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

It is SO bloody simple.

The FDR is the key to this....it wasn't "changed"....or "faked".

FDRs have been used in COUNTLESS accident investigations, and provide PROOF.

So-called "eyewitness" testimony is then assessed, and used (or DISCARDED) as appropriate!!

What a complete WASTE OF TIME is this long ago discredited "CIT" nonsense!!!

Originally posted by ProudBird
It is SO bloody simple.

The FDR is the key to this....it wasn't "changed"....or "faked".

FDRs have been used in COUNTLESS accident investigations, and provide PROOF.

So-called "eyewitness" testimony is then assessed, and used (or DISCARDED) as appropriate!!

What a complete WASTE OF TIME is this long ago discredited "CIT" nonsense!!!

Are yu reading the posts Proudbird??

GLs are adamant that the FDR..well..FDR Mark 2, which has never been verified..points to no left bank in the last 6 seconds before Route 27. So the question is, how can Snowcrash and Trebor and Reheat claim that there was any other path bar the directional damage path/FDR heading and now Stutt's "bank data"?

So, according to the "FDR data", the aircraft Morin should have been describing is this one:



End of story.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

Originally posted by ProudBird
It is SO bloody simple.

The FDR is the key to this....it wasn't "changed"....or "faked".

FDRs have been used in COUNTLESS accident investigations, and provide PROOF.

So-called "eyewitness" testimony is then assessed, and used (or DISCARDED) as appropriate!!

What a complete WASTE OF TIME is this long ago discredited "CIT" nonsense!!!

Are yu reading the posts Proudbird??

GLs are adamant that the FDR..well..FDR Mark 2, which has never been verified..points to no left bank in the last 6 seconds before Route 27. So the question is, how can Snowcrash and Trebor and Reheat claim that there was any other path bar the directional damage path/FDR heading and now Stutt's "bank data"?

So, according to the "FDR data", the aircraft Morin should have been describing is this one:

End of story.

Nirvana fallacy. This is repetitive SPAM, because these issues have already been addressed here.

Please address ALL the arguments brought forth in the post linked, not just the ones you elect to cherry pick.

Thank you.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer

In domain (A), it's quite clear that Terry Morin is a SoC witness, which is why neither "WetBlanky" nor "ThePostExaminer" care to explain what will happen if, even in the most charitable scenario for CIT, when the plane flies "parallel to the edge of the FOB" AND "would have run into the Air Force Memorial", one draws a straight line from that point towards the Citgo. In domain (B), TPE has been repeatedly reminded that his repeated assertions that any deviation in witness perception of the Official Flight Path (OFP) amounts to actual physical deviation of the Official Flight Path, are absolutely false.

Snowcrash, I'm just getting warmed up. Why would I go to another thread to discuss Stutt's "data" when you're here denying a very important section of this data, namely the "bank data".

You're contradicting yourself throughout this thread regarding Morin.

One minute, Morin, according to you and most other GLs here (Reheat *wave*) was describing a "parallel to the NavyAnnex roofline/North of Columbia Pike" flightpath. The next you're squealing "Nirvana fallacy" after I painstakingly reinforced what path he was actually describing using Morin's own testimony. HIS words.

One minute you claim that a North of Columbia Pike path can pass "south of Citgo", but when I post Stutt's "bank data", void of the necessary left bank to line up with the directional damage, you're here ranting about what? That Morin didn't actually see the plane over his head, between the fence that runs between Columbia Pike and the Annex. heading towards the US Airforce Memorial site, over the edge of the roof of the Annex, no frickin way over south of Columbia Pike? That his view was somehow skewed and that he was completely wrong on all counts?

That more credence should be given to what he could physically see when the aircraft went below his line of sight?

...than when the aircraft was flying "50ft" above the Annex in full view? Really?

Slap my wrists somebody!

I know witnesses aren't computers but they're not complete morons either Snowcrash.

I'm moving on now to who actually corroborates the flightpath he described.

I've wasted enough time on you and your friends' contradictory statements.

Bump for Snowcrash.

And read the post for Proudbird too.

You're wearing that shimmy phrase "Nirvana fallacy" out mate.
Stutt and Legge claim that the OCT path is that specific. It's your flightpath. The one Terry Morin doesn't describe in the slightest.

Read it. Look at the OCT path and tell me if he is describing anything like it.

Go on, just tell me he's "wrong" like every other witness that described NOC.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


That's # 6

CIT has deceived and LIED about Edward Paik's location when AA 77 passed near his shop on 9/11. ALL of the video shows him outside his business describing where he saw the aircraft. In a subsequent interview with someone without a conspiracy agenda he and his brother Shinski both admitted Edward was *inside* his office when the aircraft passed nearby. Essentially he did not know exactly where the aircraft was or what direction it actually went. More specifically, he indicated that he thought it had struck the VDOT antenna which is on the South side of Columbia Avenue virtually on the known proven flight path... CIT interprets his indicated path over the middle of the Navy Annex simply because it supports their deluded agenda.. Why does CIT need to continually lie to support their theory... I know why and everyone else should know why too....

Here's a link to the thread at JREF about it.... forums.randi.org...
Here's more proof - www.youtube.com...

Some search for the truth, huh?

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Read it. Look at the OCT path and tell me if he is describing anything like it.

Go on, just tell me he's "wrong" like every other witness that described NOC.

Nirvana fallacy. This is repetitive SPAM, because these issues have already been addressed here.

Please answer all the questions in the post linked, not just the ones you elect to cherry pick.

Thank you.

(And I'm not your "mate")

There are two domains of interpretation. They are (A) determining what a witness believed he or she saw and (B) determining how well this witness statement agrees with the official flight path, and whether it ought to be exact, and if not, if this "disproves the official story".

In domain (A), it's quite clear that Terry Morin is a SoC witness, which is why neither "WetBlanky" nor "ThePostExaminer" care to explain what will happen if, even in the most charitable scenario for CIT, when the plane flies "parallel to the edge of the FOB" AND "would have run into the Air Force Memorial", one draws a straight line from that point towards the Citgo.

In domain (B), TPE has been repeatedly reminded that his repeated assertions that any deviation in witness perception of the Official Flight Path (OFP) amounts to actual physical deviation of the Official Flight Path, are absolutely false.

Witnesses are not computers, as Craig Ranke said. Like the OFP, there can only be one NoC flight path, not multiple NoC flight paths, since any plane approaching the Pentagon on any path can't be in two places at the same time.

Therefore, TPE's position debunks his own NoC witnesses, since their flight path drawings are all mutually exclusive. Unless TPE elects to agree with Craig Ranke again, that "witnesses are not computers", in which case he has to concede that Terry Morin's flight path description does not have to match the OFP exactly, because Terry Morin is not a computer.

Ergo, Terry Morin's perceived flight path does not debunk the official story.

What's more, the margin of error is such that all witnesses are actually reporting the OFP, only due to the fact that "witnesses are not computers", as Craig Ranke claimed, their flight paths deviate both from the OFP and from each other. Sometimes wildly. I have repeatedly requested citations from the scientific literature expounding the "unparalleled accuracy" of witness testimony, whether or not "corroborated". The fact is, such literature does not exist, which is why my request is conspicuously ignored.

The reason we see a northerly bias in CIT's witness pool is because (A) all dissenters have been attacked, derided, insulted, defamed, claimed to be liars and complicit in mass murder (B) All CIT's flight path drawings are drawn by witnesses situated to the north of the Official Flight Path.

In other words, CIT's witness pool is a biased selection due to cherry picking, and the unreasonable expectations of witness flight path observation show a double standard with respect to their own NoC path. Unreasonable expectations of witness preciseness are an example of the Nirvana Fallacy. Lastly, witness confidence ('No frickin way / I'd bet my life on it') is no indication whatsoever of witness accuracy. Again, show me the scientific literature proving otherwise, against consensus, or kindly shut up.

From now on, if I receive the same ignorant spam again from either ThePostExaminer or WetBlanky, I will refer back to this post, until the issues raised are properly addressed.

Cheers.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


What chance do you think there was for any witness that day to precisely describe the actual flightpath ?

When are you going to move away from these peripheral and unproductive issues and address matters of more substance ? Like how the Pentagon was damaged, how the light poles were chopped down and trees trimmed ?
Where the plane parts came from ? Where the body parts and personal belongings came from ?

TPE, you've lost the argument. Moreover, you, Balsamo and the others from "Pilots for No Plane at the Pentagon" have immortally assed out on the ACARS cul-de-sac.

I suggest you dribble your SPAM generator out of here and contemplate your life.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


This is one more I owe you...

CIT has manipulated photos and .gif's in response to their debunked garbage. For example:

Here is an original .gif taken from video in which Edward Paik points down Columbia Pike as the direction he thought the aircraft flew as it passed his business... CIT titled this as Edward point North... That is not North, it is down Columbia Pike very close to the known proven path AA 77 flew....




Here is a modification posted by CIT which shows Edward pointing near North over the Navy Annex. The question is, what is the SOURCE of this photo? It is not from any known video... Answer: It is a manipulated photo after CIT received so much heat about their distortion of the direction Edward is pointing in the .gif above.. Their desperation and intent to deceive and defraud knows no bounds to prove their delusion...



TPE or any other CIT supporter choosing to continue to post bankrupt debunked SPAM will continue getting these examples of FRAUD and DECEPTION as any one of them continue to post....

Some search for the truth, huh?

Get a new hobby, this one is a FAILURE

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by ThePostExaminer

 

This is one more I owe you...

CIT has manipulated photos and .gif's in response to their debunked garbage. For example:

Here is an original .gif taken from video in which Edward Paik points down Columbia Pike as the direction he thought the aircraft flew as it passed his business... CIT titled this as Edward point North... That is not North, it is down Columbia Pike very close to the known proven path AA 77 flew....




Here is a modification posted by CIT which shows Edward pointing near North over the Navy Annex. The question is, what is the SOURCE of this photo? It is not from any known video... Answer: It is a manipulated photo after CIT received so much heat about their distortion of the direction Edward is pointing in the .gif above.. Their desperation and intent to deceive and defraud knows no bounds to prove their delusion...

TPE or any other CIT supporter choosing to continue to post bankrupt debunked SPAM will continue getting these examples of FRAUD and DECEPTION as any one of them continue to post....

Some search for the truth, huh?

Get a new hobby, this one is a FAILURE

edit on 21-12-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

The photo isn't manipulated, it's simply a screenshot from their video interview with him. I've got a similar screenshot, see this:



CIT has multiple drawings of AA 77's flight path by Ed Paik, one of them shows the plane going NoC, one shows it going SoC, one is somewhat unclear.

The point is, as I've repeatedly said, that witnesses may believe they saw a great many of things, but witness testimony simply doesn't comport with the simplistic notions of Citizen Investigation Team. They knew just enough about the subject to get themselves in trouble, and they've shown a terrible disregard for research ethics.

What I would describe as pure fraud, is what CIT did to Roosevelt Roberts. And I can prove it, too.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer


Do you still not comprehend how MINIMAL a 6° bank angle is?? Especially if it's only in place for a FRACTION of a second???

.....points to no left bank in the last 6 seconds before Route 27.

This is pointless, trying to explain flight, and flight dynamics, to a non-pilot......AND, you all MIGHT want to look MORE closely (again) to Warren Stutt's FDR decode. LOOK carefully at the couple of degrees' variances as recorded by the Captain's and FO's sides.

A couple of degrees? You are basing WAY too much on this.....and this fact is indicative of a desperation that is a sign of abject ignorance about the reality of flying.

Unsurprising, since the so-called "pilots" over on their site are equally inept.........

For reference:

reply to post by snowcrash911


IT IS IMPORTANT to note that control wheel angle does NOT immediately translate into the airplane's roll angle....

Any pilot familiar with the B-757 or B-767 knows this. It is much the same with all Boeings, for that matter.

It's not a freaking "video game"!! It is a real, physical machine that has inertia and momentum.

ALSO? Where is the rudder position, and any side loads that correspond with the above?? A hack pilot like Hanjour could well have been "walking the rudder" all the way in, as well. It does NOT take much, in terms of degrees of deflection, for the rudder to have a huge influence in yaw, at those airspeeds.


WATCH this video from the United 93 FDR, and note the Control Wheel movements, as compared to the actual airplane reaction!!!



Those are VERY exaggerated control movements, as in this case the hijacker pilots were trying to disrupt the cockpit intrusion of the passengers, in revolt. BUT, it illustrates my point.....a POINT from SOMEONE who has ACTUALLY FLOWN the damn airplanes!!! (Unlike Rob Balsamo....or any of the "CIT" ).....

Originally posted by snowcrash911

What I would describe as pure fraud, is what CIT did to Roosevelt Roberts. And I can prove it, too.

That can be the next one if any of them want to post again.. I know it, you know it, and those that don't should know it.... Stand-by for more. How does one rebut proven lies and deception? They can't....

Wow, you guys are uptight.

I point out the major flaws in what you've been posting for the past 12 pages, that is, that there is only one OCT path to line up with the damage. That's all I've done.

I've pointed out how many times that what Morin described was nothing of the sort? Do I have to quote him again?

He placed it over the Navy Annex. How can you people not see that he placed it there?

Snowcrash is going to post his spam claiming that I'm posting spam just because he won't put it in writing exactly what path Morin should have seen like a child who has overdosed on Christmas presents.

Snowcrash, I deal with what we do know, facts and narrowing the parmeters of an argument.

1. We know what the directional damage/FDR heading path is. No?

2. We know that there is no left bank data in Stutt's "extra seconds". No?

3. We know that the data which you've pinned your colours to makes any path bar the OCT path a non-runner. No?

4. We have Terry Morin's interview in which he repeatedly describes the aircraft as being North of Columbia Pike , "not completely over" the Navy Annex and "how much was the wing hanging over?" and the direction he said that he saw it heading. His own words. No?

People aren't computers. But to try and skew this guy's testimony "actually" seeing the aircraft a few hundred feet away, south of Columbia Pike when he was claiming that the aircraft was "over his head" flying over the area he described, namely when he said "see this fence here", referring to the fence that runs along Columbia Pike. He's obviously saying that the aircraft flew directly overhead.

I mean, it can't get any more defined than that.

Why did he say that he could physically see the stabilizer after it had passed the trees? I don't know.

1. I do know that there is no view below those images I've linked to. Especially when the aircraft had to descend to around 25ft AGL on Route 27.

2. I do know that there is no view of the lightpoles, lawn or alleged impact point from his stated POV.

3. I do know that the FDR data has the aircraft travelling at 540-580mph and according to Stutt's "data", it allegedly carried out a 124fps descent from the Navy Annex to the tree area (hardly fits with the "slightly nose down" description.)

4. I do know that Terry Morin gave us a clue as to whether he saw the "entire descent" or not (which according to the OCT wuld have lasted less than 3 seconds from it passed him to the lightpoles, and 1.5 seconds from it passed the trees).

He said that the entire duration from seeing the aircraft until the explosion was "13 - 18 seconds" which he eventually reduced to 8 or 9 seconds (still way too much if the OCT speeds were true - although others said the same thing)

Craig: 13 - 18 seconds? That much?

Morin: Well yeah, he's flying 350-400 knots..from here, all the way down, so maybe that's the time and phase of not knowing much..of reacting at the time.

"Not knowing much"?

5. I do know that Morin was in a far better position to describe the aircraft as it was over his head than after it had passed below his line of sight.

So, I'll ask again. How was the aircraft flying the OCT path given what he described at the Navy Annex?
Please don't insult my intelligence when you respond.

Either way, I'm moving on to those who corrobrate his US Army Memorial flightpath description.

@Proudbird, you still don't get it do you? Thanks for reinforcing my argument.

CIT has performed a more recent deception in the modification of the audio tape featuring Roosevelt Roberts, the security guard who they so desperately want to be a "flyover witness". If this we're so pathetic it would be hilarious, but they attempt to deceive by mangling an already mangled account of something he said he saw...

snowcrrash, it's you turn with the proof....

reply to post by Reheat


Thanks for the encouragement. Will do. But I'm going to do it elaborately then and construct an entire article.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
Wow, you guys are uptight.

I think the game of pretending any of us are anything but right on the money is over. You have been cornered and now you're needling.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
I point out the major flaws in what you've been posting for the past 12 pages, that is, that there is only one OCT path to line up with the damage. That's all I've done.

That's curious, because I haven't seen you pointing out flaws, I've seen you rehashing the same argument, page after page after page. Specifically: when you and Aldo realized typecasting Morin as a SoC witness wasn't going to work, you switched to the Navy Annex and Columbia Pike, as if the Citgo suddenly didn't matter anymore.

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
I've pointed out how many times that what Morin described was nothing of the sort? Do I have to quote him again?

I have a better idea. How about I quote Craig Ranke on Terry Morin, right here on ATS?

Due to all of these extreme contradictions with the official story and explicit exaggerated details meant to support it....it's clear that Morin is either relaying a completely fabricated or else wildly embellished account.

If THIS is your "main" witness in support of the official flight path it's clear you have serious issues.

Source

Ouch! LOL! That's Craig Ranke, speaking about Terry's witness statement

The Attack

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. There was a large explosion noise and the low frequency sound echo that comes with this type of sound. Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like a small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a 2000lb bomb going off roughly ½ mile in front of you. At once there was a huge cloud of black smoke that rose several hundred feet up. Elapsed time from hearing the initial noise to when I saw the impact flash was between 12 and 15 seconds.

Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20011122065302/http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm

Originally posted by ThePostExaminer
He placed it over the Navy Annex. How can you people not see that he placed it there?

Because his initial testimony belies this and Craig Ranke knows that. Moreover, even his later testimony where he speaks about hitting the Air Force Memorial flies SoC. You lose.

It gets better though:

This image alone is enough to completely debunk Terry Morin (...) Just analyzing Morin's ridiculous account and thinking about this while looking at that image is enough to prove the official story a farce.

-- Craig Ranke

Haha! Just as I thought.....NOTHING!

Morin is debunked.

-- Craig Ranke

You ignored many of my points showing you why Morin's account is not credible. Let's try this again, here are the points you ignored:

How could he see stripes on the fuselage of a plane that was directly above him? Edward Paik described it as having "black wings" which makes perfect sense with what you would expect to see if a plane was only 10's of feet directly over you.

There is no way there would be a "flash" in broad daylight from the plane hitting a pole and even if there was it would be impossible to see from the Navy Annex parking lot where he can not see the trees, the citgo, the light poles, the highway, OR anything more than the very top floor of the Pentagon.

He admits to the trees (that he wouldn't even be able to see) but expounds on seeing the "tail" after that even though this would be impossible to see for him at all if the plane was low and level to the ground as required by the physical damage. Of course it is possible that he would be able to see the tail after the plane pulled up over the highway and continued on over the building.

The notion that he saw the plane for 12 to 15 seconds is completely ridiculous and you know this.

-- Craig Ranke

Ranke has been trying to spin Morin's account since time immemorial. He's all over the place with the usual bollocks.