Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[TheLoneBedouin]

This discussion is veering off from my the original subject. Could the mod please split into "cit credential" and "impact witness" threads?

Where to start? Oh yeah: every one of their witnesses said that the plane hit the Pentagon.

But they do not simply dismiss the impact- they consider the NOC true for several reasons which I can list if a new thread is made.
Please stick to discussing my critique of Reheat's paper.

 

[Reheat]

I am disappointed that "they" didn't send someone with a better argument than the same old "scientifically corraborated independent confirmed irrefutable witnesses" canard. I'll tell you right up front that I'm not going to spend my Sunday afternoon arguing with idiots who "believe". I have better things to do than getting into a pissing contest over "he said", "I said", "they said" crap.

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.

As someone else has already said, you left out the most plausible explanation, that NO AIRCRAFT flew North of the Citgo. It's not coincidental that you omitted that.

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).

Well, as expected you're leaving out that fact that Morin would not have been able to observe what he said if the aircraft flew the NoC path. In fact, an NoC path would negate all of the detail about the aircraft that he observed in addition to the path he observed - EVERYTHING

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.

Fixed wing versus rotary wing is a common description of craft with things extending laterally from the fuselage. Any argument otherwise is quibbling with minutiae. Variable geometry to include morphed technology aircraft are commonly referred to as fixed wing aircraft. Only the stall speed changes for the variable geometry of the wings. All of your other statements regarding aerodynamics are ignorant and false. The absurdity is, not only, could an aircraft not fly the proposed flight paths, but that no one including you have been able to show that they could and match what the witnesses said in over two years!

Please list examples of these aircraft which had thrust vectoring capability prior to 2001. Be specific with one that any witness described.

'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

Declaring victory without a valid argument is the hallmark of the true believer and is to be expected. Of course the model is impossible. That's exactly the point of the paper. There are dozens of witnesses that saw the aircraft on the generally accepted flight path, yet CIT ignores those. Why does anyone need to find more? In fact, no one needs to find more as CIT does a pretty good job of finding those that witnessed the impact and that in addition to the other physical evidence is all that's needed to know that CIT and all who subscribe to their absurd conclusions are perpetuating a fraud. It must be very disappointing to be gullible and buy this tripe, but you're not doing a very good job, so far. Good anything substantial to discuss or is that all that's up your sleeve today?

Be quick as I'm due for an afternoon nap pretty soon.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

AH yes CIT, who's entire motto is using the least reliable form of evidence to try and dismiss all the highly reliable evidence. No, they're not frauds at all....

 

[WildCat]

What are CIT's credentials?

2 of their members are in a trance band dedicated to the wonders of the diggety-dank.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Yah Deter, now vee donce!!

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

As someone else has already said, you left out the most plausible explanation, that NO AIRCRAFT flew North of the Citgo. It's not coincidental that you omitted that.

Previous Response: "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."

Well, as expected you're leaving out that fact that Morin would not have been able to observe what he said if the aircraft flew the NoC path. In fact, an NoC path would negate all of the detail about the aircraft that he observed in addition to the path he observed - EVERYTHING

Well, I've seen the PFT simulation which shows that Morin couldn't see what he saw if the official flight path was correct. If you have evidence to back up your claim that the NOC is incompatible with his observations, I'd like to see it.

The absurdity is, not only, could an aircraft not fly the proposed flight paths

Here is the real absurdity, Reheat, you create a model based on one observation which was dubious at best and claim that *no* aircraft could fly the required turns. Do you know all of the flight technology the military had access to in 2001? If not- how can you back up your claim?

Declaring victory without a valid argument is the hallmark of the true believer and is to be expected. Of course the model is impossible. That's exactly the point of the paper.

But what are you basing the model on- a literal interpretation of "parallel". If you understood that "witness statements are inherantly subjective", you'd understand the absurdity and inaccuracy of your model.

There are dozens of witnesses that saw the aircraft on the generally accepted flight path, yet CIT ignores those. Why does anyone need to find more?

Cit ignores no witnesses- not all of the witnesses wish to be interviewed.
Independent verification is important- you cannot trust second-hand accounts. When one goes into further detail, it is often the case that what people reported they saw were merely deductions or even complete misquotes (e.g. the alleged "light pole witnesses"). It is beyond unreasonable to dismiss CIT so prematurely.

 

[~enigma~]

Declaring victory without a valid argument is the hallmark of the true believer and is to be expected.

It also speaks volumes according to Danth's law.

 

[Reheat]

I'm having lunch now and that is more important than arguing with another loon believer....

Just what do you hope to accomplish here?

If you hope to convince me or anyone else here, you need to have something new and tangible. Arguing on an interpretation of witness statement could be done for 1000 years and nothing would change.

So, you convince me and all of the rest of the people here that this mythical unknown technological marvel flew NoC and flew over the Pentagon, just what have you accomplished? Answer = 0

Take your crap to the Media (any major outlet in the World will do), take it to a Court of Law, take it to any of the numerous politicians who would love to see the current Administration implicated, and make something happen.

Arguing with me on the Internet equates you to one of those ugly green flies that most folks object to having around for obvious reasons. If I'm so wrong then you have no worries do you? I guarantee you'll get laughed at more than you are already even without me or someone like me.

If you have something new to offer you need to spill your guts now. Otherwise, you're just a blowhard twoofer similar to all the rest.....

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.

 

[A W Smith]

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.

You sure that was a dog and not a truther from Pittsburg?
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/pit/708850980.html

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Arguing with me on the Internet equates you to one of those ugly green flies that most folks object to having around for obvious reasons. If I'm so wrong then you have no worries do you? I guarantee you'll get laughed at more than you are already even without me or someone like me.

Did you forget when you wrote: "Others are encouraged to post this work on other web sites or link to the pages. In addition, anyone qualified to do so is free to examine this work. I claim no copyright to the material. "
If you can't back up your claims in a simple examination, then how do you expect anyone to take it seriously.
I already know you're not interested in the truth, but others are- that's why I started this thread.

 

[Reheat]

In addition, anyone qualified to do so is free to examine this work.

So, you're one of these, huh?

and eyewitness research experts such as Aldo Marquis and Craig Renke from the Citizen Investigation Team..

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/credandexper.html

Do you have qualifications that are being hidden, other than a loon with a keyboard and an Internet connection?

 

[A W Smith]

TLB;
Those are not reheats flight paths, Those are your witnesses flight paths. so apparently you have a problem with your own witnesses.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Do you have qualifications that are being hidden, other than a loon with a keyboard and an Internet connection?

Maybe, but I believe your words were "credentials make no difference in the content of the paper or the numbers calculated". The same applies to the above critique.
In any case, I don't have to be a "witness expert" to know that corroborated are more accurate than uncorroborated statements. It is such basic stuff that one has to question either your motive or your ability to think logically.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

TLB;
Those are not reheats flight paths, Those are your witnesses flight paths. so apparently you have a problem with your own witnesses.

No, my problem is with Reheat. Witnesses are subjective- it is asinine to give the witness complete objectivity with regard to absolute heading, speed, etc. Actually, worse than asinine, it is deceptive.
Care to answer my question:
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 of witness testimony.

 

[~enigma~]

Maybe, but I believe your words were "credentials make no difference in the content of the paper or the numbers calculated". The same applies to the above critique.
In any case, I don't have to be a "witness expert" to know that corroborated are more accurate than uncorroborated statements. It is such basic stuff that one has to question either your motive or your ability to think logically.

From Reheat's original paper you cited...

In addition, anyone qualified to do so is free to examine this work.

Reheat asked you

Do you have qualifications that are being hidden, other than a loon with a keyboard and an Internet connection?

Why are you twisting that to mean credentials? That is the act of a desperate and dishonest loon...a good fit for CIT.

 

[Calcas]

Maybe, but I believe your words were "credentials make no difference in the content of the paper or the numbers calculated". The same applies to the above critique.
In any case, I don't have to be a "witness expert" to know that corroborated are more accurate than uncorroborated statements. It is such basic stuff that one has to question either your motive or your ability to think logically.

You guys just don't get it, do you?

NOBODY cares about Craigs "corroborated" witnesses. All of his witnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon as does ALL of the physical evidence and dozens of other witnesses. Everyone knows what happened, that's why no one is going to go out and interview people 7 years later.

It would be like you saying you have a handful of people that saw Santa Claus; therefore they are "corroborated" witnesses. It doesn't mean jack.

I noticed you never addressed this quote from Reheat:

"Take your crap to the Media (any major outlet in the World will do), take it to a Court of Law, take it to any of the numerous politicians who would love to see the current Administration implicated, and make something happen."

That pretty much sums it up.

Please tell us why you would rather argue this on the Internet than actually doing something to solve the crime of the century.

 

[T.A.M.]

Evidence?

Every time one of them opens their mouths, or posts on the internet. They are Fringe of the Fringe, rejected by their own (which is saying something).

TAM

 

[Reheat]

No, my problem is with Reheat. Witnesses are subjective- it is asinine to give the witness complete objectivity with regard to absolute heading, speed, etc. Actually, worse than asinine, it is deceptive.
Care to answer my question:

Well, if you have a problem with my direct interpretation of a witness statement then why don't you have the same problem with CIT's interpretation of multiple corraborated witness statements that "I saw the aircraft impact the building"?

 

[rwguinn]

Wow.
From "Wonder who this is?" to "Ignore" in 2 posts. A new JREF record...

Anybody got ANYTHING New?
Didn't think so.

 

[jhunter1163]

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.

Zing!