CIT Fraud Revealed

[Dave Rogers]

Same here in Belgium,huge mobs of people on the streets demanding the truth,9/11 is never off our lips here.

Here in the UK, the truther demonstrations going on around the Chilcot investigation are paralysing the whole of central London, and of course all the major media outlets acknowledge that it was the British 9/11 truth movement that was responsible for the investigation in the first place. There's serious doubt that the present system of government can survive more than a week or two.

Dave

[leftysergeant]

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.
[QUOTE]So his specualtion was based on the repair guys the NEXT MORNING. Not that day.

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?

The very fact that Terry Morin placed the body of the plane OVER the Annex wings one second after Paik´s description of the plane´s trajectory reinforces Paik´s testimony.

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.

[Klimax]

People,you all know that sarcasm and irony and other jokes are lost on truthers.

But thanks for LOL.

[nicepants]

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

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

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

[Edx]

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.

[CurtC]

To my mind, all this talk about other witnesses and where they were standing is pointless, because the CIT guys have already nailed the coffin shut on their North-of-Citgo idea by showing Paik at all.

There is no way that a plane could go near Paik at high speed, then North of the Citgo, then turn to get back over the Pentagon. That path is impossible. End of story.

Can we just focus on that until it sinks into their pointy heads? If Paik saw the plane, and it went anywhere near the Pentagon hole, it could not have gone on the North side of the Citgo.

[Edx]

Edward's line is pretty dramatic lol

[nicepants]

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.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/141894b630c8c6d014.png

Note that Paik's path has the plane doing a PIVOT over one of the navy annex bulidings. Note also that if the plane did NOT perform this pivot then it would have ended up south of, or directly over, the citgo.

[A W Smith]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/141894b630c8c6d014.png

Note that Paik's path has the plane doing a PIVOT over one of the navy annex bulidings. Note also that if the plane did NOT perform this pivot then it would have ended up south of, or directly over, the citgo.


No, that's where Erroneous Prathers assumed flight path picks up, A depth perception issue.

[Edx]

Note that Paik's path has the plane doing a PIVOT over one of the navy annex bulidings. Note also that if the plane did NOT perform this pivot then it would have ended up south of, or directly over, the citgo.

The thing is that line is based off his drawing he did for CIT, but half way through the annex its like he just scribbed the rest. My guess he didn't realise that CIT cared that much about specifically where exactly the plane was after that point.

[dtugg]

Note that Paik's path has the plane doing a PIVOT over one of the navy annex bulidings. Note also that if the plane did NOT perform this pivot then it would have ended up south of, or directly over, the citgo.

Wow. Do those idiots actually think a plane could do that?

[A W Smith]

The thing is that line is based off his drawing he did for CIT, but half way through the annex its like he just scribbed the rest. My guess he didn't realise that CIT cared that much about specifically where exactly the plane was after that point.

Edwards path from the point of view of the Sheraton is also quite interesting. There's an ink dot at the pentagon to the right of the line he drew. Like he lifted the pen when someone corrected him that the impact hole was north of where he was indicating with his pen

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2-1.jpg

[DGM]

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?



.

This is a very important point that CIT just does not seem to grasp. Along with the lamp posts they seem to think that people would not put two and two together if they thought plane was no where near these points. Just because people had to deduce certain things does not make them not possible.

This is a blatant distortion technique that CIT loves to use to steer the gullible away from what should be obvious.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Interesting!
Although this is where he draws the path of the plane it would put the plane more than twice its wingspan north of the VDOT tower which the next day Paik speculates may have been clipped by the plane.
Again?? Jesus...


Quote:
¨Pickering: Did you actually SEE it hit the tower or you THOUGHT it hit the tower...Did you see the repair guys working on it?

Ed Paik: I DIDN´T SEE IT HIT THE TOWER, I SAW THE GUYS WORKING AT IT THE NEXT MORNING¨
Got that?

Yes, I have pointed out many times now that I know that Paik does not say he saw the plane hit the tower. No matter how many times you tell me that I am saying that Paik saw the plane hit the tower it will not make it so.

I have said that Paik wondered if, estimated, speculated, conjectured that the guys on the tower were performing repair work on damage caused by the aircraft.

But Paik's drawing shows the plane in a position that would have a full wingspan of empty space between that path and the tower. How then could Paik wonder if the plane had hit the tower? If the plane was where he put the line on the photo then there would have been a large space between his view of the plane passing over the Annex and where the tower is.

However, if Paik is incorrect in his drawing and the plane did obscure his view of the tower as it was east of him yet south of the Annex then he could easily speculate that the tower had been brushed by the plane.
Same goes if the tower was between him and the plane.

So why then would he place the plane over the Annex?

Seems he has a view of a small corner of the Annex. As the plane passed the tower it was also moving accross his view from right to left and if it was high enough it would appear to pass over the Annex even though by this time it is past the Annex.

Paik's statements also illustrate exactly how accurate eyewitness testimony is. It isn't particularily accurate. Case in point is that Paik also says something about ducking and that he thought it would hit his roof after which he puts it flying over the Annex, which I am told is 70 feet high, certainly much higher than his roof (perhaps 15 feet high at most) and in no way low enough to make one duck down.

So we already know he is wrong about its height. We also know that it would be extremely tight to fit the plane into a path that goes directly over Paik and also manages to not impact the Sheraton.

Now we also take into account Morin's statements which put the plane south of where Paik put it. Morin puts it as above the south edge of the Annex. If the plane was where Paik put it then Morin is facing the wrong way to see it over the south edge of the building.

So we already know that Paik may be off in describing the plane as right over him. There is his speculation of the tower hit that suggests Paik actually saw the plane south of where he put it on the satellite photo, and now we have Morin putting it to the south of where Paik has it with Morin in a better location to judge.

Furthermore Morin says he ran out from between the wings, a distance of about ten feet (the width of a small bedroom) and into the parking lot near the security shack and watched the plane descend below the line of trees. He also states he could still see the vert stabilizer after that. This requires that the plane pass to the south of the Citgo station since if it passed more northerly than the south extent of the Citgp canopy then Morin would have had to be accross Columbia Pike to see what he describes.

Middleton describes a path which would exclude either Paik or Morin having seen the plane. The rest of the ANC witnesses also describe paths for which Morin at least would be simply unable to see the plane.

Thus we can conclude that the plane did NOT in fact pass to the north of, nor even directly over, the Citgo station.

[jaydeehess]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/141894b630c8c6d014.png

Note that Paik's path has the plane doing a PIVOT over one of the navy annex bulidings. Note also that if the plane did NOT perform this pivot then it would have ended up south of, or directly over, the citgo.

That is the CiT interpretation of this:
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2-1.jpg

How does that 85 degree left bank come from anything Paik said or drew?:D

[jaydeehess]

Wow. Do those idiots actually think a plane could do that?

They don't really care. If they admit that a plane could not perform the manouver they might simply invoke magic. That is to say they may say something along the lines of, " you don't know what technology the gov't actually has!".

In fact did they or some PfT minion once say pretty much exactly that?

[Gamolon]

Edwards path from the point of view of the Sheraton is also quite interesting. There's an ink dot at the pentagon to the right of the line he drew. Like he lifted the pen when someone corrected him that the impact hole was north of where he was indicating with his pen

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2-1.jpg

If that line is representative of the path that the body of the plane as it flew over the shop and given the angle of the sun that day, how in the world did Shinki witness a shadow from the plane IN HIS OFFICE?

[Gamolon]

Edwards path from the point of view of the Sheraton is also quite interesting. There's an ink dot at the pentagon to the right of the line he drew. Like he lifted the pen when someone corrected him that the impact hole was north of where he was indicating with his pen

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2-1.jpg

Interesting point. I extended the incomplete line in the bottom right of the photo and guess what? It meets up perfectly with that ink dot...

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/citgoa.jpg

[Gamolon]

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

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

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

Didn't Ed draw both of these?

[beachnut]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/141894b630c8c6d014.png

Note that Paik's path has the plane doing a PIVOT over one of the navy annex bulidings. Note also that if the plane did NOT perform this pivot then it would have ended up south of, or directly over, the citgo.

Looks like 88 degree of bank at 28 Gs if you could roll into 88 degree of bank instantly. But mudlark has not gotten back to us from the experts at p4t delusion-land with the roll rate for a 757. mudlark, can a 757 pull 28 gs? We know Balsamo likes 2,223 gs, can he come up with some reality based stuff for once?

The path that starts behind the Annex, proves someone saw 77 appear from behind the hotel, and he also points to the south flight path.

All of these witnesses would be great if the aircraft had no FDR. But you have to use them pointing to the path, not drawing on a map as if they were god looking down on the path. The witnesses were off to the side, and watching something they never saw before, a plane going 500 mph very low and close to them. This is why they all drew a flight path closer to them. Plus they all agree 77 impacted the Pentagon. In a court of law these witnesses would easily be able to realize why they made the errors in drawing the flight paths when explained why, due to the large jet being perceived to be closer to them. These are all great witnesses! Not one of them saw 70 degrees of bank! CIT has the evidence, they just don't have the brains to analysis anything past their last hit.

[twinstead]

This whole debate is dirtdumb

[Reheat]

This whole debate is dirtdumb

Amen to that!

[jaydeehess]

This whole debate is dirtdumb

Actually the reason I continue in such debates is that I cannot abide 'dirtdumb' being passed off as a reasoned and scientific arguement, and there is really no getting around the CiT conjectures being dirtdumb.

PfT is a slightly higher form, it rises above the dirt to be merely dumb.

[jaydeehess]

That is the CiT interpretation of this:
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2-1.jpg

How does that 85 degree left bank come from anything Paik said or drew?:D

Looks like 88 degree of bank at 28 Gs if you could roll into 88 degree of bank instantly.

The CiT would take the difference between your estimate of 88 degrees and mine of 85, and claim we cannot agree. :D

I am still wondering how that line can be Paik's described flight path since he certainly never has a jink to the left like that.

I have asked on occassions which path belongs to which CiT nocstar. Haven't gotten an answer. I seem to recall asking which one is Boger's and which one is Morin's.

[Edx]

I have asked on occassions which path belongs to which CiT nocstar. Haven't gotten an answer. I seem to recall asking which one is Boger's and which one is Morin's.

Wait they havent provided that information??

LOL incompetent?

[beachnut]

The CiT would take the difference between your estimate of 88 degrees and mine of 85, and claim we cannot agree. :D

I am still wondering how that line can be Paik's described flight path since he certainly never has a jink to the left like that.

I have asked on occassions which path belongs to which CiT nocstar. Haven't gotten an answer. I seem to recall asking which one is Boger's and which one is Morin's.
Yes they would jump on it if they could do math; but they can't comment on things like numbers; CIT and Balsamo only do 2,223 gs special paranoid conspiracy theorist math for idiots.
3 degrees is a lot closer to describing the CIT nut case junk than 2,223 gs is to anything real save Balsamo's moronic-math.

[mudlark]

Pointing to the south flight path. lol
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pointingSouthOops.gif
These CIT witnesses in the CIT video are pointing to the SoC flight path. Exactly pointing, and CIT can't figure out so they present delusional flight paths that take over 70 degree of bank.

You don't understand bank angle, or math to help you see CIT flight paths are false.

:jaw-dropp

You know no limits Beachnut.
Their maps confirm EXACTLY what path they said they saw the plane took

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

http://www.thepentacon.com/DariusPrather.mp3

The guy in the second pic..

Prather: The Navy Annex, above midway. You can see where is a little area on the roof... the lower roof [...]. Right along in that area is where the American Airlines plane came directly across that, and it was only about 3 and half or 4 feet above that. We thought it was the weirdest thing. "It is too damn low", we were saying ..it came on down in between where the gas station [CITGO] is and our parking lot

also

It was on top of the Navy Annex.

The picture where you say he is pointing at the southern approach
is actually taken from this video interview.
He describes perfectly where he saw the plane come OVER the Navy Annex.

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

20:00 minutes into this video is where your image is taken from.

He is actually pointing at an overpass sign (which is focussed in on at 20:15) which is situated on the NORTH side of the Citgo on Columbia Pike.

¨It was in between from where the gas station is but more over this way more¨


Darrell Stafford (also pictured above)

I looked up, looking in this direction and I can see the plane over the corner of that building here, the Navy Annex. From what I seen it was at RIGHT of it. It was on this corner of it.

Donald Carter

He is NOT pointing but mimicking the manouevre of the plane which can be seen in his hand..

In the same video above at 27:30 he was asked

Craig: ¨when you saw the plane over the Navy Annex was it more on the left, or the south side of the Navy Annex or more on the North, more on the right side of the Navy Annex?

Carter: ¨It was more like..he was sort of centred..¨

Why not show the motion he made with his hand at 27:50?

We saw a plane over here, the Navy Annex, come from over. [...]
Q: Would you say it was more on the North side of the station over here or the south side?
It was more on this side. Right on this side.


Is William Middleton even pointing in that gif?? LMAO

Anyway...

http://www.thepentacon.com/WMiddleton.mp3[/URL

William Middleton: As I made a turn to come back I heard this whistling noise as if it was coming behind me. So when I turned to look, I seen this big large airplane beside me.

CMH officer: Where were you at?

Middleton: Uh Patton Drive.

...And he glazed over like our parking lot here and made a turn toward the Pentagon….


In the same video above at 37:15

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


Oh man..the picture of Middleton in your gif is actually at 38:34-38:40 when he says

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


BCR has also made this claim that the ANC witnesses were ´pointing south´ using the same manipulative means. I´m sure people participating in these threads have verified for themselves? Yeah.
Another blatant PROVEN lie.
Watch the entire interviews for God sake and stop embarrassing yourself Beachy. You too BCR.

[mudlark]

here's your google image
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/shadowazimuth.jpg


here is mine, note the heading?


http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/127azimuth.jpg

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

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

[mudlark]

Your friend sent you a load of crap. He has the shadow following the aircraft from slightly to the right. That's south, dude. Not freakin' possible/ BS. Totally bogus.

The Fail Boat has landed.

Get where I'm going with this?

Look at the shadows of the Sheraton, Annex, VDOT, trees.. .etc.
Do you see the shadows pointing in a Northwesterly direction?
That is because the sun is rising in the southeastern sky.

Try this link

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php

Okay Lefty? :p

[mudlark]

In other words mudlark, you got nothing as usual. Oh well, at least I tried.

So I guess Reheat and Beachnut don't qualify as professional pilots? They been trying to tell you the same thing but we can't seem to even get you up to the high school science level.

THAT is your answer to my post?
I´ve outlined where your ´spreadsheet´ approach leans heavily in favour of an NOC approach.

WHO is Reheat? I believe Beachnut MAY have aviation experience on smaller aircraft but I can readily link to verifying scores of pilots who are now core members of Pilotsfor911Truth.

One springs to mind immediately.. LtCol. Jeff Latas
Former USAF Accident Investigation President.

But there are MANY (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html) more.

Beachnut has posted numerous lies/half-truths (one of which I have totally debunked above..and one which YOU have repeatedly claimed on the ANC workers ´pointing south´)
Reheat has provided a ridiculous NOC path from which he has extracted your ´NOC math debunk´ based on manipulation and false witness testimony.

Thanks but...nah.

[mudlark]

Whats the difference between paikpointsnorth and paikpointssouth?

Paik interview from where the two gifs come from. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1E6HHOfBbE)

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SeOa6AQyt0) 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://forums.randi.org/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]

[QUOTE=mudlark;5562687]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

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/morinPOVsouth.gif

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 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5553109#post5553109)
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]

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

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:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/paikmap-4.jpg

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

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]

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/2543/morinview2gn2.jpg

[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

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/morinPOVsouth.gif

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.
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/objectheightcalculator.jpg
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.:jaw-dropp

[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?


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

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

[nicepants]

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?

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

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.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

[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.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikoverthecitgo.jpg

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?

[mudlark]

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.

They recalled enough to give a basic description of what they saw. Their paths reflect that.
That Ed Paik claims to have seen the plane heading over the Annex AT ALL, given the angle of trajectory he pointed to, contradicts the official flightpath.

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.

Note that, especially with the ANC workers their paths are reconciled with what they described. From the plane appearing over the Annex, the right-bank, that the plane was heading in the direction of their carpark.
It may be an aerial image but they pretty much draw the line according to these 3 basic observations.

They are consistent in claiming that the plane passed between the middle to right side of the Annex. That it passed closer to them on the North side of Citgo going so far as to point out various roadsigns to point out where they saw it.

Are you trying to say that what they described in their CIT interview (http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm) differs from what they penned?

Their placement of the plane is set against various buildings and topographical landmarks and structures. Even the manouevre is repeated.

[beachnut]

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.If they understood math, they would stop pushing the insanely idiotic NoC poppycock. I alway thought people capable of understanding and making cool graphics were mathematically competent! I was wrong.

[A W Smith]

Ed Paik draws a straight line from his POV.
The line that you say is SOC actually flies OVER the Citgo.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikoverthecitgo.jpg




No it doesn't!
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/paikoverthecitgotopentagon.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2-1.jpg

[BCR]

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?

Whooooo bubba. I recorded Shinki with his knowledge (the recorder was on the counter in front of him). I informed him that I was researching a book and he was aware that his account would be used. He made no request that it be kept 'off the record'. Big difference.

I have dozens of other recordings from that same day, but I keep them off-the-record for several reasons.

1) They offer nothing new which is not already in the record by other witnesses.
2) They are not witnesses in the public record and I don't want to expose them to the CIT character assassination team unless absolutely necessary.
3) In some cases they are 'off-the-record' (such as Sheraton Hotel employees and Morin) who could suffer if it became public knowledge they were talking about 9/11.

[jaydeehess]

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.
.

So Paik's line is not among the multi-line drawing on the satellite photo then.

Where is Morin's flight path on that drawing? Boger's?


If Middleton is not saying that the plane came down Patton Drive then why is there a line showing a flight path down Patton Drive?

If Middleton did say it came down Patton Drive and if Paik is correct in having the plane well inside the Annex then how did Morin see the plane when he was facing south while standing at the south side of the Annex? In fact if Middleton is right then neither Morin or Paik could possibly have seen the plane.

Middleton is incorrect.

If that severe turn is Carter's then aerodynamics proves him incorrect.

Finally, and this really is quite important, there are multiple reports in which people say the plane impacted the Pentagon, Boger chief among them. There are even more statements from people who watched the plane travel and witnessed the fireball but could not actually see impact, Morin and Lagasse for example, but who would have been in prime position to see a plane rise over the Pentagon before that fireball reached the height of the building (which must be the chronology of events since flying into a fireball is plain stupid not to mention no one saw it occur either) yet NO ONE SAW A FLY-OVER!

[jaydeehess]

They are consistent in claiming that the plane passed between the middle to right side of the Annex. That it passed closer to them on the North side of Citgo going so far as to point out various roadsigns to point out where they saw it.

Are you trying to say that what they described in their CIT interview (http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm) differs from what they penned?

Their placement of the plane is set against various buildings and topographical landmarks and structures. Even the manouevre is repeated.

Note that although all these descriptions vary that the one landmark that they all agree on is the point at which the flight path met the Pentagon.

[beachnut]

...
Note that, especially with the ANC workers their paths are reconciled with what they described. From the plane appearing over the Annex, the right-bank, that the plane was heading in the direction of their carpark.
It may be an aerial image but they pretty much draw the line according to these 3 basic observations. ...
77 got closer to their car-park until it went by and hit the Pentagon. All the CIT witnesses point clearly to the south where 77 "appeared" over the Annex. The sun came up over the hill this morning? Do you understand over? No, over!

All anyone has to do is go to the ANC workers, expose your CIT goons for the idiots they are and show them the actual flight path and a realistic animation with the FDR from their POV and they will all go that was it!

CIT could clear up their own lies, but they are selling lies on DVD they would have to confess to being the worse investigators in history.

So have you taken this NoC stuff to ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, or anyone like the Washington Post, Woodward and Bernstein? Have you done more than fail to present the math?





WHAT?

especially with the ANC workers their paths Their paths are all physically impossible based on their own statements. You failed to do the math! Once again you fail to be rational and you take paths drawn from a tangential point of view and you treat them like evidence and the paths are not correct because of human perceptions and the errors we have in distance from us when we are not familiar with the object going 500 mph for the first time that close! Please don't listen to me, I was only trained to recognize illusions and perception problems so I would not crash my supersonic trainer before the USAF got their training money out of me for 5 years of service; each time adding a carrot to keep me interested for 29 years; I lived because I was trained to understand my limitations as a human in the world of flight; I was also trained in taking witness statements and thank goodness CIT did videos so my mistakes investigating aircraft accidents looks perfect against their pathetic dirt dumb efforts. The best you can do with CIT's collected work is use it as an example of what not to do, or a test to weed out people who lack logic and critical thinking skills.


The witnesses saw a right bank, the FDR has a right bank; Morin sees the bottom of the jet due to the right bank. ALL the CIT witnesses are supported by the FDR, RADAR, and physical damage! If you are a professional aircraft accident investigator and understand human limitations you would see CIT witnesses all agree on seeing Flight 77 on the real flight path at over 500 mph where a 6 to 10 degree bank angle is 19 to 32 mile radius turn, not the ridiculous G-force your failed paths have.




Human perceptions for the 500 mph jet at low altitude has 77 closest to them so they drew it a lot closer than the plane could be based on physics (IE. 6 degrees of bank is a 32 mile radius turn, even if you take 25 degrees and exaggerate the bank angle by 4 times the turn radius is 7.3 miles), the all bowed the path based on distance of a large jet to them; the closer the jet was the closer they drew the line to them, but the flight path was rather straight!

[Mangoose]

Are you trying to say that what they described in their http://www.thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm"]CIT interview[/url] differs from what they penned?


I am pointing out the obvious arbitrariness involved in having them plot the flight path on a photo, as Paik himself shows by drawing the same path twice on separate photos.

[funk de fino]

Paik interview from where the two gifs come from. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1E6HHOfBbE)

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

Paikpointsnorth is Paik pointing to a North of citgo path according to CIT. This does not match with his drawing which is not North of Citgo.

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

This stops when he points to a path which is South of Citgo which matches his drawing.


I was not replying to you however, as I do not interact with CIT mouthpieces/socks, if possible. I was posting to Childlike Empress.

CIT are ignorant scumbag no planers. Flyover theory is the worst theory in 911 CT land.

[Childlike Empress]

I was not replying to you however, as I do not interact with CIT mouthpieces/socks, if possible. I was posting to Childlike Empress.


I already explained it to you and everybody else several times in the "8 of of 8" thread. Now mudlark explained it again. It's very simple, but of course you will continue to play ignorant, and of course you will also not comment on beachnut's new lies that mudlark showed you.

Don't waste our time.

[Mr.Herbert]

As far as I know they held back on releasing the interview ....snip.....

Interesting, another lie and you know it. Craig released the recorded interview of Morin almost a year ago. They are pathetic liars and so are you.

"Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin"-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2649657158781568709#
@4:19 of the video the scum bags start to play the recording that they told Morin they WOULD NOT do.

Fact remains, they achieved NOTHING by lying to this man. It's been a YEAR since it was released. Keep up the charade, "truther" we all know what and who you are.

[leftysergeant]

I just noticed something here. I am not at all familiar with Middleton's statements, but, if mudlark has quoted him correctly, he is pretty much useless as a witness for either position, because he embellishes his statem,ent with observations that can only have arisen out of panic and confusion. As quoted by mudlark, Middleton claims to have "felt the heat" of the aiircraft.

Not a good observer at all.

[Edx]

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.
.

Then why do all your other lines have the plane flying North of Citgo, when the line you just drew for Edward goes directly OVER Citgo?

Isnt it correct that in order for Edward's flight patch, in terms of his line, to get the plane NOC it has to do a ridiculous turn just like how it is presented in that other image?

[leftysergeant]

Isnt it correct that in order for Edward's flight patch, in terms of his line, to get the plane NOC it has to do a ridiculous turn just like how it is presented in that other image?

Have you been reading any of my posts? I have pointed out repeatedly that the Complete Idiots Team and mudlark have failed to present a realistic model of what happened. Mudlark has yet to even acknowledge, after I pointed it out to him, that in one of the graphics that he posted, he had the shadow of the aircraft behind and to the right (thus to the south) of his aircraft's position.

Garbage in-garbage out.

[funk de fino]

I already explained it to you and everybody else several times in the "8 of of 8" thread. Now mudlark explained it again. It's very simple, but of course you will continue to play ignorant, and of course you will also not comment on beachnut's new lies that mudlark showed you.

Don't waste our time.

No, you have not. Explain the difference between paikpointsnorth and paikpointssouth.

Explain the drawing he made which is not NOC. Explain the shadow remark

[funk de fino]

I predict neither of the CIT slurpers will attend to post 290 in a mature and grown up manner.

[beachnut]

I already explained it to you and everybody else several times in the "8 of of 8" thread. Now mudlark explained it again. It's very simple, but of course you will continue to play ignorant, and of course you will also not comment on beachnut's new lies that mudlark showed you.

Don't waste our time.
What lies? The fact is Paik points to the south flight path and due to physics a plane can't fly the NoC flight path, it has to fly kind of straight due to physics. When a plane is going over 500 mph, up to 483 KIAS just before impact the small banks of 6 degree give a turn radius of over 32 miles, this mean the flight paths you support with faith because you like the moronic presentation of lies by CIT is not based on math and science.

Paik pointing to the south flight path; Craig making up lies.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/PaikpointssouthdebunksCIT.jpg
Paik and and the other witnesses support the south flight path, I showed them pointing south as Craig was saying north like a moron, as they point south; true comedy to a trained aircraft accident investigator and pilot who flew heavy jets all over the world and Balsamo has only flown heavy jets in his paranoid conspiracy theory dreams where he and his band of failed pilots have explained they can't hit the side of the largest buildings in the world in the safety of a simulator if they tried; and they have! So you are backed up with pilots who can't hit buildings like the worst terrorists pilots I have seen, and some CIT investigators who mess up 911 so bad they have 77 over flying the Pentagon, when 77 impacted the Pentagon as CIT witnesses explain. Was it Balsamo's 2,223 gs that helped you believe the moronic flight paths?

Got physics? You know math is good with music and most everything in life? Why are you with the anti-math CIT fraud scenario machine? How does CIT moronic math explain the downed lampposts again?

Or where the engine sucked in tree?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1TreehitPentagonSouthFltPath.gif
How to CIT nut case investigators explain away the tree sucked in by engine moving 483 KIAS? Need some help with your fantasy?

And when looking for verification of the witnesses pointing south we find 77 hit a post on the exact flight path (plus or minus feet) 77 was on to impact verified by RADAR, FDR, and all the CIT witnesses pointing to the flight path in the 4-D world (time for you math wizards at the dolt-ville CIT lounge of stupid ideas on 911). Sad they CIT had the witnesses fail by making them draw a flight path of many gs, so Balsamo could fail to do math again.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77VDOTmast.jpg
Physical evidence near the lampposts and exactly on the flight path of 77.

[beachnut]

...
WHO is Reheat? I believe Beachnut MAY have aviation experience on smaller aircraft but I can readily link to verifying scores of pilots who are now core members of Pilotsfor911Truth. ... Does Balsamo have an ATP? Why not? The truthful part of p4t and Balsamo, they admit they can't hit the largest buildings in the world flying jet simulators (0%), which the terrorists did their first time in a real jet (75%), which makes me wonder if p4t failed pilots who can't do math can hit a runway! lol

I was in "small" heavy jets (300,000 pounds) and I have an ATP which Balsamo can't get because pulling 2,223 gs out of thin air gets you a pink slip.
I flew very small jets, KC-135, over 4,000 hours.

These are chicks in tow from Kadena, I am the aircraft/aircrew commander in the left seat, with my Nikon taking a picture.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/f4onwingAR.jpg
I did fly very small supersonic trainers too; smaller aircraft. 100 pixels...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/avatar12447_3.jpg very small, it could roll at 720 degree per second, and 5 g loops, 7.33 g chasing the clouds oops maneuver, etc. With the year of jet training I also learned illusions humans suffer and now see CIT must be terminal with illusions.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/T38form.jpg ... a blast, it was my job, someone had to do it. Thank you very much...


... One springs to mind immediately.. LtCol. Jeff Latas Former USAF Accident Investigation President. ... Jeff investigated large aircraft accidents? No! I was board president on a large aircraft class A accident (500,000 pound class). Was Jeff? No. I was the pilot investigator on a large aircraft Class A accident (300,000 pound class). I also was the investigator and in charge of the accident scene for a Class A fatal U-2 accident. What accidents did Jeff act as president; how many times and was he trained to be an aircraft accident investigator? Darn, I was a trained aircraft accident investigator. My office trained USAF board presidents; lol. I trained people like Jeff to be board presidents! Too bad p4t have no real expert who can do math to show you your paths are nonsense. We had board presidents trained, and many never did anything; most likely like Jeff. Nothing. Does Jeff have a masters in Engineering? Bet it is business and he is in with Balsamo making money off of DVDs sold to the gullible. Full employment is a great goal and at least Balsamo is a capitalist anti-government paranoid conspiracy theorist posting as turbofan in turbofan's basement. Is Balsamo dodging his taxes? I was wonder how turbofan was as dirt dumb on 911 as Balsamo; now we know the rest of the story.

...
But there are MANY (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html) more. ... Not one of them can do math or help you with your nonsensical flight path of delusions made up by CIT, the dumbest investigators since time began. How do they post such dirt dumb flight paths? How did all those pilots feel about Balsamo not knowing how many feet are in a nautical mile, and his 11.2 g, 34 G, and 2,223 g delusional math? Why are all those many more so silent and not able to support your failed ideas? Silent partners in selling stupid DVDs?
Bring on the many! lol

... Beachnut has posted numerous lies/half-truths (one of which I have totally debunked above..and one which YOU have repeatedly claimed on the ANC workers ´pointing south´) ...
ANC workers are pointing to the south flight path as Craig talks and ignores them pointing to the south flight path; anyone can see CIT failed videos are filled with support for the south flight path, and all they need is comprehension skills and eyes.

... Reheat has provided a ridiculous NOC path from which he has extracted your ´NOC math debunk´ based on manipulation and false witness testimony. ... Reheat used CIT moronic flight paths and shows why the witnesses refute their own work adopted by CIT as gospel. Anyone can use math to refute all CIT work as CIT make up lies and ignore their witnesses who agree 77 impacted the Pentagon. oops

... Thanks but...nah.
So you say thanks but... nah, to be educated to the high school science level. Good for you! Fight education where every it sticks out the opportunity to rise out of the pit of ignorance you willfully jumped into with CIT and Balsamo's failed pilots club of paranoid nut case delusions; top nut case idea, Flight 77 flyover! is that a skill required to join CIT and p4t, avoiding knowledge effectively.

Does Balsamo get mad at you for being anonymous; Balsamo knows me and that I have an ATP and flew large jets but instead he makes up lies, said I had a stroke, threatens to kill debunkers, and can't do math to save his lies. Here is another small plane I flew before flying heavy jets.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/37org.jpg
Do you think if you were a pilot, an engineer, and a trained aircraft accident investigator you would still support CIT failed delusions?

[leftysergeant]

Since that nitwit Latas agrees that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon from the NoC course, does he offer any suggestion as to what could have done the damage? I would have to have a look at any statement he made on that, if someone has a link to it.

I notice the sorry little loser didn't say much about his views on 9/11 when he was losing his election campaign. Maybe he figured out that it was too wack even for Arizona.

[jaydeehess]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/T38form.jpg
off topic observation
T-38 looks a lot like an F-5.

[Reactor drone]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/T38form.jpg
off topic observation
T-37 looks a lot like an F-5.

Well a T-38 looks a lot like an F-5 (both Northrop products with one based on the other) .

The T-37 was the last photo in the set.


:)

[jaydeehess]

. As quoted by mudlark, Middleton claims to have "felt the heat" of the aiircraft.
.

I was wondering about that myself. The plane would have to be on the ground for Middleton to "feel the heat", would it not?

Now perhaps he felt the IR from the fireball at the Pentgon as a few thousand gallons of jet fuel ignited.

[leftysergeant]

Now perhaps he felt the IR from the fireball at the Pentgon as a few thousand gallons of jet fuel ignited.

That is plausible. Heat from the airplane would be mostly from convection, in the exhaust, which, seeing that the plane was descending, would be directed upward, and would rise and waft away.

I have personnally torched as much a 10K gallons of JP-4 and could feel it through my turnout coat a hundred feet away. It burns a bit hot.

[beachnut]

Since that nitwit Latas agrees that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon from the NoC course, does he offer any suggestion as to what could have done the damage? I would have to have a look at any statement he made on that, if someone has a link to it.

I notice the sorry little loser didn't say much about his views on 9/11 when he was losing his election campaign. Maybe he figured out that it was too wack even for Arizona.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/link.php?id=58891 http://www.scribd.com/doc/19543120/Mystery-Plane-Military-Opposition-911

Jeff is in it for the politics and must not have the smarts to see Balsamo is dirt dumb stupid, or he set up Balsamo to sell lies on DVDs.

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/interview-with-jeff-latas-democrat-for/page-7/

Many may agree with his politics, but can they give him a pass on stupid?

He could be shallow on research and failed to see Balsamo really is stupid and never found anything wrong about 911.

[leftysergeant]

Many may agree with his politics, but can they give him a pass on stupid?

Politically and strategicly, he seems to be thinking clearly.

He could be shallow on research and failed to see Balsamo really is stupid and never found anything wrong about 911.

He's outside his AFSC as an investigator.

[leftysergeant]

I will throw this one out to Beachnut and anyone else here who has sat on a board investigating an aircraft accident. Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the president's function was mostly to see that everyone had their paperwork complete and that the final report was in a coherent form.

This would mean that he need not really be an expert in most areas covered, and that individual members, like a maintenance officer or pilot instructor or avionics expert would be there to cover their particular parts of the overall picture.

[beachnut]

I will throw this one out to Beachnut and anyone else here who has sat on a board investigating an aircraft accident. Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the president's function was mostly to see that everyone had their paperwork complete and that the final report was in a coherent form.

This would mean that he need not really be an expert in most areas covered, and that individual members, like a maintenance officer or pilot instructor or avionics expert would be there to cover their particular parts of the overall picture.
This is true. You would be managing the board to meet the 30 day deadline. You make updates to the major command safety office. You prepare briefings, resolve conflicts, could interview the supervision and leadership. A SIB is looking for what happen to fix the issues and make things safer. Maybe they mean literally Latas was an AIB president, those guys are looking to blame someone; I mean investigating to see if things were legal, that no one did it on purpose.

I was talking safety boards, maybe Latas was an the other kind of board. The SIB (safety) is like the NTSB, the AIB (accident) is like the FBI, but a non legal guy is appointed president and he has the JAG help him. Most of the times a rubber stamp for real accidents. When I talk accident investigation I mean safety, a safety investigation board, not the place blame "accident" investigation board, AIB.

[leftysergeant]

This is true. You would be managing the board to meet the 30 day deadline. You make updates to the major command safety office. You prepare briefings, resolve conflicts, could interview the supervision and leadership.

Okay. That was what I was looking for.

My only involvement was usually to just watch the planes take off and land and help find all the survivng pieces when they screwed it up, thern to write an incident report to describe what it looked like from my perspective. Were there critters on the runway, trash blowing about, birds in the area, smoke coming out of the wheel wells because some dork forgot to release the parking brake? (The last incident report I filled out at Pope AFB.)
Let's take that wheel well fire as an example. To me, it was obviously a brake problem, probably negligence. But I don't make that call. A maintenance officer would have to look at the system to be sure it was properly maintained. Here is where the "time-changed" parts that idiots like Killtown rant about come in. Whether they were the right parts and had been changed out on schedule matters in determining what happened.

So now we have the president of the board checking to be sure that the maintenance officer on the board has looked at this, and that my statement that I witnessed the fire starting as the aircraft started to roll down the runway is included in the documents collected.

Now let's look at the Pentagon crash. We already know that it was a controled flight into terrain. The questuion is whether it was deliberate or accidental.

Given that we already know that there were three other hijacked aircraft that day and that all of them had made controlled flights into terrain, I don't thing that the serial numbers on the brake drums are going to be very important to the investigation, as compared to the FDR and CVR.

Latas knows this full well, but he is still egging on the ranting lunatics like Killtown and Balsamo who seem to think that there is some magical significance to this information.

Sick.

[beachnut]

... Let's take that wheel well fire as an example. To me, it was obviously a brake problem, probably negligence. But I don't make that call. A maintenance officer would have to look at the system to be sure it was properly maintained. Here is where the "time-changed" parts that idiots like Killtown rant about come in. Whether they were the right parts and had been changed out on schedule matters in determining what happened.

So now we have the president of the board checking to be sure that the maintenance officer on the board has looked at this, and that my statement that I witnessed the fire starting as the aircraft started to roll down the runway is included in the documents collected.

Now let's look at the Pentagon crash. We already know that it was a controled flight into terrain. The questuion is whether it was deliberate or accidental.

Given that we already know that there were three other hijacked aircraft that day and that all of them had made controlled flights into terrain, I don't thing that the serial numbers on the brake drums are going to be very important to the investigation, as compared to the FDR and CVR.

Latas knows this full well, but he is still egging on the ranting lunatics...
Sick.
You are right, the "time change" parts, or parts in general do need to serial numbers to check things out, but since we know the plane involved we have the serial numbers and only need to verify numbers to be sure things have not got out of hand with parts interchanged by mistake on the wrong planes. On 911 there is not doubt which planes went down, there is no need to check any parts after it was clear it was terrorists; about a minute after the impacts! lol, poor CIT, poor Latas, not the brightest bulbs in 911 truth. Latas has not done more than say look at Balsamo, he has some anomalies, we need to investigate! Latas is a politician and failed to check out 2,223 g super nut case Balsamo.

I understand why the "time change" thing was started by a maintenance man that colonel guy, but he is being an idiot by not seeing 911 is not a "time change" part problem, it was a terrorist problem. He is applying the same zeal needed to track down problems with parts possibly causing an accident with a criminal act; his expertise is not needed so he spews poppycock because he hates Bush or something political blaming the evil government for not checking the parts and exposing how the parts were involved??? lack of logic due to political bias and paranoid conspiracy theories gone wild ...

[leftysergeant]

I understand why the "time change" thing was started by a maintenance man that colonel guy, but he is being an idiot by not seeing 911 is not a "time change" part problem, it was a terrorist problem.

I assume you are referring to Col. George Nelson.

He is applying the same zeal needed to track down problems with parts possibly causing an accident with a criminal act; his expertise is not needed so he spews poppycock because he hates Bush or something political blaming the evil government for not checking the parts and exposing how the parts were involved???

I wish it were that benign. I have also encountered some of his scribblings in support of the theories put forth by Gen Benton Partin concerning the Murrah Building and some of the whackadoodle theories about Waco. He seems to support the lie that the tea gas started the fires.

lack of logic due to political bias and paranoid conspiracy theories gone wild ...

Or fantasies of acting out the Turner Diaries scenario, if he can round up enough energetic crazies to form a significant unit of "useful idiots."

Or he is one of the Dominionists who twist arms to bring Air Force cadets under the banner of Jesus.

[jaydeehess]

Well a T-38 looks a lot like an F-5 (both Northrop products with one based on the other) .

The T-37 was the last photo in the set.


:)

I quickly corrected my mistake but you were quicker

[mudlark]

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

Originally Posted by Terry Morin

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].

´Within seconds´?
Make that just over half a second. (555ft from his position to clearing the 8th wing i.e. OVER the eighth wing)
The plane was allegedly travelling at 540mph/792ft per second.
Distance between Morin´s position and the ´impact zone´ is 3,045ft.
That´s 3.85 seconds. Remember that figure.

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.

He would have had NO view of the lower altitude of the plane´s Southern trajectory. NONE.

This is Ingersol´s shot from the Annex. Only the top floor of the Pentagon may be seen.

Ingersol shot (http://es.tinypic.com/r/33ts9dg/6)

Here are the trees in question that he stated ´blocked my view´

http://i48.tinypic.com/sn2gk5.jpg

Same trees from another angle on the Columbia Pike turn at the foot of the Annex.

http://i46.tinypic.com/20idp1g.jpg

Where exactly does him seeing the ´tail dip slightly to the right´ at 540mph fit into the official path? This he claimed to see AFTER allegedly witnessing the ´flash´.

Remember that he saw the plane fly over him. By the time he realised what the hell was happening, the plane would have already cleared the Annex. 0.7 seconds..
To then clear the trees he mentioned and reach Cigo 1.2 seconds (944ft)
From Citgo to lightpoles1 and 2 would have taken 0.8 seconds (647 ft)
From the lightpoles to the facade 1.1 seconds (859ft)


[how can he estimate the flight speed of a plane he couldn't see but for a brief instant?].

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

Craig: How long are we talking?

Morin: 13-18 seconds
(...)
From here..all the way down. Ya know, that´s the time and phase of NOT KNOWING MUCH. Of reacting at the time

The official data points to the plane arriving on the scene (over Morin´s head) and reaching the Pentagon virtually in a blur. 3.85 seconds.

Morin claimed that the plane cleared the 8th wing ´within seconds´, he claimed that he got himself into a position to actually watch the descent, that he saw it descend beyond the trees in front of the Annex, that there was a period of time of ´NOT KNOWING MUCH´, THEN he claimed to have seen the tail of the plane ´dip slightly to the right´ AFTER he allegedly ´saw a minor flash´ which he assumed to be a lightpole being struck (which he had no view of whatsoever)

14:20

- Talking of the speed recorded on the FDR -

Craig: 780 feet per second, I think is what it is..

(...)

Morin: No frickin´ way
Craig: That´s what the FDR said.
Morin: I had time for me to come down, start to see it descend and come back..no it´s not..


He lost sight of the plane given the above statement on ´not knowing´.
It cannot be misconstrued any other way.
It is a physical impossibility that he could have watched the entire descent unless the plane was travelling at a higher altitude.
Especially so given what he says towards the very end of his 2001 statement

¨ I then confirmed that the aircraft had been flown di-rectly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building. ¨

HOW did he see the low level lawn trajectory we see in the ´5 frames´ given his POV??

He couldn´t.


http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/2543/morinview2gn2.jpg

He saw the plane over the Annex.

¨I ran to the outside (from in between the wings) and got into a position where I could see it.
(...)
if the Air Force memorial had been built, the airplane would have ran into it.¨

This corresponds with Darius Prather´s testimony as to where he places the plane coming over the Annex. Prather, along with the other ANC witnesses describe the same manouevre that brings the plane NOC towards their carpark.

Morin lost the plane after the trees in front of the Annex. He could not have physically seen the plane as it passed Citgo.

That the plane´s tail may have momentarily reappeared towards Route 27 proves nothing one way or the other as both paths converge to within 100metres as they approach the lawn.

Whatever way you look at it Mangoose, your insistence that Morin could see what he did contradicts the alleged altitude of the plane.
Morin himself contradicts the official path (NOT over the Navy Annex as all have repeatedly insisted because it is a path not presented on any radar or FDR data)
He thoroughly contradicts the speed by up to 14 seconds.
He contradicts the low level approach across the lawn.

So the ´memory issues´ don´t apply to the speed he deduced?

I don´t know why he stated in his original interview that he ´saw the red and blue stripes´. Embellishment?

He repeatedly claims to Craig that he was INSIDE the wings.
That he could NOT ´see the sides´ as it was directly over him.
That there was ´NO FRICKIN´ WAY´ it was South of Columbia Pike or that it was travelling at 540mph/782 ft per second.

The most illuminating aspect of his conversation with Craig on the timeframe

Craig: How long are we talking?

Morin: 13-18 seconds
(...)
From here..all the way down. Ya know, that´s the time and phase of NOT KNOWING MUCH. Of reacting at the time

[mudlark]

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.:jaw-dropp

He did not ´think´ that the plane had hit the VDOT tower.
He based his assumptions on seeing the repair guys the next day working on it.
I don´t believe it would have even entered his head given the circumstances.
Only that the tower was further down that road.
´NOC´ and ´SOC´ would not have been the uppermost in his mind.
He clearly states that the ´body´ of the plane nearly hit the roof and points to a trajectory over the Navy Annex.
This is what he is on record as saying he physically witnessed.
That he made an assumption the next day based on seeing people up on the tower does not change what he described.

[mudlark]

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/objectheightcalculator.jpg "this highly accurate program" ain't too accurate. or somebody over at PFT effed up ... again. No that's just from the center of the fuselage. Last time I checked, wings can cast a shadow as well. Your assumptions are wrong.[/QUOTE]

Mybad. The calculations you made count for nothing as I had assumed that the ´sun´ tool on GoogleEarth does not show the Azimuth as I had mistakenly said.
The shadows of the buildings don´t change. I don´t know what time those shadows were actually cast.

If your calculations are based on the length of the shadows cast in that Google image, you´re wasting your time.
You need to use the program that was used to debunk that NOC and Warren shadow image.

[mudlark]

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


http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/morinPOVsouth.gif


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

ME?
You´re confusing yourself Lefty.
That´s Morin´s alleged SOC view, not Paik´s.

[mudlark]

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

1) Yes
2) The path ends at the Pentagon because they believed it had crashed at that spot.

The two above statements are contradictory. That all witnesses on record in that area place the plane NOC leans towrds the latter being false.

NONE of those in a physical position to see it, placed the plane South of Citgo.


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

All the ANC witnesses claim that the plane approached the ANC carpark from over the Annex. So no.
Sean Boger places it specifically to his ´right´ facing him from the heliport.
So no.
Lagasse, Brooks and Turcios were on the Citgo property or thereabouts.
Lagasse and Brooks drew a path that matched perfectly. NOC.
Lagasse could not have physically seen the plane SOC until it was well past the station.
Turcios places it NOC.
So no.

[mudlark]

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?

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

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

If by ´some of the paths´ you mean Middleton´s path and Turcios, yes it is.
The SOC path is a further 240 ft away from Middleton´s path.

You DO know that Turcios´ path is the closest of ALL witnesses to SOC within that area at 460 feet?
The rest average 700 feet from the SOC path.

THAT is a cumulative margin of error contradicting what they ALL described.
I know which path I would dismiss based on these comparative margins of error and the verbal description provided by them.

[mudlark]

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:



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.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

Again Reheat?
Your entire math is based on ONE witness who was INSIDE the wings of the Annex. A witness who if people insist had time to get into a position to witness the descent, contradicts the official speed.
If you insist that he could physically SEE the descent, he contradicts the official altitude.
He saw the plane pass over him. Over the Annex.
What manouevre or trajectory would have had to have been assessed in that fraction of a second it would have been in his sights.

http://i45.tinypic.com/ztsif.jpg

Never mind that the red path doesn´t even go over the Annex contradicting Morin´s interview with Craig Ranke, but the blue and green path??

YOUR ridiculously impossible path was designed to make it so.
It has nothing to do with ALL the testimonies of the NOC witnesses. NONE.

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

Originally Posted by mudlark
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.

Seriously?
Your path is OUTSIDE the Annex.
Even Morin adjudged the trajectory of the plane as:

¨I ran to the outside (from in between the wings) and got into a position where I could see it.
(...)
if the Air Force memorial had been built, the airplane would have ran into it.¨


http://i47.tinypic.com/15no9d3.jpg

This is the MINIMUM angle of trajectory that he assessed from within those wings. How do we know this? It took 0.7 seconds to reach that point from flying over his head.
The slightest of left wing tilts would have changed this.
Darius Prather corraborated this trajectory and positioning as it passed over the Annex.

As with all witness testimony various ´datapoints´ as BCR calls them, are needed to paint the full picture. You ignored them.

[mudlark]

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.

This is using Reheat´s ´paths´ I take it?
Read the previous post.
By the way, ´55ft agl´ over the Annex?
The Annex is 69ft in height BCR. LOL

[beachnut]

Sean Boger places it specifically ...
In the Pentagon! Point, set, match!

You are so easy! Go back to the 2,223 g of no math failed CIT and Balsamo the not a real airline pilot who failed to get the required certificate due to 11.2 g or was it 2,223 gs of junk?

The shadow makes flying the NoC is impossible, your own work debunks you.

[mudlark]

No it doesn't!
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/paikoverthecitgotopentagon.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2-1.jpg

The yellow line is Paik´s path according to you?
Explain.

[mudlark]

Since that nitwit Latas agrees that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon from the NoC course, does he offer any suggestion as to what could have done the damage? I would have to have a look at any statement he made on that, if someone has a link to it.

I notice the sorry little loser didn't say much about his views on 9/11 when he was losing his election campaign. Maybe he figured out that it was too wack even for Arizona.

Lefty, do YOU actually believe an impact is possible from NOC?

[mudlark]

Paikpointsnorth is Paik pointing to a North of citgo path according to CIT. This does not match with his drawing which is not North of Citgo.

This stops when he points to a path which is South of Citgo which matches his drawing.


I was not replying to you however, as I do not interact with CIT mouthpieces/socks, if possible. I was posting to Childlike Empress.

CIT are ignorant scumbag no planers. Flyover theory is the worst theory in 911 CT land.

He puts the plane OVER THE NAVY ANNEX as does Morin.
The path you refer to is NOT SOC as i have shown.

I am not a sock. AGAIN.
I will respond to ANY posts that are relevant to this topic.

Even the rubbish childish insults and lies that pass for ´debate´

Got it?

I am not a ´no-planer´ by the way.

[beachnut]

The yellow line is Paik´s path according to you?
Explain.
You guys have a bunch of impossible paths, which one is the real flight path? 2,223 Gs of stupid flight paths, where did Balsamo learn to fly, the same school CIT learned to investigate and make up lies from witness statements?

Please explain how a plane to the south of Paik is able to go NoC and impact the Pentagon as Boger said it did? Shadow places 77 on the correct flight path.

[mudlark]

Whooooo bubba. I recorded Shinki with his knowledge (the recorder was on the counter in front of him). I informed him that I was researching a book and he was aware that his account would be used. He made no request that it be kept 'off the record'. Big difference.[QUOTE]

Then why is it so undecipherable??

[QUOTE]I have dozens of other recordings from that same day, but I keep them off-the-record for several reasons.

1) They offer nothing new which is not already in the record by other witnesses.
2) They are not witnesses in the public record and I don't want to expose them to the CIT character assassination team unless absolutely necessary.
3) In some cases they are 'off-the-record' (such as Sheraton Hotel employees and Morin) who could suffer if it became public knowledge they were talking about 9/11.

In other words you didn´t get the ´answers´ you wanted.
Listen, BCR , if ANY of those alleged recordings contradicted ANYTHING presented by CIT. ESPECIALLY Morin, you would have it plastered all over these pages. Cut the crap.

Morin tell you also that he was within the wings? Is that the real reason they are not being released?

They offer nothing new in that they repeat what CIT has gleaned?

Okay, got it. :)

[mudlark]

Then why do all your other lines have the plane flying North of Citgo, when the line you just drew for Edward goes directly OVER Citgo?

Isnt it correct that in order for Edward's flight patch, in terms of his line, to get the plane NOC it has to do a ridiculous turn just like how it is presented in that other image?

Ed Paik could not physically see exactly where the plane left the roof of the Annex wings. Though he DOES describe it crossing over the roof at an angle both physically mimicking and by drawing the path.

A ´ridiculous turn´? Any minor tilt over that roof would have drastically changed the trajectory of the plane whether at 540 or 350mph.
Remember Morin had it at least 50ft above the Annex in a slight nose down attitude.

[mudlark]

I was wondering about that myself. The plane would have to be on the ground for Middleton to "feel the heat", would it not?

Now perhaps he felt the IR from the fireball at the Pentgon as a few thousand gallons of jet fuel ignited.

That is plausible. Heat from the airplane would be mostly from convection, in the exhaust, which, seeing that the plane was descending, would be directed upward, and would rise and waft away.

I have personnally torched as much a 10K gallons of JP-4 and could feel it through my turnout coat a hundred feet away. It burns a bit hot.


No way was he describing the heat from the fireball. Watch his interview (for once).
He claimed that the plane took 10-15 seconds to reach the Pentagon from his POV.
He specifically says that he felt the heat ´from the plane...it was THAT CLOSE´
It wasn´t in THAT much of an inclination Lefty after it passed his POV.

It wasn´t the fireball. And he DEFINITELY would have felt nothing from SOC.

[mudlark]

On Lefty and Beachnut´s witchhunt and defamation of character rant on Mr. Latas here are some more that you can try to diminish.
Give you guys something to do..

George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.)
30 year career managing aircraft maintenance activities
Licensed commercial pilot
Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic
Aircraft accident investigator

Colonel Michael Harley USAF (ret)
Command pilot
~ 6000 Total Flight Time
T-38,T-33, T-37,T-39, C-47, U-6, Uh-1, C130A, B, E, &
prototype H, Kc-135 and B-52.
26 years commissioned. 34 Years total service USAF Accident Investigator
Instructor Accident Investigation, Embry-Riddle University
Management analyst and IG, simulator instructor,
Instructor Pilot, Standardization Evaluation Pilot,
Chief of Standardization of a Sac Wing equipped with B-52, RC-135 and Kc-135
Flew Cessna 177, Twin Bonanza, Cherokee-6
~200 hours as civilian private pilot
Newspaper columnist for 10 years, now a freelance writer

J. Randall Reinhardt
Commercial, Multi, Instrument, CFI, ATP,
Commercial Glider, Advanced/ Instrument Ground Instructor,
Turbojet Type Rating - Learjet
Flying since 1961,
8,000+ hours in civil, military and Part 25 Transport category aircraft
J.D. degree in 1972 ,
30 years practicing trial law, with a concentration in aviation related litigation,
including FAA Part 91, 135, 121 and 141 accidents and FAA/NTSB matters
Forensic Director for U.S. Aviation Forensics with 30 years experience in aircraft accident investigation.
Former FAA Accident Prevention Specialist
Former member U.S. Unlimited Aerobatic Team with unrestricted aerobatic waiver.

Captain Hadi Rizvi
Flying 43 years
Courses on Accident Investgation
22 Years with Pakistan Air Force as fighter -Total about 3500 Hrs,
Types Flown: T-6G; T-37; T-33; F-86F/E, F-5; MirageIII/V; MIG-15; MIG-19, QFI
21 Years with PIA (Pakistan International Airlines) ~13000 Hrs
Types Flown: F-27; Boeing 737; Boeing 747; Airbus 310


Dennis Cimino
Electrical Engineer
Commercial Pilot Rating, since 1981
Navy Combat Systems Specialist: RADAR, ECM, cryptographic communications
Flight Data Recorder Engineer Smiths Aerospace
BA-609, IDARS, Military and Commercial
Millimeter wave RADAR and countermeasures expert since 1973
Two patents held for Doppler RADAR ( Kavouras ):
long pulsewidth RADAR droop compensation network,
and wave guide arc detection for high powered RADAR

There are more if you want them....

[A W Smith]

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/objectheightcalculator.jpg "this highly accurate program" ain't too accurate. or somebody over at PFT effed up ... again. No that's just from the center of the fuselage. Last time I checked, wings can cast a shadow as well. Your assumptions are wrong.Mybad. The calculations you made count for nothing as I had assumed that the ´sun´ tool on GoogleEarth does not show the Azimuth as I had mistakenly said.
The shadows of the buildings don´t change. I don´t know what time those shadows were actually cast.

If your calculations are based on the length of the shadows cast in that Google image, you´re wasting your time.
You need to use the program that was used to debunk that NOC and Warren shadow image.My calculations have nothing to do with the shadows shown on that Google earth image. I ignored them. You apparently didn't and drew your line parelel to them. Again. look at the numbers I posted. They don't lie. The altitude, the azimuth, the flights altitude and location between Warrens pin points. @ 42 degrees it DOES reach Paik's shop.

[beachnut]

... He claimed that the plane took 10-15 seconds to reach the Pentagon from his POV. ...
And they all point south. lol

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pointingSouthOops.gif
Why are they pointing south? Do you know which way the real flight path is? Where they are pointing!

[beachnut]

...
George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.)
30 year career managing aircraft maintenance activities
Licensed commercial pilot
Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic
Aircraft accident investigator

Colonel Michael Harley USAF (ret)
Command pilot
~ 6000 Total Flight Time
T-38,T-33, T-37,T-39, C-47, U-6, Uh-1, C130A, B, E, &
prototype H, Kc-135 and B-52.
26 years commissioned. 34 Years total service USAF Accident Investigator
Instructor Accident Investigation, Embry-Riddle University
Management analyst and IG, simulator instructor,
Instructor Pilot, Standardization Evaluation Pilot,
Chief of Standardization of a Sac Wing equipped with B-52, RC-135 and Kc-135
Flew Cessna 177, Twin Bonanza, Cherokee-6
~200 hours as civilian private pilot
Newspaper columnist for 10 years, now a freelance writer

J. Randall Reinhardt
Commercial, Multi, Instrument, CFI, ATP,
Commercial Glider, Advanced/ Instrument Ground Instructor,
Turbojet Type Rating - Learjet
Flying since 1961,
8,000+ hours in civil, military and Part 25 Transport category aircraft
J.D. degree in 1972 ,
30 years practicing trial law, with a concentration in aviation related litigation,
including FAA Part 91, 135, 121 and 141 accidents and FAA/NTSB matters
Forensic Director for U.S. Aviation Forensics with 30 years experience in aircraft accident investigation.
Former FAA Accident Prevention Specialist
Former member U.S. Unlimited Aerobatic Team with unrestricted aerobatic waiver.

Captain Hadi Rizvi
Flying 43 years
Courses on Accident Investgation
22 Years with Pakistan Air Force as fighter -Total about 3500 Hrs,
Types Flown: T-6G; T-37; T-33; F-86F/E, F-5; MirageIII/V; MIG-15; MIG-19, QFI
21 Years with PIA (Pakistan International Airlines) ~13000 Hrs
Types Flown: F-27; Boeing 737; Boeing 747; Airbus 310


Dennis Cimino
Electrical Engineer
Commercial Pilot Rating, since 1981
Navy Combat Systems Specialist: RADAR, ECM, cryptographic communications
Flight Data Recorder Engineer Smiths Aerospace
BA-609, IDARS, Military and Commercial
Millimeter wave RADAR and countermeasures expert since 1973
Two patents held for Doppler RADAR ( Kavouras ):
long pulsewidth RADAR droop compensation network,
and wave guide arc detection for high powered RADAR

There are more if you want them....

They agree with the 2,223 g math of Balsamo, this kind of makes them worthless, not one of them can do math to save your nonsensical flight paths. Not one of them supports the NoC! zip here

They all agree flight 77 hit the Pentagon! lol

J. Randall Reinhardt, he is how old? And what does he say about the flight paths you can't agree on?? lol

You left out Lear, and his alien friends, with the aliens and bases on the dark side of the moon and on Mars, I don't understand why Balsamo and CIT have not earned a Pulitzer Prize; lol Lear is perfect for your delusions on 911.

Oops, I am a USAF Accident Investigator, masters in engineering, simulator instructor, simulator evaluator, Instructor Pilot, Standardization Evaluation Pilot, Chief of Training for a Sac Wing KC-135, and more. I can do math and not a single pilot in p4t are capable of fixing 2,223 gs. And I don't fall for paranoid delusions like these failed pilots you listed, but left out Lear and super pilot who never fly as Captain, Balsamo the 11.2 g wonder.

Better get your super experts to help you expose all this nonsense to CBS or Jay Leno, or someone who can help expose you guys as the big joke you really are. Fraud is CIT, and p4t.


It does not matter who you have on the list of people who signed up for 2,223 gs of stupid, it matters what the believe; so far you say they support the lies of Balsamo; not a good thing.

[A W Smith]

No it doesn't!
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/paikoverthecitgotopentagon.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2-1.jpg

The yellow line is Paik´s path according to you?
Explain.


Whats to explain? look at where Paik's line ends at the Pentagon. Look where my yellow line ends compared to your red line. Self explanatory.

[leftysergeant]

On Lefty and Beachnut´s witchhunt and defamation of character rant on Mr. Latas here are some more that you can try to diminish.
Give you guys something to do..

George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.)
30 year career managing aircraft maintenance activities
Licensed commercial pilot
Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic
Aircraft accident investigator

Beachnut and I have already discussed the value of Nelson's BS. ZIP. He's hung up on parts date stamps and we have demonstrated that that is of no value here. He is also only qualified to address mechanical aspects of the aircraft and not piloting issues.

He's also a known nut bar as witness his dumb ass remarks about Waco and the Murrah Building.

I shall have to do some checking on the others. I have not heard of them before.

[Woody-]

Why do you guys keep debating this guy on totally unreliable eyewitness accounts, when the whole CIT theory is just dumber than a box of rocks? A flyover instead of a crash has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. It would be the stupidest if it wasn't for the planted light poles they also have to include, now that takes first place in the stupid idea category. They must think the (insert evil organization here) is run by retarded first graders that are also heroin addicts to come up with those ideas

[beachnut]

Why do you guys keep debating this guy on totally unreliable eyewitness accounts, when the whole CIT theory is just dumber than a box of rocks? A flyover instead of a crash has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. It would be the stupidest if it wasn't for the planted light poles they also have to include, now that takes first place in the stupid idea category. They must think the (insert evil organization here) is run by retarded first graders that are also heroin addicts to come up with those ideas

You are right. The funny part, the videos by CIT has the witnesses refuting everything CIT says.

CIT junk is dumber than a box of rocks.

[Reheat]

Again Reheat?

Why does this sound like the shrimp?

Never mind that the red path doesn´t even go over the Annex contradicting Morin´s interview with Craig Ranke, but the blue and green path??

You drew those lines, I didn't.

YOUR ridiculously impossible path was designed to make it so. It has nothing to do with ALL the testimonies of the NOC witnesses. NONE.

NO! Those lines are the result of an impossible flight path which you say happened. The math shows they were impossible.


Your path is OUTSIDE the Annex.
Even Morin adjudged the trajectory of the plane as:

http://i47.tinypic.com/15no9d3.jpg
This is the MINIMUM angle of trajectory that he assessed from within those wings. How do we know this? It took 0.7 seconds to reach that point from flying over his head.
The slightest of left wing tilts would have changed this.
Darius Prather corraborated this trajectory and positioning as it passed over the Annex.

Then show the math


As with all witness testimony various ´datapoints´ as BCR calls them, are needed to paint the full picture. You ignored them.

No, I didn't ignore anything! They create impossible flight paths. Since you continue to argue SHOW THE MATH.

[Reheat]

Why do you guys keep debating this guy on totally unreliable eyewitness accounts, when the whole CIT theory is just dumber than a box of rocks? A flyover instead of a crash has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. It would be the stupidest if it wasn't for the planted light poles they also have to include, now that takes first place in the stupid idea category. They must think the (insert evil organization here) is run by retarded first graders that are also heroin addicts to come up with those ideas

I don't think there is anyone here besides the CIT cult and fanboys who disagree. This has all been discussed dozens of times previously, so nothing is new. However, they continue to post as dirty foot coverings and that needs to be countered. Otherwise, it's his ballgame to continue the obvious garbage that only maroons buy. However, there are still a few maroons around and the evidence is in this thread.

[Dog Town]

CIT is run by retarded first graders that are also heroin addicts to come up with those ideas
Added my insert.:D


PS
My apologies to retarded first graders, and heroin addicts.

[jaydeehess]

No way was he describing the heat from the fireball. Watch his interview (for once).
He claimed that the plane took 10-15 seconds to reach the Pentagon from his POV.
He specifically says that he felt the heat ´from the plane...it was THAT CLOSE´
It wasn´t in THAT much of an inclination Lefty after it passed his POV.

It wasn´t the fireball. And he DEFINITELY would have felt nothing from SOC.

Fine! You explain how he could possibly 'feel the heat' given off by the jet exhaust, mudlark.

I expect that the ONLY possible way for that to happen would be for the plane to actually be passing him not at 50 feet agl, not 25 feet agl but actually closer than 10 feet agl in at the very least a flat trajectory yet from this altitude you expect the aircraft to have risen over the Pentagon.

Then there is the FACT that if the aircraft had been that close to Middleton and had gotten there by flying down Patton drive , as Middleton states, then neither Paik nor Morin could possibly have seen the plane let alone a shadow of this aircraft pass through Paik's garage as per his brother's statement.

So, apparently Middleton is wrong concerning the plane's flight path. This much has been established over and over. You also said he was with the other ANC witnesses who you say were not watching as the aircraft passed them (they were running and you said Middleton was running as well) and Middleton could easily be experiencing the IR heat from the fireball while facing away from the Pentagon and assuming it was the jet exhaust.

