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.

 

*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   
In this addendum to The North Side Flyover we have released the conversation we had with witness Terry Morin who was at the Navy Annex when the attack jet flew over him.

Just like the north of the citgo claim, this simple fact is absolutely fatal to the official story as the plane directly over the Navy Annex is irreconcilable with all official data, reports, and the physical damage proving the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

Terry Morin is a marine aviator and has therefore been considered an "expert" witness in favor of the official story since he believes the plane hit and ironically thinks what he witnessed disproves the "conspiracy theories" when the opposite is true.

This is a prime example why independent confirmation of eyewitness accounts is critical to unraveling this deception because specific details like whether or not the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex (or north of the citgo) essentially expose what really happened on that day.

Viewing options available here or just watch the embed below.


Google Video Link





[edit on 3-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]




posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Maybe he also thought he saw it pass over the Navy Annex just as he seemingly thought the plane crashed into the Pentagon. He could be mistaken. All of the folks have somewhat different patterns for their believed flightpaths. Do you take average of these and make a guess? If all of these people are somewhat correct, do you actually want to stop at two planes? I know you do not claim to know the actual flightpath but I think more people would need to be interviewed. You still have not convinced a lot of open-minded people here on this forum, people who do try to examine the evidence just as you do. And what is with this whole explosion masking the plane stuff? Are explosions supposed to be the greatest mask of all time?

If I was the perp, I'd just have the plane fly into the building instead of being retarded about it and flying it over with a simultaneous magic show. Just crash the plane and boom the fires start and the building burns. Simple as that. Excellent premise for war. But I know you say you do not claim to know why, you just present the evidence. Good. I just say that your evidence is not good enough and does not always line up as can be seen by others in other threads.

Good luck this year and keep investigating, because regardless of how off I think you are on this topic, your brand of study is what continues to fuel discussion and critical thinking here at ATS.



[edit on 3-1-2009 by newagent89]



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Thank you Terry Morin. No frippin way was that aircraft south of Columbia Pike where it was supposed to be.

What do you have now; about 20+ eyewitnesses placing the aircraft Over the Naval Annex? Does that about sum it up? Oh yeah the FAA released video also places the aircraft Over the Naval Annex too, doesn't it?

1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg (mpg file, 12 mb)
Download the FAA original animation - right-click and save to hard drive




posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Thank you Terry Morin. No frippin way was that aircraft south of Columbia Pike where it was supposed to be
.

LOL. You forgot that NO pilot would have flown over the Navy Annex according to CIT's latest "proven" Robert's flight path.

Morin would never have seen an aircraft, period. It would be absurd for a pilot to have flown Craig's new "Roberts flyover" path by flying over the Annex.

CIT has completely debunked itself again with its massive contradiction It's over and we only await Craig's concession.



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Okay, Craig I am sold.

You have proven that there is some cause for concern especially with this interview. I was sort of not sure up untill now with all the arguments going back and forth, but now with this and just putting the whole thing together, we do have a problem.

There is something WRONG. The Plane was not on the South Side. Someone mentioned that perhaps Terry was wrong, but in order for him to have been *THAT* wrong, then that would mean he can't determine anything..Literally. I don't think he could be *THAT* wrong. He could have thought the plane flew into the building, because that is what anyone would think at that point. So in the latter case I can understand that type of error.

I can't understand how he could be wrong on the other though.

This proves for me that the Plane flew on the North Side, directly contradicting for whatever reason what has been officially released.



[edit on 3-1-2009 by talisman]



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


Yeah if Terry Morin isn't the last straw for people after the incredible amount of evidence for the north side approach that we have already presented then it's a clear sign of denial.

As I have said before....we don't need a new investigation.

We have the evidence that proves a deception.

We call for an indefinite suspension of the fraudulent war on terror and for hearings and indictments of the highest levels of government.



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Why would Craig release this unauthorized video unless he wasn't scared? He created this thread because of the thread I created

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Craig has changed his hypothesis regarding the position of the aircraft. He no longer thinks the plane went through the middle of the massive explosion, he thinks it somehow went 100 or so feet to the south of it.

Craig obviously gave this some serious thought. Along with the lack of support from his followers at the other thread,(and quite a lot of support to me from the mods here at ATS) this forced him to do something against a persons wishes. Mr. Morin asked that his statements not be released and Craig thinks by doing this it will help his dying fantasy.

Guess what? It didn't.

Although Mr. Morin is a professional, he is human. How many years AFTER the fact did you do this interview Craig?

Fact: Morin saw the plane flying parallel to the Navy Annex.

Morin, one of your witnesses Craig, places the aircraft south of the Citgo. This is what scared the bejesus out of you and forced you to post this unauthorized interview.

On a personal note, I am sorry Craig. I know the hard work you have put into this project of yours. You are by far more passionate about what you believe in than most people I know. You are one of the very few that gets up off their ass and does something. This however is the beginning of the end of your theory.

-CF



[edit on 3-1-2009 by CameronFox]



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Craig, why did the air traffic controllers at Reagan National Airport report an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon after watching the approach of Flight 77 from 5 miles out?

Better yet, why didn't they report the flyover?

How about the two aircraft that were on final approach when the Pentagon was struck, why didn't the pilots mention the flyover?

What about all the aircraft sitting on the tarmac because of the ground stop, why didn't they mention the flyover?



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
There has never been any reports of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon. CIT has presented no evidence to demonstrate it, nor yet refuted any evidence that AA77 did hit the Pentagon

I don't think one person here would stand up an be counted as agreeing with CIT that a "flyover" took place.

If there are any of you who still do, raise your hands.



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


This thread is not about the Pentagon flyover.

It is about the fact that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex in contradiction to all official reports, data, and physical damage.

But if after you provide first hand interviews with all of these witnesses you are talking about where they specifically state what you are claiming then you can make a thread about it and I'll be happy to address that evidence.

Otherwise absence of evidence is not evidence.

People thought Morin and Lagasse supported the official story too.

We have proven why first hand confirmation is so important.

Now please stay on topic and leave the logical fallacies out of the discussion.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

posted by CameronFox

Although Mr. Morin is a professional, he is human. How many years AFTER the fact did you do this interview Craig?


Terry Morin and the Arlington National Cemertery eyewitnesses were all interviewed way back in 2001. Then Craig and Aldo tracked them down and reinterviewed them. Their eyewitness accounts did not change over the years. The major difference is the CIT interviews were much much more thorough and detailed, and they videotaped or audiotaped the interviews for public study.

The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY has totally collapsed with 20+ eyewitnesses placing the aircraft Over the Naval Annex. The OFFICIAL STORY with the five light poles and damage path through the Pentagon does not allow for the flight path going north of Columbia PiKe, let alone Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo.

The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY fairy tale is deader than a doornail. You need to face reality CameronFox.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There has never been any reports of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon. CIT has presented no evidence to demonstrate it, nor yet refuted any evidence that AA77 did hit the Pentagon

I don't think one person here would stand up an be counted as agreeing with CIT that a "flyover" took place.

Note that jthomas is trying to drag this thread off topic. This thread is not about a possible Pentagon flyover.

Read this thread to see where jthomas admits, in his own words, that he doesn't know how many people might or might not have witnessed a Pentagon flyover.
jthomas debunks himself in that thread. It's a great read, as he admits that no one has the 'magical power' to know what witnesses should have seen that day.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I would also ask the skeptics to keep this particular item on topic. For the love of God, forget trying to "win" or taking "pot shots" at those you have argued with. There are far too many people placing the Plane over the Navy Annex, to just brush off. Something is obviously wrong and if anything the skeptics now should use their debunking skills to look at debunking those who have lied to us. Forget the "ego" game.

No-one really believes that Terry and his memory would be so out of touch, and why would his memory match so many others?

I honestly think this is powerful testimony and the fact it is corroborated in such a way makes it even more powerful.





[edit on 4-1-2009 by talisman]



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Another great job by CIT, the only credible alphabet agency left in the United States.

It's clear that there are thousands of eyewitnesses to a flyover of the Pentagon on 9/11. How to get them to tell their stories? Simple. Start a movement to put a stop to all these crazy conspiracy theories swirling around what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

"Citizens Against Outlandish Conspiracy Theories Surrounding the Events of 9/11" could be inaugurated with President Bush as it's honorary President. (He has a lot of experience as an honorary President.)

An appeal could be sent out for right thinking people who live in the area of the Pentagon to come forward with what they saw to put a stop to the rumors being started by outlandish conspiracy theorists.

A couple of weeks of that should be enough to bury the administration's version under a mountain of counter testimonials.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
That shoe leather pays off for CIT! Great job guys!

S&F Craig another notch on your belt. Pretty soon, if you keep it up, they won't be able to ignore you!



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 

Being ignored by serial mass murderers has it's positive side.

I hope and pray that Craig and crew are watching their backs at all times, although by being so public they are probably safe. I'm worried about when the perps begin to start feeling like cornered animals.

Daniel Hopsicker said once that he was told by someone on the "inside" that the only reason he was still alive is that there are people in the CIA who have made it known that if anything happens to him there will be retaliatory action taken.

I hope these people are looking after the CIT guys as well.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Boone 870
 


This thread is not about the Pentagon flyover.

It is about the fact that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex in contradiction to all official reports, data, and physical damage.


It's about the FACT that NO pilot would ever fly over the Navy Annex to accomplish YOUR latest flyover path, Craig.

You refuted yourself.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
There has never been any reports of any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon. CIT has presented no evidence to demonstrate it, nor yet refuted any evidence that AA77 did hit the Pentagon

I don't think one person here would stand up an be counted as agreeing with CIT that a "flyover" took place.

Note that jthomas is trying to drag this thread off topic. This thread is not about a possible Pentagon flyover.


It's about the FACT that CIT proposes a new flight path in which NO sane pilot would fly over the Navy Annex and therefore Morin would not have seen it.

I note that you didn't raise your hand.


Read this thread to see where jthomas admits, in his own words, that he doesn't know how many people might or might not have witnessed a Pentagon flyover.


Exactly. Thereby illustrating that CIT couldn't either.


jthomas debunks himself in that thread.


I debunked CIT--again.


It's a great read, as he admits that no one has the 'magical power' to know what witnesses should have seen that day.


Quite correct. So you agree with me that CIT doesn't have the power either. Thanks for the admission and illustrating my case for me.

And the probability that NO one would have seen a flyover is still near zero.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

posted by Craig Ranke CIT

This thread is not about the Pentagon flyover.

It is about the fact that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex in contradiction to all official reports, data, and physical damage.



Indeed. The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is dead.



Video

Google Video Link








Video - Edward points out body was over building at 14:20

Google Video Link










[edit on 1/4/09 by SPreston]




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join