• 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

jhunter1163 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, I suspect it was one of those super-seekreet planes which can only be seen as they're descending. They can be seen disappearing behind elevated highways and below the roofs of 100ft buildings, yet still manage to clear those buildings in a fraction of a second, and everybody only sees the descending part of their flight. I bet it was one of those. Wasn't there a car technology being developed in the early 80's which allowed instantaneous 90° turns? I've seen it on the TV. What was it called? Autocar? Autosomething? Oh yes, Automan! :)
 
And Waldo throws Morin under the bus:

"Because when he saw the plane for the brief instant it would appeared parallel to the outer edge of the FOB-which, again, is where the flight path was at; the outer edge Also I am sure he meant it figuratively and not literally, since he can't see the entire flight path."

Hahahaha!! Waldo completely changes Morin's story. Although Morin says that he saw the plane all the way in, Waldo changes Morin's story, and now claims that that 1. Morin only saw it for a brief instant; 2. Morin could not see the entire flight path!

These guys are unbelievable! In a few hours they are forced to debunk another one of their own witnesses.
 
Aldo states;
Also I am sure he meant it figuratively and not literally, since he can't see the entire flight path."
Click to expand...

So has the CIT asked him if this was literal or figurative? Of course not, they are taking the account as reported which fine by me. However they simply cannot reconcile the detail Morin gives in seeing the tail of the aircraft or more, all the way until he sees the fireball, with a figurative statement.

The CIT contention that Morin could not see the plane seems born only of the desire for the CIT to place the plane actually over the Navy Annex and NoC which would indeed make it not visible by Morin at some point. However if they are willing to rewrite Morin's statement to that extent they why even bother quoting him since their interpretation barely resembles what Morin said? Morin gives as much or more detail about what he saw than practically any other witness and indeed aslo states that he saw at least the upper portion of the tail all the way until the fireball at which moment (given that the fireball must appear in close temporal proximity to the plane reaching the wall of the Pentagon) the plane , no plane ever invented or even imagined by any engineer, would have no time to pull up and over the Pentagon. Only a cartoon aircraft could make the close to 90 degree change in attack angle within a matter of a spilt second and a vertical radius of a few dozen feet that such a manouver would require. What's that, about 100 g's at 300 MPH? 1000 g?
 
Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5,
Click to expand...

Had Morin said "Approximately 10 steps from between Wings 4 and 5" perhaps it would have been ambigous but with the word "out" before "from" it denotes to most English speaking persons, that he is in fact 'out' of , ie, beyond, having passed through, the area bordered by Wings 4 and 5
 
jaydeehess said:
The CIT contention that Morin could not see the plane seems born only of the desire for the CIT to place the plane actually over the Navy Annex and NoC which would indeed make it not visible by Morin at some point. . . . . no plane ever invented or even imagined by any engineer, would have no time to pull up and over the Pentagon. Only a cartoon aircraft could make the close to 90 degree change in attack angle within a matter of a spilt second and a vertical radius of a few dozen feet that such a manouver would require. What's that, about 100 g's at 300 MPH? 1000 g?
Click to expand...

I believe Waldo claims that Morin was between the wings of the annex, so now Waldo claims that Morin was WRONG with . . . I do not know, everything, I guess.

I do like how SP claims that it went over Annex, BELOW THE TREE LINE, and then OVER the Pentagon. That pilot must have been smashed flat as a bug given the G's they were pulling on that Maneuver!

These guys are delusional.
 
Last edited:
If they were going to pick a witness account to twist, they couldn't have picked a worse one. Morin specifically states that he saw the impact AND that he saw the plane hit a light pole. He also gives a very specific flight path in comparison to a landmark that completely rules out the whole NoC scenario.

Even Rob Balsamo can't save them now.
 
jaydeehess said:
The CIT contention that Morin could not see the plane seems born only of the desire for the CIT to place the plane actually over the Navy Annex and NoC which would indeed make it not visible by Morin at some point.
Click to expand...

As I read his statement the aircraft would have been over Columbia Pike and at no time directly over the Annex simply because he could not have seen it as long as he indicates. In that he saw the flash and saw the aircraft or it's tail, it appears to me this is direct support for the "Official" Flight Path. Anyone disagree with this analysis?
 
Reheat said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what Rob did....except for the part that requires math..

Rob said:
The fact that CIT are not experts in MS Paint in drawing lines, and the fact that the blue and red lines show more of a sweeping arc (which by the way are possible "as drawn"), its only logical for someone who is objective to use the yellow segment as a sweeping arc, except of course for people like "you" who will fabricate any excuse to support the govt story.
Click to expand...

There you have it...if you used the path that they drew then you're just "fabricating an excuse to support the govt story" and you're not being objective.

Only a twoofer would claim that NOT misrepresenting their argument is a strawman.

1840746c1f10359a41.gif
 
nicepants said:
Only a twoofer would claim that NOT misrepresenting their argument is a strawman.
Click to expand...

Reference the yellow line (which is several renditions later than several other "potential" flight paths) that I didn't have originally. Now, can some aeronautics expert explain to me how one can head toward an object and at the same time enter a sweeping turn toward it. Doesn't that require a turn in the opposite direction first? Or can this mythical pilot just use full opposite rudder and fly sideways! But, that's not sweeping either. I'm at a loss on this one. ;)

I mean really, if anything similar to that case is true then the pilot of that aircraft knew that CIT would want to reference that Citgo Station, so they could spread their crap all over the Internet to fulfill some delusional desire to deceive people who don't know or understand Newton and aeronautics (to include them). My, my and to think they were well known even on 9/11 to that evil pilot flying the "decoy aircraft". Truth be known, I'd say Craig and Aldo were in on this from the beginning. Truthers, Craig and Aldo are agents of disinfo and have been from the very beginning.
 
Well I joined LCF and asked a couple of tough questions in the "Morin" thread. Let's see how long this lasts.

Any "tough questions" anyone from here want me to pass along?
 
DGM said:
Well I joined LCF and asked a couple of tough questions in the "Morin" thread. Let's see how long this lasts.

Any "tough questions" anyone from here want me to pass along?
Click to expand...

Yeah, ask him why he is accusing Morin of lying.

And ask him if he thinks Morin is a liar, why are they basing any part of their fantasies on him?

Ask him where he learned to cherry pick like that, Michigan or Door County, Wisconsin.

/I do get a kick out of the fact that Waldo is insisting that Morin was between the wings of the Annex, despite the fact that Morin clearly says the opposite. CIT is actually veering into Dr. Judy space beams Territory with this nonsense.
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
Ask him how come he has Morin in between Wings 4 and 5 when Morin's statement says he wasn't in there. Also ask him about the "brief instant" Morin allegedly saw the plane for, when Morin's statement says he watched it all the way to the Pentagon.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to use tact. I asked him if he clarified the flight path (not being parallel) with the witness. I also asked him why he's "interpreting" a witness for me (alluded to it, I'm being nice:D).

16.5 said:
Yeah, ask him why he is accusing Morin of lying.
Click to expand...

I'll be nice for now and let him dig his own hole. I'm not going to push too hard and get banned for no reason.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Well I joined LCF and asked a couple of tough questions in the "Morin" thread. Let's see how long this lasts.

Any "tough questions" anyone from here want me to pass along?
Click to expand...

The "parallel to the FOB" path he reports isn't what they drew in their little picture. I'd like to know if they had him draw a flight path on a map, and what it looked like.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic...to watch these guys try to twist EVERY eyewitness account to support their theory....and when one doesn't, they're labeled a liar & accomplice.

They keep trying to claim that any witness which makes ANY statement that seems to contradict the OT is "supporting the flyover".
 
Last edited:
Now an admin over there just claimed that Morin was lying about this:

"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."

They claim there is no way he could have seen what he claims he saw.

That's some mighty fine Debunking there Look up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom