1810 replies to this topic

[Karlis]

There have been more insults dropped in this thread than can be easily edited. Please keep posts civil, as per UM posting guidelines.
Karlis -- mod team member

[Likely Guy]

I just wish that the "topic of Flight 77", was actually the "topic" of this thread.

[booNyzarC]

Likely Guy, on 19 October 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

I just wish that the "topic of Flight 77", was actually the "topic" of this thread.

It started off that way.

But as all 9/11 threads seem to trend, everything 9/11 seeps in.  The good, the bad, and they ugly.

[Likely Guy]

booNyzarC, on 19 October 2012 - 04:42 AM, said:

It started off that way.

But as all 9/11 threads seem to trend, everything 9/11 seeps in.  The good, the bad, and they ugly.

Well, let's start over again.
\
http://www.unexplain...howtopic=219063

I don't think that Frank Probst's testimony should be discounted.

Oh Q24, your link in post #2 is broken.

Edited by Likely Guy, 19 October 2012 - 05:02 AM.

[Q24]

Likely Guy, on 19 October 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

Well, let's start over again.
\
http://www.unexplain...howtopic=219063

I don't think that Frank Probst's testimony should be discounted.

Oh Q24, your link in post #2 is broken.

It looks like the link is down because NIST/ASCE have made the document available on purchase only.  Suggest everyone save this free version now in case anyone gets funny about the copyright (even though it’s been freely available for years): -

The Pentagon Building Performance Report

This thread was really finished when the only active Pentagon 'flyover' theorist around disappeared.  Analysis of the full eyewitness testimony alone, not to mention the physical evidence and radar data, makes their theory completely untenable.  There was certainly no flyover at the Pentagon but a very definite aircraft approach and impact... though evidence to the specific identity of that aircraft is less well founded...

Edited by Q24, 19 October 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

booNyzarC, on 18 October 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

Zero editing actually.  Not that you'll ever understand that.




I don't suppose you did any fact checking to determine whether or not this person doing the analysis made any errors did you?  I found some.  See if you can spot any when you compare his analysis with the actual transcript.

Here's the actual transcript.





... *Snip* ...




No, if you compare the actual transcript above with his analysis you should be able to find his errors.  As for the pauses that he makes such a big deal about, I would think that in a scenario like she and the others were facing that pauses would be expected.  Besides, she does finally clarify that she is having a hard time hearing them, which also accounts for why she may not have answered the seat question correctly.

Look at it this way Boo.  I could happily and easily, for the sake of argument, support your point and agree with your point that the lists released were ACTUALLY victim lists, and specifically NOT intended to be any sort of passenger manifest.

No problem.

But, there are so many OTHER amended and retracted and otherwise modified statements relating to this incident that the list we discuss is a very minor, almost trivial, point.  That is, in the proverbial Big Picture, the entire story is riddled with inconsistentcies and errors.  Sometimes efforts were made to correct glaring errors, sometimes they were let stand.

The cumulative effect of these things is to render the OCT not just improbable, but impossible.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 19 October 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

  I could happily and easily, for the sake of argument, support your point and agree with your point that the lists released were ACTUALLY victim lists, and specifically NOT intended to be any sort of passenger manifest.

No problem.

That is what people have been telling you for months!

[Babe Ruth]

Q

Then your position is that those witnesses placing a Boeing inbound towards the Pentagon north of Citgo are unreliable or lying?

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 19 October 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

Q

Then your position is that those witnesses placing a Boeing inbound towards the Pentagon north of Citgo are unreliable or lying?

They are either lying, or, were mistaken because the path of destruction leading to, and inside the Pentagon disproves the theory that American 77 passed north of the gas station.

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 19 October 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Look at it this way Boo.  I could happily and easily, for the sake of argument, support your point and agree with your point that the lists released were ACTUALLY victim lists, and specifically NOT intended to be any sort of passenger manifest.

No problem.

Then I expect you'll never raise this falsehood again in the future, right?

Babe Ruth, on 19 October 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

But, there are so many OTHER amended and retracted and otherwise modified statements relating to this incident that the list we discuss is a very minor, almost trivial, point.  That is, in the proverbial Big Picture, the entire story is riddled with inconsistentcies and errors.  Sometimes efforts were made to correct glaring errors, sometimes they were let stand.

The cumulative effect of these things is to render the OCT not just improbable, but impossible.

Every time you have seemingly conceded a point you've made a similar statement.  Just how many of these supposed inconsistencies have we whittled away now?  Are you still counting your prior concessions in the cumulative effect of your proverbial Big Picture?

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 19 October 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

Q

Then your position is that those witnesses placing a Boeing inbound towards the Pentagon north of Citgo are unreliable or lying?

I don't think any individual eyewitness, or even group of eyewitnesses are reliable (though not necessarily because they are lying).  I think this type of evidence is even more unreliable when those reporting on it, like CIT who you know of, are themselves shown unreliable in providing a complete and objective account.  Ideally with this type of evidence, to draw a conclusion, I believe we need one set of eyewitness accounts much larger than another and preferably supported by other evidence... which is exactly what an aircraft impact at the Pentagon has in its favour.  Please see the OP for further explanation.

PS I'm still planning to get back to you in PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Copy that Q.

Boo

You seem unaware of the meaning of the phrase "for the sake of argument."