• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

CIT Fraud Revealed

Mudlark: What say you regarding the witnesses who say they actually witnessed Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon?
 
Mr.Herbert said:
The "horse" that stated this was assured his interview was not going to be published.....




:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How could they NOT publish it given the seriousness of what he said?
Did ´Shinki´ know that he was being recorded by Farmer on that God awful tape? Doesn´t sound like it.

Craig and Aldo were being accused of ´dishonesty´ in their presentation of Morin and paik´s testimonies. They weren´t. It´s all recorded. paik drew the map. morin places the plane OVER the Annex. End of story.
 
mudlark said:
How could they NOT publish it given the seriousness of what he said?
Did ´Shinki´ know that he was being recorded by Farmer on that God awful tape? Doesn´t sound like it.

Craig and Aldo were being accused of ´dishonesty´ in their presentation of Morin and paik´s testimonies. They weren´t. It´s all recorded. paik drew the map. morin places the plane OVER the Annex. End of story.
Click to expand...

Yes, that story certainly makes for poor fiction. Good luck with that.
 
THEY LIED mudlark.... END OF STORY.

What did releasing that do for the Douche Duo? NADA! NOTHING! They are still the laughing stock of the Retard Rodeo that is the truth movement.
 
mudlark said:
They have talked to many. The main witnesses in the video presentation are ALL of the witnesses within the ANC/Citgo area.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Are you one of them? Or do you just think that everybody should just take the world of your retarded heroes? And even if those two morons did include the interviews from everybody in that area that they talked to in their "evidence" there is no way you can say it is ALL of them from that area. Also, why didn't your fraudulent gurus include witnesses from different areas, since they apparently talked to many of them? Those people tell them something they didn't want to hear?
 
mudlark said:
They have talked to many. The main witnesses in the video presentation are ALL of the witnesses within the ANC/Citgo area.
Click to expand...

Why from within that area only? Did they talk to anyone on the other side of the road? What about folks that would have been beneath the official flight path? Anyone interviewed in that area?
 
mudlark said:
Why did he duck when the plane was so high above him? How could he believe that the plane was going to strike the roof if it WAS so high AND on the alleged trajectory?

Enough of the hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Mudlark

I am not aware if the airspace above Paik shop is used regulary, frequently, infrequently or not at all. Maybe someone else could confirm/clarify this.

Regardless, i am going to assume that no large commercial or military aircraft would normally be witnessed flying over that location at the suggested altitudes being argued here. I am assuming that 911 was the first time in residents lifetimes that this happened! (Aircraft recognition in this senario is a different topic altogether).

This would therefore indicate to me that such an occurance of an unexpected low flying noisy aircraft screaming through the sky at ?mph would be quite unerving and frightening. I would assume that given such a situation you would duck too. Have you ever driven under a low bridge whilst in the safety of your car and ducked. Why?

He ducked, he didnt duck -so what? It seems it just adds a bit more wow woo to the story and nothing more. Specific reaction to something of such magnituide would be fight or flight. Perhaps paik just got scared and decided for flight.
 
Last edited:
Mudlark,

Craig and Aldo were being accused of ´dishonesty´ in their presentation of Morin and paik´s testimonies. They weren´t. It´s all recorded. paik drew the map. morin places the plane OVER the Annex. End of story.
Click to expand...
Its not end of story, Morin categorically does not place the plane over the annex, you can hear him correct Ranke in an exasperated tone as Ranke is trying to direct him towards thinking this, he says the plane "is over the edge of the annex not completely over it", CIT deviously choose to ignore this admission and fraudulently claim he is a north of citgo witness. He is a south of citgo witness without question, he even acknowledges the wings may have been over Columbia Pike.

Although some of Paiks drawings (like the one you used in post 174) can be used to argue for a north of citgo claim, other drawings (like the one CurtC posted in 104) show a south of citgo claim. CIT cant just pick and choose which bit of his account they can shoehorn into their north of citgo theory and ignore the fact that he said the wings were over Columbia Pike because it doesn't support them. The honest approach is to look at the totality of his account which is undeniably south of citgo.

It is foolish to continue arguing that Paik and Morin are north of citgo witnesses.
 
Mudlark quoted Morin. If you are going to claim that these quotes are incorrect, i'm going to point you to his testimony (again) and everybody can check for themselves that it's you who is dishonest (or misled by liars).
 
mudlark said:
Ya think?

Smith, you keep SAYING that the math has been debunked but


You wanted specific parameters from witness testimonies.
You asked for the impossible yet Balsamo tried to compensate by running various witness compatible flightpaths AND at the official 540mph speed.

You want to argue math with somebody who has already admitted that it would be above their head on the technicalities but you haven´t the cojones to argue your point with the people who actually presented the math.
You mention the 11.2 g in the full knowledge that Pilotsfor911truth have publically admitted their mistake.

I have personally asked Rob balsamo if you are barred from the site and he said ´No´
He told me that you are more than welcome to argue your points with him. Either at the forum or in public.
Click to expand...
Balsamo's 11.2 G is still posted. Oops, Up for over a year, soon 2 years of stupid still posted.

2,223 Gs, wow, if you could do math, you might see Balsamo is a fraud selling lies on DVD, 10 bucks.

Please present the flight path and the math for NoC; if you can't then the flight path never happen.

The Paik flight path takes over 4 Gs and 76 degree of bank but that is with instant bank;

What is the roll rate for a 757? If you can't do the flight dynamics you have no flight path; this is called failure.

All the witnesses support the "official" flight path. Paik points right to it.

You have failed to present a flight path; why, because all the flight paths drawn are the perceptions of the real flight path from each perspective. If you were a trained aircraft accident investigator you would not fall for the lies of CIT; the overflight never seen.

Boger watched 77 impact. CIT witnesses all agree 77 impacts the Pentagon.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Mudlark quoted Morin. If you are going to claim that these quotes are incorrect, i'm going to point you to his testimony (again) and everybody can check for themselves that it's you who is dishonest (or misled by liars).
Click to expand...


Keep up, Troll. CIT assured Morin that his statments would NOT be used or published. CIT recorded him (with or without him knowing I am not sure) and decided that his testimoney was so critical to their investigation, they went against the wishes of Morin and released their recording.

Again... who was dishonest?
 
mudlark said:
What do you not understand about that post??
Are you telling me that a shadow could NOT have been cast on Ed Paik´s shop given the low altitude Ed paik described and NOT 450ft agl as suggested by BCR.
He claimed that he thought the plane was going to hit the ROOF.
What angle are you suggesting the sun was at that a shadow would have MISSED??

haha

It just tastes sweeter that you made a smartass comment to follow your illogical argument. Thanks. I knew i could count on you.

As an old friend, whatever his name is, used to say
kthxbye
Click to expand...


Hmm, I seem to recall something about physical evidence trumping eyewitness accounts. I also seem to recall that, if eyewitness accounts are used, details tend to be more accurate than guesstimates.

We have an eyewitness account of a shadow crossing a particular building vs. a guesstimate as to direction, location, and altitude. I wonder which is more likely to be correct....
 
CE,

I'm not claiming that the quotes mudlark used are incorrect. He is choosing to not quote the part where Morin states that the plane was only over the edge. This is dishonest and shouldn't be this hard to understand.
 
Horace Wheeljack said:
CE,

I understand that Paik and Morin's recollections are not exactly on the official path but CIT have fraudulently represented their accounts to support a north of citgo claim. This is thoroughly dishonest.

If they were honest researchers they would have included Paik and Morin as south of citgo witnesses but note that they were placing the plane north of the official path.
Click to expand...

Who has eyes on the top of their head; looking up is a 30 to 45 degree angle, not 90 degrees. All the witnesses CIT have support the official flight path exactly. From their point of view they saw 77 fly by on the 61.2 to 61.5 degree flight path (true track) and if properly interviewed each one will point to the flight path as they do in the CIT videos pointing to the south flight path.

poor mudlark has problems with similes like most of 911 truth

as mudlark say with most disrspect, "kthxbye", he snubs us all as he pushes lies which he can't see are lies...
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
Mudlark quoted Morin. If you are going to claim that these quotes are incorrect, i'm going to point you to his testimony (again) and everybody can check for themselves that it's you who is dishonest (or misled by liars).
Click to expand...

I will ask you again.

What is your take on the witnesses who state that they saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon?

Does that testimony not make CIT's witnesses irrelevant?
 
Garb said:
I will ask you again.

What is your take on the witnesses who state that they saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon?

Does that testimony not make CIT's witnesses irrelevant?
Click to expand...
I think for CIT this falls into the "cast a doubt and they will ignore everything else" argument. It doesn't work in real life but, hey... they're "truthers"... what do they know about real life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom