Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[TheLoneBedouin]

Right wing, huh? How did you arrive at that surprising conclusion?

If the plane flew exactly parallel to the annex the impact would have been in the wrong place- therefore it flew left of the blue flight path. And if the plane flew to the left then he would not have been able to see it pass over the annex unless it was at a higher altitude.

If the plane was not flying over the building then the he would have immediately seen it when he turned to the left because there would have been no fourth wing obscuring his vision. He only saw the plane in between the 4th and 5th wings and in the last moments before the impact.

As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view.

The next time he sees the plane is in the last moments when he sees a 'flash'.

As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash.

He never sees the most crucial part of the flight (over annex and NOC). His claim is completely consistent with the NOC and fatal to the official story.

 

[The Big Dog]

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

wow, now the CIT is AGAIN throwing Morin under the bus.

And to demonstrate their familiarity with aerodynamics, they have come up with the:

HOCKEY STICK!

Incompetent clowns.

 

[pomeroo]

No, it hits an entirely separate wedge if you take Morin's right bank into account. Its at a different angle than the official flight path- so I don't know how you determined it lines up with the light poles and impact point.

Some of the survivors of the Titantic thought the ship broke in half. Others thought it went straight down. Would you say that the lack of a consensus proves that the ship didn't sink at all?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah CIT, the 9/11 cult that is even the laughing stock of all the other 9/11 cults. I remember when these kids were making claims about how the little white van seen on some of the pictures was the van used to bring in all the planted plane parts. And most of their sources were from web sites that also taught you the best ways to make bongs and sold pot accessories. This was before their cute little Pentacon home video. Before the monthly "this time we have evidence that will blow the lid off the whole thing.....But we can't show you".

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Some of the survivors of the Titantic thought the ship broke in half. Others thought it went straight down. Would you say that the lack of a consensus proves that the ship didn't sink at all?

And which half were liars?

 

[pomeroo]

If the plane flew exactly parallel to the annex the impact would have been wrong place- therefore he flew to the left of the blue flight path. And if the plane flew to the left then he would not have been able to see it pass over the annex unless it was at a higher altitude.
http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk233/Janusaur/500px-Doubletreemap.jpg
If the plane was not flying over the building then the he would have immediately seen it when he turned to the left because there would have been no fourth wing obscuring his vision. He only saw the plane in between the 4th and 5th wings and in the last moments.

The next time he sees the plane is in the last moments when he sees a 'flash'.

He never sees the most crucial part of the flight (over annex and NOC). His claim is completely consistent with the NOC and fatal to the official story.

See if you can process this much information. The "official" story is the one that takes into consideration the aircraft debris found inside the Pentagon and on the lawn; the remains of the passengers and crew found inside the Pentagon; the identification of those remains by DNA testing conducted at the Dover Port Mortuary; the hundred or so eyewitnesses who observed a plane hit the Pentagon.

If a witness--or two or three--claims to have seen the plane flying a flight path that has been determined to be physically impossible, THAT WITNESS IS MISTAKEN.

 

[pomeroo]

And which half were liars?

The point that the loons will never grasp is that none of the survivors were lying.

 

[Dog Town]

The decoy jet is *not* AA77.

Jet...did you say jet? The only plane observed, and identified, in the area was a prop!
What are you smoking?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Some of the survivors of the Titantic thought the ship broke in half. Others thought it went straight down. Would you say that the lack of a consensus proves that the ship didn't sink at all?

So you're saying Morin isn't a credible witness. I agree (if you interpret his statements literally)- certainly not someone you should base a mathematical model on.

 

[Reheat]

I interpret "outer portion of the FOB" to mean end of 'right wing parallel to the edge of the Annex'.

BTW, if the right wing was over the outer edge of the FOB I don't need to redo my paper at all to accommodate that razzle dazzle BS. There is not enough difference in the numbers to justify it.

Now, back to your criticism of my interpretation of Morin's account again. You were saying.....

You're stated purpose for starting this thread was to critique my paper Debunking the North of Citgo delusion.

Somehow, I think you've failed in your efforts.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

There is not enough difference in the numbers to justify it.

Reheat, I'm not saying the plane flew a straight parallel path to the Pentagon.
Why?

If the plane flew exactly parallel to the annex the impact would have been in the wrong place- therefore it flew left of the blue flight path.

What do you not understand?
You cannot interpret "parallel" literally without making predictions that are contrary to the physical evidence.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Reheat, will you please save the google image with the three flight paths and draw your interpretation of the Morin flight path?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

if the flight path is coming from an eye witness, it's useless. As we all know, memory is not reliable. So while there is little doubt the witnesses are describing what they think they saw, what they think they saw is not reliable enough for science since most of the time its wrong.

hence the entire CIT kids case being nothing more than using the most unreliable form of evidence to conveniently dismiss all other evidence, especially the more reliable evidence.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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

Pittsburgh...

If the plane flew exactly parallel to the annex the impact would have been in the wrong place- therefore it flew left of the blue flight path. [...] His claim is completely consistent with the NOC and fatal to the official story.

So you're saying Morin isn't a credible witness. I agree (if you interpret his statements literally) [...]

Uhh... So... Morin's statement is completely consistent with the NoC flight path, but only if you don't take it literally. If you're just going to "interpret" already inaccurate statements from an eyewitness, then why even bother with that person in the first place? Seriously... Why not just skip the middle-man and pull the flight path straight out of your own ass?

 

[Mangoose]

In the above quote, Morin states that the plane "came into his field of view" and was "right over him and the FOB".

As others have pointed out, you are misquoting him here.

This suggests that the plane was flying over the annex and that the fourth wing was blocking his view. If this is the case he would not have been able to see it as it passed over the Annex.

This is patently false. Not only does he not say such a thing, but he describes the plane clearing the 8th wing of the Navy Annex (so it had to have been visible then), and subsequent to this he describes the plane heading on a bearing directly to the Pentagon, he then described the flight path as controlled and deliberate as the aircraft approached the Pentagon, then he described seeing a minor flash in the area he thought was the highway, then with his eyes trained on the plane he described his losing sight of it as it dipped below some trees blocking his view, but he still saw the tail until it got so low that he "barely" was able to see it when he saw the explosion. The only thing he describes blocking his view were the row of trees that blocked his view towards the end. All of this should not have been visible had the plane been on a NOC path (which is disallowed to begin with by Morin's description of the flight path as "parallel the outer edge of the FOB").

If the plane flew exactly parallel to the annex the impact would have been in the wrong place

This sure looks like a strawman argument to me. Now you are insisting on the flight path as "exactly parallel". Yet in the OP, you said: "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". It would be entirely appropriate to view his statement as an approximation. It would in fact be unreasonable to insist on the flight path being "exactly" parallel, as if Morin could have made that judgment in the second or two he saw the plane fly over him. Rather, your insistence on this is an attempt to make Morin's "south of Citgo" testimony seem absurd in order to shoehorn it into a NOC claim.

However "approximate" his description was, one thing is certain: He would not have described the plane as roughly "parallel" to the outer edge of the Navy Annex if in fact the plane flew over the Annex such that he lost sight of the plane in the process.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

What do you not understand?
You cannot interpret "parallel" literally without making predictions that are contrary to the physical evidence.

you cannot interpret "north of citgo" in any manner that is not contrary to physical evidence

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

As others have pointed out, you are misquoting him here.

No, its a direct quote from Reheat's paper. Did you even read it?

This is patently false. Not only does he not say such a thing, but he describes the plane clearing the 8th wing of the Navy Annex (so it had to have been visible then), and subsequent to this he describes the plane heading on a bearing directly to the Pentagon, he then described the flight path as controlled and deliberate as the aircraft approached the Pentagon, then he described seeing a minor flash in the area he thought was the highway, then with his eyes trained on the plane he described his losing sight of it as it dipped below some trees blocking his view, but he still saw the tail until it got so low that he "barely" was able to see it when he saw the explosion. The only thing he describes blocking his view were the row of trees that blocked his view towards the end. All of this should not have been visible had the plane been on a NOC path (which is disallowed to begin with by Morin's description of the flight path as "parallel the outer edge of the FOB").

This,

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon.

does not equal,

I saw the plane clear the 8th wing.

This sure looks like a strawman argument to me. Now you are insisting on the flight path as "exactly parallel". Yet in the OP, you said: "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". It would be entirely appropriate to view his statement as an approximation. It would in fact be unreasonable to insist on the flight path being "exactly" parallel, as if Morin could have made that judgment in the second or two he saw the plane fly over him. Rather, your insistence on this is an attempt to make Morin's "south of Citgo" testimony seem absurd in order to shoehorn it into a NOC claim.

Reheat used a literal interpretation for his calculations. It seems absurd because it is.

However "approximate" his description was, one thing is certain: He would not have described the plane as roughly "parallel" to the outer edge of the Navy Annex if in fact the plane flew over the Annex such that he lost sight of the plane in the process

If it was any degree "left from parallel" he wouldn't have been able to see it and, indeed, he doesn't claim to.

 

[Pardalis]

Reheat, I'm not saying the plane flew a straight parallel path to the Pentagon.
Why?

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk233/Janusaur/500px-Doubletreemap.jpg
What do you not understand?
You cannot interpret "parallel" literally without making predictions that are contrary to the physical evidence.

I don't know about you but all the lines lead to the Pentagon.

I personally don't give a damn what side it passed that stupid gas station, all the evidence shows flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

 

[pomeroo]

So you're saying Morin isn't a credible witness. I agree (if you interpret his statements literally)- certainly not someone you should base a mathematical model on.

Fine. After you've explained away the wreckage of Flight 77 found inside the Pentagon and on the lawn and you've accused the FBI of falsifying the DNA evidence, you're left with the other hundred or so people who saw a plane hit the building.

You and the CIT clowns are spinning your fables from flimsy material.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm wondering if this "north of CITGO" thing is more stupid and futile than the "pull it" nonsense.

They're pretty close.