CIT Fraud Revealed

[Reactor drone]

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/T38form.jpg[/qimg]
off topic observation
T-37 looks a lot like an F-5.

Well a T-38 looks a lot like an F-5 (both Northrop products with one based on the other) .

The T-37 was the last photo in the set.

 

[jaydeehess]

. As quoted by mudlark, Middleton claims to have "felt the heat" of the aiircraft.
.

I was wondering about that myself. The plane would have to be on the ground for Middleton to "feel the heat", would it not?

Now perhaps he felt the IR from the fireball at the Pentgon as a few thousand gallons of jet fuel ignited.

 

[leftysergeant]

Now perhaps he felt the IR from the fireball at the Pentgon as a few thousand gallons of jet fuel ignited.

That is plausible. Heat from the airplane would be mostly from convection, in the exhaust, which, seeing that the plane was descending, would be directed upward, and would rise and waft away.

I have personnally torched as much a 10K gallons of JP-4 and could feel it through my turnout coat a hundred feet away. It burns a bit hot.

 

[beachnut]

Since that nitwit Latas agrees that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon from the NoC course, does he offer any suggestion as to what could have done the damage? I would have to have a look at any statement he made on that, if someone has a link to it.

I notice the sorry little loser didn't say much about his views on 9/11 when he was losing his election campaign. Maybe he figured out that it was too wack even for Arizona.

http://www.opednews.com/populum/link.php?id=58891 http://www.scribd.com/doc/19543120/Mystery-Plane-Military-Opposition-911

Jeff is in it for the politics and must not have the smarts to see Balsamo is dirt dumb stupid, or he set up Balsamo to sell lies on DVDs.

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/interview-with-jeff-latas-democrat-for/page-7/

Many may agree with his politics, but can they give him a pass on stupid?

He could be shallow on research and failed to see Balsamo really is stupid and never found anything wrong about 911.

 

[leftysergeant]

Many may agree with his politics, but can they give him a pass on stupid?

Politically and strategicly, he seems to be thinking clearly.

He could be shallow on research and failed to see Balsamo really is stupid and never found anything wrong about 911.

He's outside his AFSC as an investigator.

 

[leftysergeant]

I will throw this one out to Beachnut and anyone else here who has sat on a board investigating an aircraft accident. Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the president's function was mostly to see that everyone had their paperwork complete and that the final report was in a coherent form.

This would mean that he need not really be an expert in most areas covered, and that individual members, like a maintenance officer or pilot instructor or avionics expert would be there to cover their particular parts of the overall picture.

 

[beachnut]

I will throw this one out to Beachnut and anyone else here who has sat on a board investigating an aircraft accident. Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the president's function was mostly to see that everyone had their paperwork complete and that the final report was in a coherent form.

This would mean that he need not really be an expert in most areas covered, and that individual members, like a maintenance officer or pilot instructor or avionics expert would be there to cover their particular parts of the overall picture.

This is true. You would be managing the board to meet the 30 day deadline. You make updates to the major command safety office. You prepare briefings, resolve conflicts, could interview the supervision and leadership. A SIB is looking for what happen to fix the issues and make things safer. Maybe they mean literally Latas was an AIB president, those guys are looking to blame someone; I mean investigating to see if things were legal, that no one did it on purpose.

I was talking safety boards, maybe Latas was an the other kind of board. The SIB (safety) is like the NTSB, the AIB (accident) is like the FBI, but a non legal guy is appointed president and he has the JAG help him. Most of the times a rubber stamp for real accidents. When I talk accident investigation I mean safety, a safety investigation board, not the place blame "accident" investigation board, AIB.

 

[leftysergeant]

This is true. You would be managing the board to meet the 30 day deadline. You make updates to the major command safety office. You prepare briefings, resolve conflicts, could interview the supervision and leadership.

Okay. That was what I was looking for.

My only involvement was usually to just watch the planes take off and land and help find all the survivng pieces when they screwed it up, thern to write an incident report to describe what it looked like from my perspective. Were there critters on the runway, trash blowing about, birds in the area, smoke coming out of the wheel wells because some dork forgot to release the parking brake? (The last incident report I filled out at Pope AFB.)
Let's take that wheel well fire as an example. To me, it was obviously a brake problem, probably negligence. But I don't make that call. A maintenance officer would have to look at the system to be sure it was properly maintained. Here is where the "time-changed" parts that idiots like Killtown rant about come in. Whether they were the right parts and had been changed out on schedule matters in determining what happened.

So now we have the president of the board checking to be sure that the maintenance officer on the board has looked at this, and that my statement that I witnessed the fire starting as the aircraft started to roll down the runway is included in the documents collected.

Now let's look at the Pentagon crash. We already know that it was a controled flight into terrain. The questuion is whether it was deliberate or accidental.

