CIT Fraud Revealed

[mudlark]

I bet any witness interviewed by CIT would draw differing lines on different occasions; they won't be identical. Having the witnesses draw lines on a photo commits them to a particular path that they don't recall precisely.

They recalled enough to give a basic description of what they saw. Their paths reflect that.
That Ed Paik claims to have seen the plane heading over the Annex AT ALL, given the angle of trajectory he pointed to, contradicts the official flightpath.

And since the photos never represent their actual point-of-view during the event (especially the satellite/aerial photos), the act of having them draw a line invariably involves a degree of interpretation and extrapolation from memory.

Note that, especially with the ANC workers their paths are reconciled with what they described. From the plane appearing over the Annex, the right-bank, that the plane was heading in the direction of their carpark.
It may be an aerial image but they pretty much draw the line according to these 3 basic observations.

They are consistent in claiming that the plane passed between the middle to right side of the Annex. That it passed closer to them on the North side of Citgo going so far as to point out various roadsigns to point out where they saw it.

Are you trying to say that what they described in their http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm"]CIT interview[/URL] differs from what they penned?

Their placement of the plane is set against various buildings and topographical landmarks and structures. Even the manouevre is repeated.

 

[beachnut]

And how many describe the plane flying almost on its side with the wing scraping the ground? That is a 70 degree bank. It flew over the Navy Annex at 55 feet agl at 70 degree bank. So there is a wing lying around the Annex area I assume since such an altitude/bank would have put the starboard wing into the Annex.

If they understood math, they would stop pushing the insanely idiotic NoC poppycock. I alway thought people capable of understanding and making cool graphics were mathematically competent! I was wrong.

 

[A W Smith]

Ed Paik draws a straight line from his POV.
The line that you say is SOC actually flies OVER the Citgo.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikoverthecitgo.jpg

No it doesn't!

 

[BCR]

Stop feigning indignity at what they did. Farmer apparently did the same to Shinki Paik judging by that god awful muffled recording.
But that´s okay, huh?

Whooooo bubba. I recorded Shinki with his knowledge (the recorder was on the counter in front of him). I informed him that I was researching a book and he was aware that his account would be used. He made no request that it be kept 'off the record'. Big difference.

I have dozens of other recordings from that same day, but I keep them off-the-record for several reasons.

1) They offer nothing new which is not already in the record by other witnesses.
2) They are not witnesses in the public record and I don't want to expose them to the CIT character assassination team unless absolutely necessary.
3) In some cases they are 'off-the-record' (such as Sheraton Hotel employees and Morin) who could suffer if it became public knowledge they were talking about 9/11.

 

[jaydeehess]

The line that ´turns´ was actually drawn by Donald carter, one of the ANC witnesses. (Is that the one you are referring to?)
Ed Paik draws a straight line from his POV.
The line that you say is SOC actually flies OVER the Citgo.
.

So Paik's line is not among the multi-line drawing on the satellite photo then.

Where is Morin's flight path on that drawing? Boger's?


If Middleton is not saying that the plane came down Patton Drive then why is there a line showing a flight path down Patton Drive?

If Middleton did say it came down Patton Drive and if Paik is correct in having the plane well inside the Annex then how did Morin see the plane when he was facing south while standing at the south side of the Annex? In fact if Middleton is right then neither Morin or Paik could possibly have seen the plane.

Middleton is incorrect.

If that severe turn is Carter's then aerodynamics proves him incorrect.

Finally, and this really is quite important, there are multiple reports in which people say the plane impacted the Pentagon, Boger chief among them. There are even more statements from people who watched the plane travel and witnessed the fireball but could not actually see impact, Morin and Lagasse for example, but who would have been in prime position to see a plane rise over the Pentagon before that fireball reached the height of the building (which must be the chronology of events since flying into a fireball is plain stupid not to mention no one saw it occur either) yet NO ONE SAW A FLY-OVER!

 

[jaydeehess]

They are consistent in claiming that the plane passed between the middle to right side of the Annex. That it passed closer to them on the North side of Citgo going so far as to point out various roadsigns to point out where they saw it.

Are you trying to say that what they described in their http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm"]CIT interview[/URL] differs from what they penned?

Their placement of the plane is set against various buildings and topographical landmarks and structures. Even the manouevre is repeated.

Note that although all these descriptions vary that the one landmark that they all agree on is the point at which the flight path met the Pentagon.

 

[beachnut]

...
Note that, especially with the ANC workers their paths are reconciled with what they described. From the plane appearing over the Annex, the right-bank, that the plane was heading in the direction of their carpark.
It may be an aerial image but they pretty much draw the line according to these 3 basic observations. ...

77 got closer to their car-park until it went by and hit the Pentagon. All the CIT witnesses point clearly to the south where 77 "appeared" over the Annex. The sun came up over the hill this morning? Do you understand over? No, over!

All anyone has to do is go to the ANC workers, expose your CIT goons for the idiots they are and show them the actual flight path and a realistic animation with the FDR from their POV and they will all go that was it!

CIT could clear up their own lies, but they are selling lies on DVD they would have to confess to being the worse investigators in history.

So have you taken this NoC stuff to ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, or anyone like the Washington Post, Woodward and Bernstein? Have you done more than fail to present the math?





WHAT?

especially with the ANC workers their paths

Their paths are all physically impossible based on their own statements. You failed to do the math! Once again you fail to be rational and you take paths drawn from a tangential point of view and you treat them like evidence and the paths are not correct because of human perceptions and the errors we have in distance from us when we are not familiar with the object going 500 mph for the first time that close! Please don't listen to me, I was only trained to recognize illusions and perception problems so I would not crash my supersonic trainer before the USAF got their training money out of me for 5 years of service; each time adding a carrot to keep me interested for 29 years; I lived because I was trained to understand my limitations as a human in the world of flight; I was also trained in taking witness statements and thank goodness CIT did videos so my mistakes investigating aircraft accidents looks perfect against their pathetic dirt dumb efforts. The best you can do with CIT's collected work is use it as an example of what not to do, or a test to weed out people who lack logic and critical thinking skills.


The witnesses saw a right bank, the FDR has a right bank; Morin sees the bottom of the jet due to the right bank. ALL the CIT witnesses are supported by the FDR, RADAR, and physical damage! If you are a professional aircraft accident investigator and understand human limitations you would see CIT witnesses all agree on seeing Flight 77 on the real flight path at over 500 mph where a 6 to 10 degree bank angle is 19 to 32 mile radius turn, not the ridiculous G-force your failed paths have.




Human perceptions for the 500 mph jet at low altitude has 77 closest to them so they drew it a lot closer than the plane could be based on physics (IE. 6 degrees of bank is a 32 mile radius turn, even if you take 25 degrees and exaggerate the bank angle by 4 times the turn radius is 7.3 miles), the all bowed the path based on distance of a large jet to them; the closer the jet was the closer they drew the line to them, but the flight path was rather straight!

 

[Mangoose]

Are you trying to say that what they described in their http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm"]CIT interview[/url] differs from what they penned?

I am pointing out the obvious arbitrariness involved in having them plot the flight path on a photo, as Paik himself shows by drawing the same path twice on separate photos.

 

[funk de fino]

Paik interview from where the two gifs come from.

Paikpointsnorth correlates with him saying ´body of plane this way´, pointing at the direction he claims that the plane took.
Further cemented by the drawing Paik made of the path he was describing

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

Paikpointsnorth is Paik pointing to a North of citgo path according to CIT. This does not match with his drawing which is not North of Citgo.

Paikpointssouth is a manipulation of the motion he made and what he was actually talking of at that time.

This stops when he points to a path which is South of Citgo which matches his drawing.


I was not replying to you however, as I do not interact with CIT mouthpieces/socks, if possible. I was posting to Childlike Empress.

CIT are ignorant scumbag no planers. Flyover theory is the worst theory in 911 CT land.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I was not replying to you however, as I do not interact with CIT mouthpieces/socks, if possible. I was posting to Childlike Empress.

I already explained it to you and everybody else several times in the "8 of of 8" thread. Now mudlark explained it again. It's very simple, but of course you will continue to play ignorant, and of course you will also not comment on beachnut's new lies that mudlark showed you.

Don't waste our time.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

As far as I know they held back on releasing the interview ....snip.....

Interesting, another lie and you know it. Craig released the recorded interview of Morin almost a year ago. They are pathetic liars and so are you.

"Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin"-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2649657158781568709#
@4:19 of the video the scum bags start to play the recording that they told Morin they WOULD NOT do.

Fact remains, they achieved NOTHING by lying to this man. It's been a YEAR since it was released. Keep up the charade, "truther" we all know what and who you are.

