TheLoneBedouin
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 733
Reheat's analysis of the North of the Citgo hypothesis seems to have some fundamental flaws. A brief read-through reveals two such flaws:
1) Incorrect interpretation of Morin's account.
Reheat's analysis is completely dependent on Morin's statement that:
"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).", which produces this approximate flight path:
Reheat realizes the absurdity of such turns when he writes: "It should be noted that NO WITNESS mentioned the type of bank angles required to complete the required turns."
So if no witness reported these absurd banks, there are three possibilities:
*Morin's account is a lie.
*Morin's observation of the plane flying parallel to the annex was an approximation.
*Reheat's underlying assumptions are wrong.
The first possibility (that Morin is lying) has no evidence and would lead to the same results as the second possibility- so we can ignore it.
The second possibility seems obvious, yet Reheat's model misleadingly takes Morin's statement literally and has the plane traveling parallel to the Annex and subsequently making a huge bank into the Pentagon. Reheat admits "[t]he distances involved are very short for a fast moving, low flying aircraft", so one could hardly expect an observer to judge exact heading.
In every detail, Morin corroborates what the other witnesses described- he sees a slight turn to the right, a flash and most importantly, he sees the tail section at the time of the explosion. If the plane was at the official altitude, Morin would not have been able to see the tail, and in fact, he wouldn't have been able to see the impact at all if the official flight path was correct(pft did a video on this). Furthermore, he says the plane banked slightly to the right, and makes no mention of the 'c' flight path Reheat has constructed. Did it really never occur to Reheat that if no one observed his spectacular maneuver and that if Morin's testimony was largely consistent with the greater body of evidence, the problem might lie in his literal interpretation of the phrase 'parallel to the annex'? Did it really never occur to Reheat that Morin couldn't accurately judge absolute heading at slower speeds let alone the speed he claimed it was going, and that it was clearly an approximation which matched what the other witnesses described? What's particularly odious about this paper is that it takes one piece of testimony out of context in order to debunk several other corroborated pieces of testimony (the NOC), and does not even question the validity of the one piece of evidence. A more accurate title would be "Debunking Terry Morin's Parallel to the Annex Claim" (though, as we shall see, even that is incorrect when we consider aircraft type).
2)The Calculations are *Not* Aircraft Independent.
The author claims "[w]ithin the large transport category of aircraft that witnesses described, the calculations are specific aircraft type independent". He reasons that "ince ALL fixed wing aircraft are subject to the same bank angle and G forces in turns, the specific type of aircraft does not matter for the those numbers posted in the chart". He goes on to claim "variable wing geometry or a morphed wing using futuristic memory shape alloy metals would be subject to the same bank angle and G requirements".
But this is a contradiction. These designs are not fixed wing aircraft- the bank angles and g forces would depend on the specific shape of the wing in time. Pre-911 examples of these designs are capable of the suggested flight paths. Furthermore, technology such as thrust vectoring have been used for decades with similar increases in maneuverability. It is an absurdity to state that no aircraft could fly the proposed flight paths.
'Debunking the North of the Citgo theory' fails to debunk the North of the Citgo claim. Witness statements are inherently subjective and do not constitute accurate measurements with which one can perform calculations. The author oversteps the limitations of the data and constructs a false model that none of the witnesses described. He contradicts himself by stating the calculations are aircraft independent. More fruitful methods of studying CIT's evidence would be:
*Demonstrating interview bias
*Independent witness analysis to either confirm or negate CIT's data
1) Incorrect interpretation of Morin's account.
Reheat's analysis is completely dependent on Morin's statement that:
"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).", which produces this approximate flight path:
Reheat realizes the absurdity of such turns when he writes: "It should be noted that NO WITNESS mentioned the type of bank angles required to complete the required turns."
So if no witness reported these absurd banks, there are three possibilities:
*Morin's account is a lie.
*Morin's observation of the plane flying parallel to the annex was an approximation.
*Reheat's underlying assumptions are wrong.
The first possibility (that Morin is lying) has no evidence and would lead to the same results as the second possibility- so we can ignore it.
The second possibility seems obvious, yet Reheat's model misleadingly takes Morin's statement literally and has the plane traveling parallel to the Annex and subsequently making a huge bank into the Pentagon. Reheat admits "[t]he distances involved are very short for a fast moving, low flying aircraft", so one could hardly expect an observer to judge exact heading.
In every detail, Morin corroborates what the other witnesses described- he sees a slight turn to the right, a flash and most importantly, he sees the tail section at the time of the explosion. If the plane was at the official altitude, Morin would not have been able to see the tail, and in fact, he wouldn't have been able to see the impact at all if the official flight path was correct(pft did a video on this). Furthermore, he says the plane banked slightly to the right, and makes no mention of the 'c' flight path Reheat has constructed. Did it really never occur to Reheat that if no one observed his spectacular maneuver and that if Morin's testimony was largely consistent with the greater body of evidence, the problem might lie in his literal interpretation of the phrase 'parallel to the annex'? Did it really never occur to Reheat that Morin couldn't accurately judge absolute heading at slower speeds let alone the speed he claimed it was going, and that it was clearly an approximation which matched what the other witnesses described? What's particularly odious about this paper is that it takes one piece of testimony out of context in order to debunk several other corroborated pieces of testimony (the NOC), and does not even question the validity of the one piece of evidence. A more accurate title would be "Debunking Terry Morin's Parallel to the Annex Claim" (though, as we shall see, even that is incorrect when we consider aircraft type).
2)The Calculations are *Not* Aircraft Independent.
The author claims "[w]ithin the large transport category of aircraft that witnesses described, the calculations are specific aircraft type independent". He reasons that "
But this is a contradiction. These designs are not fixed wing aircraft- the bank angles and g forces would depend on the specific shape of the wing in time. Pre-911 examples of these designs are capable of the suggested flight paths. Furthermore, technology such as thrust vectoring have been used for decades with similar increases in maneuverability. It is an absurdity to state that no aircraft could fly the proposed flight paths.
'Debunking the North of the Citgo theory' fails to debunk the North of the Citgo claim. Witness statements are inherently subjective and do not constitute accurate measurements with which one can perform calculations. The author oversteps the limitations of the data and constructs a false model that none of the witnesses described. He contradicts himself by stating the calculations are aircraft independent. More fruitful methods of studying CIT's evidence would be:
*Demonstrating interview bias
*Independent witness analysis to either confirm or negate CIT's data
