Childlike Empress
Banned
This is complete hogwash, beachnut. Remember that we have numerous people conforming him, and that i'm not impressable by arguments from feigned authority.
8 out of 8 at Citgo station
- Thread starter 911kongen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aa77 cit edward paik north of citgo
I see your hogwash and raise you one CIT poppycock. So CIT are trained investigators like me? What school did they go to?
Yes you have us now as Paik is pointing the where 77 was as Craig spews nonsense on his own video as Paik debunks him; is Craig clueless, or stupid?
Paik points to where 77 was as Craig ignores his own collected testimony. This is pure comedy for a trained investigator, even if it is me, a dirt dumb pilot who learned to fly supersonic trainers, and then flew large aircraft all over the world, and had my masters in engineering to give me something to think about on those long flights, and static displays in Kleine Brogel.
You can ignore me like you do Paik as he tries to explain where 77 was, and he does it well if you let him and understand he can't draw a reliable flight path unless he uses the methods we allude to, BCR is giving big hints on how to do a real investigation. He could teach RADAR stuff to us after he studied RADAR; he would be teaching us flying if was not such a broad field where it really does take years to be an expert at understanding.
I don't understand your support of CIT; they have zero training at investigating aircraft related events and they prove it in each video they produce. But as with most 911 truth products, there is enough raw information in each video to debunk them if you use your own efforts to get out a map, use google earth, and line up the testimony and do some old fashion work.
RADAR and FDR confirm the places Paik is pointing;
The photo above dovetails with Paik pointing form his office as presented by BCR.
I would like to see a yard stick pointing exercise to lay this to rest as used by Boeing investigators who don't have the witness draw paths they are not capable of doing. CIT having witnesses draw flight paths is one of the dumbest errors they made. Dumb
Last edited:
Childlike Empress
Banned
I ignore you? That's rich. Re: Intelligence - that is certainly not your problem.
I support CIT because they did what you accuse "us" truthers for years of not doing: Investigative Journalism. I support them because i've seen the distasteful list of people attacking them with lies and slander. I've seen people with reputation burning themselves trying to discredit them. I support them because i know what parts of their argument are based on evidence, and what follows using logic.
You have no argument but your shtick, which i'm seeing through.
I support CIT because they did what you accuse "us" truthers for years of not doing: Investigative Journalism. I support them because i've seen the distasteful list of people attacking them with lies and slander. I've seen people with reputation burning themselves trying to discredit them. I support them because i know what parts of their argument are based on evidence, and what follows using logic.
You have no argument but your shtick, which i'm seeing through.
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
Which parts would this be?
Childlike Empress
Banned
Watch "NSA". Read the thread.
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
I have and I did. I didn't see any that would make me think that Flt 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, flew over the Pentagon, or even that it was north of the Citgo.
So, what parts of their argument are based on evidence, and what follows using logic that would cause you to support them?.
They don't investigate they mutilate testimony and ignore evidence.
They don't use evidence they use their own preconceived delusions to make up lies. They present flight paths impossible to fly and all of them different. Which one is the real flight path from CIT? None of them because they are physically impossible to fly. You have yet to provide your independent assessment of anything as blindly support idiotic delusions based on nothing so far.
What school did they receive training in investigating aircraft events? Why did they fail to collect testimony correctly? Why can't you see they messed up and made up the flyover based on their own lies?
Why does Paik point to the south flight path and draw a flight path that is south of the Citgo station? They did not investigate, they made up lies based on their own faulty analysis. This is called failure.
BCR is doing real investigating which clearly exposes CIT as a fraud.
What school did CIT go to learn investigating procedures? Got their diploma or certificate?
Childlike Empress
Banned
Yeah, that's the problem. We don't trust the "experts" anymore. 
Childlike Empress
Banned
"NSA" didn't convince you that the plane was north of CITGO? Well, then you missed the part with the evidence and it is futile to explain the logic part to you.
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
Yeah, that's the problem. We don't trust the "experts" anymore.
what experts? none exist in CIT that's for sure and Pilots who lie has cap bob, who has been shown to be incorrect on his claims over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, for 4 years.
Our experts? the FBI, NTSB, the clean up crews, the forensic scientists who identified the DNA, and a slew of other people who had a hand in the investigations.
I'll take my 1000 experts who were there, than the frauds of 2 idiots and Capn Bob who weren't there that day.
Childlike Empress
Banned
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
The only evidence I saw was witness testimony and given how unreliable that is, no it was not enough to convince me. So I'm guessing the logic only works on those who take the aforementioned testimony as accurate. Well, it does explain why CIT is still wrong.
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
already addressed by others in the this thread. Maybe you should read their answers before dismissing them .
of course, Paik puts the plane on the south (of citgo) path, as shown by his diagram, and his claim to have thought it hit the VDOT tower; both of which you have ignored.
20th time:
Meed
boy named crow
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 5,206
Very true and sadly for CIT, witness testimony has a plane slamming into the pentagon anyway. Many of mudlark's arguments against this fact boil down to "but the flightpath that impact witness describes is contradicted by CIT's witnesses" (an interpretation, not a quote).
Last edited:
No experts there, you made a mistake. Your experts are delusional on 911, that makes them worthless.
If only you had some evidence to support your delusional experts on 911. Better luck with your next crazy conspiracy theory support efforts.
You did post the animated gif with Paik looking and pointing to the south flight path if you understood his testimony and where he was on 911. Pay attention next time and you could have figured out what BCR is about to present.
Last edited:
Meed
boy named crow
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 5,206
I'm not familiar with the details of law practice, but I am familiar with psychology and it certainly seems that way to me as well. The picture they chose to provide makes drawing the right flightpath very counter-intuitive and as I know from the heuristics and biases work of researchers like Tversky, even far less blatant leading than this tends to throw people way off.
Childlike Empress - yes let's consider that photo of the various NoC witnesses. The one with the several yellow lines.
From CIT's point of view, those yellow lines have to be resolved into a single flight path that accommodates them all. This can be done without too much difficulty.
But then the problems start.
This flight path must pass over - or very close to - the annex, curve round NoC and continue to curve round towards the 'flyover point' directly above the supposed 'impact point'.
We can then make a reasonable estimation of the radius of this curved flight path. We can propose an upper and lower limit on the speed of the aircraft, knowing what we know about the capabilities of such a plane, stalling speeds and so on.
For the full range of cases we can then apply some very well-established principles to calculate the angle of bank required to make the turn. In every such case we find that a dramatic bank angle is required. An angle that would be unforgettable for any witness. An angle that would be the one common feature of every witness statement.
Nobody, but nobody, mentions seeing such a bank.
There is something profoundly wrong with those 'yellow lines'.
This fact alone relegates this crap to the status of a sick joke. When adding the positive mountain of physical evidence it is not even a serious subject for debate. All that remains is a small group of maroons filling up web forums with useless garbage. Debating them simply facilitates their desire for attention in spreading their moronic delusions.
Garb
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,005
Hello, JREF. Long time no see. The NWO had me on leave for not discrediting the twoof enough, but they let me come back.
Am I the only one who thinks it is pointless to discuss the NOC arguments (which asserts that the plane FLEW OVER the Pentagon) when there is an abundance of witness testimony that states Flight 77 COLLIDED with the Pentagon?
Even if we disregard the pole damage, generator damage, pentagon damage, plane parts, and whatever else you can think of.
Seriously. Eight people think they saw the plane go NOC. According to the rest of the evidence (which once again dwarfs the NOC witnesses), that can't be true. End of story.
Am I the only one who thinks it is pointless to discuss the NOC arguments (which asserts that the plane FLEW OVER the Pentagon) when there is an abundance of witness testimony that states Flight 77 COLLIDED with the Pentagon?
Even if we disregard the pole damage, generator damage, pentagon damage, plane parts, and whatever else you can think of.
Seriously. Eight people think they saw the plane go NOC. According to the rest of the evidence (which once again dwarfs the NOC witnesses), that can't be true. End of story.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
End of, and beginning of, in fact. That was the conclusion that sane people reached before the CIT first published their findings, based on their pre-announcement - the classic example of pre-bunking. Nothing they've presented since has cast the slightest doubt on that conclusion.
Dave