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

SwingDangler
post Feb 10 2011, 09:28 AM
Post #141





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 154
Joined: 1-March 07
From: Indiana
Member No.: 711



Jim I think one of the reasons why Craig gets so frustrated is that all of this hard work and research is in the public domain and is easily accessible to the expert as well as the layman.
Secondly, when you show up and start asking questions about items are irreleveant to the OP, it only clutters the thread. For example Gage's new public declaration and suggesting Craig should address that. I can only imagine how frustrated the 'Men" wink.gif of CIT are. They interviewed some witnessess about the Pentagon attack put the information into the public domain, and the attack dogs show up lambasting the information, making unfounded accusations, etc. and these were from people on supposedly the same 'side' and the list goes on. So I suspect, Craig is a little frustrated at covering the same things over and over.

And then you pop in on this OP and start asking questions about other items. Stutts new theory??? What relevance does that have to this thread? Secondly, Stutt is addressed in other parts of the forum so if you want to know his theory, research those threads instead of cluttering this one.

I think Jim that some of your points and questions could be answered by your own research which is why Craig is referrring to it as 'sloppy'. It has been covered elsewhere.

Jim, thanks for the heresay info on your flyover witness. Did you ever happen to follow up with his family members to see if the individual who saw the plane fly away discussed it with friends or family?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 10 2011, 12:40 PM
Post #142





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



SwingDangler,

Thanks for this reasonable post, which I welcome. I think I have sorted out at least one aspect of what is going on here, which I want to address. First, however, let me use this occasion to respond to some of the attacks that have been launched on me, which, frankly, I had not expected at this forum. But what's new?

KP50, for example, says I should "grow a pair and move on" and that referring to Ranke's unwrranted and vicious attack on me as an OBNOXIOUS AND MASSIVE ASSAULT is being a "drama queen"! Well, that's pretty rich, considering my offense was trivial and it ought to be obvious, even to KP50, I didn't deserve it.

His suggestion that I "leave this thread alone" strikes me as extremely inappropriate. I have as much right to address these issues as do others--where departing with my tail between my legs would be a sign neither of intellectual integrity nor of moral courage. And most of what I said about them in the post he faults is true.

It was only on rereading Craig's reply to Chandler and Cole that I figured out why I had thought the short piece in ATS was different, which is because the sentences were distributed in his reply and I had not read them together as paragraphs. I suppose if Rob had not suggested I read it again I would still not know.

In this latest reply, Ranke claims, "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." But I wasn't "FORCED" to do anything and the idea that he and Aldo "CALMLY POINT IT OUT" is simply absurd.

Anyone who reads his rebuttal to Chandler and Cole, including his treatment of Jeff Hill, not to mention his "massive retaliator(y) response" upon me, can see for themselves that he is a "TAKE NO PRISONERS" kind of guy who leaps to conclusions and draws the most unfavorable inferences about those who challenge him.

I am 70 years old. I find almost everything I post has typos, where it doesn't require great fluency to see that the phrase "massive retaliator response" meant "massive retaliatory response". When I tried to "edit' and correct that and several others, I was not allowed to do it. So EVEN THAT becomes a federal offense.

These is a pattern here that Ranke has patented. EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM IS MENTALLY RETARDED, A DISINFO AGENT, OR GUILTY OF "SLOPPY RESEARCH". That is true of Chandler and Cole, of Jeff Hill, and of me. And it doesn't matter is your offense is major or minor, as my own case shows.

There is more than enough fault to go around. If Chandler and Cole did not study their position enough to get it right, it is also the case that they did not study my positions enough to get them right. And no doubt I have not studied their witnesses enough to get them right. So we have all committed mistakes of our own.

My background is that of a philosopher of science, who taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years. I am especially interested in the strength of premises (evidence) in relation to conclusions (hypotheses). I deal with measures of strength of evidence but am not always expert in content domains.

Thinking about Rob's observations--that the 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, while the NTSB animation has the aircraft North of all points at all times--has led me to reconsider what may be going on here.

In my post to Rob after rereading Ranke's response, I remarked that "the deviations in the sketches between the CIT witnesses strike me as insignificant." Given the extent of the differences involved here, however, I misappraised the situation. I had focused on their reports about the plane north of the Citgo station.

When it comes to more complex conclusions, Chandler and Cole may have a point. Students of eyewitness reports know that, when it comes to the salent features of experiences--the ones that are significant to those who are observing them--witnesses tend to be highly reliable, as scientific studies have shown.

