1810 replies to this topic

[bee]

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 04:54 PM, said:

Aw, not at all… I’d just like you to give your theory some credibility and foundation in the real world.

you mean the real world...like when the second plane had hit the tower...any other hi-jacked plane was NOT going
to be allowed to hit any other target....especially the defence headquarters?

Quote

The whole point in the ‘orders still stand’ episode is that Cheney was in a position to ensure the aircraft reached the Pentagon.

only in your fantasy world, not the real world.

Quote

And your idea still doesn’t make sense…

If the plane was approaching Washington as reported shortly prior the Pentagon crash time then it would have taken some twenty minutes to gain control and actually get it out to sea… by which time it is known that the fighters were no longer out at sea but over the Pentagon, prepared to intercept Flight 93 inland if need be.

errrrr it's a cover up remember...the exact times and details are not going to be freely available.

So you don't believe the fighters were still out at sea...you believe the government figures?

You think the government planned the whole thing but is telling the truth on selected parts...?

Parts that conveniently fit in with your own personel Inside Job theories.



one must keep a clear head and apply simple logic...not go off on a convoluted evidence rampage
and an acronym fest.

Quote

1)  The idea that a decision was taken to commit everyone to death in your theory rather than even attempt a rescue is irrational.

- “Sir, we have control of the aircraft, where shall I bring it down?”

- “The FBI don’t know what’s coming next!  Look, just take the aircraft out to sea and we’ll blow it to smithereens – problem solved.”

- “Sir, what about the passengers, what will we say?”

- “Never mind the passengers!  Now I gotta get on the phone.. get me some explosives planted in the Pentagon.. ship some plane parts in from the local museum.. coerce some ‘eyewitnesses’.. a hundred or so should do it.. make sure the ASCE are onboard.. and light poles.. cut down the light poles and stick ‘em in the road.. make it look like a plane came that way.. oh and call in that taxi driver, agent England..”

- “Sir, are you sure you don’t just want me to land the plane?”

- “That’s an order damnit!”

bee, you don’t even believe this    

I’m only responding because I’m bored.

well I'm so glad I could relieve your boredom for a few minutes...
But I would say that you are responding because what I say broadly makes sense and that will never do.

Quote

2)  The idea that the hijackers could kill everyone onboard the aircraft in your theory is also irrational.  As soon as they attempted systematically stabbing everyone onboard they would be overwhelmed.

we can only guess what might have happened to the airliner had it landed...if the military were forced
to storm the plane many...possibly all would have died.

Quote

The idea that a missile would blast the aircraft to “smithereens” is mistaken – real life is not like where they blow-up the Death Star, an aircraft is not going to be blasted into its component parts or atoms.

bit of a strawman there....I think if you were being fair and rational you would admit that a plane
blown up by a missile (of some unknown kind)...would be in smaller parts than one that simply crashed
into the sea.

Quote

In my mind, one that is both irrational and unsupported.  It is creating an alternative theory in defiance of all evidence and logic just for the sake of it and trivialises seriousness of the event and genuine investigation.  The theories I provide are always fit in and around the real-world facts in attempt to divert any offence.  The only saving grace of your theory is that it is so baseless and against sound judgement it can be ignored…

Which is what I’m going to do now.

I'm sorry I'm not 'serious' enough for you...and that people can actually understand  what I say?

That I don't go off on insanely complicated 'evidence' tangents....

You can ignore me if you want to. But I must say, you are putting quite a bit of effort in for someone who
thinks that what I have is baseless and lacking in sound judgement.

Oh I forgot...you're just bored, aren't you.

Finally... your mask is slipping...I must have hit a nerve with my previous posts...was it the fighters over the Atlantic?

Or the idea that the debris parts could be popped over from the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum?




I'm only giving you as good as I got.....fair's fair....

[Q24]

bee, on 24 December 2011 - 05:49 PM, said:

You think the government planned the whole thing but is telling the truth on selected parts...?

This is a misunderstanding - I don't think “the government” planned anything.

[Babe Ruth]

It was those behind the scenes who did the planning--only parts of the government were used to execute the plan, and some of them were tricked.

With Vigilant Guardian going on, the whole day had military finger prints all over it.

[booNyzarC]

bee, on 24 December 2011 - 05:49 PM, said:

--

one must keep a clear head and apply simple logic...not go off on a convoluted evidence rampage
and an acronym fest.

--

That I don't go off on insanely complicated 'evidence' tangents....

--

Bee darling, IDK if this is WRT recent ACARS discussions, but FWIW IDD.  IMHO ARINC has FTM acronyms...  They even have acronyms nested within acronyms!  ADNS, AVLC, & AOA to name a few FFS!!  TMI for most PPL to take in?  Depends on UR POV IRL I s'pose...

AFAIK ...  OH...  NVM


Anyhoo, TTYL!  TTFN!

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #71, Part 1

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

Thank you for the above extentions.  I'll leave that last word with you on the first two eyewitness.  I'm content that the reasons for discounting their accounts have been summarised in basic terms based on your responses and I don't see anymore to add (the broad summary I have given, simple as it is, does cover your latest posts).

I disagree. This was your summary for Probst:

Q24, on 23 December 2011 - 12:08 PM, said:

Probst: -

• As he was diving to the floor, he  did not witness the plane skim the ground, hit the generator and impact  the Pentagon as he claimed.
• His account, interpreted a specific way, could place both him and the plane in a location incongruent with what he claims to have witnessed.
• The ASCE misrepresented what he actually saw so as to support an impact.

This would be mine:
******
Frank Probst:

The ASCE report alleges that he stated that the pentaplane flew over the Navy Annex, which is in line with many other witnesses who also place it over the Navy Annex. All of these other witnesses have clearly drawn lines on maps provided by CIT and all were clearly denoting an NoC flight path. Based on this, it's highly likely that Probst was an NoC witness.

The ASCE report also appears to claim that Probst saw many things, but it doesn't quote him at all. The following is taken from an actual video interview of Probst:
I think it would be good to review his statements in said 30 second interview. He stated:
The engine was about 6 feet off the  ground, coming right at me, and I laid out on the ground. I watched the  plane come over top of me, the street lights were falling on both sides  of where I was. 2 engines from the plane, which hang way down underneath  the plane, both hit, short of the pentagon in this area out here… and  then there was a fireball right after that… and I can remember the tail  section.. disappearing into the fireball.

First of all, if the plane was so close to him, he should have  experienced a lot of turbulence; and yet, he makes no mention of this,  which strongly suggests that the plane wasn't as close to him as he  alleges. As to his statement regarding the pentaplane's engines, could  it be that he says that the engine was 6 feet off the ground at that  point because he was -told- that this was the case? He states that the  street lights were falling on both sides of where he was but he doesn't  state that the plane had anything to do with it. Perhaps more  importantly, he doesn't say that he himself observed this happening,  suggesting that he may have heard of this from someone instead of  witnessing it himself. He mentions that the 2 engines on the plane hit  short of the pentagon "in this area out here".. and yet there are many  pictures clearly demonstrating that the pentagon lawn was untouched.  Have you seen the video pentagon strike?  It makes a clear reference to this absurdity with its reference to "the  amazing pentalawn" that can apparently be hit by massive passenger  plane engines and yet remain unscathed. Finally there's his reference to  a "fireball right after that" and his remembering that the tail section  dissapeared into the fireball. Now here's the thing; he doesn't  actually say that he witnessed the plane crashing into the pentagon,  only that he saw the tail dissapearing into a fireball; but if the  explosion was timed to coincide with the pentaplane's going over the  pentagon, this is what you would see.
******

See how much more in depth my summation is? I also think that the point of the Navy Annex a crucial one, one which your summation ignores entirely, and also shows how some parts of his video statement don't make sense (turbulence) while making clear that others leave open various questions, such as his statement that light poles were falling down while not saying that the plane hit them, or even that he himself witnessed the light poles falling down himself.

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

His account, interpreted a specific way, could place both him and the plane in a location incongruent with what he claims to have witnessed.

Alright, I guess that's as far as you're willing to go with him.

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

The ASCE misrepresented what he actually saw so as to support an impact.

Not always, as I make clear from the ASCE's report of him seeing the plane flying over the Navy Annex, but yes, generally I think so.

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

I will continue responding from the third eyewitness, Rodney Washington, to keep us moving forward.

Alright.

Edited by Scott G, 24 December 2011 - 11:28 PM.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #71, Part 2 (last part)

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

Just a note:  I understand that you think Balsamo has shown no flight path to the Pentagon impact point was possible due to the pull-up forces involved (that's another topic).

Indeed it is.

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

I realise you could therefore say any eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the impact are mistaken due to this alone.

True.

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

What I'm trying to understand here is how we would explain away each eyewitness who claims to have seen the damage flight path and/or impact.  In the case of Probst and Mason you have shown how we must claim their statements were fabricated and memories distorted by the ASCE…

Perhaps their statements were distorted rather then outright fabricated. But like I said, I find it interesting that ASCE would state that he saw the plane flying over the Navy Annex, as that clearly is incongruent with the official SoC path.

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

that's good; it's what I'm looking for… possible explanations of why exactly they came out with what they did.

Ok.

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

Apart from that, it's disappointing that you don't grasp the point about eyewitness testimony in regard to the reference point of the Navy Annex.  If we were to take each individual statement and draw the flight path, you and I know full well there would be lines each side of and over the Navy Annex – it's the way human memory works, it is rarely precise.

I don't know about that. I've seen a lot of eyewitness lines that have drawn the flight path over the Navy Annex. How many lines have been drawn of an SoC flight path? What CIT always said is that, due to the fact that some memories may get distorted over time, it's good to have different eyewitness testimony that corroborates each other. The NOC witnesses do this; the SoC witnesses don't. Furthermore, the witnesses who at the Citgo gas station itself are unanimous in stating that the plane frlew North of the Citgo gas station, with Lagasse being extremely confident that this is the way it flew.

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

It would be a big mistake to take each account completely literally or apply zero tolerance to certain variation.

To be sure; there is some slight variation in the drawn lines of the NoC witnesses. However, they are generally fairly consistent with each other.

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

I look forward to your response to Rodney Washington's testimony.

Ok.

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

Scott G, on 24 December 2011 - 09:23 AM, said:

I read a fair amount. Not all of it. There are only so many hours in a day and I do have other things to do.

This is no excuse.

Laugh :-). Ah Q, not everyone agrees with your notions of what is an excuse :-p.

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

Notwithstanding the post was a five minute read if that, it is not good pactice to link something you haven't even read.

I read a portion of it. Who knows, perhaps I even read that phrase. Ultimately, however, it's not just a matter of reading things, it's of absorbing things. Important points will tend to be addressed sooner or later, given enough time on a subject.

Q24, on 24 December 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

It leaves you unable to evaluate/discuss a point that you are promoting.  It shows blind faith in the source and lack of independent thinking on your part.

If I miss a point, it can simply be brought to my attention later on. If I had blind faith, I would have simply been a cheer leader for some group or other that likes seeing things in black and white; Jim Hoffman et all on the one side (your path) or Balsamo et al on the other. Both demonize the other side and think it's the right thing to do. Not me, though. It's a hard path, but I walk it anyway.

[bee]

booNyzarC, on 24 December 2011 - 10:39 PM, said:

Bee darling, IDK if this is WRT recent ACARS discussions, but FWIW IDD.  IMHO ARINC has FTM acronyms...  They even have acronyms nested within acronyms!  ADNS, AVLC, & AOA to name a few FFS!!  TMI for most PPL to take in?  Depends on UR POV IRL I s'pose...

AFAIK ...  OH...  NVM


Anyhoo, TTYL!  TTFN!

    


booN dearest.......HYAMLC

[Scott G]

bee, on 24 December 2011 - 11:49 PM, said:

    


booN dearest.......HYAMLC

Heh :-). Here's one for you bee; and anyone who feels that being with those you love is the best christmas present...

[Q24]

Scott G, on 24 December 2011 - 11:27 PM, said:

See how much more in depth my summation is? I also think that the point of the Navy Annex a crucial one, one which your summation ignores entirely…

Yes I do.

Personally I’d like to keep each summary as short as possible whilst incorporating everything you have said.  The Navy Annex point you raised for instance is not ignored but covered by the bolded text in this bullet: -

• His account, interpreted a specific way, could place both him and the plane in a location incongruent with what he claims to have witnessed.

I’d eventually like to put together one complete summary of the eyewitnesses.  If each individual summary is too detailed then it will be unmanagable by the end and the core points will be lost in the volume of information.  All I’m trying to record are those core points of how your theory accounts for each eyewitness.

It’s still helpful you give the detailed summary to ensure I don’t miss anything and understand where you are going with it.  I’m just trying to explain that I’m not deliberately ignoring anything when I summarise your reasoning.

Scott G, on 24 December 2011 - 11:30 PM, said:

I don't know about that. I've seen a lot of eyewitness lines that have drawn the flight path over the Navy Annex. How many lines have been drawn of an SoC flight path?

Well let’s see…

- Wheelhouse drew his line South of the Annex.
- Paik drew his line over the Annex.
- Lagasse drew his line North of the Annex.

There are numerous other examples.

This type of variance is to be expected of eyewitness accounts.

I’ll keep saying, it is not an exact science – everyone records and interprets memories differently.

This is why I’m not at all surprised that CIT managed to isolate a handful of eyewitnesses who place the plane in a location incongruent with the necessary flight path leading to impact.

What this thread will eventually show is an even greater number of eyewitnesses who claim to have witnessed the damage path and/or impact.

Anyway, I’m off for now – Merry Xmas everyone!  

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's Post #84, Part 1

Q24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

Scott G, on 24 December 2011 - 11:27 PM, said:

See how much more in depth my summation is?

Yes I do.

Ok.

Q24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

Scott G, on 24 December 2011 - 11:27 PM, said:

I also think that the point  of the Navy Annex a crucial one, one which your summation ignores entirely...

Personally I'd like to keep each summary as short as possible whilst incorporating everything you have said. The Navy Annex point you raised for instance is not ignored but covered by the bolded text in this bullet: -

• His account, interpreted a specific way, could place both him and the plane in a location incongruent with what he claims to have witnessed.

Sorry Q, but I think that's pretty bad "coverage"; if the pentaplane flew over the Navy Annex, there's no need for interpretation; the plane couldn't possibly have lined up with the SoC damage trajectory. Now I know that you've stated your belief that he might have been mistaken in his belief that the plane flew over the Navy Annex. But this doesn't really help your viewpoint at all. The reason for this is that there are multiple people who have drawn the pentaplane's flight path over the Navy Annex, indicating an NoC flight path, but very few who have drawn an SoC flight path.


I've also noticed that you've skipped over many of my points regarding his testimony. I'll do a better job of summarizing my points, in the interests of being more concise. You can, ofcourse, opt to not add them to your list, but in that case, I think I'll make a list of my own regarding Probst as I would consider your list of Probst to only be superficial and unable to bear close scrutiny.


1- If the plane got to within 6 feet of his position as he claims, he should have  experienced a lot of turbulence; and yet, he makes no mention of any. This strongly suggests that the plane wasn't as close to him as he alleges. Given this fact, we must ask why he felt it was 6 feet from his position; could it be that he was told that this was the case?


2- He states that the  street lights were falling on both sides of where he  was but he doesn't  state that the plane had anything to do with it. Did he even see the light poles falling down, let alone the plane hitting them, or was he simply told that this is what happened and simply repeated what he was told?


3- He mentions that the 2 engines on the plane hit  short of the pentagon  "in this area out here".. and yet there are many  pictures clearly  demonstrating that the pentagon lawn was untouched. This brings to mind the point raised in the 5 minute video Pentagon Strike, which makes fun of the "amazing pentalawn" which allegedly repels massive Boeing engines without a scratch.


4- He mentions that immediately after the Boeing engines hit the Amazing Pentalawn ™, there was a "fireball right after" and his  remembering that the tail section dissapeared into the fireball. Now  here's the thing; he doesn't  actually say that he witnessed the plane  crashing into the pentagon,  only that he saw the tail dissapearing into  a fireball; but if the  explosion was timed to coincide with the  pentaplane's going over the  pentagon, this is what you would see.


  

Q24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

I'd eventually like to put together one complete summary of the eyewitnesses.  If each individual summary is too detailed then it will be unmanagable by the end and the core points will be lost in the volume of information.

I don't think that my points above are too detailed, but perhaps for people who can't spare the time to properly analyze the information, you may be correct. However, seeing as how I want to discuss this issue with people who -do- want to properly analyze the information, this doesn't faze me.

Q24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

All I'm trying to record are those core points of how your theory accounts for each eyewitness.

The thing is, I don't think you're recording my core points; I think you're just doing lip service to my points. I've now listed what -I- consider to be my core points. If you don't include them, then all you can truly say is that you're recording points that you think are important and you're not that interested in what I myself consider to be important.

Q24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

It's still helpful you give the detailed summary to ensure I don't miss anything and understand where you are going with it.  I'm just trying to explain that I'm not deliberately ignoring anything when I summarise your reasoning.

Whether you're delibrately ignoring things I say or not isn't really relevant; the end result is that you're not summarizing my core points.

Edited by Scott G, 26 December 2011 - 02:16 AM.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's Post #84, Part 2

Q24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

Scott G, on 24 December 2011 - 11:27 PM, said:

I don't know about that. I've seen a lot of eyewitness lines that  have drawn the flight path over the Navy Annex. How many lines have been  drawn of an SoC flight path?

Well let's see…

- Wheelhouse drew his line South of the Annex.

I think he's the only alleged witness to do so. Is this the case?

Q24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

- Paik drew his line over the Annex.

As did Terry Morin and Sean Boger if memory serves.. and 1 atleast one more witness.

Q24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

- Lagasse drew his line North of the Annex.

Did he? Perhaps he drew more then one line, but in the flight path lines that I've found of Lagasse, Chadwick and Brooks, all of whom were at the Citgo gas station at the time of the Pentagon attack, the Navy Annex isn't even in the picture. Here's the pictures of their lines that I've found:
http://imageshack.us...assebrooks.gif/

Q24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

There are numerous other examples.

I'd like to see them before believing this.

Q24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

This type of variance is to be expected of eyewitness accounts.

I don't know how you can say that after seeing CIT's work. Lagasse was adamant that the plane passed North of the Citgo gas station. He was adamant because he was -at- the Citgo gas station, so if it had passed south of the Citgo gas station, the difference would have been enormous. Brooks and Chadwick both back him up on the NoC approach.

Q24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

I'll keep saying, it is not an exact science – everyone records and interprets memories differently.

I'm the first to admit that memories can be imperfect; but some events are much easier to remember then others; such as whether an unusual plane passed you on one side of a gas station or another. The fact that all 3 of the witnesses there all state that it passed on the North side is pretty strong evidence. And the NoC evidence certainly doesn't end there as I'm sure you're aware.

Q24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

This is why I'm not at all surprised that CIT managed to isolate a handful of eyewitnesses who place the plane in a location incongruent with the necessary flight path leading to impact.

What this thread will eventually show is an even greater number of eyewitnesses who claim to have witnessed the damage path and/or impact.

I find it interesting how you make this an either/or proposition. If you can't find more SoC witnesses then NoC witnesses, just add witnesses who allegedly saw the impact; heck, you could then even include some of the NoC witnesses, and perhaps try to forget the fact that they are, in fact, NoC witnesses and thus incompatible with the SoC damage path. Perhaps you're argue that since they "saw" the impact, that they must have therefore simply been "mistaken" as to the location of the aircraft. What you don't seem to understand is that it's much easier to be misled concerning whether or not the pentaplane hit the pentagon, due to the blinding flash at the time of the explosion there, then it is to be misled as to whether the plane approached from the North or South side of the Citgo gas station; especially if you were at the gas station itself.

Q24, on 25 December 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

Anyway, I'm off for now – Merry Xmas everyone!  

Yeah, you too. Sorry I get so worked up about this sometimes but I really feel like you're bypassing a lot of very important information sometimes.

[Q24]

Scott G, on 26 December 2011 - 02:17 AM, said:

I find it interesting how you make this an either/or proposition. If you can't find more SoC witnesses then NoC witnesses, just add witnesses who allegedly saw the impact; heck, you could then even include some of the NoC witnesses…

Scott, it’s like you’re in shock and horror that I would, “just add witnesses who allegedly saw the impact”  

Oh dear, what a thing to do - how unreasonable am I?!  

And rest assured I’m going to include all eyewitnesses to the impact, regardless of the nuance in flight path they described beforehand.  It is bad enough that anyone would selectively present eyewitnesses.  It reaches altogether new depths when certain parts of their accounts are further cherry-picked to support a theory whilst disregarding other parts.  If you can highlight the flight path described and write-off the fact every one of them corroborate the impact, then I can sure play that game in reverse.

And please, look up the definition of “summary” - it is meant to be a condensed account.

Anyhow…

It has been 3 days since I requested your reasons for discounting Rodney Washington as an eyewitness.  All you have done is spin yourself into the ground over areas we have already covered.  You have given your views and I acknowledge them.  Please could we move forward with this as there are a lot more eyewitnesses to cover.

Rodney Washington…

Edited by Q24, 26 December 2011 - 11:56 AM.

[Scott G]

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

Scott G, on 26 December 2011 - 02:17 AM, said:

I find it interesting how you make this an either/or proposition. If you can't find more SoC witnesses then NoC witnesses...

Scott, it's like you're in shock and horror that I would, "just add witnesses who allegedly saw the impact"  

Disappointed, not shocked. The disappointment stems from what you said in the OP of this thread, namely this:
"Whilst there are indeed eyewitnesses who recall the aircraft on a path  irreconcilable with the damage and impact, there are a greater number of  eyewitness claims which corroborate a path consistent with the damage  and/or impact."

What you just said seems to be throwing out your conclusion made in the OP without so much as bidding it farewell. I admit I like a bit of formality when a person abandons one of their claims, so I ask you now: have you abandoned your claim that there were more SoC witnesses then NoC witnesses? Or is that final bit in your claim the "and/or" part supposed to cover it all? This, in turn, leads me to another point that I made in the post you're responding to:
"Perhaps you're argue that since they "saw" the impact, that they must  have therefore simply been "mistaken" as to the location of the  aircraft. What you don't seem to understand is that it's much easier to  be misled concerning whether or not the pentaplane hit the pentagon, due  to the blinding flash at the time of the explosion there, then it is to  be misled as to whether the plane approached from the North or South  side of the Citgo gas station; especially if you were at the gas station  itself."

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

And rest assured I'm going to include all eyewitnesses to the impact,

I think it would be more accurate to say that you will include all the -alleged- eyewitnesses to the impact. As I'm sure you're aware, PFT, CIT and others such as myself don't believe that the pentaplane impacted the pentagon, which would mean that we don't believe there's a single person who saw the plane hit the pentagon. That being said, PFT, CIT and others certainly believe that many people were fooled into -believing- that the pentagon was hit by the pentaplane.

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

It is bad enough that anyone would selectively present eyewitnesses.  It reaches altogether new depths when certain parts of their accounts are further cherry-picked to support a theory whilst disregarding other parts.

I couldn't agree with you more. Which is why I don't like your "summarizing" of Probst's account. In my view, you're doing precisely what you claim to abhor; cherry-picking parts of his account to support your plane crash theory whilst disregarding other parts.

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

If you can highlight the flight path described and write-off the fact every one of them corroborate the impact, then I can sure play that game in reverse.

I certainly agree with that. However, I don't write off the fact that all the known witnesses believe that the pentaplane hit the pentagon. Instead, I've worked hard to explain -why- it is that they believe that this event occurred. Not only that, but I compare the likelihood of them being mistaken as to the pentaplane impacting the pentagon with the likelihood of them being mistaken as to the pentaplane's flight path.

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

And please, look up the definition of "summary" - it is meant to be a condensed account.

Oh, I know. I just think that you've crossed the line between simply condensing information and cherry picking from it.

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

Anyhow…

It has been 3 days since I requested your reasons for discounting Rodney Washington as an eyewitness. All you have done is spin yourself into the ground over areas we have already covered.

Just because you believe that's what I've done doesn't make it true. I've been thinking about our differing approaches to the pentagon witnesses for some time now. Your approach seems to be to quickly cover all of them while my approach is to cover each of them with much more detail then you're interested in. This reminds me of the fabled race between the tortoise and the hare. For those unfamiliar with the story, the classic version is that the tortoise and the hare compete in a race; as can be imagined, the hare is rather confident that he will win the race, so after zooming past the tortoise, he takes a nap. He sleeps so long, however, that by the time he wakes up, the tortoise has all but crossed the finish line and the hare can't catch up. As you may know, there is more then one version of this story, so I will here make my own. To me, you feel like the tortoise in a way; ever wishing to get on to the next witness. I, on the other hand, am reluctant to go to the next witness because I don't feel that you've properly digested the information I've provided regarding the first one. I think that this is much the same problem that members of PFT had with you when you started a thread for the same purpose over there. The difference being that I will not stop you from bringing up as many witnessses as you wish. However, I will only discuss them when I feel that I'm ready to move on to them. Heading back to the analogy of the tortoise and the hare, my story goes something like this; yes, I can take a very long time in going through material. I tend to focus on things that many people don't find to be that important, atleast initially; and this at times includes groups like PFT and CIT (they've never been too keen on my view that they're far too quick to judge the motivations of those who disagree with them). But as time goes by, I think that people begin to realize that my methodology, while slower, is also far deeper and more accurate in determining the truth.

  

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

You have given your views and I acknowledge them.

Acknowledgement is not the same as understanding. I'm afraid you may not have understood the implications of all the things that I've said, but just as you can't force me to move on to the next witness until I feel ready to, I can't force you to go over something that you feel you already understand, nor would I want to.

  

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

Please could we move forward with this as there are a lot more eyewitnesses to cover.

Indeed. You may be interested in knowing that onesliceshort has covered a plethora of eyewitnesses that those who disagree with the NoC approach and flyover theory have used in the past. If you'd like to see his work on this, it can be found here:
Debunk of detractor witness links, NOBODY contradicts NOC

I'm not saying that I agree with the title of the thread; Wheelhouse certainly doesn't seem to agree with the NoC flight path. That being said, I still think it's a good piece of work and one that I'll probably be using in regards to any further eyewitnesses.

    

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 11:51 AM, said:

Rodney Washington…

Perhaps in a little bit

Edited by Scott G, 26 December 2011 - 05:03 PM.

[Q24]

Scott G, on 26 December 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

Or is that final bit in your claim the "and/or" part supposed to cover it all?

I dunno Scott… do you think “and/or impact” is supposed to cover eyewitnesses who saw the impact?

I think it might.

Of course, if there was an impact, the plane flew a direction corresponding with the damage path.

Scott G, on 26 December 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

In my view, you're doing precisely what you claim to abhor; cherry-picking parts of his account to support your plane crash theory whilst disregarding other parts.

The summary included 1) that Probst didn’t see the whole thing 2) that he can be interpreted to place himself and the plane in locations incongruent to impact and 3) that his account was adversely influenced by the ASCE…

How is that “cherry-picking parts of his account to support [the] plane crash theory”?

Please quit with the dishonest complaints.

Apart from that, it appears you are prefering to spin on the spot some more and talk about a tortoise and hare than actually get on with addressing the eyewitness presented.  Is it because CIT have never properly done your thinking for you on Rodney Washington that you are having trouble?

Come on, I already know what you’re going to say - the reference to “hitting the ground” just short of impact invalidates everything, doesn’t it?  

[Scott G]

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 05:44 PM, said:

Scott G, on 26 December 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

Or is that final bit in your claim the "and/or" part supposed to cover it all?

I dunno Scott… do you think "and/or impact" is supposed to cover eyewitnesses who saw the impact?

I think your problem here is that you keep on assuming that any of the eyewitnesses saw an impact at all. I notice that you didn't respond to what I said following the above statement, namely my quote from a previous post:
"Perhaps you're arguing that since they "saw" the impact, that they  must  have therefore simply been "mistaken" as to the location of  the  aircraft."

This is essentially your argument, isn't it? I assume that it is and proceed by saying:

"What you don't seem to understand is that it's much  easier to be misled concerning whether or not the pentaplane hit the  pentagon, due  to the blinding flash at the time of the explosion there,  then it is to  be misled as to whether the plane approached from the  North or South  side of the Citgo gas station; especially if you were at  the gas station  itself."

I admit I'm interested in knowing why you haven't responded to these points twice now.

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 05:44 PM, said:

Of course, if there was an impact, the plane flew a direction corresponding with the damage path.

On that, atleast, we agree.

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 05:44 PM, said:

Scott G, on 26 December 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

In my view, you're doing precisely what you claim to abhor;  cherry-picking parts of his account to support your plane crash theory  whilst disregarding other parts.

The summary included
1) that Probst didn't see the whole thing
2) that he can be interpreted to place himself and the plane in locations incongruent to impact and
3) that his account was adversely influenced by the ASCE…

How is that "cherry-picking parts of his account to support [the] plane crash theory"?

It fails to mention the points I mentioned earlier. And by the way, as to your point #3, I haven't said that I'm sure that ASCE adversely influenced what Probst had to say, or misinterpreted some of what he did say, but I strongly suspect that one or both of these things occurred. This being said, I also found it highly interesting that it was ASCE who reported that Probst described the pentaplane as going over the Navy Annex.

My point regarding ASCE reporting that Probst stated that the pentaplane went over the Navy Annex is, in my view, particularly important and yet you think it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned. Here's my last comments on that point, which you didn't respond to:

Scott G, on 26 December 2011 - 02:15 AM, said:

Q24 said:

Scott G said:

I also think that the point  of the Navy Annex a crucial one, one which your summation ignores entirely...

Personally I'd like to keep each summary as short as possible whilst incorporating everything you have said. The Navy Annex point you raised  for instance is not ignored but covered by the bolded text in this  bullet: -

• His account, interpreted a specific way, could place both him and the plane in a location incongruent with what he claims to have witnessed.

Sorry  Q, but I think that's pretty bad "coverage"; if the pentaplane flew  over the Navy Annex, there's no need for interpretation; the plane  couldn't possibly have lined up with the SoC damage trajectory. Now I  know that you've stated your belief that he might have been mistaken in  his belief that the plane flew over the Navy Annex. But this doesn't  really help your viewpoint at all. The reason for this is that there are  multiple people who have drawn the pentaplane's flight path over the  Navy Annex, indicating an NoC flight path, but very few who have drawn  an SoC flight path.


I've also noticed that you've skipped  over many of my points regarding his testimony. I'll do a better job of  summarizing my points, in the interests of being more concise. You can,  ofcourse, opt to not add them to your list, but in that case, I think  I'll make a list of my own regarding Probst as I would consider your  list of Probst to only be superficial and unable to bear close scrutiny.


1-  If the plane got to within 6 feet of his position as he claims, he  should have  experienced a lot of turbulence; and yet, he makes no  mention of any. This strongly suggests that the plane wasn't as close to  him as he alleges. Given this fact, we must ask why he felt it was 6  feet from his position; could it be that he was told that this was the  case?


2- He states that the  street lights were falling on  both sides of where he  was but he doesn't  state that the plane had  anything to do with it. Did he even see the light poles falling down,  let alone the plane hitting them, or was he simply told that this is  what happened and simply repeated what he was told?


3- He  mentions that the 2 engines on the plane hit  short of the pentagon  "in  this area out here".. and yet there are many  pictures  clearly  demonstrating that the pentagon lawn was untouched. This brings  to mind the point raised in the 5 minute video Pentagon Strike, which makes fun of the "amazing pentalawn" which allegedly repels massive Boeing engines without a scratch.


4-  He mentions that immediately after the Boeing engines hit the Amazing  Pentalawn ™, there was a "fireball right after" and his  remembering  that the tail section dissapeared into the fireball. Now  here's the  thing; he doesn't  actually say that he witnessed the plane  crashing  into the pentagon,  only that he saw the tail dissapearing into  a  fireball; but if the  explosion was timed to coincide with  the  pentaplane's going over the  pentagon, this is what you would see.

I  don't think that my points above are too detailed, but perhaps for  people who can't spare the time to properly analyze the information, you  may be correct. However, seeing as how I want to discuss this issue  with people who -do- want to properly analyze the information, this  doesn't faze me.

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 05:44 PM, said:

Please quit with the dishonest complaints.

So now I'm making dishonest complaints am I? Care to try to back up that assertion or are you just all talk?

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 05:44 PM, said:

Apart from that, it appears you are prefering to spin on the spot some more and talk about a tortoise and hare than actually get on with addressing the eyewitness presented.

Call it spinning on the spot all you like; I stand by my story of the tortoise and the hare.  I'm willing to spend more time on the witness statements because I want to give the most accurate portrayal of this evidence as possible. Speeding through a slew of witnesses and "summarizing" or, in my view, cherry picking, the arguments  may look good superficially but will be taken apart by anyone who has truly analyzed the witness statements.

Q24, on 26 December 2011 - 05:44 PM, said:

Is it because CIT have never properly done your thinking for you on Rodney Washington that you are having trouble?

If CIT did my thinking for me, I wouldn't be banned from their site. The reason I haven't yet analyzed Rodney Washington's statements is that I have had other things to do, one of which is to protest your summation of Frank Probst's account. Not only that, but I would like to take a look at what others have said here regarding Washington, as well as what oneslice has said about him before making my arguments regarding his account.