Miragememories

Nov 1 2009, 09:33 AM

People should be very curious about what motivates people like Alfie.

Why dedicate so much time and energy just to deny there are good
reasons to be concerned about how poorly 9/11 has been investigated

Lin Kuei

Nov 1 2009, 10:10 AM

Miragememories

Nov 1 2009, 09:33 AM

People should be very curious about what motivates people like Alfie.

Why dedicate so much time and energy just to deny there are good
reasons to be concerned about how poorly 9/11 has been investigated

Very true - it should be obvious to guest-readers of this thread and forum how transparent the attempts by alfie and his ilk are, and that these attempts are not grounded in honest pursuit of the truth.
It cannot be denied that there have always been individuals who seem to have as their full-time occupation the job of obfuscating and attempting to play down any legitimate questioning of 9/11.

What also alarms me is how certain individuals in the truth movement itself spit venom in the direction of any discussion of a NoC flightpath, employ very nasty tactics, and rely on ad-hominem attacks. Their arguments completely mirror the likes of JREF/SLC. These individuals even have a habit of referencing JREFers/SLCers to back up their arguments against the NoC evidence. I won't name names but those familiar with some of the pseudo-controversy which has sprung up around the discussion of the NoC witnesses will know who I'm talking about. These people also lash out at any high profile researchers who are vocal about the importance of the NoC witness evidence, and try to beat them into submission with threats that they are participating in 'disinfo', and even go as far as to try and link the NoC evidence with real disinformation like no-plane (@ WTC) theories. Look at what happened with Peter Dale Scott for one example. This has unfortunately spread to other honest 9/11 researchers who are more concerned with their image and standing in the movement than where the actual evidence points to.

Quote:

 

I give you a head start by putting the plane in the middle of the Annexe AND on a southernley course

Miragememories

Nov 1 2009, 09:33 AM

People should be very curious about what motivates people like Alfie.

Why dedicate so much time and energy just to deny there are good
reasons to be concerned about how poorly 9/11 has been investigated?

Some people think our trust in public institutions should be automatic.

Others believe that trust needs to be continually earned.

It comes down to who do you trust, and being brave enough to
face the truth?

MM

Miragememories

Nov 12 2009, 02:27 PM

Alfie you've made it perfectly clear that you have a hate on for Islam
and it's followers.

While there is little dispute regarding the religious affiliation of most
terrorists operating in the Middle East, if the problem is worsening,
it is the result of intolerant people like yourself kneejerk labelling
all muslims as fitting a terrorist profile.

Oh, and I am an atheist, so don't assume I'm in any way a supporter
of Islam.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to this post;

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=330883&t=1212539

MM

JFK

Nov 12 2009, 03:47 PM

I suggest you plot the final return and work backwards from the Pentagon...

If you do that Alfie, it makes your previous post null and void.

JFK

Nov 12 2009, 04:07 PM

I'd love to tell you and show you my plot, but unfortunately it is on a computer which is currently infected with virut and is in the process of being cleaned... ( takes a while with > 2TB of HD space ).

I suggest you do it yourself... Download Warren Stutt's program, find the final lat/long, and plot it in google maps.

It is closer to NOC than SOC, and does NOT line up with the poles.

Alfie

 

"I don't have a hate on for Islam but I do have a hate on for terrorists and religious bigots. If I sound quite strong on it it may be because my home town London has been hit by them. Not Jews, Quakers, Methodists, Catholics but Muslims. I am also sensitive to your loss whatever you think. Our countries are old friends."

Alfie

Nov 12 2009, 04:14 PM

JFK

Nov 12 2009, 04:07 PM

I'd love to tell you and show you my plot, but unfortunately it is on a computer which is currently infected with virut and is in the process of being cleaned... ( takes a while with > 2TB of HD space ).

I suggest you do it yourself... Download Warren Stutt's program, find the final lat/long, and plot it in google maps.

It is closer to NOC than SOC, and does NOT line up with the poles.

JFK

Thanks, I intend to look into this to the best of my ability.

Am I right in thinking you accept Warren Stutt's further decode ?

JFK

Nov 12 2009, 04:50 PM

Alfie

Nov 12 2009, 04:14 PM

JFK

Nov 12 2009, 04:07 PM

I'd love to tell you and show you my plot, but unfortunately it is on a computer which is currently infected with virut and is in the process of being cleaned... ( takes a while with > 2TB of HD space ).

I suggest you do it yourself... Download Warren Stutt's program, find the final lat/long, and plot it in google maps.

It is closer to NOC than SOC, and does NOT line up with the poles.

JFK

Thanks, I intend to look into this to the best of my ability.

Am I right in thinking you accept Warren Stutt's further decode ?

I am taking it with a grain of salt so to speak, and was in the process of going through his source code with a fine tooth comb...

Unfortunately the specs for the data layout in the released .fdr file are not very easy to come by and are proprietary.
( flight 93 and flight 77's data layout is completely different )

I do have his entire website archived locally ( from before his latest update ) so if he did make an error I can reference it.

Alfie

Nov 19 2009, 03:14 PM

< snip >

JFK

I have had a chance to look into this now. I do not dispute that the final long/lat position from Warren Stutt's further decode is accurately plotted in your earlier post. That position, on the cloverleaf, is some 200 feet plus north of what it should be for the light poles and impact. So that is one up for you.

However, I am sure you are aware that the previous 4 plots are south of the navy annexe and south of the citgo. So that is one up for me.

Trouble is, from the enquiries I have made, it is not one up for either of us because a plane's Internal Navigation System is subject to " drift " and all these points are subject to possible several hundred feet error.

What may be much more significant, and I would be interested to see it debated on this forum, is that the final FDR subframe shows radio altitude of 4' at the same time as maximum decelaration which can be recorded. Difficult not to infer this is impact in my view.

Alfie

Nov 12 2009, 12:09 PM

I don't want that headstart thank you. I believe, in accordance with the FDR, that AA 77 came in on a bearing of 61.5 degrees which put it south of the Navy Annexe, south of the Citgo and pretty much bisected the clover leaf before hitting the light poles and impacting the Pentagon.

Btw, your pic covered with arrows is as clear as mud. Thought it was a re-enactment of Custer's last stand initially.

Anyway, your post is very timely. Have you seen any of the debate going on at P4ft, ATS and JREF ?

.....

tuatara

Nov 19 2009, 08:30 PM

Just how many witnesses do you need to prove the NoC flightpath? Maybe the sign of an open mind on your part would be encouraging .......

Alfie

Nov 20 2009, 06:23 AM

tuatara

When you can come up with some witnesses who saw the plane approach the Pentagon and fly over it I will be interested.

In the meantime, what do you think of the fact that the final subframe from the FDR, recently decoded, records a radio altitude of 4' at the same time as showing the maximum deceleration capable of being recorded ? Does that sound like a flyover to you ?

Duffman1013

Nov 20 2009, 07:10 AM

Alfie

Nov 20 2009, 06:23 AM

tuatara

When you can come up with some witnesses who saw the plane approach the Pentagon and fly over it I will be interested.

In the meantime, what do you think of the fact that the final subframe from the FDR, recently decoded, records a radio altitude of 4' at the same time as showing the maximum deceleration capable of being recorded ? Does that sound like a flyover to you ?

Alfie, the burden of proof isn't on Tuatara, JFK, MM, Craig or Aldo to prove a flyover. At this point, nobody is going to debate a flyover with you, because unless you had 150 people who said they saw an American Airlines 757 fly directly over the Pentagon at 9:40am 9-11, you would dismiss it. The flyover conclusion is one that's reached after all other avenues have been exhausted. There are several flaws with your arguments:
1) You state that every witness that has the plane anywhere near the middle or just slightly to the left of the Citgo _must_ be an impact witness. Double standards that because they can't all agree on a 50' wide margin of flightpath means that they must be so completely mistaken about it being NoC that it inherently proves you right.
2) Clinging to the only notable name in SoC witnesses, Lloyd England, you claim that because he has damage to his car, and he says it's so, that his witness testimony trumps the others presented before you. EVEN when those witnesses are more credible than Mr. England.
3) Because the FDR is off by a fraction of a degree, even when it's flightpath brings it nowhere near the official flightpath and damage centers, you can claim it as evidence against a NoC approach, yet double standards use that same evidence to prove a SoC lightpole approach.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The damage may be consistent with a "SoC light pole" approach, however the independent witness and substantiating evidence clearly proves that the official flightpath is not possible. ERGO, the only logical conclusion is that the official flightpath (regardless of the occurances immediately after the Pentagon explosion) is not the truth.

Duffman1013

Nov 20 2009, 07:10 AM

Alfie

Nov 20 2009, 06:23 AM

tuatara

When you can come up with some witnesses who saw the plane approach the Pentagon and fly over it I will be interested.

In the meantime, what do you think of the fact that the final subframe from the FDR, recently decoded, records a radio altitude of 4' at the same time as showing the maximum deceleration capable of being recorded ? Does that sound like a flyover to you ?

Alfie, the burden of proof isn't on Tuatara, JFK, MM, Craig or Aldo to prove a flyover. At this point, nobody is going to debate a flyover with you, because unless you had 150 people who said they saw an American Airlines 757 fly directly over the Pentagon at 9:40am 9-11, you would dismiss it. The flyover conclusion is one that's reached after all other avenues have been exhausted. There are several flaws with your arguments:
1) You state that every witness that has the plane anywhere near the middle or just slightly to the left of the Citgo _must_ be an impact witness. Double standards that because they can't all agree on a 50' wide margin of flightpath means that they must be so completely mistaken about it being NoC that it inherently proves you right.
2) Clinging to the only notable name in SoC witnesses, Lloyd England, you claim that because he has damage to his car, and he says it's so, that his witness testimony trumps the others presented before you. EVEN when those witnesses are more credible than Mr. England.
3) Because the FDR is off by a fraction of a degree, even when it's flightpath brings it nowhere near the official flightpath and damage centers, you can claim it as evidence against a NoC approach, yet double standards use that same evidence to prove a SoC lightpole approach.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The damage may be consistent with a "SoC light pole" approach, however the independent witness and substantiating evidence clearly proves that the official flightpath is not possible. ERGO, the only logical conclusion is that the official flightpath (regardless of the occurances immediately after the Pentagon explosion) is not the truth.

tedscotland

Nov 21 2009, 03:26 AM

If somebody claims the plane flew over the pentagon then the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. To state otherwise is ridiculous.

Regarding the flight path witnesses. Some of these witnesses saw the plane for a few seconds, some even less. Lagasse himself says he saw the plane in flight for less than a second. Its was a traumatic day, witnesses saw the plane in flight for a few seconds, it therefore amazes me that you can take peoples recollection of the flightpath as gospel and error free. I would be astounded if every witness claimed the exact same details. People make mistakes.