A W Smith
Philosopher
Someone Stundie this,
CIT Fraud Revealed
- Thread starter BCR
- Start date
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
No, that is reversing the burden of proof again. I do need the data used by PfT in order to verify its accuracy since that is the claim on the table.
Can you provide this data?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
She can plug in any old numbers and prove CIT wrong?
Childlike Empress
Banned
It was offered to you several times, you are just not capable of recognizing it for what it is. What's with the cartoon software? Why should i provide this data (already provided to you from "official" sources) when you've shown that, if you don't lie about your expertise, you lie about the outcome of plugging this data into this software? The cartoon software that isn't capable of modeling the situation, according to you? Scum? *yawn*
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Wait a minute. Isn't this the same bunch that laughed at the NIST computer simulation and complained that they could not get data files?
(truther groups are starting to blur in my mind)
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Please quote where I said this is "cartoon software" and that it isn't "capable of modeling the situation".
And no, as has been noted several times, mudlark has posted links to sun data, Warren's decode data, but that is it*. As A W Smith has shown (including the calcs!), this data on its own disproves PfT's claim. Mudlark has given us screen captures, not source data, of DEM data and screen captures, not source data, of the Maya scene. Without the source data and the explicit methodology, there is no way to test PfT's claims for truth.
So in the end, we have PfT's cartoon and A W Smith's calculations which show different results. Since anyone here can verify A W Smith's work, and no one can verify that PfT actually used the data mudlark linked, much less used it correctly, there is no reason to accept their claim. Further evidence is required.
Can you provide such evidence?
ETA: * - Mudlark has linked to the PfT forum, but not to any specific data, and I have already explained why this is insufficient.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
If you had just provided a link instead of blowing about why you won't, you could have saved a lot of typing.
Childlike Empress
Banned
Further evidence of what?
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Evidence that the claims PfT is making are based on accurate data and methodologies. The easiest way to do this would be to provide the original files used in Maya.
Anyway, it is almost pau hana here, so I will be logging off pretty soon. I look forward to viewing these files in the near future.
A W Smith
Philosopher
She is not lazy, she is correct in her thinking. Very correct. This based on reality, not your delusional world of impossible flight paths and the most moronic flyover non-theory.
Cohorts? Cahoots works better. Not that it would be bad to be in a cohort with her, it beats being in the delusional cohort of CIT and Balsamo's failed pilot cult of stupid on 911.
CIT is a fraud and the more you post like this, the more proof is no evidence will ever originate from you to save the moronic flight paths made up due to incompetence and zero math skills.
Which flight path do you think CIT will use as the NoC single integrated flight path and can you support it with math?
Have you see their latest cartoon trying to debunk the official flight path my making it a NoC flight path.
They moronically debunk their own flight path. They use a cartoon presentation to do it. Double failure = CIT (math)
South of the CITGO confirmed by Paik, and math supports Paik's flight path. Behind Paik is the VDOT area where Madelyn also support the official flight path and debunks the failed NoC by CIT.
The latest cartoon by CIT and Balsamo, has 77 flying over Paik north of the Citgo, and then it weaves back to knock down the lampposts and impact the Pentagon. Then Balsamo does the math and says the official flight path based on his parameters is impossible. What are the parameters. Balsamo uses the NoC flight paths as his parameters, thus proving his NoC non-theory is nonsense and he is a liar and a fraud like his failed investigators CIT.
Last edited:
Childlike Empress
Banned
The data sources were provided to you. You fail to be one of the cool kids, because the kool kids are able to plug the f-ing original data into the appropiate software, Hokulele. either you are not an AutoCAD teacher or you are lying about the issue. Either case, you are pretending.
please list the evidence
You can't list the evidence, they made it up. They can't do math to see their flight paths are all a fraud. Can you do the math and discover they are frauds?
You fail to understand flight physics and at the bank angles 77 was doing as it passed Paik at 470 knots (KIAS) the turn radius is like 30 miles. Do you understand physics and how this makes the NoC flight paths a lie based on moronic failure to interpret witness statements correctly?
OH? Please list the evidence.
You can't list the evidence, they made it up. They can't do math to see their flight paths are all a fraud. Can you do the math and discover they are frauds?
You fail to understand flight physics and at the bank angles 77 was doing as it passed Paik at 470 knots (KIAS) the turn radius is like 30 miles. Do you understand physics and how this makes the NoC flight paths a lie based on moronic failure to interpret witness statements correctly?
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
prove this wrong
here is the calculator
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/shadowcaster_height.html
prove me wrong, get to work, the freedom of the world depends on it.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
CE, people are trying to nail down exactly what data points were used. This is quite simple really, provide the numbers used to generate the scenes and if it is replicated AND corressponds to the data in the original sources then fine, it was done correctly.
If the data points used do not corresspond to that from origianl sources then PfT made the data up.
If, using the data points PfT claims to have used and those match the original sources BUT the scene generated does not match what PfT has been showing then PfT is in error or worse.
Clear now?
Seems the TM is allowed to 'question everything' but that reciprocity in this is not to be considered.
If the data points used do not corresspond to that from origianl sources then PfT made the data up.
If, using the data points PfT claims to have used and those match the original sources BUT the scene generated does not match what PfT has been showing then PfT is in error or worse.
Clear now?
Seems the TM is allowed to 'question everything' but that reciprocity in this is not to be considered.
Childlike Empress
Banned
You just didn't pay attention. Why don't you acknowledge the fact and stay out of the discussion? Oh, it's not about knowledge at all? Sorry, jdhess. Go away and take the other conformist ideologues with you. *rollseyes goods night*
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 13,092
You have to love it when people who know nothing about something are the ones who make the loudest pronouncements.
You know how blind people's hearing gets enhanced to compensate? I've come to realize that stupid people's mouths get bigger for the same reason.
You know how blind people's hearing gets enhanced to compensate? I've come to realize that stupid people's mouths get bigger for the same reason.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Natural compensation. More room for their feet.
Notice the heading CIT give the plane nearest Paiks shop is impossible the heading of 77 was 70 degree magnetic as this time, CIT has the wrong heading. FRAUD
Notice both planes are SOUTH of the road. From these two location, if both planes have a heading near 70 degree (61.2-61.5 true track) they can both hit the Pentagon and do the damage as seen on 911.
A NoC from here is impossible. CIT is a fraud and they debunk themselves with both planes south of the road when Passing Paiks location, they debunk their own flight path which they can't say which one is the real flight path.
Where is that evidence you said CIT based their work on?
Where is the math to support the flight paths of CIT? Can you do math to show which path is the real NoC? Which one is it? Pick one.
All the yellow paths are impossible; so which one is the NoC real flight path? And for extra credit why are all the CIT witnesses pointing to the blue-green flight path? Just asking questions, but I know you can't answer. See the 30 to 80 g turn? Wow, how did CIT make up all these failed paths? Can't the figure out which one is the right one?
Last edited:
Childlike Empress
Banned
Edited by LibraryLady:
Edited for civility.
Please remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: LibraryLady
Last edited by a moderator: