CIT Fraud Revealed

DGM · Feb 14, 2010

mudlark said:
.

Rant over.

I tend to doubt it.

Jackanory · Feb 14, 2010

mudlark said:
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.

Take it easy Mud. You'll give yourself a heart attack.

I see that your still pushing your cartoon graphics again. I suppose back at the tree house its easier to manipulate the cartoon graphics than it to accept the FDR data, DNA, witness testimony and KSM's guilty plea. Maya means zilch. FDR, DNA v Tree House Maya ?Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

TjW · Feb 14, 2010

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

Really? Which of the decoded elements is Sun azimuth and Sun elevation?

beachnut · Feb 14, 2010

mudlark said:
Madelyn Zachem described a ´tilt´.

The math has been provided over and over by me.

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

She debunks your CIT moronic flight paths as she points to the south flight path. You failed again. Good job, you got it down pat just like the math-moron Balsamo.

The tilt is in the FDR, 6 degrees of bank and you can't do the math; why did you fail to gain math skills like Balsamo the not ever an airline pilot leading the dolts at p4t?

You love lies and you post lies, this is another lie like all your moronic flight paths you and Balsamo can't do the math for! 2,223g of stupid, and the moronic investigators failed.

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

Why do you post lies! Sorry, but it was very important to the fallen soldiers to be identified and it was a very solid chain of custody and if you had any skill in research you would know you spew lies! But instead you disrespect the military who died and the passengers by telling lies and the only thing you can do, but poorly, is apologies for terrorists and act like a terrorists loyalist; good job acting like a traitor to civilians and military.

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

Is this your original lie, or a Balsamo special 2,223 gs of stupid lie?

9/11 Chewy Defense · Feb 14, 2010

Mudlark clearly is following the "Truther Code of Conduct":

Truthers are told to do the following:

1. Deceive - Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 researchers into "Strawman" issues that are easily knocked down.

2. Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you cannot explain away.

3. Deny - Refuse to acknowledge that any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the 9/11 argument.

4. Discredit - Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of 9/11 researchers.

5. Repeat - Repeat the Conspiracy Theories constantly until you sound like a broken record.

6. Lie - When the evidence is overwelming, lie about everything.

beachnut · Feb 14, 2010

9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Mudlark clearly is following the "Truther Code of Conduct":

Truthers are told to do the following:

mudlark is spamming us with p4t dolt forum links hoping to get attendance up where no new idiots are signing up. It is a ghost town of moronic math and failed physics where the dumbest posts are allowed and rational posts are place in the Ghetto called debate.

mudlark is exactly like Balsamo, unable to do math, and can only post paranoid delusions made up out of 2,223-gs of ignorance.

mudlark posts lies and ignores evidence; it is what truthers and Balsamo do. I like his ability to avoid posting a possible flight path.

At the pilots for ~~truth~~stupidLies forum the dolt neoNAZI truthNAZI Balsamo acts like a kid (like me) and maps links to randi.org to another name. He can't afford his dolts getting a dose of people thining for themselves away from his cult of dirt dumb stooges spew moronic ideas and lies.

Too bad the pilot for truth links are not labeled with a disclaimer you are about to be exposed to idiotic math and real dumb ideas, don't laugh yourself to death, take it slow, the stupid could hurt your head.

I find it fitting when Balsamo is not making up lies and telling people I had a stroke, another lie Balsamo lies to imply, he calls people who debunk his 2,223 gs of madness and insanity, government loyalist; I think of Jefferson, Lincoln, and JFK, and the ideals they stand for; Please mark me down as a government loyalist which Balsamo says he is saving a bullet to execute us. It is rare to find a dirt dumb paranoid nut case conspiracy theorist, which makes me think Balsamo is just trying to make a buck off of gullible people of which most will be cured of the terminal stupidity Balsamo personifies.

CIT is fraud; they take witnesses who support the real flight path and crucify them! They have to ignore Madelyn, but it is clear all the witnesses are pointing to 77 which appears over the Annex but is really on the real flight path up in the air! In the air, flying, a flight path of a LARGE jet looks closer to the untrained first time seeing a plane go 800 feet per second! LOL, Madelyn alone debunks and at the same time exposes the fraud of CIT; I copied the pages so they can't hid Madelyn under the carpet as she destroys CIT and exposes Balsamo as the dumbest pilot in the world who can't even figure out the feet in a nautical mile and can't do math; bad with numbers.

mudlark said:
Madelyn Zachem described a ´tilt´.

The math has been provided over and over by me. ...

Fraud is saying Madelyn can't see what she saw; fraud.
And mudlark says he posted math, but is math free! no math from mudlark, just links to pure stupid...

9/11 Chewy Defense · Feb 14, 2010

beachnut said:
mudlark is spamming us with p4t dolt forum links hoping to get attendance up where no new idiots are signing up. It is a ghost town of moronic math and failed physics where the dumbest posts are allowed and rational posts are place in the Ghetto called debate.

mudlark is exactly like Balsamo, unable to do math, and can only post paranoid delusions made up out of 2,223-gs of ignorance.

mudlark posts lies and ignores evidence; it is what truthers and Balsamo do. I like his ability to avoid posting a possible flight path.

I agree, it's very likely that his ability to use common sense & his brain is lacking considerably. Whatever he's thinking & whatever flight path he imagines, he can't dispute the physical evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Photographic proof & witness testimony undermines his efforts to prove his claims.

leftysergeant · Feb 14, 2010

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

It's animation software, so I would assume that it will also not refuse and absurd instruction if it is just put in the right code.

Not, to someone who has studied art, it looks like someone just stuck stuff into the code at random.

The same altitutde and the same angle of the sun will, inevitabaly, WITHOUT EXCEPTION place shadows at the same angle from an airborne object.

Your crap is wrong.

carlitos · Feb 14, 2010

mudlark said:
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.

Please direct me to where I may view the FULL, unedited interviews. Thanks.

Jackanory · Feb 14, 2010

beachnut said:
mudlark is spamming us with p4t dolt forum links hoping to get attendance up where no new idiots are signing up. It is a ghost town of moronic math and failed physics where the dumbest posts are allowed and rational posts are place in the Ghetto called debate.

mudlark is exactly like Balsamo, unable to do math, and can only post paranoid delusions made up out of 2,223-gs of ignorance.

mudlark posts lies and ignores evidence; it is what truthers and Balsamo do. I like his ability to avoid posting a possible flight path.

At the pilots for ~~truth~~stupidLies forum the dolt neoNAZI truthNAZI Balsamo acts like a kid (like me) and maps links to randi.org to another name. He can't afford his dolts getting a dose of people thining for themselves away from his cult of dirt dumb stooges spew moronic ideas and lies.

Too bad the pilot for truth links are not labeled with a disclaimer you are about to be exposed to idiotic math and real dumb ideas, don't laugh yourself to death, take it slow, the stupid could hurt your head.

I find it fitting when Balsamo is not making up lies and telling people I had a stroke, another lie Balsamo lies to imply, he calls people who debunk his 2,223 gs of madness and insanity, government loyalist; I think of Jefferson, Lincoln, and JFK, and the ideals they stand for; Please mark me down as a government loyalist which Balsamo says he is saving a bullet to execute us. It is rare to find a dirt dumb paranoid nut case conspiracy theorist, which makes me think Balsamo is just trying to make a buck off of gullible people of which most will be cured of the terminal stupidity Balsamo personifies.

CIT is fraud; they take witnesses who support the real flight path and crucify them! They have to ignore Madelyn, but it is clear all the witnesses are pointing to 77 which appears over the Annex but is really on the real flight path up in the air! In the air, flying, a flight path of a LARGE jet looks closer to the untrained first time seeing a plane go 800 feet per second! LOL, Madelyn alone debunks and at the same time exposes the fraud of CIT; I copied the pages so they can't hid Madelyn under the carpet as she destroys CIT and exposes Balsamo as the dumbest pilot in the world who can't even figure out the feet in a nautical mile and can't do math; bad with numbers.

Fraud is saying Madelyn can't see what she saw; fraud.
And mudlark says he posted math, but is math free! no math from mudlark, just links to pure stupid...

Couldnt have said it better myself so just had to bump it up again. Beachnut you are a diamond amongst coal

BCR · Feb 14, 2010

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

Rant over.

No they are not, since I have made no errors in vector analysis. P4T just does not understand what vector analysis is. And yes, you got me, Rob makes much nicer looking cartoons than I do.

And no, I won't be going over to P4T to increase Rob's ratings. I used to go there, until I learned that the pilots and engineers that hang out at JREF are light-years more competent than those that hang out at P4T.

beachnut · Feb 14, 2010

BCR said:
No they are not, since I have made no errors in vector analysis. P4T just does not understand what vector analysis is. And yes, you got me, Rob makes much nicer looking cartoons than I do.

And no, I won't be going over to P4T to increase Rob's ratings. I used to go there, until I learned that the pilots and engineers that hang out at JREF are light-years more competent than those that hang out at P4T.

With that I am off to the park to test gravity and see if I can see planes fly over through trees here in San Jose posting on the road with 3 of my ~25 percent clones which understand physics which they will demo shortly.

Which part of Paik pointing south did CIT miss? Middleton is even funnier, he points over the Annex exactly where 77 was flying on course to the Pentagon at the shaky hands of Hani, who was so bad they gave him the largest target.

leftysergeant · Feb 15, 2010

I notice he is still ignoring the most glaring evidence that his stuff is wrong. He has still not accounted for the wrong angles between the aircraft and their shadows in his graphic.

mudlark · Feb 15, 2010

DGM said:
I tend to doubt it.

Yep, lost it a bit there, I agree.
First time though after constant non-posts which are solely opinion based rants and insults.
I actually HAD thought on registering here that the debate would be more substantial and not sarcastic one-liners, indirect/direct insults and dishonesty. Know what I mean DGM?
Just find it annoying that NOTHING has been linked to to back up claims which some people KNOW are false.

mudlark · Feb 15, 2010

Hokulele, you claim...

"Maya is not a design package"

Then why is there a drop down referring to "Maya For Design Visualization"?

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

Hokulele, you seem somewhat civil compared to others here, why not register at P4T forum to debate Rob on the topic? From my limited point of view, you have been proven wrong on every claim you've made with respect to Maya and prematurely said "How high?" when BCR said "Jump!". Do you still think Maya is just a "freakin animation software"? Do you think 3DS Max is also a "freakin animation software"? Care to put your name on that?

Didn't think so.

Rob will not be expecting you anytime soon i'm guessing. It's clear you also don't have a clue with respect to the capabilities of Maya.

How about you Lefty? Want to cast a glance with that bionic eye of yours over the Maya images at the P4T site?
Did you go to that Maya forum to tell them the program was ´crap´?

mudlark · Feb 15, 2010

Jackanory said:
Take it easy Mud. You'll give yourself a heart attack.

I see that your still pushing your cartoon graphics again. I suppose back at the tree house its easier to manipulate the cartoon graphics than it to accept the FDR data, DNA, witness testimony and KSM's guilty plea. Maya means zilch. FDR, DNA v Tree House Maya ?Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Name suits you mate.
You obviously haven´t read any links on this program.
I suppose the Purdue ´animations´ were ´pushed´ here when they were released (minus two engines at the Pentagon lol) and were labelled scientifically accurate.
The FDR data? JREFers don´t even accept it in its totality. They claim that the NTSB released data is ´missing seconds´.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163

The FDR itself was devoid of a serial number.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/14081

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2224/foiafaafdrcvrke8.jpg

The actual ´discovery´ of the FDR raises questions too never mind the data that is actually on it.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=5505

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15636
Anybody who was in a position to see the plane totally contradicts either the alleged trajectory, altitude and/or speed of it.

Even one of the posters here is unequivocal on how corrupt the info was and how the RADES data was ´manipulated´

NEADS 25.3 Second Time Difference Explained (Or, "I hate it when Craig is Right")

I told my nemeses at CIT that if I found evidence of tampering in the 84 RADES data that they would be the first to know and I am a man of my word. The NEADS clock was NOT running slower on 9/11. Rather its radar data was being collected, altered, and then fed into the system.

-John Farmer
Friday, April 11, 2008 3:31 AM

"I've caught them lying out the teeth buddy! (laughs) I mean what really convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt was the NTSB data. That is such an obvious misinformation campaign right there it isn't even funny. That stuff is so doctored. It just isn't even funny."

[...]

"The first thing I noticed in 3Ding is the Pentagon gate cameras....no way, no way. Ok that plane came in and hit those two poles, it had a certain angle of attack coming in. Ok...the Pentagon gate cameras have the thing sittin' on the ground. Naw naw naw that's not even reality."

-John Farmer via recorded phone call

Source

Witness accounts?

The ´hundreds of witnesses to an impact´ myth has been busted for what it is. Disinfo

On these threads, anybody who described NOC has ´misremembered´, ´lied´,
are ´cointel´ (the video presentation in this thread actually advocates this) or are just plain ´wrong´

Same goes for the Navy Annex witnesses.
They were all ´wrong´ due to their ´perspective´.
´Right bank witnesses´ are ´wrong´ too because..they just are..

KSM? Waterboard much??

Other people brought up the nonsense that Maya isn´t worth dirt, just like you. Just because it proves that the plane did not fly SOC according to the shadow witnessed by the Paik brothers?

It is in the video presentation in this thread. I have presented a debunk. It´s up to them to debunk it instead of pages of bullcrap that the program that made the images is solely for making ´cartoons´.

Okay Jack?

9/11 Chewy Defense · Feb 15, 2010

mudlark said:
Just find it annoying that NOTHING has been linked to to back up claims which some people KNOW are false.

You know what's more annoying? That in over 8 years time you've had all that time to present any evidence on your side of the arguement. And when people ask you to produce the evidence you simply dodge it & go on to the next lame theory.

mudlark · Feb 15, 2010

TjW said:
Really? Which of the decoded elements is Sun azimuth and Sun elevation?

He asked for data to mirror the images I posted.
I have already linked to the sun azimuth and elevation repeatedly so the only other data he could be referring to is the positional and altitude data in Warren´s program.
I say this because he and another have already given their ´expert opinion´ on the accuracy and validity of the program that provided the image.
One being an AutoCAD teacher no less. The topography and lighting should be no problem to them.

mudlark · Feb 15, 2010

9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Mudlark clearly is following the "Truther Code of Conduct":

Truthers are told to do the following:

Quote:
1. Deceive - Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 researchers into "Strawman" issues that are easily knocked down.

That´s a broad statement (as usual).
All claims I have made have been verified by actually linking to proof in the form of FOIA requests, math and recorded witness statements.
´Rebuttals´ in this forum are nothing more than opinion pieces (or quoted opinion pieces such as yours) and any ´counterevidence´ such as ´physical evidence´ has yet to be proven in the form of documentation.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5618341&postcount=596

The NOC witness evidence has never been refuted, other than by simply stating that they were ALL ´wrong´.
Not only them but ANYBODY who contradicts the FDR data.
[/QUOTE]

2. Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you cannot explain away.

3. Deny - Refuse to acknowledge that any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the 9/11 argument.

See above on ´irrefutable evidence´

4. Discredit - Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of 9/11 researchers.

HAHA! Rich coming from you or most people here.
Links to those ´attacks´ I made?
I could fill a thread with links.

5. Repeat - Repeat the Conspiracy Theories constantly until you sound like a broken record.

See above.
What I have presented is NOT a CT.
It is evidence.

6. Lie - When the evidence is overwelming, lie about everything.

Wow. Definitely see above.
The list of lies spouted on this forum is growing daily.

mudlark · Feb 15, 2010

leftysergeant said:
It's animation software, so I would assume that it will also not refuse and absurd instruction if it is just put in the right code.

Not, to someone who has studied art, it looks like someone just stuck stuff into the code at random.

The same altitutde and the same angle of the sun will, inevitabaly, WITHOUT EXCEPTION place shadows at the same angle from an airborne object.

Your crap is wrong.

That´s just opinion Lefty.
Warren´s EXACT long/lat and altitude data was entered into a topographically exact model of Arlington.
The azimuth and elevation of the sun were taken from a reliable source, the data of which nobody disputes here.
That you call it ´crap´ based on Art studies and the naked eye is not a scientific approach.

The author of the images was taught by and is advised by an expert who uses Maya to design components for GM and NASCAR.

At least Hokulele and BCR are TRYING to simulate the results...I assume..

CIT Fraud Revealed

Skeptic not Atheist

Graduate Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

"más divertido"

Graduate Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Muse

Muse

Banned

Muse

Muse

Muse