General of all American Intelligence:

[Q24]

Scott, I find it interesting to discuss these subjects with you. Increasingly though I am finding every other of your responses to be CIT this, P4T that, Aldo said this, Rob said that. My respect for those groups and the opinions of the individuals driving them is zero; it is my stance that they carry no weight and are not worth the attention that a response would bring. Links and/or copy and paste of text from such sources will be ignored by myself and considered a non-response on your part. If you have gathered information that you find relevant, please could you put it into your own words, demonstrating your own understanding and thus providing your own opinion. As I said, I do find it interesting to discuss these subjects with you.

Another thing – I appreciate the note of my civility but your posts are sometimes accompanied by too much talk about me personally for my liking, I’m sure it’s unintentional but bordering in places on mild ad hominem. I have been guilty here too at times but from now on please let’s make an effort to stick to commenting on the issues being discussed.

If we can apply all of the above then you and I can have an interesting and informative discussion on the topic.

Nothing all that bizarre about it; simply time explosions to go off shortly after the plane begins its flyover. There are even 2 witnesses who claim to have seen a plane fly over the pentagon.

This was the response to my suggestion that a stealth aircraft may be needed to perform a flyover of the Pentagon and go undetected. The response seems to miss the point that was being made so I will try to explain. The reason I believe a stealth aircraft may be required was to prevent tracking of the alleged Flight 77 on radar by ATC. As we know, ATC lost the target when it reached the Pentagon: -

On radar it is hard to associate with a ground point, but they'd be able to tell you roughly the distance from wherever you are, but he couldn't tell you the speed or altitude, and then all of a sudden, as I was talking to him, he said, "Oh, I lost the bogie. Lost the target." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "Well, it's somewhere between Rosslyn and National Airport," and about that time someone broke into the conversation and said, "Mr. Secretary, we just had a confirmation from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines plane go into the Pentagon."

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/min0int-8

This is further supported by air traffic controller Danielle O’Brien who, watching on radar, after seeing the aircraft perform its loop then lost track of the alleged Flight 77.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hijackeWr.htm

If ATC were monitoring the aircraft’s progress, why didn’t they see it move over and past the Pentagon? Why do all ATC accounts describe losing the aircraft when it reaches the Pentagon? This is why I felt it necessary to suggest some sort of stealth aircraft would be needed to perform a flyover and evade ATC.

Not many would have been required for that. Are you atleast curious to know who took the official photos of Lloyd's taxi cab?

I really don’t see why it matters who took the photos of Lloyd England’s cab.

I'm still not sure if the footage was faked or not, but it seems that it was. Regardless, what was seen in the grainy 5 frame video was certainly not a plane.

How do we know the blur in the Pentagon security footage was “certainly not” a plane?

The fact that you now question the NTSB data is, I believe, good progress in this regard.

I have always questioned the NTSB data in so far as the animation goes.

Judging from the fact that the message of yours that sanders responded to in post #100 is missing, I'm guessing that you wrote something that Rob didn't deem to meet the above criteria and it was deleted. You then wrote what appears to be your last message up until now on P4T:

The aim, which I was very clear on in the opening post, was to present every such witness account that supports the official South of Citgo approach. I was quite prepared to note concerns against them along the way. There came a point where I was prevented outright through deletion of my posts from providing anymore witnesses to the official South of Citgo flight path. I had no choice but to make my next post the last; there was no value in continuing. As I said, I will make sure that as many people as possible hear about this censorship of the facts and evidence by P4T.

[Q24]

However, CIT has explained how the details stated by some of the eyewitnesses concerning the approach of the plane make it impossible for it to have actually hit the pentagon.

And here it appears is the whole problem – “the details stated by some of the eyewitnesses”. As demonstrated by the study of American psychologist and expert on human memory Elizabeth Loftus, eyewitness accounts of what they have seen are frequently little better than guesses.

http://www.simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Eyewitness%20Testimony.pdf

Have you ever considered the possibility that to anyone observing, the explosion would have seemed to have swallowed up the plane?

I do not believe the explosion would have seemed to swallow up the plane to all eyewitnesses because there were multiple viewpoints from all sides of the Pentagon – it is not possible for an explosion at a particular point to conceal an aircraft flying all the way over and off into the distance.

There were 2 eyewitnesses who saw a plane fly over the pentagon, however. They were not in a position to see the explosion itself, and were apparently lulled into thinking that it was a second plane; only there was only one plane that was close enough to have executed such a low flyover- the one that allegedly crashed into the pentagon.

The first you mention must be Roosevelt Roberts. Notwithstanding that there is much ambiguity in his account that could fit with him seeing the C-130 fly away, who is the second eyewitness claimed to have seen the alleged Flight 77 perform a flyover?

Since you started the thread with the testimony of Madelyn Zackhem, I'll start with that your belief that she was a credible south side witness.

What is your view of Madelyn Zakhem’s eyewitness account? The report says Madelyn described the aircraft as “directly overhead” her location at the Smart Traffic Centre (STC) at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). Madelyn has confirmed by e-mail that the aircraft flew “straight to the Pentagon”. So I place the witness described flight path here (Madelyn’s position the green dot): -

Is this a closer description of a North or South of Citgo flight path in your opinion? Do you believe I have misrepresented the account? Are there any other problems you believe in Madelyn’s account?

Can you cite this alleged admission from Craig Ranke?

Yes I could but I’m not interested in anyone else’s opinion in this moment in time except yours and mine. Please can you personally address how the account I give for Paik and Morin is wrong. All you say is, “I believe that your lines were soundly debunked at the end of the thread over at P4T” but you don’t explain how or why you believe this.

The blue line is how I interpret the described flight path as it passed over Paik and Morin (positions shown by the green dots). The yellow line is for the North of Citgo claim - do you see that this is inconsistent with Terry Morn’s account as it places the aircraft behind him as he looked out from between the wings of the Navy Annex?

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #326, Part 1

Scott, I find it interesting to discuss these subjects with you. Increasingly though I am finding every other of your responses to be CIT this, P4T that, Aldo said this, Rob said that. My respect for those groups and the opinions of the individuals driving them is zero; it is my stance that they carry no weight and are not worth the attention that a response would bring. Links and/or copy and paste of text from such sources will be ignored by myself and considered a non-response on your part.

Q, I know you spent a fair amount of time over at CIT and especially over at P4T, and I know that some of the things they said about you where fairly harsh; I'm sure the your permanent ban at CIT and your temporary ban and then deletion of atleast one post at P4T didn't help either. I mention all of this because I would like to suggest to you that your personal feelings towards these groups is getting in the way of you seeing their strong arguments. In any case, if they present good arguments, I will continue to cite them; we're not alone in this forum and even if you consider certain parts of my post non responses I don't think that everyone else will. I also hope that eventually you will come to understand that while some at P4T and CIT are certainly prickly (something I wholeheartedly agree with), this does -not- mean that they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the pentagon attack, but rather the reverse; they see your flaws in your arguments and get impatient with trying to explain to you where they are.

If you have gathered information that you find relevant, please could you put it into your own words, demonstrating your own understanding and thus providing your own opinion.

I see no point in reinventing the wheel, although I may put things in my "own words" if I'm going over a rather familiar point they've made and that I've cited before. My opinions are implicit in everything I quote; that is, if I don't -agree- with something I've quoted, I would say so.

As I said, I do find it interesting to discuss these subjects with you.

Thanks :-)

Another thing – I appreciate the note of my civility but your posts are sometimes accompanied by too much talk about me personally for my liking, I’m sure it’s unintentional but bordering in places on mild ad hominem.

Do you mean the comment about your only seeing fragments of what they wrote you over at P4T? Or is this remark of a more general nature?

I have been guilty here too at times but from now on please let’s make an effort to stick to commenting on the issues being discussed.

I think that as a general rule I'm fairly good at sticking to the issues. Could you cite a specific passage where you think I'm getting too personal?

If we can apply all of the above then you and I can have an interesting and informative discussion on the topic.

Well I guess I'll see what you say to my above statements, laugh :-p. I have to go, but think I'll be responding to more of your post later today.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #326, Part 2

Nothing all that bizarre about it; simply time explosions to go off shortly after the plane begins its flyover. There are even 2 witnesses who claim to have seen a plane fly over the pentagon.

This was the response to my suggestion that a stealth aircraft may be needed to perform a flyover of the Pentagon and go undetected. The response seems to miss the point that was being made so I will try to explain. The reason I believe a stealth aircraft may be required was to prevent tracking of the alleged Flight 77 on radar by ATC. As we know, ATC lost the target when it reached the Pentagon: -

On radar it is hard to associate with a ground point, but they'd be able to tell you roughly the distance from wherever you are, but he couldn't tell you the speed or altitude, and then all of a sudden, as I was talking to him, he said, "Oh, I lost the bogie. Lost the target." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "Well, it's somewhere between Rosslyn and National Airport," and about that time someone broke into the conversation and said, "Mr. Secretary, we just had a confirmation from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines plane go into the Pentagon."

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/min0int-8

This is further supported by air traffic controller Danielle O’Brien who, watching on radar, after seeing the aircraft perform its loop then lost track of the alleged Flight 77.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hijackeWr.htm

If ATC were monitoring the aircraft’s progress, why didn’t they see it move over and past the Pentagon? Why do all ATC accounts describe losing the aircraft when it reaches the Pentagon? This is why I felt it necessary to suggest some sort of stealth aircraft would be needed to perform a flyover and evade ATC.

This seems to be a reasonable question. I think that perhaps it got too low to be seen by radar; note that Minetta didn't state they lost it -at- the pentagon, but rather in the general vicinity, when it was definitely rather low. From there, it was fairly close to an airport that I forget the name of, and which some believe it may have landed at.

I think I'll bring it up over at P4T. I cringe at the possible response I might get (that I should go research the thing more myself), but it's a risk I think I'll take.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

This seems to be a reasonable question. I think that perhaps it got too low to be seen by radar; note that Minetta didn't state they lost it -at- the pentagon, but rather in the general vicinity, when it was definitely rather low. From there, it was fairly close to an airport that I forget the name of, and which some believe it may have landed at.

I think I'll bring it up over at P4T. I cringe at the possible response I might get (that I should go research the thing more myself), but it's a risk I think I'll take.

Well, I've now got a thread going there on the subject of the AA 77 radar data, and JFK has been giving me some information; don't think you had any problem with him at any rate, and he's actually one of the admins on the loose change forum; perhaps you might like that loose change forum; it's here:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

I believe I had an account there and that that's where I found Little Fish (aka Headspin) but I've now forgotten what it was, laugh :-).

Edited September 1, 2009 by Scott G

[Q24]

Do you mean the comment about your only seeing fragments of what they wrote you over at P4T? Or is this remark of a more general nature?

I think that as a general rule I'm fairly good at sticking to the issues. Could you cite a specific passage where you think I'm getting too personal?

From this page (edit: now the last page) alone: -

• Q, I have a feeling that all this disagreement with your beliefs, at times in a rather harsh manner over at P4T and CIT, may have gotten to you.
  
• Your only strong weakness is, in my view, your over confidence…
  
• For your sake, Q, I suggest you make sure you know what you're talking about before you say it.
  
• However, in comparison with those over at P4T and CIT, who have studied the issues extensively for years, you're frequently way behind them.
  
• I mention all of this because I would like to suggest to you that your personal feelings towards these groups is getting in the way of you seeing their strong arguments.
  

These are all comments directed at the messanger rather than the argument.

This seems to be a reasonable question. I think that perhaps it got too low to be seen by radar; note that Minetta didn't state they lost it -at- the pentagon, but rather in the general vicinity, when it was definitely rather low. From there, it was fairly close to an airport that I forget the name of, and which some believe it may have landed at.

Yes, this makes sense if the aircraft stayed low and landed immediately after a flyover then it would disappear from radar in the same way as if it had crashed. I assume it would be National Airport that you are referring to. One problem I see: -

Is it conceivable that approximately 100 witnesses saw the aircraft approach along A-B and yet not one single witness saw the aircraft fly the path B-C?

No, this would be beyond reason.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Q24

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #326, Part 3

Not many would have been required for that. Are you atleast curious to know who took the official photos of Lloyd's taxi cab?

I really don’t see why it matters who took the photos of Lloyd England’s cab.

Whoever took those pictures probably knows whether the event was staged or not, don't you think?

I'm still not sure if the footage was faked or not, but it seems that it was. Regardless, what was seen in the grainy 5 frame video was certainly not a plane.

How do we know the blur in the Pentagon security footage was “certainly not” a plane?

A good question. Upon reflection, I remember it being said that it wasn't a boeing 757, but that doesn't rule out other types of planes. Ofcourse, I would say that the eyewitnesses mean that the video had to have been faked, but I've brought the issue up over at P4T anyway; I'll see what happens with it.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Scott G

[merril]

Whoever took those pictures probably knows whether the event was staged or not, don't you think?

I'm beginning to think this is a racial issue. If this man was anyone else (younger, white), you internet bullies would think multiple times before using him, the way you do.

Which is exactly why I detest left wing liberal tactics.

He's black, undereducated, old, and needs to defend his position, but you know he can't.

That is why I bet most people think this conspiracy talk is the product of cowards and low-lifes.

They blame the innocent, with crazy talk.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #326, Part 4 (last part)

The fact that you now question the NTSB data is, I believe, good progress in this regard.

I have always questioned the NTSB data in so far as the animation goes.

Alright.

The aim, which I was very clear on in the opening post, was to present every such witness account that supports the official South of Citgo approach. I was quite prepared to note concerns against them along the way.

Yes, I noticed you did this.

There came a point where I was prevented outright through deletion of my posts from providing anymore witnesses to the official South of Citgo flight path.

I thought it was clear that atleast one of your posts was deleted, due to the fact that post 100 in the south side witness thread was responding to a post that no longer existed of yours. However, I had the following exchange with Rob:

For this reason, I feel that it was unfortunate that Rob felt the need to delete his posts, causing him to leave. But what's done is done.

Posts? Scott, why do you lie?

I didnt delete his "posts" and you know it.

I edited a part of his post (singular) which was designed to obfuscate and evade the questions he was asked to answer based on his past claims in the thread.

What Rob didn't know is that I didn't know. Because post 100 was responding to something that didn't appear in any post of yours that I saw, I assumed that he had deleted a post, not edited out part of one. Assuming that Rob is correct, and he didn't delete but instead only edited your next to last post, it was an honest mistake. Half an hour later, I was suspended until December 10. I understand the pressure that Rob has felt, but these types of things don't help his case.

I had no choice but to make my next post the last; there was no value in continuing. As I said, I will make sure that as many people as possible hear about this censorship of the facts and evidence by P4T.

Well, I've now actually been suspended, and for much longer than you were. I know that Rob censors some things, but so does any relatively large forum that allows complete strangers to come, as far as I know. The real issue, then, becomes what they censor; harsh language, in my view, is something that -should- be censored, but you and I don't use that type of thing. I'm not exactly sure what the information he edited out was, but I seriously doubt it should have been edited out. Nevertheless, I do believe that -Rob- felt it should indeed have been edited out. These things will take time to resolve. There are a lot of emotions in all of this type of thing, so it's understandable that there can be misunderstandings on various things and that these misunderstandings can lead to problems.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #327, Part 1

All I’ve heard said is that an explosion was set-off at the time of the flyover. Yet not one single eyewitness that believed the plane was too high to impact.

The mass media is a powerful thing. If the mass media said that it hit the pentagon, and it seems that it could have, then many people will conclude that it did. However, CIT has explained how the details stated by some of the eyewitnesses concerning the approach of the plane make it impossible for it to have actually hit the pentagon.

And here it appears is the whole problem – “the details stated by some of the eyewitnesses”. As demonstrated by the study of American psychologist and expert on human memory Elizabeth Loftus, eyewitness accounts of what they have seen are frequently little better than guesses.

http://www.simplypsychology.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Eyewitness%20Testimony.pdf

I don't agree that this type of thing applies here, particularly since so many witnesses say the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, all of the south side witnesses you brought up here and at P4T simply aren't credible.

[Q24]

I thought it was clear that atleast one of your posts was deleted, due to the fact that post 100 in the south side witness thread was responding to a post that no longer existed of yours. However, I had the following exchange with Rob:

Forget the “However” and please don’t make excuses for what occurred. You see my post #98, how many times do you see me fire off a one-liner like that? I don’t. The post was originally much longer and included a summary of complaints against the accounts of Paik and Morin and presented evidence of the next witness who supports the official flight path, Don Mason. The text of the post is no longer there so you decide if that is ‘deletion’ or not. All you then get is Balsamo attempting to obscure the issue by bringing up whether he censored ‘a post’ or ‘posts’ – like that matters. It was only one post that was deleted but it goes without saying that if I had reposted that text or presented another witness then it would have been deleted again.

The thread was derailed and I was prevented from continuing its original purpose. The fact is they don’t like certain evidence over there and are quite prepared to use censorship to restrict it.

This is a common tactic of Balsamo that many others have pointed out long before me, ie it is not the first time he has been noted for deleting and/or banning the views of those who disagree with him. Some examples in case you missed them earlier in the thread (credit to Obviousman for these): -

“Incidentally beyond what is there is another post from myself where I again lay down the challenge and again it is not accepted.

Johnny [johndoeX aka Rob Balsamo] actually mods this post

to make it look as though I hurled a load of insults at him. I didn’t, I simply restated what I had already stated. Also he has worded his response to my modified post so as to invite me back to further discuss it. This invitation is false as he has banned me and I not allowed to respond.

…

Looks like

banning, censorship and lies

are once again the norm on a truthseeker forum.”

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1888145&postcount=94

“I notice you

edited that without any record

of an edit. Maybe that is just an administrator privilege or

somebody who can't admit to an error

. Or maybe it is

somebody who likes to control information to make things look the way they want

with no accountability?”

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12518

“I got banned for not disclosing my real name.....

So it would seem that D'oh

had to circumvent his own rules just to ban 'lil ol me

. As far as I could tell no else had a problem with me, and I broke absolutely none of the posted rules....”

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2429719&postcount=24

“Who is the

incurable hypocrite that has banned me

here, for being unprofessional, making personal insults, etc? Well, that's you, you

petty little tyrant

. I did nothing here that remotely broke any rules, yet you felt the need to ban me me for absolutely no good reason.

…

You just ignore or delete or ban anything that you don't want to hear

. That's poor science and a very poor way of doing research.”

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2430673&postcount=34

“I think it is time for the silent readers to speak too. Why doesn't everybody pipe in here and weigh in on whether or not the

person who tries to control our communication

and dominates the forums after coming out of nowhere and destroying our cohesiveness from anonymously behind a computer 24/7 - A person with 3 or 4 months investigating this.”

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1960602&postcount=496

Scan over just my bolded text again to know what we are dealing with here.

Well, I've now actually been suspended, and for much longer than you were.

You were suspended because you continue to raise points that question Balsamo’s theory – they can’t have that because their theories wouldn’t stand up in the case that any considerable opposition should build. I don’t know why anyone would put any faith in him or the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum when they are afriad of open debate.

I don't agree that this type of thing applies here, particularly since so many witnesses say the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, all of the south side witnesses you brought up here and at P4T simply aren't credible.

Why not, because Balsamo and his cronies say so? All they have done is to go out and cherry-pick a handful of witnesses with details that do not match the official flight path from amongst the hundred or so available. They hold these witnesses up as shining lights of virtue and attack all the rest that do not agree with them. It really is a disgusting charade. Again, why do you believe the many South side and/or impact witnesses ‘not credible’?

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #327, Part 2

Have you ever considered the possibility that to anyone observing, the explosion would have seemed to have swallowed up the plane?

I do not believe the explosion would have seemed to swallow up the plane to all eyewitnesses because there were multiple viewpoints from all sides of the Pentagon– it is not possible for an explosion at a particular point to conceal an aircraft flying all the way over and off into the distance.

I haven't seen evidence that there were eyewitnesses that were on all sides of the pentagon, or that this would mean that they would definitely see the plane continuing instead of the blindingly bright explosion. Therefore, I see no evidence for your assertion that it wasn't possible for the explosion to conceal the aircraft.

