Army Center for Military History FOIA Complete

[R.Mackey]

Mackey,

You're getting worked up because logic has you in a corner.

Scientists do not require a hypothesis to accept evidence.

It simply doesn't work that way.

Sigh.

Maybe you should get someone to read my posts to you out loud. You can't even understand them. I've clarified myself several times that I am not refusing to accept evidence.

I'll accept all of it. ALL of it.

The north side evidence, if accepted as valid, proves the physical damage was not caused by the plane.

No! This is a gigantic leap you've just made -- you've circumvented the entire scientific method. You've just stated that there is only one hypothesis that fits the evidence, without clearly stating what it is, or bothering to test it. That's rubbish.

Whatever hypothesis you choose to explain what happened to the plane after it passed NoC is up to you but it is completely unnecessary to validate the north side evidence.

Utter stupidity. ALL evidence needs to be considered. If some evidence conflicts with others -- and you've already admitted this is true -- then it is completely necessary to validate ALL the evidence.

That should be common sense.

Yes, it should. But for some reason you seem to lack it. I can help, but you're going to have to catch up.

But the fact that you have refused to even view the evidence (and that is not a lie, since your question is answered in "The Second Plane Coverstory" and "The Flyover: How They Pulled It Off") means you really aren't in an intellectual position to comment on the issue at all.

You keep saying this, without the faintest shred of proof. I'm beginning to think this is typical behavior for you.

Anyway, I'm not going to ask you a fifth time. I'll simply assume you cannot answer my question regarding your hypothesis, and therefore you accept that it makes no sense -- there is no advantage to Them to deliberately contradict Their own cover story with a totally different aircraft flying a totally different mission.

This means it's time to look for other hypotheses. Period. I don't care if you understand this or not, it's a fact.

 

[BCR]

Back to lurking for me, I really have not the stomach for this utter nonsense anymore, but could you at least do everybody a HUGH favour. Stop derailing every single thread where the word Pentagon appears with this nonsense, some of us are actually interesting in the topic of the thread, not your endless derailments.

And of course that is his mission in life, to derail threads and detract.

 

[R.Mackey]

I now lurk here and to be honest cannot even begin to understand why anybody would engage you ,let alone extend you any form of courteously,but alas some do. I personally find your entirely theory and your general approach to this subject utterly distasteful.

For the record, the reason I'm discussing with him is simple -- he's the last one. Once we put this to bed (yet again) or he commits suicide-by-mod, it's really over for the Truth Movement.

Whether this better resembles the Last of the Mohicans, or instead the final solitary dodo, I leave for the reader to determine.

 

[Bananaman]

Well, R Mackey has framed his response in far more logical and less caustic sentences than mine, and I admire him for his restraint in this respect. Our replies, however, are much the same. I can imagine Monsieur Mackey now tutting over his breakfast porridge and wondering why he bothers.

Bananaman.

 

[Sparky]

Mackey,

You're getting worked up because logic has you in a corner.

Scientists do not require a hypothesis to accept evidence.

It simply doesn't work that way.

The north side evidence, if accepted as valid, proves the physical damage was not caused by the plane.

Whatever hypothesis you choose to explain what happened to the plane after it passed NoC is up to you but it is completely unnecessary to validate the north side evidence.

That should be common sense.

But the fact that you have refused to even view the evidence (and that is not a lie, since your question is answered in "The Second Plane Coverstory" and "The Flyover: How They Pulled It Off") means you really aren't in an intellectual position to comment on the issue at all.

Now I'm convinced that you're weapons-grade crazy.

 

[stateofgrace]

For the record, the reason I'm discussing with him is simple -- he's the last one. Once we put this to bed (yet again) or he commits suicide-by-mod, it's really over for the Truth Movement.

Whether this better resembles the Last of the Mohicans, or instead the final solitary dodo, I leave for the reader to determine.

I admire your optimism but I doubt it will ever be really over for these guys. They will keep coming, keep saying the same thing over and over again. It is not about the truth, it is simply about recruitment. The more they say it, the hope is that eventually somebody somewhere will buy into it and their ranks are increased. It is all about getting as many people as they can to see it their way, that way it makes them feel better about themselves. The more that buy into this, as utterly absurd as it is, the greater the success is.

This is now simply wack a mole, where one gets put down, up pops another repeating the same stuff over and over again. I read some threads now and simply sigh as claims are repeated over and over.

With taking a back seat now and no longer actively engaging in this debate I am able to see clearly the absurdness of these claims. You and many others have gone to great lengths and shown great patience in explaining, clearly and precisely why they are wrong and this is admirable. In my opinion they have been utterly defeated, they have nothing left and maybe this is the final twitch of this movement before it finally, mercifully sinks into oblivion.

But then again maybe that is me being optimistic, also.

@ 911files, thanks for postings these interviews they give a great insight into this event from a very personnel point of view of those involved. I have read them and one thing that strikes me is that these really are real people, with real families and real concerns.

Real people, Cters, yes real people were involved in this.

 

[bje]

CIT has nowhere to go and nothing to do.

It is reduced to talking to itself on Loose Change Forums, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and its own forum. People are bored with CIT on ATS and activity there is much reduced. Craig and Aldo have reached a dead end.

In these last few days, TLB seems to want and invite Suicide by Mod. He has certainly earned it.

 

[The Big Dog]

In these last few days, TLB seems to want and invite Suicide by Mod. He has certainly earned it.

Really? CIT's paperboy? I don't see it, why would CIT let their pet be rude over here, when thy get about 10 pages views a day over at their own site, and LCF is a sad little irrelevancy?

Cripes, if TLB says anything even remotely inconsistent with the CIT party line, Aldo will eat him!

 

[Mr.Herbert]

People are bored with CIT on ATS and activity there is much reduced. Craig and Aldo have reached a dead end.

This is true. If you go to ATS, you will see that Craig makes attempts at regurgitating old threads that he started. All he has over there is Spreston and one or two idiots. The stats at ATS are pretty telling regarding 911 CT's. The 911 CT's only make up 1.3% of all the threads at ATS. (sorry about the derail)

 

[beachnut]

And of course that is his mission in life, to derail threads and detract.

When will TLB be exposed by the fantastically inept CIT investigators as a NWO shill, posting tripe of CIT and Balsamo, failed delusions letting the world can see the pathetically insane delusions. No one can lack the amount of knowledge exposed in TLB posts, he has to be working for the DoD “counter intelligence branch” to expose Balsamo’s superiority at stupid math, and CIT failure to make one valid conclusion based on testimony. By drawing attention to the dolt like ideas of p4t and CIT, TLB ensures we see video evidence of CIT witnesses pointing to the “official flight path”.

Every time TLB posts, he reminds me of the CIT witness Boger who watched Flight 77 impact the Pentagon on 911.

 

[beachnut]

Happy Super Bowl Sunday everyone.

This reminded me. Tell TLB if he uses any flight path at all, Paik's multile non-flyable curves, or made up ones from CIT delusions, they have to include a heading of 70 degrees in the last 6 seconds to match reality! TLB is wrong due to evidence, why do he insist on posting stupid ideas from CIT over and over again.

 

[jhunter1163]

That isn't what that picture got me thinking of.

 

[Bell]

That isn't what that picture got me thinking of.

I'm just looking at her medailon.

"She isn't wearing a medailon!"

 

[BCR]

This reminded me. Tell TLB if he uses any flight path at all, Paik's multile non-flyable curves, or made up ones from CIT delusions, they have to include a heading of 70 degrees in the last 6 seconds to match reality! TLB is wrong due to evidence, why do he insist on posting stupid ideas from CIT over and over again.

Beachnut, if that is what that picture reminded you of...then you are definitely in need of serious help my friend

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Utter stupidity. ALL evidence needs to be considered. If some evidence conflicts with others -- and you've already admitted this is true -- then it is completely necessary to validate ALL the evidence.

Exactly. But despite your claims otherwise, its clear you haven't viewed CIT's evidence. What you keep ignoring is that:
Your questions are answered in the presentations!

Anyway, I'm not going to ask you a fifth time. I'll simply assume you cannot answer my question regarding your hypothesis, and therefore you accept that it makes no sense -- there is no advantage to Them to deliberately contradict Their own cover story with a totally different aircraft flying a totally different mission.

This is nothing but an agrument from incredulity. Period. Nevertheless I have answered your question here. This is the part that you ignored:

The gist of it is that the decoy jet was meant to fool most people into believing that it hit the building but the 2nd plane cover story would be out there as an explanation for the people who actually saw it fly over or away from the building.

So it would be close enough to the damage to fool people but also a bit off track to more easily be written off as a "2nd plane".

Stories of a "2nd plane" shadowing it and flying away at the time of the explosion were floated in the media and reinforced with a few planted witnesses. We know for a fact there was no "shadowing" plane but we also know that a few dubious accounts and media reports quite explicitly floated this notion within the first days of the event.

This originally came mostly from a series of articles written by Terry Scanlon for the Daily Press about the C-130. If you read them it's clear that he deliberately has the plane in the airspace at the same time as the explosion but of course we know from the Tribby video and the ANC witnesses that it wasn't there for about 3 minutes later.

For the record, the reason I'm discussing with him is simple -- he's the last one. Once we put this to bed (yet again) or he commits suicide-by-mod, it's really over for the Truth Movement.

So, in other words, you're setting out to reject a hypothesis? Do you not understand that this is confimation bias?

 

[Alt+F4]

The north side evidence, if accepted as valid, proves the physical damage was not caused by the plane.

Yet the bodies of the people on that plane were found in the Pentagon.

 

[Bell]

The gist of it is that the decoy jet was meant to fool most people into believing that it hit the building but the 2nd plane cover story would be out there as an explanation for the people who actually saw it fly over or away from the building.

So it would be close enough to the damage to fool people but also a bit off track to more easily be written off as a "2nd plane".

Stories of a "2nd plane" shadowing it and flying away at the time of the explosion were floated in the media and reinforced with a few planted witnesses. We know for a fact there was no "shadowing" plane but we also know that a few dubious accounts and media reports quite explicitly floated this notion within the first days of the event.

This originally came mostly from a series of articles written by Terry Scanlon for the Daily Press about the C-130. If you read them it's clear that he deliberately has the plane in the airspace at the same time as the explosion but of course we know from the Tribby video and the ANC witnesses that it wasn't there for about 3 minutes later.

What a DUMB and STUPID story!



How anyone can believe such idiocy, is beyond me.

Btw, you owe me a new computer screen.

 

[R.Mackey]

Exactly. But despite your claims otherwise, its clear you haven't viewed CIT's evidence. What you keep ignoring is that:
Your questions are answered in the presentations!

No, they aren't. And when I asked you for clarification, it took five tries.

You have no evidence that I haven't "viewed your evidence." And I already said I'd accept it.

This is nothing but an agrument from incredulity. Period. Nevertheless I have answered your question here. This is the part that you ignored:

So why did it take five tries for you to answer the question?

Is it, because perhaps, your explanation is insufficient? Quite mad, in fact?

Consider the following: This is what you said, as your explanation of why.

The gist of it is that the decoy jet was meant to fool most people into believing that it hit the building but the 2nd plane cover story would be out there as an explanation for the people who actually saw it fly over or away from the building.

So, parsing it carefully:

• There was one aircraft. It flew a different trajectory than the "fake" impact story. It was also a different aircraft color, and possibly configuration. (You agreed to this before.)
• The aircraft trajectory was different so that, if anybody saw it, they might believe it wasn't the impact aircraft at all, but in fact a second aircraft.
• Also implicit in the above, if the aircraft trajectory matched the "fake" impact story, nobody would believe it was the phantom second aircraft, therefore the nonconforming trajectory is necessary.

Total nonsense. This redefines ridiculous. You are postulating a decoy aircraft that you wanted nobody to see. You assume that, if it flew over the Pentagon and somebody saw it do so, that they'd believe a cockamamie story about a second plane (at the same time, which nobody has presented) if it came along one heading but not the other.

It is trivial to come up with a better hypothesis.

Now, back to the issue of evidence -- you throw tantrums over me not "viewing" or "accepting" evidence, but what about you? What evidence do you accept?

I want you to make a list for me of the evidence that exists, and which you accept or reject. No need to explain why, just make a list. I'll bet you reject a heck of a lot more evidence than I do.

So, in other words, you're setting out to reject a hypothesis? Do you not understand that this is confimation bias?

Nope. That isn't what I said at all. Like I said, you need someone to help you understand my posts.

Besides, an essential step in the scientific method is testing hypotheses. This is done for the express purpose of rejecting them. That is not confirmation bias, that's the way the system works. When you're done, whichever one best fits the tests is the winner -- and you don't stop until you've rejected all but one.

That isn't confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is ignoring tests in favor of your own, pet hypothesis. I'm quite sure I can provide you with an example, if you go through the process. Start by listing your evidence, as asked above, and we'll soon see.

 

[beachnut]

What a DUMB and STUPID story!



How anyone can believe such idiocy, is beyond me.

Btw, you owe me a new computer screen.

Delusions are funny.

I find the delusion of Balsamo, CIT, and pilots who were duped into joining p4t reprehensible and fraudulent since 19 terrorists murdered Americans on 911 and these dolts at CIT and p4t lead by Balsamo can’t figure out 911 in 7 years and are apologizing for terrorists like the rest of 911Truth. All without one piece of evidence they make up lies and Balsamo is not able to stand up to his lies, he is only trying to say he imply lies by having a philosophy for his rant of offering no theory. We have less than 0.01 percent of pilots who back Balsamo; a good sign, we can’t have a lot of idiots flying the heavy jets, things can go wrong and you want a rational pilot who can save you when all hell breaks out instead of making up fantasy, you want real results. Lucky for us, there are only a few fringe pilots who have dumb ideas on 911.

They spew delusions based on their hate of government and call everyone a liar, shill, or agent who disagrees with their dim-witted delusions.

The CIT and p4t delusion are pathetic and so dumb they become a test for the intelligence level of the people who repeat them blindly and without any skepticism.

The cult members of 911Truth did not make up the dirt dumb ideas, they sometimes make the dirt dumb ideas dumber.

 

[BCR]

Mackey, I for one appreciate your application of logic to TLB's silliness and I understand why you are doing so. However, I regrettably will be starting a thread later this evening which is going to be taken out-of-context by TLB and his buddies at CIT as "evidence" of their hypothesis. Anyone wishing a preview so that they can prepare may send me a pm and I will advance some of the data. I especially need to hear from anyone with a background with audio waveforms.