8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[mudlark]

Saw it, read it, already pointed out that they were garbage.

You said earlier that you did your own research, so get to it. At this point the flight path is PROVEN!

Now just show it was POSSIBLE

You´ll have to show me the figures you came up with and I´ll run them by
Pilotsfor911truth. See how they stand up.
I´m here to talk about witness testimony and must be apparently touching a few nerves as you all avoid it like the plague.
I´ll run through a few more witnesses to see what you think.

Btw. Still waiting on those SOC witnesses.

Cheers

 

[mudlark]

What the fark are you on, dude?

What is with all the cherry picking?

Frank Probst, south side witness, and all that craziness just goes to show, what, ALDO THINKS HE LIED ?

Well, well, I guess we need your math more than ever!

DO THE MATH YOURSELF CIT FAN!

Cherrypicking?
Those were Frank Probst´s own words and taken from the ASCE report (although NOT directly quoted by him as regards the damage).
He can ONLY be in this position on the lawn. He was ´approaching the heliport´

he left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27

So it took him how many minutes to reach the alleged spot shown on the official path 80-100m away? The guy must have been in no hurry huh?

You know I´m right going by HIS testimony.

Aldo has nothing to do with me. I speak for myself.

 

[alexi_drago]

His description of the fine debris falling around him is interesting as the total debris field is to the NORTH of the alleged impact point. Towards the heliport.

Did he state how fine the debris that was falling around him was?

Considering where the debris can be seen in the photos, maybe how the angle of reflection relates to the angle of incidence should be taken into consideration also.

 

[The Big Dog]

You´ll have to show me the figures you came up with and I´ll run them by
Pilotsfor911truth. See how they stand up.
I´m here to talk about witness testimony and must be apparently touching a few nerves as you all avoid it like the plague.
I´ll run through a few more witnesses to see what you think.

Btw. Still waiting on those SOC witnesses.

Cheers

Well good luck with that! Cap'n Bobby just kicked Tino out of the group, so, yeah, Good Luck!

i mean PFFFFFt can't do better than that! say, Cap'n Bobby find someone else's couch to sleep on?

Tee hee hee!

 

[mudlark]

Did he state how fine the debris that was falling around him was?

Considering where the debris can be seen in the photos, maybe how the angle of reflection relates to the angle of incidence should be taken into consideration also.

Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him.

Apparently they were very light/small pieces of debris since they were ´floating´ but the ASCE report would have him here:

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/official_flight_pathprobst.jpg

in direct line with the ´right engine´ that he alleges nearly hit his head.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/pent04.jpg

The debris is concentrated to the Northwest of the facade.
He claimed that the debris was floating, physically, about him.

 

[Thunder]

its 2010. the time for investigating 9-11....is looooooong gone.

sorry guys. you'all missed the boat.

 

[mudlark]

Well good luck with that! Cap'n Bobby just kicked Tino out of the group, so, yeah, Good Luck!

i mean PFFFFFt can't do better than that! say, Cap'n Bobby find someone else's couch to sleep on?

Tee hee hee!

= ´blowing hot air´

Okay. Thought you might have had actual numbers.

 

[DGM]

This tread has gotten funny in the last hour (I played my son in Tiger Woods golf). We got two "truthers" spinning their wheels for what? Tomorrow morning no one will still be listening to them and they still will be arguing a flight path that's physically impossible for a 757. It must suck to be them.

I did like this from BCR:

The math and physics is the difference between the tooth fairy and an actual plane being discussed. So far, you have been talking tooth fairy

Really sums it up.

 

[Thunder]

hmmm.....i see no fly-over.

oh well. America 1: 9-11 Truth zero.

 

[mudlark]

Well, if someone says something that stands up to facts and evidence, I tend to believe him. When HI said his wife was fat, I believed him. When the AA77witnesses said they saw the plane hit the pentagon, I believed them. All the facts and evidence supports their claims. See:
[qimg]http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/3337/outputl.gif[/qimg]

Wow, the ´5 frames´...the manouevre, altitude, trajectory and white plume NOBODY saw.
Ask Sean Boger about that video. Ask Wanda Ramey why she claimed the plane ´skipped up´ on the lawn. Why so many within the immediate vicinity believe the plane flew at third floor level across the lawn.

Tell me, do you still believe ´NOC or SOC, the plane still impacted the building´?

 

[mudlark]

This tread has gotten funny in the last hour (I played my son in Tiger Woods golf). We got two "truthers" spinning their wheels for what? Tomorrow morning no one will still be listening to them and they still will be arguing a flight path that's physically impossible for a 757. It must suck to be them.

I did like this from BCR:


Really sums it up.

Ignorance is bliss huh?

These ´SOC witnesses´ are like tooth fairies too.

 

[alexi_drago]

Apparently they were very light/small pieces of debris since they were ´floating´ but the ASCE report would have him here:

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/official_flight_pathprobst.jpg

in direct line with the ´right engine´ that he alleges nearly hit his head.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/pent04.jpg

The debris is concentrated to the Northwest of the facade.
He claimed that the debris was floating, physically, about him.

How do you know the debris he was talking about was the debris visible in the photo from your earlier post? The debris in that didn't look like it would float very well and in fact would be an indicator of which direction the plane came from, angle of reflection=angle of incidence (on opposite sides of wall normal), floaty debris would suggest to me small particles that possibly wouldn't even be visible in a photo like that and could be all over the site.

 

[carlitos]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

Could you possibly endeavour to posit one possible theory as to what happened on 9/11 at the Pentagon?

In other words - OK, 8 witnesses saw whatever at a gas station. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??????

 

[DGM]

Ignorance is bliss huh?

These ´SOC witnesses´ are like tooth fairies too.

So who exactly have you convinced of your "theory"?

I know you don't care but I did shot a 10 under a Tory Pines.

 

[Thunder]

um....if the plane flew over the Pentagon, how come the hotel video shows no plane...fly over the Pentagon?

is it a Mossad CGI video???

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Read the tech paper here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=122

Okay, let's start with a very small sample from page 4 of that paper:

Note - It is impossible to determine exactly when the "pull out" was initiated since we do not have vertical speeds for the northern approach aircraft witnessed, unlike for the claimed southern approach provided and plotted by the NTSB which calculates to an impossible "pull" (See "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon").

Balsamo's claim that the southern approach "calculates to an impossible pull" has been refuted many times. See, for example:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

In a thread at AboveTopSecret, Balsamo responded to that particular refutation by agreeing that the southern approach does not imply an impossible pull (contrary to the central claim of his video, quoted at the beginning of the refutation cited). Balsamo continued to pretend that his calculations were correct "based on the data", but the FDR data to which Balsamo refers was missing its final seconds. Balsamo vehemently denied that in the video cited above, but the recent recovery of four missing seconds shows that Balsamo was quite wrong about that. As a consequence, all of his calculations and conclusions in the video cited above are now known to be worthless, despite Balsamo's best efforts to obfuscate that fact.

Any questions about it ask them.

So you are unwilling to defend the only mathematical reference you cited?

Since the sentence on page 4 of the reference you provided has been proved incorrect, and you are unwilling to defend it, why should we bother to read any other part of the article you cited?

Note well: I have used the words "known", "fact", and "proved" with their generally accepted meanings.

 

[Algebra34]

um....if the plane flew over the Pentagon, how come the hotel video shows no plane...fly over the Pentagon?

is it a Mossad CGI video???

You don't have a plane. Where is it?

 

[mudlark]

How do you know the debris he was talking about was the debris visible in the photo from your earlier post? The debris in that didn't look like it would float very well and in fact would be an indicator of which direction the plane came from, angle of reflection=angle of incidence (on opposite sides of wall normal), floaty debris would suggest to me small particles that possibly wouldn't even be visible in a photo like that and could be all over the site.

If it was so minute how could it have gone AGAINST the blast, the main debris field and the wind to reach him within seconds?

 

[alexi_drago]

If it was so minute how could it have gone AGAINST the blast, the main debris field and the wind to reach him within seconds?

The larger debris from the plane crashing into the wall and breaking up (material either going through wall or being reflected), lighter debris as a result of the explosion/fireball going in all directions?

 

[mudlark]

Okay, let's start with a very small sample from page 4 of that paper:

Balsamo's claim that the southern approach "calculates to an impossible pull" has been refuted many times. See, for example:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

In a thread at AboveTopSecret, Balsamo responded to that particular refutation by agreeing that the southern approach does not imply an impossible pull (contrary to the central claim of his video, quoted at the beginning of the refutation cited). Balsamo continued to pretend that his calculations were correct "based on the data", but the FDR data to which Balsamo refers was missing its final seconds. Balsamo vehemently denied that in the video cited above, but the recent recovery of four missing seconds shows that Balsamo was quite wrong about that. As a consequence, all of his calculations and conclusions in the video cited above are now known to be worthless, despite Balsamo's best efforts to obfuscate that fact.


So you are unwilling to defend the only mathematical reference you cited?

Since the sentence on page 4 of the reference you provided has been proved incorrect, and you are unwilling to defend it, why should we bother to read any other part of the article you cited?

Note well: I have used the words "known", "fact", and "proved" with their generally accepted meanings.

You´ll have to go to their forum and argue your point with him.
I entered this ´debate´ on seeing YOUR link to witnesses who allegedly contradict NOC.
16.5 in the very next post said that there were ´100s of SOC witnesses´
Both posts are false.
Read what I posted. Then I will post the remainder.
NONE contradict NOC between the Navy Annex and the Pentagon lawn. NONE.