Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[TheLoneBedouin]

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

For approximately two years a group calling themselves “The Citizen’s Investigation Team” have been supporting a theory that American Airlines 77 (or what they also frequently call a “decoy” aircraft) flew a flight path different from what the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), the damage path leading to the building, and the American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE) damage path analysis inside the building shows.

The decoy jet is *not* AA77.

 

[bje]

The decoy jet is *not* AA77.

AA77 hit the Pentagon, correct?

 

[~enigma~]

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

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.
http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk233/Janusaur/500px-Doubletreemap.jpg

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

Deliberate, smooth and controlled means it was a right hand turn? Craig you have gotten stupider as you aged...

 

[Pardalis]

You say North of the CITGO, we say South of the CITGO, why don't we just call the whole thing off?

 

[Reheat]

The decoy jet is *not* AA77.

You're correct, as a decoy jet is purely in your stupid imagination.

Did you completely miss the word *or*? Of course, you didn't as Ranke likes to twist and turn. It must make you feel like a big person, huh, little shrimp!

 

[pomeroo]

The decoy jet is *not* AA77.

There was no "decoy jet." Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon. The remains of the passengers and crew were identified by DNA testing and wreckage of the aircraft was recovered at the crash site. Many people observed a plane hit the Pentagon. Nobody saw a "flyover."

How long can a tiny group of agenda-driven cranks persist with this threadbare fantasy?

 

[Pardalis]

How long can a tiny group of agenda-driven cranks persist with this threadbare fantasy?

Most religions are millenary, so it could be a while.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

You're correct, as a decoy jet is purely in your stupid imagination.

Did you completely miss the word *or*? Of course, you didn't as Ranke likes to twist and turn. It must make you feel like a big person, huh, little shrimp!

Perhaps you don't know the definition of 'or'.

4. (used to correct or rephrase what was previously said): His autobiography, or rather memoirs, will soon be ready for publication.

“The Citizen’s Investigation Team” have been supporting a theory that American Airlines 77 (or what they also frequently call a “decoy” aircraft) flew a flight path different from what the Flight Data Recorder

You are conflating the two. That's incorrect.

 

[Bobert]

Isnt it funny how the CIT is barely paid attention to by the truthers yet whenever the CIT needs attention all of a sudden we have a new member posting about the CIT.
CIT=FRING OF A FRINGe OF A FRINGE OF A FRINGE OF A FRINGE OFA......

 

[Bobert]

You say North of the CITGO, we say South of the CITGO, why don't we just call the whole thing off?

Snorth of the Citgo?
Sounds better then nouth!

 

[Mangoose]

So once the plane passed the Annex, how could Morin have seen it AT ALL along the yellow NOC path?? Remember, it had to have been low enough for trees downhill to block the view of the aircraft (except for the tail).

 

[Pardalis]

Snorth of the Citgo?
Sounds better then nouth!

Maybe it flew over the CITGO station?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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?

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

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


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

Don't even start with that. If you know the names Benson and Greening, then you know full well that they published with Bazant and Zhou in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Internet forums are hardly the main, let alone sole, venue for distributing their knowledge, and any 'net forum participation Greening indulged in was not for the purpose of distributing his research; it was to participate in casual discussions. Contrast that to your internet researchers. Journal publication is part of the modern process of producing any academic knowledge; that conspiracy "researchers" fail to publish in reputable journals covering the aviation, physics, chemistry, or engineering fields is telling.

You also know full well that the argument about the flaws of peer review doesn't change the fact that it is still the proper method of publishing scientific research, or that it would catch the excessively large flaws that pseudoscience such as 9/11 "Truth" research produces. When, for example, would any reputable journal accept a thesis about thermite when zero evidence of its use is actually produced?

Pointing out the flaws of peer review, especially to an audience like myself that holds a science degree, or others here who've actually participated in it, is not even a good argument. It does not begin to explain the lack of papers published by these so called researchers, nor does it explain the shoddy use of facts or their inability to actually progress the field of knowledge; for all its flaws, at least Steven Jones got people thinking forward scientifically with his paper on microspheres; that it fails to engender any interest outside the conspiracy fantasy field is a testiment to its folly, but it's still a better attempt than the two examples you brought up.

Don't treat us here as if we haven't seen these arguments before. You're failing to overcome the problem others who've presented them have had to face: Namely, that these pseudoscientifc and pseudoengineering researchers are not getting their work accepted by the engineering fields most concerned about the topic, or that such work is failing to motivate the research world to study the topic further. Do yourself a favor: Let this topic drop, and just concentrate on your North of Citgo arguments. The issue of legitimate vs. Truth Movement research has been beaten to death time and time again in this forum, and pretty soon many of us are just going to resort to cutting and pasting previous posts if we keep on seeing the same old arguments brought up.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

So once the plane passed the Annex, how could Morin have seen it AT ALL along the yellow NOC path?? Remember, it had to have been low enough for trees downhill to block the view of the aircraft (except for the tail).

This is difficult to tell without actually being there. Here is something similar to Morin's perspective.

The plane is not tree-level until the impact so it could have been fairly high altitude.
In any case, if you literally interpret Morin's account the wrong wedge is damaged. It seems clear that he meant "approximately parallel".

 

[Mangoose]

Here is something similar to Morin's perspective.

That photo shows perfectly why a NOC path is insane. There is just no way Morin could have seen the plane's behavior after it passed the Annex if it was heading north of the Citgo. The Navy Annex itself would have blocked the view entirely -- NOT some low trees.

The plane is not tree-level until the impact so it could have been fairly high altitude.

Morin didn't say anything about the plane being tree-level per se. He was talking about his perspective of the plane being blocked by trees: "a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view." Moreover, it wasn't at impact that he mentioned the trees blocking his view. It was quite a bit of time prior to impact since he described seeing only the tail of the aircraft after the trees blocked the view of the airframe, THEN he saw the tail dip to the right, THEN the tail became barely visible and it was then that Morin described seeing the flash and explosion.

Saying that the plane was "at a fairly high altitude" is counter to all this. He described it as at 100 feet and descending rapidly, getting so low that he couldn't see it through the trees except for the tail.

In any case, if you literally interpret Morin's account the wrong wedge is damaged. It seems clear that he meant "approximately parallel".

Well, duh. It looked roughly parallel in that second or two he saw it along the Annex. I don't think anyone is reasonably expecting precision there. But it is insane to think that his description better fits a NOC path than a "SOC" path. The building itself would have blocked his view of what the plane was doing.

 

[A W Smith]

This is difficult to tell without actually being there. Here is something similar to Morin's perspective.
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_261844883cf6d6e862.jpg[/URL]
The plane is not tree-level until the impact so it could have been fairly high altitude.
In any case, if you literally interpret Morin's account the wrong wedge is damaged. It seems clear that he meant "approximately parallel".

you would be wrong

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

you would be wrong

Uh... no. Same result.

 

[stateofgrace]

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.

Really?

Are you discussing the same loons who have accused Mr England of being involved in mass murder?

The same idiots that have failed to take all their "evidence” anywhere other than to DVD?

The same fools that do zero, other that spout on and on about fly overs; claim they have proof and do zero with their evidence?

The same idiots that dismiss all the physical evidence and make rubbish up and give themselves the laughable name of CIT?

Oh , the lamp posts, care to offer your theory about them?

Did Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? Yes or no?

If your answer is no, then what are you doing here? Why are you not presenting your "evidence" to the world’s media?

 

[A W Smith]

Uh... no. Same result.
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_261844883e0e99d27b.jpg[/URL]

Your line points to the light poles and impact point. And you dont see that?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Well, duh. It looked roughly parallel in that second or two he saw it along the Annex. I don't think anyone is reasonably expecting precision there. But it is insane to think that his description better fits a NOC path than a "SOC" path. The building itself would have blocked his view of what the plane was doing.

Just for the sake of clarity- how far to the left would you place the plane?