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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Reheat intellectual dishonesty exposed here. (the following is why "Reheat" doesnt offer an illustration in his signature paper).


Could you please expose my intellectual dishonesty?


(no idea how to have thumbnails link to full sized images, so here's a link to the fullsize: xs128.xs.to... )

You're a pilot as far as I know, and your group decoded the FDR information, so perhaps you can tell me the speed at which AA77 was travelling?

The approach shown above requires the minimum amount of bank and therefore g force to match the accounts of Mr Paik and Mr Boger (well nearly), while also passing north of the Citgo station.




posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 

CIT talk about witnesses, how they can be wrong. Then CIT picks the wrong stuff to make their conclusion from; ironically all of these guys interviewed agree Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

They asked untrained people to map what most of the agree they did not even watch completely. Sad to see amateur investigators mess up every single investigation technique for this type of event.

No sound diagram to confirm locations of witnesses. Middleton heard the engines whining at Idle, 20 seconds (speed of sound 13:37:16), then he heard Full Throttle input, 20 seconds away (speed of sound 13:37:16). Middleton can't be where he said he was when 77 impacted, he would not see the wings rock, there is only one place to see the wing rock if he really heard the Throttle up. The best part, Middleton tells us where he really was on 9/11 at the impact.

CIT needs to stop interrupting the witness on the first round. I saw enough witness pointing to the real flight path at 61.2 degrees true track to confirm there are no NoC paths. Notice how they have to keep saying forget the impossible paths…

With every single path impossible, most due to physics; there are no NoC paths. The witnesses all pointed to the Columbia Pike path. Most of them said they were not fixated on the Plane so how did they draw paths they never saw completely. They saw the plane, enough to draw to impact! Funny, they all drew to impact.

All their witnesses say Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Oh the irony.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Exponent,

You have said (from what i understand) that the NoC approach is possible.

The others say its impossible, based on their fabricated values/data.
(its also clear they havent watched the video...)

I agree with you. It is very possible. Your diagram proves such.

I dont think you're "intellectually dishonest"... yet. That is why there was no need to include you. Then again, i havent read everythnig you have written, and have not come across somethnig i found to be "intellectually dishonest", yet, from you (at least not that i can remember). However, i will say you have an extreme bias for the govt story and will parrot anything which supports the govt story, unverified... but thats just my opinion.

Regards,
Rob



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

You're a pilot as far as I know, and your group decoded the FDR information, so perhaps you can tell me the speed at which AA77 was travelling?

The approach shown above requires the minimum amount of bank and therefore g force to match the accounts of Mr Paik and Mr Boger (well nearly), while also passing north of the Citgo station.


What does the NoC attack jet have to do with the mysterious AA77's alleged speed as seen in the fraudelant FDR?

You are not trying to mix the two are you? That wouldn't make any sense would it?

Bottom line: Since the plane flew on the north side of the Citgo, it was not AA77 and it was not flying the FDR speeds.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
You have said (from what i understand) that the NoC approach is possible.

The others say its impossible, based on their fabricated values/data.
(its also clear they havent watched the video...)

"The video"?

Regardless, the North of Citgo path is possible but for only certain values of speed and bank angle. That's why I asked you for the speed AA77 was travelling. I asked Craig for this several times and his only response was to say that it's impossible to tell. I don't find this satisfactory.

Could you please tell me according to your research, the minimum and maximum speeds AA77 could have been traveling.


However, i will say you have an extreme bias for the govt story and will parrot anything which supports the govt story, unverified... but thats just my opinion.

I'd ask you to quote a single thing I have "parroted", but this is not the thread for this. Feel free to challenge me to a moderated debate on any topic


edit:

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
What does the NoC attack jet have to do with the mysterious AA77's alleged speed as seen in the fraudelant FDR?

You are not trying to mix the two are you? That wouldn't make any sense would it?

Bottom line: Since the plane flew on the north side of the Citgo, it was not AA77 and it was not flying the FDR speeds.

Craig, when I challenged the NTSBs information on AA77, you told me I was required to stick to their information. Now you tell me that you dismiss all of their information. I have no interest in dancing around the topic, either the NTSB information is reliable and represents the actual events of the day or it does not. I take the position that the FDR is real, but neither yours nor the NTSBs interpretation of the data contained therein is accurate.

