Regarding 'Debunking the North of the Citgo Theory'

[Alferd_Packer]

So, do you think Dylan Avery sold out in LCFC by admitting that the plane did indeed hit the Pentagon?

 

[SDC]

"'Ho ho beri beri' and 'Balls' rang out in rapid succession."

Why oh why has the Pentagon, between TLB and the Turbo fellow, become such a hot topic all of a sudden? Phases of the Moon?

 

[A W Smith]

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.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_261844884c3e3aae8e.jpg[/URL]

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

Morin is in agreement with other FOB workers:

Originally Posted by Morin
. 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.

At this point by Morins description he is facing slightly souith west. NOT south east

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.

Which would be to the east

As I turned to my left,

east

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.

To recap:
Morin's observations directly supporting the SOC:
1)The multiple reports (including Morin's) of a pentagon impact.
2)Morin's slight tail dip to the right consistent with witnesses saying the plane was tilting both left and right in a sloppy manouver
3)Tail visible at impact from Morin's perspective is consistent with the damage path. FDR data is irrelvant because there was no data logged during the time frame that Morin witnesded the flight.
Morin's observations supporting the official story:

 

[bje]

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?

I am trying to clearly ascertain your position since you have made several statements in direct contradiction to CIT statements.

Since you agree that "whether or not AA77 hit the Pentagon" is the main issue, then you would also agree that all of the evidence surrounding the "incident" at the Pentagon must be investigated, correct?

 

[T.A.M.]

I am trying to clearly ascertain your position since you have made several statements in direct contradiction to CIT statements.

Since you agree that "whether or not AA77 hit the Pentagon" is the main issue, then you would also agree that all of the evidence surrounding the "incident" at the Pentagon must be investigated, correct?

I smell Socrates.

TAM

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Which would be to the east

But that contradicts this,

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.

This,

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO .

This,

I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction.

This,

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

This,

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

This,

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).

This,

I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB)

and (arguably) this,

the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. [...]. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening.[...]Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground.

1)The multiple reports (including Morin's) of a pentagon impact.

Morin didn't report seein the impact- neither did most of the so-called 'witnesses'.

2)Morin's slight tail dip to the right consistent with witnesses saying the plane was tilting both left and right in a sloppy manouver

No its not- Morin says it was a definite tilt to the right- he reports no "wobble" or left tilt.

3)Tail visible at impact from Morin's perspective is consistent with the damage path. FDR data is irrelvant because there was no data logged during the time frame that Morin witnesded the flight.

The PFT video was based off of the ASCE 42 degree impact angle, not the fdr. Morin wouldn't have been able to see it.

Morin's observations supporting the official story

Sorry, but they don't.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Since you agree that "whether or not AA77 hit the Pentagon" is the main issue, then you would also agree that all of the evidence surrounding the "incident" at the Pentagon must be investigated, correct?

Of course.

 

[bje]

Of course.

Good.

You wrote this: "....perhaps you'd like to give reasons why Morin should be held above the entire body of witness testimony."

Consistent with your responses so far, I interpret your above statement to include all witnesses to all events surrounding the incident at the Pentagon as material evidence to be vetted and considered in any investigation, am I correct?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Consistent with your responses so far, I interpret your above statement to include all witnesses to all events surrounding the incident at the Pentagon as material evidence to be vetted and considered in any investigation, am I correct?

If you're saying that all witnesses should be investigated- then I agree.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So it's eyewitness testimony being used to claim the plane didn't hit the Pentagon....

Except when those witnesses report seeing the plant hit the building.

And you guys at CIT aren't taken seriously? That's a mystery...

 

[Calcas]

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.

So what?

EVEN if what you say is true it doesn't mean squat.

People get little details wrong all the time. In fact, the mind has a habit of filling in those details after the fact.

Is THIS the kind of thing you base your delusion on?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Consistent with your responses so far, I interpret your above statement to include all witnesses to all events surrounding the incident at the Pentagon as material evidence to be vetted and considered in any investigation, am I correct?

If you're saying that all witnesses should be investigated- then I agree.

Notice that what TheLoneBedouin agreed to is not what bje said...

"[A]ll witnesses should be investigated" is not the same as "all witnesses [should be considered] as material evidence. . .in any investigation".

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

"[A]ll witnesses should be investigated" is not the same as "all witnesses [should be considered] as material evidence. . .in any investigation".

Material evidence (Law), evidence which conduces to the
proof or disproof of a relevant hypothesis. --Wharton.
[1913 Webster]
In BJE's post, he asks whether I would consider all witnesses to all events around the Pentagon to be material evidence. If the above definition is what BJE means, I do not agree since there may be witnesses who have witnessed events surrounding the Pentagon that are neither conducive to proof nor disproof of a relevant hypothesis.

 

[uruk]

Even a variable geometry aircraft still has to obey the laws of physics.

Morin would not have been able to see the planes tail if the plane went NOC. Unless he had X-ray vision.

There's no way in heck that anyone would call The CIT path for Morin as being parallel to the FOB.

That is what you would call being "fast and free" with interpretation.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Even a variable geometry aircraft still has to obey the laws of physics.

What law of physics prevents objects from travelling north of the citgo?

Morin would not have been able to see the planes tail if the plane went NOC. Unless he had X-ray vision.

Its possible he could see it if the plane went further right and higher than the official version. The official version is impossible.

There's no way in heck that anyone would call The CIT path for Morin as being parallel to the FOB.

It was an approximation that doesn't fit with his other observations. See post 157.

 

[T.A.M.]

That would be Newton's 4th Law, namely, the Law that Crap Always Rises to the Top. Since we know Top is North, and CIT's Theory is NORTH of CITGO, the Law holds true.

TAM

 

[AZCat]

That would be Newton's 4th Law, namely, the Law that Crap Always Rises to the Top. Since we know Top is North, and CIT's Theory is NORTH of CITGO, the Law holds true.

TAM

I think our resident Australians and New Zealanders might take issue with your blatant northern hemispheric bias.

 

[pomeroo]

What always bothers me about these "debates" is the disingenuousness of the fantasists' position. Many people--in addition to the hundred or so who are on record, there must be hundreds more--saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. The wreckage of the aircraft was found inside the building and on the lawn. The remains of the passengers and crew were also found inside the building and were identified by DNA testing. Phone calls from the hijacked plane described what was happening.

AA Flight 77 was hijacked by jihadists and flown into the Pentagon. There is overwhelming evidence to support this assertion and nothing to contradict it.

If one or more witnesses suggest that they are unable to recall the plane's flight path with a high degree of accuracy, SO WHAT? Their faulty memories are insignificant in the grand scheme. How in the world are a tiny handful of cherry-picked witnesses, ALL of whom agree that the plane hit the Pentagon, supposed to overturn a mountain of physical evidence?

Ultimately, conspiracy liars are reduced to pretending that the FBI faked evidence on a wildly implausible scale, a claim that has no connection with reality.

 

[Bobert]

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.

Hmmmmmmmmmm
Large fonts!
Could it be our boy SPreston!!!!!!!11!!!!!1!!!!!
WAKE UP BUSH LOYALIST SHEEPLE!!!!11!!

 

[Foolmewunz]

I think our resident Australians and New Zealanders might take issue with your blatant northern hemispheric bias.

Yeah, you're right. T.A.M., you should revise that. "Crap always sinks to the bottom. And everyone knows 'bottom' = 'south'!"

There that ought to cover them, right?

No, uh.... wait....


So, how are we doing with the selective interviewee process. I see the camel still in the parking lot (taking up a handicap space, I should mention), so no one's able to refute this earth-shattering non-evidence, yet?

Tell me LB, why is it that if he makes a statement like "right over me", we're to assume he was using a figure of speech and meant, "right over me not like right right right over me but more like right over like over there where you want me to point....." Or when he said "parallel to", you know that we should know that he was aware that what he actually meant was, "well sort of close to and alongside, but not really parallel to".....



I don't see the significance of this thread in the grand scheme of things. It's like Rob and CIT need to refute Reheat because he fairly well took them aparat on their sorely inadequate math skills, so just as with the IVC (impossibly vast conspiracy), they look for one anomaly in the entire scheme of things and claim it makes all the other work wrong. You boyz discovered that your own painfully extracted and extrapolate upon testimonies still left you with an impossible turn requirement, so now you're trying to straighten the line out so that what he saw was already considerably farther north than what he say. Good luck. And if someone shows that even that line doesn't work? You'll move it farther north.

All this in lieu of supporting an insane batguano crazy idea dredged up by some attention-starved DA wannabes. North of Citgo has been delusional from the outset, and it's gotten no better.

Boyz... you still have nothing. Zip. Nada. Rien. Null. Three or four or five (or six, or seven... heck, go up to a dozen) witnesses who have slightly differing views of the flight path. Big whoop! Yet not one who saw Craig's imaginary fly over. Not one! A great google warrior invented an idea and is looking desperately for someone to agree with him. He found a few people whose memories are uncertain, at best, and you guys are twisting them to support a ridiculous flight path that for some reason you say will prove a flyover.

All of this presupposes that this is still the CIT argument. Hard to say, since we're now heading for the sixth page of imaginary justing-asking-questioning. If this is in support of Captain Rob... well, I surrender. I haven't ever been able to make sense about just whatever it is that he's claiming.