CIT Fraud Revealed

[mudlark]

*snipped* condascending bs from a person who is continually being torn to shreds by professional pilots who actually know what they are talking about..anyway..go on..

*snipped*..as above...go on..

So, you can take one measurement device, for example the INS positional value in the Warren decode and it will have a different average and spread than say the DCA ASR positional values. That means to find the average that actually represents reality, it is best to use an average based on ALL of the available measurement systems, and of course that mean old spread is going to still be there so it has to be estimated as well.

As I said before, this ´spread´ which, I take it slides to the South, makes the possibility of making this shadow over Paik´s shop even MORE physically impossible.
As does your path.

Now eyewitnesses are simply measurement devices with their own unique problems with precision and accuracy (very poor), but they can be used to get a rough path estimate. But remember that spread? What CIT has done is before the Annex area, they used ONLY witnesses from the south side of the suspected flight path.

Wow, do you know of others who refute them? I mean, you must or you wouldn´t bring that point up.
This ´rough path estimate´ you talk of. You DO know that ALL witnesses on record within the NOC area corraborrated to the very basic placement of the plane on the North side of the Citgo Gas Station? That´s a pretty heavy ´spreadsheet´ of data pointing to only one conclusion.
On the other hand, that spreadsheet is looking pretty piss-poor on the South of Citgo placement...but go on..

So, in that area the average skewed to the south because only that side of the spread was being measured.

Can´t wait to see those other ´southside´ witness interviews.

After the Sheraton, they have taken ONLY those on the north side of the suspected path which skewed the average to the north side of the path because only that half of the spread was being considered.

As above..

Now, IF and only if they had taken eyewitness accounts from BOTH sides of the suspected (official path as they like to call it), then they would have been able to average those accounts and the average would be a better representation.

Who exactly was ON the southside to be interviewed? And from what vantage point?

The drivers on the I-395 motorways? Some of them described a right-bank or that the plane flew over the Annex (we won´t include them eh?). MANY described losing view of the plane from the far lanes.

One witness who was in the region of the southern approach path springs to mind. Levi Stephens. HE placed the plane ´closer to Arlington Cemetary´. NOC.
PennyElgas also springs to mind. She placed the plane ´to the side of and not much above the (Citgo) gas station´
Sean Boger was literally between the two paths.

Go on..

So mudlark, you and CIT are dismissing all of that stuff they tried to teach you in high school science lab and presenting measurements taken ONLY on the north half of the suspected path (hint: overwhelming majority of the CIT witnesses point south).

Lie (I can tell what ´schooling´ you had)

Go on..

If you disregard the scientific approach to measuring things, then how can any of you claim (as CIT does) to be using the scientific approach? Please, come back to reality soon. I hope this has been clear enough for you without any techobabble. I don't think I can simplify it any further for you.

You´ve made it perfectly clear BCR.

You have no witnesses who counter the NOC claims. None.
That´s a pretty conclusive spreadsheet.

 

[A W Smith]

Among others.




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.

here's your google image

here is mine, note the heading?

 

[BCR]

In other words mudlark, you got nothing as usual. Oh well, at least I tried.

So I guess Reheat and Beachnut don't qualify as professional pilots? They been trying to tell you the same thing but we can't seem to even get you up to the high school science level.

 

[beachnut]

...
You have no witnesses who counter the NOC claims. None.
That´s a pretty conclusive spreadsheet.

Pointing to the south flight path. lol

These CIT witnesses in the CIT video are pointing to the SoC flight path. Exactly pointing, and CIT can't figure out so they present delusional flight paths that take over 70 degree of bank.

You don't understand bank angle, or math to help you see CIT flight paths are false.

 

[Garb]

You´ve made it perfectly clear BCR.

You have no witnesses who counter the NOC claims. None.
That´s a pretty conclusive spreadsheet.

I have some.

How about the eyewitnesses who stated they saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon?

Do they do a sufficient job of countering the NOC claims?

 

[Scott Sommers]

No, no, this is all so obvious. It is the JREF that stands alone on this issue. Don't you know that 911 Truth divides the nation? Families, friends, and colleagues are broken over the implications of 911 Truth. Bazillions of professional in the construction industry, firefighting and law enforcement protest the incredible claims of a criminal government. Huge demonstrations fill the streets and there are law suits everywhere. 911 Truth is changing our nation and with heros like CIT leading the way, we only have a future with liberty and freedom to look forward to.

 

[GlennB]

You have no witnesses who counter the NOC claims. None.
That´s a pretty conclusive spreadsheet.

mudlark - you could counter NoC yourself if you tried :

1. Resolve those several yellow lines into one reasonable curved flight path that passes just over the annex, curves round just NoC, then continues to curve round to the impact/flyover point. Not difficult.

2. Measure the resulting approximate radius of that curve. Not difficult.

3. Plug that curve radius plus a variety of plausible airspeeds into a bank-angle calculation. Not difficult.

4. Note that in all cases the bank angle is in the 70° to 87° range

5. Appreciate that not one soul reported such an unforgettable sight - or anything remotely close - and realise that there is something deeply flawed about the NoC flighpath theory.

 

[funk de fino]

Edited by Cuddles: 

Removed quoted content.

Whats the difference between paikpointsnorth and paikpointssouth?

Where was Paik when the shadow passed over him?

Supporting the flyover boys is the lowest of the low. Its excruciatingly embarrassing.

 

[BCR]

Edited by Cuddles: 

Removed quoted content.

There is nothing to call out. The path which is plotted by CIT would require a significant bank angle, which none of the witnesses described. And yes, they all point south at a less than 45 degree angle.

 

[dafydd]

No, no, this is all so obvious. It is the JREF that stands alone on this issue. Don't you know that 911 Truth divides the nation? Families, friends, and colleagues are broken over the implications of 911 Truth. Bazillions of professional in the construction industry, firefighting and law enforcement protest the incredible claims of a criminal government. Huge demonstrations fill the streets and there are law suits everywhere. 911 Truth is changing our nation and with heros like CIT leading the way, we only have a future with liberty and freedom to look forward to.

Same here in Belgium,huge mobs of people on the streets demanding the truth,9/11 is never off our lips here.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Same here in Belgium,huge mobs of people on the streets demanding the truth,9/11 is never off our lips here.

Here in the UK, the truther demonstrations going on around the Chilcot investigation are paralysing the whole of central London, and of course all the major media outlets acknowledge that it was the British 9/11 truth movement that was responsible for the investigation in the first place. There's serious doubt that the present system of government can survive more than a week or two.

Dave

 

[leftysergeant]

Shinki, his brother describes it differently.



Edducked and then Shinki saw the shadow go by. This would have to mean that the body had already passed.

So his specualtion was based on the repair guys the NEXT MORNING. Not that day.

Why would he connect the repair guys on the tower with the aircraft, had he not seen the aircraft in the same scene with the tower?

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.

Not really. I do not hear or see any statements to the effect that Morin had to look behind him to see the aircraft, as he would have to have done had it flown NOC.

If you are in between two vertical surfaces and any distance back from the ends of those surfaces, your perspective regarding flying or floating things starts getting messed up. Looking up,from 10 feet in, the plane will appear to be over the building as long as it is cruising above a point iintersected by the witnesses line-of sight fromthe witness' eyes to the upper corner of the end of the wall.

That he could not see any stripes or other marking is not evidence. Inside the wing, his eyes would have adjusted to partial shade. If he then looks up into a clear sky, pastel lines would be a bit faded until his eyes adjusted.

Ballon juice.

 

[Klimax]

People,you all know that sarcasm and irony and other jokes are lost on truthers.

But thanks for LOL.

 

[nicepants]

The NOC witnesses ALL agree to the path of the plane.

If the eyewitnesses all agree on the path, why is there more than one?

 

[Edx]

Also look at Edwards path and then the extreme line to the north. Surely CIT have to say that line is wrong since it clearly doesn't go over the Annex, and yet they maintain plane DID go over the Annex. The extreme North path is as different to Edwards path as it is to the official South path line, if not more as its even further away!

Also some of the other lines only START north of Citgo, and yet if it flew over the Annex following Edward's path theres no way it could then make that manoeuvre.

Clearly they don't agree Mudlark.

 

[CurtC]

To my mind, all this talk about other witnesses and where they were standing is pointless, because the CIT guys have already nailed the coffin shut on their North-of-Citgo idea by showing Paik at all.

There is no way that a plane could go near Paik at high speed, then North of the Citgo, then turn to get back over the Pentagon. That path is impossible. End of story.

Can we just focus on that until it sinks into their pointy heads? If Paik saw the plane, and it went anywhere near the Pentagon hole, it could not have gone on the North side of the Citgo.

 

[Edx]

Edward's line is pretty dramatic lol

 

[nicepants]

Also some of the other lines only START north of Citgo, and yet if it flew over the Annex following Edward's path theres no way it could then make that manoeuvre.

Note that Paik's path has the plane doing a PIVOT over one of the navy annex bulidings. Note also that if the plane did NOT perform this pivot then it would have ended up south of, or directly over, the citgo.

 

[A W Smith]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/141894b630c8c6d014.png

Note that Paik's path has the plane doing a PIVOT over one of the navy annex bulidings. Note also that if the plane did NOT perform this pivot then it would have ended up south of, or directly over, the citgo.

No, that's where Erroneous Prathers assumed flight path picks up, A depth perception issue.

 

[Edx]

Note that Paik's path has the plane doing a PIVOT over one of the navy annex bulidings. Note also that if the plane did NOT perform this pivot then it would have ended up south of, or directly over, the citgo.

The thing is that line is based off his drawing he did for CIT, but half way through the annex its like he just scribbed the rest. My guess he didn't realise that CIT cared that much about specifically where exactly the plane was after that point.