CIT Fraud Revealed

[beachnut]

All the "right-bank" witnesses which number among them proposed "impact witnesses".

right bank is on the FDR, so? Are you saying the witnesses confirm the FDR?
Since you can't do math let me explain the final 5 seconds of right bank have as average of 3.89 degree right bank, with a maximum of 6.38 degrees. Turn radius of 33 miles to 54 miles. You failed again. You have to use math, or you are lost. What is your point?

That JREFers themselves claim that seconds are missing from it.

We were right, the NTSB decode was missing 4 seconds. The pilots for truth decode was missing 5 seconds. The seconds were not missing, but nobody looked at the raw data for the missing seconds, and the pilots for truth stolen software decode did not work on the last 5 seconds of data. We were right.

That even when Warren´s extra data is included that the plane STILL misses the lightpoles.

The extra data was always there, no body knew it. The data was not missing. The final 4 seconds support 77 impacting the lamppost because it is only 20 to 30 feet above the overpass when the RADALT reads 4 feet.

Zakhem´s testimony contradicts itself AND the plane would NOT be in view to her if the NTSB path is followed. She even contradicts Warren´s right roll data.

Madelyn saw flight 77 south of her position. That matches the FDR, and she said tilted left.
Let me show you again. She sees left tilt, 77 is in a right bank.

Left tilt to me. See see the cockpit from the front, so she see a left tilt. Her testimony does not contradict the FDR, it confirms it!
Do you fly much? Madelyn puts 77 on the SoC and debunks CIT. CIT is fraud because they ignore her testimony.

The "physical evidence" is not documented. (You questioned MY interpretation of evidence?)

You must be right! oops wrong again.

A piece of evidence, used in court. Try again, your lies are too easy to debunk, refute and call delusions. Is Balsamo helping you?

The NTSB supplied "elecronic evidence", when we follow it to the letter is described by no-one. Shows that the plane was too high to hit the lightpoles.

Balsamo says this, he can't get anything right. BIG LIE, you can't prove because the FDR has 4 feet for the solid RADALT reading as it crosses the overpass. Darn so easy using Balsamo's own, "the RADALT is a hard number".
Paik was pointing south from his office. CIT is fraud, Balsamo can't do math. These are truths, and you post lies.

That the g-forces necessary to pull off the manouevre were not recorded. Especially the constant 4gs quoted by Mackey.

LOL, you are cherry picking. Mackey and I agree about 1.7 gs is requried to fly over the VDOT tower and impact the Pentagon and knock down all the lamppposts. Got physics? No, you got delusions.
Mackey, I, reaheat and more agreed about 1.7 or 2 gs was good enough.
Balsamo said 34 gs after his 11.2 g and now he has 2,223 gs. Good for him let us look at the FDR!
FDR says the last four seconds are below samled at 8 hz, go ask you mom what 8 hz
means.
0.725
0.659
0.92
0.858
0.94
1.121
0.828
0.783 .854g average 3 seconds to go, Hani is pushing over to hit the Petagon.
0.982
0.986
0.927
0.776
1.25
1.037
1.231
1.721 1.114 average now 2 seconds to go, Hani has started a pull up to avoid the overpass now his aim-point due to over controlling.
1.604
1.781
1.762
1.964
1.879
2.264
2.044
2.181 1.935 1 seconds to go Hani is pulling 2 gs to avoid the ground. He comes within 20 to 30 feet of impacting the overpass, the RADALT reads 4 feet! LOL, the FDR proves impact, I am an aircraft accident investigator and an engineer.
Balsamo is nuts and never was a left seat airline pilot.
1.675
1.744
1.65
1.504
1.785
1.655
1.861
1.946 1.728 g as 77 impacts the generator, everyone who sees the impact with see something different from their persective, Boger sees 77 enter the Pentagon. The roll angle is zero now, and becomes left bank at generator impact; oops, confirmation of impact is the FDR, but the FDR inforamtion stops due to no time left to store the final values.
The physics done by Mackey matches the FDR; funny how physics really works, you should have taken physics and you would not be stuck making excuses for idiots, CIT and Balsamo, and apologizing for terrorists, a kind of terrorists loyalist.
The 4 gs is one of the cases he covered you missed the other work. You are a FRAUD too. Cherry pick your way to stupid conclusions. You missed the 1.7 g stuff; so sad you can't do physics yourself. 3 cases Mackey did are close in modeling what 77 did when it flew and impacted the Pentagon. 4 g was the extreme case but the RADALT near 180 feet AGL at the VDOT tower supports case A, B, and C, and matches the FDR. NOT good for CIT and Balsamo who can't do physics, or math.

The Pentagon DID contain dead bodies. Those of the Pentagon workers and military. I have seen no documentary evidence to support the DNA retrieval and identification of passengers.

The Passengers along with Pentagon victims were processed properly. You are trying to tell a lie.

Where was it found? Both at the impact hole and C-ring. It was found beside a cockpit seat. No we have no photos of this seat..and no the FDR is situated in the back of the plane..

Why can't the FDR reach the C-ring after the landing gear made the way clear. Not good at physics, and without physics you can't make a
case for where the FDR would be found after fire efforts were done. Sorry, you are exposing your lack of knowledge. But go ahead try again and support it with physics not your standard failed opinions based on hearsay and lies from CIT.

Yes we do have witnesses. A whole bunch of them contradict the SOC path, altitude, speed and trajectory. Some even mention a right bank..yesss..at 540mph..who´d have thunk.

Right bank is in the FDR, good job, the witnesses confirm the SoC flight path as does math. Good job you proved CIT is a fraud again.

But we DO have the FDR to prove an impact...no good?

Only to people who can't do the math. Like CIT and Balsamo; they can't do much but sell DVDs with lies.

Ryan Mackey´s piece is an opinion piece based on incredulity.

Because you can't do real math and real math looks like opinions to you. Good job, you proved you can't do math; it is not surprizing you think Mackey's physics is an opinion. Got math? Not you.

This is classic. The math done by Mackey clearly has the correct numbers matched by the FDR. You failed again, by posting junk handed you by CIT and Balsamo. If you looked up Mackey's work you would see clearly how real physics matches what Hani had to pull in g force. But you post junk prepared by Balsamo and CIT without doing your own work. Sad you are a proxy poster for CIT and Balsamo the dumbest people on 911 issues.


Mackey's work

Case A and Case B
Forcing the aircraft to pull up six feet higher than minimum causes the aircraft to flatten out before impact. In both cases, the aircraft is still descending when it contacts the Pentagon -- a situation consistent with an amateur crash approach. Case A experiences only 0.62 g of acceleration, or a total of 1.62 g of g-loading; Case B implies 0.66 g and 1.66 g respectively.
Both of these cases are not only within the Boeing 757-233's performance envelope, but in fact not terribly unusual in ordinary operation, apart from the altitude. Such a low stress level would not imperil any aircraft.
Case B and C
Retaining the higher impact point and forcing the plane to hit the light pole at a lower altitude forces the aircraft to dive more initially, then pull up shorter and sharper. The acceleration increases from 0.66 to 0.93 g (1.93 g airframe stress). This figure is still easily within the performance envelope of the aircraft, and not difficult for an amateur pilot.

The "M" word times two, Mackey and MATH! Mackey say 1.62 g to 1.93 g in two cases of impacting the Pentagon. Look at the FDR again. Average last 4 seconds, 1.41 g, last 3 seconds 1.59, last 2 seconds 1.83, and the last second 1.73.
IS 1.62 and 1.93 in the ball park? YES!
It is not Mackey who says so, it is math and PHYSICS! Good work Mackey.

Math! its what proves CIT is a FRAUD

 

[A W Smith]

Here it comes!!

Oops ya cought me mudlark. Garbage in garbage out. Got the new numbers, Now lets see what happens to the shadow when the sun's LOWER ON THE HORIZON!!



08:37 31.8 112.5


Its coming!

 

[A W Smith]

Are ya ready

Ready? Set? GO! (oh I used a "shadow length calculator" this time)

 

[Hokulele]

So your azimuth is also wrong as well as the position data used (mybad in part but yourbad too for accepting long/lat given the post you made questioning their accurateness)... .and so is Farmer.

So, care to provide the actual data used to make the cartoon? This is the whole reason why it is completely useless to try and guess what assumptions were made by the end user.

(Hm, it sounds like the EDT corrected sun data would put the plane closer to the path and altitude originally calculated by the adjusted decode information, especially if the quote regarding the shadow of the plane is true.)

 

[beachnut]

Oops ya cought me mudlark. Garbage in garbage out. Got the new numbers, Now lets see what happens to the shadow when the sun's LOWER ON THE HORIZON!!



08:37 31.8 112.5

Its coming!

mudlark says...

You need to use the data point from the USNO under 0837, which is 31.8 degrees for Sun altitude.

When I was a young pilot, figuring out local time vs Zulu time and messing up was a new pilot's faux pas.

Is he getting this from the nuts at CIT, or Balsamo? With the lower sun angle he is debunking himself.

Got math?

 

[A W Smith]

Mudlark! Bring me your best shadow stretcher!

(Hm, it sounds like the EDT corrected sun data would put the plane closer to the path and altitude originally calculated by the adjusted decode information, especially if the quote regarding the shadow of the plane is true.)

hmmmmmm! Seems so! PFT (when they wake up) will tell him he shoulda shut his pie hole. So we went from roughly a 230 foot shadow, to a 338 foot shadow!!


Thank you Mudlark! Now the only variable I didn't bother to correct this time is the altitude drop since she shadow is about a dozen parking spaces east of its original plot, So maybe a couple feet. but well within the fuselage diameter for the error.

 

[Reheat]

CIT strikes out again

hmmmmmm! Seems so! PFT (when they wake up) will tell him he shoulda shut his pie hole. So we went from roughly a 230 foot shadow, to a 338 foot shadow!!

This is so funny I've been ROFLMAO since I found that the shrimp mudlark caught A W on the STD versus DST time. He was so proud that some one at pffft caught the error that he pounced all over it without realizing it would destroy his argument further.

It's very similar to the math/physics deficiency in that he has no clue about three-dimensional space....none. It has shown up numerous times over the course of this charade. Does everyone remember the vertical versus the horizontal clock reference? How 'bout all of those flight paths which are impossible for ANY aircraft to fly! Yessireeeee, this is one crack investigator. That's why this crack team of idiots came up with this idiotic scheme in the first place. They have no clue about much of anything that matters and simply keep displaying arrogant ignorance the longer they perpetuate the lunacy.

Good show! If my count is anywhere near accuate this makes about the tenth time on as many issues this idiocy has been destroyed.

How in the hades anyone could be deceived by it is far beyond my comprehension......

 

[tsig]

You just didn't pay attention. Why don't you acknowledge the fact and stay out of the discussion? Oh, it's not about knowledge at all? Sorry, jdhess. Go away and take the other conformist ideologues with you. *rollseyes goods night*

Still no data or links to data or anything.

 

[bje]

And YOU have failed to answer my question to you in relation to the qualifications of these "1000" people who allegedly found debris.

On the contrary. I answered your question directly. None of us has any reason whatsoever to question that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon and that the wreckage was from AA77. YOU do. YOU are the one who claims that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, remember, mudlark? Whether it was 100 people or 1,000 people it is YOUR responsibility to interview them, find out their "qualifications", and ask them what wreckage they recovered. You now need to answer my questions directly ann support your claims.

It´s very easy to generalise. Just like the "100s" of impact witnesses lie.

Then what are you doing sitting around for eight years when you should have gotten the specifics directly from those involved? What kind of investigators never bother to do an investigation?

You have to dig deeper into the details, background and nuts and bolts of each and every "witness" that is put forward.

But you haven't? Why not? It's YOUR job, not ours.

Who reported it? Is it first hand testimony? Is the testimony corraborated? Verified?

It's YOUR job. If you had done your job, you would have known first-hand. I'm sorry, mudlark, we told Craig and Aldo years ago that it was CIT's responsibility to do its homework and you're here telling us that, no, you want us to do YOUR homework. Now, honestly, mudlark, how crazy is that?

Gravy listed 8000 names. So what? Names are just that, Names.

I already stated unequivocally that we are confident that you are at least capable of picking up a telephone book, looking up the phone number, and start making phone calls, correct? So WHY do you and CIT refuse to contact these key eyewitnesses? How many more years are you going to put it off, mudlark?

Do what CIT has been forced to do. Even though they had a pair of swingers and went to the area themselves to gather testimony they were then asked to interview more people. They did.

You have admitted in every post that CIT did not contact any eyewitnesses who had direct contact with the wreckage. One cannot avoid evidence. They were right there, in Washington, DC, and FAILED to do a proper investigation. Why are you proud of that fact, mudlark, when you should be highly embarrassed at CIT's ineptitude?

Now the entire burden of ALL witnesses is placed on their shoulders to find out why people claimed to have witnessed an impact. They did. And DECIMATED the "100s of witnesses to an impact" lie.

No, as you and we well know, CIT found NO eyewitnesses that saw any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon. NONE of CIT's eyewitnesses saw any jet fly over the Pentagon. CIT did not find ANY eyewitnesses from the hundreds on the freeways, bridges, or in the Pentagon parking lots who ever stated they saw any jet fly over the Pentagon. You understand that CIT claims that a jet flew abnormally low and fast over and away from the Pentagon, just as the "explosion" went off behind the jet, don't you? And Craig Ranke ADMITTED that people were in a position to witness such an event ALL AROUND the Pentagon:



But not one person has ever reported seeing any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon as Craig Ranke and Pilots for 9/11 "Truth" claim. None, zero, nada. Why not, mudlark?

They CANNOT interview military or police. They are forbidden. YOU know this.

Oh? Apparently CIT doesn't know that and voilated the law. Or did they make up the interviews they did with:

- Pentagon Heliport air traffic controller, Sean Boger
- Pentagon Police Officer, Sgt. William Lagasse
- Pentagon Police Officer, Sgt. Chadwick Brooks
- Pentagon Police Officer, Roosevelt Roberts

Please explain why you are contradicting CIT, mudlark.

Specifics MUST be given on these individuals as an interview is out of the question. You are asking the impossible...which is why I assume you brought this up?

It is your obligation to demonstrate that you cannot interview any of those who had direct contact with the wreckage. But you admit you haven't even made the effort. Again, that is YOUR responsibility. I brought this up with CIT years ago for the very clear reason that ANY investigation, whether done by amateur citizens like CIT, or professionals, must deal with ALL of the evidence. Of course CIT knows that it must deal with all of the evidence particularly since NONE of CIT's claims supports any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon nor has CIT made any attempt to determine the nature or identity of the wreckage from inside the Pentagon whatsoever. CIT refuses as you are now doing.

If you are asking me to buy the "official" book (bible) on the Pentagon attack..nah. If you have the quotes, names, etc. Post them.

I am asking you to provide evidence for your claims. You are making every effort to make excuses why you won't.

Sorry, there is only the evidence, and if you haven't fulfilled your obligation to interview those who had direct contact with the wreckage and you have no eyewitnesses to any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon when Craig Ranke ADMITS that so-called "flyover" jet would have been easy to see by anyone near and around the Pentagon, then it's obvious that you and CIT have absolutely no ability to claim the wreckage is NOT from AA77 nor that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

We know that CIT and its supporters, as well as all 9/11 "Truth" Movement believers, are not able to answer inconvenient questions. The true sign is your attempt to evade the questions by asking questions in response, i.e., trying to shift the burden of proof off your shoulders. It doesn't work. YOU have to support both your claims and the implications of those claims:

1. When do you intend to get the evidence of what wreckage was recovered from inside the Pentagon?

2. When do you intend to interview any of the people who had direct contact with the wreckage?

3. When do you intend to tell us what the wreckage is if you do not believe the wreckage is from AA77 and that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon?

