*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin

reply to post by 654321


First-hand witness statements are acceptable evidence in every court in the land.

Everyone knows this.

I have not argued that the footage obtained by CIT is "evidence" although it would have been if I was a notary when I interviewed them.

So your semantics argument has no bearing on what these people all state that they saw. The footage certainly proves that this is where they all place the plane.

The witnesses have all said that we accurately reported their accounts, that they stand by their claims to this day, and that they would testify to the north side approach under oath.

So unless you can prove that this is not the case you have no valid intellectual argument against this EVIDENCE proving a deception on 9/11.


[edit on 23-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

It's always amusing when someone makes such sweeping generalizations about my ability to take a stand on an issue based on forum posts.

You'd like my stance? Well... okay.

My Stance
P4T/CIT witness interviews consist of no more than 13% of the total eye witnesses present on the day of the events and do not constitute a sufficient set of data upon which any conclusions may be drawn. Furthermore, P4T/CIT witness interviews themselves are incomplete, leading, and make no attempt at gaining objective, substantive information. It is also a fact that no attempt to reconcile inconsistencies between statements is made; any contradictory statements are simply eliminated without justification based on the theory being posited at the time. It is my stance that while P4T/CIT may have uncovered some intriguing witness statements, the poor quality of the presentation of assembled information, the rushing to judgment, libelous accusations, and the ridiculous assertion of out-of-context and unscientific "facts" has turned such information into useless twoofer drivel.

The aforementioned intellectual stance is in 100% accordance with every single post I have ever made in regard to P4T/CIT evidence. Like all intellectual positions, I remain open to being convinced otherwise based on new information. However nothing has yet been produced that proves it incorrect.

reply to post by cogburn


Sorry I am still unclear on your stance regarding the north side approach evidence.

I see a bunch of wild unsupported accusations against CIT and P4T personally but no stance on the evidence.

Let's see if you can answer the question direct....


1. Do you or do you not accept the north side approach evidence as valid?

If answer is affirmative stop here if not please proceed to number 2:

2. Which of the 13 witnesses cited are you arguing do not support ONA or NoC and why?

Originally posted by cogburn

P4T/CIT witness interviews consist of no more than 13% of the total eye witnesses present on the day of the events and do not constitute a sufficient set of data upon which any conclusions may be drawn.

This statement is classic.

Imagine ANY scenario where such a large percentage of independent corroboration has been established yet is still refused.

Analogy:

An unprecedented fatal car pile up happens on a main intersection in the center of town and it has been established that it was caused by a dog in the road.

100 citizens witnessed the dog approach.

The official police report says the dog approached from the south.

13 of the witnesses (all of whom work and live in the area and frequent the intersection on a daily basis) are interviewed by reporters for a follow up story and all of them unanimously and independently said that the dog approached the intersection from the north contrary to the police report.

Many of the 13 witnesses swore on their lives with absolute certainty and clarity that they KNOW the dog came from the north and sure enough some of them would not even have a view of the dog approaching from the south at all due to their point of view.

Pretend you are the reporter.

After having this northern approach of the dog confirmed 13 times over by everyone you spoke with while NOBODY told you it approached from the south would you still consider this an insufficient amount of data to contradict the police report?



[edit on 24-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


1. You have an intriguing idea, however there is not enough evidence to support such a claim. Most notably the reconcilliation of contradictory statements and inability to explain sufficently the physical damage.

2. What if I simply analyze 5 witnesses... a 38% sample of your information? By your logic that would be quite sufficient.

• Turcios - No effort is made to objetively reconcile the altitude, bank or lateral position of the plane as witnessed. Points to an NoC, but also indicates with absolute certainty that the plane did not fly off and therefore hit the Pentagon.[1] This is in contradiction to P4T/CIT claims.
  
• Legasse - No effort is made to reconcile the altitude, bank or lateral position of the plane as witnessed. His account does not match video of him taken at the time and only corrects himself once he is prompted. Also admits to significant contamination by conceding he has "looked into" 9/11 research between the time of his initial statements and the P4T/CIT interview.[2]
  
• Brooks - No effort is made to reconcile the altitude or bank of the plane as witnessed. Points to NoC, but specifically indicates impact at the Pentagon in contradiction to P4T/CIT claims. Statements made immediately after regarding the altitude of the plane are decidedly less certain by comparison.[3]
  
• Paik - No effort is made to reconcile the altitude or bank of the plane as witnessed. Techniques employed to gain perspective on the lateral position of the plane generate no objective information within any acceptable margin of error. Witness is not provided for comment on or fine tuning of P4T/CIT animations that are based on their claim.[4]
  
• Morin - No effort is made to reconcile the altitude or bank of the plane as witnessed. Techniques employed to illustrate the lateral position of the plane are misleading. Witness repeatedly states "right over top of me" which is not what is represented in the P4T/CIT recreation of the event. Witness clearly states "on the edge of the Annex, not completely over it," which is also misrepresented in the video.[5] Witness is not provided for comment on or fine tuning of P4T/CIT animations that are based on their claim.
  

[1] The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version (2/2/2007), ~@23:45
[2] The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version (2/2/2007), ~@40:40-1:00:00
[3] The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version (2/2/2007), ~@38:05-38:41
[4] The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version (2/2/2007), ~@14:46-17:48
[5] Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin, @10:03-10:07

Why continue with the other 8 witnesses? The 5 I've already looked at leave a lot of questions unanswered.

Originally posted by cogburn

Turcios - No effort is made to objetively reconcile the altitude, bank or lateral position of the plane as witnessed. Points to an NoC, but also indicates with absolute certainty that the plane did not fly off and therefore hit the Pentagon.[1] This is in contradiction to P4T/CIT claims.

Ok so for the record even though Robert Turcios pointed north, stated north, and illustrated north cogburn is refusing to believe that he places the plane north of the station despite the fact that Robert is corroborated by all other confirmed witnesses regarding this detail.




Why is cogburn refusing to believe Robert?

I'm not clear on exactly why but apparently its something about me not "reconciling" things? Does that mean I was supposed to tell him that he is wrong?

Apparently asking Robert where he saw the plane fly wasn't good enough for cogburn.

Legasse - No effort is made to reconcile the altitude, bank or lateral position of the plane as witnessed. His account does not match video of him taken at the time and only corrects himself once he is prompted. Also admits to significant contamination by conceding he has "looked into" 9/11 research between the time of his initial statements and the P4T/CIT interview.[2]

cogburn spelled his name wrong but for the record even though Sgt Bill Lagasse pointed north, stated north, illustrated north, and proclaimed that he would bet his life that it was north, cogburn is refusing to believe that he places the plane north of the station despite the fact that Sgt Lagasse is corroborated by all other confirmed witnesses regarding this detail.




Why is cogburn refusing to believe Sgt Lagasse and all the other witnesses?

I'm not clear on exactly why but apparently its something about me not "reconciling" things? Does that mean I was supposed to tell them that they are all wrong?

Apparently asking Bill where he saw the plane fly wasn't good enough for cogburn.

Brooks - No effort is made to reconcile the altitude or bank of the plane as witnessed. Points to NoC, but specifically indicates impact at the Pentagon in contradiction to P4T/CIT claims. Statements made immediately after regarding the altitude of the plane are decidedly less certain by comparison.[3]

Ok so for the record even though Sgt Brooks pointed north, stated north, and illustrated north cogburn is refusing to believe that he places the plane north of the station even though he is corroborated by all other confirmed witnesses regarding this detail.






Why is cogburn refusing to believe Sgt Brooks and all the other witnesses?

I'm not clear on exactly why but apparently its something about me not "reconciling" things? Does that mean I was supposed to tell them that they are all wrong?

Apparently asking Chad where he saw the plane fly wasn't good enough for cogburn.

Paik - No effort is made to reconcile the altitude or bank of the plane as witnessed. Techniques employed to gain perspective on the lateral position of the plane generate no objective information within any acceptable margin of error. Witness is not provided for comment on or fine tuning of P4T/CIT animations that are based on their claim.[4]

Ok so for the record even though Ed Paik pointed north, stated north, and illustrated north cogburn is refusing to believe that he places the plane north of Columbia Pike despite the fact that Ed is corroborated by all other confirmed witnesses regarding this detail.




Why is cogburn refusing to believe Ed Paik and all the other witnesses?

I'm not clear on exactly why but apparently its something about me not "reconciling" things? Does that mean I was supposed to tell them that they are all wrong?

Apparently asking Ed where he saw the plane fly wasn't good enough for cogburn.

Morin - No effort is made to reconcile the altitude or bank of the plane as witnessed. Techniques employed to illustrate the lateral position of the plane are misleading. Witness repeatedly states "right over top of me" which is not what is represented in the P4T/CIT recreation of the event. Witness clearly states "on the edge of the Annex, not completely over it," which is also misrepresented in the video.[5] Witness is not provided for comment on or fine tuning of P4T/CIT animations that are based on their claim.

Ok so for the record even though Morin stated the plane was right over the top of him and the Navy Annex in 2001 and confirmed this fact in 2008 cogburn is refusing to believe that he places the plane directly over the top of him.

Why?

Something about the animation by Pilots for 9/11 Truth.



How does an animation by Pilots for 9/11 Truth cause cogburn to refuse to believe Terry Morin?

I do not know but it seems that cogburn has a lot of his own personal ambiguous and random reasons why he refuses to accept what the witnesses unanimously report about where the plane flew on 9/11.

Why continue with the other 8 witnesses? The 5 I've already looked at leave a lot of questions unanswered.

No questions about where they place the plane that's for sure.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by 654321

 

First-hand witness statements are acceptable evidence in every court in the land.

Everyone knows this.

I have not argued that the footage obtained by CIT is "evidence" although it would have been if I was a notary when I interviewed them.

So your semantics argument has no bearing on what these people all state that they saw. The footage certainly proves that this is where they all place the plane.

The witnesses have all said that we accurately reported their accounts, that they stand by their claims to this day, and that they would testify to the north side approach under oath.

So unless you can prove that this is not the case you have no valid intellectual argument against this EVIDENCE proving a deception on 9/11.


[edit on 23-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

NEGATVE Craig!
A notary signature DOES NOT make your witness statements, "evidence".
This is incorrect.
Your witness statements are statements THEY ARE NOT EVIDENCE....THEY NEVER EVER EVER EVER WILL BE!
NO COURT will EVER CALL YOUR WITNESS STATEMENTS EVIDENCE!
A court will however ask you to present evidence in support of your witness statements.
This is all pretty basic stuff.
Do you actually hold a degree or have legit experience in investigations and legal proceedings?
Again you have no EVIDENCE in the legal sense of the word.

reply to post by 654321


I'm calling you out on this one, just look up the definition of admissible evidence and find me a court in the US that does not allow witness statements as admissible evidence. Furthermore, find me a court that does not accept affidavits as evidence. Then find me a court that allows hearsay(such as the statements you debunkers cling to as reported by the media) as admissible evidence.

reply to post by 654321


You don't know what you are talking about and you are merely pushing an irrelevant semantic argument anyway.

If I had been a notary or if there was a notary present when I interviewed them then yes, the recorded first-hand witness statements that we have collected would be admissible evidence in any court in the land.

But it doesn't matter because since these are all real people who really said what they said, and all still stand by what they said to this day, and they have agreed they would state the same thing under oath and can be subpoenaed.

That's evidence and that is what we have called for since day one.

So unless you can successfully argue that when under oath any one of these witnesses would not state they saw the plane fly on the north side approach you have no valid point.

So if we are to get bogged down in semantics, it seems there is no evidence that flight 77, or flight 175 for that matter, were ever actually hijacked. There is evidence that they both flew off course and that they both crashed (maybe) and there is evidence of intentions to a hijacking and there is evidence that the cockpits stopped responding, but there is no actual evidence that they were actually hijacked. There are some witness statements over the phones claiming they were hijacked, but no actual evidence. Flight 11 and 93 had some broadcasts from the cockpit as evidence they were hijacked and 93 had the CVR, but flights 77 and 175.....nothing. Semantics are fun.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

It's assumed in the premise that all witnesses indicate a NoC, otherwise the conversation is pointless.

2 of the 5 witnesses also indicate emphatically that there was an impact at the Pentagon in direct contradiction to P4T/CIT information.

I don't discount the witness statements, I discount the disingenuous and misleading nature of P4T/CIT animations and the fact they do not correlate to testimony. Furthermore, witnesses were never allowed to "fine tune" such animations to make sure it is an accurate representation of their statements.

You are correct that the manner in which you gathered "data" was insufficient, both for me and for the dictates of forensic science. There is not enough information collected and verified in those interviews to create any mathematical recreation that has any acceptable margin of error. The threads in my sig contain a method by which such data could have been gathered. It is for this reason I judge the P4T/CIT interrogation methods as amateur: there was no preparation or techniques employed to blind or otherwise verify the facts being presented. All witness statements were taken on face value. This is 100% evidenced in the videos and anyone with a trained eye can see it.

Any mathematical simulations borne from the interviews presented is just short of originating in the Land of Make-Believe.

Say "hi" to the King for me.

[edit on 24-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


No Craig you are wrong!
Your notary would simply have verified that the documents were signed by the correct party.
IT IS NOT EVIDENCE!
Now that you mention it though you have for all this time claimed to be an, "independent journalist".
What formal training do you have in journalism?
What experience do you have?
Why did you not have your witness statements signed by your witnesses and their signatures notarized?
What you really need to do is get a lawyer and take sworn statements from your witnesses.
This is truly how you have their statements presented potentially to a court but I guess you didn't realize this.
Do you have a lawyer?
If you can present me with your witnesses official statements maybe I can help with this.
Do you have a transcript of your witnesses statements?
I will shop it around and see what I can do for you.

reply to post by NIcon


Sorry to burst your tinfoil hat but we have body parts as well as DNA of the passengers recovered at the Pentagon.
These people are not, "semantics"

reply to post by 654321

Sorry no tinfoil hat here. The DNA is not evidence the planes were actually hijacked. It is evidence that the plane crashed into the building. There's multiple ways that a plane can crash into a building.

My point was: arguing over whether it's "evidence" or "statements" is really rather pointless.... in my opinion, that is.

reply to post by NIcon


So what are theee, "multiple ways" of which you speak?
Do you agree that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon?

reply to post by cogburn


Look at you shamelessly wrapping yourself in a blanket of jargon desperately reaching for any excuse at all to doubt the witnesses.

You settle on blaming me personally.

As if it's my fault they all emphatically place the plane on the north side.

It's so insanely simple which is why you are working overtime to try and make it complicated.

All I had to do is ask them which side of the gas station it flew.

THAT'S IT!

They all pointed north.

It's that simple.

NOTHING that I or anyone could have said or done would have had a different result in this regard and you know it. A million people could interview these witnesses and they would say the same thing about the north side and you know it.

I know it hurts, the implications are absolutely horrible, but we can't change it.

The only way you would have a valid argument otherwise is if you could get the witnesses themselves to retract their claims or accuse me of somehow misrepresenting their statements.

That's why this evidence is so important.....it is AUTOMATICALLY VERIFIABLE. None of them were pushing a conspiracy theory so you better believe they would speak out against us if we had misrepresented them.

YOU weren't there. YOU don't have a right to tell them they are wrong.

But you and all of our detractors know they will never back off their north side claim or accuse us of misrepresenting them because it is OBVIOUS from the interviews that they were honestly relaying their accounts so you will refuse to ever confront them knowing full well what we reported would only be confirmed.

Step back for a moment and look at how bad this looks for you cogburn.

After embracing the north side evidence thinking you could prove me wrong about a flyover you have come full circle and are now attacking the same premise that you once accepted with an ultra-thin yet extremely convoluted rhetorical argument that amounts to nothing. It's beyond flimsy. It looks downright silly.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I am sorry Craig but it is very very simple.
A vast majority of YOUR OWN WITNESSES say that flight 77 HIT THE PENTAGON.
You have cherry picked their statements to somehow support your flyover THEORY.
But lets put that aside.
Lets say that I do agree with you.
What are the next steps?
You have indicated many times that you expect Grand Juries to be called as a reault of what you call evidence.
Why are we here on a forum debating this?
Lets get these Grand Juries started!

[edit on 24-1-2009 by 654321]

reply to post by 654321

Multiple ways, hmm, engine failure, birds, depression, navigational failure, etc. None of which I'm saying happened.

I do believe 77 crashed into the pentagon but I'm also convinced of the north of the citgo path and the reason I read these threads is because I have no way to reconcile the two.

So I was in a cocky mood this morning and posted about the semantics of "evidence" v. "statements"

Unfortunately there's simply nothing more I can say as I sit here simply incredulous at the response.

I'm glad I stuck this thread out, as it has become pretty epic.

Thanks to those who sent U2Us with your opinions. Suffice it to say that I'm glad we're on the same page.

reply to post by NIcon

Fair enough.
Are you aware that the CIT claims that the light poles were "staged" to make it appear that flight 77 hit them?
Why go to all of this trouble?