CIT Fraud Revealed

[A W Smith]

this bears repeating
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3966936&postcount=174

One other thing I noticed, from the first comment thread at the OC Weekly, was yet another tantalizing glimpse into their beliefs:

Originally Posted by CIT Craig Ranke, CIT
He [Schou] goes on, “-pause for circus music- a magic trick in which a military plane painted to resemble an American Airlines jet flew low over the Pentagon while explosives took down a wall of the structure in a convenient cloud of smoke, thus allowing the plane to fly away and secretly land somewhere, presumably at nearby Reagan National Airport. Unfortunately, their film The PentaCon, doesn’t provide any evidence of this.”

We don’t provide evidence for this because it is not our claim. We never said the decoy jet in question was painted to look like an AA jet and in fact we claim the opposite. The evidence we provide suggests that it did not look like an AA jet since most independent witnesses we spoke with describe different colors.

Source

This little detail is new to me. So let me see if I've got it straight:

According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:

• They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
• The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
• The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
• The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
• One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
• A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
• The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
• The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
• A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

And, finally,

• The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.

I am reasonably certain that the above is the stupidest hypothesis ever conceived for any purpose, including parody, intentional humor, or even stress tests of human perception in psychological experiments.

In the future, I plan to take no notice whatsoever of the Citizens Investigation Team, other than to link back to this post. From here, there is simply no return. I deeply pity the minds that are snared by such utter madness.

 

[JimBenArm]

NOC? Does that mean Not Of Consequence? Because it isn't. It hit the Pentagon, and it doesn't matter if anyone says it went North Of the Citgo or North Of Chicago to get there. It still hit, killed all the poor people on board and a lot of people in the Pentagon. All the rest of this is stupidity compounded by obstinance and ignorance.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

If you know how to use Maya prove the images posted wrong.
IF you had any ´expertise´ on this program you would know how highly accurate it is.

Highly accurate??

He's all yours, Hokulele. All yours.

 

[BCR]

You want Rob to give you the values? They are there for you to see in Warren´s decode.

Yes mudlap, I want Rob to make available the Maya scene file he used to generate the animation. Until then you are using smoke and mirrors and asking us to take Rob's word for it. Please excuse us if we don't.

And no, Maya is NOT forensics software and IS only as good as the person inputing the parameters. It is a 3D animation graphics software package for making cartoons. It does accommodate a degree of usefulness in that a person can enter their own dynamics equations, but again, forgive me in not believing that P4T is capable of entering the correct equations.

The software is used to make fairly nice cartoons with very good graphics. I claim no expertise in the software beyond using it to make crude 3D reconstructions on a small scale (less than several hundred feet). You are surely aware that a number of different lighting types are used in Maya. For me to comment on the Rob generated shadows, I would have to see how he has the scene set up, what lights he is using in the scene, whether his actual placements in the scene are correct, etc. Again, you guys have never taken my word for anything, so don't expect me to take Rob's word for it that he has all of this stuff set up correctly. He is a pilot, not a 3D artist

 

[Hokulele]

If you know how to use Maya prove the images posted wrong.
IF you had any ´expertise´ on this program you would know how highly accurate it is.

Does the phrase "garbage in, garbage out" ring any bells? Maya is not a design package and will not offer any solutions or alerts when the initial parameters are crap. As I tell my students in the AutoCAD classes I teach, "You may be able to draw and print your ideas on the computer, but that is no guarantee you will be granted a permit to build them."

ETA: I hadn't noticed BCR said pretty much the same thing. That will teach me to check and see if I am on the last page of a thread.

 

[carlitos]

They are on record. What are you saying? That Craig and Aldo TOLD them what to say?

No, but it's possible. Given that you have reviewed the unedited video, how would you describe their statements without the editing?

The ´totality of evidence´ is based on the word of government agencies.

OK, so that is a lie. Why are you lying?

Disinfo, proven in my posts in the 8 out of 8 thread.

disinfo? What the hell are you talking about?

There are no records on chain of custody of said DNA.

lie.

 

[twinstead]

There are no records on chain of custody of the DNA? mudlark, are you SERIOUS?

 

[BCR]

ETA: I hadn't noticed BCR said pretty much the same thing. That will teach me to check and see if I am on the last page of a thread.

No, maybe saying the same thing several different ways will drive it home (although I doubt it).

Mudlap,

The burden is not on me to prove your cartoons wrong, the burden is on those who present the evidence. Warren posted his results, his program and even the code for his program, nothing hidden. Yet you post cartoons and expect them to prove something. Now post the complete Maya scene so that Hokulele and I can run it in Maya (a free learning edition is available for anyone else wanting to check it out) and verify that the parameters used to generate those cartoons is as accurate as you claim. They are your claims, so put up or shut up.

 

[The Big Dog]

The NOC witnesses corraborate the North path.
A ´handful´? They are ALL witnesses on record within that area.
I´m still waiting on ONE SOC witness.

No actually those are the ones that the mutts don't want to throw up on the gallows. There are LOTS of south of citgo witnesses, but the mutts declare that the should swing from their necks.

The good news is that none of them are near as heavy as aldo.

 

[GlennB]

Madelyn Zachem described a ´tilt´.

The math has been provided over and over by me.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15930

Fraudulent.

One of the 'turn radius' figures on Rob's bank-angle chart equates to a ridiculous 11 miles. This doesn't allow the aircraft to pass through the key points of the curved approach unless you start to throw out key witnesses (from the NoC pov).

He refuses to insert any stall speed estimate as the plane type is 'unknown'. Laughable. Just put in reasonable estimates for a twin-engine jet of the reported size matey.

He states that a 35° bank - on an impossibly wide turn - 'matches' witness experience.

Then having created a little self-contradictory dream world of his own he cheerfully presents it to the public. Good grief.

 

[Jackanory]

Looks and sounds to me like the tree fort giggling socks have achieved their objective in drawing you all in to a discussion that started daft and will finish daft. Now argueing over a cartoon programme that has no relevence whatsoever.

I suppose it all boils down to the old 'if ya cant convince them with science baffle them with ********'. That is all this is. I sometimes wish Monty Python was still running.

Will you ever learn folks.

 

[BCR]

Looks and sounds to me like the tree fort giggling socks have achieved their objective in drawing you all in to a discussion that started daft and will finish daft. Now argueing over a cartoon programme that has no relevence whatsoever.

I suppose it all boils down to the old 'if ya cant convince them with science baffle them with ********'. That is all this is. I sometimes wish Monty Python was still running.

Will you ever learn folks.

And yet, here you are.

 

[Jackanory]

And yet, here you are.

Sad i know. Yet notice i wont be taken on the ride to fairy land. Its a joke to the tree fort John. You know it. I know it. The giggle is for them.

 

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by mudlark
They are on record. What are you saying? That Craig and Aldo TOLD them what to say?

No, but it's possible. Given that you have reviewed the unedited video, how would you describe their statements without the editing?

Total bunk. Dodge noted on the claim you made that they may be ´lying´ too.
How would I describe their statements? Watch it yourself. It´s all there for you to see.
Nice to know you make assumptions on the witnesses ´lying´ or being lead somehow when you haven´t even watched their FULL interviews yet.

The ´totality of evidence´ is based on the word of government agencies.

OK, so that is a lie. Why are you lying?

Then link me to the documentation of recovery of plane parts from Flight77.
The documentation on the serial number of the FDR recovered.
The chain of custody documentation for passenger and crew DNA.
The sequestered 911 calls in the area that morning.
The 85 videos that the FBI deemed ´irrelevant´.

Originally Posted by mudlark
Disinfo, proven in my posts in the 8 out of 8 thread.

disinfo? What the hell are you talking about?

You claimed that there were ´hundreds´ of witnesses to the incident. That is proven disinfo.
Many of the witness links are made up of anonymous testimonies.
Media embellishment.
People that weren´t even there.
People who contradict the official trajectory, altitude, manouevre and speed of the plane.
NOC witnesses.
Over the Navy Annex witnesses.
Right bank witnesses.

I can go through them if you want. No problem.

Originally Posted by mudlark
There are no records on chain of custody of said DNA.

lie.

Links?

 

[mudlark]

Yes mudlap, I want Rob to make available the Maya scene file he used to generate the animation. Until then you are using smoke and mirrors and asking us to take Rob's word for it. Please excuse us if we don't.

And no, Maya is NOT forensics software and IS only as good as the person inputing the parameters. It is a 3D animation graphics software package for making cartoons. It does accommodate a degree of usefulness in that a person can enter their own dynamics equations, but again, forgive me in not believing that P4T is capable of entering the correct equations.

The software is used to make fairly nice cartoons with very good graphics. I claim no expertise in the software beyond using it to make crude 3D reconstructions on a small scale (less than several hundred feet). You are surely aware that a number of different lighting types are used in Maya. For me to comment on the Rob generated shadows, I would have to see how he has the scene set up, what lights he is using in the scene, whether his actual placements in the scene are correct, etc. Again, you guys have never taken my word for anything, so don't expect me to take Rob's word for it that he has all of this stuff set up correctly. He is a pilot, not a 3D artist

In other words, you want Rob to show you how he did it?
Why don´t you just say this and cut the crap about the program being used for ´nice cartoons´. You know this is not true.

You DO know that Bombadier uses an "animation" program for their designs?

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=13566339&siteID=123112

Bombardier uses 3DS Max, which used to be a rival to Maya until Autodesk bought it out...

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?id=13577897&siteID=123112

Leading architects, automotive and consumer products designers, and creative advertising professionals use the Maya toolset to explore, validate, and convey their designs.

* Architecture—Maya offers a robust platform with powerful modeling toolsets that complement the building information modeling (BIM) workflow during conceptualization.
* Manufacturing—Complementing the Autodesk® Inventor®, Alias®, and Showcase® family of products, the Maya toolset is used by manufacturers, marketers, and their ad agencies for work ranging from conceptual modeling to advanced animated visualizations.
* Automotive—Maya is used by designers in automotive OEMs to complement the Alias and Showcase family of products for a variety of tasks such as modeling, data preparation and cleanup, and advanced visualization.
* Consumer products manufacturing—Maya enables consumer products manufacturers to turn digital prototypes into highly realistic advertisements—without the need for costly physical prototypes and photography shoots

..whether his actual placements in the scene are correct, etc. Again, you guys have never taken my word for anything, so don't expect me to take Rob's word for it that he has all of this stuff set up correctly. He is a pilot, not a 3D artist

´his actual placements´?
The SOC path is based on Warren´s data, both lat/long and altitude.
The topography is spot on. As you know.
So basically what you are asking is if the sun is positioned correctly?

Hokulele has promised to check this out.

 

[mudlark]

Does the phrase "garbage in, garbage out" ring any bells? Maya is not a design package and will not offer any solutions or alerts when the initial parameters are crap. As I tell my students in the AutoCAD classes I teach, "You may be able to draw and print your ideas on the computer, but that is no guarantee you will be granted a permit to build them."

ETA: I hadn't noticed BCR said pretty much the same thing. That will teach me to check and see if I am on the last page of a thread.

Read my post to BCR on this program.
´Garbage in, garbage out´? Only if the parameters in Warren Stutt´s decode data and the sun´s publically available specific positioning on September 11 2001 are wrong would it be ´garbage´
If you are referring to the topography and/or Rob Balsamo´s abilities, go ahead and prove him wrong.

Being a teacher in this area you should know how to reproduce the effects of accurate sun position and shadows in Maya?

Why do Bombardier also use an "animation" program for their designs?
I would check out those links I gave to BCR before you turn your nose up at its capabilities again.

