Originally posted by SPreston

posted by SPreston
The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.

Yep. UTTER SNAKE OIL.

posted by cogburn
You may very well be correct.

Rejection of the P4T/CIT version of events does not mean an embracing of the NIST report or the 9/11 Commission report.

An alternative explanation that has more holes than the original explanation is less than meaningless... its distracting, it's a waste of resources, and it could potentially ruin valuable witness testimony with shoddy and amateur interrogation techniques.

The road down which P4T/CIT have giddily taken their research (it's a far cry from something I'd qualify as an "investigation") is based upon well constructed nothingness.

Someday P4T/CIT apologists will come to realize this.

So what is your solution; wait 100 years for a state or federal prosecutor to develop the cohones to investigate? CIT are not professionals; they are private citizen investigators. You would rather nobody bothers to do anything; just let the traitors get away with their lying and murders and treason and war crimes? Some fine American you are.

This nonsense about if the plane did or did not fly NoC is a waste of time because it does NOTHING to bring perpetrators to justice.

Stop pretending this is about justice or truth. It's not. We know Dick Armitage was involved and no NoC flight path is necessary for that to be true. All the evidence is there, go arrest him.

I guess if P4T/CIT were dedicating themselves to such a boring pursuit that they would not be able to support their lifestyles by selling DVDs chock full of titillatingly inaccurate information.

Wrapping oneself in the flag (or attempting to remove it from someone else) doesn't make one right. It makes one a sycophant.


[edit on 7-1-2009 by cogburn]

I've actually posted it in these forums in another thread. Use the Search feature at the top of the page and search for "Armitage" in this board.

However that is not the topic of this thread, which is the discussion of the latest pseudo-science P4T/CIT has released.

P4T/CIT has the plane nearly 100ft above the Pentagon at the time of explosion. Which witnesses describe the plane being nearly 100ft above the Pentagon at the time of the explosion? Video link and time stamp for verification would be preferable.

Where are the aggregating calculations used to derive the 4 possible flight paths? Was it just a guess? Please post them so your math may be double checked.

By what method was it that you determined the altitude of the aircraft as witnessed by each person? Was it a guess? Please post them so your math may be double checked.

It's not the math that's included that's the problem. It's the assumptions based on the math that isn't included that gives rise to question.

Originally posted by cogburn
This nonsense about if the plane did or did not fly NoC is a waste of time because it does NOTHING to bring perpetrators to justice.

I partly disagree with this, cogburn. If there was a deception on 9/11, which I know that you believe there was, then any evidence that's put forward by the government should be considered as suspect.

Finding numerous NOC witnesses helps prove that there was a spin put on the official story. All that's needed to show a deception is a deviation from that official flight path. That would show manipulation of both RADAR and black-box data and falsifying official reports, etc.

I also partly agree with you. Assuming these 13 NOC witnesses are correct and the alleged plane did fly NOC, then what can be done? In my mind, nothing can be done. The NOC evidence will be swept away and ignored.

I don't believe in the 'Justice' system. To me, it's a practical way for the powerful to maintain and abuse their power. In a truly, just, open and honest society, then the strength of evidence provided by the 13 NOC witnesses would be properly investigated and questions asked. However, to believe that this will happen is like living in a fairytale.

The 9/11 perps will get away with it, no matter how much evidence will be uncovered. We can all see cracks in the official story, but nothing is done about it. They didn't cover their arses 'perfectly', yet they still got away with it.

Does it mean we should give up on the NOC evidence? Nope. I think it is worth pursuing. It might not eventuate to anything, but at least some people tried, against the odds, to open more cracks in the official story.

Originally posted by cogburn
Stop pretending this is about justice or truth. It's not. We know Dick Armitage was involved and no NoC flight path is necessary for that to be true.

I remember that thread where you mentioned Armitage's involvement. A good read, it was. I do believe that 'follow the money' should lead to somewhere.

Again, though, in an open and honest justice system, shouldn't Armitage already be answering some very tough questions about that money trail? He hasn't, so for now, he's also got away with it.

When the POTUS and VPOTUS effectively grant themselves immunity from any form of real accountable questioning (appearing together, no transcripts, etc), we can see that justice won't be done or be seen to be done.

I also agree with you that the real 9/11 perps sit so far above any government, that they're virtually untouchable.

posted by cogburn

However that is not the topic of this thread, which is the discussion of the latest pseudo-science P4T/CIT has released.

P4T/CIT has the plane nearly 100ft above the Pentagon at the time of explosion. Which witnesses describe the plane being nearly 100ft above the Pentagon at the time of the explosion? Video link and time stamp for verification would be preferable.

Where are the aggregating calculations used to derive the 4 possible flight paths? Was it just a guess? Please post them so your math may be double checked.

By what method was it that you determined the altitude of the aircraft as witnessed by each person? Was it a guess? Please post them so your math may be double checked.

It's not the math that's included that's the problem. It's the assumptions based on the math that isn't included that gives rise to question.

cogburn why don't you head on over to P4T with your bogus claims? Are you afraid you will be made to look like a fool for such blatant BS?

You know the paper/video covers lateral/horizontal turns. Perhaps you should actually read the technical supplement and watch the video.

Originally posted by cogburn
If anyone still needs the NoC story to be real for them to be able to believe that factions within our government were responsible through action or inaction for those events to take place, is it really worth trying to convince them? Isn't there enough information already in the public domain that is infinitely better supported by facts and evidence?

Anyone who's looked a little deeper into 9/11 doesn't need the NOC evidence to prove some kind of deception took place.

However, used as a 'hook' (for want of a better word), the NOC evidence could be an initial stimulus for disinterested people to consider.

If you take the average person from the street and can show them that the alleged plane flew NOC or ONA, which directly contradicts the official story, then they might start asking questions and digging deeper. However, if you show them a paper-trail that they might not follow, or where they need to join the dots, they'll probably show less interest.

The average person on the street is both smart and dumb. They're dumb enough to believe anything, but they're smart enough to only believe what they understand. There's only so much evidence and BS that you can baffle them with before they switch off.

I can see merit in offering the average person on the street something tangible and 'easy' to understand. Given that, most of us on the 9/11 threads (all sides) are not the average person on the street. We've read more, we've argued more and many of us have formed our opinions.

Any new evidence, to me, is important. It may help sway my opinion a little. I'm not as fixed in concrete as I used to be. These days, I'm not sure about where I stand with regards to the LIHOP or MIHOP position, I don't have an agenda either way. While I have my personal opinions about what might have happened, I can't prove it, so it's better to keep an open mind. If I'm still not certain about what happened, then how can the average person on the street be convinced either way?

That's where small details, like the NOC flight path or the completely unverified story about Lloyd's magical light pole, can help some people grasp a tangible reality that the official story is bunk.

I know that you call CIT amateurish, but at the very least, they were probably one of the few who have tried to do something to uncover evidence, many of the CIT also detractors acknowledge their determination. Even if CIT can prove something simple, such as NOC or ONA, then that might be useful for the average person on the street to understand.

I agree with you that there could be other, better, investigations. However, without people willing to put their name and face online, many of us find it easier to type from the shadows, if you will.

While I know we agree on several key topics, I think this is where you and I simply agree to disagree.

Beyond wasting time and money and providing technically inaccurate and misleading presentations, P4T/CIT have done more to harm the dissemination of information than they have helped it. Through either ignorance or design, the highly qualified information that they could have gathered was either damaged, incomplete or perverted into fitting a preconceived notion of events. Who would ever want to come forward with solid, even if contradictory, information after viewing this circus? Out of 100's documented witnesses, only 13 were interviewed. Assuming only 100 witnesses total, that's 13%.

What kind of decision making would you do in your own life based on a 13% probability, with 87% of the available information left uninvestigated and potentially contradictory to that 13%?

I submit to you that convincing the average man on the street is less important than convincing the few that are best suited to initiate a redress of grievances, if convincing anyone of anything is even required.

If I consult the Che Guevara within me, the answer is to simply walk up to those whom we have evidence were involved and end the discussion with the well-placed application of 1oz of molten lead. My research is far too inadequate and incomplete to post a list of these individuals beyond two names: Dick Armitage and Dick Cheney.

