IPB




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

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

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
the govt loyalist site Gls Demand Flight Path And Math

rob balsamo
post Dec 13 2008, 03:27 PM
Post #21



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (DwightShrute @ Dec 13 2008, 02:20 PM) *
And honestly the second post I made here was using it and before you asked,


Wrong... your spam harvester IP was used on the very first post in this thread and on this forum. Want a screenshot?


Keep digging yourself deeper "Dwight" (who also happens to be Aldo's avatar at LCF with the term J.REFer written across).

It doesnt really matter to us who you are, but you will know that you are a liar or not when you look in the mirror.

Odds are that you are a lying GL fraud here to pose as a "twoofer" to get attention on the "math" since you have nothing better to do with your Saturday.

As Turbofan said, he's working on it... but he also has a life as well.

Retreats claims of "aerodynamically impossible" have been proven false by your own people...

From the looks of it, Turbofan will further hit that point home. Be patient. People have lives.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 13 2008, 03:31 PM
Post #22





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 13 2008, 02:27 PM) *
Wrong... your spam harvester IP was used on the very first post in this thread and on this forum. Want a screenshot?


You're right. That's why I said the second post. Rob, tell everybody where I live, I don't care.

This post has been edited by DwightShrute: Dec 13 2008, 03:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 13 2008, 03:39 PM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (DwightShrute @ Dec 13 2008, 02:31 PM) *
You're right. That's why I said the second post. Rob, tell everybody where I live, I don't care.



If you dont care, why dont you tell them? Post your name as well?

Have you signed up to J.REF with "DwightShrute"? I'd like to see that. But then again, if you are a GL, consdering the extremely biased mods and the fact they endorse lying even to their own (read: implanted chip fraud), they'll probably let you register a sock.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Dec 13 2008, 03:43 PM
Post #24


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



QUOTE (DwightShrute @ Dec 13 2008, 10:42 AM) *
Why do you guys read their propaganda?

I can tell you why I don't read their propaganda. It's because I'm not interested in liars and sheeple. Why should I care what those in denial have to say? As I implied earlier, willful ignorance is a right. It's not up to me to care what other people 'think'.

Denial is an inside job.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 13 2008, 03:44 PM
Post #25





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 13 2008, 02:39 PM) *
If you dont care, why dont you tell them? Post your name as well?


Because, apparently, nobody will believe unless it comes from you. I live in Arizona, that is all I will say. My name is unimportant because I don't profess to be an expert in any matters regarding 9/11. Also, I don't wish to be attacked by the GLs like you and CIT have. Perhaps I am a coward. So be it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 13 2008, 03:45 PM
Post #26



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Does this thinly-veiled Randiite cry for attention really belong in one of the research forums? I have noticed that the "johnny-come-latelies" seem to have a preference for this Pentagon forum. Almost like they're reading an SOP or a script...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 13 2008, 03:50 PM
Post #27



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (DwightShrute @ Dec 13 2008, 02:44 PM) *
Because, apparently, nobody will believe unless it comes from you. I live in Arizona, that is all I will say. My name is unimportant because I don't profess to be an expert in any matters regarding 9/11. Also, I don't wish to be attacked by the GLs like you and CIT have. Perhaps I am a coward. So be it.



Ok.. then PM me or Turbofan your name and number and one of us will call you with the progress on "the math". Can you trust us?

Ever go to any conferences? Does anyone else know you in the "movement"?

Anyone else find it odd that a "Truther" would not trust P4T admins and sign up with an anonymous IP? Aaaand... just so happen to have his first post asking for a rebuttal to the GL's? Instead of the many that first post an introduction in the Welcome forum?

lol

This guy is just digging himself deeper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 13 2008, 03:50 PM
Post #28





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



QUOTE (dMole @ Dec 13 2008, 02:45 PM) *
Does this thinly-veiled Randiite cry for attention really belong in one of the research forums? I have noticed that the "johnny-come-latelies" seem to have a preference for this Pentagon forum. Almost like they're reading an SOP or a script...


Again, why does it that someone who believes that the OCT and asking questions about it have to be fraud coming from the the govt loyalist site?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 13 2008, 03:58 PM
Post #29





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 13 2008, 02:50 PM) *
Ok.. then PM me or Turbofan your name and number and one of us will call you with the progress on "the math". Can you trust us?

Ever go to any conferences? Does anyone else know you in the "movement"?


I don't know you guys, I am not going to give you my phone number or name. If you PM me your phone number, I will call you, however.

There is probably nobody that you have heard of that knows me in the movement. All of my friends that I've told about the proven fraud at the Pentagon thinks that I am crazy. I guess I am not brave enough to go public about it like you guys.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 13 2008, 04:05 PM
Post #30





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



QUOTE (DwightShrute @ Dec 13 2008, 07:18 PM) *
Hey guys, thanks for the welcome!

The GLs report that this flight path isn't the one that is reported by the witnesses. In addition, they say that the plane would have to be flying damn near sideways to complete the turn (which nobody reported), and it wouldn't be able to complete the flyover. I don't trust anything the GLs say. Can you clear it up for me?



And this of course is what ultimately proves the inherent lack of logic in their "demand".

1. Their premise is that all 13 of the witnesses in question simultaneously hallucinated the plane in the exact same opposite place from where it really was.

2. It is 100% impossible for ANY witness to mathematically gauge pertinent values such as exact speed, exact heading, exact bank angle etc. Witnesses are not computers.

3. They are "demanding" that WE speculate these values for the witnesses in order to provide the "math" they are requesting.

4. They are refusing a perfectly "possible" hypothetical north side approach path already created by one of their own based on the notion that the witnesses they believed completely hallucinated the location of the plane in the exact same wrong place didn't report the necessary bank angles. See the contradiction? When proven wrong with math they turn right back to the witnesses they believe hallucinated!

5. The witnesses most certainly DID report significant bank angles proving the GL's liars and of course completely wrong.





You see witness accounts are subjective and of course fallible. We have never denied this. To consider eyewitness accounts EVER to be mathematically accurate is plain old stupid yet that is what the GL's are demanding in order to accept these accounts. They just keep raising those goal posts as a means to dismiss the confirmed and corroborated and very GENERAL north side approach.

CIT does not cite any specific or mathematically exact "flight path" as proof of a deception on 9/11. Sure we have put out illustrations with estimates and presented the estimate as drawn by each of the witnesses but NEVER did we suggest that any were perfectly accurate because that would be impossible and unreasonable to expect from eyewitness testimony or from us.

Our claim is simple......if the plane was ANYWHERE north of the citgo as unanimously described by the witnesses it proves a flyover.

Period.

There is no way around this and this claim has NOTHING to do with any exact "flight path".

So OUR claim is strictly in regards to one static data point. One single approximate lat long point of the plane. The "convergence of evidence" north of the citgo is definitive and proves a deception.

So there is no "CIT flight path" nor should there be because we were not witnesses to the event and we should not be required to speculate anything at all. We present evidence, not speculation.

This is why we refuse to speculate values for them. They already speculated their own values and came up with a perfectly "possible" NoC flight path so their demands have been met already anyway by one of their own.

It is not necessary for all of the witnesses to have reported this exact same specific flight path for the much more simple and GENERAL claim that the plane was NoC at all to be true.

There will always be perception issues etc when dealing with eyewitnesses but when ALL of the witnesses UNANIMOUSLY agree on the simple general placement of the plane NoC at all from all of the most critical surrounding vantage points as well as from varying perspectives it becomes clear to true honest critical thinkers that this general area is where the plane flew.




Not to mention that since a plane NoC proves a military deception there is no telling what kind of advanced flight technology this military decoy jet may have been equipped with.

The GL's are in denial. They are scared and rightly so.

But they have stuck to this completely irrelevant argument confidently asserted with bluster (imagine that) in order to avoid the facts.

You can't verify an eyewitness account with "math". Everybody knows that the society accepted scientific method used to verify eyewitness accounts is corroboration and when you have a very basic, extremely simple right or left claim like this unanimously corroborated so many times over it becomes proof beyond a reasonable doubt without the need to speculate any exact "flight path".

It's their pathetic, desperate, and transparent way to completely change the discussion.

Our claim is not about a flight path, it is about a static placement of the plane NoC. This means their demands amount to nothing but a logical fallacy. A straw man argument.

The fact that they refuse to see the irony that THEY are supposed to be the "critical thinkers" here yet they resort to pure faulty logic as a means to dismiss scientifically verified independent hard evidence is rather telling and not surprising.

I think Sgt Lagasse put it best when I confronted him with the fact that the plane was supposed to be on the south side according to the official story:

"There is no way the plane was on the south side. I don't have eyes in the back of my head. The only thing that is debatable is, maybe it was closer, maybe it was further away, but it was on that side (north)".


So Sgt Lagasse clearly understood that you can't hold him to any exact flight path and that the very GENERAL north side claim is all that he is 100% sure of as are all the other witnesses in the immediate vicinity who saw the plane.

It shouldn't be surprising that the GL's refuse to accept this obvious and simple logic perfectly demonstrating why their demands are pointless, ignorant, and unfair.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 13 2008, 04:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 13 2008, 04:07 PM
Post #31





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



So let it be known that CIT does not support the efforts of Turbofan or anyone to speculate values and answer to the GL's irrelevant pointless demands that have absolutely NO BEARING on the evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 13 2008, 04:09 PM
Post #32





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



Craig, which flightpath do you think it was likely the plane actually flew on?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 13 2008, 04:09 PM
Post #33



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (DwightShrute @ Dec 13 2008, 02:58 PM) *
I don't know you guys, I am not going to give you my phone number or name.



You call yourself a"Truther" but you dont know me? You express such disdain for the "GL's" and are very familiar with the term "GL", but you cant give me your number because you dont know me?

I think you're a liar and a fraud. Im not giving you my number. Many know im not a liar or a fraud, even Ron Wieck who is also a GL.


QUOTE
I just received another call from Rob Balsamo. He was quite civil and impressed me with his sincerity in wanting a substantive debate on the FDR and related matters. I agreed to apologize for lumping him in with [others ifeel are frauds] and promised I would continue my effort to find opponents for tomorrow's CLOUT.

What can I say? The people here who are qualified to discuss the subject should step up to the plate. There is no satisfactory reason for missing this opportunity to address a fairly large audience.


If you are a real "Truther" who despises GL's, and wants the inside track on Turbofans "math", you would have no problem PMing your name and number to me. But, the fact is you are not a "Truther". You are a GL fraud and a liar who is so intimidated to debate P4T (like all those others who refuse, Farmer being the latest), that you have to pose as a Truther to get your Saturday attention since you have nothing better to do.

Im done with you.

Have at him folks.. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Dec 13 2008, 04:11 PM
Post #34


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



Why should our researchers bother to prove something that they have already proved? I've learned that those who are in denial have no capacity for reason. They are a lost cause. Dealing with open minded people is far more fruitful.

This discussion is nothing more than a waste of time, guys. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 13 2008, 04:15 PM
Post #35





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



QUOTE (DwightShrute @ Dec 13 2008, 09:09 PM) *
Craig, which flightpath do you think it was likely the plane actually flew on?



Perhaps you didn't read my detailed response.

Please go over it again but read the entire thing slowly so you can absorb all of my statements in full.

We provide evidence, not speculation.

I have no idea what the exact flight path was nor is it logical to expect any witness to be able to accurately tell such a thing.

They prove that the plane was NoC and that general claim proves a deception and is all we have ever cited.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 13 2008, 04:16 PM
Post #36





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 13 2008, 03:09 PM) *
You call yourself a"Truther" but you dont know me? You express such disdain for the "GL's" and are very familiar with the term "GL", but you cant give me your number because you dont know me?

I think you're a liar and a fraud. Im not giving you my number. Many know im not a liar or a fraud, even Ron Wieck who is also a GL.


I mean that I don't personally know you. Meaning I have never met or spoken to you outside of right here. I of, course, have heard of you. I have no idea who Ron Wieck is. I am a private person. Nobody knows my phone number except for people that I actually know.



QUOTE
If you are a real "Truther" who despises GL's, and wants the inside track on Turbofans "math", you would have no problem PMing your name and number to me. But, the fact is you are not a "Truther". You are a GL fraud and a liar who is so intimidated to debate P4T (like all those others who refuse, Farmer being the latest), that you have to pose as a Truther to get your Saturday attention since you have nothing better to do.

Im done with you.

Have at him folks.. smile.gif


I am sure that you guys are working on the math to prove the GL frauds wrong. I just don't want to give you my phone number. That's fine, I guess I will just wait to see it posted here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Dec 13 2008, 04:18 PM
Post #37





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



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Dec 13 2008, 09:11 PM) *
Why should our researchers bother to prove something that they have already proved? I've learned that those who are in denial have no capacity for reason. They are a lost cause. Dealing with open minded people is far more fruitful.

This discussion is nothing more than a waste of time, guys. rolleyes.gif



I don't mind.

It's so easy to expose the GL's faulty logic.

This is why they refuse to allow me to post on their forum.

They are not "rationalists" or "critical thinkers".

Threads like this expose them for their lack of logic and clear confirmation bias against anything that contradicts their fantasy OCT.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DwightShrute
post Dec 13 2008, 04:19 PM
Post #38





Group: Banned
Posts: 35
Joined: 13-December 08
Member No.: 4,026



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Dec 13 2008, 03:15 PM) *
Perhaps you didn't read my detailed response.

Please go over it again but read the entire thing slowly so you can absorb all of my statements in full.

We provide evidence, not speculation.

I have no idea what the exact flight path was nor is it logical to expect any witness to be able to accurately tell such a thing.

They prove that the plane was NoC and that general claim proves a deception and is all we have ever cited.


You have 13 witnesses. Shouldn't that be enough to come up with an average; close to the flightpath that the plane actually flew on? I am not an expert on eyewitnesses like you are, so I am relying on you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 13 2008, 04:22 PM
Post #39



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,687
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



OP asked about the math. Turbofan has already said he is working on it despite the fact e^n has already proven ReTreats claims wrong. This thread has run its course until the presentation is done.

Thread closed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Dec 13 2008, 04:23 PM
Post #40



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Dwight, perhaps you can help me out since you have been following the discussion over in Randiland. What aircraft velocity vector are the GL's using again? Is there 1? 13? None? I really don't want to have to search for that.

Perhaps I'll run an independent cross-check against Turbofan's work, but I'm likely going to need some velocity in order to "get math." You can just post the vector(s) here. Altitude might be good too, if you find one of those.

EDIT: I guess the thread is closed. Go ahead and PM me those GL velocity vector(s) and altitude info Dwight (but my PM box is pretty full right now, so please don't send too many). You should probably CC: Turbofan on that PM so you only need to send it once. Thanks, Dwight.

EDIT2: Although it's a speed, not a velocity vector, the GL's apparently pulled 300 kts (345.23 mph by my calculator) out of their hats. I'll try it for the sake of argument. Now off to the CAD program for me. I'm still quite suspicious of where they get their "numbers" from though. No altitude info given. Thanks for the PM, Dwight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 22nd September 2014 - 08:17 PM