Originally posted by cogburn
Those people seem to be a list of pilots and there's no credentials given for any of them having any experience submitting a paper for scientific peer review. Can you provide a link to that list?

Did you miss the Aeronautical Engineers and Aircraft Accident Investigators? It seems so... including the fact that the list continues to grow with courageous individuals willing to put their name on the "internets" only to be libeled, slandered and listed by people like you? Keep in mind, all those certificated by the FAA can be cross referenced at faa.gov.

Paranoid? Perhaps justly so. I happen to be aware of just how dangerous a place the internet can be.

See above reply.

P4T has been listed by detractors "Nixon style" numerous times. The difference? P4T uses their real names when publishing a list of their "opposition" and appears to still have faith in the law... while detractors publish their lists anonymously and make excuses to avoid direct confrontation/debate with P4T. These same P4T members are certificated by the FAA, fly you, your family and others, around the world daily, on almost every major airline. I have even seen P4T members being labelled "terrorist apologists" by those who are unaware of the fact the FAA could no longer certify those who support terrorism. Hilarous...

however I can't help but ask myself what kind organization would harbor such a thing as an enemies list.

Perhaps you should ask the same of "ref", "TAM", Screw Loose Change, and Adam Larson.

For all the wide variety of organizations whose focus is 9/11 research, I've yet to hear of any other organization doing such a thing.

It appears P4T likes to take initiative. And.. are fed up.. and justifiably so...

There are some states to which the proprietors of those forums could be held legally responsible if it can be proven that such personal information contributed in the commission of a crime. It's childish, irresponsible and dangerous. I have no idea how you can defend such behavior.

Feel free to rat out P4T as 911Files did regarding the uneventful phone call Craig recorded of him, exposing his contradictory behavior, in which 911Files attempted to get Craig arrested.

But i warn you, you will only look as silly as 911Files does now. I look forward to your claim.

I'm not putting myself out there as a bastion of truth and justice.

You claim to be employed as a scientific researcher for a MSM "Conglomerate". Would you ever consider debating any P4T member? How about Aeronautical Engineer, current jetBlue Capt and retired Lt Col Jeff Latas? Or do you lack the confidence in your "Scientific Research" and are too paranoid in fear of being"listed" based on your lack of confidence in your knowledge??? Yes, we know.

The standard to which I may be held is not quite the same as P4T/CIT who are attempting to cash in on tragedy with incomplete research and misinformation.

Yeah.. because pilots make more money selling DVD's on such a controversial topic than flying jets? Really? lol

I suppose the MSM corporation you work for is very honest and broadcasts for free?

Its clear you know nothing about P4T, its foundation, its analysis, or the people involved. Perhaps such a MSM employee such as yourself would find "fanatics" easier to expose face to face rather than spending every day on ATS (which you already said on page 4 you quit)... yawn.

cogburn, anytime you are feeling brave, feel free to email P4T to expose them face to face. I have a feeling we will never see such an encounter.


typos fixed


[edit on 12-1-2009 by RockHound757]

posted by cogburn
I addressed the two extreme examples illustrated on pages 5 and 7 exactly because they were the extremes. There is nothing in the text that disputes any of my claims, period.

posted by RockHound757
you dispute your own claims on page 3 and 4 as pointed out above.

The rest of your post i didnt bother to read as its clear you are fitting an arc to your bias, you have made numerous false claims, and refuse to email and/or ask P4T directly regarding their work due to your paranoia of being "labeled" and listed, when P4T puts their names to their claims and are listed, libeled and slandered daily by people like you. (and people like you claim P4T are the paranoid ones?)

Trying to figure out the dishonesty and false accusations of Mr cogburn is a complete waste of time. I think cogburn is a 'couch potato' scientific researcher and would not have a clue on how to go about it. He likes to make things up out of the blue; and then appear intellectual disassembling them. A lot of the government loyalists and pseudoskeptics and pseudo-intellectuals waste a lot of time doing so.

cogburn has made it clear that he doesn't even understand the premise of the presentation since he has already fully admitted that he agrees the math is accurate and he agrees that a north side approach is entirely possible yet he is STILL trying to argue what he agrees with!


Please cogburn.

You are clearly out of our league again as you continuously contradict yourself and demonstrate your personal bias against P4T and CIT.

The premise of the presentation is not about any specific witness account.

If you agree that NoC is possible that means you 100% categorically agree with the presentation.

Now if you think that any specific witness presented by CIT doesn't support a general NoC or ONA flight path for whatever reason that is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PREMISE and belongs in another thread.

Witness accounts are subjective, and this thread is about one thing.....

Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

Not subjective.