If I consult my Buddah nature, the answer is to trust that there are no events in the universe that occur which aren't required for the maturation of our souls. That the events of 9/11 were a global call for introspection and self-evaluation, not only in the events themselves but also our reactions and emotions to them and each other, and on a global scale.

Who's right? Che or Buddah?

I don't claim to yet be wise enough to know.

I am, however, able to recognize an intellectual diversion when presented with one. It's insulting that we are expected to believe the outrageous claims that come from certain quarters of the twoofer cult. It's the same mindset (and supporting tactics) that are employed by such august institutions like Scientology, the Moonies, and even the 9/11 conspirators themselves. That makes any and all research, qualified or not, fruit of the poisonous tree.

That's no kind of activity that I can support in any way, shape or form.

Someone else has already provided the link in this thread to the exact mathematics that proves the failure of the P4T/CIT scenario and how it contradicts the majority of their eye witnesses.

I don't believe in re-inventing the wheel. So rather than cover ground that others have already trodden, I've addressed other problems that are implied by P4T/CIT's faulty application of mathematics.

Perhaps you should spend time reading the whole thread before asserting that the information you're looking for isn't there.

posted by cogburn

I am, however, able to recognize an intellectual diversion when presented with one. It's insulting that we are expected to believe the outrageous claims that come from certain quarters of the twoofer cult.

As well you should, as that is exactly what you are doing here. Be gone with you as you are extremely boring.

Originally posted by cogburn
Someone else has already provided the link in this thread to the exact mathematics that proves the failure of the P4T/CIT scenario and how it contradicts the majority of their eye witnesses.

So far I haven't seen any math that proves any failure of the PT4 scenario, and neither
in the link you refer to!

In your view then, this math contradicts the majority of the CIT eye witnesses.
Obviously this means that it doesn't contradict the minority of the CIT eye witnesses.

Could you please give me the names of some of the CIT minority witnesses you
think the aforementioned math does not contradict, such that one can get a better
understanding of what you're actually talking about??

Thanks!

Originally posted by djeminy
Could you please give me the names of some of the CIT minority witnesses you
think the aforementioned math does not contradict, such that one can get a better
understanding of what you're actually talking about??

Thanks!

Maybe I misspoke. Let's review for a second....

Turcios: did not state seeing a plane 100ft above the Pentagon, specifically said he did NOT see a plane above the Pentagon
Brooks: did not state seeing a plane 100ft above the Pentagon
Lagasse: did not state seeing a plane 100ft above the Pentagon (Although nobody asked him, so maybe he did. That seems to be how his memory works.)
The ANC Crew: did not state seeing a plane 100ft above the Pentagon
Roberts: do you really want to go rounds on this guy? C'mon.

So let's say there are 100 witnesses total that were able to view the non-impact (estimates are actually higher). P4T/CIT interviewed 13%. Out of those 100 total witnesses, only 1% made any statements that could be construed as indicating a plane above the building, and that witness's statements are easily questioned and no followup has been performed.

Sorry.. I did say something that was not entirely accurate. Allow me to correct my statement completely.

All P4T/CIT witness statements, with the exception of one questionable witness, do not support the version of event posed in the PDF supplement. It must be said that the P4T/CIT interviews only comprise no more than 13% of all witnesses of the events that day and is far from a comprehensive collection of information.

How's that?

[edit on 8-1-2009 by cogburn]

It has been proven that Morin could not have been in between the wings where CIT placed him.

We're just waiting for CIT to admit it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
So unless you are here to demonstrate exactly how P4T is wrong about this...

Done. Over and over and over. You couldn't support your case.

...and unless you plan to demonstrate with your own calculations how it is supposedly impossible for any plane on earth to do this....

Done. Many times by many more qualified people than amateur investigators. Completely demonstrated that CIT has no case.

...you really have no argument at all and should simply concede that P4T is correct in this regard and move on.

You're still confused. Let me remind you again that we are waiting for your concession speech, Craig. Better now to face the music and get it over with.