Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible, page 16

Pages: << 13 14 15 16 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times

reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 04:46 PM by pinch

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by pinch
Second, a "debate" is a discussion of competing viewpoints. We've been told repeatedly by CIT and PfT that they do not *have* a viewpoint and offer no "theory",

Come now, pinch. Have you ever witnessed a debate take place? When you were at high school, were there debating teams that you could join to sharpen your wits and your critical thinking?

Are you the "un-armed P4T rep" now? Do you speak for them?

As I said before in the post you didn't bother read, a debate is, among other things, a discussion between competing viewpoints. Captain Bob liks to highlight on his page "We do not offer theory" and Craig and his CIT Sleuths are famous....*famous*, I say!...for saying they have no CLUE what the flight path was.

Read, again, the above. PfT says they offer no theory and CIT says they have no idea what the flight path was.

What's there to debate?

Plus, as I have said before, the "Pilots" for 9/11 Truth have proven they have no clue what departure procedures mean when it comes to a published standard departure from Andrews AFB. Why engage in debate about things aeronautical when the other side makes such fundamental errors in such a fundamental piece of aviation such as *published* departure procedures?

I know it gets slow down there, but its summertime. Get out of the house. Go do something.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by pinch]

reply posted on 16-1-2009 @ 05:23 PM by tezzajw

Originally posted by pinch
As I said before in the post you didn't bother read, a debate is, among other things, a discussion between competing viewpoints.
PfT says they offer no theory and CIT says they have no idea what the flight path was.
What's there to debate?

Ah-huh.

It's kind of obvious that you don't know what a formal, competitive debate is, pinch, when you cling to your definition. Arguing for the negative in a debate, does not require an alternate proposition to be formulated. I suggest that as well as reading and understanding the dictionary, you should also take a short course in logic and proof to understand what a formal, competitive debate is. Learn the terms corollary, proof by contradiction, contrapositive, etc... it will help you to step your way through the reasoning that shows why an alternate hypothesis is not required for arguing the negative in a debate.

Here are two propositions for a formal, competitive debate, pinch.

Proposition one: Is it possible for a jet to fly ONA and NOC while taking a flight path that represents most of the eyewitnesses?

Proposition two: Did Flight AA77 fly South of Citgo and impact into the Pentagon on 9/11, as per the government story?

Proposition one is on topic to this thread. Proposition two is not so far off either.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by tezzajw]

reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 04:59 AM by cogburn

reply to post by tezzajw

Logic says you forgot one...

Position #3: A plane flew NoC and struck the Pentagon.

I've even argued it on these forums and one has yet to prove my hypothesis invalid.

reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 05:31 AM by almighty bob

reply to post by cogburn

I have to say, originally I didn't agree that a craft could go NOC and not hit The Pentagon, but:

1: Looking at the damage pattern, a craft that did fly NOC, had it have impacted, would not have caused the damage pattern of the official story. Furthermore, even if the NOC approaching craft did impact, then there would have been a secondary damage pattern for that crafts approach vector.

2: Even if the craft went NOC and somehow managed to maintain the original story damage pattern of The Pentagon then the story given to the world by the media (as provided by U.S. Government or affiliated agencies) would indicate that they have been lying and that the whole shebang was staged (downed powerpoles).

This does, however, leave room for exotic theories (specialised craft, holograms, et cetera) but given the provided evidence that can be viewed as independant and unbiased, the primary logical conclusion does appear to be that the craft witnessed by the CIT interviewed witnesses did not actually impact.

To forestall the common argument, yes, these witnesses also claim that they believed the vessel impacted. Fine. Perhaps it did(under extreme/exotic theory possibility), or more likely they were taken in by an extremely eloborate illusion. As an hobbyist mentalist/illusionist I am well aware of how easily the eye and mind can be deceived. The mind fills in the blanks. But impact or no, the simple fact (as yet validly refuted by other independant testimony) that the craft flew north of Citgo, over the naval annex, would seem to totally refute the version of events spouted to the public by the media/Government affiliates.

reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 05:53 AM by tezzajw

Originally posted by cogburn
Logic says you forgot one...
Position #3: A plane flew NoC and struck the Pentagon.

Cool. I wasn't trying to provide an exhaustive list of all possible propositions. I know that there's lots of ways that different propositions can be framed. No worries, cogburn. I note that you state 'a plane' rather than 'AA77'. There's more possible twists, if needed as debate starters.

