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

Originally posted by LaBTop
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 :

What kind of utter bollocks is this? Are you not familiar with perspective, distance and angle distortions caused by bird's eye view photographs?

This is Terry's perspective on 9/11:



These were his line of sight limitations (and I'm being generous here)



You are fooling no-one. Thanks, however, for giving us all a heads up on the kind of deception you're capable of. Those crooked lines you drew really take the cake. The little flag on the manure boat.

Unbelievable.

And then, as if trying to establish a flight path based on biased selection of witnesses, gleefully averaging out their mutually exclusive NoC flight paths, isn't bad enough.... You attempt to extrapolate ground speed from witness testimony gibberish as well!

What did Lagasse say about the Doppler Effect? Would you like me to explain it to you?

Originally posted by LaBTop
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.

What?!?!?!?!?!

What is my name at 911blogger? At 911oz? At 911F? At TA?

You have to be kidding me... It's "SnowCrash". Always "SnowCrash" or something like "Snow__Crash" or "SnowCrash911", when it's taken.

We have OneSliceShort, "Herr Der Elf" AKA "Señor El Once", perhaps Rob Balsamo and Aldo Marquis and who knows who else right here, in this thread, using sock puppet aliases, and they all think they do a swell job at staying "anonymous". We're dealing with not one, but a whole platoon of no planer sock puppets here. It's a veritable masked ball. It's not just me who thinks this. Several participants from our side agree. What a crock!

Originally posted by LaBTop
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.

You couldn't prove a conspiracy if you were in one.

Now, if you are somehow frustrated with the discussion, okay, I understand. But don't go around claiming we're not (or at least that I'm not) using our well-known aliases, and then accuse us of being intelligence, and then... call for moderator intervention!

That's a bit overboard, don't you think?

Originally posted by snowcrash911

This is Terry's perspective on 9/11:

These were his line of sight limitations (and I'm being generous here)

You are fooling no-one. Thanks, however, for giving us all a heads up on the kind of deception you're capable of. Those crooked lines you drew really take the cake. The little flag on the manure boat.

[edit: Damn, don't you see who is the real deceptive one in here? The blue line drawn by SPreston (not by me, I referred to lines in a defunct link from me to my drawing of 3D perspective view by Morin, see the original post at page 13) is drawn ABOVE the Annex roofs, to show that the plane flew at least 50 feet/15 meters ABOVE them, as Morin told us. You drew your two lines with an upper maximum at the top right corner of the Annex 8th wing roof surface. So, your "plane" flew through the roofs of the Annex? end-edit.)

I see, we have a flat earth mathematics champion in the house.
Ever heard from geometrics? 3D? Where is your upward line of view in your limitations drawing?
You propose it as if that plane was taxiing, instead of flying at least 50 feet over the Annex wing's roofs.

And did you miss all my remarks on how Morin ran OUTSIDE the entrance's little white barrack, onto the street, and UPWARDS?
If you look at the sides of the 8 Annex wings in SPreston's photo, you clearly see that the terrain is so steep going up, that the first wing is much lower than the last wing.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Now, if you are somehow frustrated with the discussion, okay, I understand. But don't go around claiming we're not (or at least that I'm not) using our well-known aliases, and then accuse us of being intelligence, and then... call for moderator intervention!

That's a bit overboard, don't you think?

Difficulties in reading English?
I asked the mods to let everyone in, NOT to intervene and thus kick people out, in this specific forum where so many sock puppets had to be used, because these well known characters originating from other forums were banned here because of insults and neglecting the forum rules, after heated discussions.
It has (edit: been ) clouding the discussion here enormously, because we have to wait time and time again, to see which known kicked out 9/11 ATS-tourist is now again forced to enter the discussion with an alias.

Let Ranke and Marquis from CIT in, let Balsamo, One SliceShort and tumetuesfaitdubien/Jan Zelman from PfT in, let Jeffrey Hill from PumpItOut in under their real well known screen names from their own forums.
(edit :And JREF has a whole list of known and unknown aliases present here.)

Reheat (especially him, (smile) and ProudBird are also given more room for grumpy reactions, I suppose because of their proven here at ATS, record of being aviation experts in their own field of expertise.

That cleans up the discussion here enormously.
Other forums chose to add the personal Internet addresses to the posts, but that's privacy intruding behavior.

To make things better understandable for our readers, this is a rehash of SPreston's photo, where I filled in a 3D explanation for the ones still not getting the full picture.

Of course the yellow line and the blue line by Preston did not at all picture the exact flight paths, but it was merely to show what the 3D field of view for Morin running uphill, in reality was.
And that NoC and SoC were quite different, and my now black line is filled over the blue line of SPreston. I would have liked to place it a bit higher, to reflect the real height above the Annex roofs, but then it had become a mess.
So, imagine my upper black line even higher, more than 15 meters above the eight roofs.



files.abovetopsecret.com...

Very nice. Equally meaningless.

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

Your attempt at humor doesn't distract from the fact that you spend hours on CIT on forums but not only reneged on your promise to debate them but your promise to not talk about them or the north side evidence publicly. Would you admit you are not a man or woman of your word?

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?)

I am not sure what you are referring to. I have eyes. So does everyone else. Everything in the video casts a shadow, except the object alleged to be a plane emitting a smoke trail. Sorry that doesn't fit into your plans.

As for the Sandia experiment. Can you show me the Sandia nuclear reactor wall was the same thickness
as the pentagon's 24 inch concrete/brick/limestone wall? Can you show me how the Sandia experiment which is a plane head on into nuclear reactor wall is the same as a 757 that allegedly hits 5 light poles, a fence, a generator, and a vent structure wall dissipating energy and changing the direction of it's already 45 degree angle? Can you show me the "confetti" after the Sandia experiment crash? Can you explain how the plane turned into "confetti" outside the pentagon as your Sandia experiment example is supposed to illustrate, but at the same time the plane is supposed to enter entirely with the nose cone/nose of the plane ending up a the c-ring hole?

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.

You mean the doctored gate cam video and you didn't respond to the real issue. There are no witnesses who saw or report the alleged white trail of smoke. You lose again.

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.

I am not CIT. They are not frauds. You fit that word more than they do. I could only imagine what type of person you must be in real life, that you can blatantly lie and distort and then call real people, with real identities, real faces, who have done tremendous investigative work, which you yourself said it was, frauds and then walk around like you are a normal well adjusted person.

Oh since, you looked at cable spools it's just "heavy perspective distortion". No analysis. No expertise on your part. Here is a real analysis, by a real researcher, with a real name...

www.kolumbus.fi...

There are no aerodynamic principles violated.

Yes, there were. A say so by an anonymous nobody non-expert doesn't cut it.
youtu.be...
pilotsfor911truth.org...

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!

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

It has been shown by everything I've listed including the north side flight path which you said was "something" CIT ("excellent researchers"- your words) was "onto".
z3.invisionfree.com...

reply to post by WetBlanky


So far CIT has not provided evidence of any sort for a flyover. They have also not provided evidence of any planted parts, pre-cut light posts, pre-trimmed trees, explosives, or thousands of gallons of planted jet fuel.

That would mean that a plane hit the Pentagon. There was only one place where the plane hit and one path to get there unless you'd like to speculate on a low altitude maneuver from NOC to impact point that the pilots say couldn't be done.

Maybe you should just duck-and-cover.

Originally posted by snowcrash911


This is Terry's perspective on 9/11:

These were his line of sight limitations (and I'm being generous here)

You are fooling no-one. Thanks, however, for giving us all a heads up on the kind of deception you're capable of. Those crooked lines you drew really take the cake. The little flag on the manure boat.

Unbelievable.

edit on 15-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

Speaking of deception and manure, can you show us where your blue and purple line "cleared the 8th wing" of the Navy Annex and would have "ran into the airforce memorial" as Terry Morin described?

reply to post by LaBTop


So let me get this straight. His very first account, when he said he was 10 steps out from between the wings, is all wrong? Really? Somehow his memory was distorted and forgetful, in 2001, just after the events, but then he remembers it all clear as a bell 7 to 8 years later with a major difference in the story? There is a difference saying you are out from between the wings, and then saying deep inside in between the wings. Now this "running uphill" business. I'm right here on Google Maps, and I do not see any significant hills Terry would be running up to see the plane better. Maybe I'm blind or am having trouble to see the hill, but, he did say he was 10 steps out from between the 4th and 5th wing. Can you please show me here on Google Maps the "hill" he ran up to see the plane? I do see the road is gently going downhill towards the Pentagon, but right at the 4th-5th wing, it gets pretty flattened out, with another slight rise farther down by the 1st wing on the street. So you mean to tell me instead of running out farther away from the Annex to get a better view north, he ran uphill towards Wing 1 to see it better? Really? And that height is high enough to see over the Annex? LaBTop, here is the view:
Terry at the Annex

If also want to see how it would look like to Terry if he ran uphill, then place the view right at the Pentagon, then click the back button on the map, and see just how the view would have been and how much less Terry would be able to see. he wold have had to run at least 100ft to notice a difference in height to keep the plane in sight.

The road has a significant dip just at the 6th and 7th wing. Terry was at the 4th and 5th. No hills in sight, unless somehow he was way at the 7th and 8th wing. Unless he is meaning the gentle rise found in that location, but then again, that rise is like maybe 5 feet from the 4th and 5th wing to the 1st wing? I checked on a topographic map of the area, he could not have gone high enough to see over the Annex or even the plane flying northerly over the Citgo. The only place to run "uphill" is towards Wing 1. And he'd maybe get an extra 5ft -7ft height over his original position. But he'd have to run like the Flash, to make it up there in time to keep watching the plane going down behind the trees. Was he watching it from the Pike? Did he run through the guard shack to get outside the Annex grounds? or did he try hopping the fence? And the plane was what? Coming in for a slow landing? That plane must have been flying real slow in order for Terry to run around so much and even up hill to see the plane in his view at all times.