Elizabeth Loftus, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (1996), for example, published a summary of a Harvard study that demonstrated, using 151 subjects, that when their subjects were observing events that were salient (or significant) to them, then they were 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect to their recollections.

But of course memories fade across time and the influence of intervening factors--especially with regard to events that have been widely publicized and discussed--are likely to have been affected, where those percentages would no doubt substantially decline with the intervention of other of life's ongoing events.

I am NOT claiming that what their witnesses have reported is not completely reliable, but I now can more clearly see why Chandler and Cole have raised the questions they have raised. I am not an expert on the psychology of interviews, but it seems to me that asking questions about it was not inappropriate of them.

The part I have had wrong is that I (mistakenly) supposed their witnesses were affirming that the plane had passed north of the Citgo station. That is a simple and salient point, where their reliability would be high. The differences between the NTSB trajectory and what they are inferring from the witnesses is less certain.

Now it is true that I have not studied their witness reports in detail and that Chandler and Cole may have been in the same boat. However, in principle, the questions they are raising seem to be appropriate, where a kinder and gentler response would, in my opinion, have been preferable. But that is not their style.

I therefore seems to me that it might be worthwhile to have an expert on the psychology of interviews review what they have done to assess its reliability. This suggestion may enrage CIT, but, given the quandary it has created for reconciling conflicting data, I think it would be an appropriate step to take.

Here is the point where Craig and Aldo rush to attack me for not understanding what this thread has been all about. I am no more an expert on their witnesses than they are on my arguments about video fakery, which they treat with disdain as though it were obviously wrong. But that is typical of their modus operandi.

Well, it ISN'T "obviously wrong", where the plane's impossible speed, impossible entry, passing through its own length in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, and missing (functioning) strobe lights affords substantial grounds supporting video fakery, where we need to figure out how it was done.

Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that, given the visual orientation of American culture with our obsession with television and the movies, the demonstration of video fakery would probably have a more powerful affect in convincing the public that it had been conned on 9/11 than even the Pentagon scam!

Ranke will UNDOUBTEDLY launch another of his savage attacks for thinking outside of the box in which he is so firmly entrenched. Who knows what I have said here that may trigger off another massive retaliatory response. I can only address these issues based on my current understanding, however flawed it may be.

It doesn't take balls to walk away from a intellectual confrontation, which has never been my style. I admit I have been surprised to be attacked from so many different sides. But we all have to appreciate that solving 9/11 requires many kinds of resources, including those of CIT, those of Pilots, and even those of mine.

Jim

QUOTE (SwingDangler @ Feb 10 2011, 09:28 AM) *
Jim I think one of the reasons why Craig gets so frustrated is that all of this hard work and research is in the public domain and is easily accessible to the expert as well as the layman.
Secondly, when you show up and start asking questions about items are irreleveant to the OP, it only clutters the thread. For example Gage's new public declaration and suggesting Craig should address that. I can only imagine how frustrated the 'Men" wink.gif of CIT are. They interviewed some witnessess about the Pentagon attack put the information into the public domain, and the attack dogs show up lambasting the information, making unfounded accusations, etc. and these were from people on supposedly the same 'side' and the list goes on. So I suspect, Craig is a little frustrated at covering the same things over and over.

And then you pop in on this OP and start asking questions about other items. Stutts new theory??? What relevance does that have to this thread? Secondly, Stutt is addressed in other parts of the forum so if you want to know his theory, research those threads instead of cluttering this one.

I think Jim that some of your points and questions could be answered by your own research which is why Craig is referrring to it as 'sloppy'. It has been covered elsewhere.

Jim, thanks for the heresay info on your flyover witness. Did you ever happen to follow up with his family members to see if the individual who saw the plane fly away discussed it with friends or family?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Feb 10 2011, 01:53 PM
Post #143





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



QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 8 2011, 03:40 PM) *
The part I have had wrong is that I (mistakenly) supposed their witnesses were affirming that the plane had passed north of the Citgo station. That is a simple and salient point, where their reliability would be high.


YES!! exactly. salient and reliable!

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 8 2011, 03:40 PM) *
The differences between the NTSB trajectory and what they are inferring from the witnesses is less certain.


that's where the mistake is made. the difference is HUGE. if you have a north of the citgo approach, the downed light poles aren't possible and path of damge inside the pentagon doesn't work. it's simple. don't over think it.


still need a law reference for "an admission contrary to interest" . thanks in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 10 2011, 02:24 PM
Post #144





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



Here are some sources that are easily accessible via google:

Declaration against interest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A declaration against interest differs from a party admission because here the ... was so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_against_interest - Cached - Similar

Admission Against Interest Law & Legal Definition
An admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a stament of another that reveals something ...
definitions.uslegal.com › Legal Definitions Home › A - Cached - Similar

admission against interest legal definition of admission against ...
admission against interest n. an admission of the truth of a fact by any person, but especially by the parties to a lawsuit, when a statement obviously ...
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/admission+against+interest - Cached - Similar

admission against interest n. an admission of the truth of a fact by any person, but especially by the parties to a lawsuit, when a statement obviously would do that person harm, be embarrassing, or be against his/her personal or business interests. A third party can quote in court an admission against interest even though it is only hearsay. (See: hearsay, admission)

QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Feb 10 2011, 12:53 PM) *
YES!! exactly. salient and reliable!



that's where the mistake is made. the difference is HUGE. if you have a north of the citgo approach, the downed light poles aren't possible and path of damge inside the pentagon doesn't work. it's simple. don't over think it.


still need a law reference for "an admission contrary to interest" . thanks in advance.


This post has been edited by jfetzer: Feb 10 2011, 02:29 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 10 2011, 03:45 PM
Post #145



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (jfetzer)
The part I have had wrong is that I (mistakenly) supposed their witnesses were affirming that the plane had passed north of the Citgo station. That is a simple and salient point, where their reliability would be high. The differences between the NTSB trajectory and what they are inferring from the witnesses is less certain.


What happens when some of those witnesses couldn't physically have seen the "NTSB trajectory" or were in a position where they could not describe certain aspects because of their surroundings?

Terry Morin was in between the wings of the Navy Annex and is on record as saying that the aircraft went over his head and that he couldn't see the stripes on the side of the plane. That description narrows the physicality of his testimony considerably.

http://www.thepentacon.com/ona.htm

He should have been able to see this according to the data and his POV:

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/b...rinPOVsouth.gif

QUOTE
06:50

¨MORIN: WHEN THE PLANE WENT RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF ME I WAS WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE WING (OF THE ANNEX)

CRAIG : SO YOU WERE KINDA IN BETWEEN THEM (THE WINGS OF THE ANNEX)

(...)

MORIN: I WAS INSIDE..FLEW OVER THE TOP OF ME¨

....

CRAIG: WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT THE PLANE FLEW ON THE SOUTHSIDE, SOUTH OF COLUMBIA PIKE?

MORIN: NO FRICKIN´ WAY. IT FLEW OVER THE TOP OF ME

....

I HAD NO SIDE-VIEW. IF I HAD HAVE HAD A SIDE-VIEW I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE STRIPES AND IDENTIFY IT AS AN AMERICAN AIRLINES JET..I DIDN´T SEE THE STRIPES, ALL I COULD SEE WAS THE BELLY¨


(sorry for the caps...gotta fix that)


William Lagasse was at the Citgo Gas Station and was under the canopy. Looking toward the official/directional damage path from his POV, he wouldn't have and is on record as stating that he couldn't have physically described what he remembers seeing. Namely the "starboard" of the aircraft, corraborated exactly by his co officer Brooks who was not under the canopy but viewing from behind the gas station and drew the exact same flightpath.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/b...s/northside.gif

http://i43.tinypic.com/23jimc2.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/ivg1f5.jpg

Robert Turcios confirmed this and pointed to an overhead sign as a landmark which he remembered that the aircraft had to "pull up" to avoid.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/b...pointsnorth.gif

http://i42.tinypic.com/1znvix2.jpg

Sean Boger, who was directly facing both the gas station and the Navy Annex and whose description cannot be twisted into some "line of sight issue" as the official path is to his left for the entire duration.

http://www.thepentacon.com/SeanBogerATC.htm

http://i40.tinypic.com/sq6mus.jpg

William Middleton and all of the ANC witnesses have a memory of the aircraft coming straight for them and banking over/beside the ANC carpark.
William Middleton in particular was in a position where he could not physically see the official path (and in fact can be seen to have the most northern approach over the Annex) as it allegedly passed the south side of the Annex and detractors have to paint these people as, well, morons/liars/cointel (I kid you not) or to have jointly hallucinated the image of the aircraft's position as it came towards and passed them.

http://thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giX1a1qnL_w

http://i39.tinypic.com/1zlbvkk.gif

All interviews here:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html

Chandler and Cole made the claim that this guy and apparently his "interview techniques" are above board?

