CIT Fraud Revealed

[Baylor]

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

A picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, it's worth about a million

 

[Garb]

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

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

Oh the irony.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary

From the lists above, 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and
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.

 

[Arus808]

Troll is obvious troll





Guys, ignore the CIT mouthpiece. He's nothing but a shill for the club incompetent team. Repeating stuff they've repeated for 5 years isn't going to change the fact that they've been wrong for that long.

 

[WilliamSeger]

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.

"Mistakes" in a simple 2D scale drawing showing the limit of Paik's vertical field of view? LOL, but the only thing you "pointed out" was that you didn't understand the obvious point of the drawing, which was that if the plane was anywhere near the path Paik drew, then he couldn't possibly have seen the wing and fuselage. To see the wing and fuselage, the plane was at the very least as far SSE of that window as it was above the ground. At the very least. If Balsamo's "verifiable parameters " image is inconsistent with simple geometry, then I think most people can figure out which is wrong. I think most people could understand that point just by visualizing it, but I thought maybe you could use a little extra help. Or is it that you did understand the point and deliberately tried to confuse the subject with irrelevant yammering about the heading? Whichever, you seem to be having either similar comprehension problems or using similar dodging tactics with several other issues in this thread. One of them is why the shadow of the plane passing over the building is also consistent with the "official" path. Can you or can you not explain why Balsamo's "verifiable parameters" video doesn't agree with that simple trigonometry? I can! And speaking of the "official path," another point you seem to be either struggling with or intentionally dodging is what the "official" path even means to a rational person.

 

[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?

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

Mudlark, Craig, Alpo, or whatever your name is, you have totally bored me and I have no plans to put up anything beyond what has already been posted an ignored by you. When you start providing the source material for your cartoons, I will be happy to invest a little time verifying your cartoons, but you get nothing else because it is a waste of time. If you come to the table with something other than speculation, I'll be happy to deal with it.

BTW, Mike Wilson's source files are very easy to download. I've done it multiple times, including one minute ago.

Mike Wilson files

You can't even handle downloading simple files off the internet and I am supposed to take anything else you claim seriously?

 

[sylvan8798]

UNLoVedRebel, you should have put that under some kind of warning wrapper. I almost lost my morning tea.

Ughhhh....

 

[BCR]

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.

I could not let this pass because someone who has not actually looked at the data or who is not familiar with might take this as mudlark actually being honest with data or something.

Here is the actual TRACK ANGLE from Warren's decode for the last 12 seconds.

Using the Clinger scale of subframe 151368 = 0 and counting back in time, the values of 61.5 were recorded at -1 and -3 seconds. According to mudlark, they were recorded at -1 and -2. The value 61.2 was actually recorded at -5 seconds in the Warren decode, and presented above by mudlark at -3 seconds.

Why the difference? Because as anyone can see from the screenshot I made of the actual decode, TRACK ANGLE is sampled every TWO seconds, NOT every second. So, no, beach was not schooled by a "moron". The "moron" remains in his ignorance and deception.

 

[BCR]

A picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, it's worth about a million
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/27494498bdfdb97b42.jpg[/qimg]

Yes please, that picture is not an image I want to start my day with.

 

[The Big Dog]

Troll is obvious troll

Guys, ignore the CIT mouthpiece. He's nothing but a shill for the club incompetent team. Repeating stuff they've repeated for 5 years isn't going to change the fact that they've been wrong for that long.

Hey that picture is shooped! i can tell because i've seen a few pixels in my time!

It is missing my "c-c-c-c-c-c-COMBO breaker!"

/ a typical evening for mudlark:

Open e-mail
Cut and paste e-mails from Craig and Fat Aldo into Jref, one after another
Take shower.

 

[Meed]

Just WHERE does he draw a map of this "bend"? Are you actually referring to his shaky freehand line which goes over the Annex?

Sigh. I'm referring to the fact that he could not have witnessed the majority of the flightpath he drew. The only part he could have witnessed was when the plane was flying past his shop.

Note where his path ends in CIT´s presentation of all the NOC witnesses

It's not his path. That's my point. He may have drew it, but he didn't witness the vast majority of it, as he made explicitly clear in his interview. My question is what is the line he drew supposed to mean?

In the picture above, the circle roughly corresponds to the part of the path that Paik claimed to witness. He drew the rest (which he did not witness), most likely because Craig instructed him to. I recall Craig instructing Keith Wheelhouse "now, just trace the line to the pentagon" (paraphrase). So what did Paik think he was drawing? A guess about the path the flight might have taken?

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 had no view of the plane while it was actually flying past the Citgo. What he reported seeing was definitely south of Citgo at the time though.

What is your point?? he SAW the plane.

My point is he didn't see the flightpath he drew. What is it supposed to mean?

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!

If a person saw on object thrown over a roof and couldn't see the other side then he did not witness the object landing on the other side. Of course it's a silly comparison, because we're dealing with a much longer flightpath than "over a roof". Anyway, are you saying he logically deduced the majority of the flightpath he drew?

C´mon. Drop it.

I'll drop it once you stop ignoring the question I'm actually asking. I've asked it several times now and it's not a complicated question at all.

 

[tfk]

Have you actually read the post concerning my attempt to get a straight answer on THE proposed SOC path?

Uh, yeah. I did.

According to Warren´s data the plane flew in a straight trajectory for the last 11 seconds.

Uh, not really.

First, why don't you try to learn the vernacular of the field in which you post, so that others aren't always forced to correct your sloppy vernacular. Like now.

You mean to say "a straight ground path". That he did. An almost straight ground path.

A "trajectory" is a path in 3D space.

AA77 did not fly a straight trajectory. But most of his changes in trajectory were the result of pitch inputs. Which change his flight path in a direction normal to the planes roll angle at any given point.

Since his roll angles were small, you could accurately say that his changes in trajectory were MOSTLY in the vertical plane.

The physical damage path cannot be classed as being within a series of paths based on "margin of error"

The physical damage path is the one and only right path.

Your statement means only one thing: your concept of "margin of error" is wrong.

Analogy:
You, an abject amateur, have produced an analysis concludes that "honeybees cannot fly."
Possible conclusions:
1. Honeybees cannot fly.
2. Analysis is wrong.

You keep waving your flawed analysis around.
Technically inclined people have shown you error after error in your technical assertions.
People familiar with "interviewing techniques" have shown you error after error in your interview techniques.
People who have been interviewed by you have pointed out error after error in your "interpretation" of their comments.
Logically inclined people have pointed out error after error in your logic.
People persuaded by evidence have pointed out the mountain of hard evidence that you keep ignoring.

And pretty much everyone has been pointing out to you those flying, buzzing things for years.

And you keep waving your paper ...

BCR brought up the VDOT tower, not me.

An argument that'd make any 8 year old proud.

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 light poles on the ground ARE witnesses. The best kind.

"Witnesses without a personal agenda."

Your claim that "nobody saw them hit" is nonsense.

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

No, it does not.

You think that it does only because you don't understand instrumentation.

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.

Ahh, that "comfortable, reassuring place": head in the sand.

I've got some bad news for ya: Your butt's way too big for that strategy to work.

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

Oh, you mean ole Robby "Ban 'em if they disagree with me" Balsamo?

Sure thing, Craig. THAT's a compelling argument.

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

Now, I've got a real question for you.

Please direct me to some of your witnesses drawing their "maps". I'd like to see them actually doing it for myself.

Please don´t pretend that some posters here have a low opinion of these witnesses.

[There's a "don't" missing here. But i get your drift.

Speaking for myself, I have no "low opinion" of those people that you interviewed. It's the interviewers, and manipulators of their comments who have earned disdain.

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

LMAO.

Do you just post random crappola, thinking that someone won't follow your links?
THIS moronic, baseless dialog is supposed to demonstrate that "O'Brien disproves the RADES data"??????

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.

1. Your ignorance misinterprets the FDR data. The light poles, lying on the ground, prove that fact.
2. The FDR did have a serial number. For one of a dozen possible reasons (illegible, detached, sloppiness), the number wasn't written down in the papers that have been publicly released. BFD.

all witness testimony certainly does NOT concur.

You don't follow along very well.

It is EXPECTED that there will be contradictions in eye-witness testimony. It is EXPECTED that "ALL witnesses" will NOT "concur".

IN AGGREGATE, the eyewitness testimony confirms the official flight path. The majority agree with the physical & electronic evidence. Some are out of reasonable bounds. All of this is expected.

The "100s of witnesses to an impact" fairytale is dead.

Completely & utterly wrong.

If 150 people see the plane descend, it disappears out of sight for 130 of them who only see a fireball, and only 20 see it hit actually the ground, this does NOT mean that the 130 did NOT see "the plane crash".

It most assuredly does not mean that "the 150 could have missed seeing a second (non-existent) airplane.

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.

Wow. 100% of the few incorrect eyewitnesses contradict the far larger number of accurate eyewitnesses.

Imagine that...

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.

I don't have to.

The lamp posts do. The damage trajectory inside the building does. The FDR data does.

Let's hear YOU disprove THAT.

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

You constantly confuse "reality" with "the perception of reality".

"Reality" is the one & only flight path. Which has zero margin of error.

"Perception of reality" is everyone's attempt to discern what that flight path was. Everyone else understands that they have to adjust their perception to match the evidence for reality.

You are the only ones that seem to stamp your feet & demand that reality should change to match your (mis)perceptions.

It's kinda funny, actually...

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.

This is the forest: downed light poles, eye-witnesses that a plane crashed into the building, damage in the building, bodies, DNA, plane parts, etc.

These are the trees: FDR data at any particular instant, arm waved in the sky, line drawn on paper 3 years later, words taken out of context, etc.

Can you see the forest? You seem to keep bumping into that same tree again & again.

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.

Wrong.

About 3 minutes to 53 seconds to end of Warren's data, large roll to the right in final 330° turn.
53 - 31 seconds, moderate (~12°) roll to the right. (sloppy turn exit)
31 - 11 seconds, small (~4°) roll to the right. (common error after long turn in one direction.)
11 - 6 seconds, ~1° roll to the left.
6 seconds to end of Warren's data, ~4° roll to the right.

Evidence at impact: slight roll to left, not captured in Warren's data.

Given the directional damage and this dataset, the plane MUST follow the NTSB plotted path. Farmer´s "consolidated path".

Yes. Now you've got it. The plane followed the NTSB's plotted flight path.

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

Let's be VERY clear hear.

REGARDLESS of what you have said, the path thru the building & light pole damage is the only flight path. Period. (North of CITGO: out. Over CITGO: out. Any OTHER flight path South of CITGO: out.)

That's the forest.

You've bungie'd yourself to that one tree. It's blocking your view.

Tom

 

[tfk]

I'm sure that someone has noticed this before, but ...

the thing that strikes me about all the CIT lines to the Pentagon is the erroneous angle of impact being nearly 90° to the external wall.

I am curious if the CIT's witnesses the ones that, out of unfamiliarity, believed that the plane plowed straight into the wall, and adjusted their paths to achieve this (approximately 90°) angle of approach.

I'd also like to see if the CIT twins were perhaps "helping" their witnesses by showing them where the plane entered the Pentagon, using a pencil or some tool, and holding it 90° to the external wall. Thereby "forcing" the witnesses to deflect their lines in order to not produce a kink discontinuity at the moment of impact.



Tom

 

[Hokulele]

I'm sure that someone has noticed this before, but ...

the thing that strikes me about all the CIT lines to the Pentagon is the erroneous angle of impact being nearly 90° to the external wall.

I am curious if the CIT's witnesses the ones that, out of unfamiliarity, believed that the plane plowed straight into the wall, and adjusted their paths to achieve this (approximately 90°) angle of approach.

I'd also like to see if the CIT twins were perhaps "helping" their witnesses by showing them where the plane entered the Pentagon, using a pencil or some tool, and holding it 90° to the external wall. Thereby "forcing" the witnesses to deflect their lines in order to not produce a kink discontinuity at the moment of impact.



Tom

Good point. Given their history of leading questions, it wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

[stewieg]

He appears to be a whistle blower....

http://www.airline-whistleblowers.org/Correspondence.html

..and a dolt from PFFT....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

where he states this:

If he's so honored about being a member of PfT then why is there only a single link to PfT on his site?

I wonder what the real deal is with this guy. I read some of the stuff on his site and it seems a bit rambling and general in nature. I noticed he really does not say exactly why he was grounded. What's he hiding?

 

[jaydeehess]

If he's so honored about being a member of PfT then why is there only a single link to PfT on his site?

Well his site is more concerned with his beef against Colgan isn't it?

That is a legit concern. It has to do with the way the regional carriers do business and the effect on safety.

As I have said over and over again, if the PfT were really concerned with safety they would have wrote up a technical paper, a purely technical paper with no accusations, no wild conclusions, indicating that their interpretation of the FDR data shows a grossly different flight path than that indicated by the physical damage to ground objects.

This would be a concern as to the accuracy of the FDR's in service. Instead, PfT chose to go on a witch hunt and accuse the NTSB of not simple incompetance but complicity in treason and murder and conclude that an enormously complicated and complex conspiracy took place at the Pentagon on Sept 11/2010...............and they wonder why they are not taken seriously.

 

[beachnut]

If he's so honored about being a member of PfT then why is there only a single link to PfT on his site?

I wonder what the real deal is with this guy. I read some of the stuff on his site and it seems a bit rambling and general in nature. I noticed he really does not say exactly why he was grounded. What's he hiding?

Mental illness?
He says Judge Eugene R. Wedoff has a fund of 40 million with regards to the UAL financial problems.

The pilot made such a big deal he was found to be off in the head; like 2,223 gs of madness accusing people of stuff he made up.

I was invited by both United Airlines management and ALPA personnel to fly to New York to visit their mental health professionals, wherein I would be grounded for "psychological reasons", but I politely declined this invitation...

If you refuse the medical, you don't fly!

I... TRACK ANGLE is sampled every TWO seconds, NOT every second. So, no, beach was not schooled by a "moron". The "moron" remains in his ignorance and deception.

I had the note made up to inform mudlark he posted 22 seconds of True Track Angle, not 11 after I corrected the true course, I had posted the same darn heading or true track by mistake. I was saving it for next time the CIT/Balsamo SPAM bot comes back.

It is funny as I was schooled by a "moron" (Balsamo is feeding this troll) who makes the mistake you pointed out, and was a topic of my weak humor, "It Hertz doesn't it!". (as in .5 Hz for the values he posted as 11 seconds, being 22 seconds; no wonder Balsamo can't figure out the FDR).

 

[pgimeno]

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.

Who did say that? I don't remember anyone.

Pedro Gimeno (that's me) says that that's how transparency is done and that your refusal to give the scene files hints at fear and/or lack of desire to let others review the accuracy of that scene.

Pedro Gimeno did not ever say that you should give the scene files because others did.

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?

These are working for me:

http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/

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.

Actually what is clear is your lack of understanding of how the burden of proof works.

 

[BCR]

It is funny as I was schooled by a "moron" (Balsamo is feeding this troll) who makes the mistake you pointed out, and was a topic of my weak humor, "It Hertz doesn't it!". (as in .5 Hz for the values he posted as 11 seconds, being 22 seconds; no wonder Balsamo can't figure out the FDR).

Yes sir, the 'truth' Hertz sometimes

 

[beachnut]

Yes sir, the 'truth' Hertz sometimes

Based on Paik and Madelyn alone you can determine the general flight path of Flight 77 which never goes north of the CITGO.

All the evidence you need to debunk the NoC is provided by CIT videos where Craig talks, and the witnesses point to the south flight path.

CIT redefine stupid. The only people who can score below 200 on the SAT. And Madelyn said they are creepy. And she is right.

 

[mudlark]

Beachnut..

A 1 degree heading change is not going to change your track over the ground at more than 400 knots in 5 seconds.

Correct or not?

This is why you used True HEADING data instead of COURSE data in a poor attempt to prove your point. You are trying to confuse the masses and the posters on this thread (who by the look of it have swallowed it hook, line and sinker without researching on the subject in more detail as I have had to do) because most dont know the difference between Course and Heading. You SHOULD!

You had me stumped for a bit, I´ll admit but NOW I understand the confusion. Correct me if I´m wrong.

COURSE is your track over the ground, HEADING is where the nose is pointed. You can step on the left and right rudders and change your HEADING (fish-tailing essentially), left and right by 10, 15, 20 degrees if you want. But your ground track (Course) will remain the same until you actually ROLL into a bank. This is a concept that apparently you don`t understand (?) as well as a certain other poster that frequents here.

A 5 degree bank isnt going to turn your aircraft all that much in the time frame of 5 seconds. This is why the COURSE data didnt change more than 0.3 degrees over 22 seconds.

I looked up the Course data because I knew your data was wrong for the GROUND TRACK.
I´ll admit I was wrong on saying "11 seconds" when i should have said "the last 11 DATA POINTS".

The data further proves my point that the flight path was a straight line, south of the VDOT antenna according to 22 seconds of data and as required for the physical damage.

AW Smith and Farmer GE analysis/math is wrong. Maya is correct and is corroborated with Math using the same methods as Farmer and AW Smith. It impossible for the aircraft to cast a shadow on Ed Paiks shop based on data and the physical damage path.

In summary,the HEADING change of 2 degrees does not automatically change COURSE over the ground, as seen by the data itself.

Ed Paik saw an aircraft on the North approach as shown in the video

http://vimeo.com/9630751