8 out of 8 at Citgo station

[Childlike Empress]

People don't need you or me to interpret what they learn from his testimony.

 

[Horace Wheeljack]

Childlike Empress,

I think you misunderstand. Morin and Paik's testimony places the plane south of Citgo quite clearly. CIT have been dishonest in suggesting Morin and Paik are north of Citgo witness.

 

[jaydeehess]

People don't need you or me to interpret what they learn from his testimony.

True, I understand completely what trees Morin is saying the aircraft disappeared over and it puts the plane firmly SOC..

In fact if the plane went NoC then where are the trees Morin says he was looking towards?

So, CE, how about you taking a run at reconciling Middleton's path with that of the one Morin or Paik describe? No one else seems to want to try.

 

[jaydeehess]

IWhile you listen to Morin, remember that the controversy here is whether the plane was south of Columbia Pike on the "real/official" flightpath (and never crossed the road), or approached north of Columbia Pike, over the Navy Annex and between (the north side of) the gas station and Arlington Cemetary.

Really?

Morin clearly describes a path that, if not ideally on the commonly accepted flightpath, does pass south of the Citgo station. What he describes is a flightpath that is at best 700 feet to the south of Middletons. The flightpath that Paik describes is hardly much better, 699-650 feet to the south of Middletons, and both Morin and Paik are quite clear that they were not facing north when they saw the aircraft which they would have to be if the plane passed over the north side of the Annex let alone over Patton Drive.

Neither Morin nor Paik can be said to definately be NoC witnesses.
Down to 6 now then?

Oops wait, wasn't Boger one of the 8? He states emphatically, no mistake about it, that the plane hit the Pentagon, that he saw it do so. While he might be mistaken about where the plane was when it was a mile out its not as likely that he was mistaken when the plane was 150 feet away and impacting the building.

5 now?

Hmm, Middleton and the ANC witnesses are looking generally west and south when they see the a/c. It is difficult to estimate exactly what an a/c is directly over. As explained in a previous post it is quite easy to estimate an aircraft as being closer than it really is.
If the a/c was along the commonly accepted flightpath, and high enough that the ANC witnesses could see it above their line of sight past the structures between their position and the plane, it would be quite easy to assume it was more to the north.
Perhaps the ANC witness paths are somewhat unreliable?
How many does that leave?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Childlike Empress,

I think you misunderstand. Morin and Paik's testimony places the plane south of Citgo quite clearly. CIT have been dishonest in suggesting Morin and Paik are north of Citgo witness.

Horace Wheeljack,

I understood you perfectly. Your statement is factually untrue and everybody who has payed just a little bit attention to the facts presented in this thread knows it.

Regards,
CE

 

[carlitos]

I suspect, and I am probably not alone, that CiT and mudlark are loath to answer this, or the question I and DGM asked.

In the case of carlitos question a ranking of the evidence by CiT would force them to baldly state that they give 0% weight to the docuementary evidence and forensic evidence listed above and that they give little weight to most of the physicxal evidence found within the Pentagon and are relying almost exclusively on a small subset of all the eyewitness statements.

If I had the time, inclination and a good proxy server, I would go over there and ask them. But, right this second, I don't feel like getting hit with "DID YOU WATCH EVERY SECOND OF OUR VIDEO???/!??@?@" AND "WHAT IS YOUR REAL NAME AND ADDRESS, SHILL?!?!!!?1/1!"

Those guys, as noted in my post #2 on this thread, nuts. They are to be dismissed, as is mudlark if he won't answer these questions. Actually, as are all truthers who won't state an affirmative hypothesis about what happened that day.

 

[twinstead]

What is factually true is that every single eye witness's flightpath, noc or soc, converges at the Pentagon when most witnesses say the plane crashed into it.

 

[Meed]

Those guys, as noted in my post #2 on this thread, nuts. They are to be dismissed, as is mudlark if he won't answer these questions. Actually, as are all truthers who won't state an affirmative hypothesis about what happened that day.

I don't recall the entire thread, but mudlark seems like a decent poster, given that he's arguing from such an untenable position and is outnumbered. I would be interested to see the questions answered though, when he/she gets a chance.

 

[carlitos]

That's fair. I also think he's valiantly composing offline, then posting online via dial-up, so there is a degree of difficulty. Still, it would be nice if he'd answer a direct question.

 

[beachnut]

Horace Wheeljack,

I understood you perfectly. Your statement is factually untrue and everybody who has payed just a little bit attention to the facts presented in this thread knows it.

Regards,
CE

No you did not; you failed to pay attention. Morin and Paik clearly support the real flight path averaging 61.2 to 61.5 true track. You don't understand 911 or you would not be weakly supporting CIT moronic claims. There are courses in taking witness statements so you and CIT could become educated and overcome your failure to understand.

Your thinking on this issue is the opposite of the Potsdam Denkschrift, you are acting in contradiction to your desired beliefs as you support anti-intellectual lies and failure to think rationally of the CIT back to witch-burning mentality of morons.

It is sad to think the NTSB video with the Pentagon rotated with respect to variation in the wrong direction set off the morons at CIT on a quest of stupid. A simple mistake due to ignorance has CIT making up lies which you support due to ignorance.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The part with the conversation between Morin and Ranke is from 4:18 to 15:55 in the video in #739.

 

[jaydeehess]

The part with the conversation between Morin and Ranke is from 4:18 to 15:55 in the video in #739.

Morin's description is clearly one in which the plane was at the very most along the northern extent of the Annex AND he describes it going below a treeline. That is inconsistent with a NoC flightpath and is wildly inconsistent with where the CiT put Morin's flightpath and even more inconsistent with the path given by Middleton. Morin's description is however very close to what Paik describes, who's path is also wildly inconsistent with Middleton's.

This much is perfectly clear.

 

[mudlark]

I don't recall where I said that any witnesses should be ignored.OK, I think that I can presume the answer, but for some reason, you won't actually answer. Seriously, bro, YES or NO. It seems pretty simple. Here is the question that I asked.

Maybe I deduced it from this previous quote?

I only weight my evaluation of the evidence 10% based on witnesses. That's because the forensic, documentary and physical evidence are so overwhelming as to make witness accounts meaningless.

I would say that rendering witness accounts as ´meaningless´ is on a par with being ignored no?
What I pointed out is that the ´physical evidence´ is not as overwhelming
as you presume given the lack/non existence of documented proof that I pointed out in my last post.

These ´few witnesses´ you referred to..you DO know that they were in the immediate vicinity? They include ALL witnesses documented within the Pentagon lawn area. ALL witnesses within the NOC path. Anybody documented within the Navy Annex area.

The NOC witnesses
At least 10 Annex flyover witnesses (not including the 6 NOC witnesses who saw the plane fly over the Annex)
9 witnesses who describe a ´right-bank´ (not including the same 6 NOC witnesses)
One witness who claimed both then and now that he saw a ´commercial jet´ ´AFTER the explosion hit´.
We are talking about more than 30 witnesses. 13 of which have been confirmed by CIT.

So, when I ask - are you ignoring all of the other evidence, because of these few witnesses, your answer is:

yes

no

?

This is not a yes/no question.
It´s not a question of ´ignoring´ evidence. It´s wanting to see it.
NOT taking somebody´s word for it.

Last point - How did the FBI become the "suspect?"

Until the full details and all evidence is on the table, such as the sequestered 911 calls, ALL the video evidence, plane part documentation, DNA chain of custody documentation, until the NTSB/FBI explain the discrepancies in the FDR data and specifically why NOBODY describes this flightpath all parties with control and access to this data/evidence must be considered a ´suspect´ until there is transparency.


Reason for edit : add on

 

[mudlark]

Neither you nor Balsamo can identify any specific topography or obstacle that would present a problem for my calculations. I've noted that before. If you had a leg to stand on, you wouldn't be so lame.

As I said, go discuss it with Balsamo.
Got that math ´debunk´ on his NOC math?

Here's the flightpath to which you refer: http://zoesflight.com/files/model.jpg

Yes, this is the flightpath NOBODY witnessed.

Here's what I know and can prove from his account as recorded on 30 November 2001, when his memories were still reasonably fresh:
http://memory.loc.gov/service/afc/afc2001015/sr/sr348a01.mp3
After stating that "the plane hit the building", he then refers to "another plane flying around the south parking lot" (my emphasis) a short time later.

Yes, and he confirmed seeing this ´other´ plane ´10 seconds tops´

He clearly understands that the plane he saw after the impact was not the plane that hit the Pentagon. He does not refer to it as a "commercial aircraft", nor does he say it was low-flying. He also gets the time of impact wrong, and eventually mentions two F-16s flying around the south parking lot some time later.

So you are saying that he knew it wasn´t ´Flight77´ because what...he knew what it looked like?

When pressed on EXACTLY what he saw in CIT´s interview he said that
he witnessed a ´commercial airplane´ around South Parking ´ten seconds tops´ ´50-100ft agl´ after ´the explosion hit´.

He never went into any detail in his first interview because he wasn´t asked any more on the subject.

Yes he was mistaken on the time of ´impact´ but this was an honest mistake simply on knowing exactly what time it was.
What IS clear is that in REAL time, he immediately ran to help the victims. He got the time wrong, so what?

He had NO IDEA what had happened. He did NOT KNOW that ANY plane had supposedly impacted the Pentagon. He thought it was an ´explosion´.
It is logical that he thought that it was ´another plane´ having been told AFTERWARDS.

and eventually mentions two F-16s flying around the south parking lot some time later

Inconsequential to him seeing the first plane.

None of us can top the highlighted lie you told above.

Think so?
You´ve just posted another example of ´twisting´ words to the point of dishonesty. Don´t worry I´ll put you right.

 

[mudlark]

All the CIT witnesses point to the real flight path verified by RADAR and FDR, downed lampposts and impact at the Pentagon of a 757 known as Flight 77. If you had real evidence you would be famous and have a Pulitzer Prize (look up Watergate).

Ya think so?

 

[beachnut]

Morin's description is clearly one in which the plane was at the very most along the northern extent of the Annex AND he describes it going below a treeline. That is inconsistent with a NoC flightpath and is wildly inconsistent with where the CiT put Morin's flightpath and even more inconsistent with the path given by Middleton. Morin's description is however very close to what Paik describes, who's path is also wildly inconsistent with Middleton's.

This much is perfectly clear.

How do people ignore the FDR and RADAR data let alone the other physical evidence including the aircraft? I was in the USAF for 28 years, there were thousands of military on duty on 911 and we would all report immediately anything like planting evidence, fake junk, etc. You have to be a moron and not a skeptic to accept the conclusions of CIT.

 

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by mudlark
He was interviewed by CIT here

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5818116873233#

On asked by Craig ranke where he saw the plane coming from..



Corresponds with Morin´s assertion that he saw the plane ´slightly nose down´ OVER the Annex and with Ed Paik who has the ´body over here´, pointing in a diagonal motion over the Annex.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif

Listen to all three and draw a path. Large airplanes don't do acrobatics.

What is clear is that NONE describe the SOC path.
All saw the plane over the Annex.
Paik points to NOC. Middleton WAS NOC.

 

[A W Smith]

Until the full details and all evidence is on the table, such as the sequestered 911 calls, ALL the video evidence, plane part documentation, DNA chain of custody documentation, until the NTSB/FBI explain the discrepancies in the FDR data and specifically why NOBODY describes this flightpath all parties with control and access to this data/evidence must be considered a ´suspect´ until there is transparency.

Until CIT gets its head out of its collective asses, And goes to a prosecutor with all their "evidence" . None of the above will even have an inkling of a chance of happening. Its 2010! Isnt it getting a bit warm, moist, and musty up there?

 

[mudlark]

Six posts in seven minutes! It seems like Craig Aldo Mudlark has been very busy!

Yeah I received your PM too.
I´ve tried to answer every post and NOT type two-line wonders like some.
Drop it.

 

[mudlark]

No, that is NOT what they said.



The FOIA was not about serial numbers, but documents relating to the identification process. I have FOIA's for the serial numbers and recovered debris. The FBI claims a law enforcement exemption in regards to those because it is an ongoing criminal matter (been keeping up with the news of KSM's pending trial?).

Keep it honest...

Yeah keep it honest. That´s rich coming from you.

The lack of documentation revealing the process by which the FBI identified the hijacked aircraft is unsurprising because the identity of those aircraft has never been in question

Thus, no documentation exists “revealing the process by which wreckage recovered . . . from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified . . . as belonging to the said aircraft

I have to take it on YOUR word that these documents exist?
The process is just as important. What are we going to be treated to?
More photos of any old plane debris?
THAT is why the process documentation is crucial.