*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin

Note that SPreston won't show Craig Ranke's "new, improved" flight path making a NoC pass over the Naval Annex something no pilot for ever do.

Originally posted by jthomas
Note that SPreston won't show Craig Ranke's "new, improved" flight path making a NoC pass over the Naval Annex something no pilot for ever do.

why are continually trying to derail this? Just deal with the amount of people that are placing the plane over the Annex. We can go over all the other details that come out of this on a different thread.

The fact is that this is powerful corroborated eyewitness testimony. Whether you personally like Craig or Not.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

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.

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

Thank you so much.

It really means a lot to know that at least some people care that we put our lives on the line for this.

Originally posted by talisman

Originally posted by jthomas
Note that SPreston won't show Craig Ranke's "new, improved" flight path making a NoC pass over the Naval Annex something no pilot for ever do.

why are continually trying to derail this?

What are you talking about? This is EXACTLY pertinent to the Naval Annex and Terry Morin.

Craig's new flight path over the Pentagon precludes the aircraft from flying over the Navy Annex.

Just deal with the amount of people that are placing the plane over the Annex.

I did. NONE, including Terry Morin, would see an aircraft over the Naval Annex IF CIT's new flight path is as CRAIG claims it is.

Craig Ranke debunked himself. CIT's fairy tale is over.

Originally posted by jthomas
I did. NONE, including Terry Morin, would see an aircraft over the Naval Annex IF CIT's new flight path is as CRAIG claims it is.

It flew over the Navy Annex and north of the citgo as unanimously reported by all the witnesses.

I have no idea what you are blabbering on about as I will never endorse a single entire flight path down to the foot anyway.

All we can do is estimate taking into account all of the confirmed witnesses and this by far proves the official story false no matter how you slice it.

But the evidence clearly proves the plane flew over the Navy Annex so the notion that you are actually trying to claim that I suggested the opposite isn't very honest or logical on your part.

Craig, if Flight 77 flew from the southwest corner to the northeast corner of the Annex as depicted in your video, why does Morin describe the aircraft disappearing behind the trees at the south end of the parking lot?

Terry Morin:

"As he starts to descend he's 50 feet above this, as 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 is a tail stabilizer. The a**end of the airplane is all you can see."



If he was standing between the wings as you believe, he would've lost sight of the aircraft immediately. That's not what he describes.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by jthomas
I did. NONE, including Terry Morin, would see an aircraft over the Naval Annex IF CIT's new flight path is as CRAIG claims it is.

It flew over the Navy Annex and north of the citgo as unanimously reported by all the witnesses.

It couldn't, by your latest flight path, the one you claimed Roosevelt Robert's stated he saw, thereby completely and utterly invalidating any flight path over the Naval Annex. You know you can't have it both ways.

I have no idea what you are blabbering on about as I will never endorse a single entire flight path down to the foot anyway.

You can weasel all you want. ALL of your claims have revolved around your claims of "proof" that the NoC flight path "proved no plane hit the Pentagon." Now, your "100% CIT Certified Roosevelt Robert's flight path" totally and irreparably invalidates any possible claim of your NoC flight path over the Naval Annex. It is physically and aerodynamically impossible to do both, as you already know. You have debunked yourself.

All we can do is estimate taking into account all of the confirmed witnesses and this by far proves the official story false no matter how you slice it.

You accomplished just the opposite. Your claims of what your eyewitnesses stated contradict each other. Your whole fairy tale fell apart from your own claims, not to speak of your consistent misrepresentation of what "your" eyewitnesses actually said.

But the evidence clearly proves the plane flew over the Navy Annex so the notion that you are actually trying to claim that I suggested the opposite isn't very honest or logical on your part.

Weaseling doesn't absolve you of the fact that you made a claim of a new flight path which NO pilot would or could fly if they actually flew over the Naval Annex. You can't escape the fact that you debunked yourself.

It's over for CIT's fairy tale. You slipped up and caused the contradiction that shows you can't have your cake and eat it to. It's time to admit it publicly.

Perhaps someone can help me.

Parallel: extending in the same direction, equidistant at all points, and never converging or diverging: parallel rows of trees.

dictionary.reference.com...

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)

-Terry Morin

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon

Here is a simple task for anyone. Draw a line parallel to the the Navy Annex and have that line go "directly toward" the Pentagon.

Tell me what side of the Citgo that line is on. okay?





Thank you

Spin away fellas.

We have proven that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex.

This is driving you CRAZY because you know it is irreconcilable with the official story.

So now you are resorting to micro-scrutinizing the witnesses as if they have to be mathematically correct about all specific details.

Sorry but it does not work that way.

We assume that most witnesses will be incorrect about specific details such as exact heading and exact placement of the plane down to the foot.

That is to be expected from eyewitnesses.

We only rely on eyewitnesses for general details that are scientifically validated via corroboration.

That is a reasonable approach to eyewitness testimony.

The ANC and citgo witnesses prove that Morin was incorrect about his specific heading of "parallel" but that he was correct about the more general detail of directly over the Navy Annex.

Given the fact that he admits he was between the wings and only saw it pass over him for a fraction of a second this is perfectly understandable.

Everything we are stating is firmly rooted in common sense and simple logic based on the body of independent verifiable evidence available.

You guys are in DESPERATE spin mode and it oozes from your manic posts.

Originally posted by jthomas


It couldn't, by your latest flight path, the one you claimed Roosevelt Robert's stated he saw, thereby completely and utterly invalidating any flight path over the Naval Annex. You know you can't have it both ways.

Huh?

No you are wrong.

We always have the plane flying over the Navy Annex.

It's perfectly possible and we proved it with math.

Please stop lying about what we claim.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Your avoidance of the question is noted Craig. The spinning going on here, my friend is coming from you.

He saw the plane for much longer than a split second. He describes in detail what he saw.

You went back on your word to him and posted essentially what was already stated. Unfortunately you showed your true integrity by doing this and gained nothing.

Please re-read his original statement. Listen to your interview with him again.

Then, draw a line that represents exactly what his words state. Post a copy of it here and make sure you draw a circle around the Citgo Station.

No spinning necessary

Originally posted by Boone 870

If he was standing between the wings as you believe, he would've lost sight of the aircraft immediately. That's not what he describes.

As I believe?

You mean as he specifically SAYS!

He says he was between the wings and ran out after the plane passed directly over him.

If the official story were true he would not have enough time to see the plane at all after it passed over him since it would have descended to light pole #1 in about 2 seconds at 784 feet per second.

So either Morin embellished that part of his story or he saw the plane after it had banked around north of the citgo and was pulling up.

Either way his account is only reconcilable with the north side approach.

This is clear.

reply to post by CameronFox


Yes he does say he saw the plane for much longer AFTER he ran out from between the wings.

What you don't get is that this is impossible with the official story that requires the plane to be descended to light pole one in about 2 seconds after it passes over his head.

So IF he really did see the tail stabilizer after he ran out, this proves the official story false and is only reconcilable with the north side approach and flyover.

Craig, I didn't notice any trees on top of the Naval Annex.

Which trees did the aircraft disappear behind?

reply to post by Boone 870


I found that statement a bit odd as well since you can not even see the tree line in front of the citgo from there.

He did seem to mention there were other trees there before the wing 8 was destroyed and the Air Force Memorial was built but I don't see them in the image from 9/11.

Most likely he was embellishing.

Doesn't really matter because we know for a fact that if the official story were true the plane would have descended to pole#1 in about 2 seconds making it completely invisible to Morin.

Tail stabilizer and all.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Craig... you are failing to acknowledge his original statement.

Allow me to once again show it to you:


"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)"

"Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon"

No spinning here,no lies, no cherry picking.

The man saw the plane "flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB"

His POV is not what PFT posted in their cartoon.

You have a SOC witness and you can't change this fact. It you want to accuse him of embellishing his story, why don't you call him and tell him that. Then tell him how you went against your word for the sake of humanity and posted his conversation with you.

Oh, and ask PFT how Morin's statement effect their math. This diagram totally disregards Morin's statement.

reply to post by CameronFox


Yes Cameron I know that Morin claims it was "parallel".

Witnesses are fallible and quite often embellish or deduce specific details.

That's why we only rely on them for more general details that can be corroborated.

The ANC and citgo witnesses prove that Morin was incorrect about his specific heading of "parallel" but that he was correct about the more general detail of directly over the Navy Annex as depicted in the flight path image you just posted.

Given the fact that he admits he was between the wings and only saw it pass over him for a fraction of a second this is perfectly understandable.

Given the fact that all the ANC witnesses actually saw it approach and therefore got a MUCH better look at the plane it is reasonable to suggest that the body of independent verifiable evidence supports the flight path graphic more than it does Morin's "parallel" claim that is not corroborated by anyone.

Originally posted by CameronFox
Craig... you are failing to acknowledge his original statement.

It's laughable, Cameron, reading how much faith you place in Morin's 'parallel' description.

Any measured quantity has error. It is not possible to draw perfect parallel lines from ordinary tools. Any attempt at measuring quantities results in an error being created. In fact, scientific measurements are useless, unless they also include the margin of error.

Morin looked up, saw the plane for a brief few seconds and did his best to judge the heading. His skewed perspective of looking up at the plane would not have allowed him to perfectly judge the alleged plane's heading. There is no possible way on this Earth that he can measure the flight path being perfectly parallel to the Naval Annex. No way at all. He could have been in error by maybe five or ten degrees, which to him would be reasonably parallel. There is no way to determine how accurate Morin's description of parallel ever was.

Please, proceed to beat your dead horse over a ridiculous claim that the alleged plane flew perfectly parallel to the Naval Annex because Morin said so.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


As usual, anyone that goes against CIT is embellishing. Right?

You are doing what you do best Craig. Ignoring evidence. Given his testimony he is a South of Citgo witness.

Since you can not be honest regarding where Morin states the plane flew. Perhaps you can tell me what Morin's statement does to PFT's math considering a flyover?

Originally posted by tezzajw


Please, proceed to beat your dead horse over a ridiculous claim that the alleged plane flew perfectly parallel to the Naval Annex because Morin said so.

Please, proceed to troll tezz, and please, continue to ignore the literally tons of evidence.