4. When do you intend to present direct, verifiable evidence and testimony that anyone say a jet fly over and away from the Pentagon as you and CIT claim?

5. Why do you claim that CIT "...CANNOT interview military or police. They are forbidden," when CIT did just that? Why are lying about that, mudlark?

The burden of proof for your claims rests entirely on your shoulders. You need to answer the questions about your claims and present us the evidence CIT refuses to. So, mudlark, it is now time for you to step up to the plate and answer the questions posed to you.

 

[funk de fino]

@mudlark: excellent work, but futile. Working average braindead mainstream forums is much more effiicient. Those "opponents" here are just not well in their brain.

You've lost it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It's very similar to the math/physics deficiency in that he has no clue about three-dimensional space....none. It has shown up numerous times over the course of this charade. Does everyone remember the vertical versus the horizontal clock reference? How 'bout all of those flight paths which are impossible for ANY aircraft to fly! Yessireeeee, this is one crack investigator. That's why this crack team of idiots came up with this idiotic scheme in the first place. They have no clue about much of anything that matters and simply keep displaying arrogant ignorance the longer they perpetuate the lunacy.

All true, but our mudlark^WP has made some progress. After giving up on his original argument that the plane's shadow would fall south of the plane, he's come up with a legitimate fact (daylight savings time) implying the plane was even farther south than A W Smith had calculated.

Good show! If my count is anywhere near accuate this makes about the tenth time on as many issues this idiocy has been destroyed.

How in the hades anyone could be deceived by it is far beyond my comprehension......

Well, mudlark^WP and Childlike Empress appear to be the only people still being deceived by it...


On to mudlark^WP's latest:

Individual testimony has been deemed "worthless" by certain people here.

Mudlark^WP has himself rejected a majority of the individual testimony.

But to ignore ALL the witnesses who were in the best possible position to differentiate between NOC and SOC is completely dishonest and illogical.

Why then has mudlark^WP been ignoring them?

That the FDR records a totally different flightpath IS the problem.
Remember that this FDR has no serial number.
That JREFers themselves claim that seconds are missing from it.

Please try to keep up, mudlark^WP. In October of last year, Warren Stutt proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the CSV files were missing the final seconds. He did that by recovering those seconds from the binary data, which had been in PfT's possession all along.

That even when Warren´s extra data is included that the plane STILL misses the lightpoles.

False.

That not ONE definitive SOC witness has been put forward in this thread let alone corraborative testimony to back eachother up.

False.

And so on.

Mudlark^WP later points out, correctly, that the CVR was destroyed, but his main concern is to throw stones at the flight data recorder (FDR). Once upon a time, before Warren had recovered the final seconds of FDR data, that FDR was the primary piece of physical evidence being cited by mudlark^WP's favorite mathematician technobabbler, Rob Balsamo, whose 11.2g/10.14g/2223g/58g errors have become a running joke in this forum and elsewhere. Back then, Balsamo's interpretation of the FDR data was based on his denial of the missing seconds. Now that the missing seconds have been recovered, mudlark^WP's only recourse is to dismiss the FDR.

As BCR and others have shown, however, the FDR is consistent with several ground radars and a host of other evidence. If the FDR was faked and planted, then all of that other evidence had to have been faked and planted also: the radar data, the light poles, the majority of the eyewitnesses that mudlark^WP dismisses, even several of the CIT witnesses who insist that the plane they saw hit the Pentagon. If mudlark^WP were right about the FDR, then the attack on the Pentagon and its coverup would have involved active participation by thousands of American traitors. It's more likely that our self-described mudlark^WP is trying to sell us more trash.

 

[Meed]

A W Smith also brought up the ink spot on the picture Paik originally signed. What is interesting is that he actually started to draw a line closer to Columbia Pike. This may not be the exact "official" path, but it's definitely SOUTH of the Citgo. Did CIT record Paik drawing these lines? I would like to see if any "coaching" was done. Why did he stop drawing his first line?

[qimg]http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/911-3soc.jpg[/qimg]

What is interesting is that he could not have witnessed any of the flightpath he drew at all, except for the tiny segment passing by his shop. Where did the northward bend over the navy anex come from? He had absolutely no vision of the plane once it passed his shop.

And why is the area of the photo limited in such a way that the correct/official flightpath (where it could actually be visible from his shop) area is not even included in the photo at all.

Interesting that despite this, Paik starts off by trying to draw outside of the photograph anyway before the likely coaching took place.

 

[Meed]

The video interview, which this thread is about, shows that even when a totally biased anti-CIT propagandist went to cast doubt on Ed Paik´s NOC testimony, he failed. Miserably.

Paik never had "NOC" testimony.

Your response is childish. CIT owes a correction and an apology in lieu of their major mistake regarding Paik's location. Instead, they respond with insults and childish "thanks for proving us right" type comments, because a portion of their interview was confirmed.

How did Paik draw the plane's flightpath, when he didn't see anything other than a wing going by outside his window for 1-2 seconds?

 

[Meed]

Did any of those "1000" directly say that they found wreckage from Boeing 757-200, N644AA?

This is complete nonsenseous and you know it. Are you saying that a plane other than a Boeing 757-200 could have hit the pentagon? Like maybe a Boeing 757-300? Or Boeing 757-200 N645AB?

 

[Edx]

Did any of those "1000" directly say that they found wreckage from Boeing 757-200, N644AA?
What exactly did the wreckage consist of?

You know full well that even Sgt Lagasse said he saw plane wreckage.

"I found a compressor blade and carbon fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the engines smashed...but intact in the building."
- Sgt Legasse in an email to Dick Eastman.

 

[Meed]

For me it looks like you are plugging the stuff out of your rear end. It's obvious that you are not familiar with software like this.

Why is it "obvious"? Can you explain this to us?

Your comments on MAYA are embarrasing.

Which of his comments are "embarrasing" and why?

You don't need data input for your run of MAYA to get the crux of the evidence CIT have obtained.

??

Why should i provide this data (already provided to you from "official" sources) when you've shown that, if you don't lie about your expertise, you lie about the outcome of plugging this data into this software?

Where did he lie about his expertise and where did he lie about the outcome of plugging data into the software?

The cartoon software that isn't capable of modeling the situation, according to you? Scum? *yawn*

Classy.

Do have some actual evidence he/she is lying? Child? *sneeze*

You fail to be one of the cool kids, because the kool kids are able to plug the f-ing original data into the appropiate software, Hokulele.

"Kool kids"?

If you're right about this it should be easy to provide the scene files to prove it. Did you actually do this yourself or are you just making assumptions in line with your point of view and calling everyone who contradicts them a liar?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Which of his comments are "embarrasing" and why?

Psssst: Hokulele's a she.

Just lettin' you know before she strikes us with lightning.

 

[Meed]

Ah, sorry Hokulele (I threw a he/she in there somewhere but missed the earlier ones).

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Buying Loose Change DVD's: $20.00

Supporting A&E for 9/11 Truth: $10.00 (give or take)

Getting your ass handed to you on JREF for having mass histeria & paranoia: PRICELESS!

 

[WilliamSeger]

It is the perfect software to visualize what they intended to visualize. Your shenanigans are nothing but embarrassing. And it's obvious that your are conscious of it and pretending.

You don't need Maya to figure out that Balsamo's graphic is whacked, either. A little common sense and visualization will do.

Paik is pointing up at about a 35^o angle, and being generous, he may have been able to see up about 45^o. A simple 2D drawing to scale shows that if the plane was really on the path he drew, and was at least high enough to clear the Annex building, Paik would have seen nothing at all, not even the very tip of the wing.

If we assume that he could have seen as much as 45^o upward, then the plane was, at the very least, as far SSE of him as it was above the ground. The shadow clinches it, as A.W. Smith shows: Paik is an "official path" witness.