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

Welcome back Snowcrash!

Sorry guys, I flipped through your non responses.

I'll ask again. You're all slapping your keypads and intentionally avoiding my questions.

You're all harping on about what Terry Morin described after it had passed the Annex...





...yet drawing a question mark over what he described when it was over his head!

And you've all admitted (begrudgingly and in some cases cryptically) that the aircraft flew North of Columbia Pike.
You ignore the multitude of direct quotes from Morin in the CIT interview placing the aircraft over the Annex. Over his head and over the Annex/FOB!

Okay, no matter. Can one of you gents tell me how many banks are required to line up with the directional damage or not from the path you keep repeating and how it tallies with the directional damage path? I thought you were a pilot Reheat? Proudbird? Snowcrash ?

I'm not trying to troll or "bore" you guys. I'm just pointing out the fallacy in your arguments. They're so glaringly obvious that I'm the one who is "bored" trying to get a simple answer. Any chance?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Welcome back Snowcrash!

I was never gone. I have nothing to run from. Case in point, the sentence below.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Sorry guys, I flipped through your non responses.

You can't bare to read them, because you've painted yourself into a corner.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
I'll ask again.

I'll answer for the... let's see... I've lost count.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Okay, no matter. Can one of you gents tell me how many banks are required to line up with the directional damage or not from the path you keep repeating and how it tallies with the directional damage path? I thought you were a pilot Reheat? Proudbird? Snowcrash

?

Nirvana fallacy.

"lol".

When you're being shaven, it's best to sit still.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

I'm not trying to troll or "bore" you guys. I'm just pointing out the fallacy in your arguments. They're so glaringly obvious that I'm the one who is "bored" trying to get a simple answer. Any chance?

Of course you are trolling. It is all you can do.

Terry Morin said the aircraft flew over his head on a course that took it parallel to the outer edge of the Annex, and he watched it as it flew down and hit the Pentagon.

That is what he said. I know you don't like to hear that, I know it is fatal to your crazy scheme. I know you can't handle it because it goes against whatever incredibly obnoxious plan you people have going on. I know you don't like it because it would mean Marquis' obscene comment of trucking frozen bodies would be one of the stupidest things - without a doubt, no questions at all - ever uttered by a human being.

Terry Morin said the airplane flew over his head on a course that took it parallel to the outer edge of the Annex, and he watched it fly down the hill and hit the Pentagon.

He did not see it pull up. He did not see it fly over. He did not see it fly "north" of the gas station. He did not see it make a honking big right turn to end up where you interpret Roosevelt Roberts said he saw an aircraft, over lane 1 in South Parking, headed southwest.

It doesn't matter how often you say he saw all those things. They did not happen and Terry Morin said the aircraft flew over his head,on a course that took it parallel to the outer edge of the Annex, and he watched it fly down teh hill and hit the Pentagon.

Yes Snowcrash you've been here but as a spectator.

"Nirvana fallacy"??

Listen, I'll lay it out for any onlookers that may be confused (maybe you're confused yourselves?)

You and Trebor seem to be under the impression that by clinging to this "parallel to the Navy Annex flightpath" while completely ignoring CIT's interview which I quoted and highlighted here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

which definitely places the aircraft over the Annex and heading towards the memorial, that Morin is somehow supporting the official path, but again, no matter.

This flightpath of yours, and yours alone, which you label "SOC" can in no way be described as the directional damage path.

Snowcrash, and I presume Trebor, both believe that there are "extra seconds" provided by Warren Stutt.
Snowcrash actually linked to the Legge/Stutt paper.

Here's a newsflash for you both.

Any alleged path that isn't virtually "straight" leading up to Route 27 for the last six seconds is invalid according to Warren Stutt. Is he wrong?



According to Warren Stutt, there is a constant right roll in his data for those six seconds, eventually levelling out.
Is he wrong?



These images were all provided by Warren. Positive values in "roll angle" depict a "right bank". Negative depict "left bank":



There are NO negative values in these last 7 seconds.

Is he wrong?

"I agree that the TRACK ANGLE TRUE (Course) and the PRES POSN values from which I plotted my path indicate the aircraft travelled in a fairly straight line relative to the ground despite the roll angle."

Warren Stutt

So let's cut the crap here lads.
If Terry Morin placed the aircraft anywhere North of Columbia Pike, it can't line up with the directional damage. Not only is your own personal version of what you describe as "SOC" non witness compatible, in that there was no left bank described, but datawise too.

Got it?

Stick to the OCT. Stay on your path.



"Cornered"? Me?

If your next posts don't mention the lack of "left bank" evidence, I'll take that as an admission that Terry Morin is in no way an "SOC witness". That is, a witness to the directional damage/FDR heading path.

And I'll move on to those who corroborate what he claimed in CIT's interview.

Just out of curiosity, do you guys believe that the aircraft would actually line up with the directional damage from your path???

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


I haven't agreed that the aircraft flew north of Columbia Pike. I thought the recent discussion had been about Terry Morin's perception of the flight path which is a different thing. Why is Terry Morin expected to be infallible ?

In Sept 2001 Terry Morin described being outside the Annexe wings and seeing the red and blue stripes on the fuselage. So he was outside the wings seeing the aircraft fuselage to the south of him. Years later he told Craig that he was between the wings and the aircraft passed directly over him. So he is clearly not infallible because his story has changed.

However, whether you prefer a contemporary account or one from years later he still puts the plane on the southern edge of the Annexe and parallel to it. At something like 784 fps can you acount for it going from there to pass north of Citgo ?

I think this interminable debate about witnesses perception of flight paths is really a complete waste of time and only serves to indicate how desperate CIT is for any support. If various witnesses describe a plane impacting the Pentagon but suggest different flightpaths surely it is logical to conclude that they were right about the impact but mistaken as to the flightpath ? But CIT has to put the cart before the horse and then pretend that witnesses were deluded about impact.

Flightpaths are just a fallible precurser to a flyover theory and unless thay can produce some flyover witnesses, can refute the radar and FDR evidence, explain the damage to the Pentagon , plane parts, downed poles etc and dna identified body parts then CIT deserves to sink into oblivion as it is obviously doing.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Yes Snowcrash you've been here but as a spectator.

"Nirvana fallacy"??

Yes. Posting lots of interesting looking maps and pictures isn't going to get you out of this one.

You, OneSliceShort, I expected more from you. This whole scene has been dried up and pitiful.

You are STILL trying to push the "NoC witnesses are imperfect but yours must be perfect" spiel.

Are you dense?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

I haven't agreed that the aircraft flew north of Columbia Pike. I thought the recent discussion had been about Terry Morin's perception of the flight path which is a different thing. Why is Terry Morin expected to be infallible ?

Because that's the spiel.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Just out of curiosity, do you guys believe that the aircraft would actually line up with the directional damage from your path???

Nirvana fallacy. This can go on as long as you like.

reply to post by Alfie1


BRAVO!! And, seconded:

I think this interminable debate about witnesses perception of flight paths is really a complete waste of time....

How many times must it be repeated?

"eye"-witnesses' accounts are only part of any investigation. The solid evidence, physical, measurable, that is left over TRUMPS the fallibility of Human perception, each and EVERY time!!

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Out of ALL that....are you even a pilot??

DO you understand just how minimal a 6 or 7 degree bank angle is? And, do you understand the rate of turn, even IF an at most 7° angle is maintained for any length of time?

Do you not understand how a suicide terrorist pilot would be working the controls aggressively, as part of his "aim"??

Not caring about finesse or "smoothness"....which is a part of a professional pilot's repertoire.

Originally posted by ProudBird
How many times must it be repeated?

"eye"-witnesses' accounts are only part of any investigation. The solid evidence, physical, measurable, that is left over TRUMPS the fallibility of Human perception, each and EVERY time!!

It's easy. How many witnesses does CIT have south of the official flight path?

It's not just about whether witnesses should be the only source of data. Preferably, they shouldn't.

reply to post by snowcrash911


Isn't this the point of the BIASED methods CIT employed in the first place??:

How many witnesses does CIT have south of the official flight path?

The attempt to dispel the bovine poop (*) that has been at the crux of SO MANY "conspiracy" claims, and as a result infected the minds of (how many??) people is what's important. The CIT, for one (and the list is extensive) have been party to this bovine poop (*) spreading for a number of years.

It is a psychological oddity that some people still remain gullible enough to wish to dive in to this bovine poop (*), as if it were some "enchanted" swimming pool (or something).....


(*) edit: or, is it equine excrement? I love euphemisms.....

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


You have gall posting the same old bankrupt and debunked claptrap over and over again ignoring the fact that your ass has been handed to you on a platter....

The only thing new are the FDR bank angles. Just what do you think that shows? All it shows is that the idiot terrorist pilot was adjusting his aim, that's all. By continuing to argue that Morin must be unachievably precise while your supposed NOC witnesses have paths all over the place is incredibly silly. It won't sell to anyone as has already been proven...

If you ever post something that I deem worth responding to I will. In the meantime, you can just wallow in your FAILURE and go find a new hobby. This one is unsuitable for you....

reply to post by Reheat


BINGO!!!!!!

The only thing new are the FDR bank angles. Just what do you think that shows? All it shows is that the idiot terrorist pilot was adjusting his aim, that's all.

Geeeeeeze, this is so obvious!!

Even "Ralph Kolstad" knows its OBVIOUS!!!

btw...where IS is RALPH??? OR any....just one or two of the alleged "PilotsFpr911Truth" alleged "spokespilots"??

Bring 'em on!!! Here, to ATS!!

(or is "RALPH" only another the the many aliases thay Rob Balsamo must use? No, Ralph Kolstad is a REAL person, there is no doubt. How his name and visage have been DRUG THROUGH THE MUD? An entirely different discussion......

reply to post by Reheat


BINGO!!!!!!

The only thing new are the FDR bank angles. Just what do you think that shows? All it shows is that the idiot terrorist pilot was adjusting his aim, that's all.

Geeeeeeze, this is so obvious!!

Even "Ralph Kolstad" knows its OBVIOUS!!!

btw...where IS RALPH??? OR any....just one or two of the alleged "PilotsFor911Truth" (Please donate $$$) alleged "spokespilots"??

Bring 'em on!!! Here, to ATS!!

[edit] (or is "RALPH" only another of the many aliases that Rob Balsamo must use? No, Ralph Kolstad is a REAL person, there is no doubt. How his name and visage have been DRUG THROUGH THE MUD? An entirely different discussion......)

PLEASE....DISCUSS

(Rob Balsamo is welcomed........and INVITED!!!!!)....

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Alfie1

 

BRAVO!! And, seconded:

I think this interminable debate about witnesses perception of flight paths is really a complete waste of time....

How many times must it be repeated?

"eye"-witnesses' accounts are only part of any investigation. The solid evidence, physical, measurable, that is left over TRUMPS the fallibility of Human perception, each and EVERY time!!

The discussion is about Terry Morin's testimony. An account you were all fawning over until your fallacies were pointed out. Now it's back to denyingwitness testimony legitimacy?? Yeah right.

Did you read my post regarding the flightpath being proposed by Snowcrash? He's claiming that the aircraft flew over Morin's head parallel to the Navy Annex building and that this makes the aircraft "SOC".

He actually believes that the the aircraft can be several degrees off of the directional damage path and that it doesn't matter! 540mph in a descent, 2.5 seconds before reaching the lightpoles!

I don't know if he's just trying to wind me up or if he is genuinely this ignorant about the data that he claims to support. Are you saying that no left bank is necessary from this trajectory too Proudbird?

You claimed that it was aerodynamically possible. Mind explaining it to Snowcrash?

Hey Snowcrash,

Your little shimmy on Morin has bitten the dust my friend. You've been completely owned regarding this guy's testimony so stop feigning some surreal "victory" that only you and your GL friends will gladly cheer. It's pathetic. Give it up.

It's been lain out for you over the last few pages, from the entire CIT interview that you illogically deny, to the "SOC path" you pulled from your rear end that won't line up with the directional damage without major manouevres that are neither witness compatible to the complete lack of these necessary manouevres in the FDR data you've thrown your weight behind but now turn your back on.

Take it like a man.

The only thing new are the FDR bank angles. Just what do you think that shows? All it shows is that the idiot terrorist pilot was adjusting his aim, that's all. By continuing to argue that Morin must be unachievably precise while your supposed NOC witnesses have paths all over the place is incredibly silly. It won't sell to anyone as has already been proven...

Wow, medication time?

Read the post regarding the "FDR bank angles" Reheat.
You , Snowcrash and others have been banging this "parallel to the Navy Annex path" to death for the past few pages. I show you Stutt's bank angle data, a slight right bank through to levelling off for the last six seconds. With no left bank recorded.

Now take deep breaths and work out if any left banks are necessary to line up with the directional damage.

That Morin needs to be "unachievably precise"??

He made the simple claim that the aircraft flew over his head while standing at the edge of the Navy Annex wings! In both interviews.

Online testimony:

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).

CIT testimony:

Morin: It's right on the edge and I'm like here (between the wings), okay? I then, because I had already heard about..the twin towers..I ran to the outside. That's when I watched the airplane and got into a position where I could see it. There were some trees down there..you may or may not know this.
....I mean this was before wing 8 was destroyed

Craig: Okay..

Morin: I mean there used to be an eighth wing there..

Craig: Okay

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

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..

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.

It's not that complicated Reheat.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

It's not that complicated Reheat.

It is obviously more complicated than your simple mind can pretend not to comprehend. No one here who has been discussing this accepts Morin's OBSERVED flight path. You have simply been extremely dishonest by putting words and thoughts into our mouths. In other words you have LIED again and again. You have to do that in order to continue your FRAUD.

You want Morin's path to be as precise as you pretend with no distance misjudgement. Well, I'll exchange that viewpoint with all of your NOC witnesses when they say they observed an impact with the building. If Morin's path is precisely the one flown then the NOC people saw an impact into the building and the discussion is over.

If one of the witnesses is absolutely correct in what they saw and described then they ALL were and the scenario at the Pentagon was as all rational people know and all of the physical evidence shows. You don't get to pick and choose what to tell others to believe and then falsely accuse everyone who disagrees of committing non existent fallacies...

We can argue flight paths forever, but then you still have to deal with the physical evidence for which you have absolutely no evidence anything was faked or planted. You have no flyover witnesses. You have nothing, nada, zilch other than made up crap...

Get another hobby, this one is a FAILURE.