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

Originally posted by djeminy

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by djeminy

 

djeminy, I don't what to say. I'm utterly devastated by your prosaic, flowery lampoon of myself and TruthAction. Whatever shall I do now?

I'm quite sure you'll just carry on as usual - just like this funny guy here:


"......
"He has nothing on!" shouted all the people at last.
The emperor shivered, for he was certain that they were right; but he thought,
"I must bear it until the procession is over." And he walked even more proudly,
and the two gentlemen of the imperial bedchamber went on carrying the train
that wasn't there."


Cheers

This must be referring to CIT. Were you and Aldo carrying the flyover train?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Easy:

Maybe Proudbird could point out to Snowcrash where my post on the 330fps limitations of RADALT couldn't possibly be referring to altitude, when it's obvious it's referring to forward motion (speed).

The above misconception is fully out of context. Otherwise, (old-style) GPWS would not function. Those are stated parameters, but only to show the SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS of certain attributes of the RA, in certain situations.....such as, accuracy for the required CATEGORY II, and CATEGORY IIIA, IIIB and IIIC precision ILS approach requirements.

(BTW...."330 fps" = about 195 knots. THAT is the basis for the stated "accuracy".....and that ("195 knots") is well beond any reasonable final approach groundspeed, where any CAT II, or CAT III approach would be conducted.

Sheesh, any real pilot understands this, and knows the differences. Sad that the "P4T" continue to pollute the "blogosphere" with their long-ago disputed, by MANY aviation professionals, nonsense.....

On the other hand, certain "champions" of "P4T" are relegated to, whether they realize it or not, continue to repeat the same tired old discredited claims. I do NOT attribute this cult-like devotion to any particular "ulterior motive"...only simply attributable to ignorance. And a "slavish" devotion to a "false prophet", in the guise of so-called "9/11 truth".

Of course, those of us with a lifetime of ACTUAL experience can see these deceptions for the 'junk' that they truly represent.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by djeminy

Originally posted by snowcrash911
reply to post by djeminy

 

djeminy, I don't what to say. I'm utterly devastated by your prosaic, flowery lampoon of myself and TruthAction. Whatever shall I do now?

I'm quite sure you'll just carry on as usual - just like this funny guy here:


"......
"He has nothing on!" shouted all the people at last.
The emperor shivered, for he was certain that they were right; but he thought,
"I must bear it until the procession is over." And he walked even more proudly,
and the two gentlemen of the imperial bedchamber went on carrying the train
that wasn't there."


Cheers

This must be referring to CIT. Were you and Aldo carrying the flyover train?

No pteridine, i actually had weedwacker and trebor in mind when i wrote that part,
but by all means, i could so easily see you there as well.

One thing i'm not so sure about though, is which one of these two people you would
choose as your partner in the 'bedchamber'!

I would not blame you at all, if it turned out that it would be impossible for you to chose,
and therefore it all ending up as a 'blissful' tree-some!

Cheers

Originally posted by WetBlanky

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

According to this statement, third one down, :-


www.ratical.org...

Terry Morin states he was " 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5 ". If he was between the wings how could he have seen the plane fly on to the Pentagon ?

He also says " The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage." As he had a view of the side of the fuselage it clearly wasn't directly over him but a wingtip may have been.

Morin: ..I did NOT have a side view.

[...]

Remember I'm a little bit inside (of the wings)...I couldn´t see the stripes, I saw the belly.

I think you are confused. There is a door in the wing that he was coming out of that led him "10 steps" out to "in between wings 4 and 5".

That's not what the man said. He said he was 10 steps OUT FROM between Wings 4 and 5. If he was between the wings how could he follow the flightpath to the Pentagon with his eyes ?

He also said the plane had "red and blue stripes down the fuselage", whatever Craig Ranke prompted him to say later.

Btw Craig is on record as saying " it's clear that Morin is either relaying a completely fabricated or else wildly embellished account." Is that true ?

Interesting assessment of Morin's account here :-

frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by WetBlanky

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

According to this statement, third one down, :-


www.ratical.org...

Terry Morin states he was " 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5 ". If he was between the wings how could he have seen the plane fly on to the Pentagon ?

He also says " The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage." As he had a view of the side of the fuselage it clearly wasn't directly over him but a wingtip may have been.

