CIT Fraud Revealed

[mudlark]

You do realise that you are throwing Madelyn Zakhem´s testimony under the bus too BCR?

The tower is 146ft from her alleged POV.
It is also positioned towards the end of the building she was sitting in front of.
How did it hit the tower and then come into her view above her building? I know she described a left tilt but...c´mon.
(Remember also that the ´left tilt´ also contradicts the right roll recorded in Warren Stutt´s data)

And again, just HOW could she have seen the cockpit when all this information is consolidated??

http://i45.tinypic.com/21j6rmg.jpg



Exactly where IS the SOC path??
There seem to be as many SOC variations according to you as NOC.

Please read the link I posted to Smith as regards your ambiguity on sticking to the only possible alleged SOC path reconcilable with the NTSB heading/course data and physical damage.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

please show the animation of the plane flying around the explosion, then explain how so many missed it.

thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

 

[BigAl]

You do realise that you are throwing Madelyn Zakhem´s testimony under the bus too BCR?

The tower is 146ft from her alleged POV.
It is also positioned towards the end of the building she was sitting in front of.
How did it hit the tower and then come into her view above her building? I know she described a left tilt but...c´mon.
(Remember also that the ´left tilt´ also contradicts the right roll recorded in Warren Stutt´s data)

And again, just HOW could she have seen the cockpit when all this information is consolidated??

http://i45.tinypic.com/21j6rmg.jpg

Exactly where IS the SOC path??
There seem to be as many SOC variations according to you as NOC.

Please read the link I posted to Smith as regards your ambiguity on sticking to the only possible alleged SOC path reconcilable with the NTSB heading/course data and physical damage.

When all that crap is compared to the fact that all of Flight 77 and parts of all the bodies were found inside the Pentagon and the crash was seen by a bunch of people and we know the names of a couple hundred eyewitnesses, what you say is irrelevant, one way or another.

 

[Baylor]

He is trying to sell fiction and lies about 911 on DVD.

To be honest, I like Craig Ranke's videos. Where else can you find such an uncanny John Lennon impersonator?

 

[bje]

Take special note here Carlitos..

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

Take particularly special note here, mudlark.

There are over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage of AA77 in the hours, days, and months after 9/11.

Have you interviewed them, mudlark? What did they state? Show us the documentation.

You see, Craig Ranke has refused to interview ANY of them or bring to the table one single statement from these people despite repeated requests that CIT do so as part of their "investigation."

Now, what wreckage did these over 1,000 people see, walk through, pick up, remove from the inside of the Pentagon, and sort openly, in public, on the Pentagon lawn after 9/11?

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

that is patently false as was pointed out by me in this very thread.

 

[beachnut]

This is left bank, but a right tilt from the POV of Madelyn.

Madelyn sees a left tilt from her point of view, which is a right bank.

All the witnesses point to a south fligh path, the CIT makes up an impossible north flight. not too cool

Left tilt, match the right bank in the FDR. It is relative; CIT frauds failed. Is CIT this stupid?

You do realise that you are throwing Madelyn Zakhem´s testimony under the bus too BCR?

The tower is 146ft from her alleged POV.
It is also positioned towards the end of the building she was sitting in front of.
How did it hit the tower and then come into her view above her building? I know she described a left tilt but...c´mon.
(Remember also that the ´left tilt´ also contradicts the right roll recorded in Warren Stutt´s data)

And again, just HOW could she have seen the cockpit when all this information is consolidated??

http://i45.tinypic.com/21j6rmg.jpg

Exactly where IS the SOC path??
There seem to be as many SOC variations according to you as NOC.

Is CIT paying you to act as dumb as their conclusion of a flyover never seen on 911? The flight path is defined by the damage to the lamppposts and the final headings and tracks in the FDR.

You have moronic flight path based on nothing but the failure to do the math. You have to make up lies and call people liars to have your delusional flight paths, and you can't do the math for any of them; you can't you post a link to up the page counts at the dolt factories of lies, p4t and CIT.

Why are these CIT witnesses pointing to the south flightpath?

The same flight path Madelyn points to. That is south for all the CIT math challenged drones. South! Pointing south. Why?

You never will produce the math for the one and only NoC, with headings bank angles and g force.

We have all the headings, all the bank angles and all the g force for the real flight path.

The VDOT tower does not matter, 77 can fly over or beside the tower, it is not impossible for 77 to do the damage, and the FDR has the exact g-force recored to be as high as being over the tower to the making the lampposts and impact at the Pentagon. Balsamo's 11.2 g, 34 g, and 2,223 g delusional flight path lies were wrong; real physics was right, the kind that Balsamo can't understand. And you failed to check.

 

[Hokulele]

Are you guys still SURE that Maya is only good for "cartoons" and cannot be used to simulate the Pentagon attack or other advanced simulations as described on the Autodesk website?

Maya can be used to simulate pretty much anything, including things that are physically impossible. Heck, MS Paint can be used to simulate things. This does not mean that Maya was used to simulate reality. Without having access to the raw data and files, not simple screen captures, there is no reason to believe anything in the animation reflects the actual events of that day.

Incompetence in, incompetence out.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

While I appreciate some of the technical aspects of this thread

... Such as information about Maya's capabilities, I just want to remind people that the indulgence in the CIT "theories" (*cough, sputter, suppressLOL...*) is merely for the sake of investigating minor elements that truthers get wrong. Such as - again - Maya's worth as animation (as opposed to analytic) software. In the big picuture, the CIT "thesis" (*cough, sputter, suppressLMAO*) is so silly it's self-debunking. For readers who haven't seen it yet, Ryan Mackey pointed this out back in 2008:

... So let me see if I've got it straight:

According to the Citzen Investigation Team, the Government or whomever wanted to fool the world into thinking American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, along a certain heading that took it through several light poles and low over the freeway just prior to impact.

To do this, They executed the following:

• They flew an aircraft over the Pentagon
• The aircraft traveled along a different heading entirely, on the opposite side of a visible landmark (viz. the Citgo station)
• The aircraft passed nowhere near the light poles in question
• The light poles were sabotaged anyway, in some completely different fashion than aircraft impact
• One light pole was staged to penetrate the windshield of a car, in traffic, again despite the actual aircraft not passing anywhere near overhead
• A large amount of explosives was detonated as the aircraft passed by
• The aircraft then flew away over the Pentagon, where it was allegedly sighted by at least one individual
• The explosion or whatever demolition carried out at the Pentagon left a hole far too small to have been caused by AA 77
• A readable flight data recorder (FDR) was planted (along with an insufficient amount of aircraft debris) that allegedly conflicts with both Their false story and the track of the actual aircraft

And, finally,

• The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.

I am reasonably certain that the above is the stupidest hypothesis ever conceived for any purpose, including parody, intentional humor, or even stress tests of human perception in psychological experiments.

In the future, I plan to take no notice whatsoever of the Citizens Investigation Team, other than to link back to this post. From here, there is simply no return. I deeply pity the minds that are snared by such utter madness.

So sure, this thread has some value in probing those minor points. And I enjoy reading that, so folks, don't stop. I'd love to hear more about Maya. But everyone else: Never forget that, overall, the CIT thesis is bunk, has been bunk, and will forever remain unsalvageable bunk. No amount of resucitation will resurrect it; CIT fantasy advocates are animating corpses when they post.

Just remember that, new folks. Just remember that.

 

[Hokulele]

So sure, this thread has some value in probing those minor points. And I enjoy reading that, so folks, don't stop. I'd love to hear more about Maya. But everyone else: Never forget that, overall, the CIT thesis is bunk, has been bunk, and will forever remain unsalvageable bunk. No amount of resucitation will resurrect it; CIT fantasy advocates are animating corpses when they post.

Just remember that, new folks. Just remember that.

You can also link people to this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2741468&postcount=1

and this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5422000&postcount=108http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2741468&postcount=1

Heh.

 

[BCR]

It is also helpful to remember that Eric Lawson is a part of the 'truth movement'. So in this thread, it is not JREF 'debunking' P4T/CIT, but their own.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You can also link people to this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2741468&postcount=1

Damn tootin'. Witnesses themselves negate the CIT hogwash.

... and this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5422000&postcount=108

Heh.

Yep. When other truthers think something's nutty, it's something that takes the cake. CIT is exiled from even the outcasts.

It is also helpful to remember that Eric Lawson is a part of the 'truth movement'. So in this thread, it is not JREF 'debunking' P4T/CIT, but their own.

This, too. They can't even gain respect from people predisposed to believing in conspiracy fantasy.

______________

I think the point here is eminently clear. Anyway, back to watching mudlark get schooled.

 

[Meed]

Larson quotes Paik as seeing "the right wing and part of the fuselage"
He also described the plane as being "very low".

Paik had originally drew his own map:

http://es.tinypic.com/r/66kgsn/6

But you're not answering my question. What is the supposed flightpath he drew supposed to mean? It's obviously not a witnessed flightpath, since there's no way he could have witnessed anything but a tiny fraction of it.

The above the roof thing is silly. I said he inferred it and that seems to be what you're saying as well, so I don't get what the point of the argument is.

Are you honestly telling me that both independently verified sets of data, from both camps I might add, do NOT correlate?

No, when did I say that? I said he could not have witnessed the flightpath he drew.

So what was it that he thought he was supposed to be drawing?

You are being pedantic now in the suggestion that because he could not see the left wing and full body of the plane that he couldn´t have seen anything "above his roof".

Unless he had a sunroof, how could he? It's a minor point anyway.

Regarding dodges, I'm not saying you haven't responded to posts, I'm saying I don't think you've adequately addressed the points that have been raised.

When did I "dodge" this? (or the former?)
What specifically did they witness?

Read their accounts for yourself.

Did any of those witnesses happen to identify plane parts that of a Boeing 757-200, N644AA?

Why does it matter if they were able to identified the specific plane model?

Please don´t tell me that they differentiated between victims within the Pentagon and airline passenger bodies.

Of course, to an extent.

I have never "disregarded" any "ïmpact witness".

Yes, I remember that. But I disagree.

That a witness believes he/she saw an " impact" is one thing but to contradict the necessary flightpath by such a margin, particularly but not solely the NOC witnesses, raises serious questions as to the validity of the claim.

The validity of the witnessed flightpath or the validity of the witnessed impact? You can't say the flightpath witnesses invalidate the impact witnesses, but not vice versa.

Even the impact witnesses who had the best of views within that vicinity contradict the official path to differing degrees. Trajectory, altitude AND speed.

And this means...?

On the one hand I "disregard" witnesses yet you call into question witness testimony as a whole?

Yes. Your argument is witness based and it suffers from both of these flaws. If witness testimony is irrefutable proof, then a plane hit the pentagon. Of course, since not all accounts agree we have an apparent contradiction. And it's explained by the fact that witness accounts are unreliable (which is well known and his been demonstrated many times in the past).

And yes, I agree on that point BUT we are not talking of "details" in the way you are suggesting.
We have a group of verified witnesses who corraborate.

No we don't. Their flightpaths are all different and they are contradicted by the impact and lightpole witnesses.

I have yet to see ONE witness contradict the NOC witnesses.

Keith Wheelhouse.

We have a group of " over the Navy Annex" witnesses. Right bank witnesses, etc..
It is intellectually dishonest to ignore ALL these witnesses.

Is it intellectually honest to ignore the impact and SOC witnesses?

If the plane flew NOC it is physically impossible for an impact to occur.

Then that adds another large group of witnesses who contradict the "NOC witnesses". You have two groups of witnesses you claim both could not be right. You can't just say one group disproves the other.

This thread was intended to prove CIT fraud. It hasn´t. It has actually reinforced this witness´s NOC testimony.

No it hasn't. Paik never saw the plane flying north of the Citgo. The fraud accusation was based on the fact that Paik's position was misrepresented. Of course it could have just been incompetence. I don't care what his brother said, if he can't even ask basic questions like "where were you?" and "what were you doing?" then that is a terrible interview.

I'm not claiming fraud per se, but without the raw footage it's definitely a legitimate suspicion.

Not being antagonistic, but I don´t see your point.
They were independently drawn by the witnesses themselves.

That doesn't answer my question...

 

[mudlark]

This is left bank, but a right tilt from the POV of Madelyn.

Madelyn sees a left tilt from her point of view, which is a right bank.

All the witnesses point to a south fligh path, the CIT makes up an impossible north flight. not too cool

Left tilt, match the right bank in the FDR. It is relative; CIT frauds failed. Is CIT this stupid?

Sigh...she said that the plane executed a left-tilt to avoid the tower.
Are you actually serious? I´ve read that line 4 or 5 times to see just what the hell you´re talking about Beachy. The left wing was tilted. The LEFT, according to her.
Where was it heading? AWAY from her POV and both NOC and SOC paths?

"All" point to a south flight path? Hahaha

I´ve answered every single "point" you´ve made. Stop it. It´s embarrassing.
Beachnut, this is the last post I answer from you.

