CIT Fraud Revealed

[dtugg]

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.

Wow. Do those idiots actually think a plane could do that?

 

[A W Smith]

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.

Edwards path from the point of view of the Sheraton is also quite interesting. There's an ink dot at the pentagon to the right of the line he drew. Like he lifted the pen when someone corrected him that the impact hole was north of where he was indicating with his pen

 

[DGM]

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?



.

This is a very important point that CIT just does not seem to grasp. Along with the lamp posts they seem to think that people would not put two and two together if they thought plane was no where near these points. Just because people had to deduce certain things does not make them not possible.

This is a blatant distortion technique that CIT loves to use to steer the gullible away from what should be obvious.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Interesting!
Although this is where he draws the path of the plane it would put the plane more than twice its wingspan north of the VDOT tower which the next day Paik speculates may have been clipped by the plane.

Again?? Jesus...


Quote:
¨Pickering: Did you actually SEE it hit the tower or you THOUGHT it hit the tower...Did you see the repair guys working on it?

Ed Paik: I DIDN´T SEE IT HIT THE TOWER, I SAW THE GUYS WORKING AT IT THE NEXT MORNING¨
Got that?

Yes, I have pointed out many times now that I know that Paik does not say he saw the plane hit the tower. No matter how many times you tell me that I am saying that Paik saw the plane hit the tower it will not make it so.

I have said that Paik wondered if, estimated, speculated, conjectured that the guys on the tower were performing repair work on damage caused by the aircraft.

But Paik's drawing shows the plane in a position that would have a full wingspan of empty space between that path and the tower. How then could Paik wonder if the plane had hit the tower? If the plane was where he put the line on the photo then there would have been a large space between his view of the plane passing over the Annex and where the tower is.

However, if Paik is incorrect in his drawing and the plane did obscure his view of the tower as it was east of him yet south of the Annex then he could easily speculate that the tower had been brushed by the plane.
Same goes if the tower was between him and the plane.

So why then would he place the plane over the Annex?

Seems he has a view of a small corner of the Annex. As the plane passed the tower it was also moving accross his view from right to left and if it was high enough it would appear to pass over the Annex even though by this time it is past the Annex.

Paik's statements also illustrate exactly how accurate eyewitness testimony is. It isn't particularily accurate. Case in point is that Paik also says something about ducking and that he thought it would hit his roof after which he puts it flying over the Annex, which I am told is 70 feet high, certainly much higher than his roof (perhaps 15 feet high at most) and in no way low enough to make one duck down.

So we already know he is wrong about its height. We also know that it would be extremely tight to fit the plane into a path that goes directly over Paik and also manages to not impact the Sheraton.

Now we also take into account Morin's statements which put the plane south of where Paik put it. Morin puts it as above the south edge of the Annex. If the plane was where Paik put it then Morin is facing the wrong way to see it over the south edge of the building.

So we already know that Paik may be off in describing the plane as right over him. There is his speculation of the tower hit that suggests Paik actually saw the plane south of where he put it on the satellite photo, and now we have Morin putting it to the south of where Paik has it with Morin in a better location to judge.

Furthermore Morin says he ran out from between the wings, a distance of about ten feet (the width of a small bedroom) and into the parking lot near the security shack and watched the plane descend below the line of trees. He also states he could still see the vert stabilizer after that. This requires that the plane pass to the south of the Citgo station since if it passed more northerly than the south extent of the Citgp canopy then Morin would have had to be accross Columbia Pike to see what he describes.

Middleton describes a path which would exclude either Paik or Morin having seen the plane. The rest of the ANC witnesses also describe paths for which Morin at least would be simply unable to see the plane.

Thus we can conclude that the plane did NOT in fact pass to the north of, nor even directly over, the Citgo station.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

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.

That is the CiT interpretation of this:
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2-1.jpg

How does that 85 degree left bank come from anything Paik said or drew?

 

[jaydeehess]

Wow. Do those idiots actually think a plane could do that?

They don't really care. If they admit that a plane could not perform the manouver they might simply invoke magic. That is to say they may say something along the lines of, " you don't know what technology the gov't actually has!".

In fact did they or some PfT minion once say pretty much exactly that?

 

[Gamolon]

Edwards path from the point of view of the Sheraton is also quite interesting. There's an ink dot at the pentagon to the right of the line he drew. Like he lifted the pen when someone corrected him that the impact hole was north of where he was indicating with his pen

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2-1.jpg

If that line is representative of the path that the body of the plane as it flew over the shop and given the angle of the sun that day, how in the world did Shinki witness a shadow from the plane IN HIS OFFICE?

 

[Gamolon]

Edwards path from the point of view of the Sheraton is also quite interesting. There's an ink dot at the pentagon to the right of the line he drew. Like he lifted the pen when someone corrected him that the impact hole was north of where he was indicating with his pen

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2-1.jpg

Interesting point. I extended the incomplete line in the bottom right of the photo and guess what? It meets up perfectly with that ink dot...

 

[Gamolon]

I know people have brought this up before, but...

Why doesn't this flight path in this photo:

Match this flight path in this photo?:

Didn't Ed draw both of these?

 

[beachnut]

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.

Looks like 88 degree of bank at 28 Gs if you could roll into 88 degree of bank instantly. But mudlark has not gotten back to us from the experts at p4t delusion-land with the roll rate for a 757. mudlark, can a 757 pull 28 gs? We know Balsamo likes 2,223 gs, can he come up with some reality based stuff for once?

The path that starts behind the Annex, proves someone saw 77 appear from behind the hotel, and he also points to the south flight path.

All of these witnesses would be great if the aircraft had no FDR. But you have to use them pointing to the path, not drawing on a map as if they were god looking down on the path. The witnesses were off to the side, and watching something they never saw before, a plane going 500 mph very low and close to them. This is why they all drew a flight path closer to them. Plus they all agree 77 impacted the Pentagon. In a court of law these witnesses would easily be able to realize why they made the errors in drawing the flight paths when explained why, due to the large jet being perceived to be closer to them. These are all great witnesses! Not one of them saw 70 degrees of bank! CIT has the evidence, they just don't have the brains to analysis anything past their last hit.

 

[twinstead]

This whole debate is dirtdumb

 

[Reheat]

This whole debate is dirtdumb

Amen to that!

 

[jaydeehess]

This whole debate is dirtdumb

Actually the reason I continue in such debates is that I cannot abide 'dirtdumb' being passed off as a reasoned and scientific arguement, and there is really no getting around the CiT conjectures being dirtdumb.

PfT is a slightly higher form, it rises above the dirt to be merely dumb.

 

[jaydeehess]

That is the CiT interpretation of this:
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2-1.jpg

How does that 85 degree left bank come from anything Paik said or drew?

Looks like 88 degree of bank at 28 Gs if you could roll into 88 degree of bank instantly.

The CiT would take the difference between your estimate of 88 degrees and mine of 85, and claim we cannot agree.

I am still wondering how that line can be Paik's described flight path since he certainly never has a jink to the left like that.

I have asked on occassions which path belongs to which CiT nocstar. Haven't gotten an answer. I seem to recall asking which one is Boger's and which one is Morin's.

 

[Edx]

I have asked on occassions which path belongs to which CiT nocstar. Haven't gotten an answer. I seem to recall asking which one is Boger's and which one is Morin's.

Wait they havent provided that information??

LOL incompetent?

 

[beachnut]

The CiT would take the difference between your estimate of 88 degrees and mine of 85, and claim we cannot agree.

I am still wondering how that line can be Paik's described flight path since he certainly never has a jink to the left like that.

I have asked on occassions which path belongs to which CiT nocstar. Haven't gotten an answer. I seem to recall asking which one is Boger's and which one is Morin's.

Yes they would jump on it if they could do math; but they can't comment on things like numbers; CIT and Balsamo only do 2,223 gs special paranoid conspiracy theorist math for idiots.
3 degrees is a lot closer to describing the CIT nut case junk than 2,223 gs is to anything real save Balsamo's moronic-math.

 

[mudlark]

Pointing to the south flight path. lol
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pointingSouthOops.gif[/qimg]
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.

You know no limits Beachnut.
Their maps confirm EXACTLY what path they said they saw the plane took

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/AllGroupsMap-3.jpg

http://www.thepentacon.com/DariusPrather.mp3

The guy in the second pic..

Prather: The Navy Annex, above midway. You can see where is a little area on the roof... the lower roof [...]. Right along in that area is where the American Airlines plane came directly across that, and it was only about 3 and half or 4 feet above that. We thought it was the weirdest thing. "It is too damn low", we were saying ..it came on down in between where the gas station [CITGO] is and our parking lot

also

It was on top of the Navy Annex.

The picture where you say he is pointing at the southern approach
is actually taken from this video interview.
He describes perfectly where he saw the plane come OVER the Navy Annex.

http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

20:00 minutes into this video is where your image is taken from.

He is actually pointing at an overpass sign (which is focussed in on at 20:15) which is situated on the NORTH side of the Citgo on Columbia Pike.

¨It was in between from where the gas station is but more over this way more¨

Darrell Stafford (also pictured above)

I looked up, looking in this direction and I can see the plane over the corner of that building here, the Navy Annex. From what I seen it was at RIGHT of it. It was on this corner of it.

Donald Carter

He is NOT pointing but mimicking the manouevre of the plane which can be seen in his hand..

In the same video above at 27:30 he was asked

Craig: ¨when you saw the plane over the Navy Annex was it more on the left, or the south side of the Navy Annex or more on the North, more on the right side of the Navy Annex?

Carter: ¨It was more like..he was sort of centred..¨

Why not show the motion he made with his hand at 27:50?

We saw a plane over here, the Navy Annex, come from over. [...]
Q: Would you say it was more on the North side of the station over here or the south side?
It was more on this side. Right on this side.

Is William Middleton even pointing in that gif?? LMAO

Anyway...

http://www.thepentacon.com/WMiddleton.mp3[/URL

William Middleton: As I made a turn to come back I heard this whistling noise as if it was coming behind me. So when I turned to look, I seen this big large airplane beside me.

CMH officer: Where were you at?

Middleton: Uh Patton Drive.

...And he glazed over like our parking lot here and made a turn toward the Pentagon….

In the same video above at 37:15

¨from in between what´s that the Hilton (Sheraton) and the Navy Annex and he started dropping¨

Oh man..the picture of Middleton in your gif is actually at 38:34-38:40 when he says

¨As he came past me, I could feel the heat..that´s how close he was to me..of the plane itself¨

BCR has also made this claim that the ANC witnesses were ´pointing south´ using the same manipulative means. I´m sure people participating in these threads have verified for themselves? Yeah.
Another blatant PROVEN lie.
Watch the entire interviews for God sake and stop embarrassing yourself Beachy. You too BCR.

 

[mudlark]

here's your google image
[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/shadowazimuth.jpg[/qimg]


here is mine, note the heading?


[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/127azimuth.jpg[/qimg]

The distance is still too long for the plane to have cast a shadow there.
The point you measured from is closer to the 183ft datapoint in Warren´s code. At what degree of elevation would the sun actually have to be to reach that point? Certainly not 42º.
The 3D scaled pic I showed is more in line. The exact positional and altitude data from Warren´s program along with the Azimuth of the sun at 09:37 on September 11th were all run through
this highly accurate program.

I take it also that the ´mean´ of all the flightpaths BCR is talking of has now been narrowed down to Warren´s path to make the shadow theory ´fit´?
The shadow being cast from BCR´s ´path´ is physically impossible even from the upper range of altitude of 450ft.

 

[mudlark]

Your friend sent you a load of crap. He has the shadow following the aircraft from slightly to the right. That's south, dude. Not freakin' possible/ BS. Totally bogus.

The Fail Boat has landed.

Get where I'm going with this?

Look at the shadows of the Sheraton, Annex, VDOT, trees.. .etc.
Do you see the shadows pointing in a Northwesterly direction?
That is because the sun is rising in the southeastern sky.

Try this link

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php

Okay Lefty?

 

[mudlark]

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.

THAT is your answer to my post?
I´ve outlined where your ´spreadsheet´ approach leans heavily in favour of an NOC approach.

WHO is Reheat? I believe Beachnut MAY have aviation experience on smaller aircraft but I can readily link to verifying scores of pilots who are now core members of Pilotsfor911Truth.

One springs to mind immediately.. LtCol. Jeff Latas
Former USAF Accident Investigation President.

But there are MANY more.

Beachnut has posted numerous lies/half-truths (one of which I have totally debunked above..and one which YOU have repeatedly claimed on the ANC workers ´pointing south´)
Reheat has provided a ridiculous NOC path from which he has extracted your ´NOC math debunk´ based on manipulation and false witness testimony.

Thanks but...nah.