CIT Fraud Revealed

[beachnut]

For the last time Beachnut, neither this map nor plotted path is MINE.
It is Warren Stutt´s. It his HIS translation of the data. It is he who you say "can't grasp what the FDR has in it".

Are you pushing the path you claim Madelyn Zakhem saw?

If, as you claim, there is a "600-2000ft" margin of error, what exactly makes you so confident that the plane was "slightly North" of the official SOC path?

Is it contained in the FDR data?
I ask this because you are so confident that there was a "left bank" in the final seconds even though it is not recorded anywhere on Warren's decode.
Also because Farmer's "consolidated path" allegedly takes all FDR and radar information into account.

WHY THIS SPECIFICALLY "SLIGHTLY NORTH OF SOC PATH"? THE PATH THAT NOBODY HERE HAS PLOTTED.

Are you, along with others here, who are watching and not contributing, claiming that the "consolidated path" is in fact now NOT the path the plane allegedly took?

Based on what exactly?

You MUST have an idea of the path you are pushing, no?

Why not SHOW me and the people reading this thread the plotted points as YOU see them according to Warren's data and directional damage.
Show that the path that you say is not straight and not on the official SOC directional damage path.

I've spelled out my queries very clearly. Please do me the same privilege.

It is not the south flight path, so stop exposing your lack of knowledge on the FDR and the flight path issue.

Warren decoded position data from the FDR, it is not his data, it is from Flt 77. The data for the Push Pins is from the navigation system, it is off by 2000 feet at take off and 200 feet or more near the Pentagon. You don't understand the navigation equipment in the 757 on 2001. You failed to understand the point.

The navigation system at the end of flight is only 200 or so feet off, it is funny how you say those push pins are from the FDR but you fail to understand the accuracy issue, and prove it each time by avoiding the issue. Stay in the dark, go get stuff to post from Balsamo.

The true course is accurate; I asked you to tell me how accurate but you can't. The headings and courses in the FDR are good, and they make the NoC impossible.

The navigation system can be checked with RADAR and the errors can me minimized to get a better idea where 77 was, but there is proof of 77 impacting the Pentagon and lampposts and the heading and true course are consistent with that path. So you failed. You can't do math for the NoC because they are all impossible and Balsamo does not care he is selling 20 cent DVDs for 10 bucks.

The DME lines up with the south flight path! DME proves the south flight path making the NoC impossible. So does Madelyn.

Madelyn kills the NoC, so you have to make up lies about her, and the FDR supports her.

The real altitude of Flight 77 when it passes south of Paik office on your FAKE path, will not have a shadow on his office, it will be north. You can't lower Flt 77 to make the shadow work. What is the altitude? Balsamo called the RADALT a hard number; means 77 impacted the Pentagon.

CIT and Balsamo lie about the height of 77 to get the Shadow on Paik's shop, and the flight path is impossible for NoC. The turn from Paik's office to north of the CITGO is impossible. Math steps in and destroys the moronic NoC from CIT and Balsamo.

The flight path is not straight. You are being coached by morons on this and have no clue.

Don't tell me about Warren's data, it is Flt 77's data and he decoded it when pilots for truth could not.

The FDR has supported the impact of 77 since the day it was found in the Pentagon burned and busted up. Your failure to connect the dots on the real evidence is very bad. 77 stopped flying straight the second the murderers took over, the murderers you apologize for saying the terrorists did not do it by making up lies based on failed knowledge in math, physics and aerodynamics.
Not straight…
TH --- TAT --- TC
59.4
59.8 - 61.2
59.8 -------- 61.3
59.8 - 61.5 - 61.1
60.1 -------- 61.6
60.5 - 61.5 - 61.6
61.2 -------- 62.4 Got math


The flight path of 77 is defined by the impact damage on the Pentagon, the lampposts, RADAR, FDR, and you have to use critical thinking, logic, math, physics, and knowledge of RADAR, FDR, aerodynamics, and more. CIT and Balsamo only have lies; they will not be able or willing to figure out what happen on 911 and Balsamo clearly states he "offers no theory", most likely due to problems with logic, math, and flying knowledge.

You have no flight path for NoC, you have failed to provide the math. You have failed to do anything except point out Paik saw flight 77 wing with the sun blocked out. CIT and Balsamo have to lower the aircraft and that is one big reason you can't give us the data for the cartoons, it will expose your lies.

 

[bje]

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

 

[bje]

Don't worry bje, I´ll get to you soon

Must be real tough, eh, mudlark?

Will that be another three years to come up with any positive evidence of a flyover? Or any eyewitnesses from all around the Pentagon who ever saw or reported any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon?

Or is Craig Ranke still holding you back?

 

[Reactor drone]

Why not check out Larson's video?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165041&page=10#

At 01:10 in the video of Larson's interview, Ed Paik describes exactly what he did before and after the plane passed his shop.



01:33

There is a view from this window but from a different angle.
The SOC path would have been clearly visible as depicted in the image.

02:15



02:57 (exactly)

We get a perspective of just how tall Ed Paik is alongside the window while standing upright.

03:40

In his 2006 interview he mimicks the EXACT SAME motion. That he bent down and looked up.

Even IF the image had been from a lower perspective, it still holds true to what Ed Paik describes as the fuselage of the plane can be seen.

What can be clearly seen in the video is that the entire plane would have been in his view had it pased SOC.

So you don't know what the parameters are in your photos then. Ok, from the video the windows are the same height as the door, approximately 2 metres, and he's pointing up at around a 30° angle from his position at the desk.

From what I can deduce from your images the camera is about 60cm from the window, about 1metre high and looking up at around a 60° angle so they don't really seem comparable to me. A cynical person might even think you were intentionally presenting an image that shows your imaginary flightpath in a more positive light.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Did you or did you not pinpoint what you claim Paik could have seen using those specific angles?
How can they be an accurate reflection of what you are trying to say when the trajectory of the plane, which he personally drew on several maps,places the plane over his yard?

Gosh, could it be that you're getting very close to figuring what I've been trying to tell you? Now all you need to do is ask the correct question: How could the trajectory of the plane, which he personally drew on several maps, be an accurate reflection of what he says he saw out that window?

You cannot make any estimation at all using the drawing you did. For the exact same reasons that I outlined in my previous post to you. End of story.

Oh, I made one accurate estimation, which I see you chose to ignore so I'll repeat it: If the plane had been on the track he drew on the map, then it would have been about 30 feet off the ground. If it had been about 30 feet off the ground, I "estimate" that it couldn't have cleared the Annex building.

How did you actually come to the angle of what he saw?

Hopefully,, showing you this for the third time will do it:

Even your angles are wrong when you look at what he actually said.

Um, I'm looking at where he actually pointed.

He is also your average sized Asian guy. Not so tall. Was that taken into consideration?

And how would you suggest I take that into consideration in estimating where he's pointing in that video? Was he shorter than he is now?

You have ignored the fact that he claims to have been bent down viewing upwards through the window.
He also claims that it was "very low".

Yeah, I'd say he looks like he's bent down viewing upwards through the window in the interview video, too. So what's your point?

You have also ignored the fact that the fuselage is depicted at @30ft SSE of that window" and that the wing extends a further 50ft.

I've ignored what? If he saw the fuselage while looking up at a maximum of 45^o angle, and it was 30' SSE of the window, then it must have been a maximum of 30' off the ground. The length of the wing is irrelevant. Are you saying you believe it the 30' altitude is accurate?

He is also unsure if the plane was in any bank, which would have further come into his view.

Uh, no, that wouldn't affect his viewing angle to fuselage. You're confusing yourself.

Your drawing is rigid and does not take any variables into account whatsoever.

If by "variables" you mean "interpret what Paik said to support wacky CIT theories" then you are correct. And that's the point.

The reason I pointed out the Sheraton's position which is CRUCIAL, totally blows your depiction of the plane going over Paik's roof as you described out of the water.

What blows Paik's own description of the plane going directly over his head is that he wouldn't have seen anything if it had, and my scale drawing shows why. And nice try, but I do believe the reason you pointed out the Sheraton's position was that you simply had no idea what I was trying to tell you about the drawing, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the location of the Sheraton or the trajectory. And it still doesn't.

The trajectory HAD to be further out for the plane to be able to pass the hotel which is in fact verified by his maps.

Well, not really. If we knew for sure that the plane passed over his head and that's all we knew, then there are trajectories that could miss the Sheraton and pass over his head. But if he saw the fuselage and wing, then we know that's not what happened; we know it was indeed farther out. Now, how much farther? That's where his description of seeing the fuselage comes into play.

When Paik says that the plane flew "very low" over his shop, just how literally are you taking this?

Excuse me, but you're the one trying to turn your own interpretation of what that means into a location, not me. Seems to me the "official path" is "very low" so I don't know what you're getting at.

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

And since we know it couldn't have been that low, that just tells us that his impression of the altitude was pretty far off.

That it cleared the Navy Annex gives you an idea in his map of just how "low" he remembered it to be.

Say what? Actually that sets a limit on how low it could have been, if his map were really accurate. Of course, if it actually passed south of the building, then the height of the building doesn't matter.

Which simply tells us how YOUR drawing exaggerates the size of the Navy Annex for this purpose.

Excuse me? My original drawing was 4 pixels per foot, but that was unnecessarily large so I resized it to 75%, 3 pixels per foot. There is no exaggeration of the 70' height of the building relative to the 128' wingspan and Paik's approximate 5' viewing height.

Again, you are talking of geometry when ALL your parameters are off, including your angles going by his testimony.

None of my "parameters are off," most especially including the angle he pointed to. I believe that he clearly indicates that he saw the plane at less than a 45^o angle. If you think you can prove that wrong, then cut the hot air and get on with it.

And again, you have taken a literal approach to exactly what he said and ignored all of his other testimony, both in this video and in former interviews.

None of my "parameters are off," most especially including the angle he pointed to, and what he said about seeing the fuselage and right wing. Are you saying maybe he didn't really see the fuselage and right wing? (You might wanna think that through a little before you make that claim)

You used the plane furthest away in your drawing to depict the SOC path. Admit it. To reinforce the idea that the plane had to be further away towards SOC. Fail.

Jeez, and I thought you were starting to get it... No, I put two plane images in that drawing on the 45^o line to illustrate a simple fact: You can't locate the ground track just by knowing the viewing angle, but you can use the viewing angle to say that if the plane had been 30' SSE of the window then it was 30' or less in the air. If you think that's what really happened just because Paik drew that line on a map, then you need to explain how it cleared the Annex building. You are the one who persistently fails to address that simple point -- that Paik's map can't be accurate if he saw the fuselage -- and I don't think anyone is mystified about why you don't want to address it.

The altitude and positioning of the plane, when scaled to the rest of the drawing is TOO CLOSE and TOO HIGH.
Fix the scale and THEN talk about geometry and angles proving any point you have.

There's certainly nothing wrong with my scale, and you have yet to give any reason why the viewing angle Paik actually points to is not the one he actually saw. If that disagrees with where you want the plane to be, then it's obvious to me what needs fixing.

Again your "angle" is off according to his testimony.
Get it now?

Really?

Get it now?

You do NOT have the FUSELAGE at 30ft SSE of his window.

Oh, so that's why you're having so much trouble grasping such a simple concept? Why didn't you say so. Here you go:

Paik's map cannot be accurate, unless he didn't really see the plane (which of course would leave you asserting that he somehow guessed the right path).

You haven't taken any variables into account such as a possible bank at this point, even though Paik didn't describe one.

LOL. Yeah, there a lot of things he didn't say that I didn't take into account.

He "lied"? NOW we are getting to the crux.

Nope, I think it's crystal clear that he simply misjudged the distance and altitude of the plane. There's nothing unusual about that, either: It happens all the time with "UFO" reports. You're trying to use a meaningless map as proof of an outrageously implausible claim.

YOU are wrong. YOUR drawing is wrong.

Sez you. Please let me know when you understand what I'm saying well enough to come up with a coherent refutation.

Not so "stupid" a question if you had been following the recent posts. Even posters here won't pin their colours to it.

Yes, asking where the plane really was is a stupid question to ask someone who isn't buying CIT's stupid arguments, and I don't yet see any reason to treat it as a reasonable question. You guys keep claiming that you're going to prove it wasn't where every sane person knows it was when it hit the building, but all you can come up with is stupid "evidence" like Paik's obviously incorrect map and stupid reasoning such as the map must be correct so simple geometry must be wrong.

You obviously didn't follow your advice to me to ascertain the SOC path for the drawing. No matter how much you deny that this wasn't what you were intending to show.

It's taken you four posts to even partially figure out what I was intending to show. Sorry, but I'm really not interested in whatever misconceptions you had along the way. Let's do it again: Paik's map cannot be accurate, unless he didn't really see the plane, in which case his whole testimony is meaningless.

You have it too high and too close.
Your parameters are wrong.

As you've said, but failed to prove.

Your drawing is not witness compatible...

Oh? Let's take another look:

What's incompatible -- his map? Yup, now you're getting it.

... as is Rob Balsamo's which actually used a
program for such illustrations.
Rob's is also based on publically available data.

LOL, really? Got any proof of that? Like, say, his scene files? See, Balsamo tried to bamboozle me once before with a bogus graphic: He was trying to claim that the plane couldn't have hit the light poles, and his "proof" was a drawing in which he had cocked a compass a few degrees off of North to make it line up with his incorrectly drawn heading. When I look at the mountain of bogus evidence and dishonest arguments he's used over the years, it's clear to me that the one and only thing Balsamo cares about is suckering more people into buying his DVDs. Trust Balsamo at your own risk, but no thanks.

The plane was allegedly @230ft agl according to Warren Stutt's decode at this point, though Terry Morin has it at only 50ft above his POV in the Navy Annex.

Ever heard the saying, "all measures are approximate?" Ever hear of a case where someone misjudged the height of a flying object?

That's around 120ft agl at the midpoint of the Annex.
At the official speed that is roughly a DIVE of @90 ft per second taking the elevation of the Annex into account.
AND if you take it literally.

Uh, no I don't. Why should I take Morin's (or Paik's) guesses as anything more than guesses?

Either way you would HAVE to almost halve your estimate of what Paik could and couldn't see.

"No more than 430ft up"?

Where did you pull that figure from?

430' out at a maximum 45^o angle = a maximum 430' up. Didn't need my calculator for that one. You're supposed to be proving that can't be correct. So far, all you've got is naked assertions, contradictions, your own interpretation of Paik's statements, and Paik's obviously inaccurate map.

As I said, according to Stutt's radalt data it was 233ft MAXIMUM.

At what point? And what is the accuracy of that measurement?

Also take into account that he claims to have been at a LOWER POV.
Remember we are talking of an average sized Asian guy here.

And a lower POV wouldn't change the angle he's pointing to.

Do you see where you have been going wrong?

If you mean the futility of arguing with no-planers, I'm accustomed to that, but fortunately trying to convince you of anything is not my objective.

Your drawing is totally inaccurate on every front.

The only inaccuracies you've shown so far are you own misinterpretations.

You are drawing conclusions that are not based on anything apart from a literal translation of a portion of this guy's description of what he saw. What he has described on three separate occasions to three different interviewers. One CIT, one who turned out to have his own agenda and a vociferous anti-CIT "truther".

If the plane was where he drew the line on the map, then he couldn't have seen any part of the fuselage. YOU are the one who wants to take a literal translation of his words to put the plane where you want it.

Paik said that he "felt that" the plane went over his roof. His various maps has the plane over his front yard.

What you should be doing is calculate the actual height and position of the plane according to HIS testimony.

How Paik "felt" is even less relevant than his guess about the path, and you refuse to understand that neither you nor he nor I can "calculate the actual height and position of the plane" from what he saw out that window. We can, however, set some limits, and those limits show that his map cannot be correct about where it passed by his shop. I don't want to intrude on another poster's argument, but you also haven't addressed the point that he couldn't have seen enough of the trajectory to draw an accurate heading, either.

Taking ALL values into account including the witness margin of error which has been narrowed down significantly in this case due to the physical view he described regarding the plane.

No, taking ALL "values" into account, Paik's account is consistent enough with the "official" flight path that it's absurd to continue offering it as proof of anything at all.

What is repeated in every interview is that he could only see the right wing and part of the fuselage and that IF it had been further off he would have been able to see the whole plane. His words.

I do believe you embellished his words just a bit, didn't you, but simple geometry proves the assertion wrong, whoever said it.

He describes ANYTHING BUT THE SOC PATH.

Baloney.

You say you drew "the angle at which Paik viewed the plane".
That is a SPECIFIC measurement added to a drawing that is also not to scale on any level as well as ignoring his testimony.

Oh, you think the angle should be scaled? Sorry, they didn't teach us how to do that in drafting class. Can you show me an example? And no, I'm not ignoring his testimony; I'm taking his word for it that he saw the fuselage and wing -- and that's the whole point.

The "planes" are not positioned correctly to scale.

Which is to show why the positioning doesn't change the geometric relationship. It's rather tedious to keep having you throw your own misconceptions up as having any relevance. But anyway, you now have a drawing that shows the plane passing the window where Paik drew the line. Are you saying you now think that's accurate? The plane was 30' high?

The buildings are not to scale.

The Annex building certainly is, and the height of Paik's building is irrelevant.

Your "angle" is meaningless in the context of all this.

It's the angle Paik pointed to, and it's the angle that limited his view. Why would that be "meaningless" but his guess about the over-ground path be "evidence?" I do believe that his estimate and memory of that angle would be far more accurate than his estimate and memory of how far away the plane was.

Wrong again according to HIS testimony.
It is not something I'm pulling out of the air, like your conclusions, but testimony that has been verified THREE times.

The "important features" are the cumulative points I have listed which you totally ignored.

You've completely failed to give any coherent rebuttal to my actual arguments while reeling off a string of distractions and irrelevancies. Show me how Paik's map could possible be accurate if he saw the fuselage and wing out that window. You can't without distorting the viewing angle -- as Balsamo apparently did in his graphic -- so much that it would be obvious that it doesn't match where Paik pointed.

The worst thing about this "debate" on the subject is that even though I showed you where you went wrong, and they are patently obvious, you actually cannot concede ONE point I have made, even going to the point of calling it "irrelevant" (LOL) and I have had to spell it out again.

You've showed me nothing of the sort. You've showed me that either you don't understand what I'm saying, or you don't want to address it honestly. And frankly, I'm not much interested in figuring out which it is. Either way, you have failed to prove that Paik's map means anything at all, and you've failed to make the case that Paik's story is inconsistent with the "official" flight path. Either address that point or quit wasting everyone's time.

 

[Reactor drone]

Well I was slightly bored this morning so keep myself occupied I did a little bit of modelling of Paik's view (oldschool style )

A 757-200 is 155ft long, my model KC-135 used as a 757 substitute in this shots is 2ft long.Using similar triangles a 155ft object at 350ft is the same as a 2ft object at 4.516ft. model was photographed with a 50mm lens at that distance looking up at around 30°.

With Paik's video showing him about 1m from the window ducking slightly I estimated his eye height at around 1.376m giving a look angle of 32° out of a 2m high window so I set up the camera to take a shot out of my 2m high window from that lens height with a 50mm lens.

A straight copy of the plane from 1 photo to the other with no resizing gives this image.

A very big plane about 100 meters away. Hell if I saw that I'd think it was going to hit me too.

 

[BCR]

This has NOTHING to do with what I have said Farmer.

Wasn't talking to you. You have not said anything worth responding to. I was just pointing out to readers in general clear evidence that Hokulele was correct to bring up the satellite imagery placement issue in GE. Please try to keep up Craig/Rob..

 

[beachnut]

... what other alleged path can PHYSICALLY line up with the physical damage? ?

Not the NoC.
You and your buddies have no data to support the NoC flight path.
The FDR supports the damage path.
The NoC does not line up with the damage and the only reason you are stuck with the NoC is due to Balsamo's lack of knowledge in flying, FDR, and math.

... The FOIA released NTSB data supports this path. The NTSB data that YOU claim "trumps" eyewitness testimony, yet YOU nor anybody here can pinpoint any path bar those who suit each indvidual argument.
http://es.tinypic.com/r/2unue14/6 ?

NO
The NTSB data supports the damage, and you can see the longitudinal acceleration hitting the Generator on the FDR! BINGO

Balsamo, fearless paranoid leader of p4t cult of dumb offer no-theories club, said the INS CRASHED right here!!! THIS is a HOOT!

Balsmo's delusions is acceleration CRASHED the INS here, that tiny hand way far away from the Pentagon.

Acceleration and the 330 degree bank turn are what Balsamo says CRASHED the INS. Hani did a slow and lazy 330 degree turn and his bank angle was excessive, it took him LONGER than a standard rate turn. Balsamo is wrong about the acceleration, on take off the longitudinal acceleration maximum was 0.363 g, and Hani's acceleration maximum was 0.265 g. BUSTED, The INS did not crash it is off by 300 to 2000 feet, it updates from VORs to increase accuracy. So your chart of a flight path that does not hit the lampposts is your lie, it is not the flight path it is a read out which is not accurate.

Balsamo said the inertial navigation system crashed due to acceleration. The INS does not crash due to accelerations of 0.363 g and less because the plane accelerates this much on takeoff. Balsamo said acceleration “caused the INS system to crashed at this point”, a direct quote where is at this point? How can he be less knowledgeable?
Balsamo says Hani did a“rapid acceleration”, he forgot takeoff was more rapid. Never flew jet did he?

... The NOC witness paths are derided for being variable yet the SOC "path" from before the Navy Annex is just as variable.
THIS is the "electronic evidence" which is superior to witness testimony?
Judging by the varied arguments in this thread, the SOC path has been rendered ambiguous.

CIT witnesse point south! Sorry. The electronic evidence is only accurate to 200 to 2,000 feet; and Balasamo tells the world the INS CRASHED! The LAT and LONG data does not support your failed path.

... PLEASE tell me which path is THE SOC path given what I have said.
It MUST be compatible with the various parameters recorded by ALL the data sets.

It is since the data set you picked has a margin of ERROR over 2,000 feet and near the end about 200 to 300 feet. Wake up!
The real flight path is described by the FDR, in detail and it has 77 impacting the lamppost, the Generator and Pentagon. The darn FDR was found on course in the Pentagon. Now that is hard evidence as it was also surrounded by the victims on 77 which you respect so much you make up lies and will not listen, or learn. You have to use knowledge to use the FDR and see the approximate flight path.

... The speed alone makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the aircraft to be on a different course as set out by you.

Only for you NoC! You have not presented a single viable NoC flight path. Or data to support one path. The FDR INS you used to make a path off about 200 to 300 feet at the end you messed up again.

The south flight path hits the tree, and lampposts and impacts the Pentagon. Simple path, it was seen by CIT witnesses who point south. PAIK is pointing about 30 degree up to the south! lol

The only path that is viable is the one which goes thought the lampposts after hitting the tree! NoC is impossible.

... there is NO room for margin of error for the plane to manouevre from any other suggested course within such a restricted timeframe.

The INS course is not accurate! try to learn! 77 is to the right of the INS flight path.

... Any such manouevre is also lacking in Warren´s data regarding the 4-6º right roll.
It is a CONTINUOUS right roll up until 0.7 seconds before the end of his data.
There is NO left tilt, never mind left bank up until and possibly AFTER the plane allegedly reached lightpole 1.

Madelyn is looking at 77 from the front it is coming toward her in a titling to her left. Look at your arms, which one is right, which one is left; Madelyn is looking at the plane coming toward her, it tilts to the left.

If you bank right and push on the stick, you go left! VECTORS! Try to understand the aircraft is FLYING, not driving!

In a right bank if you push on stick, plane turns left; Hani was doing 0.6 g, it takes a positive G with right bank to turn right! Hani was pushing over with the same G of a 45 degree bank turn, and he did this in the vertical and down to the left. When you push down, you plane goes down, he was banked right but the plane was accelerting down, it goes left! VECTORS

...

http://i47.tinypic.com/14tx1rc.jpg

So YOU tell me. Is Warren´s data wrong? The path certainly doesn´t go through the lightpoles. ?

No, no, no... Warren did not make up the data, he decoded it. The LAT and LONG are off by 300 feet before impact. Please try to comprehend accuracy and navigation error in the INS. 77 was not over on the push pins it was to the right, just like on takeoff, the INS had 77 2,000 feet in the grass, but 77 was in the REAL world on the runway, the INS is not accurate in 2001, it is not GPS!

...
Which path is compatible with Warren´s right roll data AND the lightpole damage.

The path 77 flew as described in the FDR, RADAR, physical damage, and you get a big clue with the heading which is 1 or 2 degree accurate.
INS is not accurate!

... It certainly isn´t the path Smith has pinned his colours to.

You are now exposing your lack of knowlege.
It is the data from the INS, it is off by hundreds of feet. You need to know the facts and stop making idiotic statements.

... Bank angle does not change the course according to the data. Check Track Angle True parameter in the data. You'll see the course changes by 0.3 tenths of a degree during this final leg. It is a straight line! NO, .3 tenths is not straight and it is wrong, the samples are too few to make your statement.

The Track Anlge True is sampled at 0.5 Hz. The True Course is this for the last five seconds is this.
62.4
61.6
61.6
61.1
61.3 listed with impact course +- a degree at the top! The true course changed by 1.3 for the last 5 seconds. You are having math problems and you can't anaylize the FDR.

... Your "band of errors" has just been narrowed down to one path.
There can be no ambiguity.

A path with a "band of errors from 200 feet to 2,000 feet on 911!!! lol, funny stuff! Are you trying to beat Balsamo at making 11.2 g to 2,223 g errors in math? NO AMBIGUITY here!

... Ironic that it was ME who had to pinpoint THE proposed SOC path huh?

Ironic you picked a path with a BAND OF ERRORS over 2,000 feet for 77 last flight! IRONIC, and very nearly "2,223 gs" of pure Balsamo offer-no-MATH-skills!



Balsamo said the INS "CRASHED", but CIT and Balsamo are the only people crashing here.

The courses between the push pins on your map of the INS data do not form a straight line, you can see them going back and forth. Cool! You want me to give you the courses?

You are calculating True Course from Wind speed and direction. You cannot do this because Wind Speed and Direction are not recorded at the same exact time as True Course in the FDR. This is why you are getting different numbers for the same time stamp, albeit 0.1 degree difference.

Where does the Track Angle True come from?
Yes I can take known winds and use it; the wind speed is less than 0.07 second away, and the direction is .57 seconds off one way, and less the other. I can do that; who ever said I can't is not much of a pilot. You make up lies about the INS flight path, I use math and make up the truth. Tell why my True course is not accurate enough? The wind dirrection and speed are less than .6 seconds old, the best wind direction and speed you can get! My true course is orders of magnitude more exact than your made up fake NoC no true course flight paths! LOL I win this round, since the winds are not old, they are very fresh!
You were wrong about this.
You got the rudder wrong if you yaw, the plane can turn.
You are wrong about the a right bank, if you push down in a right bank you turn left.
So far you show up with delusions of flight and I have corrected each one.
So I can use the winds, average winds forecast winds and anything I want to investigate the flight path since I am an aircraft accident investigator, as an investigator, as a board president and more. So take your flying advice and let me correct it as you come up with more moronic false junk about flying.

Go ahead why can't I use the most current winds I have to take TRUE HEADING NOT course and find True Course? Explain to an evaluator, an instructor, an aircraft commander why I can't use the best data I have to refine my course? Tell me? Make my day. Thank goodness for typing class.

You are trying to say that since the G Force was less than 1 G in less than a second, the plane turned left in a right bank.

Essentially this is true and would be significant at a higher bank angle and higher G Force if at a longer period of time, however it is insignificant in the data to cause any type of actual turn.

Yes it is possible to turn left in a right bank. So? I was not telling a lie, you are spreading lies and not listening to truth. The plane did turn left, Hani was pushing at the same opposite g you would for 45 degrees of bank, the g force! The plane will move in that second; so?
I flew jets, I know how they work.

I investigated accidents and using the winds the way I did is not only okay, it is a great idea to get a better idea how much the plane did vary in flight to understand what people saw. Please, with all your experience in flying tell me why I can't use the best winds I can find and take TH and get TC? Talk to all the pilots you want, I wold love to hear how they come up with TC. They use winds from yesterday, or .57 second and .07 second.

You guys came up with a NoC you can't plot, 77 flew the flight path that takes it through the lampposts and hits the Pentagon. We have RADAR data, FDR, headings, true course, airspeed, bank angles, G force in three axis, etc. I don't have know exactly where the plane was and I know the witnesses are off 500 to 800 feet on the idiotic flight paths CIT had them draw. We got too much data for 77, so much it confuses Balsamo and CIT, they are not trained in this.

What you got for NoC! NOTHING!

 

[Jackanory]

Ranke is the master of deception. How do I know?....................




[qimg]http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/rankegirl.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, that's his GF...

I have to give Ranke props for his taste in women.

Nah....word on the street is that they have an open relationship and one is more open than the other. Craige spends most of his time on the internet these days

 

[bje]

A very big plane about 100 meters away. Hell if I saw that I'd think it was going to hit me too.

Nicely done.

The sound alone of it rapidly approaching and flying by would be enough to make anyone duck and wet their pants.

 

[Meed]

I never once claimed that he could physically SEE the plane over the two areas in question.

Thank you! I never claimed you did, I just wanted an answer to the question.

So, other than a very small portion of it, what Paik drew cannot actually be considered a witnessed flightpath. National Security Alert doesn't make this clear. Because it gives the impression that he was outside it seems much more plausible that he could have actually witnessed most of that path. CIT should correct these mistakes and offer an apology ASAP.

BTW, in his first 2006 interview (the one not used in NSA) Paik clearly said "then I ran outside..." So I don't know how CIT could have not known this.

He logically deduced the path he drew, given the physical realities of being able to see the right wing and describing the fuselage as being out of his view because it was above his roof area when it passed.

Well I understand how he could have "logically deduced" the path of the plane as it passed his shop, but no idea how he could have deduced the rest of it other than just guessing (I know the fact that he saw an antennae repair man on top of the navy anex the next day factored into what he thought happened also).

That he describes the plane in this area AT ALL contradicts the official story and FDR.

You keep harping on this when it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about CIT's investigation and presentation techniques.

He is corraborated by the Navy Annex witnesses and Terry Morin.

Doesn't matter, the presentation of the interview and supposedly witnessed flightpath is still extremely misleading.

Do you believe he saw the plane on the SOC path? Yes or no?

Totally different subject, but I believe he saw the shadow of the plane, which was on the "SOC path", over his shop (he describes a "black wing" repeatedly).
ETA: Or he simply misjudged the plane's position. That's extremely plausible if you know anything about the fallibility of the human perceptual system in making these types of judgments (not to even mention memory). WilliamSeger and Reactor drone have covered it well. If the plane was actually over his shop with sufficient height to clear the anex then there's no way he could have seen it all from his position.

 

[stewieg]

Ranke is the master of deception. How do I know?....................




[qimg]http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/rankegirl.jpg[/qimg]

Yes, that's his GF...

I have to give Ranke props for his taste in women.

Depending on your tastes I guess. Her taste in men is highly questionable without a doubt. Can you imagine being her father and her bringing him home?

 

[DGM]

Depending on your tastes I guess. Her taste in men is highly questionable without a doubt. Can you imagine being her father and her bringing him home?

Can you imagine being her father and seeing her dressed like that?

 

[stewieg]

Can you imagine being her father and seeing her dressed like that?

If she broguht home Craig Ranke that would be the least of my worries.

 

[Cobalt]

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.
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.

This argument never ceases to amaze me.

Let's play a game and look at what you're really doing every time you make this statement:

Suppose we have a room of 100 people. The room is asked, "Raise your hand if you like X."

Five people raise their hand. Now, I never did great at math but, that's five percent(5%.) You, however, claim, "5 of 5 people like X, that's 100%! X is amazing!"

However, you've discounted the ninety five percent (95%) that did not show support for X.

I'll let other people explain why your preferred witnesses were incorrect or mistaken, I just felt like pointing out the flaws in that statement.

 

[Meed]

However, you've discounted the ninety five percent (95%) that did not show support for X.

You're missing the point, Cobalt. The fact they did not show support for X makes them highly suspicious, and therefore not credible witnesses in the first place!

 

[Cobalt]

You're missing the point, Cobalt. The fact they did not show support for X makes them highly suspicious, and therefore not credible witnesses in the first place!

Oh. Silly me!

 

[BCR]

100% of coffee drinkers drink coffee

 

[jaydeehess]

100% of coffee drinkers drink coffee

ahhhh, puts me in mind of a study in the 80s in which it showed that heavy coffee drinkers had a significantly greater risk of lung cancer!!!

The authors of the study had forgotten to take into account who was a smoker and who was not. Turned out that persons who drank a lot of coffee were also more likely to be smokers.

Complete derail but I thought interesting.

 

[jaydeehess]

Oh. Silly me!

oh, quite alright. Not everyone has a pair of truther glasses handy.