Your only response to this has been to arbitrarily set rules I must follow for some undefined reason. Hence why I am now not asking you these questions


[edit on 25-9-2008 by exponent]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Beachnut,

When are you, Reheat and Pinch going to Arlington to confront the witnesses who place the plane on the north path? The same witnesses who say "Zero percent chance [of the plane being on the south path]". The same people who "bet their life" on the North path...

The amount of time you guys spend "debating" on the internet, you could have had this all solved in less than a few days. Bring Ron Wieck wth you.

I look forward to your interviews with witnesses on location, in Arlington.


Regards,
Rob



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Regardless, the North of Citgo path is possible but for only certain values of speed and bank angle. That's why I asked you for the speed AA77 was travelling.



Could you please tell me according to your research, the minimum and maximum speeds AA77 could have been traveling.



Please provide positive identification the aircraft seen on the north path by numerous independent witnesses was N644AA, American Airlines Flight 77 and then we'll get to the rest of your claims.

A good start would be in the form of providing part numbers and N644AA arcraft mx logs to our experienced, qualifed and verified Aircraft Accident Investigators.


Thanks!


With that said.,.. im sorry Exponent, but i cant play all day with you on here. Why havent you emailed us with your questions? As suggested in the past, please feel free to email us with any questions you may have, we usually reply very quickly. So far, we havent seen any emails from you, except to rope us (me) into pointless internet debates, wasting time. If you prefer a recorded on-air debate, feel free to email us to hammer out the details and compromise. We can set up on air time in very short order in front of a large audience considering you'll be the first to accept a debate offer.


Also, thank you for confirming NoC is possible. Might want to tell Beachnut and Reheat...

Regards,
Robat.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


exponent,

A north side approach proves the NTSB data is fraudulent.

A north side approach can only be in regards to a plane involved in a military deception during a psychological black operation of mass murder so it makes no sense to refer to it as "Flight 77" or to discuss it in the context of the 2006 released NTSB data from the alleged "black box" which has nothing to do with the north side approach.

I don't see how this could possibly be so confusing to you.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Please provide positive identification the aircraft seen on the north path by numerous independent witnesses was N644AA, American Airlines Flight 77 and then we'll get to the rest of your claims.

I don't believe the witnesses did see a flight on the north path. The identity of the craft is irrelevant, my proposed path is a simple level circular turn which is the most optimistic flight path by a long way. It does not account for the difference in height, it does not give any time for leveling out and pulling up. I am simply trying to see whether your proposed path is even feasible.

Your sudden requirement for identity verification is nothing but a red herring, I asked you a simple direct question you have entirely failed to answer.


im sorry Exponent, but i cant play all day with you on here. Why havent you emailed us with your questions? As suggested in the past, please feel free to email us with any questions you may have, we usually reply very quickly. So far, we havent seen any emails from you, except to rope us (me) into pointless internet debates, wasting time. If you prefer a recorded on-air debate, feel free to email us to hammer out the details and compromise. We can set up on air time in very short order in front of a large audience considering you'll be the first to accept a debate offer.

This is simply more distraction. I have not emailed you with my questions because it is not my responsibility to disprove your claims, it is your responsibility to prove your claims. If you believe that debate is now fruitless, you should contact legal authorities and pursue your case through official channels.

I would genuinely be interested in moderated debate online, but from your attitude in this thread so far I would not be happy with a live debate in which I had little control over the format nor moderators nor topics. We've all seen how these pan out with Hardfire, nothing is ever solidly resolved. At least online I can set my points out clearly and in a moderated debate you are forced to respond to my questions or lose the debate.


Also, thank you for confirming NoC is possible. Might want to tell Beachnut and Reheat...

I said it was possible for a range of speeds. You have yet to provide speed details, so your theory may well be impossible. Beachnut and Reheat have no disagreement with me other than I may be giving you too much leeway.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig, what is confusing is that you have attempted to impose arbitrary rules upon what I may argue, and then you seem to ignore such rules entirely. Why am I required to use the NTSBs interpretation of the FDR data?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Exponent:

IF you are interested, ATS does a moderated online debate forum here. Contact "memoryshock" if you and Balsamo are interested.

-TY-



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Exponent:

IF you are interested, ATS does a moderated online debate forum here. Contact "memoryshock" if you and Balsamo are interested.

-TY-


Indeed, I checked it out, and saw your debate with ULTIMA. You took a formal debate approach which worked well


I prefer not to challenge anyone specifically, I am still a newbie here, but I will accept any formal debate challenge offered. It's clear that the moderators of the debate forum are able to make fair decisions, so that's good enough for me.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SiONiX
 


And what you don't get is the the very same witnesses you claim make anything other than a NOC flight path possible, also place the plane in the building.


However, this discussion is utterly moot until you deal with the implications of your CT.

With that in mind, again:
Once you (the royal you) can provide a plausible narrative to negate these simple, obvious, sample questions, only then is it reasonable to entertain notions of a fly over.

Hint: conspiracies, layered upon yet more conspiracies is not a cohesive narrative. It's unfounded speculation.

(1)What happened to flight 77?
If flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then where is it? Where is the plane – physically? Who disposed of the aircraft? Where was it disposed? How? We are talking about 110 tons of aircraft, engines, fuel, seats, trays, avionics, luggage, etc. Where are the eyewitnesses that saw the plane physically fly over the Pentagon? Where did it land after the fly over? Were the FAA radar operators “in on it” too? Where are the airport employees who saw the 110 ton airliner land, at the undisclosed location? Were they “in on it” too, or were they killed? If so, who killed them?

(2)What happened to the passengers and crew?
Where are the passengers? Were they all “in on it”? If not, who disposed of the passengers? Where were the disposed of? How have the disposers been keep quiet? Have the disposers been killed too? How have the disposers of the disposers been kept quiet? Where were the bodies taken/buried? How was this accomplished?

(3)How do you explain the phone calls from loved ones physically on the plane, to other loved ones?
Where the calls faked? From where? How were family members duped into thinking they were talking to their wife (for example) when in you’re claiming they were talking to a computer program? How do you reconcile that some of the phone calls went through cell phone towers very close to the so-called “official” flight path? How do you reconcile that some of the calls originated from the Airphones physically on the plane in question?

(4)How do you explain the wreckage found in the building?
If it was planted, how was it planted? Who planted it? When did they plant it? Where did they get spare aircraft parts? Where were these spare aircraft parts stored? How were they transported to the scene without anyone noticing? Were the parts in question placed beforehand? If so, how? How was this accomplished without anyone noticing?

(5)How do you account for the wreckage found on the lawn?
Were the parts found in the lawn placed beforehand ? If so, where are the witnesses talking about aircraft wreckage laying around on the lawn beforehand? Or, are “they” “in on it” too? Was the wreckage on the lawn placed after the event? If so, how were “they” able to accomplish this without anyone noticing? Or are the potential witnesses, after the event “in on it” too?

(6)How do you reconcile the impact location, as it relates to the evidence?
How were the perpetrators able to judge the exact location of impact, before the event? That is, how do you reconcile that the airplane debris in question is exactly where it should be?

(7)How do you reconcile the bodies of the passengers and crew being positively identified through DNA evidence collected from within the Pentagon?
Is the DNA evidence faked? If so, by whom? Is the lab that conducted the tests and certified it’s authenticity “in on it” too?

(8)How do you reconcile personal effects, positively identified by family members as belonging to their next of kin, found within the Pentagon?
Was this evidence placed beforehand? If so, by whom? If it was placed after the event why did nobody notice? Or, are the first responders (Pentagon employees) “in on it” too? How were personal effects taken from the victims (like a drivers license) without their knowledge beforehand and planted?

(9)How do you reconcile the bodies of passengers found within the Pentagon, some still strapped into their seats?
Were the bodies placed beforehand? If so, how do you explain the bodies in question checking in at the counter at the originating airport? Were the ticketing agents “in on it” too? If the pilots were killed beforehand and then placed in the Pentagon (at some point), who flew the plane? If the bodies were placed after the event, how were the correct passengers and crew killed, then placed in the Pentagon without anyone knowing? Are the first responders, who found the first bodies, “in on it” too? Can you offer a time line that reconciles the correct passengers/crew checking in at the airport, being led off and executed and then their bodies being transported to the crash site?