There were 2 eyewitnesses who saw a plane fly over the pentagon, however. They were not in a position to see the explosion itself, and were apparently lulled into thinking that it was a second plane; only there was only one plane that was close enough to have executed such a low flyover- the one that allegedly crashed into the pentagon.

The first you mention must be Roosevelt Roberts. Notwithstanding that there is much ambiguity in his account that could fit with him seeing the C-130 fly away, who is the second eyewitness claimed to have seen the alleged Flight 77 perform a flyover?

I forget; I've asked over at CIT, we'll see what happens.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #327, Part 3

Since you started the thread with the testimony of Madelyn Zackhem, I'll start with that your belief that she was a credible south side witness.

What is your view of Madelyn Zakhem’s eyewitness account?

My view is that she's not a credible south side witness.

The report says Madelyn described the aircraft as “directly overhead” her location at the Smart Traffic Centre (STC) at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).

I took a look at your source for the above information. There is no evidence that Madelyn described it as "directly overhead". The person who wrote the -article- described it that way. Madelyn herself said:

"It was huge! It was silver. It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the ground.... I was crying and scared"

Over at P4T, Skeptic pointed out to you the implication of her being able to see the cockpit:

If Madelyne could see the cockpit, she could hardly have been under the aircraft when it passed her.

I know you responded to his point in post, essentially admitting that she couldn't have both been underneath the aircraft -and- seen the cockpit. Neither of you apparently realized that Madelyn had never been quoted as saying she had been "directly underneath" the airplane though.

Finally, CIT's Aldo Marquis finished off the credibility of Madelyn as a south side witness, in posts #22 and #23, neither of which you responded to.

Madelyn has confirmed by e-mail that the aircraft flew “straight to the Pentagon”. So I place the witness described flight path here (Madelyn’s position the green dot): -

Is this a closer description of a North or South of Citgo flight path in your opinion? Do you believe I have misrepresented the account? Are there any other problems you believe in Madelyn’s account?

Q, in terms of beliefs regarding Madelyn, you can't separate my beliefs from those of P4T or CIT. I find that the arguments that they have presented are quite good, and have been carefully delineated to you in the post you were responding to; that is, my post #322. I can't make heads or tails of what you've said above, but why should I even bother to try, when you can't even say as much concerning the points that I made in my post #322? As Rob Balsamo told you, "You dont read our posts in full, why do you expect any one to read yours?". I have read your post 327 in its entirety, but I'm not going to try to ferret out where every single point that is wrong with it when you haven't even responded to many of the -last- batch of arguments against your case for Madelyn being a credible south side witness. I can easily imagine that Aldo's 2 posts may have already countered every one of the points you just made.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #327, Part 4

Edward Paik and Terry Morin pretty much said the aircraft flew over them. The image below shows where these two eyewitnesses were located: -

Posted Image

The yellow line is what CIT try to claim that Paik describes, though his account does not actually show this at all. After some pressuring, Ranke even admitted as much.

Can you cite this alleged admission from Craig Ranke?

Yes I could but I’m not interested in anyone else’s opinion in this moment in time except yours and mine.

The reason I ask for a citation actually has to do with my own opinion. You see, there have been times when you have claimed that Craig, Aldo and others have claimed something when, in fact, you atleast partially misunderstood what they said.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #327, Part 5 (last part)

I believe that your lines were soundly debunked at the end of the thread over at P4T. Rob Balsamo, founding member of P4T, responded to your post in post #92:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=17852&view=findpost&p=10775828

Aldo Marquis, founding member of CIT, responded to your post in post #113:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=17852&view=findpost&p=10775901

Now I know that you responded to Rob's post in post #93, Rob countered back in post #94, stating at the end:

I look forward to your diagrams depicting aircraft scale, physical damage path.. .and consistent with witness statements.. .as every one you have provided thus far is impossible.

You responded in post #96, stating the following:

As you claim to be ‘Pilots for 9/11 Truth’ I would have thought that plausible alternative flight paths such as the one I suggest above would have been your place to investigate. Still, a diagram of the format you give as an example would perhaps get the message across. Yes, this is becoming more appealing the longer I think about it - I can show how a flight path can line up with all of the physical damage and be supported by far more witnesses than a North of Citgo approach. As I like a challenge, I will see what I can come up with. Then perhaps you would be kind enough to start addressing my arguments. Thank you for the inspiration.

Rob apparently misinterprets what you say, apparently think that you are asking what evidence -his- flight path theory has, as he responded in post #97 with videos he has done to demonstrate P4T's case:

9/11: Attack On The Pentagon

The North Flight Path

The North Approach Technical Paper

Unlike you Q24, we provide ample information to back our claims. Not only that, but we put our names, faces and professional reputations to the same.

We are still waiting for you to provide a flight path consistent with witness statements which are consistent with the physical damage. To date, you have failed.

I agree with Rob. It's clear to me that, unlike the large amount of evidence in favour of P4T and CIT's flight path theory, yours simply can't hold water. The fact that you want -him- to provide the evidence for your own theory certainly doesn't speak well of it.

You responded in post #98:

To date, I’ve hardly begun.

Finally, Rob Balsamo laid down the gauntlet in post #99:

Clearly...

As every diagram you have proposed has been an utter failure.

Q24, this thread is up to five pages of your frivolous claims, football field sized excuses, and failed diagrams. Are you waiting for page 10 before you "begin"?...

Please can you personally address how the account I give for Paik and Morin is wrong. All you say is, “I believe that your lines were soundly debunked at the end of the thread over at P4T” but you don’t explain how or why you believe this.

Clearly, as can be seen from the above quote of my previous post, I say a great deal more than "I believe that your lines were soundly debunked at the end of the thread over at P4T" :-p. The reasoning was included in the first link in the above quote of mine, which goes to a post from Rob Balsamo. Now I know that you no longer want to listen to what they have to say concerning your lines, or anything else for that matter, but what they've had to say concerning your lines has been the foundation for -my- view, so if you want to understand my view, you're going to have to understand theirs. Since it seems that you failed to click on the link to Rob's post, I will quote from it directly:

you have not provided one flight path consistent with witness statements and the physical damage path for any flying vehicle on this planet.

Whenever you wish to provide such a path, please draw the diagram and we'll analyze it just like we have proven your other paths to be impossible.

The blue line is how I interpret the described flight path as it passed over Paik and Morin (positions shown by the green dots). The yellow line is for the North of Citgo claim - do you see that this is inconsistent with Terry Morn’s account as it places the aircraft behind him as he looked out from between the wings of the Navy Annex?

Aldo compared your line to the NTSB line in post #113, and I had linked to his post as well. Here's the relevant part:

Oh so you are just making up flight paths as you see fit regardless of who or what it contradicts.

Ahem...

Now as we know, clearly Aldo doesn't believe in the NTSB line. I'm guessing he brought it up to subtly allude to the very real possibility that your line wouldn't account for the damage to the light poles -or- the damage to the pentagon itself. I have now asked for confirmation of my educated guess over at CIT.

In all honesty, -no- line, official or otherwise, would account for either, from what I have seen, but the one with the best chances of atleast -looking- possible to those who haven't thoroughly studied the issue is the official story line.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #331, Part 1

Do you mean the comment about your only seeing fragments of what they wrote you over at P4T? Or is this remark of a more general nature?

I think that as a general rule I'm fairly good at sticking to the issues. Could you cite a specific passage where you think I'm getting too personal?

From this page (edit: now the last page) alone: -

• “Q, I have a feeling that all this disagreement with your beliefs, at times in a rather harsh manner over at P4T and CIT, may have gotten to you.”
  
• “Your only strong weakness is, in my view, your over confidence…”
  
• “For your sake, Q, I suggest you make sure you know what you're talking about before you say it.”
  
• “However, in comparison with those over at P4T and CIT, who have studied the issues extensively for years, you're frequently way behind them.”
  
• “I mention all of this because I would like to suggest to you that your personal feelings towards these groups is getting in the way of you seeing their strong arguments.”
  

These are all comments directed at the messenger rather than the argument.

I contend that they are directed at both the messenger and the arguments he makes, and are therefore perfectly valid.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #331, Part 2 (last part)

This seems to be a reasonable question. I think that perhaps it got too low to be seen by radar; note that Minetta didn't state they lost it -at- the pentagon, but rather in the general vicinity, when it was definitely rather low. From there, it was fairly close to an airport that I forget the name of, and which some believe it may have landed at.

Yes, this makes sense – if the aircraft stayed low and landed immediately after a flyover then it would disappear from radar in the same way as if it had crashed. I assume it would be National Airport that you are referring to.

I'll go with your assumption for now, laugh :-). I think I remember it being called Reagan National Airport.

One problem I see: -

Is it conceivable that approximately 100 witnesses saw the aircraft approach along A-B and yet not one single witness saw the aircraft fly the path B-C?

No, this would be beyond reason.

I believe your argument that of the witnesses you have brought up who allegedly saw the aircraft approach on the official flight path, none of them have been credible. On the other hand, I have found that the videotaped witnesses who support the north side approach have been quite credible. I have already mentioned to you that 2 people saw a plane fly over the pentagon; as to people seeing a plane further down, I think I'll ask over at the loose change forum.

Update- I have now found an entire thread addressing this subject over at the loose change forum:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/2151855/1/#new

Edited September 3, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Response to merril's post #333

Quote

Whoever took those pictures probably knows whether the event was staged or not, don't you think?

I'm beginning to think this is a racial issue. If this man was anyone else (younger, white), you internet bullies would think multiple times before using him, the way you do.

Which is exactly why I detest left wing liberal tactics.

<snip>

>.<

merril, no one has ever claimed that Lloyd took the pictures. At present, we don't even -know- the skin colour of the person or people who took them, although it may have been one or more of the people photographed near Lloyd's car at the time of the event, who weren't Lloyd himself; 2 of them were white, 1 was black. I believe this isn't the first time you've tried to smear elements of the truth movement as being 'left wing liberal tactics'. There are certainly a fair amount of right wingers who also question 9/11. I'm not even going to respond to the rest of your post, as it's insulting and clearly innacurate.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #336, Part 1

I thought it was clear that atleast one of your posts was deleted, due to the fact that post 100 in the south side witness thread was responding to a post that no longer existed of yours. However, I had the following exchange with Rob:

For this reason, I feel that it was unfortunate that Rob felt the need to delete his posts, causing him to leave. But what's done is done.

Posts? Scott, why do you lie?

I didn't delete his "posts" and you know it.

I edited a part of his post (singular) which was designed to obfuscate and evade the questions he was asked to answer based on his past claims in the thread.

Forget the “However”

Sorry Q, but I won't do that. I think that Rob had to say was important, if not entirely accurate; I didn't lie, I simply made a somewhat incorrect assumption. Clearly a fair amount of one of your posts was deleted, but not the whole thing, as Rob mentioned, and there were no other posts to which this happened to.

and please don’t make excuses for what occurred.

I am giving the reasons for why it occurred. Giving you the reason is not the same thing as saying that I -agree- with the reason. You know that I don't agree with Rob for his deletion of most of your post.

You see my post #98, how many times do you see me fire off a one-liner like that? I don’t.

Alright. Rob has never denied having edited/deleted a part of your post, so I think we have the truth of what happened fairly clear now.

The post was originally much longer and included a summary of complaints against the accounts of Paik and Morin and presented evidence of the next witness who supports the official flight path, Don Mason.

Do you have a backup?

The text of the post is no longer there so you decide if that is ‘deletion’ or not.

It's a deletion of part of your post; it could be called an edit as well, since it wasn't a deletion of your entire post.

All you then get is Balsamo attempting to obscure the issue by bringing up whether he censored ‘a post’ or ‘posts’ – like that matters.

I would say that it does. I was once in a forum that near the end of my stay there, would delete my posts on a regular basis. They wouldn't even explain why after I asked. For a while, I persisted; I had backups and could simply repost what was deleted. The reason I persisted is because I had a strong feeling that one particular moderator was doing it without the approval of the moderator team. However, I soon came to realize that the other moderators weren't going to interfere, and so I left.

It was only one post that was deleted but it goes without saying that if I had reposted that text or presented another witness then it would have been deleted again.

I agree. He wanted you to address points that had been brought up previously before allowing you to bring up other witnesses. I disagree with his action; I think they were doing a good job of debunking your witnesses, and I wanted every last one of them debunked. Unfortunately, that was not to be.

The thread was derailed and I was prevented from continuing its original purpose. The fact is they don’t like certain evidence over there and are quite prepared to use censorship to restrict it.

What they don't like is that you don't concede that your evidence doesn't hold water. I understand their frustration, but not their method of dealing with it. For one, I thought they were doing an excellent job of debunking your witnesses; why stop the plays when you're on a winning streak? So what if -you- didn't respond to their points debunking yours? All the counters were there for anyone else to see.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #336, Part 2

This is a common tactic of Balsamo that many others have pointed out long before me, ie it is not the first time he has been noted for deleting and/or banning the views of those who disagree with him. Some examples in case you missed them earlier in the thread (credit to Obviousman for these): -

“Incidentally beyond what is there is another post from myself where I again lay down the challenge and again it is not accepted.

Johnny [johndoeX aka Rob Balsamo] actually mods this post

to make it look as though I hurled a load of insults at him. I didn’t, I simply restated what I had already stated. Also he has worded his response to my modified post so as to invite me back to further discuss it. This invitation is false as he has banned me and I not allowed to respond.

On the subject of Rob's harsh treatment of those who disagree with him, we both stand as witnesses for that. This doesn't mean that Rob's views are mistaken on the technical aspects, however. As to the part about Rob extending an invitation, perhaps Rob had originally extended the invitation but then changed his mind and banned him. I believe Rob essentially did the same thing with me; originally I received a warning for allegedly "lying" about him deleting posts of yours (which as I have explained above was simply an incorrect assumption), but shortly thereafter I was banned.

Looks like

banning, censorship and lies

are once again the norm on a truthseeker forum.”

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1888145&postcount=94

We already agree that Rob is rather harsh when it comes to people who disagree with him, and censorship in one form or another is clearly included here. However, someone -stating- that P4T is lying about anything isn't enough. I have seen no evidence that they have ever lied about anything. Misinterpreting the truth is -not- the same thing as lying.

“I notice you

edited that without any record

of an edit. Maybe that is just an administrator privilege or

somebody who can't admit to an error

. Or maybe it is

somebody who likes to control information to make things look the way they want

with no accountability?”

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12518

P4T is accountable to P4T, but to no one else. I agree that Rob engages in too much censorship, and the above doesn't sound good, but none of this discounts from the many good arguments that have been made at P4T.

“I got banned for not disclosing my real name....."

Again, I know that Rob gets somewhat dicey when it comes to uncredentialed people who disagree with him. Shortly after you left, it became an issue with me. I was saved from that by telling him that painter, who's been a member there for a long time, knew the work of my father, and dMole, an administrator there, had posted in sciforums with me, back when they allowed non official story theories concerning 9/11 on their forum.

So it would seem that D'oh

had to circumvent his own rules just to ban 'lil ol me

. As far as I could tell no else had a problem with me, and I broke absolutely none of the posted rules....”

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2429719&postcount=24

Not sure what rules D'oh allegedly circumvented, so can't respond to that.

“Who is the

incurable hypocrite that has banned me

here, for being unprofessional, making personal insults, etc? Well, that's you, you

petty little tyrant

. I did nothing here that remotely broke any rules, yet you felt the need to ban me for absolutely no good reason.

You just ignore or delete or ban anything that you don't want to hear

. That's poor science and a very poor way of doing research.”

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2430673&postcount=34

“I think it is time for the silent readers to speak too. Why doesn't everybody pipe in here and weigh in on whether or not the

person who tries to control our communication

and dominates the forums after coming out of nowhere and destroying our cohesiveness from anonymously behind a computer 24/7 - A person with 3 or 4 months investigating this.”

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1960602&postcount=496

Scan over just my bolded text again to know what we are dealing with here.

Again, I'd have to know more details concerning these cases in order to render judgement.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #336, Part 3 (last part)

Well, I've now actually been suspended, and for much longer than you were.

You were suspended because you continue to raise points that question Balsamo’s theory – they can’t have that because their theories wouldn’t stand up in the case that any considerable opposition should build.

I disagree. I believe that P4T's evidence is rock solid. The problem, as I have told Rob more than once, is what I'll humourously call his 'beside manner'. To be blunt, it needs a lot of work. Even painter, a veritable stalwart in the forum, agrees that Rob can be fairly "prickly".

I don’t know why anyone would put any faith in him or the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum when they are afraid of open debate.

I really don't think fear comes into it. What I primarily sense is anger, based not on fear, but on the pain of being accused of doing bad research when they've clearly done such -good- research, and to be accused of such by people who clearly have done so much less research, no less. Or atleast, it's clear to me. I know it's not for you.

I don't agree that this type of thing applies here, particularly since so many witnesses say the same thing. As far as I'm concerned, all of the south side witnesses you brought up here and at P4T simply aren't credible.

Why not, because Balsamo and his cronies say so?

For starters, Rob Balsamo has flown for around 4000 hours in:

Commercial, Instrument and Multi (don't know what it means, but I'm guessing pilots would)

He's also a Certified Flight Instructor, an Instrument Instructor, a Multiengine Instructor, and a Corporate Chief Pilot. I don't think you've even trained to be a pilot. But this is only the beginning. Time and again, I, Rob, and others here, at CIT and at P4T, have pointed out flaws in your arguments. Time and again, you skip over them, and yet still declare victory. To anyone paying close attention, it's clear that your declarations of victory are hollow. For me, this is good enough; I would -like- to persuade you, but so long as it's clear to the careful observer that you're mistaken, I consider my work to be done. Rob, however, felt that you would confuse people, and that he didn't want to allow that to happen in his forum. However, if anyone were to be confused at P4T, it would be rather simple to clear up their confusion; the place is stacked to the brim with technical expertise on just about any aspect concerning the 9/11 planes. This isn't necessarily the case in other forums.

All they have done is to go out and cherry-pick a handful of witnesses with details that do not match the official flight path from amongst the hundred or so available.

CIT did not 'cherry pick' witnesses. They interviewed all the alleged eyewitnesses of the plane that approached the pentagon who were willing to be interviewed, and did a very good job with the interviews as well. I reiterate that I believe that P4T did a fine job of discrediting the south side witnesses that you were able to bring up as well.

They hold these witnesses up as shining lights of virtue and attack all the rest that do not agree with them.

They point out how the witnesses that support the north side approach are not only virtually always consistent with their own statements, but consistent with witnesses from other vantage points as well. The same can't be said of the alleged south side witnesses that you brought up; even in respect to the individual testimonies, they are at times contradictory; furthermore, atleast some claim to have seen things that they literally couldn't have seen if their alleged location at the time is true.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Scott G

[Q24]

I contend that they are directed at both the messenger and the arguments he makes, and are therefore perfectly valid.

Ok, attacks on the messenger are allowed – your rules.

Whoever took those pictures probably knows whether the event was staged or not, don't you think?

The photographer would not necessarily know more than any other witness depending when he arrived on the scene. And if he didn’t confirm what you want to hear then you would say he must be a part of the conspiracy and carry merrily on your way – that is because you have a strong disposition to believe only what you want to be true.

A good question. Upon reflection, I remember it being said that it wasn't a boeing 757, but that doesn't rule out other types of planes. Ofcourse, I would say that the eyewitnesses mean that the video had to have been faked, but I've brought the issue up over at P4T anyway; I'll see what happens with it.

Focussing on the security footage - why couldn’t it have been a Boeing 757?

Also, you say the eyewitnesses mean the security footage must be faked. Why could it not be that the security footage means the eyewitnesses were incorrect about what they saw? You are once again displaying a heavy favouritism for one explanation over another without apparent reason.

I haven't seen evidence that there were eyewitnesses that were on all sides of the pentagon, or that this would mean that they would definitely see the plane continuing instead of the blindingly bright explosion. Therefore, I see no evidence for your assertion that it wasn't possible for the explosion to conceal the aircraft.

As well as over 100 eyewitnesses who saw the aircraft approach before the impact, there are highways that run all the way around the Pentagon. Take a look on Google Earth and zoom in on those roads to see how many vehicles were driving up and down on a random day. There really would have been many eyewitnesses if the aircraft passed so low on the other side of the Pentagon. You would know this if you bothered to check what you are saying.

You also mention you see no evidence that the explosion would not conceal the whole flyover. The explosion was localised to one side of the Pentagon at one point. If all of the eyewitnesses were directly behind the aircraft in line with the explosion then I would understand your view. The fact is that there were multiple vantage points at different angles and distances from the impact point that the explosion could not conceal.

I know you responded to his point in post, essentially admitting that she couldn't have both been underneath the aircraft -and- seen the cockpit. Neither of you apparently realized that Madelyn had never been quoted as saying she had been "directly underneath" the airplane though.

I realise that “directly overhead” is a second-hand quote based on the editor’s interpretation of Madelyn’s account. As Madelyn herself did not say, “directly overhead” this then does not conflict with her description of seeing the cockpit. What she does indicate is the general direction the aircraft came from and how it seemed to pass over the VDOT building she was next to. This can only support a South of Citgo flight path as the official story.

Q, in terms of beliefs regarding Madelyn, you can't separate my beliefs from those of P4T or CIT. I find that the arguments that they have presented are quite good, and have been carefully delineated to you in the post you were responding to; that is, my post #322.

I summarised the arguments against Madelyn Zakhem’s account. As we saw above that there is no conflict with Madelyn seeing the cockpit, the complaints left are: -

• Her view of the impact was obstructed by trees.
  
• She may be Jewish, Mossad or related to Dov Zakheim.
  

The trees may have blocked her view of the actual impact but not the flight path she witnessed as the aircraft passed over. The speculative linkage of her to the Mossad or Dov Zakheim is unsupported and grasping at straws. These are incredibly weak reasons for not accepting Madelyn Zakhem’s account. I don’t understand how any rational person cannot see this – perhaps you are not simply not rational.

I can't make heads or tails of what you've said above, but why should I even bother to try, when you can't even say as much concerning the points that I made in my post #322? As Rob Balsamo told you, "You dont read our posts in full, why do you expect any one to read yours?". I have read your post 327 in its entirety, but I'm not going to try to ferret out where every single point that is wrong with it when you haven't even responded to many of the -last- batch of arguments against your case for Madelyn being a credible south side witness. I can easily imagine that Aldo's 2 posts may have already countered every one of the points you just made.

I’m sorry if you felt I ignored that post but there is actually nothing new in Aldo’s post that I haven’t already mentioned. You say you can “imagine” that Aldo’s posts “may have” countered my viewpoint. It’s like you don’t actually know what your own argument is but you want me to go looking for it on your behalf. It’s a bit strange to be honest.

The reason I ask for a citation actually has to do with my own opinion. You see, there have been times when you have claimed that Craig, Aldo and others have claimed something when, in fact, you atleast partially misunderstood what they said.

Ok, I do my best to be straight with the facts and it’s a little disappointing that you don’t trust me. Ranke’s acceptance that Edward Paik does not support North of Citgo is here: -

“However for the sake of discussion

I will concede that Paik's account alone does not PROVE the plane was north of the citgo

. But it does prove the plane was north of Columbia Pike which is just as fatal to the official story and is also where the plane would be as it headed north of the citgo as unanimously and independently reported by ALL known witnesses on the gas station's property.”

Of course this does not stop Ranke trying to save face by going on to claim that anywhere North of Columbia Pike is “fatal to the official story”. That is a different tangent to the discussion and still leaves the admitted fact that Paik’s account does not support North of Citgo. I hope that you will follow Ranke ‘sheep-like’ on this point as you do with everything else.

Clearly, as can be seen from the above quote of my previous post, I say a great deal more than "I believe that your lines were soundly debunked at the end of the thread over at P4T" :-p. The reasoning was included in the first link in the above quote of mine, which goes to a post from Rob Balsamo. Now I know that you no longer want to listen to what they have to say concerning your lines, or anything else for that matter, but what they've had to say concerning your lines has been the foundation for -my- view, so if you want to understand my view, you're going to have to understand theirs. Since it seems that you failed to click on the link to Rob's post, I will quote from it directly:

you have not provided one flight path consistent with witness statements and the physical damage path for any flying vehicle on this planet.

Whenever you wish to provide such a path, please draw the diagram and we'll analyze it just like we have proven your other paths to be impossible.

This does not address why you believe my representation of what Edward Paik and Terry Morin describe is inaccurate. I draw the line exactly as Paik and Morin describe and it falls South of Citgo as the official story. I don’t understand how you think Balsamo’s answer opposes this – I’m trying to look for some relevance but it’s not there. The eyewitness statements are not perfectly consistent with the damage path because not all eyewitness descriptions are going to be perfect. Even the North of Citgo witnesses place the flight path in slightly different locations – this is the nature of eyewitness accounts.

Notice it is when I was demonstrating these accounts that Balsamo got involved in the thread, with the ad hominem attacks and derailment really picking up. My post that was deleted summarised complaints against Paik and Morin supporting the official flight path by concluding that, there are no reasoned complaints!

The challenge is still open. Ranke already concedes that the account does not support North of Citgo. Balsamo’s answer relies on the false assumption that eyewitness testimony will always be perfectly accurate. I draw the aircraft passing over Paik and Morin exactly as they described. This provides a South of Citgo flight path as the official story. If you still contend that these are not credible South side witnesses - how and why? Please say if you think there is another way the flight path could be reasonably depicted according to Paik and Morin, because I don’t see it.

Aldo compared your line to the NTSB line in post #113, and I had linked to his post as well. Here's the relevant part:

The blue flight path in that image is not mine.

Now as we know, clearly Aldo doesn't believe in the NTSB line. I'm guessing he brought it up to subtly allude to the very real possibility that your line wouldn't account for the damage to the light poles -or- the damage to the pentagon itself.

First - “Aldo” and “subtly allude” in the same sentence!

As I said above, I know the line I draw exactly as Paik and Morin describe does not match perfectly to the official flight path. Eyewitness testimony by nature will not be perfect every time – some will describe events exactly, some will be a little out and some will be a lot out. Is this really so difficult to understand?

[Q24]

Update- I have now found an entire thread addressing this subject over at the loose change forum:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/2151855/1/#new

Already addressed above – there would be countless witnesses to a flyover.

Sorry Q, but I won't do that. I think that Rob had to say was important, if not entirely accurate; I didn't lie, I simply made a somewhat incorrect assumption. Clearly a fair amount of one of your posts was deleted, but not the whole thing, as Rob mentioned, and there were no other posts to which this happened to.

Wow, Balsamo has suspended you and you’re still defending him – that’s some freaky influence he has over you and it’s quite sad. It reminds me a bit of the faithful lackey that accepts the abuse from his master in the misguided hope that he’ll one day be valued and accepted. I feel a bit sorry for you.

Do you have a backup?

No, I trust that my posts won’t be deleted. The CIT and P4T forums are the only places I have experienced this censorship first-hand.

I agree. He wanted you to address points that had been brought up previously before allowing you to bring up other witnesses. I disagree with his action; I think they were doing a good job of debunking your witnesses, and I wanted every last one of them debunked. Unfortunately, that was not to be.

Well I have described above how truly poor the ‘debunking’ of Madelyn Zakhem’s account was and that ‘debunking’ of the accounts of Paik and Morin do not exist in any reasoned form. I was planning a full summary of the weak excuses at the end of the thread that would have shown how desperate people are to ignore these many accounts to the official flight path.

As for Balsamo derailing the thread from its very clear purpose with his request, this is deliberate trolling and disruption. I even offered to meet the request but it would have been at a time of my choosing and for a different thread; not in a place where it took the evidence that was to be presented off-course.

What they don't like is that you don't concede that your evidence doesn't hold water. I understand their frustration, but not their method of dealing with it. For one, I thought they were doing an excellent job of debunking your witnesses; why stop the plays when you're on a winning streak? So what if -you- didn't respond to their points debunking yours? All the counters were there for anyone else to see.

My evidence doesn’t hold water? They were on a winning streak? You really have some unusual views. They could not accept that they could not deflect me from presenting the many witnesses to the official South of Citgo approach – they do not want that information prevalent on their forum. That is the one and only reason I am not still presenting the eyewitnesses now.

Not sure what rules D'oh allegedly circumvented, so can't respond to that.

We know that Balsamo has double-standards. It’s as he said to me, “And bottom line, my ad homs are welcome here. Yours arent.” I don’t think it would be difficult to accept that Balsamo, as someone said, would “circumvent his own rules”.

Time and again, I, Rob, and others here, at CIT and at P4T, have pointed out flaws in your arguments. Time and again, you skip over them, and yet still declare victory. To anyone paying close attention, it's clear that your declarations of victory are hollow. For me, this is good enough; I would -like- to persuade you, but so long as it's clear to the careful observer that you're mistaken, I consider my work to be done.

I haven’t seen you point out a single flaw in my argument. To any average person paying close attention your rhetoric about how you are so right about ‘no impact’ at the Pentagon will appear quite ridiculous I’m sure.

CIT did not 'cherry pick' witnesses. They interviewed all the alleged eyewitnesses of the plane that approached the pentagon who were willing to be interviewed, and did a very good job with the interviews as well.

If CIT have not cherry-picked then why aren’t all of the witnesses they interviewed, including those who describe the official South of Citgo flight path and/or seeing the impact, included in their ‘National Security Alert’ presentation?

Obviously you will say in your brainwashed style that this is because CIT deemed all of the South side eyewitnesses to be not credible. How one cannot see that this is simply an excuse for their cherry-picking is beyond me. I could only put it down to some cult mentality where the word of the leadership is taken without question. Who are they to be selective with the evidence? Present everything and allow people to decide for themselves instead of acting like information control freaks.

They point out how the witnesses that support the north side approach are not only virtually always consistent with their own statements, but consistent with witnesses from other vantage points as well.

Where do you get these ideas from? The North of Citgo witnesses all show variation in the exact flight path they describe. Brooks and Lagasse contradict every witness who describes the aircraft coming over the Navy Annex. Turcios and Lagasse, two witnesses located at the Citgo, contradict one another as well - Turcios draws the flight path passing over the corner of the Citgo station but if this were true then Lagasse wouldn’t have even seen it as the Citgo canopy would be in the way. One of them is obviously lying! Further, Lagasse cannot even place the downed light poles correctly which can only be consistent with a glitch in his memory or else fabrication in his account. In fact both Lagasse and Brooks are government employees - the same government from which 9/11 was perpetrated - highly suspicious! And the men Lagasse is seen talking to in the van on security footage shortly before the alleged Flight 77 arrived, one must wonder what their role was in the operation. The North of Citgo eyewitnesses are clearly unreliable. If you think that I’m being silly then please consider that this is a reverse of precisely how you treat the greater number of eyewitnesses to the official South of Citgo flight path.

One last thing because I don’t recall anyone answering this yet – in the case that some genius did propose an unnecessary and high risk flyover of the Pentagon, why would the downed light poles, generator hit and Pentagon impact damage all be lined up, along with heading data from the FDR and then when it comes to executing the plan the flyover aircraft be flown from an inconsistent direction? Wouldn’t that be a little… stupid?

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #327, Part 1

Do you mean the comment about your only seeing fragments of what they wrote you over at P4T? Or is this remark of a more general nature?

I think that as a general rule I'm fairly good at sticking to the issues. Could you cite a specific passage where you think I'm getting too personal?

From this page (edit: now the last page) alone: -

• 
  * “Q, I have a feeling that all this disagreement with your beliefs, at times in a rather harsh manner over at P4T and CIT, may have gotten to you.”
  * “Your only strong weakness is, in my view, your over confidence…”
  * “For your sake, Q, I suggest you make sure you know what you're talking about before you say it.”
  * “However, in comparison with those over at P4T and CIT, who have studied the issues extensively for years, you're frequently way behind them.”
  * “I mention all of this because I would like to suggest to you that your personal feelings towards these groups is getting in the way of you seeing their strong arguments.”
  

These are all comments directed at the messenger rather than the argument.

I contend that they are directed at both the messenger and the arguments he makes, and are therefore perfectly valid.

Ok, attacks on the messenger are allowed – your rules.

I never said that. I simply believe that if the messenger has flaws in their reasoning, those flaws should be pointed out.

[Scott G]

Response to Q24's post #327, Part 2

Whoever took those pictures probably knows whether the event was staged or not, don't you think?

The photographer would not necessarily know more than any other witness depending when he arrived on the scene.

Mike says he photographed some pictures; that he had his car parked there. When asked what he was doing there, Lloyd says he doesn't know. I assume you believe Lloyd to have been telling the truth about Mike. So tell me, what do -you- think Mike was doing there? In any case, Mike does mention that he -thinks- that he didn't take any pictures of the pole in the windshield. The fact that he claims to not remember suggests that he witnessed the alleged pole speared in Lloyd's windshield, even if he didn't take pictures at that point.

And if he didn’t confirm what you want to hear then you would say he must be a part of the conspiracy and carry merrily on your way

For me, it's quite clear that the light pole damage was faked. I currently have 4 reasons for believing this, regardless of what any potential photographers of Lloyd's taxi cab might say:

1- The credible witnesses on the north side flight path.

2- The uncredible witnesses on the south side flight path.

3- The impossibility of the light pole damaging the cab in the recorded way.

4- The impossible dive pull out that the plane would have had to have made in order to follow the official flight path.

The only reason I'm even bothering to try to ascertain things people like Mike or any other possible photographers of the event have said is because you and others still question certain facts.