*new presentation* Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin

Terry Morin

I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.

Besides the fact that Morin places the aircraft Over the Naval Annex, the tail still being visible to Morin totally destroys the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. The 44 foot tail down on the lawn with the alleged aircraft going into the 1st floor could not possibly have been visible to Morin up in the parking lot near the Naval Annex Wings 4 and 5. That aircraft had to dip way below the hill in order to knock down the #1 and #2 light poles, yet during the several seconds before the explosion, Morin even saw the tail dip (lean) to the right in a right bank. The 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY is dead dead dead. Give it up jthomas. You have been whupped.

posted by GenRadek

What type of "decoy aircraft" are you talking about?
Was it another painted 757 looking like an AA plane? Or was it a C-130? A private jet? You use the term decoy aircraft and you don't even say what it is or what it was suppose to do? Unless you are are referring to the C-130 which showed up on scene AFTER the impact. So what was this "decoy aircraft" suppose to be doing? Was they decoy aircraft hitting the Pentagon? Its really starting to get confusing, unless this is what you are counting on, confuse your opponent to the point of submission and claim victory.

Are you new to the 9-11 Truth movement? New to the Above Top Secret forum? You need to read up before you jump into something over your head.

The aircraft which flew Over the Naval Annex and was confirmed by 20+ eyewitnesses was a decoy aircraft intended to replace the pretend aircraft in the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY which was simulated and staged to look like a real aircraft impacting the Pentagon and knocking down five light poles.

No the decoy aircraft did not knock down any light poles nor did it actually impact the Pentagon. That was done by busy staging federal agents and explosives planted inside and outside the Pentagon.

reply to post by SPreston


I asked you WHAT KIND OF DECOY AIRCRAFT was it? 757? C-130? Cessna? 747? Biplane? Come on now I know you can at least tell me this much. You throw it around "decoy aircraft" and yet you still can't give us a make or model of it. Plus why didn't hundreds of others notice one plane peeling away from ground level and another taking its path?

reply to post by SPreston


SPreston, please don;t insult my intelligence with that answer.

So, who saw the feds planting broken lightposts in middle of the highway before the impact? You know, how they managed to dodge traffic that morning without a soul noticing it? Or did they plant if AFTER the impact when there were hundreds more people illing about witgh cameras and videos who could see them clearly? Unless you expect me to believe that they were wearing cloaking shields.

reply to post by GenRadek


The point of calling it a "decoy aircraft" is because we don't know what kind of craft it was nor will we ever.

We do know it appeared to be a twin engine passenger jet that was likely primarily white and may have had other colors as well.

That's about as specific as we're going to be able to get based off eyewitness testimony which is the only independent verifiable evidence available in this regard since all video footage in the surrounding area was quickly confiscated implicating a deliberate cover-up.

But this thread isn't about the type of plane it was nor is it about what happened to the light poles.

It is about evidence proving that it flew directly over the Navy Annex.

If you feel the evidence presented in the OP is not valid please make a case for it otherwise please admit that it's compelling and that there has been a case made that the plane flew directly over the navy annex.

Staying on topic is required in this forum.

Thanks.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But this thread isn't about the type of plane it was nor is it about what happened to the light poles.

It is about evidence proving that it flew directly over the Navy Annex.

If you feel the evidence presented in the OP is not valid please make a case for it otherwise please admit that it's compelling and that there has been a case made that the plane flew directly over the navy annex.



[edit on 9-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Didn't morin say that the plane was flying parallel to the FOB?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

But this thread isn't about the type of plane it was nor is it about what happened to the light poles.

It is about evidence proving that it flew directly over the Navy Annex.

Now hold on one cotton pickin moment here Craig.
You say a decoy plane flew over the annex now? A "white" colored plane? That was the decoy? And Morin stated he saw a silver plane with red and white stripes on it parallel to the FOB. From what I can read, there is nothing in Morin's statement about a mysterious white plane. Just a big honking silver with red + white stripes plane flying towards the Pentagon. And from his very account along the FOB. You see, this is exactly why you are getting so much heat for what you guys are claiming. Such inconsistancies and just, I can't even describe it. I think Morin would have noticed a white plane with different colors at that low level. (Unless again, you expect me to believe the "inside jobs" folks didn't think about painting the decoy in the correct colors and hope and pray nobody notices the difference, which i find VERY hard to believe).
So I fail to see where anywhere here, Craig, they can have a second mystery plane flying low with the AA757 and not be noticed, and the only plane ever noticed was the C-130 AFTERWARDS. And once again, in Morin's own statement it WAS a 757 AA and it DID fly parallel to the FOB bringing it to a SoC way and consistant with the damage and debris, and it DID impact the Pentagon. Your very own witness shoots you down.

[edit on 1/9/2009 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

But this thread isn't about the type of plane it was nor is it about what happened to the light poles.

It is about evidence proving that it flew directly over the Navy Annex.

Now hold on one cotton pickin moment here Craig.
You say a decoy plane flew over the annex now? A "white" colored plane? That was the decoy? And Morin stated he saw a silver plane with red and white stripes on it parallel to the FOB. From what I can read, there is nothing in Morin's statement about a mysterious white plane. Just a big honking silver with red + white stripes plane flying towards the Pentagon. And from his very account along the FOB. You see, this is exactly why you are getting so much heat for what you guys are claiming. Such inconsistancies and just, I can't even describe it. I think Morin would have noticed a white plane with different colors at that low level. (Unless again, you expect me to believe the "inside jobs" folks didn't think about painting the decoy in the correct colors and hope and pray nobody notices the difference, which i find VERY hard to believe).
So I fail to see where anywhere here, Craig, they can have a second mystery plane flying low with the AA757 and not be noticed, and the only plane ever noticed was the C-130 AFTERWARDS. And once again, in Morin's own statement it WAS a 757 AA and it DID fly parallel to the FOB bringing it to a SoC way and consistant with the damage and debris, and it DID impact the Pentagon. Your very own witness shoots you down.

[edit on 1/9/2009 by GenRadek]

I think your getting confused. Forget terms like "decoy", and what the color of the plane was for a moment. All Craig is saying, is that a significant of number eyewitnesses in different locations place the Plane over the Naval Annex, that the Official FLight Path, does not do this and that the damage to the Light Poles and Pentagon is not consistent with the Plane flying where the witnesses placed it.

Through the eyewitness testimony we are getting down to what actually occured at the Pentagon.

Take a break and look again at what Terry is saying, there is no way that anyone can reasonably conclude that what he says supports the Official acount of where the Plane was.





[edit on 10-1-2009 by talisman]

So Craig... just wondering if you've seen this doc yet??

video.google.com...
Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77

would that not put tons of questions to rest? would not the F A C T S being presented in the analysis by actual PILOTS not destroy the official story and flight path? and totally debunk all detractors of CIT?

Looks that way to me. One of the Best illustrations and doc's on this issue IMO.
-----------------



Second, GENRADEK... here you say....

===================
reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 10:58 PM by GenRadek
Morin stated he saw a silver plane with red and white stripes on it parallel to the FOB. From what I can read, there is nothing in Morin's statement about a mysterious white plane. Just a big honking silver with red + white stripes plane flying towards the Pentagon. And from his very account along the FOB. You see, this is exactly why you are getting so much heat for what you guys are claiming.
==========================================


WHY ARE YOU LYING AND/OR IGNORING WHAT CRAIG STATED? Or are you just selectively cherry picking only what serves your agenda of disinformation and distraction? MORIN ALSO CLARIFIED WHAT HE SAW AND REPEATEDLY MADE IT CLEAR THATS WHAT HE SAW.... not that he THINKS this or that... but that THATS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAW.

LETS SEE now EVERYTHING CRAIG HAS STATED ON THAT which you've TOTALLY CONTRADICTED AND CLAIM WAS NEVER STATED....

=========================================
reply posted on 9-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT
He specifically says that he could NOT tell it was an AA jet because he had "no side view" of the plane and that it flew "directly over" him.
Notice how in his first written account he does not say that he "saw" the red and blue stripes but merely states that the plane supposedly had them because obviously he believes what he was told about it being an AA jet.
Of course maybe it did have red and blue stripes.
This wouldn't change the fact that if it was directly over the Navy Annex as Terry Morin has always reported it fatally contradicts all official data, reports, and the physical damage proving the plane did not hit the building. Now you are straight lying because he NEVER says that he "saw" the airframe or stripes and he specifically clarified that he did NOT see the airframe or stripes. So while you are forced to put words in his mouth to support your fantasy Terry Morin already clarified this for you by specifically stating otherwise.
That is why first-hand confirmation of witness reports is so important although it's clear that you don't like this type of evidence and prefer unconfirmed and more generalized static claims that are easier to spin rather than specific answers to specific questions first-hand.

Now please stop lying about what he claimed that he saw.

===========================================


Indeed, PLEASE STOP LYING GENRADEK

i'm curious whether GEN is short for GENERAL RADEK... then things start to make more sense. LOL


Then you go on to say...
=========================================
reply posted on 9-1-2009 @ 07:14 PM by GenRadek
For you and jthomas I found a few pics of an AA 757 flying overhead as close to what the witness could have seen. What do you guys think?
============================================

your LAST PIC of the underbelly view and your claim that it clearly shows the stripes etc, is absolutely laughable since its NOT CLEAR (which would be the actual vantage point of morin).

Nice try though

MORINS TESTIMONY DESTROYS THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY which YOU, JTHOMAS, ZAPPY, AND CAMERON continue defending and look more and more foolish for doing. But since you fellas are most likely apart of the coverup, disinfo agents or worse, and don't really believe what you're claiming, you're well aware that you know the FACTS debunked you a long time ago.

pls give it up

--matrix911

reply to post by GenRadek


You have to look at the full body of independent verifiable evidence.

Morin specifically says that he did NOT see the stripes and could NOT tell it was an AA jet and that it was completely on the north side of Columbia Pike.

all I'm trying to say here is that I had no side view. If I would have seen a side view I could have told the people it was an American Airlines. Because I would have seen the stripes. I didn't see the stripes I saw the silver belly.

So he only saw the silver belly and perhaps the belly was silver or perhaps he embellished this detail but the reason I say the plane was most likely primarily white is that this detail is corroborated by many as you can see in our presentation "Flight 77" The White Plane from people who had a much better view of the plane than Morin.

But let's take a closer look of Morin's true POV in relation to what he says compared to the required official flight path.

He says he was 10 feet in between the wings as the plane flew directly over him.




But despite the fact that Morin said he was between the wings and only saw the belly, if the plane was on the official flight path he would have had a clear view of the side.


This is obviously not what Morin describes so we know for a fact that if Morin's account is correct as corroborated by Ed Paik, the ANC witnesses, and the citgo witnesses it 100% proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Craig, I wasn't born yesterday.
Allow me to repost Morin's account again:

Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure.

www.geocities.com...

Taken immediately after the event. Hmm what is more credible? An account taken right after it happened or an account 6 years later?

Now as for your second mystery aircraft, it was a C-130.

And after reading all the other witnesses who saw either an AA 757 fly over their car and hit the Pentagon or a big silvery plane all saw the same thing, I can't find anything about a secondary decoy plane. And with your "theory" it flew NoC, that doesn't match with the damage done to the Pentagon at all. The angle you suggest it would have impacted does not match the angle of damage done. Unless you are still going with this schtick that the "decoy 757" flew about 40ft above the ground at full throttle and less than 100ft before the Pentagon it pulled up and over the Pentagon while at the same time completely being unaffected by the fireball or debris from the fireball. Your whole theory is based on flawed logic. Very flawed. Unless you expect me to believe the aircraft impacted head on at a 90 degree angle and the debris inside did a magical 30 degree deflection turn and traveled on an angle from its entry to the left. and yes, we are all still waiting for your eyewitnesses that saw the "decoy plane" fly over the south parking lot and over the Pentagon after the fireball. After all, this is what your "theory" hinges on to make the NoC flight work.

[edit on 1/10/2009 by GenRadek]

Craig or SPreston, did either of you check with another Navy Annex eyewitness: Albert Hemphill?

"Having just witnessed the CNN coverage of New York" "with a head full of the horror in New York, I walked in the office and stood peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon. ... 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, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds. The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. 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 110 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. What instantly followed was a large yellow fireball accompanied by an extremely bass sounding, deep thunderous boom. The yellow fireball rose quickly as black smoke engulfed the entire Westside of the Pentagon, obscuring the whole of the heliport. I could feel the concussion and felt the shockwave of the blast impact the window of the Annex, knocking me against the desk.

www.geocities.com...

Hmmm another witness from inside the Annex who saw the plane flyby him AND hit the Pentagon. No mention of it doing a sharp pull up or a crazy wingtip turn north over Citgo towards the Penagon or a fly away after the Pentagon fireball. He would have had a clear view of anything flying away doing a crazy turn over the Pentagon and over the south parking lot. Why didn't he say anything?

How about Kim Dent:

"We saw the shadow of a plane. We heard the engine. We all said, 'That plane is flying kind of close.' "

Now Mark Bright's account is a little more interesting BUT this one requires some critical thinking and some logic and an understanding of perspective. He was at the Pentagon Mall entrance:

"I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down." The plane would have been seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the Pentagon. He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon. "As soon as it struck the building I just called in an attack, because I knew it couldn't be accidental," Bright said. He jumped into his police cruiser and headed to the area.

Looking at a map of the area, he is up on the northern side of the Pentagon. His perspective while looking towards the Pentagon, would make it appear it is flying "over" the Annex. However if you understand anything about perspective, how can you tell the difference between it flying over the Annex and it flying along the FOB which would be just behind the Annex? You see how important it is to understand perspective?

[edit on 1/10/2009 by GenRadek]

Now here are TWO witnesses that should have seen a "flyover" of the plane after the impact and fireball:

Levi Stephens - driving away from the Pentagon in the South Pentagon lot:

"I was driving away from the Pentagon in the South Pentagon lot when I hear this huge rumble, the ground started shaking … I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex. It flew over the van and I looked back and I saw this huge explosion, black smoke everywhere."

and

Col. Bruce Elliott also in the south parking lot:

"I looked to my left and saw the plane coming in," said Elliott, who watched it for several seconds. "It was banking and garnering speed. I felt it was headed for the Pentagon."

www.geocities.com...

