As P4T/CIT refuses to participate in an unbiased, structured debate as to if a plane hit the Pentagon, I'll demonstrate why the flight path presented
is absolutely worthless to either you, me, or 99.9999999% of the public at large and the fundamental waste of time and resources it represents.
It'll also serve sum up my verdict on the document. (I guess this means I'm changing my argument again.
In the interest of brevity, I'll refer to the P4T/CIT information as "The Arc".
First one may assess the target audience of the document. It's been said ad nauseum that the information was to refute the opinions of detractors
who stated that the The Arc was physically impossible and there was no other purpose. It implies, in its very nature, that the quality of the
detractors was so great that it warranted the expenditure of time and effort in order to prove the opposing opinions as false. Outside of an
extremely small community, I'm not sure to whom this document is intended to appeal. I'm sure the JREF'ers are absolutely ecstatic that they have
become the basis upon which a piece of the greater P4T/CIT truth would be built. If I'm mistaken and there were others that questioned such a flight
path in anything more than a generally dismissive manner, I'm unaware of it. The question of the exact aerodynamic possibility of an NoC flight path
has only ever been a passing topic here on ATS at the most.
Now that I've stated my opinion on the audience, let's assume that we are they and take a look at the nature of the information presented.
Rather than simply present information that proves The Arc possible for the variables presented (mandated aerodynamic load force limit maximums and
other physical constraints of commercial airliners), the effort is made to tie The Arc to selective witness statements as justification for various
assumptions. Let me state this quite clearly: had the math been presented without the inclusion of witness statements the goal of the document would
have just about satisfied with the maths provided. Subsequent arguments would then only lie within the extremes and around that points of debate
could be constructed about the assumptions made in the mathematics. It would have been an infinitely more air-tight case than what was presented.
For reasons P4T/CIT will have to supply, it was decided to supply selective portions of witness statements that on face value seem to support the
mathematically derived flight paths. It was not stated that these witness statements were used to construct the flight path, only that it is provided
as support of such a flight path after the fact. This of course begs the question as to what it was that other witnesses said that disqualified them
for inclusion. The next obvious question would be that if so few of the collected witness statements support the flight path, why pose the NoC/Arc
argument at all?
When questioned on this, the response from P4T/CIT was to the effect that they simply and arbitrarily eliminated portions of witness testimony so that
it fit the information being presented.
Again, why include it at all?
What we have presented to us as fact (evidence?, truth?, theory?) is an ill formed argument that is intended to be judged within a vacuum by a very
limited audience. Take it outside of its extremely limited context and it has absolutely no bearing in reality or furthering 9/11 research. Perhaps
that's why my points were either misunderstood or ignored. I was just reviewing the information as a normal, intelligent person.
One may further wonder as to the purpose served by posting such information on ATS for comment (and then decry its members for asking valid questions)
given the limited audience for which it was intended.
There's all kinds of fun data one can extrapolate from this adventure if one applies the exact same level of logic presented in the P4T/CIT
information. Let's see how much it cost to generate this information intended to refute a limited number of detractors.
With the help of
and a little math based on the average salary of a captain of a large commercial aircraft, assuming only 1 pilot worked on this document it cost
$57.98 an hour. If it took 3 business days to complete, that's $1391.52 for the project. Assuming our pilot is compensated at market value for his
time, that's the sale of 70 DVDs at $19.95. I'm sure that potential consumers would be quite unanimous in their support of this effort.
With such frivolous application of sparse resources, it's obvious why P4T/CIT turned themselves into a cottage industry to support themselves:
refuting frivolous claims from equally fringe groups is mighty costly indeed.
Still waiting for that U2U.
EDIT: No JREF members were harmed or mistreated in the writting of this post in observation of ASPCA guidelines and the laws of the state of
California, Missouri and the District of Columbia.
[edit on 15-1-2009 by cogburn]