CIT Fraud Revealed

[Meed]

That´s twice now you´ve accused me of ´dodging´. Mind backing that claim up?

I asked what the 'flightpath' Paik drew is supposed to be, since it obviously isn't something he witnessed. He also couldn't have seen anything "above his roof", he only could have inferred it.

Then there's the physical evidence witnessed by the DC firefighters.

Then there's the impact witnesses (who you disregard because they contradict the so-called NOC witnesses which makes no sense... either witness testimony is valid evidence or it isn't?).

Then there's the complete lack of fly-over witnesses at a building surrounded by super-highways.

Then there's the math.

Then there's the high fallibility of witness testimony regarding details.

Then there's the general plausibility argument.

CIT fails at every level of analysis. None of these points have been effectively answered.

What ´witnessed flightpaths´?

Those lines Craig gets people to draw and sign on his photos.

 

[carlitos]

Exactly what more do you actually expect to see that isn´t contained within those videos I linked you to??
Tell me exactly what you think is editted or censored?

I don't know, which is why I'd like to see it. The filmmakers are biased in one direction, so anything that points in the other direction is no doubt on the virtual cutting room floor.

Their bizarre, aggressive behavior both at their own website and when they were posting here (originally, not through proxies ) gives me more reason to question their motives, and frankly, their sanity.

And the word is edited. Just one T. Aldo's word processor Your web browser should have a red squiggly line under that word.

 

[mudlark]

Hokulele, if you had clicked on the link I sent you (or any links for that matter), you would have seen where the raw data came from for the topography.

The topography is made using USGS GIS and DEM maps.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19610

Here´s an example

Click the drop down at the Autodesk website and see how Maya is used in Architecture, Automotive and Manufacturing for Advanced simulations using data.

If you are a teacher of the subject, why haven´t you started to build the Arlington region using ANY program and prove the images wrong?

I have posted the sun data from the Naval Observatory, the topography data from the the USGS and the flight data from the NTSB.
The data is all there.

I have asked again for more info on how to actually do it myself and have downloaded the Maya program (30 day free trial)

Rotate the map using North as 0 degrees and input the Naval Observatory sun data into the directional light Maya creates for the sun. Plug in the cam connections and click render. There is very little room for operator error here and for you to even claim the curvature of the earth would be a factor of shadows in a region that is less than 100 square miles is laughable.

I know you would hate to prove P4T correct regarding the shadows in front of all your buddies, that is why you refuse to actually check the images for accuracy and instead waste more time throwing any type of crap you can against the wall so your minions will lap it up. Stop stalling. If you really teach this stuff, you can prove it wrong or accurate pretty quickly, no? Use any program you want. The data has been posted for you ad nausaem. Either that, or you really dont have a clue how to use the program.

 

[carlitos]

ignorance + arrogance totally rocks!

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.

I have asked again for more info on how to actually do it myself and have downloaded the Maya program (30 day free trial)
....
If you really teach this stuff, you can prove it wrong or accurate pretty quickly, no? Use any program you want. The data has been posted for you ad nausaem. Either that, or you really dont have a clue how to use the program.

Well, who would I believe - someone who teaches AutoCAD or an internet fanboy who downloaded a '30 day free trial' of a program? You guys are unbelievable.

 

[mudlark]

I don't know, which is why I'd like to see it. The filmmakers are biased in one direction, so anything that points in the other direction is no doubt on the virtual cutting room floor.

Their bizarre, aggressive behavior both at their own website and when they were posting here (originally, not through proxies ) gives me more reason to question their motives, and frankly, their sanity.

And the word is edited. Just one T. Aldo's word processor Your web browser should have a red squiggly line under that word.

Biased? You´re the one claiming that the witnesses´ dishonesty is a real possibility.
Stop clutching at straws. Their complete testimony is on record, warts and all. As I said, send Erik out again, see if HE can lift any stones unturned.
You can´t debunk what they said so you make believe that ´we haven´t heard the full story´. BS.

Another ´sock´ accusation? Yaaaaaaaaaaawwwnn...

´Bizarre, aggressive behaviour´???
Hahaha. Pot calling the kettle black there.

 

[carlitos]

Stop lying. No one here is claiming dishonesty. Everyone here is pointing out the relative fallibility of eyewitness testimony vs. RADAR, DNA, physical and documentary evidence.

ETA - and if you aren't posting on behalf of those guys, why exactly are you posting? There are only 4 people in the world who have this insane belief that an invisible plane flew over the Pentagon, for no apparent reason, and a bomb or something went off. It's crazy. Why would you post here, if not to try and drum up DVD sales for CIT?

 

[mudlark]

Well, who would I believe - someone who teaches AutoCAD or an internet fanboy who downloaded a '30 day free trial' of a program? You guys are unbelievable.

I have never stated that I´m any type of expert on this..as there are so many experts on everything here.

I don´t know that Hokulele is a teacher of AutoCAD as I have no way of checking his credentials. Unlike the readily available credentials of the people who provided me with the images.

Hokulele is the one who poopooed the Maya program and its capabilities.
I assumed he would have displayed an image to counter it by now given how quickly and confidently he labelled the images GIGO.

He hasn´t. So DOES he know how to use it? Or even replicate the scene?

If I can more or less do it after 2 weeks playing about with it what does that tell you?

 

[BigAl]

I have never stated that I´m any type of expert on this..as there are so many experts on everything here.

I don´t know that Hokulele is a teacher of AutoCAD as I have no way of checking his credentials. Unlike the readily available credentials of the people who provided me with the images.

Hokulele is the one who poopooed the Maya program and its capabilities.
I assumed he would have displayed an image to counter it by now given how quickly and confidently he labelled the images GIGO.

He hasn´t. So DOES he know how to use it? Or even replicate the scene?

If I can more or less do it after 2 weeks playing about with it what does that tell you?

Given that Flight 77 and all the passengers and crew were found inside he Pentagon, is says GIGO for what you cherrypick.

 

[carlitos]

I think that SHE might have better things to do, but that's just a hunch.

 

[Hokulele]

I have asked again for more info on how to actually do it myself and have downloaded the Maya program (30 day free trial).

Aha! You have no idea how they made those pictures or what information is required to accurately reconstruct the scene. You simply accept that what they tell you is correct. Thanks for playing.

And for the umpteenth time, creating a simulation from someone else's data is not design work. Unless you know how the USGS puts together their GIS (snork) and DEM data (100 foot grid, anyone?) and how it could and should tile in with other data sources (projection and datum, anyone?), you can make pretty pictures that have little to no relationship with reality.

Incompetence in, incompetence out.

 

[carlitos]

delete

 

[mudlark]

Stop lying. No one here is claiming dishonesty. Everyone here is pointing out the relative fallibility of eyewitness testimony vs. RADAR, DNA, physical and documentary evidence.

ETA - and if you aren't posting on behalf of those guys, why exactly are you posting? There are only 4 people in the world who have this insane belief that an invisible plane flew over the Pentagon, for no apparent reason, and a bomb or something went off. It's crazy. Why would you post here, if not to try and drum up DVD sales for CIT?

I know that this is obvious, but who cares if a handful of witnesses:
- are mistaken

- are being quoted out of context

Take special note here Carlitos..

- are lying

I´ll just ask you one more time on this..can you link me to the documented parts of Flight 77?

The person who people have come to rely on for radar data, aka John Farmer is on record as stating that the 84 RADES data was ´manipulated´

´Documentary evidence´? Again another linkless post.

The DVD ´salesman´ label is BS. You know it. Their video presentations are free. You know this too.

So what were you saying about not labelling the witnesses as dishonest?

 

[mudlark]

Aha! You have no idea how they made those pictures or what information is required to accurately reconstruct the scene. You simply accept that what they tell you is correct. Thanks for playing.

And for the umpteenth time, creating a simulation from someone else's data is not design work. Unless you know how the USGS puts together their GIS (snork) and DEM data (100 foot grid, anyone?) and how it could and should tile in with other data sources (projection and datum, anyone?), you can make pretty pictures that have little to no relationship with reality.

Incompetence in, incompetence out.

Umm..cut the c*** Hokulele.
Debunk it. Post an image. Anything!

You are the one who claimed GIGO, BEFORE checking its validity.
I accepted its validity because of the ready available credentials of the authors.
If you produce an image which counters mine then game on. Until then, posture away mate.

You simply accept that what they tell you is correct. Thanks for playing.

Sounds more like the official story touts to be honest.
See above.

 

[BCR]

Not a cartoon

I know there is some discussion about the cartoons created by P4T and Maya. Here is an example of forensic animation.



It was created by Mike Wilson using Solidworks, an actual design software package, unlike Maya. It took him in the neighborhood of 300 hours just to do this small segment. Unlike P4T, he does not just post a 'cartoon' and ask us to take his word for it. He posts all of his Solidworks files so that others can examine every measurement and value used for the animation, and if necessary to tweek it for their own use. Also unlike P4T, he is a certified user of the software.

When P4T decides to establish the same level of professionalism in the use of the Maya software and releases their project files so that others may replicate/verify their results, then I'll talk cartoons. But to have some kid with a 30-day free trial of a software package trying to tell someone who uses such software to earn their living what is and what is not, well that is just the height of arrogance and ignorance in my humble opinion.

 

[carlitos]

Take special note here Carlitos..

Quote:
- are lying

Yes, "lying" is one of the 3 possibilities I listed. Along with "mistaken" and "quoted out of context" as other possibilities. I don't know which it is for all of them; I guess I should have added "manipulated by credulous interviewer" as another. I am reminded why I had you on ignore before. You don't appear to understand things very well.

The DVD ´salesman´ label is BS. You know it. Their video presentations are free. You know this too.

Clearly, CIT hope that their DVDs will be purchased by "Truth" clubs and passed out in "street actions," which is why they offer them for sale in bulk.

OPTION 3: Purchase DVD Copies of National Security Alert

We understand that many people will not want to bother with creating their own DVD copies of the presentation, so we are making professionally manufactured and printed copies in plastic "trimpack" cases available at rock bottom cost.

Single DVDs at $5.00 each
Ten DVDs at $4.00 each
Fifty DVDs at $3.50 each
One hundred DVDs at $3.00 each
Two hundred and fifty DVDs at $2.50 each
Five hundred DVDs at $2.00 each

All of your other questions have been addressed in this thread. You either ignore or don't understand the answers. Which isn't my problem.

 

[beachnut]

...
I´ll just ask you one more time on this..can you link me to the documented parts of Flight 77?
...
The DVD ´salesman´ label is BS. You know it. Their video presentations are free. You know this too.
...

You ignore all the evidence. The DNA is proof 77 impacted the Pentagon. The FBI collected evidence and the evidence was used at trial. Gee whiz, it makes it a slam dunk, you have failed again. Don't you pay attention, this simple photo from evidence is proof of 77. BTW, the NTSB does no do crime so you stop repeating the dirt dumb delusions of that failed dolt the p4t cult uses to cherry pick this old failed lie.

Trial evidence, and you can't refute it without evidence. lol, you failed. Good job presenting a hearsay lie. Why are you spreading lies from liars at p4t and CIT?


Te DVD salesman is BS? as you support the delusions of CIT and can't figure out CIT is selling DVDs. Good one. Comedy in the morning, good for you.

I should start selling this stuff, a good DVD cost 20 cents, bulk your profit on the DVD goes up; Capitalism is the drive, lies on DVD from the Creepy Investigation Team; go Madelyn. By supporting the lies of CIT, you become a salesman of woo too.

In the CIT videos all the witnesses refer and point to the south flight path. All CIT flight path are impossible based on their own witnesses and this fact is backed up with RADAR, FDR, and physics which p4t can't do.

 

[Hokulele]

Umm..cut the c*** Hokulele.
Debunk it. Post an image. Anything!

You are the one who claimed GIGO, BEFORE checking its validity.
I accepted its validity because of the ready available credentials of the authors.
If you produce an image which counters mine then game on. Until then, posture away mate.



Sounds more like the official story touts to be honest.
See above.

Your claim, your burden of proof. If you are so flustered over the chain of custody regarding DNA evidence, why don't you require the same level of disclosure from PfT over their cartoon (nice argument from false authority, by the way)?

And it isn't GIGO, it is IIIO.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The person who people have come to rely on for radar data, aka John Farmer is on record as stating that the 84 RADES data was ´manipulated

You realize that BCR is John Farmer, do you not? And that he has indeed explained what he meant by "manipulated"? And that this has been discussed before, which means you're bringing up an old point that's not only been discussed already, but has been shown to not be significant, seeing as how the Dulles radar also tells us what we need to know?

Umm..cut the c*** Hokulele.
Debunk it. Post an image. Anything!

You are the one who claimed GIGO, BEFORE checking its validity.
I accepted its validity because of the ready available credentials of the authors.
If you produce an image which counters mine then game on. Until then, posture away mate.



Sounds more like the official story touts to be honest.
See above.

Wow. Ignorance and arrogance. What a winning combination!

Your claim, your burden of proof. If you are so flustered over the chain of custody regarding DNA evidence, why don't you require the same level of disclosure from PfT over their cartoon (nice argument from false authority, by the way)?

And it isn't GIGO, it is IIIO.

Let 'im have it, Hok. Someone benighted enough to try to pass off unreferenced animation in place of just the radar data alone, let alone the witnesses, let alone the CVR and FDR, and so on and so forth has got what's coming to them.

Ps. "Incompetence" is too nice a word for IIIO. I've got a better "I" word to use.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Mudlark is a troll!

 

[Meed]

Tell me exactly what you think is editted or censored?

If nothing significant is edited out then it shouldn't be a problem to release everything.