Most of that response was desperately convoluted, twisty semantics piled up compound. I don't even have the energy anymore to untangle and respond to this tripe entirely. But just looking a the main Qs I had... earlier in the thread you asked for an example of you side-stepping. questions. Here is a good one.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by Caustic Logic
What proof do we have that Boger, Walter, anyone in that describes a 'bank' means it in the same way you do? As I see it the word alone could mean a turn or just an actual bank, and I'd need other clues like "it banked right, turning from northeast to east..." etc.
We don't believe Walter due to many fatal contradictions in his account. Boger describes it perfectly. Please don't lump the two together as if we give them the same level of credence.
Alright then... What proof do we have that EITHER the very credible Boger or the HIGHLY SUSPECT Walter in their descriptions of bank means it in the same way you do? As I see it the word alone could mean a turn or just an actual bank, and I'd need other clues like "it banked right, turning from northeast to east..." etc.
No but neither would it change in a fraction of a second from what he had seen earlier. Where does he say it stopped 'banking' and straightened out? How do we know it wasn't still doing that behind the trees? Did it level its wings, pull up and fly over behind the trees?
Because that is not what he describes and we know the plane was on the north side of the citgo but we also know that [...]
I'll consider that one answered. You've decided he doesn't describe a 'bank' to it in front of him, just at a distance, so it was only banking at a distance. Absence of description = *description* of absence of bank right before impact. No need to explain further.
So for every instance you say Walter's report of a bank contradicts the official story I call bull. Until you get him to explain he MEANS a right turn, and that graceful means extreme, with left wing very high.
Read his words. It is quite clear this is what he means.
The fact that you refuse his own words isn't my problem.
Also
So if you accept his "graceful bank" description as valid you must accept that it contradicts the official story.
Okay and it seems we have this answer: bank = turn and not tilt in Walter's account because it does, it's plain as day and you will keep repeating it, and it still contradicts, since it LOST its bank before Route 27 as clearly *descried.*. This point not side-stepped. Reasoning understood.
Most of this response is based on you mischaracterizing what I read Walter as seeing:
“I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure." That's about it. “Banking” then “Lining up its sights” does almost sound like two separate phases of movement, but since bank doesn’t necc. Mean turn, and ‘lining up’ could be a figure of speech for the final dive and no other evidence indicates a noticeable left turn before impact… this could in fact be a description of the 'official path.' Sorry you disagree. It's like 'north and west' isn't it?
How I read this acc't: He does not give a distance here, nor eve a right-left, but considering other evidence as well, it sounds like he saw it off to his left and ahead in a mild left bank back around the Navy Annex, probably 3-4 seconds before impact, showing belly. Straight but wings banked, probably like minus 8-12 deg over the annex. He watched as it came nearly straight into the Pentagon, descending, leveling somewhat, but still banking slightly left, and then impacted low, like about where the low impact damage does indeed match a mild left bank or tilt of –6 degrees. His description is less precise of course for many reasons… He does NOT mention the tilt-implying image of the left wing scraping the ground like others do. Know why? Yep. Those darn trees...
He is clearly describing a plane off in the distance coming out of a turn and "lining up it's sights". How you can construe that to be a 2 second event with a slight tilt at the last moment I will never know.
…
We talked to him in person. You didn't.
Ah the talkie talkie magic. Now you have magical voodoo insights into just what he saw and just what he means when he says this or that, magic that cannot be explained or shared with mere mortals like me. Got it. I may as well stop trying.
Gathering the evidence does not give you the right to abuse it however you like and pretend your misreading is the ONLY reading and everyone else is either stupid or lying who disagrees.
His brain would not have ANY time to think the plane was normal traffic on the official flight path.
Wow, that’s interesting. Tell me, how much time DOES it take for a person, or Walter in particular, to think if a flight path is normal? How much too quick was this event?
And since we're keeping this in the vs. thread, I have a general Q for you. You mentioned Paik's earlier interview w/Pickering present. I hear Robert Turcios gave an earlier recorded interview before his video-taped one. Is this available for the public to hear? Do you have a copy you can share in the interests further verification of your scientific and open process?
I have no idea where you heard that but it is not true.
Turcios did not give an earlier recorded interview before his video taped one.
Just a rumor then I guess, but attributed to a knowledgeable source. It’s from a site you know and certainly loathe (does NOT start with J). They do make some other mistakes as well. There was an implication he had earlier said he was inside the station at the time of the crash rather than under the canopy and up on the mound seeing the pull-up as he showed you guys.
Okay simple Q then: When was your interview w/Robert taped? It looks kinda Novemberish?
[edit on 19-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]
[edit on 19-2-2008 by Caustic Logic]