This same guy found more NOC witnesses Jim. CIT have been painted as somehow hiding the "impact" testimony which is a blatant lie as all interviews are available warts and all. As to "leading" them?
Watch the interviews.

Detractor and denier of his own early solid research, Russell Pickering sent a questionnaire to Robert Turcios asking him to pinpoint where he saw the aircraft (again) and he reiterated what he had told CIT.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...der%202/rt2.jpg

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 10 2011, 05:50 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Feb 11 2011, 02:52 PM
Post #146



Group Icon

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



Off topic posts have been split and moved here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21084

STAY ON TOPIC PLEASE!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 11 2011, 04:58 PM
Post #147





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 9 2011, 04:20 PM) *
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.

I was just trying to take the WStutt data and go back from the alleged point of impact (he alleges the plane impacted 5gon, using the accelerations in last subframe, doesn't he?) using heading giving the exactitude of like <0.5meter sidewards for the given distances traveled in one second and groundspeed which I recalculated on distance traveled with a centimeter exactitude and looked if it would fit the pathway pattern of the lat/lon coordinates. When I go backwards there is relatively slight but consistent divergence (just for quick idea ~7 meters/second) What could it mean? Wind?? But it was less as I look into meteo - 5.1 m/s for 9:41. if I count it well and even if I subtract the wind then the average divergence of 1.9 m/s would put the plane from the needed airpath to NoC in just around a minute and from the given FDR coordinates in just like 40 seconds which happens to be the time from when the plane finished the turn and aimed to pentagon. Moreover the divergence goes not from the very first point, but from the second when the plane happens to be closest to Citgo. then for the last two periods the before consistent divergence goes sharply backwards. I don't want to much speculate, but could it look that the coordinates although not at the needed airpath anyway are riged to get the plane from NoC at least the a bit more than halfway southwards? dunno.gif If anybody is interested in this I can make the pictures.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 11 2011, 07:17 PM
Post #148





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



Assuming this is "on topic", I recall having no particular problem with CIT's interviews in the past and, while I have not reviewed them again, I expect I will still feel fine about them. My suggestion about someone who is an expert in the psychology of interviews and the subtle introduction of bias was on the order of "trust but verify".

I am active on too many forums and debates, alas, so I want to offer my suggestion for Pilots as to one way the society might proceed. I published an earlier piece, "New Study from Pilots" (in 2007) and, more recently, "What didn't happen at the Pentagon" (first on rense.com in 2009 and later on jamesfetzer.blogspot.com 2010).

While my press release from Scholars, "New Study from Pilots", may have gone further than the society was willing to go at that time, with the additional information provided by CIT, on the one hand, and by Mike Sparks, on the other, now might be the right time for Pilots to publish a more definitive study along roughly these lines:

Tentative title: "No Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon"

The official account is not supported by the debris,
violates the laws of aerodynamics, and has been
contradicted by the government's own FDR data.

The witnesses the government cites to support its
account are far less impressive than advertised,
and new witnesses contradict the official account.

It thus becomes apparent that the official theory
of the Pentagon has been refuted by the available
evidence and appears to be no more than a fantasy.

Sections:

Part I: The Official Account

(a) The Missing Debris

(b) The Impossible Trajectory

© The NTSB Contradiction

Part II: The Witnesses

(a) The official witnesses

(b) The Mike Sparks' Critique

© CIT's New Witnesses

The best supported account involves a fly-over
coordinated with explosive demolitions in order
to created the impression of a causal relation.

The complete flight path of this plane has not
been finally determined, but the new witnesses
confirm that it passed north of the Citgo station.

Their testimony thus provides empirical proof
that it did not approach from the south, did not
hit any lampposts, and that debris was planted.

It is my belief that CIT's new witnesses strengthen the case for an alternative account and that Mike Spark's critique weakens the case for the official trajectory, which is inconsistent with the debris and aerodynamically impossible, in any case. Studies from Pilots on this issue carry more weight than ones coming from Scholars and me.

I therefore recommend that Pilots consider adopting this course of action. While there may be difficulties in sorting out the complete trajectory based upon conflicting reports, there appears to be agreement that it came toward the building north of the Citgo station. It would be perfectly appropriate to emphasize that crucial data point.

I am sure that there are members who believe that Pilots should do nothing unless it can explain everything. The problem with that approach, however, is that, in all probability, we will never be able to explain "everything". I believe you have enough evidence at your disposal to make a decisive contribution to the Pentagon debate.

QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Feb 11 2011, 02:52 PM) *
Off topic posts have been split and moved here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21084

STAY ON TOPIC PLEASE!


This post has been edited by jfetzer: Feb 11 2011, 07:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 11 2011, 07:34 PM
Post #149





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



illustration of the above

even with the very bad picture which I took to show whole situation, one clearly sees the divergence with bare eye. Red line the heading/groundspeed flightpath representation taken backwards from the alleged point of impact with the transversal/longitudinal exactitude of <1 meter/1 second of flight where the point "1" is the beginning of the subframe 151368 from the WStutts FDR (testing his assumption the end of the subframe is the impact). Important to say, to avoid silly questions that between point 6 and 7 there is four times identical heading value 59.4 in FDR, so I didn't waste time to put nodes inbetween (as measuring in GE in centimeters needs firm hand). FDR-blue, DCA-yelow, AWR green, PLA-pink
.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Feb 11 2011, 09:20 PM
Post #150





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



Craig and Aldo - firstly, congratulations on producing such a compelling presentation in 2006. I'm embarrassed to admit that I only watched National Security Alert for the first time yesterday. You put together a very persuasive case which dovetails quite nicely with the NTSB data analysis done by Rob Balsamo and other aviation professionals.

And - ironically - it seems Legge's and Stutt's recent paper has done a better job of corroborating the work of CIT and P4T than it did to debunk it.

If your counter-response fails to ellicit a properly considered counter-counter-response to the statement made by Chandler and Cole, then the situation could be quite damaging for their credibility. This is a shame, because although I am unfamiliar with anything done by Jonathan Cole, I have had a deep respect for David Chandler for quite some time. But it seems they have shot each other in the foot this time, with what can only be described as a sloppy and unwarranted hatchet job. In particular, I find their willingness to endorse Jeff Hill's "research" into the Pentagon attack - while in the same breath, lambasting the work of CIT - totally confusing.

I stumbled across this video earlier -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeR_KoXOXZ8...feature=related

Perhaps you're already aware of it (although apparently it was uploaded only a couple of months ago). But for those who haven't watched it yet, it would have to be the most schizophrenic and irrational presentation I've seen in my life. What's even worse is the gratuitous inclusion of animated snowflakes and a horrific MIDI saturated version of Auld Lang Syne.

thumbdown.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 12 2011, 05:47 AM
Post #151





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Feb 11 2011, 02:20 PM) *
And - ironically - it seems Legge's and Stutt's recent paper has done a better job of corroborating the work of CIT and P4T than it did to debunk it.

If your counter-response fails to ellicit a properly considered counter-counter-response to the statement made by Chandler and Cole, then the situation could be quite damaging for their credibility. This is a shame, because although I am unfamiliar with anything done by Jonathan Cole, I have had a deep respect for David Chandler for quite some time. But it seems they have shot each other in the foot this time, with what can only be described as a sloppy and unwarranted hatchet job. In particular, I find their willingness to endorse Jeff Hill's "research" into the Pentagon attack - while in the same breath, lambasting the work of CIT - totally confusing.

I think that statements like:
"...the Pentagon is a dead-end for research. The puzzle of the Pentagon might be fascinating or intriguing, but as an avenue to determining the truth, it seems doomed to failure. The ones who want it covered up literally hold all the cards." (Cole/Chandler) are really disgrace regardles whether CIT is right with NoC or not.

To me it still looks like CIT is right (although I would be very reluctant to make conclusions just based on witness accounts) and the Stutt/Legge paper only shows how pathetic can be the attempts to infirm what the CIT witnesses say, respectively confirm the official account. (Btw how something about very nontrivial aviation problem written by laymans can be proclamed "peer-reviewed" when no aviation professional with expertise and credentials approved it whatsoever, isn't it outright fraud? - not from the side of authors, but from the side of publisher.)