 

[leftysergeant]

I just noticed something here. I am not at all familiar with Middleton's statements, but, if mudlark has quoted him correctly, he is pretty much useless as a witness for either position, because he embellishes his statem,ent with observations that can only have arisen out of panic and confusion. As quoted by mudlark, Middleton claims to have "felt the heat" of the aiircraft.

Not a good observer at all.

 

[Edx]

The line that ´turns´ was actually drawn by Donald carter, one of the ANC witnesses. (Is that the one you are referring to?)
Ed Paik draws a straight line from his POV.
The line that you say is SOC actually flies OVER the Citgo.
.

Then why do all your other lines have the plane flying North of Citgo, when the line you just drew for Edward goes directly OVER Citgo?

Isnt it correct that in order for Edward's flight patch, in terms of his line, to get the plane NOC it has to do a ridiculous turn just like how it is presented in that other image?

 

[leftysergeant]

Isnt it correct that in order for Edward's flight patch, in terms of his line, to get the plane NOC it has to do a ridiculous turn just like how it is presented in that other image?

Have you been reading any of my posts? I have pointed out repeatedly that the Complete Idiots Team and mudlark have failed to present a realistic model of what happened. Mudlark has yet to even acknowledge, after I pointed it out to him, that in one of the graphics that he posted, he had the shadow of the aircraft behind and to the right (thus to the south) of his aircraft's position.

Garbage in-garbage out.

 

[funk de fino]

I already explained it to you and everybody else several times in the "8 of of 8" thread. Now mudlark explained it again. It's very simple, but of course you will continue to play ignorant, and of course you will also not comment on beachnut's new lies that mudlark showed you.

Don't waste our time.

No, you have not. Explain the difference between paikpointsnorth and paikpointssouth.

Explain the drawing he made which is not NOC. Explain the shadow remark

 

[funk de fino]

I predict neither of the CIT slurpers will attend to post 290 in a mature and grown up manner.

 

[beachnut]

I already explained it to you and everybody else several times in the "8 of of 8" thread. Now mudlark explained it again. It's very simple, but of course you will continue to play ignorant, and of course you will also not comment on beachnut's new lies that mudlark showed you.

Don't waste our time.

What lies? The fact is Paik points to the south flight path and due to physics a plane can't fly the NoC flight path, it has to fly kind of straight due to physics. When a plane is going over 500 mph, up to 483 KIAS just before impact the small banks of 6 degree give a turn radius of over 32 miles, this mean the flight paths you support with faith because you like the moronic presentation of lies by CIT is not based on math and science.

Paik pointing to the south flight path; Craig making up lies.

Paik and and the other witnesses support the south flight path, I showed them pointing south as Craig was saying north like a moron, as they point south; true comedy to a trained aircraft accident investigator and pilot who flew heavy jets all over the world and Balsamo has only flown heavy jets in his paranoid conspiracy theory dreams where he and his band of failed pilots have explained they can't hit the side of the largest buildings in the world in the safety of a simulator if they tried; and they have! So you are backed up with pilots who can't hit buildings like the worst terrorists pilots I have seen, and some CIT investigators who mess up 911 so bad they have 77 over flying the Pentagon, when 77 impacted the Pentagon as CIT witnesses explain. Was it Balsamo's 2,223 gs that helped you believe the moronic flight paths?

Got physics? You know math is good with music and most everything in life? Why are you with the anti-math CIT fraud scenario machine? How does CIT moronic math explain the downed lampposts again?

Or where the engine sucked in tree?

How to CIT nut case investigators explain away the tree sucked in by engine moving 483 KIAS? Need some help with your fantasy?

And when looking for verification of the witnesses pointing south we find 77 hit a post on the exact flight path (plus or minus feet) 77 was on to impact verified by RADAR, FDR, and all the CIT witnesses pointing to the flight path in the 4-D world (time for you math wizards at the dolt-ville CIT lounge of stupid ideas on 911). Sad they CIT had the witnesses fail by making them draw a flight path of many gs, so Balsamo could fail to do math again.

Physical evidence near the lampposts and exactly on the flight path of 77.

 

[beachnut]

...
WHO is Reheat? I believe Beachnut MAY have aviation experience on smaller aircraft but I can readily link to verifying scores of pilots who are now core members of Pilotsfor911Truth. ...

Does Balsamo have an ATP? Why not? The truthful part of p4t and Balsamo, they admit they can't hit the largest buildings in the world flying jet simulators (0%), which the terrorists did their first time in a real jet (75%), which makes me wonder if p4t failed pilots who can't do math can hit a runway! lol

I was in "small" heavy jets (300,000 pounds) and I have an ATP which Balsamo can't get because pulling 2,223 gs out of thin air gets you a pink slip.
I flew very small jets, KC-135, over 4,000 hours.

These are chicks in tow from Kadena, I am the aircraft/aircrew commander in the left seat, with my Nikon taking a picture.

I did fly very small supersonic trainers too; smaller aircraft. 100 pixels...

very small, it could roll at 720 degree per second, and 5 g loops, 7.33 g chasing the clouds oops maneuver, etc. With the year of jet training I also learned illusions humans suffer and now see CIT must be terminal with illusions.

... a blast, it was my job, someone had to do it. Thank you very much...

... One springs to mind immediately.. LtCol. Jeff Latas Former USAF Accident Investigation President. ...

Jeff investigated large aircraft accidents? No! I was board president on a large aircraft class A accident (500,000 pound class). Was Jeff? No. I was the pilot investigator on a large aircraft Class A accident (300,000 pound class). I also was the investigator and in charge of the accident scene for a Class A fatal U-2 accident. What accidents did Jeff act as president; how many times and was he trained to be an aircraft accident investigator? Darn, I was a trained aircraft accident investigator. My office trained USAF board presidents; lol. I trained people like Jeff to be board presidents! Too bad p4t have no real expert who can do math to show you your paths are nonsense. We had board presidents trained, and many never did anything; most likely like Jeff. Nothing. Does Jeff have a masters in Engineering? Bet it is business and he is in with Balsamo making money off of DVDs sold to the gullible. Full employment is a great goal and at least Balsamo is a capitalist anti-government paranoid conspiracy theorist posting as turbofan in turbofan's basement. Is Balsamo dodging his taxes? I was wonder how turbofan was as dirt dumb on 911 as Balsamo; now we know the rest of the story.

...
But there are MANY more. ...

Not one of them can do math or help you with your nonsensical flight path of delusions made up by CIT, the dumbest investigators since time began. How do they post such dirt dumb flight paths? How did all those pilots feel about Balsamo not knowing how many feet are in a nautical mile, and his 11.2 g, 34 G, and 2,223 g delusional math? Why are all those many more so silent and not able to support your failed ideas? Silent partners in selling stupid DVDs?
Bring on the many! lol

... Beachnut has posted numerous lies/half-truths (one of which I have totally debunked above..and one which YOU have repeatedly claimed on the ANC workers ´pointing south´) ...

ANC workers are pointing to the south flight path as Craig talks and ignores them pointing to the south flight path; anyone can see CIT failed videos are filled with support for the south flight path, and all they need is comprehension skills and eyes.

... Reheat has provided a ridiculous NOC path from which he has extracted your ´NOC math debunk´ based on manipulation and false witness testimony. ...

Reheat used CIT moronic flight paths and shows why the witnesses refute their own work adopted by CIT as gospel. Anyone can use math to refute all CIT work as CIT make up lies and ignore their witnesses who agree 77 impacted the Pentagon. oops

... Thanks but...nah.

So you say thanks but... nah, to be educated to the high school science level. Good for you! Fight education where every it sticks out the opportunity to rise out of the pit of ignorance you willfully jumped into with CIT and Balsamo's failed pilots club of paranoid nut case delusions; top nut case idea, Flight 77 flyover! is that a skill required to join CIT and p4t, avoiding knowledge effectively.

Does Balsamo get mad at you for being anonymous; Balsamo knows me and that I have an ATP and flew large jets but instead he makes up lies, said I had a stroke, threatens to kill debunkers, and can't do math to save his lies. Here is another small plane I flew before flying heavy jets.

Do you think if you were a pilot, an engineer, and a trained aircraft accident investigator you would still support CIT failed delusions?

 

[leftysergeant]

Since that nitwit Latas agrees that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon from the NoC course, does he offer any suggestion as to what could have done the damage? I would have to have a look at any statement he made on that, if someone has a link to it.

I notice the sorry little loser didn't say much about his views on 9/11 when he was losing his election campaign. Maybe he figured out that it was too wack even for Arizona.

 

[jaydeehess]

off topic observation
T-38 looks a lot like an F-5.