A documentary more powerful than Loose Change ... blows the lid off the Inside Job!

[Fred259]

[quote=eyes wide open;140469]

Posted by fred259 (here)

Posted by fred259 (here)

Posted by eyes wide open (here)

Posted by eyes wide open (here)
why are you so hostile? In this thread you have called me poisioness, a disinfo artist, hinted i am insane and now you are trying to publicly humilate me by saying i do not respect 9/11 family members. This is very upsetting for me as i actually work with some of the familiy members.
I cant belive you would use such a cheap shot
i stayed away from this thread for a while and now, a few posts in, you start name calling again.
Way out of line with that post. Reported.

this is your post eyo

1) everything you type here is fabricated and false because you have no radio show and the documents on autopilots are forged.
2) the documents contained in the thread are forged government documents originally published by the faa in washington and the caa in london.
You eyo posted this…


on 19th january 2011 in post #149 you posted this;

on this week's "9/11 in context" show, which airs thursday, january 20, at 3pm et, i will interview researcher aidan monaghan, who has investigated the 9/11 flights in great detail with important results. Aidan has also filed a wide range of foia requests from government agencies and filed lawsuits seeking information related to the 9/11 attacks. Today's discussion will focus on aidan's impressive research into the autopilot technology available for 757s and 767s at the time of the attacks, contradictory black box information provided by government agencies, and other unusual circumstances related to the flights.

Here is your link of your post.

eyo this is your post

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ide-job!/page8

stop subverting the truth….

Posted by eyes wide open (here)

Posted by fred259 (here)

Posted by eyes wide open (here)

way out of line with that post. Reported

no i respectfully disagree.
.

so you stand by your insults then.[color="red"]

fred, i want to know your reasons for attacking me and your reason for standing by your insults. As this was done publicly and more than once, i, in turn (and fairly i believe), would like a public apology.
Saying i have “no heart” and could not care less about the victims and family members has caused me a lot of hurt and to be honest is salting the wound you opened by saying i was “ spreading poison, a disinfo artist,” and hinting i am insane.

It has been suggested that we take this to pm but i don’t see why you should get away with a private apology for such a public attempt to smear me. Also, i have little faith that an aplogy would be forthcoming anyway as you have already stated you stick by your insults.

on 19th january 2011 in post #149 you posted this;

on this week's "9/11 in context" show, which airs thursday, january 20, at 3pm et, i will interview researcher aidan monaghan, who has investigated the 9/11 flights in great detail with important results. Aidan has also filed a wide range of foia requests from government agencies and filed lawsuits seeking information related to the 9/11 attacks. Today's discussion will focus on aidan's impressive research into the autopilot technology available for 757s and 767s at the time of the attacks, contradictory black box information provided by government agencies, and other unusual circumstances related to the flights.

Here is your link of your post.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ide-job!/page8

when i saw this i got excited thinking eyo has a radio show and if you recall i suggested that perhaps you might want to invite john lear on your show, who would at least provide some balance and above all john is someone who knows what he is talking about.

Then in post# 163 you posted this.

Whoops! I should have made clear i am not the host. I posted this from their site. Apologies for giving the wrong impression. My fault! I feel silly now.

I think the number is on the site somewhere. I am sure they will give it out as some point to.
I am just a humble research librarian. I could never present in a million years. I have enough problems talking in front of a bunch of noisy students where i work.

Your concerns are very valid. It might be worth you emailing them to the show. You raise some fantastic points.

So you will understand eyo that i felt a bit cheated , here you were inferring one thing when something quite the opposite was the case. Never mind mistakes happen.

I then decided to look through the documents’ you provided contained in the link. To my utter astonishment it was clear that the documents had been forged.

In the subsequent papers contained within your link it was clear someone had taking policy documents published around the early 1980’s by the faa in washington and the caa in london, cutting and deleting the facts and inserting lies.

The matter related to the width of an airway or air corridor which ladies and gentleman is 10nm wide or 60,800 feet. However this factual information had been deleted and a figure 243 had been inserted. They didn’t say if it was feet meters or boiled eggs. Immediately i knew this was ludicrous and this was confirmed to me when turning the page of the document here was a picture of the world trade centre size 280feet next to an inserted image of an aircraft on the air corridor that according to them is now 243.

You will recall i asked you for an explanation about these forged documents, and asked that you remove them but you decided that it was in the public interest that they should read all these lies and then decide. I will give you full marks for the quality of presentation however.

So first you tell me you have a radio show which turns out to be incorrect and after reading your documents and found then to be forgeries who you forgive me for thinking that you were not who you purported to be.

In subsequent posts you suggested that john lear was a fraud and that he didn’t know what he was talking about, and provided me with a link on the old forum.

As it happens i have the highest respect for john and so i decided to research the thread and this essentially involved a conversation between henry deacon and john lear who were discussing a secret base contained within the sea of copernicus on the surface of the planet moon. (the base had been airbrushed over on the photograph)

so while thousand around the world were reading in utter amazement, this crafted banter between two great masters in jumps eyo. We don't need to go into details suffice to say that the mod’s were left running around like headless chickens trying to find bill.

So eyo whilst you do provide much entertainment i really do find that for me at least its unacceptable to forge or distribute government documents or elude you have a radio show or any knowledge or experience on discussions on autopilots and so really i have nothing much more to say. It does seem to me that you would rather derail progress of the thread and i am personally very disappointed that john no longer blogs on the forum.

I am therefore unable to offer you the public apology you seek, and ask that you perhaps reflect on the reasons for my decision.

nb one of the problems with women is they always like to be in control! Furthermore they always seem to think they “are” right.

My wife thinks i am being very hard on you eyo.

Therefore it’s proper and right that you should have an apology, but will this correct the error of your ways.

I will therefore provide a full written public apology, when you remove the documents that are falsehoods and forged.

I think that’s a good deal.

F

i did not post the areopspace site which you say contains fake documents.
I have told you this 4 times now.
So therfore, there is no need for me to delete anything.
Therefore, you have no reason not to post an apology.
*waits*
after your apology (which i am very greatful for by the way) maybe then i will re-engage with your points.

in the meantime, i look forward to your rebuttle of tys points and your joining of the forum that ty posted. Lets see if your ideas hold water. Or are they full of holes?
Will you post on that forum?
You seem certain of your convictions on this forum. Why should that foruim be different?
All you have to do is copy and paste your points to that forum. It shouldnt take you long.


Also, i supoose richard gage is a disinfo artist now and has been "taken in".
Well?
Or could it be, "gasp", that he actually thinks the flyover thoery is rubbish having looked into it himself.
I know crazy idea huh?

P.s. Listen to your wife more.

This is YOUR POST EYO

1) Everything you type here is fabricated and false because you have no radio show and the documents on autopilots are forged.

2) The documents contained in the thread are forged government documents originally published by the FAA in Washington and the CAA in London.


YOU EYO posted this…


On 19th January 2011 in Post #149 you posted this;

On this week's "9/11 In Context" show, which airs Thursday, January 20, at 3pm ET, I will interview researcher Aidan Monaghan, who has investigated the 9/11 flights in great detail with important results. Aidan has also filed a wide range of FOIA requests from government agencies and filed lawsuits seeking information related to the 9/11 attacks. Today's discussion will focus on Aidan's impressive research into the autopilot technology available for 757s and 767s at the time of the attacks, contradictory black box information provided by government agencies, and other unusual circumstances related to the flights.

Here is your link of your post.


EYO THIS IS YOUR POST


https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ide-Job!/page8 < Forged Docs HERE

Stop Subverting the truth….

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

ANOTHER SEES THE LIGHT.

Like Richard Gage, I too was impressed by CIT's assemblage of witnesses asserting an approach path of Flight 77 at odds with the official version, and said so. I have never believed that the 757 flew over the Pentagon, and have never stated that I did.

In the light of what Gage has learned about CIT's methods, I wish, like him, to withdraw my original endorsement of the CIT video.

Sincerely,

Peter Dale Scott

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-1...t-cit#comments

[Fred259]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
ANOTHER SEES THE LIGHT.

Like Richard Gage, I too was impressed by CIT's assemblage of witnesses asserting an approach path of Flight 77 at odds with the official version, and said so. I have never believed that the 757 flew over the Pentagon, and have never stated that I did.

In the light of what Gage has learned about CIT's methods, I wish, like him, to withdraw my original endorsement of the CIT video.

Sincerely,

Peter Dale Scott

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-1...t-cit#comments

Your reputation is built on lies and forged documents, until you address the issue above no one is going to take your seriously. Families included.

