*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin

Originally posted by adam_zapple

He did seeit up until the point where it exploded and he could no longer see it because of the fire.

Just as I said...

You are not intellectually honest enough to admit the 100% FACT that your claim that Turcios said he "saw" the plane impact the building is false.

The incorrect math is still posted.....an 11.2G error isn't minor. The source of the error indicates that the person doing the math doesn't know much about physics.

The error has been left posted WITH the admission it was incorrect and a link to the correction. That is what an honest scientist would do rather than try to cover up their error.

Since the corrected results are 10.14 G's it most certainly was a minor error. The fact that the person doing the math instantly recognized and admitted the error as well as published a correction proves tht they DO know about math and physics.

Don't you understand that this is how science ALWAYS works?

Are you trying to suggest that a scientist must be 100% accurate at all times to know about math and physics?

I'll review a document, I'm not watching more of their video drivel.

Yes well your refusal to view the calculations simply because you don't prefer the medium they were delivered does not put you in a position to make an educated judgment or really to comment at all.

It simply reveals that you are not interested in intellectually honest discussion and are prone to make unsupported false claims based on your personal bias.

Very well...we can start another thread for you to show what you've done.

Go right ahead but I have no obligation to respond to it and it is still irrelevant to the evidence.

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Yes, yes...I've seen those calculations which PFT admits are "in error" and to date have still not been amended.

It seems P4T left an update just for people like you.

Update - 12/12/08

It appears some are still confused regarding the corrections of the below article and still do not understand that the video presented which contain the proper formula's as determined by Aeronautical Engineers is a "correction" to our article below. This update is to inform those who are still confused that the presentation of "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and the "G Forces" clip below offered for free, is the correction to our admitted math errors from our original article. For most this is not in question. For those who make excuse for the govt story, apparently they are still confused and still quote the 11.2 G's of the original article wondering when we are going to "correct" our mistakes, yet anyone who actually views the video presentation will readily realize such errors have been corrected.

Those who do make excuse for the govt story feel we should delete our errors in the original article below. We disagree. We show our errors and work through them. To date, this is the only article on this site which we have made mistakes and have since corrected the errors as shown in the video presentation directly below this update. Thank you for your understanding and we apologize for any confusion.

Source

Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Yes, yes...I've seen those calculations which PFT admits are "in error" and to date have still not been amended.

It seems P4T left an update just for people like you.

Update - 12/12/08

It appears some are still confused regarding the corrections of the below article and still do not understand that the video presented which contain the proper formula's as determined by Aeronautical Engineers is a "correction" to our article below. This update is to inform those who are still confused that the presentation of "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and the "G Forces" clip below offered for free, is the correction to our admitted math errors from our original article. For most this is not in question. For those who make excuse for the govt story, apparently they are still confused and still quote the 11.2 G's of the original article wondering when we are going to "correct" our mistakes, yet anyone who actually views the video presentation will readily realize such errors have been corrected.

Those who do make excuse for the govt story feel we should delete our errors in the original article below. We disagree. We show our errors and work through them. To date, this is the only article on this site which we have made mistakes and have since corrected the errors as shown in the video presentation directly below this update. Thank you for your understanding and we apologize for any confusion.

Source

Incorrect calculations still posted.

280% x 4.0 G's = 11.2 G's needed to arrest descent.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

There's no need for a video...they should just post their corrected calculations.

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Incorrect calculations still posted.

Those who do make excuse for the govt story feel we should delete our errors in the original article below. We disagree. We show our errors and work through them. To date, this is the only article on this site which we have made mistakes and have since corrected the errors as shown in the video presentation directly below this update. Thank you for your understanding and we apologize for any confusion.

Bolded the above pertinent part in hopes that this time you read it.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

He did seeit up until the point where it exploded and he could no longer see it because of the fire.

Just as I said...

You are not intellectually honest enough to admit the 100% FACT that your claim that Turcios said he "saw" the plane impact the building is false.

His view was not obstructed until the explosion, which happened after the plane contacted the pentagon, which he did report seeing. (Unfortunately there are many things which aren't 100% clear due to his accent, interruptions, etc but what I posted above is consistent with what he says)

"the only thing i saw was when it was a direct, uh line to go into the pentagon collided"

But hey we can always go to the next witness. Lagasse actually described the motion of the plane after it impacted...he said it "yawed" into the pentagon.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

The incorrect math is still posted.....an 11.2G error isn't minor. The source of the error indicates that the person doing the math doesn't know much about physics.

The error has been left posted WITH the admission it was incorrect and a link to the correction. That is what an honest scientist would do rather than try to cover up their error.

Since the corrected results are 10.14 G's it most certainly was a minor error. The fact that the person doing the math instantly recognized and admitted the error as well as published a correction proves tht they DO know about math and physics.

The admission of the mistake wasn't posted until ONE WEEK after the calculations were presented.....and you call that "instantly"?

The guy who did the calculations also clearly displays that he doesn't know the difference between a velocity and an acceleration based on the math presented. That's a pretty elementary-level mistake.

Whomever did those calculations is doing pretty poor in the math and physics department.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Are you trying to suggest that a scientist must be 100% accurate at all times to know about math and physics?

No. (False Dichotomy Fallacy noted) But a "scientist" posting calculations with such glaring errors isn't going to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITIt simply reveals that you are not interested in intellectually honest discussion and are prone to make unsupported false claims based on your personal bias.

Actually it's based on PFT's reputation and historical accuracy with regard to math, etc.

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Actually it's based on PFT's reputation and historical accuracy with regard to math, etc.

Yet another unsupported claim by Adam.

P4T corrected their math in their article. You refuse to acknowledge it due to the fact you havent read their updates (even when copy/pasted for you), and refuse to watch a 9 minute video presentation.

When do you suppose Mackey or 911Files will correct their claims? I suppose first they have to acknowledge their mistakes and not ignore it when confronted.

(see, the above hotlinks are how you source claims).

Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by adam_zapple
Actually it's based on PFT's reputation and historical accuracy with regard to math, etc.

Yet another unsupported claim by Adam.

P4T corrected their math in their article. You refuse to acknowledge it due to the fact you havent read their updates (even when copy/pasted for you), and refuse to watch a 9 minute video presentation.

I read their updates....none of which included corrected calculations. If this evidence is so important and groundbreaking they can post it on that page with the others without requiring people to watch a 30 minute BS video.

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I read their updates....none of which included corrected calculations.

Obviously not thoroughly.

It appears some are still confused regarding the corrections of the below article and still do not understand that the video presented which contain the proper formula's as determined by Aeronautical Engineers is a "correction" to our article below. This update is to inform those who are still confused that the presentation of "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and the "G Forces" clip below offered for free, is the correction to our admitted math errors from our original article.

Bolded the above pertinent parts again in hopes Adam will read it this time around.

If this evidence is so important and groundbreaking they can post it on that page with the others without requiring people to watch a 30 minute BS video.

The video presentation is 13 mins, not 30 as you claim. I just check it again (i thought it was 9 before, my mistake). You feeling ok Adam?


Edit: Fixed quote tag


[edit on 13-1-2009 by RockHound757]

Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by adam_zapple
I read their updates....none of which included corrected calculations.

Obviously not thoroughly.

It appears some are still confused regarding the corrections of the below article and still do not understand that the video presented which contain the proper formula's as determined by Aeronautical Engineers is a "correction" to our article below. This update is to inform those who are still confused that the presentation of "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" and the "G Forces" clip below offered for free, is the correction to our admitted math errors from our original article.

Bolded the above pertinent parts again in hopes Adam will read it this time around.

If this evidence is so important and groundbreaking they can post it on that page with the others without requiring people to watch a 30 minute BS video.

The video presentation is 13 mins. I just check it again (i thought it was 9 before, my mistake). You feeling ok Adam?

My bad. I must have been thinking of one of the other BS videos they released.

As I said before:

"If this evidence is so important and groundbreaking they can post it on that page with the others "

Originally posted by adam_zapple

My bad. I must have been thinking of one of the other BS videos they released.

Your vitriolic rhetoric laced with off color acronyms regarding information that you blatantly refuse to view (while attacking at the same time) is only indicative of your confirmation bias and frustration with this discussion where logic, reason, evidence, and science has you backed into a corner and has exposed your strict adherence to your faith based claims supporting the government story.

Sorry adam_zapple but it's clear you are at the end of your rope in this discussion as you continue to desperately attempt to steer these threads off topic while focusing on CIT and P4T personally.



[edit on 13-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by adam_zapple
"If this evidence is so important and groundbreaking they can post it on that page with the others "

They did, in the form of a video presentation. Im sure if you ermailed P4T with your concerns they would apologize you are having difficulty clicking play on the video and spend 13 mins watching, but many others have. I guess its the reason their core member list continues to grow with aviation professionals and you remain here on ATS making excuses for the govt story? Just a thought...

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


So craig, are you NOT understanding what he is saying? I even posted a picture for you. So you agree, Terry was NOT between the wings, but outside the gap between the wings, correct? This means, the plane did not fly directly over the Annex as well. So in effect your witness does not correspond with what you are claiming. ALSO you forgot that YOU claimed Terry did not see the red stripes under the plane, which means the plane was NOT banking anywhere but flying straight in. (even though I posted two photos from the underbelly and you can see the red stripes AND Terry did say he did see the stripes in his first account).

Craig, what I see is that either you are ignoring the whole account and just cherry picking it for your claim, or you are unable to comprehend what you are reading and ignore it.
And I am surprised there so many that give you stars, but they can't even understand what a basic sentence says. I am not trying to insult you or anything but, are able to read? Seriously.

I'll repost his quote again since you are ignoring the grammer and the sentence.

Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual.”

His own words from 2001 right after 9/11.

And then 6 years later, SIX WHOLE YEARS, you rely on his new account that has already deteriorated and changed from his initial first account which was much more detailed and fresh right after 9/11. Boy oh boy Craig, the flaws in your witness are astounding. Your whole theory is flawed. You are basing your theory on the account of a witness six whole years later after the event occured and you take it as correct and completely unchanged, and you ignore the account that was taken less than a few days after the event. Do you even understand how memory works Craig? How details can change months and years later? How somethings are forgotten and new things are changed? In a court of law an eyewitness is more reliable rght after the events that occurred, rather than waiting 6 years and hoping his account didnt change. It astounds me that you can't even use basic common sense in your "investigation" nor reading comprehension.

And in all your eyewitness accounts, the plane is suppose to banking to make your NoC theory to work. Which would have allowed for Terry to see the stripes. And yet Terry (as you now claim) didnt see them. So was the plane banking to go around NoC or was it flying straight in SoC?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

My bad. I must have been thinking of one of the other BS videos they released.

Your vitriolic rhetoric laced with off color acronyms regarding information that you blatantly refuse to view (while attacking at the same time) is only indicative of your confirmation bias and frustration with this discussion where logic, reason, evidence, and science has you backed into a corner and has exposed your strict adherence to your faith based claims supporting the government story.

Sorry adam_zapple but it's clear you are at the end of your rope in this discussion as you continue to desperately attempt to steer these threads off topic while focusing on CIT and P4T personally.



[edit on 13-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

No, actually the fact that you pick and choose only the parts of the eyewitness stories that fit with your made up flyover story is what's wrong here. Logic, reason, evidence, and science aren't on your side...but your bias blinds you to that fact. You use phrases like "circular logic" without even knowing what they mean or realizing that your entire theory is FOUNDED on circular logic. (And yes I say "your theory" because none of your witnesses stated that the plane didn't crash)

-witnesses saw noc, witnessees saw impact...
-because witnesses saw noc, the plane didn't impact so they couldn't have seen impact.
-because plane didn't impact, all of the evidence must have been faked
-because plane didn't impact it must have flown over
-because no one saw it fly over it must have been a magic trick
-because morin says the plane was parallel to the fob he must be wrong because if he is right then our noc witnesses are wrong

It all circles back to the eyewitnesses claiming NOC. You started with the assumption that they are correct instead of weighing all evidence equally to DETERMINE if they are correct.

Originally posted by RockHound757

Originally posted by adam_zapple
"If this evidence is so important and groundbreaking they can post it on that page with the others "

They did, in the form of a video presentation.

As I said before...no video is necessary. Post the calculations, no BS, no whining, just post the math.

Originally posted by RockHound757 I guess its the reason their core member list continues to grow with aviation professionals

Is that so? At what rate is their member list growing? How many new members per month?

Originally posted by RockHound757 and you remain here on ATS making excuses for the govt story? Just a thought...

No...I'm just pointing out the large flaws in CIT's story that are obvious to most people but apparently undetected by you.

Does it bother you at all that CIT refuses to take their "proof of a deception" to court to bring the real perpetrators to justice?

[edit on 13-1-2009 by adam_zapple]

reply to post by GenRadek


Why do you keep posting the same thing over and over while pretending it hasn't been already fully addressed?

No matter how much you plug your ears and refuse to listen to what Morin says with his own mouth it does not make his words go away.

This is why you are refusing to answer my questions because they expose your denial.

Morin was very specific that he was "inside" BETWEEN the wings.

I was inside....it flew over the top of me....I then immediately ran to the outside. I had no side view. If I would have seen a side view I could have told the people it was an American Airlines jet. Because I would have seen the stripes. Didn't see the stripes I saw the silver belly.

He specifically remembers NOT being able to report it was an AA jet and he specifically remembers running OUT from in between the wings AFTER it flew over him which is the very reason he gives for not being able to tell it was supposed to be an AA jet.

So no matter how many times you state the opposite it does not matter because Terry Morin already explained to you that he COULD NOT tell it was an AA jet because it flew over the top of him and the Navy Annex proving a deception on 9/11.


Now as far as the bank goes....since Terry Morin has CONFIRMED his position between the wings, and has CONFIRMED the plane flew directly over him, and CONFIRMED this is why he could not tell it was an AA jet, and CONFIRMED this is why he misidentified the craft as a 737 we know for a fact that the fraction of a second he would see the plane would not allow him to tell specific details like bank angle or heading with any sort of accuracy.



This is common sense.

Whether it was really the belly or a portion of the belly in a bank is irrelevant because of his extremely limited POV that didn't allow him to see much or judge specific details like that with any accuracy.

Eyewitnesses are fallible. We know this already.

Furthermore the corroborating ANC witnesses, who unlike Morin had an unobstructed view of the approach, report it as flat over the Navy Annex and beginning it's bank after it passed the Navy Annex.



Darrell Stafford:



The hypothetical flight path presented in the animation has the plane beginning the bank immediately after the Navy Annex as the ANC witnesses report.

The ANC witnesses are the ultimate definitive validation of ONA and NoC proving the plane did not hit the building regardless of exact heading, exact bank angle etc.




So the other corroborating witnesses prove he was right about the GENERAL claim of the plane being directly over the building but wrong about the more SPECIFIC claim regarding heading.

It's real simple logic and basic common sense that you are ignoring as you insist on ignoring his own words.

Now stop pretending like the first-hand recorded interview with Terry Morin in the OP does not exist and please answer the questions:

1. Do you agree that Terry Morin specifically stated in 2001 that the plane was "right over the top" of him and the Navy Annex and that he specifically confirmed in 2008 that the fuselage of the plane was directly over him and the Navy Annex?

2. Do agree that Terry Morin specifically confirmed in 2008 that he was 10 feet in between the wings in front of the security shack in between the 4th and 5th wings when the fuselage of the plane flew over the top of him?

3. Do you understand how it is physically impossible to see the side of an aircraft when the fuselage is only about 100 feet directly above you as he describes?

4. Do you understand how a plane directly over the Navy Annex is corroborated by many other witnesses and how this simple fact fatally contradicts all official reports, data, and the physical damage?

5. Do you agree that in 2008 Terry Morin stated he was interviewed by the FBI 3 times but was unable to tell the authorities it was an AA jet because he only saw the belly and that he also cited this explanation as the reason why he misidentified the aircraft as a 737?

Originally posted by adam_zapple

As I said before...no video is necessary. Post the calculations, no BS, no whining, just post the math.

Why do you keep swearing?

That is against the forum rules and only reveals your frustration.

The fact that you refuse to view the math presented does not refute it.

The fact that up until a couple of hours ago you didn't even know the correction existed while still insisting on attempting to discuss and attack the information anyway proves your confirmation bias and pure lack of adherence to critical thinking principles or desire to engage in intellectually honest discussion.

No...I'm just pointing out the large flaws in CIT's story that are obvious to most people but apparently undetected by you.

You have not successfully pointed out a single flaw nor have you presented a single piece of independent verifiable evidence to refute our claims.

You have merely demonstrated a confirmation bias and a propensity to dismiss evidence in favor of faith based claims and a clear devotion to what you have been told by the government and media.

Does it bother you at all that CIT refuses to take their "proof of a deception" to court to bring the real perpetrators to justice?

We have never refused anything of the sort.

Stop speaking for me and lying about what I have said.

That is extremely dishonest and frankly abominable behavior.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by adam_zapple

As I said before...no video is necessary. Post the calculations, no BS, no whining, just post the math.

Why do you keep swearing?

That is against the forum rules and only reveals your frustration.

The fact that you refuse to view the math presented does not refute it.

The fact that up until a couple of hours ago you didn't even know the correction existed while still insisting on attempting to discuss and attack the information anyway proves your confirmation bias and pure lack of adherence to critical thinking principles or desire to engage in intellectually honest discussion.

The original calculations (with 11.2G error) are still posted, and the only "correction" offered is a 13 minute video of someone whining about their "detractors" being "government apologists". No thanks.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

No...I'm just pointing out the large flaws in CIT's story that are obvious to most people but apparently undetected by you.

You have not successfully pointed out a single flaw nor have you presented a single piece of independent verifiable evidence to refute our claims.

The single biggest flaw in your theory is that you use circular logic to support your theory. You cherry pick your eyewitness statements and use those cherrypicked statements to attempt to refute any other evidence presented. (Though I don't expect YOU to see this as a flaw....if you had you wouldn't have come up with this theory)

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CITYou have merely demonstrated a confirmation bias and a propensity to dismiss evidence in favor of faith based claims and a clear devotion to what you have been told by the government and media.

Who tought you that word? Clearly you don't know what a confirmation bias is...as it's an essential component in your flyover theory, as you hand wave away any evidence that doesn't confirm your theory of a flyover as being false, planted, fake, or simply wrong.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Does it bother you at all that CIT refuses to take their "proof of a deception" to court to bring the real perpetrators to justice?

We have never refused anything of the sort.

So where, so far, have you filed court cases with this evidence?

posted by adam_zapple
The incorrect math is still posted.....an 11.2G error isn't minor. The source of the error indicates that the person doing the math doesn't know much about physics.

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The error has been left posted WITH the admission it was incorrect and a link to the correction. That is what an honest scientist would do rather than try to cover up their error.

Since the corrected results are 10.14 G's it most certainly was a minor error. The fact that the person doing the math instantly recognized and admitted the error as well as published a correction proves tht they DO know about math and physics.

Don't you understand that this is how science ALWAYS works?

Are you trying to suggest that a scientist must be 100% accurate at all times to know about math and physics?

posted by adam_zapple
Yes, yes...I've seen those calculations which PFT admits are "in error" and to date have still not been amended.

posted by RockHound757
It seems P4T left an update just for people like you.

It appears that adam_zapple is used to or even expects those people he deals with on his side of the debate, to coverup or erase or even delete entire internet databases to hide their extreme errors. Apparently red herrings and strawman arguments and outright lying and obfuscation of the facts are the norm on his side of the debate.

It would seem that adam_zapple does not expect to see simple honesty from his opponents, after his experiences with his fellow government loyalists. Why would any honest person complain about a correction of a simple error? Will this be the norm in America after several decades of corrupt lying politicians infesting OUR White House and OUR Congress?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


LOL! I am ignoring his words? ME?
I am using his first account taken right after 9/11 which states he was OUTSIDE the gap between the two wings AND he states the red stripes running down the sides of the AA plane. And you are using his contradictory account taken six years later. Who is ignoring who? All you are doing is taking the account that better suits your preconcieved notion even though it is contradictory.

So now, your claim that he didnt see the stripes means the plane was not turning or banking anywhere to take it on the NoC course. This means the plane was flying straight in, no turns, no banking, nothing until impact. So why do you ignore this fact? Why do you ignore this? You see what happens when you pick and choose little sections of accounts that fit your version? So how pray tell, did the plane manage the NoC flight if there was no turning or banking done by the plane? Because Terry would have seen the stripes had it did turn. And why did you ignore the fact I posted two photos of an AA plane that was flying right over the camera? You can see the red stripe on the sides.

If anything, all you have done by using Terry is to show what time can do to an account of an event that happened six years ago. His new account contradicts nearly everything he said in the very beginning. And which account, in the court of law, will be more believable? The fresh one or one taken 6 years later which contradicts his previous statements? Sorry, your tricks are not going to work here Craig.

Plus the damage done inside the Pentagon does not corroborate at all with the NoC flight path and from your theory, the plane is suppose to hit it at 90 degree angle, making the debris cut through the Pentagon straight through.



[edit on 1/13/2009 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by adam_zapple


The original calculations (with 11.2G error) are still posted, and the only "correction" offered is a 13 minute video of someone whining about their "detractors" being "government apologists". No thanks.

Your refusal to view the information does not put you in an intellectual position to comment on it.

It merely further demonstrates your confirmation bias.

The single biggest flaw in your theory is that you use circular logic to support your theory. You cherry pick your eyewitness statements and use those cherrypicked statements to attempt to refute any other evidence presented. (Though I don't expect YOU to see this as a flaw....if you had you wouldn't have come up with this theory)

Except that you simply making this hollow accusation without providing ANY evidence to back it up or any independent verifiable evidence to refute it is not a valid argument for true critical thinking skeptics.

Who tought you that word? Clearly you don't know what a confirmation bias is...as it's an essential component in your flyover theory, as you hand wave away any evidence that doesn't confirm your theory of a flyover as being false, planted, fake, or simply wrong.

Sorry?

We present a very large body of independent verifiable evidence.

You have presented nothing yet are furiously defending the official story based on pure faith.

That proves a confirmation bias on your part while supporting the notion that we are basing our claims on true critical thinking principles and scientific reasoning.

So where, so far, have you filed court cases with this evidence?

I never said I filed a court case.

You lied about my claims by stating that I refused to.

Don't speak for me.

It is very dishonest.