CIT Fraud Revealed
- Thread starter BCR
- Start date
Another great post, and I see you did list all of CIT evidence as requested.
1. {∅}
That list of my lies is as big as your list of CIT evidence. Good job as Paik points south out of his office; pointing to the real flight path.
But go ahead show us the math for the real NoC flight path. Can you do it? Get some help from your cohorts that you are in cahoots with. Balsamo does some real moronic math to match your opinions which you support CIT with. His 2,223 gs was a classic out of the park for paranoid conspiracy theorists who sell DVDs filled with lies to suckers.
I can expect your math with the evidence list, right?
Don't get upset with CIT moronic math or the fact CIT witnesses point to the flight path which has 77 on a heading of 70 degrees. CIT is a fraud and it is easy to see; what is stopping you?
Last edited by a moderator:
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
CE, the MATH does not agree with the P4T Maya results. It is that simple. Math is real world, and Maya creates visualizations of people's imaginary worlds. Science is real-world and anything asserted must pass peer review. That means putting up (the data) or shutting up. Got data?
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
The equations are thousands of years old. Do the math for yourself and think for yourself.
Last edited by a moderator:
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
This is laughable.
No. They. Weren't. As Hokulele said, they are incomplete. What about "incomplete" do you not understand?
No. They. Weren't. As Hokulele said, they are incomplete. What about "incomplete" do you not understand?
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
CIT has never provided the necessary evidence to support it's claims as mudlark illustrates. Why are you still confused about that, CE?
We can go round in circles with this discussion Hokulele.
I honestly don´t know what the problem is.
The data inputted into making those images has been continually linked to.
You claim you know how to use these programs. The data is there. Just do your own and see what YOU come up with.
If YOUR results differ THEN maybe we will be able to swap notes on the step by step input of data. Maybe.
On the "math" statement, I can read between the lines..
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5615699&postcount=564
BCR said:
You have played along on that assumption too. It is false.
Can we now drop the capability issue of Maya or do I have to post more links?
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,449
why did paik draw two lines?
where is the animation of the fly over/ around?
where are the interviews with the contractors that assisted in planting the bombs?
what walk-in freezer was used to keep the cadavers frozen?
where is the animation of the fly over/ around?
where are the interviews with the contractors that assisted in planting the bombs?
what walk-in freezer was used to keep the cadavers frozen?
Bring the data, list it, email it. You can't do math, you can't email data. Wow, a double failure which is indicative of your support for the CIT fraud.
Do the math, a plane which is south of the road from Paiks office can't do the NoC flight path. Sorry, but the physics of flight preclude your delusions on 911. The physics of flight prove you wrong.
The hint CIT junk is delusional is the 2,223 g support from Balsamo and his cult of do nothing pilots. Why not post these delusions at the p4t forum where propaganda and terrorists loyalist hang out doing moronic math.
When will you do the math yourself?
When will you pick a flight path for the NoC?
Why are CIT witnesses pointing south?
oops, he is not on ignore if you talk to him... no wonder you can't see CIT is a fraud, you lack some logic skills.
You can't tell him he is on ignore if you are ignoring him, that is not ignoring him. Like the flight paths of many for NoC, you have to pick one, you can't have many impossible flight paths you have to pick one. Do the math. And then go, oops, all CIT flight paths are poppycock, Paik pointed south, CIT is a fraud. Easy if you got math and logic, hard if you lack those simple skills.
Last edited:
You don´t "subtract ones who´s testimony is "inconvenient"???
Are you actually serious?
You (you ARE talking for everyone no?) claim that the NOC witnesses are "wrong", "mistaken", "misremembered" and in some cases may be "lying".
The Navy Annex witnesses, ALL of them are mistaken due to "perspective".
Terry Morin possibly had the BEST perspective. He claimed that the plane flew "over the top" of him while he was "10 feet witnin the wings"
The most transparent issue of witnesses being " subtracted" are the ANC and Citgo witnesses.
Not a group of individual accounts in regard to SOC/NOC. Corraborative testimony. ALL witnesses within the NOC area have been "subtracted".
RooseveltRoberts has been TOTALLY painted as an anomaly, that the explosion he witnessed before he saw "the second plane" was on the TV!