I think the campaign against CIT is also disgrace because what CIT should do anyway? Should they say something like, no, we didn't interviewed anybody and if we did they lie...or what? Just because some people publish some barely researched articles backed by notorious gatekeepers of the informations or with history of misinformation dissemination? One wonders how is possible people buy into their stuff. In this respect I'm paradoxicly even more convinced this is more about some politics not about a truth, when I've for example now found out the 911blogger again censored my article (published here) which thoroughly rebutted one of the Stutt/Legge presumption in their paper and also the above Cole/Chandler silly "conclusion". (Fair to say Warren Stutt in our personal communication looks like he backed off from the presumption in question after confronted with evidence to the contrary, which would indicate some intelectual honesty from his part).

I think real disgrace is not the Legge/Stutt paper - everybody has the right to publish his views, just must count on that it would be closely scrutinized and maybe rebutted (- this is the real scientific method all about - it is based on fasification, not on confirmation bias.) The disgrace is that it is socially used for silly attacks against certain people for their work by some who apparently barely understand what it is about. Even if the CIT wouldn't have point -need to say supported by many witnesses not wild speculations- what authorizes others to lead a public denunciative campaign against them? There must be something more in it...and as I look into the officialy released data (and their absolutely clearly tampered with and outright fabricated outputs), including the data redecoded by Warren Stutt, to me it looks like the Pentagon is paradoxicly hot candidate for breaking the OCT into pieces and already now it brought out some evidence from multiple data sources mutually corroborating each other, which would very likely rewrite the official account of the 911 Pentagon attack including 911 Commission report conclusions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9elevened
post Feb 12 2011, 04:34 PM
Post #152





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



<Did you see how SnowCrash replied to my queries over at 911blogger?>

SnowCrash bwahahahaha. what a waste.

for what little time I was allowed on 911blogger belittled me as a "newbie" who had not spent enough time on research, then referred me to his own research, with just one glance at it I saw he was still presenting "faces in windows" Cissell as fact when a furious Cissell himself came forward FOUR YEARS AGO to say he was misquoted (faces in windows at that speed would have been physically impossible to see) and that the event happened so quickly he did not even see what airline it was

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...606flight77.htm


Once I was banned I sent the above and other rebuttals to snowcrash directly by e-mail but no response. I've also sent 911blogger e-mails asking why they do not allow the courtesy of public rebuttals on their website and in fact have closed themselves off (as has already been stated here) to just one side of the debate. No answer there either.

Who is actually "dividing the 911 community" on this issue? why 911blogger, of course
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9elevened
post Feb 12 2011, 04:48 PM
Post #153





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



<all those eye witnesses to a north approach... those are not 'flyer data points' in the data, they are the elephant in the room.>

don't know what's so hard to understand about an Operation Northwoods style-plot that would have planted witnesses, Frank Probst being the most potentially obvious

tho I personally think that Patterson/Khafkin/Knowles were merely reporting what they saw on the day of and are not planted witnessse. . .Patterson apparently interviewed before the announcement that it "was" Flight 77.

Khavkin's POV has come under question but even if she ultimately elaborated on what she saw, what she did note about the noise of the small plane could have come from the necessity of "souping it up" and the plotters knowing they would have to provide some visual evidence of a plane attacking the Pentagon after already knowing it would be physically impossible to do it with a 757 or similar, whether a remote-controlled Flight 77 or "other"

and there is absolutely no reason for the plotters to be planting stories about a small plane. That's notching paranoia up to a whole new level hahaha

and the point about Kevin Ryan not doing the same research on the Pentagon is spot on. It would have been even easier to plant explosives at the Pentagon, and indeed we have the witnesses to explosions and the smell of cordite at just after 9:30, while NORAD maintained for two years that the Pentagon was hit at 9:45 (quite a time gap), and outside witnesses put the outside explosions at after 9:40.

To me this suggests bombs planted to destroy the comptrollers office, the smaller plane sent in to "cover" once it was assured the comptrollers offices were destroyed (or possibly arriving late), the "missile" being what Cheney was advised of (the plane is 50 miles out, 25 miles out, do the orders still stand)

especially as NORAD stated of all the four planes Flight 77 could not be tracked, so how was Cheney being advised of it, and how was the C-130 pilot put on to it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9elevened
post Feb 12 2011, 05:49 PM
Post #154





