CIT Fraud Revealed
- Thread starter BCR
- Start date
All the CIT witnesses are SoC witnesses, they all point south on Video! They all say 77 impacted the Pentagon, no flyover.
Roberts? lol, one guy thinks a C-130 is a commercial plane; good job with the great Roberts whose testimony makes it clear he has no clue what time it was when he saw the C-130. You should listen to your source before you present it as evidence for your delusions.
The shadow did not have to cross over the office to see the shadow effect. The light reflecting off the ground in front of the office could have cast a reflected shadow or interruption of reflected light in the office.
There is more error or possible location for the shadow. But mudlark has to get the angles right before he does a simulation, and his simulation with the jet in a bank casting a shadow on Paiks office shows a 757 can't fly north of the Citgo and impact the Pentagon.
Mudlark; with all your p4t pilot connections, please state the roll rate for a 757. Good luck, you can't answer the simple quesions it is not surprizing you have problems with reality.
What is the roll rate for a 757? What is the G force required to do the flyover from here? Do you know what roll rete is?
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
THX L.S., seems to me I have been saying similar things for a while now
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
I give you the math and you give pretty pictures with no way of replicating the results? Are you nuts? Anyone on this board can replicate my numbers and the math is what it is. We have no way of knowing what numbers are used for that pretty picture and not many folks have or know how to use the software (Maya) properly. I do know how to use it and I also know how hard it is to set up the lighting in it accurately. So forgive us if we don't take your word for it
Pretty picture are more fun than maths.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
And if you rotate that plane to parallel the road, you have almost exactly what we have been trying to tell you.
Can we get that in proper English using something like standard syntax? I have no idea what that means, other than that you are stuck on...
Maybe i had best not say that...
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Hey, at least he's not one of those no-punctuation no-capitalization no-paragraph wall of text truthers...He also seems to have a problem with the apostrophe key. I don't understand why he uses the acute accent instead of the apostrophe.
Ya know, I just cannot understand the level of cognitive dissonance expressed by the CIT idiots crowd bunch pair. As far as I can see, it all boils down to this:
1. For all the damage to take place as is currently shown, ie. downed light poles, damaged generators, building damage, etc. etc., a SOC flight path is needed.
2. However, our 13 witnesses say a NOC flight path took place.
3. Ergo, all the damage was staged.
In future, I'm going to use the term "C.I.T."ing evidence instead of the old "shoehorning".
1. For all the damage to take place as is currently shown, ie. downed light poles, damaged generators, building damage, etc. etc., a SOC flight path is needed.
2. However, our 13 witnesses say a NOC flight path took place.
3. Ergo, all the damage was staged.
In future, I'm going to use the term "C.I.T."ing evidence instead of the old "shoehorning".
Pilots who spew delusions; lol
Is this where you place 77? You understand the flash of a shadow they saw in their office could be the shadow changing the reflected light in their office? Uncertainly? Do you have any skills at aircraft accident investigation and interviewing witnesses? (neither do CIT)
Where 77 was? If so, increase that bank angle to 73 degrees and bend those wings to 3.42 Gs. You can't handle the math and no one saw flight 77 pulling 3.42 Gs in a turn at a bank angle of 73 degrees. Balsamo has no clue how to do math, you just admitted BCR use of math and science is over your head and you have no clue or how to apply what he said; now clearly confirmed.
You proved there is no NoC, CIT can't do math to show their flight paths were impossible. Got 73 degrees of bank? lol
With the RADAR altimeter, you need to know when in time the RADALT reading was taken to find where it was taken. ... there is uncertainly in how high 77 is due to many factors.
... 4 feet, is about 20 feet below the fuselage of 77, as 77 crossed the road knocking down lamppost, because 77 was low as per witness statements, just before impact. You want the 233 to be exact? Then you have to add the offset of the RADALT for wheels down at touchdown, to zero. You have to add 16 feet or 12 feet; do you have a clue as you and CIT and Balsamo the 2,223 G failure in flight procedures without an ATP rating spew junk try to act so precise and you mess it up!
Your pilot expert Balsamo is not ATP rated! He is kind of nuts...
Are you in good company; you disdain real math/science and support made up flight paths out of thin air supported with 2,223 gs of stupid.
Since p4t want the RADALT to be solid numbers then the 4 feet proves 77 impacted the lamppost and then the Pentagon. Good work refuting CIT/p4t delusions in one easy got you to support the FDR again.
Explain the 61.2 to 61.5 true track and how the headings in the FDR do not support the made up NoC. Explain why the DNA of flight 77 Passengers was found in the Pentagon.
I have not seen people brag how they are not able to understand math and science as they present lies and false information but you did.
You are trying to be cute, as you prove you don't understand the science required to see your ideas are delusions.
Yes the long winded junk applies to the 4 feet, but since the error in the RADALT is one foot for the proper use, and 77 is not over standard approach type terrain, your cuteness goes down the tubes to expose your ignorance. In addition, where the 4 foot takes places is subject to the long winded stuff, and you have to add the offset because zero on the RADALT is based on touchdown, wheels down.
Better stay away from the pressure altitude, errors in that system can exceed 200 feet. You will be buried by science again. Why are you attracted to the 2,223 G failure of Balsamo and CIT? oops
Last edited:
Unfortunately the internet permits anyone to anonymously post what they like, when they like and wherever they like - and then fade into obscurity never to be seen again. No come backs.
I can guarantee that Mudlark will eventually fade away having been beaten to death repeatedly and exposed as a fool - or gets banned, but he will surface again as Skylark, Kestrel, Albatros or Falcon to do it all again. Sad sad man. As too will HI, Ultima, etc etc etc.
I can guarantee that Mudlark will eventually fade away having been beaten to death repeatedly and exposed as a fool - or gets banned, but he will surface again as Skylark, Kestrel, Albatros or Falcon to do it all again. Sad sad man. As too will HI, Ultima, etc etc etc.
Last edited:
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Ooh! Ooh! I have. As a Fire Protection Specialist (AFSC 57150,) it was part of my job description to preserve materials relevant to an investigation of a crash of fire incident.
From my examination of the impact area on the facade of the Pentagon, I see imprints of an aircraft.
Now, do any of the Complete Idiots Team have some fancy story to explain those marks?
(Think I have time to cook and eat a five-course Ethiopian dinner while I am waiting? I'm think of cooking up some ful.)
This is pretty sorry modelling, too. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the picture seems to me to show the right wing tip depressed, which would mean that the aircraft was turning slightly to the right. That is south of the Navy Annex.
Ermm...I had to take high school algebra twice to get a D, so I do not follow most of the math in any of these areas, but I do have some experience around aircraft, both real and in scale models, and none of this crap makes much sense to me. All I know is that whoever did these graphics for mudlark has no bloody clue about some of the basics of art and composition. (I got As in art.)
That they present such visually confusing graphics suggests to me that they are confused about the speatial relatiojnships btween objects.
Best way to fail an art class is to put shadows in the wrong place.
Mudlark, your grade for this period is FAIL.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Well, the best way to fail an art class is to come in drunk, fondle the teacher, and throw up all over your desk, but yea, I see your point.
nicepants
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,723
The question is HOW MANY?!
Your answer should be a positive integer...not an arbitrary descriptive statement or word.
They all drew their paths, including the ANC guys who ADMITTED to not actually witnessing any ´impact´, to the same point because they knew AFTER the event just exactly where the supposed impact was.
´Anomalous´ as to what? The ´physical evidence´ that nobody has supplied documented proof of?
They are hardly ´anomalous´ to any other witness testimony that day. You cannot produce ONE SOC witness. If you had, I´d say THEY would be ´anomalous´.
The NOC witnesses ALL agree to the path of the plane. They make up 100% of all witnesses on record within that crucial area on record.
Poor 16.5...having to insult by proxy.
Mods I have repeatedly reported this lying insult. Any chance of following the rules here?
I´ve been over to the Vignola thread...still no links to where CIT ´twisted´ her words? (I believe that thread is finished)
Yeah ´bat channel´ describes the Vignola thread perfectly.
Well mudlark, which is it? Was he standing where CIT had him? Was he inside and then ran outside as you translate Shinki to say? Or was he inside as he is now claiming?
And is Vignola lying when she says she watched the plane fly into the side of the Pentagon and saw nothing fly over? Paik points south and Vignola points north, so obviously by the time Paik saw it was not over the Annex, but south of it. So any way you spin it (especially if he was outside where CIT videotaped him) he was pointing at a less than 45 degree angle south of the Annex. A bonafide SoC eyewitness
As I ´translate Shinki to say´? There is no ambiguity in what he said.
Vignola and Timmerman could not physically see any ´impact´ from their POV. They both would have had a 0.3 second window of oppurtunity to catch the explosion.
http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/vignolacircle-1.jpg
Timmerman stated very clearly that he lost sight of the plane through the hi-rise buildings that blocked his view. He AND Vignola would have had to have been staring fixated at the very point of ´impact´ to even catch the explosion.
Paik does NOT point South. Stop lying.
http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif
How does your path fit with that description? How does your alleged altitude fit that description? It doesn´t.
Please don´t show the manipulated Paik gif or I´ll show you up again.
Shinki, his brother describes it differently.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SeOa6AQyt0
Ed Paik was also asked about what he VDOT tower in a separate interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZL97reiuWE
So his specualtion was based on the repair guys the NEXT MORNING. Not that day.
The very fact that Terry Morin placed the body of the plane OVER the Annex wings one second after Paik´s description of the plane´s trajectory reinforces Paik´s testimony.
He describes the plane as ANYTHING BUT an SOC path.
He pointed OVER the white facade that can be seen in the following pic, at an angle. HE points towards the Navy Annex.
The VDOT is further to the right in the pic and it was allegedly travelling at a MINIMUM of 233ft agl according to Warren Stutt´s radalt data which is unquestionably accepted by you guys.
That his testimony is so distorted is stretching it to the point where you are claiming that he saw the opposite of what he actually described.
THAT is the only real distortion here.
Mudlark said:
Among others.
I give you the math and you give pretty pictures with no way of replicating the results? Are you nuts? Anyone on this board can replicate my numbers and the math is what it is. We have no way of knowing what numbers are used for that pretty picture and not many folks have or know how to use the software (Maya) properly. I do know how to use it and I also know how hard it is to set up the lighting in it accurately. So forgive us if we don't take your word for it
FACT Warren Stutt´s program provided the positional data (the actual plotted points were done by him)
FACT His program also provided the 233ft agl (minus 20+ft at the necessary point)
FACT The Azimuth for September 11 2001 at 09:37am was plotted into this 3D program and provided this ´pretty picture´
It is based off data that you repeatedly uphold as factual.
Are you now saying that Warren´s radalt reading at this point may be off?
That his positional data may be off?
Even if it is ´off´ or a ´mean´ path it would mean that the path is even further away and so is the shadow.
Don´t just take my word for it. Run the math through the program you mentioned and show me the result YOU come up with.
Even the Google image I posted shows that the shadow could not have reached from EITHER path.