The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Wow, did you just admit that CIT's video showing Paik "point of view" was fraudulent? Wow. That is one hell of a damaging admission there.
CIT Fraud Revealed
- Thread starter BCR
- Start date
Wow, did you just admit that CIT's video showing Paik "point of view" was fraudulent? Wow. That is one hell of a damaging admission there.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Mudlark's going to be in big trouble when he gets back to the tree-fort.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Wouldn't the plane have to have been to the south of the shop to have cast a shadow over it?
A W Smith
Philosopher
yup
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php
Astronomical Applications Dept.
U.S. Naval Observatory
Washington, DC 20392-5420
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
o , o ,
W 77 06, N38 52
Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun
Sep 11, 2001
Eastern Standard Time
H... M .............. Altitude .. Azimuth east of north
09:40................. 42.4................. 127.1
You can't calculate where the shadow would be without knowing the altitude of the plane. If the plane "almost hit my roof" as Edward claimed and was "only about 3 feet above the Navy Annex" as claimed by Darius Prather there is no reason it couldn't have cast a shadow over Shinki's shop from the north path.
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
Here is an image from 9/12/2001 with the distance (484 feet) from the A-One Auto shop at an angle of 127 degrees azimuth (direction of Sun).
The angular elevation of the Sun is 42 degrees, so using very simple trigonometry, the altitude of the plane along the correlated fdr/radar path should be:
Tan(42) = altitude/484 feet, or altitude = 0.9*484 feet = 435 feet agl
It is already known that the correlation is shifted slightly south and has an associated range of error with it. According to the Warren decode, the RA indicates an agl altitude of ~ 230 feet, so by substituting the distance can be calculated to equal 255 feet.
Using the two as extrema, the red oval gives the most reasonable positional area if a shadow was cast on the shop. Interestingly enough, a path through this area would also take the plane over the VSP/VDOT tower, explaining why both Shinki and Edward thought the plane had caused the damage to the antenna they claim was 'damaged'.
All of this is very subjective based on eyewitness accounts and no one can say for certain which portion of the shadow Shinki saw. It does however confirm the less than 45 degree elevation of the plane as described by Edward. It is also consistent with the other eyewitness accounts in this area (VDOT Mossad agent and Morin).
Thought I would save the math challenged a little work.
The angular elevation of the Sun is 42 degrees, so using very simple trigonometry, the altitude of the plane along the correlated fdr/radar path should be:
Tan(42) = altitude/484 feet, or altitude = 0.9*484 feet = 435 feet agl
It is already known that the correlation is shifted slightly south and has an associated range of error with it. According to the Warren decode, the RA indicates an agl altitude of ~ 230 feet, so by substituting the distance can be calculated to equal 255 feet.
Using the two as extrema, the red oval gives the most reasonable positional area if a shadow was cast on the shop. Interestingly enough, a path through this area would also take the plane over the VSP/VDOT tower, explaining why both Shinki and Edward thought the plane had caused the damage to the antenna they claim was 'damaged'.
All of this is very subjective based on eyewitness accounts and no one can say for certain which portion of the shadow Shinki saw. It does however confirm the less than 45 degree elevation of the plane as described by Edward. It is also consistent with the other eyewitness accounts in this area (VDOT Mossad agent and Morin).
Thought I would save the math challenged a little work.
Mudlark's going to be in big trouble when he gets back to the tree-fort.
Haha, you guys crack me up.
Start a thread about CIT ´fraud´ on the ´basis´ that Paik was INSIDE his shop.
Shinki just cleared this ´fraud´ up.
NOW Paik WAS outside, but a few metres from where he was interviewed?
Stretttttching. Make your minds up.
I see only one fraud here. This thread.
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
We have empirical data to estimate the altitude in this region, not subjective "almost hit my roof". How would Edward know if he was ducking? Inescapable fact, the plane was to the south of Edward at a less than 45 degree angular elevation. To promote Edward Paik as an NoC eyewitness is not based on any connection with reality and CIT's distortions and misrepresentations of his account are contemptible.
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
I told you mudlark, we are saving the best for last. Just giving you time to dig the hole deeper.
A W Smith
Philosopher
Almost hit his roof Mudlark? Are you now asserting flight 77 flew THROUGH the Sheraton?
Paik's shop is hidden just behind that small strip mall. Behind their A-One Auto Clinic sign
Paik's shop is hidden just behind that small strip mall. Behind their A-One Auto Clinic sign
Last edited:
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Hee hee hee!
Are you really ****ing claiming that it almost hit his roof that was about 15 feet high???
How stupid do you think people are? The answer is, they are nowhere near as dumb as Shakey Craig and Fat Aldo.
Cripes, someone stundie this garbage.
You missed the range of values. The shadow is a wing span wide shadow. Comprehension skills are required to avoid being stuck believing delusions from CIT. Math helps too.
The neat part about Paik pointing from his office and the shadow are how they support each other; this is a great witness agrees with the evidence of the day kind of analysis not see when CIT uses stupidity to guide their predestined moronic flyover.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Prove the math then.
Pfff...
Watch the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SeOa6AQyt0
The roof that he points to is the one next door.
He calls them "my roofs" but if you didn't notice English is his second language.
He also says he thought it was going to hit the last wing of the Navy Annex.
This matches perfectly with his illustration where he also indicated his location with a circle:
His illustration leaves zero ambiguity for what he is describing yet you are in full denial mode anyway.
A W Smith
Philosopher
His path illustrates the shadow path. Go ahead. Put a 124' 10" wingspan centered over his line in front of the Sheraton. The wing clips the Sheraton. End of story. Shinki Paik could have not seen the fuselage or the shadow of flight 77 from inside the shop office had it flown via Edwards illustration given the azimuth and altitude of the sun at that location that time of day on that date.
Sorry, not buying your feigned disgust on ´misrepresentation´ based on my recent ´debate´ with you on these witnesses.
YOU are the one calling Edward Paik a liar.
It has nothing to do with the subjectivity of his description.
YOU say he saw the plane where he didn´t say. That it was at a MUCH higher altitude than he described. That it was on a different trajectory than the one he described, plotted and signed. That he could not have seen the plane almost hit his roof because he ´ducked´.
Why did he duck when the plane was so high above him? How could he believe that the plane was going to strike the roof if it WAS so high AND on the alleged trajectory?
Enough of the hypocrisy.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Because it was FREAKIN' HUGE and it was far lower than it was supposed to be and looked far bigger than it was supposed to look.
It's scary. The human response is to duck.