• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Challenge to CIT

And the only help, he'd managed to provide to CIT, is a "figure" of 'just over 1G'? Oh, man...



And of course the CIT boys are just accepting his bare word, with no supporting calculations, or explanations of why his "speculations" about the flight path are any more acceptable than Reheat's speculations, even though a few day ago they were claiming that such speculations were entirely worthless. Once again, showing that all they really care about is whether or not something supports their fantasy, not whether or not it's true.
 
New Witness

Well Folks, we have a revelation this morning. There is a new irrefutable, Independently Verified, Scientifically Corroborated witness who supports NoC. There are however, a couple of problems. He also saw the aircraft all the way to impact. Whoops!

There are a couple of other problems, as well. Such as the position of the witness is MISPLOTTED by our friends, the position of the Security Checkpoint is MISPLOTTED, and the flight path he described is MISPLOTTED. Edward Paik's testimony is also misrepresented. This is just for starters.

I want to see the video of this interview. Where is it?

Here's Terry Morin's testimony as they quote it: (I have underlined a few key word/phrases.)

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.

The Reaction

Many of the FOB people had been looking at the news reports flowing out of the attack on the World Trade Center Towers, going about their normal work routine as they watched. Maybe half or a bit more already knew of the New York attacks. However, within seconds of the impact -- less than a minute after the FOB flyover-- several thousand people started exiting the FOB.

Here's the link to the thread at LCF:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/208529/1/#new

Here's my image of his actual position as he described it:

 
If I use or hear the phrase, "ten steps out from between" I would mean, or take it as meaning, "no longer between, and ten steps beyond the point where I emerged from between." Apparently, judging from their maps, they think it means "twenty steps short of being out from between."

Could this possibly be an honest misunderstanding of the English language? Does "out from" when applied to a distance travelled ever mean "short of"?

I can see where "I was twenty miles out from Chicago" might be ambiguous, if used carelessly (saying "out from" to mean "away from"). It could perhaps mean I'm heading toward Chicago and haven't reached it yet. But more likely it means what it sounds like it means: I've departed from or passed through Chicago and gone another twenty miles.

But when when "out" is associated with exiting a bounded region, that ambiguity doesn't arise. "I was ten steps out from my front door" couldn't possibly mean I'm still inside my house.

I wonder if their confirmation bias has become so ingrained that they can arbitrarily change the meaning of words and phrases to make an account fit their theory, without even realizing they're doing so. If so, then this is not a lie on their part; it's a symptom of a serious cognitive dysfunction.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Last edited:
Myriad, your interpretation is how you and I and every other person on earth who isn't a member of CIT would interpret "ten steps out from between". CIT, however, is so desperate to preserve some semblance of possibility for their Pentacorn crap that they have to twist Morin's perfectly clear and precise statement into something else.

Morin is obviously a trained observer; there's really nothing ambiguous in anything he says. He watched the plane all the way in; he could see the tail of it all the way to impact. If there had been a flyover, he would have seen it. There's no way he couldn't have.

I'm guessing that as soon as it becomes apparent to the Special High-level Investigative Team just how devastating to the NOC flight path Morin is, he will be quickly and quietly dropped from their Big List O' Witnesses.
 
If I use or hear the phrase, "ten steps out from between" I would mean, or take it as meaning, "no longer between, and ten steps beyond the point where I emerged from between." Apparently, judging from their maps, they think it means "twenty steps short of being out from between."

Well, if you're desperate to salvage a fantasy, I suppose misinterpreting words is one way toward that end.

The other major point along these same lines is that what they label as the Security Check-in appears to be a cargo container of some type. For those of you who work in Federal Buildings, is it normal to have a Security Check point INSIDE the complex or wouldn't it be right at the walkway entrance into the complex surrounded by a fence? That's a rhetorical question to which I already know the answer.
 
Oh my god, these liars put him in between the wings of the FOB?

Are you kidding me? He explains that he saw the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon, hit a light pole, and auger all the way into the Pentagon, but how in the hell could he have seen all of those things: IF HE WAS BETWEEN the wings of the building where they placed him? They have clearly misrepresented his testimony and fail to realize that he is just another witness who destroys their fantasy.

Further, their own map shows that there was no way he could see the plane if it went North of Citgo, so now they are left trying to explain how their new star witness could have said:

"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."

He would have had to have been deep into the parking lot to see the plane at all times if it went NOC. Of course it did not, and these clowns own witness destroys their lies.

CIT are absolutely incompetent.
 
Last edited:
how could he? the radius is practically the starting point of the entire calculation. How could he forget it? Ask him how he started? where did he get the radius from? did he take an acceptable bank and speed and work backwards? cause it sure sounds like it. He didn't do a calculation at all. hes bluffing.

LOL...now he wants US to tell him what radii we came up with...

"Yes, I did my homework.....but what did you put down for question #1?"

Rob said:
Why don't you post the radius for each colored line above that you say your cohorts came up with and i'll check them when i have time

Here's the image he posts:

14189480368d4aedc6.jpg


He also claims that the yellow flight path is "almost a straight line". LOL

My measurements show approximately a 14o deflection in the yellow flight path which happens instantaneously. I'd love to see how this maneuver is performed.

Let's not do his work for him, though. He clearly hasn't done any of the calculations or even come up with numbers for the radius. He just wants us to do the work so he can stand back & claim we did it wrong.
 
Here's the image he posts:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/14189480368d4aedc6.jpg[/qimg]

They surely need to get together on their story. Didn't Craig Ranke say they didn't have a flight path?

Well, they have one now and it's about as precise as you can get.

Pssssst CIT, those colored lines don't fit with either Paik's or Morin's testimony.

Do you want me to calculate with these new parameters?

Ya, I didn't think so! It must be getting embarrassing. I think it's time for you pack up and go into hiding in your mother's basement again.

 
And, they've pretty much self-debunked their claim that no witnesses saw the light poles being hit. This fellow saw at least one of those impacts. How could that have happened if his testimony supports a NoC path?

Let's watch and see how they dismiss this part!
 
They surely need to get together on their story. Didn't Craig Ranke say they didn't have a flight path?

It's just another woo-circuit-breaker.....when you prove those paths are false, they'll say "we never committed to one, those were just guesses".
 
Now SPreston is saying that Morin couldn't have seen the tail of the plane because of the intervening trees and the fact that the Pentagon is downhill from the FOB. He conveniently forgets that Morin says he saw it all the way.

SP, you're really not very good at this.
 
Now SPreston is saying that Morin couldn't have seen the tail of the plane because of the intervening trees and the fact that the Pentagon is downhill from the FOB. He conveniently forgets that Morin says he saw it all the way.

SP, you're really not very good at this.

Not good, it is worse than that! He notes that Morin could not have seen the tail because of the trees (thereby destroying his own witnesses credibility) but neglects to realize that his own diagram puts his witness between the wings of two buildings where he could not have seen anything. So now SP admits that CIT's diagram is WRONG because they must move the witness outside from between the wings!

God, these guys are complete morons.
 
Desperation rides high nowadays. I can still remember the times when C&A were rejecting Mr. Morin's account simply because he was working for the govt. In fact, all such witnesses were supposed to be lying by default. When someone CIT can trust presents them with turn calculations and needed banks, they'll even bring back in Sgt. Sepulveda, no doubt. You see, he spoke of a 45 degree bank (or perhaps it was yaw, I'm not sure, reports I've read are not specific enough).

BTW - Mr. Morin is not one of "their" witnesses. From what I was able to see at the link provided, these are all his accounts from the "official" media or at least the internet.
http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm

Apparently, CIT have reached the level, where they have to latch onto someone they previously essentially called a liar, they try to cherrypick his words to find support for their fantasy. They already did this with Mr. Walter. Perhaps Mr. England is next?

But they are right that you can't see the impact site from Mr. Morin's position. At most, one can see the Pentagon's roof and perhaps bits of the top floors (where the tail hit), but the fantasy escape flyover path should be visible.
 
There are a couple of other problems, as well. Such as the position of the witness is MISPLOTTED by our friends, the position of the Security Checkpoint is MISPLOTTED, and the flight path he described is MISPLOTTED. Edward Paik's testimony is also misrepresented. This is just for starters.


They are utterly, utterly incompetent.



Gee, why didn't these super-sleuths think to look up an actual aerial photograph in order to ascertain the location of the security building, instead of just making crap up? No, wait...I already know the answer.

But, come on, this is pathetic even for the very, very low standards of Craig and Aldo.
 
But they are right that you can't see the impact site from Mr. Morin's position. At most, one can see the Pentagon's roof and perhaps bits of the top floors (where the tail hit), but the fantasy escape flyover path should be visible.

Which is exactly the point. If the plane was above the roofline of the Pentagon, Morin would have been able to see it. He was quite detailed about every other aspect of his experience. It's hard for me to believe that he would have left out the little tidbit of the plane pulling up and flying over the Pentagon had it happened.
 
Balsamo Backpeddles Again

This guy deserves a Stundie lifetime achievement award:

Rob Balsamo said:
I never said his [reheat's] conclusions were wrong. Actually, his conclusions are most likely accurate based on how he set up the problem
:confused:
 
This guy deserves a Stundie lifetime achievement award:

Well, he was probably planning to use a sweeping turn all the way from Paik, but that's out because it would violate what Paik said and now it would violate what Morin said.

I think by now, most who understand this know it's worse than when I did the original calculations. The box just keeps getting smaller!

 

Back
Top Bottom