*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin

reply to post by CameronFox


No no.

If they go against the larger body of independent verifiable evidence while their claim is not corroborated they are likely embellishing.

For some reason you are choosing to ignore the ANC and citgo witnesses who prove that Morin was incorrect about his parallel claim.

They are not CIT.

The north side approach is not our claim.

They are real witnesses who were there like Terry Morin but had a much better view of the plane and the approach.

That is evidence Cameron.

Scientifically validated evidence proving Morin's general claim of over the Navy Annex is correct and his specific claim of "parallel" incorrect.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Craig,

yes yes... I will not dance with you all night. Taking Morin's statement, he is in FACT a south of citgo witness. His interview refutes that of the other witnesses you have interviewed.

reply to post by CameronFox


No he is not since over the navy annex or north of columbia pike at all is irreconcilable with the official flight path yet corroborates NoC.

That's what's so funny about this.

EVEN IF the plane WAS parallel and directly over the navy annex as he says it would prove a flyover.

You don't care because it's one little detail you can use to spin the importance of his general yet corroborated placement of the plane directly over the annex.

We have enough evidence proving NoC that the implications here should be clear.

There is no logic in accepting every single statement from Morin literally and expecting 100% accuracy (even though it STILL contradict the official story) while completely dismissing the multitude of NoC witnesses!

Denial does not change the evidence.

Over the Navy Annex AT ALL proves a military deception on 9/11.

Period.




[edit on 4-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


As usual you fail to listen to anyone but yourself.

Do me a favor, take his interview..listen to it... and draw a line showing where he states the plane flew.

reply to post by CameronFox


If you gave him the paper you gave Paik... where would he have drawn his path?

Originally posted by CameronFox

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.

If by trolling, you mean that I should continue to point out the error in your logic, then sure, I'll continue trolling. Otherwise, I don't understand the point of your post, unless it was to insult me by calling me a troll?

Multiple witnesses saw the alleged plane fly somewhere ONA and then fly NOC. None of them would be individually accurate with regards to the exact speed, heading, etc. However, they all corroborate each other in that the general flight path NOC was what they saw.

Cameron, you're the one ignoring the 'tons' of witness evidence to concentrate on Morin's 'parallel' statement, that can't be relied upon as being accurate anyway.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by tezzajw]

reply to post by tezzajw


Tezz.. Come to the states and give Terry Morin a crayon and a overhead shot of the Annex just like Paik. Ask him to draw a line on where he saw the plane.

Then tell me if he is a SOC or NOC witness.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Multiple witnesses saw the alleged plane fly somewhere ONA and then fly NOC. None of them would be individually accurate with regards to the exact speed, heading, etc. However, they all corroborate each other in that the general flight path NOC was what they saw.

No one saw any aircraft fly over and away from the Pentagon.

CIT consistently is unable to find any eyewitnesses or reports from any of the many scores of people in a position to see a flyover. In fact, CIT refuses to do so just as CIT refuses to deal with any other evidence.

CIT's eyewitnesses either saw or believe the jet hit the Pentagon.

CIT's latest flight path shows what an aircraft cannot do, nor what any pilot would do. Craig put himself in a position of having to choose between the aircraft flying over the Naval Annex OR or flying over the Pentagon.

It can ONLY be one or the other according to Craig's own flight path. It cannot be both.

Craig Ranke debunked himself. He knows it. We know it. It's completely over for CIT's fairy tale. So, please explain why you continue to defend the indefensible, tezzajw.

Originally posted by jthomas
No one saw any aircraft fly over and away from the Pentagon.

That's not the topic of this thread, jthomas. Why do you persist in trying to drag the thread off topic? You've already proven that you don't know how many people should have witnessed a flyover in this link.

So, please explain why you continue to defend the indefensible, tezzajw.

What am I defending, jthomas? In another, older thread, you accused me of stating that I support a flyover. I challenged you to prove it. You couldn't. Some of your posts were removed by the Moderators. You know it, I know it. Don't make false accusations about me. You know the consequences for doing so, as you've already suffered them before.

This thread is about a witness to a flight path ONA. This flight path has been corroborated by other, independent witnesses from different locations. Be very careful when you claim that I am defending something, jthomas.

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

posted by tezzajw
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.

Of course tez; you are perfectly correct. Look at the Naval Annex where Terry Morin said he was standing when the decoy aircraft passed over the Naval Annex.



Looking at another view of the Naval Annex with a too scale 757 above him, what does Terry Morin have to judge parallel with? He has the short open space at the end of the building wings, and the long length of the walls comprising wings 4 and 5. Looking up, he has no alignment with the end walls to accurately determine parallel. At a speed of 300-500 fps, Morin would have just a split second to view the aircraft above him from between the building wings.



All the other Over the Naval Annex eyewitnesses confirm Morin's placement of the decoy aircraft above the Naval Annex and more precisely place the aircraft more towards the north side and North of the Citgo. Apparently no confirmed living eyewitnesses saw the aircraft approaching the Pentagon along the official South of Columbia Pike and South of the VDOT tower and South of the Naval Annex flight path. Twenty plus eyewitnesses actually saw the aircraft Over the Naval Annex, which destroys the Official Flight 77 flight path through the light poles and into the Pentagon along the official damage path.



Morin kills the South of Columbia Pike official flight path, which cannot be Over the Naval Annex at all. Another great interview Craig. It is amazing the desperation which has taken over the fanatical 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY defenders.




[edit on 1/4/09 by SPreston]

CameronFox

With all due respect, Craig does not have to account for every single thing in his theory. Craig has a hypothesis, and the data for the most part seems to fit regarding the flight path. It does not have to be 100% accurate, or figured to the smallest detail.

As an example:

The Theory of Evolution. I don't think none of us would disregard evolutionary evidence because we can't figure out how Abiogensis happened.

When you look honestly at what these people are saying, it does put the Plane in a *GENERAL* place, and that place is against the Official Flight Path. There might be some issues with secondary details, but the primary detail in this is that the Plane did indeed fly over the Navy Annex.

Let us be honest abou this. There is a significant amount of people placing the Plane in a place that is contradictory to the Official Flight Path.

reply to post by talisman


Talisman,

Allow me to ask you the same question.

If Morin was given a crayon and overhead photograph like Paik and the others. Where would he draw his line?

I think you know the answer.

-CF

reply to post by CameronFox


The answer is simple...

He would draw the line over the navy annex which fatally contradicts all official reports, data, and the physical damage proving a military deception on 9/11.

Thanks for asking.

He bobs.... He weaves....

....he DODGES!

Nice try Craig.

Anyone else want to guess where Mr. Morin will draw his line?




[edit on 5-1-2009 by CameronFox]

reply to post by CameronFox


No sir.

It is a fact.

If the plane was anywhere directly over the navy annex as stated by Morin it proves a military deception on 9/11.

You see that's the problem with all those pesky official data, reports, and physical damage.

They require the plane to be in one place with zero room for error.

You can't have the plane anywhere you want SoC.

It must be exactly on the official flight path completely south of Columbia Pike particularly due to the outrageous speed of 784 feet per second that they have reported.

ONA proves a military deception no matter how you slice it.

Thanks for driving the point home.

ONA = the new NoC

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


The "NEW" NOC..... BWahahahahha kind of like your New Fly around theory Craig? Update those graphics yet? Yeah, I didn't think so.


So Craig, where would he draw the line? NOC or SOC ?

reply to post by CameronFox


You are not being civil and you are not staying on topic.

This thread is not about what side of the citgo station the plane flew nor is it about the Pentagon flyover.

It is about whether or not the plane flew over the navy annex.

It appears as though you agree with Morin on this point so thank you for admitting that 9/11 was an inside job.

Have a great day.

Easy does it Craig.

The title of the thread states OVER THE NAVY ANNEX FEATURING TERRY MORIN.

I am being very civil. (besides the giggling I do on my last post)

I am also discussing on topic his statement.

I am asking where he would have drawn a line to point out the simple fact that he is a SOC witness. You have stated over and over that you have NEVER interviewed a SOC witness. I beg to differ.

The SOC path refutes that of what you and your witnesses claim. It also refutes the math done by PFT.





[edit on 5-1-2009 by CameronFox]

posted by CameronFox
He bobs.... He weaves....

....he DODGES!

Nice try Craig.

Anyone else want to guess where Mr. Morin will draw his line?

Can I play too? Can I guess? Is there a monetary prize for guessing correctly? Ooops . . . . . maybe the judge is biased. Maybe we can't win because the judge is too desperate to let us win.

Here is my Guess.

Terri Morin would draw the line Over the Naval Annex which fatally contradicts all official reports, data, and the physical damage, and agreeing with 20+ other eyewitnesses also positioning the decoy aircraft Over the Naval Annex, proving a military deception on 9/11.

reply to post by SPreston


Well, I have to give you kudos for at least answering my question Spreston. I can't say the same for others.

Now, I suggest you re-read his interview and THEN tell me, from what you read, where does he place the plane.

There is a reason why Craig won't answer the question.