Morin: ..I did NOT have a side view.

[...]

Remember I'm a little bit inside (of the wings)...I couldn´t see the stripes, I saw the belly.

I think you are confused. There is a door in the wing that he was coming out of that led him "10 steps" out to "in between wings 4 and 5".

That's not what the man said. He said he was 10 steps OUT FROM between Wings 4 and 5. If he was between the wings how could he follow the flightpath to the Pentagon with his eyes ?

He also said the plane had "red and blue stripes down the fuselage", whatever Craig Ranke prompted him to say later.

Btw Craig is on record as saying " it's clear that Morin is either relaying a completely fabricated or else wildly embellished account." Is that true ?

Interesting assessment of Morin's account here :-

frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

Come on Alfie, why don't you quote what Morin actually said!

You're an honest guy, are you not?

So why don't you do it?

Is honesty really so abhorrent to you that you find it so impossible to verbalize?

Oh, for the questions that one have to ask!

Cheers

reply to post by djeminy


So, because I quote from an eyewitness statement of Terry Morin's available on the internet here :-

www.ratical.org...

you conclude "honesty" is "abhorrent" to me. Is that an example of your deductive reasoning ?

How about debating the issue ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by djeminy

 

So, because I quote from an eyewitness statement of Terry Morin's available on the internet here :-

www.ratical.org...

you conclude "honesty" is "abhorrent" to me. Is that an example of your deductive reasoning ?

How about debating the issue ?

Are you going to quote what Morin actually said or not?

Please give me a straight answer.

I dearly want to see what you're made of .....


Cheers

Originally posted by djeminy

Are you going to quote what Morin actually said or not?

How is providing Terry Morin's exact words taken from the ratical.org site *not* answering your question, above?

It looks like Alfie *did* exactly that - quote what Terry Morin actually said. You don't *like* that part, so you prefer the alternative version after Ranke got finished with his obfuscating, convoluted rabbbit-holed and lead-questioning attempts at confusing the issue.

Bottom line is Morin saw the crash. He did not see any flyover.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

Easy:

Maybe Proudbird could point out to Snowcrash where my post on the 330fps limitations of RADALT couldn't possibly be referring to altitude, when it's obvious it's referring to forward motion (speed).

The above misconception is fully out of context. Otherwise, (old-style) GPWS would not function. Those are stated parameters, but only to show the SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS of certain attributes of the RA, in certain situations.....such as, accuracy for the required CATEGORY II, and CATEGORY IIIA, IIIB and IIIC precision ILS approach requirements.

(BTW...."330 fps" = about 195 knots. THAT is the basis for the stated "accuracy".....and that ("195 knots") is well beond any reasonable final approach groundspeed, where any CAT II, or CAT III approach would be conducted.

Sheesh, any real pilot understands this, and knows the differences. Sad that the "P4T" continue to pollute the "blogosphere" with their long-ago disputed, by MANY aviation professionals, nonsense.....

On the other hand, certain "champions" of "P4T" are relegated to, whether they realize it or not, continue to repeat the same tired old discredited claims. I do NOT attribute this cult-like devotion to any particular "ulterior motive"...only simply attributable to ignorance. And a "slavish" devotion to a "false prophet", in the guise of so-called "9/11 truth".

Of course, those of us with a lifetime of ACTUAL experience can see these deceptions for the 'junk' that they truly represent.

edit on Wed 14 December 2011 by ProudBird because: because? Of the wonderful thing he does! We're "Off to see the Wizard!!".....oh and, sometimes I cannot see, on my current monitor screen, the specific typos....even WITH "spell check".....and even "spell check" allowed the typo "tryly" to get through un-referenced? Wow....

Uh huh..

Here are the flap speeds for approach.

Flap 15 210 knots
Flap 20 195 knots
Flap 25 190 knots
Flap 30 162 knots

www.757.org.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink">SOURCE

and this..

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Given that a Radio Altimeter isn't required to be accurate until inside the clearway zone for a Cat III ILS, (RA cannot determine True Altitude along the approach until over a clearway zone guaranteed to be measuring from nothing but grass) ...and given the fact that the aircraft are not allowed to land with more than a 10 knot tailwind (99.9% of approaches are into a headwind component), the aircraft will be well within the tracking capabilities of the Radio Altimeter when it is needed and required, down low, slow, below 100 agl on Cat III, with a groundspeed of less than 160 knots.

whether they realize it or not, continue to repeat the same tired old discredited claims

And here I am, a non-pilot schooling an alleged pilot. You're wrong. Sorry.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


I'm not a pilot either but I do know that radio altimeters serve the aircrafts ground proximity warning system. Are you claiming that any aircraft at normal cruising speed is likely to fly into a mountain because it is flying too fast for the radio altimeters to function ?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by WetBlanky

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

According to this statement, third one down, :-


www.ratical.org...

Terry Morin states he was " 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5 ". If he was between the wings how could he have seen the plane fly on to the Pentagon ?

He also says " The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage." As he had a view of the side of the fuselage it clearly wasn't directly over him but a wingtip may have been.

Morin: ..I did NOT have a side view.

[...]

Remember I'm a little bit inside (of the wings)...I couldn´t see the stripes, I saw the belly.

I think you are confused. There is a door in the wing that he was coming out of that led him "10 steps" out to "in between wings 4 and 5".

That's not what the man said. He said he was 10 steps OUT FROM between Wings 4 and 5. If he was between the wings how could he follow the flightpath to the Pentagon with his eyes ?

He also said the plane had "red and blue stripes down the fuselage", whatever Craig Ranke prompted him to say later.

Btw Craig is on record as saying " it's clear that Morin is either relaying a completely fabricated or else wildly embellished account." Is that true ?

Interesting assessment of Morin's account here :-

frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

"That's not what the man said"???

Alfie, watch the video. Listen to the words said. They're quoted in full.



Please point out where Craig Ranke "prompted" him and source your accusations.

And Alfie, you're again insinuating that there was a parallel to the Navy Annex approach, North of Columbia Pike as shown in Larson aka Frustrating Fraud's twist on Morin's account.

Noted.

This path..



Does not.line up with the directional damage. There are no left banks recorded even in Stutt's FDR data. It's not compatible with Terry Morin's testimony or any of the other multiple NOC witnesses.

Here, go educate yourself.

z3.invisionfree.com...

One post, your telling me that Warren Stutt's "data" stands. The next you're pushing this North of Columbia Pike path which God forbids, crosses the Navy Annex. Which is it Alfie?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

I'm not a pilot either but I do know that radio altimeters serve the aircrafts ground proximity warning system. Are you claiming that any aircraft at normal cruising speed is likely to fly into a mountain because it is flying too fast for the radio altimeters to function ?

Ask Proudbird what he uses?

As far as I know (I'm not a pilot myself),from reading about the issue, a sensitive barometric altimeter.. and charts..are used. And this is why the sensitive baro altimeter is required for IFR flight and a Radio Altimeter is not.

Even wiki states this. I'll not quote the relevant parts. You'll need to read it yourself.

And I don't know why you keep denying the 330fps limitation when it's clearly documented!



End of story Alfie. If you have no documentation to counter this, drop it.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


I have quoted Terry Morin from his statement made in 2001, soon after the events he described.

Craig Ranke spoke to him, I think about 6 years later, and elicited some contradictions.

It was all pretty much thrashed out here :-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Common sense indicates that the statement made just after the event is more likely to be accurate. All Craig has done is to damage Morin's credibility.

My personal take from it all is that he was ouside the annexe wings, by about 10 steps as he said,and that the aircraft's port wingtip passed over or pretty close to him; enabling him to see the AA livery on the port side of the fuselage, as he also originally said.

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by djeminy

Are you going to quote what Morin actually said or not?

How is providing Terry Morin's exact words taken from the ratical.org site *not* answering your question, above?

It looks like Alfie *did* exactly that - quote what Terry Morin actually said. You don't *like* that part, so you prefer the alternative version after Ranke got finished with his obfuscating, convoluted rabbbit-holed and lead-questioning attempts at confusing the issue.

Bottom line is Morin saw the crash. He did not see any flyover.

edit on 14-12-2011 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)

Trebor, mate, frankly,

you're sinking, and soon you'll be out of sight.

And no one can do anything about it -only looking

helplessly and with sorrow as you disappear beneath

"the waves"!

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by djeminy

Are you going to quote what Morin actually said or not?