(10)How do you explain the impact zone damage being completely in-line with a fast moving commercial airliner?
Was it a controlled demolition? If so, where are the blasting caps? Wiring? How was the area wired without anyone noticing? How long would this take? How would the employees who were killed at their desks not notice demolition experts wiring their office with demolitions and not complain, notice, or ask questions? Or, were the employees killed at their desk “in on it” too? If there were no employees at their desks, were the bodies planted before the event? If so, how? By whom? How have the planters been kept quiet? Were the planters killed too? By whom? Were the bodies planted after the event? If so, by whom? Where are the eyewitness reports of dead employees being brought in, after the fact? Or, were/are these potential witnesses “in on it” too?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig, what is confusing is that you have attempted to impose arbitrary rules upon what I may argue, and then you seem to ignore such rules entirely. Why am I required to use the NTSBs interpretation of the FDR data?


Ok, so let me get this straight. You are going to use speed of a plane on the official flight path and apply it to a plane that you claim the witnesses didn't see on the NoC? Is that about right?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by johndoex
Please provide positive identification the aircraft seen on the north path by numerous independent witnesses was N644AA, American Airlines Flight 77 and then we'll get to the rest of your claims.

I don't believe the witnesses did see a flight on the north path. The identity of the craft is irrelevant, my proposed path is a simple level circular turn which is the most optimistic flight path by a long way. It does not account for the difference in height, it does not give any time for leveling out and pulling up. I am simply trying to see whether your proposed path is even feasible.

Your sudden requirement for identity verification is nothing but a red herring, I asked you a simple direct question you have entirely failed to answer.


No, he is making a point. YOU don't have ANY proof it was AA77, so continuing to use that term is not accurate.

Can you explain what all the witnesses saw then? Do you care to contact the witnesses and get this all this straightened out since you seem to believe they didn't see the plane on the NoC which is what they explicitly describe?



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Ok, so let me get this straight. You are going to use speed of a plane on the official flight path and apply it to a plane that you claim the witnesses didn't see on the NoC? Is that about right?


No, I used Terry Morin's estimation of speed and have repeatedly asked both of you for information related to the plane's speed. Remember, I am trying to confirm whether your theory is even plausible, you are resisting my investigation for reasons I will not speculate about.


No, he is making a point. YOU don't have ANY proof it was AA77, so continuing to use that term is not accurate.

How do you know it is not accurate? The preponderance of evidence suggest it was AA77. Anyone can raise their required level of proof to an unattainable level, but this makes no difference to the facts of the matter.


Can you explain what all the witnesses saw then? Do you care to contact the witnesses and get this all this straightened out since you seem to believe they didn't see the plane on the NoC which is what they explicitly describe?

I doubt they would believe me, but next time I take a holiday in the US, I might consider it. It may be a while though because your nation's law changes have made it unlikely I will spend much time there.

Even so, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, and the burden of proof is not upon me.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Have a bit more time to address this...


Originally posted by exponent
I don't believe the witnesses did see a flight on the north path.


Your argument based on incredulity noted.


The identity of the craft is irrelevant


If its irrelevant, why do you keep asking for specific speeds for "AA77" on the north path?

You want "AA77" speeds? Please provide positive ID the aircraft seen on the north path was AA77.


my proposed path is a simple level circular turn which is the most optimistic flight path by a long way. It does not account for the difference in height, it does not give any time for leveling out and pulling up. I am simply trying to see whether your proposed path is even feasible.


Its not "my" path. Its a path described by many independent witnesses filmed on location who were there on Sept 11, 2001. Have you confronted them based on your "belief"? (considering you werent there...)


Your sudden requirement for identity verification is nothing but a red herring,


Your requirement for exact speeds of "AA77" on a north path is a red herring.


I asked you a simple direct question you have entirely failed to answer.


I need black box data for the North path seen by witnesses to answer your question accurately. You have failed to provide even a type of aircraft and instead base your argument from incredulity.. .a "belief". You religious?




This is simply more distraction. I have not emailed you with my questions because it is not my responsibility to disprove your claims,


Then why are you here?

Our claims are here..


pilotsfor911truth.org...


Please tell us which "claim" is not factual and why... "Belief" and opinion is not valid.


it is your responsibility to prove your claims.


Our claims above are proven with data provided by the NTSB. You make excuses based on "belief".


If you believe that debate is now fruitless, you should contact legal authorities and pursue your case through official channels.
I would genuinely be interested in moderated debate online, but from your attitude in this thread so far I would not be happy with a live debate in which I had little control over the format nor moderators nor topics.


I offered how to contact us for "hammering out details" and "compromise". Are you familiar with the term "compromise"?

It appears you're too intimidated to debate on air and need time to formulate your answers. Fair enough...



We've all seen how these pan out with Hardfire, nothing is ever solidly resolved. At least online I can set my points out clearly and in a moderated debate you are forced to respond to my questions or lose the debate.


See reply above regarding "hammering out details" and "compromise".



I said it was possible for a range of speeds. You have yet to provide speed details,


Agreed, and you have yet to provide positive ID for type. See reply above regarding "Black Box Data".


so your theory may well be impossible.


What exactly is "our" theory. Please quote it directly from pilotsfor911truth.org. Thank you.


Beachnut and Reheat have no disagreement with me other than I may be giving you too much leeway.


You proved Beachnut and Reheat's arguments of "impossible" as a strawman. Thank you.


Again, feel free to contact us to hammer out the details for debate if you wish to debate our "claims" and "theories". Be sure to provide specific quotes from our website and/or presentations in which you would like to debate. We can compromise on the details of moderation, venues.. etc. I look forward to your email.

Regards,
Rob

typo


[edit on 25-9-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
The preponderance of evidence suggest it was AA77.



"Beyond reasonable doubt" is required in any criminal case. Do you feel this is a civil case?


Have a good day...



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Ok, so let me get this straight. You are going to use speed of a plane on the official flight path and apply it to a plane that you claim the witnesses didn't see on the NoC? Is that about right?


No, I used Terry Morin's estimation of speed and have repeatedly asked both of you for information related to the plane's speed. Remember, I am trying to confirm whether your theory is even plausible, you are resisting my investigation for reasons I will not speculate about.


What theory? What the witnesses all saw was a theory? No one is resisting, because no one can give you the information you desire. Witnesses are not radar guns. They are not computers. They are not cameras. I know you are trying to frame it as we/I am afraid of you or your silly little calculations, but trust me, we aren't. The plane has already been established as approaching from the north side and at a considerably slower speed. Use the clues from the witnesses and see if you come up with something "plausible" for your "standards". If that isn't enough, get a plane ticket, fly to Arlington, and nail down these details yourself.

This is just an attempt to further move the goal posts and turn it into "CIT's amatuer theory". There is no theory, just a bunch of witnesses who confirmed a very simple detail.





No, he is making a point. YOU don't have ANY proof it was AA77, so continuing to use that term is not accurate.

How do you know it is not accurate? The preponderance of evidence suggest it was AA77. Anyone can raise their required level of proof to an unattainable level, but this makes no difference to the facts of the matter.


Unattainable level? Sounds like Jref to me. There is NOTHING, NOTHING that proves that any of that debris came from Flight 77. There is NOTHING, NOTHING to prove that the plane witnesses saw approach the Pentagon is Flight 77. Do you understand? You can vaguely claim that there is a "preponderance of evidence suggesting it was AA77". Suggesting ain't proving, partner.



Can you explain what all the witnesses saw then? Do you care to contact the witnesses and get this all this straightened out since you seem to believe they didn't see the plane on the NoC which is what they explicitly describe?

I doubt they would believe me, but next time I take a holiday in the US, I might consider it. It may be a while though because your nation's law changes have made it unlikely I will spend much time there.


Of course they wouldn't believe you, Exponent. Are you insane? You are actually considering going there to tell them they are all wrong? Of course they wouldn't believe you!!! You weren't there. They were.


Even so, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, and the burden of proof is not upon me.


Another vague, generic declaration about eyewitnesses being "unreliable". Ho-hum.

Well don't they become reliable about the same exact detail once it is corroborated over and over and over and over (X13)?

Who would you contact to find out where the plane flew? The pulbished accounts from the gas station? Gas station employees? ANC employees? People next to the Navy Annex? Of Course!!! That is exactly what we did/ The most logical thing. All they had to say was the plane approached on the SOUTH side of the Citgo. NONE of them did. What are you not getting?

What is amazing is in one breath you want US to give you speeds based on these eyewitnesses who you claim didn't see the plane on the NoC, then in another breath they are "notoriously unreliable".

Nice shift of blame though. The burden of proof IS on YOU. The burden of proof was on us to prove what happened out there or that a plane did not hit and we provided it!!!! Now you are claiming the witnesses didn't see the plane on the NoC path, so the burden of proof is on YOU.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Your argument based on incredulity noted.

This was not an argument, this was a response to your question. Please don't straw man my position.


If its irrelevant, why do you keep asking for specific speeds for "AA77" on the north path?

You want "AA77" speeds? Please provide positive ID the aircraft seen on the north path was AA77.

Ok, please answer my question while ignoring anywhere I say 'AA77' and replacing it with 'the plane'.


Its not "my" path. Its a path described by many independent witnesses filmed on location who were there on Sept 11, 2001. Have you confronted them based on your "belief"? (considering you werent there...)

No it's the path I generated to comply with only 2 of your witnesses, both of whom I do not disagree with, and which agrees with the North of Citgo theory.


Your requirement for exact speeds of "AA77" on a north path is a red herring.

Not at all, a red herring is an item intended to distract from the original debate. My requirement for exact speeds is the original debate.


I need black box data for the North path seen by witnesses to answer your question accurately. You have failed to provide even a type of aircraft and instead base your argument from incredulity.. .a "belief". You religious?

Forensic accuracy is not required, as for the rest of this quote, your attempt to slight me based on "belief" is ludicrous. The type of aircraft is irrelevant.


Then why are you here?

Is this even a real question? I'm here because this is where many false claims are made and it is my intention to confront these false claims, including yours when you see fit to post here.


Our claims above are proven with data provided by the NTSB. You make excuses based on "belief".

Again you refer to "belief". This is a CIT tactic of simply claiming one theory is proven and the other is unverified. I could make the same claims but I feel it is a rather shallow tactic that adds nothing to the debate.


I offered how to contact us for "hammering out details" and "compromise". Are you familiar with the term "compromise"?

I am, I am also familiar with the history of debates on 911 and I am not an idiot.


What exactly is "our" theory. Please quote it directly from pilotsfor911truth.org. Thank you.

I apologise if you do not endorse CITs theory, I was referring to the theory being put forward by CIT as addressed in this thread.


You proved Beachnut and Reheat's arguments of "impossible" as a strawman. Thank you.

Their claims are based on their analyses, these analyses are not strawmen. Your nomenclature is entirely incorrect.


"Beyond reasonable doubt" is required in any criminal case. Do you feel this is a civil case?

No indeed, it would be a criminal case. The plane which impacted The Pentagon was AA77. This has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. You may notice that the word reasonable is not objective. This is why there is a jury in these cases.

Craig has also responded, but I don't think I will dignify his post with a significant response. Craig you are simply equivocating and complaining that I require more than eyewitness verification to accuse many hundreds of people of complicity in mass murder. you claim that eyewitness accounts are corroborated, but make no effort to find if these accounts do conflict. For example your argument for Mr Middleton is that he could not see the plane if it were on the southerly flight path, but you do not apply this same logic to Mr Paik. Mr Paik was surrounded by buildings limiting his field of view to the north in much the same way as Mr Middleton was limited to the south. Despite the fact these two people describe flight paths which are at odds you simply claim they corroborate each other.

I am not trying to claim you are afraid of my calculations, I simply find it amusing that despite your theory being "proven" it does not seem to hold up to even amateur physics based analysis.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join