• 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.

8 out of 8 at Citgo station

That Morin animation is pathetic. Morin clearly described watching the plane for a sustained duration until he eventually lost it behind some trees. Here is what Terry Morin told Craig (as I can best make out of the audio):

Terry Morin said:
I was right at the edge of being on the outer portion. When the plane went right over the top of me I was within 10 feet of the edge of the Navy Annex. I was inside, it flew over the top of me, it's right on the edge and I'm right here, and because I had already heard about the Twin Towers, I immediately ran to the outside and that's when I watched the airplane, and I moved into a position where I could see it. And there was some trees there, you may not know that, this was before the 8th Wing was destroyed, there used to be an 8th Wing there, and now there is an Air Force Memorial. If the Air Force Memorial had been built, the plane would have run into it...You see this treeline? As he starts to descend, he's 50 feet above this, and he descends, he basically starts to disappear, okay? And so the bottom of the airplane, and the engines disappear, the bottom of the fuselage, the wings, and so what I've got is a tail stabilizer, the ass-end of the airplane is all you can see and he comes down.
Click to expand...


Note that Morin says that he was "right at the edge", just ten feet in. He does not say that he saw the belly of the plane only for a second, and the plane was at the south edge of the Annex as well where he was -- not more to the north as Basalmo's animation depicts it. The plane flew on top of him and "I immediately ran to the outside and that's when I watched the plane". He only had ten feet to run and immediately he began watching the plane -- not getting a glimpse of the plane many seconds later as it "flew over" the Pentagon. So there is no reason to think that seeing the belly of the plane was limited to that brief moment before he got into better position to see the plane. Morin's reference to the 8th Wing of the Navy Annex shows that Morin was talking about seeing the plane before it was anywhere near passing the CITGO. The plane was at the 8th Wing of the Navy Annex, that is where he witnessed it at that point. He places the plane approximately where the Air Force Memorial is now -- that is indeed a little over the Navy Annex but still on the south side of the Annex. Drawing a line from Morin's initial position and the Air Force Memorial would put the plane heading on the south side of the CITGO. If the plane was on a NOC flight path that approximated where the ANC witnesses and Lagasse put it, it is impossible that it would have flown into the Air Force Memorial if it first flew directly above Morin. So much for Morin being a NOC witness. But most importantly, he is clear that he has a sustained view of the plane as it gradually descended past the 8th Wing until the treeline blocked his view. By no means was the tail the only thing he saw. The tail was the last thing he was able to see before it slipped from view. But before that he was also able to see wings, and before that the fuselage, and before that the engines, and before that the bottom of the fuselage -- i.e. the entire airplane. From then the plane "descends" and "basically starts to disappear" behind the treeline -- a treeline that was largely south of the CITGO from his perspective. This flatly contradicts Craig's claim that Morin must have seen the tail as the plane was pulling up after banking around. As Morin says: "The ass-end of the plane is all you can see and then he comes down," and that follows a descent that gradually obstructed more and more of the plane.

This is essentially the same story that Morin told in September 2001, except that back then he claimed that he was already outside of the Navy Annex (10 steps outside and walking towards the security check-in building outside):

Terry Morin said:
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.
Click to expand...


This account given much closer to the time of the incident indicates that he had a view of the plane the whole time and was already on the outer edge of the Navy Annex. He places the plane "essentially right on top" of him, but he gave some details that suggested he had somewhat of a side view -- he described the nose-down attitude of the plane, the red and white stripes on the side, and that it had a silver body. Six years later when he spoke to Craig, he claimed that he was not able to see the side of the plane or else he would have described or identified it -- but essentially that is what he did in 2001! He then mentioned the same detail about the 8th Wing -- showing that he was still viewing the plane before it left the Navy Annex environs, and then he went on to describe the "flight path [which] appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled". How could he describe the flight path of a plane that he couldn't see? According to Cap'n Bob and Craig, the plane was flying on a course taking it to the north of the CITGO and low to the ground where the ANC witnesses and Lagasse would have seen it. Tellingly, Basalmo's animation of Morin's supposed actual view cuts short the moment Morin runs out of the Annex wings, but his animation of the plane flying on the official path is the only one that gives a sustained view of the plane flying to the treeline and then below it. The official path that Basalmo and Ranke claim is disproven by Morin. Morin says: "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." He had a long sustained look at the aircraft until the trees blocked his view. It wasn't just the tail he saw, he saw the whole airframe until the treeline obscured it. And again it wasn't a matter of seeing the tail as the plane ascended after banking. First the airframe was visible until only the tail was visible, and then "the tail was barely visible". This is a descent, exactly what he told Craig in the recent interview.

So there you go, Morin -- a bonafide SOC witness.
 
Last edited:
But Mangoose, Rob knows more about what Morin saw than Morin does. Silly boy...don;t ya know that the poles were knocked down NoC?
 
Oscar said:
So you're saying that persons unknown came up with the great idea of hijacking a passenger airline to fly straight at the pentagon so that it could miss at the last moment. That sounds dumb for a start. But, wait, even better they then plant explosives at the pentagon (that should be easy) so that it looked like the aircraft hit the pentagon when it really didn't. Wow. Great plan guys. That'll fox them.

And this brilliant plan was carried out because...um, because...nope, you've got me there.

Meanwhile, the real airliner then miraculously disappears from all radar screens and is secretly flown to an unknown location and hidden. With all the passengers. That'll be easy. Then we'll fiddle all the evidence to make it look like a passenger jet and all its passengers were found at the pentagon. Wahey, great plan. Brilliant.

And once again...why?
Click to expand...


Has this question been addressed in this thread yet? Can anyone here who alleges that it wasn't a jet that caused the damage at the Pentagon explain why the perps would OK such an unwieldy and bizarre plan suggested above? I submit that your ideological propensity to disbelieve everything the government and even non-government affiliated experts say is forcing you to cobble together some ridiculously convoluted scenarios. Can you not see that?

I've said it before and I'll say it again; if the government is as evil as you believe, why wouldn't there be groups around the world angry and motivated enough to carry out 9-11 style attacks against us? There's unfortunately no shortage of villains in the world. Yes, some of them may be on "our side" (whatever that means in the modern world) but many aren't. To believe otherwise is laughably naive.
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
don;t ya know that the poles were knocked down NoC?
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, the Matrix overloaded with the many simultaneous events of 9/11 happening all over the place, and the poles were knocked down both places at once -- and simultaneously at neither place, depending on the observer. Surely a "glitch" that the perps did not expect.
 
Mangoose said:
Unfortunately, the Matrix overloaded with the many simultaneous events of 9/11 happening all over the place, and the poles were knocked down both places at once -- and simultaneously at neither place, depending on the observer. Surely a "glitch" that the perps did not expect.
Click to expand...

So that is why England thought he was at the NoC overpass while his cab was SoC. Schrödinger would be so proud, instead of a cat, it is a cab ;)
 
Last edited:
Mangoose said:
So there you go, Morin -- a bonafide SOC witness.
Click to expand...


The problem beside your desperate "south side" spinning - and you must be aware of it if you really looked into the issue and heard Morin's testimony - is that the data and the "official story" has the plane so fast that it would only take - what - three seconds to move from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon. No time for him to change his position at all.
 
Childlike Empress said:
The problem beside your desperate "south side" spinning - and you must be aware of it if you really looked into the issue and heard Morin's testimony - is that the data and the "official story" has the plane so fast that it would only take - what - three seconds to move from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon. No time for him to change his position at all.
Click to expand...
So he must have been closer to the edge or outside of it. Unless you want to dismiss the FDR and radar data (as far a speed goes). He said he watched the plane disappear below his view.
 
JohnG, dismissing evidence out of incredulity is called faulty logic. I have absolutely no idea what happened to Lloyde England, it seems bizarre eighter way. Should i therefore dismiss corroborated witness testimony by more than a dozen credible witnesses?
 
DGM said:
So he must have been closer to the edge or outside of it. Unless you want to dismiss the FDR and radar data (as far a speed goes). He said he watched the plane disappear below his view.
Click to expand...


Yes, you already chose option 1). The witnesses are all mistaken in the same bizarre way.
 
Ok, we have covered Paik and Morin. DGM will now tell us how the witnesses at the CITGO station contradict what Paik and Morin said. From 21:30 to 34:00 in "NSA":

​
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
JohnG, dismissing evidence out of incredulity is called faulty logic. I have absolutely no idea what happened to Lloyde England, it seems bizarre eighter way. Should i therefore dismiss corroborated witness testimony by more than a dozen credible witnesses?
Click to expand...
You should always dismiss eyewitness testimony when there is physical evidence that contradicts it. Doesn't matter if every other person in the world said it did something, if the physical evidence points elsewhere, they are all wrong. End of discussion.
Doing anything else is "dismissing evidence out of incredulty".
 
Childlike Empress said:
The problem beside your desperate "south side" spinning - and you must be aware of it if you really looked into the issue and heard Morin's testimony - is that the data and the "official story" has the plane so fast that it would only take - what - three seconds to move from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon. No time for him to change his position at all.
Click to expand...

At my age and weight, I can run 40 yards in a little over 5 seconds. I think I could cover ten feet in less than three.
 
Childlike Empress said:
JohnG, dismissing evidence out of incredulity is called faulty logic. I have absolutely no idea what happened to Lloyde England, it seems bizarre eighter way. Should i therefore dismiss corroborated witness testimony by more than a dozen credible witnesses?
Click to expand...


Weighing two possibilities and choosing the one that seems both the most likely and the one with ALL of the evidence to support it isn't "faulty logic". The fact that you believe otherwise speaks volumes. Is the Tom Clancy fever dream that is the "Pentacon" theory possible? I suppose so, in the same sense that I may suddenly fall through my floor due to stochastic ooze is "possible", but I think either possibility is so remote that I will conduct my life as if I believed either to be virtually impossible, until that is I'm given sufficiently strong evidence to cause me to doubt those contingent beliefs.

How come when anyone disputes the generally accepted narrative of the Pentagon attack and they are asked to lay out their own narrative, all we seem to get is the internet equivalent of a blank stare or at best some bluster about a cleverly culled subset of eyewitnesses, misguided ideas on how security cameras work and supposedly suspicious light poles? How come no one steps up to the plate and explains why all the bait and switch missiles/bombs/decoy planes would be considered a good idea by any supposedly cunning and sinister cabal planning an attack on the Pentagon? How many of your "more than a dozen credible witnesses" saw the jet fly up and away from the Pentagon? Why can no Truther seem to get it through their head that eyewitness testimony has been shown in study after study to be notoriously unreliable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom