CIT Fraud Revealed

[mudlark]

Oh and it is even worse, they think it is both 100% accurate and 100% precise

Farmer, what other alleged path can PHYSICALLY line up with the physical damage?

YOU are the one who was suggesting that the plane struck the VDOT tower in this very thread a couple of pages ago.
Do you still stand by that? Or have you now changed your mind to suit Smith´s argument?

The FOIA released NTSB data supports this path. The NTSB data that YOU claim "trumps" eyewitness testimony, yet YOU nor anybody here can pinpoint any path bar those who suit each indvidual argument.

It is YOU who promoted the "consolidated path"

http://es.tinypic.com/r/2unue14/6

The NOC witness paths are derided for being variable yet the SOC "path" from before the Navy Annex is just as variable.
THIS is the "electronic evidence" which is superior to witness testimony?
Judging by the varied arguments in this thread, the SOC path has been rendered ambiguous.


PLEASE tell me which path is THE SOC path given what I have said.
It MUST be compatible with the various parameters recorded by ALL the data sets.

The speed alone makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the aircraft to be on a different course as set out by you.

Why? Because there is NO room for margin of error for the plane to manouevre from any other suggested course within such a restricted timeframe.

Any such manouevre is also lacking in Warren´s data regarding the 4-6º right roll.
It is a CONTINUOUS right roll up until 0.7 seconds before the end of his data.
There is NO left tilt, never mind left bank up until and possibly AFTER the plane allegedly reached lightpole 1.

http://i47.tinypic.com/14tx1rc.jpg

So YOU tell me. Is Warren´s data wrong? The path certainly doesn´t go through the lightpoles.

Which path is compatible with Warren´s right roll data AND the lightpole damage.

It certainly isn´t the path Smith has pinned his colours to.

Bank angle does not change the course according to the data. Check Track Angle True parameter in the data. You'll see the course changes by 0.3 tenths of a degree during this final leg. It is a straight line!

Less than 5 degrees of bank is not going to change your course over a 4 second period doing more than 450 knots...

So..

Again, do you still maintain that the plane struck the VDOT tower?
(Even though your FOIA request refuted this claim, among other things..).
The VDOT tower is within the "consolidated path" too.
Or just like Smith were you committing the classic logical fallacy of starting a theory with a conclusion like P4T and CIT are constantly accused of?

Your "band of errors" has just been narrowed down to one path.
There can be no ambiguity.

Ironic that it was ME who had to pinpoint THE proposed SOC path huh?

 

[mudlark]

CIT and their few followers seem to believe that, if witness testimony could be plotted on a graph, that 13 outliers are somehow more significant than the entire bulk of the remaining testimony.

This just gives me another reason to post this:

[qimg]http://images.cl1mh4224rd.com/jref/the-evidence_1.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://images.cl1mh4224rd.com/jref/the-evidence_2.gif[/qimg]

Those dots on the fringes are what CIT focuses on. And that's retarded.

[qimg]http://images.cl1mh4224rd.com/jref/the-evidence_3.gif[/qimg]

That´s...umm..interesting logic.

Does the same logic apply (and I´m getting as tired of spelling this out as many are of reading/ignoring/twisting it) to the Navy Annex and right-bank witnesses? Where are they represented in those dots?

You do realize that 100% of witnesses within the best area to see whether the plane was NOC or not, ALL described an NOC flightpath?
That would make one bigass dot right there..

You also realize that there are a severe lack of "dots" representing SOC path witnesses (whereever that path may actually be)?

You do realize that the "impact witness" lists linked to are severely wanting to in both actual impact witnesses AND that NOBODY contradicts an NOC path? Many actually reinforce the contradictions to the official story.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=959

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=960

The NOC witnesses are by no means "outliers".

Okay, glad we cleared that up.

 

[mudlark]

You forgot to include reality in your plot. You now have another delusion based on your failure in math, physics, and more. Do you understand flying?

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

Umm..Beachnut?
That path is not "Mudlark´s".
It is Warren´s plotted path.
The path that Smith claims the shadow was cast from onto Paik´s shop.

http://es.tinypic.com/r/14tx1rc/6

 

[mudlark]

I see it as quite the opposite. To me, there's nothing more funny than somebody so arrogant while being so wrong.

Of the 'newest' crop of truthers, I must say Mudlark has caused more laugh-out-loud moments for me than any of the others. I had Telltale Tom first for a while until it became bleedin' obvious that the poster is deliberately trying to be funny - - which rules out their being a 'truther' as everyone knows that 'truthers' have no sense of self-humor. My philosophy is 'if I can't laugh at myself then I must be unconscious'.

Truthers can't laugh at themselves. It must be a rule or summat.

There is a difference between playground humour/smarm and the humour you are suggesting.
You and others continue to claim that I am "wrong" when I have pointed out the glaring error in AWSmith´s image.
It´s not your fault. Everybody else has jumped onto the "bandwagon" without checking the facts out for themselves. Now THAT is funny.

 

[beachnut]

The sun angle kills CIT flight path as does physics.

Mudlark shows up and can't do the math for a single CIT flight path; wait they have no rational flight path.

Paik is still pointing south as are most CIT witnesses.

All CIT witnesses agree Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.

Thus: CIT is a fraud.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah the fun of using the most unreliable form of evidence to dismiss the most reliable form of evidence. And yet CIT seems oblivious as to why they aren't taken seriously. Not even within the truther movement.

 

[mudlark]

AA587 crashed in Queens in 2001, killed 5 people on the ground. The crash site DID contain dead bodies. Those who were killed on the ground. I have seen no documentary evidence to support the DNA retrieval and identification of passengers. Have you? Any you seen this info for ANY plane crash in history? Or will you conclude that AA 587 had no passengers?

The point you are making is totally irrelevant to what I said.
We are talking about possible callous mass murder.
The Queens crash was not a very probable black op.
None of the victims of the Queens crash demanded an open enquiry?
Even from victims of the Pentagon. April Gallup..remember her?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Beachnut

Wouldn't the sun angle not be a problem if they demonstrate that the Earth is flat and the sun circles directly above?

"The Queens crash was not a very probable black op"

Oh and this one is very probable? lol.

 

[mudlark]

But this is not true. These are obnoxious people that scare ordinary people. CIT has accused an old taxi driver of being an agent or confederate of a major government operation to coverup the Pentagon crash. Truely sick people might take this to mean Lloyd England should be dealt with differently that merely following him around wasting his time. Witness Dawn Vignola was apparently very upset by the CIT version of her account.

CIT remind me of the kid who gets beaten everyday by the school bully or by his dad who then goes around beating up the smaller kids in the neighborhood. Stupid? Perhaps not. Crazy? I don't know. Pathetic? Definately.

Pot calling kettle...
Lloyd England is the ONLY physical witness to a lightpole goig through his windshield.
HE even denies that he was where he HAD TO BE.
The NOC testimony refutes his claims (as does he). The lightpoles could not be physically struck from this flightpath.
He has even admitted that "it was planned"!

The entire premise of his story is physically impossible.

Dawn Vignola´s "account" is a non-story because there IS no publically available account of her story made by CIT.
The Dawn Vignola thread here (is it actually still going??) was proven to be a falsehood.
If you have a link to WHERE this "version of her account" has been twisted by CIT can be found please post it. At least show us where this occurred.

That analogy is pathetic. Posters here act like playground/high school bullies.
Photoshop and verbal insults are par for the course.
Put it this way. I was never bullied because I stood up to them.

 

[A W Smith]

I extended the path from which you are drawing your conclusions.
It is NOT the path based on NTSB heading/course AND physical damage.

It IS the flightpath you drew. It is Warren´s flightpath.

http://i47.tinypic.com/14tx1rc.jpg

The "physical damage" is IMPOSSIBLE from the path you are using.

I drew no path. I drew the length of a shadow from an object at a 210 foot altitude STARTING FROM Paiks shop. Where the shadow ended is where the shadow ended. I did not say it was the tip of the right wing. I did not say it was the tip of the left wing. There is a 124 feet 10 inch range that the total wing span could theoretically fall into, ASSUMING the 210 foot altitude is accurate to begin with.

And there you go with your push pins again, Are you that stupid? Did you not read where I asked you TWICE if the locations of your pins was verified with GPS on site? Did you not remember the problems with accuracy Google Earth has with overlays?

 

[beachnut]

Madelyn see left tilt. I see a left tilt; anyone else? The FDR shows a 5 to 6 degree right bank, like this photo of an aircraft. When you are in front of the flight path like Madelyn, you could say that is a left tilt.

Unless my arms have been switched that photo is a left tilt; anyone who argues can, it is relative to your point of view. Lucky for me CIT documented the direction Madelyn sees 77 above her. They do the work, and fail to do the logic. Are they that bad at this?

She sees 77 up in the sky. Just like Paik points to the south out his office.

This line of sight from Madelyn puts 77 on target for the Pentagon; no NoC. Now mudlark with twist her story to fit his idiotic delusion and CIT moronic fantasy flyover. CIT is evidence free for 8 years.

 

[mudlark]

This one is for the guy who believes his diagram represents Paik´s testimony in that the plane flew parallel to the shop.
He also claims that the Sheraton is not directly behind Paik´s shop and that his "planes" represent what he drew on his map. That the other plane was following the SOC path:

http://es.tinypic.com/r/mb09ok/6

Okay?

 

[mudlark]

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadelynSeePlaneTiltLeft.jpg[/qimg]
Madelyn see left tilt. I see a left tilt; anyone else? The FDR shows a 5 to 6 degree right bank, like this photo of an aircraft. When you are in front of the flight path like Madelyn, you could say that is a left tilt.

Unless my arms have been switched that photo is a left tilt; anyone who argues can, it is relative to your point of view. Lucky for me CIT documented the direction Madelyn sees 77 above her. They do the work, and fail to do the logic. Are they that bad at this?

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadelynDebunksCITBigTime.jpg[/qimg]
She sees 77 up in the sky. Just like Paik points to the south out his office.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadleneCITDebunked.jpg[/qimg]
This line of sight from Madelyn puts 77 on target for the Pentagon; no NoC. Now mudlark with twist her story to fit his idiotic delusion and CIT moronic fantasy flyover. CIT is evidence free for 8 years.

You are claiming that a civilian would see a "left tilt" the way you do Beachnut.
You didn´t finish her quote. She said that the plane executed the "left tilt" to avoid hitting the VDOT tower. Work it out...

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Posters here act like playground/high school bullies.
Photoshop and verbal insults are par for the course.

What are you talking about?

Oh... Hunt the Ranke:

 

[beachnut]

I drew no path. I drew the length of a shadow from an object at a 210 foot altitude STARTING FROM Paiks shop. Where the shadow ended is where the shadow ended. I did not say it was the tip of the right wing. I did not say it was the tip of the left wing. There is a 124 feet 10 inch range that the total wing span could theoretically fall into, ASSUMING the 210 foot altitude is accurate to begin with.

And there you go with your push pins again, Are you that stupid? Did you not read where I asked you TWICE if the locations of your pins was verified with GPS on site? Did you not remember the problems with accuracy Google Earth has with overlays?

Now I expect Craig to be that dumb!

How does CIT get their loyal terrorists apologist cult members to post at a skeptics forum?

Don't tell him there are errors on google earth, then he might understand the "error band" and have to learn math.

Who said the shadow was over the shop? Why can't the shadow next to the shop? Plus the left wing is higher than the right wing, so you can add to the height. Bank angle.

Notice how CIT and their proxy poster have to avoid presenting math for their 80 degree banked impossible, and delusional NoC flight paths.

They threw the impossible flight paths under the bus with Boger, and Madelyn.

 

[beachnut]

You are claiming that a civilian would see a "left tilt" the way you do Beachnut.
You didn´t finish her quote. She said that the plane executed the "left tilt" to avoid hitting the VDOT tower. Work it out...

OOPS!

You did it again, you just MOVED the flight path FURTHER south! LOL

The FDR has the bank angle, from the p4t decode at this time is 6 degree right bank.
You just said 77 tilted left to avoid the VDOT tower, this is great!

Yes a civilian would say tilted left you non-pilot CIT cult member! Silly, a pilot would look up at a plane coming his way and say right bank for this.

Madelyn looks up and see 77 she knows the VDOT tower is near her and she say left tilt.

This is a right bank, the FDR confirms a right bank, Madelyn says left tilt to avoid the VDOT tower from this point of view make 77 on the correct impact flight path.

Looks like left tilt is a good answer, I can tell the civilian it is a right bank for a pilot. But sure looks like a left tilt to avoid the VDOT tower. New path time!

Like you sun angle, you have just debunked CIT again. I actually was trained to interview witnesses and have experience with the old left tilt stuff. Good job reminding me what she said! Nice self-debunking.

 

[mudlark]

Just a little taste of the Maya program in action to show where you are wrong Smith.

http://vimeo.com/9630751

And of course the math:

Enjoy..

 

[mudlark]

Distance between Shadow and plane = Aircraft Height Above ground/tan (Sun Angle)

x = 230/tan(31.8)

x = 370 feet.

 

[A W Smith]

did you Figure it out yet mudlark?

You are claiming that a civilian would see a "left tilt" the way you do Beachnut.
You didn´t finish her quote. She said that the plane executed the "left tilt" to avoid hitting the VDOT tower. Work it out...

Left tilt

Tower

 

[mudlark]

OOPS!

You did it again, you just MOVED the flight path FURTHER south! LOL

Madelyn Zakhem contradicts herself.
Do you now retract what you just said on the left tilt statement?
Now Beachnut..think about it...she claims that the plane had to make this left tilt to avoid the tower.
She also claims that she could see the cockpit.
Tell me how those two statements correlate please.

The plane HAD to follow a straight line to line up with the physical damage.
Are you suggesting that there were twists and turns involved during this 540mph 4 second precise manouevre given that Warren´s data records NO left roll/tilt/bank for the entire duration of the final seconds of the flight data? Really?