Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[Pardalis]

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.

Not to mention that this whole thing lasted 2 seconds tops.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

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

They're pretty close.

stupider? yes, im sure it is

futile though? im not sure, it does seem to be gaining ground withing the truth movement, while "pull it" is loosing adherents, although thats probably just be north of citgo is relatively new, once its clear this isnt a fast track to validation it will be abandoned for the next dumb theory

 

[Pardalis]

Every new "anomaly" is like a caper in a way. Everyone gets to be Sherlock Holmes. But after a while it gets played and the plot leads nowhere fast.

 

[Mangoose]

That's it? No explanation for Morin's a-MAZE-ing x-ray vision? I still want to know how Morin could see through concrete walls, building contents and furniture, etc. in order to see a plane flying a NOC flight path. Otherwise, how could he make all those detailed observations of the plane that he couldn't see at all -- with that whole Navy Annex in the way. Will Morin be starring in NBC's Heroes this fall?

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

Where does it say, as a direct quote, "right over him and the FOB"? We all know that it actually says, "over the top of me and the outer portion 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.

Oh jeez, so now Morin has to preface an observation with a pedantic "I saw" in order for it to count? Hypocrisy about cherry-picking duly noted. Anyone who has read what Morin actually said without a CIT-addled mind would know that it was subsequent to this, after the plane sunk even lower in altitude, that Morin says that "I started to lose sight of the actual airframe". Since it wasn't before this that he started to lose sight of the airframe, it is clear that he SAW the plane pass the Navy Annex and STILL SAW THE AIRFRAME until it sunk behind some trees (with the tailfin still visible).

 

[robeeb]

My father was in the Washington D.C. area on the morning of 9-11-01. He saw flight 77 impact the Pentagon. My father, is a person who has a couple of unique qualifications that make him a very credible eyewitness. He has held his private pilots license for just over 30 years now. He knows aircraft types, and is extremely good at recognition of various aircraft types from a distance. He has also spent 30 years in federal law enforcement, having recently retired from the U.S. Treasury Dept. He is a trained observer, and is very much aware of the inherent problems involved with eyewitness testimony, and as such, is a better eyewitness than a person without his background. The real irony of his situation though, is the fact that 12 of his years in law enforcement were spent as a Skymarshal (now called Federal Air Marshal) with 10 of those years as a field agent, and two of them as an instructor. He knows what he saw that day. He saw what dozens of other eyewitnesses saw that morning, AA flight 77 impacting the Pentagon.

 

[chillzero]

I have removed posts that derailed this thread. Once again - DO NOT POST ALLEGATIONS OF SOCK PUPPETRY IN THREADS. Any further accusations will be removed, and infracted as rule 11 / 12. Stop it. You know the drill - report it to the mods, and leave it for the admins to review.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[bje]

No.

Then you would agree that the funadamental issue is whether or not AA77 hit the Pentagon, correct?

 

[The Big Dog]

stupider? yes, im sure it is

futile though? im not sure, it does seem to be gaining ground withing the truth movement, while "pull it" is loosing adherents, although thats probably just be north of citgo is relatively new, once its clear this isnt a fast track to validation it will be abandoned for the next dumb theory

Well, that is not true, not true at all. It may seem that way because of the overall decline of the Twoof movement as a whole, and because the Morons at the Loose change board have allowed their message board to be hijacked by the CIT. But the truth of the matter is the majority of the Truth movement think less of the CIT than we do (read frustrating fraud, Arabesque or Pickering sometime, those guys hate the CIT), and you'll notice that the Loose change board is a complete and utter wasteland who completely sold out to the CIT, to their regret no doubt.

 

[jhunter1163]

It's kind of inconvenient to CIT that Morin specifically says that he had come out from in between Wings 4 and 5 and was near the guardhouse. Of course, they just ignore that, as they do all the other minor inconveniences like math, physical evidence, witness statements (including their own witnesses), the security camera footage, and on and on.

 

[e^n]

The problems with your flight path seem to be the steep angle coming in over Columbia. I think even Reheat's flightpath was parallel to Columbia and didn't intersect it. Also, why the curve after flying over the Pentagon? If you take these to things into consideration the flightpath is practically straight.

This is not a problem and in fact potentially shows how you do not understand the topic involved.

This is a constant rate, constant level turn. This means that the plane will be experiencing a constant amount of radial acceleration. If I were to straighten the flight path before Columbia and after impact, then the plane would have to roll in order to change the lift vector. This rolling means that the plane would undergo less radial acceleration while it is closer to horizontal.

What you seem to be misunderstanding is this, given the impact/flyover vector, and the Paik / NoC Columbia vector, there is a set number of degrees of turn required. By taking a circular flight path this results in the longest possible turn time, and therefore the lowest possible bank angle.

Nobody reports a bank anywhere near the amount required, so either

• The plane was much slower
• The NoC flightplan is not consistent with witness accounts

I have biased this model against both possibilities by taking aircraft speed lower than the evidence shows, and an extremely optimistic flight path.

