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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Critique Of John Wyndham's Position On The Pentagon, new "letter" at Journal

A. Syed
post Dec 1 2012, 04:22 PM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



I'm rather surprised, actually, at the publication (even as a letter) of this Fletcher/Eastman write up, including coverage at blogger. It does have a few uncritical references to Honneger, and no mention of CIT (although the NoC vs SoC flight paths are mentioned in passing). As one person pointed out to me, the writing style has DRG written all over it, and given the close relationship DRG and Fletcher have, I wouldn't be surprised if DRG vetted this.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resourc...cherEastman.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Dec 4 2012, 11:29 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (A. Syed @ Dec 1 2012, 09:22 PM) *
I'm rather surprised, actually, at the publication (even as a letter) of this Fletcher/Eastman write up, including coverage at blogger. It does have a few uncritical references to Honneger, and no mention of CIT (although the NoC vs SoC flight paths are mentioned in passing). As one person pointed out to me, the writing style has DRG written all over it, and given the close relationship DRG and Fletcher have, I wouldn't be surprised if DRG vetted this.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/resourc...cherEastman.pdf


QUOTE
Aircraft Associated with the Pentagon Staged Attack: Any discussion about the aircraft, or other attack system, associated with the staged attack at the Pentagon is best carried out in the context, provided above, of the means, motives, and opportunities of the likely perpetrators, and both broader and immediate context items already outlined. The failure to put the discussion of aircraft issues into the full context that existed when the attack occurred leads to the false presumption that “solving the Pentagon question” somehow hinges mostly (or entirely) on resolving certain questions about the alleged aircraft (e.g., whether such a craft was “large” or “small,” or whether it took a south-of-CITGO or a north-of-CITGO path). In contrast, the approach taken here argues that “solving the Pentagon question” can only be effectively accomplished by keeping broader contextual evidence in view.


Where has the alleged issue of whether the aircraft was "large or small" even been discussed?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the work of both CIT and Pilotsfor911Truth have been offhandedly thrown in the crapper based on arguments that don't exist.

There's not one documented, unambiguous "south of Citgo witness" and the real issue about the aircraft was that the FDR didn't add up to impact and that it flew well outside the safety envelope. By somebody who couldn't handle a Cessna.

I wouldn't mind if the author(s) was looking for a different, less "controversial" approach to the rest of the evidence but he/they link to , among others, two impact advocates, Honegger (who dodged crucial questions from me at another blog) and Hoffman (for Christ's sake).

It's basically the same contradictory nonsense that's always raising its head.

Example.

The 2.3 trillion dollar angle. The accountants. Navy Intelligence investigating major international fraud. It's claimed (and I personally believe it) that Wedge One and these people were purposely targeted.

The joint claim is that an aircraft was purposely aimed at this section of the building. By who? Hani Hanjur? "Hijackers"?

Or that it was "remote controlled". To fly at cruise speed, low level, ram through obstacles, pull off multiple gs, pull up and fully penetrate the building. Beyond perfect. Apart from all of the witnesses who contradict this remote controlled, south of Citgo aircraft..

No different from government loyalists. Make shit up as they go along, hammer square pegs into round holes and avoid real debate with the people whose evidence they're pissing on just to kiss ass.

Not ranting at you Adam! Just tired of the same old kack.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Dec 6 2012, 12:32 AM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



OSS,

I know. I contacted Tod and made him aware of these things (before your post). He told me he had watched NSA once - a long time ago, memory so fuzzy he couldn't comment on it now - and I told him he'd fare well to watch it again. Nonetheless, I was surprised that the journal allowed in there a letter so critical of Wyndham and particularly his selectivity and confirmation bias.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th January 2022 - 03:59 AM