*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Is that so? At what rate is their member list growing? How many new members per month?

Wow, first it was "There are no pilots/structural engineers/professionals speaking out". Now its, "What the rate of growth?". These are the same tactics used by the "Flat Earthers" thousands of years ago. But back then, they just beheaded anyone speaking out against a flat earth.

Just the fact that it is growing (and not reducing), with courageous people willing to put their name on the internet, who can be verified with the proper credentials in "peer review" of the work, speaks volumes. If you want to move the goal posts each time a new update comes along, im sure you'll wont be too happy in your little corner when its all said and done. Your desperation is already showing with your multitudes of unsourced claims/attacks.

Adam, you have proven yourself to be contradictory, lacking research ability, numerous unsourced claims (have you ever sourced a claim?), needy (refusal to review calculations because you dont like the medium in which its delivered), and an overall waste of time.

I leave you with a quote from Mark Twain... hopefully you'll read it, understand it, and appreciate it, as our lists grow.

“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, Brave, Hated, and Scorned. When his cause succeeds however,the timid join him, For then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.”

Have a nice day...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by jthomas

 

The questions were posed to CameronFox and GenRadek, not you.

Sorry, this thread is not your private playground.

No matter how much you plug your ears and ignore the evidence jthomas, the recorded interview with Terry Morin in the OP exists.

No matter how you try to deny it, Morin's statement exists here:

www.geocities.com...

Also, it doesn't matter since all of your eyewitnesses saw or believe a jet hit the Pentagon.

So when does CIT's "Going Out of Business Sale" begin, Craig?

Originally posted by RockHound757
I briefly skimmed through the replies of the detractors. What i find so hilarious is that the detractors would much rather get mired down in circular debates than go talk to Morin himself, as did Craig. I wonder why that is....

(well, actually, i dont... we all know why detractors refuse to confront Arlington witnesses and prefer to "debate" online... while also claiming "there is nothing to debate".)

jthomas once claimed he had a trip booked to Arlington. That turned out to be another lie.

No, Cap'n Bob, you wouldn't keep your end of the deal, remember?

Originally posted by GenRadek

LOL! I am ignoring his words? ME?

Yes sir you absolutely 100% are. I get the impression that you haven't even bothered to listen to the recorded interview in the OP.

So have you?

I am using his first account taken right after 9/11 which states he was OUTSIDE the gap between the two wings AND he states the red stripes running down the sides of the AA plane. And you are using his contradictory account taken six years later. Who is ignoring who? All you are doing is taking the account that better suits your preconcieved notion even though it is contradictory.

Nonsense.

The 2nd account includes his recorded words where follow up questions were asked and confirmation of the exact details was the goal.

The fact that he may have mistyped or that you may have misinterpreted what he meant in the first statement has been proven with his first-hand confirmation that clarified the details EXACTLY. It is YOUR pre-conceived notion that is causing you to completely dismiss his detailed account confirming these specific details.

Also.....whether or not he was inside or outside of the wings in BOTH accounts he has the plane directly over him which fatally contradicts all official reports, data, and the physical damage proving the plane didn't hit the building.

Apparently this important fact eludes you.

So now, your claim that he didnt see the stripes means the plane was not turning or banking anywhere to take it on the NoC course.

Wrong.

It's not my claim it is Terry Morin's claim.

Furthermore the corroborating evidence indicates the plane was "flat" over the Navy Annex and started the bank just after it as shown in the hypothetical animation and relayed in such utter detail from the ANC witnesses who unlike Morin had a clear view of the approach.

Why are you ignoring the ANC witnesses?

This means the plane was flying straight in, no turns, no banking, nothing until impact. So why do you ignore this fact? Why do you ignore this?

I didn't ignore it.

I provided independent evidence to the contrary.

Why are YOU ignoring the ANC witnesses?

Also please answer the following questions:

1. Do you agree that Terry Morin specifically stated in 2001 that the plane was "right over the top" of him and the Navy Annex and that he specifically confirmed in 2008 that the fuselage of the plane was directly over him and the Navy Annex?

2. Do agree that Terry Morin specifically confirmed in 2008 that he was 10 feet in between the wings in front of the security shack in between the 4th and 5th wings when the fuselage of the plane flew over the top of him?

3. Do you understand how it is physically impossible to see the side of an aircraft when the fuselage is only about 100 feet directly above you as he describes?

4. Do you understand how a plane directly over the Navy Annex is corroborated by many other witnesses and how this simple fact fatally contradicts all official reports, data, and the physical damage?

5. Do you agree that in 2008 Terry Morin stated he was interviewed by the FBI 3 times but was unable to tell the authorities it was an AA jet because he only saw the belly and that he also cited this explanation as the reason why he misidentified the aircraft as a 737?


[edit on 13-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Well, I have read the rest of this thread after my last post, and am really wondering, what on earth the board management means to say with these words :


while not living at all to their own words.
The vitriol and numerous board rules neglects from "the other side" is overflowing.
This forum needs moderation, and it does not get it the way it should.
It's clear some banned former members are back, with the same false rhetoric.


Firstly, everybody has to understand that it was a journalist who wrote those words in the quoted witnesses links from "geocities.com", while the words in the opening post of this thread are recorded audio, directly from Terry's own mouth, and he explained in that 2008 interview the distorted written words from 2001 by a journalist, to clear up the cleverly build-in uncertainties by the media editors.
He himself very clearly stated in 2008 that he was standing in between the Annex wings and not outside of those wings on the parking grounds.

So, GenRadek, one starts to wonder why you cling so desperately to your own and Adam's interpretation of a different scenario, of Terry standing outside the space between the Annex wings when he first heard and observed the plane coming from behind him.

Isn't it a tad bit strange to suppose him to be in that wide open space, and according to your interpretation, observing a, to the right of him, low flying passing plane, and then explaining that event by saying that the noise of that plane bounced off from the long wall of Wing 5?

If he would have been standing about 10 steps (7 meters) outside those Annex wings, on the wide open Annex parking lot, and like he said :
""was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual"",
he would have heard and seen the plane coming straight towards his face (in that case he was going in the direction of the entrance security boot), with both his ears collecting the same noise-signal strength, and WOULD have described it as - coming nearly head on, then passing over the road to the left of him -, and NOT as ""essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB)"".
He for sure would have said it was flying low and coming in in front of him, parallel with or over, the road outside the parking lot. But he didn't, in 2001.

That road, is where you and all other official story believers desperately want to place it to keep it in pace with the official story, but as Terry himself thoroughly explained in his 2008 interview, he did not stand where and see what you so dearly want to believe. He himself explained in 2008 he stood between Wing 5 and 4.


Now, just for the ant-fornicating part of this debate, let's assume Terry was where you want him, 10 steps or about 7 meters from the outer edge of the FOB, on the parking lot grounds (2008, he said he wasn't there).
And the plane flew ""essentially right over the top of him and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB)"".
Do you realize that in that/your proposed (non-existing) scenario, the plane would still fly on that moment with half of its wing span over the Navy Annex Wings? Thus, NOT over the road, about 30 meters to the right.

And thus it was still on its way to, like Terry said in 2001, the ""row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB"" which then blocked Terry's view as the plane passed over those trees. And Northeast is in my books definitely not crossing the clover leaf roads South to Southwest of the Pentagon, as depicted in the official AA77 flight path endorsed by all official sources.
And Terry is an aviator, they all know their position to their inner "compass" by heart.

So EVEN IN YOUR mis-interpreted scenario, it STILL would have been on route to a North of Citgo approach.


Thanks to your posted picture from Adam's (FrustratingFraud) site, you can see another obstruction in your own and Adam's impossible scenario :




If your explanation of Terry's 2001 interview by a journalist is right, he would have stood about where Adam drew his blue arrow, at the very tip of the arrow.
And FACING the incoming plane......
So why on earth would he have used these words, written down by a media payed journalist :

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.

Would you yourself use these words, when you are facing head on, a 100 feet, or 30 meter high flying, huge plane?
So you have it in your view already from the moment you turned your face and body to the security boot!

Pay attention to his quoted words: ""started to hear ; behind me; my left; turned to my left; my field of view.""
They all do NOT synchronize with your depicted position of Terry Morin when he first became aware of the incoming plane.

As a true misguided general, you handed over your own defeat with that picture from Adam.

You, and other readers who still can't believe that the real 9/11 scenario isn't the officially endorsed one, know very well, that if you have to admit that 9/11 was a con-game, your whole life will have to change, and all your ironclad convictions are suddenly build on quicksand.

It's clear as to what is happening now economically, that another clash of the wealthy ones is in its opening phase, and that those who believe in wisdom will again, just as in the late 1920'ies and 30'ies, have to battle the ones who believe in greed. And both parties have seen from the evidence we showed them in the years after 9.11.2001, that evil existed on 9/11 and still does, and they have to make a choice :
Battle or defend this evil.

[edit on 13/1/09 by LaBTop]

Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Is that so? At what rate is their member list growing? How many new members per month?

Wow, first it was "There are no pilots/structural engineers/professionals speaking out".

I made no such claim.

Originally posted by RockHound757Now its, "What the rate of growth?".

You, claim that PFT's numbers are growing, but never provided any data to indicate this.

At what rate is their member list growing? How many new members per month?

www.abovetopsecret.com... :

GenRadek : Do you agree that since Terry saw the underbelly of the plane, the plane was NOT in a banking turn, nor would it have been physically possible to make any sudden sharp turns prior to impact? If it was banking at any angle the stripes would have been visible. After all this is what it all hinges on. It didn't do any banking turns prior to impact which means it went straight in. Also this means in the short distance to the Pentagon there was NO way it could have made any banking turns or wingtip turns prior to impact.

This reading comprehension problem you related to Craig, me and any other opponent in your following triumphantly remarks in that above quoted post and your post above it, is clearly a problem however resting in your own mind :

www.abovetopsecret.com... :

Ahh much better. As some of you are having a hard time visualizing this, here it is. Now then, do we have to devolve to a Sesame Street break down of what each word means? I sure hope not because this is getting downright rediculus that some people cannot understand certain words. Between means in between the wings. OUT FROM between means he is no longer in between the two wings but out from between them.

Now then if Craig or you or anyone else tries to imply that what he said is entirely different then you are being completely dishonest and engaged in intentional disinformation. Twisting words is easy and the CT camp is an expert in this. Once again folks, reading comprehension 101. There is a difference between saying "In between" and "out from between". IF you try and deny this, then you truely are disinfo agents in the purest sense.

You ticked me a bit off with that kind of dis-respect, and I hope some moderator will ask you friendly in an U2U to refrain on this board from that kind of wording in the future.

My answer to your "NO way" remark in the first quote:

Source: www.geocities.com... :

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.

Take in account please, that Terry ran out from in between the 5th and 4th Wing, onto the parking lot, to be able to follow the plane which was disappearing down the hillside, with his own eyes.

Note also, that if a huge tail of a huge plane ""dips slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction"", that the right wing tip will go down many meters, and the left wing tip will rise many meters up.
The plane is thus BANKING.

Btw, many CIT witnesses exactly described that slight bank to the right, as if seen from behind the plane, looking at the tail.
Sean Boger, the one in the heli-port tower, was looking at the plane coming over the Navy Annex towards him, but described it as making a right bank.
You always give the direction as if sitting IN the plane itself as the pilot.

[edit on 13/1/09 by LaBTop]

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I made no such claim.

Perhaps not you specifically, and i dont feel like wasting my time to prove yet another contradiction made by you, but the claims have been made by people like you. Do you feel they are wrong in making such claims?

You, claim that PFT's numbers are growing, but never provided any data to indicate this. At what rate is their member list growing? How many new members per month?

Search the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum. They post the updates there with the date, numbers, credentials/experience of new core members. Or do you prefer we cater to you, hold your hand, and do the legwork?

I know, "it doesnt exist" unless people cater to you and post it here for you, just like the video presentation in which you are unable to find the play button.

Here, i'll keep it simple.. just keep an eye here and here.. and watch it grow.

Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I made no such claim.

Perhaps not you specifically, and i dont feel like wasting my time to prove yet another contradiction made by you, but the claims have been made by people like you. Do you feel they are wrong in making such claims?

Yes. While there are pilots/engineers/etc speaking out...they represent a very small minority of the number of pilots/engineers/experts in their respective fields. (see numbers below)

Originally posted by RockHound757

You, claim that PFT's numbers are growing, but never provided any data to indicate this. At what rate is their member list growing? How many new members per month?

Search the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum. They post the updates there with the date, numbers, credentials/experience of new core members. Or do you prefer we cater to you, hold your hand, and do the legwork?

You made a claim and as such it's your responsibility to support it with valid evidence. A static list with no indication of when members were added is not evidence that their member list is growing at any significant rate...but since I'm feeling nice I'll crunch the numbers for you.

At PFT I see a list about 80 pilots. If their growth rate is averaged since the site went online that's about 3 pilots per month.

As of the end of 2006, there were 597,109 active certified pilots, according to the AOPA Jan. 12, 07 newsletter which cites the FAA's estimates.

Thus:

The roughly 80 members of PFT make up 00.01% of the total number of pilots in the US. (That's one one-hundredth of one percent) To get to even 5% of pilots at their current average growth rate would take 800 years.

At the patriots site they list 160 pilots....so their membership encompasses 00.02% of the total number of active pilots in the US.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

Adam, as usual, a fine example of "Topic derailment", with the purpose to smear a thread full with totally unrelated subjects, where the poster knows that his post will surely trigger a reaction from his opponents. Therefore, the real important postings which do address the OP's subject, are drowned in the fast sea of unnecessary drivel.

Just to add to the confusion :
Three years ago, 6 immense wealthy persons in one room decided it became time to introduce 1 individual, a totally unknown to the bulk of the public colored man, to try to divert attention away from the 9/11 subject, which was zooming in too close to their background machinations.
Now, about 64,000,000 Americans have voted for that individual to be their next president.
Conclusion:
Numbers are not the crux of the matter, diligence is.

I see Adam is still unable to find the search feature at P4T forums regarding P4T growth.

Adam, your statistics model would be valid if you had polled all of the active pilots in 2006.

Also keep in mind not everyone wants to put their real name on the web only to be slandered and libeled by anonymous internet tough guys.

The fact remains, the P4T lists are growing, not reducing, with real aviation professionals and real current pilots at many major airlines.

Originally posted by RockHound757
I see Adam is still unable to find the search feature at P4T forums regarding P4T growth.

Adam, your statistics model would be valid if you had polled all of the active pilots in 2006.

What's wrong with the numbers I provided? I compared the current number of PFT members to the number of licensed pilots in the US. (Current as of 2007, the number is likely larger now)

For every 1 member of PFT there are about 10,000 pilots who are not.

Originally posted by RockHound757
The fact remains, the P4T lists are growing, not reducing, with real aviation professionals and real current pilots at many major airlines.

Growing at a rate of 3 per month is not significant considering the total number of pilots in the US. Even if PFT increased its numbers TENFOLD...it would still only have 1/10 of 1% of all active US pilots.

If you disagree or have alternate data, please correct my numbers.

Your model is not valid since it does not contain a controlled group.

Using your logic, we could argue the percentage of those who make excuse for the govt story as compared to all the people in the world. I guarantee the people on your side (who make excuse for the govt story daily), will be less than .00001%.

If you want a more valid model, compare those pilots who are aware of P4T work, understand and study the data per month to those who actually join per month. Even this wouldnt be very valid because there may be 100% who agree with P4T for a particular month, but only 50% willing to put their name on the web. Or compare our members to those pilots who can be verified that make excuse for the govt story daily. Here's a hint. You have zero percent on your side.



With your logic, ALPA, the largest and most influential pilot organization in the world, has a membership of about 8% of active pilots and was established over 70 years ago. Does that mean 92% of active pilots disagree with ALPA?

No. (although many pilots do disagree with ALPA and have kicked them off property)

Using your logic again, ALPA has a linear growth rate of 45/mo. If we include members joining P4T forums, P4T has a growth rate of 100/mo. More than double that of the largest pilot organization in the world.

ALPA is actually a good example as they are reducing in numbers over the past several years, not growing as compared to P4T.

Your model and logic is flawed. As usual.

typo

[edit on 14-1-2009 by RockHound757]

I attended the CIT team already years ago in this forum on the significance of that witnesses list from "someguyyoudontknow", and how many golden finds were to dig up from it. Mr Middleton who was on the graveyard grounds was a trophy in need to be interviewed, I then advised Craig, who went by another screen name those days.
It took them 2 years before they got to him.
It seems to be quite difficult to get to the published eyewitnesses, caused by eventual resettling, non-cooperation etc etc.

In my first post on this board, years ago, I gave you ALL also the name of Admiral Bobby Ray Inman. He's the definitive soft spot in the perpetraitors camp.

Here's another sure trophy, and hopefully CIT can get to her a tad bit faster :

Source: www.geocities.com... :

Christine Peterson 10/18/01 [C]
At a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon.

"" I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as the other routes I had taken that morning. I looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane flying so low I said, “holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car” (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing. And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire. ""

Source: NAU Alumni Association website

That's the Northern Arizona University Alumni Association website.
The link is defunct, but I found the new link to her Oktober 18, 2001 story :
www.naualumni.com...

Here's her FULL story, with some very interesting additions, note her amazement about the vast amount of stuck in a traffic standstill witnesses, who ALL had photographic equipment with them and used it.
Note also her remark about the second, less intense explosion :

Tragedy at the Pentagon -- An Eyewitness Report

Christine Peterson, ’73 found herself in the thick of last month’s terrorist tragedy, and submitted this report. It offers a personal perspective on the events in Washington, D.C., which have perhaps been overshadowed in the media by the scope of the horrors in New York.

It was 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 11th, and traffic was terrible. For all of my twenty-eight years living in the Washington, D.C. area, terrible traffic was a constant.

I’d been in Boston the day before and gotten home late. That morning I repacked my suitcase because I was heading out to San Francisco on the 3:20 p.m. flight. I just needed a few hours in the office first, and now I was officially late for work.

I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as the other routes I had taken that morning. I looked idly out my window to the left -- and saw a plane flying so low I said, “holy cow, that plane is going to hit my car” (not my actual words). The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing.

And then the plane crashed. My mind could not comprehend what had happened. Where did the plane go? For some reason I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces. But there was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire. Now I wanted to get as far away as I could, but that was impossible. The people around me had gotten out of their cars. At least half had cameras and the others were on their cell phones. I experienced a moment of irrelevant amazement that so many people had cameras in their cars.

A few minutes later a second, much smaller explosion got the attention of the police arriving on the scene. They began ordering people back into their cars and away. I drove to work knowing that I would not be flying anywhere for a while.

Now we have the two FOIA released parking boots camera videos, and we see the first police cars arrive and drive over the Pentagon West wall lawn.
But do you see a second explosion? But we have the photo of this second explosion, I'm sure Preston will come up with it. It was taken by one of the male drivers standing at the side rail, and making that sharp photo of that white and orange explosion, which we don't see on the parking boot videos....


Here is a nice overhead photo of the scene (with official flight path and "downed" light poles), where you can perfectly place Christine Peterson's car in on the North bound lane of Interstate 395, the one nearest to the Pentagon, so she stood right along that white concrete square which is the helipad.

Original 1035px × 556px link address, so some clever person can fill in the blanks and positions, as you can clearly see, her position and remark that the plane flew OVER her car does not fit AT ALL the official flight path and depicted "downed" light poles :
bp1.blogger.com...



This is a forum fitted, smaller but full version :


That's another, 14th eyewitness who puts the plane on a North of Citgo flight path. And now we have the North of Citgo flight path, nearest other witness point to Sean Boger, who was IN the helipad tower, and we can compare their statements.
I think Sean ducked and did not see the actual impact or possible fly-over.
The plane must have been aimed just over his head, a bit to the right of him. Any sane person would have let himself fall flat on the floor.

You have to realize that some witnesses in the geocities list were on the north bound, jammed lane of I-395, and some on the still slowly moving south bound lane.
You have to note if they say they saw the plane come from the left, or their right, that indicates which lane they were on. Sometimes it does not fit the jammed or not jammed lane. American drivers sit in the left front chair, and not in the right front chair as in Britain or other left driving countries, be aware of that, you non-American readers.
I think CIT placed some drivers in a wrong position in their video with the 5 or 6 driver positions in it, and their possible field of view of the impact site.
But I'm not sure, I did not check it out yet thoroughly enough.

There are a few more interesting witness statements in this list, in light of a NoC flight path.
That flight path may now be considered as iron-clad proved.

Edit to add:
Christine has probably been standing just in between those two fairly grown trees exactly in front of the Pentagon Helipad, with that black "H" painted on the white concrete. She said she stood "in front of the helipad".
A plane did not touch those trees, as can be seen on 9/11 photos.
That means those two DoD free'd by FOIA request parking boot videos are a complete fraud, we should have seen a plane flying higher and nearly over the Helipad, and not further away, coming from a 52° angle, skimming the grass lawn.

[edit on 14/1/09 by LaBTop]

You know Craig, I am still wondering how Terry's account = NoC flight path? does this mean he has X-Ray vision?
I take it this is his 2nd account from your audio:

I was right at the edge of being on the outer portion. When the plane went right over the top of me I was within 10 feet of the edge of the Navy Annex. I was inside, it flew over the top of me, it's right on the edge and I'm right here, and because I had already heard about the Twin Towers, I immediately ran to the outside and that's when I watched the airplane, and I moved into a position where I could see it. And there was some trees there, you may not know that, this was before the 8th Wing was destroyed, there used to be an 8th Wing there, and now there is an Air Force Memorial. If the Air Force Memorial had been built, the plane would have run into it...You see this treeline? As he starts to descend, he's 50 feet above this, and he descends, he basically starts to disappear, okay? And so the bottom of the airplane, and the engines disappear, the bottom of the fuselage, the wings, and so what I've got is a tail stabilizer, the ass-end of the airplane is all you can see and he comes down.

forums.randi.org...
Ok so I do not see anywhere any mention of any banking around Citgo. how can he see Citgo from where he is?

I like this little graphic from the JREF forum:



So maybe you can clear this up Craig. How can he be a witness to the NoC flight path if he can't even see north of Citgo, BUT he can see the plane go all the way down to the Pentagon?

[edit on 1/14/2009 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by GenRadek
How can he be a witness to the NoC flight path if he can't even see north of Citgo, BUT he can see the plane go all the way down to the Pentagon?

The mocking antagonistic image you posted is pathetically immature besides being uncivil and therefore against the rules of this forum.

But the answer to your question is easy.

We do not cite Morin as a NoC witness.

We cite him as an ONA witness which is equally as fatal to the official story.

Plus if he saw the tail of the plane AT ALL it proves the official story false since at the NTSB reported speed of 784 feet per second it would be completely invisible to him in about 2 seconds.

Tail and all.

So he probably saw the tail after it banked north of the citgo and was headed towards the south parking lot where Roosevelt Roberts saw it immediately after the explosion.

Now I have answered all your questions so answer mine:

1. Do you agree that Terry Morin specifically stated in 2001 that the plane was "right over the top" of him and the Navy Annex and that he specifically confirmed in 2008 that the fuselage of the plane was directly over him and the Navy Annex?

2. Do agree that Terry Morin specifically confirmed in 2008 that he was 10 feet in between the wings in front of the security shack in between the 4th and 5th wings when the fuselage of the plane flew over the top of him?

3. Do you understand how it is physically impossible to see the side of an aircraft when the fuselage is only about 100 feet directly above you as he describes?

4. Do you understand how a plane directly over the Navy Annex is corroborated by many other witnesses and how this simple fact fatally contradicts all official reports, data, and the physical damage?

5. Do you agree that in 2008 Terry Morin stated he was interviewed by the FBI 3 times but was unable to tell the authorities it was an AA jet because he only saw the belly and that he also cited this explanation as the reason why he misidentified the aircraft as a 737?

Terry Morin also explained that he ran UPHILL on the parking lot to be able to keep following the plane's fuselage.

Do you understand what that means?
Have a good look at the OP video again, and imagine that parking lot to be empty instead of the picture full of spectators after the smoke went up.

Terry also told in that 2008 interview as you can hear him say, that the road was about 200 feet, 66 meters away from him when he stood in between the two Wings and looked up to see the plane's fuselage pass over him and the roof of the Annex.

Thus he ran diagonal to the street side of the parking, UPHILL so he had a better, deeper view of the area downhill.

And as he said, he lost sight of the plane in about 13 seconds.
Do the calculation, fill in the distance, and come up with the speed...

Edit: your "funny" picture is wrong, we all know by now that the plane made a bank to the right, AFTER passing over the Annex. And the speed was much lower then your idols in the government want you to believe.
So yes, Terry saw the tail after the plane banked to the right and came in his sight again, from his more uphill position, where he ran to probably with his back to the plane, and then turning around.
His remark even strengthens the notion that the plane was aiming to land on Reagan International, that would be the landing point after that right bank.

[edit on 14/1/09 by LaBTop]

posted by LaBTop
Now we have the two FOIA released parking boots camera videos, and we see the first police cars arrive and drive over the Pentagon West wall lawn.
But do you see a second explosion? But we have the photo of this second explosion, I'm sure Preston will come up with it. It was taken by one of the male drivers standing at the side rail, and making that sharp photo of that white and orange explosion, which we don't see on the parking boot videos....

No, strangely we do not see this Daryl Donley photographed explosion in either parking lot security video. More evidence that the security videos are faked? That is the #5 light pole laying there in the foreground and the fireball is centered at the alleged impact hole. The unburned polyethelene cable spools are right there in front of the fireball and the generator trailer is over to the right.



Original photo

No firetrucks can be seen at the crime scene yet and no evidence of any aircraft parts on the lawn either.




[edit on 1/14/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by GenRadek


I was about to mark up an overhead shot and post the same observation (minus the cartoon plane and caption) but I should have known this had already been addressed once or twice

No matter how fast Terry was on his feet and how slow the plane was actually flying there's no way he could get into a position to view any part of the conjectured NOC flight path with a building approx 20m tall between him and the NOC area. From his location, the slight right banking manouver puts the plane right in the area of the downed poles doesn't it?
Hardly any deviation at all is necessary going by the maps I looked at while ANY deviation to left places it out of his field of view completely.

So, if his account is accurate and allowing reasonable margin of error, the actual flight path is far closer to the 'official' version than the NOC proposal. I feel he'll have to become a 'covert operative' if the NOC idea is to carry on .

Originally posted by Pilgrum


So, if his account is accurate and allowing reasonable margin of error, the actual flight path is far closer to the 'official' version than the NOC proposal.

Absolutely 100% false.

This is because the "official version" requires the plane to be traveling 784 feet per second.

This means by the time he could react to the plane flying over-head, and then run 10 feet to get outside from between the wings to see the tail as he says he did, the plane would be completely invisible to him.

At the officially reported speed it would take about 2 seconds for the plane to descend to light pole #1.


But this isn't what he describes anyway. He describes it flying DIRECTLY over the top of him and the Navy Annex in BOTH accounts. Like this:



So the only possible way he saw the tail after running out from 10 feet in between the wings is if the plane had already banked around north of the citgo as described in detail by ALL the witnesses at Arlington Cemetery and the citgo, and was headed to the south parking lot as described by Roosevelt Roberts.

It's all right there backed up with independent verifiable evidence.

No speculation required.