I´ll come back tomorrow when I see a proper debate on the rebuttals I made.
I´ve no time for kiddies´ games.

Peace.

 

[mudlark]

No, Maya is also useful for speaking with the indigenous people of the Yucatan.

mudlark, I do give you credit for responding to some direct points. What do you think happened to the other 3 flights, just out of curiousity?

Wrong thread for that topic.
I´m busy just keeping up here thanks.

 

[mudlark]

Take particularly special note here, mudlark.

There are over 1,000 people who had direct access to the wreckage of AA77 in the hours, days, and months after 9/11.

Have you interviewed them, mudlark? What did they state? Show us the documentation.

You see, Craig Ranke has refused to interview ANY of them or bring to the table one single statement from these people despite repeated requests that CIT do so as part of their "investigation."

Now, what wreckage did these over 1,000 people see, walk through, pick up, remove from the inside of the Pentagon, and sort openly, in public, on the Pentagon lawn after 9/11?

You´ll have to link me to names, times, dates, what they actually found..
you know...specifics.
Did any of those "1000" directly say that they found wreckage from Boeing 757-200, N644AA?
What exactly did the wreckage consist of?

 

[BigAl]

You´ll have to link me to names, times, dates, what they actually found..
you know...specifics.
Did any of those "1000" directly say that they found wreckage from Boeing 757-200, N644AA?
What exactly did the wreckage consist of?

The entire fusalage except for the bits that would be expected to burn up in the fire. This included bodies still strapped in their seats. For details and pictures get Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses from the library.

 

[The Big Dog]

You´ll have to link me to names, times, dates, what they actually found..
you know...specifics.
Did any of those "1000" directly say that they found wreckage from Boeing 757-200, N644AA?
What exactly did the wreckage consist of?

shoe size, blood type, sexual preference, hair color, measurements and descriptions of what they found to the Nano-meter level, social security number....

Arguments from incredulity ROCK!

Do we ask how many freaking whole chickens Aldo ate last week? No, of course not.

/we already know he is on a diet, so the answer is 10.

 

[beachnut]

You´ll have to link me to names, times, dates, what they actually found..
you know...specifics.
Did any of those "1000" directly say that they found wreckage from Boeing 757-200, N644AA?
What exactly did the wreckage consist of?

Sorry, it was done, the DNA proves you post lies made up by CIT.

You can't even support one of the many CIT flight paths with math to check p4t failed work. Which flight path is is? Source, link, name, times, dates, who checked the flight path with physics?

Which is the specific NoC flight path and how does the FDR support it?

Evidence you can't refute; you never will. An engine from 77, the only 757 tracked to the Pentagon by multiple RADAR sites. Only a moron can't identify which plane crashed on 911 into the Pentagon.

All you have to do is take the FBI to court and prove this is not from Flight 77. Good luck; hurry back.

How do you take a court exhibit and prove it never happen when it is documented? How do you deny evidence with talk and false flight paths made up by CIT? This is where a personal relationship with physics comes in handy to help you avoid being fooled due to your own ignorance and failure to to the physics.

Why do the CIT witnesses point to the south flight path backed by RADAR and the FDR?

So did CIT inteview the witnesses right after 911? Times, dates, names, etc!!!! Let us see all the raw video please! Got math yet?

Any luck refuting the DNA evidence used forensically to identify not only the Passengers and terrorists on 77 but the people killed inside the Pentagon; very strict procedures and you can't do anything to dent the DNA! That is called failure as Paik pointed south, and the DNA supports Paik pointing south not your can't do the math because you let 2,223 g math expert Balsamo do it for you flight path of woo.

 

[twinstead]

You´ll have to link me to names, times, dates, what they actually found..
you know...specifics.
Did any of those "1000" directly say that they found wreckage from Boeing 757-200, N644AA?
What exactly did the wreckage consist of?

Why should YOU be told that information? Who the hell are you? Do you think "just some guy on the internet who is dubious" should automatically receive every single bit of information related to every single accident investigation ever performed? My aren't WE full of ourself?

I bet you BIG money that even if somehow you became important and had a personal interview with every first responder and knew to the most minute detail of the crash, and everything you saw pointed to a plane crashing there per the "official story" you would still think it was all faked.

Any judge in the land would laugh at you for such transparent courtroom tactics, Mr. Prosecutor. Truthers are an odd bunch.