Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

Ask Proudbird what he uses?

As far as I know (I'm not a pilot myself).....

Above, underlined, bolded and italicized? THEREIN lies the problem.

Period.

Full stop.

Oh, and this too, despite my previous explanation:

And I don't know why you keep denying the 330fps limitation when it's clearly documented!

For those still not understanding the POINT of that specification??

You are on our own, from here out....good luck with your "quest"....

Alfie, did you miss this? Are these witnesses more in line with Terry Morin or the official SoC flight path?

Originally posted by WetBlanky
You guys should give it up. The plane came over the Navy Annex.

Your efforts are futile.

Ranke: are you saying he was off to the side of the Navy Annex, or ...

Hemphill: yeah, he would have been over my right shoulder

Ranke: but you saw the fuselage appear, was it directly over the top of the Navy Annex or ...

Hemphill: right over the top

Albert Hemphill

QUOTE
I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my righQt: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex

Christopher Munsey

QUOTE
It was on top of the Navy Annex.

Darius Prather

QUOTE
I looked up, looking in this direction and I can see the plane over the corner of that building here, the Navy Annex. From what I seen it was at right of it. It was on this corner of it.

Darrel Stafford

QUOTE
Carter: We saw a plane over here, the Navy Annex, come from over.
[...]
Q: Would you say it was more on the North side of the station over here or the south side?

Carter: It was more on this side. Right on this side

Donald Carter

QUOTE
Then when I looked I seen he was kind of fighting with the plane. And he glazed over like our parking lot here and made a turn toward the Pentagon….

…when it came down past the Navy Annex it came right down the center of the road here.

William Middleton

QUOTE
It was coming from here, very low, it almost hit my head. I thought it might hit the Navy Annex building's roof. That’s why I was running and I looked at the Navy Annex building and it wasn’t touched. 

Ed Paik

QUOTE
As he approached the heliport he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him.

Frank Probst

QUOTE
James Mosley, 57, was four stories up on a scaffold, washing the windows of the Navy Annex building when the plane flew overhead.

James Mosley

R. E. Rabogliatti was in his office at the Navy Annex. He peered out of his office window and saw the airliner looming over the building.

R.E. Rabogliatti

QUOTE
Boger: When I saw the plane he was practically in front of the Navy Annex.

Aldo: ..did it come over the Navy Annex to the right, to the middle or more to your left?

Boger : I would say more to the right also.

Sean Boger

QUOTE
I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex

Levi Stephens

QUOTE
I was looking and it came right over the top of Navy Annex.
-George Aman, ANC employee.

edit on 13-12-2011 by WetBlanky because: (no reason given)

reply to post by WetBlanky


First things first, where were they all standing,, in regards to your witness accounts? Where were all those people located when they watched the plane fly by?

Important to know because there is a little something to remember when dealing with eyewitness accounts:
PERSPECTIVE.

If they were located anywhere farther north of the Pentagon, looking south, it would NO DOUBT appear that the aircraft flew "over" the Navy Annex. This is because it was flying parallel to the Pike and the Navy Annex. So if you were standing just behind the Annex, it would look as if it flew directly over the Annex.

Terry's account, the first account taken has the plane flying parallel to the Pike and just along the Navy Annex. He watched the whole thing and watched how the plane flew lower and lower until his view was obscured by the trees. All he could see was the tip of the tail right up until impact. However, as you keep trying to claim that the plane directly over the Annex and farther north, then how the heck did Terry manage to watch the entire final flight of the plane from his vantage point 10 steps out from between the 4th and 5th wing? Did he have X-ray vision to see through the walls?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by djeminy

 

It needs more research. I'm not satisfied with either side's answer right now. Too many inconsistencies and hearsay evidence.

Edit: Well, not necessarily hearsay, but it is questionable witness testimony.

edit on 14-12-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)

Yes you need more research, Varemia. Because it appears that online pys-ops and their pseudo-disagreement tactics and repetitive disinformation have been affective with you. That is unless you are feigning indecision for some reason. This is pretty simple stuff and nothing has changed. When it comes to the *details* of the flight path ie where it flew exactly, there are several witnesses who were legitimately there (and even a few suspicious one who changed their story) placed the plane over the annex and north of the Citgo. Two have it pulling up or pivoting up into an ascent over the highway, one thought the impact happened on the top, one that saw it flying away, and one who said his co workers were yelling a bomb had hit and the jet kept on going. Several witnesses, including ATC and the C-130 crew, place the plane in DC skies and east of the Potomac, this also destroys the official story flight path which is way SW of the Pentagon and DC. The C-130's flight path was also altered in the RADES data to match the official SW loop which witnesses and ATC did not witness.
The data doesn't support the official story impact.

Also, the decline in topography and obstacles do not support the official story impact, including the shady surveillance frames(the flyover is edited out and the low, level object is inserted).

What is it exactly that has you torn?

reply to post by GenRadek


Why do you ignore the part where, in the very first interview you cite, where he specifically said it "cleared the 8th wing"?

It was over the annex, he was in between the wings, it veered to the left or middle, then north corner of the navy annex as witnessed by the ANC workers.

Do you not understand that no matter how you and others try to parse his account and twist it, it DOES NOT support the official south of Columbia Pike, south of Citgo, straight 530 mph, 780 fps, flight path??

Better yet, why don't you show us the official flight path based on data, like speed, lat/long points, and damage path, then show us what Terry Morin is describing, then compare that to what witnesses leading up to Gina d after him describe.

Originally posted by WetBlanky

(the flyover is edited out and the low, level object is inserted).

Proof?

Pure and utter hogwash. This is what CIT and P4T and the rest of the Truthers excel at - if you don't know something, if you are missing a piece to the puzzle that is essential to your fantasy, you just make it up. No proof needed, no evidence, no nothing needed...just make up what you need.

Originally posted by trebor451
No proof needed, no evidence, no nothing needed...just make up what you need.

Sounds like the NIST report.

How do sagging trusses put a pulling force on columns they are attached to?

No proof, no evidence, nothing needed I guess huh? Just faith, and no questioning?

We should all just shut up like good little chattel, and stop asking questions?

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by WetBlanky

(the flyover is edited out and the low, level object is inserted).

Proof?

Pure and utter hogwash. This is what CIT and P4T and the rest of the Truthers excel at - if you don't know something, if you are missing a piece to the puzzle that is essential to your fantasy, you just make it up. No proof needed, no evidence, no nothing needed...just make up what you need.

1. The north side flight path (and pull-up) is proof the object was inserted.
2. The lack of shadow underneath the object or it's supposed smoke plum (in both videos) is proof the object was inserted.
3. Not one witness or even alleged witness saw or alleged to have seen or reported the white smoke plume from the engine which is proof the object was inserted.
4. The decline in topography, the obstacles in addition to the fraudulent data is proof he object is inserted.

Do you disagree with this quote from official story researcher Boone870?

"After having been there myself, I came to the realization that the people who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken. There is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level. Impossible!"

Are you saying that integrated consultants, purdue university, and the us govt and their surveillance do correctly depict a low and level 757 and Boone870 is wrong?

Originally posted by WetBlanky

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by WetBlanky

(the flyover is edited out and the low, level object is inserted).

Proof?

Pure and utter hogwash. This is what CIT and P4T and the rest of the Truthers excel at - if you don't know something, if you are missing a piece to the puzzle that is essential to your fantasy, you just make it up. No proof needed, no evidence, no nothing needed...just make up what you need.

1. The north side flight path (and pull-up) is proof the object was inserted.
2. The lack of shadow underneath the object or it's supposed smoke plum (in both videos) is proof the object was inserted.
3. Not one witness or even alleged witness saw or alleged to have seen or reported the white smoke plume from the engine which is proof the object was inserted.
4. The decline in topography, the obstacles in addition to the fraudulent data is proof he object is inserted.

Do you disagree with this quote from official story researcher Boone870?

"After having been there myself, I came to the realization that the people who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken. There is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level. Impossible!"

Are you saying that integrated consultants, purdue university, and the us govt and their surveillance do correctly depict a low and level 757 and Boone870 is wrong?

edit on 14-12-2011 by WetBlanky because: (no reason given)

So this is your proof? I asked for proof of your claim that the "flyover is edited out". You provided nothing but conjecture, more made-up puzzle pieces and a snippet of a comment from an online poster? Tell us more about the "official story researcher" Boone870. "Official Story Researcher"...is that a real title? What makes him "Official"? Is there an "Unofficial Story Researcher" title available? Is there a "Semi-Official Except on Tuesdays" qualification? Is that a registered title, like "Head Person Who Looks At Things"? That is your "proof"? A snippet from the "Official Story Researcher". That is what you are basing your "proof" on. Beautiful.

Judge Chin nailed it..."factually baseless, fanciful, fantastic and delusional".

Originally posted by ANOK
How do sagging trusses put a pulling force on columns they are attached to?

Couldn't it be from the weight of the floor material? If it is pushing downward with gravity, then both ends of the truss will be pulled inward, the weaker of the two moving. It's well known that the truss seats were small and not meant to experience extreme vertical stress. Maybe I'm just thinking about this differently than anyone else, but I don't see the inconsistencies with that.

Originally posted by Varemia


Couldn't it be from the weight of the floor material? If it is pushing downward with gravity, then both ends of the truss will be pulled inward, the weaker of the two moving. It's well known that the truss seats were small and not meant to experience extreme vertical stress. Maybe I'm just thinking about this differently than anyone else, but I don't see the inconsistencies with that.

The sagging trusses do not grow in length. Therefore the straight line distance between the attachment points must decrease. The only way it can decrease is for the support beams to bend in wards. Think of it as having a thread tied between your thumbs. The only way you can make the string taut or sag is by moving your thumbs. The building behaved in a similar manner.

Originally posted by huh2142

Originally posted by Varemia


Couldn't it be from the weight of the floor material? If it is pushing downward with gravity, then both ends of the truss will be pulled inward, the weaker of the two moving. It's well known that the truss seats were small and not meant to experience extreme vertical stress. Maybe I'm just thinking about this differently than anyone else, but I don't see the inconsistencies with that.

The sagging trusses do not grow in length. Therefore the straight line distance between the attachment points must decrease. The only way it can decrease is for the support beams to bend in wards. Think of it as having a thread tied between your thumbs. The only way you can make the string taut or sag is by moving your thumbs. The building behaved in a similar manner.

edit on 14-12-2011 by huh2142 because: I forgot to post my message. D'oh

edit on 14-12-2011 by huh2142 because: Edited to be a bit more clear.

Metal does expand under heat though. It will not be significant enough to make the truss longer, but that's why it has a pulling force. Think of it like having a string tied to two standing markers. If you push down on the middle of the string, the markers will be pulled inward.

Please guys, keep the debate on topic?

Alfie, Proudbird, Snowcrash, Trebor, GenRadek..same old, same old..

To every single one of those who have ignored valid questions put to you on Terry Morin's account (and a multitude of others) and this apparent will to actually pinpoint what path Morin was describing, the silence speaks volumes.

1. Mind pointing out exactly where Craig Ranke "obfuscated..rabbit-holed and lead" Terry Morin?

2. Even if you did ignore his recorded interview (which is totally illogical), isn't Terry Morin still describing the aircraft as over his head and over the outer portion of the Navy Annex building (FOB)?

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)

3. Didn't he narrow the flightpath in claiming that the aircraft would have struck the memorial if it had have been built?



hardly the path you guys are trying to push, no?

4. Are you trying to say that the directional damage is possible from the path you allege he is describing in that online testimony?

5. He couldn't physically see the alleged impact zone. He describes a "flash" and a "fireball".

6. Finally, do either of his testimonies describe the FDR/directional damage path? (Please note where the Memorial is too..)



That goes for Alfie, Proudbird, Snowcrash and GenRadek.

Hey Proudbird,

I see you've posted another cryptic non answer.

Mind pointing out the faults you seem to be implying in my last post to you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here are the flap speeds for approach.

Flap 15 210 knots
Flap 20 195 knots
Flap 25 190 knots
Flap 30 162 knots

web.archive.org...://www.757.org.uk/limits/lim1.html

And from Pilotsfor911truth

Given that a Radio Altimeter isn't required to be accurate until inside the clearway zone for a Cat III ILS, (RA cannot determine True Altitude along the approach until over a clearway zone guaranteed to be measuring from nothing but grass) ...and given the fact that the aircraft are not allowed to land with more than a 10 knot tailwind (99.9% of approaches are into a headwind component), the aircraft will be well within the tracking capabilities of the Radio Altimeter when it is needed and required, down low, slow, below 100 agl on Cat III, with a groundspeed of less than 160 knots.

And please tell me you understood why the 330fps RADALT limitation refers to speed and not altitude?

I'll also refrain from asking you guys if you've verified Stutt's "data" yourselves. You obviously haven't.

reply to post by GenRadek


How about William Middleton's perspective? He couldn't physically see the official flightpath and described it in no way. Does that count for something?

And as for Morin..

Terry's account, the first account taken has the plane flying parallel to the Pike

at least get your facts straight. Quote exactly what he says in both Craig Ranke's interview and his online testimony.

Hint: Over his head and over the outer edge of FOB (Navy Annex building)

I'll narrow it down more if you want.

Stop fudging the issue.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by WetBlanky

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by WetBlanky

(the flyover is edited out and the low, level object is inserted).

Proof?

Pure and utter hogwash. This is what CIT and P4T and the rest of the Truthers excel at - if you don't know something, if you are missing a piece to the puzzle that is essential to your fantasy, you just make it up. No proof needed, no evidence, no nothing needed...just make up what you need.

1. The north side flight path (and pull-up) is proof the object was inserted.
2. The lack of shadow underneath the object or it's supposed smoke plum (in both videos) is proof the object was inserted.
3. Not one witness or even alleged witness saw or alleged to have seen or reported the white smoke plume from the engine which is proof the object was inserted.
4. The decline in topography, the obstacles in addition to the fraudulent data is proof he object is inserted.

Do you disagree with this quote from official story researcher Boone870?

"After having been there myself, I came to the realization that the people who use the Pentagon security videos to prove that Flight 77 leveled off over the lawn, are sadly mistaken. There is no way in Hades that that airplane approached the Pentagon level. Impossible!"

Are you saying that integrated consultants, purdue university, and the us govt and their surveillance do correctly depict a low and level 757 and Boone870 is wrong?

edit on 14-12-2011 by WetBlanky because: (no reason given)

So this is your proof? I asked for proof of your claim that the "flyover is edited out". You provided nothing but conjecture, more made-up puzzle pieces and a snippet of a comment from an online poster? Tell us more about the "official story researcher" Boone870. "Official Story Researcher"...is that a real title? What makes him "Official"? Is there an "Unofficial Story Researcher" title available? Is there a "Semi-Official Except on Tuesdays" qualification? Is that a registered title, like "Head Person Who Looks At Things"? That is your "proof"? A snippet from the "Official Story Researcher". That is what you are basing your "proof" on. Beautiful.

Judge Chin nailed it..."factually baseless, fanciful, fantastic and delusional".

And yet here you are everyday, over and over and over. Spending hours obsessed with something that is supposed to be "factually baseless, fanciful, fantastic and delusional".

Btw, most of William Veale's claims were "factually baseless, fanciful, fantastic and delusional", but that doesn't change that the north side flight path evidence isn't.

Back to the surveillance videos...

Well, the first five frames were leaked and no one could or did take credit for releasing them. In fact they couldn't even comment on whether they were legitimate!!!

Officials from the Pentagon said the photos were not released officially by the Department of Defense. A Pentagon spokeswoman could not verify that they came from surveillance cameras.

"The Pentagon has not released any video or any photos from security cameras from the terrorist attack of Sept. 11," said Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin.

A spokeswoman at the Department of Justice, which reviews taped and photographed evidence obtained by federal security cameras, said she could not comment on whether the photos are legitimate, adding that the photos "were not disseminated by the FBI or the Department of Justice."

So in March 2002, 6 months after 9/11, they could not even say whether the five frames, that were leaked mind you, were even legitimate!!!

But of course, that doesn't faze ol' Trebor here. He will just move some more goal posts, ridicule, and act indignant and incredulous.

These five frames that were leaked and could not even be considered legitimate had time stamps, yet the versions released in 2006 did not have time stamps. Why? Because the flyover was edited out and a false object was inserted. That's why there is no shadow from the object or it's plume. That's why no one saw or reported said white plume of smoke. That's why it wasnt released for 6 months and when it was it was leaked and no one could take credit for the release nor could they say it was legitimate.

But Trebor here thinks the plane was low and level and can go through giant communication cable spools as if they were invisible.

@djeminy

I know man. GLs claim to be defending the OCT yet chop and change what doesn't suit. So they aren't really defending the official narrative, but their own little conspiracy theory.

You'll notice too that those posting here debating (and I use that word loosely) the NOC evidence all have slightly different slants on their own version of the OCT but tiptoe round eachother's contradictory remarks.

Watch them shimmy!

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
@djeminy

I know man. GLs claim to be defending the OCT yet chop and change what doesn't suit. So they aren't really defending the official narrative, but their own little conspiracy theory.

You'll notice too that those posting here debating (and I use that word loosely) the NOC evidence all have slightly different slants on their own version of the OCT but tiptoe round eachother's contradictory remarks.

Watch them shimmy!

That pretty much sums it up. You can see snowcrash disappeared once his lies were too slippery for even his oil-slicked acrobatics.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
That pretty much sums it up. You can see snowcrash disappeared once his lies were too slippery for even his oil-slicked acrobatics.

Credit: debunker "jthomas".