but look at his view from inside the Annex grounds:


He has a lot of room to move from the Annex towards the fence area, which Google Maps does not give a good view of. So was he standing in the middle of the Pike watching the crash? Far across the street in the parking lot next door? How did he have the time? That plane wasnt not sitting on its thumbs waiting for him to get there. And we are back to the same problem LaBTop that arises for you. How does he see the entire flight, including the NoC path, from his narrow view inside the Annex grounds (ie from between the fence and the building itself), or how does he manage to run all the way outside, through the security gate, and then run like the wind uphill, which would maybe give him an extra 5 ft height over his original position at the security gate, in time to watch the plane actually fly over the 8th wing of the Annex, fly below the tree line, and around the Citgo, all within maybe 30-40 seconds? or are you suggesting the plane was now flying slowly, as if on a regular approach to land? Because no one else ever mentions that plane flying slow. Everyone mentions its hauling a$$ with engines screaming like a missile at the Pentagon.

reply to post by WetBlanky


Hate to interject, but this is perfect to enhance the sorts of tactics, usually displayed.....

....and would have "ran into the airforce memorial" as Terry Morin described?

Did I miss something?

Is this yet another attempt at obfuscation, and attempt at perpetuating yet "ANOTHER" Internet meme??


The "Air Force Memorial" sculpture DID NOT EXIST IN 2001!!!

But congratulations on the attempt to use the Internet to ":re-write history" once again.

Kudos.

Originally posted by WetBlanky

... then call real people, with real identities, real faces, who have done tremendous investigative work, which you yourself said it was, frauds...

lol...you say that as it were a bad thing!

Why *shouldn't* we look at this as the joke it really is? Our Two Intrepid Heroes jet in from the West Coast to Save The Day! A two-year old finding his own butt would have done more solid "investigative work" than these two.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by WetBlanky

 

Hate to interject, but this is perfect to enhance the sorts of tactics, usually displayed.....

....and would have "ran into the airforce memorial" as Terry Morin described?

Did I miss something?

Is this yet another attempt at obfuscation, and attempt at perpetuating yet "ANOTHER" Internet meme??


The "Air Force Memorial" sculpture DID NOT EXIST IN 2001!!!

But congratulations on the attempt to use the Internet to ":re-write history" once again.

Kudos.

Lol. That was from his interview with Craig Ranke, "if the Air Force memorial had been built, the airplane would have ran into it.¨

It has already been discussed here. But excellent discovery ProudBird! Shows how much you've been paying attention and that another cit detractor doesn't know what they are talking about.

reply to post by WetBlanky


I GAVE you a "star" just because of the inanity of the Air Force Memorial" and the distraction attempt.


FORGET about the rest of original post....these sorts just ARE JUST NOT WORTH IT!!!!

reply to post by GenRadek


Jesus, where to start. What was I saying about GLs shimmying? None of you have the cojones to answer my points? Don't worry, I know why.

You all blethered on about how much more "reliable" an impersonal online written testimony by Terry Morin was to a point by point oral interview to clear any "grey areas"

Now you guys are even denying what Morin described in the online interview!

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).

And you've linked to that POS video "Perspective" and Adam Larson's equally deceptive image.

That alleged flightpath does not line up with the directional damage!

Do you understand?

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's another shimmy right there. He couldn't physically see the entire descent. In fact he couldn't physically see the lawn or the alleged "impact point".



Agreed?

Here is the closest we have to his actual line of sight



Here's how much of the Pentagon that can be seen in the above image:



He also claimed this in Craig Ranke's interview:

14:20

- Talking of the speed recorded on the FDR -

Craig: 780 feet per second, I think is what it is..
(...)
Morin: No frickin´ way

Craig: That´s what the FDR said.

Morin:I had time for me to come down, start to see it descend and come back..no it´s not..

You consistently ignore the fact that he claimed that the aircraft would have struck the Memorial had it been built.
You consistently ignore the fact that he claimed that it flew over his head. A claim he had made in his original testimony. And reinforced in his latest interview:

Craig: So, you're saying that the entire plane, including the right wing...

- meaning to ask if the entire plane was North of Columbia Pike. Morin understood the question as being in reference to how much of the plane was over the Annex building.-

Morin: Is the right wing hanging a little bit over...?

On discussing his possible margin of error..

Morin: Was the plane 3 feet this way, or 4 feet that way or 20 feet this way..

The crucial point is that he has the aircraft over the Annex heading towards the Memorial.

These guys corroborate him:



They and the many other NOC witnesses were in a far better position to describe the flightpath after it had passed the Navy Annex.

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?

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.

Sort that one out too will ya?

Cheers

So let me get this straight. His very first account, when he said he was 10 steps out from between the wings, is all wrong? Really? Somehow his memory was distorted and forgetful, in 2001, just after the events....

And those NOC witnesses (ANC workers) interviewed in 2001 by CMH...what was the excuse for their "memory loss" again?

All ears.

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.

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.

Ah for the heck of it. You never know..