[Icecold]

Well it looks like Ty and EWO are working for the MIC.

Now I only say this because nobody could be that dumb and I'm sure these two gentlemen are smart cookies.

Gentlemen how much are you getting paid for this op?

I could use a few bucks for petrol this week.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Icecold (here)
Well it looks like Ty and EWO are working for the MIC.


Gentlemen how much are you getting paid for this op?

.

So anyone that disagrees is dumb or is disinfo right? Please retract you insinuations against me.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Fred259 (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
ANOTHER SEES THE LIGHT.

Like Richard Gage, I too was impressed by CIT's assemblage of witnesses asserting an approach path of Flight 77 at odds with the official version, and said so. I have never believed that the 757 flew over the Pentagon, and have never stated that I did.

In the light of what Gage has learned about CIT's methods, I wish, like him, to withdraw my original endorsement of the CIT video.

Sincerely,

Peter Dale Scott

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-1...t-cit#comments

Your reputation is built on lies and forged documents, until you address the issue above no one is going to take your seriously. Families included.

Fred, Fred, Fred. You are getting hopelessly lost in your own words here.

Why do you keep on insisting upon repeating the same things from old posts?

Why do you keep making posts going over who posted what?

You keep posting thing like "you posted that, then I posted this, then you posted that..."

You say that I am stopping the progress of the thread but I am not the one who keeps posting the same things over and over again.

As this seems to be the way you do things, I will take a leaf from your book and do the same.

But before I do let’s be clear, you have forced me to do this because you consistently ignore my explanations.

So here we go....

I will point out to you in detail how your confusion has arisen and after that you can apologise to me.
The insults that you will be apologising for are as a result of your confusion regarding what I posted in this thread and your continued habit of talking about 2 separate issues as a single issue. First the Radiohow (the first issue.)

Radioshow:

This is the original radioshow post where I forgot to post the actual live link – a genuine mistake as I have already explained.:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post100998

The very next post in the thread, without any prompting from other members, I immediately make clear I am not the presenter of the Radioshow.

I ALSO NEVER TOLD YOU I HAD A RADIOSHOW AT ANY POINT.[url]


https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post101111

Please note, this is Before Fred accuses me of being disinfo or somehow in league with the Presenter Aidan Monaghan who by the way, I had never even heard of until I came upon that link.

This was 11 pages ago and yet, you are still levelling the accusation against me that I am somehow dishonest even when I addressed the situation without being asked to do so.
This shows me you do not read my posts and are confused Fred. This is also when your name calling and accusation against me started.

You then accused me of being in league with Aidan Monaghan / being disnfo when I already gave you a real, true and innocent reason for posting the link. See this post:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post108787

That’s twice you ignored my answers to your accusations.


Now onto the aerospace link.

In this post you accuse me of posting forged documents within the aerospace link:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post107640
I point out that I did not post them and challenge you to show me where I did post them. You did not rise to this challenge because you know I did not post them.

You then YET AGAIN ignored my reply and accused me AGAIN of posting the aerospace link:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post108806


I then point out to you have I have answered your accusations and I even clarify my answers for you TELLING YOU THAT TY POSTED THE LINK. NOT ME.:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post108957

I then amazingly had to point out a forth time that I did not post the aerospace link.
See this post:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post140469

TY WHO WAS THE ONE WHO POSTED THE LINK EVEN TOLD YOU HE POSTED THE LINK AND THAT I DID NOT:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post137894

I even agreed with you at one point that the link may well contain forged docs so why the hell are you still going on about that?! Don’t you take in anything I type?

It seems yoru comprehension regarding who posted what is very muddled.

In this post:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post134238
You say that I said John Lear was a fraud.

Nowhere In this whole thread have I said any such thing.
You have just added yet another needless insult which has once again stemmed from your self imposed confusion.
You keep imagine things I have posted and keep putting words into my mouth and then later, you accuse me of these imaginary things.

Please try and take in my answer this time.

For the 3rd time FRED, John was rude to me. I never said he was a fraud. I respect John but he acted like a child when I asked him some tough questions. I explained that already here:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post110263



You have a very suspicious nature Fred.
With a nature like that, you cannot judge evidence or more importantly, people correctly.
Can’t you see that every time someone disagrees with you, you call them disinfo artists or liars or worse:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post130619
and here
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post132621

In this post you accuse me of not caring about the 9/11 family members:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post108903


I HAVE NOT ATTACKED YOU ONCE IN THIS THREAD.

I HAVE DONE NOTHING TO DESERVE THEM AT ALL.
GIVE ME A SOLID REAOSN WHY YOU THINK YOUR BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS ME IS O.K AND RESTRACT YOUR INSULTS PLEASE. THEY ARE TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR.

IF YOUR REASONS FOR INSULTINMG ME ARE BEACUSE OF THE DAMEND AROSPACE LINK AND RADIO LINK, THEN CLEALRY, BECAUSE I NEVER ACTUALLY POSTED THE AROPSPACE LINK AND THE OTHER WAS AN HONEST MISTAKE AS I HAVE POINTED OUT 3 TIMES. , YOU INSULTS ARE ILL JUDGED AND ARE THE RESULT OF YOUR CONFUSION.

YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY YOUR INSULTS AGAINST ME DUE TO YOUR POOR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I POSTED IN THIS THREAD AS POINTED OUT IN DETAIL ABOVE.
EVEN IF THAT IS YOU REASON, THE INSULTS WERE UNCALLED FOR AND I WANT AN APOLOGY PLEASE.

GIVE ME A SIMPLE ANSWER AS TO WHT YOU HAVE CALLED ME A LIAR, A DISNO ARTISTS AND SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT CARE FOR THE FAMILIES (EVEN THOUGH I HAVE WORKED WITH THEM ON VARIOUS PROJECTS.)

I am going to carry on requesting that you apologise and take back your insults in this thread until you do. This will not go to PM’s as if you cant apologise here, you are not likley to apologise in a PM.

[Zook]

Good Morninmg Good Avalon Good EWO!

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
[...]
Also, I supoose Richard Gage is a disinfo artist now and has been "taken in".
Well?
Or could it be, "gasp", that he actually thinks the flyover thoery is rubbish having looked into it himself.
I know crazy idea huh?

p.s. listen to your wife more.

MOD hat off

I'm sorry EWO, but I have to call you out on your prevarication. You want to debate the flyover hypothesis? Well, refute what I asked you to refute previously ... with your own abundant intellect. Don't drag Richard Gage or Peter Dale Scott into the flyover hypothesis because that amounts to argument by fallacy of popular appeal, because neither Richard Gage nor Peter Dale Scott has done the research on the Pentagon node of the 9/11/2001 attacks. CIT and PFNET have both done the required research of the Pentagon node; in addition, PFNET are aviation experts, so they do have some measure of authority in their analysis.

Here's an argument I made above which you can try and refute. If you are successful, I will tip my hat to you and chew it. If you are not, then I request that you tip your hat to me and chew it. Fair enough?

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post138516

beginExcerpt

I've clocked the counterargument against flyover in about a dozen different ways. But you never address those points. You and EWO ... continue to evade my specific analysis which includes irrefutable evidence such as Officer Legasse's witness testimony of the Northside approach of a jetliner ... which could not have been fabricated due to a few good reasons, not least being his own location at the back pump beneath the Citgo station's canopy which precludes him from seeing a Southside approach! Moreover, he is a government sympathetic witness ... who actually thought he was verifying the government's story, downed flagpoles and all. Watch the frippin' video, for crying out loud!! Officer Legasse also believes that the jetliner impacted the Pentagon, as do virtually all the Northside and Southside witnesses ... which just goes to show you the degree of legerdemain that was involved.

Legerdemain ... is what the flyover hypothesis is all about, Ty. Legerdemain is not voodoo. It is not fiction. It is about the sleight of hand. And anyone who argues that the sleight of hand has no bearing in the analysis ... fails to understand that it is precisely the sleight of hand that is being anlayzed ... at all four nodes of the 9/11/2001 attacks.

All witnesses believe there was an impact, including Roosevelt Roberts, who states that he saw a second jetliner leave the Pentagon parking lot about a dozen seconds or so after the huge explosion. However, there was only one jetliner involved (else the Southside witnesses - mostly in synch with the government's account - would have seen the second jetliner leave immediately, afterwards. But they have not testified to this possibility. So we can logically assume that only one jetliner was involved ... and because it was seen about a dozen or so seconds after the huge explosion ... that it could not have been the source of that explosion. End of story. Flyover hypothesis confirmed. Those who cannot reconcile this logical consequence of all the evidence and witness testimony ... are just not being honest. The only other possibility is that they are not right in the head. We'll leave it at that.

end



ps: Legasse should be Lagasse (went back and re-watched the entire video and noticed the spelling mistake)

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by Zook (here)
Good Morninmg Good Avalon Good EWO!

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
[...]
Also, I supoose Richard Gage is a disinfo artist now and has been "taken in".
Well?
Or could it be, "gasp", that he actually thinks the flyover thoery is rubbish having looked into it himself.
I know crazy idea huh?

p.s. listen to your wife more.

MOD hat off

I'm sorry EWO, but I have to call you out on your prevarication. You want to debate the flyover hypothesis? Well, refute what I asked you to refute previously ... with your own abundant intellect. Don't drag Richard Gage or Peter Dale Scott into the flyover hypothesis because that amounts to argument by fallacy of popular appeal, because neither Richard Gage nor Peter Dale Scott has done the research on the Pentagon node of the 9/11/2001 attacks. CIT and PFNET have both done the required research of the Pentagon node; in addition, PFNET are aviation experts, so they do have some measure of authority in their analysis.

Here's an argument I made above which you can try and refute. If you are successful, I will tip my hat to you and chew it. If you are not, then I request that you tip your hat to me and chew it. Fair enough?

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post138516

[COLOR="sienna"]beginExcerpt

I've clocked the counterargument against flyover in about a dozen different ways. But you never address those points. You and EWO ... continue to evade my specific analysis which includes irrefutable evidence such as Officer Legasse's witness testimony of the Northside approach of a jetliner ... which could not have been fabricated due to a few good reasons, not least being his own location at the back pump beneath the Citgo station's canopy which precludes him from seeing a Southside approach! Moreover, he is a government sympathetic witness ... who actually thought he was verifying the government's story, downed flagpoles and all. Watch the frippin' video, for crying out loud!! Officer Legasse also believes that the jetliner impacted the Pentagon, as do virtually all the Northside and Southside witnesses ... which just goes to show you the degree of legerdemain that was involved.
)

Your point about argument to popular appeal is a fair one. And as you seem much more reasonable than Fred, I will try and address your point. Just give me time. Busy right now....
But I will say that its CIT's METHODS and cherry picking of evidence that Myself, Ty, Richard Gage and others have problems with. They ignore any evidence that does not fit their theory.
Also, I want to see this put to a NON 9/11 forum as suggested by Ty.
Lets see what those folks say about all this.
Lets see yourself and Fred make your argument there.
If they hold water and are scientifically sound, then you have nothing to fear. If they agree with your opinions then I will happily admit I am wrong. They are impartial to both of us and thus fair.

[Fred259]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Fred259 (here)

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
ANOTHER SEES THE LIGHT.

Like Richard Gage, I too was impressed by CIT's assemblage of witnesses asserting an approach path of Flight 77 at odds with the official version, and said so. I have never believed that the 757 flew over the Pentagon, and have never stated that I did.

In the light of what Gage has learned about CIT's methods, I wish, like him, to withdraw my original endorsement of the CIT video.

Sincerely,

Peter Dale Scott

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-1...t-cit#comments

Your reputation is built on lies and forged documents, until you address the issue above no one is going to take your seriously. Families included.

Fred, Fred, Fred. You are getting hopelessly lost in your own words here.

Why do you keep on insisting upon repeating the same things from old posts?

Why do you keep making posts going over who posted what?

You keep posting thing like "you posted that, then I posted this, then you posted that..."

You say that I am stopping the progress of the thread but I am not the one who keeps posting the same things over and over again.

As this seems to be the way you do things, I will take a leaf from your book and do the same.

But before I do let’s be clear, you have forced me to do this because you consistently ignore my explanations.

So here we go....

I will point out to you in detail how your confusion has arisen and after that you can apologise to me.
The insults that you will be apologising for are as a result of your confusion regarding what I posted in this thread and your continued habit of talking about 2 separate issues as a single issue. First the Radiohow (the first issue.)

Radioshow:

This is the original radioshow post where I forgot to post the actual live link – a genuine mistake as I have already explained.:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post100998

The very next post in the thread, without any prompting from other members, I immediately make clear I am not the presenter of the Radioshow.

I ALSO NEVER TOLD YOU I HAD A RADIOSHOW AT ANY POINT.[url]


https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post101111

Please note, this is Before Fred accuses me of being disinfo or somehow in league with the Presenter Aidan Monaghan who by the way, I had never even heard of until I came upon that link.

This was 11 pages ago and yet, you are still levelling the accusation against me that I am somehow dishonest even when I addressed the situation without being asked to do so.
This shows me you do not read my posts and are confused Fred. This is also when your name calling and accusation against me started.

You then accused me of being in league with Aidan Monaghan / being disnfo when I already gave you a real, true and innocent reason for posting the link. See this post:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post108787

That’s twice you ignored my answers to your accusations.


Now onto the aerospace link.

In this post you accuse me of posting forged documents within the aerospace link:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post107640
I point out that I did not post them and challenge you to show me where I did post them. You did not rise to this challenge because you know I did not post them.

You then YET AGAIN ignored my reply and accused me AGAIN of posting the aerospace link:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post108806


I then point out to you have I have answered your accusations and I even clarify my answers for you TELLING YOU THAT TY POSTED THE LINK. NOT ME.:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post108957

I then amazingly had to point out a forth time that I did not post the aerospace link.
See this post:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post140469

TY WHO WAS THE ONE WHO POSTED THE LINK EVEN TOLD YOU HE POSTED THE LINK AND THAT I DID NOT:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post137894

I even agreed with you at one point that the link may well contain forged docs so why the hell are you still going on about that?! Don’t you take in anything I type?

It seems yoru comprehension regarding who posted what is very muddled.

In this post:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post134238

You say that I said John Lear was a fraud.

Nowhere In this whole thread have I said any such thing.
You have just added yet another needless insult which has once again stemmed from your self imposed confusion.
You keep imagine things I have posted and keep putting words into my mouth and then later, you accuse me of these imaginary things.


For the 3rd time FRED, John was rude to me. I never said he was a fraud. I respect John but he acted like a child when I asked him some tough questions. I explained that already here:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post110263



You have a very suspicious nature Fred.
With a nature like that, you cannot judge evidence or more importantly, people correctly.
Can’t you see that every time someone disagrees with you, you call them disinfo artists or liars or worse:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post130619
and here
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post132621

In this post you accuse me of not caring about the 9/11 family members:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post108903


I HAVE NOT ATTACKED YOU ONCE IN THIS THREAD.

I HAVE DONE NOTHING TO DESERVE THEM AT ALL.
GIVE ME A SOLID REAOSN WHY YOU THINK YOUR BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS ME IS O.K AND RESTRACT YOUR INSULTS PLEASE. THEY ARE TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR.

IF YOUR REASONS FOR INSULTINMG ME ARE BEACUSE OF THE DAMEND AROSPACE LINK AND RADIO LINK, THEN CLEALRY, BECAUSE I NEVER ACTUALLY POSTED THE AROPSPACE LINK AND THE OTHER WAS AN HONEST MISTAKE AS I HAVE POINTED OUT 3 TIMES. , YOU INSULTS ARE ILL JUDGED AND ARE THE RESULT OF YOUR CONFUSION.

YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY YOUR INSULTS AGAINST ME DUE TO YOUR POOR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I POSTED IN THIS THREAD AS POINTED OUT IN DETAIL ABOVE.
EVEN IF THAT IS YOU REASON, THE INSULTS WERE UNCALLED FOR AND I WANT AN APOLOGY PLEASE.

GIVE ME A SIMPLE ANSWER AS TO WHT YOU HAVE CALLED ME A LIAR, A DISNO ARTISTS AND SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT CARE FOR THE FAMILIES (EVEN THOUGH I HAVE WORKED WITH THEM ON VARIOUS PROJECTS.)

I am going to carry on requesting that you apologise and take back your insults in this thread until you do. This will not go to PM’s as if you cant apologise here, you are not likley to apologise in a PM.

EYO.


This is your post

Post 149 19 Jan 2011 @13.19GMT

Where you; Eyes Wide Open did Post,

Re: A documentary more powerful than Loose Change ... blows the lid off the Inside Jo

I reccomend people in this thread listen to this. Its on Thursday. Or you can get an mp3 straight after...


On this week's "9/11 In Context" show, which airs Thursday, January 20, at 3pm ET, I will interview researcher Aidan Monaghan, who has investigated the 9/11 flights in great detail with important results. Aidan has also filed a wide range of FOIA requests from government agencies and filed lawsuits seeking information related to the 9/11 attacks. Today's discussion will focus on Aidan's impressive research into the autopilot technology available for 757s and 767s at the time of the attacks, contradictory black box information provided by government agencies, and other unusual circumstances related to the flights.



http://www.resistradio.com/forum/4-s...9ic-jan-20#165 < Forged Docs in Here PLEASE REMOVE
Post 163 19th January 2011 20.24GMT



Whoops! I should have made clear I am not the host. I posted this from their site. Apologies for giving the wrong impression. My fault! I feel silly now.

I think the number is on the site somewhere. I am sure they will give it out as some point to.
I am just a humble research librarian. I could never present in a million years. I have enough problems talking in front of a bunch of noisy students where I work.

Your concerns are very valid. it might be worth you emailing them to the show. You raise some fantastic points.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

1)This is the original radioshow post where I forgot to post the actual live link – a genuine mistake as I have already explained.:

I understand. Given it was a “genuine mistake” to use your words then please go into your control panel and correct your “genuine mistake”

2)The very next post in the thread, without any prompting from other members, I immediately make clear I am not the presenter of the Radioshow.

No you did not. Why do you continue to tell lies.

The pages on the forum are clear for all to see. Page 8 and 9.

Post 149 you told the forum about your “Radio Show” and enclosed Forged documents on the link. Post 150 you posted again, Post 151 you posted again, Post 153 you posted again, Post 154 you posted again. Indeed it wasn’t until Post 163 a full 8 hours and 14 post later that you admitted your “Genuine Mistake”

Please therefore explain how you can say today “The very next post in the thread, without any prompting from other members, I immediately make clear I am not the presenter of the Radioshow”.

Please read again the paragraph above. Why do you tell lies? Web posts run post after post after post, 149 150 151 152.

3) You then accused me of being in league with Aidan Monaghan / being disnfo when I already gave you a real, true and innocent reason for posting the link. See this post:

Yes I am.

If you have made a genuine mistake, then a genuine person would want to correct that mistake. You have that opportunity now, please do so.

Be advised all the documents on the link you provided “in your post 149” are forged documents originally published by the Federal Aviation Authority, in Washington DC and the Civil Aviation Authority in London.

For some reason you don’t want to correct this mistake and therefore I can only conclude that both you and Aiden Monaghan know precisely what you are doing.

I say again you have the opportunity now to delete the forged documents. Please do so.


4

) www.aerospaceweb.org is a Scam 9/11 disinformation site. It's only use is for children who want to cut out pictures of aircraft for the bedroom wall.

It’s pointless discussing this site, now that we know more about it. It’s run by buffoons for buffoons.

5) You say that I said John Lear was a fraud.

Nowhere In this whole thread have I said any such thing.
You have just added yet another needless insult which has once again stemmed from your self imposed confusion.
You keep imagine things I have posted and keep putting words into my mouth and then later, you accuse me of these imaginary things.

I do.

I find it quizzical that you should question his judgment. John Lear has 19,000 hours flight time EYO you have 0 hours flight time.

When John Lear and I for that matter visit your library where you are a Librarian researcher we will both keep silent and allow you to explain how you do your work or list books or whatever it is you do. You know more about Librarian work than John, so he will respect you for that. In return please consider that John just might know what he is talking about, and that on this occasion you will not be able to exceed his knowledge and wisdom on aircraft performance.

6) For the 3rd time FRED, John was rude to me. I never said he was a fraud. I respect John but he acted like a child when I asked him some tough questions. I explained that already here:

It’s little wonder.

With respect what you call “tough questions” were in reality stupid questions. I have read the post, You called John a disinfo agent, because you were so badly informed you didn’t even know who he was. This alone proves how foolish you are.

In return he questioned which turnip truck you had arrived on. What he was saying is, stop asking stupid questions, but you are so thick skinned or perhaps otherwise that you continued to question his considerable authority on the matter, which led him telling you to get back on the turnip truck and keep heading west. I will restrain from adding to Mr Lear's comment.

For the avoidance of doubt and without any question, Henry Deacon and John Lear know more about the Sea of Copernicus on the Moon than you will ever ever know, so shut up or zip lip and listen to what they have to say. They know, you dont.

7) You have a very suspicious nature Fred.

Generally no. However with individuals like you most defiantly Yes.

8) With a nature like that, you cannot judge evidence or more importantly, people correctly. Can’t you see that every time someone disagrees with you, you call them disinfo artists or liars or worse:

I disagree. I have no knowledge or understanding involving medicine or computing, agriculture, librarian work, and much more so when on any forum or occasion I listen and learn from those who do. I respect the fact that they have greater knowledge than me.

However be advised that John Lear has 19,000 hours and I have 8,500 and we don’t need with the greatest of respect to “judge evidence” as you put it. It’s so blatantly obvious. Airways are 10nm wide 60,800 feet wide, you have forged the document and reduced the airway to 243ft to fit nicely with the size of the World Trade Centre. If you have not forged the document you are facilitating the distribution of forged documents which is utterly repugnant.

Please remove the forged FAA & CAA documents at once.

[Fred259]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Zook (here)
Good Morninmg Good Avalon Good EWO!

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
[...]
Also, I supoose Richard Gage is a disinfo artist now and has been "taken in".
Well?
Or could it be, "gasp", that he actually thinks the flyover thoery is rubbish having looked into it himself.
I know crazy idea huh?

p.s. listen to your wife more.

MOD hat off

I'm sorry EWO, but I have to call you out on your prevarication. You want to debate the flyover hypothesis? Well, refute what I asked you to refute previously ... with your own abundant intellect. Don't drag Richard Gage or Peter Dale Scott into the flyover hypothesis because that amounts to argument by fallacy of popular appeal, because neither Richard Gage nor Peter Dale Scott has done the research on the Pentagon node of the 9/11/2001 attacks. CIT and PFNET have both done the required research of the Pentagon node; in addition, PFNET are aviation experts, so they do have some measure of authority in their analysis.

Here's an argument I made above which you can try and refute. If you are successful, I will tip my hat to you and chew it. If you are not, then I request that you tip your hat to me and chew it. Fair enough?

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post138516

[COLOR="sienna"]beginExcerpt

I've clocked the counterargument against flyover in about a dozen different ways. But you never address those points. You and EWO ... continue to evade my specific analysis which includes irrefutable evidence such as Officer Legasse's witness testimony of the Northside approach of a jetliner ... which could not have been fabricated due to a few good reasons, not least being his own location at the back pump beneath the Citgo station's canopy which precludes him from seeing a Southside approach! Moreover, he is a government sympathetic witness ... who actually thought he was verifying the government's story, downed flagpoles and all. Watch the frippin' video, for crying out loud!! Officer Legasse also believes that the jetliner impacted the Pentagon, as do virtually all the Northside and Southside witnesses ... which just goes to show you the degree of legerdemain that was involved.
)

Your point about argument to popular appeal is a fair one. And as you seem much more reasonable than Fred, I will try and address your point. Just give me time. Busy right now....
But I will say that its CIT's METHODS and cherry picking of evidence that Myself, Ty, Richard Gage and others have problems with. They ignore any evidence that does not fit their theory.
Also, I want to see this put to a NON 9/11 forum as suggested by Ty.
Lets see what those folks say about all this.
Lets see yourself and Fred make your argument there.
If they hold water and are scientifically sound, then you have nothing to fear. If they agree with your opinions then I will happily admit I am wrong. They are impartial to both of us and thus fair.

Also, I want to see this put to a NON 9/11 forum as suggested by Ty.
Lets see what those folks say about all this.
Lets see yourself and Fred make your argument there.
If they hold water and are scientifically sound, then you have nothing to fear. If they agree with your opinions then I will happily admit I am wrong. They are impartial to both of us and thus fair.

No.

It's your call Zook I will back you, but these scallywags only want the opportunity to spread yet more poisonous lies and false documents half truths at best or a complete tissue of lies.

The FBI know who was responsible for the slaughter of 3000+ on 9/11. They even had a date for them to appear in court. Getting the cockroaches into court is a challenge for the FBI and that part of the US government that has not been subverted, bribed or threatened with execution.

Your so called terabytes of data EYO is being provided to you by subverted individuals within the Special Executive Service who are themselves working for the cockroaches. In so doing they keep you occupied and miles from the truth. The same organisation is facilitating junk data and information to the multitude of websites that you think are credible. You are wasting your life, better to go and find a new girlfriend and spend some quality time with her. IMHO

[Fred259]

Posted by Icecold (here)
Well it looks like Ty and EWO are working for the MIC.

Now I only say this because nobody could be that dumb and I'm sure these two gentlemen are smart cookies.

Gentlemen how much are you getting paid for this op?

I could use a few bucks for petrol this week.

Not only are they working for the MIC they are taking the MIC.

[Zook]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)

Posted by Zook (here)
Good Morninmg Good Avalon Good EWO!

MOD hat off

I'm sorry EWO, but I have to call you out on your prevarication. You want to debate the flyover hypothesis? Well, refute what I asked you to refute previously ... with your own abundant intellect. Don't drag Richard Gage or Peter Dale Scott into the flyover hypothesis because that amounts to argument by fallacy of popular appeal, because neither Richard Gage nor Peter Dale Scott has done the research on the Pentagon node of the 9/11/2001 attacks. CIT and PFNET have both done the required research of the Pentagon node; in addition, PFNET are aviation experts, so they do have some measure of authority in their analysis.

Here's an argument I made above which you can try and refute. If you are successful, I will tip my hat to you and chew it. If you are not, then I request that you tip your hat to me and chew it. Fair enough?

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post138516
[...]

Your point about argument to popular appeal is a fair one. And as you seem much more reasonable than Fred, I will try and address your point. Just give me time. Busy right now....
But I will say that its CIT's METHODS and cherry picking of evidence that Myself, Ty, Richard Gage and others have problems with. They ignore any evidence that does not fit their theory.
Also, I want to see this put to a NON 9/11 forum as suggested by Ty.
Lets see what those folks say about all this.
Lets see yourself and Fred make your argument there.
If they hold water and are scientifically sound, then you have nothing to fear. If they agree with your opinions then I will happily admit I am wrong. They are impartial to both of us and thus fair.

I don't see what it matters whether we have the debate inside a 9/11 forum or outside. It seems a strange request to me that you would want to push this debate from an informed arena (those that have studied the evidence to some extent) ... to a diluted arena where the informed and the uninformed coexist and the noise level would be expected to be significantly higher. I want this one on one, EWO ... you and me. That way we can have a focused debate. Fred has different arguments to make against yours, and you can have a tete-a-tete with him on that. I think Fred would prefer it that way as well. My argument is exclusively CIT video-related, e.g. the flyover argument.

[Ty]

Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN (here)
Also, I want to see this put to a NON 9/11 forum as suggested by Ty.
Lets see what those folks say about all this.
Lets see yourself and Fred make your argument there.

I'd like to see that too EWO but doubt it will ever happen. I suspect Fred and Zook both lack the courage of conviction to make their case in the harsh light of day, outside of the relatively safe cocoon of mostly like minded truthers.

[Ty]

Posted by Fred259 (here)
It's your call Zook I will back you, but these scallywags only want the opportunity to spread yet more poisonous lies and false documents half truths at best or a complete tissue of lies.

Way to man up Fred. Go ask papa Zook so you have a way out. Tells me all I need to know about your convictions re your aeronautical arguments.

And as for us scallywags wanting the opportunity to spread yet more poisonous lies and false documents half truths at best or a complete tissue of lies... you misunderstand. I have no intention of contributing to your embarassment should you and Zook decide to take your arguments public. There will be no need. I suspect you two will feel like lost villagers trying to avoid a stampeding herd of elephants.

But I'm sure we'll never know because neither of you have the courage of conviction to do it.

Posted by Fred259 (here)
I find it quizzical that you should question his judgment. John Lear has 19,000 hours flight time EYO you have 0 hours flight time.

When John Lear and I for that matter visit your library where you are a Librarian researcher we will both keep silent and allow you to explain how you do your work or list books or whatever it is you do. You know more about Librarian work than John, so he will respect you for that. In return please consider that John just might know what he is talking about, and that on this occasion you will not be able to exceed his knowledge and wisdom on aircraft performance.

Which is exactly why you should have such discussion in an open public forum where your and his peers can weight in - like they did here, where John Lear is found to be less than accurate about his opinion on VMO - http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/28296...mic-limit.html

Post:
John Lear maintains that VMO is an absolute aerodynamic limit on the airframe above which flutter would prevent novice pilots performing the manouveres.

Reply
Thus proving quite conclusively that engineering skill is not an inherited trait, because that statement is complete and utter garbage.

VMO (and MMO) are exceeded in flight test on every single aircraft. Even VDF/MDF (or VNE) are not ABSOLUTE limits - they are the limits beyond which it is no longer known to be safe - not the limits where it is known to be dangerous. Margins between VMO and VDF are typically of the order of 50-75 kts (just like the old VMO/VNE splits); margins between MMO and MDF are typically of the order of 0.05M-0.07M.

In fact, its a requirement that VDF/MDF be DEMONSTRATED in basic certification.

[Ty]

Zook,

I’m confused. Befuddled. Can’t make heads or tails out of you.

It has become apparent that you could be any number of things but an honest seeker of the truth is not one of them. Were I you, I might claim that the following provides irrefutable proof of this. Unimpeachable testimony even. Why? Because it is almost all an exposition of your own inconsistencies, incoherencies and double-standards.

... on TRUTH:

Jan 11:

I have chosen to defend truth at all costs

Jan 13:

For truthseekers, convergence means a single Rome

Jan 21:

Devotion to the truth is known by many names. My favorite is *ratiocination*. The apostles of truth are ratiocinatives. Those in opposition to the ratiocinatives are best understood collectively as Ptolemy's descendant children. These terracentric thinkers will deny everything - even denial itself - to hold the molehill against the mountain of evidence.

Jan 22:

truth is static, not a roving tour

Jan 26:

I value the truth.

Noble sentiments that we share. I find it curious, then that you are so willing to ignore evidence and alter truth to fit whatever your current need in defending the flyover.

Jan 21:

We can start impeaching all the Southside witnesses in the above video. Indeed, the pursuit of truth demands it.

The pursuit of truth would be to acknowledge that so many witnesses are not likely to be wrong and to seek some other explanation. How is your impeachment of them going by the way? I haven’t heard much on that front other than you accusing some of being liars but not bothering to point out the lies so I assume they are holding up OK and you are just using whatever is at your disposal to try to diminish and degrade them.

You do realize that was just one of 5 or 6 collections of testimonies, right?

Jan 11 (discussing Robert Turcio’s account):

Zook: He clearly, unequivocally, states that all he saw was a huge fireball. Are you suggesting that a jetliner could not have disappeared and veered off behind this huge fireball?

Ty: Where did it go if not into the building? What did it have time to do besides crash? Kinda makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

Zook: Besides crash? Lift up.

Feb 1:

Clearly, Lagasse was _ultimately incorrect_ in his assumption of jetliner impact (e.g. Northside approach makes that impossible as previously argued in this thread). But he was _correct to assume in realtime_ that a jetliner would impact because the jetliner was heading low towards the Pentagon and there was a giant fireball that was seen at approximately the same time as flyover.

So clearly in both of these posts you believe the truth is that the flyover and explosion occurred more or less simultaneously. Then from out of the blue…

Feb 13:

All witnesses believe there was an impact, including *Roosevelt Roberts, who states that he saw a second jetliner* leave the Pentagon parking lot about a dozen seconds or so *after the huge explosion*. However, there was only one jetliner involved (else the Southside witnesses - mostly in synch with the government's account - would have seen the second jetliner leave immediately, afterwards. But they have not testified to this possibility. So we can logically assume that only one jetliner was involved ... and because it was seen about a dozen or so seconds _after_ the huge explosion ... that it could not have been the source of that explosion. End of story. *Flyover hypothesis confirmed*.

Actually he said it could have been as many as 10 seconds. You watched the video all the way through again and still got it wrong? That could explain why you find yourself painted into the corner you are now in.

At any rate, 5 seconds, 10 seconds or 12 seconds, now you have the plane arriving WELL AFTER the explosion instead of concurrent with it. So, which truth is it Zook that you value? Which truth is it that is static and not a roving tour. Which truth is it that you will defend at all costs? I suppose this makes you one of Ptolemy’s descendent children – denying the truth of one of your accounts with the truth of another.


This is most decidedly NOT the behavior of an honest seeker of the truth.

By the way. If you look at any of the flight paths from any of the videos it is obvious that there is no way a plane on those paths could possibly end up over the south lot. Whatever Roosevelt saw, it wasn't the plane that everyone else saw.

Simple deduction my friend. Something you seem to greatly struggle with.

[Ty]

... on INTELLECTUAL INTEGRITY:

Jan 26:

I value intellectual honesty.

Feb 8:

assertion is not evidence.

How about that. Two other things we agree on. And yet, again I find your adherence to these principles somewhat, shall we say, inconsistent? Let’s look more closely, shall we?

“assertion is not evidence “

Indeed it isn’t. Unless, it’s used to defend the flyover theory, in which case assertion is apparently the only evidence needed.

Jan 14:

I am defending more than what I believe, I am defending the observable evidence (including the laws of physics).

Which laws of physics would that be? Balsamo’s miscalculated Gs? PFNET’s countered claims about Ground Effect? Intellectual integrity usually co-exists with specificity, not general proclamations. Those are generally the refuge of scoundrels with no viable argument left. You know – like accusing everyone who has looked into this and reached a different conclusion than you of being a disinformation agent.

So how exactly are you defending the evidence observed by 120 or so witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon and /or light posts on its way to the Pentagon? How are you defending the various reports of body parts and bodies DNA matched to flight 77 passengers? These don’t qualify as observable evidence for you? Just because when researching this event you failed to uncover them? Well they have now been dumped in your lap. Truth and intellectual honesty demand they be explained, not ignored.

Jan 21:

All I've seen from you is a one-sided endorsement of evidence stitched together by demonstrable disinformation agents (whose task it is to divide the so-called Truth movement).

And, what? You believe you have provided a balanced argument? Or that CIT or PFNET are neutral and objective parties? Remember – assertion is not evidence. Calling someone a disinformation agent doesn’t make it so. Anyone following this thread knows that all it means is they have reached a different conclusion than you have.

Jan 21:

Enter Office Lagasse. He was caught on video pumping gas on the Northside at the back pump. Lagasse misremembered and thought he was at the front pump. But that kind of error is to be expected in human memory five years after the fact. What cannot be expected, indeed, what is impossible ... is to misremember the jetliner's position in the sky.

Feb 1:

Officer Lagasse was incorrect when he told CIT that he was at the front pump on the North side of Citgo; a security video reveals that he was actually at the back pump, both pumps located on the North side of Citgo. Ergo, the security video conclusively establishes Lagasse's position on the Northside of Citgo. This memory error (front pump vs back pump) is well within the bounds of human memory error. What is not within the bounds of human memory error is Lagasse's placement of the jetliner to the Northside of Citgo.

OK Dr. Zook. If you say so it must be so. Because assertion, after all… no. Wait a minute. Assertion IS NOT evidence, right? Gee, I almost forgot your underlying principle there.

Jan 21:

Officer Lagasse could not have misremembered what he saw wrt the jetliner's position *as he was standing on the Northside of Citgo*. And that is why his testimony cannot be impeached.

The 100+ southside witnesses could not have misremembered what they saw wrt the jetliner hitting the Pentagon as they had a clear view of the building and its roofline. And that is why their testimony cannot be impeached.

Hey - what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

[Fred259]

Posted by Ty (here)

Posted by Fred259 (here)
It's your call Zook I will back you, but these scallywags only want the opportunity to spread yet more poisonous lies and false documents half truths at best or a complete tissue of lies.

Way to man up Fred. Go ask papa Zook so you have a way out. Tells me all I need to know about your convictions re your aeronautical arguments.

And as for us scallywags wanting the opportunity to spread yet more poisonous lies and false documents half truths at best or a complete tissue of lies... you misunderstand. I have no intention of contributing to your embarassment should you and Zook decide to take your arguments public. There will be no need. I suspect you two will feel like lost villagers trying to avoid a stampeding herd of elephants.

But I'm sure we'll never know because neither of you have the courage of conviction to do it.

Posted by Fred259 (here)
I find it quizzical that you should question his judgment. John Lear has 19,000 hours flight time EYO you have 0 hours flight time.

When John Lear and I for that matter visit your library where you are a Librarian researcher we will both keep silent and allow you to explain how you do your work or list books or whatever it is you do. You know more about Librarian work than John, so he will respect you for that. In return please consider that John just might know what he is talking about, and that on this occasion you will not be able to exceed his knowledge and wisdom on aircraft performance.

Which is exactly why you should have such discussion in an open public forum where your and his peers can weight in - like they did here, where John Lear is found to be less than accurate about his opinion on VMO - http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/28296...mic-limit.html

Post:
John Lear maintains that VMO is an absolute aerodynamic limit on the airframe above which flutter would prevent novice pilots performing the manouveres.

Reply
Thus proving quite conclusively that engineering skill is not an inherited trait, because that statement is complete and utter garbage.

VMO (and MMO) are exceeded in flight test on every single aircraft. Even VDF/MDF (or VNE) are not ABSOLUTE limits - they are the limits beyond which it is no longer known to be safe - not the limits where it is known to be dangerous. Margins between VMO and VDF are typically of the order of 50-75 kts (just like the old VMO/VNE splits); margins between MMO and MDF are typically of the order of 0.05M-0.07M.

In fact, its a requirement that VDF/MDF be DEMONSTRATED in basic certification.

The Pentagon was hit by a Maverick Missile launched from a remotely operated A4 Skyhawk designed by Raytheon. Don’t ask me for proof because they slaughtered 7 of the Raytheon guys who worked on the technology.

[Ty]

“I value intellectual honesty.”

Jan 21:

After all, anyone with an IQ greater than a helium balloon can be expected to remember that they saw the jetliner on the Northside if that is the only vantage point for them to see the jetliner. Enter Office Lagasse. He was caught on video pumping gas on the Northside at the back pump. Lagasse misremembered and thought he was at the front pump.

What form of intellectual honesty is it to allow Officer Legasse to “misremember” where he was yet accuse of being liars witnesses who may also have misremembered or mistaken details of the plane crashing into the Pentagon?

Jan 21:

What cannot be expected, indeed, what is impossible ... is to misremember the jetliner's position in the sky.

What form of intellectual honesty is it that concludes Officer Lagasse’s observation of a plane on the North Side of Citgo is sufficient to counter 120 or so witnesses who saw the plane somewhere else? Most of whom saw the plane crash into the Pentagon when they had a clear view of the roofline and would have unmistakably seen it flyover if it had? Yet not a single witness testifies to that.

Your selective use of intellectual honesty reveals a startling lack of intellectual honesty.

Jan 21:

We can start impeaching all the Southside witnesses in the above video. Indeed, the pursuit of truth demands it.

No Zook. Intellectual honesty and the pursuit of truth demand trying to reconcile the different observations. Not “Impeach” 120 or so to preserve the integrity of Officer Lagasse or of the flyover itself.

Seeking actual truth and being intellectually honest I will propose something that reconciles the different plane paths, at least for some of the Northside witnesses.

The Pentagon was struck about 9:30 on a bright sunny day. Flight 77 was flying west to east. Now we can agree that the sun rises in the East and travels through the Southern sky to set in the West. (OK, technically the sun is stationary and it is the motion of the Earth that makes it appear that the sun is in motion but we won’t quibble about that, will we?)

So at approximately 9:30 AM on a bright and sunny September 11 morning, where would you suppose flight 77 is in relation to the sun and the Northside witnesses? Would somewhere between them be a reasonable conclusion? And with the sun somewhere Southeast of a low flying plane it would be casting a shadow to the Northwest.

So is it not possible that what Officer Lagasse and others saw is the shadow of the plane passing along the ground, trees or whatever and that in the immediate confusion of the explosion, the excitement, the adrenalin and everything else going on that the same flawed memory that can misremember what side of the gas station he is on can misremember that it was the shadow of the wing he actually saw and not the wing itself?

Just a theory of course.

Jan 23:

What our good friend, Ty, doesn't realize is that *quantity* is not always a good substitute for *quality* ... indeed, rarely is.

Agreed. Now I wasn’t sure if I should include this in the assertion section or here in the intellectual honesty section. I chose here because the assertion in this case is valid. But you provide no argument for why the overall consistent testimony of those who saw the plane hit the Pentagon is of poorer quality than of the Northside witnesses who between them plot out about 9 different paths the plane allegedly flew, many of them appearing to be unnavigable. If these were “quality” witnesses they would have all put the plane in roughly the same place. They didn’t.

What kind of intellectual honesty is it that overlooks such things while accusing others of the very thing you are guilty of?

Jan 25:

Of the remaining Southside witnesses, e.g.  those who went into various detail about the plane hitting the Pentagon (one even claimed to have seen the jetliner cartwheel into the Pentagon!) ... these explicit witnesses can be impeached (intellectually) and should be impeached (legally) for obstructing justice.

Another shining example of intellectual honesty. Their testimony contradicts the flyover so they must be impeached for obstructing justice. Silence the opposition - spoken like a true truthseeker.

Jan 26:

FWIW, there is a parallel tale of two citizenry.  The credible witnesses and the incredible witnesses.  All Northside and the majority of Southside witnesses are credible.  However, a substantial number of Southside witnesses are incredible.  To wit, your list of 100+ witnesses have a substantial number of liars.  Yet you appear not to care, as evidenced by the presentation and promotion of lying witnesses in the duty of your argument.  That speaks to your integrity, Ty.

My integrity is intact Zook. As I stated previously, with any event like this and any large body of witnesses there will be discrepancies - disagreement about what color the robbers hair was, but not about whether the bank was robbed. That you choose to categorize "a substantial number" as liars, without providing any evidence, while categorizing Officer Legasses' lapse in memory about which side of the Citgo he was on, as a lapse in memory and not a lie, speaks to your integrity. Though I don't expect you to notice, agree or admit such.

Feb 1:

If the jetliner had been to the South side as is claimed by the obviously confused debunkers in the video that TransDimenPod provides, then its view would have been blocked (from Lagasse) by the station itself (e.g. due to *the overhang over the front and back pumps!*!) This overhang is crucial to understanding what Officer Lagasse could and could not have seen ... and could and could not have remembered!

Ergo, *Lagasse's testimony alone* establishes the Northside of Citgo jetliner approach. This can then only mean jetliner flyover because the dynamic Northside approach profile - now frmly established - is incompatible with the static Pentagon damage profile (e.g. Pentagon hole is at an opposite incidence angle, among other things).

I feel sorry for those who've lost their mental acuities. Everyone associated with the making of TransDimenPod's so-called debunker video (link reposted below) are agents of disinformation. And those who promote it have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked, in the best case scenario. We'll leave it at that.

What kind of intellectual honesty is it to keep singin the same note that is out of tune with all the other notes in the song, Zook?

Feb 5 (In response to pdf about an A-3 Sky Warrior impacting the Pentagon):

But I'm glad we both agree that only disinformation agents support the *jumbo-impact theory*, e.g. the aforementioned impresarios that thrive - using subtle methods - on removing distinctions between jumbo jet and jet fighter.

Yes. As opposed to those who use not-so-subtle methods to ignore 100+ witnesses who saw a jumbo-jet hit the Pentagon. Par for the course, I guess where your intellectual honesty is concerned.

Feb 5:

We have absolutely conclusive proof based on the CIT video and the arguments that have been made in this thread. This isn't rocket science; so please don't make it such, Dennis. I have outlined the proof in detailed analysis. Either refute that analysis; or leave it be. That's fine. But please don't give the false impression that the proof has not been established. No opinion was involved in the construction of the proof, fwiw. All incontrovertible facts.

You have one witness you keep referring to who's account is impeached by 100+ who saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Who's account you've impeached yourself by implying that since Roosevelt Roberts saw the plane 12 or so seconds AFTER the explosion then Officer Legasse couldn't have seen the plane BEFORE the explosion.

Feb 13:

How many times does one need to be *clocked* before one admits to the paucity of one's analysis, Ty? Before one admits that what one has contributed here contains nothing of value to the discussion *with respect to the facts*?

You are a hoot Zook. I suppose by "facts" you mean anything that supports the flyover theory and ONLY what supports the flyover theory, right?

Witness testimony to the plane hitting the pentagon isn't fact? I can post several other collections if you want to impeach all of them as well.

Bodies and body parts discovered and removed as chronicled in "Firefight: Inside the battle to Save the Pentagon," later DNA matched to flight 77 passengers. Not fact, Zook? Look it up. Or is the forensic pathologist and his team and the author and the various first responders he interviews all part of the cover up too? Where does it end?

Of course, applying your normal modus operandi, these will all just be labeled as disinformation agents. After all, we can't let facts get in the way of a good theory, can we?

You haven't looked for the truth at all here. You're just looking for and clinging to anything that will confirm the nonsense you want to believe.

But to answer your question, and it is a good one - I don't know how many times one needs to be "clocked" before one admits the paucity of his analysis. I suppose it depends on how much intellectual honesty one has and how willing one is to continue making a fool of oneself by defending the indefensible.

Feb 13:

_I've clocked the counterargument against flyover_ in about a dozen different ways. But you never address those points. You and EWO ... continue to evade my specific analysis which includes irrefutable evidence such as Officer Legasse's witness testimony of the Northside approach of a jetliner ... which could not have been fabricated due to a few good reasons, not least being his own location at the back pump beneath the Citgo station's *canopy* which precludes him from seeing a Southside approach! Moreover, he is a government sympathetic witness ... who actually thought he was verifying the government's story, downed flagpoles and all. Watch the frippin' video, for crying out loud!! Officer Legasse also believes that the jetliner impacted the Pentagon, as do virtually all the Northside and Southside witnesses ... which just goes to show you the degree of legerdemain that was involved.

A dozen different ways? I must have missed the 11 that aren't Officer Legasse then, unless you're referring to the dozen or so different phraseologies you use every time you bring him up as irrefutable proof.

But then you "clocked" him yourself when you stated that the plane arrived 12 seconds AFTER the explosion, I guess so you could point to Roosevelt as someone who actually DID see a flyover. Though, as I pointer out earlier, there is no way that a plane could have banked sharply enough to end up over the south parking lot, given any of the paths drawn by the witnesses, including the one used by Balsamo to compute Gs.

Feb 13:

All witnesses believe there was an impact, including *Roosevelt Roberts, who states that he saw a second jetliner* leave the Pentagon parking lot about a dozen seconds or so *after the huge explosion*. However, there was only one jetliner involved (else the Southside witnesses - mostly in synch with the government's account - would have seen the second jetliner leave immediately, afterwards. But they have not testified to this possibility. So we can logically assume that only one jetliner was involved ... and because it was seen about a dozen or so seconds _after_ the huge explosion ... that it could not have been the source of that explosion. End of story. *Flyover hypothesis confirmed*. Those who cannot reconcile this logical consequence of all the evidence and witness testimony ... are just not being honest. The only other possibility is that they are not right in the head. We'll leave it at that.

You just keep getting funnier. So one witness sees a plane 12 seconds after the explosion and that one account trumps all of the other northside AND southside witnesses who saw the plane THEN saw or heard the explosion. This would be even funnier if I didn't think you were serious.

"End of story. *Flyover hypothesis confirmed*. Those who cannot reconcile this logical consequence of all the evidence and witness testimony ... are just not being honest. The only other possibility is that they are not right in the head. We'll leave it at that. "

Logical consequence of ALL the evidence? Now seriously, anybody... Does this make any sense at all to you? Is it not now clear what state of mind it is that is promoting this nonsense?

Just because P.T. Barnum said there was fool born every minute doesn't mean you have to singlehandedly try to prove him right, Zook. It's OK to give someone else a chance.

[Ty]

THREE STRIKES AND YIRRR OUTTA THERE...

Jan 21:

If I can discredit three of your witnesses, Ty ... will you concede the point? (you know, _three strikes and yirrr outta there!_ ... that sorta thing ...)

I don’t really favor this approach. You want to be able to discard 120 or so witnesses if you can “discredit” 3 of them. I don’t know what kind of intellectual honesty this is but let’s apply it to the CIT & PFNET videos and see how they hold up.

CIT Video proving flyover:

Strike 1: Robert Turcio's account which has him watching the plane head towards the Pentagon and being obscured immediately before the explosion. From his vantage point the only way the plane could be obscured is if it descended on the other side of the bridge in which case it had nowhere to go but into the Pentagon.

Strike 2: Terry Morin's account which mirror's Robert's though from a greater distance and includes a flash which he assumes to be the wing clipping a light pole.

Strike 3: Sean Boger, from the heliport watchtower, who in the video says he saw the plane coming right at him and in amazement threw himself to the ground andn covered his head. In his original testimony he says he saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Strike 4: Lloyd England, the taxi driver, who tells one story on-camera, another off-camera, denies he was on the bridge while looking at photos of himself and his taxi on the bridge and makes vague references to something bigger than he that he shouldn't be invovled in but is. In the supplemental video he says he saw the plane hit the pole that crashed through his windshield. Clearly this man is an unreliable witness who may be in the early stages of dimentia.

I'm not actually discrediting Turcio's or Morin's account here. I think they are both credible. But they diminish the case CIT is trying to make.

PFNET 1st video Post #98

Strike 1: At 4:06 into the video "Zero witnesses place the aircraft on the South approach." We know this to be rubbish from the collection of witness accounts I posted earlier, just one of several such collections. Many saw the plane hit light posts and/or the building, which according to the entire CIT argument could only happen from the southern approach.

Strike 2: At 8:40 into the video "Also keep in mind that 460 kts exceed the maximum operating speed set by the manufacturer by 110 kts." While true, this is a red herring. As Balsamo no doubt knows (although John Lear apparently doesn't - http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/28296...mic-limit.html - VMO is not an absolute limit. Implying that a plane couldn't exceed its VMO would be about equivalent to me arguing in traffic court that I couldn't have been going 80 because the speed limit was 60.

Strike 3: We know that Balsamo’s math didn’t hold up to peer review. He got it wrong twice – the first he admitted, the second as revealed by MIT Mathemetician, William D Clinger which I linked to earlier where 5 fatal errors were found in his calculations which, when corrected, reveal Gs well within aircraft tolerance.

Strike 4: At 5:25 "the north approach calculations will be based on an average path across witness statements and their drawings - a true reasonable flight path." At 9:15 there is a clear shot of all the northside paths and the southside paths. It is very easy to see them imposed on the topography. Very disengenuously, at 9:30 "we remove the topography in order for the viewer to see the arc more clearly." No. As evidence a couple of seconds before it is very easy to see the flight paths sperimposed on the topography. They could have made the arc red and it would have been just as easy to see it. However, if he had shown the arc he was calculating superimposed on the topography it would have been obvious that his "average path across witness statements and their drawings" is a subjective way to turn many aerodynamically unlikely/impossible flight paths into a possible one, as I showed in post 157.

So there we have it Zook. Applying your own standards we can now impeach PFNET and CIT both. I even gave them 4 strikes each. So I gues they're "outta there!," right?

[Ty]

THE MINDSET OF A FLYOVER BELIEVER...

I began wondering about this a while back. How is it that apparently intelligent people can be so desperate to cling to a belief that they sacrifice their own integrity in its defense?

And then I came across this passage from Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer," underlines mine.

The fanatic is perpetually incomplete and insecure. He cannot generate self-assurance out of his individual resources – out of his rejected self – but finds it only by clinging passionately to whatever support he happens to embrace. This passionate attachment is the essence of his blind devotion and religiosity, and he sees in it the source of all virtue and strength. Though his single-minded dedication is a holding on for dear life, he easily sees himself as the supporter and defender of the holy cause to which he clings. And he is ready to sacrifice his life to demonstrate to himself and others that such indeed is his role. He sacrifices his life to prove his worth.

It goes without saying that the fanatic is convinced that the cause he holds on to is monolithic and eternal – a rock of ages. Still, his sense of security is derived from his passionate attachment and not from the excellence of his cause. The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness and holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold on to. Often, indeed, it is his need for passionate attachment, which turns every cause he embraces into a holy cause.

The fanatic cannot be weaned away from his cause by an appeal to his reason or moral sense. He fears compromise and cannot be persuaded to qualify the certitude and righteousness of his holy cause. But he finds no difficulty in swinging suddenly and wildly from one holy cause to another. He cannot be convinced but only converted. His passionate attachment is more vital than the quality of the cause to which he is attached.

I don't think you'd be willing to give your life to this cause, at least I hope not, but you have willingly sacrificed honor, truth and integrity at the flyover's altar. And on a moment's notice, apparently abandoned your belief that the flyover was concurrent with the exlosion in favor of it happening 12 or so seconds later.

So I was willing to accept that Hoffer may have nailed it regarding your overall committment to this theory and willingness to swing suddenly and wildly from one position to another. Then I noticed Icecold's post:

Well it looks like Ty and EWO are working for the MIC.

Now I only say this because nobody could be that dumb and I'm sure these two gentlemen are smart cookies.

Gentlemen how much are you getting paid for this op?

I could use a few bucks for petrol this week.

MIC - Mitigating Idiotic Conspiracies? Guilty, but strictly on a volunteer basis, though I can't speak for EWO.

At any rate, it inspired me to do a bit more research and I came across Pod People - a euphemism for government shills in honor of the movie...

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ppfinal.html - Right now, government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that a passenger jet did not really hit the Pentagon.

...

The "Pod People" will no doubt scream that the above photos are fake, just as they have insisted that all the photos which show debris at the crash site are fakes, and just as they scream that the witnesses to the passenger jet at the Pentagon "have to be" wrong. But witness-smearing is the exact same tactic the government has used to silence contradictory witnesses from JFK to the shoot down of TWA 800.

As the "Pod People" use the same tactics, they reveal who they really are.

and this ...

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html - There is NO credible, verifiable evidence in support of ANY of the many and varied "theories" pretending that a plane did not crash into the Pentagon

and this ...

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html - The fact that "No Plane" is the cudgel being used against the 9/11 truth movement proves it is a counterproductive strategy for exposing real evidence of complicity. Whether these hoaxes are coming from deliberate disinformation agents, the aggressively naive, the gullible or the sloppy is not relevant, since the ONLY evidence for "no plane" is altered and misleading perspective photos.

OK. I guess that last one was written before the CIT video. So we can add to that a handfull of witnesses who disagree on where the plane was, many of them providing unnavigable flight paths.

So, like I said at the beginning of this series...

I’m confused. Befuddled. Can’t make heads or tails out of you.

Are you a True Believer, a fanatic? A government shill, aka Pod Person? (If so I'm sure they are very proud of the job you're doing) Or, as suggested in the last excerpt, a deliberate disinformation agent, aggressively naive, gullible or sloppy.

It's actually much harder to zero in on this truth than it was to determine what happened at the Pentagon. The only thing I'm sure of is that you aren't an intellectually honest truth seeker. Beyond that, it's anyone's guess.

Personally, I think you are a MOOT POD GOLF professional - ie, Mangler Of Obvious Truth, Promoter of Disinformation, Guardian Of Lunatic Flyover

Icecold also asked how much EWO and I are getting paid for this op. I can speak only for myself. I am a self-employed software engineer with more billable work than I can get to at the moment. So every hour I spend rebutting this nonsense costs me billable time. More than I can afford.

So why am I here? Good question. What started as mere curiousity became a research effort to see if a flyover really was the best theory. It didn't take long to realize it was nonsense which kicked into gear two things - (1) a desire to provide a counter-argument for any such as 3Optic who seemed genuinely interested in the debate and (2) my compunction to stamp out stupidity when confronted with it.

But all the arguments have been made, both evidentiary and mind set. They have either fallen on the deaf ears of true believers or perhaps have helped others realize the government can still be complicit in this event without needing to resort to lunatic theories.

So most of you will likely be happy to know that I will be far less active here. Whatever the reason for defending the flyover, it won't be swayed by rational argument. One can't have a rational debate when confronted with an irrational mind. And if the adoption of the flyover occuring 12 seconds AFTER the explosion isn't sufficiently convincing that it is an irrational mind at work here then you might be a redneck - er I mean a True Believer.

But before I go, to quote the late Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

The flyover theory has fallen so far short of this it's supporters should be embarassed to admit they believe it.

And if you recall, back on post #45 I said

If the evidence they present leads to the conclusion that a plane hit the Pentagon, as it appears to so far, barring the introduction of Criss Angel into the theory, then that is what I'll conclude.

and lo and behold, when all else fails...

*Legerdemain* ... is what the flyover hypothesis is all about, Ty. Legerdemain is not voodoo. It is not fiction. It is about the sleight of hand. And anyone who argues that the sleight of hand has no bearing in the analysis ... fails to understand that it is precisely the sleight of hand that is being anlayzed ... *at all four nodes* of the 9/11/2001 attacks.

Maybe. But there is no evidence for it at the Pentagon, all your assertions to the contary. Remember - assertion is not evidence.

And finally...

You really must live in a world that has lost its intellectual and moral axes. I feel sorry for you, Ty, for there is nothing more gratifying than being in concert with the truth. And there is not a shred of truth in your argument.

I live in a world that isn't afraid to evaluate all the options and let the truth arise from that evaluation. You apparently live in a world where the truth is manufactured to support whatever you need it to at the time. I can see why that would be gratifying, but I think I'll not join you there in Zookville.

I do want to commend you on your signature though.

"I have neither the knowledge nor the wisdom to be your messiah, and barely enough to be mine. "

That may be the most honest thing you've contributed to this thread.[COLOR="red"]