*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin

reply to post by SPreston


No it does not. That picture is way too far away. The plane flew over the Columbia Pike, closer towards the Annex.

What he would have seen would be closer to this:



[note: The original picture was flipped t oshow what it would have looked like relative to Morin and taken from here: farm4.static.flickr.com...]

Now this would coincide with the actual flight path:



This is the flight path, give or take a few feet in either direction.


Now, why does CIT ignore this person's account?

Penny Elgas:
"For most of my drive I had been totally focused on my radio and was extremely aware of the events that were unfolding in New York. Even though the radio reporters were cautious, I was already convinced from the first strike that it was not just an unfortunate pilot error." "Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was 'Oh My God, this must be World War III!' "In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, (the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers."

americanhistory.si.edu...

She says it flew over the road. I don't think you can mistake a large building for a road. What road is there? Oh yes, the Pike.

reply to post by SPreston


Did you forget Albert's account?

"as I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft [...] seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike […] All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds.[...] He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed [Route 27] he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5."

frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

Hmm over his right shoulder? Now how the heck can that be SPeston? How can it go over his right shoulder when he is looking right at the Pentagon and you claim it flew farther north?

Plus your angle of impact would be 90 degrees perpendicular to the wall of the Pentagon. However the damage is not and is more on an angle relative to the wall, AND lines up with the approach. And yes, we are still waiting for an eyewitness to see any magic fly overs of the 757 over the Pentagon and into the wild blue yonder, right after it flew into a fireball+debris. again do you even understand how explosives work and what would have happened to the plane flying low over the Pentagon the second the explosives went off?

[edit on 1/17/2009 by GenRadek]

Oh yes, and I wonder why you guys forgot the fact that the VDOT tower was clipped by Flight 77?

img96.imageshack.us...

posted by GenRadek
Oh yes, and I wonder why you guys forgot the fact that the VDOT tower was clipped by Flight 77?

What a bunch of nonsense. That is not the VDOT tower. The VDOT tower is up next to the Naval Annex about 350 feet away from the building. Your imaginary aircraft wing could not possibly have hit that pole there, because if it had, the left wing would have not reached the #2 light pole which would have been too far away. A 757 has a wingspan of 124 ft 10 in, or 62 ft 5 in from centerline to wingtip. The #2 light pole needed to be knocked down at the same time as the #1 light pole. Besides, see that light pole peeking out from the side? Why is it still standing if a wing went through it? You have the official flight path even more to the south, making the flight path from Over the Naval Annex to the light poles even more IMPOSSIBLE. Your ignorance is astounding.

posted by GenRadek
Now, why does CIT ignore this person's account?

Because Penny Elgas stated she saw the plane above the Citgo gas station which she did not know was there? Is she another Over the Naval Annex eyewitness?

Or perhaps she saw way too much in 3 - 4.5 seconds and is another liar? She is the person who claimed a piece of plastic from the aircraft fell through her sunroof isn't she? Is there plastic on the outside of an aluminum 757? Why was she allowed to keep evidence from a crime scene for herself? Because the FBI already knew it was a piece of BS?




[edit on 1/17/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston

That is not the VDOT tower. The VDOT tower is up next to the Naval Annex about 350 feet away from the building. Your imaginary aircraft wing could not possibly have hit that pole there, because if it had, the left wing would have not reached the #2 light pole which would have been too far away. A 757 has a wingspan of 124 ft 10 in, or 62 ft 5 in from centerline to wingtip. The #2 light pole needed to be knocked down at the same time as the #1 light pole. Besides, see that light pole peeking out from the side? Why is it still standing if a wing went through it?

Perhaps VDOT camera mast is a better name for it. I checked the scale of that plane overlaid on the overhead pic and it's very close to accurate - Oh I'm sure someone will come along and claim it's 0.05% out which invalidates the whole thing but nevertheless, it's a good representation. The wingspan of the 757 does take out all the damaged poles on that flight path while those still standing are outside that wingspan which is hardly a surprise.

Why do poles #1 and #2 need to be knocked down at the same time?
They're approx 47m (155') apart along that trajectory which amounts to about 200mS at the highest conjectured speed. Barely a blink of the eye but not strictly the same instant in time is it.

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by jthomas
How long are you going to deny that AA77 hit the Pentagon, SPreston?

posted by jthomas
How long are you going to deny that AA77 hit the Pentagon, SPreston?

Forever, because it did not. Did you have to ask the question twice to convince yourself jthomas?

AA77 was not even in Virginia. The aircraft which took its place was proven Over the Naval Annex by 20+ real living eyewitnesses, most of whom were interviewed way back in 2001 and reinterviewed in 2008 and earlier.

jthomas YOUR pathetic 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is dead dead dead and no aircraft hit the Pentagon.

So you are still sore that I refuted you repeatedly, SPreston? You know for a fact that AA77 hit the Pentagon so why continue to deny it?

posted by SPreston

That is not the VDOT tower. The VDOT tower is up next to the Naval Annex about 350 feet away from the building. Your imaginary aircraft wing could not possibly have hit that pole there, because if it had, the left wing would have not reached the #2 light pole which would have been too far away. A 757 has a wingspan of 124 ft 10 in, or 62 ft 5 in from centerline to wingtip. The #2 light pole needed to be knocked down at the same time as the #1 light pole. Besides, see that light pole peeking out from the side? Why is it still standing if a wing went through it?

posted by Pilgrum
Perhaps VDOT camera mast is a better name for it. I checked the scale of that plane overlaid on the overhead pic and it's very close to accurate - Oh I'm sure someone will come along and claim it's 0.05% out which invalidates the whole thing but nevertheless, it's a good representation. The wingspan of the 757 does take out all the damaged poles on that flight path while those still standing are outside that wingspan which is hardly a surprise.

Why do poles #1 and #2 need to be knocked down at the same time?
They're approx 47m (155') apart along that trajectory which amounts to about 200mS at the highest conjectured speed. Barely a blink of the eye but not strictly the same instant in time is it.

Well, at the same time means the aircraft is not supposed to circle around to come in again and knock down the light pole it missed. The wings have to be level because the outer ends of the wings would be required to knock down poles #1 and #2 and the engines (although 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY defender and propagandist Purdue University apparently thought the aircraft did not have any engines) supposedly hung down below the wings and a bank might have caught an engine or wingtip on the ground or against a car. There would not be enough of the 124 ft 10 in wingspan left to reach YOUR mast. Are you sure the OFFICIAL STORY does not need to be changed AGAIN to include a 747 with a 224 ft 7 in wingspan? Why don't you guys take a vote, call up the 9-11 perps, and maybe they will run with it. You need to plug all those holes in YOUR sinking ship.






[edit on 1/18/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


Check this pic which a better rendition of the one you posted (using an actual overhead photo showing the pole locations) and see if there's any major problem with the scaling of the overlaid plane. I found it to be very close to reality in terms of a 757. All 5 poles are impacted in 1 pass.

Overhead pic

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by SPreston

 

Check this pic which a better rendition of the one you posted (using an actual overhead photo showing the pole locations) and see if there's any major problem with the scaling of the overlaid plane. I found it to be very close to reality in terms of a 757. All 5 poles are impacted in 1 pass.

Overhead pic

Perhaps. Looks to scale. But the idea that a 90 ton aircraft flying at 535 mph with a rigid wing which could nudge a pole and not even bend it is totally ludicrous.

I marked up this pic not for antagonistic purposes, but simply because it shows all points of interest between Terry's location and the Pentagon. The red line is the northern limit of his field of view due to the Navy Annex building on his left and indicates he couldn't possibly have seen the plane after it passed over him if it was on an NOC path and that red line is damn close to the 'official' flight path plus it allows the plane to be over the Annex building (allowing for the 125' wingspan). He could also see the Fireball at the building from there (just).

It looks like the camera mast was barely touched but just enough to rip a footpeg off it. Are there any pre-911 pics showing that mast with a missing foot peg and/or the mark on the mast?



[edit on 18/1/2009 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I marked up this pic not for antagonistic purposes, but simply because it shows all points of interest between Terry's location and the Pentagon. The red line is the northern limit of his field of view due to the Navy Annex building on his left and indicates he couldn't possibly have seen the plane after it passed over him if it was on an NOC path and that red line is damn close to the 'official' flight path plus it allows the plane to be over the Annex building (allowing for the 125' wingspan). He could also see the Fireball at the building from there (just).

No. It won't work. YOUR flight path is still about 300 feet (at Morin's position) north of the official flight path. It is just not possible for a 535 mph aircraft to make two quick banks (right then left) in two seconds, in order to line up with the #1 and #2 light poles with wings level. Impossible.

No that photo of YOUR mast shows a smudge across most of the pole. To imagine that was a 535 mph wingtip is beyond ludicrous. The mast should have been broken off and sent flying several hundred yards; the same as the five light poles should have been.


The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY has been proven IMPOSSIBLE with 20+ eyewitnesses, including Terry Morin, placing the aircraft Over the Naval Annex. The aircraft Morin saw was flying half (395 fps) or less the speed of the official aircraft (784 fps) giving Morin twice or more the time to run out into the parking lot to follow its path with his eyes. It never did dip down out of sight to hit the light poles, and he saw it bank to the right; proving beyond any doubt that it was not the official Flight 77 aircraft.




[edit on 1/18/09 by SPreston]

Source: www.navytimes.com...

September 11, 2001

“The plane … exploded in a ground-shaking whoomp”

Navy Times reporter Christopher Munsey was en route to work when he saw this morning’s attack on the Pentagon. This is his eyewitness account.

ARLINGTON, Va. — Traffic headed south on Interstate 395 just across the Potomac River and Washington, D.C. was light, but I was late for work and it was after the thick of the rush hour, about 9:30 a.m.

I was running late because I had to register my car in D.C. early that morning, an errand that fated me to witness a devastating act of destruction on American soil.

Already dumbfounded by the first, sketchy radio reports of the catastrophic attack on the World Trade Center towers in New York, I couldn’t believe what I was now seeing to my right: A silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just hundreds of yards away.

It was a nightmare coming to life.

The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking “whoomp,” as it appeared to hit the side of the Pentagon.

A huge flash of orange flame and black smoke poured into the sky. Smoke seemed to change from black to white, forming a billowing column in the sky.

It all seemed so surreal. Sadly, it’s all too real.

— Christopher Munsey

Mr Munsey is a Navy Times reporter, driving south on I-395 on 9/11 at about 09:30.
He was driving in his car uphill, on I-395, which runs somewhat parallel to Columbia Pike, the road along the Navy Annex building and which thus lays in between I-395 and the Navy Annex, just hundreds of yards away (a few hundred meters). So the Navy Annex is situated to his right hand side when he drives uphill on I-395.

He reports from his viewpoint, just hundreds of meters away, that the plane flew OVER the Navy Annex.
Another witness for a precise flight path of 77 over the Navy Annex.

And please, do not compare a photo camera lens with a human eye, when talking about perspective.
Most cameras do not have double lenses, like humans do, so do not have the ability to see depth.
Only special cameras can offer depth views by printing 2 pictures with a slight difference in position.
And then you must view the two pictures with stereoscopic spectacles, to be able to see depth.

When a Navy Times reporter says he saw the plane OVER the Navy Annex, seen from a few hundred yards, he means OVER the building, and not beside it. His in-depth stereoscopic view is much better than a single lens view from a camera. A camera will distort pictures perspectives, when longer than a few yards distances are depicted. But that mistake is not made in the human mind.
The human seeing those planes flying over that hotel in GenRadek's picture is perfectly aware of the position behind the hotel, but in the camera picture you can't tell that at all.

Another interesting book by the DoD talked about in the Navy Times:
www.navytimes.com...

Randy Papadopoulos, a historian with the NHC's Contemporary History branch, has been assigned the task of writing the history of the attack. Papadopoulos has a huge amount of information to absorb for the book.

So far, the record includes the oral interviews, more than 3,000 photographs and between 300 and 500 documents, Papadopoulos said.

The book, tentatively titled One Long and Tragic Day: The Attack on the Pentagon 11 Sept. 2001, should be published next year in time for the attack's second anniversary.

Papadopoulos said readers will learn that Pentagon employees responded bravely to the disaster, despite the confusion and shock.

They hear an explosion down the hall, and the first impulse is to run towards it. They were trying to help, trying to take care of one another. People really wanted to help, he said.

Christopher Munsey's e-mail address is [email protected].

There it is, ask him yourself. Good Luck.

Wrong post, sorry. right one comes up.

[edit on 18/1/09 by LaBTop]

The right one:

I see this post from GenRadek (and the last above post of Pilgrum too) needs to be addressed by me,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was right at the edge of being on the outer portion. When the plane went right over the top of me I was within 10 feet of the edge of the Navy Annex. I was inside, it flew over the top of me, it's right on the edge and I'm right here, and because I had already heard about the Twin Towers, I immediately ran to the outside and that's when I watched the airplane, and I moved into a position where I could see it. And there was some trees there, you may not know that, this was before the 8th Wing was destroyed, there used to be an 8th Wing there, and now there is an Air Force Memorial. If the Air Force Memorial had been built, the plane would have run into it...You see this treeline? As he starts to descend, he's 50 feet above this, and he descends, he basically starts to disappear, okay? And so the bottom of the airplane, and the engines disappear, the bottom of the fuselage, the wings, and so what I've got is a tail stabilizer, the ass-end of the airplane is all you can see and he comes down.

GenRadek's linked picture from the Randi forums is of course a distorted one, they seem to be flatlanders who can only imagine things in one layer, the ground view layer.
No wonder, they seem to think that their world exists solely of a FLAT screen.
The problem with them is, that there exists of course also a sky angle-of-view by Terry Morin, and that plane surely wasn't driving on the ground, it was FLYING high enough to be seen by Terry very fast after he ran out from between wing 4 and 5 of the Navy Annex.
And because it was flying in the AIR, he kept seeing it, since he was shifting fast positions (he ran), even when it was descending on its way to the Pentagon.

Let's tear his post apart one by one please:
1. ran to the outside and that's when I watched the airplane, and I moved into a position where I could see it.
Anyone sane enough to be able to understand plain English, reads here that Terry ran OUTSIDE the Annex grounds, and then he was able again to watch the full whole plane, so to be able to still follow that plane disappearing behind wing 8 of the Annex. He even admits he keeps moving to be able to keep the plane in his view. Btw, he kept moving UPHILL, as he states in the CIT 2008 interview, that was the only way he could be keeping the plane in his SKY-VIEW sight.
2. the plane would have run into it.
Any problem with that, mr Radek? Do you have any notion in a birds eye view, where that monument now is situated? Well, Terry explained it to you in the same audio translated text. So go and re-hear/read it.
3. he's 50 feet above this, and he descends, he basically starts to disappear
That's pretty clear, ain't it so? Self-explanatory indeed.
4. and the engines disappear
Same as above.
5. what I've got is a tail stabilizer, the ass-end of the airplane is all you can see
Behind that tree line, the hill slopes suddenly pretty steep down to the Citgo, which Terry couldn't see at all of course, but he pretty well described the North of Citgo path by telling you his position first in between the wings 4 and 5, and then his observation that the plane would have ran into the now erected Air Force Memorial.
Pretty easy to draw a pretty near EXACT line between those two points, ain't it so?
And then just follow that line to where it passes the Citgo just to the NORTH.

As I have drawn in this picture :
Original 1035x556px one :
www.alsx.info...

Forum rules scaled one (680/1035=0.657x556=365. Thus, 680x365 scaled down) :



EDIT :
That green line of the sky view by Terry I drew above, is of course the LOWER boundary of Terry's view starting at his eyes, crossing over the roofs of the last wings of the Navy Annex building, passing under the plane and extending all the way further in the sky, but still far under the flight path of the plane.
ENDEDIT.

I first wanted to draw the angle of view of Terry when he should have been at the spot YOU, GenRadek, wants us to believe he was. But he wasn't, he was on the street, Columbia Pike, still running uphill.
And I already proved to you why he wasn't at the spot you think he was, because then he would have described a plane coming head on to him. He didn't describe such event.

Thus, the real left ground boundary, my RED line of the angle of view of Terry on the ground, STREET LEVEL, is what he should have seen when the plane was taxiing on the ground, which it didn't.
And on top of that, his SKY VIEW would have improved enormously by shifting his position to the right of the Annex, exactly as he did so.
Thus he could follow the plane almost all the way after it passed that tree line, which was growing uphill in front of the Citgo, when he first saw it again clearly, after it passed over the roof of wing 8, until he lost nearly completely sight of it much further away in its descend, he then only saw the tail sticking above the foliage of that tree line.
He did not actually see the plane impact the building, he only saw and heard an explosion and billowing smoke afterwards.

Just as the Navy Times reporter used the word "appeared", when he described a supposed "impact" in my last post above this one.

Be so nice to inform your misinformed friends over at the JREF forums that there is more than one view in real life, and I am still waiting for one of the somewhat more intelligent ones to come over here and debate me on my seismic WTC 7 explosions proof.
And leave the plain idiots there please, it's a disgrace to science to read their commentary flooding that forum.

[edit on 18/1/09 by LaBTop]

edit.. removed/

[edit on 18-1-2009 by CameronFox]

Mr Fox, I now placed the right post in my edited one.
So, please proceed with your argumentation.


The blue 77 flight path line I drew in my above picture is based on ALL CIT witnesses, starting with Edward Paik and the fly-over over his garage roof, then Terry Morin and his position in between wing 4 and 5, then one of the ANC guys who specifically described EXACTLY the wing 8 antenna in the form of the letter "Y" in the center on top of that wing 8 roof where the plane flew exactly over that antenna, and Sean Bogers account who placed the plane also in the middle of the wing 8 roof coming at him. Then the very exact account of Lagasse who said he could see the windows on the side of the plane, and that it was quite near to where he was tanking his car at the Citgo, and then Christine who is very precise in her being in her car at a standstill "in front of" the heli pad. And then Sean Boger again in the heli pad tower. Plane flew between that tower (Sean: passed to my left) and the concrete of the heli pad (Christine: right over my car).
The drawing was quickly done in Paint, using short straight "sticks" drawn, to get the information out.
Of course I know that you have to use an arc to show a slight bank to the right, after the point that Terry saw the plane dip its tail slightly to the right, but you can't draw that in Paint.
I'm pretty sure that up until that point, the path of the plane was pretty straight with leveled out wings, only at the point described by Terry the slight right bank started.

Two JREFers died, went to hell, and were greeted by Satan.The first truther asked: "Satan, who was responsible for the attacks on September11th?" Satan responded: "Son, it was 19 Muslim extremists, under the guidance of Osama Bin Laden."The first truther whispered to the 2nd one:
"Wow just as I always thought, let's hope we have a nice time here!"

Mr Pilgrum, I know you as a quite clever poster on this forum.
Did I seed some beginning doubts in your mind with my last two posts?
I hope you answer accordingly.

[edit on 18/1/09 by LaBTop]

If you would go to Arlington, video taped the area from the spot where Terry first heard and then saw the plane flying overhead of him, than ran over the parking lot and out the security gate, onto the street, with the camera still running, you would clearly understand what I proved to you above.
That a man's sky view is far more important than his ground view, when we talk about, over that man's head flying, huge planes.

I hope Rob Balsamo will make one of his excellent animations to cover this idea. It will show exactly why Terry was able to follow the North of Citgo flying plane nearly all the way, until it nearly totally disappeared under the top of the trees in front of the Citgo gas station.
I know he calculated all the appearances of that Pentagon area's scene, at the time of 2001, and thus we will see it exactly as seen by Terry's eyes.

Pilgrum, of course that is a nice huge picture by mcMike aka Skepzikko you posted, to show a supposed official 77 flight path.
img96.imageshack.us...

Do you see the two over-spanning huge and heavy road sign bridges, where that supposed plane flew diagonally through?
Do you imagine the minuscule margin of error involved, for not hitting one of those?

Do you see the two trees in front of the former heli-pad which you can recognize by the still faintly visible right legs of the "H" painted on the former one?
Do you realize that a flight path towards those two trees, as I depicted in my picture, is much more reasonable and assuring the least damage from obstacles on the way in?

Christine Peterson, born in 1973, was sitting in her car standing still in front of that heli pad, when she described a plane coming right at her, and passing over her car. Strange, ain't it? Does not fit that picture you posted.

Sean Boger's account of the plane coming in to him, from over the center or even to the right of the Wing 8 of the Navy Annex also doesn't make much sense in that picture, and then all those ANC workers and their reports, etc etc.

Yours is a nice picture to influence freshly arrived members reading this forum, but it is old and disregarded news for the more mature members here. We know we have been lied to, and still are.

reply to post by LaBTop


I agree on a couple of points
IE it's very difficult to portray a 3D situation on a 2D screen and the witness accounts don't mesh together perfectly (do they ever?)

You've granted Terry Morin some superhuman capabilities if, in the time it took for the plane to reach the Pentagon, he managed to get far enough back to be able to see over the annex building. It's some 20m high so he needs to cover 20m at least just to have roughly a 45 degree elevation view of the sky in the direction of the NOC flight path. Plus he'd be covering that distance running backwards - unlikely. Even if he'd managed to climb to the height of the annex roof of the wing alongside him I doubt he'd be able to see low enough to observe the plane owing to the sections of the building obstructing his view.

From where he initially saw the plane from between the wings of the building to the Pentagon is approx 950m (straight line). Even at a 'regulation' max speed for that altitude of 250knots he had only approx 7 seconds to get into his final position. The 'official' speed of 460knots allows him only 4 seconds.

You mightn't think so, but I'm still trying to stay objective about this and other 9/11 issues. Terry Morin's account is one of the very few that clearly isolates certain areas in relation to the actual position of that aircraft and unfortunately for NOC theorists, it excludes that area.




[edit on 18/1/2009 by Pilgrum]

posted by Pilgrum

You mightn't think so, but I'm still trying to stay objective about this and other 9/11 issues. Terry Morin's account is one of the very few that clearly isolates certain areas in relation to the actual position of that aircraft and unfortunately for NOC theorists, it excludes that area.

That is just your opinion, and LabTop just decisively proved you wrong.

posted by LaBTop
As I have drawn in this picture :
Original 1035x556px one :
www.alsx.info...



That green line of the sky view by Terry I drew above, is of course the LOWER boundary of Terry's view starting at his eyes, crossing over the roofs of the last wings of the Navy Annex building, passing under the plane and extending all the way further in the sky, but still far under the flight path of the plane.

I first wanted to draw the angle of view of Terry when he should have been at the spot YOU, GenRadek, wants us to believe he was. But he wasn't, he was on the street, Columbia Pike, still running uphill.
And I already proved to you why he wasn't at the spot you think he was, because then he would have described a plane coming head on to him. He didn't describe such event.

Thus, the real left ground boundary, my RED line of the angle of view of Terry on the ground, STREET LEVEL, is what he should have seen when the plane was taxiing on the ground, which it didn't.
And on top of that, his SKY VIEW would have improved enormously by shifting his position to the right of the Annex, exactly as he did so.
Thus he could follow the plane almost all the way after it passed that tree line, which was growing uphill in front of the Citgo, when he first saw it again clearly, after it passed over the roof of wing 8, until he lost nearly completely sight of it much further away in its descend, he then only saw the tail sticking above the foliage of that tree line.
He did not actually see the plane impact the building, he only saw and heard an explosion and billowing smoke afterwards.

Also wing 8 of the Naval Annex is more than one story shorter in height than the other wings. Morin would be able to see a bit further when the aircraft was still in line with the Naval Annex and his eyes.



More than 20+ eyewitnesses place the aircraft Over the Naval Annex, rendering the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY impossible. Note the difficulty of an aircraft in the above photo, when Over the Naval Annex, of banking right to get back to the official Flight 77 flight path, and then banking again left to line up with the light poles and the official flight path. At 535 mph which is much too fast to use flaps, and in two seconds time, the manuevers are totally impossible.