CIT Fraud Revealed

[mudlark]

Okay, the last I noted, the claim by those defending CIT is that their work was incompetent, not fraudulent. Is that where everything stands at the moment? CE and mudlap have been conspicuously missing for several days now.

So CE has retracted the incompetence plea and left them with nothing but guilty of fraud as charged? The OP was NOT the flight path. The OP was (and is) NOT NoC or SoC. The OP is that the CIT boys knew that Edward was INSIDE the shop and purposely filmed him well outside the shop to falsely lead people to believe that Edward could see more than he could see. That is the OP. The OP has been proven true and the CIT defense is that Erik is just better at interview analysis than CIT is (Craig's assertion anyways). So incompetence or fraud? Which is it?

Clearly it's neither incompetence nor fraud on CIT's part since now we know for sure (as confirmed by Larson) that YOU lied in your "OP" regarding what Shinki says in your indecipherable recording.

You said:

However, as revealed a few years ago during my interview with his brother Shinki Paik, Ed was INSIDE the shop when the plane flew by.

We now have proof that this was obviously not what Shinki told CIT in 2006 and not what he told Larson in 2010.

00:30

Referring to his brother Ed

¨He went out (points outside)¨

So it is YOU who has been proven a fraud while Shinki provides a perfect explanation for why CIT thought Ed was outside and went ahead and interviewed him there.

So now to desperately try and save face you say:

The OP was NOT the flight path.

Except his placement of the plane directly over his brother's shop IS what proves the plane did not hit the light poles or the building and this was CONFIRMED by Larson regarding Paik, is corroborated by Morin, all the ANC guys, the Citgo witnesses, and of course Sean Boger.

So why did you lie about Shinki's account in the OP? Are you a fraud, incompetent, or both?

 

[The Big Dog]

Wow, Mudlark returns.

Welcome back. Did your heroes release their raw video yet? No?

Anyway, I want to congratulate you on posting the incredibly deceptive picture, showing the "view" out the window.

Is there a reason that you failed to show the extreme bank that is required to get the plane from the spot you show, then North of Citgo, and back over the impact site?

Why don't you and the tree fort kids pull out the calculators and calculate that flight path, OK champ?

I'll cut you a break, I won't even ask about the descent and pull up.

 

[mudlark]

CE is posting based on some kind of emotional connection with CIT, as I think he more or less said himself. Since he mostly hasn't been interested in talking about evidence, I don't care about his "stance" or whatever is...

I would like to hear from mudlark though. Whatever negative things you can say about him, he's generally been tenacious and willing to go into the evidence (aside from a few dodges).

I'd also (again) like to see an apology and correction by CIT. The only responses I've seen (aside from the quote CE provided) have been cocky and pathetic, admitting no error or responsibility.

Remember that Shinki was the first to be interviewed and stated both then and in Larson´s interview that his brother was OUTSIDE as the plane passed.
Ed Paik even brought Larson outside to describe the path that he saw.
Larson also found out how poor Ed Paik´s English (spoken) is.
That he was outside or a few feet inside does not change a thing.
The fact that he could not see the body or left wing of the plane should be taken as physical evidence alongside his eyewitness testimony.

What other path could he describe from what he saw from his shop?

Larson and Farmer are so intent on spinning the ´fraudulent´ line on CIT that this is all they have left.
So much so that this video interview has been released to try to prove a dubious point and at the same time bolstering the testimony of an NOC witness? No wonder it took so uch time to release. Were there second thoughts after the build-up BCR had been giving it? Or was this time devoted to how they would have to try and spin the fact that Paik STILL described an NOC flightpath? (Sorry for thinking out loud..it´s not directed at you personally) I mean..wow.


By the way, which ´dodges´ are you referring to?

 

[twinstead]

mudlark why do YOU think that no raw videos have been released? Aren't you curious too?

 

[beachnut]

....

...

See the white house on the right! A lady who works at VDOT says Flight 77's flight path came from the south west and was right over her, not north or south but right over here making it the official flight path.

She is a CIT witness CIT had to say was not telling the truth. But she nails the flight path very close to the real path which caused the kinetic energy damage to the Pentagon.

Do you understand physics? The damage to the Pentagon is on the flight path of Flight 77, this is physics, and it proves the flight path is that which knocked down the lampposts which people saw hit by 77.

All the CIT witnesses agree Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. CIT fails again and they are paranoid conspiracy theorists who sell dirt dumb DVDs suckers; why do fail to comprehend reality and spew CIT lies for them?

Then you present this image which proves flight 77 can't be norht of the CITGO, NoC, and overfly the impact zone. Too many Gs, too much bank angle for where you say 77 was. Sorry, but physics and math are required and you can't do the work, Balsamo can only do 2,223 gs of failed physics.

The plane on the left can't go NoC and overfly the impact damage, even p4t and CIT have do a very moronic presentation proving the same. Sorry,l but you got to present the math so you can see you just presented another moronic lie.

Bet you thought you could get through life without math, but you made a mistake.

Paik pointed south! darn, so do all the other CIT witnesses who were north of the south flight path. Funny as CIT video debunks CIT lies.

 

[switchpoint]

That he was outside or a few feet inside does not change a thing.

Wow....really? So it doesn't matter where a witness was? Really?

Does it matter if they are blind?

Does it matter if they are living or dead?

Does it matter if they are real or imagined?

What other part of physical reality is irrelevant?

 

[leftysergeant]

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1impossibleflighpath.jpg[/qimg]


Okay, let's take a look at the shadows here. Neither of the shadows are in the right location. The shadow representing the SoC path is probably too far back and not far enough toward the shop. That following the NoC plane is to close to the rear of the aircraft and not far enough beyond the roof of the shop.

Whoever created these images needs a basic art course.

 

[leftysergeant]

That he was outside or a few feet inside does not change a thing.
The fact that he could not see the body or left wing of the plane should be taken as physical evidence...

WTF? If he were inside or just exiting the shop, he would have seen trhe right wing without cranking his neck back at a sharp angle. If he were standing far enough out in the parking lot to have seen the Navy Annex, thus to describe the path that the aircraft took passing over it if the plane were passing him on the north, he would have had to turn to face the shop to see it go by.

He is facing south in every video.

Your ride is here.

 

[mudlark]

mudlark why do YOU think that no raw videos have been released? Aren't you curious too?

The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version and The North Side Flyover but these presentations contain the interviews in full.

The interviews are extremely long and extremely detailed so this is likely why attention to this information didn't take off until they released their more concise presentation National Security Alert just last year.

The average person has a short attention span and apparently you do as well since it seems you have failed to watch the interviews in long form.

Since of course the ONLY detail that is cited by CIT proving 9/11 was an inside job is the north side approach, and since all of these witnesses have names and can be contacted as Larson just proved, this simple claim is 100% verifiable by ANY of you.

Are you really doubting that if CIT had somehow "twisted" their placement of the plane that none of you would have figured it out by now or that none of the witnesses would have spoken out against them?

Larson has confirmed the obvious regarding Ed Paik. The notion that even though Paik's north side flight path is now independently confirmed but that somehow CIT twisted the accounts of Lagasse, Brooks, Turcios, and all the ANC guys to place the plane on the north side is flat-out ridiculous.

Hopefully Larson interviews them as well.

 

[mudlark]

Wow....really? So it doesn't matter where a witness was? Really?

There is a serious difference between what I said and the scenarios you are
presenting, no?
Though if they were SOC witnesses...

Ed Paik could STILL see the plane from his POV.
He STILL says that he could not see the left wing.
He STILL says that the body of the plane went over his roof.

02:40

On asked where the body of the plane was in relation to his shop

Ed Paik: ¨The body was over my building (points straight up at ceiling of his office)

He STILL maintains that the path he described to Craig Ranke has not changed.

IF the plane had been travelling in ANY of the proposed SOC paths, he would have been able to see BOTH wings.

04:55

Again reiterates that the body was above his shop.
¨All I saw was the wing¨
(...)
¨If I could see the left hand side then I could see the body..no..
all I could see was triangle (left wing)¨

08:35

Repeats how low the plane was and that if it was higher he would have been able to see more of the plane

http://i45.tinypic.com/2q38ay1.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/oqbxgy.jpg

 

[mudlark]

See the white house on the right! A lady who works at VDOT says Flight 77's flight path came from the south west and was right over her, not north or south but right over here making it the official flight path.

She is a CIT witness CIT had to say was not telling the truth. But she nails the flight path very close to the real path which caused the kinetic energy damage to the Pentagon.

She contradicts the Annex witnesses and the NOC witnesses
NOBODY corraborates her account.

The hijacked plane was coming up Columbia Pike, unbelievably low. It
exploded into the Pentagon seconds after nearly skimming the rooftop of
the Smart Traffic Center.

Madelyn Zakhem, executive secretary at the STC, had just stepped outside
for a break and was seated on a bench when she heard what she thought was
a jet fighter directly overhead. It wasn't. It was an airliner coming
straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. "It was huge! It was silver.
It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the
ground.... I was crying and scared," Zakhem recalls.
Source

´Treetop level´? ´nearly skimming the rooftop of the STC´?
She certainly corraborates Ed Paik in this regard. How does this fit with the altitude data?
The plane was allegedly in a descent from over 200ft according to Warren Stutt´s data. Higher than the Sheraton.

Here is her alleged POV

You DO see the problem here?

Her POV was obstructed

In an e-mail exchange with Russell Pickering she also claimed

From: Zakhem, Madlene R.

To: 'Russell Pickering'

Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:28 AM

Subject: RE: Question on August visit

Hi:

I did say that I saw the plane go over VDOT Buildings and tilting to the left while landing avoid the tower.

Madlene Zakhem

Does the plane ´tilt´ anywhere in the FDR data within the last 8 seconds of flight? At 540+mph?

Do you understand physics? The damage to the Pentagon is on the flight path of Flight 77, this is physics, and it proves the flight path is that which knocked down the lampposts which people saw hit by 77.

All the CIT witnesses agree Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Lie. Ed Paik, Terry Morin and 4 of the ANC witnesses either weren´t in any position to see an ´impact´ or claimed that they didn´t.
The NOC testimony makes this physically impossible.

CIT fails again and they are paranoid conspiracy theorists who sell dirt dumb DVDs suckers; why do fail to comprehend reality and spew CIT lies for them?

I´ve continually pulled you up on your lies Beachnut throughout this and other threads.
I have watched ALL of CIT´s videos free of charge. They are publically available on the net. Lying again..

Then you present this image which proves flight 77 can't be norht of the CITGO, NoC, and overfly the impact zone. Too many Gs, too much bank angle for where you say 77 was. Sorry, but physics and math are required and you can't do the work, Balsamo can only do 2,223 gs of failed physics.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1impossibleflighpath.jpg[/qimg]
The plane on the left can't go NoC and overfly the impact damage, even p4t and CIT have do a very moronic presentation proving the same. Sorry,l but you got to present the math so you can see you just presented another moronic lie.

Bet you thought you could get through life without math, but you made a mistake.

Your ´physics´ are based on officially sanctioned unverified data, which no witness described. Altitude, trajectory and speed are contradicted at EVERY turn.

The ´2,223gs´ was cleared up publically by Rob Balsamo here.
Warren accepted this and passed it on to JREF.

OK, the math looks good to me now. I'll alert J.R.E.F. that you have fixed the math. I still need to research pressure altitude to true altitude conversions before coming to any conclusions.

Warren.

Did you miss that?

Paik pointed south! darn, so do all the other CIT witnesses who were north of the south flight path. Funny as CIT video debunks CIT lies.

Wow, lie number 3, all in one post. (New record for you?)

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif

He ´pointed South´ yet drew this path. Slip of the pen?
That the other NOC witnesses actually saw the plane SOC shows you have delusions I can´t begin to fathom.

 

[mudlark]

WTF? If he were inside or just exiting the shop, he would have seen trhe right wing without cranking his neck back at a sharp angle. If he were standing far enough out in the parking lot to have seen the Navy Annex, thus to describe the path that the aircraft took passing over it if the plane were passing him on the north, he would have had to turn to face the shop to see it go by.

He is facing south in every video.

Your ride is here.

You misunderstood what I meant.

He could only see the right wing. ´Very low´, the body of the plane passing over his shop roof.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2rykrxf.jpg

These are Ed Paik´s words, not CIT´s or mine, confirmed through Larson´s interview.
It was never claimed that he could physically see the Annex by me nor where his precise POV was. He drew his path based on what HE saw and experienced.

Now the fact that he could only see the right wing further contradicts SOC.

 

[mudlark]

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1impossibleflighpath.jpg[/qimg]


Okay, let's take a look at the shadows here. Neither of the shadows are in the right location. The shadow representing the SoC path is probably too far back and not far enough toward the shop. That following the NoC plane is to close to the rear of the aircraft and not far enough beyond the roof of the shop.

Whoever created these images needs a basic art course.

Lefty if you or anybody else doubts the authenticity of these images why don´t you disprove them by using the program that made them?

http://wiki.bk.tudelft.nl/toi-pedia/MR_Using_the_Physical_Sun_and_Sky_environment

Sun data

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Sun_Altitude-Azimuth_091101%20.txt

Data obtained from here

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

An ´artistic eye´ doesn´t quite debunk it.

 

[GlennB]

...
Now the fact that he could only see the right wing further contradicts SOC.

So, mudlark, why does not one single witness report the 70°+ bank angle required to make the Paik/NoC/impact turn?
Or anything remotely close to that?
Doesn't that give you pause for thought?

 

[BCR]

So why did you lie about Shinki's account in the OP? Are you a fraud, incompetent, or both?

No lie mudlap, he said Ed was inside when he first saw the plane, THEN he went outside and ducked. Ed clearly states that he was inside when he ducked. Both said he was inside when he saw the plane, but they give different accounts of where he was when he ducked. So is one lying? I'll go with what Ed says since he should know where he was when he ducked.

In either case, Ed is nowhere near where CIT promoted his position. I see you have done a lot of NoC v SoC stuff. That is off-topic! The topic is CIT fraud. You say neither, but sorry, it is one of the two or both. I go with both, but definitely fraud since they admit that Shinki told them that Ed was inside when he saw the plane. No mention of that in the Pentacon production, so fraud!

 

[carlitos]

I know that this is obvious, but who cares if a handful of witnesses:
- are mistaken
- are being quoted out of context
- are lying
- etc.

This proves nothing, when we have the totality of evidence. The plane couldn't have physically flown where they say. There is no conpiracy. The plane hit the pentagon in front of hundreds of witnesses. The passenger, crew and terrorist DNA was identified at the Pentagon. It's an open-and-shut case. We know for an absolute fact that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, especially after years go by. Therefore, CIT is wrong. Their beliefs are not reality-based.

Moreover, the fact that "CIT" won't do anything with this bombshell information, except try to make a few bucks on DVDs and win admiration on the internet, simply confirms their irrelevance. I realize that they are annoying, but really my life is just fine whether mudlark defends them or not.

Sorry for preaching. Consider it as a little Sauvignon-Blanc-induced Zen for a Friday.

 

[Childlike Empress]

In either case, Ed is nowhere near where CIT promoted his position. I see you have done a lot of NoC v SoC stuff. That is off-topic! The topic is CIT fraud. You say neither, but sorry, it is one of the two or both. I go with both, but definitely fraud since they admit that Shinki told them that Ed was inside when he saw the plane. No mention of that in the Pentacon production, so fraud!

But but but, Farmer - Shinki told them, backchecked by Larson, that Ed was outside the building. Surely an innocent mistake of yours that you will soon retract. But leaves you with - no fraud.

 

[Jackanory]

I know that this is obvious, but who cares if a handful of witnesses:
- are mistaken
- are being quoted out of context
- are lying
- etc.

This proves nothing, when we have the totality of evidence. The plane couldn't have physically flown where they say. There is no conpiracy. The plane hit the pentagon in front of hundreds of witnesses. The passenger, crew and terrorist DNA was identified at the Pentagon. It's an open-and-shut case. We know for an absolute fact that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, especially after years go by. Therefore, CIT is wrong. Their beliefs are not reality-based.

Moreover, the fact that "CIT" won't do anything with this bombshell information, except try to make a few bucks on DVDs and win admiration on the internet, simply confirms their irrelevance. I realize that they are annoying, but really my life is just fine whether mudlark defends them or not.

Sorry for preaching. Consider it as a little Sauvignon-Blanc-induced Zen for a Friday.

And if that wasnt enough then i am sure that KSM's guilty plea of planning the whole thing will sink all speculation about who saw and said what. None of this NoC/Soc matters and those that keep it rolling along are simply feeding the cycle of silly. Stop!

Shinki, Ed, Craig, Aldo and co are sunk but you keep them afloat with all this toing and frowing of video, picture, quote stuff.

KSM has given his version of events. He has coughed to the whole deal. He has coughed to the planning, the funding, the logistics, the training and the execution of 911. He coughed to the location of training camps and the command structure in place. He has named names. The listed details in his indictment came from him. The majority of the evidence and details being used against him came from him. He will implicate all 19 terrorists (and maybe more) that he recruited and plead guilty to it all. He will do this infront of a packed courtroom and not a waterboard in sight. He is proud of his achievement and will tell you so.

 

[Jackanory]

But but but, Farmer - Shinki told them, backchecked by Larson, that Ed was outside the building. Surely an innocent mistake of yours that you will soon retract. But leaves you with - no fraud.

All irrelevent. What ya gonna do about KSM?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I'm not american. If you're not interested in the topic, go away. Here's a good read about KSM, so you got something to do.