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

When you're done with that, either of you is welcome to respond to Craig Ranke's visceral "debunking" of Terry Morin.

Of course, if Craig Ranke would like to debate himself, he is welcome to do so as well.

Page 47, my post, an explanation to Reheat :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

""I did not understand at all why Reheat keeps repeating that my proposed AA77 last 10 seconds flight path arc is not viable, thus I recalculated etcetera""

You keep ignoring that my arc is valid, very valid indeed because it covers the witness positions on a few meters exact, and if you change the aircraft speed entering the turn to f.ex. 400 MPH and do not change anything else, ONLY the turn radius increases, NOTHING else, so in that case the bank angle and all other values stay the same.

So I ask you to stop trying to ridicule me, without even a shimmer of a rebuttal, just some big words, but very small calculations. And your signature is a clear joke, that's not a rebuttal, that's a ridicule attempt.

And if anyone ever gets all the witnesses of a NoC flightpath into a real independent courtroom (The Hague? ), I am quite sure that you will eat your last words in that last post of yours.
They stand not a shimmer of a chance in ANY US court.
It would shatter the whole economy of the US, and its allies. And probably bring all out war over to the US.

And that's the only reason all these people will not be seen in my lifetime, ever in a US controlled court, in whatever country.

Let's pay some tickets to the International Court in the Hague for Sean Boger, Levi Stephens, Terry Morin, William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, Christine Stephenson, Penny Elgas, Mr Probst, Albert Hemphill etcetera.

Let us make it cheaper for us all. Go and get them interviewed and ask them specifically where exactly they stood on 911. And where the plane was, exactly. More I do not ask from you all.

ATS-ers, JREF-ers, PfT-ers, CIT-ers, whatevers, all alike. Why did not one of you ever asked these damn important questions to Christine Peterson and Penny Elgas and all the other NoC witnesses on Route 27?
Christine can be reached through her Alumni page at Northern Arizona University, Penny Elgas worked just opposite of the White House. Vin Narayanan is also easily reachable through his newspaper, USA Today.
Get to Steve Riskus also, an Italian guy could reach him too by email, why don't all of you NoC deniers, make yourself immortal by proving me wrong?



And Snowcrash, those "parallel" words were written through the pens of reporters and newspaper editors.
But his own words in his last CIT interview were more precise in describing the path Morin witnessed, it can be calculated within a few meters fault margin, so precise did he describe it.
Over his head, 10 feet / 3 meters in between Wing 4 and 5, towards the space in between the legs of the new Air Force monument.

And that's quite near the description of seeing a plane passing over you in a space of perhaps 10 meter wide above you. And then being quoted in a newspaper as saying it flew parallel to the outer rim of the buildings.

EDIT : don't interview them like Jeffrey Hill from Pumpitout did, avoiding the exact position of Penny Elgas on Route 27 on 9/11, in his phone interview with her, as the Plague.

reply to post by LaBTop

Over his head...

Seems that too many are taking that phrase too literally. As I recall, Morin also said he could see the side of the fuselage, to include the distinctive American Airlines red and blue stripes as part of the paint scheme.

Observe this American Airlines B-757 passing nearly directly above (over) the photographer:




Then, recall the speed of the airplane at that point, upwards of ~700 feet per second.

Finally, if Morin were indeed located in-between two wings of the building itself, in order for this fantasy of the airplane also having flown over the roofs of the building as well?

Then the Radar Altitude from the FDR information kindly provided by Warren Stutt would have indicated such. The Rad Alt would have shown the relative height above the building's roofs.

But of course....referring back to the FDR again, we once more can see why this discussion is futile, can't we?

Oh, and for all reading here who have never actually been to the Pentagon? One look, with your own eyes, and you will realize that the terrain elevations preclude this "flight over the rooftops" of the barracks annex building.

Photos of an area as viewed by those playing along at home on their computers do not adequately convey the physical arrangements and orientations.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Reheat,,

Try showing some respect. I am not sure how with all your insults that you hurl, you end up with so few in the 'warning' dept. But you are on a conspiracy forum, and some people think differently then you. If you want to be 'Intolerant' then show that somewhere else please.

Originally posted by talisman
Reheat,,

Try showing some respect. I am not sure how with all your insults that you hurl, you end up with so few in the 'warning' dept. But you are on a conspiracy forum, and some people think differently then you. If you want to be 'Intolerant' then show that somewhere else please.

Hmm,,,Oooookay. So according to your thoughts it is OK to just ignore nonsense even tho' it conflicts with FACTS and Aerodynamic Principles, huh? That's a unique thought, but it is a conspiracy site, so it's OK if those thoughts are delusional just because they are different. Is that your message?

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by talisman
Reheat,,

Try showing some respect. I am not sure how with all your insults that you hurl, you end up with so few in the 'warning' dept. But you are on a conspiracy forum, and some people think differently then you. If you want to be 'Intolerant' then show that somewhere else please.

Hmm,,,Oooookay. So according to your thoughts it is OK to just ignore nonsense even tho' it conflicts with FACTS and Aerodynamic Principles, huh? That's a unique thought, but it is a conspiracy site, so it's OK if those thoughts are delusional just because they are different. Is that your message?

I never indicated that a person should ignore nonsense. I am against 'ridicule' which you openly admitted to. You also called certain people stupid and insulted this being a conspiracy site.

If you call someone delusional, that only proves that you called someone 'delusional.'
You can give some evidence to show why their point of view is ludicrous, and argue against the evidence, not against the person with terms that are meant to inflame.

Originally posted by LaBTop
And Snowcrash, those "parallel" words were written through the pens of reporters and newspaper editors.

Terry Morin wrote those words.

Eyewitness Account of Pentagon Attack
By: Terry Morin

An eye-witness account of the aircraft impact into the pentagon and subsequent rescue efforts...written by a former USMC aviator working as a contractor at the BMDO offices at the old Navy Annex.

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

I didn't ask you to lie about who wrote those words. Terry Morin wrote those words. I asked you to answer either (A) or (B).

What part of this do you not understand?

reply to post by LaBTop


LaBTop, ProudBird raises an important point which I have not seen addressed elsewhere ( sorry if it has )

He points out that the radar altitude readings from the FDR would have reflected AA 77's height above the Annexe roof if the aircraft was right over it.

You have indicated a flightpath which puts the plane completely over wing 8. Radar altitude then should show a sharp increase as soon as wing 8 is cleared, at 3 seconds or so before impact.

Is there such a sudden increase ? when we know in fact that the plane was continuing to descend.

Have just seen the obvious flaw in my argument in that I don't know the rate at which radar altitude is recorded but I am sure somebody does.

The notion that a radio altimeter reflects the heights of roofs is a myth. There are filtering algorithms inside the RA logic that prevent this from happening. A height difference must be sustained to be registered. Basically everybody gets this wrong.

Originally posted by talisman

Reheat,,

If you call someone delusional, that only proves that you called someone 'delusional.'
You can give some evidence to show why their point of view is ludicrous, and argue against the evidence, not against the person with terms that are meant to inflame.

Look fellow,

This stuff has been discussed for years. There is no longer legitimate debate. It was settled years ago over and over again... It has been settled in this thread too... The fact that you are obviously not aware of that is not my fault.. You can do it your way, I'll do it mine. Now either stay on topic or remove yourself from the thread. See, I can play moderator too....

Originally posted by snowcrash911
The notion that a radio altimeter reflects the heights of roofs is a myth. There are filtering algorithms inside the RA logic that prevent this from happening. A height difference must be sustained to be registered. Basically everybody gets this wrong.

You are WRONG! A Radar Altimeter registers the height of what's below it near instantaneously as long as it's reflective... The roof of the Annex would certainly be reflective. The only question is the sampling rate that's recorded in the FDR. The rate is either 2 or 4 Hz, I don't recall which...

I am the source for that as I have flown with radar altimeters for years at speeds up to Mach 1.2 both at night and during daylight hours....

Originally posted by Reheat
You are WRONG! A Radar Altimeter registers the height of what's below it near instantaneously as long as it's reflective... The roof of the Annex would certainly be reflective. The only question is the sampling rate that's recorded in the FDR. The rate is either 2 or 4 Hz, I don't recall which...

I am the source for that as I have flown with radar altimeters for years at speeds up to Mach 1.2 both at night and during daylight hours....

edit on 28-12-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Yes, it will register anything reflective (signal traveling at the speed of light), but then the signal passes processing filters which prevent sudden inappropriate altitude jumps. This prevents, for example, a sudden absolute altitude jump from another plane passing below, or from the tops of towers or trees. So, altitude jumps will be registered and detected, but the signal will be attenuated.

Now, if only we had the specifications and source code for the embedded programming / filtering logic inside an LRA 900, this discussion wouldn't be needed.

By the way, in the jets you've flown, I presume you have access to terrain following radar?

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by Reheat
You are WRONG! A Radar Altimeter registers the height of what's below it near instantaneously as long as it's reflective... The roof of the Annex would certainly be reflective. The only question is the sampling rate that's recorded in the FDR. The rate is either 2 or 4 Hz, I don't recall which...

I am the source for that as I have flown with radar altimeters for years at speeds up to Mach 1.2 both at night and during daylight hours....

edit on 28-12-2011 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Yes, it will register anything reflective (signal traveling at the speed of light), but then the signal passes processing filters which prevent sudden inappropriate altitude jumps. This prevents, for example, a sudden absolute altitude jump from another plane passing below, or from the tops of towers or trees. So, altitude jumps will be registered and detected, but the signal will be attenuated.

Now, if only we had the specifications and source code for the embedded programming / filtering logic inside an LRA 900, this discussion wouldn't be needed.

By the way, in the jets you've flown, I presume you have access to terrain following radar?

edit on 28-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)

Yes, I used TFR.. Perhaps the signal is attenuated somewhat, but the one's I've used certainly do reflect trees and other momentary obstacles. Now, one large lone tree, I can not say as that would be quite difficult to determine without staring at the instrument.

I agree that without the detailed specs of the LRA 900 it is an arguable opinion only. However, I think something like the Annex roof would definitely be reflected and recorded in the FDR. That is merely an opinion, certainly not fact. It is not that important to discuss it further because the FDR data was fake anyway!

reply to post by snowcrash911


I can see the point in not having the radar altimeter readings leaping up and down all the time but thinking in terms of a tool for ground proximity warning would it not register something as extensive as the Annexe roof ?

If not, it seems to me that it could be filtering out stuff to the point of being dangerous.

Okay, to respond to both of you, here's some of what I have right now:

The radar altimeter does not indicate height above trees or towers.

Source

PDF page 4, Aug./Nov. 2000

Is tracking capability "groundspeed", No. Is it "vertical speed", Not exactly. What will happen outside this limit of 330 ft/s. Outside the certification limits the accuracy is not guaranteed to be as per specification.

Source

There are also filters that prevent sudden large changes of altitude, such as when passing over another aircraft.

Source

In both those links, from what I know "gravity32" is Frank Legge, and the answers he gets are from RA experts. I won't bore you with the litany of technical papers I also have, which I've parsed for additional RADALT info.

From what I gather, Rockwell Collins' first RA to use a DSP for RA signal processing is the LRA 2100, not the LRA 900. The LRA 900 presumably uses 'dumb' hardware logic/circuits for signal processing.

In any case, P4T's claims that AA 77's RA exceeded tracking capability due to ground speed is false. Tracking capability refers to descent rate, not ground speed.

Originally posted by Reheat
It is not that important to discuss it further because the FDR data was fake anyway!

You have to laugh if you realize the circularity of P4T (and historically, CIT) trying to prove a plane flew over the Pentagon using incomplete FDR data from an FDR found inside the Pentagon.

ATTEMPT #2

GEOMETRY POP QUIZ FOR ALDO MARQUIS AND "ONESLICESHORT"

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).

- Terry Morin

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

For predictable SPAM responses committing the Nirvana fallacy, please see here.

Please answer either (A) or (B). Do not dodge or deflect. There is no 'in between' and there is no room for error on the definition of parallel.

So far, the only attempt to reply was a dodge by LaBTop, claiming Morin didn't actually write what he wrote for coping.org. In other words, no direct answer + blatant bald-faced lie...

I dont know about any of yous, but until a video is released showing the eye witnesses wrong, I will have to take the word of the eyewitnesses and their placement of the plane being on the north side of the citgo. Cit placed those witnesses in their location of that day, and that is the best way to recall location.. Not being interviewed at a different location by government officials. I dont get why an investigation by the government, would differ from any other authority investigation, i.e. Police investigating murder.. But the government took little steps to ensure accurate testimony. They just wanted words on paper, not the actual truth.

Originally posted by Myendica
I dont know about any of yous, but until a video is released showing the eye witnesses wrong, I will have to take the word of the eyewitnesses and their placement of the plane being on the north side of the citgo. Cit placed those witnesses in their location of that day, and that is the best way to recall location.. Not being interviewed at a different location by government officials. I dont get why an investigation by the government, would differ from any other authority investigation, i.e. Police investigating murder.. But the government took little steps to ensure accurate testimony. They just wanted words on paper, not the actual truth.

Yes, but which of the multiple noc flightpaths is the right one ? and how do you decide ?