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

reply to post by Reheat


Sorry, I had to snip that second rant Reheat. Can you answer my question please?

Never mind, I'll answer it for you.

From your "debunk"..

For the purposes of this paper I had to assume the aircraft flew a northerly flight path. This does not correlate to witness Terry Morin’s testimony as he indicated the flight path was parallel to the roofline of the Navy Annex

Reheat

You used your interpretation of his online testimony while ignoring the CIT interview.

You used this diagram no?



Same "flightpath" used in the video GenRadek and Proudbird linked to (and which Proudbird claims is possible to correlate and line up with the directional damage path)? The same "flightpath" Snowcrash and Trebor interpret from the same online testimony?



Yes or no?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Last chance Snowcrash.

Or what? Are you going to cry in my general direction?

Here we go AGAIN:

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.

Link #1

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.

Link #2

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

Link #3

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!

Link #4

So, after you get done with that, be sure to check out the latest news next door to grace his forum with your sincere apologies, deepest regrets, wallowing genuflexions followed by you striking your flag and a long, painful waddle of shame right on that-a-way:

--------------------------------> [ E X I T ]

I'll give you multiple chances to do so, because I understand your social predicament.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by Reheat

 

Sorry, I had to snip that second rant Reheat.

Yes, I fully understand why you *had* to snip my so called rant in order to avoid the BLATANT LIE you've yet to address. (I suspect everyone else understands why too).

Morin's stated position of the aircraft as it passed over his position *DID NOT* change significantly from his initial statements to the FBI and the so called "interview" by CIT. Therefore my *debunk* of the nonsense is valid for both. It is still AERODYNAMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for the aircraft to fly north of the gas station from that position. I've proven it with valid and accurate calculations, which no one has shown to be wrong. All ballsucker did was to move the aircraft's position north to continue the fantasy. That's NOT where Morin stated the aircraft's position was IN EITHER his written statements or his "so called" interview. They are both essentially the same.

Therefore, the aircraft *could not* have flown north of the gas station taking into account both Paik's and Morin's corroborative statements when removing the spin and distortion of the CIT looney rubbish. Consequently, all of the folks either at or north of the gas station are simply WRONG.

CIT has had to defame and lie about all of the known path witnesses and load their garbage truck with distortion and spin to make their fantasy work... It is over and has been for a long time. CIT and their supporters are a FAILURE. Those who still believe the garbage are simply gullible fools deceived by CON ARTISTS and CHARLATANS.

Get another hobby, this one is a failure...The deception is dead and buried...

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)

Snowcrash911,

I know you are busy covering up mass murder and all. But you forgot to answer the questions contained in the links.

Or you can just tell us how your blue and purple flight paths "clear the 8th wing" and "run into the air force memorial"?

Originally posted by WetBlanky
I know you are busy covering up mass murder and all. But you forgot to answer the questions contained in the links.

Classy, Aldo. There's nothing of substance there that hasn't already been answered in the previous exchange.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Or you can just tell us how your blue and purple flight paths "clear the 8th wing" and "run into the air force memorial"?

They're not flight paths, and clearing the 8th wing means passing by it. While you're on the case, tell me, where would a plane flying parallel to the edge of the FOB, which would have "run into the air force memorial", end up?

North or south of Citgo?

Have you switched to a NONA and SONA researcher? It does have a certain 'ring' to it, doesn't it Aldo.

To "clear". Verb.

To leap or pass by, or over, without touching or failure; as, to clear a hedge; to clear a reef.

Webster, 1913 dictionary.

(transitive) To pass without interference; to miss.

The door just barely clears the table as it closes.

en.wiktionary.org...

Seems Aldo's definition of the verb "clear" lacks clarity.

"everyone-who-exposes-me-is-Aldo-and-OSS"

Ok, well it appears the lying, avoiding, twisting, contradicting, cover up, disinformation promoter known as snowcrash911 aka someone allegedly named "Michiel de Boer" from the Netherlands (as common as John/Mary smith in the US) with impeccable English and a mastery of American phrases, will try to continue to mislead, confuse, and deceive all those reading. A supposed programmer with no headphones, speaker or skype so they can conveniently not be available for a debate he/she/it promised to do. An anonymous individual who burst on the scene specifically attacking CIT but reneging to debate voice to voice effectively dodging the opportunity to force concessions and obtain resolution-instead chasing their supporters on a UFO forum. He/she/it will simply not admit Terry morin placed the plane over him, over the Navy Annex. He/she/it will completely omit Ed Paik, position over his shop and the Annex and general direction toward the north side of the Citgo. He/she/it will ignore the list of navy annex witnesses I posted in this very thread. He/she/it will use the official data and official REQUIRED SoC damage path when it suits them, but in the same thread pretend it doesn't exist while they attempt to twist Morin's words into their own "version"(He/she/it's word) of the flight path, which still doesnt support the official data path or the official SoC damage path OR impact. Their job is and was to keep it vague. That's why they left off the missing 4 seconds and that's why "Warren Stutt" is the only one who has allegedly decoded these last 4 seconds, no one else has seen the files, including the NTSB and L3 communications who have not been made aware of nor do they concur with his findings. They would rather keep this issue online, strictly to be googled or used on forums for disinformation purposes. Again, more vagueness. No resolution.

What's pathetically transparent, is he/she/it spends time on "respectable" and "responsible" 9/11 Truth forums relegating CIT to being "frauds" and "mentally incompetent", with he/she/it and his/her/it's buddies talking about how quiet their forum is and how they are "dead in the water". Yet here he/she/it is, on a UFO conspiracy theory forum fiercely attacking CIT, using blatant and obvious deceit no less, and making accusations of sock puppetry against a person he/she/it considers a "fraud" but at the same time "mentally incompetent".

Does that make sense to you?

Does it make sense that a supposed "responsible and rational 9/11 truth activist" who claims CIT is "mentally incompetent" would need to spend hours on a UFO conspiracy theory forum "debating"(ie blatantly lying as you've all seen) something he/she/it "knows" would be considered "frivolous" in a court of law? Aren't they supposed to be fighting for 9/11 truth in the Netherlands or confronting US officials with evidence of prior knowledge or negligence?

I would call it severe denial and cognitive dissonance if they weren't so sophisticated in their tactics and so embedded as an alleged truth movement member.

Oh, BTW PE, one more thing...

It is hilariously ironic that the witnesses you want to use for your NOC garbage "are not computers", so they don't have to be accurate for the multiple flight paths they supposedly saw, yet Morin is expected to be totally accurate with his observations and if it doesn't fit perfectly with the "Official flight path" it is some how wrong. Who in the hell do you think you're fooling with this line of BS? Yes, I know, some of the deluded fools who subscribe to your crap and promote it on conspiracy sites as if it were reality.

So, I won't bother with your stupid line of questioning regarding what he said about "clearing" the 8th Wing of the FOB and hitting the AF Memorial if it was there in 2001. Your objective is quite clear and transparent. Apparently, you think everyone else is as dumb as the CIT line of thought.

Not quiet... Get a new hobby this one is a FAILURE.

reply to post by WetBlanky


You have still not provided any evidence of a flyover which makes the rest of the flyover theory moot. Describe again the "duck-and-cover" theory variation of "shock-and-awe" where everyone, including the radar, was so incipiently frightened that they turned away just before the moment of impact. Explain how people miles from the scene would have ducked seconds before the shock wave arrived. I know that your explanations will easily explain every discrepancy in this contrived fly-over theory.

Im wondering why the crack team at CIT didnt ask for a drawn flightpath from Terry Morin. Seems like it should have bee the poster child picture, but alas, we have people twisting his first version and using a second version hich is completely different. Running up hill to watch the plane crash, being in between the wings and having to run out into the street. Plane flying super slow.
So many inconsistencies.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Im wondering why the crack team at CIT didnt ask for a drawn flightpath from Terry Morin. Seems like it should have bee the poster child picture, but alas, we have people twisting his first version and using a second version hich is completely different. Running up hill to watch the plane crash, being in between the wings and having to run out into the street. Plane flying super slow.
So many inconsistencies.

Yes, indeed.. If you recall they invented the interview after I published a complete aerodynamic debunk of their nonsense primarily using Morin's statements. Of course, they failed because he described the aircraft in essentially the same place as he did for the FBI interviews, They didn't realize the implication because of their ignorance of aerodynamics, but then moved the aircraft well north of where he said it was in order to prolong their fantasy.

Also, remember that he supposedly made them promise not to release the tape of that interview, but they eventually did anyway. We have no way of knowing if that was Morin speaking on that tape in the first place. Since we know they are proven liars I'd place a bet that it wasn't him anyway.

They evolved their argument that Morin's statements prove he didn't see the aircraft on the proven path by placing an undue and illogical burden of false precision on his statements while failing to apply that same burden on their supposed NOC witnesses whose flight paths are all over the freaking place...

They have been defeated time and time again on every issue they've raised, but like a zombie keep arguing their nonsense...

They all need a new hobby as this one is a FAILURE.

reply to post by snowcrash911


Was that so hard Snowcrash?

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.

Snowcrash

Yes and "over his head", and "parallel to the outer wing of the FOB (Navy Annex Building)" according to his online statement - CIT's interview narrows the path down even more - but by that statement I take it you're going with the supposed "more northern SOC path". The one in the image I posted from your dear friend Yougenedebs.



and Reheat believes the same..

Morin's stated position of the aircraft as it passed over his position *DID NOT* change significantly from his initial statements to the FBI and the so called "interview" by CIT. Therefore my *debunk* of the nonsense is valid for both.

Reheat

That's not quite accurate now Reheat is it? But I'll peg that answer as a "yes" to this supposed "more northern SOC path"

Proudbird and GenRadek too (and Alfie who has gone AWOL)

Here's the thing. There is no "more northern SOC path". There is no "parallel to the Navy Annex or Columbia Pike path" that corresponds with the official path according to the directional damage/FDR heading data. They don't exist!

Here is your path:



You can waffle on all you want about Morin's alleged view of the Pentagon basin (that is, virtually none), when the very fact that he places the aircraft anywhere over North of Columbia Pike is just as fatal to the OCT as the North of Citgo witnesses who were actually there and had the damn plane flying in clear view.

Stick to that path guys and cut the crap. At least try and stick to what you're trying (miserably) to defend.

Morin is far from an "SOC witness".

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
You can waffle on all you want about Morin's alleged view of the Pentagon basin (that is, virtually none), when the very fact that he places the aircraft anywhere over North of Columbia Pike is just as fatal to the OCT as the North of Citgo witnesses who were actually there and had the damn plane flying in clear view.

Stick to that path guys and cut the crap. At least try and stick to what you're trying (miserably) to defend.

You should stop waffling about the lack of a flyover. This is the elephant in the room for the entire CIT/flyover crew. They keep trying to argue the witnesses for flight paths. The plane hit. There was only one impact point. Discuss how it got there and knocked down light poles and trimmed trees if it came from another direction.

reply to post by pteridine


Oh yes, and pteridine, you also forgot to add:

How did they manage to stage the lamp posts, the damage to the trees, the trailer, and the fence area, and all that with hundreds of people, TV camera crews, and personell from the Pentagon looking on on the roads and grass and everything else.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


No no no. Stop right there.

Do you find it odd, that Terry's second "phone" interviews are almost completely different from his very first one? Doesnt that strike you as odd at all? In his first interview taken just after 9/11, he states he was out from between the two wings, he was making a gentle turn to the right towards the guard security shack. He hears the roar of the engines bouncing off the wall behind him and he turns to look and of course doesnt see anything until he turns back and witnesses the plane coming in almost parallel to the Pike. He sees the stripes of the side of the plane. He then watches the plane clear the 8th wing (Which means it PASSED it to the right side) and he watched it fly lower and lower, engines screaming, until it got blocked by the line of trees. All he could see then was just the tail when it made a slight bank to the right, saw a flash as it hit a lamp post, and then just saw the tip of the stabilizer when the fireball went up.

That is way different in CIT's now alleged version of the "new" interview, where all of a sudden, he's deep inside the gap between the wings, he just barely saw the plane go directly over him so he couldnt see the stripes (EVEN THOUGH HE SAW THEM THE FIRST TIME!), he manages to run out from between the wings, somehow flies past the security shack, runs onto the Pike, then runs uphill (wherever THAT is. Up the street AWAY form the Pentagon?) to get a better view of it in the sky (but he'd have to of run nearly 100ft to gain an extra 5-7 feet in height according to topographic maps of that area) , and the plane still has not crashed into the Pentagon. Now, I'm sorry, but this interview being touted by CIT, LaBTop, and you now, is starting to smell like a dead fish left out in the sun for a few weeks. Dropped in sewage. I mean, to just make it make sense, the plane must have been flying at stall speed, and I'm surprised it didnt drop out of the sky when it made that really tight turn around the Citgo. Is this what you are saying now? That the plane was flying at stall speed? Or was Terry pretending to be the Flash? I mean really. Take a good look at the area. What freakin "hill" was Terry running up from between the 4th and 5th wing? That gentle rise of 5-7ft a hundred feet up the street AWAY from the PEntagon? And that would let him see over the Pentagon? And how high was the plane then for him to have been able to see it over the Annex? Why didnt he mention a nose dive into the Pentagon?

Sorry but methinks that CIT and (no surprise) so called truthers, just LIED................. again. What is with Truthers and making crap up and lying a lot? That is not good for credibility.

reply to post by GenRadek


Combine all of this with no hesitation to lie (already documented in this thread), an unachievable demand for perfection from Morin (not applied to his own witnesses), and we have an excellent Con Artist with no equal. Rejection even by most truthers of his nonsense also makes one wonder how he won a debate with anyone at all. It must have been with a mentally crippled ignoramus because his arguments have been a TOTAL FAILURE here.

CIT - You need a new hobby, this one is a FAILURE!

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by pteridine

 

Oh yes, and pteridine, you also forgot to add:

How did they manage to stage the lamp posts, the damage to the trees, the trailer, and the fence area, and all that with hundreds of people, TV camera crews, and personell from the Pentagon looking on on the roads and grass and everything else.

Don't forget how "they" planted DNA and personal belongings of the passengers and crew and aircraft parts (some of which weighs tons) inside the building in the midst of a raging fire which cause a partial collapse of the building... Absolutely amazing and total unadulterated BS.....

Originally posted by WetBlanky
"everyone-who-exposes-me-is-Aldo-and-OSS"

Ok, well it appears the lying, avoiding, twisting, contradicting, cover up, disinformation promoter known as snowcrash911 aka someone allegedly named "Michiel de Boer" from the Netherlands (as common as John/Mary smith in the US) with impeccable English and a mastery of American phrases, will try to continue to mislead, confuse, and deceive all those reading. A supposed programmer with no headphones, speaker or skype so they can conveniently not be available for a debate he/she/it promised to do. An anonymous individual who burst on the scene specifically attacking CIT but reneging to debate voice to voice effectively dodging the opportunity to force concessions and obtain resolution-instead chasing their supporters on a UFO forum. He/she/it will simply not admit Terry morin placed the plane over him, over the Navy Annex. He/she/it will completely omit Ed Paik, position over his shop and the Annex and general direction toward the north side of the Citgo. He/she/it will ignore the list of navy annex witnesses I posted in this very thread. He/she/it will use the official data and official REQUIRED SoC damage path when it suits them, but in the same thread pretend it doesn't exist while they attempt to twist Morin's words into their own "version"(He/she/it's word) of the flight path, which still doesnt support the official data path or the official SoC damage path OR impact. Their job is and was to keep it vague. That's why they left off the missing 4 seconds and that's why "Warren Stutt" is the only one who has allegedly decoded these last 4 seconds, no one else has seen the files, including the NTSB and L3 communications who have not been made aware of nor do they concur with his findings. They would rather keep this issue online, strictly to be googled or used on forums for disinformation purposes. Again, more vagueness. No resolution.

What's pathetically transparent, is he/she/it spends time on "respectable" and "responsible" 9/11 Truth forums relegating CIT to being "frauds" and "mentally incompetent", with he/she/it and his/her/it's buddies talking about how quiet their forum is and how they are "dead in the water". Yet here he/she/it is, on a UFO conspiracy theory forum fiercely attacking CIT, using blatant and obvious deceit no less, and making accusations of sock puppetry against a person he/she/it considers a "fraud" but at the same time "mentally incompetent".

Does that make sense to you?

Does it make sense that a supposed "responsible and rational 9/11 truth activist" who claims CIT is "mentally incompetent" would need to spend hours on a UFO conspiracy theory forum "debating"(ie blatantly lying as you've all seen) something he/she/it "knows" would be considered "frivolous" in a court of law? Aren't they supposed to be fighting for 9/11 truth in the Netherlands or confronting US officials with evidence of prior knowledge or negligence?

I would call it severe denial and cognitive dissonance if they weren't so sophisticated in their tactics and so embedded as an alleged truth movement member.

edit on 17-12-2011 by WetBlanky because: (no reason given)

WB, your words above is very much appreciated, and will never go astray and never be forgotten.

The utterly nasty, vicious and all together lost people you/we are up against, and who got no understanding what is true and false, right and wrong, and who will one day get their deserved comeuppance for what they have done to humanity, and what they have done to us people whose only interest is to find the truth, to uncover the dark deceptions foistered upon an ignorant population; these same people above, who are totally ignorant about what an utterly evil cabal is able to do toward them, these kind of people we should only feel sorry about. In there own mind, they're only 'a number', and that's what they have been conditioned to believe!

These people are not true members of human kind yet. And that's a fact. 'Truth' speaks its own language.

Cheers

why do you people argue everytime ? look .... "911" was a trick , if you believed the OS you were fooled, if you support the war on "terror" , your a fool , and if you think America is a nice country that wouldnt hurt its own and wants global peace your an utter moron.