CIT Fraud Revealed

Childlike Empress said:
Calm down, buddy. He's exactly right. Logic beats spin once again.
Click to expand...

You are right. You are claiming now that Erik is simply a better researcher and does better analysis of eyewitness accounts than does the CIT folks. No fraud, just incompetence? Is that your argument?
 
I found this part particularly funny:

edit @mods: Given the replies below, i'm sure this will be reported in the usual dishonest way as "posting on behalf of a banned member". Notice that the part i posted is exactly on topic and has nothing to do with Craig's ex-membership here. He just happens to be the journalist accused of "fraud" in this thread.
Click to expand...
:p
 
Childlike Empress said:
I'm not stupid, Glenn. If you want to present an argument, flesh it out. I don't need you to tell me math - based on speculation.
Click to expand...
Sure, go ahead show us the NoC. The real NoC to include bank angles, g force and all to match the FDR. No one at CIT has refuted the FDR. And the FDR shows the exact flight path p4t and CIT said was impossible because they can't do the math.

CIT and you are the speculators in paranoid conspiracy theories and you can't present a single reality based NoC flight path to save your failed delusional theory.

Need the equations? Need some help from a real pilot?

For 77 to go from right over Paik office to fly over the Pentagon at the impact point where CIT says it was hidden by the explosion (which was really the jet fuel fireball, the exact size of the fuel from a 483 KIAS impact to a building like the Pentagon which any trained aircraft accident investigator would know as do rational people) takes 75 degrees of bank and 4 gs, and thus Paik would not see 77 at all from inside his office. Since Paik says he saw the right wing, the bank angle was less than 10 degrees; oops.

Please present your fantasy math to support the failed ideas of CIT.


Is this a joke???
Childlike Empress said:
... Craig's ... He just happens to be the journalist accused of "fraud" in this thread.
Click to expand...
Craig is not a journalist, he is a liar or dumber than a rock when it comes to this topic. Craig is a fraud if you call him a journalists. Unless you define a journalist as someone who makes up moronic lies to fool the uniformed gullible masses of conspiracy minded paranoid people.


Got any reports of 75 degrees of bank? no

Paik sees the right wing because 77 was banking right, the right wing was down 5.8 degrees. Paik's point of view from inside his office places 77 about 35 to 40 degree up from his position. Math. Craig's lack of knowledge on witness interviews is complete and proved each time you watch his video. How he mangles the statements is his only skill, as he makes up idiotic conclusions. You could build a model, or even see this in your head if you had the math and geometry skills to see reality.
 
Last edited:
Edward and Shinki both describe the shadow passing right to left from their office perspective facing the street parallel to Columbia pike. For them to have seen the shadow. it had to be on the south-east side of Columbia pike. Else it flies through the Sheraton. It it was flying in a north easterly direction at an angle directly over their shop. Morin could not have seen it. And its as simple as that.

Aone.jpg


oh and this?

He just happens to be the journalist accused of "fraud" in this thread.
Click to expand...
:dl: What an ass.

Here CE. Perhaps you should brush up on the definition of "Journalist"
 
Last edited:
Here's a scenario I see as plausible re Ed Paik's testimony.

Ed sees the right wing of the plane. The plane is banking to the right, so the wing appears even bigger in his view, which makes he feel the plane even closer than it actually is. Add the surprise factor to the potential error in distance estimation.

In my opinion, he thinks the plane is so close that he estimates the plane's body to be over the office, so he estimates (and draws) the trajectory as going over the Navy Annex. Obviously that trajectory is not what he sees. However, let's consider that the plane may (or should I say must, to save other buildings?) be farther than he estimates.

Now, he sees the wing at a certain elevation with respect to him, but if we don't consider the perceived distance as reliable, all we know is that the plane is somewhere in the straight line from his eye and towards that elevation.

If we take the shadow testimony literally, we can estimate the actual ground distance from the plane to the office where he sees it using the FDR's agl altitude and the sun angle. This is subject to error, since the flash perceived could indeed be of exterior objects as has been already pointed out in this thread.

The math is trivial: given an angle of a right triangle and the opposite cathetus, find the other cathetus. I think that that's what A W Smith has calculated (posts #242 and #293). Give or take one wingspan plus some extra distance for the flashing of nearby objects causing the sensation that the shadow is over the office, and there it is: Ed Paik confirms SoC and the official flight path.
 
Last edited:
Huh, no wall of posts cut and pasted in ten minutes?

I guess the truthers are still reeling from the Craig, I was young and stupid admission.

Now he is old, but still stupid.

(Don't let the Jonas Brothers hair cut fool you, the guy is in his early forties. Aldo is in the low forties too, 40 stone.)
 
Erm...The only way Ed could see the right wing is if it were directly over his head, and we do not see that in the line he drew. The fuselage would otherwise be in the way, unless it was banking a bit to the left, putting the wing below the fuselage. But then, it could not have flown over the Annex without some rivet-popping g-loads.

This is confusing beyond belief.
 
leftysergeant said:
This is confusing beyond belief.
Click to expand...

I think that is because people are trying to read more into a recall than is there. At 450+ knots and less than 500 feet agl, inside a building looking out a window as it passed, scared out-of-his-wits, just how much do you think he really saw?

He saw something fly over going generally west to east, south of his location. Beyond that is expecting way too much.
 
Do I understand this correctly? You guys have been arguing for 11 pages over where a shadow was?

My reading of all this is that no matter where your 'witnesses' say they saw a shadow, they go on to say that the object was a plane and that it crashed into the Pentagon. So the argument isn't over whether the object was a plane or whether it crashed into the Pentagon. Everyone seems to agree on that. The argument going on here is about the accuracy of eyewitness details in personal accounts of an object that was traveling at over 500 miles an hour that was encountered for only a very brief period of time.

Have I missed something?
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
Do I understand this correctly? You guys have been arguing for 11 pages over where a shadow was?

My reading of all this is that no matter where your 'witnesses' say they saw a shadow, they go on to say that the object was a plane and that it crashed into the Pentagon. So the argument isn't over whether the object was a plane or whether it crashed into the Pentagon. Everyone seems to agree on that. The argument going on here is about the accuracy of eyewitness details in personal accounts of an object that was traveling at over 500 miles an hour that was encountered for only a very brief period of time.

Have I missed something?
Click to expand...

Like I have said before, the discussion regarding the NOC witnesses is irrelevant because there are witnesses who saw a commercial airliner smack into the Pentagon. Because the damage corroborates a SOC flight path, that is the path it had to have taken. End of story.
 
leftysergeant said:
Erm...The only way Ed could see the right wing is if it were directly over his head, and we do not see that in the line he drew. The fuselage would otherwise be in the way, unless it was banking a bit to the left, putting the wing below the fuselage. But then, it could not have flown over the Annex without some rivet-popping g-loads.

This is confusing beyond belief.
Click to expand...

This is a diagram of what I meant (sorry for my crappy drawing ability):

Ed-Paik-POV.png


The angles and relative sizes don't represent the proper ones. I'm just trying to illustrate the point, showing how Ed Paik may be corroborating the FDR/radar path.

The angle of the upper limit of the eye's sight from the window (the upper red line) should match that of the sun, for the shadow to go over the office and keep consistency.
 
BCR said:
Not me. The OP is that CIT promoted fraudulent and staged eyewitness POV's. The rest is just fluff.
Click to expand...

Paik points south of his office and the shadow confirms his story.

Madlene Zakhem has the plane on the official flight path "directly over her" and she says 77 did not go over the Navy Annex. Oops. This means she will be thrown under the bus by the drugged up CIT dolts she calls "creepy".

No not over the Annex, went straight to the Pentagon.
Click to expand...
From her position direct to the Pentagon impact is with in 3 or 4 degree of Flight 77 real path.
 
beachnut said:
Madlene Zakhem has the plane on the official flight path "directly over her" and she says 77 did not go over the Navy Annex. Oops. This means she will be thrown under the bus by the drugged up CIT dolts she calls "creepy".
Click to expand...

Oh no, she is definitely Mossad :popcorn1
 
I have to admit that I had a hard time following what the CiT interviewers were trying to ask Ed. But, if he saw the airplane from where he was standing, he would have had a hard time visualising where it went past the roof of the building next to him. I do not see the Annex there. It seems to me that even flying a little way out from the Annex, it would appear to be flying over the center of it.

I can actually understand Ed almost as well as I understand what the Complete Idiot Team asks him.
 
CIT went and spoke with their 'witnesses' with a clear agenda and intentions of deceipt.

CIT asked leading questions to atleast one 'witness' that they now admit themselves had difficulty in speaking/understanding the English language. They asked leading questions of people who where not aware of the deceiptful way in which their answers would be used. Perhaps Ed Paik and Stinki should be concidering some form of legal retribution as clearly they are being misrepresented on here/youtube etc. Surely a law/laws exist in America to address this?

CIT have deceiptfully misrepresented their 'witness' statements and edited the videos they took. Yet the evidence that CIT shows us simply illustrates this deceipt. They have infact 'debunked' themselves and will continue to wriggle and squirm using sockpuppets to dig themselves deeper. Let them!
 
I notice Craig's rebuttal is up.

It contains absolutely nothing more than a number of ad hominem attacks, and a bizarre declaration that the fact their idiotic videos were proven as deceptive somehow supports their idiotic theory.

Notably, of course, Craig and Aldo don't offer to release their raw videos.

Of course.

Incompetent frauds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom