Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[bje]

Material evidence (Law), evidence which conduces to the
proof or disproof of a relevant hypothesis. --Wharton.
[1913 Webster]
In BJE's post, he asks whether I would consider all witnesses to all events around the Pentagon to be material evidence. If the above definition is what BJE means, I do not agree since there may be witnesses who have witnessed events surrounding the Pentagon that are neither conducive to proof nor disproof of a relevant hypothesis.

No, you have the cart before the horse.

Any investigation will start with gathering evidence and interviewing eyewitnesses, wouldn't you agree?

Any hypothesis would arise from the outcome of that process, not before, even if investigators are confident of knowing what they think happened beforehand. A professional investigator would want to gather as many relevant facts and interview as many eyewitnesses as he can find or who find him, not exclude eyewitnesses or their statements that contradict what he thinks may have happened. So, back to my question:

Consistent with your responses so far, I interpret your above statement to include all witnesses to all events surrounding the incident at the Pentagon as material evidence to be vetted and considered in any investigation, am I correct?

 

[T.A.M.]

Well scum always sits on the top, so lets change crap to scum...lol

PS: No offense to my mates in Aussie and NZ.

TAM

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

So what?

EVEN if what you say is true it doesn't mean squat.

People get little details wrong all the time. In fact, the mind has a habit of filling in those details after the fact.

Is THIS the kind of thing you base your delusion on?

I base my theories on evidence. If Morin's testimony is so unreasonable, why is it used as the basis for Reheat's (strawman) calculations? Why did you 'critical thinkers' lap up his bs math so uncritically?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I base my theories on evidence. If Morin's testimony is so unreasonable, why is it used as the basis for Reheat's (strawman) calculations? Why did you 'critical thinkers' lap up his bs math so uncritically?

Evidence eh? So then where does the bodies and remains of flight 77 in the Pentagon fit into your conclusion of a fly over?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Any investigation will start with gathering evidence and interviewing eyewitnesses, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, unfortunately much of the evidence in this case was taken by the suspect and permanently sequestered. That's why CIT is so important- they are gathering an analyzing new evidence. Some people don't like new evidence, especially when it overturns a commonly-believed paradigm. They will do anything to stop such investigations- even creating a speculative model in order to prove the data 'impossible'.
No testimony should be excluded from the possibility of becoming "material evidence".

 

[e^n]

e^n, I would like to express my admiration for your endless patience - over countless threads both here and elsewhere - in explaining actual science to people who prefer to reject actual science in favour of their fantasies. I wish I had such patience and knowledge.

Thanks Glenn, I do my best.

Some people don't like new evidence, especially when it overturns a commonly-believed paradigm. They will do anything to stop such investigations- even creating a speculative model in order to prove the data 'impossible'.

I replied to your addressing of my model. Can you do me the courtesy of replying to me now?

 

[The Big Dog]

I base my theories on evidence. If Morin's testimony is so unreasonable, why is it used as the basis for Reheat's (strawman) calculations? Why did you 'critical thinkers' lap up his bs math so uncritically?

"I base my theories on evidence." No you don't, you accept what the CIT frauds tell you to think.

"If Morin's testimony is so unreasonable," FAIL! Stop being obtuse, Cit Fan. We are saying that CIT's interpretation of his testimony is unreasonable. CIT claimed that this witness supports their theory. So reheat simply used CIT's own witnesses to describe the CIT's alleged flight plan, and proved it to be impossible.

"Why did you 'critical thinkers' lap up his bs math so uncritically."

What a farce. TheLoneBedouin post your own calculations using the CIT's own witnesses to support their own theory, or kindly STFU.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

This is a constant rate, constant level turn.

Not according to Morin, who witnesses a descent. This decreases g load for a constant bank and speed.

What you seem to be misunderstanding is this, given the impact/flyover vector, and the Paik / NoC Columbia vector, there is a set number of degrees of turn required. By taking a circular flight path this results in the longest possible turn time, and therefore the lowest possible bank angle.

And what exactly is the "impact/flyover vector"- might your calculations change if the flyover did not occur precisely over the impact point?

Nobody reports a bank anywhere near the amount required

The new witnesses report fairly steep angles- watch the trailer.

* The plane was much slower

Craig's interview with Morin supports this.

* The NoC flightplan is not consistent with witness accounts

e^n, you know that this is an idiotic exercise in futility if we don't have the data to form even a vaguely accurate mathematical model. Please stop supporting Reheats nonsense- there are more fruitful methods of analyzing CIT's data.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Tell me LB, why is it that if he makes a statement like "right over me", we're to assume he was using a figure of speech and meant, "right over me not like right right right over me but more like right over like over there where you want me to point....."

Because witnesses are subjective and it would lead to a logical impossibility if we took the statements literally.

Or when he said "parallel to", you know that we should know that he was aware that what he actually meant was, "well sort of close to and alongside, but not really parallel to".....

Because witnesses are subjective and it would lead to a logical impossibility if we took the statements literally.

I don't see the significance of this thread

Of course you don't. You and other Jrefers have a propensity to miss the crux of the matter.

 

[bje]

Yes, unfortunately much of the evidence in this case was taken by the suspect and permanently sequestered.

That is a curious diversion from the subject matter at hand. The question I asked is: consistent with your responses so far, I interpret your above statement to include all witnesses to all events surrounding the incident at the Pentagon as material evidence to be vetted and considered in any investigation, am I correct?

No testimony should be excluded from the possibility of becoming "material evidence".

Would you explain to us what eyewitness testimony at the Pentagon would possibly not be considered as material evidence? Is there any, in your mind?

 

[The Big Dog]

CITFAN sez:

"And what exactly is the "impact/flyover vector"- might your calculations change if the flyover did not occur precisely over the impact point?"

Aha! CITFan rolls out the flyover did not have to occur at the precise point of impact backtrack! Well, of course it does, or else another part of CIT's stupid little theory of NOC/Flyover does not work. You see, CIT has always claimed that Hollywood pyrotechnics were necessary to convince their own witnesses that the plane hit the pentagon. So if the plane did not flyover the impact site, the pyrotechnics would not have obscured the alleged flyover.

When are you goofballs gonna realize that the only part of the CIT fraud that the CIT's own witnesses don't contradict is that the plane hit the Pentagon?

Now make with the math, CITFan.

 

[Reheat]

This is a constant rate, constant level turn.

Not according to Morin, who witnesses a descent. This decreases g load for a constant bank and speed.

This is undiluted Balsamo with Ranke parroting it. He's said this dozens of times. I'm through arguing with a hard head.

Find any aeronautical site on the Internet which support this in context. In other words an authoritative written source. You lose again....

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

The question I asked is: consistent with your responses so far, I interpret your above statement to include all witnesses to all events surrounding the incident at the Pentagon as material evidence to be vetted and considered in any investigation, am I correct?

No. The "entire body of witnesses" means "the entire body of witnesses to events concerning the attack at the Pentagon". It does not mean "the entire body of witnesses to events surrounding the attack at the Pentagon". Evidence must be appraised before it is considered material evidence, not after.

Would you explain to us what eyewitness testimony at the Pentagon would possibly not be considered as material evidence?

For example, if someone lied about there location, and they are proven to be in a completely different location than they said they were, their testimony would be invalidated and hence would neither prove nor disprove a hypothesis.

 

[Reheat]

No. The "entire body of witnesses" means "the entire body of witnesses to events concerning the attack at the Pentagon". It does not mean "the entire body of witnesses to events surrounding the attack at the Pentagon". Evidence must be appraised before it is considered material evidence, not after.

This is exactly one of the primary reason you fail and are a deceptive fraud. You didn't do your homework to determine if what YOUR witnesses said was aeronautically possible.

For example, if someone lied about there location, and they are proven to be in a completely different location than they said they were, their testimony would be invalidated and hence would neither prove nor disprove a hypothesis.

You like that word "lie" don't you? You wouldn't be able to function without it. That's another of your problems, you use CIT convoluted logic to determine if you think they might be mistaken and then call it a lie at your whim. Do you really believe that people don't see through your ludicrous smoke screen?

 

[robeeb]

LoneBedouin,

For five pages now, you have put forth a multitude of observations regarding aircraft design, capabilities, and aeronautical principles of flight. You are portraying yourself as someone who has experience, and extensive knowledge in these areas. Yet, your original post on page one, written by you just yesterday, demonstrates a lack of knowledge of even the most basic elements and terms of aeronautical design. You had no idea what a FIXED WING aircraft was until another member here explained it to you. You have no clue as to what a fixed wing aircraft is. If you are unaware of basic definitions like this, why should anyone believe any of your "knowledge" regarding the far more complex aeronautical principles you are attempting to pass off as facts?

Let me put it to you this way, would you trust a carpenter to build you a house if that carpenter didn't even know what a 2X4 was?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

This is exactly one of the primary reason you fail and are a deceptive fraud. You didn't do your homework to determine if what YOUR witnesses said was aeronautically possible.

The difference between you and I, is that I like to do my homework correctly. If humans were capable of determining exact heading, speed, aircraft performance, wind speed, aircraft modifications, etc., then I would be able to do my homework.
Humans, of course, can't do these things. They can only accurately determine location in relation to reference points and can only approximate things like speed, heading, wind speed, type of aircraft, etc.
There is simply no way your calculations are remotely accurate. Period.

 

[The Big Dog]

The difference between you and I, is that I like to do my homework correctly. If humans were capable of determining exact heading, speed, aircraft performance, wind speed, aircraft modifications, etc., then I would be able to do my homework.
Humans, of course, can't do these things. They can only accurately determine location in relation to reference points and can only approximate things like speed, heading, wind speed, type of aircraft, etc.
.

YES! Finally, a CIT fan is beginning to see the light! Human testimony about location, speed, heading, wind speed, type of aircraft, etc. is necessarily fallible. When you couple this together with CIT’s known predilection for cherry picking, ignoring contrary evidence, leading and misleading their own witnesses, perhaps you will begin to see why the CIT is considered a laughingstock by even those in the Truth Movement.

“There is simply no way your calculations are remotely accurate. Period.” Oh dear... show us how the “calculations” are incorrect, CITfan. (He is confusing the absolutely correct “calculations” with the fact that CIT’s own witnesses make the NOC flight path impossible. Sad.)

 

[Drs_Res]

The difference between you and I, is that I like to do my homework correctly. If humans were capable of determining exact heading, speed, aircraft performance, wind speed, aircraft modifications, etc., then I would be able to do my homework.
Humans, of course, can't do these things. They can only accurately determine location in relation to reference points and can only approximate things like speed, heading, wind speed, type of aircraft, etc.
There is simply no way your calculations are remotely accurate. Period.

Bolding mine.
And some can't even do that. *cough*Craig Ranke*cough*
So why do you and the CIT use witness testimony to trump physical evidence?
Why do you all ignore everyone, including you own witnesses, who say the plane hit the Pentagon?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

why should anyone believe any of your "knowledge" regarding the far more complex aeronautical principles you are attempting to pass off as facts?

Technically, neither of those designs have "fixed" wings. Vectored thrust (which Reheat doesn't mention in the article, despite dismissing on LCF) would *not* be subject to the same bank angles since the entire point is to vector thrust in directions besides "forward". Furthermore, there *are* aircraft that can make his ridiculous turns- so it is simply a lie to say that his calculations are "aircraft independent". This was more of a side note anyway, since he clearly misinterpreted Morin's account.
A more important question is why have so many self-proclaimed "critical thinkers" accepted the distortions of an anonymous "pilot" without raising such basic questions?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

So why do you and the CIT use witness testimony to trump physical evidence

Cit supports the physical evidence.