How is providing Terry Morin's exact words taken from the ratical.org site *not* answering your question, above?

It looks like Alfie *did* exactly that - quote what Terry Morin actually said. You don't *like* that part, so you prefer the alternative version after Ranke got finished with his obfuscating, convoluted rabbbit-holed and lead-questioning attempts at confusing the issue.

Bottom line is Morin saw the crash. He did not see any flyover.

edit on 14-12-2011 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)

1. Mind pointing out exactly where Craig Ranke "obfuscated..rabbit-holed and lead" Terry Morin?

2. Even if you did ignore his recorded interview (which is totally illogical), isn't Terry Morin still describing the aircraft as over his head and over the outer portion of the Navy Annex building (FOB)?

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)

3. Didn't he narrow the flightpath in claiming that the aircraft would have struck the memorial if it had have been built?



hardly the path you guys are trying to push, no?

4. Are you trying to say that the directional damage is possible from the path you allege he is describing in that online testimony?

5. He couldn't physically see the alleged impact zone. He describes a "flash" and a "fireball".

6. Finally, do eiher of his testimonies describe the FDR/directional damage path?



That goes for Alfie, Proudbird, Snowcrash and GenRadek.

reply to post by Alfie1


Alfie, did he say in both interviews that the aircraft flew "over his head"?

Mind answering those points raised in the former post?

Thanks.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

I have quoted Terry Morin from his statement made in 2001, soon after the events he described.

Craig Ranke spoke to him, I think about 6 years later, and elicited some contradictions.

It was all pretty much thrashed out here :-

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Common sense indicates that the statement made just after the event is more likely to be accurate. All Craig has done is to damage Morin's credibility.

My personal take from it all is that he was ouside the annexe wings, by about 10 steps as he said,and that the aircraft's port wingtip passed over or pretty close to him; enabling him to see the AA livery on the port side of the fuselage, as he also originally said.

So you're never gonna quote Morin verbatim and in full, are you!

And referring back to the cameronfox and jthomas of old was a

really bad mistake, old chap.

Hope you're single, so no close family will ever find out how truly

dishonest you really are!

Cheers

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by djeminy

Are you going to quote what Morin actually said or not?

How is providing Terry Morin's exact words taken from the ratical.org site *not* answering your question, above?

It looks like Alfie *did* exactly that - quote what Terry Morin actually said. You don't *like* that part, so you prefer the alternative version after Ranke got finished with his obfuscating, convoluted rabbbit-holed and lead-questioning attempts at confusing the issue.

Bottom line is Morin saw the crash. He did not see any flyover.

edit on 14-12-2011 by trebor451 because: (no reason given)

1. Mind pointing out exactly where Craig Ranke "obfuscated..rabbit-holed and lead" Terry Morin?

2. Even if you did ignore his recorded interview (which is totally illogical), isn't Terry Morin still describing the aircraft as over his head and over the outer portion of the Navy Annex building (FOB)?

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)

3. Didn't he narrow the flightpath in claiming that the aircraft would have struck the memorial if it had have been built?

hardly the path you guys are trying to push, no?

4. Are you trying to say that the directional damage is possible from the path you allege he is describing in that online testimony?

5. He couldn't physically see the alleged impact zone. He describes a "flash" and a "fireball".

6. Finally, do eiher of his testimonies describe the FDR/directional damage path?

That goes for Alfie, Proudbird, Snowcrash and GenRadek.

Sorry Post examiner,

but you'll never get an honest sincere answer from any of these people.

They live in a world where "honesty" is virtually an unknown conception:

something they consider a horrible 'abstraction' that one should fear and

stay away from, more than anything else.

They think it is 'something' coming from "bad".


Cheers

reply to post by djeminy


It needs more research. I'm not satisfied with either side's answer right now. Too many inconsistencies and hearsay evidence.

Edit: Well, not necessarily hearsay, but it is questionable witness testimony.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by djeminy

 

It needs more research. I'm not satisfied with either side's answer right now. Too many inconsistencies and hearsay evidence.

Edit: Well, not necessarily hearsay, but it is questionable witness testimony.

edit on 14-12-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)

All i can say Varemia is, go for it.

I'll be with you all the way, hoping you find the same answers i did 5 or 6 years ago.

Cheers