8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[Baylor]

The damage from the lightpoles, through to the trailer and subsequent damage to the building can NOT be physically possible from this trajectory.

Once again, how do you even know the damage to the building? Because using your hero's own...err....logic....you have no way of knowing unless it's "independently verified."

"Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building."

 

[Thunder]

Sorry I don´t go by the word of government agencies on ANYTHING concerning the Pentagon

"To doubt everything and to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions, both dispense with the need for thought" -Henri Poincare

 

[Baylor]

I love this. From the two morons' webiste they're so proud of. First they tell us we have to accept "unverifiable government evidence" from the ASCE, so we know the damage to the pentagon.

"As made clear in the video presentation National Security Alert, it is impossible for a plane on the north side -- let alone one in a significant right-hand bank as described by all witnesses who were in the best locations to observe the plane's flight path as it approached from over the Navy Annex -- to hit the light poles or cause the directional damage to the building outlined in the ASCE Building Performance Report".

Then they go on to tell us not to accept "unverifiable government evidence."

"Unverifiable, government-alleged evidence such as this cannot be accepted on pure faith as valid in light of the fact that it is contradicted by conclusive, independent, verifiable evidence indicating that the plane did not hit the building."

 

[mudlark]

Spin it? The only one spinning here is you mudlark. I am just exposing a fatal flaw in the animation you yourself posted which directly contradicts Morin's own testimony you quoted in that very animation. I am not spinning anything. I am pointing out how you and CIT have to nudge the boeing further north despite the witness testimony to further your conspiracy. I think everyone here can see what you are doing. It is a case of special pleading

You still haven´t explained how the witness list you linked to contradicts NOC.
I call that avoiding the issue.
Just link to a site that you in all likelihood have never read yourself.
I have presented hard facts for honest skeptics to decide upon. NOT the childish rants and half-truths that masquerade as debate on this thread.
You criticize MY style of debate?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

What have those figures regarding the possibility of an NOC flyover got to do with those two disagreeing over a completely separate issue??

It's a spectacular example of Balsamo's documented propensity to ban those who disagree with him. That is why your repeated admonitions to move our technical discussions from JREF to PfT are naught but a laughable dodge.

You said that it does not address the pull up and that is false. You didn´t bother your rearend to read it.

The pull up is addressed in detail on page 4.

As I have pointed out, page 4 makes a claim that has been thoroughly refuted. You have refused to address that fact, while repeating the dodge mentioned above.

The Balsamo/Desideri paper actually goes off the rails on page 1, by repeating Balsamo's factually incorrect assumptions concerning the flight data recorder (FDR). The reason I directed you to the error on page 4 is that it is easier to understand and better documented; your inability to acknowledge the sensational error on page 4 implies you don't have the technical chops to understand any part of the paper you cited.

I have answered every post which is more than can be said for anybody else here.

No, you have dodged almost every attempt to engage you in technical discussion.

Insults, proven falsehoods and total ignoring of facts presented seem to be the norm on this subject.
I haven´t seen YOU add anything useful.

That describes your history in this thread, but not mine.

If you are able to refute the math presented do so

I have refuted several of Balsamo's calculations here:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/Software/

and present your "debunk" to P4T

As has been pointed out to you several times now, no serious discussion of this can take place at PfT because Balsamo bans anyone who dares to disagree with him. He even banned the co-author of the paper you've been citing.

but stop demanding that I present the math because it's all right there.

By what right do you demand we stop demanding you present the math?


You have presented no mathematics apart from citing the Balsamo/Desideri paper and the video based on its calculations. That paper contains errors, which you have refused to discuss.

Will

 

[Thunder]

You have finally access to the documentation of said physical evidence?
Or are we still going bythe word of the FBI?

do you think the FBI was "in on it"?????

 

[BCR]

No matter how you spin it, the plane was above him.
He was within the wings of the Annex.
It was NOT flying parallel to the Navy Annex to the outside of the structure.

He is corraborated by more than 20 witnesses at various strategic points to draw this conclusion.

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/NOCandstraighttestimony-3.jpg[/qimg]

Now, lets see the math for that fine trajectory you are proposing

Or show it to us in the fdr or in the radar data. How about those NoC lamp poles that Lagasse says got knocked down that Brooks saw. Give us something besides 'he said, she said'.

 

[332nd]

Yeah listen, it has already been established in this thread that these ´witness links´ are fatally flawed and that they do NOT debunk NOC.

Yes they do.

Sorry I don´t go by the word of government agencies on ANYTHING concerning the Pentagon, especially if it is not backed up by documented, verifiable evidence.

It is and it's been shown to you.

These pictures wouldn´t be of the undocumented plane parts I was referring to would they?

Look for yourself.

 

[A W Smith]

Mudlark, Why does your Morin animation have the Boeing flying behind him in relation to the direction he was walking when in that very animation itself Morin's quoted text describes it as directly above him?

No matter how you spin it, the plane was above him.
He was within the wings of the Annex.
It was NOT flying parallel to the Navy Annex to the outside of the structure.

Spin it? The only one spinning here is you mudlark. I am just exposing a fatal flaw in the animation you yourself posted which directly contradicts Morin's own testimony you quoted in that very animation. I am not spinning anything. I am pointing out how you and CIT have to nudge the boeing further north despite the witness testimony to further your conspiracy. I think everyone here can see what you are doing. It is a case of special pleading

You still haven´t explained how the witness list you linked to contradicts NOC.
I call that avoiding the issue.

this post avolided the issue? how?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5420599&postcount=61

Just link to a site that you in all likelihood have never read yourself.
I have presented hard facts for honest skeptics to decide upon. NOT the childish rants and half-truths that masquerade as debate on this thread.
You criticize MY style of debate?

Funny, Is it that you cannot answer why the animation contradicts Morin's quoted testimony or simply will not answer? Morin's testimony contradicts a NOC flight path. Which is why you had to nudge the Boeing to the north of morin and to his back at an angle when he specifically states it was directly over him and parallel to the edge of the annex. Your animation also does not jibe with the Paik testimony. If you draw a line through the fuselage in the Morin animation and follow the direction the plane is flying, it would backtrack south of columbia pike before it passes Paiks shop. And please don't claim I am spinning. I am taking Morin's testimony quite literally and pointing out the discrepancy in the animation. Morin's testimony is literally south of Citgo.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Suggest you guys do this. Why continue to repeat stuff from 2006?

There really are only a handful of people who would argue this rabidly about such insanity, and I'm quite sure we've seen each of them at this forum before, so... yeah... I'm taking that suggestion.

 

[332nd]

Suggest you guys do this. Why continue to repeat stuff from 2006?

Because then I would have to come up with examples of logical fallacies, poor arguments, and general "what-not-to-do" stuff for my classes when I teach speech classes.

 

[twinstead]

I would agree. Arguing with irrationals is, well, irrational.

 

[triforcharity]

The plane flew NOC.
The damage from the lightpoles, through to the trailer and subsequent damage to the building can NOT be physically possible from this trajectory.
The plane could NOT have hit the building.
A missile? No.
Explosives? Yes.

Debunk NOC THEN you can call me a ´crank´

Is that your 2 cents worth?

Crank.

If there were a bomb inside the Pentagon, why aren't there desks, and filing cabinets, and chairs and such strewn all about the lawn??

 

[BCR]

If you are able to refute the math presented do so and present your "debunk" to P4T but stop demanding that I present the math because it's all right there.

We (including me) have completely reviewed and 'corrected' the math in that paper. Just because someone claims it is 'math', and perhaps it is, does not mean it reflects reality or adheres to mathematical and/or physics 'good practice'. This is a rather simplified example of what I am talking about.

[latex]$$ v_z = a_zt $$[/latex] <- P4T calculating vertical speed

Yes, this is a general alebragic form which represents a calculus concept of velocity change. However, it is only good for the change in velocity (speed), not the final velocity. It dismisses initial conditions.

[latex]$$ v_z = v_0 + a_zt $$[/latex] <- correct form for vertical speed

This is a very simplified example, but is just one very common error from the P4T folks. The paper also relies on subjective curves and values derived in a 3D graphics program, not actual real world values. When the real world values are used, the results are dramaticly different.

So when you present a paper that uses real world math and not tooth fairy math, then I will be more than happy to engage you to whatever level you wish to go. But a paper on the flight of the tooth fairy is not math.

 

[BCR]

Suggest you guys do this. Why continue to repeat stuff from 2006?

Because sometimes after enough engagement, a light bulb turns on even in the darkest of rooms that CIT/P4T cultists call a mind. I give you turbofan as a prime example. No one was more shocked than I when he freed his mind from the 'dark side'.

 

[Hokulele]

But a paper on the flight of the tooth fairy is not math.

Maybe their math is similar to Velveeta. It isn't real cheese, but a "pasteurized processed cheese product". PfT math isn't real math, but "bastardized simulated math by-products".

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Because sometimes after enough engagement, a light bulb turns on even in the darkest of rooms that CIT/P4T cultists call a mind. I give you turbofan as a prime example. No one was more shocked than I when he freed his mind from the 'dark side'.

I'd have never thought... if you don't mind me asking how recently was this?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[off-topic]

Not that I mean to derail any... but when did this happen!?

He's probably referring to turbofan's "break-up" with Rob Balsamo over the whole "cockpit door was never opened" debacle. I didn't get the impression that turbofan gave up his paranoid, delusional mindset entirely--only that he finally saw Balsamo for what he was--but I may have missed something. I didn't follow that soap opera too closely...

ETA: Ack. You edited.

I'd have never thought... if you don't mind me asking how recently was this?

Beginning of last month: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5371041#post5371041

[/off-topic]

 

[BCR]

I'd have never thought... if you don't mind me asking how recently was this?

It was around a month ago over on ATS. He could no longer swallow the P4T stuff about the FLT_DECK_DOOR parameter in the Warren decode. The resultant cat fight between him and Rob was most entertaining.

And yes, it was not a complete transition to the light, but it was a significant step forward.

 

[Childlike Empress]

What's your impression?

twinstead, any stance on what was presented to you so far? Or do you prefer to keep your brain in the cupboard? Any shot from the hip prothesis?