CIT Fraud Revealed

[WilliamSeger]

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.

Okay, I'm convinced. Mudlark lives off the grid in his own private Idaho.

The only conceivable conclusions that can be drawn from this thread are that Paik could not have seen the path he drew and which CIT have promoted as "evidence"; that he could not have seen what he said he saw -- the wing, part of the fuselage, and a shadow passing over the building -- if the plane had been on that path; and that what he said he saw out that window is consistent with the path indicated by all the physical and documentary evidence that he is supposedly proving must have been faked. And yet, Mudlark makes another appeal to simple contradiction and declares victory.

Obviously, this can go on endlessly, but what's the point?

 

[bje]

I´ve answered every point.

You haven't been able to answer any questions, mudlark.

Remember?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5638036&postcount=809

You ran away again from explaining this:



Try again, mudlark.

 

[tfk]

.... Blowing more smoke about the heading doesn't improve the situation.
Okay?

It does if "blowing smoke" is all Craig, uh, mudlark's only remaining option.

Tom

PS. When someone offers his impression that the CIT bozos behave as if they were "bullied in school", your reply "No, I wasn't" may entitle you to "authority" over this question.

But it doesn't do much for "anonymity".
Or "credibility" either, for that matter.

 

[tfk]

BTW mudlark,

How many of your witnesses have the plane rolled up into a 45°, 60° or 85° bank. As would be necessary to follow some of the flight paths that you've described.

Especially if you hadn't taken the airspeed down to about half of its reported value, of course.

You do know that it'd be kinda tough for a 757 sized jet to just clear the top of the Pentagon if it were standing on its right wing in order to swoop around to overfly that South parking lot, don't you.

 

[tfk]

Excuse me for interjecting.

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

The ONE that lines up with the physical damage is the only one that a person with a functional brain will consider.

Of course, you can consider as many alternatives as you want ...

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?

Re VDOT Tower: Don't know. Don't care.

I DO know that the one and only plane that approached, and then impacted, the Pentagon struck those lamp posts.

The FOIA released NTSB data supports this path.

The NTSB data supports the "official flight path" thru the lamps, thru the outer wall, and thru the building on the path of the damage.

The NOC witness paths are derided for being variable yet the SOC "path" from before the Navy Annex is just as variable.

It's not "the NOC witnesses" that are being "derided".
It is "the NOC witness interviewers" and their lack of objectivity that is being derided.

THIS is the "electronic evidence" which is superior to witness testimony?

The physical evidence, the electronic (FDR, RADES, etc) evidence AND the eyewitness testimony all concur. AA77 hit the Pentagon.

A tiny percent of the eye-witness testimony, when mangled by a couple of bozos with agenda, has been folded, spindled & mutilated beyond recognition.

Judging by the varied arguments in this thread, the SOC path has been rendered ambiguous.

Only in a couple of deluded imaginations.

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 ...

You clearly don't understand what the word "no" (in "no margin of error") means. You may want to look it up. Unfortunately, in order to replace "no" with a correct term, some maths will be required. A task that seems completely beyond your ability.

... for the plane to manouevre from any other suggested course within such a restricted timeframe.

Well, it's a darn fortunate thing for the official version that the flight path is pretty much a straight line, ain't it.

Kinda throws a cold bucket of water on all those curved lines that YOU are offering, don't it?

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!

Yup.

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

So..

Thanks for throwing your support behind the official flight path.

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?

Something massive & dramatic happened.
A boat load of people witnessed it.
A boat load of physical evidence exists for analyzing what transpired.

You don't start with a conclusion.
You start with an epistemology that goes something like:

1) Analyze all the physical evidence (knowing that there are margins of error to all instrumentation).
2) Analyze the eyewitness testimony (recognizing from long experience that this is one of the least reliable forms of evidence).
3) Come to a conclusion.
4) Make sure that your finished product (your conclusions) is reasonably reconcilable with 1 & 2 the above.

You ignore 1).
You ignore 95% of your eyewitness testimony, thereby failing 2).
You fail miserably at 4).

Because you fail at 4), by definition you failed 3).

Zero for 4.

Other than that, you did GREAT!

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

Pssst, there was ALWAYS "only one flight path". The one proven by all the physical evidence.

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

"Ironic"? No.
"Delusional"? Yup.

Tom

 

[Wolrab]

As to whether the plane struck the tower or not, wouldn't it have been prudent for the PTB to check the tower for any damage seeing how a jetliner flew very close to it and there was a massive explosion just down the way?

 

[jaydeehess]

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?

1) Obviously the aircraft flew only ONE path
2) There is an FDR recording of the flight data indicating the path it flew.
3) The Instruments and the method of recording will introduce a margin of error in the numbers that are recorded.


This much is obvious to anyone who has ever dealt with any type of measureing equipment.
The plot of the flight path is one of the recorded data but if one is to be completely honest it should be a wide stroke that includes the margin of error. So, yes, the plane flew but one path but the FDR data of that path must be looked at as being accurate within a margin of error of perhaps a half a wingspan to either side.

Contrast that with the accuracy of eye witness statements. We have the CiT 13 reporting the aircraft all over the place, from the south corner of the Navy Annex to over Patton Drive. The CiT make much about all of these putting the aircraft north of the FDR described path however each of them is viewing from north of that path as well and it has been pointed out time and again that because of the size of the aircraft and the short duration of viewing that eyewitnesses will consistently indicate that the plane was closer than it was in reality.
The worst case, IMO, being that they promote as accurate the descriptions given by the ANC witnesses in that they were running for their lives. This would, if accurate, put the aircraft several hundred feet south of the Citgo, yet at the same time Morin puts the aircraft over the south edge of the Navy Annex, while Boger describes seeing the aircraft enter the Pentagon.
They have been shown that such a path is physically impossible (from the south edge of the Annex to ANC and then to the impact point)for an aircraft as large and as fast as is described both by eyewitnesses and the FDR data, and that even a more agile aircraft flying slower would be in an extreme bank which no witness describes.

It is immediatly obvious to anyone then, that there is a wide margin of error in the witness flight paths but the CiT refuses to discuss margins of error, instead maintaining that each witness is accurate on one detail only, NoC. Yet many of these same witnesses describe an aircraft hitting the pentagon and none of them describes a flyover or even that they had assumed it would hit the top few floors. The CiT dismisses these parts of multiple reports with little to no reasoning other than it does not fir the CiT's own story.
Its too bad that there are not 13 corressponding witnesses who were standing to the south of the flight path as they may well have reported the a/c well south of the FDR described path.

Of course any southern viewer would immediately be dismissed by the CiT as they would simply not fit the CiT's own story.

 

[jaydeehess]

As to whether the plane struck the tower or not, wouldn't it have been prudent for the PTB to check the tower for any damage seeing how a jetliner flew very close to it and there was a massive explosion just down the way?

Not really. It would only be relevent to those who do not believe that the plane hit the Pentagon. The fact that the DNA of the passengers was found in the Pentagon and that the FDR data indicates that the plane flew to the Pentagon and that the physical damage done to the Pentagon is consistent with a very large , fast object having hit it where multiple witnesses say it did are more than enough to conclude that indeed a plane hit the Pentagon.

The damage done to the VDOT tower may well have not been caused by the plane, or it may have. Its a minute detail among a huge amount of evidence that a plane flew into the Pentagon.

 

[BCR]

Not really. It would only be relevent to those who do not believe that the plane hit the Pentagon.

Yes sir, if the State of Virginia was to suddenly produce the work order for the repair, it would prove nothing except that the State of Virginia was in on the cover-up (in some quarters).

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes sir, if the State of Virginia was to suddenly produce the work order for the repair, it would prove nothing except that the State of Virginia was in on the cover-up (in some quarters).

yes, of course the only reason anyone would want this w.o. is to verify that damage was caused by the aircraft but those who actually believe thatthe a/c crashed into the Pentagon would not be asking for except to show those who do not believe and those who do not believe will simply dismiss any further evidence anyway.

All the work in obtaining such a w.o. would bring the term 'spinning one's wheels' to mind.

The CiT and mudlark are quite happy to dismiss Boger and other's statements that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon including such detail from a few that they thought the plane hit the ground in front of the outer wall. No one at all says they thought it hit, or would have hit, the upper floors, which is something you might expect if the plane was to flyover the building. Let alone the fact that no one watching the plane approach the Pentagon or from sides other than the attacked side, say they saw the plane rise over or exit over the Pentagon.

The CiT story is born from the imaginations of a handful of people and the only way they can make other information fit their story is to also make up reasons to ignore it, and to accept as fact the descriptions of a few people and twist the descriptions of others.

 

[mudlark]

Post summarily deleted due to continued breach of Rule 4.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[mudlark]

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?

I noticed a whole RANT before this one and you still didn´t answer the question I asked you.

Given that you are wrong on the course of the plane outlined by Warren´s data and that it was STRAIGHT, does the plane not have to be on the "consolidated path"?

That´s all I´m asking Beachnut. It´s like trying to get blood from a stone with this simple question.

And YOU want CIT/P4T to give you a specific NOC path based on witness testimony yet given the "infallible" electronic evidence NONE of you will claim exactly where the SOC path is??

Remember. Straight line for 11 seconds. Now pin your colours to the SOC path.

One of you..

 

[mudlark]

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.

Haha.

This coming from the same guy who said this..

http://www.thepentacon.com/JohnFarmer.mp3

and who just a few pages ago tried to get ONE person to back him up on the VDOT mast "strike".

I have more links to your "work" but I´m more interested in what your take is on the post I just made regarding the SOC path.

Stop avoiding the issue and answer me please.

 

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by cornsail
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..

Just WHERE does he draw a map of this "bend"? Are you actually referring to his shaky freehand line which goes over the Annex?
Note where his path ends in CIT´s presentation of all the NOC witnesses

He said that he could only physically see the right wing and part of the fuselage as it flew over the "roof".

IF the plane had been on the SOC path he would have had a clear view of it.

He only saw anything of the plane for 1-2 seconds as it was passing his shop

What is your point?? he SAW the plane. He describes the SAME events in both interviews.

WHERE else could he have logically deduced that the plane DID go given the physical description?

Your logic is the same as somebody saying that a person sees an object thrown over a roof, but he couldn´t see the other side, so did the object land on the other side!

Do YOU believe that the plane flew SOC according to his testimony?
Do YOU believe that the plane flew anywhere ELSE but where he said given his testimony and POV?

C´mon. Drop it.

 

[mudlark]

Okay, I'm convinced. Mudlark lives off the grid in his own private Idaho.

The only conceivable conclusions that can be drawn from this thread are that Paik could not have seen the path he drew and which CIT have promoted as "evidence"; that he could not have seen what he said he saw -- the wing, part of the fuselage, and a shadow passing over the building -- if the plane had been on that path; and that what he said he saw out that window is consistent with the path indicated by all the physical and documentary evidence that he is supposedly proving must have been faked. And yet, Mudlark makes another appeal to simple contradiction and declares victory.

Obviously, this can go on endlessly, but what's the point?

If I say that an impact witness could not physically SEE an impact, I am accused of labelling them "shills" or "liars".

AWSmith (where is he anyway??) tried to prove that the shadow that was mentioned by the Paiks proved SOC. But his image totally ignored the SOC path. The image and video I posted have yet to be debunked by the instigator of this claim. BCR.

He has been interviewed by CIT and one of the most anti-CIT minded people on this forum. Erik Larson.

BOTH interviews resulted in the same outcome. He described the plane as being on what ONLY can be described as an NOC path.

Exactly WHERE has this thread "proven" that Ed Paik "could not have seen what he said he saw.."

YOUR drawing? In which I have pointed out numerous mistakes, as opposed to the P4T image and video based on verifiable parameters AND witness compatible, is based on neither.

Now THAT is what can be classed as a "cartoon".

 

[mudlark]

I see some are saying that since Mike J. Wilson gave his "scene files" for his Solidworks presentation, that we should give our scene files.

First of all, i cant find any links to his Solidworks scene files at his site...

http://mikejwilson.com

His links are all broken on his site... are they working for you?

Secondly, his presentation is not based on ANY data. His analysis was published prior to the release of the FDR data. He didnt use any topography data, nor Sun data. Mike Wilson's analysis is truly a cartoon, just look at it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

In his video, he claims he makes available the models used, not the scene files. Anyone can find the models for free at 3D Warehouse, or pay for better models from any store online.

You people have the data, you have the math. The math has proven Maya precise in the same manner as AW Smith and Farmer attempted their analysis using Google Earth (although Farmer and AW Smith have been proven GIGO).

Bottom line - It is physically impossible for an object on the SoC flight path as dictated by the NTSB heading/course/altitude data, and required by the physical damage, to cast a shadow on Ed Paik's shop at 09:37:45 EDT on Sept 11, 2001.

It is clear none of you have the expertise to construct Arlington based on the data and have nothing left to argue but empty posturing ot get a free construction of Arlington in order to manipulate the files and data worse than you already have.

 

[mudlark]

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.

Answer my question. Where is any other data available either through the NTSB FOIA FDR data or in Warren´s data that points to any manouevre other than the straight line depicted in the electronic "evidence" that I have just pointed out?

It´s a simple question. Surely you can tell this "moron"?

The Maya scenes? In other words "give us a hand to set it up because we don´t know how to". The data is there. Stop wasting people´s time with this childish dodge. They can see through it.

 

[mudlark]

Mudlark posted another cartoon? Not even the full animation, but just screenshots? [qimg]http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/laughing-smiley-007.gif[/qimg]

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

The "cartoon" jibe is getting OLD.
Ask farmer or Hokulele how their "debunk" of it is coming along.

As for the links to "impact witnesses", have a gander through these links THEN come back to me.

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

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

I see you failed to link to documented plane parts for Flight 77. Maybe next time?

 

[mudlark]

Excuse me for interjecting.



The ONE that lines up with the physical damage is the only one that a person with a functional brain will consider.

Have you actually read the post concerning my attempt to get a straight answer on THE proposed SOC path?
According to Warren´s data the plane flew in a straight trajectory for the last 11 seconds.
The physical damage path cannot be classed as being within a series of paths based on "margin of error"
Why all the ambiguity? I know why but that´s for later.

Re VDOT Tower: Don't know. Don't care.

I DO know that the one and only plane that approached, and then impacted, the Pentagon struck those lamp posts.

BCR brought up the VDOT tower, not me.
Interesting insight into this guy seeing how HE requested the FOIA which clearly states that there was NO damage.

If you are referring to "lightpole witnesses"..

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51

Your only proof is that they were on the ground. NOBODY confirms SEEING them struck.

The NTSB data supports the "official flight path" thru the lamps, thru the outer wall, and thru the building on the path of the damage.

The NTSB data also reveals that the plane was too high to hit the lightpoles.
The data actually stops at the lightpoles according to the officially released NTSB data. Unless you are referring to Warren´s decode which has never been explained, commented on or verified by the NTSB.

In conversation between Rob Balsamo and Warren the data doesn´t add up to impact either.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18239&st=0&p=10778248&#entry10778248

It's not "the NOC witnesses" that are being "derided".
It is "the NOC witness interviewers" and their lack of objectivity that is being derided.

Their testimonies were pretty transparent to me. They ALL place the plane NOC on video. They drew maps to bolster what they said.
Please don´t pretend that some posters here have a low opinion of these witnesses. They have been called "CIT stars", "outliers", whe they are FAR from being that They have been accused of "lying" both here and by the author of the video in question in this thread.

God knows what they privately think of Ed Paik, given the total irrational logic concerning his testimony.

The physical evidence, the electronic (FDR, RADES, etc) evidence AND the eyewitness testimony all concur. AA77 hit the Pentagon.

The RADES data has been disproven by the pilot of the C130 himself, O´Brien..

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=325&view=getlastpost

The FDR proves that he plane was too high to hit the lightpoles.
The FDR has NO serial number to identify it as having come from Flight 77.

all witness testimony certainly does NOT concur. The "100s of witnesses to an impact" fairytale is dead. The majority of witnesses within the basin of land between the Navy Annex and the Pentagon describe anything BUT the alleged SOC path.
"Over the annex", "North of Citgo", "right bank", "8-15 seconds flight".
Even the "lawn witnesses" contradict the low level approach on the "5 frames".
One even clearly describes NOC.

So no, you are WAY off on that one.

A tiny percent of the eye-witness testimony, when mangled by a couple of bozos with agenda, has been folded, spindled & mutilated beyond recognition.

100% of witnesses within the NOC area and 100% at the Citgo station itself all agree NOC. FAR from a "tiny percent". Again refer to the statement above.
This argument on a "few outliers" should be penned to describe the SOC "witnesses" whoever he/she is..
Prove that their testimony has been "spindled". You can´t.

You clearly don't understand what the word "no" (in "no margin of error") means. You may want to look it up. Unfortunately, in order to replace "no" with a correct term, some maths will be required. A task that seems completely beyond your ability.

Sigh..BCR claims that there is a "margin of error" regarding the SOC path.
CIT is constantly hounded to plot ONE NOC path based on witness testimony alone.
YOU say the "electronic evidence" provides AN SOC path yet nobody has the stones to pin their colours to one.
Instead, they have just as wide an array of paths as NOC.
The only difference is, as I have pointed out, that Warren´s data, which I take it you agree with, points to a 0.3º change in course over the final leg of the plane´s flight.
His data records a constant minor right roll. In effect, a straight line.
No left roll/bank.
Given the directional damage and this dataset, the plane MUST follow the NTSB plotted path. Farmer´s "consolidated path".

http://es.tinypic.com/r/eb5wgi/6

Given what I have said, isn´t this the ONLY SOC path?

 

[Hokulele]

The "cartoon" jibe is getting OLD.
Ask farmer or Hokulele how their "debunk" of it is coming along.

Without the scene files, there really isn't anything to debunk. Unsourced assertions are worthless. Pgimeno explained this very clearly, and yet you haven't addressed the main points, choosing instead to waffle on with some tu quoque.

Until the scene files are made available, there is no reason to assume competence on the part of the model builder.