I´ve just rebutted that nonsense. Forget that and get to the posts pertaining to your erroneous claims on the images.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
CIT Fraud Revealed
- Thread starter BCR
- Start date
I´ve just rebutted that nonsense. Forget that and get to the posts pertaining to your erroneous claims on the images.
A W Smith
Philosopher
Did you get to the GPS overlay verification yet? With all your frenetically desperate "wall of posts" picture postings I seem to have missed the post that you addressed GPS accuracy in. Care to link to it?
The shadow could pass to the south of the shop and still interrupt reflected light into the shop. Sorry, but witness statements have to be backed up with hard evidence and match physics, math and reality.
The RADALT can be moved about 100 feet from where you think it was due to RADALT being sampled word 31, this is after you do the best you can to locate the frame relative to where it was taken; etc.
Darn, we have to add about 16 feet to the RADALT to compensate for the calibration. OOPS
That gives 10 feet higher, the bank angle gives 6 to 7 feet higher.
Do we need a Kalman filter for this?
The RADALT can be moved about 100 feet from where you think it was due to RADALT being sampled word 31, this is after you do the best you can to locate the frame relative to where it was taken; etc.
Darn, we have to add about 16 feet to the RADALT to compensate for the calibration. OOPS
That gives 10 feet higher, the bank angle gives 6 to 7 feet higher.
Do we need a Kalman filter for this?
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
"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."
And thus pointing out why eyewitness testimony is not considered reliable.
Oh, unless one is dishonest enough to be starting with a conclusion.
Which is funny because when a witness's testimony doesn't add up to your pre-determined conclusion, they are "lying". But when a witnesses testimony matches with your pre-determined conclusion, but doesn't match the reliable evidence, th reliable evidence is wrong.
HE even denies that he was where he HAD TO BE."
And thus pointing out why eyewitness testimony is not considered reliable.
Oh, unless one is dishonest enough to be starting with a conclusion.
Which is funny because when a witness's testimony doesn't add up to your pre-determined conclusion, they are "lying". But when a witnesses testimony matches with your pre-determined conclusion, but doesn't match the reliable evidence, th reliable evidence is wrong.
Last edited:
Don't ask the question unless you know the answer! ...
A bit more than 6 degree of bank here, and only about 2.5 degrees down pitch, Madelyn had a view like this or better, and I see the cockpit (the part cut off at the top is the windows of the cockpit) and a left tilt to avoid the tower. Madelyn debunks your delusion, be thankful you have JREF to help you out of the pit of ignorance, CIT and Balsamo's pit of lies.
The 6 degrees is a turn super CIT person. Wait till you figure out aircraft fly in the air!
BETTER! YEP, the pitch angle was down to 5 degrees, much lower than a normal approach. So the cockpit is more visible!
Left tilt proves to be a right bank, and cockpit see due to pitch being 5 degrees down.
You are like a murder suspect who is not a lawyer defending himself; you are not doing well. Your CIT friends can't figure out anything about 911, and Balsamo is no help as he makes up 2,223 gs of dolt-math; when he gets the math right it is applied moronically and does not match reality. There are no pilots helping you as you debunk yourself each time you post. I only have 36 years of flying experience and 35 years as an engineer; how many years have you been failing at 911 issues?
You have the fancy software, you could see what Madelyn saw but you refuse to investigate you only regurgitate.
I have visualized this CIT witness by placing 77 where he implies he saw it, it matches the FDR and the path of physical evidence. You could do this on your fancy software I don't need to know 77 impacted the Pentagon based on reality based evidence you have to ignore.
Points south, they all report shallow banks and point south. Makes the NoC impossible. If you take your fancy software you can model what he see and here is a polygon of the plane over the annex with not so fancy software.
Top of the polygon is over the Annex but on the real flight path.
All these witnesses never saw a 757 this close and fast before and is why they all drew curved flight path as it got relatively closer. It is an illusion CIT turns into moronic delusions of impossible flight paths.
Last edited:
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,866
I know, this is all so true. Thank you for your work that's been so instrumental in identifying Lloyd and Dawn as agents for the reptilian overlords of the New World Order. You guys deserve a Pulitzer Prize for all this. Have you tried selling it to one of the major news networks? Or even talking about it to anyone on the street? Surprised that people run away or that women call you creeps and lock up their children when you walk by? I'm not.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
So, do you have the source information for this cartoon? Do you know what the average positional error is for GE images?
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
What kind of insanity is mudlark posting now? Mudlark, that is not the scene file. We need the scene file. If you can't produce the scene file for verification then you are not saying anything worth paying attention to. More cartoons won't get it.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
A W Smith
Philosopher
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,866
Oh, is that what this is about? I'd almost forgotten about the claim that Lloyd England is a deep cover agent for the New World Order.
You mean you don't believe that CIT are national heroes completely dispelling the myth of Islamic terrorism? Don't you know that 911 Truth is the most divisive issue in America? It has split apart friends, colleagues and families? 911 Truth is the voice of revolution and either you're on one side or the other. We know which side that Mudlark is on. He's on the side that's waiting for that Pulitzer Prize, that Conscience-in-Media Award, or perhaps even the Congressional Medal of Honor for their risk in exposing the truth about a regime that murders thousands.
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,866
I'm also wondering about how those light poles really got knocked down. We all know there was no American Airlines jet, right? ha ha ha ...anyway, how did it really get knocked down then? Some dudes with a power saw cut it down? They cut all of them down and no one noticed? I bet there never was a light pole there. Who would know if they just made up the whole thing? Then they get an old man and his FBI wife to tell a story about the pole flying into his cab. Who would know that there never was a light pole there at all? The insurance companies would go along, right? They're all in bed with the New World Order, right? This is so sinister. How can our friends at CIT sleep at night knowing this? I'd be afraid the Men in Black would be after me. Good job guys. Keep up the fight against evil.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Teh light poles were knocked down by the blow back from the wall breaching charges used to make the small round hole in the Pentagon.\cit mode
First I would like to point out that badgering an old man on his memories on a day years prior does not give credence to their, your, cause. As we all know anyway, testimonials are unreliable.
He denies where he was when the light pole struck his taxi. In other interviews he said he had to force the car to stop. Meaning he was driving when the light pole entered his vehicle. As can be seen from the driving in the video it is not that far from the first set of signs to the second, where his cab finally stopped. Lloyd is talking about where he was when he was hit and when the plane flew over. This is known because Craig starts off talking about the flightpath.
At the end when he is being recorded, though he doesn't know it, he is talking about the entire events of that day being planned. And they were. They were planned by the hijackers. Craig uses his words to mean he is talking about the government because it fits in with Craig's already made conclusion that the US government did it.
I would also like to point out that Craig admits in the beginning of the video to committing a felony. It is a felony to record someone without their consent in VA, DC, and MD. Each states laws come with hefty punishments. He again admits to committing a felony when he says Lloyde didn't know he was being recorded at the end of the video.
Yours, and CIT's, thesis is that we cannot trust the government because they are criminals. How can we trust the CIT when they admit they are also criminals? How can we trust you, you advocate for these criminals?
To you only because it doesn't mesh with your conclusion.
It is funny that you say this because it is you posting the most photoshopped pictures. If your posts here are an example of how you stood up to bullies I would say you got beat up hourly. Also, if you were never bullied why did you need to stand up to bullies?
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
What about pulling it out? I thought another witness helped him pull it out?
If it was there, then how did it get there. If it was not, how did it get to be lying on the gound next to his vehicle after the fact?
There is also evidence that proves his claims about exactly where he was mean nowt.
Last edited:
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
This one is for the guy who didn't get it the first two times: My diagram has nothing whatever to do with the heading of the plane. It concerns what Paik could and could not have seen out that window, given his vertical field of view. It's a demonstration that Paik's flight path cannot be correct if his description of seeing one wing and the fuselage is accurate. It's already been pointed out that there's no reason to think his heading is accurate, given that field of view, and my diagram demonstrates that if he saw a wing and fuselage, then the plane must have been well SSE of that window. So it's also a challenge to the picture you posted purporting to show what Paik would have seen out that window. (And, BTW, in addition to not providing the location of the planes in that image and the vertical angle being viewed, you have not provided the simulated camera focal length, which would determine the total angular field of view.) Considering what you're trying to disprove -- that Paik's testimony is inconsistent with the "official" flight path -- that image is ridiculously inadequate. Blowing more smoke about the heading doesn't improve the situation.
Okay?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
If she could see the cockpit that indicates that she is describing an aircraft coming towards her.
Looking at the aircraft then the wing to her left tilted down, a "left tilt" to a lay person. However that is the plane's right wing that is tilting down and thus a right bank. A right bank will take the aircraft to its right , which in this case means further south.
The aircraft banked right to avoid the VDOT tower then which also indicates that its left wing was closer to the tower than its right wing thus putting the aircraft south of the tower.
Simple huh?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
77