So since you admit that you agree with the title of the thread which IS the entire premise of the OP and the presentation I suggest you move on or you will be breaking the forum rules.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
You are also relying on 460 knots as provided by the controlled gov't data, which doesn't seem to be supported by the general witness statements of a slow banking air craft.

Precisely.

911files is trying to remove the scenario from the true context of the situation to make his argument easier but the inherent faulty logic behind this argument is obvious.

The undeniable fact here is that a plane on the north side at all at the time of the attack proves a deception and cover-up.

It proves that all officially released radar data and of course the NTSB data has been doctored/manipulated/altered as 911files has publicly admitted he believes in the past.

So to actually refer to the official data for the speed of a plane that had to have been altered out of the same data is glaringly contradictory and deceptive logic.




[edit on 12-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by RockHound757

1. Its clear you didnt watch the video presentation as Lagasse himself says - "The only thing that is debatable is that maybe it was closer, maybe it was further away [from the north side of citgo], but what is not debatable is that it was on this side.". P4T demontrates that perfectly in the presentation.

Exactly.



Even the witnesses know that their accounts are subjective and have room for error.

But not enough room to have the plane on the south side.

What's also contradictory here is fact that 911files has publicly admitted many times that he believes Lagasse and that here is no way he could be mistaken about the north side.


He said:

I never denied the possibility of a plane to the north of the Citgo. Quite the contrary, I have always maintained that after my critical review of their accounts, there were things that only made sense if they did see something to the north (such as Lagasse’s yaw change).

And this when specifically asked if he believes Lagasse saw the plane on the north side:

Oh he had to. He had to. If he saw the plane, which I believe he did, he had to see it on the north side because from where he was at there was no way he could see it on the southern path.

Again....a plane on the north side at the time of the attack at all proves all officially released radar data as well as the NTSB data fraudulent.

It is circular logic to suggest that the witnesses are all wrong simply because of the data that they contradict!


This really boils down to whether you trust the confirmed/corroborated independent honest witnesses who were really there or the government data released many years after the event soon AFTER these critical witnesses were revealed.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It is circular logic to suggest that the witnesses are all wrong simply because of the data that they contradict!

This really boils down to whether you trust the confirmed/corroborated independent honest witnesses who were really there or the government data released many years after the event soon AFTER these critical witnesses were revealed.

And yet every one of these "confirmed/corroborated independent honest" witnesses also said that the plane hit the pentagon. That is the only single point that every single one of your witnesses agrees on.

Originally posted by RockHound757

You also used only one speed which is not a very scientific approach and some may even go so far to say intellectually dishonest. Even Reheat used variations in speed.

Oh it sure is intellectually dishonest!

He knows it too.

There is ZERO logic in using official data for speed when you know for a fact that the same plane had to have been altered out of the data!

Originally posted by adam_zapple

I have yet to see CIT present a flight path (with accompanying math) that agrees with all of their eyewitnesses. The main requirements would be Over the Navy annex,
banked North of Citgo,
descended below the tree line,
pulled up into an ascent right before the wall and over the impact site at the Pentagon, and then flew into the south parking lot after the explosion.

Then you haven't watched the presentation or read the tech supplement because this is EXACTLY what was addressed.

If the only requirement was north of citgo, I'd agree...but unfortunately for CIT they have quite a long laundry list of requirements for this amazing mystery plane.

You just put all the laundry out on the line to dry but P4T already put it through the dryer!

Plus it is unreasonable to expect each witness to be exactly accurate regarding every claim.

Intellectually honest people understand how witness accounts are fallible.

This is why we only rely on them for general claims that can be scientifically validated via corroboration.

The general claims of ONA and NoC 100% prove a complex deception regardless of the exact flight path of the plane.

There is no way around this fact.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

I have yet to see CIT present a flight path (with accompanying math) that agrees with all of their eyewitnesses. The main requirements would be Over the Navy annex,
banked North of Citgo,
descended below the tree line,
pulled up into an ascent right before the wall and over the impact site at the Pentagon, and then flew into the south parking lot after the explosion.

Then you haven't watched the presentation or read the tech supplement because this is EXACTLY what was addressed.

"over the impact site" doesn't mean 100 feet away from it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITPlus it is unreasonable to expect each witness to be exactly accurate regarding every claim.

Intellectually honest people understand how witness accounts are fallible.

I agree. None of their statements are infallible. Unfortunately, you don't apply this principle to all of their statements in the same manner.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThis is why we only rely on them for general claims that can be scientifically validated via corroboration.

The general claims of ONA and NoC 100% prove a complex deception regardless of the exact flight path of the plane.

There is no way around this fact.

Who decides which claims are "general" and which ones are not?