CIT Fraud Revealed

A W Smith said:
Ready? Set? GO! (oh I used a "shadow length calculator" this time)
[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/DSTazimuthrevision-1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/reshadowlength-1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

You know, you could have just used the general equation I already gave ya.

distance to ground track = height above horizontal/tangent(angle)
distance to ground track = 210/0.62 = 338.7

Oh my, the same result. But then again, that is using real world math. I understand that P4T/Maya math may not agree however. How did mankind manage to survive without P4T's mathematical revelations?
 
I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Mudlark for exposing the CIT fraud by pointing out the daylight saving time error in AW Smith's calculation. Before Mudlark pointed it out, there was a 0.00001% chance that CIT were on to something big, now however, their NOC theory lies smashed to pieces on the anvil of mathematics.

Hooray For Mudlark!! A real champion for truth!
 
A W Smith said:
Ready? Set? GO! (oh I used a "shadow length calculator" this time)
[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/DSTazimuthrevision-1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/reshadowlength-1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Congrats for finally fixing the mistake.... now make a wider picture to show us that when using heading/course data, the aircraft will not line up with the physical damage from your plotted position.

I´ll do it for you..

2s8rd55.jpg


Before BCR chimes in with the "Error band!" mantra..an argument which in effect allows you guys to tweak the path to suit your opinions..once and for all tell me and everyone WHICH is the SOC path?

Is it the one through which BCR claims that the VDOT tower may have been struck, only a page or two ago?

Is it the one YOU are pushing still, even though I told you that the shadow cast in the images I posted are based on the NTSB heading/course data and the physical damage a page or two ago and NOT Warren´s datapoints?

Is it the one described by Madelyn Zakhem which Beachnut insists that she saw which had to be further North than yours for her to see the cockpit, and which was in a ´left-tilt´?

Or is it the "consolidated path" which DOES line up with the physical damage?

You can all calm down now..try again Smiffy.
 
Hokulele said:
No, that is reversing the burden of proof again. I do need the data used by PfT in order to verify its accuracy since that is the claim on the table.

Can you provide this data?
Click to expand...

...as i said, forget about it Hokulele.
You KNOW exactly what I was proposing.

BCR was the one who stated that the shadow proved SOC. I provided a physical debunk.
The burden is on you.
 
Brainache said:
I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Mudlark for exposing the CIT fraud by pointing out the daylight saving time error in AW Smith's calculation. Before Mudlark pointed it out, there was a 0.00001% chance that CIT were on to something big, now however, their NOC theory lies smashed to pieces on the anvil of mathematics.

Hooray For Mudlark!! A real champion for truth!
Click to expand...

You DO see the problem here when somebody claims something and you don´t check it out for YOURSELF. Wow..and CIT are the "cult"?
 
mudlark said:
...as i said, forget about it Hokulele.
You KNOW exactly what I was proposing.
Click to expand...


Right, and I want you to support what it is you were proposing.

Although, I can see why you would want people to forget about this...

BCR was the one who stated that the shadow proved SOC. I provided a physical debunk.
The burden is on you.
Click to expand...


And BCR provided the reasoning and data behind this conclusion. Something you have yet to do.
 
cornsail said:
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.
Click to expand...

I HAD thought that you were maybe an honest critical thinker Cornsnail, but this post is beyond ridiculous.
He saw the plane pass OVER his shop. He could only see the right wing and part of the fuselage.
The interview was conducted by one of your own.

Where the hell are you suggesting the path is that he SHOULD have described???

SOC would have been in plain sight to him from where he was.

Not so long ago you were posting witness testimony from 2km away LOOKING THROUGH A WINDOW. Windows are made of concrete in your part of the world? Don´t answer that..
 
Hokulele said:
Right, and I want you to support what it is you were proposing.

Although, I can see why you would want people to forget about this...




And BCR provided the reasoning and data behind this conclusion. Something you have yet to do.
Click to expand...

I want YOU to forget about it.
You are obviously dodging the issue after stepping up to the plate on your knowledge in this area. Now you want the data that went into creating it, NOT to check the data but to set the parameters up for you! LOL

As I said..
 
BCR said:
You know, you could have just used the general equation I already gave ya.

distance to ground track = height above horizontal/tangent(angle)
distance to ground track = 210/0.62 = 338.7

Oh my, the same result. But then again, that is using real world math. I understand that P4T/Maya math may not agree however. How did mankind manage to survive without P4T's mathematical revelations?
Click to expand...

Help Smiffy with the math on the REAL path in the image will ya?
 
mudlark said:
I want YOU to forget about it.
Click to expand...


As I noted, I can see why.

You are obviously dodging the issue after stepping up to the plate on your knowledge in this area. Now you want the data that went into creating it, NOT to check the data but to set the parameters up for you! LOL
Click to expand...


You realize the parameters are the data, yes?

As I said..
Click to expand...


Said, but not supported. Here I sit and wait, patiently...
 
WilliamSeger said:
You don't need Maya to figure out that Balsamo's graphic is whacked, either. A little common sense and visualization will do.

[qimg]http://zoesflight.com/files/edpaik.JPEG[/qimg]

Paik is pointing up at about a 35o angle, and being generous, he may have been able to see up about 45o. 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.

[qimg]http://opendb.com/images/paik.jpg[/qimg]

If we assume that he could have seen as much as 45o 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.
Click to expand...

He claimed to have seen part of the fuselage too.
And what heading is your plane on?? You do know the Sheraton is directly behind?
You are assuming that the plane literally went straight over his shop.
His map clearly shows he saw it coming in at an angle.

Pen the hotel in behind and see if you reach the same results.

You are contradicting his testimony, his map(s) and the topography.
Just letting you know.

A little "common sense" needed :)
 
Before BCR chimes in with the "Error band!" mantra..an argument which in effect allows you guys to tweak the path to suit your opinions..once and for all tell me and everyone WHICH is the SOC path?
Click to expand...
Why are we debating someone who thinks that measurement equipment is 100% accurate?
Ready? Set? GO! (oh I used a "shadow length calculator" this time)
Click to expand...
God...... What is it with truthers thinking that drawing lines is an accurate method of measuring distance in a photo?
 
Last edited:
mudlark said:
He claimed to have seen part of the fuselage too.
And what heading is your plane on?? You do know the Sheraton is directly behind?
You are assuming that the plane literally went straight over his shop.
His map clearly shows he saw it coming in at an angle.

Pen the hotel in behind and see if you reach the same results.

You are contradicting his testimony, his map(s) and the topography.
Just letting you know.

A little "common sense" needed :)
Click to expand...

Common sense tells us that a couple hundred people who's names we know describe Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon and the entire aircraft and all the passengers were found inside.
 
Okay, nothing else worth commenting on here.
See you tomorrow Smith. (Is that okay samiam?)
 
mudlark said:
Okay, nothing else worth commenting on here.
See you tomorrow Smith. (Is that okay samiam?)
Click to expand...


What did I ask you a few days ago about the accuracy of the google earth overlays? and if the pin locations were verified via GPS on site? The physical evidence of the flight path trumps all mudlark.

ETA: and its a bit disingenuous to attach my name to a flight path I never drew.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom