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

reply to post by snowcrash911


You should leave the original video and change it to:

"What 757 shadow?"
Or
"What engine smoke trail?"
Or
"What communication cable spools?"
Or
"What aerodynamic principles?"



When you going to debate CIT like you promised? I figured a programmer like you, should have some headphones or some computer speakers for skype. Weird that you don't.

Snowcrash, I know you hope you can slime your way out of a response, but you missed these...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
&
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by huh2142
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.

Not true. When steel is heated up it expands, so yes it does grow in length, and width. So IF the trusses heated up enough to sag they would have expanded. This expanding did not push the columns out, thus they sagged.
The expanding from the heat caused the sagging, not because the steel can not hold its own weight.

If the trusses did not push the columns out, then they will also no be able to pull the columns in. All the expanding of the steel from heat is taken up by the sagging.

Extremely simple debunking of that OS nonsense.

Want to prove me wrong? Then demonstrate it. Words will do you no good, I know better.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Snowcrash, I know you hope you can slime your way out of a response, but you missed these...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
&
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

If witnesses are not computers, then why must all witnesses who support the OS flight path be exactly right, according to you?

Can you explain that one?

Thank you.

ETA: what is the standard deviation from mean on your witness flight paths? How many witnesses to the south of the official flight path have you "independently interviewed" and published the video footage online? Who were they? What did they say and draw? Answer that too please. Cheers!

Originally posted by WetBlanky
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

You should leave the original video and change it to:

"What 757 shadow?"
Or
"What engine smoke trail?"
Or
"What communication cable spools?"
Or
"What aerodynamic principles?"

When you going to debate CIT like you promised? I figured a programmer like you, should have some headphones or some computer speakers for skype. Weird that you don't.

I have headphones now. And a mic. But my NWO overlords aren't allowing me to have Skype on my government loyalist desktop.

As for your gate cam video whine:

• You are not qualified to judge shadow appearance on a video; it's a technical subject and you tend to suck at science. (How's your Sandia "study" coming along? Still nothing?)
  
• The smoke trail is a probable consequence of the plane hitting light pole #3, it's in the gate cam video, and you're still whining.
  
• The cable spools can be shown to be almost everywhere, due to heavy perspective distortion in the many Pentagon pictures. I know this, I've looked at them for hundreds of hours. It's how I figured out you guys were frauds, BTW.
  
• There are no aerodynamic principles violated.
  

Video alteration/manipulation can be shown empirically, by mathematically analyzing the video data. Have at it, and publish your results for peer review. I can't wait. You have both an "inserted plane with smoke trail" and a retouched flyover aircraft to pinpoint. Good luck!

Here's another one: do you understand there can be one, and ONLY ONE, northside flight path if you were to be correct?

Do you understand this? The plane cannot be in two places at the same time, all of your witness flight paths are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

Please respond elaborately. Thanks!

Originally posted by WetBlanky

If the plane actually flew to the north side of the gas station, this proves an inside job.

~"Michiel deBoer" aka Snowcrash911
Source: www.911oz.com...

So why do you cherry pick only to try and support an impact?

"Cherry pick"... funny you should say that, since you quote mined me there. I knew you would, one day, which is why I explicitly formulated my response as follows:

If the plane actually flew to the north side of the gas station, this proves an inside job.

BUT IT DID NOT.

Source

You quote mine people because you're dishonest. It's that simple.

I encourage everyone here to read the source link, because it sports some very pertinent questions Aldo never really answered properly.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Snowcrash, I know you hope you can slime your way out of a response, but you missed these...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
&
www.abovetopsecret.com...

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

If witnesses are not computers, then why must all witnesses who support the OS flight path be exactly right, according to you?

Can you explain that one?

Thank you.

ETA: what is the standard deviation from mean on your witness flight paths? How many witnesses to the south of the official flight path have you "independently interviewed" and published the video footage online? Who were they? What did they say and draw? Answer that too please. Cheers!

edit on 14-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

Answer the questions Snowcrash911.

You made your "version" (your words) of the flight path that doesn't jive with witnesses, I didn't.
You made your "version" (your words) of the flight path that doesn't jive with the official 530 mph, 780 fps, south of Columbia pike, south of VDOT, SoC path, I didn't.
You ignored where Terry Morin said it "cleared the 8th wing" of the navy annex, I didn't.
You ignored where Terry Morin said it would have ran into the air force memorial if it had been built, I didn't.

If witnesses are not computers, then why must all witnesses who support the OS flight path be exactly right, according to you?

There are none that support the OS path, however the FDR is a computer and we know where plane has to be based on the fraudulent data and the official damage path.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Keep digging that hole Snowcrash.

Fail.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Some questions.

(1) Why do you list the flight path angular while Morin clearly says it was parallel to the Navy Annex?
(2) Why do you not show the Citgo in that picture?
(3) Why must a plane hit the airforce memorial centerline only, instead of, say, left wingtip? If that were the case, and the plane flew parallel, to the edge of the Navy Annex, where would it end up?
(4) Why not use a picture showing the 8th wing on the Navy Annex AND the location of the AFM, instead of this misleading non-9/11/2001 topographical situation?

(...)

Oh, and another question, I know the Pentagon is in a bowl-shaped landscape, but, since Morin says the plane dipped below the treeline @ the Columbia Pike turn, how does that rhyme with the height erroneously reported by the near defectively inaccurate PA, and not with the accurate RA?

Did it fly over the Navy Annex and then drop like a brick?

Any comments?

(...)

As for Warren Stutt, I've read his source code, understood it, and I intend to port it. Capiche? How about you explain the source code for me line by line?

1, 2, 3 ... GO!

Bump for OneSlic.... errr... "ThePostExaminer".

Originally posted by WetBlanky

Originally posted by snowcrash911
If witnesses are not computers, then why must all witnesses who support the OS flight path be exactly right, according to you?

There are none that support the OS path, however the FDR is a computer and we know where plane has to be based on the fraudulent data and the official damage path.

That is not an answer, boy. Here we go again. Answer the questions.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
If witnesses are not computers, then why must all witnesses who support the OS flight path be exactly right, according to you?

Can you explain that one?

Thank you.

ETA: what is the standard deviation from mean on your witness flight paths? How many witnesses to the south of the official flight path have you "independently interviewed" and published the video footage online? Who were they? What did they say and draw? Answer that too please. Cheers!

(...)

Here's another one: do you understand there can be one, and ONLY ONE, northside flight path if you were to be correct?

Do you understand this? The plane cannot be in two places at the same time, all of your witness flight paths are, in fact, mutually exclusive.

Please respond elaborately. Thanks!

This time, try answering the questions instead of playing the dodgeridoo.

WetBlanky? Are you still here?

Thread name : *new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin, page 16
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have posted there about Terry Morin's two interviews, and a LOT of, then new, NoC flight path witnesses (with a high probability of them being true NoC witnesses). From about page 16 and further up.

That was also the "Iraqi geese" debate with Pinch, I had in the last 2 pages there.
The conclusion was, that it was highly improbable to have been geese, what was filmed from high in Iraqi sky. Geese do not have a trail of heat emitting from the back of all of them, filmed with an infra-red camera.
There was another video found later, with the same film shown, but in that one it was explained that these were a "flock" of US bunker busters, JDAMS dropped from a B-52, on its way to an Iraqi target, and you saw them all impact.

The debate started 2 pages earlier when I proposed the theory of two events happening at the Pentagon, one flock of bunker busters like the JDAMS or the BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles which could have caused the downed light poles and the 60.25° true north external and internal damage. Such steel missiles would have cut through those poles as if they were made of butter, and instantly broke them at their base.
Which would perfectly explain the SoC "flight" path its external and internal damage path. And no need for preplanted evidence, the night before. Or internal planted explosives.
The only problem : why did we not hear from any missile wreckage parts? Because the real inside damage was not accessible for non-military personnel? I don't know, how can we ever be sure of that?

And the nearly synchronous head on impact at the same spot in the west wall, of a much slower flying B757 airplane (about 220 to 300 MPH) than has been shown in the NTSB animation, and also concluded from the last 12 seconds of the recovered FDR from the NoC flying B757 (Flight 77). Those two end speeds were much higher, about 540 MPH.

There was a discussion about supersonic flying missiles which would cause a sonic boom.
I would like to add now, that cruise missiles flying just under the speed of sound (max.sub-sonic) and programmed to act like a "flock" would still be difficult to see by witnesses who are also in the same moment being distracted by a huge airliner also in their angle of view, passing just over or in front of them. And then impacting.
You saw the video by a PfT member, called "Speed", with a sledge rocketing over a long rails, at 500 MPH. It looked as a streak of light, seen from its side.
Missiles passing low at near the speed of sound would seem to nearly double that impression. And especially when a flock of relatively small missiles come striking in along that 62.25° true north flight path, would it be very difficult to notice it, while your eyes are glued to a damn big airliner coming straight at you, very low above ground level.

I still find it a theory worth contemplating. Because I still find it quite crazy to down those 5 light poles, while the real plane flew NoC. Far away from those 5 downed light poles (which could have been prepared with all the damage to them, and laid down the night before, in advance, of course).

I know, it's a far stretched theory, but it would explain a lot more external and internal damage patterns, and better than the theories we have now.
I do not abandon any theory until enough evidence lays in front of us, to abandon any one of them, one by one.

I have abandoned the PfT and CIT fly-over theory. Enough said about it.
For me, that theory was shaky from the beginning, but now for me, it's a "wish it were true" theory by researchers who can't let it go, since too much respect will be lost by so many believers in their expertise. It's sad, it has divided many former online friends.

And severely damaged the real strong and valid long list of NoC witnesses.

And that NoC flight path and all of its witnesses keeps my interest in the Pentagon attack still on top of all my other 9/11 event interests.

reply to post by LaBTop


There is an alternative. That alternative is: the plane actually flew SoC, explaining the light pole damage, the façade damage, the directional damage, the generator and the flap track, the DNA evidence, the exit hole, the angular column damage, the gate cam video, the wing imprints on the façade and the witnesses who did not see any "flock of missiles" nor a "flyover".

CIT's witnesses are all biased to the North (Keith Wheelhouse excepted) because they were all located to the North of the official flight path. It's so easy once you get it.

The fakery of an entire damage trail inside the Pentagon, passengers still strapped in seats, engines wedged shut into spirally reinforced columns, wing imprints, generator damage shaped like an engine and a flap track... is beyond implausible... it's utterly nuts.

I must remind you that TOO MUCH damage at the WTC causes no planers to believe no plane crashed there, while at the Pentagon, they complain of TOO LITTLE damage.

Which is it?

Your fantasy isn't fact. It's a way for your mind to cope with physics you're not equipped to understand. If those missiles hit the light poles (a ludicrous idea) then what was their end point? Where are the multiple entry holes at different heights and different angles? Multiple damage paths and exit holes? Do you understand the height difference between pole 1 & 2 and the Pentagon? Witnesses wouldn't notice multiple missiles, hitting multiple targets, causing multiple explosions? Speed difference, different arrival time? Only one fireball? Orange? Plane parts at the exit hole?

The plane seen by the witnesses didn't fire anything. GPS isn't accurate enough to hit a single light pole.

You are in denial, and the mental gymnastics required to sustain your baseless theory are astonishing to anybody with a modicum of common sense.

I'll say this though: if one sincerely believes that:

(A) Positive evidence isn't really required to support a theory, indirect evidence will do (flight path testimony cherry picking)
(B) Witnesses can accurately judge flight paths, rather than collisions, (Flight path speculation trumps impact witnesses)
(C) Everything that refutes your theory is fake, or is "untrustworthy" because it's "supplied by the suspect" or lacks a "chain of custody" (except when it's the ASCE report, because the directional damage presented there is a convenient alternate flight path + impact scenario denial tool)

.....Then anything is possible, because in a make believe world, there are no rules. There is no science, no logic, no burden of proof, there's just castles in the sky, a few happy sticks dipped in angel dust, and a vivid, paranoid imagination.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
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"?

I dont ignore it. In fact, it bolsters MY point. He watched the plane fly practically ALL THE WAY IN. Thank you for reminding us of the 8th wing. That building would have also OBSCURED the plane had it flown NORTH of Citgo. Take a good look at all of the "NoC" paths, and then pick the one that would have allowed Morin to watch the plane fly all the way in. Also, why does he mention the plane flying behind the trees instead of getting lost behind the Annex? For NoC to work, he would have lost sight as the plane flew north of the Annex BEHIND it. he is not Superman with X-Ray vision.

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.

You mean the guys looking from the North side? That is exactly what I am talking about when it comes to perspective. They were looking south and to them, the plane would have appeared to fly "over" the Annex. here, tell me, is this 747 flying over the Golden Gate? How many people thought or said it flew LOW over the bridge?

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??

Actually, that should be directed at you. No matter how hard you try to twist his account, it DOES NOT support any NoC flight paths.

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.

Its been put up many times. In fact, here is his account, his FIRST most accurate account:

"Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual. I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. 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) I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.”

Reading Comprehension 101.

He cleared the 8th wing, which means he FLEW PAST the 8th wing right at the Pentagon. Flight path deliberate, smooth, controlled. No turns. A minor bank to the right, but he saw the tail all the way till the fireball. The line of trees blocked his view. TREES blocked his view, NOT the Annex, not the 8th Wing of the Annex. TREES.

This the flightpath you are saying is NoC:


Now then. Does Terry have X-ray vision? Was he on the roof? No. He was standing next to the security entrance inside the gate. How the hell could he have seen the plane flying BEHIND the Annex?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
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.

No, no no no no. We havent ignored anything. YOU have. LaBTop has. WetBlanky has. I'm going to make it simple: Does Terry Morin have X-Ray vision, yes or no?
This is what you claim to be the magical "NoC" fightpath.



Where is the flightpath and how much can Morin see? Let's go to GoogleMaps. Funny you ignored all my previous posts, as did LaBTop and everyone else that religiously believes in the "NoC" fantasy, where I addressed the viewpoints and an almost exact viewpoint of Terry and where he stood.
Terry Morin's view

I have put the view right next to the security building Terry was walking towards. He was 10 steps OUT FROM BETWEEN the 4th and 5th wing. Which means, he was no longer in between the wings,but in that driveway. You can see the Pentagon in the distance and the line of trees where he lost sight of the plane's fuselage. Mind you, the GoogleStreets view, is taken from the street, which gives us a slightly wider view than what Terry would have seen. Notice how tall the Annex is. So I want you to tell us all right here, right now, does Terry have X-ray vision? Yes or No?

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)?

Refer to the original quote of where he stood, from the FIRST account, not the one years later with ol CIT playing the old game of "Confuse and Twist the Eyewitness".

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

A wingtip could have, yes.

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

According to his FIRST account, and not the CIT years later account, twisted and jumbled, yes.

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

According to his FIRST account, he watched the plane until all he could see was the tail right up till impact. Tell me where he saw a pull up? How could he have watched the tail if it went over the Annex and flew NoC?

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

According to his FIRST account yes.
What part of "Flight path parallel to the FOB" dont you understand?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
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?

II'll get to his account in a minute.

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.

Have you read his account? He can see the plane all the way down until impact. That is called "Parallel to the Pike". Please, try to explain just how Terry's account can fit with a flight path like what you are suggesting:

Let's repost the quote shall we?

"Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual. I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. 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) I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.”

Now its going to be fun watching you and LaBTop and WetBlanky trying to shoehorn an explanation into just how the flight path pictured above can corroborate Terry's account as posted above. How can Terry watch the plane's tail all the way down, till impact, if the plane was behind the Annex and totally obscured from Terry's position? Remember where he stood. The Annex is to his left, which obscures the ENTIRE NoC path, which also would obscure the aircraft. Why doesnt Morin mention that, and only mentions a line of trees obscuring the fuselage?

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.

So says the person who is trying to have us believe that Terry now has x-ray vision and can see through buildings. I'm not fudging anything. But it sure is going to be fun watching you try and shoehorn that NoC flightpath into Terry's account where he saw the whole thing till impact from his narrow viewpoint.

Oh here is the video ProudBird posted on perspective:

This image posted by SPreston as the last post of that HIGHLY interesting page 13 of the *new presentation*-Terry Morin thread, shows clearly why Mr Morin was able to follow the attack plane with his eyes while and after he ran out from between the Navy Annex Wings 4 and 5 :



And this is an excerpt from Terry Morin's second phone interview, one of my many posts, in that page 13 :

I was right at the edge of being on the outer portion. When the plane went right over the top of me I was within 10 feet of the edge of the Navy Annex. I was inside, it flew over the top of me, it's right on the edge and I'm right here, and because I had already heard about the Twin Towers, I immediately ran to the outside and that's when I watched the airplane, and I moved into a position where I could see it. And there was some trees there, you may not know that, this was before the 8th Wing was destroyed, there used to be an 8th Wing there, and now there is an Air Force Memorial. If the Air Force Memorial had been built, the plane would have run into it...You see this treeline? As he starts to descend, he's 50 feet above this, and 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 tail stabilizer, the ass-end of the airplane is all you can see and he comes down.

You want it any clearer laid out, what Terry Morin's real position was? Explained by himself.

GenRadek's linked picture from the Randi forums is of course a distorted one, they seem to be flatlanders who can only imagine things in one layer, the ground view layer.
No wonder, they seem to think that their world exists solely of a FLAT screen.
The problem with them is, that there exists of course also a sky angle-of-view by Terry Morin, and that plane surely wasn't driving on the ground, it was FLYING high enough to be seen by Terry very fast after he ran out from between wing 4 and 5 of the Navy Annex.
And because it was flying in the AIR, he kept seeing it, since he was shifting fast positions (he ran), even when it was descending on its way to the Pentagon.

Let's tear his post apart one by one please:
1. ran to the outside and that's when I watched the airplane, and I moved into a position where I could see it.
Anyone sane enough to be able to understand plain English, reads here that Terry ran OUTSIDE the Annex grounds, and then he was able again to watch the full whole plane, so to be able to still follow that plane disappearing behind wing 8 of the Annex. He even admits he keeps moving to be able to keep the plane in his view. Btw, he kept moving UPHILL, as he states in the CIT 2008 interview, that was the only way he could be keeping the plane in his SKY-VIEW sight.
2. the plane would have run into it.
Any problem with that, mr Radek? Do you have any notion in a birds eye view, where that monument now is situated? Well, Terry explained it to you in the same audio translated text. So go and re-hear/read it.
3. he's 50 feet above this, and he descends, he basically starts to disappear
That's pretty clear, ain't it so? Self-explanatory indeed.
4. and the engines disappear
Same as above.
5. what I've got is a tail stabilizer, the ass-end of the airplane is all you can see
Behind that tree line, the hill slopes suddenly pretty steep down to the Citgo, which Terry couldn't see at all of course, but he pretty well described the North of Citgo path by telling you his position first in between the wings 4 and 5, and then his observation that the plane would have ran into the now erected Air Force Memorial.
Pretty easy to draw a pretty near EXACT line between those two points, ain't it so?
And then just follow that line to where it passes the Citgo just to the NORTH.

That green line (LT-edit :BLUE line) of the sky view by Terry I drew above, is of course the LOWER boundary of Terry's view starting at his eyes, crossing over the roofs of the last wings of the Navy Annex building, passing under the plane and extending all the way further in the sky, but still far under the flight path of the plane.

I first wanted to draw the angle of view of Terry when he should have been at the spot YOU, GenRadek, wants us to believe he was. But he wasn't, he was on the street, Columbia Pike, still running uphill.
And I already proved to you why he wasn't at the spot you think he was, because then he would have described a plane coming head on to him. He didn't describe such event.

Thus, the real left ground boundary, my RED line of the angle of view of Terry on the ground, STREET LEVEL, is what he should have seen when the plane was taxiing on the ground, which it didn't.
And on top of that, his SKY VIEW would have improved enormously by shifting his position to the right of the Annex, exactly as he did so.
Thus he could follow the plane almost all the way after it passed that tree line, which was growing uphill in front of the Citgo, when he first saw it again clearly, after it passed over the roof of wing 8, until he lost nearly completely sight of it much further away in its descend, he then only saw the tail sticking above the foliage of that tree line.
He did not actually see the plane impact the building, he only saw and heard an explosion and billowing smoke afterwards.

Just as the Navy Times reporter used the word "appeared", when he described a supposed "impact" in my last post above this one.

I am still convinced that too many witnesses descriptions, are evidence of a slower flying plane than the Flight77 recovered FDR data wants us to believe ( 540 MPH / 869 KMH ).
Terry Morin and Sean Boger (Helipad ATCer) were both experienced Air Force members.
They both talk about at least 10 to 12 seconds seeing that plane.
Now, when you at last took the time to calculate the distance from the 8th wing of the Navy Annex to the impact point (about 1900 meters/yards), you know how fast that plane according to them flew in their reality.

1 mile = 1.609344 kilometers (1609 meters), 1 hour = 3600 seconds.
That's max 190 m/second, which is 0.19 km/second ( 684 KMH / 425 MPH )
That's min 158 m/second, which is 0.158 km/second ( 569 KMH / 354 MPH )

And that's still not at all the, lately, by me proposed 220 MPH, to be able to make that slow right bank turning half circle around the north side of the CITGO gas station, and impact the second floor slab in the west wall of the Pentagon. Based on that online bank and turn calculator. And the input there-in of the stall speed of a clean 757-200, which is 180 MPH.

Things are getting more complicated to explain with science, again.

So please, JREF forum tourists, stop rehashing years ago countered quasi arguments, and let us all for the first time concentrate on the real important facts we have extracted from witnesses.
Far too many NoC witnesses CIT and I have laid before you over all these years.

Do not try to laugh them away from any forum you JREF tourists do visit constantly. And have the damn guts to use your own screen name from your originating forums. Cowardly behavior.
And mods, allow all these tourist-guys (JREF, PfT, CIT, PumpItOut, 911Blog etc etc) to enter the discussions here at ATS in this important 9/11 forum, under their righteous original screen names.
We have proved over many years to be perfectly able to counter their psy-ops techniques here at ATS, while they were ridiculing and dodging our evidence, where ever it was possible.

We have a slower than FDR data shows, moving plane, and in a slight right downward turning bank beginning at least beside the Sheraton (all perfectly viewable in SPreston's understandable overall picture in my fore-last post).

We also have an online turn/bank calculator where I can only squeeze out a witness acceptable 22° bank angle at 220 MPH speed.

We also have a stated position of Christine Peterson (she stood in the traffic jam, in front of the Helipad and the plane went right over her car) and Penny Elgas a few cars behind her (she saw the plane cross Route 27 a few cars in front of her).

I also found that photo of Christine back at her university, and we have the Riskus photo where she is standing on the concrete divider along the HOV lanes, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE HELIPAD.

And you tourists, want me to tell that the attack plane flew SOUTH of CITGO ?
Do you understand my anger in not being able to connect the proposed speed dots with the witness positions dots?

We have many very convincing Route 27 witnesses delved up by me, with their very convincing positions on Route 27, just in front of the two trees there and the Helipad in the Pentagon lawn, and you keep denying that?
Are you nuts, JREF and PumpItOut?

And these same witnesses are telling us vividly how that plane IMPACTED, with vivid descriptions HOW it did that.
Are you nuts too, PfT and CIT ?