Given that we already know that there were three other hijacked aircraft that day and that all of them had made controlled flights into terrain, I don't thing that the serial numbers on the brake drums are going to be very important to the investigation, as compared to the FDR and CVR.

Latas knows this full well, but he is still egging on the ranting lunatics like Killtown and Balsamo who seem to think that there is some magical significance to this information.

Sick.

 

[beachnut]

... Let's take that wheel well fire as an example. To me, it was obviously a brake problem, probably negligence. But I don't make that call. A maintenance officer would have to look at the system to be sure it was properly maintained. Here is where the "time-changed" parts that idiots like Killtown rant about come in. Whether they were the right parts and had been changed out on schedule matters in determining what happened.

So now we have the president of the board checking to be sure that the maintenance officer on the board has looked at this, and that my statement that I witnessed the fire starting as the aircraft started to roll down the runway is included in the documents collected.

Now let's look at the Pentagon crash. We already know that it was a controled flight into terrain. The questuion is whether it was deliberate or accidental.

Given that we already know that there were three other hijacked aircraft that day and that all of them had made controlled flights into terrain, I don't thing that the serial numbers on the brake drums are going to be very important to the investigation, as compared to the FDR and CVR.

Latas knows this full well, but he is still egging on the ranting lunatics...
Sick.

You are right, the "time change" parts, or parts in general do need to serial numbers to check things out, but since we know the plane involved we have the serial numbers and only need to verify numbers to be sure things have not got out of hand with parts interchanged by mistake on the wrong planes. On 911 there is not doubt which planes went down, there is no need to check any parts after it was clear it was terrorists; about a minute after the impacts! lol, poor CIT, poor Latas, not the brightest bulbs in 911 truth. Latas has not done more than say look at Balsamo, he has some anomalies, we need to investigate! Latas is a politician and failed to check out 2,223 g super nut case Balsamo.

I understand why the "time change" thing was started by a maintenance man that colonel guy, but he is being an idiot by not seeing 911 is not a "time change" part problem, it was a terrorist problem. He is applying the same zeal needed to track down problems with parts possibly causing an accident with a criminal act; his expertise is not needed so he spews poppycock because he hates Bush or something political blaming the evil government for not checking the parts and exposing how the parts were involved??? lack of logic due to political bias and paranoid conspiracy theories gone wild ...

 

[leftysergeant]

I understand why the "time change" thing was started by a maintenance man that colonel guy, but he is being an idiot by not seeing 911 is not a "time change" part problem, it was a terrorist problem.

I assume you are referring to Col. George Nelson.

He is applying the same zeal needed to track down problems with parts possibly causing an accident with a criminal act; his expertise is not needed so he spews poppycock because he hates Bush or something political blaming the evil government for not checking the parts and exposing how the parts were involved???

I wish it were that benign. I have also encountered some of his scribblings in support of the theories put forth by Gen Benton Partin concerning the Murrah Building and some of the whackadoodle theories about Waco. He seems to support the lie that the tea gas started the fires.

lack of logic due to political bias and paranoid conspiracy theories gone wild ...

Or fantasies of acting out the Turner Diaries scenario, if he can round up enough energetic crazies to form a significant unit of "useful idiots."

Or he is one of the Dominionists who twist arms to bring Air Force cadets under the banner of Jesus.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well a T-38 looks a lot like an F-5 (both Northrop products with one based on the other) .

The T-37 was the last photo in the set.

I quickly corrected my mistake but you were quicker

 

[mudlark]

Memory fades. What did Morin say in September 2001, immediately after the events when the memory was still very fresh?

Originally Posted by Terry Morin

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon [according to CIT, the plane should not have been visible at all by this point].

´Within seconds´?
Make that just over half a second. (555ft from his position to clearing the 8th wing i.e. OVER the eighth wing)
The plane was allegedly travelling at 540mph/792ft per second.
Distance between Morin´s position and the ´impact zone´ is 3,045ft.
That´s 3.85 seconds. Remember that figure.

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.

He would have had NO view of the lower altitude of the plane´s Southern trajectory. NONE.

This is Ingersol´s shot from the Annex. Only the top floor of the Pentagon may be seen.

Ingersol shot

Here are the trees in question that he stated ´blocked my view´

Same trees from another angle on the Columbia Pike turn at the foot of the Annex.

Where exactly does him seeing the ´tail dip slightly to the right´ at 540mph fit into the official path? This he claimed to see AFTER allegedly witnessing the ´flash´.

Remember that he saw the plane fly over him. By the time he realised what the hell was happening, the plane would have already cleared the Annex. 0.7 seconds..
To then clear the trees he mentioned and reach Cigo 1.2 seconds (944ft)
From Citgo to lightpoles1 and 2 would have taken 0.8 seconds (647 ft)
From the lightpoles to the facade 1.1 seconds (859ft)

[how can he estimate the flight speed of a plane he couldn't see but for a brief instant?].

http://www.thepentacon.com/ona.htm

Craig: How long are we talking?

Morin: 13-18 seconds
(...)
From here..all the way down. Ya know, that´s the time and phase of NOT KNOWING MUCH. Of reacting at the time

The official data points to the plane arriving on the scene (over Morin´s head) and reaching the Pentagon virtually in a blur. 3.85 seconds.

Morin claimed that the plane cleared the 8th wing ´within seconds´, he claimed that he got himself into a position to actually watch the descent, that he saw it descend beyond the trees in front of the Annex, that there was a period of time of ´NOT KNOWING MUCH´, THEN he claimed to have seen the tail of the plane ´dip slightly to the right´ AFTER he allegedly ´saw a minor flash´ which he assumed to be a lightpole being struck (which he had no view of whatsoever)

14:20

- Talking of the speed recorded on the FDR -

Craig: 780 feet per second, I think is what it is..

(...)

Morin: No frickin´ way
Craig: That´s what the FDR said.
Morin: I had time for me to come down, start to see it descend and come back..no it´s not..

He lost sight of the plane given the above statement on ´not knowing´.
It cannot be misconstrued any other way.
It is a physical impossibility that he could have watched the entire descent unless the plane was travelling at a higher altitude.
Especially so given what he says towards the very end of his 2001 statement

¨ I then confirmed that the aircraft had been flown di-rectly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building. ¨

HOW did he see the low level lawn trajectory we see in the ´5 frames´ given his POV??

He couldn´t.

[qimg]http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/2543/morinview2gn2.jpg[/qimg]

He saw the plane over the Annex.

¨I ran to the outside (from in between the wings) and got into a position where I could see it.
(...)
if the Air Force memorial had been built, the airplane would have ran into it.¨

This corresponds with Darius Prather´s testimony as to where he places the plane coming over the Annex. Prather, along with the other ANC witnesses describe the same manouevre that brings the plane NOC towards their carpark.

Morin lost the plane after the trees in front of the Annex. He could not have physically seen the plane as it passed Citgo.

That the plane´s tail may have momentarily reappeared towards Route 27 proves nothing one way or the other as both paths converge to within 100metres as they approach the lawn.

Whatever way you look at it Mangoose, your insistence that Morin could see what he did contradicts the alleged altitude of the plane.
Morin himself contradicts the official path (NOT over the Navy Annex as all have repeatedly insisted because it is a path not presented on any radar or FDR data)
He thoroughly contradicts the speed by up to 14 seconds.
He contradicts the low level approach across the lawn.

So the ´memory issues´ don´t apply to the speed he deduced?

I don´t know why he stated in his original interview that he ´saw the red and blue stripes´. Embellishment?

He repeatedly claims to Craig that he was INSIDE the wings.
That he could NOT ´see the sides´ as it was directly over him.
That there was ´NO FRICKIN´ WAY´ it was South of Columbia Pike or that it was travelling at 540mph/782 ft per second.

The most illuminating aspect of his conversation with Craig on the timeframe

Craig: How long are we talking?

Morin: 13-18 seconds
(...)
From here..all the way down. Ya know, that´s the time and phase of NOT KNOWING MUCH. Of reacting at the time

 

[mudlark]

So it doesn't seem the least bit odd to you that he would think the plane hit it although he claims the plane was no wheres near it.

He did not ´think´ that the plane had hit the VDOT tower.
He based his assumptions on seeing the repair guys the next day working on it.
I don´t believe it would have even entered his head given the circumstances.
Only that the tower was further down that road.
´NOC´ and ´SOC´ would not have been the uppermost in his mind.
He clearly states that the ´body´ of the plane nearly hit the roof and points to a trajectory over the Navy Annex.
This is what he is on record as saying he physically witnessed.
That he made an assumption the next day based on seeing people up on the tower does not change what he described.

 

[mudlark]

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/objectheightcalculator.jpg[/qimg] "this highly accurate program" ain't too accurate. or somebody over at PFT effed up ... again. No that's just from the center of the fuselage. Last time I checked, wings can cast a shadow as well. Your assumptions are wrong.[/QUOTE]

Mybad. The calculations you made count for nothing as I had assumed that the ´sun´ tool on GoogleEarth does not show the Azimuth as I had mistakenly said.
The shadows of the buildings don´t change. I don´t know what time those shadows were actually cast.

If your calculations are based on the length of the shadows cast in that Google image, you´re wasting your time.
You need to use the program that was used to debunk that NOC and Warren shadow image.

 

[mudlark]

Why would he have even taken any note of the tower at all?


[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/morinPOVsouth.gif[/qimg]

This is garbage. There is no way that anyone could have seen any such thing. You are deliberately confusing people. Stop it.[/QUOTE]

ME?
You´re confusing yourself Lefty.
That´s Morin´s alleged SOC view, not Paik´s.

 

[mudlark]

They don't "all agree on the path of the plane", but they do all agree on certain aspects of that path such as:

1) It was north of the citgo
2) It ended at the pentagon where the plane crashed into it

1) Yes
2) The path ends at the Pentagon because they believed it had crashed at that spot.

The two above statements are contradictory. That all witnesses on record in that area place the plane NOC leans towrds the latter being false.

NONE of those in a physical position to see it, placed the plane South of Citgo.

So...they could be wrong...but not wrong enough for the plane to be south of the Citgo?

All the ANC witnesses claim that the plane approached the ANC carpark from over the Annex. So no.
Sean Boger places it specifically to his ´right´ facing him from the heliport.
So no.
Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios were on the Citgo property or thereabouts.
Lagasse and Brooks drew a path that matched perfectly. NOC.
Lagasse could not have physically seen the plane SOC until it was well past the station.
Turcios places it NOC.
So no.

 

[mudlark]

Looking at your this illustration...the differences between some of the paths is quite significant ~500 feet in some cases. That's more than double the distance from one side of the citgo to the other. Do you see how the margins of error are too large to state with accuracy which side of the citgo the plane was on?

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/AllGroupsMap-3.jpg[/qimg]

If the margin of error is less than 500 feet, please specify how large the margin is.

If by ´some of the paths´ you mean Middleton´s path and Turcios, yes it is.
The SOC path is a further 240 ft away from Middleton´s path.

You DO know that Turcios´ path is the closest of ALL witnesses to SOC within that area at 460 feet?
The rest average 700 feet from the SOC path.

THAT is a cumulative margin of error contradicting what they ALL described.
I know which path I would dismiss based on these comparative margins of error and the verbal description provided by them.

 

[mudlark]

Unfortunately for you, you have agreed with me TWICE in this thread and debunked the entire NOC crap. You ran away the last time. I don't blame you for running because you've destroyed your boatload of bunkum you've been posting.

Here's your reference to Morins words which agrees with my analysis:



Here's the flight path and math that goes with it:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC

Don't even try to tell us that your pffft loons proved the flight path and math. They didn't because the path they plotted is quite different and was behind Morin over the middle of th Annex, not where you've just quoted him as indicating where it was.

You're dismissed as you've verified that the NOC path was aerodynamically impossible.


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif[/qimg]

Again Reheat?
Your entire math is based on ONE witness who was INSIDE the wings of the Annex. A witness who if people insist had time to get into a position to witness the descent, contradicts the official speed.
If you insist that he could physically SEE the descent, he contradicts the official altitude.
He saw the plane pass over him. Over the Annex.
What manouevre or trajectory would have had to have been assessed in that fraction of a second it would have been in his sights.

Never mind that the red path doesn´t even go over the Annex contradicting Morin´s interview with Craig Ranke, but the blue and green path??

YOUR ridiculously impossible path was designed to make it so.
It has nothing to do with ALL the testimonies of the NOC witnesses. NONE.

Here's your reference to Morins words which agrees with my analysis:

Originally Posted by mudlark
He said he could not PHYSICALLY see the stripes because the body of the plane passed over his head from 10 feet WITHIN the wings of the Annex.
He was very specific about this.

Seriously?
Your path is OUTSIDE the Annex.
Even Morin adjudged the trajectory of the plane as:

¨I ran to the outside (from in between the wings) and got into a position where I could see it.
(...)
if the Air Force memorial had been built, the airplane would have ran into it.¨

This is the MINIMUM angle of trajectory that he assessed from within those wings. How do we know this? It took 0.7 seconds to reach that point from flying over his head.
The slightest of left wing tilts would have changed this.
Darius Prather corraborated this trajectory and positioning as it passed over the Annex.

As with all witness testimony various ´datapoints´ as BCR calls them, are needed to paint the full picture. You ignored them.

 

[mudlark]

And how many describe the plane flying almost on its side with the wing scraping the ground? That is a 70 degree bank. It flew over the Navy Annex at 55 feet agl at 70 degree bank. So there is a wing lying around the Annex area I assume since such an altitude/bank would have put the starboard wing into the Annex.

This is using Reheat´s ´paths´ I take it?
Read the previous post.
By the way, ´55ft agl´ over the Annex?
The Annex is 69ft in height BCR. LOL

 

[beachnut]

Sean Boger places it specifically ...

In the Pentagon! Point, set, match!

You are so easy! Go back to the 2,223 g of no math failed CIT and Balsamo the not a real airline pilot who failed to get the required certificate due to 11.2 g or was it 2,223 gs of junk?

The shadow makes flying the NoC is impossible, your own work debunks you.