It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Yes that is sickening as well.

And it's not ONLY Robs site. There are MANY more.




posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Edit; Off topic. Removed by poster. Sent via U2U.

Thanks Intrepid for keeping us in line.

[edit on 3/21/2008 by Griff]



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Ok guys, we're up to warns now. BACK TO THE TOPIC!!! And stop with the personal stuff.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by jthomas
 


JT... he will not be able to. This will sit on his website for a couple weeks then he will remove it. His theory has been proven false.


When we prove your above statement wrong, will you admit it?


ETA: The opposition is also wrong. Will they admit it? Some of them being especially wrong.

We will cover it all in the revision.

By the way, i see many JREFers touting they were the influence for pointing out our errors. That is also wrong. Actually, one of our own core members pointed it out initially. JREFers of course spent the subsequent days, 3 threads (one being removed and one having to be locked due to JREF typical behavior) and a good amount of their free time behind their screens trying to prove us wrong. Once they found the same mistake, they claim "victory". There are other errors they didnt even catch, including their own.

Again, we will cover it all.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by johndoex]


It's pretty clear why you have been wrong on all of your claims, Rob, and you Craig, and Aldo refuse to discuss or refute the evidence against you.

You claimed that the that the final leg of AA77 into the Pentagon was impossible, yet failed to admit that AA77 took a leg that allowed it to hit the Pentagon.

Of course, your claims are no more than claims and assertions, since you cannot demonstrate that AA77 did anything else but hit the Pentagon. We can only wonder why you refuse to discuss all of the evidence, Rob.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex


By the way, i see many JREFers touting they were the influence for pointing out our errors. That is also wrong. Actually, one of our own core members pointed it out initially. JREFers of course spent the subsequent days, 3 threads (one being removed and one having to be locked due to JREF typical behavior) and a good amount of their free time behind their screens trying to prove us wrong. Once they found the same mistake, they claim "victory". There are other errors they didnt even catch, including their own.


A reply from the person the reported the errors to P4911Truth :


I reported three errors: miscalculating the initial upward acceleration by multiplying feet per second by elapsed time instead of dividing (causing a 69% overestimate), miscalculating the distance traversed by an object decelerating to zero velocity (causing a 100% overestimate), and scaling a total G force that included the 1G for earth's gravity (causing a +2.8 G error). Are they saying there were more? (And they're proud of that?)

Respectfully,
Myriad


forums.randi.org...



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Mackey is the only one who is not anonymous and this is his first critical analysis of any of our work...


Guess what? The burden of proof is on you to support your own claims, Rob. In the case of the Pentagon and AA77, this requires you to refute ALL of the evidence against you.

As you've made clear, and I have demonstrated here and on your site, you will only discuss your claims and deliberately avoid the evidence against you.

Do you consider your position intellectually honest, Rob? Certainly, no one would.

As it stands, none of the claims and so-called "theories" claimed by you, Ranke, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth stand up to any of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

So you'd better get to work, don't you think, Rob?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Wanna know what makes me sick CO?

The fact Lee Hamilton himself says "We were set up to fail... .alot of people have things to hide.. over 100 people!" - and you defend it.


Factually, their conclusions about the events of the day of 9/11 stand: AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Where is your refutation of that fact? Where is your disclaimer that Ranke's "theory" is only a claim and not proof as he claims?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
A reply from the person the reported the errors to P4911Truth :


I reported three errors: miscalculating the initial upward acceleration by multiplying feet per second by elapsed time instead of dividing (causing a 69% overestimate), miscalculating the distance traversed by an object decelerating to zero velocity (causing a 100% overestimate), and scaling a total G force that included the 1G for earth's gravity (causing a +2.8 G error). Are they saying there were more? (And they're proud of that?)

Respectfully,
Myriad


forums.randi.org...





Myriad is completely confused and used the wrong formulas/method to calculate such a problem. In doing so, he pointed out our errors based on his formulas which make him wrong on all counts (this does not mean we do not have errors in our own article as stated ad nauseam in this thread and elsewhere)

It is explained a bit more in our thread here...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

However, will be explained more thoroughly in the revision.

ETA: By the way, someone may want to inform Reheat that the DME data is in the raw file and that his constant lies are only hurting himself (one of his most blatant lies, there was a time Reheat kept touting we didnt address the DME data, when in fact we did almost a year prior and released a video presentation more recently, see more here: www.abovetopsecret.com... ). However, i do see that Reheat has exposed the lies Mackey has made in his conclusions.

As far as his assertions that we claim all 3 files dont match. That is another lie. pilotsfor911truth.org...

The CSV File and animation produced by the NTSB match up rather well. Altitudes, headings, airspeeds.. .etc all match with respect to time stamp.

The only thing that doesnt match between the two is setting the altimeter on descent was omitted from the animation, Most likely due to the fact someone wanted to make the aircraft appear lower than actual in the animation... covered in Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77.

The FDR Raw file is a whole different animal and cannot be used for any scrutiny with respect to recording the NTSB/FBI because their reply will be "You arent supposed to have that file"... and... "Who decoded it for you?". This is why i havent written any articles based on it, except when using govt loyalist excuses such as the Radar altitude last data point using the govt loyalist arguments of "up to 2 seconds missing" (found in pinned topics in our AA77 forum) and lat/long vs DME video presentation.

The raw file wasnt prepared for public distribution. The csv files and animation were. The NTSB/FBI claims it is data from AA77. It does not support the govt story. Govt agencies refuse to comment.

Keep in mind, we have gained past core members based on the flight saftey issue alone regarding this data. When joined, they completely believed the govt story of what happened at the pentagon. Their main concern was with the FDR and flight safety related issues in that FDR's should be alot more accurate. Now that they have gone deeper down the "rabbit hole", they arent too sure about the govt story anymore


Regards

[edit on 22-3-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
One last time please.

Stay ON topic and cease the person sniping. If you find that you are unable to do so PLEASE feel free to explore the myriad of other threads here at ATS



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas


Guess what? The burden of proof is on you to support your own claims, Rob. In the case of the Pentagon and AA77, this requires you to refute ALL of the evidence against you.




Our claims with respect to AA77 can be found left margin of our home page labelled "Press Release", pilotsfor911truth.org....

Our claims are confimed and verified by the data/information produced and supplied by the National Transportation Safety Board.

The current article which this topic is based on is currently under review regarding errors we have found and have been pointed out. A revision will be published.

Regards,
Rob



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Keep in mind, we have gained past core members based on the flight saftey issue alone regarding this data. When joined, they completely believed the govt story of what happened at the pentagon.


Keep in mind that most of us know that it is irrelevant whatever the "government" wants to say. All of the evidence of what happened on 9/11 is independent of anything the government would wish to say about it.

We know from all of the lines of independent evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. We know that the "government" never had any ability to control the evidence and eyewitnesses, even if the wreckage is locked away.

This only points out the silliness of the 9/11 Truth Movement canard and strawman that there is some "official story" and that this so-called "story" supposedly represents the entirety of the evidence of what happened at the Pentagon, and that the "evidence" is, and always has been, under the total control of the "government." Anyone bothering to think about that immediately sees the fallacy of that claim.

It is also a fundamental truth that when 9/11 Truthers resort to using the canard of the "official story", it is to evade having to deal with the actual evidence. They thus are here trying to claim that AA77 could not have flown a certain trajectory, yet refusing to deal with the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Theirs is a psychological ploy and nothing more. It doesn't work with rational, thinking people, which, fortunately, are the overwhelming majority of us.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
jthomas,

Is there anything you would like to discuss regarding the topic of topography and/or the errors we admit are within this specific article?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
jthomas,

Is there anything you would like to discuss regarding the topic of topography and/or the errors we admit are within this specific article?


I already have, but I'll repeat for your benefit. Since the evidence clearly demonstrates AA77 flew into the Pentagon and in order to do so, AA77 must have flown a trajectory to get there. So any discussion of a particular trajectory that one claims could not have been taken is meaningless in light of the fact that a successful trajectory was taken.

I assume you agree AA77 hit the Pentagon.



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Yes Rob... when are we expecting you to make your corrections?

And one more thing... just curious. If AFTER your were told by folks in your group that the calculations were in error, didn't you remove the article?

You didn't post it in error until it was pointed out to you by Jref. You had Craig Ranke here posting and TC329 over at JREF continuing to support your findings even though you knew the calculations were wrong?



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Good question CO, im glad you asked.


When we write a new article, it gets sent to a media contact list, friends of the organization, and of course our core members.

Within about an hour, one of our members questioned the math. He sent back the formulas and math he thought was the correct method, but also included that he wasnt sure and could be way off since he hasnt used such formulas in over 30 years.

Meanwhile, JREF was notified of the article in their first thread started by TC. The ad homs flew at almost the speed of light (sarcasm of course) until the thread was i think 7 pages within a few hours. That thread had to be removed as the JREF mods didnt want lurkers to see how the majority of their membership behaves/reacts to such articles. Im sure no one was repremanded and if a "twoofer" reacted the same way, would surely be banned.

A new thread was started a few hours later by Dave Rogers. In this thread TC was the spokesperson for our article since JREF has banned others. Myriad was pointing out the flaws and we were showing where Myriad's numbers dont make sense. We continued to say Mackeys numbers make more sense and still do to this day, however for reasons stated elsewhere ad nauseam, Mackey is still wrong.

That thread was locked most likely due to ad homs, etc etc. Mackey and Myriad were the only ones really addressing the article with analysis mixed in with some ad homs. TC was also addressing the numerous ad homs by others.

All this time we had a thread linked on the original article pointing to "Common Arguments" in our forum so new visitors can see arguments being raised by the opposition. Mackey and Myriad refused to come over to discuss it, so we copied and pasted their analysis with our reply.

People were still complaining that we should remove the article completely, but we feel it is better to not hide/delete errors as has been demonstrated by the opposition, rather show how we work through them.

To silence most of our critics who were still crying that the "Common Arguments" thread wasnt enough, we posted the "update" on top of the article that it is being reviewed and that we had made errors. When that update was posted, JREFers declared "Mission Accomplished".

It turns out the initial email sent which our core member wasnt sure about is the correct method, much of the opposition is wrong with their methods, and it will all be explained in the revision. Since we do not have the resouces, ie financial backing, of a major research facility or organization, it will take some time to publish the revision. We hope to remedy such obstacles in the future.

It is my fault for publishing the article prematurely and make no excuses as i have stated elsewhere ad nauseam.

As for Craig, Aldo and Dom, they continue to be a valuable asset to the Patriot Community and should not share the burden of my errors.

So, there you have it in a nut shell.

Hope this helps...

Regards,
Rob

typo

[edit on 22-3-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas


I assume you agree AA77 hit the Pentagon.




As i have stated elsewhere for you numerous times, which perhaps doesnt seem to sink in, i'll state it again.

AA77 was never positively identified as the object which caused the damage at the pentagon either through radar, parts or eyewitnesses. The data provided by the Govt which they claim is from the object which caused the damage, does not support that claim. The govt refuses to comment.

If you would like to go over the "evidence" you have which concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that AA77 was in fact the object which caused the damage at the pentagon, please feel free to start your own thread on the subject in the proper areas of our forum (as stated numerous times in the past), or in the proper areas of this forum (as stated numerous times in the past).

Regards



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Originally posted by jthomas


I assume you agree AA77 hit the Pentagon.




As i have stated elsewhere for you numerous times, which perhaps doesnt seem to sink in, i'll state it again.

AA77 was never positively identified as the object which caused the damage at the pentagon either through radar, parts or eyewitnesses. The data provided by the Govt which they claim is from the object which caused the damage, does not support that claim. The govt refuses to comment.


As you well know, one does not have to rely on whatever the government says or doesn't say about it since it is the independent evidence, independent of government control from the beginning that demonstrates AA77 hit the Pentagon. And this includes the identification of the wreckage and the eyewitnesses.

You are welcome to refute that evidence, but it is clear that you haven't. When do you propose to start dealing with it, either here or on your site, Rob?




[edit on 22-3-2008 by jthomas]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
John,

We have researched the "evidence" out there published by corprorate owned mainstream media (witness lists) and the US Govt (wreckage).

What we are concerned with are the numerous conflicts which should not conflict.

Why arent you concerned? Do you feel there arent any conflicts? Do you feel the "evidence" which you have researched is enough to ignore the conflicts? If that is the case, here is where we agree to disagree.

It is your opinion that you have enough "evidence" to convince you that AA77 hit the pentagon.

The following people disagree... (ie, they are not convinced after reviewing such evidence which has convinced you)

pilotsfor911truth.org...
patriotsquestion911.com...

The lists are growing.

Again, if you would like to discuss Arlington topography and obstacles as it pertains to the govt story/data, and or the errors made in our article, please feel free as that is the topic of this thread.


Regards

ETA: Excuse me if i do not reply in a timely manner as i dont feel spending my saturday on ATS arguing with people who disagree with us as a productive way to spend my weekend. Enjoy your day.



[edit on 22-3-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Mar, 22 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
John,

We have researched the "evidence" out there published by corprorate owned mainstream media (witness lists) and the US Govt (wreckage).


I've never heard of "researchers" in any field limiting their own research to the mainstream media and government sources. Perhaps that is the root of your problems. I can't imagine science research depending on news reports, for instance.

What we know, of course, is the evidence of what happened is independent and did not originate with either the government or the mainstream media, nor did it ever, and no one, including you, need depend on it. We can go to the sources if we have questions, just as your crack "Citizens Investigation Team" was supposed to have done. Except they avoided doing so.


What we are concerned with are the numerous conflicts which should not conflict.


What the rest of us who are asking you to deal with all the evidence are concerned with is the actual evidence, including that which is not included under your restrictions to news media and government sources.


Why arent you concerned? Do you feel there arent any conflicts? Do you feel the "evidence" which you have researched is enough to ignore the conflicts? If that is the case, here is where we agree to disagree.


I've been questionning Craig Ranke for over one year and now you and Aldo, on the very subject of the conflict of your claims with ALL of the evidence of what happened with AA77 at the Pentagon. What I find amazing is your complete unwillingness to deal with all of the evidence. I am sure others here do too.


It is your opinion that you have enough "evidence" to convince you that AA77 hit the pentagon.

The following people disagree... (ie, they are not convinced after reviewing such evidence which has convinced you)

pilotsfor911truth.org...
patriotsquestion911.com...


As you well know, I have been asking you to present the evidence and deal with the obvious and serious contradictions your claims present. I am not sure how you think it would be possible to convince anyone of your claims when it fails to deal with all of the evidence.

Instead, you have notified everyone that you will not deal with evidence that is inconvenient and just dismiss it as some magical "official story." That does not give anyone confidence that you and your group are serious and credible "researchers", not does it, Rob?




top topics



 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join