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

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by Reheat

 

Sorry Reheat i snipped the majority of your rant.

No, you didn't just snip what I wrote, you avoided addressing it by a hand wave and failed to address the *FACT* that I have pointed out a deliberate blatant *LIE*. If your crap is so rock solid why do you need to *LIE*? I don't rant. That was not a rant. It was a total defeat of your fantasy using *AERODYNAMIC FACT*.

Your video by ballsucker in no way addresses any of the multiple paths that completely ignore what Morin said. All you can do is simply continue with the same old disproved garbage. Over and over again... It's little wonder that your crap is even rejected by most truthers.. There are only a gullible few you're fooling with your nonsense any more.

CIT is nothing but a cult that like a zombie just won't go away... Get a new hobby you are a failure at this one...

Originally posted by snowcrash911

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!

edit on 16-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

Reading comprehension and sight problems.

SnowCrash :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.

Morin : 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.

Furtheron, there's an broad double lanes open fence-gate in front of that little white square entrance gate shack. Which is right in front of that space between wing 4 and 5, where Terry stood about 10 feet inside.
That's where he ran through to the opposite curb side of the road (Columbia Pike).

You're really not very good at Math, ain't it?

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.

I just told you that I measured the distance from the 8th wing's bottom at its back facade, towards the IMPACT point, as being about 1900 meters. Three seconds? 633.33 meters per second? Are you and Mr Hemphill totally nuts?
2,280 KM/Hr ? That's near MACH 2.
Nearly TWO times the speed of sound, which is about 333 meters per second at sea level and 20° Celsius.
You FIRM Believers in the official fairy tales are getting crazier by the minute. And you have the guts to ask me that stupid question "" who was correct about the speed, Morin or Hemphill? "". What a disgrace to science such a question is. Especially since it indicates that you are so eager to insult me, that you do not take the time to check your insults.

And not very good in reading either, ain't it? :

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

For some evenly stupid reason you seem to think that I am an advocate of a fly-over?
You could not be further off than such an insane insinuation, after I gave you all my links to my clash at the PfT and CIT forums with nearly all of them, about my firm belief that I am convinced that a plane impacted the Pentagon's west wall. And got banned as a result, by a man with no honor at all. Balsamo.

If he can't win a debate with you, this little petty dictator goes rampaging around with all kinds of filthy accusations, as if that would make him suddenly the one with the best arguments. He's a full blown liar. He just used an accusation in his ACARS forum page, of ATS member ProudBird being gay in his opinion, to strengthen his arguments??? Can you sink any deeper? And what difference would it be, if it was true? NONE, I don't weight people on that kind of arguments.
No honor, as I said before. His members should be ashamed of themselves, to ignore and follow such filthy arguments. That's how the Holocaust started. With people like him.
Next he will probably come up with an accusation and what is thus for him an insinuation, that an opponent of him is black, or red, or yellow, or Muslim, or Jewish, or Gipsy's, i.o.w. colored or the "wrong" faith, and "those people are different, can not think right." That's how he and others debate their "arguments" there. What a fine example of discriminating "pilots".
In Europe we called and still call this kind of character assassination, discrimination of the worst kind, NAZI methods.
He uses clever posts from clever members in his own main page pieces, and then cripples the arguments by forbidding to evaluate the outcomes towards the real conclusion, which he does not like, so he enters his own ideas which are based on quasi-science, bad math and no imagination at all. That's how he tries to gain "fame" for his website. Petty behavior.

url=http://(link tracking not allowed)/sl5Ib0]Source[/url (Shortened to correct ATS URL parsing bug)

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

Morin, math "champ". Or should I have used that other word?
Not good at all with Math as evidenced by yourself above, neither with typing or bulletin software defense systems too? That link leads nowhere, since that defense cut your cleverness out....
I left out one leading "[" and one closing "]" and ":", so we can read what you typed, where now that board message (link tracking not allowed) stands.
You typed there: .../bit....ly/.... ((link tracking not allowed))


And try not to choke in your laughing out loud, uncivil petty behavior.
Try next time to be more civil, and not laugh out loud at opponents, especially when it is such a serious subject we discuss here. Thousands of people died on 9/11. Hundred-thousands died in the years after. And are still dying.

Pssst: I am waiting if you fall in the pit you yourself delved, I hope you come up with that defense.

Originally posted by LaBTop
You're really not very good at Math, ain't it?

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.

I just told you that I measured the distance from the 8th wing's bottom at its back facade, towards the IMPACT point, as being about 1900 meters. Three seconds? 633.33 meters per second? Are you and Mr Hemphill totally nuts?

2,280 KM/Hr ? That's near MACH 2.

Nearly TWO times the speed of sound, which is about 333 meters per second at sea level and 20° Celsius.
You FIRM Believers in the official fairy tales are getting crazier by the minute. And you have the guts to ask me that stupid question "" who was correct about the speed, Morin or Hemphill? "". What a disgrace to science such a question is. Especially since it indicates that you are so eager to insult me, that you do not take the time to check your insults.

The last recorded ground speed in the FDR was 483 knots. I measure the distance from the 8th wing to the impact point, as the crow flies, to be 2670 feet, which is 813.816 meters. 813.816(m) / 3(s) = 271.272 (m/s)

271.272 (m/s) = 527.311 knots = 976.579 (km/h), while the speed of sound = 1,236 (km/h)

Forgive me if I leave out true airspeed calcs. You're welcome to supplement.

Hemphill is off by 527 - 483 = 44 knots. Seems not too bad?

Did I make an error?

AA 77 was fluttering, while approaching impact point. It may well have suffered some structural damage before impact due to flight envelope excess (as well as the obstacle course it negotiated, obviously), but that was soon to be a little irrelevant.

Originally posted by LaBTop
For some evenly stupid reason you seem to think that I am an advocate of a fly-over?
You could not be further off than such an insane insinuation, after I gave you all my links to my clash at the PfT and CIT forums with nearly all of them, about my firm belief that I am convinced that a plane impacted the Pentagon's west wall. And got banned as a result, by a man with no honor at all. Balsamo.

Right... so what are you in favor of? NoC + impact? I apologize for misreading your position.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Not good at all with Math as evidenced by yourself above,

Careful. The jury is still out on that one. Besides, I hadn't made any calculation yet; you were referring to Hemphill's speed estimation, and you know what my position on witness aircraft flight path/speed/heading/turn/bank angle estimation is... I deem it heavily flawed. I prefer physical evidence if available.

Yet, according to my calcs above, Hemphill was off by just 44 knots, and your calculations are in error. Correct me if I'm wrong?

Originally posted by LaBTop
neither with typing or bulletin software defense systems too? That link leads nowhere, since that defense cut your cleverness out....I left out one leading "[" and one closing "]" and ":", so we can read what you typed, where now that board message (link tracking not allowed) stands.
You typed there: .../bit....ly/.... ((link tracking not allowed))

The situation is as follows. ATS forum contains a bug. That bug is likely in regular expression or string parsing of URLs (ATS uses PHP 5.2.17), and chokes on double occurrences of "http://"... (used by TheWayBackMachine website archiver) So I tried to circumvent the bug by using an URL shortener (bit dot ly), but ATS forum code apparently scans for URL shorteners and intercepts them, disabling workarounds for their own forum software regular expression / string scanning error. I would be extremely careful telling me off about IT matters, LaBTop, unless you want your ass handed to you unforgivingly. I make no compromises in that department.

I could either use another URL shortener unknown to ATS forum code scanners or I could describe the URL for you. So... Which source do you want me to try again providing, working around ATS forum bugs?

I go re-measuring that distance first, if I am wrong, I apologize, I expect the same from you, as I see you apologized for not reading my only allowed 7 pages long thread at PfT, before I got banned.
C
Will come back shortly.

I have to apologize too for some harsh words, since I measure in Google Earth on the spot where the 8th wing its outer facade stood, to the impact point, nearly exactly 800 meters.

I have stared to this map of mine, where I took off the distance of 1900 meters, and I slowly begin to understand why Reheat is so upset with my speed versus turn radius of 220 MPH at a 22° right bank.



It looks as if the EU versus US conversion bug has stung me in my measuring on that map.
I used my pair of compasses to measure the length of the 8 wings of the Navy Annex which length I got from a Google search, and compared that to the radius on this map I made to illustrate a possible and viable solution for a 22° right bank arc.
Then I also took the same data to measure the distance between Hemphill and the impact point.
Something must have gone wrong there. Damned feet, yards and miles conversions.

No excuse, so, your calculations were right.Mine are wrong.

reply to post by LaBTop


Apology accepted.

It should be noted that Hemphill's "250 to 300 knots" doesn't square with the 527 knots calculated from the "3 seconds" he saw AA 77.

But... I don't believe in witness accuracy in such matters anyway. Whether or not a witness can determine if one thing collides with another thing... I'd say that's much easier, and it's corroborated by the physical evidence. As is the flash both Morin and Hemphill observed, when the plane hit a light pole.

I have once advised my readers to cut and paste both double occurrences of "http://"... (used by TheWayBackMachine website archiver) in my posts. Then you have to post those long lines with the double http occurrences, (as two concurring "URL's" ), which they have to "glue" (add together) in their address lines.
Then click "Enter".

Go to this site and enter your defunct URL :
www.bibalex.org...

You will get this :
web.archive.bibalex.org...*/www.studyof911.com...

Then click the youngest dated of the two, and you get this link, where you cut the first "h" off first :

Like this : ttp://web.archive.bibalex.org/web/20071217050325/www.studyof911.com...

Type the missing first "h" in your new tabbed, clean browser's address line, then copy/paste the first, white line, in your browser address line behind that "h", then copy/paste the green URL line directly behind the first one, and click "Enter".

Because when you come up with a double-URL bug circumvent, the admins here sooner or later find these new ones, and add them to their not-allowed exceptions list. It would be better to find a solution for the software bug, but perhaps there's a serious "reason for the "madness"" for them.

I estimate the distance AA 77 had to travel from the point it caught up with Terry Morin between wings 4 and 5 to impact point to be approx. 3200 feet.

3200 feet = 975.36 meters

Taking the last known ground speed from AA 77's FDR, we get:

483 knots = 248.48(m/s)

975.36(m) / 248.48(m/s) = 3.93 seconds for Terry Morin to run about.

Top speed for humans over 100 meters is 12.42(m/s), for say.. record breaking athlete Usain Bolt. Needless to say, this speed is unbelievably fast, beyond any of us mere mortals. Terry Morin is a corpulent, older man, if I'm to believe CIT. Correct me if I'm wrong.



Let's halve that speed. Still very fast running. Bicycling speed, see Wikipedia: Orders of magnitude (speed)

Based on that estimate, I give Terry a moving radius of about 4(s) * 6(m/s) = 24 meters or 78.75 feet, which is about the distance from the edge of the FOB wing to the fence along Columbia Pike. He would have to run diagonally westwards first, to reach the gate, which means he couldn't even reach the road in that amount of time and the security booth would obstruct his view for another brief moment, too.

Terry could not have moved into a position to see the plane fly NoC, as his running radius never reaches the required NoC line of sight, in any direction:



Besides, there was never a source for Morin running outside the gates of the Navy Annex, merely wishful interpretation, nor does his testimony (parallel to the FOB, tail disappearing below the trees, seeing the stripes on the fuselage) support NoC in any form.

If we halve the plane speed, Morin's radius doubles, and still he couldn't see the plane fly NoC. If we additionally make Morin a little faster, he still couldn't see the plane fly NoC.

And.. we don't know if the gate was open before the crash. And ... the plane would have passed Citgo already. And.. we don't have a source confirming Morin running out on Columbia Pike, which, as I've shown is impossible.

Morin.... is a SoC witness.

I was contemplating on all that too.
I suggest you take my line of his real and viable aerial view in consideration, with a few adaptations.



We have to draw a new yellow line from Morin's position just out the wings 4 and 5, to the top of the 7th wing and further up.
Then we have the new possible and viable line of view for him.
How he got to 10 to 12 seconds for the plane reaching the impact point, is getting too far out of the viable options.
Or, that plane must have flown much slower than they all thought and guessed.

We have another problem at hand with Edward Paik now.
He was observing the plane from inside his front office window, behind his desk.
That makes his point of view of MY drawn black line of flight, extremely uncertain.
In that case, we have to move that black flight path line to be in fact further out on the street, even on the opposite side of it.
When we believe Morin's testimonies, that implicates a much sharper north bending flight path black line than the one I drew, and that steers that plane a lot more north.

I'll correct my drawing in a few minutes, to show you what I mean.

Corrected views of Paik and Morin :



files.abovetopsecret.com...

Paik could have never seen that plane as he described, from inside his office, and his Columbia Pike upper window pane as the top of his viewing field, as I pictured it the first time.
In this corrected view for him, the plane flies lower and far further over the Pike.

Morin's corrected view gives him sight on the plane to nearly the impact point.

EDIT : Thus Morin must have meant with his 10 to 12 seconds remark, the time he described from hearing the plane coming from far behind the Sheraton, passing it and then coming over his head and on its way to impact.
There is no other possible logical explanation anymore.

Paik's observation fits also much better in his description now that I moved the plane quite a bit lower, to fit in his viable field of view.

I think we two have reached a logical form of consensus, what Paik and Morin and Hemphill concerns.

Now Sean Boger, Lagasse and Brooks. And the flash in the CITGO video, and directly after that, all customers and cashiers ran outside and looked in the direction of the Pentagon, as we can see in the CITGO video.

If we can reach a same type of consensus, we are done. END EDIT

I've done Doppler Effect calculations before, here, but this doesn't reflect (A) the attenuation of sound waves due to topography and (B) noise decay (which could favor both early and late detection)

For Sean Boger the plane must have been already in his sight much longer above the Annex (since it flew that high as I drew) than he thought. For him, inside his two stories high Helipad control tower, it looked as if it flew many seconds over the Annex building. His tower is situated behind those two trees in front of the Helipad.

And that's why he also guessed it took about 10 to 12 seconds from when he first saw it, until impact just 60 meters beside him, to his left side.

I still have Lagasse in sight in that CITGO video, looking north, when that flash occurs in that video, and he jumps in his car, radios in what he saw, and speeds backwards out of the CITGO grounds.
At the time of the flash, all people inside the station are to be seen on the camera-screens in that video, as running outside after the flash.

How are we gonna explain all that?
And Brooks his words? And Turcios his description?
And Christine Peterson saying she stood ""in front of the Helipad"" in the HOV lane traffic jam, and the plane came straight over her, not higher than 50 feet (15 meters).
And Penny Elgas, who said she ""stood a few cars behind where the plane crossed Route 27"". That must have been about 20 meters behind Christine Peterson then,

Originally posted by LaBTop
I still have Lagasse in sight in that CITGO video, looking north, when that flash occurs in that video, and he jumps in his car, radios in what he saw, and speeds backwards out of the CITGO grounds.
At the time of the flash, all people inside the station are to be seen on the camera-screens in that video, as running outside after the flash.

How are we gonna explain all that?
And Brooks his words? And Turcios his description?

CIT likes to use the term "deduction" to explain impact witnesses. I think Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios deduced the flight path... erroneously. Turcios' claimed position on the mound appears to be contradicted by the Citgo cameras. I also think Lagasse and Brooks contaminated each others flight path drawings somehow due to their simultaneous interview. Their simultaneous presence on the scene, even if seemingly separated not to influence each other, would never happen in a scientific setting.

However, I don't claim Brooks, Lagasse, Turcios or other NoC witnesses believed they saw anything else than NoC. The operative word here is "believed".

The physical evidence fakery scenario is impossible. There is no leeway there. There is leeway, however, in the flight path approximations of fallible human witnesses. Witnesses are not computers. CIT then points out "corroboration", but leaves out the SoC witnesses they defamed and/or snitchjacketed. Therefore, their supposed "unanimous corroboration" is illusory. Deliberately so. How many NoC witnesses were positioned to the south of the official flight path? What does that tell you?

Regarding plane engine sound propagation, here's a good example:



But.. the topography differs significantly from Arlington.

So umm... "WetBlanky", you inviting me to this thread... how's that working out for you?

Got any regrets? You think I'm going full blast yet? Guess again...

I enjoyed the discussion, have to get some sleep now, will return in a few hours.
A few nagging problems have been cleared, based on solid logic. Thanks.

As you all can see, anger about another event on another board must not cloud other discussions elsewhere.
Never too late to learn, I enjoy the ever ongoing learning process, and do not believe those old geese who said our brain power decreases the older we get. Bollocks, it multiplies.

Btw, Good luck with the CIT and PfT incrowd in the coming hours....
You Australia, me Europe? Same roots however?

Originally posted by LaBTop
I enjoyed the discussion, have to get some sleep now, will return in a few hours.
A few nagging problems have been cleared, based on solid logic. Thanks.

Good to have that too for a change.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Btw, Good luck with the CIT and PfT incrowd in the coming hours....
You Australia, me Europe? Same roots however?

Me: The Netherlands, collecting my NWO paycheck. Lap dogs of the White House, unfortunately

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
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?

Last chance Snowcrash.