CIT Fraud Revealed

[The Big Dog]

As of this writing, CIT’s full video footage from their interviews with Shinki and Ed Paik have not been made public.

Bears repeating.

How many times have I pointed out the CIT has failed to release their raw video?

I can imagine that there is much consternation at the CIT tree house.

 

[BCR]

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.

Actually Reheat, it is not me but the truther community that is outing these phony 'researchers'. Erik has simply followed-up leads provided by myself and others in the truther community and packaged it up in a nice neat bundle. They have been exposed as frauds by the same group they espoused to be the hero's of. Kinda ironic don't ya think?

 

[Reheat]

Kinda ironic don't ya think?

Yes, that's quite amusing. Dishonesty is universally repugnant, but these scum bags take it to a new level.

 

[nicepants]

They don't "all agree on the path of the plane", but they do all agree on certain aspects of that path such as:

1) It was north of the citgo
2) It ended at the pentagon where the plane crashed into it

1) Yes
2) The path ends at the Pentagon because they believed it had crashed at that spot.

There is no reason to treat these 2 things differently.

The two above statements are contradictory. That all witnesses on record in that area place the plane NOC leans towrds the latter being false.

There you go, rejecting one thing they say based on the other thing they say. Using that logic we could also lean towards NOC being false because "all witnesses on record place the plane impacting the pentagon".

So...they could be wrong...but not wrong enough for the plane to be south of the Citgo?

...
Turcios places it NOC.
So no.

This is contradicted by the paths you posted...see my explanation below:

If by ´some of the paths´ you mean Middleton´s path and Turcios, yes it is.
The SOC path is a further 240 ft away from Middleton´s path....

It's not how far they are from the "SOC Path", but how far they are from each other which illustrates the minimum margin of error.

(Assuming that the citgo is 100' wide) A flight path that's reported 200 feet north of the citgo with a margin of error of 500 feet could have actually been 200 feet SOUTH of the citgo. Do you agree or disagree?

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

Because they claim that the plane flew north of the Citgo and subsequently impacted the Pentagon. A scenario which is impossible, even according to CIT. That makes every single one of those eyewitnesses wrong.

 

[twinstead]

Because they claim that the plane flew north of the Citgo and subsequently impacted the Pentagon. A scenario which is impossible, even according to CIT. That makes every single one of those eyewitnesses wrong.

Yup. This is using CIT's logic against them.

 

[Childlike Empress]

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

Do not post-by-proxy for banned members; content removed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Jackanory]

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

Independently confirmed! Craig sure can skirm.

So he made how many attempts at interviewing his witnesses? And still cant get his lies in order?

Show us the original unedited VT Craig. No?

 

[The Big Dog]

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

RIDICULOUS CIT SHILL CUTS AND PASTES GARBAGE FROM A BANNED IDIOT

CE, I am astonished that you continue to mindlessly regurgitate these frauds' omissions and ridiculous excuses: it was all Shinki's Fault!! And for god's sake, don't just cut and paste their ramblings

Here, let me bold this part of the article that Craig (in complete and utter desperation mode) ignores:

"As of this writing, CIT’s full video footage from their interviews with Shinki and Ed Paik have not been made public."

What part of that statement did you miss when slurping deeply from the well that is CIT's pathetic excuses?

Stop being a freaking mindless shill.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Calm down, buddy. He's exactly right. Logic beats spin once again.

 

[The Big Dog]

Calm down, buddy. He's exactly right. Logic beats spin once again.

What the hell? You are agreeing with me?

Well, that is new. I mean, Craig's spin that he was to young and dumb to understand what his witnesses were saying is easily the most pathetic spin I have EVER seen in my life. He is not young, but it seems we agree that he is still a farking moran.

Of course he could clear this all up by releasing the raw videos, but we all know that is never going to happen.

 

[GlennB]

Calm down, buddy. He's exactly right. Logic beats spin once again.

Childlike Empress, did you ever find time to look into that 'bank angle' question I put to you some pages ago? It was over in the "8 out of 8" thread, but the same question is asked in #247 of this thread.

 

[Childlike Empress]

#247? Without numbers for 3., how did you come up with numbers for 4.? What are plausible speeds and why?