These guys werein the prime position for your theory to work. Right in the South Parking Lot, perfect to witness a thundering 757 flying overhead AFTER the fireball. But no. So they also shoot down your theory, as no flyover means no NoC path and this is what your whole "theory" depends on. The NoC flight and then no crash and then having the plane do a stunt high-G pull up and over the Pentagon missing the explosion, all a bunch of bunk.

[edit on 1/10/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GenRadek


Why do you keep going off topic?

And why do you keep ignoring the other posts?

In the first account Morin does not say that he SAW the stripes.

In the 2nd account he confirms specifically that he did NOT see the stripes or the side of the plane.

Now pay attention because this is key...

In BOTH accounts he describes the plane DIRECTLY over him which proves he COULD NOT have seen the stripes and also of course that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex proving it did not hit the Pentagon.

There is no debate here, you are just choosing to deny what Morin says mixed with desperate efforts to derail the topic.

This is about evidence proving the plane flew over the Navy Annex and nobody can deny that this is exactly what Morin and many other witnesses as shown in the presentation report.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Allow me to refresh your memory, and be sure to have your reading glasses on:
From Morin a few days after 9/11

By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. I instantly had a very bad feeling about this but things were happening very quickly. 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). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.

www.geocities.com...

Now Craig I guess I have to make this part stick out for you to notice:

The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines

Okeeydokey, I hope this clears up what he said. This was stated just after 9/11 and not 6 years later. Did he say this, or not? are these his exact words or not? How could he say the part about the stripes if he didn't see them? Or is there a Terry Morin Clone stand in on that day who said it? Enough with your games Craig. Pack it up. Call it a day.

And what is "directly over me" mean? As common sense dictates, this "directly over me" can mean anywhere from the wingtip to the belly of the plane being "directly over me". And as I have shown it IS possible to see the strips, even the red one when its "directly overhead":





Now all your idea hinges on is that he was completely underneath it, when even a few feet in either direction and he would see something similar to this:





[edit on 1/10/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


In the first interview, he specifically states that he saw the stripes and the airframe and determined what airlines it was. Because he did not say the word "saw" you conclude that he did not say this.

You accuse others of ignoring posts, you have been shown exactly what you ignore.

You call me and others liars and it is you that is not 100% honest.

Your fantasy is on it's last legs and you know it. That is why you are spending so much time here, and at JREF. (or a rep from CIT)

CIT is up against the ropes. No knock out punch will be needed.

You guys can quote him over and over where he does NOT say that he "saw" the stripes but it only makes you look silly because everyone knows how he specifically says the opposite.

all I'm trying to say here is that I had no side view. If I would have seen a side view I could have told the people it was an American Airlines. Because I would have seen the stripes. I didn't see the stripes I saw the silver belly.

Especially since he says in BOTH accounts that the plane was directly above him proving it would have been impossible to see the stripes!

So, GenRadek & CameronFox, answer these 4 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 confirmed in 2006 that the fuselage of the plane was directly over him and the Navy Annex?

2. Do agree that Terry Morin specifically confirmed he was 10 feet in between the wings in front of the security shack in between the 4the and 5th wings?

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?







[edit on 10-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Do you understand that ignoring statements is dishonest?

Terry Morin

As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view.

Hmmmmmmm

So, 6 years later he recalls the events differently? So, we throw out anything he states that does NOT agree with you and your fantasy?

Can you please, with all your infinite wisdom, explain how you lose sight of something that you have never seen?

Thanks again.

He made this statement after he ran out from between the two buildings and stood on the parking, looking East ward to the Pentagon West wall, which he could not see at that time, since on 9/11 a tree-line blocked his view.

The witness posted by GenRadek was in the Pentagon South parking lot, and reports the plane flying "" OVER his van "".

reply to post by CameronFox


He conflated the bank around to the south parking lot with the alleged impact.

No biggie. It's a testament as to how effective the deception was.

One thing for sure is if the official story was true the NTSB reported speed of 784 feet per second would have the plane descended to pole 1 and therefore completely invisible to Terry in about 2 seconds after passing over him while he was running out from 10 feet in between the wings.

But as we all know, Terry, William Middleton, and Sean Boger are all excellent witnesses to the much slower speed which also proves the official story false and explains why he was able to see the tail after reacting and running out from 10 feet in between the wings.


Now please answer my 4 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 confirmed in 2006 that the fuselage of the plane was directly over him and the Navy Annex?

2. Do agree that Terry Morin specifically confirmed he was 10 feet in between the wings in front of the security shack in between the 4the and 5th wings?

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?