CIT Fraud Revealed

[mudlark]

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?

That´s ALL I wanted to hear. I wanted you guys to STICK to this path if you are going by the NTSB data AND Warren´s data.

You see, THAT is the precise problem. This right bank and NOC has been described not only by the NOC officially confirmed witnesses but by witnesses all over the place.

That you can ignore "some" witnesses is one thing, but to ignore a plethora of them is illogical and dishonest.

On a separate note..


HOPEFULLY WHEN I RETURN TOMORROW ONE OF YOU WILL ANSWER MY POST AND STOP DODGING AND CHANGING THE SUBJECT.

 

[mudlark]

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.

In all seriousness Hokulele..blah.

 

[Hokulele]

In all seriousness Hokulele..blah.

Seriously though, do you understand why the scene files are required? Do you understand why this is the same issue as CiT releasing the raw interview tapes? If you cannot, or will not, understand this point, you will never understand why CiT and PfT continually fail.

 

[BCR]

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?

You have not offered any evidence, only speculation. Sorry, I don't need the P4T data and/or scenes. I really could care less about it. You are offering the Maya animations as evidence of something, not anyone else on this board. If you wish to do that, you need to present the material used to create the cartoons if you want them accepted as anything else but cartoons. I'll take math and physics over cartoons any day.

Now go play in the treefort with the other little kiddies.

 

[beachnut]

No NoC flight path posted, no math, no single NoC flight path.

Okay, so now you have to be schooled by a "moron" at this point Beachnut..
Here is the True Course from Warren's data for the last 11 seconds.
61.2
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.2
61.2
61.2
61.5
61.5

LOL, this is funny stuff.
... failed again, that is TRACK ANGLE TRUE, and it is not the last 11 seconds. You know why? No.

What is the difference between Heading and Course?

These are the true course, you know why? Prove me wrong, it takes math and you can't do it, and Balsamo can't do it; who are you going to call? Not CIT, they can't do much or than moroic lies and idiot delusions.
61 - 61.3
61 - 61.1
62 - 61.6
62 - 61.6
62 - 62.4
Last five seconds of True Course and they are different than the lies you posted and you don't have a clue. It Hertz doesn't it! Math, it does a mind good.

Here are the true headings for the last 12 seconds, I go you one better.
59.8
59.8
59.4
59.4
59.4
59.4
59.8
59.8
59.8
60.1
60.5
61.2
... the real flight path knocked down lampposts and impacted the Pentagon. If you had physics in your skill set you would run not walk away from the insanity of the paranoid nut case "moron" Balsamo and his CIT team, the Crazy Idiot Team. Got math; doubt it

Failure for the CIT message kid.

Why can't you post a NoC flight path you guys can stick with, or you will not post a flight path because they are impossible?

All NoC flight paths have big giant banked turns, where as the reality flight path has small banked turns.

 

[Hokulele]

It Hertz doesn't it!

That is almost as bad as BCR's "Don't Drink and Derive" poster.

 

[The Big Dog]

Gee, Mudlark is back and blasts out 11 straight posts in 20 minutes.

Again.

Night after night.

Containing link after link after link to CIT's web site.

Anybody question that Shaky Craig and Fat Aldo are pulling the strings?

This is exactly what they did with their last stooge.

 

[BCR]

Sigh..BCR claims that there is a "margin of error" regarding the SOC path.

Get the claims straight mudlap. BCR claims that the MEASURED path by the various instruments has an error range associated with it. The actual flight path does not have a "margin of error", only the techniques used to measure it.

I'll leave your other nonsense for the pilots to deal with if they are so inclined. Do you really not care how ignorant all of this dribble you are posting makes you look? I guess the short answer is no.

 

[beachnut]

That is almost as bad as BCR's "Don't Drink and Derive" poster.

We could vote.
I could not pass it up, sampled at .5 Hz, the poor kid without math is failing faster than free fall into the pit of Balsamo's 2,223 gs of stupid math. He has no clue the values vary and that the sample is only good for a fraction of a second, good enough for accident investigation, but not very practical for him.

Wait till he finds out the heading systems have errors in them.

Some one is not very skeptical of CIT and the p4t cult of failed pilots with bad math. Will he be upset when he figures out he joined a skeptic forum?

As Paik clearly points south out of his office window to Flight 77 doomed due to the terrorists mudlark, CIT and Balsamo apologize for as if they were friends. Balsamo needs to be more truthful and change his cult to, Pilots Apologizing For Terrorists.

Paik points south.

Looks bad for CIT as Paik points south like most CIT witnesses. The real flight path is where they are all pointing. Too bad CIT never went to school to learn how to take and interpret witness statement for aircraft incidents. It is amusing how stupid CIT statements and videos are.

 

[beachnut]

Get the claims straight mudlap. BCR claims that the MEASURED path by the various instruments has an error range associated with it. The actual flight path does not have a "margin of error", only the techniques used to measure it.

I'll leave your other nonsense for the pilots to deal with if they are so inclined. Do you really not care how ignorant all of this dribble you are posting makes you look? I guess the short answer is no.

Don't think he understands why you are right.

 

[Hokulele]

Don't think he understands why you are right.

The truly sad part is that he doesn't even seem to be trying to understand either what people post here, or even what his own arguments are saying.

 

[bje]

Chance to win a prize.

Guess at which window seat mudlark is sitting on the Fantasy Flyover Flight and win a chance to throw a pie in Craig Ranke's face:

 

[wargord]

Okay, so now you have to be schooled by a "moron" at this point Beachnut..

Here is the True Course from Warren's data for the last 11 seconds.

61.2
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.2
61.2
61.2
61.5
61.5

Beachy, why do you lie?

That is a straight line.



Lie number 2 in the same post.

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikmap-2.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i45.tinypic.com/200z8dh.jpg[/qimg]

He points EVERYWHERE but South.
Please don´t post the manipulated gif you guys are so fond of or I´ll prove you a liar again.

How are we to accept what the CIT say when we all know they are proven felons? They have admitted to committing a felony while doing their "research" on Lloyde England. How are we to know they didn't commit any other criminal acts or lies in their other "research?" What makes them better then the criminal government you don't trust?

 

[jaydeehess]

Get the claims straight mudlap. BCR claims that the MEASURED path by the various instruments has an error range associated with it. The actual flight path does not have a "margin of error", only the techniques used to measure it.
.

I tried explaining that above but apparently I might exist to mudlark in quoted fashion only.

 

[beachnut]

CIT and Balsamo make up more lies, posted by mudlark

The NTSB data also reveals that the plane was too high to hit the lightpoles.

From the FDR the RADALT read 4 feet the time it crosses Washington Boulevard knocking down lampposts. It is big lie Flight 77 is too high to hit the lampposts.

Balsamo knows Flight 77 is low, he calls the RADALT a hard number, so it is 4 feet. Knowing the 4 feet is the value for landing gear touchdown add about 16 feet and we have 77 just above cars on Washington Boulevard.

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.

LIE
Another BIG lie. The data is verified and sent out on DVD by the NTSB. Warren decoded the data where p4t stolen software decode failed. The data does not stop, you are making up a lie and a dirt dumb statement of woo.

The NTSB released all the data! mudlark for CIT is making up lies. The data stops when 77 impacts the generator. Balsamo knows this, or is too stupid to figure it out.

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

That is because Balsamo is dumber than dirt when it comes to the FDR. Balsamo sat on the data for years and Warren's decode shows impact with the generator. Too bad you are not an aircraft accident investigator or you could figure this out.

No, Warren knows the data indicates impact, he can't tell Balsamo because Balsamo will ban him. There is no debate at p4t insane pilots cults with the wannabe pilots regurgitating Balsamo's failed math and praising his insane paranoid claims. Is Balsamo still saving those bullets to kill people who see he pushes lies?

Their testimonies were pretty transparent to me. They ALL place the plane NOC on video. They drew maps to bolster what they said.

CIT witnesses point to the south flight path, wake up and see the videos as the dolt Craig talks over their testimony and makes up lies.
Boger see 77 impact the Pentagon, you saying he lied? Madelyn points to 77 south of her location; you saying she lied? You are the liar and the one who can't produce the math to support any of the many idiotic failed NoC flight paths.

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

Paik points south. You failed again. Don't you like Paik?

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

CIT moronic lie.
The RADES data is proved right; you can't produce but links to idiots. The C-130 flew the route RADES shows, you are regurgitating lies from CIT and Balsamo. You have no means of checking or proving your statements; thus the lie remains a dumb one at that.
Failure and Fraud is CIT

news - Warren is being thrown under the bus for decoding the data the NTSB sent him, and p4t failed to decode with stolen software.
A frame is 4 seconds, the p4t lined up the frames wrong with their stolen software so they are missing 5 seconds. The NTSB decode is missing the final four seconds because a frame is 4 seconds and the last FRAME was incomplete. Warren did not care, he decoded it anyway; thank you Warren.

Why did debunkers not decode the raw data? Because debunkers know the FDR was found in the Pentagon! Thus Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. End of story save the idiots at CIT and p4t where no lie is dumb enough not to be posted by their cult member who like to post lies and failed math and physics; like CIT and Balsamo.

 

[jaydeehess]

Guess at which window seat mudlark is sitting on the Fantasy Flyover Flight and win a chance to throw a pie in Craig Ranke's face:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_159394a90a10347d02.jpg[/qimg]

my pick,,, 13A

 

[jaydeehess]

who was it that was looking out their office window and saw the crash occur and why did they not see this instead?


Oh,, yeah, because they ae a gov't shill?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The "cartoon" jibe is getting OLD.

Accurate, though.

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

Oh, yawn. Bore me some more. Here's the deal when you don't subtract witnesses or make deliberate efforts to misinterpret:

• 104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
  
• 6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
• 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
• 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
• 2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
• 7 said it was a Boeing 757.
• 8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
• 2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
• 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
• 10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
• 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
• 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
• 2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.​
• 15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
• 3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
• 3 took photographs of the aftermath.
• Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."
• And of course,
  
  0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
  0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.​

You have a gander at what Aziz ElHallan, Mickey Bell, Sean Boger, Omar Campo, Michael DiPaula, Frank Probst, Jack Singleton, Steve O'Brien, and Mike Walter - all people who directly witnessed the impact - have to say. Then you get back to us. Until then, you've got nothing.

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

Documented plane parts? Moussaoui trial evidence, genius. Multiple photographs of the parts on the Pentagon lawn were submitted into evidence and not objected to by Moussaoui's defense. One piece is even on display in the Smithsonian. Furthermore, the radar data and the FDR and the DNA forensics put the jet there.

Feel free to tell Allyn E. Kilsheimer that the debris and human remains were faked. Tell Staff Sgt. Mark Williams the bodies he found still strapped to their airplane seats were faked. Tell any of the Arlington or DC first responders and cleanup folks that what they saw was faked. I dare you. I would pay to see that.

The fact of the matter is, the presence of FL77 wasn't proven by just the wreckage. It was proven by all the evidence converging. It was proven by the witnesses seeing the impact and the radar data demonstrating that it was there and the phone calls from the onboard victims and the witnesses seeing the jet impact and the recovery of the FDR and bodies and the forensic identification of the passengers and the testimony of the first responders and so many other converging classes - not pieces, classes - of evidence. You seriously think the nitpicking and misinterpretations of witness statements, as well as a few screenshots of a cartoon really overturns the mass of evidence firmly establishing what happened on that day?

This is why no one respects you all. You have no idea how to properly evaluate evidence. All you know is obsession.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

And once more, with feeling...

... so that any lurkers hanging about can truly appreciate the depth of lunacy that CIT represents:

So let me see if I've got it straight:

According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:

• They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
• The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
• The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
• The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
• One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
• A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
• The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
• The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
• A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

And, finally,

• The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.

I am reasonably certain that the above is the stupidest hypothesis ever conceived for any purpose, including parody, intentional humor, or even stress tests of human perception in psychological experiments.

In the future, I plan to take no notice whatsoever of the Citizens Investigation Team, other than to link back to this post. From here, there is simply no return. I deeply pity the minds that are snared by such utter madness.

I only wish I were compassionate enough to also pity you people. Problem is, my disgust is vying with my contempt for those who would choose to distort history so.

Lemme know when you figure out a way to incorporate the accounts of the witnesses to the impacts, debris, and passenger remains. Let me also know when you come up with something better than an excuse for the electronic evidence. But pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

 

[TjW]

Just for grins, mudlark, what do you suppose that big blurry thing is captured on video by the very slow monitoring camera, just before the big fireball? Regardless of whether it went north or south of some particular spot before it got to the spot where it was videoed, what do you suppose it could be? It's roughly as big as an airliner, and it's very close to the ground. None of the witnesses mentions two airliners, or even an airliner and a missile.
Is this the 757 just before it pitched up and flew over the Pentagon?