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

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Ranke has been trying to spin Morin's account since time immemorial. He's all over the place with the usual bollocks.

This is hilarious and very entertaining. I'm glad you found those posts.... I'll be ROFL until I go to sleep. Thanks for today's best belly laugh.....

ETA: TPE, aren't you proud to be associated with those LYING FRAUDULENT clowns?

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Ranke has been trying to spin Morin's account since time immemorial. He's all over the place with the usual bollocks.

This is hilarious and very entertaining. I'm glad you found those posts.... I'll be ROFL until I go to sleep. Thanks for today's best belly laugh.....

ETA: TPE, aren't you proud to be associated with those LYING FRAUDULENT clowns?

edit on 21-12-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2011 by Reheat because: Needed to laugh more

Yeah, the first quote I've been sitting on for a year, but then I noticed there was more, and more, and more...

Unfortunately Adam Larson/Caustic Logic lays it on thick with his NoC Witness disinfo theory, because like CIT and their sycophants, he can't fathom so many witnesses collectively mistaken or wildly inaccurate.

The problem is that witness error is usually pretty grave, and there's few worse aspects of witness testimony than speed, heading and location estimation of a flying object, even when "corroborated".

Which is why Ranke loudly complains about the supposed "ridiculousness" of Terry Morin's witness testimony. An assessment he once made, before his 180 degree about-face... Given the internally coordinated soundbites and talking points I'm seeing, Morin has been the paragon of FDR-debunking goodness ever since.

It's the perfect solution fallacy which just won't die, evidenced by TPE's repetitive (ZOMG Terry deviates from the OFP) dumbspam.

Good to see that you finally have come to the realization that Morin is a NOC witness, snowcrash,

but the convoluted and ridiculous way you went about it, was truly hilarious to behold, so thanks for

that little bit of humorous and fun entertainment .....

Cherio

Originally posted by djeminy



Good to see that you finally have come to the realization that Morin is a NOC witness.

But the convoluted and ridiculous way you went about it, was truly hilarious to behold,

so thanks for that little bit of humorous and fun entertainment .....

Cherio

Nah. Terry Morin is a SoC witness. Thanks for playing, drive by polemicist. Come again.

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by djeminy



Good to see that you finally have come to the realization that Morin is a NOC witness.

But the convoluted and ridiculous way you went about it, was truly hilarious to behold,

so thanks for that little bit of humorous and fun entertainment .....

Cherio

Nah. Terry Morin is a SoC witness. Thanks for playing, drive by polemicist. Come again.

You'll probably be about average as a stand-up comic, but i still think you should give it a try.

Who knows, you might improve with age!

Merry Christmas

Originally posted by djeminy
You'll probably be about average as a stand-up comic, but i still think you should give it a try.

Who knows, you might improve with age!

Merry Christmas

The thing is, I have to try. I have to prepare something. You don't. You can just walk up on stage and fire up the crowd with Aldo's ol' "unfrozen cadavers" chestnut. All you have to do is tell the audience your working theory on the Pentagon Attack. Then you can really hit that home run by elaborately sketching the Pentagon flyover scenario, immortalized by jimd3100:

Evil NWO perp Pre-9/11:--"I say we don't crash a plane into the pentagon."
Fellow Perp: "huh?"
Evil NWO perp: --"Hear me out...this is genius, instead of flying a plane into this particular building, let's fly over it, everyone will be fooled."
Fellow perp: --"What?"
Evil NWO perp: "Yup, everyone will be fooled, and they will be fooled good to, because we will make sure everyone in the area looks at the pentagon as it flys over, because we will explode bombs at the same time, that way hundreds will look at the pentagon as the plane flys over, and they will be fooled."
Fellow perp: --"What?"
Evil NWO perp: "And the best thing is, no one will take pictures or record it because I feel lucky, I can just feel it"
Fellow Perp: "huh?"
Evil NWO perp: " And then we can plant parts, inside the building and outside too, giant engine parts, the works, no one will notice because they will be to busy being fooled by a jet airliner flying over the pentagon as a loud noise goes off gauranteeing they will not notice a huge airliner flying over the building as they turn to look at the building because of the noise."
Fellow perp: --"What?"
Evil NWO perp: "But that's not the best part"
Fellow Perp: "uh oh"
Evil NWO perp: "The best part is, we can also set a fake direction for the plane to come in, create a fake flight path with planted light poles"
Fellow perp: "Why?"
Evil NWO perp: "Just for fun, to see if anyone notices, they will be to busy being fooled into thinking they watched a passenger jet fly into the pentagon."
Fellow Perp: "Why create a fake flight path?"
Evil NWO perp: "Why not?"
Fellow Perp: "What about the radar, and the Air traffic controllers seeing the plane on radar."
Evil NWO perp: "Not a problem, they're all "in on it." So are most of the witnesses on the busy highways and roads in the area around the pentagon. The ones not "in on it" will be fooled, because they will be to busy looking at the pentagon to notice the huge arliner flying over it, no matter what side of the pentagon they are on."
Fellow Perp: "Why would you want to get all these people involved, that doesn't even make any sense."
Evil NWO perp: "Yup, that's the beauty of it."

Try it some time.

Don't mention Zoe Falkenberg, though...

Anyways, djeminy, let me know when you're ready to participate in the discussion outside of these paltry, hit-and-run style ad hominem attacks which accomplish little but cement your ineptitude w.r.t. 9/11 research in the minds of the neutral reader. It's obvious you simply don't have anything else to offer but this.

I would have directed my energy (pun intended!) towards more fruitful avenues of 9/11 research were it not for the epidemic of misinformation cluttering conspiracy websites and the blogosphere. My experience with CIT is that they must be fought, relentlessly. Both CIT and P4T must be held accountable for the lies, spin, half-truths, harassment, slander, libel & defamation they were involved in. Fingering traumatized 9/11 witnesses as key conspirators? Accomplices of mass murder? Really? The aggressive, predatory nature of both groups is now blowing up in their faces. I've warned them to let it go, but they prefer to self-destruct. So be it.

I came here because Aldo chose to register another sock puppet at Truth Action and rattle the cage. (Turns out ATS is quite a cool forum) More aptly described, he stuck his head in a bee hive, and now he's getting stung. The debunkers at the Unexplained Mysteries forum are sick and tired of it too. Russel Pickering, John Farmer, Adam Larson, Reheat, Proudbird, ... so many others...debunkers and truthers alike, we all agree. This deceptive lunacy must be stopped. The fall-out and collateral damage of flyover theory is utterly vile and disgraceful. Somebody has to speak up for Lloyd England, Mike Walter, Madeleine Zakhem, Father McGraw, Keith Wheelhouse and all those other traumatized Pentagon witnesses who were dragged through the mud by this careening juggernaut of stupidity.

Enough is enough. Defeating Anthony Summers is a cakewalk. Now deal with the real Pentagon research crowd.

And to preempt the inevitable come-back to the tune of: "We were on the scene, we interviewed the witnesses, blah blah blah"

If THIS is the end-product of your "research", if flyover theory is your end-product, despite the massive evidence for plane impact (my beef with CIT convinced me of that, thanks!), then you have done nothing to help, you have done extreme harm.

That's definitely not something to be proud of.

Want to know the truth about CIT? Read this.

I once partially accepted CIT's work. But I never accepted flyover. When I discovered how the hoax had been perpetrated, I spoke out. Ever since, I have been included in CIT's ever widening net of online harassment. These guys have no credibility, they attack every 9/11 Pentagon witness who disagrees with them and most importantly: they are feeding a falsehood to thousands if not millions of people worldwide.

As Russel Pickering, who worked with CIT, said in his departing manifesto:

After meticulous and dedicated research, including a trip to DC as part of Loose Change’s research team, I can assure you with 100% certainty an aircraft impacted the Pentagon. This is just a physical fact – albeit a counterintuitive one.

That "counter-intuitiveness" is what Thierry Meyssan, David Von Kleist, Barbara Honegger, Dick Eastman and eventually CIT & P4T preyed upon. And all CIT has to counter Pickering's assessment, is their posting of a video of him blowing off some steam about his frustrations with Pentagon research. The video is now removed from Youtube, because it "violates their terms of service". All that video did was increase, not diminish, my sympathy for the man.

He had a great, informative website, now it's gone. Same deal for John Farmer. Website gone.

Quoting Pickering again:

I have done long and tedious quiet work on the Pentagon for years. I have never had any interest in self-promotion or profit.

Since the destruction of the old forums I have oscillated very strongly on not being involved in 9/11 any more. It is the likes of CIT and PFT and other self-promoting groups that discourage me.

The 9/11 movement is a haven for the non-rational hardcore conspiracy theorist. For that reason I believe the movement will eventually implode. Again it is the hardest of the hard cores that want to be on top and sell us their theories.

CIT's legacy certainly won't be that of investigate reporters blowing 9/11 "wide open", it will be one of well-deserved ignominy or what I call "the karma boomerang".

Originally posted by djeminy


Good to see that you finally have come to the realization that Morin is a NOC witness, snowcrash,

but the convoluted and ridiculous way you went about it, was truly hilarious to behold, so thanks for

that little bit of humorous and fun entertainment .....

Cherio

edit on 22-12-2011 by djeminy because: (no reason given)

Is there an award for the absolute dumbest thing ever posted on ATS? Can I nominate the above post?

Morin watched all or part of the aircraft after it passed over him until it hit the building.

Anyone who thinks Terry Morin is an advocate of a huge honking banked turn from where he first saw it to heading on a course that would take it north of the service station and homkign back to the right so it would end up "50 to less than 100 feet" above lane 1 of South Parking, headed in a "southwest" direction has got to be the dumbest person on this planet.

Is that you djeminy?

Wow, Snowcrash. You accuse me of posting "TINRATS"?

My turn.

Again with the claim that Terry Morin is an "SOC witness"?

I'll put some perspective on this shall I? I'll not bother to quote you guys' insisting that the aircraft flew "parallel to the roofline of the Navy Annex" and which you all now deny.

From his online testimony..

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).

Terry Morin

Here's an aeriel image south of the OCT path with the Navy Annex, North of Citgo, US Air Force Memorial and ANC buildings. You can also see the VDOT tower that the OCT aircraft allegedly passed south of.

Aeriel image

The operative words being "right over the top of me" and "the outer portion of the FOB".

Not "Columbia Pike", not "across the road, 300ft away", but the outer portion of the FOB (Navy Annex) building

From the CIT interview at the area where Morin claimed to have been when the aircraft flew over his head..

Morin: It's right on the edge and I'm like here (between the wings), okay?

Repeating what he said in his online testimony. "Right on the edge". Look at the image posted above throughout these quotes.

Morin: Now there's the US Air Force Memorial. If the Air force Memorial had been built, the airplane would have ran into it

Okay, so far we have him describing the aircraft as running along the edge of the Navy Annex and heading towards the Memorial. This memorial:

Craig: Let me ask you..what are the chances that the plane was on the South side of Columbia Pike? Or on the South side of the VDOT?

Morin: No frickin way

Craig: No frickin way?

Morin: No frickin way. He was right over the top of me.

Again, reinforcing the point that the aircraft was right over the top of him.

Here's the same aeriel image with the OCT path (which GLs are bound to) and the description of the flightpath according to Terry Morin. His POV is marked, along with the ANC buildings and North of Citgo.

Aeriel Image Marked

Now, looking at that image, which direction is Terry Morin actually looking? Towards the Annex or towards the carpark to the south of Columbia Pike? (I know it's a stupid question but apparently Snowcrash et al need to be walked through this) Do you think there's any doubt as to which direction he's looking? Or what he's describing?

Just to make sure Snowcrash is getting this...

Craig: You're 100% certain that it was the top of the Navy Annex?

Morin: He is on the edge of the Navy Annex, not completely over. Okay?

Craig: But, the plane itself would be on the North Side of Columbia Pike at that point?

Morin: Yeah, yeah, I mean this is Columbia Pike, okay? There's a fence right here. I'm inside the fence, okay? He went right over the top of me.

See the fence in the image? Right over the top of him. Again. Which direction is he looking?

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

Morin: Does the right wing hang out a little bit? I mean there's only..how much..

Craig: No, I'm saying how much to the North side of Columbia Pike..maybe it was over the Navy Annex but there's no way it was to the North of Columbia Pike. There's no way the plane itself or the right wing was North of Columbia Pike?

Morin: Nope.

Got that? Terry Morin asserts that the right wing was in no way "over Columbia Pike". That a portion of the right wing was "hanging out" over the edge of the Navy Annex.

Which direction was he looking?

Finally, here's corroboration of what Morin described. By people who were in a far better position to judge the flightpath after it had passed over the Annex.



"SOC witness" my arse.

Happy Christmas.

Your claim that I now deny Morin believed he saw the plane fly parallel to the Navy Annex is a lie. In fact, you are drawing a diagonal line, in complete dissonance with Morin's testimony. You need to brush up on the definition of "parallel", TPE. What's your response to Craig Ranke's merciless "debunking" of Terry Morin, by the way?

Since you are posting SPAM, I will refer back to my original response, which you haven't appropriately addressed. You can formulate your repetitive claims in 500 different ways, the objections, which you have not addressed at all, stand. You're a slow learner. Here we go again.

There are two domains of interpretation. They are (A) determining what a witness believed he or she saw and (B) determining how well this witness statement agrees with the official flight path, and whether it ought to be exact, and if not, if this "disproves the official story".

In domain (A), it's quite clear that Terry Morin is a SoC witness, which is why neither "WetBlanky" nor "ThePostExaminer" care to explain what will happen if, even in the most charitable scenario for CIT, when the plane flies "parallel to the edge of the FOB" AND "would have run into the Air Force Memorial", one draws a straight line from that point towards the Citgo.

In domain (B), TPE has been repeatedly reminded that his repeated assertions that any deviation in witness perception of the Official Flight Path (OFP) amounts to actual physical deviation of the Official Flight Path, are absolutely false.

Witnesses are not computers, as Craig Ranke said. Like the OFP, there can only be one NoC flight path, not multiple NoC flight paths, since any plane approaching the Pentagon on any path can't be in two places at the same time.

Therefore, TPE's position debunks his own NoC witnesses, since their flight path drawings are all mutually exclusive. Unless TPE elects to agree with Craig Ranke again, that "witnesses are not computers", in which case he has to concede that Terry Morin's flight path description does not have to match the OFP exactly, because Terry Morin is not a computer.

Ergo, Terry Morin's perceived flight path does not debunk the official story.

What's more, the margin of error is such that all witnesses are actually reporting the OFP, only due to the fact that "witnesses are not computers", as Craig Ranke claimed, their flight paths deviate both from the OFP and from each other. Sometimes wildly. I have repeatedly requested citations from the scientific literature expounding the "unparalleled accuracy" of witness testimony, whether or not "corroborated". The fact is, such literature does not exist, which is why my request is conspicuously ignored.

The reason we see a northerly bias in CIT's witness pool is because (A) all dissenters have been attacked, derided, insulted, defamed, claimed to be liars and complicit in mass murder (B) All CIT's flight path drawings are drawn by witnesses situated to the north of the Official Flight Path.

In other words, CIT's witness pool is a biased selection due to cherry picking, and the unreasonable expectations of witness flight path observation show a double standard with respect to their own NoC path. Unreasonable expectations of witness preciseness are an example of the Nirvana Fallacy. Lastly, witness confidence ('No frickin way / I'd bet my life on it') is no indication whatsoever of witness accuracy. Again, show me the scientific literature proving otherwise, against consensus, or kindly shut up.

From now on, if I receive the same ignorant spam again from either ThePostExaminer or WetBlanky, I will refer back to this post, until the issues raised are properly addressed.

Merry Christmas. Redeem yourself.

Even if AA 77 was allowed to fly through the Sheraton.. it would be SoC... Merry Christmas!

reply to post by snowcrash911


I think the best idea now is to just poke TPE with a sharp stick to determine if he's a Zombie or a Robot. It is simply unbelievable that a normal human would continue to post when their heros and their junk dirt dumb ideas have been ANNIHILATED while not even bothering to address those embarrassing issues.. He just continues to post the same old tired bankrupt junk filled with fallacious logic that is so dirt dumb no one is buying it..

On the other hand those issues can not even be debated in an honest way. They are recorded and many of them are self proven LIES or FRAUD while all of the others have been conclusively proven LIES AND FRAUD by one method or another... Even tho' I have considerable experience with deluded "truthers", the example here wins the jackpot, so far.... It is unbelievable for those who can not see it happening..

If you find that he really isn't a Zombie or a Robot I might be back. Otherwise, I'm going to simply enjoy the Holidays with family....

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Even if AA 77 was allowed to fly through the Sheraton.. it would be SoC... Merry Christmas!

edit on 23-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

Think that you're shooting yourself in the foot with that weird flight path, snowcrash.

I suggest you try another one, just to avoid you becoming as (in)famous as poor 'broken sticks'!

At least it's good to see that you finally agree that the lamp poles must have been staged -

Cheers and merry christmas

reply to post by djeminy


And, naturally, the IRONY is lost on so, so many......

Par for the course.....

Originally posted by djeminy
Think that you're shooting yourself in the foot with that weird flight path, snowcrash.

Don't tell me, tell Terry Morin.

Originally posted by djeminy
I suggest you try another one, just to avoid you becoming as (in)famous as poor 'broken sticks'!

Ten years and you still don't get it.

Originally posted by djeminy
At least it's good to see that you finally agree that the lamp poles must have been staged -

If I were to adopt your tactics: that is, putting words in people's mouths out of sheer desperation, then I must say I'm happy to see you now admit Terry Morin is a SoC witness.

Let me know when you're over your frustration of seeing your heroes lose the debate, and when you're ready to debate for yourself other than trolling the thread with cheap shots.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by ProudBird :
But, the jet never flew "north" of the "citgo", so all the rest is just spinning of wheels useless.

LaBTop : Until the moment any one of you provide us with recorded evidence from a retraction by William Lagasse and his colleague, who both persist till this day in their own CIT recorded interviewed words that they know more than 100% sure that the plane flew north of the CITGO canopy, most readers will keep having ultra-strong doubts when reading all your extensive arguments for the official south of the CITGO canopy flying plane.
When you also can audio record Christine Peterson, saying that her car stood within a few meters of the overpass bridge over the last part of Columbia Pike leading to the South Pentagon Parking lot, INSTEAD of very near of the two trees in front of the Pentagon Helipad, where the plane flew right over the roof of her car, as she stated in several published newspaper interviews, then we may start to doubt the CIT interviews.
The same goes for a recorded new audio interview with Penny Elgas, who stated also in many interviews, that she stood only a few cars back from where the plane crossed over Route 27 (Washington Boulevard)
And then I offered several more witnesses, who's positions can easily be compared to those of Christine and Penny. If they all will explain exactly where they stood when the plane crossed Route 27, we can at last put the whole Pentagon controversy to rest.

I however now predict a near zero percent chance that any official flight path follower can and will and want to ever come up with such evidence.

Of course it didn't. There is an abundance of evidence for the flight path and subsequent impact with the building.. Hard evidence, not someones perception of what happened.

1) Three different radars and the 84 RADES data show the returns to just about the east side of the Navy Annex. (It would be impossible aerodynamically to go North of the service station from there.

LaBTop : To just a few meters southwest from the Navy Annex, that's the last radar return as shown in extensive discussions on the PfT forums I have seen there. From that point on, the terrain features in the Pentagon basin blocked any radar returns. The extra 4 seconds found in the NTSB provided FDR data show even further positions based on FDR recorded radio and pressure heights and headings, which lead to a north of CITGO position. The NTSB animation shows an even further north plane position much earlier on already, see my screen-shot in one of my last above posts.

2) Truthers are always harping about the lack of video, but the Tribby Video vividly shows the C-130, which followed AA 77's path on it's approach. Because of the position of the C-130 and the plume of smoke there is NO DOUBT at all of it's position.

LaBTop : No problem with his position when photographed, but you avoid to explain the C-130 pilot O'Brien's own words when interviewed, that he could not see the impact, only the resulting smoke column, because he was trailing so far behind the attack plane, that the only way he could get an indication where the smoke came from, from the reflection on the water of the Potomac River, just behind the Pentagon. But he still could not see the Pentagon itself clearly, from that distance he was still away from it.
For the record and for the umpteenth time, I, LaBTop, am convinced that a plane did impact the Pentagon, at the spot in the west wall of it, photographed within a minute by Steve Riskus, and later by several others.

3) Lamp posts, damaged tree, and a damaged camera pole agree with the known path...

LaBTop : Any lawyer will bring up that they can be staged, I showed two photos with a yellow flatbed trailer in them, which were left very near two of the downed light poles, and were always used to transport exactly such light poles. One behind the heap of fresh dirt along Route 27, one on the left side and a few meters away from the underpass of Columbia Pike under Route 27. Damaged tree is never photographed from nearby, let ever analyzed for burned top foliage. It also doesn't look as if it was burned, or showed any broken leafs and branches. Damaged camera pole dent can be from earlier damage and events, or can be also staged.
If you accept a NoC path, then all these things must have been staged at forehand. To fit a planned flight path, which planning failed obviously during the last few seconds, and thus came up with a north of the CITGO canopy flying plane, and a nearly head on impact instead of a 60.25 true north impact path. Which was not planned for. But the light poles must have been downed already then, to fit the in advance placed internal explosive charges. See for that the second photo of Steve Riskus, or from one of the other photographers, which shows a sudden huge white hot explosive fireball spitting out of the center damage in the west wall. At least a minute after the impact, since Steve had to park his car first at the west side of Route 27, get his camera and exit his car and start to walk towards the center of the scene. His parked car was about 50 meters north of that center scene point.

4) FDR found in the building supports all of the above.

LaBTop : No, it does not. At least according to the NTSB, the leading institute regarding air disasters. They never reacted on, nor retracted their FOIA released animation of their released FDR data.We may expect that the heading in the last seconds, and the pressure altitudes combined with the radio altitudes will show the same path north of the Annex, as the NTSB must have been plotting based on their FDR data.
If not, your government should immediately sack the top brass of this influential institute.
And excuse publicly for their misrepresentation of known facts.

5) Building Performance report agrees with all of the above evidence.

LaBTop : As stated before, their researchers were only allowed in the building after it was totally cleaned from inside debris. They had no chance at all to witness plane debris on the original spots, and the collapsed area where most of it could have been found by them, was already cleansed. In the same report can the testimony of Frank Probst be found, and from his words can be concluded where he stood when the plane flew just over him. In front of the Helipad, and not 60 meters more to the south, where the 60.25° true north SoC flight path would predict him to have stood. But he stood just a few meters south of the two trees.
Their report shows an abundance of photos from damaged pillars in a cleansed area. And some of the photos taken by Pentagon allowed photographers, military men and women, from debris heaps. These were not taken by any Building Performance Report persons.

6) Testimony of the recovery efforts of first responders and the clean up crew outlined in "Firefight to save the Pentagon" agrees with the above.

LaBTop : A cover-up would not need to address that, since a plane with crew and passengers left from Gate D26 at Dulles, the usual gate where Flight 77 departed from for several years already. Thus we may expect victims from inside the plane, just as from outside, the Pentagon workers.

7) Recovered DNA and personal affects of passengers and crew found inside the building.

LaBTop : see point 6) , and again, I agree with an impact.

I probably left something out, but this is enough to prove where the aircraft flew and where it ended up. To argue otherwise without proving *all* of the above either untrue or fraudulent is an exercise in futility. It is not simply stupid to argue otherwise, it is stupid in the extreme...

It would turn out that you were the extreme stupid ones, when eyewitnesses/Pentagon police officers SGT William Lagasse and SGT Chadwick Brooks and the ANC ones as witnesses of a NoC path, and Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas and a few others as witnesses of the exact flyover spot over Route 27, would be allowed in court.

Let's first recap my Paik and Morin flight path approximation :


This is Reheat's signature link : www.911myths.com...
Which signature he named :
""Debunking the North of Citgo Theory"".

I suppose these are his calculations, and the easy turn/bank calculator which he keeps referring me back to, and which he says, in his opinion, should conclusively prove to me that Flight AA77 could have never made the turn radius I showed him in several posts (shown lower down in this post, the one with the big white area in it, with the center point of my proposed 3200 meter / 10,498.7 feet arc-radius somewhere in the lower right corner).

I differ in that opinion.
It could easily have flown that turn radius which covers all NoC witnesses reports with a 24.9° right bank.
But then it must have entered that turn with an exact speed of 269.4 MPH to perform a 10,498.7 feet (3200 meters) turn radius at that bank angle.

If we tweak the speed up, while entering the turn, to let's say 400 MpH (347.6 KTS), and leave the bank the same 24.9°, the only thing that changes is the turn radius, which more than doubles (23,145.1 feet / 7,045.8 meters). The plane drifts far to the north in that case.
The increase in stall speed stays the same factor 1.0 and the G Load stays the same 1.1 Gs.

I don't know how a pilot would force the plane to keep on track towards the impact point he aims at, since the more speed is entered in that online calculator, the bigger the turn radius becomes, and thus the plane is drifting far to the north when it descends, since the speed increases when a plane is descending with the same engine power applied.

Would the pilot decrease engine power a few percent to stay in the same originally set radius and bank angle? Could he use the tail rudder to yaw the plane a bit to the south and subsequently "brake" the speed by doing so, since he is using the tail rudder as some sort of air-brake? Could he use the inner or outer ailerons to keep on aim?

In other words, what the heck happened in that cockpit in the last 6 seconds to fulfill all the descriptions of the plane its behavior, by all these NoC witnesses?
Most of them describe a reasonable fast, descending plane, flying in a swallow right bank and clean configuration.


Many NoC witnesses told us, it descended in a slow right banked, wide turn towards them.
And they all said that it not has flown at all in a STRAIGHT line towards them, as the officially approved South of CITGO flight path tries to let us believe, just as the recovered FDR from Flight AA77.
Which SoC path is the one Reheat and lots of others try to tell us, is the only possible flight path, and that is based on the 5 downed light poles, and the internal damage path and the circular hole in the C-ring its outer wall, which lead to a calculated flight path heading of 60.25° true north.

The fact however, that so many witnesses tell us that Flight 77 flew in a slow right banked, descending turn is for me the most impressive reason to belief that there is something seriously wrong with the officially approved SoC flight path for AA77.
At least the last 10 seconds of that flight path.

All his required turn radii in his big list in that first link above, with all radius-values calculated for the various flight paths and speeds, vary from ~930 to ~2000 feet.
Except one, the "officially accepted" flight path, which he lists as having a required turn radius of zero.
Thus flying in a straight line until impact.

These irrational unrealistic tight turn radii examples given in his second (Noc1.jpg) big drawing in his page, by Reheat, are so far out of the acceptable and reasonable scenarios, based on witness statements, and totally impossible in the AA77 Pentagon attack its South-or-North of the CITGO gas station situation, that it can not be taken serious.
That whole signature link from Reheat is confusion-sowing in nature.

I have the impression that he wanted to make clear that a NoC passage, combined with a return-move, back to the 60.25° (true north) level SoC flight path is totally impossible.
I find it a show of quite unnecessary details which has nothing to do with proving the CIT interviewed witnesses, unreliable in their firm belief that AA77 flew to the North of the CITGO gas station, instead of the officially accepted South of CITGO flight path (60.25° true north).
I also missed in his page an explanatory map with his own "slalom flight path" drawn in it, which CIT however drew for him and posted multiple times in later threads all over the internet's 9/11 forums :



When he had posted that drawing as a third one in his own page, it would have been much clearer for the aviation lay-people at this board, that he is trying to ridicule the NoC witnesses, by a heap of professional aviation talk, but in fact proving nothing at all. Only that his "slalom" example of a NoC flying plane that has to return to the official SoC path and ending up in level flight to be able to cut the top of the 5 light poles, is impossible.
We all knew that already intuitively.

Thus, wasted energy on his side to prove that.
But nevertheless, thanks for the interesting links.

This post is a follow up on my thoughts in this post of mine :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have to react on the remarks from Reheat, that my turn radius and arc is not viable.
While it depicts the best possible coverage of all known Pentagon attack witnesses.

And remember, he and I use the same EASY online turn and bank calculator which is however based on a level flown turn, and not on a descending flown turn like the plane executed in reality :

Excerpt from Reheat's signature link :

Resources

More information and references on stall speeds can be viewed at Wikipedia.

Additional Information: All airline type aircraft (Category G) and their military equivalent are restricted to 2.5 G’s by Federal Air Regulations. This is an operational limit. Tests of the Boeing 777 have shown the wings actually fail at ~ 7 G’s.

Basic turn calculations and an explanation of how to measure turn radius can be found here and here.

This is an easy turn calculator to use once the required turn radius is determined or alternatively a turn radius can be derived by plugging in proposed numbers. This calculator may also be used to check the numbers in the chart.

What makes the level turn unique is the fact that the altitude remains a constant throughout the maneuver. In other words, the level turn is purely in a horizontal plane.
An aircraft can also generate similar performance by flying maneuvers in which the altitude changes.

And we are in fact discussing a descending turn, and that increases the speed, which leads to a wider turn radius if no corrections are made by the pilot.
What pilot moves makes it easier for the pilot and the plane, and which could concludes to less stall danger and an acceptable small bank angle to achieve such a descending turn, while still ending up at the point he aimed at? The impact point..

I did not understand at all why Reheat keeps repeating that my proposed AA77 last 10 seconds flight path arc is not viable, thus I recalculated the level flown radius I showed in this picture by me :


img.abovetopsecret.com...

I based myself on the length of the Navy Annex building measured in Google Earth to be nearly exactly 300 meters (984.25 feet) in length, from wing 1 to wing 8. Then it is easy to see that the radius I drew in there, is nearly exactly 4 times as long, measured with a pair of compasses. That means my drawn turn radius is 3,200 meters long.
That's 10,498.7 feet.

Which is a FIVE times bigger arc radius, than Reheat used as the maximum arc radius (2000 feet) in his signature link "NoC debunk piece". And thus much easier to perform than the extremely tight turns for a passenger plane like the B757-200 he brought up.

When you fill in and tweak the online turn calculator with some known and previously unknown data, like the following data, then the speed when entering that turn of 269.4 MPH (234.109 KTS) is what comes out when we enter the other parameters :

757-200 stall speed (by ProudBird) = 180 MPH (156.420 KTS)
Note that the stall speed, or minimum flying speed, begins to increase rapidly beyond a bank angle of 60° which corresponds to 2 g's.
Turn Bank Angle = 24.9°
G Load = 1.1 Gs
We take a radius of turn of 10,498.7 feet (x 0.3048) = 3200 meters.

This is a screenshot with those data filled in that turn perf. calculator :




Which 24.9° swallow bank angle looks very much like what one of the Arlington National Cemetery witnesses showed in the CIT interview as the right bank angle he witnessed when the plane descended in the direction of the ANC maintenance buildings grounds. By holding a small model plane up in his hand and showing us the bank angle, while it descended towards him.

And it looks very much like what Sean Boger described, this "Small bank angle" drawing from aerospaceweb.org, used by Reheat in his own calculations link, which they call a small, 51° right bank angle at 1.5 G :




This below picture, with its lowest picture showing an airplane such as a 757-200 that would be turning while at a right bank angle of exactly 42°, is a good example of a nearly double as high bank angle :




When the pilot, while in a f.ex. 42° right bank turn, does not pull his steering column up, but leaves it in the neutral position, the plane will also automatically descend while turning in that bank, just as AA77 did, when we may believe all the witnesses.

The by me introduced bank angle of 24.9° is a swallow bank in a swallow descending turn radius.
I am not aware yet, of anybody showing us the calculations for a turn radius and bank in a descending turn. All the above ones are for a level flight performance.