CIT Fraud Revealed

[mudlark]

Whats the difference between paikpointsnorth and paikpointssouth?

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

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

It is in relation to Craig Ranke asking Ed Paik the ALTITUDE of the plane as it passed over him. He was pointing at the roof of the building as a perspective. NOT the direction it took.

02:28

Craig: How high was the plane when it was in front of you?

Ed Paik: uhhh..almost hit (points at roof)..I thought at that time the airplane hit...uhhh roof, MY ROOF. My building roof (points the length of his roof)...Hit THIS ROOF.That much lower.

03:50

He makes the same gesture, talking about his roof without looking behind him.

THAT is the difference.

Where was Paik when the shadow passed over him?

His brother Shinki has him outside.

 

[dtugg]

I hope these fraudulent, moronic psychos waste their entire lives trying to prove their retarded idea. They are no good scum and they deserve to waste their lives on something so pathetic. Plus it will provide an endless supply of lulz. I wouldn't dream of talking them out of it even such a thing were possible.

 

[mudlark]

There is nothing to call out. The path which is plotted by CIT would require a significant bank angle, which none of the witnesses described. And yes, they all point south at a less than 45 degree angle.

Wow, hadn´t noticed this ´classic´ before posting a debunk to Beachnut on the same topic.
The paths are NOT ´plotted by CIT´. The witnesses drew their own paths.
They ´point´ at ******** in relation to a 45º angle from the ´south´

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5565991&postcount=277

ALL but one of the 5 ANC witnesses describe a ´right-bank´ after the plane passes OVER the Navy Annex towards the ANC carpark.

Unreal man, the thing is, you tell these lies with such confidence OVER AND OVER...definitely an art.
Worse still, people here actually accept it in the full knowledge that it is false.

 

[mudlark]

Shinki, his brother describes it differently.

Edducked and then Shinki saw the shadow go by. This would have to mean that the body had already passed.

Shinki described Ed as being outside when the he saw the shadow (Shinki)

Why would he connect the repair guys on the tower with the aircraft, had he not seen the aircraft in the same scene with the tower?

I quoted what HE said. He didn´t SEE the VDOT tower being struck. he described the plane´s body flying over the rooves at an angle.
That he thought the VDOT was somehow damaged by the plane was due to seeing the repair guys.
We now know that the ´repair guys´ were actually strengthening communications and the plane didn´t strike the tower.
The guy was not interested in NOC or SOC, he obviously just made an assumption after seeing a ´freakin huge´ plane fly overhead.

Not really. I do not hear or see any statements to the effect that Morin had to look behind him to see the aircraft, as he would have to have done had it flown NOC.

If you are in between two vertical surfaces and any distance back from the ends of those surfaces, your perspective regarding flying or floating things starts getting messed up. Looking up,from 10 feet in, the plane will appear to be over the building as long as it is cruising above a point iintersected by the witnesses line-of sight fromthe witness' eyes to the upper corner of the end of the wall.

That he could not see any stripes or other marking is not evidence. Inside the wing, his eyes would have adjusted to partial shade. If he then looks up into a clear sky, pastel lines would be a bit faded until his eyes adjusted.

Ballon juice.

´Balloon juice´? Lol.

He said he could not PHYSICALLY see the stripes because the body of the plane passed over his head from 10 feet WITHIN the wings of the Annex.
He was very specific about this.
Incredible how nobody will accept the FACT repeated by not only NOC witnesses but just as many more seeing the plane go OVER the Annex.

If the plane hadn´t gone over the Annex he would have looked up to the right, even if it means slightly to the right. he describes no such thing.
For him to have seen an SOC approach he would have seen this

I DIDN´T SEE THE STRIPES, ALL I COULD SEE WAS THE BELLY¨

(...)

¨CRAIG: WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT THE PLANE FLEW ON THE SOUTHSIDE, SOUTH OF COLUMBIA PIKE?

MORIN: NO FRICKIN´ WAY. IT FLEW OVER THE TOP OF ME¨

You can try to spin it all you want but this witness it NOT describing the SOC path in any way.

I just wish you guys could go meet these witnesses and tell them what you are telling me. See what they say.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert
The "horse" that stated this was assured his interview was not going to be published.....

How could they NOT publish it given the seriousness of what he said?


-snip-

So... what did CIT gain by lying to Morin? The scum bags assured him that they would NOT release his statements.

 

[mudlark]

[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/AllGroupsMap-3.jpg[/qimg]

If the eyewitnesses all agree on the path, why is there more than one?

They ALL agree specifically that the plane was nowhere near SOC.
Of course there are margins of error involved but not that great that they can´t place the plane on a path which totally contradicts SOC and the consequent damage.

But you already knew that no?

 

[Mangoose]

I know people have brought this up before, but...

Why doesn't this flight path in this photo:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/paikmap-4.jpg[/qimg]

Match this flight path in this photo?:
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/CITGO2-1.jpg[/qimg]

Didn't Ed draw both of these?

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. 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.

 

[mudlark]

Also look at Edwards path and then the extreme line to the north. Surely CIT have to say that line is wrong since it clearly doesn't go over the Annex, and yet they maintain plane DID go over the Annex. The extreme North path is as different to Edwards path as it is to the official South path line, if not more as its even further away!

Also some of the other lines only START north of Citgo, and yet if it flew over the Annex following Edward's path theres no way it could then make that manoeuvre.

Clearly they don't agree Mudlark.

Ed paik´s path goes as far as he could physically see it. Over the Annex.
William Middleton´s North path doesn´t take away from the fact that he described it

¨from in between what´s that the Hilton (Sheraton) and the Navy Annex and he started dropping¨

(...)

¨As he came past me, I could feel the heat..that´s how close he was to me..of the plane itself¨

He goes on to describe it flying towards the ANC carpark. That he may have misjudged the plane´s approach as being from Henderson Hall from his POV is only natural given the circumstances. The rest of his testimony speaks for itself.
The fact that the plane only had to make the slightest of manouevres/banks from over the wings to totally change the perceived trajectory from Paik and Morin´s POVs to its emergence over the plateau of land in front of the Annex is another real possibility.
They are all within a reasonable margin of error. More importantly they all fatally contradict the SOC path.

 

[Edx]

Ed paik´s path goes as far as he could physically see it. Over the Annex.
William Middleton´s North path doesn´t take away from the fact that he described it

.

I'm sorry, I understand that, but what I don't understand is where CIT got the rest of his "line" that turns suddenly in order to make the turn to go north over Citgo. As one of his drawings showed, his line went south of Citgo, but as for the other where did CIT get the rest of the line from to add to their others and make it go NOC?

And maybe I missed it but who's witness report has the plane not flying North over the Annex, and not over it at all? Surely you cant say that agrees?

 

[Mangoose]

He said he could not PHYSICALLY see the stripes because the body of the plane passed over his head from 10 feet WITHIN the wings of the Annex. He was very specific about this.

Memory fades. What did Morin say in September 2001, immediately after the events when the memory was still very fresh?

I then realized that I was wearing sunglasses and needed to go back to Lot 3 to retrieve my clear lenses. Since it was by no means a short walk to my car, I was upset with myself for being so distracted. Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5 [i.e. no longer within the wings of the Navy Annex], I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual. I can’t remember exactly what I was thinking about at that moment, but I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. I instantly had a very bad feeling about this but things were happening very quickly. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon [according to CIT, the plane should not have been visible at all by this point]. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots [how can he estimate the flight speed of a plane he couldn't see but for a brief instant?]. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon [this unquestionably points to a SOC flight path, as none of this should have been visible if the plane is where CIT says it was].

 

[Mangoose]

 

[beachnut]

He said he could not PHYSICALLY see the stripes because the body of the plane passed over his head from 10 feet WITHIN the wings of the Annex.
He was very specific about this.
Incredible how nobody will accept the FACT repeated by not only NOC witnesses but just as many more seeing the plane go OVER the Annex.

If the plane hadn´t gone over the Annex he would have looked up to the right, even if it means slightly to the right. he describes no such thing.
For him to have seen an SOC approach he would have seen this

You can try to spin it all you want but this witness it NOT describing the SOC path in any way.

I just wish you guys could go meet these witnesses and tell them what you are telling me. See what they say.

OOPS, you left out the 6 degrees of right bank making the bottom the primary thing seen on 911; darn, debunked by your own failure to do simple research, and your own failure to listen and watch CIT witnesses clearly point south! lol

You can spin it any way you want, you will still be wrong as all the witnesses have 77 on the south flight path; all of your moronic flight paths are impossible, too many gs!

 

[A W Smith]

The distance is still too long for the plane to have cast a shadow there.
The point you measured from is closer to the 183ft datapoint in Warren´s code.

no it is not, it is about 392 feet from the 233 foot data point. and about 440 feet from the 183 foot data point. So its roughly 209 foot agl

At what degree of elevation would the sun actually have to be to reach that point? Certainly not 42

yes 42.4º. elevation. It works out perfectly.

The 3D scaled pic I showed is more in line. The exact positional and altitude data from Warren´s program along with the Azimuth of the sun at 09:37 on September 11th were all run through
this highly accurate program.

"this highly accurate program" ain't too accurate. or somebody over at PFT effed up ... again.

I take it also that the ´mean´ of all the flightpaths BCR is talking of has now been narrowed down to Warren´s path to make the shadow theory ´fit´?

No that's just from the center of the fuselage. Last time I checked, wings can cast a shadow as well.

The shadow being cast from BCR´s ´path´ is physically impossible even from the upper range of altitude of 450ft.

Your assumptions are wrong.

 

[DGM]

I quoted what HE said. He didn´t SEE the VDOT tower being struck. he described the plane´s body flying over the rooves at an angle.
That he thought the VDOT was somehow damaged by the plane was due to seeing the repair guys.
We now know that the ´repair guys´ were actually strengthening communications and the plane didn´t strike the tower.
The guy was not interested in NOC or SOC, he obviously just made an assumption after seeing a ´freakin huge´ plane fly overhead.


.

So it doesn't seem the least bit odd to you that he would think the plane hit it although he claims the plane was no wheres near it.

 

[leftysergeant]

I quoted what HE said. He didn´t SEE the VDOT tower being struck. he described the plane´s body flying over the rooves at an angle.
That he thought the VDOT was somehow damaged by the plane was due to seeing the repair guys.
We now know that the ´repair guys´ were actually strengthening communications and the plane didn´t strike the tower.

Why would he have even taken any note of the tower at all?


[qimg]http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/morinPOVsouth.gif[/qimg]
[/QUOTE]

This is garbage. There is no way that anyone could have seen any such thing. You are deliberately confusing people. Stop it.

 

[nicepants]

Thanks for responding...

The NOC witnesses ALL agree to the path of the plane.

If the eyewitnesses all agree on the path, why is there more than one?

They ALL agree specifically that the plane was nowhere near SOC.

They don't "all agree on the path of the plane", but they do all agree on certain aspects of that path such as:

1) It was north of the citgo
2) It ended at the pentagon where the plane crashed into it

Of course there are margins of error involved but not that great that they can´t place the plane on a path which totally contradicts SOC and the consequent damage.

So...they could be wrong...but not wrong enough for the plane to be south of the Citgo?

Looking at your this illustration...the differences between some of the paths is quite significant ~500 feet in some cases. That's more than double the distance from one side of the citgo to the other. Do you see how the margins of error are too large to state with accuracy which side of the citgo the plane was on?

If the margin of error is less than 500 feet, please specify how large the margin is.

 

[Reheat]

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

Unfortunately for you, you have agreed with me TWICE in this thread and debunked the entire NOC crap. You ran away the last time. I don't blame you for running because you've destroyed your boatload of bunkum you've been posting.

Here's your reference to Morins words which agrees with my analysis:

He said he could not PHYSICALLY see the stripes because the body of the plane passed over his head from 10 feet WITHIN the wings of the Annex.
He was very specific about this.

Here's the flight path and math that goes with it:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC

Don't even try to tell us that your pffft loons proved the flight path and math. They didn't because the path they plotted is quite different and was behind Morin over the middle of th Annex, not where you've just quoted him as indicating where it was.

You're dismissed as you've verified that the NOC path was aerodynamically impossible.

 

[BCR]

ALL but one of the 5 ANC witnesses describe a ´right-bank´ after the plane passes OVER the Navy Annex towards the ANC carpark.

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.

 

[mudlark]

I'm sorry, I understand that, but what I don't understand is where CIT got the rest of his "line" that turns suddenly in order to make the turn to go north over Citgo. As one of his drawings showed, his line went south of Citgo, but as for the other where did CIT get the rest of the line from to add to their others and make it go NOC?

And maybe I missed it but who's witness report has the plane not flying North over the Annex, and not over it at all? Surely you cant say that agrees?

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.



William Middleton is the most extreme North but I believe I covered that in an earlier post in relation to the discrepancy between Paik and Middleton´s paths

Ed paik´s path goes as far as he could physically see it. Over the Annex.
William Middleton´s North path doesn´t take away from the fact that he described it

¨from in between what´s that the Hilton (Sheraton) and the Navy Annex and he started dropping¨

(...)

¨As he came past me, I could feel the heat..that´s how close he was to me..of the plane itself¨

He goes on to describe it flying towards the ANC carpark. That he may have misjudged the plane´s approach as having come down that street from his POV is only natural given the circumstances.

The fact that the plane only had to make the slightest of manouevres/banks from over the wings to totally change the perceived trajectory from Paik and Morin´s POVs to its emergence over the plateau of land in front of the Annex is another real possibility.
They are all within a reasonable margin of error.

One thing is for sure. He was in no way describing an SOC approach.

Watch their interview to get an idea of their POVs.

http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

You can see the left corner of the Annex/SOC from their POV. Look out especially for Middleton´s around the 37 minute mark. It should explain a lot.

 

[mudlark]

So... what did CIT gain by lying to Morin? The scum bags assured him that they would NOT release his statements.

As far as I know they held back on releasing the interview but he DID say that the plane flew over the Navy Annex from a POV that cannot be misconstrued or waved away by perspective ´problems´ in the same way as the rest of the 19 Navy Annex witnesses have been.
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?