CIT Fraud Revealed

[mudlark]

Because it is a cheap recorder with an internal mic used for my own reference purposes, not posting on the internet. However, when I say I talk to someone, people like you scream 'liar, liar, pants on fire', so it is posted just as evidence that I did talk to him. It was also near the phone, which happened to ring while we were talking.

I was not making cute little videos and audios to make a few bucks or sell a few DVD's. My recordings are for my own reference so that I can recall correctly. Something CIT does not seem to realize, memory degrades over time and the more distant in time, the less reliable the recall.

Your memory must be shot. You keep posting and I keep rebutting..then you start over again. Or is it really a memory problem?

 

[Reheat]

Jesus man..that is NOT a suggested flightpath. It is simply a line demonstrating where the Air Force Memorial is in relation to Morin´s POV.
The placemark Morin said that the plane would have hit if it had been there at the time.
It certainly IS NOT what you drew on YOUR false flightpath. Just one of many details you failed to include in your ´debunk´

You really shouldn't invoke religion based on your pathological lying history. You drew the lines where Morin said the aircraft flew. All I then did was try to turn so as to then fly to the impact point WHERE ALL OF YOUR FREAKIN' WITNESSES SAID IT FLEW.

Is there anyone on the planet who understands aerodynamic physics who believes I created those arcs for the sake of art work. NO, those arcs are the result of applied aerodynamic physics/math.

STOP the CRAP! Airplanes don't fly along lines YOU draw. They fly in accordance with aerodynamic math. You have to be one of the most ignorant fools on the planet to believe aircraft can fly the lines you draw. Welcome to CIT mentality. Unadulterated ignorance personified.

 

[A W Smith]

nightly Wall of posts interuption

What happened?

Guess his library card ran out. Or a power failure at Starbucks.

 

[Reheat]

I drew those lines? Wtf are you talking about?
Those are YOUR paths.

NO, They are paths based on the application of proper math, which you don't have a clue about.

Which witness described ANY of those paths?

You are so ignorant you don't have a freakin' clue, do you?

Which witness described the exaggerated banks over Arlington Cemetery?
Over and behind the ANC buildings?

If you had a freakin' clue you'd understand. You have none, so you continue to wallow in a pit of clueless ignorance.

Read above. Stop lying. It´s pathetic.
Yes YOUR math based on YOUR paths are impossible.

That is precisely the point. The NOC crap is a delusion. Finally you understand.

YOU created the impossible paths.

No, YOU created them by not verifying whether or not the paths described by YOUR witnesses were possible.

 

[Reheat]

I cease to be amazed by the clueless ignorance displayed by these CIT maroons. It utterly confounds me that there are people with even a high school level education who could be so utterly clueless. Sometimes I wonder if it's not just an act, but I really don't think it is. It is truly sick, disgusting, and pathetic all wrapped up in a repulsive human form of deliberate ignorance.

 

[Reheat]

What happened?

Guess his library card ran out. Or a power failure at Starbucks.

Or needed a fix (more likely).

 

[The Big Dog]

Because the alleged NOC flight paths are not physically possible. Got Math?

Wow, the nightly cut and paste from the CIT mutts got c-c-c-c-c-combo broke!

NICE!

 

[Mangoose]

It could be 5 feet out from the Annex given the 0.7 second timeframe I outlined. Just howfar out do YOU believe he could have gotten in this time after running from 10 feet within the wings?
Add to that too his reaction time. Are you suggesting that he saw the plane and ran to his alleged POV as soon as he saw it? Truthful logical answer now please...

How many times has Morin's September 2001 statement been read to you? His original claim, written immediately after the events, does not claim that he was 10 feet within the wings. It claims that he was already 10 steps out of the Annex into the parking lot, while making a turn to the security building, when he first detected something unusual, hearing the sound of the plane bouncing off the Annex walls. Then "two or three seconds after that" the plane "came into view". Then after that the plane was "on top of him". Then he described watching to plane all the way until it was obscured by trees. What trees would have been visible to him? Even in his recent statement, he still mentions the trees. You know full well that the mention of trees points to a SOC flight path; no trees would have blocked his view on a NOC path ... the building itself would have blocked his view.

 

[jaydeehess]

That is something you would have to ask William Middleton.

Well no, I don't. The CiT should have. Sorry I live over 1000miles from D.C.

What is more important about his statement on feeling the heat is that he is trying to give an idea of how CLOSE the plane was to him.

Yeah, I got that. He believed that the heat he felt was from the jet exhaust as it passed him by.

Which part of your anatomy are you pullig those agl figures from??

What altitude agl are YOU saying the aircraft was at in order to have the plane low enough to cause a bystander feel the heat of the aircraft?
50? 25? 10?
I am saying that in my experience, having walked on airport tarmacs and having been on the side of runways as heavy jets take off I have never felt jet exhaust. In order for Middleton to feel thisthe jet would ahve had to be somewhere close to as high off the ground as it would be if it were sitting on the ground on its wheels. ODD then that NO ONE at all from any angle describes the plane as having scraped the ground as it passed over ANC.

Have you ever been in the proximity of a 757 at 350 mph?
If not, explain

.

I have been within 300 feet of a pair of Voodoo fighters going vertical with full afterburners lit.
I have been on major airport runways both in and out of my vehicle.
What have you done?

Again?
In his CIT interview he described the plane as coming from ´between the Hilton (Sheraton) and Navy Annex´
The path he drew BEFORE the plane actually reached his POV is understandable given the circumstances.

So if Middleton's drawing puts the path coming down Patton Drive but he is wrong about that what does this say about the veracity of the other's drawings.
Why did the CiT put a path coming along Patton Drive in the pic with the multiple paths if they did not believe it was correct or even what their witness was describing?

He also went on to describe the plane heading towards the ANC carpark.
The SOC path is in NO WAY described.

Neither is it a credible description of the path of the aircraft. You have already posted that it does not match the drawing.

Both Paik and Morin place the plane OVER the Annex.

AGAIN! Paik also says he thought it would hit his roof. How could it possibly be that low AND get over the Annex? His path also requires the plane miss the Sheraton by only a few feet yet does he ever say anything about this near miss which would be extremely visible to him? NO!
The next day though he opines that maybe it had hit the VDOT tower. If the plane had passed over his head and then the Annex it would never be closer than a wingspan and a half to the tower yet he wondrs if maybe it was hit while never mentioning that it had barely missed the Sheraton.
Wonderous.

Morin says it was on the outer edge of the Annex. He was walking and thus facing, south. He never describes having to turn around to see the aircraft. His description of the path of the aircraft, including his watching it go behind the trees, is deciededly a SoC path with the aircraft barely over the Annex.

Wrong in what regards? In relation to the other NOC witnesses?
He still places the plane over the ANC carpark as confirmed by the other witnesses. he also places it NOC (obviously).
The only thing that has been ´established´ is that he DEFINITELY did not see it on the SOC path. Corraborated.

Wrong in that his account is inconsistent with the accounts of several other witnesses among the CiT 'stars' and thus you can either accept him and discount the others, or vice versa.
Your idea of corroboration takes a very wide swath and calls it 'identical'. Yet oddly you find it inconceivable that the error margin could extend the other way.

Wrong. I never said he was with the other ANC witnesses.

Well when I said that Middleton had watched the aircraft hi the Pentagon you said that all the ANC witnesses were running, didn't you?

He was watching from an obscure viewpoint of the Pentagon facade.
Again, you´re patting yourself on the back before checking the FACTS regarding him ´running´ anywhere or me saying as such.

Hey, IIRC the running was what you told me. Sorry!

Still he either was not facing the Pentagon and running as were the other ANC witnesses (who were running because they thought it would hit them? yet none of them 'felt the heat'!) OR he was watching the aircraft pass by him and ,,,,,,,,,,, saw a fireball erupt, the aircraft enter the fireball?

You DO know that Middleton was on a higher ground level than the Citgo witnesses?
He was roughly 80ft ASL and they were roughly 40 ft ASL.
Again, you´ll have to ask or better still TELL Middleton he is lying.

AGAIN then just how high agl was the plane as it passed over Middleton so low that he felt the exhaust?
Lying?? Only the CiT assumes a lie when a simple error would explain the discrepancy.

They were not ´off´ in putting the plane NOC.
They all agree to this.
I´ve already covered this path both here and other posts to you on this very point.

Fact is that although Middleton's account is inconsistent with several other witness accounts you continue to adhere to the idea that they can all be right about their accounts. Why? Because they all put the plane in that mysterious zone known as NoC. If a witness had said that the plane passed along the Canadian border then headed for the pentagon right over their heads you would include it!

Paik saw the plane go over the Annex. He could not see where it exitted.

AGAIN! Paik also says he thought it would hit his roof. How could it possibly be that low AND get over the Annex? His path also requires the plane miss the Sheraton by only a few feet yet does he ever say anything about this near miss which would be extremely visible to him? NO!
The next day though he opines that maybe it had hit the VDOT tower. If the plane had passed over his head and then the Annex it would never be closer than a wingspan and a half to the tower yet he wondrs if maybe it was hit while never mentioning that it had barely missed the Sheraton.
Wonderous.

Morin saw the plane over the Annex from WITHIN the wings.

From 10 feet from the outer edge of the Annex he says it was right over him/over the edge of the Annex. Why does the CiT put it behind him?
His original statement puts him 10 feet OUTSIDE the wings of the Annex and he started from that point having seen the plane directlly over him.. Why does the CiT put the plane over the Annex BEHIND him ?

Given that the official speed of 782 feet per second, that would mean that the plane would have cleared the Annex and would have been in descent over the trees in 0.7 seconds.

792 fps WHEN? At impact?

Middleton ASSUMED that the plane had come down that road but in the CIT interview he described it as descending from the Sheraton down over the Annex when it came into his view.

AGAIN then that is not the path drawn on the pretty CiT illustration of the witness flightpaths.

Tell HIM that. CIT reported what HE said.
Either way, he is reinforcing the point of how CLOSE the plane was to him whether he could or could not physically feel the heat of the plane.
AGAIN, tell me what this ´physical fact´ is based upon!

The fact that in order to feel the heat he would have to be at the same level as the engines. If the plane were that low there would have been other reports of the plane having scraped the ground at the ANC.

He is also 100% on NOC and the low level lawn approach wasn´t what he saw.

Boger: Specifically and unequivocably states that he watched the aircraft enter the Pentagon. If you insist he is a NoC witness I insist he absolutly refutes a flyover.

It could be 5 feet out from the Annex given the 0.7 second timeframe I outlined. Just howfar out do YOU believe he could have gotten in this time after running from 10 feet within the wings?

You assume he was able to get to the outside of the Annex in time to observe the aircraft getting past the last Annex block and thus be accurate on how long it took.

Add to that too his reaction time. Are you suggesting that he saw the plane and ran to his alleged POV as soon as he saw it? Truthful logical answer now please...

Actually I believe he may have began running even before the plane came into view and that he was reacting to the odd sound of a screaming aircraft approaching.

The fireball was allegedly 200 feet in diameter and the shockwave was felt more than 2 kilometers away. The ANC guys said they could feel the heat of it.

Wow, the ANC guys, further away than Middleton(according to you) felt the heat of the explosion. Thanks for that.

Lagasse admitted he dove into his car.

Yep, but his account is completely accurate right?

Have you ever stood and actually WATCHED an explosion? Without ducking?
Flinching? Diving for cover?

Yes actually. You?

The fact that they place it NOC makes the damage caused from lightpole 1 to the building itself impossible.

the physical damage actually illustrates that they are in error.

yeah, yeah I know, spooks running around downing poles and planting aircraft parts, cabbies and guys in vans unloading lamp poles and carefully placing it on the cab. A magic explosion within the building that causes more damage to the first floor front wall than it does to upper floors or the back wall and somehow manages NOT to send the debris from 90-100 feet of first floor missing concrete wall onto the front lawn.

then more spooks planting an DFDR with the wrong flight data in it, and aircraft seats with bodies in them, body parts of the people who boarded flight 77

The FDR ´data´ interpretted by Farmer and Warren Stutt places the plane at 1 second intervals with up to 850ft sparsity at the twp points which run along the Annex. 50mph MINIMUM.

yes how about that, an FDR with data that supports the common narritive.
Damned spooks!

Even IF he ran inside the gas station and he is ´lying´/´exaggerating´ (let´s be clear here) would he not have SEEN the plane first? The plane he saw NOC?

how much veracity or accuracy would you then attribute to his account? Obviously you buy it 100% soley because it supports your politically motivated preconceived world view.

We know what ´for certain´? based on what? Various witnesses claim that the plane hit the lawn before ´impacting´. That the fuselage blew up on the lawn according to Timmerman, Renzi and to a certain degree, Sepulveda.

In fact a chunk of the concrete curb was punched out and it looks very much like it would have been caused by the port engine so they were not far off. It WAS at ground level when it hit.

You are approaching this as if people would be analyzing the plane as it ´crashed´.

YOU are assuming that all the witnesses were analyzing the approach when in fact they would have been watching, horrified.

MOST were ducking in their cars. Cowered with fear as the ANC guys were (and look how far away they were)

Not Boger! Not Turcois(if you take jis story verbatim)

ALL the witnesses within the lawn area either described the plane as being at 3rd floor area. Including Boger.

NONE describe it as hitting the top floor let alone flying over the building and as you point out several report it AT ground level.

Wedge 1 had recently been retrofitted to ABSORB bomb blasts. Damage was contained WITHIN that area.

Link?
AFAIK it was designed for bomb blasts that occured outside its walls.
The second floor was constructed of wood yet this 'explosion' did not rip upward through several floors but managed to blow out 100 feet of blast resistant concrete wall (without depositing this debris on the lawn.

You can scrutinize the NOC accounts all you want. You cannot debunk corraborative testimony simply by cherrypicking certain details of what they described.The outcome is the same. You still failed.

Cherry picking, me, ,,,that's rich.
BOGER SAID HE WATCHED THE PLANE ENTER THE BUILDING, NoC or no NoC, he says the plane hit the building and so did several others AND no one saw it fly over. No one saw it enter an existing fireball.
Not to metion that......
Flying through a fireball containing concrete debris is very much ill advised in any aircraft.

Well boyz and grils, I am off on a vacation for a week.
try not to miss me muddy.

 

[BCR]

Ingersol claimed that the timestamp on that photo was no more than 3-4 minutes after the explosion. The DOD removed it from his collection.
That photo is taken from an even BETTER POV than Morin would have had.
Out from the 5th wing towards the fence that runs along the Annex.
Where are you suggesting he reached within a less than a second timeframe??

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 0

anyone can tell this was not taken by Ingersol and it most likely the 12th or the 13th when it was taken! Now stop the crap!

 

[Woody-]

These eyewitnesses are ´unreliable´ because....?

Because all eyewitness accounts are unreliable when compared to physical evidence.

How many times has it been reported that a person has been cleared of a murder or rape due to DNA testing that wasn't available when they were sentenced? It is because the physical evidence (The DNA) overturns eyewitness's that swore they had the right person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory

 

[jaydeehess]

http://i48.tinypic.com/sn2gk5.jpg

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited quote of modded post.

anyone can tell this was not taken by Ingersol and it most likely the 12th or the 13th when it was taken! Now stop the crap!

Mud needs to post the link when he is referring to a specific photo. I think he means the one taken from the Annex parking area with the smoke rising in the background.

 

[jaydeehess]

Because all eyewitness accounts are unreliable when compared to physical evidence.

How many times has it been reported that a person has been cleared of a murder or rape due to DNA testing that wasn't available when they were sentenced? It is because the physical evidence (The DNA) overturns eyewitness's that swore they had the right person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory

Victims who were staring in the face of their rapist have been shown to be wrong by DNA evidence that clears the accused.

Witnesses at crime scenes have often related conflicting even mutually exclusive reports.

 

[BCR]

Mud needs to post the link when he is referring to a specific photo. I think he means the one taken from the Annex parking area with the smoke rising in the background.

Yes, but this is the one he posted earlier claiming to be Morin's view of the trees. I think he is just posting stuff to be posting stuff without even thinking about what it is he is posting.

 

[BCR]

As promised, here is the 2010 Edward and Shinki Paik interviews done by Eric Larson.



He has also written an exhaustive review of the Paik interviews and critique of CIT's handling of the interviews.

Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts

 

[switchpoint]

These eyewitnesses are ´unreliable´ because....?

Because you asked a human being, five years after an event, the spatial relationship between a fixed object on the ground and a moving overhead object traveling about 730fps with an event duration in the neighborhood of, maybe 3 seconds. Human beings are not video cameras.

 

[leftysergeant]

There is also the fact that some of them are going to toally freak and misremember things when such an absurdity a kamikaze attack happens right in front of them.

 

[Jackanory]

These eyewitnesses are ´unreliable´ because....?

...........because the CIT interviewer will misrepresent what witnesses originally said.

Mudlark - you seem infatuated with the specifics about time/space/area/speed etc - yet you can not even establish if one of these witnesses was 10 feet from a building, 10 paces (25 -30ft) from building let alone quote any of these witnesses correctly. If this witness had been running then he could even have been 40 -50ft from building. Puts a whole new perspective on that witnesses perspective. No?

Dont suppose it matters really. Your not very good at lying or deception here. It may work over at youtube though. Maybe its time to change to the right sock because the left one is becoming a little smelly.

 

[Reheat]

As promised, here is the 2010 Edward and Shinki Paik interviews done by Eric Larson.

John, quite obviously you have proven the OP to be correct and (no surprises here) CIT distorted the Paik interviews. Ed Paik doesn't have a clue about which way the aircraft was headed other than in the general direction of the Pentagon. He is obviously even guessing about where it was in relation to Columbia Pike. He only caught a fleeting glimpse and CIT has embellished and distorted Paik's perspective for their fraudulent purposes.

Go Home CIT, you're finished.

 

[CurtC]

Once more, with feeling:

If Paik saw the plane anywhere near his shop, the plane went on the south side of the Citgo. It could not physically fly a path that went to the north and then swerved back to the Pentagon.

End of story. If you believe that Paik saw the plane, then CIT are wrong.