 

[mudlark]

No, maybe saying the same thing several different ways will drive it home (although I doubt it).

Mudlap,

The burden is not on me to prove your cartoons wrong, the burden is on those who present the evidence. Warren posted his results, his program and even the code for his program, nothing hidden. Yet you post cartoons and expect them to prove something. Now post the complete Maya scene so that Hokulele and I can run it in Maya (a free learning edition is available for anyone else wanting to check it out) and verify that the parameters used to generate those cartoons is as accurate as you claim. They are your claims, so put up or shut up.

Wth are you on about BCR??
The ´evidence´ IS Warren Stutt´s data.

As Hokulele said ´garbage in garbage out´. If Rob gives you all the data on the Maya scene it would defeat the whole purpose of you and Hokulele ´debunking´ it.
YOU have to create the topography, the positioning and altitude of the plane, the position of the sun, so it´s your and Hokulele´s own ´garbage´

I have genuinely asked Rob if this is possible and he told me to tell you ask him here

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19610&view=findpost&p=10782840

I have just seen why you refer to this program as solely for making ´cartoons´. Are these seriously your attempts at using this program?

??

Compare your efforts to what I posted. NOW I understand why you want the ´data´.
Hopefully Hokulele will fare better being a teacher and all.

Rob tells me that he learned from an expert who uses Maya to design components for GM and NASCAR. He made the 757 from scratch that you see in the Pilotsfor911Truth presentations. He is even in their credits...

Why don´t you guys go to these guys and tell them the software is only good for making cartoons.

Or... go to Bombardier and let them know that their aircraft were designed with rival software made for "cartoons".

 

[mudlark]

Looks and sounds to me like the tree fort giggling socks have achieved their objective in drawing you all in to a discussion that started daft and will finish daft. Now argueing over a cartoon programme that has no relevence whatsoever.

I suppose it all boils down to the old 'if ya cant convince them with science baffle them with ********'. That is all this is. I sometimes wish Monty Python was still running.

Will you ever learn folks.

I´m tired of hearing the ´sock´ accusation. Anybody who has ever debated craig and Aldo will know that my style is totally different from theirs. Enough.

This ´daft´ thread was instigated by John Farmer who is agreeing with you!
The debate on the ´cartoon programme´ began when I posted the image of the virtual sun/shadow on September 11 in response to the assertion made on this thread that Ed Paik´s brother confirmed that a shadow passed over their shop. The image proves that it couldn´t have if following the path and altitude of Warren Stutt´s data at this point.
It´s far from irrelevent.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

I´m tired of hearing the ´sock´ accusation. Anybody who has ever debated craig and Aldo will know that my style is totally different from theirs. Enough.


This ´daft´ thread was instigated by John Farmer who is agreeing with you!
The debate on the ´cartoon programme´ began when I posted the image of the virtual sun/shadow on September 11 in response to the assertion made on this thread that Ed Paik´s brother confirmed that a shadow passed over their shop. The image proves that it couldn´t have if following the path and altitude of Warren Stutt´s data at this point.
It´s far from irrelevent.[sic]

When will the cartoon creators show the fly over/ around. You know what I'm saying? I've been asking this for years now.

 

[mudlark]

Which "turn radius" is fradulent? Why have you refused to provide source? Not providing source seems to be a common experience around here at JREF.

Does Leftysarge still think he has a better "artistic eye" than Maya? Does Hokulele still think the P4T presentation is inaccurate?

Does Farmer/911Files/BCR still think that it is hard to create a "Physical Sun and Sky" after being provided a link to the directions numerous times?

Garbage in, Garbage out.. right?

Farmer, it appears your "cartoon" was truly GARBAGE!

Yes BCR, we know why you were unable to finish your Arlington construction and instead gave the program to Rob. It's because you dont know how to use Maya beyond making your silly cartoon. Click the link I gave to discuss it with Rob. Your "scene" is pathetic.



Your errors in vector analysis are also fully covered at P4T.

Rant over.