It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Pentagon attack jet flew directly over the Navy Annex fatally contradicting the official story..

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
.....and supporting the north of citgo approach.

The NTSB data and the physical damage require the plane to remain completely on the south side of Columbia Pike at all times and in fact on the south side of the VDOT building directly over the communications antenna.



But this is far from where the witnesses place the plane who have it flying directly over the Navy Annex like Edward Paik describes in The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version.





But Edward Paik is not the only one who places the plane directly over the Navy Annex.

Terry Morin is a witness who was on the Navy Annex property at the time of the event and he also specifically describes the plane as directly over him and NOT across the street on the south side of Columbia Pike where it needed to be to fit the official story.

This image demonstrates how you can only see the roof of the Pentagon from the Navy Annex property due to the sudden decline immediately after the building:


Here is his first hand account:


I had just reached the elevator in the 5th Wing of BMDO/Federal Office Building (FOB) #2 – call it approximately 9:36 AM. I was already trying to make some sense out of the World Trade Tower attacks having heard about them on the radio. The news was sketchy, but the fact that it was a terrorist attack was already known. I then realized that I was wearing sunglasses and needed to go back to Lot 3 to retrieve my clear lenses. Since it was by no means a short walk to my car, I was upset with myself for being so distracted. Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual. I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. I instantly had a very bad feeling about this but things were happening very quickly. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon. There was a large explosion noise and the low frequency sound echo that comes with this type of sound. Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like a small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off roughly ½ mile in front of you. At once there was a huge cloud of black smoke that rose several hundred feet up. Elapsed time from hearing the initial noise to when I saw the impact flash was between 12 and 15 seconds.

The Reaction

Many of the FOB people had been looking at the news reports flowing out of the attack on the World Trade Center Towers, going about their normal work routine as they watched. Maybe half or a bit more already knew of the New York attacks. However, within seconds of the impact -- less than a minute after the FOB flyover-- several thousand people started exiting the FOB.
source


The Navy Annex is otherwise known as the BMDO/FOB or FOB #2 (Federal Office Building).

He clearly states that the plane:

-Flew "right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB"
-Was "50 ft above the FOB"
-"Cleared the 8th wing"
- Was involved in a "FOB flyover"

These details match EXACTLY with the flight path that Edward Paik describes...


...which would take it north of the Citgo.



Granted Terry Morin claims the plane was "parallel" to the building while Paik describes it at a bit of an angle but exact heading would be a difficult detail to accurately determine with a plane directly above you and the very fact that it was directly over the Navy Annex AT ALL is fatal to the official story and PROVES the NTSB data fraudulent and therefore that 9/11 was a military deception.

But you don't have to rely on Paik and Morin alone for this important detail.

Here are more corroborating accounts of the plane coming over the Navy Annex:


Michael Dobbs: "I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle."
source




On the surface, the security issue sounds prudent. The MDA sits atop a hill overlooking the Pentagon in a facility historically known as the Navy Annex. My office overlooked the side of the Pentagon that was struck by the airliner flown by the Sept. 11 terrorists. That jet flew over the Navy Annex before crashing into the Pentagon. While moving the MDA outside the Washington metro area may make sense, widely dispersing its employees does not.
source



The Navy Annex Building on Columbia Pike in Arlington, Va., was the last sight some of the passengers on American Airlines Flight 77 saw before it sliced into the Pentagon on 11 September. With its landing gear down, the Boeing 757 flew so low that it shook the Annex and rattled windows. The Marines inside the Annex thought a freight train had passed overhead...It will never again be "business as usual" for Marines since Flight 77 flew over the Navy Annex Building on 11 September.
source



Although we did not know it at the time, a hijacked plane was heading directly for our office. Unable to bleed altitude, the terrorists-turned-pilots circled left and made their approach from a different direction, over the Navy Annex and toward the Navy Operations Center. Unknowingly, all of us in the VCNO's office had dodged a bullet; because of Doug Crowder's intervention, I would be dodging two.
source



I departed my desk at the Navy Annex three months prior to the September attack. In fact, United Airlines flight 77 roared over my former office at less than 100 feet before burrowing itself in the Pentagon.
original source
(try the link in waybackmachine)



Scott Perry of Spotsylvania County heard a plane's engines rumbling above the Navy Annex building where he works, so he looked out his window, which faces the Pentagon.
source



Obviously the evidence that the plane flew over the Navy Annex is abundant.

The extreme significance of this explosive information was simply unknown until CIT decided to focus so much attention on the exact flight path of the plane.

We can't stress enough how important the true flight path evidence is as it has now revealed 3 separate claims that prove 9/11 was an inside job!

That would be the north of citgo (NoC), east of the Potomac (EoP), and now of course over Navy Annex (ONA) claims.



[edit on 19-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 

Morin said parallel. Do you need help with parallel? It means Paik and Morin prove the official path is true, and Morin saw the tail as 77 impacts the Pentagon. Flyover - 0 Official flight path – 2

Morin said over him (wonder what that really means, 45 degrees, 60 degrees what?), while he was south of the Annex, and the


outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB).
This places 77 not over the Annex, he was not in the Annex, he had just left and made a turn to the guard shack next to 4 and 5 wings. Then looks up and sees 77. Look up, what angle are you looking at? Is that over you? Half the universe is over me, the other half under. Witness statements, what do they mean? With experience you can figure this out, but since you have ignored physics evidence supported by your own witnesses (which you misinterpreted), and leave out things like parallel, you are stuck with your non-paths, made up in the first place but now you are just trying to disprove 77 hit the light posts, with witness testimony that saw 77 go right by the light posts. ???

Get out your Google Earth, and see Paik pointing, proves the official flight path. Listen to him and he places 77 next to the tower, making Paiks next to tower and Morin's parallel to the exterior of the Annex the death of the made up NON-flight paths of CIT.

Got paths? You never had any.

Get out google earth, I did! Paik confirms 77 hitting the Pentagon and the real path of 77. Remember he said 77 was very close to the tower BEHIND him to the SOUTH.

Morin said


The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.
Therefore 77 was not over the Annex, he would not be able to follow the tail to the Pentagon, from up the hill over 70 feet above the impact zone, down the hill to the Pentagon. Why do you insist on including testimony which does not support your over the Annex stuff?

[edit on 19-4-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 



Directly over the Navy Annex AT ALL is fatal to the official story and PROVES the NTSB data fraudulent and therefore that 9/11 was a military deception.

Are you denying this?

The plane CAN NOT be over the Navy Annex for the official story to be true.

Exact heading would be difficult to tell with a plane directly over your head.

It's unreasonable and contradictory to expect any eyewitness to be perfect regarding specific little difficult to tell details like exact heading while simultaneously suggesting they are all so drastically incorrect about very GENERAL details such as placement of the plane on the north or south side of Columbia Pike.

Paik and Morin place the plane on the NORTH side of Columbia Pike.

And there is no way that Morin could see the tail if the plane entered the building on the first floor.

You can only see the top floor of the Pentagon from the Navy Annex:


So the ONLY way he would be able to see the tail when the plane reached the building is if it flew over.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Paik and Morin place the plane on the NORTH side of Columbia Pike.

And there is no way that Morin could see the tail if the plane entered the building on the first floor.

No Paik said 77 was near the tower, close enough for the wing to touch it. That makes 77 60 feet SOUTH, at a minimum, of the Pike.

Morin said parallel to the South edge of the Annex, this makes it south of the Annex. Morin did see the tail until it hit the Pentagon. The tail is sticking up in the air because the plane was going down the hill. So the tail was still up when the nose slammed into the Pentagon. This is why Boger saw 77 hit the Pentagon right next to him.

Three witnesses used by you, really support the official flight path through the light post, and into the Pentagon.

I listened to your Paik testimony, and he puts 77 out near the tower, close enough to hit it. You are the one who puts words out there about being in the middle of the street. But then you draw a line not in the middle, not near the tower, but made up out of the blue to get you close to the NoC, but that path is impossible, and you have no paths. Remember, you have zero paths.

So as you present more information, Paik point straight to the Pentagon, with a path near the tower! Gee if Paik meant the other wing clipped the tower, then the path is even further south. The holes in your story grow, when Morin looks up and sees 77 on a path parallel to the Annex, and that make that path south, and it can never (because it is parallel to the Annex) go over the Annex due to the definition of PARALLEL. Geometry and physics could help you.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Wrong.

Paik described, gestured, and illustrated the plane on the NORTH side of Columbia Pike just like Terry Morin.

He straight up admits that he did NOT see the plane hit the VDOT antenna.

Your accusations of me leading the witness are completely false which is why you can not quote me to prove your libelous claim.

Why are you lying?

Back it up or retract it.

In fact the opposite happened......it was actually Russell Pickering who tried leading the witness to placing the plane closer to the official flight path by literally putting the words "over the road" in his mouth.

But as Paik's own illustrations and his on location interview make perfectly clear......he places the plane directly over the Navy Annex.

He even specifically says that he thought the plane was going to hit the Navy Annex.

No honest person would deny this after watching the interview.





[edit on 19-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


So you say Boger, who said he saw it hit, is a liar? How many witnesses have you discredited and still use their testimony?

Please present to the degree the bank angle, not seen by Paik, or Morin. Oops, there was no bank over 10 degrees seen by anyone in the last 10 seconds. Are you going to make up something new?

Sorry, the evidenced stands, your witness saw 77 hit the Pentagon, and Morin saw the tail crash into the Pentagon, not fly over.

Too bad no one saw the fly-over. Flyover – 0, official flight path and impact - 3

Paik's path is South of the Pike, and Morin's path is parallel to the Annex. Parallel means not over the Annex, both make paths made up by you, all you non paths, impossible. Paik says the plane was near the tower, south of the Pike.

All your witnesses support the official path. Paik, south of Pike and he points to the Pentagon, Morin parallel to the Annex watching the tail go to the Pentagon where the impact was, and right through the lamp posts, and Boger, he sees 77 hit!

You have proven 77 hit the Pentagon, and the official flight path. Good job. Better stop while no one checks your stuff; they will see the big holes in your story.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


So you say Boger, who said he saw it hit, is a liar? How many witnesses have you discredited and still use their testimony?


Witnesses often innocently embellish.

This doesn't mean their entire testimony is wrong or that they are "liars".



Please present to the degree the bank angle, not seen by Paik, or Morin. Oops, there was no bank over 10 degrees seen by anyone in the last 10 seconds. Are you going to make up something new?


Here is another potential final bank as described by Sean Boger, Mike Walter, and others:
We estimate the speed at 300 knots.





Sorry, the evidenced stands, your witness saw 77 hit the Pentagon, and Morin saw the tail crash into the Pentagon, not fly over.


It would be impossible to see the plane enter the building in the first floor from the Navy Annex property where you can only see the roof of the Pentagon.

Plus you do realize that if the plane was over the Navy Annex at all that this fatally contradicts the official story right?

Are you really denying that Paik and Morin and others place the plane directly over the Navy Annex?




Paik's path is South of the Pike, and Morin's path is parallel to the Annex. Parallel means not over the Annex, both make paths made up by you, all you non paths, impossible. Paik says the plane was near the tower, south of the Pike.


You are in denial.

That is NOT what parallel means!


And it's clear that Paik and Morin both place it directly over the Navy Annex.

They both specifically say this.




All your witnesses support the official path. Paik, south of Pike and he points to the Pentagon, Morin parallel to the Annex watching the tail go to the Pentagon where the impact was, and right through the lamp posts, and Boger, he sees 77 hit!



Up is down, black is white, north is south.


NoC does NOT support the official flight path.

EoP does NOT support the official flight path.

ONA does NOT support the official flight path.

We have overwhelming corroborating evidence for ALL of these claims.

You are in denial.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
.....and supporting the north of citgo approach.

The NTSB data and the physical damage require the plane to remain completely on the south side of Columbia Pike at all times and in fact on the south side of the VDOT building directly over the communications antenna.



I wholly disagree with that statement. It would have to be on some line, not necc. perfectly straight, thru that area. It could have been almost straight down the Pike, your own line shows it crossing at the crook (not south), and it might've even been able to cross the very corner of the Annex and still fit all the other evidence. Unless you know more about plane handling than me (I'm guessing we're about on par).

However it could not substantially cross over the Annex with more than maybe the left wing.


But this is far from where the witnesses place the plane who have it flying directly over the Navy Annex like Edward Paik describes in The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version.


You mean the witness.

There are a lot of people whao said it came in "over the Annex." Plot their perspectives and I'll bet you most of those were north of the Annex.

Paik does have it crossing at an angle. It pretty much matches either the north side, given a perspective error and missing the hard right bank, or the "official" path assuming a similar perspective error the other way and accurate perception of the turn/bank situation.

So what else?


Terry Morin is a witness who was on the Navy Annex property at the time of the event and he also specifically describes the plane as directly over him and NOT across the street on the south side of Columbia Pike where it needed to be to fit the official story.

[...]
He clearly states that the plane:

-Flew "right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB"
[grounds/parking lot?]

-Was "50 ft above the FOB"
-"Cleared the 8th wing"
- Was involved in a "FOB flyover"


[...]

...which would take it north of the Citgo.

Ahem...

Due to all of these extreme contradictions with the official story and explicit exaggerated details meant to support it....it's clear that Morin is either relaying a completely fabricated or else wildly embellished account.
source
I guess it was AFTER this you realized he was a NoC witness as you say?


Granted Terry Morin claims the plane was "parallel" to the building while Paik describes it at a bit of an angle but exact heading would be a difficult detail to accurately determine with a plane directly above you


Unless you were just gauging it relative to the big building you're next to. Where, ever, does he say it was OVER the BUILDING? "Above" the building, yes. "Essentially directly over" himself, yes. "red and blue stripes," innvisible from directly below unless it's a bit south and banking left or a bit north and banking right. Which one fits closer with "parallel to the building's edge?"

other corroborating accounts:

Michael Dobbs:

Scott Perry of Spotsylvania County

Just the two?



Obviously the evidence that the plane flew over the Navy Annex is abundant.


Be patient, it may not be as obvious to everyone else yet.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 19-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Great post! Death knell, dang...


Morin said parallel. Do you need help with parallel? It means Paik and Morin prove the official path is true, and Morin saw the tail as 77 impacts the Pentagon. Flyover - 0 Official flight path – 2


First, I don't think it was exactly parallel, but clearly that doesn't support and angled path from south of t over the building. And Craig will hop all over the tailfin at impact thing, which would prove a flyover. Here's a graphic, not precise, to show about where the tailfin would dip below his field of view.
too big to post here - click

Which would put it dipping slightly to the right at the point, indicating a right bank. Right before the light poles. When does a right bank put a plane on a straight path across the road/lawn damage and into the building?



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
.....and supporting the north of citgo approach.

The NTSB data and the physical damage require the plane to remain completely on the south side of Columbia Pike at all times and in fact on the south side of the VDOT building directly over the communications antenna.


I wholly disagree with that statement. It would have to be on some line, not necc. perfectly straight, thru that area. It could have been almost straight down the Pike, your own line shows it crossing at the crook (not south), and it might've even been able to cross the very corner of the Annex and still fit all the other evidence. Unless you know more about plane handling than me (I'm guessing we're about on par).

However it could not substantially cross over the Annex with more than maybe the left wing.


You have provided NOTHING to show how the left wing could have passed over the Navy Annex and still fit with the official data.

Pure speculative nonsense.

Your goofy "wiggle" around the antenna theory can not account for where Morin and Paik place the plane.

The plane directly over the Navy Annex fatally contradicts the official story.

There is no denying this absolute fact.

You once again have to assert that the witnesses are simultaneously wrong in the same way and that the plane was not directly above them at all if you want to continue to obsessively defend the official story.



You mean the witness.


No I mean witnesses.

Besides the other published accounts Paik, Morin, Boger, and Stephens are plenty enough and we have first hand accounts from all of them.



There are a lot of people whao said it came in "over the Annex." Plot their perspectives and I'll bet you most of those were north of the Annex.


You'll bet? In other words you are guessing. It's your claim so prove it.

Of course it doesn't really matter since Paik and Morin are enough as it is and we know their locations.

The other statements are simply supporting evidence and you have no valid reason to discount them.



Ahem...

Due to all of these extreme contradictions with the official story and explicit exaggerated details meant to support it....it's clear that Morin is either relaying a completely fabricated or else wildly embellished account.
source
I guess it was AFTER this you realized he was a NoC witness as you say?


I reserve the right to change my opinion about any witness at any time. Why shouldn't I? Any good researcher should. All previously published witnesses are suspects. Does that mean they are all guilty? Of course not. It's clear that Morin DID do some embellishing. We initially suspected Lagasse for his "wing vortices" embellishment too. Witnesses do innocently embellish. That's why corroboration is the best scientific method used to determine what parts of eyewitness testimony are accurate.

Since the ONA claim is corroborated by Edward and others it's clear that this part of Morin's testimony is accurate.






Unless you were just gauging it relative to the big building you're next to. Where, ever, does he say it was OVER the BUILDING? "Above" the building, yes. "Essentially directly over" himself, yes. "red and blue stripes," innvisible from directly below unless it's a bit south and banking left or a bit north and banking right. Which one fits closer with "parallel to the building's edge?"


Now you are being disingenuous.

He was on the property. Directly over him is over the building.

Edward's detailed testimony of the location of the fuselage over the building corroborates Morin's claim.




other corroborating accounts:

Michael Dobbs:

Scott Perry of Spotsylvania County

Just the two?


Be patient, it may not be as obvious to everyone else yet.



Of course not for those who are in perpetual psychological denial regarding the serious implications.

I present evidence.

You present none.

You haven't even presented a substantial argument against the ONA claim.

Your trick is to simply respond with vague convoluted sentences to make it look like you are actually addressing the information when you are really just throwing out doubt and speculation.

Where's the substance? Where's the evidence?

Why are you so compelled to spin data that contradicts the official story to defend the government?

What kind of a person admits to "obsessing" on such a thing to feed his "ego"?


[edit on 19-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
All I can say is I'm surprised Captian Obvious hasn't chimed in yet exclaiming how evil you guys are for selling things to support your research. Maybe he has the day off?

[edit on 4/19/2008 by Griff]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

You have provided NOTHING to show how the left wing could have passed over the Navy Annex and still fit with the official data.

Pure speculative nonsense.


True I don't have the data in front of me, but you're probably right. I was just making a point that there's NOTHING real that says it HAD to be on exactly that straight line.

So I retract that point. The others stand.


You once again have to assert that the witnesses are simultaneously wrong in the same way and that the plane was not directly above them at all if you want to continue to obsessively defend the official story.


If you want to obsessively manugacture new smoking guns you'll need to ignore that "essentially directly over me" is a vague witness description that is not hard scientific fact. Paik was substantially mistaken and Morin simply does not ever say what you say he does, so I have no reason to doubt his statement.




Ahem...

Due to all of these extreme contradictions with the official story and explicit exaggerated details meant to support it....it's clear that Morin is either relaying a completely fabricated or else wildly embellished account.
source
I guess it was AFTER this you realized he was a NoC witness as you say?


I reserve the right to change my opinion about any witness at any time. Why shouldn't I? Any good researcher should.

"At any time?" Don't think people don't notice WHEN you decide to dig a witness out of the trash bin and re-brand them. As soon as you decide there's something in their you can twist into supporting a new theory.


Since the ONA claim is corroborated by Edward and others it's clear that this part of Morin's testimony is accurate.


See? That's what I mean. Since part of what we pretend he says fits with something else, that part is true. So the part of his account that DOESN'T EXIST is true? Isn't this another way of saying his account is bogus?


Now you are being disingenuous.

He was on the property. Directly over him is over the building.


Did I read that right? He was ON THE PROPERTY, not in the building, so a plane over him is OVER THE BUILDING?


Edward's detailed testimony of the location of the fuselage over the building corroborates Morin's claim.


That he never made. It's right to think that's what he meant but you cannot call your interpretation "Morin's claim" and use another likely erred account to 'corroborate' it.



Why are you so compelled to spin data to SEEM to "contradicts the official story" in whatever stupid new way that seems possible?
Why so obsessed with digging thru old evidence for adjectives you can tweak to re-brand people you dismissed before as liars.

Smoking guns! Ha! You got a little forge in your basement for replica guns that don't work. Then you put a smoke bomb of hyperbole in each one and trot it out for sale.
As for me, you know what drives me. And you, oh, truth and justice, of course.

You can say what you want about me and why and so on, but this is my opinion as stated in this discussion forum. Thank you.


What kind of a person admits to "obsessing" on such a thing to feed his "ego"?


Oh yeah, well... one type might be someone who wanted to inject it into your quotes repertoire as a dye stress indicator of sorts. Whenever I'm on the right track, you'll fall back on either the 'incoherent' thing, or just totally bluff your way out by saying such and such is proven, OR you'll point out how I'm all obsessed and crazy and egotistical, even actually LINK to my blog for once to prove that I ADMITTED THAT!

All to distract from the fact that however I got there, I'm damn right and my ability to show that scares you.

And as for the ego thing, maybe your pointing that out is why no one gives me stars any more. That's okay tho and makes sense.

So Craig, how much longer do you want to keep making this about you and me?

[edit on 19-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


More rhetoric, spin, and posturing devoid of substance.

To the meat.....

Yes directly over Morin on the Navy Annex property = over the Navy Annex.

In the very least it = fatally off course from the official flight path yet in the proper location to match the NoC path and corroborate Edward Paik.



[edit on 19-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
All I can say is I'm surprised Captian Obvious hasn't chimed in yet exclaiming how evil you guys are for selling things to support your research. Maybe he has the day off?


Ha Ha - I was thinking the same thing


I'm allowed to say that - he's my respected foe.

Carry on guys! You've completely lost me but I'm riveted.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by KMFNWO
 


It's actually really quite simple.

There is an insane amount of independent evidence showing how the plane flew in a completely different place than it need to in order to match the physical evidence and the official data (fraudulent FDR and alleged radar data not released until many years after the event).

The plane could not have hit the building.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


to the meat

parallel to the Annex; a path parallel to the Annex, is not directly over the Annex. But then Morin was not in the Annex he was away from the Annex along the south side. Placing 77 of the south side of the Annex where he was negating your new non-path. BINGO

Morin said parallel; do you understand the meaning of parallel. Now he also saw the tail go to the Pentagon, not over, into.

How many people saw 77 hit the Pentagon? Why do you blame the military for this?

Morin seeing the tail after it passes him on the way to the Pentagon make your latest path impossible. Next witness.



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Morin cannot see the tail all the way to the pentagon.

But keep saying it if it makes you feel better.



fixed link




[edit on 20-4-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
All I can say is I'm surprised Captian Obvious hasn't chimed in yet exclaiming how evil you guys are for selling things to support your research. Maybe he has the day off?

[edit on 4/19/2008 by Griff]




Who? Me? What did I do?





posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Could someone post an illustration of the 'official' flight path for quick reference?

[edit on 20-4-2008 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Apr, 20 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ViewFromTheStars
 


I don't feel like arguing today but this I can do:

i133.photobucket.com...
This is approximate - it wasn't necc. totally straight. This graphic shows the damage light poles and the location of the shadow seen on the Citgo tape.

And for the sake of this discussion my old Paik-Morin graphic. The yellow is CIT's composite that has been shown impossible but isn't their final try.


i133.photobucket.com...

ETA: The top one doesn't go back far enough so here's a path done PFFFT based on the csv file which they feel/felt (?) is "altered" to not show the real path north of the Citgo. But it's what the data says, it's official, and lines up w/Morin's acct. For reference.


i47.photobucket.com...





[edit on 20-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 20-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join