CIT Fraud Revealed

[mudlark]

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?

Blah blah..you had me at hello..
Listen, your diagrams had nothing in relation to either the testimony, or the topography and obstacles.
Are you seriously saying that the "SOC" plane as depicted in your drawing was somehow accurate in relation to his POV?
Or are you another who likes to move the SOC path about to suit the argument.
I´ve just pointed out where the SOC path HAD to be to line up with the physical damage.
NOW go do your drawing with all the above points taken into account. See if you come to the same conclusions.

 

[mudlark]

Mudlark, you have no idea what you just posted do you? Take the Warren decode and plot it at take-off at Dulles, then come back and we'll talk INS drift and measurement system error.

Oh never mind, I've already done it for you.

[qimg]http://zoesflight.com/files/dulles.jpg[/qimg]

Since there can ONLY be one 'official path' according to Warren's decode, reckon the plane took off from a parking lot instead of the runway.

Reread the post Farmer.
What I pointed out in Warren´s data points to a STRAIGHT LINE from the Navy Annex to Route 27.

IF the plane was "slightly North" of the official SOC path depicted by the NTSB data and the directional damage, there are NO manouevres recorded demonstrating any such thing.

One of three possibilities exist for YOU on your insistence that the plane flew SOC.

1. Warren´s data is wrong.

2. The SOC path did not line up with the physical damage.

3. ALL the electronic data, including Warren´s right roll parameters MUST be as you say. That the "consolidated path" is the ONLY SOC path compatible.

Take your pick. Cut the crap.

"Talk" BCR? Answer my post honestly.

Are there any manouevres recorded in Warren´s data, where I have pointed out regarding the right roll that would make the plane anything other than on your "consolidated path" according to this data? There is NO left bank/roll recorded from WELL before the Navy Annex.

Explain.

 

[mudlark]

Are we done here? I would say yes. CIT's fraud has indeed been revealed over and over again in this thread (amongst others). The CIT cheer squad, such as it is, has only managed to add more info to the SOC flight path and continues to ignore all of the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
Anybody with any sense at all can see this, but somehow I still think Mr Mudlark will continue to push his delusions here. Why? It can't be for money.

Why do you do it Mudlark? You know you are wrong, we know you are wrong, all the lurkers know you are wrong, my 12 year old daughter knows you are wrong and yet you persist. WHY?

I wouldn´t be so sure on the "lurkers".
I´ve rectified every lie that has been made (and which are continually posted still)
I´ve answered every point.
There has been no "fraud" proven whatsoever. This thread has in fact reinforced Ed Paik´s NOC testimony.
The shadow claim by BCR has proven NOC.
BCR´s claim that the VDOT tower was "struck" has been proven a falsehood.

You talk about fraud, yet BCR brought up the VDOT nonsense in the FULL KNOWLEDGE that it is false. HE received the FOIA request on the damage. NONE. Yet he went ahead and started it anyway.

Now the regulars here are reduced to disgusting insults and photoshop when a genuine anomaly is raised regarding the "electronic evidence" and the SOC path.

These guys need help. I just HOPE that the honest critical "lurkers" are keeping note of this behaviour and weak style of debate and "counterarguments" bereft of links, truth and logic.

Do you think they would be satisfied with ANY answers to my post on the SOC path? Doubt it.

 

[beachnut]

This one is for Beachnut:

Are you SURE you want to carry this argument regarding Madelyn Zakhem?

Plane is too low, the pitch is wrong, the bank angle is too high. The plane is not where Madelyn said it was. Plus she said it banked to miss the tower, you have the plane in the wrong place the plane was 220 feet and higher when she saw it.

The heading in the FDR has 77 on these heading for the last 5 seconds;

These headings debunk CIT/Balsamo dirt dumb delusional math free paths they can't publish because they are impossible to fly.

59.8
59.8
60.1
60.5
61.2
True headings, not possible with CIT idiotic NoC non-flight path made up by idiots at CIT and pushed by the failed pilot Balsamo the failure at math and flying.

And Paik points south. Not doing good.

That 757 is big, no wonder CIT witnesses think 77 was closer to them than it was. Too bad CIT is not smart enough to understand witness statements as they were never trained. Why have CIT failed?

 

[BCR]

Take your pick. Cut the crap.

"Talk" BCR? Answer my post honestly.

Mudlark, please do cut the crap and post the source data (the Maya scenes). All you are doing is talking BS. Come see me when you have something to offer.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Mudlark posted another cartoon? Not even the full animation, but just screenshots?

Wow... guess all those bodies were planted then, huh? Guess all these people who saw the jet hit were shills too.

 

[beachnut]

CIT and Balsamo have no NoC flight path; they lied

Beachnut, please tell me what the official SOC path is.
Farmer claims that there is a "margin of error". Do you agree given Warren Stutt´s data that I have posted and the directional damage.
Please, no rants, it should be a simple answer because you claim that there is only ONE SOC path compared to the NOC witnesses´ variable paths.
OR are there more than one possible SOC paths?
Take into account the post I made.
The rest of your post has repeatedly been debunked in whole or in part by me in previous posts. Please stay on topic with the specific questions I have just raised.
The math on the shadow has just been posted for you. What do YOU find wrong with it?

go first, present the math and the flight path for the NoC. Go ahead make my day present the one and only great flight path you have for your proved NoC. You said you have it, are you telling another big idiotic failed lie?
You have not path! CIT/Balsamo and you have no NoC.
There is no flight path NoC; NO Flight path north of the Citgo Station because you can't produce it. I demand you produce your flight path or retract you moronic delusion.


Farmer is right, there are errors, but we know 77 knocked down the lampposts. But you can't figure it out. The RADALT declared exact by Balsamo is 4 feet as 77 starts knocking down the lampposts. Balsamo debunks Balsamo. Warren decoded what Balsamo sat on for years. lol, Balsamo said the data can't be missing for any reason, but the reason was he could not decode it. Failure and fraud.

Too bad the air was moving on 911. Farmer is right because the air moves, the compass is not exact, the witnesses are only good to verify the evidence found in the FDR. Was the plane shaking left and right sort of. Yes Middleton says so; the FDR verifies Middleton. CIT fails.

Flight 77 flew and knocked down the lampposts, flight path along the damage path. Flight 77 was over the road when the RADALT read 4 feet which is 20 to 30 feet over the road, with the wingtips at 35 feet when it crossed the bridge/overpass. FACT backed up with hard evidence. Debunks the flyover.

The FDR supports the damage.

you agree given Warren Stutt´s data that I have posted and the directional damage.

What are you talking about?
CIT witnesses point so the SoC flight path.
The FDR information for position is accurate 1000 to 2000 feet, what do you want to do with your failure now?

My posts debunk CIT, and Balsamo's failed 2,223 gs of paranoid idiotic rant. A failed pilot, Balsamo is reduced to selling DVDs full of idiotic lies. You support idiotic delusions; why can't you do math?

You are only here to post links to p4t cult of stupid, where dumb white guys can make up dirt dumb ideas and be praised by idiots.

Balsamo is a nut case who changes links to randi.org because he is a dolt; 2,223 gs of pure stupid with a group of dirt dumb cult members who have can't do much but slap their truthNAZI on the back when he regurgitates some lie he makes up, or they clap for his math, 2,223 gs must of been a standing ovation for the dumbed down cult members.

Your posts are on par with Balsamo's math.

There is only one flight path, and the FDR has it. Why can't you figure it out?
What is the heading accuracy.
What is the wind accuracy?
Have you, or can you take the true heading and find a true course?
Do you know what a true course is?
Can you give me the true course for the last 5 seconds?
Do you know the difference between heading and course?
How high was Flight 77 when the shadow passed in front of Paiks office?
Was the shadow in front of Paiks office?

Did you say the real flight path has to be straight?
Why is the heading go from 59.8, to 60.1, to 60.5 to 61.2 in the last 5 seconds. Did you think it flew straight? These are four different headings for the last 5 seconds, and these are only good for a moment, one sample.

What is the course for these headings? Hello? What is the error in the heading system? Hello?

Why is Mackey right about the G force; because he has physics and you don't understand much of anything as you get your ideas from CIT and Balsamo who have you posting their ideas. Can't you think for yourself?

Present the NoC or CIT is a fraud.


I think the shadow is 387 feet long or longer.

Madelyn debunks CIT this is why CIT calls her a liar, or says she can't see what see said she saw. The rest of CIT delusions are based on what people said, so if you drop Madelyn and can't fit her in your delusion, you FAIL.

CIT witnesses point to the flight path that knocked down the lampposts and most of them think 77 was closer to them for a few reasons. Noise, the engines were 100 percent, and these people have never been this close to 100 percent engines, and a 757 is big, so they think the big fast plane is closer due to size. Their brains make them think the large plane they think is smaller, closer.
Sorry to burst your lack of knowledge failure but you can take your Balsamo lies and CIT delusions and go back to the pit of ignorance.

There is only one flight path, and the FDR has it; how do you want me to describe it for you? You can't tell us the math for a flight path, the data for your cartoons, or the error in google earth. Do you understand reality?

 

[Dog Town]

Why not grow a pair of gonads and go ask Rob yourself?

Why the whole third person thing?

 

[beachnut]

...
The data used for the path is the NTSB Heading/Course and Altitude data.

Which is it, heading or course? Show the data; list it. Data dump. Is it a straight line? You mean the Warren decode. Right?

I had to present the data and with my thesis to earn my masters degree. Why are you lazy on this issue?

You also have not give us the NoC flight path yet. Where is the NoC flight path?

 

[BCR]

Why the whole third person thing?

Yep, and mudlark posting stuff as 'proof' of something but unable to post the source data. Why would anyone want to go ask Rob about anything regarding 9/11? He is the biggest source of disinformation on the planet in that regards (okay, maybe CIT is the biggest and Rob struggling to dethrone them). It is mudlark's responsibility to back up his stuff. If he can't, then they are just cartoons.

 

[Meed]

I thought I made it clear what I was talking about. My main question, which I've asked several times now, is about what the flightpath Paik drew is supposed to mean. He only saw anything of the plane for 1-2 seconds as it was passing his shop. He stated this clearly in the interview. He also said that he didn't see the plane at all after he went outside. So what is the line he drew (which bends north over the navy anex and ends at the pentagon) supposed to be? It's clearly not a flightpath he witnessed, other than perhaps a tiny portion of it.

...

You still haven't answered the question..

bump

 

[Meed]

I´ve answered every point.

Not even close. Responding to a post containing a point is not the same as answering it.

 

[Brainache]

I wouldn´t be so sure on the "lurkers".
I´ve rectified every lie that has been made (and which are continually posted still)
I´ve answered every point.
There has been no "fraud" proven whatsoever. This thread has in fact reinforced Ed Paik´s NOC testimony.
The shadow claim by BCR has proven NOC.
BCR´s claim that the VDOT tower was "struck" has been proven a falsehood.

You talk about fraud, yet BCR brought up the VDOT nonsense in the FULL KNOWLEDGE that it is false. HE received the FOIA request on the damage. NONE. Yet he went ahead and started it anyway.

Now the regulars here are reduced to disgusting insults and photoshop when a genuine anomaly is raised regarding the "electronic evidence" and the SOC path.

These guys need help. I just HOPE that the honest critical "lurkers" are keeping note of this behaviour and weak style of debate and "counterarguments" bereft of links, truth and logic.

Do you think they would be satisfied with ANY answers to my post on the SOC path? Doubt it.

I was going to respond to this point by point, but you have nothing Mudlark. Not one thing that would make a rational person believe your theory.

Lets look at your so-called evidence for a NOC flight path:

Some witness statements recorded years after the event.

That is all you have. These witnesses all say the plane hit the building. Not one saw a fly-over.

The physical evidence shows that a NOC flightpath is impossible. Therefore your witnesses are confused about the location of a plane they saw for a few seconds one day years ago. Big surprise.

 

[wargord]

I wouldn´t be so sure on the "lurkers".
I´ve rectified every lie that has been made (and which are continually posted still)
I´ve answered every point.
There has been no "fraud" proven whatsoever. This thread has in fact reinforced Ed Paik´s NOC testimony.
The shadow claim by BCR has proven NOC.
BCR´s claim that the VDOT tower was "struck" has been proven a falsehood.

You talk about fraud, yet BCR brought up the VDOT nonsense in the FULL KNOWLEDGE that it is false. HE received the FOIA request on the damage. NONE. Yet he went ahead and started it anyway.

Now the regulars here are reduced to disgusting insults and photoshop when a genuine anomaly is raised regarding the "electronic evidence" and the SOC path.

These guys need help. I just HOPE that the honest critical "lurkers" are keeping note of this behaviour and weak style of debate and "counterarguments" bereft of links, truth and logic.

Do you think they would be satisfied with ANY answers to my post on the SOC path? Doubt it.

Why are you still advocating for known felons?

 

[dtugg]

I wonder why muddy even bothers. Obviously, he hasn't nor will he ever convince any sane person. I don't mind him humiliating himself though. It's pretty funny.

 

[wargord]

I wonder why muddy even bothers. Obviously, he hasn't nor will he ever convince any sane person. I don't mind him humiliating himself though. It's pretty funny.

He is entertaining.

 

[pgimeno]

Scene files are not "data". The only reason you want the scene files is because you cant build your own like the author has with the actual data. Furthermore, how can you expect him to give you his scene files that he spent countless hours putting together to people who constantly personally attack and libel him??? You must be delusional.

Now that's delusional. The scene files are the way of checking that the representation is correct and has not introduced errors or misguides that favor your delusions. Why do you think Mike J. Wilson provided the scene files? Why didn't he keep them for himself after all the work it cost him? Why did he give them away even to people who support the conspiracy craziness? The reason is that anyone should be able to verify the accuracy of his model and that's why he released it, as you're being asked to do here. Thanks to the model, everyone can verify that his images are not deceitful as may yours be until you prove otherwise by providing the scene files. Mike J. Wilson did not ask everybody to make their own scene to check his conclusions, that's NOT the way to go. He provided the scene files, THAT is transparency, THAT is the way to go.

I have posted screenshots of the scale for those who wish to check the construction. If they want to build their own using the same data that was used, for comparison, you KNOW where to get the data.

First, that's shifting the burden of proof, most notably now that it's so clear that Paik's testimony blatantly contradicts NoC.

Second, if BCR or Hokulele or anyone did a render proving you wrong, you would claim that the scene is incorrect for whatever reason, even if you haven't proved that your scene is correct.

So, put up or shut up.

It´s transparent and it´s getting very tedious.

You may mean 'transparent' as in 'invisible', not in the usual meaning of transparency.

 

[TruthersLie]

Mudlark, you have no idea what you just posted do you? Take the Warren decode and plot it at take-off at Dulles, then come back and we'll talk INS drift and measurement system error.

Oh never mind, I've already done it for you.

[qimg]http://zoesflight.com/files/dulles.jpg[/qimg]

Since there can ONLY be one 'official path' according to Warren's decode, reckon the plane took off from a parking lot instead of the runway.

I have often thought that the pilots were taking off from the grass... usually due to the rough ride... Thank you BCR for proving it. Those long runways are just decorations.

 

[Jackanory]

I wouldn´t be so sure on the "lurkers".

All 15 of them. Thats gotta be another $150 if all buy your dvd. I would suggest that if there are any lurkers left that they spend the cash on a digitally remastered copy of Close Encounters of The 3rd Kind. Get it out once in a while and put it back again. Oh...... a little like this NoC/SoC cartoon caper.

Make stuff up, get caught lying then make up more stuff (with a few technical words and fancy graphics) to cover your lies.

100's and 100's of posts later and ......................................

Still left with lies built on lies.

Its turned into a Capt Bob v Craige Ranke sketch show, each competeing to tell the biggest lie to a 'handful' of people who dont believe them anyway. I suppose once the divorces were over they had nothing to lose.

 

[BCR]

You talk about fraud, yet BCR brought up the VDOT nonsense in the FULL KNOWLEDGE that it is false. HE received the FOIA request on the damage. NONE. Yet he went ahead and started it anyway.

Lets look at this shall we. I examined in great detail EVERY aspect of Edward and Shinki Paik's accounts. When way back in 2006 or so, the CIT boys learned of the 'tower damage' claim, they simply dismissed it and instead focused on aspects of Ed's story that reinforced their delusion, going to the extreme of video-taping him out by Columbia Pike as his POV. This in spite of his initial claim that he was inside the shop.

I sought to corroborate their account in regards to the tower. I have made those results pretty transparent and made the 'official' documentation public. However, in spite of the denials by VSP and Virginia, low-and-behold, there is a large crane parked next to the VSP antenna tower on the 12th-13th just as the Paik's claim. CIT started the story that the work was to 'enhance' the tower for the FBI, yet VSP and Virginia deny that as well.

So, Ed has been quite honest and forth-coming for years now with essentially the same story. But don't promote one aspect of it that cannot be verified and ignore the aspects that can be verified or dismissed. His story is what he recalls, and I dare say that five years after the event, there are going to be problems with the recall. However, I put more weight on a 'bent antenna' they both watched for an extended period of time being replaced than I do on 'the right wing' of something Ed saw for a fraction of a second while in the process of ducking.

Sorry, Ed's account of seeing the antenna work (verified with satellite imagery) has been verified. The only question(s) remaining is what kind of work was done and why are 'official' channels denying it?