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

[scott75]

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

It's amazing how glaring an error can be once it's pointed out. Thanks. I've relayed the information over to the fighting pit.

Aldo and Craig have good photos of the tall tree line between the Annex and Citgo.

Which he's now put up. Nice of him.

There is no evidence a 757 crashed through them as depicted by the calculations made by Frank Legge.

I'm beginning to suspect that the foundation for Brian's arguments are beginning to center on Legge's work. I think that's a good thing, as I've found Legge to much more cautious then most of the people who disagree with PFT and CIT.

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.

Well I'm glad that he's realizing his mistakes. I think we may be getting to the end of this debate within the mainstream truth movement.

This post has been edited by scott75: Mar 30 2010, 05:57 PM

[scott75]

Tell Brian... that he shouldn't chop and change which evidence he likes and dislikes.

I've already pointed out that his stance is somewhat fluid, but he seems unperturbed.

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?

I'll ask.

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.

I'm not sure, but I think he's not sure he trusts the FDR. I've dealt with another no-flyover theorist, and that was his stance at any rate. Again, I'll ask him.

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".'??

I believe the answer is his lack of knowledge. I think the amount of things that seem possible when one is relatively uninformed can be almost boundless. Clearly, I'm not immune to some of this, or I would have responded to his points myself.

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.

Good point.

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.

The thing is, I think he might just accept both of those premises and still believe that an airplane hit the pentagon.

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

I wouldn't put it past him ;-). But perhaps after I ask him the questions you posed, his stance may become more clearly defined.

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

He's over in the fighting pit of 911oz.com, but I'm not sure that direct communication would be so good. When relaying messages, I tend to filter out insults coming from both sides, which I think helps to ensure that we stick to the arguments instead of those making them. Some have commented that I have a lot of patience and I would add tolerance for those who disagree with me; with many others, what tends to happen is that both sides start verbally brawling and not much happens after that point.

Update: I've decided to simply repost most of what you said in a new thread I just created over in the pit, as it makes my job a lot easier :-p.

This post has been edited by scott75: Mar 30 2010, 05:23 PM

[scott75]

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 [stuff] he posts Scott75??

Not only have I been reading it, but I've been making a fair amount of responses to what he's written as well.

He uses duhbunker logic when it suits him.

I've argued with official story supporters more than I have with truthers. I find that it's nicer to argue with people who atleast agree that 9/11 was in all likelihood an inside job.

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.

Being that as it may be, he doesn't seem to think so, and he's at times presented arguments that I didn't know how to counter. It's because of the fact that I don't know how to respond to points by people who aren't in this forum that I created this thread.

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

Well, people can lie. However, I think for so many people to lie that the pentaplane made a certain flight path approach is highly unlikely.

That lightpole 1 may have struck a lorry before entering Lloyd England's windscreen (!!!)

By lorry, do you mean a truck?

[/i] - I'll have to doublecheck that one as it could have been idiot B sheepnshills who claimed that beauty.

Mm. I think that BrianGood is better informed than sheepnshills, but I still think he has a long way to go.

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

I think that it's always interesting to know why various people are interested in this or that topic. I think it's fairly clear that he strongly dislikes CIT and PFT, and I make a lot of effort to get his attention off of this dislike and on to the reasons for his belief that the flyover couldn't have occurred. I personally believe that his resolve against the flyover theory may be weakening, perhaps in part because I'm studiously trying to stay away from his feelings about CIT and PFT and sticking to his arguments against the flyover theory.

Truthseeker' my arse.

I think he is. The problem, in my view, is that he was getting too bogged down concerning his feelings for PFT and CIT and was losing sight of discussing the reasons for his beliefs. I think that this is changing for the better though.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I'm beginning to suspect that the foundation for Brian's arguments are beginning to center on Legge's work. I think that's a good thing, as I've found Legge to much more cautious then most of the people who disagree with PFT and CIT.



Well I'm glad that he's realizing his mistakes. I think we may be getting to the end of this debate within the mainstream truth movement.

Mainstream truth movement? There is no such thing and if there was they are certainly NOT opposed to CIT

Legge realizing his mistakes?

There is no evidence for this and if you had read his 8 revisions and our responses to them you would know for a fact that the opposite is true. If you haven't read them you have no basis to make such a ridiculous comment.

Your contribution to this discussion is worthless and counterproductive.

You are arguably the most disingenuous and deceptive anonymous troll I have ever dealt with.

You should be banned.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Mar 30 2010, 06:39 PM

[scott75]

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)

Thanks for the info.

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.

I have tried to point out to Brian that he's got to stick to one theory or other; if he wants to present various arguments from all angles, that's one thing, but to use selectively pick theories to better suit a particular argument is, in my view, cheating.

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.

Yeah.

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.

I think the problem is that Legge and Brian simply aren't aware of all the factors involved.

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

I definitely agree that the undamaged tree line, and your photos of them was a very good point.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I think the problem is that Legge and Brian simply aren't aware of all the factors involved.

Your insistence on making excuses for them even though we have proof they have been thoroughly informed of how their arguments are fallacious is exactly why you are considered disingenuous and therefore a detriment to 9/11 truth.

[scott75]

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.

I agree. His lack of seeing a theory through from every angle is definitely one of his largest weaknesses of his arguments.

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 dislike his term "toxic", but I think the idea he's trying to convey is the same one that makes it so that jury members aren't allowed to read the papers while they're sitting on the jury so that their views aren't biased by them. Personally, I don't agree that it applies in this case, as many if not all of the witnesses weren't even aware of the implications of seeing the plane on a North of Citgo flight path at the time they made the statements.

I point out his lies and cowardice ever since he didn't front up to the formal debate with Craig at the Artists forum

He did have an unofficial debate with him; the pre-debate debate, if you will. I think that he's somewhat aware that his knowledge is lacking; this, in my view, is why he hesitated on going towards a formal one. I don't think this amounts to cowardice, though. It's more like a healthy caution. I have never seen evidence that he has been deceitful either. This doesn't mean that he hasn't made erroneous claims.

- yet still claims that Craig ran away from debate from him on numerous occasions.

Craig stopped responding over in the pit. I believe he uses that as an example of Craig "running away". As I've told him, I honestly think it was probably a good thing for Craig to stop responding, because the respect between them is, well... not exactly there. Furthermore, there are people (I raise my hand here) who, I think, are better at bridging the gap between someone like Brian and someone like Craig. To be sure, I have my issues with Craig, but I think that they're far less than the issues Craig has with Brian.

[scott75]

Mainstream truth movement? There is no such thing and if there was they are certainly NOT opposed to CIT

I consider Legge to be part of the mainstream truth movement. A while back, even Victoria Ashley admitted that the CIT/PFT claims have eclipsed the plane crash claims, and I agree; for a while now, you guys have had the upper ground. This being the case, I think you can now afford to be generous to your detractors; they're losing ground.

Legge realizing his mistakes?

There is no evidence for this and if you had read his 8 revisions and our responses to them you would know for a fact that the opposite is true. If you haven't read them you have no basis to make such a ridiculous comment.

I've read a bit of his work on this subject. I'm not sure if I read his original version, a subsequent version, or a combination. I simply thought that if he's revised his work so many times, it's because he's realized that he's made mistakes. Since I also believe that PFT and CIT are the most informed on this subject, I theorized that information gleaned from your collective work was atleast partially the reason for this. Admittedly, it's a theory, but I think it makes sense. I'm not saying that he's ever -credited- either of these groups with having shown him the error of his ways, however. But I know from something he wrote that he's aware of your work.

Your contribution to this discussion is worthless and counterproductive.

So you claim, but there are some people, including atleast one person we both respect, who disagree.

You are arguably the most disingenuous and deceptive anonymous troll I have ever dealt with.

Don't fall into the pit of insults that Brian so regularly succumbs to Ranke. You can do better.

You should be banned.

I myself felt it was unfortunate when you were temporarily removed from Loose Change. Hopefully the time will come when you will also appreciate my presence, despite our disagreements.

[scott75]

Your insistence on making excuses for them even though we have proof they have been thoroughly informed of how their arguments are fallacious is exactly why you are considered disingenuous and therefore a detriment to 9/11 truth.

Craig, I think your largest weakness is your insistence that you know when someone is informed. I, on the other hand, frequently give people the benefit of the doubt on this. It is, in my view, why I'm so good at mediating between different points of view.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I've read a bit of his work on this subject. I'm not sure if I read his original version, a subsequent version, or a combination. I simply thought that if he's revised his work so many times, it's because he's realized that he's made mistakes. Since I also believe that PFT and CIT are the most informed on this subject, I theorized that information gleaned from your collective work was atleast partially the reason for this. Admittedly, it's a theory, but I think it makes sense. I'm not saying that he's ever -credited- either of these groups with having shown him the error of his ways, however. But I know from something he wrote that he's aware of your work.

This is your problem.

Despite meddling in discussion as some sort of self-appointed mediator you (apparently deliberately) remain ignorant regarding the evidence as well as what has been discussed between the parties you are attempting to mediate!

That means you are not qualified for your self-appointed position and the result is that you end up muddying the discussion, misrepresenting the position of others, and spreading either mis or disinformation.

Neither side of this discussion appreciates your input. You serve no productive or useful purpose whatsoever.

[rob balsamo]

I'm not saying that he's ever -credited- either of these groups with having shown him the error of his ways, however. But I know from something he wrote that he's aware of your work.

"I am indebted to Rob Balsamo, of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, for pointing out that Jim Hoffman has the ground slope wrong in the following reference,
which I used to obtain the 1 in 20 slope" Footnote 36, Frank Legge, "What Hit The Pentagon"

"Again I am indebted to Rob Balsamo for drawing my attention to the fact that the plane would have taken very
little time to travel from the light poles to the Pentagon." Footnote 37, Frank Legge, "What Hit The Pentagon"

Legge couldn't get simple arithmetic accurate in his supposedly "peer reviewed" paper.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Craig, I think your largest weakness is your insistence that you know when someone is informed. I, on the other hand, frequently give people the benefit of the doubt on this. It is, in my view, why I'm so good at mediating between different points of view.

What you "think" is false and the published evidence is there to prove it.

The reason I "know" that they (Legge & Good) have been informed is because I have personally told them both.

Our discussions have been published and your failure to pay attention enough in order to thoroughly read and/or understand them does not give you justification to proclaim MY alleged "weakness".

Your apparent deliberate failure to read all the discussions so you can easily remain ignorant on the matter in order to continue to give people "the benefit of the doubt" proves why you are NOT good at mediating different points of view.

In fact it proves that you are extremely horrible at it.

The results are that both sides of the discussion find your input to be worthless and an annoying nuisance.

A good mediator would have the respect of both sides. Neither side values your input in the least.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Mar 31 2010, 03:40 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Legge couldn't get simple arithmetic accurate in his supposedly "peer reviewed" paper.

Yet he is still publicly trashing you regarding this issue as of this week.

Look at this discussion that was just published:

Frank Legge And The Double Negative Hypothesis

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Mar 31 2010, 03:28 PM

[rob balsamo]

Yet he is still publicly trashing you regarding this issue as of this week.

Look at this discussion that was just published:

Frank Legge And The Double Negative Hypothesis

Yeah, it's appears to be the same regurgitated nonsense he has in his paper. I'm familiar with his complaints of our work and discussed the nature of our work, why it remains, why it is accurate, and why our organization continues to grow with our peers despite his failed attempts to "correct our work" (Hint: He doesn't understand it, he hasn't from the start, eg. His calculations plow through the Tree Line. His paper is loaded with wild speculation, while our analysis is based on data... etc.).

Revision 9 should be around the bend as Legge currently speculates in his supposed "peer-reviewed" paper that the "hijackers" could have used CWS to help them hit their targets. Unfortunately for Legge, his speculation is once again proven to be irresponsible and wildly inaccurate.

Two points -

1. CWS mode was deactivated and uninstalled from the American Airlines fleet prior to 9/11.
2. CWS modes do not help a pilot "hit" anything. It temporarily disconnects the autopilot completely, allowing a pilot to steer by hand. CWS mode would not help a "hijacker" pilot who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots.

Legge claims his paper is "peer-reviewed", unfortunately, he didn't take the advice of the "peers" who have the expertise and now 9 Revisions have been warranted with more to come. Legge has discredited himself within "The Movement" with so many revisions in a supposed "peer-review" paper that the only people who actually quote his work, is the lunatic Brian Good.

[scott75]

This is your problem.

Despite meddling in discussion as some sort of self-appointed mediator you (apparently deliberately) remain ignorant regarding the evidence as well as what has been discussed between the parties you are attempting to mediate!

Partial points. I do know some things, but there are still many things I have yet to learn. There's a lot of information. Many times, despite our disagreements, I've told detractors of PFT and CIT that you guys have a lot more information on the pentagon attack then I do. Where I excel is not on all the technical details; clearly I'm still learning. My strong point is in giving them the benefit of the doubt.

That means you are not qualified for your self-appointed position

Ultimately, that is something that can only be decided by those who are on the opposing sides. To be sure, you are a strong voice on the PFT/CIT side, but you're not the only one.

and the result is that you end up muddying the discussion, misrepresenting the position of others, and spreading either mis or disinformation.

I do my best. Furthermore, I'm frequently one of the only ones doing it in the forums I frequent. I believe that my efforts have helped educate people, but I know that I make mistakes at times. However, when I realize that I've made a mistake, I admit it, which is something that not everyone does.

Neither side of this discussion appreciates your input. You serve no productive or useful purpose whatsoever.

I disagree with you there, although our disagreements certainly haven't helped me to mediate between the sides.

[scott75]

"I am indebted to Rob Balsamo, of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, for pointing out that Jim Hoffman has the ground slope wrong in the following reference,
which I used to obtain the 1 in 20 slope" Footnote 36, Frank Legge, "What Hit The Pentagon"

"Again I am indebted to Rob Balsamo for drawing my attention to the fact that the plane would have taken very
little time to travel from the light poles to the Pentagon." Footnote 37, Frank Legge, "What Hit The Pentagon"

Ah, good to know that atleast he's aware and has acknowledged that you guys were right and he was wrong on some things.

Legge couldn't get simple arithmetic accurate in his supposedly "peer reviewed" paper.

Rob, I'm reminded of a pilot student you once told me about. He was a cocky type. By the end of his trip with you, you had him wipe up the vomit he'd spilled after the trip. I'm not sure how cocky Legge is, but perhaps he has something of the same nature. All I'm trying to say is that cockiness is not the same thing as deceitfulness. I've read the posts below this one and even though I haven't read enough to be able to make arguments for it myself, I intuitively feel that you've got it right; that when it comes to your work, "He doesn't understand it, he hasn't from the start". I feel sorry for him. I don't yet understand many of the technical details regarding the CIT/PFT pentaplane theory. But I believe I know enough to know you guys are on the right track. Legge doesn't appear to be there yet. I feel sorry for him. Nevertheless, I do believe he's part of the truth movement and that he's certainly not alone in holding the views he holds. I think that a while back, the PFT/CIT theory eclipsed the crash theory, but there are still holdouts and Legge, Hoffman and his wife, Victoria Ashely, are some of the most notable holdouts. In time, think this can change as well; I think some compassion would help...

This post has been edited by scott75: Mar 31 2010, 04:24 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I disagree with you there, although our disagreements certainly haven't helped me to mediate between the sides.

I've seen no evidence to support your assertion and lots of evidence to support mine.

Since I am one side of the discussion my belief that your input is worthless and counter-productive is proof that you are not respected by this side. If you have evidence that someone else from this side of the discussion respects you and appreciates your efforts please provide it or concede that I am right.

I'm sure I can find several quotes proving that Brian Good does not appreciate your input proving that the other side does not respect you either.

So either provide evidence that anybody on EITHER SIDE of this discussion respects you and values your input or you must concede that nobody does therefore fully establishing your inability to be an effective mediator.

[scott75]

I've seen no evidence to support your assertion and lots of evidence to support mine.

Since I am one side of the discussion

You aren't, though. You're a strong part of one side, but you're only a part of that side.

If you have evidence that someone else from this side of the discussion respects you and appreciates your efforts please provide it

I'm speaking of the author of the email interview with Frank Legge that you just linked to, Paul Tassopulos. He did an interview with me a while back as well. Have you seen it? I decided to give him a call just now, to find out where it was again, and we ended up talking about the difficulties in trying to talk to the different sides of an argument. The interview he did with me is here:
http://paulsdomain.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=571878

I'm sure I can find several quotes proving that Brian Good does not appreciate your input proving that the other side does not respect you either.

There are times when he tires of me. There are times when I tire of him. But we're still going at it, and in a fairly respectful manner as well.

This post has been edited by scott75: Mar 31 2010, 04:54 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

So Paul Tassopulos is who you are citing as someone from a particular side of this discussion who values your input?

I am pretty sure he would not appreciate you choosing sides for him.

You have not been trying to mediate a discussion between Paul and anyone so I have no idea why you would bring him up in this context.

The point here is that you are not qualified to be a mediator in this discussion because NEITHER side of the discussion respects you or appreciates your efforts.

It is impossible to be an effective mediator when this is the case and you are unable to provide evidence that it is not the case.

[scott75]

So Paul Tassopulos is who you are citing as someone from a particular side of this discussion who values your input?

I am pretty sure he would not appreciate you choosing sides for him.

No, that's not what I meant. I meant he was someone within the truth movement who appreciates my input.

You have not been trying to mediate a discussion between Paul and anyone so I have no idea why you would bring him up in this context.

Actually I have, although in a very indirect manner.

The point here is that you are not qualified to be a mediator in this discussion because NEITHER side of the discussion respects you or appreciates your efforts.

Someone who you recognize doesn't want to be pidgeon holed on to a side does, and that's better in my books.

It is impossible to be an effective mediator when this is the case and you are unable to provide evidence that it is not the case.

I'm talking to both sides, which, when things are as hot as this discussion is, is a fair accomplishment. However, there's no question that your rejection of my efforts is taking its toll.