Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[Reheat]

Hay, TheLoneBedouin, I feel so sorry for you, so I'm been thinking all evening of a craft that might have flown your beloved NoC Flight path. After all, since you've agreed that the right wing of the decoy was over the edge of the FOB, and that totally destroys anything further you have to say about an inaccurate flight profile, I owe it too you.

It ought to be something very familiar to you from your part of the earth.

I'll bet it was a flying camel with a rocket in it's butt! You know, the heat from that must hurt, so it has it's legs spread which were mistaken for wings. That must be why many of your witnesses had different explanations of the craft they observed. Most had never seen a flying camel and they were confused.

 

[Reheat]

No. It contradicts his own testimony. It contradicts everyone else's testimony. We don't even know if this is his testimony since it is second-hand- in Craig's interview Morin indicated he was in between wings 4 and 5.

Oh, so you've taken Ranke's word for that convenient, unrecorded, undocumented interview? I see.....

Yes, I understand "parallel to the FOB" is about as inconvenient to your fantasy as is "I saw it impact the building".

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Do you think maybe it has a serial number on it?

Looks like we'll never know.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

I understand "parallel to the FOB" is about as inconvenient to your fantasy as is "I saw it impact the building".

You claim to be an honest researcher. So if it is impossible for the plane to have been parallel to the FOB, why do you still accept it in your model?

Morin says it flew over the FOB:

However, within seconds of the impact -- less than a minute after the FOB flyover.

Paik says it flew over the FOB:

All FOB employees place it over the building.
All NOC witnesses place it over the building.
This is supposed to be "inconvenient".
(BTW, "So if it is impossible for the plane to have been parallel to the FOB, why do you still accept it in your model?" is not a rhetorical question, please answer it).

 

[OldTigerCub]

I don't know- but it didn't come from AA 77.

The FBI says you are wrong. Now, stop wasting time and explain why the FBI would consent to be an integral part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy.

(All together now) WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

And I'll give you those names again, TLB...Jen Hill and Tom O'Connor, both from the FBI. She found where it was, he delivered it to the lab and supervised the data extraction.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

 

[beachnut]

Morin says it flew over the FOB:

Paik says it flew over the FOB:

Morin said

"(flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB)"

oops, he never said it "flew over the FOB". Who lied to you?
Poor interpretation of Morin's statement. CIT and others mutilate Morin's statement for their own purposes.
Caution; you may need some math stink to understand Morin's statement. CIT and p4t lack any usable math abilities and must not understand parallel. What is your excuse, p4t/CIT back a major math/physics error, that makes an F look like a passing grade?

Paik did not draw that line, I think CIT drew the line and had to crop the photo when the line failed to go NoC! Oops! Paik actually points towards, directly towards the Pentagon impact zone. Look at this.

oops; at least CIT crops this to the section where he turns back and his hand moves to the left. Cherry picking, photo mining, CIT, pure fraud, and your ideas match their failed ideas. Why?

Paik clearly shows direct Pentagon, Parallel to the FOB, impact at the Pentagon. Paik supports the FDR, and 77 hitting the Pentagon! Are you having a bad research day, as in no research?

It is uncanny how accurate Paik points to the Pentagon, tracing his hand across the sky, very close to the descending flight path of 77! It is amazing how accurate his timing is on 77! Researching Paik, with data presented by CIT, supports the so called "government official story" so perfectly, it is hard to see how CIT mangles it so bad! Making up failed ideas, and ignoring the clues Paik gives! They clearly rank with the top researchers in fiction, messing up every single piece of evidence to come up with the most failed ideas without much effort at all, and CIT deserve, without reservation, the "Barney Fife, Jacques Clouseau Investigator of the Year Award"!

 

[Caustic Logic]

I've stayed back from this thread, but as a previous critic of Reheat's paper myself, I feel a need to weigh in. The point of that exercise was to show CIT's proposals impossible. Problem is it made them even more impossible to do so. So yeah, some errors of presumption as I highlighted here pretty unsparingly (and as I'm sure you've seen). So to some extent Reheat and CIT are both wrong, but CIT FAR, FAR more wrong. And while there are valid technical points to make on his model, TLB's concerns are all wrong.

Originally Posted by Mr. Skinny
"I think you forgot one possibility: The aircraft never flew north of the Citgo station."

The Lone Bedouin:
"You see, I never considered that since we have multiple NOC witnesses..."

Right there you lose all credibility TLB. By extension what this says is you never considered the possibility that the pre-building damage (vent structure, diesel trailer, fence, VDOT pole, trees, etc) was not engineered by unexplained fakery at some point during or before the attack. The massive fireball hurled against the building at an angle consistent with a south approach, if NoC is to be believed, must have been faked somehow. Flame cannon, sure, not too crazy, but on top of this it’s not even worth considering to you that the light poles weren’t planted, that Lloyd wasn’t in on it, and lots of other witnesses too, all coached to lie but sometimes too sloppily. And they let all the Noc witnesses survive and talk to CIT's camera after all that work... It seems quite obvious to you, does it, that all the building damage was faked, fifty-plus columns bowed, cracked and sparred and flattened or removed in a line consistent with a south path MUST have been done without a plane, presumably by explosives, despite all the clues saying otherwise. All the plane debris inside and out and bodies/DNA/stories of same would have to be planted/fabricated, the FDR and radar and video all faked/altered since they all show a south path impact). Perhaps most tellingly, you "never considered that" all the impact reports were NOT somehow either lies or results of some inexplicable optic trickery that has people like your star pull-up-flyover-can't-possibly-impact witness say things like “[It] was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building were it met the ground." Every aspect of this inconsistent with the north path flyover he's said to support.

So just to be clear, you're okay with all this, no questions, since a small but growing list of people are wiilling to SAY, with words, that the plane was def. over here. And crashed anyway.

Just that sentence does you in, but The hits keep coming.... same paragraph as above:
"Since Morin agreed in all other respects with the NOC witnesses and, in fact, could only have seen what he saw if the NOC was correct..."

No, ONA and NoC is among the best ways for Morin to NOT see the things he said he saw. Do you understand, as Mangoose has pointed out repeatedly, the Annex is not made of glass? Please read and understand this. Also check the comments where Craig Ranke clarified:
"Morin told me he ran out from between the wings which is when he saw the tail."

I got back thus:
"Dude, this is gibberish at this point.
ONA = NoC wasn't it?
He ran out.... Jesus help us."

Now we got someone making a career of this point and griping that reheat drew this stretch too parallel. At least it still makes some sense. Did you know Ranke calls you "a rationalist taking on the pseudoskeptics on our behalf! Not sure who this guy could be but I like his style."

As someone pointed out earlier, I "hate" CIT to a noticeable degree. Well I try not to get so annoyed since that's clearly what they're here for. The best solution is to just ignore I think. Reheat’s response was classic - he’s got a pretty good handle on how to deal with the time wasters:

“I'll be busy for awhile as I see a neighbor's dog has just pooped in my yard and it's attracting some of those ugly green flies. It seems they are everywhere I look today.”

In the time I’ve been saving by letting it go, I’ve been doing several things, including making a video of a cabbage plant growing. Serious. It's much more rewarding.

I guess there's other points I could make but that should do it. Peaceful travels, caravan kid.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Of course there weren't any in the public domain. We're not talking about that.
We're talking about an aircraft especially modified for a military psy ops. Got it?

Wow! This just gets ludicrouser and ludicrouser, doesn't it??????

Well of course it doesn't exist in TRW, you stoopied JREFers sheeple! We're talking about sooper sekret psy ops planes like Alex Jones knows that they have and he told me so, so it's gotta be true 'cuz Alex wouldn't make anything up. No he wouldn't, Nyah!

LB,
I'd think that you might want to take a break and regroup with your advisors and come back another day. But don't go away sad, please. None of our contestants here on "Crackpot!" goes home empty handed. Sooooo, tell 'im what he's won, Don Pardo!

Best Don Pardo stentorian announcer voice:

Well, Lone Bedouin, Jacques Le Cretin our master chef has whipped up quite a surprise, today. Here's Jean-Guy, our maitre d', coming out from the kitchen with a nice medium rare slice of your derriere on a platter if you'd like to take some back over to Rob and Craig. Thanks for playing "Crackpot!"

 

[Foolmewunz]

He goes and helps survivors after he sees the plane. Its not a full transcript- listen to the audio. It had to have been the flyover plane.

It had to be! It just had to be!
Keep repeating that. The report of him watching TV is pretty clear. Admit it. You're now so far painted into your corner that you'll fight for anything and everything.
You offered his testimony up as proof of a flyover, and you are now supporting an interpretation that defies common sense, logic, or even liberal interpretation of his comments.
NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THE PENTAGON PLANE ON TV. He is referring to AA175 hitting WTC 2. Give up!
And many of us don't have audio at work. You can just give us a transcript (I know you google warriors all have transcripts), but if it's as useful for your case as the Roberts' quote you might want to forget about it.

Big deal- he misreported the time. You want to tell Robert's police department that he didn't help people in the Pentagon, go right ahead.

Big deal! And, bid deal, Morin got the position of the plane wrong a couple of times. And, big deal, Paik pointed directly to the Pentagon in that video. And, big deal, none of your own witnesses say they saw a plane pull up. And, big deal... blah blah blah blah. Anything that contradicts your silly notions is hand waved away as insignificant. But get Craig and the boys out on the streets and they hang on any single little word (witness your ridiculous interpretation that Roberts must have seen the Pentagon flight coming.... ON TELEVISION!!!) that is in the least bit an anomaly.

 

[GlennB]

Of course there weren't any in the public domain. We're not talking about that.
We're talking about an aircraft especially modified for a military psy ops. Got it?

Do you also think it had a "cloaking device" that enabled it to fly over and mysteriously vanish?

 

[T.A.M.]

CIT is garbage, and can be summed up as follows.

Evidence against CIT's NOC:

Plane parts, 100's of witnesses (with testimonies given within hours to days after the attacks), Forensic evidence including DNA.

Evidence for NOC:

a handful of witnesses interviewed YEARS LATER, who are likely misremembering, or have inserted inaccuracies into their own recollections...

Look up Memory and Trauma, in particular, the effect on LONG TERM MEMORY.

Thanks

TAM

 

[JimBenArm]

Ok, what other evidence should I use?

Now, now, don't play ignorant.

Oh, wait, you're not playing, are you?

 

[robeeb]

Do you also think it had a "cloaking device" that enabled it to fly over and mysteriously vanish?

I heard the gubmint has a Klingon Bird of Prey that they use for super double secret black ops like 9-11.

 

[WildCat]

Looks like we'll never know.

Do you think that part may have come from a missile?

 

[D'rok]

Semantics. If you go to a magic show would you say you 'witnessed' a man cut a women in half and put her body back together? Or after examining the evidence would you say you witnessed a trick?
"Flyover witness" is not absolute- if you have a theory which fits the data better it would be changed.

I was a little slow on the uptake last night. I just clued in to what you are really saying here.

The trick in this case is making it look like an American Airlines airliner crashed into the Pentagon, just as a the trick for the magician is making it look like a woman was cut in half, right? So, those who witnessed the airliner crashing into the Pentagon actually witnessed a trick in the same way as those who witnessed the magician's performance witnessed a trick.

You've expanded "flyover witness" to include everyone who witnessed the "trick" of the plane crashing into the Pentagon. ("Semantics" indeed). As a result, you now have 100 or so "flyover witnesses". Congrats.

Your conclusion: It was obviously a trick, because all the witnesses saw the plane crash into the Pentagon, which is obviously a trick.

Tautological argument is tautological.

At least you are backing off on your original claim of having a "flyover witness" in the meaningful sense of that term.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well, I'll say one thing for the CIT, their idiotic theory managed to unite numerous Truthers [Caustic Logic, Arabesque, Pickering, (that other guy who is mad at Caustic Logic for some reason and whose name escapes me), Reprehensor at 911 Blogger, all the mods at the old Loose Change Board (but not the new crew of halfwits), the entire Lets Roll forum and admins, and a bunch of others who names escape me] on the one hand and lots of posters on the JREF board on the other.

Of course, about 90% of that is due to the fact that the CIT's theory is so pathetic, the other 10% is of course because Lyte and Waldo can be such doucherockets.

 

[e^n]

Please explain how and when the bank angle changes in your model.

My model is contingent upon the least severe banking turn. The bank angle changes when the speed and/or vertical displacement changes.

Unless you had vectored thrust (see how useless it is to speculate).

You are speculating by saying 'vectored thrust'. We have no evidence these systems even exist yet you are willing to claim that somehow this disproves this model?

It does not, and unless you are going to start producing some data this is akin to saying "But if it had intertial dampeners it would be unaffected by acceleration".

The point is, it would be disingenuous to say the NOC path is impossible if slight movement of the flyover point changed the outcome.

I am not claiming it is impossible, simply that the laws of physics and flight dictate the plane must have banked an excessive amount to carry out any section of the maneuver. Nobody reports these banks, therefore it's likely it did not carry out this maneuver.

The only one who suggests a slight bank angle is Morin- and his account is self-contradictory. Also, according to Craig's informal interview he was in between wings 4 and 5 when he saw the plane and wouldn't have been able to see it bank. Watch the new trailer, which includes a witness who was specifically asked about the bank angles (the guy with the toy plane). The 'wing level' quote is probably Paik, who was on the other side of the navy annex.

You seem to be agreeing that nobody mentions these bank angles. I assume you are aware of Sean Boger

Untrue. Craig told you how you could falsify their findings.

Indeed he did, and lets just quote that here to show how ridiculous it is

Since we have 13 independent north side accounts it would take an equal or larger number amount of independent accounts claiming the opposite in order for me to consider that the north side evidence is false.

Lets forget for a moment that they don't have anywhere near 13 north side accounts, as you can see Craig is relying on the most unreliable of evidence to prove his case. Aerodynamics, Physics and simple logic play no part in any disproof he can imagine. I disagree.

Ok, like what.
1)The plane must have flown NOC.
2)The plane must have flown over the explosion area.
3)The plane flew over the Navy Annex.
4)The plane flew east of the Potomac.
Are you seriously suggesting that is enough data to create a reliable model?

Actually we need even less data than that

• The plane flew across Columbia over Mr Paik
• The plane flew north of the Citgo station
• The plane flew into or over the pentagon impact point

This alone gives us a minimal force approach, all that is remaining is to determine the speed the aircraft was travelling. More refinement can be done to ensure the plane does not exceed stall speeds / undergo excessive G loading. Both of these look ok with this flight path though.

 

[R.Mackey]

Well I try not to get so annoyed since that's clearly what they're here for. The best solution is to just ignore I think.

[...]

In the time I’ve been saving by letting it go, I’ve been doing several things, including making a video of a cabbage plant growing. Serious. It's much more rewarding.

I guess there's other points I could make but that should do it. Peaceful travels, caravan kid.

Well spoken. You also correctly identify the core problem with the discussion -- namely TheLoneBedouin's flat refusal to consider a "SoC" flightpath, in essence making his beliefs unfalsifiable. This is a Weak Irreducible Delusion and anathema to reasonable discussion.

For me, the most obvious red flag is that Lloyde England must have been "in on it" for this story to make a lick of sense. Not bloody likely. However, since then we've been assaulted by approximately 400 pages of discussion on this non-topic. Let it go, guys. Another 400 pages isn't likely to turn anything, except our stomachs.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

The Lone Bedouin:
"You see, I never considered that since we have multiple NOC witnesses..."

Right there you lose all credibility TLB.

Please quote the entire paragraph:
"You see, I never considered that since we have multiple NOC witnesses and only one parallel to the annex witness. Since Morin agreed in all other respects with the NOC witnesses and, in fact, could only have seen what he saw if the NOC was correct, it seemed reasonable that the specific parallel claim was an approximation. If you disagree, perhaps you'd like to give reasons why Morin should be held above the entire body witness testimony."
This is only in reference to Morin, which makes the rest of your paragraph meaningless.

No, ONA and NoC is among the best ways for Morin to NOT see the things he said he saw. Do you understand, as Mangoose has pointed out repeatedly, the Annex is not made of glass? Please read and understand this.

It seems unlikely that he saw the tail at impact if the plane was NOC, but he wouldn't have been able to see it at SOC either. Morin (in his MSM interview) says that the plane flew both "over the FOB" and "over him and the outer edge of the Annex". Which claim is correct? Well, since he claimed he saw a bank to the right, and since that would place the plane impact on the wrong wedge (if the 'parallel claim' is taken literally), then the plane must have been traveling in a Northerly heading. Morin wouldn't be able to see the NOC, but his testimony is consistent with it.

Also check the comments where Craig Ranke clarified:
"Morin told me he ran out from between the wings which is when he saw the tail."

What's your point- Morin said the plane passed over the Navy Annex.

Did you know Ranke calls you "a rationalist taking on the pseudoskeptics on our behalf! Not sure who this guy could be but I like his style."

Well, its clear that Reheat at least fits pseudoskeptic to a t.