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.

 

William Middleton Sr - north side approach witness, the ultimate validation

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


Wrong.

There are no "nuances".

They all say it was on the north side proving it did not hit.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the plane to have hit according to where the witnesses unanimously place it.

The official story does not win by default particularly since the entire reason the citizen investigation into government involvement started is the anomalous physical damage and lack of plane debris.

Now we know WHY there are so many questions with the physical evidence and the official data.

Waving away fatal anomalies in favor of pure faith in the official story is not a scientific approach to evidence or true skepticism.

It simply demonstrates an inherent confirmation bias.

If these witnesses were mistaken they would not all be placing it on the exact same side of the gas station.




posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by pinch
 


I'm not following you Pinch.

Why does your head hurt?


My head hurts from trying to follow all your conflicting BS.

Sean Boger said he watched the aircraft hit the building.

Terry Morin said he watched the tail hit the building and most certainly did not see an aircraft bank off to the right to be seen by Roosevelt Roberts.

Numerous others saw the impact but you choose to ignore their testimony, claiming some BS about being part of the government, which is indeed BS because Lagasse,, Brooks and Roberts are all government employees. Therefore, you *do* accept government employee testimony, but only testimony you like can can gerrymander into a twisted shadow of its former meaning.

For Officer Roberts to see an aircraft at 50 to 100 feet over the south parking as you claim as evidence for a "fly-over" the aerodynamic flight regime the aircraft would have to go through from a north of the service station is impossible.

The flight path denoted on your pictures don't match - some go over the annex, some clip one corner of the annex, some go down the north side of the annex, some come from over Arlington Cemetery, etc.

The "video" you keep referring to by Captain Bob is nothing more than a cartoon. In the professional world of modeling and simulation, no model or simulation is acceptable by anyone until it is verified as accurate, validated as generating data that is correct and is accredited by an outside competent authority. Captain Bob's cartoon has had none of the above done, so it remains a quaint little version of what he thinks happened, something I'm sure all you are very proud of but nonetheless nothing more than a cartoon.

THAT is why my head hurts.

I understand your and Captain Bob's appeal is to the uneducated, the masses who know nothing about aviation or aerodynamics or flight dynamics or anything such as that. Captain Bob is especially qualified to speak on these issues because he himself is uneducated about flight departure procedures(specifically at Andrews AFB) and approach procedures (specifically at Reagan National). Something about the blind wishing to recruit the blind, or something like that.

You can do you little hand waving of sweetness and light and "Peace, brother!" and BS routine all you want, but the fact remains you have nothing, you have developed nothing, you will do nothing, and you will remain nothing in this event. Your "independent" investigations is made up leading questions, cherry picked witness statements, outright lies, speculation, putting words in people's mouths, attribution of thought, and pure and simple bull crap.

The fact that you and Captain Bob won't ever, ever actually "do" anything with this "evidence" you claim is indicative of your real motives and feelings here - you are scared to death of taking this to a courtroom anywhere, and you'd rather extend your questionable 15-minutes of quasi-internet fame as long as you possibly can, even though that fame is relegated to nothing more than online discussion boards (and in the editorial rooms of the OC Weekly).

Peace, bro! Peace through superior firepower, that is!

BTW, how's Alpo? Haven't heard from him much lately.

[edit on 24-9-2008 by pinch]

[edit on 24-9-2008 by pinch]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

My head hurts from trying to follow all your conflicting BS.


It wouldn't hurt and it wouldn't be conflicting if you would simply understand that a plane approaching on the north side of the Citgo CAN'T hit.


Sean Boger said he watched the aircraft hit the building.


He also said he watched him approach from the north side of the Citgo and then couldn't even give an accurate or consistent account of where it hit. HE EVEN ARGUED THE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO NOT LOOKING RIGHT. LOL.


Terry Morin said he watched the tail hit the building and most certainly did not see an aircraft bank off to the right to be seen by Roosevelt Roberts.


Terry Morin said the plane was over the Navy Annex and there was no way it was on the south path. HE IS A NORTH SIDE WITNESS. And you know what that means huh Pinch? Terry Morin said he watched the tail. He didn't say he saw it hit the building.

I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.

Where did he say he "saw the tail hit the Pentagon" hmmm? He noticed that tail dip to the right. Oh I get it, you're embellishing that part. Got it.


Numerous others saw the impact but you choose to ignore their testimony, claiming some BS about being part of the government,


LIE. We've contacted MANY of the published witnesses. Their gov't employment isn't even the main reason to doubt their testimony. Claiming they saw a plane (which approached from the north side of the Citgo) hit the Pentagon is. You are just making a generic and false strawman claim. AGAIN.



which is indeed BS because Lagasse,, Brooks and Roberts are all government employees. Therefore, you *do* accept government employee testimony, but only testimony you like can can gerrymander into a twisted shadow of its former meaning.


Yawn. We covered this. Strawmen are very flammable, Pinch. Look, yours is engulfed.


For Officer Roberts to see an aircraft at 50 to 100 feet over the south parking as you claim as evidence for a "fly-over" the aerodynamic flight regime the aircraft would have to go through from a north of the service station is impossible.


Why? Because you said so? Sorry it doesn't work that way. You care to tell Officer Roberts to his face? Of course you don't. You'd rather stay obsessed from behind your monitor huh?


The flight path denoted on your pictures don't match - some go over the annex, some clip one corner of the annex, some go down the north side of the annex, some come from over Arlington Cemetery, etc.


Yes imagine that. Human memory, it's a b---h huh? It's also not a computer or camera huh? But guess what? They are ALL on the north side of the Citgo hahaha.


The "video" you keep referring to by Captain Bob is nothing more than a cartoon. In the professional world of modeling and simulation, no model or simulation is acceptable by anyone until it is verified as accurate, validated as generating data that is correct and is accredited by an outside competent authority. Captain Bob's cartoon has had none of the above done, so it remains a quaint little version of what he thinks happened, something I'm sure all you are very proud of but nonetheless nothing more than a cartoon.


Yawn again. Ok Pinch. So you are appealing to authority. So who do you suggest Rob takes it to? Then after that, when you move the goal posts again, where does he take the "verification" to be verified? Then once that is done, and you need to move the goal posts again, where does he take the verified verification to be verified? haha. You see the pattern here yet? This is you and the whole JREF cesspool in a nutshell.


THAT is why my head hurts.


Take a break and then come back with a level head and look at it. Better yet, take a couple aspirins and go talk to the witnesses. Go tell them they didn't see what they swear they saw.


I understand your and Captain Bob's appeal is to the uneducated, the masses who know nothing about aviation or aerodynamics or flight dynamics or anything such as that.


Really? Where is that listed in their mission statement? You might want to toss that one over to the "experts" on your forum or "John Farmer"...

The reason it is going to take me a few weeks to completely respond to the latest g-force analysis presented by Pilots for 911 Truth (P4T) is because most people do not understand the physics and mathematical principles involved. So I will be doing a series of posts to define and help readers understand the concepts involved in the discussion.



Captain Bob is especially qualified to speak on these issues because he himself is uneducated about flight departure procedures(specifically at Andrews AFB) and approach procedures (specifically at Reagan National). Something about the blind wishing to recruit the blind, or something like that.


More vague assertions from the Pinchmeister. How come you don't get involved Pinch? A forum debate on PFT? A debate phone call? Talking to witnesses?


You can do you little hand waving of sweetness and light and "Peace, brother!" and BS routine all you want, but the fact remains you have nothing, you have developed nothing, you will do nothing, and you will remain nothing in this event.


You got a little foam on the corner of your mouth there. You ok? You sound a little angry. Well if we have nothing why are you here...everyday..every hour?



Your "independent" investigations is made up leading questions, cherry picked witness statements, outright lies, speculation, putting words in people's mouths, attribution of thought, and pure and simple bull crap.


Where did we lead witnesses? Find one witness who says we misrepresented their statements? How did we cherry pick? We looked for as many of the published accounts as we could locate (see our witness list)


The fact that you and Captain Bob won't ever, ever actually "do" anything with this "evidence" you claim is indicative of your real motives and feelings here - you are scared to death of taking this to a courtroom anywhere, and you'd rather extend your questionable 15-minutes of quasi-internet fame as long as you possibly can, even though that fame is relegated to nothing more than online discussion boards (and in the editorial rooms of the OC Weekly).


Lordy Pinch, you are rabid today. You'd almost think someone left you at the altar or something cowardly like that. Look Pinch, we aren't doing this for fame. In case you didn't know, Aldo and I wanted to remain anonymous and merely contribute to Loose Change Final Cut, but that didn't happen so here we are. U didn't know that huh? Like a lot of things you don't know.


Peace, bro! Peace through superior firepower, that is!


Bigger the gun, smaller the...


BTW, how's Alpo? Haven't heard from him much lately.


You didn't see when he and 22205 handed you your tushy on a silver platter over at LCF? He is there, waiting for you, still.



[edit on 24-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 24-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

The "video" you keep referring to by Captain Bob is nothing more than a cartoon. In the professional world of modeling and simulation, no model or simulation is acceptable by anyone until it is verified as accurate, validated as generating data that is correct and is accredited by an outside competent authority.


Really? Who "verified" these?





So then these were "verified as accurate, validated as generating data that is correct and is accredited by an outside competent authority"?



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The "video" you keep referring to by Captain Bob is nothing more than a cartoon. In the professional world of modeling and simulation, no model or simulation is acceptable by anyone until it is verified as accurate, validated as generating data that is correct and is accredited by an outside competent authority.


Really? Who "verified" these?

So then these were "verified as accurate, validated as generating data that is correct and is accredited by an outside competent authority"?

The first video is from the NTSB, a working copy, it shows the data stored in the FDR. The image of the Pentagon is placed in the wrong position and turned the wrong direction for variation from true to magnetic. The big killer is you can't use the aircraft animation for navigation purposes the FDR can only place the plane to within 1500 to 3000 feet. Plus, this video is a working copy never finished, the Pentagon is not aligned the proper direction with respect to true north, the aircraft is flying a magnetic heading. If it was not a working copy they would have finished it. Let me show you where it would be, I have over 32 years flying large jets and using NTSB products like this!

So they would first turn the Pentagon image almost 20 degree clockwise to align it with the magnetic heading of 77 animation. There is no information better than 1500 to place 77. So the NTSB would have to find some RADAR data to compare heading and tracks and altitudes to get the best position for 77. There is no accurate system in the FDR to get better than 1500 to 3000 feet normally. On takeoff they had to manually place the runway under the animation because the FDR has 77 2000 feet south of the runway this is a fact and you know it. The people you work with can tell you this is a fact.

Here is the last RADAR point and the last position in FDR.

Yellow dot is the FDR last position, and the Blue dot is RADAR. Verification. Even witnesses see 77 here.
Verified by multiple RADAR stations here is where 77 really is, making your witness stuff not good information, should have interviewed them in 2001 not 6 years later.


The second video shows an impossible turn over 85 degrees of bank and 11 Gs. This is based on physics, sorry, the video is only symbolic, by defending are you saying it is correct, 77 hits the Pentagon clearly? But the flight path is like a cartoon, like all of your witnesses it is not possible to fly. Tell me what data it is based on?

Above is the last position of 77 as per the FDR and verified with RADAR. RADAR is at 13:37:47. The last position in the FDR is 13:37:44 at 38.86293N, 77.07773W. These are the facts, backed by witnesses from 2001 and even now, but you missed them, or left them out for not fitting your story.

This is on topic, it refutes all your witnesses except Boger who saw 77 hit the Pentagon which he said in 2001 and now, and Paik who clearly points right to the Pentagon impact point! Not north.


Your witness needs 77 degrees of bank and 4.445 Gs for the whole time. Not one person reported 77 degrees of bank, the FDR shows no more than 10 degree. Plus the FDR shows only 1.7 Gs. The bank angle he saw on 9/11 was less than 35 degrees. So the turn is impossible again. Should have talked to him 6 years ago. (but 8 Gs to get there from the Pike, where Paik see 77, can you draw how those stories match?)

Middleton points to the south path, did you watch your own video? He pointed to south of the CITGO, he points south. Good job, you confirmed the government story.

So your new witness first points directly to the south path, to get 77 to were you drew his story path, you have to use over 8 Gs and 83 degrees of bank due to Paik's story.

You need to drop some of your witnesses they refute each other quickly and easily the way you twist each testimony. Another impossible path...

[edit on 24-9-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut

Middleton points to the south path, did you watch your own video? He pointed to south of the CITGO, he points south. Good job, you confirmed the government story.



Oh for goodness sake he does NOT!

Black is not white, up is not down, and north is not south!

He specifically says that it came:

"On the NORTH side of the Navy Annex"

And that it flew:

"Right over the top of the parking lot" of the ANC maintenance buildings which is EXACTLY what all the other witnesses including Lagasse said.

But he drew it for you on camera too just to leave no room for error!

Yet here you are ignoring everything he said and stating the opposite.

Do you really just go through life stating the opposite of reality and believing it?

This is total comedy.

Obviously you really didn't pay attention to what William Middleton said or illustrated because there is NOTHING that could be the least bit construed as a south side approach from his interview.

Same with Paik who clearly said it flew directly over the Navy Annex and even said he thought it was going to hit the last building of the Navy Annex.

This is getting silly.

Hey man, at least you finally tried to bring up the topic in the middle of your wild rant of incomplete sentences.

I'm sure any logical human who watches the interview will see the truth.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It is IMPOSSIBLE for the plane to have hit according to where the witnesses unanimously place it.



You mean the witnesses that unanimously place it inside the building?

Doesn't sound so impossible after all, eh?

Meh, someone take the needle off this record already, it's broken.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Middleton is refuted by Paik who said the plane was over on Columbia Pike. To get from the Pike to Middleton's road (after he pointed first to the official story, now saved on video) takes over 8 Gs to 30 Gs; impossible. Middleton first points to the official flight path, I have no idea how you got him to mess it up. How did you do that; but it has been over 6 years after the event. 6 years after 9/11.

Paik says and point out 77 flying next to the Pike, he said it went right by the VDOT tower.


Joseph Royster, as do many other people, said it flew right over him, on Columbia Pike. 876 feet south of Middleton's path. Did you draw the 4.445 G turn for Middleton, or did he draw the impossible path? Can you draw a path to mate up with Paik's path as shown where he points directly at the impact point of the Pentagon?


www.geocities.com...




Joseph Royster "I was on the street driving, and then the plane went over the top of my car, just over the treetops ... It was a big aircraft just on its course."






posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by beachnut
 

Many of the north side accounts described the same banking north side approach to the Center for Military History only weeks after the event.

Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

The bank angle you present from Middleton is exactly 28 degrees I was wrong earlier saying it was 35 degrees. You have done a lot of work, but the 28 degrees means Middleton's turn misses the Pentagon and is drawn wrong, or the plane was really over Columbia Pike were it was seen by many more people. Even Paik, your own witness has 77 over Columbia Pike, maybe south of Columbia Pike.

The big problem is I was wrong again; to match up with Paik's path, I said 8 Gs or something, it will take over 63 Gs! That is over an 89 degree bank! But it has to be two reversing turns, one left at over 63 Gs, and one to the right to fly down Middleton's path another 63 Gs, and over 89 degrees of bank; air show stuff, just short of the old aerobatics definition I grew up with. My flying heritage goes back to when Curtis taught my distant cousin to fly; you should have consulted with me first. We could have cleared up these false recollections on the spot!


That is great work putting together the facts, I was not going to mention Middleton pointed to the South flight path first, but you kept on about seeing your video. He pointed right to the south path 1000 feet to the south of his new 6 year late testimony.

But back to the exact bank angle you have for Middleton. Good job. At 28 degrees of bank the plane Middleton sees passes by the Pentagon to the North, not even over the Pentagon and flies past the Capitol in a 6.75 mile radius turn. Good witness for no flyover. Did not get close to the Pentagon. Who drew the flight path? It is wrong if Middleton's bank is correct, and you can't get to Middleton's path from what Paik shows, and you drew on the impossible paths image without two 63 G turns.

You have to get Paik or Middleton to show you a 89 degree bank, and parts of wings broken off.

What other bank angles do you have? 63 Gs, twice from Paik to Middleton. ... that is a turn!



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut That is over an 89 degree bank! But it has to be two reversing turns, one left at over 63 Gs, and one to the right to fly down Middleton's path another 63 Gs, and over 89 degrees of bank; air show stuff, just short of the old aerobatics definition I grew up with. My flying heritage goes back to when Curtis taught my distant cousin to fly; you should have consulted with me first. We could have cleared up these false recollections on the spot!


really/



How many g's can a human take before they blackout?
In: Science

the healthy human body with some practice at pulling g, could withstand only a few seconds at more than 10 g before passing out from lack of blood flow to the brain. Or, more aptly, the lack of oxygen to feed the brain that only blood flow could provide. The heart can only beat against so much pressure before it losses the battle. Rookies couldn't hope to withstand more than about 5 or 6 g before losing consciousness.


maybe your heritage is senile. "airshow stuff", "stuff i grew up with"...? why do you claim authoritative knowledge about aviation physics, when you obviously are talking out your exhaust?

why do 'believers' keep on trying? your argument is moot.

it is physically impossible to SEE the south side approach for more than one of the north side witnesses.

so all the FABRICATED "physics" numbers in the universe won't change that.

IF witnesses saw a plane knock over light poles, it was either their imagination or another plane or a hologram. the most likely being another plane.

however, i KNOW that the light poles were PLANTED EVIDENCE(rust along the shear, undamaged taxi-cab hood, undamaged lawn, PHYSICS), so it is much easier to believe that (evidence-from-a-crime-scene-stealing) south side witnesses are LYING FOR FUN AND PROFIT.


SIXTY THREE G's!!!?!?!?!?!? that would put the weight of a 150 pound man up to over nine thousand pounds. to put it mildly, weighing nine thousand pounds for even an instant is very bad for your health. think water balloon meets wall.





posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Please tell me how you determined Joseph Royster's exact location or even what street he was on for that matter.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
You can't ignore light pole evidence... Nor can you ignore the taxi driver. Rediculously impossible to 'plant' both of those.

Ironic to choose the Pentagon as your field of study. It is the most explainable of all things that happened that day.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
really/

maybe your heritage is senile.

... are talking out your exhaust?

your argument is moot.

FABRICATED "physics" numbers in the universe won't change that.

IF witnesses saw a plane knock over light poles, it was either their imagination or another plane or a hologram. ...

however, i KNOW that the light poles were PLANTED EVIDENCE...

SIXTY THREE G's!!!?!?!?!?!?


Who did it? with holograms and planted evidence.

Physics is easy, check my numbers, do you need help to understand how to use physics to check the paths CIT posted? My point, all CIT paths are impossible for a NoC, due to high G, and no one saw a bank angle over 10 degrees, the largest bank angle recorded in the last 20 seconds of the FDR. Plus the heading on the FDR does not vary by more than a degree or two for over 10 seconds in the last data recorded. No turns, no banks greater than 10 degrees. Evidence there was no NoC turns.

You are right the wings of Flight 77 would have fallen off at 7 Gs trying to get from Paik's path to Middleton's path. The 63 Gs means it is impossible. Did you miss that fact? In pilot training I pulled 5 or 6 G on our contact flight, did rolls at almost 720 degree per second and pulled 7.33 G and did not pass out, we had speed pants. So I know Gs, I have pulled 7 Gs, what would rip off a 757 wings. You just wasted the schooling attempt. Funny stuff. My IP loved Gs!

This means the paths are fabrications, not my numbers, the numbers come directly from the paths supplied by CIT. Anyone who knows physics can check this, I agree, the path that takes 63 Gs is IMPOSSIBLE, but CIT is making the claims these are the flight paths of their witnesses.

Middleton's path is impossible if CIT keeps Paik's path. And even then Middleton only saw 28 degree of bank (proving false, the FDR max bank in the last 20 seconds less than 10 degrees), so the 4.445 G turn of his path is impossible too. Physics?

That is not very nice, the witnesses are not liars. You failed to provide evidence. So their testimony stands.

But as seen, using Physics to get from Paik's path, to Middleton's path is impossible. Which path do we keep?

[edit on 25-9-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   
You obviously don't get his point...

It is by no means from getting the plane from witness A's path to witness B's path. It's about the collective testimony, that they all place it in a common area, which does not corroborate with the official flight path.

If 10 witnesses see a car accident, you will get 10 different versions. But all point to a common scenario.

The scenario pointed to in this case is a northside flight path.

That there are appearently a lot of other witnesses whose testimonies point to other scenarios is a whole different story, and not the point.

@Craig Ranke: Internet arguments are useless. Or more exactly, stupid. You two obviously have a biased image of each other, so just lay it to rest and go on with your task, whatever that may be.
Debates however are useful, but the threads with you two bashing each other are not and - as was already pointed out - read(/sound) like a broken record.

So keep truth-seeking and present whatever you will find too a more reputable community instead of wasting your time by arguing your arse out on a friggin internet conspiracy tinhat area.

[edit on 25.9.2008 by SiONiX]

[edit on 25.9.2008 by SiONiX]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiONiX
The scenario pointed to in this case is a northside flight path.

There are no NoC witnesses. There are interviews of people 6 years after the fact with faded memories. Not one of them saw 77 NoC 6 years ago. CIT exploits this and even shows the impossible flight paths. They don't seem to care each flight path is proven wrong with physics, and physical evidence.

Middleton's story matches what he said in 2001, he says the same thing now, but in the wrong place. 6 years is a long time; he forgot where he was when he saw 77. If he was in the correct location the road he talks of is Columbia Pike. Does anyone do a background history check before publishing this stuff?

The FDR shows a right bank of 6.3 degrees when Middleton first saw 77 flying from the Hotel towards the Annex. Middleton see a right bank, 77 was in a 6.3 degree bank to the right. But he was seeing 77 on a 61.2 degree true course south of the CITGO station.

The narrator says he would not be able to see 77 if it was south. But Middleton did see 77 on the south path because he was somewhere else in the Cemetery. On 9/11 Middleton was on the same road he took CIT on, but not behind the Annex. It is funny how our memories change after 6 years.

CIT has called other witness liars and ignores RADAR data from multiple sites, FDR information and dozens of other witnesses. Boger sees 77 impact the Pentagon, they say he did not.

Middleton story is what he said in 2001, but the road the plane was coming down was the Pike, and Middleton was in a different location where he had clear access to see 77.

How did CIT mess up and not figure out Middleton was some place else on 9/11, not near the Annex?

Good post



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

He (Middleton) specifically says that it came:

"On the NORTH side of the Navy Annex"

And that it flew:

"Right over the top of the parking lot" of the ANC maintenance buildings which is EXACTLY what all the other witnesses including Lagasse said.


Well THAT'S pretty silly. Your own MAP doesn't even show any flight path going " "Right over the top of the parking lot" of the ANC maintenance buildings". The closest anything comes is just skirting the southern edge of the parking lot.



So, Middleton must be lying or you must be....mistaken...in your claim that
it is "is EXACTLY what all the other witnesses including Lagasse said".

Morin, among the others, specifically stated the aircraft dragged its left wing along the "outer edge of the FOB", which would make it extremely problematic, to say the least, for the aircraft to ALSO go " "Right over the top of the parking lot" of the ANC maintenance buildings".

Besides....your placement of Middleton has him over a quarter mile away from the parking lot with significant trees between him and the lot. How could he see that happen? He must have DEDUCED it happening, I guess, right Alpo?

Not to mention a flight path that puts the aircraft "Right over the top of the parking lot" of the ANC maintenance buildings" would add yet anOTHER unbelievable dynamic to this whole comedy routine unless you want to start arguing that the aircraft came in over Arlington cemetery...which was my point.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


Your are correct in all respects, but it is virtually a waste of time to deal with realism with this bunch of loons.

My analysis of the aerodynamics of all of the NoC crap has been posted for months and is in my signature. Those who agree with the CIT garbage ignore it just as they will ignore anything you say in refute.

The story they report from Middleton is even worse than my analysis as beachnut has pointed out.

The only solution is ridicule which is not allowed on this site. It is the only way to deal with this, but to do it in a subtle way as as to escape the wrath of the mods.

This is the ONLY site except for his own and pffftt where he posts, so my suggestion to both you and myself is to cool it and just allow them to be segregated to a couple of web sites while posting rational thought and reference to the aerodynamic physics to refute their nonsense, otherwise let it go.

There is really no way to deal with the uneducated who won't or don't accept the aerodynamic physics. They are simply a lost cause.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Reheat]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


They most certainly do all place it over the ANC employee parking lot.

The maintenance yard right in front of the buildings where they park the tractors and work trucks etc is not the parking lot.




You guys are simply in desperation denial mode.

It's so strange.

Listen to George Aman's account in the beginning of Part 2.

Google Video Link


This is EXACTLY what he describes and exactly what he told the Center for Military History on Dec 12, 2001.




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiONiX
You obviously don't get his point...

It is by no means from getting the plane from witness A's path to witness B's path. It's about the collective testimony, that they all place it in a common area, which does not corroborate with the official flight path.

If 10 witnesses see a car accident, you will get 10 different versions. But all point to a common scenario.

The scenario pointed to in this case is a northside flight path.



THANK YOU!!!!

I knew that normal honest people out there reading could see through all the nonsense.

Obviously no witness is a computer.

There is always room for error but when general simple right or left details are corroborated unanimously it becomes proof they are true.

The fact is that EVERYONE places it directly over the Navy Annex and on the north side of the gas station.

And of course you're 100% right on wasting time with these guys.

Their devotion to this issue speaks volumes.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Reheat intellectual dishonesty exposed here. (the following is why "Reheat" doesnt offer an illustration in his signature paper).





Direct Link to Full picture


Beachnut intellectual dishonesty exposed here.






Direct Link to Full Picture


Pinch intellectual dishonesty exposed here.






Direct Link to Full Picture here


All of the above is in response to the intellectual dishonesty offered in the posts of the above mentioned, on this thread.

All of the above mentioned refuse to debate P4T anywhere other than from behind their screen.

Please note Pinch and Beachnut havent been qualified to fly an aircraft in many years, Pinch more than a decade (according to Pinch. Pinch doesnt even register in the FAA Database), unlike the many members of P4T including myself who are current and qualified to fly. Reheat is unverifed as he refuses to use his real name to his claims.

Regards,
Rob

(kudos to the poster who said not to waste time on message boards, i completely agree)

Fixed links.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by johndoex]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join