I only gave pinch those two possible propositions to consider, given the fact that he appears to have such a difficult time understanding what a formal debate actually is. They were probably the two easier propositions that he would hopefully understand.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by tezzajw]

reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 05:58 AM by cogburn

reply to post by almighty bob

You're right, however there are equally plausible scenarios which do not refute any NoC/impact theory.

* The NoC/fly-off theory relies upon "artificially" created damage patterns consistent with the SoC flight path. An NoC/impact theory could equally claim the same thing.
* The type of aircraft is still as of yet unidentified by anyone supporting any theory with an NoC flight path, therefore any kind of predictable damage pattern is impossible to guess at.

There are some exotic theories you can dismiss right away. There was no method by which a hologram could have been produced in 2001 without a medium on which to project it or with any sort of equipment that could be concealed or disguised given the point at which the plane was first spotted on the ground in DC. Furthermore, the optical processing required to produce photo-realistic holographic effects did not exist at the time, either. This is not "the military already had it" kinda stuff, the software precursors required for the technology were not even invented. Suffice it to say that photo-realistic, real-time, 3-dimensional rendering of any object in a holographic space without a transmission medium was absolutely impossible to disguise in 2001. It's that simple. The whole holographic plane argument should just go away.

It's quite a different thing from David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear in front of an in person and television audience. If you were standing on the Jersey shore or a Manhattan penthouse you could still see the Statue was there.

If there was indeed slight of hand of the manner you infer, it occurred in the investigation, the documentation, the release of evidence or the subsequent destruction thereof.

Not in the event.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 06:22 AM by almighty bob

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by almighty bob

You're right, however there are equally plausible scenarios which do not refute any NoC/impact theory.

* The NoC/fly-off theory relies upon "artificially" created damage patterns consistent with the SoC flight path. An NoC/impact theory could equally claim the same thing.

Absolutely, yes. But either way, the damage pattern would need to have been rigged. Regardless or impact or no impact, the NOC flightpath indicates that a massive deception occured.

Originally posted by cogburn
* The type of aircraft is still as of yet unidentified by anyone supporting any theory with an NoC flight path, therefore any kind of predictable damage pattern is impossible to guess at.

Again, another real possibility. But again, this would lead to the conclusion that all reports of the event that day, of what the Government and its agencies would like the people to believe, are not anything like what actually occured. So whether the craft flew over or not, the world is being lied to.

Originally posted by cogburn
There are some exotic theories you can dismiss right away. There was no method by which a hologram could have been produced in 2001 without a medium on which to project it. Furthermore, the optical processing required to produce holographic effects to replicated shadows in the image did not exist at the time, either. This is not "the military already had it" kinda stuff, the software precursors required for the technology were not even invented. Suffice it to say that photo-realistic, real-time, 3-dimensional rendering of any object in a holographic space without a transmission medium was absolutely impossible to disguise in 2001. It's that simple. The whole holographic plane argument should just go away.

I try never to dismiss any theory

. I just weight it with a (subjective) plausibility factor against what other evidence I have observed would lead me to believe. And I always take into account that my understanding of the evidence or the evidence itself is only an interpretation and subject to being flawed. That said, while I don't actually believe any of the exotic hologram or other theories, you cannot categorically disprove or deny that such technology does not potentially exist at a super-top-secret (or what-have-you) level.

Originally posted by cogburn

It's quite a different thing from David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear in front of an in person and television audience. If you were standing on the Jersey shore or a Manhattan penthouse you could still see the Statue was there.

If there was indeed slight of hand of the manner you infer, it occurred in the investigation, the documentation, the release of evidence or the subsequent destruction thereof.

Not in the event.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by cogburn]

Again, very valid points. However, the weight of the evidence does indicate that, at the very least, the damage to the Pentagon is not consistent with the NOC flight path and so there was no impact on that trajectory. Otherwise it goes back to exotic theory principles.

I also accept and factor that the damage patterns as advertised by the Government and affiliates may not be the actual damage pattern that occured (if, indeed a damage pattern occured at all. All I have to go on are second hand accounts, media reports - obviously I believe that something did happen there, I am just highlighting that I, personally, can never truly know what occured as all information is provided to me by external sources), and also lead to the conclusion that there was a deception. So, NOC flightpath, regardless of impact or not, would indicate a staged event.

reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 06:48 AM by cogburn

reply to post by almighty bob

I gave you a star just for being intellectually honest while stating disagreement.

It's so rare in this thread.

I know a thing or two about the history of the math behind real-time image rendering. I make the argument only because it is a pet peeve of mine and it felt nice to have that down for posterity.

reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 06:57 AM by almighty bob

reply to post by cogburn

Heh, nice one

My personal pet peeve is gratuitous use of the word 'proof'. If I was the type to get irked, then the flamboyant disregard of its meaning when used on this board, along with my own personal belief that nothing can truly be proven, would *Snip* me to tears.

MOD Note and Edit: Terms and Conditions: Use of Profanity

1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.

[edit on 1/17/2009 by semperfortis]

reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 10:46 PM by RockHound757

So, i see according to P4T opposition there is "nothing to debate", but yet they spend almost every day doing just that online.

Im here to make another mention that those who feel the need to debate here in this thread (who have also made numerous unsourced claims and broken forum rules through accusation of socks/addressing others sans their ATS UserID), have still not emailed P4T for any debate on any of the claims made here.

reply posted on 17-1-2009 @ 11:27 PM by RockHound757

Originally posted by pinch
Plus, as I have said before, the "Pilots" for 9/11 Truth have proven they have no clue what departure procedures mean when it comes to a published standard departure

The "Pilots" For Truth fly daily for numerous major airlines and can be verified in the faa database at faa.gov. You, however, cannot be verified as so much as a student pilot, let alone a pilot who is qualified and current to fly passengers on any given day on any given Departure Procedure (DP) as are "Pilots" For Truth.

Who exactly doesnt have a clue on how to fly a DP? You cant even be verfied as a student pilot!

A small lesson for "Pinch" since i have the time tonight..

DP's are instrument procedures which are not taught until the Instrument rating. Unlike your claim DP's are taught to "the greenest flight student will learn in his first week". You are wrong again. Please check a flight syllabus, military or civilian. First week is learning how to solo VFR, not how to fly the Whitestone Climb out of Laguardia... or the "Camp Springs" ...etc. Next i suppose you'll tell us that any "green student" could have performed the DP out of LGA and recovered as did USAir 1549 on the Hudson?

Your claims are bogus and is probably the reason you cannot be verified as a pilot and the reason you make excuse to avoid debate with real pilots who can be verfied as such.

Its good y'all name "Cap'n Bob" as a Capt. Because he is, and you will never be....

(disclaimer: the above lesson from a qualified FAA Instructor, Free of Charge)

Please try to stick to topic as your "Camp Springs" nonsense was addressed on page 14. Thank you.

As a side note, i also find it hilarious that you didnt even know the type aircraft flown by what you claim is a "close family friend". Also on page 14 and obviously not that "close".

Edit for typo

[edit on 18-1-2009 by RockHound757]

reply posted on 18-1-2009 @ 02:10 AM by cogburn

reply to post by RockHound757

I'll take you up on that.

I've sent you a U2U invitation to debate here on ATS.

I am eager for your acceptance.

reply posted on 18-1-2009 @ 02:29 AM by RockHound757

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by RockHound757

I'll take you up on that.

I've sent you a U2U invitation to debate here on ATS.

I am eager for your acceptance.

Cog, you and i have already debated here on ATS. See page 8 and 9 and pages thereafter of this very thread. One specific point i remember is that you fail to understand scale of the OP, argue to your bias and backpeddle (when you are exposed for such blatant ignorance and shown the opposite can be argued), and you initailly failed to understand lateral vs. 3D vector analysis. Do i need to stick around for copy/paste if your memory is failing? Why waste another thread on ATS, when its all right here in this thread?

Edit to add: Why do you refuse to email P4T for debate while choosing to libel such an organization on ATS? I think we know why...

[edit on 18-1-2009 by RockHound757]

reply posted on 18-1-2009 @ 03:20 AM by cogburn

reply to post by RockHound757

I think we do.

It is because you do not understand what a debate is.

If the rest of P4T shares the same definition, any attempt is pointless.

I wanted to debate you, here. Not them, over there.

Thanks for your participation in this thread.

[edit on 18-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply posted on 18-1-2009 @ 06:14 AM by semperfortis

I am temporarily closing this thread for Staff Consideration

Pages: << 13 14 15 16 >> ^^TOP^^