 

[GlennB]

#247? Without numbers for 3., how did you come up with numbers for 4.? What are plausible speeds and why?

To the advantage of CIT theory, you choose the gentlest turn that is reasonably consistent with the several yellow NoC paths we see on the CIT graphics.

Choose a min and max speed then see how it looks, it's only two inputs to the bank-angle calculator after all. About 2 minutes effort. I'd suggest 300mph and 500mph, but the joy of this little exercise is you get to see how different parameters affect the bank angle.

Here is the calculator.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'm not stupid, Glenn. If you want to present an argument, flesh it out. I don't need you to tell me math - based on speculation.

 

[GlennB]

I'm not stupid, Glenn. If you want to present an argument, flesh it out. I don't need you to tell me math - based on speculation.

There is no 'speculation', it's a reasonable scientific exercise.
The easiest NoC curve of the approach can be pinned down from the CIT yellow lines (barely clipping the north of Citgo canopy) A 757 is subsonic, so choose reasonable min and max approach speeds to envelope the whole exercise.

 

[Meed]

When we interviewed Ed the first time off-location, his English was pretty bad and we were all a bit confused regarding his account INCLUDING exactly where he placed the plane, but our impression that he was outside was already established because of Shinki.

Is that how the interview with him was presented?

"His English is so bad that we couldn't ask him where he was at the time and we can't figure out where he says the plane was, but here he is anyway..."

My main concern was making sure to get him on location so I could document the flight path he was describing accurately and with zero ambiguity which is why I had him illustrate it on 3 separate images.

Did it occur to Craig that given his language barrier difficulties, Paik might not be able to understand him very well either? Those lines he drew were obviously not what he saw, considering he saw what sounds like shadow of a wing outside the window for about 1 second. So what did he think he was supposed to be drawing?

I'm not crying fraud, because it might just be incompetence, but releasing the raw footage would help clear things up.

 

[funk de fino]

I'm not stupid, Glenn. If you want to present an argument, flesh it out. I don't need you to tell me math - based on speculation.

Your support of the CIT seems to contradict your first sentence.

They are frauds.

 

[Garb]

Childlike Empress, I'm curious what your opinion is on the witnesses who state they saw flight 77 crash into the Pentagon.

Wouldn't that be impossible with the supposed NORTH OF CITGO flight path?

And which testimony do you believe to be the right one? The crash witnesses or the NOC witnesses?

 

[leftysergeant]

You cannot see the Navy Annex from where Ed is standing outside, and he keeps pointing south. Shinki keeps mentioning the grey belly of the aircraft.

It was south of his position.

 

[beachnut]

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

...

Paik only goes as far as the middle of the road for an estimate of 77, and this is failure for the NoC if you understand math/physics. This makes the NoC impossible due to G force and witness testimony which does not have 80 degree of bank.

Please understand the roll rate of a 757, which you have zero clue what it is, make the NoC impossible from the middle of the road.

Due to human perceptions, the middle of the road Paik thinks (and he clearly said he thinks or estimates it, or maybe English and witness interpretation is out of your skill set) he saw 77, become the real flight path supported by RADAR and the FDR.

The speed is on the FDR, the final speed seconds after Paik is 483 KIAS, and the impact at the Pentagon is exactly the kinetic energy damage by a 757 airframe. Science makes CIT a bunch of idiots on this issue as they push impossible flight paths and fail to interpret witnesses statements to support reality.

I have investigated aircraft accidents and CIT did the worse analysis of Paik I have ever seen and you support their failed madness with talk, and posting poppycock from a drugged out moron, Craig. I suggest CIT go to college and gain some knowledge before their next attempt at being investigators. I have no idea how they can do worse, but then I never thought I would see Balsamo top 11.2 gs with 2,223 gs. Got math?

Clearly math and physics are not in your bag of tricks as you fall for the paranoid moronic delusions of the CIT NoC. When you look up the turn radius for aircraft flying at 483 KIAS it becomes clear CIT have no idea what is going on, and they are the research branch of p4t, Balsamo's failed pilots on 911 group of 2,223 g morons on 911 issues, they offer not theory because they have no skill except making up paranoid delusions.