He has been "subtracted"
All the "rightbank" witnesses which number among them proposed "impact witnesses".
The majority of witnesses within the Pentagon lawn area who contradict the altitude in the final seconds. Wanda Ramey claimed that the plane "skipped" up to the third floor level. Sean Boger describes the right bank, NOC and publically questions the gatecam on altiude. Even Sepulveda and Liebner contradict altitude. The former even said he saw the plane at the Henderson Hall area. The barracks behind and to the RIGHT of the Navy Annex looking from the Pentagon.
Those who I have no problem in "subtracting" from the equation are alleged impact witnesses who on further investigation turn out to be inaccurate or unconfirmed journalistic accounts, weren´t even there or were in no position to witness such an event.
The bottom line here is that CIT´s verified witness accounts can in no way be compared to said individual media reports. A whole set of corraborated witness testimony is being tossed aside here.
Individual testimony has been deemed "worthless" by certain people here. But to ignore ALL the witnesses who were in the best possible position to differentiate between NOC and SOC is completely dishonest and illogical.
That the FDR records a totally different flightpath IS the problem.
Remember that this FDR has no serial number.
That JREFers themselves claim that seconds are missing from it.
That even when Warren´s extra data is included that the plane STILL misses the lightpoles.
That not ONE definitive SOC witness has been put forward in this thread let alone corraborative testimony to back eachother up.
Zakhem´s testimony contradicts itself AND the plane would NOT be in view to her if the NTSB path is followed. She even contradicts Warren´s right roll data.
Keith Wheelhouse was in no position to see which side of Citgo the plane flew on. That he described the C130 ´shadowing it´ is false. No ambiguity or discussion necessary on this point.
By the way the head of the FBI claimed that the CVR provided "nothing useful"
Corraborative witness testimony IS evidence.
You´ll have to point out the "misinterpretations". They are on camera telling a very definitive story of WHERE they saw the plane. You are beating a dead horse here and you know it casting doubt on what they said. It´s on record.
"Cherry-picked"? There are twice as many more witnesses who CIT have attempted to contact.
They interviewed all they could among the route 27 witnesses.
Remember Mike Walter?
The lawn witnesses. Sean Boger and Wanda Ramey.
Many witnesses are military based and refuse to be interviewed.
So that´s a lie.
The´"animation" argument came about when BCR claimed that the shadow "proved" SOC. I have provided a physical rebuttal to that claim.
The ball is in your court to do your OWN image to debunk it.
It DOES matter otherwise why was this thread started?
The "physical evidence" is not documented. (You questioned MY interpretation of evidence?)
The NTSB supplied "elecronic evidence", when we follow it to the letter is described by no-one. Shows that the plane was too high to hit the lightpoles.
That the g-forces necessary to pull off the manouevre were not recorded. Especially the constant 4gs quoted by Mackey.
YOU are the one who is relying on an unverified program to push the extra seconds claim. NTSB has not verified this program.Or the ASRS.
YOU ae pushing the conspiracy theory that FOIA supplied data from the FDR is incomplete. Until YOU clear this up it is YOU who is ALSO questioning the "electronic evidence".
These "minute points" are necessary to build up a consolidated witness map. That YOU cherrypick witnesses without going beyond unverified press reports seems to be acceptable. It isn´t to me.
Links to the "tons of debris" (plane parts I take it?), please.
The Pentagon DID contain dead bodies. Those of the Pentagon workers and military. I have seen no documentary evidence to support the DNA retrieval and identification of passengers.
Remember that passenger DNA was not allegedly found until 2 weeks after the event. The FBI took over on 21st September.
Again the CVR was "destroyed".
Links to first responder observations please. Taking into account what I said in my previous post.
The more you look at your proposed "physical evidence" the less substantial and above reproach it is.
"Your honour, here are the plane parts minus documentation, serial number and chain of custody"
"Your honour here is AN FDR recorder..no there is no serial number..this guy claims to have a program that suggests seconds are missing from it...yes I know the NTSB have never commented on this..and yes I know the ASRS hasn´t either..though there must be or the plane could not have physically hit the Pentagon OR the lightpoles...
Who found it?
3 or 4 people, but we will say..an FBI photographer...
Where was it found? Both at the impact hole and C-ring. It was found beside a cockpit seat. No we have no photos of this seat..and no the FDR is situated in the back of the plane..
Yes we do have witnesses. A whole bunch of them contradict the SOC path, altitude, speed and trajectory. Some even mention a right bank..yesss..at 540mph..who´d have thunk.
Who contradicts the NOC witnesses? Umm..we have a few media quotes here somewhere...no, not verified or confirmed. Many were looking out windows 2km away...yeah, I know the people within the immediate vicinity would have had a far better perspective...and yes they corraborate..
Well, even the media quotes don´t contradict them, no..
We have 100s of impact witnesses..what? exact number?...umm..many are anonymous, a few weren´t actually there, a lot of them contradict the altitude, speed and manouevre too..there were quite a few who admitted to NOT seeing any impact, a few just heard it, a few just MENTION seeing a plane, there are a lot of second hand testimonies, a few have retracted what the media quoted them as saying..I´ll have to get back to you on that.
But we DO have the FDR to prove an impact...no good?
Same old rhetoric on "overwhelming evidence" that you can supply no documentation on.
Ryan Mackey´s piece is an opinion piece based on incredulity.
I could write the exact same piece but replace a few words such as "3 towers collapse when 2 planes crash", "19 fanatics take over and dominate Eastern US skies" ,"USAF is paralyzed due to exercises which happened to be taking place that day", Hani Hanjur flew a 757 like an F16, didn´t scrape the lawn and the tail, wings and engines squeeeeed into that hole" , "all 85 tapes contained "nothing useful" etc, etc..
The CVR was "destroyed". First solid one ever mind you.
Nice to see you´ve taken that ra-ra skirt off and dropped the two-liners btw.
By the way if you want me to prove the disinfo give me a shout. No problem.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
And YOU have failed to answer my question to you in relation to the qualifications of these "1000" people who allegedly found debris.
It´s very easy to generalise. Just like the "100s" of impact witnesses lie.
You have to dig deeper into the details, background and nuts and bolts of each and every "witness" that is put forward.
Who reported it? Is it first hand testimony? Is the testimony corraborated?
Verified?
Gravy listed 8000 names. So what? Names are just that, Names.
Do what CIT has been forced to do. Even though they had a pair of swingers and went to the area themselves to gather testimony they were then asked to interview more people. They did.
Now the entire burden of ALL witnesses is placed on their shoulders to find out why people claimed to have witnessed an impact. They did. And DECIMATED the "100s of witnesses to an impact" lie.
They CANNOT interview military or police. They are forbidden. YOU know this.
Specifics MUST be given on these individuals as an interview is out of the question. You are asking the impossible...which is why I assume you brought this up?
If you are asking me to buy the "official" book (bible) on the Pentagon attack..nah. If you have the quotes, names, etc. Post them.
The more the better. This way CIT can use whichever lines they want and throw out ones they don't. Remember Keith Wheelhouse? His "doesn't count."
Please post a rebuttal of Mackey done by you. Balsamo came up with 2,223 gs, and Mackey hit the FDR numbers almost exactly. You bring up the FDR that shows an impact with the generator trailer, proves impact. You should not post junk from CIT and Balsamo, you should make up your own lies.
Mackey can do math, you, CIT and Balsamo can't.
Why post lies and expose your failure to understand 911, physics, and math all by blindly supporting the lies of CIT.
Where is your math to support a NoC flight path?
Why does Paik point south?
I had originally said that Warren´s lat/long data was used in the "shadow image". It was actually his ALTITUDE data at the point in question.
I had queried the following post you made:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5622331&postcount=638
I was informed that the positional statement I made was incorrect.
I cleared this up here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5628644&postcount=676
Unlike others, I do actually try my best to verify statements made to me, including the calculations you provided in that post..
Your assertion that lat/long data on GoogleEarth is unreliable is true.
Doesn´t that then make Warren´s datapoints a moot point? Or are you happy with it because it works out in your favour?
Before you pat yourself on the back there Smiffy, and this is for Hummus too:
On further examination I also found the following:
1. The sun data used in your analysis is wrong. It is an hour too late. US Naval Observatory reports time as EST. You need to adjust for EDT. You should have read the thread I linked at P4T for verification. Here it is again.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...showtopic=19556
2. Your altitude is too low given the sun data you did use (but again, the sun data you used is also wrong.. GIGO as I´ve been told various times).
You are using 42.40 degrees from US Naval Observatory data. You are using this because the impact time was reported as 09:37 am and this is the altitude of the sun at that time reported by USNO. But, the USNO reports their data in terms of Eastern Standard Time. The impact time is reported in terms of Eastern DAYLIGHT time. 09:37 am EDT is the same as 08:37 EST. You need to use the data point from the USNO under 0837, which is 31.8 degrees for Sun altitude.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Sun_Altit...h_091101%20.txt
So your azimuth is also wrong as well as the position data used (mybad in part but yourbad too for accepting long/lat given the post you made questioning their accurateness)... .and so is Farmer.
Yourself and Farmer are the ones guilty of GIGO and all you people are backing them up without even checking it... typical.
I had queried the following post you made:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5622331&postcount=638
I was informed that the positional statement I made was incorrect.
I cleared this up here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5628644&postcount=676
Unlike others, I do actually try my best to verify statements made to me, including the calculations you provided in that post..
Your assertion that lat/long data on GoogleEarth is unreliable is true.
Doesn´t that then make Warren´s datapoints a moot point? Or are you happy with it because it works out in your favour?
Before you pat yourself on the back there Smiffy, and this is for Hummus too:
On further examination I also found the following:
1. The sun data used in your analysis is wrong. It is an hour too late. US Naval Observatory reports time as EST. You need to adjust for EDT. You should have read the thread I linked at P4T for verification. Here it is again.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...showtopic=19556
2. Your altitude is too low given the sun data you did use (but again, the sun data you used is also wrong.. GIGO as I´ve been told various times).
You are using 42.40 degrees from US Naval Observatory data. You are using this because the impact time was reported as 09:37 am and this is the altitude of the sun at that time reported by USNO. But, the USNO reports their data in terms of Eastern Standard Time. The impact time is reported in terms of Eastern DAYLIGHT time. 09:37 am EDT is the same as 08:37 EST. You need to use the data point from the USNO under 0837, which is 31.8 degrees for Sun altitude.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Sun_Altit...h_091101%20.txt
So your azimuth is also wrong as well as the position data used (mybad in part but yourbad too for accepting long/lat given the post you made questioning their accurateness)... .and so is Farmer.
Yourself and Farmer are the ones guilty of GIGO and all you people are backing them up without even checking it... typical.
Hi Craig. What coif are you styling these days?
You´re realy stretching Herbert.
Paik can be seen in the CIT video doing that dot himself.
For the plane to be SOC, it HAS to be following the SOC path that lines up with the damage and course/headings extracted from the NTSB data.
Pathetic.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Yes, I am serious: You're not supposed to do that. But CIT does. It's an issue of simple logic and honesty in research, but that is not something CIT is known for.
Your problem is that CIT ignores witnesses, and ignores testimony inconvenient to their claims. Here are two example threads among many that illustrate this, found within seconds:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4596513
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4537744
Illustrative quote, from a different thread than the two examples linked above:
Does CIT mention anything about that?
Here's another thing you need to realize:
You don't discard datapoints simply because they're inconvenient. And that is exactly what CIT does.
You (you ARE talking for everyone no?) claim
Blah blah blah. Radar evidence. Witness testimony. Evidence submitted in court. Read "Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11" for what first responders say. Watch what the eyewitnesses say.
The FDR does not record a "totally different flightpath". It records a totally different flightpath from the fictional one CIT tries to pass off as the truth. It records the true flightpath. CIT pushes a false one.
We are not ignoring witness testimony. What we're doing is telling you why CIT has got it all wrong.
We are not ignoring evidence. What we're doing is telling you that you are ignoring it because it is inconvenient to you. The plethora of evidence is inconvenient to you because it all leads to conclusions other than the conspiratorial ones.
And one more time, to drive the point home:
Ryan's right. All that any of the CIT blathering deserves in response is this post. It sums up the insanity.
Last edited: