CIT Fraud Revealed

mudlark said:
He asked for data to mirror the images I posted.
I have already linked to the sun azimuth and elevation repeatedly so the only other data he could be referring to is the positional and altitude data in Warren´s program.
I say this because he and another have already given their ´expert opinion´ on the accuracy and validity of the program that provided the image.
One being an AutoCAD teacher no less. The topography and lighting should be no problem to them.
Click to expand...

GIGO.

How do you deal with the fact that the entire body of Flight 77 (less that consumed by fire) and the bodies of all the passengers that boarded at Dulles were recovered inside the Pentagon ?

Your post are clear as mud. They seem designed to obfuscate the mess they make of the facts around the Pentagon on 9/11.
 
Answers in bold:

mudlark said:
That´s a broad statement (as usual).
All claims I have made have been verified by actually linking to proof in the form of FOIA requests, math and recorded witness statements.
´Rebuttals´ in this forum are nothing more than opinion pieces (or quoted opinion pieces such as yours) and any ´counterevidence´ such as ´physical evidence´ has yet to be proven in the form of documentation.

You have no evidence to verify your claims.

snip...

Lie. I've answered almost every relevant post to the point where point 5 comes into play.
But if an erroneous post is made, and there have been MANY...

If it were a "lie", you'd make sure to back up your claims first and foremost.

snip....

There are more...but I´m sure you won´t bother your ass to read the links already posted.

Why would I need to read anything you supply to me when I know it's horse**** to begin with? Makes you wonder doesn't it??

See above on ´irrefutable evidence´

Non-existant evidence is no evidence when you haven't presented the evidence yourself to back up your claims. Sorry but you have refutable evidence pal. Learn to live with that fact!

HAHA! Rich coming from you or most people here.
Links to those ´attacks´ I made?
I could fill a thread with links.

Fill a thread with links is asking to get a suspention for spamming. So go ahead & do that for a change will ya?

See above.
What I have presented is NOT a CT.
It is evidence.

What you've presented is still horse****. You make claims that can't be backed up with evidence because you have no evidence to back them up.

Wow. Definitely see above.
The list of lies spouted on this forum is growing daily.

And yet you have no evidence to help you? Talk about being a **************, huh??
Click to expand...
Edited by Locknar: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
beachnut said:
Fraud is saying Madelyn can't see what she saw; fraud.
And mudlark says he posted math, but is math free! no math from mudlark, just links to pure stupid...
Click to expand...

I snipped the rest of your rant Beachy. It´s like trying to talk to a parrot on speed.

Here´s my ´non-math´ link ... again

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15930

Answers to Reheat, Farmer, Jaydeehess and yourself among others on criticism of the math provided:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15948&st=20

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15861

WDClinger´s response to the math was noteworthy

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5489387&postcount=647

¨Unfortunately, you have also given the impression of denying those logical consequences of your argument. Hence it would be a waste of time for PfT or us or anybody to run the math on those specific 8 or 9 flight paths. Your logical inconsistency already refutes your argument.¨
Click to expand...

There has been no mathematical rebuttal done on the basis that the parameters aren´t exact...P4T did the math on the AVAILABLE data, including many possible and more importantly witness compatible paths and ´right bank´ manouevres described. EVEN at the official speed of 540+mph.

Later Pinocchio.

By the way, Madelyn could only see the plane if it had followed Warren´s path. What angle do you keep repeating at which the plane ´impacted´ the building?
Does it square with Warren´s proposed trajectory?
The one where it misses the lightpoles?

mj5kqd.jpg


Or is farmer´s path threw in the bin?

bg4ok0.jpg


Madelyn would not have seen the plane on the latter path (if she could see anything at all through the trees and buildings)

v6t4xh.jpg
 
A good way to make people not bother reading your posts is to put in a big image so that they have to scroll side to side to read it...

just sayin'
 
Hey muddy, just curious, do you get a cut of the DVD sales for shilling CITiot nonsense? I realize that this would be hardly any money at all, but surely you're not doing it for free?
 
mudlark said:
Hokulele, you claim...

"Maya is not a design package"

Then why is there a drop down referring to "Maya For Design Visualization"?
Click to expand...


You understand the difference between design and visualization, yes?

I can draw 30 foot tall purple dinosaurs in either 3D Max, 3D Viz, or Maya. Does this mean that these are accurate representations of reality? I can "design" a highway with a 30% grade in any of the three as well. Does this mean it should be built that way? I can change the dimensions of the plane and the topography over which it is flying to put a shadow just about anywhere between Boston and Albequerque. Does this mean AA77 never hit the Pentagon?

Once Maya puts in error-checking, QA/QC, and parametric controls, I may call it a design program, but I would still require the original files and parameters used by the cartoonist in question before I would consider any output to have any relevance to reality. Ephemerides and flight data are only a few of the parameters needed to replicate what could have been seen on that day.

However, I will retract and reword one thing I said originally.

"Incompetence in, incompetence out."
 
mudlark said:
Or is farmer´s path threw in the bin?

[qimg]http://i47.tinypic.com/bg4ok0.jpg[/qimg]

Madelyn would not have seen the plane on the latter path (if she could see anything at all through the trees and buildings)

[qimg]http://i48.tinypic.com/v6t4xh.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Not Farmer's path, it is the consolidated data path. You have already been informed multiple times that the actual path is slightly north of the data path. The reason is because the INS is still correcting for the 330-degree turn drift (most likely). You have already been informed that the last 3 DCA returns definitely indicates that the model path is too far south. However, you have also been informed that the error band for the actual path is rather limited. You keep posting stuff without using the qualifier error band which simply demonstrates you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Madelyn did see a plane, so ergo you are wrong and the already estimated error band and slight southerly shift is verified. Please come back when you have the original unedited interview tapes and Maya scene.
 
Hokulele said:
"Incompetence in, incompetence out."
Click to expand...

It is strange that he wants to argue math, when he can't do math. He wants to argue 3D software, when he does not know anything about 3D software. It is like telling a doctor his diagnosis is wrong because they googled something different. And they wonder why they keep looking like complete fools.
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
I bet Doctor Samuel Mudd would put a facepalm to all of Mudlarks non-sense.
Click to expand...

As for me, I am done with this thread. The mudlap foolish just keeps on going and it is getting rather boring addressing the same old wrong and cartoons. How do you argue with cartoons? The cartoons win.
 
BCR said:
It is strange that he wants to argue math, when he can't do math. He wants to argue 3D software, when he does not know anything about 3D software. It is like telling a doctor his diagnosis is wrong because they googled something different. And they wonder why they keep looking like complete fools.
Click to expand...


And not to open old wounds (you were 911files, yes?), but the screen grabs that were shown give the strong impression that the person creating those had no idea what happens when one switches between a grid topographic system and a spherical one. :D


ETA: Ack, I didn't notice that you were done with this thread. Why am I always posting late? :sulk:
 
Last edited:
BCR said:
As for me, I am done with this thread. The mudlap foolish just keeps on going and it is getting rather boring addressing the same old wrong and cartoons. How do you argue with cartoons? The cartoons win.
Click to expand...

Not always, remember, Wile E. Coyote never caught that damn Roadrunner no matter how many times he tried he failed. Kind of like Mudlark who fails each & every time.

Coincidence? Perhaps!!
DancinChewie.gif
 
Childlike Empress said:
I see you don't object to BCR's and others altering of mudlark's name, hypocrite.
Click to expand...
I'm with CE on this: We should respect mudlarkWP's choice of screen name.

After wading through the excrement and waste at CIT, mudlarkWP hawks what he has found. Unlike the 18th century mudlarks, this mudlarkWP is trying to sell us the filth itself.
 
mudlark said:
I snipped the rest of your rant Beachy. It´s like trying to talk to a parrot on speed.
Click to expand...
So parrots on speed learned to fly high performance supersonic jet aircraft, earned masters in engineering, hold an ATP from the FAA (means I can fly left seat heavy jets with passengers, and I did), scuba dive, build super speakers, build quiet computers, and baby sit grandkids? What is your experience with speed mudlark?

You, CIT and Balsamo have a lot of experience with meth and speed? Was the 2,223 g special math, really meth-math?

... a parrot on speed would be more rational than CIT and Balsamo. A parrot has a better chance of having more knowledge on 911 than Craig, CIT, and Balsamo, combined on their best day. "think 2,223 gs".

Another reason CIT is a fraud, they are the research arm of p4t dumb ideas on 911 club of failed pilots who never posts rational thoughts on 911, just failed political tripe and paranoid junk.

No surprise to see the best math you have, your parrot post, is a weak personal attack, Balsamo style.

When asked for math and you post a link to the dumbest web sites on the Internet, make a weak Balsamo style personal attack and ignore Madelyn debunking CIT!

If you did math you would see Madelyn's story matches the correct flight path; and if you would go outside more you will see you can see planes over trees, etc. Why is it only those who post like Balsamo, believe his dirt dumb delusions as he "offers no theories". lol
1MadleneCITDebunked.jpg

CIT ignores Madelyn, a CIT witness who debunks them! I can see planes over trees, so the tree junk is another lie; CIT makes up lies, they have no other skills.

Another CIT witness, Boger saw 77 impact the Pentagon, so CIT makes up more lies and say he did not see what he saw. Good for you mudlark you repeat lies for CIT, and do you do speed also? Is this why you can spot a parrot on speed?

Madelyn saw 77 on the real flight path if you knew math you would figure it out, but you only know my real name and how to post lies. Madelyn was correct when she said CIT was creepy; she left off dirt dumb on investigating 911.

CIT fraud:
Madelyn's testimony supports the real flight path, CIT make up lies about her story and say she did not see what she saw. Good job; this is fraud.

Boger saw 77 impact the Pentagon, CIT makes up lies and say Boger did not see what he saw.

CIT is dirt dumb on interpreting witnesses:
In each CIT video of witnesses pointing to the south, CIT ignores their real testimony and makes up lies.
 
Last edited:
This is boring. Mudlark, you're in full dodge and repeat mode now. The flightpath Paik drew was obviously not what he witnessed (he saw a wing of a plane, or a shadow of a wing for 1-2 seconds from inside his shop). What are these 'witnessed flightpaths' supposed to be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom