*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin, page 9
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11    12  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 02:12 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by GenRadek


No matter how much you plug your ears and refuse to listen to what Morin says with his own mouth it does not make his words go away.

This is why you are refusing to answer my questions because they expose your denial.

Morin was very specific that he was BETWEEN the wings.


I was inside....it flew over the top of me....I then immediately ran to the outside. I had no side view. If I would have seen a side view I could have told the people it was an American Airlines jet. Because I would have seen the stripes. Didn't see the stripes I saw the silver belly.


He specifically remembers NOT being able to report it was an AA jet and he specifically remembers running OUT from in between the wings AFTER it flew over him which is the very reason he gives for not being able to tell it was supposed to be an AA jet.

So no matter how many times you state the opposite it does not matter because Terry Morin already explained to you that he COULD NOT tell it was an AA jet because it flew over the top of him and the Navy Annex proving a deception on 9/11.


Now as far as the bank goes....since Terry Morin has CONFIRMED his position between the wings, and has CONFIRMED the plane flew directly over him, and CONFIRMED this is why he could not tell it was an AA jet, and CONFIRMED this is why he misidentified the craft as a 737 we know for a fact that the fraction of a second he would see the plane would not allow him to tell specific details like bank angle or heading with any sort of accuracy.



This is common sense.

Whether it was really the belly or a portion of the belly in a bank is irrelevant because of his extremely limited POV that didn't allow him to see much or judge specific details like that with any accuracy.

Eyewitnesses are fallible. We know this already.

The other corroborating witnesses prove he was right about the GENERAL claim of the plane being directly over the building but wrong about the more SPECIFIC claim regarding heading.

It's real simple logic and basic common sense that you are ignoring as you insist on ignoring his own words.

Now stop pretending like the first-hand recorded interview with Terry Morin in the OP does not exist and please answer the 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 12-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]


reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 03:33 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by adam_zapple

I agree that's what he said...but this is not a "confirmation" this is a "contradiction" of his earlier statements.


Wrong. It is a contradiction of your interpretation of his earlier statements.

The fact that he was MUCH more detailed in the recent account and follow up questions were asked to clarify these specific details, and the fact that he went so far as to cite his location in between the wings as the reason he misidentified the craft, as well as specifically the reason why he was NOT able to tell the authorities it was supposed to be an AA jet, makes it very clear that this was indeed confirmation of his true location and POV on 9/11.

The fact that he specifically remembers NOT being able to identify the craft is key.

The notion that an aviator would forget such a thing is ridiculous but his very specific account of not being able to report this to the authorities is the absolute clincher.

You have no valid reason to deny what he has specifically confirmed.

Especially since his ONA claim has been scientifically validated via corroboration from Ed Paik and all the ANC witnesses.


Did you show an overhead map of the area and have him plot his location, along with the flight path of the plane he reported?


Since he confirmed his limited POV from in between the wings and he confirmed the plane flew directly over him nothing else mattered as this proves the plane did not hit regardless of his belief in heading that he could not accurately judge from between the wings.

He did verbally confirm his belief in a "parallel" heading but since that had been proven false by the ANC witnesses who actually saw the approach and were therefore in an INFINITELY better place to judge heading, further documenting Morin's proven false deduction of heading was not important.

ANYWHERE directly ONA is irreconcilable with all official data, reports, and the physical damage. Heading is 100% irrelevant to this fact and obviously too specific of a detail to rely on from him due to his now confirmed limited POV.

Morin is not a witness to ANY flight path.

His POV reduces his account to a single data point placing the plane directly over the Navy Annex.

Of course it's a VERY STRONG data point considering his location on the Navy Annex property eliminating perspective error in this regard.





[edit on 12-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]


reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 04:15 PM by adam_zapple
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by adam_zapple

I agree that's what he said...but this is not a "confirmation" this is a "contradiction" of his earlier statements.


Wrong. It is a contradiction of your interpretation of his earlier statements.


"Out from" is not the same as "in between". This is a contradiction.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITThe fact that he was MUCH more detailed in the recent account and follow up questions were asked to clarify these specific details, and the fact that he went so far as to cite his location in between the wings as the reason he misidentified the craft, as well as specifically the reason why he was NOT able to tell the authorities it was supposed to be an AA jet, makes it very clear that this was indeed confirmation of his true location and POV on 9/11.


It's contradictory, and this second interview with "more details" took place how many years after the original? (All the more reason to have him put a pin in a map)

He describes seeing the aircraft disappear behind some trees...something that would be impossible to see if he was between the wings.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITEspecially since his ONA claim has been scientifically validated via corroboration from Ed Paik and all the ANC witnesses.


Are you saying that because witnesses agree on something that it's "scientifically validated and corroborated"?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Did you show an overhead map of the area and have him plot his location, along with the flight path of the plane he reported?


Since he confirmed his limited POV from in between the wings and he confirmed the plane flew directly over him nothing else mattered as this proves the plane did not hit regardless of his belief in heading that he could not accurately judge from between the wings.


Why did it matter with all of the other eyewitnesses but not Terry?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITHe did verbally confirm his belief in a "parallel" heading but since that had been proven false by the ANC witnesses who actually saw the approach and were therefore in an INFINITELY better place to judge heading, further documenting Morin's proven false deduction of heading was not important.


How was Morin's heading proven false if you have no way to prove the ANC eyewitnesses correct?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
ANYWHERE directly ONA is irreconcilable with all official data, reports, and the physical damage.


Agreed. But like you, I don't believe that everything Morin says is fully accurate.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by adam_zapple]


reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 04:25 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple


Corroboration is a scientific process used to validate eyewitness claims.

Yes.

That is a fact.

Morin's stated POV gave him no view of the approach so therefore he is not a witness to the flight path AT ALL.

EVEN IF he was correct about heading and placement of the plane this is STILL fatal to the official story and proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

But using the scientific method of corroboration we were able to determine that he was correct regarding his general placement of the plane ONA yet incorrect regarding the much more difficult to tell detail of heading.

Witnesses are quite fallible. They often embellish and deduce details which is why first-hand confirmation is so important and why we only rely on them for GENERAL details that can be corroborated such as ONA and NoC.

There is room for error in all of their accounts but not enough room for error to place the plane south of Columbia Pike or the citgo.

Lagasse and Morin make this perfectly clear.

Of course since none of the ANC witnesses nor Morin could see the alleged impact point this is the obvious reason why their actual witness account of the plane flying right by them holds more weight than their deduction of an impact much further away.



[edit on 12-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]



reply posted on 12-1-2009 @ 04:44 PM by adam_zapple
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by adam_zapple


Corroboration is a scientific process used to validate eyewitness claims.

Yes.

That is a fact.

Morin's stated POV gave him no view of the approach so therefore he is not a witness to the flight path AT ALL.

EVEN IF he was correct about heading and placement of the plane this is STILL fatal to the official story and proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

But using the scientific method of corroboration we were able to determine that he was correct regarding his general placement of the plane ONA yet incorrect regarding the much more difficult to tell detail of heading.

Witnesses are quite fallible. They often embellish and deduce details which is why first-hand confirmation is so important and why we only rely on them for GENERAL details that can be corroborated such as ONA and NoC.

There is room for error in all of their accounts but not enough room for error to place the plane south of Columbia Pike or the citgo.

Lagasse and Morin make this perfectly clear.


So because your eyewitness says "I could be wrong, but not THAT wrong" then you automatically assume that they are correct in their determination.

This is where we disagree. Just because an eyewitness thinks that their level of accuracy is X, doesn't mean that it is.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITOf course since none of the ANC witnesses nor Morin could see the alleged impact point this is the obvious reason why their actual witness account of the plane flying right by them holds more weight than their deduction of an impact much further away.


Distance is not the only variable to be considered. Simply being closer to the event with a better view is not going to guarantee a more accurate report....especially when we're dealing with an aircraft that was traveling at 200-500 mph at distances much closer than these people were accustomed to seeing.

While a direct report of an event is preferred to a deduction, some objective method has to be established to determine the accuracy of either claim.



[edit on 12-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]


reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 09:47 AM by adam_zapple
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by adam_zapple


So because your eyewitness says "I could be wrong, but not THAT wrong" then you automatically assume that they are correct in their determination.

This is where we disagree. Just because an eyewitness thinks that their level of accuracy is X, doesn't mean that it is.


Absolutely not.


This contradicts your statement that "There is room for error...but not enough for the plane to be south of the citgo...Lagasse and brooks make this very clear".

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Distance is not the only variable to be considered. Simply being closer to the event with a better view is not going to guarantee a more accurate report....especially when we're dealing with an aircraft that was traveling at 200-500 mph at distances much closer than these people were accustomed to seeing.


Right.

That's why we place more value on the details that they actually witnessed that are corroborated rather than ones that were deduced.


When Turcios, for example, says he saw the plane hit the pentagon, that is not a deduction, yet you treat it as such.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

While a direct report of an event is preferred to a deduction, some objective method has to be established to determine the accuracy of either claim.


Correct.

That would be the scientific method of corroboration.

Let me know when this starts to sink in for you.


That would be using physical evidence, or other "non-fallible" data to evaluate the eyewitness statements. (Google DNA exhonnerations)

The fact that the eyewitnesses agree is not scientific proof that they are correct any more than people at a magic show all saying that they saw a tiger disappear is proof that it disappeared. There are other variables that must be taken into consideration.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by adam_zapple]


reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 12:20 PM by adam_zapple
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by adam_zapple

When Turcios, for example, says he saw the plane hit the pentagon, that is not a deduction, yet you treat it as such.


Turcios does not say this.

In fact he says the opposite.

He specifically says that he did NOT see the plane hit the Pentagon.


The opposite?
Really? Where does he say he saw it go?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


The fact that the eyewitnesses agree is not scientific proof that they are correct any more than people at a magic show all saying that they saw a tiger disappear is proof that it disappeared. There are other variables that must be taken into consideration.



You act like CIT has provided the only evidence that contradicts the official story.

Sorry but that is not the case.

There are MANY irreconcilable contradictions on MANY levels INCLUDING the fact that the official flight path has been demonstrated physically impossible due to the topography an obstacles for a 757 at the NTSB reported speed of 784 feet per second.


Yes, yes...I've seen those calculations which PFT admits are "in error" and to date have still not been amended.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This means that logically an alternative scenario occured and obviously the independent verifiable evidence proves that the plane flew ONA and NoC and therefore did not hit the building.


Or it means that you and PFT didn't get the math right.....which has already been admitted.


reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 12:52 PM by adam_zapple
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by adam_zapple

The opposite?
Really? Where does he say he saw it go?


Stop playing word games.

You incorrectly claimed that he said he saw the plane impact the Pentagon when he specifically said that he did NOT see the plane impact the Pentagon.

So yes that would be fairly considered the "opposite".


You are the one playing word games. Turcios says the plane hit the pentagon...he was able to see it up until the point where the impact caused the plane to burst into flames...then all he could see was the fireball and smoke.


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by adam_zapple
Yes, yes...I've seen those calculations which PFT admits are "in error" and to date have still not been amended.


Wrong.

You clearly have not seen the calculations or paid any attention at all to the information you are furiously attempting to rebut.

The linked thread is specifically about the corrected calculations.


The "corrected" calculations, are still wrong because they are based on a straight line descent with a sudden and abrupt pull up. (See image below)

i14.photobucket.com...

A more plausible scenario would be a gradual reduction in the descent rate, which would require much less g-force.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Or it means that you and PFT didn't get the math right.....which has already been admitted.


Yes the initial error was immediately admitted and fully corrected complete with all math and calculations presented.

Seriously, you might try clicking the links and staying up on the info if you wish to discuss it on an educated level.


See discussion of above photo to understand what's wrong with your "corrected" math.


reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 01:12 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by adam_zapple


You are the one playing word games. Turcios says the plane hit the pentagon...he was able to see it up until the point where the impact caused the plane to burst into flames...then all he could see was the fireball and smoke.


I am not playing word games, I am correcting your 100% false claim that Turcios said he "saw" the plane impact the building.

The fact is that he specifically said he did NOT see the plane impact the building so if you are honest you will simply admit that you were incorrect when you stated otherwise.





The "corrected" calculations, are still wrong because they are based on a straight line descent with a sudden and abrupt pull up. (See image below)

i14.photobucket.com...

A more plausible scenario would be a gradual reduction in the descent rate, which would require much less g-force.


Excuse me?

Once again you are 100% wrong.

That is NOT what the calculations are based on.

Obviously 5 minutes ago you were not even aware that the corrected calculations existed so I find it hard to believe that you have reviewed them since then.

Why would you comment on scientific information that you have not even bothered to review?

The calculations are based on a reasonable radius.

The line in the image that I created is not a part of the calculations or the presentation by P4T.

It was created by me to simply help demonstrate the altitude of the plane in relation to the Pentagon in that scale image.


reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 01:24 PM by adam_zapple
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by adam_zapple


You are the one playing word games. Turcios says the plane hit the pentagon...he was able to see it up until the point where the impact caused the plane to burst into flames...then all he could see was the fireball and smoke.


I am not playing word games, I am correcting your 100% false claim that Turcios said he "saw" the plane impact the building.


Turcios says the plane hit the pentagon...up until the point where the impact caused the plane to burst into flames...then all he could see was the fireball and smoke.



The "corrected" calculations, are still wrong because they are based on a straight line descent with a sudden and abrupt pull up. (See image below)

i14.photobucket.com...

A more plausible scenario would be a gradual reduction in the descent rate, which would require much less g-force.


Excuse me?

Once again you are 100% wrong.

That is NOT what the calculations are based on.

The calculations are based on a reasonable radius.


PFT has made so many bogus calculations it's tough to keep them straight and I'm not about to sit through another 30 minute video of nonsense to see their latest BS. If they really believed what they claim to believe they'd spend their time filing lawsuits and talking to the media instead of on the internet arguing with people that they put on their "Enemies list".

As for you, I'm curious why you haven't taken you earth-shattering evidence to a prosecutor or grand jury somewhere.....for someone who claims to have "proof of a deception" on 9/11 you sure don't seem too motivated to do anything about it.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by adam_zapple]


reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 01:34 PM by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by adam_zapple

Turcios says the plane hit the pentagon...up until the point where the impact caused the plane to burst into flames...then all he could see was the fireball and smoke.


Just as I thought.

You are not intellectually honest enough admit the 100% FACT that your claim that Turcios said he "saw" the plane impact the building is false.




PFT has made so many bogus calculations it's tough to keep them straight and I'm not about to sit through another 30 minute video of nonsense to see their latest BS. If they really believed what they claim to believe they'd spend their time filing lawsuits and talking to the media instead of on the internet arguing with people that they put on their "Enemies list".


Your emotional rant only serves to expose your personal bias.

P4T put out one article with a MINOR error and they instantly admitted it and followed up with a correction that you admitted you were completely unaware of even as you desperately tried to argue against their claims.

YOU are the one making false claims about information you haven't even bothered to review.

It's no surprise that you are abandoning this fallacious argument in an attempt to attack P4T personally.


As for you, I'm curious why you haven't taken you earth-shattering evidence to a prosecutor or grand jury somewhere.....for someone who claims to have "proof of a deception" on 9/11 you sure don't seem too motivated to do anything about it.



This is typically the argument that pseudo-skeptics resort to when they are intellectually bankrupt.

This is IRRELEVANT to the evidence.

You have lost the argument so you resort to making this about me personally.

You don't know what I have done or haven't done regarding this and I am not inclined to discuss it with you since it's clear this is nothing but a sad attempt on your part to divert the discussion away from the evidence.


reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 01:52 PM by adam_zapple
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Originally posted by adam_zapple

Turcios says the plane hit the pentagon...up until the point where the impact caused the plane to burst into flames...then all he could see was the fireball and smoke.


Just as I thought.

You are not intellectually honest enough admit the 100% FACT that your claim that Turcios said he "saw" the plane impact the building is false.


He did seeit up until the point where it exploded and he could no longer see it because of the fire.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


PFT has made so many bogus calculations it's tough to keep them straight and I'm not about to sit through another 30 minute video of nonsense to see their latest BS. If they really believed what they claim to believe they'd spend their time filing lawsuits and talking to the media instead of on the internet arguing with people that they put on their "Enemies list".


Your emotional rant only serves to expose your personal bias.

P4T put out one article with a MINOR error and they instantly admitted it and followed up with a correction that you admitted you were completely unaware of even as you desperately tried to argue against their claims.


The incorrect math is still posted.....an 11.2G error isn't minor. The source of the error indicates that the person doing the math doesn't know much about physics.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
YOU are the one making false claims about information you haven't even bothered to review.


I'll review a document, I'm not watching more of their video drivel.


As for you, I'm curious why you haven't taken you earth-shattering evidence to a prosecutor or grand jury somewhere.....for someone who claims to have "proof of a deception" on 9/11 you sure don't seem too motivated to do anything about it.



This is typically the argument that pseudo-skeptics resort to when they are intellectually bankrupt.

You don't know what I have done or haven't done regarding this and I am not inclined to discuss it with you since it's clear this is nothing but a sad attempt on your part to divert the discussion away from the evidence.

Very well...we can start another thread for you to show what you've done.
Pages: <<  6    7    8    9    10    11    12  >>    ^^TOP^^



9-11 lecture at Basel University, Switzerland.
  Posted 15 days ago with 14 member flags
9/11 Actors re-visited
  Posted 8 days ago with 13 member flags
Building Collapses in Rio
  Posted 15 days ago with 6 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags
Remains of 9/11 victim identified
  Posted 1 days ago with 5 member flags
you must try this youre self ????
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags