Merged - Questions And Comments For Pft From Another Forum... Options

[scott75]

Got this question from "The 9/11 Forum". Their main focus over there concerns the WTC collapses, but they seem to be short on expertise regarding the pentagon attack. Here's a few questions and comments from one of the posters there that seems to be directed towards you guys...
******
I have a question for you plane guys: Do you remember when the pilots for 911 truth guys couldn't get the FDR data unencrypted? Were the data recorded in encrypted form, or encrypted after recovery? This actually makes a difference beause claims that some of the data may be corrupted* can be overcome by pointing out that random change to an encrypted message would be very unlikely to alter the contents of individual data cells (comma seperated values), and more likely to destroy the formatting all together, or even make recovering the message impossible.

Try this experiment: Make a short .csv and zip it. Open the .zip in textpad and introduce some random changes. Try unzipping the file. What do you see, a .csv with altered data, a screwed up .csv that won't open in excel, or a file that Winzip can't do anything in?

Food for thought.
******

[rob balsamo]

Here's a few questions and comments from one of the posters there that seems to be directed towards you guys...

If it was directed at us.... why didnt the author post it here?

Scott, please stop posting by proxy.

[tnemelckram]

Rob - Sorry to bypass your cloture of Scott's Topic but where there's a will there's a way!

Scott - you asked:

Were the data recorded in encrypted form, or encrypted after recovery? This actually makes a difference because claims that some of the data may be corrupted* can be overcome by pointing out that random change to an encrypted message would be very unlikely to alter the contents of individual data cells (comma separated values), and more likely to destroy the formatting all together, or even make recovering the message impossible.

Try this experiment: Make a short .csv and zip it. Open the .zip in textpad and introduce some random changes. Try unzipping the file. What do you see, a .csv with altered data, a screwed up .csv that won't open in excel, or a file that Winzip can't do anything in?

Please feel free to take the following reasons why I don't think the decoded data was corrupted back to those who ask.

(1) Wstutt did an independent decode that also produced the key data (Pressure and Radar Altitude) from the PFT decode that PFT uses to support its case. IIRC the numbers were slightly different but still way too high. And if you look around here, you will see Posts and Threads showing that Wstutt is hardly a PFT sycophant He's a free thinker and equal opportunity questioner of everybody and everything. He is jealous of his independence and preserves it by having his own Web Site. Bottom line, he found no such problems with data corruption.

(2) After PFT did their decode but prior to Wstutt's PFT wrote to the NTSB and asked for them to comment on the PFT decode and conclusions. They also published it to the World. This gave NTSB an opportunity and incentive to respond and say whether they found something wrong. They have never responded although they certainly would have if there was some error that would allow them to shoot PFT down. I find this lack of response convincing in terms of showing, inter alia, that the PFT decode was not corrupt. They certainly would use such a glaring fault to quickly squelch this if it existed.

(3) The question describes a problem "more likely to destroy the formatting all together, or even make recovering the message impossible." Given that the altitude and just about everything else could be read and understood, it seems obvious that there was no problem with the decodes that was so pervasive that it made the decoded product unintelligible or useless.

(4) The problem described in the question as to Winzip goes to something so pervasive that it could preclude the NTSB from copying and communicating the data files even for their own internal use.

(5) Most GLs would argue that the government would never make the random data change or alteration that is described in the question. It would make the altered part inconsistent with the much larger set of unaltered data or otherwise leave tracks and thus not be a practical or possible thing to get away with. For the same reasons, it seems PFT would be equally precluded from doing so.

[rob balsamo]

Topic reopened, merged above post.

[scott75]

If it was directed at us.... why didnt the author post it here?

You'd have to ask him :-p.

Scott, please stop posting by proxy.

Sigh, alright. Thanks for your response to Brian Good's points though; we were going around and around... was getting rather annoying :-p.

This post has been edited by scott75: Mar 26 2010, 08:46 AM

[scott75]

Thank you tnemelckram. I have posted your points here.

[rob balsamo]

You'd have to ask him :-p.

Why would i ask him when you are the one who made the claim that is was directed at us?

In other words Scott, clearly it wasn't directed for us, otherwise the author would have come here to post it for us, or emailed us. Ya think? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Sigh, alright. Thanks for your response to Brian Good's points though; we were going around and around... was getting rather annoying :-p.

Scott, we don't have a problem with you posting questions raised on other forums, but use some creativity, put it in your own words. After all, we would be answering YOU, not having a conversation with the author... clearly. It's just nice internet etiquette.

Brian Good is an attention seeker. Its clear his whole life is spending his every waking hour in the Pit of Oz ranting and attacking others hoping he will get some attention. You give him a reason to live.... lol

[tnemelckram]

Hi Scott and Rob!

I followed Scott's link to the Thread on the other board out of curiosity about how my answer was playing in Peoria. It seems to me that the people on that Thread are in tune with what PFT is saying.

They seem to understand the PFT argument and acknowledge that if the FDR data was accurately recorded and authentic, as it must be to accept the government version, then it shows the plane too high. That means at least one and perhaps both of two things:

(1) the FDR could not have been found in the Pentagon because it could not have been produced by any plane that crashed into it at 9:38:45 AM on 911;

(2) the plane that produced the FDR record had to fly over the Pentagon on 911 at 9:38:45 AM.

As I understand it PFT frames the issue the same way.

Their consensus seems to accept only (1) above and be more skeptical of (2). To me that is logical and really no more than PFT asks anyone to accept. If the FDR record was made by a plane that flew over at some time other than 9:38:45 AM on 911, then (1) alone can be true because (2) is not necessary to its truth.

They are implicitly reasoning that one has to set aside the two different times and instead say that the FDR record was made contemporaneously with the Pentagon Event before you can reach (2) above. Moreover, because the record stops just short of the Pentagon, it cannot prove a flyover in any case. That seems sound to me.

However, it still remains evidence that supports a flyover argument. If they are to be faulted, it is for being to quick to use Occams Razor to accept (1) as the simpler argument and reject (2) because it is more complex, instead of just favoring (1) but keeping (2) on the table as a possibility. PFT on the other hand correctly recognizes that we don't know enough to do anything other than posit both.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Mar 27 2010, 12:01 AM

[scott75]

Interesting Marc (I assume that's a name you use, I spelled the name you use here backwards). I haven't read everything over in the fighter's pit, so I hadn't come up with the reasoning you found, but it makes sense.

[scott75]

If it was directed at us.... why didnt the author post it here?

You'd have to ask him :-p.

Why would i ask him when you are the one who made the claim that is was directed at us? In other words Scott, clearly it wasn't directed for us, otherwise the author would have come here to post it for us, or emailed us. Ya think? tongue.gif

I believe he was directing it at you guys; I just wasn't sure why he didn't just come here and ask. He's made it clear now though; he says it's not worth his time to come here. However, he's well aware of the fact that there was a time when you were over there and has claimed that you've "run away", along with Ranke; it seems he wants you to go back there, but as I told him, I don't think that's a good idea. I think that people involved in a discussion should respect each other and, well... I think it's rather clear that both of you don't think all that highly of each other :-p.

As to why I posted here on his points, I was just so tired of going around and around with him on the same points that I didn't know the answers to that I thought I'd ask for a little help on them; and that you did, albeit grudgingly :-p. I know you said you've done it before; I try to keep up, but there's just so much information. I've noticed that he has yet to respond to the points you made and I've mentioned this in my last post to him.

Sigh, alright. Thanks for your response to Brian Good's points though; we were going around and around... was getting rather annoying :-p.

Scott, we don't have a problem with you posting questions raised on other forums, but use some creativity, put it in your own words. After all, we would be answering YOU, not having a conversation with the author... clearly. It's just nice internet etiquette.

Mm, good point.

Brian Good is an attention seeker. Its clear his whole life is spending his every waking hour in the Pit of Oz ranting and attacking others hoping he will get some attention. You give him a reason to live.... lol

Laugh :-). I respond only because he's about the only person I -can- respond to in truther forums that disagree with you guys, and in a passably civil manner as well (he's not always the best but I've definitely had worse). I agree with Ranke; Frank Legge would be much better to debate with, but at present, he hasn't responded to Ranke's challenge to debate him. I try to answer all his points but there are some that I can't; I don't like remaining uninformed though. But like you said, it's definitely better to ask questions myself instead of just reposting what he says.

[rob balsamo]

I believe he was directing it at you guys; I just wasn't sure why he didn't just come here and ask. He's made it clear now though; he says it's not worth his time to come here. However, he's well aware of the fact that there was a time when you were over there and has claimed that you've "run away",

Scott,

I've never been a member of "The 9/11 Forum" nor ever "ran away" from it. You know, the forum in which you are talking about and quoting in your original post? The forum in which you claimed a post was made "directed at us" to which I replied, "If it was directed at us.... why didnt the author post it here?"

Read this thread from the top again. You are confusing yourself. You are confusing "The 9/11 Forum" for "911oz" and 'War Wheel' for Brian Good.

By the way, I didn't "run away" from 911oz. I was banned. Probably due to the fact John Bursill is unable to debate the points I brought up (yet he made the challenge in the first place), or for Tino crying to the mods.

Also, you can tell 'WarWheel' I approved his registration the other day. We look forward to having him here.

[scott75]

Scott,

I've never been a member of "The 9/11 Forum" nor ever "ran away" from it. You know, the forum in which you are talking about and quoting in your original post?

I wasn't claiming you were. The topic had veered off to 911oz :-p.

The forum in which you claimed a post was made "directed at us" to which I replied, "If it was directed at us.... why didnt the author post it here?"

Sorry, my main focus had been on the thread you closed, where Brian was the one doing the questioning/commenting.

By the way, I didn't "run away" from 911oz. I was banned. Probably due to the fact John Bursill is unable to debate the points I brought up (yet he made the challenge in the first place), or for Tino crying to the mods.

Ah, good to know. I'll mention this if Brian brings this up again. In any case, KP is still there and ofcourse I'm there and with PFT's help, I think I can take on any of his "22 questions", heh :-p.

Also, you can tell 'WarWheel' I approved his registration the other day. We look forward to having him here.

Thanks, done.

[rob balsamo]

I wasn't claiming you were. The topic had veered off to 911oz :-p.

Scott, follow along.

In your first post you claimed a topic posted at The 9/11 Forum was "directed at us".

"Here's a few questions and comments from one of the posters there that seems to be directed towards you guys..."

I replied..

"If it was directed at us.... why didnt the author post it here?"

To which you replied,

"You'd have to ask him :-p."

To which I then replied,

"Why would i ask him when you are the one who made the claim that is was directed at us?"

To which you replied and switched the context of the discussion,

"I believe he was directing it at you guys; I just wasn't sure why he didn't just come here and ask. He's made it clear now though; he says it's not worth his time to come here. However, he's well aware of the fact that there was a time when you were over there and has claimed that you've "run away"..."

See what you did there Scott? The topic we were discussing was a post at "The 9/11 Forum" which you claimed was "directed at us" in your OP and has been the one I've been replying to in this context throughout the thread. You arbitrarily switched the context from The 911 Forum we were initially discussing, to 911oz, confusing yourself and no doubt the reader. Again, read the thread from the top and follow along in the context of "directed at us".

Sorry, my main focus had been on the thread you closed, where Brian was the one doing the questioning/commenting.

The thread was closed for a reason. Brian Good is a lunatic. Stay on topic.

Ah, good to know. I'll mention this if Brian brings this up again. In any case, KP is still there and ofcourse I'm there and with PFT's help, I think I can take on any of his "22 questions", heh :-p.

The questions have been asked and answered ad nauseam. Go read the OpEd link comments section. Brian just doesn't like the answers due to the fact he needs to provide more information/facts/details to get a better answer (eg. prove it was a 757 on the North Approach, go talk to Roberts to get more details on the flyover path, etc.). Since then, he has gone off the deep end attacking anyone and everyone, stomping his feet and cursing like a petulant child hoping he will get his way. Instead of attempting a constructive dialogue (ie. 'more Bee's with Honey..' type of approach..), his behavior has caused him to be cast into the Pit of Oz, which is where he will remain and be ignored, except for people like you who will entertain his rants, and KP who probably gets entertainment through his rants when KP is bored.

Now please, try to stay on topic.

[scott75]

The topic we were discussing was a post at "The 9/11 Forum" which you claimed was "directed at us" in your OP and has been the one I've been replying to in this context throughout the thread. You arbitrarily switched the context from The 911 Forum we were initially discussing, to 911oz, confusing yourself and no doubt the reader. Again, read the thread from the top and follow along in the context of "directed at us".

You're right, I got mixed up.

Sorry, my main focus had been on the thread you closed, where Brian was the one doing the questioning/commenting.

The thread was closed for a reason. Brian Good is a lunatic. Stay on topic.

I haven't seen evidence that he's a lunatic, but I certainly believe that he's overly emotional in many of his posts. I'll go with what you said earlier on:
"Scott, we don't have a problem with you posting questions raised on other forums, but use some creativity, put it in your own words. After all, we would be answering YOU, not having a conversation with the author... clearly. It's just nice internet etiquette."

Brian at times raises questions and points that I'd like answered as well, so I'll try to put those questions and points into my own words.

The questions have been asked and answered ad nauseam. Go read the OpEd link comments section.

I have, briefly.

Brian just doesn't like the answers due to the fact he needs to provide more information/facts/details to get a better answer (eg. prove it was a 757 on the North Approach, go talk to Roberts to get more details on the flyover path, etc.). Since then, he has gone off the deep end attacking anyone and everyone, stomping his feet and cursing like a petulant child hoping he will get his way. Instead of attempting a constructive dialogue (ie. 'more Bee's with Honey..' type of approach..), his behavior has caused him to be cast into the Pit of Oz, which is where he will remain and be ignored, except for people like you who will entertain his rants,

I agree that his approach isn't especially conducive to learning from those who know more. I think I'm somewhat better at this, though, and hope to be able to counter more of his arguments by learning from people here.

and KP who probably gets entertainment through his rants when KP is bored.

KP himself put it this way:
"While he lies all over the internet, I'm here to point out his lies, his illogicality and his cowardice."

I myself am not so hard on Brian. I agree with the quote from Carol insofar that his posts are frequently emotional, but he's not the only one who gets that way in this discussion. I believe he's mistaken, but I also admit that there are certain points he's made that I don't yet have the answers to. I myself haven't seen evidence that he's tried to be deceitful and I've also seen no sign that he's cowardly.

This post has been edited by scott75: Mar 30 2010, 07:29 AM

[scott75]

Alright, I'll try to put a point of Brian's in my own words as much as possible. In a recent post, Brian mentioned his beliefs that Rob put in "unrealistic strictures on the flight path". I asked him to mention some. He mentioned that one was the "the demand that the plane fly over the DOT radio tower". He then stated his belief that Terry Morin's testimony made it clear that the plane was flying much lower than that.

He then put up this picture:
(IMG:http://i829.photobucket.com/albums/zz214/BrianGood/pentagondive.png)

This post has been edited by scott75: Mar 30 2010, 07:59 AM

[rob balsamo]

1.99 G plows through the Tree line between the Annex and Citgo. Nothing of the sort happened.

Aldo and Craig have good photos of the tall tree line between the Annex and Citgo. There is no evidence a 757 crashed through them as depicted by the calculations made by Frank Legge.

Frank is up to his 8th revision because he didnt listen to us from the start. He will be at revision 20 or more before its all said and done. Expect revision 9 to be out soon if not already.

[onesliceshort]

Alright, I'll try to put a point of Brian's in my own words as much as possible. In a recent post, Brian mentioned his beliefs that Rob put in "unrealistic strictures on the flight path". I asked him to mention some. He mentioned that one was the "the demand that the plane fly over the DOT radio tower". He then stated his belief that Terry Morin's testimony made it clear that the plane was flying much lower than that.

He then put up this picture:
(IMG:http://i829.photobucket.com/albums/zz214/BrianGood/pentagondive.png)

Tell Brian the pervert that he shouldn't chop and change which evidence he likes and dislikes.
If he believes Terry Morin's story that the aircraft went over the Annex. It is NOC. Is he saying that he believes Morin in that the plane flew much lower BUT questions his placement?

If he believes Warren Stutt's data readout, he should know that the aircraft was allegedly at 183ft at this point.

The VDOT tower is 165ft tall.

P4T's NTSB FDR readout has the plane much higher and since the NTSB has never commented on their findings OR the authenticity of Warren Stutt's data, how does Brian Good make the suggestion that 'Rob put in "unrealistic strictures on the flight path".'??

So according to this suspect data and the Official Narrative, yes the plane was above the tower.

IF he DOESN'T believe Warren Stutt's data he has to accept that the FDR is a fraud.

IF he claims that the plane took any other path other than the directional damage path which is open to NO 'margin of error', he has to accept that the FDR is a fraud. And that the damage was staged.

He CANNOT 'invent' a path to suit each argument.

The guy is a weirdo but I'd be happy to talk to him (for a short while) if you supply the link.

Here's one quote I happened to see from the lunatic

Last night I saw a plane that looked like it almost hit the moon. Of course it was an illusion; it wasn't really close to the moon at all. It flew behind it with miles to spare.

What a dick (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[onesliceshort]

Oops, sorry for butting in Rob lol.

I myself haven't seen evidence that he's tried to be deceitful and I've also seen no sign that he's cowardly.

Have you REALLY been reading the bile he posts Scott75??
He uses duhbunker logic when it suits him. He claims that the NOC witnesses could be right and at the same time impact is possible even though this has been pointed out to be bs numerous times.

He has went on rants claiming that it must be accepted that the NOC witnesses may have lied

That lightpole 1 may have struck a lorry before entering Lloyd England's windscreen (!!!)
- I'll have to doublecheck that one as it could have been idiot B sheepnshills who claimed that beauty.

He is a disturbed individual motivated ONLY by an unfathomable hatred of anything CIT and P4T.
'Truthseeker' my arse.

Edit: typo

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Mar 30 2010, 09:52 AM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

1.99 G plows through the Tree line between the Annex and Citgo. Nothing of the sort happened.

Aldo and Craig have good photos of the tall tree line between the Annex and Citgo. There is no evidence a 757 crashed through them as depicted by the calculations made by Frank Legge.

Yep.

Here it was shortly after 9/11 taken from right in front of the Navy Annex:
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/citgo-treeline.jpg)

Brooks specifically references seeing the plane fly over those trees on the NORTH SIDE of the gas station.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/gifs/Brookspointingnorth.gif)

The notion that someone would argue against the official south side flight path, AND against the eyewitnesses who saw the plane NoC, but then argue that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex and STILL caused the physical damage even though there is ZERO evidence for this is ludicrous.

OF COURSE someone can come up with hypothetical calculations that are "possible" showing a plane hitting the Pentagon.

The point is that it has to be reconcilable with the official data, reports, and the physical damage in order for the official story to be true.

Rob's image (that I added the line and text to and so was NOT included in his presentation that way as deceptively implied by Legge) places the plane where it HAS to be in order to be reconcilable with these things.

Legge is arguing with a ghost because none of his points are relevant or reconcilable with the available evidence. He is merely making an irrelevant hypothetical point.

If his point is that Terry Morin is the ONLY accurate north side witness but Paik's trajectory, and ALL of the NoC witnesses are delusional and that the plane hit the building while the perpetrators put out fraudulent official data, reports, and a faked surveillance video then clearly he is the delusional one.

Actually as Rob just made clear even THAT idiotic notion is proven false by the undamaged tree line between the Annex and Citgo.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Mar 30 2010, 01:50 PM

[KP50]

What they all said Scott.

Whereas your official story apologist has to stick to the official line at all times hence their repeated use of phrases such as "you can't prove that", "how would you know what damage should be caused to a building when struck by a 757", Brian just cherry-picks each separate piece of evidence and doesn't stick to any of it. Thus he simultaneously

1. Doesn't argue that the NoC witnesses are incorrect.
2. Claims staging of the lightpole is impossible.

while also

1. Allowing that the NoC witnesses indicate some "damage fakery".
2. Insisting that the damage to the Pentagon is consistent with a plane from the NoC direction.

If you try to pin him down on the witnesses, he will say that CIT have made that area "toxic" - in other words he knows it is proven but chooses not to accept it.

I point out his lies and cowardice ever since he didn't front up to the formal debate with Craig at the Artists forum - yet still claims that Craig ran away from debate from him on numerous occasions.