It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Last chance Snowcrash.
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.
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.
And OneSliceShort/ThePostExaminer... you still haven't answered my questions.
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!
Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
reply to post by Reheat
Sorry, I had to snip that second rant Reheat.
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)
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.
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"?
To leap or pass by, or over, without touching or failure; as, to clear a hedge; to clear a reef.
(transitive) To pass without interference; to miss.
The door just barely clears the table as it closes.
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, 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
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
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.
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.
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)