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: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by jthomas

For now, right here in this thread, you should be examining the specific claims made, not setting up a wide-ranging strawman counter-argument in the event that the claims hold up.


Thanks Coughy. That's what bugs me here - it makes it almost seem like the claim does hold up.




posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 

I agree. I think we should just wait for the revised calculations to come through before discussing this further.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
reply to post by jthomas
 


I'm with Coughymachine on this one. Sorry JT, you're entitled to your opinion that this is the only way, but others think different. As far as I'm concerned plane/no plane impact and where the hypothetical plane that didn't hit DID wind up are two separate issues. Related yes but separate.

Just for illustration, pretend they had illustrated all these beyond contention:
- a preoponderance of eyewitnesses clearly placing the plane on the wrong line for impact
- The Citgo video showed the plane flying over the Pentagon from the eyewitness direction.
- there was no plane debris at the scene at all.
- there was no building damage at all except where some diversionary fireworks left smoke stains.

Now hypothetically would you look at all this and still say "well where's the plane then?


I think I was quite clear above in making a distinction between a theory/claim and verifiable evidence:


If anyone can demonstrate that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then they could only have done so with verifiable evidence.


I.E. the actual lack of any physical evidence of AA77 inside the Pentagon is verifiable evidence. Of course, if that were true, NO ONE has to say what happened to it.

But we have strictly been talking about Truthers' theories and claims, NOT verified fact. Necessarily, Truthers must refute the all of existing evidence as I have been harping on all along. The existing evidence about AA77 does not include one single piece of evidence of any sort that AA77 was seen after the "explosion" at the Pentagon, either by eyewitnesses, radar data, or landing anywhere. Any theory or claim must account for this to be viable.


And FYI, Craig and Aldo are CIT, not Pilots for Truth. They don't know a bank from a turn, and are just a "brother organization" with PFT. Different policies. The Pilots are too careful and responsible to go around saying the plane didn't hit. They have some very careful analysis to iron out, very very heavy thinking, calculations... All they ever say is that they've illustrated the gov't story impossible/etc. based on gov't data - the govt' story here as drawn up by Aldo was supposed to be impossible now - so they just expertly demonstrate how basically it couldn't or wouldn't have hit, and how there's also not a big enough hole or enough wreckage, and it's all impossible, and let others SAY what that all means. Get your facts straight, man.


I addressed that above. But their past history on the subject matter and my interaction with all three of them on different forums belies Balsamo's "carefulness." I don't have any problem stating that Balsamo' limitation to a "government story", as you put it, is a ruse and a poor one at that.

Since I am leaving today for a ten-day NWO Level I training course in a secret location in northern Sweden, sponsored by the Bilderberg Group, I won't be around for a bit.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by jthomas
If anyone, as I stated, proposes a "theory" or makes a "claim" that AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then they are required to present the evidence of what happened to it.

This is simply wrong, and no amount of apologising will change that.

If anyone demonstrates conclusively that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then they do not need to show what happened to Flight 77.


Stick to the subject matter that we are talking about: Truther theories and claims, NOT something that has been conclusively verified. If it has been demonstrated, then we have verified evidence and of course, NO ONE is required to say what happened to AA77. You can't juxtapose theories and claims with verified evidence as you are doing. Do you understand the difference?



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by jthomas
ANY theory or claim that states that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon must include what actually happened to it, with evidence to support the claim.

You're flat wrong.

If anyone argues that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then it is up to them to demonstrate Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. If they can demonstrate this, then they have no obligation whatsoever to set out what did happen to the plane.


Not quite a direct response but.....people keep claiming that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon...without ANY evidence. Now, on the other hand we can build a chain of custody of evidence in regards to the passengers. Verified as boarding the jet, jet verified as taking off, jet verified as coming back to the DC area and then the remains of the passengers verified as being recovered from the wreckage at the Pentagon through the identification of said remains using DNA and personal effects. The size of the conspiracy that would have been needed to screw with that would prohibit it from being effective. Too many civil agencies were involved.


On another note...because I know Ultima will step in with his "they didnt have the means to test the DNA blah blah blah...." that was in regards to human remains subjected to first an airliner crash, and then two 110 story buildings collapsing on them turning remains into literal soup...and then being buried for in some cases weeks. Entirely different recovery than from the Pentagon.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

Frame a concession any way you want. My position is clear and logically correct.

If anyone demonstrates conclusively that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then there is no need to explain what did happen to it.

I'm not arguing anyone has demonstrated conclusively that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon yet, simply pointing out that they wouldn't need to set out a whole new alternative theory if they do manage to demonstrate it.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

I understand your position and don't necessarily disagree.

I'm not here arguing that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. I do think, however, both CIT and P4T have evidence that warrants serious attention. I would like to see their threads used as a basis for discussing their theories and not as a platform for those who are genetically inclined to disagree to muddy the waters with strawman arguments.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

I understand your position and don't necessarily disagree.

I'm not here arguing that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. I do think, however, both CIT and P4T have evidence that warrants serious attention. I would like to see their threads used as a basis for discussing their theories and not as a platform for those who are genetically inclined to disagree to muddy the waters with strawman arguments.


Well, I was actually making a point that we have direct, physical evidence that Flight 77 did impact the Pentagon. I no longer directly address certain individuals because they play fast and VERY loose with the facts...and wont admit it.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

Again, I don't necessarily disagree. But if it can be demonstrated conclusively that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then clearly we have a problem with that evidence.

Here's the sort of point I'm trying to make here. Imagine you and I spend an uninterrupted week together in the US and, during that week, a crime is committed here in the UK. Imagine also that evidence collected from the crime scene places me there at the time the crime was committed. Would I need to explain to you how the evidence against me got there in order to demonstrate to you I was innocent?

Using the same principle, if anyone can conclusively demonstrate that Flight 77 didn't or couldn't have hit hit the Pentagon, then the direct evidence we have for an impact must be wrong. You wouldn't need to offer a theory as to how it got there to show this.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 


True, however, we arent talking about you committing a "current" crime. We are discussing people who call themselves investigators that are not. Not to mention that a lot of their arguments are based on people and their memories (which are now almost 7 years old). So, so and so, now remembers that maybe Flight 77 was slightly on the north (or south) side of the Navy Annex or CITGO or etc....human memories start to get fuzzy after a couple weeks let alone six and a half years. Or they whine that no one has let them see the official reports from the various federal agencies involved or they whine about not getting to see all the videos. Of course, if they did see all the videos, then they would start whining about the videos being tampered with. Worst of all to me, they flat out call the men and women who responded that day, and spent the next several weeks recovering bodies, liars.

They are never going to show (or prove) that Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon. Because it did. The witnesses that day (interviewed THEN, not six years later), the plane wreckage, the remains of the passengers (of which quite a few were found strapped to their seats, ALL of it shows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Of course, the "truthers" will never be satisfied, because they will forever rely on inneundo and supposition (The Pentagon's missile batteries would have shot down an airliner....or The Pentagon MUST have thousands of cameras for security that would have caught it blah blah...) rather than facts.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
They are never going to show (or prove) that Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon.

Well, that remains to be seen. Though I agree no one has done so yet, I remain open to the possibility they might.

In any event, I only entered the discussion in this thread to point out that if anyone conclusively demonstrated that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, they wouldn't be obligated to explain what happened to Flight 77.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
They are never going to show (or prove) that Flight 77 did not impact the Pentagon.

Well, that remains to be seen. Though I agree no one has done so yet, I remain open to the possibility they might.

In any event, I only entered the discussion in this thread to point out that if anyone conclusively demonstrated that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, they wouldn't be obligated to explain what happened to Flight 77.



It's been proven.

Everyone saw the plane on the north side of the gas station and nobody saw the plane on the south side.

Why do you refuse to accept independently corroborated hard evidence?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Craig,

I don't consider it proven, though I respect the position you take.

What we have is a lot of conflicting evidence right now and, as you know from past exchanges, I don't share your view about the complete lack of south side witnesses. McGraw is, for me, a south side witness by an extension of the very same logic you have used to argue that the north side witnesses 'prove' the plane could not have struck the Pentagon in a manner consistent with the physical evidence. What I mean by that is, if McGraw saw the plane strike the Pentagon (which he claims he did), then clearly it could not have come from the north of the Citgo station. Thus he is a south side witness, whether he saw it fly to the south of not.

But this is an old discussion and one I believe we have previously agreed to disagree on.

For now, I would much rather we all focus on this new information and look forward to either a revised set of calculations from p4t or else a retraction.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Been over a week now.... any updates? Rob get his math corrected? He'll probably think this one will blow over like his fake airphone document.

Oh well...



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Wow that must be some SERIOUS in-depth math he's doing here.

So... a descent from over the obstacle makes the flight path - I dunno, a bit tricky. Which we already knew. If it passed by it instead of over... well that's not what the government graphics show now is it?

Alright, take your time Rob. Maybe we can get it right this time.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


Anything from his website yet? I haven't heard anything....I think perpetual energy will be invented by the time we see Rob prove that the guys at Jref were lying.

Rob? Anything?



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
CO,

what would you do with your life if there wasnt an ATS...lol

We're working on it, be patient. This article is not the only thing we are working on. We do have preliminary results, but will not post anything until it is ready to publish. We were premature in posting the initial article, we wont make the same mistake twice.

As for the lies offered by JREFers, i already told you how you can figure it out yourself, but you replied that you didnt want to give us more "hits" at our site thinking we had advertisers.


So, i guess you'll have to continue trolling ATS day and night conversing with people you think are nuts until we are done.

Regards,
Rob



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


JD,

Nice to hear from you. Yes, I am still looking forward to your much anticipated re-write of your paper.

Hope all is well,

C.O.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Everyone saw the plane on the north side of the gas station and nobody saw the plane on the south side.

Why do you refuse to accept independently corroborated hard evidence?


Didn't 2 federal police officers witenss the plane on the south side?

Also doesn't the Flight 77 FDR show the plane was on the south side?



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 




Didn't 2 federal police officers witenss the plane on the south side?

Also doesn't the Flight 77 FDR show the plane was on the south side?


Oh my dog, perfect symmetrical bassackwardness. Yes, the FDR data lines up with the heading of a south path, although it ends early. And I for one believe those officers saw it on the south side and just lied when they said north. Curiously they match (sorta) the erred "FDR" animation that shows it north, which many have taken as a sign that the plane actually WAS north like the witnesses said.

frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...
www.youtube.com...

Still confused? Go back and check that data you got via FOIA last year. Remember? The stuff you had a hard time scanning in to share?



[edit on 30-3-2008 by Caustic Logic]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join