not add up. We need subpoena power to get further details, which we have been trying. We just need to find a Judge willing to look at the evidence.

People like Cole, Chandler, Legge and Stutt (and now as I understand it, Gage), feels we should not be pursuing this evidence.

To each their own i guess. Their name isnt on our work so they shouldnt have anything to fear. Nor do we wish to have such names without the credentials in aviation and the ability to debate the topic in front of a willing Judge, Jury and perhaps new and independent commission. Nor do i wish to debate WTC CD in the same context. Pilots for 9/11 Truth will never be called as an Expert Witness on WTC CD (nor do we expect to), just as Chandler, Cole, Legge, Stutt nor Gage will ever be called as an Expert Witness on aviation related issues.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if Bob McIllvaine filed any lawsuits.... with Cole, Chandler, Gage et al signed on with affidavits, as we did with April Gallop?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 10 2011, 12:31 AM
Post #133





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Well, that is something I have not appreciated. Thanks for explaining that to me. Where could I find a discussion of the divergence between the NTSB trajectory and the CIT witness data? I thought that the NTSB trajectory implied that the plane had come in north of the CITGO station and that the witnesses therefore confirmed it. If I am wrong on that point, then I have misunderstood what CIT has done. I have not supposed their witnesses were confirming anything more specific than that it came in north of the CITGO station.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 10 2011, 12:20 AM) *
The NTSB "trajectory" does not match the witnesses interviewed by CIT.

Both sets of data conflict with each other, and both sets of data conflict with the govt story.

With that said, Stutt's new "additional" data is what one would expect to see if a "flyover" occurred, but his data has the aircraft on the south approach (based on heading), and is inconclusive based on lat/long. If taken into consideration with Radar, it does favor a Northern approach. However, a new independent investigation is needed for ALL the details, including witnesses.

Some are hard at work attempting to suppress such evidence. They claim it is because it makes them "look bad". Yet, their name isnt even on the work, nor do they have the expertise to analyze the information.

Go figure.

They do have a little amount of understanding... but as the old saying goes in aviation, "...having a little understanding is more dangerous than having none...". Legge and Stutt's latest paper demonstrate this perfectly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 10 2011, 12:40 AM
Post #134



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 9 2011, 11:31 PM) *
Well, that is something I have not appreciated. Thanks for explaining that to me. Where could I find a discussion of the divergence between the NTSB trajectory and the CIT witness data? I thought that the NTSB trajectory implied that the plane had come in north of the CITGO station and that the witnesses therefore confirmed it. If I am wrong on that point, then I have misunderstood what CIT has done. I have not supposed their witnesses were confirming anything more specific than that it came in north of the CITGO station.



CIT witnesses observed the aircraft crossing over from south of the Sheraton, South of Columbia pike, over the Navy Annex, and North of the Citgo.

The NTSB animation has the aircraft North of all points at all times.

An FAA animation was released which more closely resembles the witnesses interviewed by CIT, but still, is not considered "proof" of anything. It is evidence.

Jim, i would recommend you spend some time at http://citizeninvestigationteam.com and become fully informed of the data, information and arguments presented by CIT. It also might be a good idea to read the first post of this thread and their rebuttal to the Chandler/Cole piece.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 10 2011, 12:46 AM
Post #135





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



OK. Here's what I added before discovering that my editing ability had been cut off again. Thanks.

Well, that is something I have not appreciated. Thanks for explaining that to me. Where could I find a discussion of the divergence between the NTSB trajectory and the CIT witness data? I thought that the NTSB trajectory implied that the plane had come in north of the CITGO station and that the witnesses therefore confirmed it. If I am wrong on that point, then I have misunderstood what CIT has done. I have not supposed their witnesses were confirming anything more specific than that it came in north of the CITGO station. Since the official account cannot possibly be true, I am puzzled at the prospect of a new theory of an approach from the south.

That suggests to me that someone is fudging the data (again) to come up with a way to create uncertainty about what did or did not happen at the Pentagon. We KNOW the official account is false since it violates the laws of aerodynamics and physics and is therefore impossible. Having more than one alternative account is a common stage in figuring things out. But one that comes from the south sounds suspect on its face to me. Tell me where I can learn more about Stutt's new theory. I presume we all take for granted that even radar data can be faked. I would observe, by the way, that the purpose of disinformation is not to convince the public of one theory or another but to create sufficient uncertainty where everything is believable and nothing is knowable.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 10 2011, 12:20 AM) *
The NTSB "trajectory" does not match the witnesses interviewed by CIT.

Both sets of data conflict with each other, and both sets of data conflict with the govt story.

With that said, Stutt's new "additional" data is what one would expect to see if a "flyover" occurred, but his data has the aircraft on the south approach (based on heading), and is inconclusive based on lat/long. If taken into consideration with Radar, it does favor a Northern approach. However, a new independent investigation is needed for ALL the details, including witnesses.

Some are hard at work attempting to suppress such evidence. They claim it is because it makes them "look bad". Yet, their name isnt even on the work, nor do they have the expertise to analyze the information.

Go figure.

They do have a little amount of understanding... but as the old saying goes in aviation, "...having a little understanding is more dangerous than having none...". Legge and Stutt's latest paper demonstrate this perfectly.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 10 2011, 12:40 AM) *
CIT witnesses observed the aircraft crossing over from south of the Sheraton, South of Columbia pike, over the Navy Annex, and North of the Citgo.

The NTSB animation has the aircraft North of all points at all times.

An FAA animation was released which more closely resembles the witnesses interviewed by CIT, but still, is not considered "proof" of anything. It is evidence.

Jim, i would recommend you spend some time at http://citizeninvestigationteam.com and become fully informed of the data, information and arguments presented by CIT. It also might be a good idea to read the first post of this thread and their rebuttal to the Chandler/Cole piece.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 10 2011, 12:57 AM
Post #136



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 9 2011, 11:46 PM) *
OK. Here's what I added before discovering that my editing ability had been cut off again. Thanks.


Edit limitations are set for new posters as we have had a problem of people editing their posts long after a reply was made, to change the whole meaning of their post. We have also had problems with spambots.

To mitigate such limitations, I recommend you use the "Preview Post" feature before you hit reply.

You can edit as much as you like in "Preview Post" mode. Once you are satisfied with your post, publish it by clicking "Add Reply".

Hope this helps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 10 2011, 02:34 AM
Post #137





Group: Troll
Posts: 129
Joined: 16-July 08
Member No.: 3,735



Sure. I just thought I had more than one opportunity to "edit" after posting. I find I catch things once I have posted that I did not catch in the preview. Maybe its something about me, but I have always been that way: being more critical of my writing after I see it posted and making revisions. But that's of no consequence. I will take a bit more time in the "preview" stage and use my edits to greater advantage.

I have reread the response by Craig and did find one point I had overlooked before, namely, that this guy Stutt is co-author of a piece with Legge for The Journal of 9/11 Studies. Somewhere I have explained that Steve did not take my advice about creating a first-class editorial board but drew upon friends and chums, which undermined its credibility. And I raised that issue with Steve way back in 2006, just for the record.

I know all about 911blogger (which booted me before it booted Craig), Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley, and Arabesque. (In one of my earlier posts, I pointed out I had encountered problems with Jim Hoffman myself and regard him as a major problem within the 9/11 research community.) I sized up John Bursill a long time ago. But the deviations in the sketches between the CIT witnesses strike me as insignificant.

The case of Jeff Hill is very interesting, because he did such good work with his phone calls directed to the question of impossible speed in relation to Flight 175 and video fakery. He was excellent at doing that and I find it a bit odd that Ranke is so eager to call him "a liar". Lying implies insincerity. If Jeff has changed his mind because he sees things differently, then Craig may not like it, but that does not turn Jeff into a liar.

Similarly, while on ATS re my thread on video fakery, I noticed a short piece by Chandler and Cole on ATS. I did not notice that it was a conjunction of sentences to which Ranke had replied in his long response. So I asked whether they had replied to that short piece, which they had not done on ATS. IT WAS A QUESTION. For asking, I have been savaged by Ranke with gross smears about "sloppy research" and other nonsense

Other than Stutt's co-authoring a paper, I am not quite sure that I learned anything else new from reading it through again. Certainly, the specific data points that Stutt and Legge are relying upon are not given here. The government is going to keep fudging and wiggling with variation upon variation in its deliberate effort to foster uncertainty. I have been dealing with that on a thread about the Twin Towers on another forum.

What we can know for certain is that no Boeing 757 flew at more than 500 mph less than 60 feet above the ground, hitting lampposts which did not affect its trajectory while its wings did not burst into flames from the friction, and hitting the ground floor while leaving unbroken windows, spools and fence, where there was no massive pile of debris, no wings, no tail, no bodies, seats or luggage. Not even the engines were recovered.

Now I have make these points and many others in "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon", in one version at rense.com that included introductory paragraphs about Dick Eastman (oddly enough, for attacking me when I thought we were on the same side) and another without those at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com. I have long thought that we (you, Pilots; and me, Scholars) were on the same side with the same general take on this.

What I find problematical about Craig and Aldo is that they are quick to jump on Chandler and Cole for not checking with them about the criticisms they were making, when they (Craig and Aldo) were equally amiss in not checking with me about the positions I actually hold. And to make matters worse, they have issued grossly exaggerated and defamatory statements about me, when I have been here in support of them.

The moral I derive from this story is that we all should be more tolerant of research by others. I continue to believe that a smaller plane may have approached the Pentagon at the same time that a Boeing 757 flew over it and fired a missile that was intended to take out the budget experts who were attempting to track the $2.3 million that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld announced had "gone missing" the day before 9/11.

I have explained my reasons for thinking so in "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", which includes a study by Dewdney and Longspaugh of the damage to the Pentagon that concluded that, while it was inconsistent with a large plane, such as a 757, it was consistent with a smaller plane, such as an F-16. I suppose that makes me guilty of even more "sloppy research" from the point of view of Ranke and Aldo.

But we have to acknowledge that different students are going to converge only when they are considering the same body of evidence and the same alternative hypotheses using the same rules of reasoning. I could argue on the basis of our divergence about this that THEY are guilty of "sloppy research". In fact, I do not think that their research is flawless and have found instances in which they exaggerate the certainty of their findings.

But if we are going to make progress against an implacable enemy with overwhelmingly greater resources, we are going to have to find a way to sort out our differences that does not require destroying each other, literally or figuratively. On that other thread, Craig's trash talk about me has been posted by my adversary, which has caused me considerable concern. Craig is not the only one bothered when others treat him unjustly and with disrespect.

We have to find a way to deal with our differences without resorting to character assassination and gross distortions. My question about whether they had answered the short piece on ATS was advanced because it didn't seem familiar. I now grant that Craig had dealt with it and that I had not noticed the sentences were the same because the paragraph was disjointed. But that offense hardly deserved his massive retaliator response.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 10 2011, 12:57 AM) *
Edit limitations are set for new posters as we have had a problem of people editing their posts long after a reply was made, to change the whole meaning of their post. We have also had problems with spambots.

To mitigate such limitations, I recommend you use the "Preview Post" feature before you hit reply.

You can edit as much as you like in "Preview Post" mode. Once you are satisfied with your post, publish it by clicking "Add Reply".

Hope this helps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 10 2011, 03:55 AM
Post #138





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 10 2011, 04:40 AM) *
CIT witnesses observed the aircraft crossing over from south of the Sheraton, South of Columbia pike, over the Navy Annex, and North of the Citgo.

The NTSB animation has the aircraft North of all points at all times.

An FAA animation was released which more closely resembles the witnesses interviewed by CIT, but still, is not considered "proof" of anything. It is evidence.

Jim, i would recommend you spend some time at http://citizeninvestigationteam.com and become fully informed of the data, information and arguments presented by CIT. It also might be a good idea to read the first post of this thread and their rebuttal to the Chandler/Cole piece.


Yes and don't forget that they all describe it much lower than the NTSB data and we have also provided significant evidence showing it flew over DC skies and came from east of the river which is NOTHING like the NTSB data at all.



Jim has thoroughly demonstrated that he hasn't paid attention to a wealth of Pentagon attack research and evidence that has been published in the past 4 years. His perpetual rants have really cluttered up this thread making productive discussion virtually impossible. I wish he would stick to video fakery where he is clearly the leading expert.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Feb 10 2011, 04:10 AM
Post #139





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 10 2011, 06:34 AM) *
The case of Jeff Hill is very interesting, because he did such good work with his phone calls directed to the question of impossible speed in relation to Flight 175 and video fakery. He was excellent at doing that and I find it a bit odd that Ranke is so eager to call him "a liar". Lying implies insincerity. If Jeff has changed his mind because he sees things differently, then Craig may not like it, but that does not turn Jeff into a liar.


Obviously you STILL didn't read it very thoroughly or check the sources because we provide several examples of his dishonest behavior.

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/CI...Statement/#hill

Hill is a proven manipulative liar. It's all supported and sourced.

However I don't believe we use the word "liar" to describe anyone in the entire essay making Jim's accusation inaccurate and well, sloppy.

But I do agree that this would be an accurate word to describe Hill.

QUOTE
We have to find a way to deal with our differences without resorting to character assassination and gross distortions. My question about whether they had answered the short piece on ATS was advanced because it didn't seem familiar. I now grant that Craig had dealt with it and that I had not noticed the sentences were the same because the paragraph was disjointed. But that offense hardly deserved his massive retaliator response.


It was not a "massive retaliator response" (whatever that is).

Both Aldo and I calmly pointed it out while you denied it and refused to admit your mistake until I spelled it out for you in numerous posts and you were FORCED to admit it.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Feb 10 2011, 04:18 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Feb 10 2011, 06:16 AM
Post #140





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



"an admission contrary to interest" sounded good, but in searching, really found nothing relevant.
searched law.cornell.edu and it returned links, but the phrase was absent from the associated documents.

anybody? buehler?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
5 User(s) are reading this topic (5 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd November 2019 - 09:19 PM