CIT Fraud Revealed

[Hokulele]

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)

Ah, so you don't understand how peer review works. Got it.

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

What datum and projection is he using? Which date/time stamp from Google Earth? What corrections to the raw flight data did he use? Which version of the DEM data did he use? 50 foot? 100 ft? What transformation tool did he use to match the DEM data to Google Earth?

One thing that I can guarantee would be different would be the fact that my tiling of the GE images would not have busts like your image.

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?

For the same reason why PfT thought it was important to get the raw data from the FDR. I do not trust the competence on the part of the model builder, and without any evidence to go on (the scene files), there is no reason to simply trust your judgement. It has been shown to be flawed in the past. The unwillingness to share the scene files implies an insecurity on the part of the cartoonist.

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

You claim they disprove this, but you are unwilling to back up that claim. Again, it is a 2 year-old yelling "Nuh UH!" rather than an adult offering a reasoned explanation.

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

I see the Caps Lock of Wrath has kicked in.

 

[mudlark]

It ain't worth my time pointing all of your errors out mudlark. Come back with your source data and we'll talk.

Are we on the same page BCR?
I´m not referring to the images or the video.
I´m referring to Warren´s data, etc.

 

[mudlark]

Rob Balsamo, after admitting to his dishonest R_Mackey sock puppetry, misidentifies a participant at a forum I've never even heard of, and you blame me?

I´ve seen worse emanating from these pages.

If you didn't want us to refer to you as a mudlark^WP, you should have picked a more sober name.

My nick has nothing to do with what I just said.
And you STILL don´t understand WHY I chose this name? It will come to you.

Now that we're on a first-name basis, may we call you mud?

Childish. I´ll have to report that name change.

All they really need to know is that the FDR data is consistent with the SoC path extrapolated from the Pentagon through the light poles.

Of course, it doesn't hurt for them to understand that the yellow CIT lines are not consistent with the majority of eyewitness reports, FDR data, physical damage, and the remains of Flight 77 passengers and equipment found within and outside the Pentagon.

Then where is the SOC path?
You have ALL avoided this question from day one.
I believe I have narrowed it down. Tell me where I am wrong.
Should be easy for an MIT grad like yourself.

 

[tsig]

B


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




.

PO# BR549

Address with possible dates + other particulars posted in PM.

 

[mudlark]

Do your own! Prove him wrong!
Use the data that is readily available and open a thread showing your findings Hokulele.

That´s what you have to do. Ask BCR for help

 

[carlitos]

I don't think that this is going to end well...

 

[mudlark]

All they really need to know is that the FDR data is consistent with the SoC path extrapolated from the Pentagon through the light poles.

Yes, start with that.
Then take into account that there is no left bank/tilt for 6 seconds before that.
That there is a 0.3º change in course for the entire duration.

That gives us this?

Not "slightly North", not parallel to the Navy Annex, not the plot that Smith worked his shadow from (or to).

This is the proposed SOC path. Am I wrong?

 

[tsig]

I´ve seen worse emanating from these pages.

Everything you say bounces off me and lands on you.

(haven't used that since the third grade)

 

[tsig]

I don't think that this is going to end well...

Yes but will it be from NOC or SOC.

 

[Hokulele]

Do your own! Prove him wrong!
Use the data that is readily available and open a thread showing your findings Hokulele.

And compare apples to mudpies? Why can't you answer my question regarding datum and projection? A W Smith's graphic shows him to be wrong. WilliamSeger's graphic shows him to be wrong. Beachnut's data shows him to be wrong. BCR's graphics and calculations show him to be wrong. Pgimeno's process analysis shows him to be wrong. The physical damage shows him to be wrong. Heck, even his own witnesses show him to be wrong.

All we have is your claim that this cartoon shows him to be right. Care to back it up?

 

[mudlark]

I´ll come back later when hopefully you guys will have at least concocted some sort of answer.

Slan

 

[Edx]

I´ll come back later when hopefully you guys will have at least concocted some sort of answer.

Slan

Hey maybe you can tell us why so many truthers vehemently oppose you? Are they all in on it? What is their motivation for doing so?

 

[mudlark]

And compare apples to mudpies? Why can't you answer my question regarding datum and projection? A W Smith's graphic shows him to be wrong. WilliamSeger's graphic shows him to be wrong. Beachnut's data shows him to be wrong. BCR's graphics and calculations show him to be wrong. Pgimeno's process analysis shows him to be wrong. The physical damage shows him to be wrong. Heck, even his own witnesses show him to be wrong.

All we have is your claim that this cartoon shows him to be right. Care to back it up?

AWSmith´s math is NOT based on the SOC path.

WilliamSeger did a "cartoon" not based on topography, flightpaths NOR Ed Paik´s testimony. (Yet you accept this drawing over the Maya program??)

What graphics from BCR? Is BCR agreeing with AWSmith as to the path taken by the plane as that which misses the lightpoles?

Pgimeno´s comparison of Mike Wilson´s "cartoon" to the Maya program is a joke.

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....

THIS is what backs YOUR claim up??
Still looking $1500? Haha.
You´re showing your true colours here Hokulele. Biased and blinkered.

 

[mudlark]

Hey maybe you can tell us why so many truthers vehemently oppose you? Are they all in on it? What is their motivation for doing so?

As I said I´ll hopefully have some sort of response.
I won´t be sidetracked on this Edx.

 

[beachnut]

...I´m referring to Warren´s data, etc.

It is the FDR data, from the NTSB, anyone can get the entire FDR raw data. Warren's program decodes it, p4t stolen software decode left off FIVE seconds so Balsamo can say 77 was too high!

The NTSB data show the truth, the CIT make up lies. They say witnesses support the impossible flight paths, and the same witnesses point to the FDR flight path.

 

[Reactor drone]

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.

Glad to see we're all on the same page now

 

[beachnut]

I´ll come back later when hopefully you guys will have at least concocted some sort of answer.

Slan

Behind Paik is where Madelyn was, down there on the right, she places 77 south of her. Madelyn saw flight 77, CIT lies and says she did not! Fraud, CIT, Fraud.

Where did the data come from for the pins. What are the raw numbers, list them.

Then list the the numbers for each second of the NoC. Good luck poster for CIT and Balsamo's lies.

 

[Hokulele]

THIS is what backs YOUR claim up??
Still looking $1500? Haha.
You´re showing your true colours here Hokulele. Biased and blinkered.

Ah, so you don't understand process analysis either. Got it.

For business process consulting, the price is higher.

 

[jaydeehess]

And you STILL don´t understand WHY I chose this name? It will come to you.

You want guesses?

Its an anagram for "Dum Karl"?

Shall we call you Karl then?

or

"A Mudlark is someone who scavenges in river mud for items of value, especially in London during the Industrial Revolution. Mudlarks would scavenge in the River Thames during low tide, searching for anything of value."

You are an impoverished Brit?

 

[WilliamSeger]

WilliamSeger did a "cartoon" not based on topography, flightpaths NOR Ed Paik´s testimony. (Yet you accept this drawing over the Maya program??)

(Ahem...)

I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time grasping this simple concept, Mudlark, but what this scale drawing shows is that the plane was at least as far SSE of that window as it was above the ground, or Paik would not have seen what he said he saw. I don't care what program Balsamo used to create that graphic; there isn't any way to put the plane on the line Paik drew on the map, have it high enough to clear the Annex building, and have Paik see the wing and part of the fuselage out that window. You persist in completely ignoring what I'm saying and yet claiming to refute it, which is getting to be beyond annoying. If you can't answer to what I'm saying, I think you'd do much better to ignore it and hope nobody notices.