How does the plane execute this turn without banking to this angle?

 

[Reheat]

This is not a problem and in fact potentially shows how you do not understand the topic involved.

Potentially? This idiot doesn't understand very much at all about aerodynamics. That's pretty obvious from the very beginning when he brought up alternative technology to cast some kind of mysterious doubt about the numbers in my paper.

Variable-sweep wings do primarily one thing to increase maneuverability. They allow a slower speed without stalling the wings with forward sweep, yet allow a faster speed (while compromising turn radius) at aft sweeps. That's essentially all they do. For a required turn radius the bank and G requirements remain the same regardless of the position of the wings. Furthermore, there are only 4 designs in the Western World of this type of technology; the F-111, F-14, B-1, and the Tornado, all combat assets. There are no transport category designs of this nature simply because it is not justifiable in view of the expense of the design.

A morphed wing using memory shape alloys is still only a design concept. Even today, there are no operational designs and to even conjecture that a transport category aircraft could be used is fringe lunatic delusion. Even so, the same concept applies, the design would simply lower the stall speed. It would accomplish nothing in the way of reducing the bank angle and G for a required turn radius.

Vectored thrust is only operational in fighters. It would reduce the bank angle and G required slightly for these turns, but still not enough to allow the turns to be plausible without SIGNIFICANT bank angles no one observed. To even suspect this technology would be employed on a transport category aircraft is sheer lunacy.

Finally, shifting the aircraft over Morin's position a reasonable (rational mind) amount to the North of his stated position would help slightly, but not enough reduction in the bank angle and G required to even justify rerunning the numbers again. The bank angles and G required would still be in the realm of requiring a Goodyear Blimp or alien technology flown by little green men.

 

[Mangoose]

It's kind of inconvenient to CIT that Morin specifically says that he had come out from in between Wings 4 and 5 and was near the guardhouse. Of course, they just ignore that, as they do all the other minor inconveniences like math, physical evidence, witness statements (including their own witnesses), the security camera footage, and on and on.

I do have to wonder. That PFT video that TheLoneBedouin posted puts Morin in between Wings 4 and 5 when the plane flew over, and I recall similar CIT claims in earlier threads in the forum. Yet TheLoneBedouin in this thread seems willing to accept that Morin was where he said he was (as in post #94). So which is it? Does CIT still place Morin in between Wings 4 and 5 (where he couldn't have seen anything more than a very brief glimpse of the plane -- requiring him to have even more super x-ray vision to see everything he saw), or have they admitted their error in this rather isolated matter?

 

[WildCat]

A morphed wing using memory shape alloys is still only a design concept. Even today, there are no operational designs and to even conjecture that a transport category aircraft could be used is fringe lunatic delusion. Even so, the same concept applies, the design would simply lower the stall speed. It would accomplish nothing in the way of reducing the bank angle and G for a required turn radius.

While it obviously didn't use memory shape alloys, the very first Wright brothers airplane had morphed wings, it's how it was steered without a rudder.

And I bet the Wright Flyer cold make the manouver necessary to go north of the Citgo! At 30 mph or so...

 

[Reheat]

While it obviously didn't use memory shape alloys, the very first Wright brothers airplane had morphed wings, it's how it was steered without a rudder.

And I bet the Wright Flyer cold make the manouver necessary to go north of the Citgo! At 30 mph or so...

You make me wonder..... Could there have been a theft from the Smithsonian? I'll have to check and see if the Museum was closed that day. Why I'll bet there's even an AA logo to fit. The only problem would be removal of the logo without damaging the fabric, but technology being what it is that would have been no problem for the all powerful gubmint.

I'll google it and see what I find and get back to you with the results....

 

[robeeb]

While it obviously didn't use memory shape alloys, the very first Wright brothers airplane had morphed wings, it's how it was steered without a rudder.

And I bet the Wright Flyer cold make the manouver necessary to go north of the Citgo! At 30 mph or so...

The Wright brothers called their morphed wing system "Wing Warping". On the 1903 Flyer the wing warping controlled roll. The warping system was linked to the dual rudders to control yaw, and made possible what today is called a coordinated turn. The canard elevators at the front of the plane gave them pitch control. Today, hinged ailerons control roll as flexible wings would not be practical on most modern aircraft.

Of course, the truthers will say the Wright Flyer didn't exist, and the brothers were actually shills for the yet to be born George W. Bush. And that rickety old thing hanging in the Smithsonian, is actually a hologram. They have proof! (not)

 

[GlennB]

This is not a problem and in fact potentially shows how you do not understand the topic involved.

This is a constant rate, constant level turn. This means that the plane will be experiencing a constant amount of radial acceleration. If I were to straighten the flight path before Columbia and after impact, then the plane would have to roll in order to change the lift vector. This rolling means that the plane would undergo less radial acceleration while it is closer to horizontal.

What you seem to be misunderstanding is this, given the impact/flyover vector, and the Paik / NoC Columbia vector, there is a set number of degrees of turn required. By taking a circular flight path this results in the longest possible turn time, and therefore the lowest possible bank angle.


Nobody reports a bank anywhere near the amount required, so either

• The plane was much slower
• The NoC flightplan is not consistent with witness accounts

I have biased this model against both possibilities by taking aircraft speed lower than the evidence shows, and an extremely optimistic flight path.

How does the plane execute this turn without banking to this angle?

e^n, I would like to express my admiration for your endless patience - over countless threads both here and elsewhere - in explaining actual science to people who prefer to reject actual science in favour of their fantasies. I wish I had such patience and knowledge.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

What everyone seems to forget (or ignore) is that if the plane were on the official flight path, Terry couldn't have seen the tail at impact.

The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.

Terry did not see:
1)The official flight path.
2)A left bank.

Terry (and others) did see:
1)The plane fly over the FOB.
2)A right bank.

. Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual. I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. 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.

In the above quote, Morin says that he was 10 steps out from wings 4 and 5 and that he turned to his left to see the plane. His field of vision would be towards wings 4 and 5, which means that the plane flew over the building. Below Morin's position is represented by the red dot.

Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude.

The above quote is unclear as to whether the plane is directly over the Navy Annex, but he makes it clear later on:

Many of the FOB people had been looking at the news reports flowing out of the attack on the World Trade Center Towers, going about their normal work routine as they watched. Maybe half or a bit more already knew of the New York attacks. However, within seconds of the impact -- less than a minute after the FOB flyover-- several thousand people started exiting the FOB.

Morin is in agreement with other FOB workers:

Scott Perry of Spotsylvania County heard a plane's engines rumbling above the Navy Annex building where he works, so he looked out his window, which faces the Pentagon.

I departed my desk at the Navy Annex three months prior to the September attack. In fact, United Airlines flight 77 roared over my former office at less than 100 feet before burrowing itself in the Pentagon.

Although we did not know it at the time, a hijacked plane was heading directly for our office. Unable to bleed altitude, the terrorists-turned-pilots circled left and made their approach from a different direction, over the Navy Annex and toward the Navy Operations Center. Unknowingly, all of us in the VCNO's office had dodged a bullet; because of Doug Crowder's intervention, I would be dodging two.

The Navy Annex Building on Columbia Pike in Arlington, Va., was the last sight some of the passengers on American Airlines Flight 77 saw before it sliced into the Pentagon on 11 September. With its landing gear down, the Boeing 757 flew so low that it shook the Annex and rattled windows. The Marines inside the Annex thought a freight train had passed overhead...It will never again be "business as usual" for Marines since Flight 77 flew over the Navy Annex Building on 11 September.

On the surface, the security issue sounds prudent. The MDA sits atop a hill overlooking the Pentagon in a facility historically known as the Navy Annex. My office overlooked the side of the Pentagon that was struck by the airliner flown by the Sept. 11 terrorists. That jet flew over the Navy Annex before crashing into the Pentagon. While moving the MDA outside the Washington metro area may make sense, widely dispersing its employees does not.

Michael Dobbs: "I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle."

The last witness is interesting- he claims the plane flew over the Annex at an angle, which would contradict Morin's 'parallel' path.
Morin's 'parallel' claim is the linchpin of Reheat's model. It is contradicted by Morin's own statements of a "FOB flyover". It is also inconsistent with the physical damage and the eyewitness testimony. Therefore, the parallel claim was an approximation due to Morin's perspective.
Mangoose says that Morin had to have 'X-ray' vision to see the NOC. This is true- Morin could not have seen the NOC and I never claimed that he did. What he did see- the flyover, the right bank, and the tail moments before impact- is consistent with the NOC. All of these observations are inconsistent with the official flight path.

To recap:
Morin's observations directly supporting the NOC:
1)The multiple reports (including Morin's) of a FOB flyover.
2)Morin's right turn consistent with all NOC witnesses.
3)Tail visible at impact from Morin's perspective (couldn't be seen on official flight path; indicates higher altitude than is consistent with the damage path).
Morin's observations supporting the official story:
Null.

 

[bje]

To recap:
Morin's observations directly supporting the NOC:
1)The multiple reports (including Morin's) of a FOB flyover.
2)Morin's right turn consistent with all NOC witnesses.
3)Tail visible at impact from Morin's perspective (couldn't be seen on official flight path; indicates higher altitude than is consistent with the damage path).
Morin's observations supporting the official story:
Null.

Then you would agree that the fundamental issue is whether or not AA77 hit the Pentagon, correct?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Does CIT still place Morin in between Wings 4 and 5

No, but I'm not CIT.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Then you would agree that the fundamental issue is whether or not AA77 hit the Pentagon, correct?

Sure, "Whether or not AA77 hit the Pentagon" is the main issue in 9/11 research of the Pentagon attack. What exactly is your point?