CIT Fraud Revealed

[bje]

Mudlark to rescue CIT and P4T; will finally provide Pentagon overflight flight path.

.
NOBODY questions anything posted here.

Yes, we all do. We question you repeatedly and you cannot provide any answers,

Even when these lies are repeatedly posted and debunked by me.

For instance, neither anyone at CIT nor at Pilots for 9/11 "Truth" nor you, have been able to answer my questions for the last three years. And you, mudlark, admitted it. You cannot answer these questions. Why not?:

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

WHERE is this SOC path? At LEAST the NOC witnesses provided "yellow lines".

ENDING at the impact point of AA77 into the Pentagon:

Nobody here has shown me where they believe the SOC path actually IS.It changes daily.

You cannot show ANY NOC flight path of ANY jet flying over and away from the Pentagon. Why not, mudlark?

Craig Ranke can't show this happened:



And Cap'n Robby Balsamo can't demonstrate his claim that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon as he claimed in HIS animation:




And when it came to the Pentagon View Shed Analysis CIT tried to claim that NO ONE would ever observe any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread378783/pg50#pid4823797



So it's up to you, mudlark, to finally provide evidence that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon. Ranke and Balsamo cannot do it.

WHERE is this NOC flightpath over and away from the Pentagon, mudlark?

 

[BCR]

Are we on the same page BCR?

Obviously not, since the OP has nothing to do with Warren's data. The OP is that CIT misrepresented Paik. You say no. The source data for this claim is the unedited footage. Show it. You further presented cartoons to explain him seeing a shadow where he did. Present the data used to create the cartoon (Maya scene files). Any of this other dribble is off-topic, which is of course what you are attempting to detract from, that CIT are frauds.

 

[The Big Dog]

Obviously not, since the OP has nothing to do with Warren's data. The OP is that CIT misrepresented Paik. You say no. The source data for this claim is the unedited footage. Show it. You further presented cartoons to explain him seeing a shadow where he did. Present the data used to create the cartoon (Maya scene files). Any of this other dribble is off-topic, which is of course what you are attempting to detract from, that CIT are frauds.

I was wondering when someone was going to point this out

 

[Hokulele]

... Any of this other dribble is off-topic, which is of course what you are attempting to detract from, that CIT are frauds.

I beg to differ. He is providing evidence for this conclusion with every post.

 

[beachnut]

I beg to differ. He is providing evidence for this conclusion with every post.

These true courses are a straight line for CIT and Balsamo.
61.3
61.1
61.6
61.6
62.4
... a plane flying in air, air moves, in a vehicle with 6 degrees of freedom.

How did the plane's course go left when the wings were in a right bank? math is needed, the plane does not care?
G force, vertical for the last 5 seconds. Samled at 8 hz, don't tell CIT what this means...

 

[Meed]

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

Slan

Can I get some sort of answer to my question? It's a very simple one. I feel the need to ask again, because you've responded to my posts a couple times already without addressing it (maybe you misunderstood what I was asking). What is the line Paik drew (other than the small portion of it that goes past his shop) supposed to represent? Do you agree that the majority of it is not a witnessed flightpath? Was he just guessing about the rest of the path the plane took or what?

ETA: for further clarification- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5652390&postcount=1010

 

[pgimeno]

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

Where did I compare the graphics? I compared the transparency! Stop lying.

I could have compared Mike J. Wilson's transparency as well to the (lack of) release of the unedited video. Would that mean that I was comparing a videocam with Wilson's work?

Focus!

 

[LashL]

Stop lying.

Focus!

You do realize that neither of those things are going to happen so long as you're dealing with the whackjobs trolling here on behalf of the tree fort trio, right?

 

[mudlark]

You said...

Quote:
Where is the left bank/roll mentioned in Warren´s decode? ...

I showed you.

You "showed" me a 0.7º minor left roll BEFORE the last 7 datapoints which show a continuous RIGHT roll from well before the Annex to Route27.
Even Warren´s plotted path is a straight line as can be seen in his OWN posted image!

http://es.tinypic.com/r/11ha0ll/6

http://es.tinypic.com/r/24y9u9t/6

Where is your NoC flight path? Please show us your data. The FDR shows the real flight path, you have a moronic can't show us a flight path, of no flight path because they are all impossible to fly NoC from over Paiks office where you have the Plane too low so the shadow is not on his office in real life as the plane is too high to cast a shadow your MORON CIT fake flight path.

Place 77 on a flight path now, or retract your lies of a NoC!

Again, I have pointed out exactly WHERE the SOC path is given Warren´s data AND the directional damage path which is beyond the scope of ANY supposed "margin of error"
Why don´t YOU show ME where you believe the SOC path is never mind the NOC path?

According to various posts throughout this thread and others, the SOC path is almost as variable as the NOC witnessed paths.

You are a fraud too.

Post the straight flight path from the FDR? Do you understand straight? No.

How did you place you pins? How did you get the Positions? Where in the FDR is the position and what is the accuracy? FRAUD

Provide the source for the postions or you are a Fraud like CIT is and proved in the OP.

The "pins" were positioned by Warren himself. The data is from Warren´s program. Why get angry with me when I am using a source that you ALL endorse here?

Here is my source

http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/OutputFiles/FinalFlightComplete.zip

These are the output files from the program for the final flight including all parameters.

Where is YOURS for the numbers you are apparetly pulling out of the air?

But the real numbers for true course for the last 5 seconds.
I have 61.3, you have nothing!
I have 61.1, you have 61.5, which one is right?
61.6 - you have nothing! Why?
I have 61.6, you have 61.5, and I have 61. 6, take math, so forget figuring it out.
62.4 - you have nothing the last second, trying to make the path look straight and tell lies?

You present data and hide the facts you are using samples of Track Angle True at .5 Hz, not all the data. Fact is infinite data is missing.

Why are my numbers better or worse than yours. I show a course that varies 1.3 degrees, you show .3 degrees! Is your lack of math skills and dishonesty keeping you from posting the truth?

They aren´t MY numbers. They are Warren´s.
Why do your numbers conflict with Warren's data?
YOU are ignoring the data in the FDR under 'Track Angle True'.

Why not actually PLOT the numbers you are presenting?

 

[mudlark]

Like the 0.5 Hertz misrepresentation? Your source data includes the unedited interviews and Maya source files. The rest you are just butchering perfectly good data.

The OP is the misrepresentation of Paik's account by CIT. You have done everything but address the OP. So come see me when you decide to come off the source data Craig/Aldo/Rob, or whoever you are.

Then POINT OUT what exactly I have misrepresented.

1. Is there ANY left bank recorded in the last 7 seconds of Warren´s data?
Yes or no?

2. Is it possible, given the directional damage, alleged speed and LACK of left
roll/bank in the FDR data that the plane could be on anything other than
the "consolidated path"?
Yes or no?

Seems "perfectly good" to me. If not, explain.

YOU were the one pushing the VDOT tower being struck not so long ago.
YOU presented the "consolidated path".
Why not pin your colours officially and on record on this path? Anybody?

EVERYBODY here has gone "off-topic".
This line of discussion was brought about by YOUR assertion that the shadow witnessed by the Paiks came from SOC.
AWSmith used erroneous math since he did not derive his conclusions from the SOC path.

This is very much on topic with the OP.

That you want the scene files from the Maya program is a smokescreen.
You have all the data that you need. All you need to do is to input that data into ANY program you want and see the results for yourself.

The "uneditted footage" mantra is another. Your friend went to interview Ed Paik himself and all he did was confirm what he described to Craig. The plane flew nowhere near SOC.

Why didn´t he interview the ANC witnesses?

I know why.

The "sock" accusations are boring and untrue.

 

[mudlark]

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.

You fully accept Warren´s decode EXCEPT when it conflicts with the official narrative or should I say the JREF official narrative. Like the right roll data. Why do YOU believe it is wrong?
It has to be wrong if you insist on ignoring the points I made.

 

[mudlark]

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1CITFRAUDexposed.jpg[/qimg]

This Paik gif is supposed to represent what exactly??
Thanks Beachnut.

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.

They are WARREN´s pins. Ask him?

 

[A W Smith]

You "showed" me a 0.7º minor left roll BEFORE the last 7 datapoints which show a continuous RIGHT roll from well before the Annex to Route27.
Even Warren´s plotted path is a straight line as can be seen in his OWN posted image!

http://es.tinypic.com/r/11ha0ll/6

http://es.tinypic.com/r/24y9u9t/6



Again, I have pointed out exactly WHERE the SOC path is given Warren´s data AND the directional damage path which is beyond the scope of ANY supposed "margin of error"
Why don´t YOU show ME where you believe the SOC path is never mind the NOC path?

According to various posts throughout this thread and others, the SOC path is almost as variable as the NOC witnessed paths.



The "pins" were positioned by Warren himself. The data is from Warren´s program. Why get angry with me when I am using a source that you ALL endorse here?

Here is my source

http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/OutputFiles/FinalFlightComplete.zip

These are the output files from the program for the final flight including all parameters.

Where is YOURS for the numbers you are apparetly pulling out of the air?




They aren´t MY numbers. They are Warren´s.
Why do your numbers conflict with Warren's data?
YOU are ignoring the data in the FDR under 'Track Angle True'.

Why not actually PLOT the numbers you are presenting?

Both those images are watermarked by Google Earth. What "software" did he use to verify the positional accuracy of those image overlays and pin placement?

 

[mudlark]

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

For business process consulting, the price is higher.

"Peer review"? "Process analysis"?
Who are YOU to provide either?

Show your credentials on this forum by replicating the image using the available data.
The offer still stands to see the scene files from Rob btw.

It is YOUR request but you want paid for the privilege?

Enough.

Before you say "burden of proof" (again), it was BCR´s claim.
So far nobody has backed these claims up physically.

 

[mudlark]

(Ahem...)


[qimg]http://zoesflight.com/files/edpaik.JPEG[/qimg]

[qimg]http://opendb.com/images/paik.jpg[/qimg]

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.

Ahem back at you..
Seeing my question on the SOC path has been blanked..

Look at the trajectory of the NOC plane you drew..
Now look at the MAP Paik drew.

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

Now look at topography of the area. In this instance the position of Paik´s shop in relation to the 200ft+ Sheraton Hotel..

http://es.tinypic.com/r/145fnn/6

That this trajectory is possible to accomodate the 128ft wingspan..

http://es.tinypic.com/r/jfus6x/6

So your depiction of the NOC plane´s trajectory is well off. You are taking a literal translation of what he said and placing the plane where it could not physically be on an impossible trajectory.
His map reinforces the inaccuracy of your interpretation of the trajectory and DISTANCE from his POV.
He clearly places the plane over his front yard where he described only the right wing as being visible.

He claims that "he felt that" the plane was going to hit his roof.

Your "SOC plane"...how relative is it to the actual proposed SOC path?

http://es.tinypic.com/r/i3bg39/6

The left wing of your "SOC plane" closest to the "NOC plane" is actually overlapping the wing of the "NOC plane"

The furthest "SOC" plane

Just WHERE do YOU believe SOC actually was??

It is roughly 430ft. from Paik´s shop to the fuselage of the plane on the SOC path. The wings are 50ft in length.

Going by scale, given the plane is 128ft from tip to tip and that the far "SOC plane" is two plane lengths away from Paik´s shop, you are placing the plane @260ft away.


The scale of the Navy Annex to Paik´s shop?
The Navy Annex is 4 stories tall @69ft.

You have Paik´s shop scaled to 6mm.
You have the Navy Annex scaled to 7cm.
Are you really trying to say that the Navy Annex is almost TWELVE times taller than the shop??

You have the closer "SOC path" plane´s fuselage at 11cm height.
Which WOULD be a fair judgement in scale given the alleged 233ft agl radalt reading in Warren´s decode for the sake of argument and which is wholly accepted by detractors (apart from the right roll data)
But it is WAY off the SOC path.

The furthest "SOC path" plane is at 18cm height
Way too high according to Warren´s data at this point.

In effect, to be true to scale you would need to keep the height of the closer "SOC path" plane, but almost DOUBLE the distance AWAY from the furthest plane.

Try it now. See what results you come up with.
A "simple concept" yes. But yours is TOTALLY OFF.

Sorry, I prefer to stick to an image derived from a program
used by Bombadier to design their aircraft with data input by somebody taught by an expert who uses Maya to design components for GM and NASCAR.

Somebody who used topographical data from USGS DEM, azimuth and sun elevation data from the US Naval Observatory, NTSB Heading/Course and Altitude data AND Paik´s testimony.

http://es.tinypic.com/r/2e1asd1/6

http://es.tinypic.com/r/10cnhj7/6

Hokulele, THIS is one of the posts that backs BCR´s claim? Are you serious?
I can draw, does that make me eligible to "peer review" it?
I did it for free though

 

[mudlark]

Obviously not, since the OP has nothing to do with Warren's data. The OP is that CIT misrepresented Paik. You say no. The source data for this claim is the unedited footage. Show it. You further presented cartoons to explain him seeing a shadow where he did. Present the data used to create the cartoon (Maya scene files). Any of this other dribble is off-topic, which is of course what you are attempting to detract from, that CIT are frauds.

Wow..dodge city here or what??

I´ve already told you that the specific SOC path is crucial to proving YOUR point about the shadow these guys claimed to have witnessed in the video interview in this thread.

How can the math presented by Smith have any relevance when you won´t pinpoint the path?

YOU brought up the VDOT tower in an effort to reinforce the SOC path. The path you won´t pin your colours to, even though you presented it in image form under the heading "consolidated path"

This is very much on topic.

Warren´s data allegedly specifies the SOC path because he has decoded the "missing seconds" and the ONLY conclusion is that given the data that I specified, along with the directional damage, YOU were right BCR.

You presented the image, you started the VDOT topic, you claim that the FDR points to an SOC path.

Why so much trouble with this point? Tell me how what I pointed out is contradictory to the path that you originally promoted.

That you prefer a bitchfest against CIT speaks volumes.
Paik´s testimony has been bolstered by this thread.

 

[mudlark]

Can I get some sort of answer to my question? It's a very simple one. I feel the need to ask again, because you've responded to my posts a couple times already without addressing it (maybe you misunderstood what I was asking). What is the line Paik drew (other than the small portion of it that goes past his shop) supposed to represent? Do you agree that the majority of it is not a witnessed flightpath? Was he just guessing about the rest of the path the plane took or what?

ETA: for further clarification- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5652390&postcount=1010

What part of my answer to you did you not understand Cornsnail??

ANYWHERE over the Navy Annex is totally contradictory to the official path.

(Where do you believe the official path is btw?)

He could only see the right wing and part of the fuselage. He draws the path he saw based on what he saw.

I have just posted a reply to "williamseger" on this perspective issue.
The images I posted show the physical realities of what he saw according to HIM.

 

[beachnut]

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

With your hero's being CIT and Balsamo almost everything has you stumped. Balsamo with 2,223 gs of stupid math, and CIT with moronic lies you are a prime suspect when it comes to being gullible, naive, susceptible, credulous, easy to fool, and trusting total dolts. You are still stumped.

COURSE is your track over the ground, HEADING is where the nose is pointed.

I was looking for an academic answer. To fly a True Course we correct for winds to give us a true heading. If you could do math and aero, you could add details which I will let you mess up more? You gave me the moron answer and added stupid.

Next, the stupid…

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.

Do you check anything the morons at p4t dish out?... Based on the physics of flight, if you keep the wings level and yaw the airplane with the rudder, the thrust then has a lateral component to the flight path and will supply the necessary horizontal force, and a turn results. Got physics?

Spoiler

Using rudder to turn causes lots of drag with the aircraft flying sideways. With the thrust pointed left or right, you get a small side force, and you turn. Slow turn, lots of drag; big reason we use ailerons and bank.

The planes I flew, if you put in rudder, big inputs, you get a roll. We could do a rudder roll in the 38, a complete roll using rudder.

Where do you get your failed ideas on flying from? My preference in the pattern for a turn is 4.45 g at 77 degrees of bank and 300 KIAS (FAA waiver, yes). Nice squared up pattern, tight and quick. Even better is a closed pattern on a touch and go, pull up hard, and roll over to 110 degrees and pull hard to traffic pattern altitude to kill the climb and roll out on inside downwind, roll off the perch on the burble and do it again.

You failed to correct the dolt pilot Balsamo’s failed flying lies and shallow understanding, superficial if you will, of flying. While Balsamo was pooping in his diaper I was spinning aircraft, flying high performance aircraft and when he was wetting his bed I was flying heavy jets as the pilot in command, like an airline captain, and earning a master’s in engineering deriving the equations of motion for flight; MATH again. A kid in grade school can do better than Balsamo.

This is a concept that apparently you don`t understand (?) as well as a certain other poster that frequents here.

I don’t understand Flight? Balsamo is a moron, and you spew his lies on everything, including flying. All Balsamo can do is imply lies and offer no theory; don’t you read his rant on his nonsensical web pages?

What are the errors in the heading system?
Why do I have true course values you don't? (Math)

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.

Math again, it is 1.3 degrees in 5 seconds, oops. MATH
The many moronic impossible NoC flight paths, got any numbers yet?

22 seconds you listed as 11 and took 2 days to figure out. Simple addition takes days and taking data from the FDR is impossible, Balsamo sat on the missing data for years so he could say Flight 77 was too high to hit the Pentagon. Very inept apologies for terrorists, doubt they want your help since they are dead, and their buddies don’t want liars.

I looked up the Course data because I knew your data was wrong for the GROUND TRACK.

No, you were wrong. I listed headings, and course. You listed limited course information and forgot to tell everyone it was sample at 0.5 Hz because you have no clue what hertz are. The course varies more than you listed, so you are misleading people. Why? Why do you put 77 so low over Piak’s office? So you can lie about the shadow?

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.

Straight line?

A plane going straight would have the exact same course. But 77’s last FIVE seconds are NOT straight.
61.3
61.1
61.6
61.6
62.4
CIT and Balsamo, say this is straight. Darn, straight is math, you and Balsamo are not on first name basis with math. failed pilot, failed math from the cult headquarters for pilots who can’t hit large targets and have idiotic ideas on 911, which amount to a slogan of, “WE OFFER NO THEORIES” BECAUSE THEY ARE DIRT DUMB WHEN IT COMES TO MATH AND FLYING KNOWLEDGE; THEY ARE BALSAMO’S FAILED FLYING CULT, WHERE HIS MEMBERS REFUSE TO BE CHECKED BY DOCTORS BECAUSE THEY WILL BE GROUNDED FOR MENTAL PROBLEMS.

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

There goes your NoC with 30 G turns. All your flight paths are debunked by your own failed ideas!

Paik is the subject, in his interview by CIT there is enough evidence for support of the FDR flight path, you can’t draw because you can’t do math.

The FDR describes the flight path, you don’t have a description of the one and only NoC flight path because it came from the moronic minds of CIT and Balsamo.

 

[mudlark]

These true courses are a straight line for CIT and Balsamo.
61.3
61.1
61.6
61.6
62.4
... a plane flying in air, air moves, in a vehicle with 6 degrees of freedom.

How did the plane's course go left when the wings were in a right bank? math is needed, the plane does not care?
G force, vertical for the last 5 seconds. Samled at 8 hz, don't tell CIT what this means...

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1Flt77Glast5sec8hz.jpg[/qimg]

Nice graph Beachnut..
5 degree right bank with a less than 1 second duration of less than 1 G did not turn the aircraft left. The Course data does not show a left turn. The Heading data does not show a left turn... from the VDOT to the Pentagon.

So you are now intent on showing that the SOC path was actually "slightly North"?
You are going out of your way to demonstrate a hypothetical left turn found nowhere in the data.
Why not stick to THE SOC path I´ve outlined and that you had always supported Beachnut?
Maybe a bird knocked it left? LOL

Still waiting to see exactly where you get those values from.

 

[mudlark]

You do realize that neither of those things are going to happen so long as you're dealing with the whackjobs trolling here on behalf of the tree fort trio, right?

Nice input. Well done.
I WAS going to list all the lies and disinfo from certain people here but then I thought...nah, more than two lines and you´ll lose interest. That´s why I kept it short..(sorry for the extra lines)