Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[johnny karate]

In the late eighties, Fox aired a series called "Werewolf." As part of its promotion campaign, the network set up a "Werewolf Hotline" to enable people who had seen a werewolf to phone in their experiences. The hotline logged more than a million sightings. It is somewhat relevant to this thread that of those million-plus sightings, not a single one was real.

Careful there, Ron... not believing in a Citgo flyover is sane and rational. Not believing in werewolves is foolhardy and dangerous.

Just remember to stay off the moors.

 

[Reheat]

No, cit has never claimed this. Those two examples were merely were used to highlight the absurdity of the claim that "no plane could fly noc". The key flaw is the misinterpretation of Morin's testimony.

My, my, aren't these arguments familiar. We don't claim alternative technology was used, but just like monkeys at the zoo, we'll throw it against the wall to see if it sticks.

BTW, you keep misquoting me again and again. It's not that no aircraft could fly NoC, it's that none could do it and comply with your witnesses statements. Twist and turn just like your other acronym's of Lyte Bulb Trip.

I do not know the extent of the military's flight technology in 2001. Likely such information is classified- if you can access such information, however, please justify Reheat's claim that "no plane can fly NOC".

Operational technology such as you don't claim, not only, did not exist in 2001, it does not exist today in any form described by any of your witnesses. Here you go again misquoting what I've said. You like that don't you as you think it let's you off the hook?

This could lead to the conclusion that Reheat's equations are applicable to alternative designs- they aren't. In any case, you're just arguing semantics.

Yes, they are applicable to alternative designs and stop claiming this crap as you obviously don't know what you're talking about. The only difference would be in stall speed. In fact, you're the one arguing semantics.

Why are you even discussing this as you obviously have no clue and you are not claiming that the alternative technology in the first place? It's obvious that just like your other pseudonyms, you just like to argue for arguments sake.

When are you going to do anything more than argue on the Internet? Your silly little Forum gets no traffic, so you decide to come here to show your behind. I get it and so does most everyone else....

 

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin

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...

Cripes, you have no idea what morin really testified to, do you? You believe only what Ranke claimed he said. In point of fact, the goofs at the CIT do not claim that Morin is a NOC witness. What they claim is that (by selective misreading of his testimony) Morin puts the plane over the Navy annex. He does not, of course, in fact he claims he saw the plane all the way into the Pentagon. The point of reheat's paper is that if you accept everything that the nitwits at the CIT claim, no airliner could have flown the CIT flightpath.

So unless you got the math to back up the CIT's fraudulent path, you are wasting our time.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

60 posts in and finally a relevant reply!

Sorry, but I have no clue what the OP was trying to say. From where Terry Morin said he was at the time, he certainly could not have watched the plane continue to descend all the way to the Pentagon had the plane been on a NOC path. The Navy Annex would have blocked his view.

Got any measurements/ calculations/ pictures/ videos/ etc. to back that up?

BTW, Craig Ranke claimed in his Damage Report appearance that his witnesses described a white plane -- not a silver plane -- so if "Morin agreed in all other respects" with Craig's other witnesses, why does Morin say that the plane was silver and had blue and red stripes?

Well, everyone disagreed on color. I will amend it to "agreed with all other corroborated testimony".

Didn't see that video, but I can't see how Morin could at all be construed as supportive of a higher altitude necessary for a "flyover" hyposethesis. He said "[a]s 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."

If he could see the tail- it is not at the correct altitude.

He then described it dipping even lower until the tail itself was hardly visible. So how could it have recovered from such a low altitude to fly over the Pentagon?

If the tail was visible at all he wouldn't have seen the official flight path.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Not true. Here are two.

Here's another one. A humbodt award winner no less.

You seem to have missed the word "reputable".

Those examples were beyond weak. No "scientist" who posts their work in either Physics911.net or some random internet forum is to be taken seriously, not to mention the fact that raising long disproven canards is the furthest thing from real research. If a scientist were truly serious about their study, they'd be attempting to get it published. Steven Jones, believe it or not is one example of this, although his resorting to vanity press is very disappointing. Note that I'm not commenting on the quality of his terrible research, I'm merely acknowledging that he's actually serious about pursuing it. The validity of it is another topic altogether.

Anyway, as noted before, a real example of work challenging NIST is the Edinburgh researchers work on steel truss behavior in fires. They have published their work in reputable journals - no, Physics911.net or the Journal of 9/11 Studies do not count as such, but in a real engineering journal dealing with truly legitimate engineering issues. This whole topic of what constitutes reputable research has been covered many times before in this forum; I suggest you use the search feature to look those threads up. In short, if their research is bad to the point where they're self publishing on the net - or paying vanity sources such as Bentham - then its not worth looking at. And those two examples were simply not worth anyone's time.

 

[The Big Dog]

Claim: "The Navy Annex would have blocked his view."

CIT Boy: "Got any measurements/ calculations/ pictures/ videos/ etc. to back that up?"

OH OH OH!! I do I do! The tallest person in human history was 8 foot 11 inches tall. The navy annex is at least 50 feet tall. So unless Morin was at least 50 feet tall he could not have seen over the annex.

(cripes, you really have no idea where Morin was, do you??)

 

[beachnut]

Morin saw the tail nearly hit the Pentagon, means 77 hit the lampposts and the Pentagon, therefore the NoC is pure hogwash, and CIT is unable to make a rational idea on 9/11. The flight paths CIT propose are all impossible for various reasons. So far you have not changed that.
Do you understand parallel?

If you are supporting the NoC, you have failed to do that. Why are you lacking evidence? Does this mean you support 77 flying over the Pentagon?

 

[Reheat]

Does this mean you support 77 flying over the Pentagon?

Of course, he does as it's the pygmy himself!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You know, I think I need to stop posting in this thread. I'm not going to rediscuss reputable science or contrast that to the conspiracy peddling travesties masquerading as such for the 10 millionth time, not when there's plenty of archives to read and a whole other subforum where such can be discussed. That way, too, this thread can stay on topic, which is the NoC theory.

 

[T.A.M.]

You know, I think I need to stop posting in this thread. I'm not going to rediscuss reputable science or contrast that to the conspiracy peddling travesties masquerading as such for the 10 millionth time, not when there's plenty of archives to read and a whole other subforum where such can be discussed. That way, too, this thread can stay on topic, which is the NoC theory.

I hear ya. Ref created some nice threads for just such a thing...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74652
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76025
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75126
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75831
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74735

Note, there may be some duplication, but he has most of the excellent discussion on the various topics of 9/11 listed.

TAM

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

You seem to have missed the word "reputable".

Those examples were beyond weak. No "scientist" who posts their work in either Physics911.net or some random internet forum is to be taken seriously, not to mention the fact that raising long disproven canards is the furthest thing from real research.

So in other words, you were not really talking about reputable scientists speaking out, so much as "reputable scientists speaking out in reputable media". And, of course, you are one who defines what 'reputable' means. Benson and Greening post on internet forums, are they to be taken seriously?

If a scientist were truly serious about their study, they'd be attempting to get it published.

I'm interested in what you think of this quote:

The other day, discussing the subject of modern day scientific research which is most often controlled by politics, I wrote: “The peer-review system has serious flaws. Sometimes completely nonsensical and disinformation papers are published. And quite often good papers are being rejected, because referees have their prejudices and personal interests.”

I suggest you read the full article.
What about this statement:

Just a few immediate comments:

What they did or what they have writen seems to show that they are no better (but no worse) than several theoretical physisicts friends of ours who often use some mathematical terminology that they do not master well enough... The result being that their own scientific contribution is conceptually vague and therefore "not even wrong".

Should I quote the names of several people whom I know (and whom you know as well) who do not know that there are several inequivalent principal bundles with the same base, same total space, and same basis... or who do not make the difference between a principal bundle and a vector bundle (the worst of it is that some of these people are sometimes known as "specialists of geometry in physics" within the community of mathematical physicists !) So in this respect, these two people are in good company.

I suggest you use the search feature to look those threads up. In short, if their research is bad to the point where they're self publishing on the net - or paying vanity sources such as Bentham - then its not worth looking at. And those two examples were simply not worth anyone's time.

But actual scientists state that this plainly isn't the case. How much experience have you had in the scientific publishing industry?

 

[Pardalis]

To stay on topic, what are the scientific credentials of the CIT boys?

 

[~enigma~]

To stay on topic, what are the scientific credentials of the CIT boys?

I really hope that's a rhetorical question cause you should already know Alpo and his friend here Craig have no qualifications besides being veteran investigooglers. That's why they named themselves Clueless Investigoogle Team.

 

[Mangoose]

Got any measurements/ calculations/ pictures/ videos/ etc. to back that up?

Here is a super-scientific expertly measured graphic for you:

 

[Pardalis]

I really hope that's a rhetorical question cause you should already know Alpo and his friend here Craig have no qualifications besides being veteran investigooglers. That's why they named themselves Clueless Investigoogle Team.

Our Bedouin friend seems to value scientific research and authority. I just wonder why he puts so much stock into these two potheads' theory and methodology.

 

[Mangoose]

Thanks for posting the PFT video. My God, is that what you think -- that Morin was in between the wings of the Navy Annex and only saw the plane for a split second? I can't imagine the contortions required to make his account fit that. BTW, how tall would the trees had to have been to block his view of the plane from between the wings of the Navy Annex?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I love how the witnesses who think they saw the plane fly south of the sign are infallible until it comes to them seeing the plane hit the building. THEN they are mistaken and hallucinating. Ah those CIT monkeys make up some funny stuff!

 

[bje]

That is another error in Reheat's paper. Cit does not claim that the plane was flight 77, they claim it was a 'decoy jet'. Conflating these two is one of the more glaring errors in the paper.

Yes, you claimed AA77 did not hit the Pentagon right here, Craig:

Lack of foundation damage puts an end to 757 impact debate at the Pentagon

 

[Reheat]

That is another error in Reheat's paper. Cit does not claim that the plane was flight 77, they claim it was a 'decoy jet'. Conflating these two is one of the more glaring errors in the paper.

Well now, just where in the paper does it say that the aircraft was AA77?

You seem not to be able to read very well. So much for YOUR critique.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Morin saw the tail nearly hit the Pentagon, means 77 hit the lampposts and the Pentagon, therefore the NoC is pure hogwash, and CIT is unable to make a rational idea on 9/11.

Morin did not see the "tail nearly hit the Pentagon", whatever that means. He actually said:

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. 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. 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. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.

So Morin did not see the plane impact into the Pentagon. He saw the tail above some trees and then and explosion. If Morin saw a "deliberate, smooth, and controlled", turn to the right it could only have been on the NOC flightpath (something everyone else describes). If the "parallel to the annex" claim is taken literally the plane would have hit a different wedge.

Do you understand parallel?

Yes. Do you understand subjective? Then why are we having this ridiculous argument?