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

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Yeppers!!!

The "yellow" line as a ground track, in the bottom pic? Looks about right. It fits ALL OF THE EVIDENCE....

Done.

Nice job.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Yeppers!!!

The "yellow" line as a ground track, in the bottom pic? Looks about right. It fits ALL OF THE EVIDENCE....

Done.

Nice job.

Gee - this is getting worse and worse with you, weedwacker!

Originally posted by djeminy

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Yeppers!!!

The "yellow" line as a ground track, in the bottom pic? Looks about right. It fits ALL OF THE EVIDENCE....

Done.

Nice job.

Gee - this is getting worse and worse with you, weedwacker!

For you and your ilk I wholeheartedly agree. It's gets more laughable each and every time CIT and their gullible supporters try to spin the fraud into something plausible without regard for multiple realities...

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by djeminy

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Yeppers!!!

The "yellow" line as a ground track, in the bottom pic? Looks about right. It fits ALL OF THE EVIDENCE....

Done.

Nice job.

Gee - this is getting worse and worse with you, weedwacker!

For you and your ilk I wholeheartedly agree. It's gets more laughable each and every time CIT and their gullible supporters try to spin the fraud into something plausible without regard for multiple realities...

Says the guy who posted this (and wears it with pride in his sig!)..





While you and Proudbird are "rubbing lapels" here, is Proudbird right about that "yellow line"? That isn't the path you extracted from Morin's online testimony is it?

That's what I'm trying to help GLs with here. They're claiming that Morin's testimony points to a "parallel to the Navy Annex" flightpath (over his head mind you), GenRadek posted a video (originally posted by Proudbird) called "Perspective 77" which advocates this alleged flightpath..



It's more or less based on your assumptions about what Terry Morin "actually" described (ignoring the CIT interview of course)

Trebor presumably advocates this path too (he's pretending not to see my posts so I don't know)

Snowcrash and Alfie, I believe advocate this path too.

So, while you're all here, can you tell me if this is what you all claim that Morin was describing?

Yes or no?

Thanks.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Another fine example of your FRAUDULENT behavior is your use of the word *reasonable* in reference to the flight paths in my analysis. The word reasonable in my article (which destroys your delusions) refers to the SPEEDS for the calculations. It DOES NOT refer to the flight paths, which are totally unreasonable and only a result of your fantasy NOC crap.

My analysis is still valid even for what Morin described during your alleged interview, which occurred *after* I published the article. For all anyone else knows that is not even Morin speaking in that interview. With regard to where the aircraft flew over him it makes no significant difference at all in the path and the resultant calculations as a result of his statements. If it seems ridiculous, it is, but that's what YOU propose by insisting that the aircraft passed North of the service station.

It didn't pass North of the service station based upon BOTH Morin's original interview and your subsequent attempt to elicit a different result from him because IT IS AERODYNAMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE just as I've vividly shown...

The aircraft flew the path we know it flew, so don't use your "that proves it could not have flown the "Official Flight Path" garbage in order to deceive further. Rational people all know witnesses judgement of distances with a background of sky are unreliable. In that he thought it was a 737 instead of a 757 illustrates the distance judgment issue perfectly. It wasn't a smaller aircraft like the 737, it was simply further away than he thought....

You and your cult are a failure and your delusions continue to be proven wrong over and over again. Get a new hobby!

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


I had Larry's 'pull it' comment on a compilation recording that I listened to many times in my workshop. One day it suddenly hit me. The first person to emphasise the terms 'pull it' and 'to pull' was Larry, when he made the statement. He knew what he was saying, his scriptwriters told him to make that comment. How many investigative hours have been wasted talking about a comment that could never be proven to mean one thing or the other?

reply to post by GenRadek


As you wish :



files.abovetopsecret.com...

And read my excerpt a few pages back, from the second, phone interview by CIT with Terry again, so you know what words he used to describe his positions during about 12 seconds after he saw that plane fly over his head while he stood in between wing 4 and 5, about 5 to 10 steps in.

That interview was much more probing Terry's recollection of his memories, than the far simpler questions asked in Terry's first interview by the official historical "truth" interviewer.

EDIT:
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.

Then go read our January 2009 exchange of arguments, where you lost the argument already, so why are you constantly rehashing very old board events?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Don't forget to read my next arguments also again :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Pay attention to the phrase ""to the Northeast of the FOB"". That's in the direction of the CITGO gas station, and NOT over the clover leaf roads South to Southwest of the Pentagon, as depicted in the 60.25° true north AA77 flight path by all official sources.

And do not forget the post from RockHound757 about the Doppler Effect and lower than FDR data speed :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

SECOND EDIT :
This is the view on the Navy Annex from the lady in the upper floor of the Sheraton Hotel :



files.abovetopsecret.com...

END SEC.EDIT.
END-EDIT

Originally posted by Kester
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

I had Larry's 'pull it' comment on a compilation recording that I listened to many times in my workshop. One day it suddenly hit me. The first person to emphasise the terms 'pull it' and 'to pull' was Larry, when he made the statement. He knew what he was saying, his scriptwriters told him to make that comment. How many investigative hours have been wasted talking about a comment that could never be proven to mean one thing or the other?

Pull is a quite common military term used in conjunction with troops. Pull it means to remove a group of people from a situation. Police and Fire are paramilitary organizations so it is not surprising that they would use military lingo. Also the "pull it" quote is Larry relating the events of the day and the chief is the one that first said pull it. In demolition terminology, pull it specifically refers to demolishing a structure by attaching cables to it and pulling the cables to cause destruction.

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

He doesn't 'explain' position '3a' and '3b' 'himself' at all. You do that for him. The Navy Annex was enclosed by a fence. You just move Terry Morin around on the map to avoid the line of sight limitations you know preclude him viewing the plane NoC. Thanks for admitting the impossibility.

Moreover, Albert Hemphill saw the plane hit a light pole, and placed the plane approximately on top the Citgo (with a north bias, like all witnesses positioned to the north of the official flight path), and did not relent, despite Craig trying to lead him to go full NoC.

Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds.The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5.

Source (Shortened to correct ATS URL parsing bug)

So who was correct about the speed? Morin or Hemphill? Choose!

Albert Hemphill telling off Craig Ranke:

Even though I fundamentally disagree with you Craig, I was polite and talked to you. Yet, the same courtesy was not returned as manifest by your internet posting. An honest and honorable person would have asked if recording the conversation was acceptable. Therefore, I will not be available to you for any further communications regarding the events of 9/11. Again, let me clearly state that my unwillingness to communicate with you is not because of any external influence, any direction or orders from the Federal Government; nor any fear of reprisal by any group or individual towards myself or my family. The singular reason I will not communicate with you is because you rudely recorded our conversation, and without my knowledge, posted it on the internet. This is fundamentally wrong; and is not, in my opinion, the action of an honest person.

Let me conclude by reiterating: the aircraft hit the Pentagon. Do not ever contact me again. Please feel free to post this email on your websites.

Source (Registration required)

Hemphill emphatically states the plane hit the Pentagon, and in his interview with Ranke, mentions he saw the plane hit a light pole, placing it squarely south of Citgo, contradicting NoC. Witness flight path testimony is fraught with inaccuracy... judging whether an object collided with another object (The Pentagon) however, is much easier.

You citing Hemphill as evidence for flyover? Bollocks, and you know it.

Here are some more impact witnesses. Notice Craig's response to Tamara Carter on 911blogger, who was toured around the site and was shown personal effects of her friend Renee May, flight attendant aboard AA 77.

She is not a witness and this is not evidence.

Source

Disgusting. Laughable.

ETA: In addition, please explain Hemphill's "left wing down" comment. Does that jive with a right bank to curve the Citgo? Fire up the spin machine!

reply to post by LaBTop


As for you citing Penny Elgas... here's what she said:

The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building.

Source

A plane hitting the Pentagon doesn't fly over it and doesn't fly north of Citgo. Got it?

Here's what Penny Elgas donated to a museum.



Tell me, is she "in on it"? Was the "flyover plane" dropping plane parts like Hop-o'-My-Thumb's breadcrumbs?

Or maybe flyover is BS? How about it?

Roosevelt Roberts is a SoC witness, and he places the plane above lane 1 in South Parking. Why? Because he was positioned to the south of the official flight path, giving him a southerly bias.

Why did CIT remove Roosevelt Roberts reference to the first plane heading "East, towards DC" from NSA? Why did they butcher their phone call with him to mislead their audience? Isn't that a form of fraud? They'll tell you they did so to "clarify" things.

How many witnesses to the south of the official flight path place the plane NoC? What did they draw on a map? What did they tell CIT?

Please list them. I wait with baited breath.

And OneSliceShort/ThePostExaminer... you still haven't answered my questions.

reply to post by Reheat


Sorry Reheat i snipped the majority of your rant.

So you're saying that the path you drew according to Morin's online testimony has the aircraft flying over his head, parallel to the outer section of the FOB. That's the Federal Office Building. Not Columbia Pike, not the Navy Annex carpark or walkway. The building.

Proudbird, can the aircraft line up with the directional damage from this flightpath that everybody seems to be insinuating here? Is there anything in Warren Stutt's alleged "data" that corresponds with the necessary manouevres to line up with the damage?

Have a word in your friends' ears, huh? Or I'll fill the blanks in for you.

And Reheat, the NOC flightpaths have been shown to be aerodynamically possible (hint: not the ridiculous non witness compatible groovy lines you pulled from your darker recesses)



There are no grey areas concerning the OCT flightpath. Stop fudging.

Morin's testimony alone debunks the notion of it simply by placing it North of Columbia Pike. Those witnesses within the basin confirm the continuation of the flightpath after it passed over the Navy Annex.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

Proudbird, can the aircraft line up with the directional damage from this flightpath that everybody seems to be insinuating here?

Yes.

The video you posted? Garbage.

Honestly. I could make a similar video to "prove" that Unicorns are swimming in my (or your) pool....or ON THE MOON!!!

IN FACT, with proper narration? I could tell you ANYTHING you wished to believe.......IF you were so inclined to "believe" it.....

Wanna "buy into" the stupidity of CIT or "P4T"?? Go ahead.....it's your prerogative...you have "free will" to believe any stupid thing you wish...knock yourself out.

GO FOR IT!!!

LOL......LMAO.......

reply to post by snowcrash911


Stop being so childish Snowcrash. I'm perfectly willing to discuss all areas (and I'll get to your lies about Craig Ranke's interview with Hemphill and how Jeff Hill cooked the noodle of a very important witness who was willing to fully participate in open exchange) but first I want a simple answer to a simple question.

You know what it is.

Do you agree with GenRadek, Reheat, Proudbird and Trebor that Morin's online testimony is describing a "parallel to the Navy Annex flightpath" (ignoring Craig Ranke's interview and vital details of course)?

This one?



Yes or no?

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Proudbird, can the aircraft line up with the directional damage from this flightpath that everybody seems to be insinuating here?

Yes.

edit on Fri 16 December 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)

Thank you Proudbird. At last somebody stepping up to the plate.

Anybody else? Why is it so hard to get a simple answer to a simple question?

Wait..Proudbird, is the "path" I posted the same one you believe Terry Morin was describing?

I snipped the section of your post that didn't actually contain the reason you don't agree with the video posted. I'll post the calculations too.

NOC Technical Supplement

Knock yourself out.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Great catch!

Terry Morin is now officially an ONA and NoC witness!

Source

Interesting! So Craig Ranke admits, on 2009-01-12, that before this date, Terry Morin was only an ONA and not a NoC witness? Craig Ranke never thought this, until LaBTop highlighted the "to the Northeast of the FOB" comment?

If there is no doubt Morin is a NoC witness, then why did Craig Ranke ever doubt it?

And about that row of trees... Yes, the row of trees was located to the northeast of the Navy Annex, and the official flight path has a northeast heading, disappearing behind the trees to the northeast of the Navy Annex by the time it had reached the bridge over Columbia Pike, which was... you guessed it... to the northeast of Terry Morin



In other words, more desperate fencing from the flyover flimflammers.

And ThePostExaminer, if your logic about Terry Morin deviating from the OFP holds any water, then you must also concede the NoC witness are mutually exclusive and debunk each other, since there can be only one true NoC flight path, and the slightest deviation means fail. Nirvana fallacy.

Witnesses are not computers, Craig Ranke said so, remember?

So... tell the forum: are all SoC witnesses, such as Terry Morin, computers, and all NoC witnesses, cited by CIT, human beings?

Fascinating.

reply to post by snowcrash911

And ThePostExaminer, if your logic about Terry Morin deviating from the OFP holds any water, then you must also concede the NoC witness are mutually exclusive all debunk each other, since there can be only one true NoC flight path, and the slightest deviation means fail. Nirvana fallacy. Witnesses are not computers, Craig Ranke said so, remember? So... tell the forum: are all SoC witnesses, such as Terry Morin, computers, and all NoC witnesses, cited by CIT, human beings? Fascinating.

Of course there was only one NOC path and the paths varied to a certain degree although they all place it between Arlington Cemetery and the Citgo gas station.



The OCT path is defined by the directional damage and the FDR "data".

So is Terry Morin describing the directional damage path/FDR heading path or not? Or is Terry Morin going to be added to the long list of witnesses you deem to be simply "wrong"?

There were a multitude of witnesses who saw the aircraft's descent as it passed the Navy Annex. Corroboratio is the key Snowcrash.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Yes, Terry Morin describes a flight path parallel to the Navy Annex, south of Citgo.

And once again....Your rejection of Terry Morin's SoC flight path in relation to the radar/FDR data and the physical damage is an example of the Nirvana Fallacy.

The same goes for all flight path witnesses deviating from the OFP.

CIT's witness pool is a biased selection, cherry picked and often misrepresented, and all CIT's obtained flight path drawings are from witnesses situated to the north of the OFP.

You have no claim. If you contend that witness testimony is dead on accurate, even when corroborated, then cite me the scientific literature on that one. I have repeatedly requested this, but no flyover theorists have complied with my request.

When the supreme court decided in favor of "Citizens United" (how Orwellian), it was a 5–4 decision.

From the 9 judges, select 5 who ruled in favor. Ignore the other 4, and you have "unanimous corroboration".

Of course not. The so-called "unanimous corroboration" is illusory, due to cherry picking. A biased selection.

Terry Morin, Keith Wheelhouse, Roosevelt Roberts and Madeleine Zakhem are examples of SoC witnesses.

Hence, no "unanimous corroboration".