CIT Fraud Revealed

[mudlark]

Pgimeno...

Thank you for providing the link.
Is the link the same as the one provided on the front page as advertised in Mike Wilsons video?
All his links appear to be returning errors on his front page. Can only those who have a direct link to his models obtain them?

What data did he use to create this "highly detailed assembly is an accurate reconstruction" when he didnt have any FDR data available at the time? He noted "photos and official documents". Where are these "photos and official documents"?

Did he use USGS data? Sun Data?

Why bother to download a cartoon based mostly on photographs which inherently have foreshortening, parallax, perspective errors... etc....

P4T has supplied the data used in the construction, why did Mike only supply a cartoon and no data?

I have spoken to Rob Balsamo regarding the scene files. If you wont ask him for the files directly because he can obtain your "personal information", how do you expect to get almost 30 GIGABYTES of files?

He said that he would be happy to let anyone review his files if they want to come to the office and review them and can remain civil. Send him an email to set up an appointment.

When the images and consequent video were posted by me, BCR and Hokulele claimed to be familiar with the program which made it, the latter being a teacher of AutoCAD, no less.

ALL data that went into setting up the scenes is publically available and has been linked to by me repeatedly.

Would they please stop this transparent charade and put their money where their mouth is. Set up YOUR OWN scenes and see if the results concur.
The only POSSIBLE way to see P4T´s scenefiles is now up for grabs.
Any takers?

 

[A W Smith]

must be lunchtime at Melissa Data 12:54 pm

 

[mudlark]

must be lunchtime at Melissa Data 12:54 pm

Did you rectify that erroneous math yet on the SOC path to Paik´s shop shadow?

 

[beachnut]

Did you rectify that erroneous math yet on the SOC path to Paik´s shop shadow?

You are not an expert, you post 22 seconds of data as 11 seconds, and then have to go to Balsamo for your flight training indoctrination, which is about as good as going to Charlie Sheen for flight advice. Good job spewing lies

11 seconds.

The FDR shows impact with the Generator.

Balsamo has to say Flt 77 was going 250 knots when it was going 483 knots; you guys are failed liars. Good luck selling DVD to dumbed down people who will mature out of fantasy-land unlike your moronic behavior posting for idiots at CIT and doing Balsamo math where 22=11.

Next you will post the 2,223 g excuse. As the 11.2 g dolt math is still posted at p4t cult web site, the place where failed pilots and crazies hang out to spew delusions and regurgitate lies like your posts.

You now join Balsamo in the bad math club, where you call 22 seconds 11 seconds. Hertz much? Finish high school yet, or are you a drop out like Charlie Sheen. ... he might support you.

Is there a contest with Balsamo to do the worse math? You will have to do better than 22=11 to beat the moronic super math 2,223 gs of stupid. But I think you can do it.

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

Ed points south.

A CIT witness until they could not get her to point north. Madelyn like Paik points south!

South is it, all the CIT witness confirm the south flight path.

Check the Maps; look at Google Earth, Madelyn points south.

Paik points south

Madelyn who was near the VDOT tower sees 77 south of her. CIT has to make up lies about Madelyn to have their crazy ideas and sell idiotic DVDs filled with hearsay and lies.

Three more point south.

RADAR, DNA, FDR, and these guys all confirm the south flight path.
Hard evidence and witnesses all place 77 on the south flight path.

CIT is a fraud, and dumber than a box of rocks, and momma always said...

Take your 11 seconds, which was 22, and go try again to beat 2,223 gs of math failure. How did you avoid math in school? I told you the second you posted the mistake and you just SPAMMED away.

So now all your curved paths are out since you are saying 77 can't make the turn required for the NoC.

I said you were wrong when you posted the 11 seconds that were 22, but you are only here to post links to your web site of stupid, and SPAM JREF with your moronic math-less flight paths of fantasy.

I wonder how I got true courses for the final seconds, every second, in fact I can give a true course for every second of flight if needed? You guys are clue less as you say 77 is higher, but have to make it lower to keep your shadow on Paiks office which may of been a reflection from the shadow passing on the road. You guys have no clue, and with 2,223 g of Balsamo's failed math backing your lies, you are real winners.

Paik points south, CIT is a fraud. The FDR shows 77 at 4 feet on the RADALT knocking down lamposts and impacting the Generator, giving a final yaw to a left roll at impact.

You SPAM JREF with the fraud of CIT

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

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.

....
7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
...

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.

...
3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
...

...

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.​

The real flight path, verified by RADAR, DNA, FDR, and witnesses.

Independently verified by witnesses who CIT interviewed but failed to figure it out.

 

[Hokulele]

I have spoken to Rob Balsamo regarding the scene files. If you wont ask him for the files directly because he can obtain your "personal information", how do you expect to get almost 30 GIGABYTES of files?

Because there is no possible way to set up an account on a public file sharing system and post the password here.

He said that he would be happy to let anyone review his files if they want to come to the office and review them and can remain civil. Send him an email to set up an appointment.

My typical rates are $1500/day plus travel expenses. Have him generate a PO# and I'll get back to him.

ALL data that went into setting up the scenes is publically available and has been linked to by me repeatedly.

No, the data that goes into setting up scenes such as these include how the data is processed and the parameters for such. Did you not notice the tiling error in one of your images? Sharing the scene files ensures that the data has been entered correctly, as has been noted by pgimeno, among others.

Again, the burden of proof is on PfT to provide evidence that their cartoons were the result of competent modelers. It isn't ours. Until such evidence can be offered publically, there is no reason to accept their cartoons as anything but fantasy.

 

[A W Smith]

Did you rectify that erroneous math yet on the SOC path to Paik´s shop shadow?

There is nothing erroneous about my math. What is erroneous is the assumption that the unverified gps data is accurate on the GE overlay. And thats only one magnitude of error, Beachnut posted others.

 

[mudlark]

Wow 2 posts from Hokulele and Beachnut that totally ignore the points I made.

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?

(...)

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.

There Beachnut, those are the two main points I would like cleared up by you.


Hokulele, just give it up. Please. You now want Rob to PAY you to come inspect HIS work because YOU can´t do it? LOL

Explain why you cannot simply set your own replication of all the readily available data and COMPARE the results?

The images/video are in response to a claim BCR made. The "burden of proof" is with YOU.

Jesus..

 

[Hokulele]

Hokulele, just give it up. Please. You now want Rob to PAY you to come inspect HIS work because YOU can´t do it? LOL

Every time someone has asked for my professional opinion, they have paid for it. Why should he be special?

Explain why you cannot simply set your own replication of all the readily available data and COMPARE the results?

Because they are guaranteed to be different, and without knowing the parameters of how your cartoon was made, there is no objective way to indicate why they are different, and which one is more likely to be correct. The fact that you do not seem to want to grasp not only this simple point, but also the nature of error-reporting in any scientific endeavor, makes me realize why it was so easy for you to fall for the delusions offered by CiT and PfT.

The images/video are in response to a claim BCR made. The "burden of proof" is with YOU.

Jesus..

No, because BCR has provided the data that backs up his claim. You have not. It would be like saying the burden of proof is on the adult because the 2 year-old yelled, "Nuh UH!"

 

[mudlark]

There is nothing erroneous about my math. What is erroneous is the assumption that the unverified gps data is accurate on the GE overlay. And thats only one magnitude of error, Beachnut posted others.

The whole premise of your image/math was to prove that the shadow could physically reach Paik´s shop from SOC, as BCR claimed it did.

The position you derived your conclusions from were NOT on the proposed SOC path as required by the directional damage and the point that I have just made to Beachnut regarding course/heading. 0.3º change in course according to the COURSE data

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.

The plane flew in a straight line according to the data.

A straight line from your plotted position does NOT line up with the lightpoles.

Correct or not?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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.

Sorry, mudlark, but no one should believe anything you have to say about math.

Earlier in this thread, you said several times that the math was over your head, repeatedly referring us to the Balsamo/Desideri paper. When it was pointed out that those two authors had had a falling out over Balsamo's lack of integrity, and that Balsamo's mathematical abilities were already a running joke, you had no answer.

You ignored the specific problems with Balsamo's calculations, and you are now ignoring calculations by qualified people, dismissing them as impossible without backing your dismissal with a shred of evidence.

As usual, you're just talking out of your "hat".

 

[mudlark]

Every time someone has asked for my professional opinion, they have paid for it. Why should he be special?

Stop being childish. He is NOT asking for your "professional opinion". It is YOU who wants to see his work for free (both monetary AND labour)

Because they are guaranteed to be different, and without knowing the parameters of how your cartoon was made, there is no objective way to indicate why they are different, and which one is more likely to be correct. The fact that you do not seem to want to grasp not only this simple point, but also the nature of error-reporting in any scientific endeavor, makes me realize why it was so easy for you to fall for the delusions offered by CiT and PfT.

If you both entered the same verified parameters, how are the results "guaranteed to be different"??

You want to see the scene files. How are you going to debunk their findings if YOU don´t replicate the program yourself from scratch.Just admit that you could not be assed OR have you already replicated the findings and didn´t like what you found?

No, because BCR has provided the data that backs up his claim. You have not. It would be like saying the burden of proof is on the adult because the 2 year-old yelled, "Nuh UH!"

BCR claimed that the shadow fell from the plane to Paik´s shop from SOC..The images and video disproves this.

YOU HAVE THE DATA. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Please.

 

[beachnut]

k...
YOU HAVE THE DATA. PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Please.

Too lazy to post on the web. They don't have it, their dog ate it.

Like the 22 seconds they call 11 and I told him on the 23rd he was wrong it takes two days for Balsamo to figure out the error! lol

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

Takes you two days to figure out errors and after 8 years you can't figure out 911. Slow? Your moronic flyover is a lie, your NoC has no flight path possible, and you have the math moron Balsamo guiding your flight knowledge. I call that complete failure, and it seems to be your goal.

 

[mudlark]

Sorry, mudlark, but no one should believe anything you have to say about math.

Earlier in this thread, you said several times that the math was over your head, repeatedly referring us to the Balsamo/Desideri paper. When it was pointed out that those two authors had had a falling out over Balsamo's lack of integrity, and that Balsamo's mathematical abilities were already a running joke, you had no answer.

You ignored the specific problems with Balsamo's calculations, and you are now ignoring calculations by qualified people, dismissing them as impossible without backing your dismissal with a shred of evidence.

As usual, you're just talking out of your "hat".

Wow NEW sites Will?

What the hell does this "falling out" have to do with their math??
These "qualified people" have yet to debunk the points I made or the image/video I posted regarding the straight line portrayed in the data.
WARREN´S data no less.
The directional damage requires LESS mathematical expertise.

All I have asked is for you guys to tell me EXACTLY where the SOC path IS given the available electronic data and physical damage given the alleged speed.

Stop blowing smoke.

 

[mudlark]

Too lazy to post on the web. They don't have it, their dog ate it.

Like the 22 seconds they call 11 and I told him on the 23rd he was wrong it takes two days for Balsamo to figure out the error! lol



Takes you two days to figure out errors and after 8 years you can't figure out 911. Slow? Your moronic flyover is a lie, your NoC has no flight path possible, and you have the math moron Balsamo guiding your flight knowledge. I call that complete failure, and it seems to be your goal.

What does that response have to do with what I have posted? Twice?

When a point is made to me I ACTUALLY check it out.

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

(...)

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.

Answer my question. DID THE PLANE FLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE given these points I made?

 

[beachnut]

Wow NEW sites Will?

What the hell does this "falling out" have to do with their math??
These "qualified people" have yet to debunk the points I made or the image/video I posted regarding the straight line portrayed in the data.
WARREN´S data no less.
The directional damage requires LESS mathematical expertise.

All I have asked is for you guys to tell me EXACTLY where the SOC path IS given the available electronic data and physical damage given the alleged speed.

Stop blowing smoke.

You can't do math which you prove by not providing the flight path data for NoC. We have the flight path data to impact from the FDR, where is your data by second for the NoC?

Got math, no, got fact, no, got reality, no.

The data is not a straight line, you messed up again due to no math. A straight line is a definition of math, no wonder you can't figure out 911.

Please show us your straight line. Please? What would define a straight line? What is .5 Hertz?

Why did no one see the flyover? Why did you lie about the FDR? Why did p4t use stolen software and fail to decode the final FIVE seconds of data?

No answers from you just the party line from truthNAZI Balsamo and his school of 2,223 gs of failed pilot math... and more SPAM from CIT, the failures at investigating 911, if you want moronic lies, hire CIT, Balsamo did!

 

[beachnut]

...
Answer my question. DID THE PLANE FLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE given these points I made?

61.3 true course less than 5 seconds to impact
61.1 true course less than 4 seconds to impact
61.6 true course less than 3 seconds to impact
61.6 true course less than 2 seconds to impact
62.4 true course less than 1 second to impact

The last five seconds of true course, and you call these a straight line?

Did you ever receive formal training in math?

 

[mudlark]

You can't do math which you prove by not providing the flight path data for NoC. We have the flight path data to impact from the FDR, where is your data by second for the NoC?

Got math, no, got fact, no, got reality, no.

The data is not a straight line, you messed up again due to no math. A straight line is a definition of math, no wonder you can't figure out 911.

Please show us your straight line. Please? What would define a straight line? What is .5 Hertz?

Why did no one see the flyover? Why did you lie about the FDR? Why did p4t use stolen software and fail to decode the final FIVE seconds of data?

Plot the path YOU believe the plane took given Warren´s data.
There is NO left bank/roll at all in the last 7 seconds of Warrens decode.
For argument´s sake, how could the plane which you and Farmer insinuate was "slightly north of SOC" get back on track to line up with the directional damage from this "path" which is nowhere to be found in the FDR.

..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.

Where is the left bank/roll NECESSARY on Warren´s decode?

 

[beachnut]

Plot the path YOU believe the plane took given Warren´s data.
There is NO left bank/roll at all in the last 7 seconds of Warrens decode.
For argument´s sake, how could the plane which you and Farmer insinuate was "slightly north of SOC" get back on track to line up with the directional damage from this "path" which is nowhere to be found in the FDR.



Where is the left bank/roll NECESSARY on Warren´s decode?

This cool, you post more proof of you lack of math, and flying skills. You should listen to BCR, I think he has a degree with lots of math. The 22=11 for you is too deep; you need to go back to school.



61.3 true course less than 5 seconds to impact
61.1 true course less than 4 seconds to impact
61.6 true course less than 3 seconds to impact
61.6 true course less than 2 seconds to impact
62.4 true course less than 1 second to impact

You call this a straight line due to your lack of math. It will take you a few days to figure out where I got the numbers let alone figure out the definition of straight line.

The FDR also shows impact with the generator. Darn, Warren's decode he did from scratch beats the stolen software decode of failed pilot who make up lies and are like Tim McVeigh, dumber than a box of rocks.

Warren decoded the FDR to the end of data. p4t decode the FDR and left out 5 seconds so they could say 77 was too high. They are a fraud and lie to make up lies.

You are at best a poor terrorist apologist with SPAM from CIT.

What is the accuracy of the heading system?
What is the accuracy of the navigation system?
You really do deny there are errors, except in your moronic delusions.

You don't know what a straight line is; add that to your list.

His CANNED SPAM ran out!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You are at best a poor terrorist apologist with SPAM from CIT.

CIT? Beech, you sure about that? Don't you mean

 

[mudlark]

61.3 true course less than 5 seconds to impact
61.1 true course less than 4 seconds to impact
61.6 true course less than 3 seconds to impact
61.6 true course less than 2 seconds to impact
62.4 true course less than 1 second to impact

The last five seconds of true course, and you call these a straight line?

Did you ever receive formal training in math?

How much a course change would you experience with a less than a tenth of degree change over 5 seconds. Do you think it would cause the aircraft to fly north of the VDOT Antenna as claimed by Farmer and AW Smith?

or

How much would the course change flying your desk in a 0.1 degree change over 5 seconds. lol (jk)

Where is the left bank/roll mentioned in Warren´s decode?
There is none.
It HAD to be in a straight line to line up with the physical damage.

No "math" needed for the points I´m making just honesty and logic.