*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin

Originally posted by 654321
A vast majority of YOUR OWN WITNESSES say that flight 77 HIT THE PENTAGON.

You type about definitions of what a witness statement is and isn't.

NONE of those witnesses interviewed by CIT identified the alleged plane as being Flight AA77. None of them were able to read the tail number N644AA.

They might have said that 'the plane' hit the Pentagon, but they surely did not say that Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon. Let's not embellish witness statements to infer things that they never said.

Originally posted by NIcon
The DNA is not evidence the planes were actually hijacked. It is evidence that the plane crashed into the building.

The DNA evidence only shows that there was human DNA alegedly found at the scene. Human DNA does not identify an alleged airplane. Where are the serial/part numbers to confirm the identity of the alleged plane at the Pentagon???

reply to post by tezzajw


Wow you dont even want to deal in a realm even close to reality.
You are a no planer, I get that.
There is no debating with you because you assume that the entire event at the Pentagon was staged which is beyond insane.
You have ZERO evidence that Flight 77 didnt hit the Pentagon.
welcome to ignore though I doubt you care.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by 654321]

[edit on 24-1-2009 by 654321]

reply to post by tezzajw

tezzajw, I suppose you're correct if you are to take that one piece of evidence alone. But that's besides the point I was trying to make that arguing about the meaning of "evidence" and "statements" wasn't conducive to anything worthwhile. Maybe we should all agree to just call them "indicators of what happened" and move on.

As for your question about the serial numbers on the parts? I have no clue, as I'm pretty new to the Pentagon. I've avoided the subject for years as there has always been such bickering over it, even worse than the bickering about New York or Shanksville. But then I actually looked into what CIT was doing and found it credible. But that was only a few months ago, so if you ask me anything I'd most likely respond the same way.... I have no clue. But give me a few months and then maybe I can really participate.... a few months, that is, if I can be lucky enough to avoid all the threads here that boil down to arguments of whether they should be called "lamp posts" or should they be called "light posts". If I can't avoid them, it may take longer.

The following views are also the ones Christine Peterson had on 911.

Here are the two views by Penny Elgas from the spot she really stood still (in my opinion) on 911, only circa 40 meters behind Christine.
One is her view to the right, direction heli pad and Pentagon; and one her left view looking up to the Navy Annex and the roof of Wing 8 of that building, and the spot where the plane flew over, right at today’s Air Force monument, the three concrete spikes.

Left view, towards Navy Annex Wing 8 and nowadays the Air Force Monument.
Viewer with info : www.alsx.info...





Right view, to the heli pad and the Pentagon West wall.
Viewer with info : www.alsx.info...




Nowadays the first and second trees are cut down, but you still see the heli pad and the point of "impact" to the right side of the West Pentagon wall.

"Fine tune" of the CIT animations together with their interviews to make sure it is an accurate representation of their witness statements.

1. Look first at this animated excerpt of the Edward Paik interview, as an animated-Gif by Craig Ranke :

i14.photobucket.com...




2. Then have a look at this drawing on this Google Earth screenshot, of the officially released FL77 flight path :
Original huge 2006 one by mcMike: img96.imageshack.us...

Big one, now saved by me at another repository: www.alsx.info...

Partly visible one, due to forum clipping of too huge pictures, but interesting for the detailed view :





Smaller, but full one :



That official flight path is in full and total contradiction with the statements of Edward Paik and Terry Morin.
No discussion possible, when you firmly believe the extensive recorded words of these two witnesses.
And all other CIT interviewed witnesses, and a few from the list by "someguyyoudontknow" from earlier in this thread.

3. In this drawing on my Google Earth screenshot, observe the blue line boundaries of the possible flight paths by FL77, originating at the corner of the rooftop of Mr. Edward Paik's garage at the corner of Columbia Pike, encircled with a yellow line by me, and following the outer boundaries of the possible positions of Terry Morin.
Mr. Paik clearly showed us in the above nr 1 Gif where the body of the plane flew over his repair shop's roof.
It is the very right roof corner, seen from his interview position on the left side of his shop aside Columbia Pike, which is where he says the plane's body flew. In addition, Mr. Morin was quite precise about his position:




Then have a good look at the clearance of the left wing of the plane, to the south wall of the Sheraton in the same drawing on that picture.
It had to keep a certain distance, at least half of its wingspan, to that wall, or it would have crashed there when it would have hit that hotel's south wall. It did not, so it flew either higher than the top of the Sheraton Hotel, or so far aside of it, that it did not hit its wall. In addition, according to both Paik's and Morin's statements, the plane flew already very low, just over the roofs of Paik's garage and the Navy Annex wings.

Then have a look again at the possible positions of Terry Morin in-between Wing 4 and 5 of the Navy Annex, indicated by the long rounded yellow form drawn by me. Note the red line indicating him running across Columbia Pike to the parking, which is the shortest way he could quickly oversee the area in the sky where the plane was still flying, much slower than the official reports want us to believe. In addition, this would cover vaguely his remark that he ran uphill.
Btw, I would have one nagging question to ask Terry Morin: why did you say you ran uphill to try to keep an eye on the plane, when every sane observer would run downhill over the parking area in front of the Wings, to Wing 8? Was that a slip of the tongue in your interview?

Big picture named by me as "Paik-FL77-overview-NavyAnnex-VDOT-antenna“:
www.alsx.info...

Forum clipped one with more details however than the fitted one:


Fitted one:



Then look at the North side of the Citgo gas station.

Now draw the possible lines as I did going through the Morin boundaries, starting from Mr. Paik's roof top corner, still within those two yellow encircled areas. Then compare that set of possible trajectories to the officially proposed fixed one from the nr 2 picture with the drawing of the official flight 77 path:

Click for big picture: www.alsx.info...
Named by me as "FL77-overview-Sheraton-NavyAnnex-Citgo".

Forum clipped one but with more details:





We also have sergeant's William Lagasse's statements and drawing on an aerial photo of the Citgo area, where he decisively places the flight path North of Citgo.
That makes it clear where Terry Morin must have stood in that space in-between those Navy Annex Wings 4 and 5, when he looked up and saw the plane's body pass over his head. He was just outside the door from Wing 5, on his way back to his parked car to get his spectacles.
Officer Brooks statement and drawing places the plane North of Citgo.
Moreover, all the ANC witnesses too, and Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas.

Thus, we have now narrowed down the real Flight 77 flight path portion.
Starting from Mr. Paik's position, over Mr. Morin's position, passing North of the Citgo gas station, and then the plane made a slight right bank towards Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas, crossed over Washington Boulevard very near to those two trees in front of the heli pad, and reached the Pentagon. Penny Elgas ads a very slight left bank to the path, after it crossed Washington Boulevard and flew over the Pentagon lawn. She saw the bottom of the left wing dipped down a little.
Christine Peterson says the plane crossed over her head and thus her car, which she told us, was standing in front of the heli pad.

Big picture/drawing : www.alsx.info...

Clipped by forum rules one, but the visible part with more details:



Smaller, forum fitted one :


...and then Penny Elgas explains vividly how the plane impacted on the wall.
That's the weird part of it, with all those smoke rings she describes, of explosions or metal dust rings going around the plane's body, which was crumbling, on impact. You nearly think that she must have used a high-speed camera to be able to describe all what she say she saw. Alternatively, the adrenaline gave her perhaps super fast eyesight for a few seconds.
What she describes could be a solid plane entering a force field. I do not take that as an option, however.
However, I do accept an eventual psychological influence by aftermath psychologists. She describes in the link I gave, that she went for counseling to overcome her fears. There are many stories about MK-Ultra psy-ops floating on this board, so take a shot at that, I do not want to become distracted by such a theory.

If she was at the spot on Washington Boulevard, where I think she was, then there is no evidence whatsoever on the Pentagon West wall behind the heli pad of a NoC flying, incoming and impacting plane.
Therefore, that part of her story is still questionable, in my opinion.


What happened thereafter is the start of a completely new discussion, of which Terry Morin's statements are a main contributing pillar, and which I will gladly engage in.

To start with, this is the official flight path rammed through by all official media slaves:

Click for original huge picture: img96.imageshack.us...

Cut-out Pentagon damage part of it with anomaly column damage patterns in it.
Named FL77-Impact-Anomalies by me:
Click for big picture : www.alsx.info...

Clipped by forum rules one with details:





The three yellow lines extending to the two trees along Washington Boulevard were where Christine Peterson car stood and where she told us the plane came crossing over her head.
They could be exactly the two engines and the main spar damage, were it not impossible since the blue lined NoC flight path in my above picture does not cross the Pentagon West wall perpendicular, but under a +/- 60° angle.
In addition, there is no West wall damage at that point indicating entrance of two heavy engines axels and the center spar beam. Moreover, there are six and four undamaged columns behind that wall.
There was still a tree standing there on 911 after "impact" with extensive burn marks and broken branches. It was not cut low at its trunk, or totally obliterated by a NoC impact.

The two regions marked with a thin red line to the left and right of the main damage pattern inside, are peculiar.
Especially the right one. One would too easily explain that away with a somewhat deviated right engine or landing gear struts damage path, but in my opinion, that is already shown as one of the red lines originating from the engines of the drawn in plane. Those two trajectories are following the pattern of most damaged red columns, and both bow inward to the main spar, entering the building (the thick blue line).

If we do accept now, that the whole damage pattern is a faked FL77 path one (impossible downed light poles on a now proven false SoC path), so why the anomaly of the by red lines indicated regions?
Were planted explosives a tad bit too strong, or were +Mach 3 bunker-buster missiles used, which no human eye would register anyway, they are far too fast incoming for the slow reacting eye.

The region in the "bulked out" portion was in my opinion the big Naval Office area, with the ONI office (Office of Naval Intelligence) in it. It was a set of long wide offices situated along the C-ring outer wall. That is where all personnel was killed, except one young man who survived since he was sent away to deliver a message. See my extensive posts on the ONI in one of my first posts on this board. And the famous "exit hole" looks suspiciously like an entrance hole blown out by detonation-cord, to finish off eventual survivors and destroy the Navy Intelligence Main Frame computers.
Yes, if you accept a military deception with numerous goals, than you can/must accept this scenario too.
You have to think it through, to the ugly end.
That's why so many intelligent opponents are psychologically blocked to even try to think about such scenarios. I do understand their reasons for that for a big part.
The world we were put in at birth is a far filthier one than most of us can and want to accept.
We were programmed after birth to color things up as much as we can, to keep believing...in what exactly?


The logical reasoning after examining all the evidence in this thread should be that a fly-over occurred very near or over the two trees and not an impact after a North of Citgo trajectory, contradicted by the official South of Citgo trajectory and the connected damage pattern inside the Pentagon.
This reasoning has a high percentage of certainty.
The SoC reasoning is lately only substantiated by the downed light poles and the damage pattern inside the building. It should be clear to subscribers of this theory, that every other new interviewed witness describes in fact a NoC flight path.
Thus, this reasoning has an increasing lower percentage of certainty.

If you after reading all this, are getting convinced that the NoC trajectory is the only right one (when you believe the extensive interviews by CIT), then it follows logically and will be clear to you, that the whole damage pattern, beginning with the light poles, is a blatant lie.
In addition, the fly-over point was probably no more than 30 to 50 meters further than the official impact point.
Thus, the plane did not have to fly through explosion debris.



[edit on 25/1/09 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop
Attempts to fine tune the animations by anyone other than the witnesses themselves is futile. One is doing no more than re-re-interpreting their statements and not allowing the witnesses to say "That's what I saw". Such clarification by the witnesses would put an end to all such discussion, period.

I'm also glad we're on the same page about the odd nature of Penny Elgas's statements. I could imagine what counsel would do to this witness on cross.

One could say with reasonable certainty that the Paik and Morin account are actually within an acceptable margin of error of the "official" account of the flight path, and it is only in attempting to reconcile it with other witnesses does it really begin to diverge. If one makes no attempt at reconciling Paik or Morin w/ any other witness at this point, the Paik/Morin accounts could support both a SoC and a NoC flyover within an acceptable margin of error. That would mean that the point from Morin at the Annex up until the point of impact at the Pentagon are really the only facts in question.

This helps to narrow down the discussion tremendously and we need not rehash old facts except in light of later revelations.

The first non-witness evidence that causes a conflict between SoC/NoC stories is the light pole damage. Some witnesses indicate seeing the light poles being damaged (Riskus, England), others do not. I'd like that we should just agree that not recounting the fate of the light poles may be nothing more than not having the focus of the witness's attention given the rest of the events of the day. It's a small assumption, absolutely within logical bounds, and anything else just leads to arguments without conclusion. There's far more interesting things to discuss.

To this day, no significant, conclusive, or even suggestive investigation into the possibility of the light poles being a staged event has ever been presented.

Digging a bit deeper into the less quoted witnesses of the impact at the Pentagon reveals some information I haven't seen presented in the mass of threads on ATS. Some may support your placement of witnesses, while at the same time indicating an impact.

Steve Riskus is an impact eye-witness and photographer of the events just moments after the impact at the Pentagon. Steve was traveling south bound on Washington Blvd when he snapped some fantastic high resolution post-impact photos.

From the account of Christine Peterson:
"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. (...) A few minutes later a second, much smaller explosion got the attention of the police arriving on the scene."

Christine Peterson or her car, based on her statements, should be visible in at least one of the first four frames presented by Mr. Riskus in the preceeding link.

Furthmore, Mr. Riskus should have driven right past Patty Elgas at the time of impact. At the time those photos were taken, she would be further north of Security Camera #2, northbound on Washington Blvd, but far enough south that she could make the next exit for Pentagon parking.

From the account of Patty Elgas:
"So I made my way across the lanes of traffic and instead, I exited into the Pentagon's parking lot. I circled around to the right and came out under the road that I had just been on -- headed toward I-66 West. It was then that I realized that my car seemed to be shaking and I thought that perhaps I had punctured a tire. It also seemed that my car was moving extremely slow and that I might be stuck in 2nd gear. I looked down at the gearshift and confirmed that it was in "Drive". Then I looked up at my speedometer - and I was flabbergasted to find that I was traveling at over 80 mph and it felt as if I was not moving at all. My car tires were okay, but my little Dodge Neon was shaking because I never pushed it that fast before. I realized that I was still feeling the effects of the adrenaline rush and I forced myself to slow down."



If this is the case, Mr. Riskus may have some very interesting statements regarding the approach of the plane. This image was published by the original interviewer of Mr. Riskus. I am at this point unable to find the full text of the Riskus correspondance, and this is as close to the source of the information as I am able to get on a Sunday night.

The frame labeled P1010018 is particularly interesting in that the right edge of the frame clearly shows what would have been the positions for LP4 and LP5. For those that support a black-bag theory of the light pole placement, this establishes a timeframe in which such placement was to have occurred (notably across the highway) in relationship to the impact and the stoppage of traffic. One may gauge the amount of time that elapsed by other pictures of the area with notable times (Ingersoll), and other witness testimony. One may also note that the cars in the right hand side of the frame are empty and there are individuals walking around. Mr. England would be just outside the right hand of this frame, as well. Should such ficitious light pole placement occurred, one cannot help but conclude there may have been quite a number of witnesses to such an event.

Something else I noticed in your documentation...

You show the NTSB flight path as coming down Columbia Pike?

This video released by P4T clearly shows the NTSB FDR information as producing a flight path well north of the Naval Annex.


Is this two sets of conflicting NTSB data or did someone plot it wrong?

[edit on 26-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn


Wow!

You really are that clueless?

Amazing how you could assert your arguments with such bravado yet be so woefully behind on the information.

It's really a testament as to the hollowness of the rhetoric that you wrap your arguments in.

The animation put out by the NTSB shows a northern approach in contradiction to their own raw data that indicates a southern approach.

BOTH show the altitude too high to hit the light poles or building as reported.

You really need to watch and PAY ATTENTION to this old 10 minute short to get up to speed because it's now 100% clear that you are clueless regarding the details of the very information that you are attempting to discuss.

Google Video Link

Three Dimensional view of American 77 Flight Path according to data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Removing altitude and NTSB northern plot data as a variable (see pilotsfor911truth.org... for more information), we use the "impact point" as point of origin working outwards based on heading, descent angles and bank angles to analyze if the data can account for the physical damage path. Please visit pilotsfor911truth.org... for in depth analysis of complete data provided by US Govt Agencies who claim was generated by the aircraft which struck The Pentagon on September 11, 2001

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


If we're all sitting around assuming the NTSB data is bunk, who cares? I was asking LaBTop what dataset he was using for his NTSB plot, no more no less.

Not to mention that it was a post-script to the larger portion of information I presented, to which you conspicuously have no comment.

This is the kind of knee-jerk insults ATS is trying to clean up. Please do your part.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by cogburn]

cogburn, you really need to read up quite a bit new stuff released lately.
And you place Riskus and Elgas far too North.

EDIT: I will come back for a more detailed answer of your post, since I was in the process of writing this next part, it will take about 12 hours however before I can answer, so don't get all worked up by my late response times, "smile".ENDEDIT.

EDIT2: I did not construct that official flight path through the downed light poles and the internal damage, I gave you a clue already right under the Paik Gif :
""2. Then have a look at this drawing on this Google Earth screenshot, of the officially released FL77 flight path :
Original huge 2006 one by mcMike: img96.imageshack.us... "" ENDEDIT2.

Now it's time to have a look at another witness on this list again:
www.geocities.com...
It's the one just above Terry Morin.

Mitch Mitchell, Ret. Army Col. -- 9/13/01 [C]
Coming from National Airport on I-395 towards the Pentagon.

"Just as we got even with the Pentagon, I looked out to the front and saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it, and it looked like it was coming in to hit us. I told my wife, 'It's going to hit the Pentagon.' It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon, and there was no indication whatever that it was doing anything other than performing a direct attack on that building. The landing gear was up. There were no flaps down and it looked like a deadly missile on the final phase of its mission into the building."
"We saw what I estimate to be about the last seven seconds of the flight. It was a straight-in flight, angled slightly down, and there was--there was no intent to turn or to maneuver in any way. It was headed straight for its target and we were helpless to do anything about it but watch." CBS The Early Show (Lexis-Nexis)

First we read that he was ""Coming from National Airport on I-395 towards the Pentagon.""
When you read the journalists next sentence :

""Just as we got even with the Pentagon, I looked out to the front and saw, coming straight down the road at us, "" and this one ""crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude ""

you realize that there are a few inconsistencies in there, famous for most US journalists reporting events of 911.

If you look at a Google map from a high enough altitude down at the Pentagon area, you realize that there is only one valid position ""towards the Pentagon"" and that's on Washington Boulevard where a few now well known events have occurred at the same time.

Mr. Mitchell must have driven not on its HOV northbound lane, since that one was jammed, but on the the one to the right. And he must have been at the point where the West wall makes a corner with the South wall of the Pentagon. (""Just as we got even with the Pentagon"")
That is the only point where he could have seen the plane crossing about 100 feet in front of them and at about 20 feet altitude.

If you believe that he still drove on I-395 and just got even with the Pentagon, then he was at a point where the South wall cornered to the East wall. No plane has ever been reported there.
This journalist or his editor has put us on the wrong leg for many years!
I have read this list hundreds of times, and always thought that this man was on I-395!
Now we know better,

This is ANOTHER NORTH of CITGO witness, and a strong counter-witness of the South of Citgo official FL77 flight path, since that would have passed far behind his position at the corner of the West and South Pentagon walls.

[edit on 26/1/09 by LaBTop]

[edit on 26/1/09 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop

For the record, I have never paid too much attention to the NTSB data. There's so much silliness involved in any of the releases that you could (and there have been) dedicate whole forums to it. It was a post-script to my previous post and it actually bears little relevance to a SoC/NoC discussion borne from witness statements. We can futz with tying them together later, but thank you for clarifying your source.

How about we just throw out Patty Elgas altogether? We both agree her statements are just funky for one reason or another. Not including her statements would remove a lot of back-and-forth.

I'm interested to see why you think my position of Riskus at the time of impact is too far north. The size of the red dot is to provide an area of an estimated position, not an exact one. Given the position of the first frame he presents and the stated time lapse between the impact and that first frame, I don't see how my estimate is unacceptably inaccurate.

Note that I'm trying to boil this down as much as possible so that some sort of discussion can be conducted without too many tangents and still not diluting the greater point. If ever you feel that such editing is unwarranted by all means let me know.

I eagerly wait your response and will refrain from further comment until it is presented.

[edit on 26-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

Yes we already understand how you are willing to dismiss scientifically validated evidence based on a logical fallacy (circular logic).

The north side approach proves the plane did not hit and this hard evidence is completely falsifiable.

This is a joke, right? Your entire theory is based on circular logic, yet you accuse those of us who point that out of using circular logic.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITAll you have to do is provide 14 first-hand south side accounts from people in an equal to or better vantage point than the 13 north side witnesses presented.

I don't have to provide anything...your eyewitnesses debunk themselves which is why you're arguing with people on a message board instead of presenting your evidence in a courtroom.

reply to post by cogburn


It's not an insult it's a fact.

You just exposed yourself as having no knowledge whatsoever regarding what the official data says about the approach heading of the jet even AS you are insisting on arguing this very issue with very strong rhetoric as if you are a researched expert.

The notion that you were completely unaware of the discrepancy between the NTSB animation and the NTSB raw data file is mind-boggling given how you have come at us regarding this critical information.

It simply proves you haven't done a shred of research and are free-styling this discussion while pretending otherwise. You are googling as you go and you haven't even significantly looked into the information that you end up incorrectly responding to out of haste.







[edit on 26-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by adam_zapple


Please.

There is nothing circular about the fact that the witnesses all saw the plane on the north side.

Most (including Terry Morin who this thread is about) could not even see the alleged impact point of the Pentagon at all!

Most simply heard the explosion and believed the plane hit but even ADMIT that they did not SEE an impact.

The fact that they all SAW the plane on the north side is not "debunked" just because they heard an explosion and deduced the plane hit.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I'm still waiting for Morin's overhead drawing where he shows the flight path North of the Citgo. Why didn't he get a cool picture with a black crayon? Oh, that's right, all that happened to him was Ranke went against the man's wishes and released a recording of him.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

Please.

There is nothing circular about the fact that the witnesses all saw the plane on the north side.

That's not what I said...pay attention:

Your theory is based on circular logic.

The eyewitnesses say that the plane was NOC, and the witnesses say that the plane hit the pentagon. (NONE of your witnesses dispute the impact)

You first assume that their NOC claims are correct, then based on that assumption you reject any evidence that disagrees with that claim. That is circular logic.

reply to post by adam_zapple


The fact that all of the confirmed first-hand witness accounts in this critical area place the plane on the north side of the gas station is not a theory.

It is evidence.

This evidence has nothing whatsoever to do with circular logic since deducing an impact has nothing to do with WITNESSING the plane on the north side.

You dismissing these unanimous north side accounts based on the fact they deduced an impact however is PURE circular logic.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple

 

The fact that all of the confirmed first-hand witness accounts in this critical area place the plane on the north side of the gas station is not a theory.

It is evidence.

This evidence has nothing whatsoever to do with circular logic since deducing an impact has nothing to do with WITNESSING the plane on the north side.

You dismissing these unanimous north side accounts based on the fact they deduced an impact however is PURE circular logic.

If that's what I was doing, it would be circular logic, but I'm not dismissing their NOC accounts based on the fact that they reported an impact...I'm dismissing their NOC accounts based on the fact that the rest of the evidence indicates that this is wrong. That's not circular logic, that's making a decision based on a preponderance of the evicence.

You are cherry-picking specific statements from a dozen witnesses and using them to dismiss their other statements as well as all evidence to the contrary, including dozens of other witnesses who disagree, physical evidence, etc. You are the one using circular logic.

NOC *is a theory*, not fact. People saying they saw something doesn't make it fact. (Google DNA Exonerations)

reply to post by adam_zapple


You are making sweeping generalizations and false claims about what I claim without quoting me.

It's your only recourse because my logic is sound and backed up by hard evidence based while yours is flimsy and purely faith based.

It is NOT a "theory" that all of the confirmed first-hand witness accounts in this critical area place the plane NoC/ONA/ and/or north of Columbia Pike.

It is a fact backed up with evidence.

The fact that you choose to refuse to accept this scientifically verified evidence based on your faith while spouting off a bunch of hollow rhetoric regarding what "CIT" has or hasn't done does not change the evidence.

You can SAY we "cherry picked" the statements but it's not true and you have provided zero evidence to back up your false and completely unsupported personal accusation against us.

You can not provide a single instance where we "cherry picked" statements regarding NoC/ONA or north of Columbia Pike where there are direct statements from the witnesses that we ignored supporting a southern approach.

They all 100% conclusively and definitively support the northern approach and you know it.

This is why you refuse to quote them or make a case otherwise and keep insisting on making this a debate about CIT.

Why do you post on a daily basis about all this evidence without doing anything with this evidence?