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



<the plotters knowing they would have to provide some visual evidence of a plane attacking the Pentagon after already knowing it would be physically impossible to do it with a 757 or similar, whether a remote-controlled Flight 77 or "other">

or at the very least completely unreliable no matter which side of the argument you are on related to ground effect, for which none of the terrorists were trained for, and assuming you think Hanjour could have hit a blind target on the ground from that altitude anyway

and Hanjour etc definitely unreliable if the plotters wanted these targets hit (for example what if they had chickened out at the last moment, etc), and especially if they wanted the comptrollers offices hit, when Hanjour could have simply dumped Flight 77 on top of the Pentagon on the first passover based on the govt story

(which actually tho was the fighter pilot sent to investigate after the first INSIDE explosions reported at just after 9:30, made the high speed turn and dive to observe the Pentagon at 9:37-9:38 and REPORTED NO OUTSIDE DAMAGE and immediately left the scene)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jfetzer
post Feb 12 2011, 06:59 PM
Post #155





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



Check out this video surveying damage to the interior of the Pentagon
after damaged portions had been removed. No fire damage is present:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cva3756BA_U

This reinforces the conclusion that those four "fireball" frames were faked,
and, with fraud in the evidence, there is no reason to trust official evidence.

QUOTE (jfetzer @ Feb 11 2011, 07:17 PM) *
Assuming this is "on topic", I recall having no particular problem with CIT's interviews in the past and, while I have not reviewed them again, I expect I will still feel fine about them. My suggestion about someone who is an expert in the psychology of interviews and the subtle introduction of bias was on the order of "trust but verify".

I am active on too many forums and debates, alas, so I want to offer my suggestion for Pilots as to one way the society might proceed. I published an earlier piece, "New Study from Pilots" (in 2007) and, more recently, "What didn't happen at the Pentagon" (first on rense.com in 2009 and later on jamesfetzer.blogspot.com 2010).

While my press release from Scholars, "New Study from Pilots", may have gone further than the society was willing to go at that time, with the additional information provided by CIT, on the one hand, and by Mike Sparks, on the other, now might be the right time for Pilots to publish a more definitive study along roughly these lines:

Tentative title: "No Boeing 757 Hit the Pentagon"

The official account is not supported by the debris,
violates the laws of aerodynamics, and has been
contradicted by the government's own FDR data.

The witnesses the government cites to support its
account are far less impressive than advertised,
and new witnesses contradict the official account.

It thus becomes apparent that the official theory
of the Pentagon has been refuted by the available
evidence and appears to be no more than a fantasy.

Sections:

Part I: The Official Account

(a) The Missing Debris

(b) The Impossible Trajectory

© The NTSB Contradiction

Part II: The Witnesses

(a) The official witnesses

(b) The Mike Sparks' Critique

© CIT's New Witnesses

The best supported account involves a fly-over
coordinated with explosive demolitions in order
to created the impression of a causal relation.

The complete flight path of this plane has not
been finally determined, but the new witnesses
confirm that it passed north of the Citgo station.

Their testimony thus provides empirical proof
that it did not approach from the south, did not
hit any lampposts, and that debris was planted.

It is my belief that CIT's new witnesses strengthen the case for an alternative account and that Mike Spark's critique weakens the case for the official trajectory, which is inconsistent with the debris and aerodynamically impossible, in any case. Studies from Pilots on this issue carry more weight than ones coming from Scholars and me.

I therefore recommend that Pilots consider adopting this course of action. While there may be difficulties in sorting out the complete trajectory based upon conflicting reports, there appears to be agreement that it came toward the building north of the Citgo station. It would be perfectly appropriate to emphasize that crucial data point.

I am sure that there are members who believe that Pilots should do nothing unless it can explain everything. The problem with that approach, however, is that, in all probability, we will never be able to explain "everything". I believe you have enough evidence at your disposal to make a decisive contribution to the Pentagon debate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9elevened
post Feb 12 2011, 07:51 PM
Post #156





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



I think I can put it even more simply

SOME PEOPLE have decided that compared to some aspects of the WTC, the Pentagon aspect is inherently unprovable (even though Chandler at least lists some of the more obvious problems with the official Pentagon account before launching into the attack on CIT)

and so talking about the Pentagon hurts the 911 movement overall, and as a result the (so far quite shoddy) attempts at closing down debate.

Conversely, though I don't think this will ever happen, I believe that if the majority of the public somehow comes to understand the inherent physics problems at the WTC they will become that much more curious and inquisitive about the inherent physics problems at the Pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9elevened
post Feb 12 2011, 08:01 PM
Post #157





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



<This reinforces the conclusion that those four "fireball" frames were faked,
and, with fraud in the evidence, there is no reason to trust official evidence.>

I've lost the links and have been wrecking my brain trying to remember the videographer's name, but he gives a step by step case on how the Pentagon frames were altered, including

A) painting on a (larger) tail

B) whoever altered them had no training in 3D construction (i.e., white exhaust must enter the ground not overlay it -- unless I have that backwards haha)

C) even accounting for a last second burst of speed, 2-3 frames must be missing before the explosion

I still lean to a small plane being sent in to "cover" for the earlier explosions (possibly arriving late), the smaller plane being seen by I think about 9 witnesses and almost all of them from their apartments with the best vantage points. Since it was either impossible (and if not impossible completely unreliable) for a large plane to be used, they would have substituted a smaller one for the visual effect and denigrated any witnesses to it (as has happened) as mistaking a large plane for a small one based on the distance. But in fact we also have the USA Today reporter who initally said "no engines under the wings" before amending it to "I'm sure it was Flight 77."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9elevened
post Feb 12 2011, 08:18 PM
Post #158





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



all of that said there is an inherent problem with eyewitness testimony, and nothing is more illustrative of it than 911

juries are routinely instructed by judges that circumstantial evidence is to be given more weight in a trial than eyewitness testimony, because eyewitness testimony can be notoriously contradictory when numerous witnesses are involved, and faulty even involving just one witness

and in the case of 911, there was always the opportunity for the plotters to supply false witnesses as was planned by the Joint Chiefs for Operation Northwoods, including fake relatives of the faked dead to be paraded in front of the media. In this case even Todd "Let's Roll" Beamer becomes questionable as he worked for possible 911 collaborator Ellison, the owner of Oracle, which has been revealed to be a thinly-veiled CIA front.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
aerohead
post Feb 12 2011, 10:31 PM
Post #159





Group: Core Member
Posts: 327
Joined: 13-July 09
From: State of Heightened Awareness
Member No.: 4,476



QUOTE (9elevened @ Feb 12 2011, 07:18 PM) *
all of that said there is an inherent problem with eyewitness testimony, and nothing is more illustrative of it than 911

juries are routinely instructed by judges that circumstantial evidence is to be given more weight in a trial than eyewitness testimony, because eyewitness testimony can be notoriously contradictory when numerous witnesses are involved, and faulty even involving just one witness

and in the case of 911, there was always the opportunity for the plotters to supply false witnesses as was planned by the Joint Chiefs for Operation Northwoods, including fake relatives of the faked dead to be paraded in front of the media. In this case even Todd "Let's Roll" Beamer becomes questionable as he worked for possible 911 collaborator Ellison, the owner of Oracle, which has been revealed to be a thinly-veiled CIA front.



Thats good to know, thank you 9elevened.
I am very familiar with Northwoods and to me it
explains everything about the 9/11 puzzlebox.



I watched some video yesterday of the towers coming down, live
footage. And as i heard the people screaming in horror, i remembered
how "gut-punched" i felt that day.

Now all i feel is rage.

This post has been edited by aerohead: Feb 12 2011, 10:32 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Feb 13 2011, 12:03 AM
Post #160


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Feb 12 2011, 01:20 AM) *
Craig and Aldo - firstly, congratulations on producing such a compelling presentation in 2006. I'm embarrassed to admit that I only watched National Security Alert for the first time yesterday. You put together a very persuasive case which dovetails quite nicely with the NTSB data analysis done by Rob Balsamo and other aviation professionals.

And - ironically - it seems Legge's and Stutt's recent paper has done a better job of corroborating the work of CIT and P4T than it did to debunk it.


Thank you so much MrMitosis. And nobody is perfect. You may want to watch our other presentations as well:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/morevideos.html

As for the other stuff, you just have to realize when you are watching a video by an infiltrator bent on ridiculing and giving the impression that there is something to ridicule and not take seriously.

Well, as you know there is something to take seriously and not ridicule.

Lloyde England is implicated by the north-of-Citgo flight path and cryptically and virtually admitted involvement in the staging of the event. Of course the intelligence agencies behind this operation AND that handled or are handling him want to try and paint him as the victim and us as the clowns that should be ridiculed and persecuted.

HIS cab was damaged. HE smiled and talked of it being planned by the people with the money. He said when it comes to him it will be so big he can't do anything about it. The plane was NOWHERE near that pole or any of the poles. The charade is up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 6 7 8 9 10 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st August 2019 - 06:52 PM