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

reply to post by LaBTop


LaBTop,

you asked for someone to respond to your posts, and I did. Regarding Terry Morin, Albert Hemphill, they both contradict your NoC flightpath completely.

Also, your Morin account is horribly wrong as I have shown and also puts serious doubt on your claims. Also, a video that ProudBird has posted also addresses three more alleged "NoC" witnesses, and clears up the bunk that is put forward by CIT and you regarding any NoC flight paths. So right here, we already remove five eyewitnesses that you placed as NoC, and now you have less.

We havent ignored anything from posts. We just had five witnesses return to SoC. Four of them were suppose to be NoC, and yet on close review, they were incorrect (especially your version of Terry Morin's account. )

Going back to Terry, he watched the plane go all the way down the street towards the Pentagon and he only lost sight of the plane when it went behind some trees. According to your version of his account, he should have lost sight of the plane as it went over and behind the Annex. But he states specifically the plane's fuselage was no longer seen as it went behind trees. Take a good look at where those trees are and then try and line up his flight path with your "flight path". Terry saw it go straight in, no turns, or going behind the Annex. Just following the road.

This is the closest to where Terry was standing, just behind the fence, out from between wings 4 and 5.
38.867545,-77.068354

Terry's field of view

Remember, there used to be an 8th wing to the Annex located right at where the Air Force memorial is. Where Terry was standing, according to you, how could he have even seen the plane fly behind the trees and only see the tip of the tail section right until the impact, if, according to you, the plane flew over and then behind the Annex, as is plotted on your picture:



You have the plane over the Annex going farther North. But looking from Terry's view, he would not have been able to see the plane, much less the tip of the tail crashing into the Pentagon, if it flew behind (from his viewpoint) the Annex.

I'm working on a picture to give a BETTER view of just what Terry saw and his line of vision. Will post as soon as done.

Allow me, this has been shown to them, by many people, many times.This was my version:



Terry Morin is clearly a SoC witness. Shall we talk about his parallel claim, fellas? Craig doesn't like to talk about that much. Besides, if a non-NoC witness deviates but a hair from the "official flight path", then he/she is an NWO agent, according to inspector Ranke and snidekick Marquis.

Originally posted by WetBlanky

I know you want to cry hearsay, but this isn't a court room.

Knowing the Truther track record in courtrooms (Kevin Ryan's lawsuit; Willie Rodriguez's lawsuit; Judy Wood's lawsuits; Morgan Reynolds' lawsuit; NYCCAN's ballot initiative; April Gallop's lawsuits) I'd try to stay away from any US center of justice as well if I were you.

Originally posted by ATH911
No.

Are you calling him a "damn" liar that he saw a NoC flightpath, along with Officer Brooks who confirmed his NoC flightpath even though they had never discussed it with each other before?

I am calling him mistaken. I've said this for a long time now. And so is Brooks. And Turcios. And Middleton. And Stafford. And Prather. And Carter. And Paik. And SoC witnesses Morin, Zakhem, Wheelhouse and Roberts. And everyone else who is asked to draw a flight path, because witnesses can't reliably remember flight paths, but they can reliably remember one object colliding with another. There are no birds which fly ~500mph, human beings aren't trained and adapted to perceive this accurately. Anything else flying at that speed was a rare occurrence during our evolutionary process. Craig and Aldo want you to believe OCT witnesses must be computers, while their witnesses are allowed to be mutually exclusive in every respect, solving that little conundrum by simply "averaging" out the flight path. Of course, all but two of their NSA witnesses (one of which is a SoC witness, hmmm, what a coincidence) are either at or to the north of the Citgo gas station.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by WetBlanky

I know you want to cry hearsay, but this isn't a court room.

Knowing the Truther track record in courtrooms (Kevin Ryan's lawsuit; Willie Rodriguez's lawsuit; Judy Wood's lawsuits; Morgan Reynolds' lawsuit; NYCCAN's ballot initiative; April Gallop's lawsuits) I'd try to stay away from any US center of justice as well if I were you.

Cool, maybe we can try an international court of law, then when the international troops invade maybe we can count on someone like Pinch Paisely to hop in his fighter jet and save the day.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by WetBlanky

I know you want to cry hearsay, but this isn't a court room.

Knowing the Truther track record in courtrooms (Kevin Ryan's lawsuit; Willie Rodriguez's lawsuit; Judy Wood's lawsuits; Morgan Reynolds' lawsuit; NYCCAN's ballot initiative; April Gallop's lawsuits) I'd try to stay away from any US center of justice as well if I were you.

There's just one teeny tiny problem with that. Truther court cases are sh*t, but so is the US "Justice" system in case you haven't noticed. It's a farce, a fraud and a sideshow, with no pretense whatsoever of fairness, objectivity, respect for civil/human rights or due diligence.

CIT's case is frivolous on its own merits, not because a US "judge" says so.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

The RADALT exceeded its limitations, no?

No.

That is another in the long litany of lies from sites like the "P4T'. More obfuscation and red herring rhetoric.

So, yet another documented source is "wrong" on your say so?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Same post and same misguided "proof".

And same tactics to use the same irrelevant "tactics" time and time again.

SO predictable......

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Allow me, this has been shown to them, by many people, many times.This was my version:

Terry Morin is clearly a SoC witness. Shall we talk about his parallel claim, fellas? Craig doesn't like to talk about that much. Besides, if a non-NoC witness deviates but a hair from the "official flight path", then he/she is an NWO agent, according to inspector Ranke and snidekick Marquis.

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

No, allow me Snowcrash.

For a start, any of those North of Columbia Pike paths will not line up with the directional damage. Your bud Achimspok admitted just that over at Pilotsfor911Truth. If the aircraft followed either of those paths, the aircraft couldn't have caused the damage. Do you still want to go there? Thought not.

The only "SOC path" in town is the directional damage path, you know, the path that Legge/Stutt adhere to and which you endorse, remember? "But a hair"? Hardly. If the aircraft "deviates" from the directional damage path, physics and aerodynamics along with a certain person's "right bank data" rules your half-arsed OCT interpretation null and void.

Now where does the directional damage path fit in with what Morin described? Nowhere.

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

Morin: No frickin way

Craig: No frickin way?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(TPE: He thought Craig Ranke was referring to how much of the aircraft overhung the Navy Annex when it went over his head)

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

Morin: Nope.

Got it? In the short space of time that he saw it, he placed it over the Navy Annex. End of story.

As for the direction he described.

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

Keep digging that hole Snowcrash.

Fail.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Same post and same misguided "proof".

And same tactics to use the same irrelevant "tactics" time and time again.

SO predictable......

Do me a favour and tell me how the limitations of RADALT documented above is "misguided"?

And you've skipped yet another question (or two) of mine proudbird.

Have you verified Warren Stutt's data yourself?

And you obviously reject the NTSB conclusions from the alleged FDR data, including alleged "impact time", the Pressure Altitude readings and claim that there are "missing seconds".

Shouldn't we (me and you) demand a new enquiry into just how messed up the NTSB allegedly got it, according to you?
You call yourself a pilot. On that basis alone, shouldn't passenger safety be your priority given the prospect of FDR data being inexplicably "corrupted"??

You could prove that VMO is irrelevant and that you know more about ACARS, FDRs and RADALT limitation documents while we're there, ya know?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


It's very simple.....

YOU ended the post with a reference to "Vmo"..or, alternate spelling, "VMO".

I know VERY well what the term "Vmo" means. ('V' and sub-script 'mo').

I think those who subscribe to the nonsense of the "P4T" do NOT understand aerodynamics that well. You tell me that YOU have flown a B-757/767 in line operations? And then we can talk.

Of even a B-737...any series.

or, the DC-9. Any series. Or the B-727. Or DC-10. Come on, bring it.....I have experience on all of those (and more).....

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
No, allow me Snowcrash.

Okay, OSS.

For a start, any of those North of Columbia Pike paths will not line up with the directional damage. Your bud Achimspok admitted just that over at Pilotsfor911Truth.

So what? Witnesses are not computers. Craig Ranke admitted THAT. This is the same old stupid trick and nobody's falling for it anymore. You might as well throw in the towel. It goes as follows. Supposedly, your witnesses get to deviate wildly, and are then deemed "in agreement" because they all fall to one side of a point pricked on a map, whereas OS witnesses may not deviate even a hair from the FDR path, or they "disprove" the official story. BULL. All witnesses describe the official flight path, some with ridiculously inaccurate and deeply flawed flight paths, as expected from witness testimony. Witnesses are much better at recognizing a collision than they are at estimating a flight path, but physical evidence is to be preferred. Want to prove me wrong? Cite the literature on witness testimony. Good luck.

If the aircraft followed either of those paths, the aircraft couldn't have caused the damage. Do you still want to go there? Thought not.

Guess again. See above.

The only "SOC path" in town is the directional damage path, you know, the path that Legge/Stutt adhere to and which you endorse, remember? "But a hair"?

Hardly. If the aircraft "deviates" from the directional damage .... (snip) ... blah blah blah

False. See above. You cite the same old, stupid, cheesy, easily chopped down argument every single damn time. Flight path testimony could go do a loop-de-loop over ANC for all I care, that is what witness testimony is about. Mostly garbage data, especially for the sort of confirmation bias-crippled boondoggle your objects of worship, Scott Ranke and Aldwin Marquis, embarked on. They saw the plane hit or too low too pull up, nobody saw it fly away.

Now where does the directional damage path fit in with what Morin described? Nowhere.

Premise FALSE, conclusion FALSE.

Got it? In the short space of time that he saw it, he placed it over the Navy Annex. End of story.

NO. Now you read this, flyover marketeer:

I had just reached the elevator in the 5th Wing of BMDO/Federal Office Building (FOB) #2 – call it approximately 9:36 AM. I was already trying to make some sense out of the World Trade Tower attacks having heard about them on the radio. The news was sketchy, but the fact that it was a terrorist attack was already known. I then realized that I was wearing sunglasses and needed to go back to Lot 3 to retrieve my clear lenses. Since it was by no means a short walk to my car, I was upset with myself for being so distracted. 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. I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. 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.

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). 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. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. 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.

Source

Morin is a SoC witness. Keep smoking that good stuff, whatever it is.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

The RADALT exceeded its limitations, no?

No.

That is another in the long litany of lies from sites like the "P4T'. More obfuscation and red herring rhetoric.

So, yet another documented source is "wrong" on your say so?

You know what's so incredibly stupid about this argument? It implies Ground Proximity Warning System would be out of order on high speeds. Firstly, the limit listed could just as easily refer to vertical speed, which is what radio altimeters are actually sensitive about the most, had you any CLUE what you were talking about. Secondly, if a radio altimeter can't get a reading, it will show up as error in the FDR data, not a reading that just so happens to be commensurate with the actual situation at the Pentagon; namely, impact at near ground level.

Yet another BS argument, clung to as if it was the safety harness in a rollercoaster during the upside-down bit. It's pathetic.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Keep digging that hole Snowcrash.

Fail.

Some questions.

(1) Why do you list the flight path angular while Morin clearly says it was parallel to the Navy Annex?
(2) Why do you not show the Citgo in that picture?
(3) Why must a plane hit the airforce memorial centerline only, instead of, say, left wingtip? If that were the case, and the plane flew parallel, to the edge of the Navy Annex, where would it end up?
(4) Why not use a picture showing the 8th wing on the Navy Annex AND the location of the AFM, instead of this misleading non-9/11/2001 topographical situation?

You're squirming, dodging, and you're massaging the facts. Desperate, and sad.

Really, TPE/OSS (whatever), you probably feel really "empowered" when you write those TiNRATS at the CIT forum and when you write comments here, then "bump" them, tippy-toeing around like you've "cornered" me.

You don't. When I don't reply, I'm just not that interested in replying. Sorry. It's like that no planer thread next door. In the background, we all know the argument has been settled already. We're debating the minutiae. One of the reasons hardly any of us could contact Pentagon witnesses anymore is because of CIT's boundless asininity. They've alienated, estranged and enraged hordes of 9/11 witnesses and victims in their silly flyover whale chase, and to add insult to injury, they pretend to do so on their behalf. Vomit fountain.

What did you say again when I showed you that tail imprint?

Something along the lines of "HOW DARE YOU", right?

Oh, and another question, I know the Pentagon is in a bowl-shaped landscape, but, since Morin says the plane dipped below the treeline @ the Columbia Pike turn, how does that rhyme with the height erroneously reported by the near defectively inaccurate PA, and not with the accurate RA?

Did it fly over the Navy Annex and then drop like a brick?

Any comments?

As for Warren Stutt, I've read his source code, understood it, and I intend to port it. Capiche? How about you explain the source code for me line by line?

1, 2, 3 ... GO!

reply to post by snowcrash911

So what? Witnesses are not computers. Craig Ranke admitted THAT. This is the same old stupid trick and nobody's falling for it anymore. You might as well throw in the towel. It goes as follows. Supposedly, your witnesses get to deviate wildly, and are then deemed "in agreement" because they all fall to one side of a point pricked on a map, whereas OS witnesses may not deviate even a hair from the FDR path, or they "disprove" the official story. BULL. All witnesses describe the official flight path, some with ridiculously inaccurate and deeply flawed flight paths, as expected from witness testimony.

Who cares what Craig Ranke has to say he clearly has demonstrated himself as very one sided, very prejudiced to any outside evidence. We clearly see these so call OS debunkers on here cherry picking eyewitness accounts that will only support the government Pentagon fairytales. Some of you continue to peddle your snake oil, claptrap in desperately trying to fool people that the OS is all true. Most ATS readers are not as stupid as some of you think.
The fact is there was some credible eyewitness who did go on record who saw something different and they did see an airplane fly in a different direction. None of you were there, so you cannot conclusively dismiss what they saw.
Again, because the government says so, doesn’t mean it is true, just how gullible do some of you think we are?

Let's see....
Radar tracks...check.
FDR information...check.
Damage path...check.
Bodies and wreckage...recovered and identified...check.
Witnesses say they watch an airliner hit the Pentagon....check.


Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon because so and so said it was north of CITGO.............

How does that work again?

Originally posted by impressme
Who cares what Craig Ranke has to say he clearly has demonstrated himself as very one sided, very prejudiced to any outside evidence.

We clearly see these so call OS debunkers on here cherry picking eyewitness accounts that will only support the government Pentagon fairytales. Some of you continue to peddle your snake oil, claptrap in desperately trying to fool people that the OS is all true. Most ATS readers are not as stupid as some of you think.
The fact is there was some credible eyewitness who did go on record who saw something different and they did see an airplane fly in a different direction. None of you were there, so you cannot conclusively dismiss what they saw.
Again, because the government says so, doesn’t mean it is true, just how gullible do some of you think we are?

A Spanish saying comes to mind: "Only speak when you can improve on the silence."