That ,,, OR Middleton was facing the Pentagon while the others ran, in which case he has described the aircraft actually HITTING the Pentagon (he does say that doesn't he?).
You choose, Middleton was looking and seeing the plane hit or he was running away and not watching the plane. Choose one!
Either way the CiT conjecture loses!

Furthermore, Middleton is claiming that the aircraft is so close to him that he felt the heat of the engines yet Lagasse, Brooks and Turcois all also say the plane flew right over them, despite their being well south of Middleton, and none of them said they felt the heat of the engines though.

So if they were off in their estimation of where the plane was and it was actually much closer to Middleton than to them it again brings up the FACT that if the plane was where Middleton put it then Paik and Morin could not have seen it.
We know that Paik and Morin saw it and that the shadow passed through Paik's garage and therefore, once again we know that Middleton is wrong. If Middleton is wrong about the flight path then the flghtpath is further south and he is therefore also wrong about the heat he felt.

It matters not that Middleton says he felt the heat from the exhaust since it is physically impossible for him to have, if he is correct then it makes Lagasse, Brooks, Turcois, Morin and Paik all wrong.

Boger: Specifically and unequivocably states that he watched the aircraft enter the Pentagon.

Morin: The Ingersol photo is NOT taken fromwhere Morin was. It can easily be 50-75 feet west of his location from where he saw the aircraft go beyond the trees.http://es.tinypic.com/r/33ts9dg/6

Morin, Brooks, Turcois, Lagasse, Boger and Middleton (if he was looking, you choose) were all in prime position to see an ascent over the Pentagon. They were watching the plane's approach and several watched right up to the point that the fireball occured yet none report this. Neither does anyone anywhere else.

540 MPH: At what point was the aircraft doing 540 MPH? Was it doing so as it passed the Annex?
At 792 feet per second (540 MPH) it would not have reached the northern bend of Columbia Pike in one second so Morin's estimate of 'a few seconds' is not that far off given that a person's estimate of time is really not all that good especially in situtations in which they are not consciously trying to track the passage of time and the plane had not yet reached its max velocity as it passed the Annex.
At this rate of 792 fps it would still be 4 seconds away from the Pentagon but it was not yet at that velocity so 4 seconds is the absolute lower limit.

A finer point may be made regarding Turcois as well. The security tape seems to indicate that much of his story was made up in that it shows him running not towards the embankment and watching the aircraft, but into the gas station!
However, even if we take him at his word he states that the plane went behind the embankment and he did not see it again. He saw the fireball but no aircraft. He states that the plane crashed because he never saw the plane again but he says he did see the fireball. He does not indicate that he looked away between the time the plane went below his line of sight and the appearance of the fireball and he did not see the plane ascend and rise over the Pentagon. So either the fireball occured well in front of the Pentagon and the plane flew through it, or the plane did not ascend and hit the Pentagon.

Either Turcois is a witness for impact, or he is exaggerating his story and did not see the plane the way he related to Craig.

Well we know for certain that the fireball did not occur a 10, 20, 100 several hundred, feet in front of the Pentagon. The only evidence of the origin of the fireball puts it AT the Pentagon wall. In order for the plane to fly through this fireball and thus be masked from Turcois' view (and all others, Brooks and Morin among them) the aircraft would have to have gone vertical within a few dozen feet (along the earth). Furthermore flying anything through a fireball containing pieces of a concrete building is not exactly conducive to the continued ability of an aircraft to perform any flight manouver at all, to say the least.

The line is this shot,http://i47.tinypic.com/15no9d3.jpg according to Google Earth on my computer, is 980 feet, not 555 feet. That's 1.25 seonds at 540 MPH (which the plane was not yet doing at this point).

[beachnut]

George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.)
30 year career managing aircraft maintenance activities
Licensed commercial pilot
Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic
Aircraft accident investigator

Colonel Michael Harley USAF (ret)
Command pilot
...
Poor George; which delusional flight path does he support? Does he know his ideas on parts is as dumb as CIT ideas on flight paths?

Col Harley? Does he say anything? He does not support Pilots for truth, he accidentally signed up or is super stupid. Which nonsensical flight path does Col Harley support?

Post a quote where Col Harley supports this CIT witnesses failed analysis. Go ahead, and when will Balsamo get an ATP?

Sorry sirs... but you have joined a select few colonels who have crossed over to the dirt dumb dolt status of failure, 2,223 gs of failed ideas on 911; p4t and CIT their crack cocaine research team.

[BCR]

Then why is it so undecipherable??

Because it is a cheap recorder with an internal mic used for my own reference purposes, not posting on the internet. However, when I say I talk to someone, people like you scream 'liar, liar, pants on fire', so it is posted just as evidence that I did talk to him. It was also near the phone, which happened to ring while we were talking.

I was not making cute little videos and audios to make a few bucks or sell a few DVD's. My recordings are for my own reference so that I can recall correctly. Something CIT does not seem to realize, memory degrades over time and the more distant in time, the less reliable the recall.

[BCR]

Here are the trees in question that he stated ´blocked my view´

http://i48.tinypic.com/sn2gk5.jpg

Why did you post this picture as evidence of what Morin would see? You are as deceptive as the CIT boys. This picture was taken from the NORTH side of the Annex area, NOT where Morin was. It was also taken well after the event.

Shame on you.

[Reheat]

Even Morin adjudged the trajectory of the plane as:



http://i47.tinypic.com/15no9d3.jpg

This is the MINIMUM angle of trajectory that he assessed from within those wings. How do we know this? It took 0.7 seconds to reach that point from flying over his head.
The slightest of left wing tilts would have changed this.
Darius Prather corraborated this trajectory and positioning as it passed over the Annex.

I don't know anyone (except CIT and Balsamo) who could possibly be this stupid. Assuming the aircraft began a turn over Morin in order to pass North of the Citgo it would require 75 degrees of bank and about 4 g's. There is no transport category aircraft in existence which has the roll authority to accomplish this. Then, the aircraft must reverse the turn in the opposite direction in order to fly over the impact point. This would even be difficult to impossible to accomplish in an F-22 Raptor! A transport category aircraft could not accomplish either turn at any flyable speed.

END OF DELUSION!

[BCR]

This is using Reheat´s ´paths´ I take it?
Read the previous post.
By the way, ´55ft agl´ over the Annex?
The Annex is 69ft in height BCR. LOL

No sir, this is based on the paths described by P4T. I used the equation that Rob presented in his video to show that the values for radius he was using (estimated from his graphics software) was way off. So no, I got that from the laws of physics.

[funk de fino]

He puts the plane OVER THE NAVY ANNEX as does Morin.
The path you refer to is NOT SOC as i have shown.

His signed path is SOC. He points to a SOC path.

I am not a sock. AGAIN.

Just a mouthpiece then?

I will respond to ANY posts that are relevant to this topic.

With CIT junk fantasy stuff.

Even the rubbish childish insults and lies that pass for ´debate´

Got it?

I am not a ´no-planer´ by the way.

Are you CIT? The insults are for those morons. Read them again. They are no planers. They say no plane hit the Pentagon even though we all know it did (as do their own witness).

[16.5]

Good Morning!

As some of you know, I have been traveling over seas for business.

I have returned, and just have had the time to scan the thread. I see CIT's latest stooge has posted lots of pretty pictures. Kind of like the golden books style of Truth, huh CIT? The Truth for Children by Children

Anyway, if someone could kindly direct me to where the CIT's latest incarnation has posted the math to support their fantasy "bank north of Citgo, descent, pull up and over the impact site at the Pentagon" path, I'd sure appreciate it.

[Mr.Herbert]

Originally Posted by mudlark http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5566666#post5566666)
As far as I know they held back on releasing the interview ....snip.....

It appears you missed my post about you getting caught in another lie. Here is is again:



Interesting, another lie and you know it. Craig released the recorded interview of Morin almost a year ago. They are pathetic liars and so are you.

"Over The Navy Annex featuring Terry Morin"-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...7158781568709# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2649657158781568709#)
@4:19 of the video the scum bags start to play the recording that they told Morin they WOULD NOT do.

Fact remains, they achieved NOTHING by lying to this man. It's been a YEAR since it was released. Keep up the charade, "truther" we all know what and who you are.

[leftysergeant]

Lefty, do YOU actually believe an impact is possible from NOC?

Of course not. But so what? The plane was not NoC. Morin was inside the footprint of the Annex. He would hardly have had time to see what the hell that was that just zipped over his head, let alone to get outside the footprint to see it clear the last wing of the building. He would, in fact, have to have come a considerable distance outside the footprint to see it over the building at all.

[twinstead]

Since the evidence of impact is so extensive, I suppose the same exact question could be asked of mudlark--

do YOU actually believe an impact is possible from NOC?

[Dog Town]

You are as deceptive as the CIT boys.

I think we all know why!

[BCR]

I think we all know why!

No, say it ain't so :jaw:

[jaydeehess]

I am not a ´no-planer´ by the way.

I hate to break it to you but the CiT senario is indeed a no-plane senario.

they claim that the aircraft in question came in low on an approach that would take it towards the Pentagon at which time it pulled up and over the Pentagon and the damage to the building was caused by some other means than an impact of said aircraft.

So, yes, they do include a plane in their fantasy but claim no plane hit the Pentagon, and THAT is what the whole debate circles around.
Either a plane, or no plane, did the damage to the Pentagon.
CiT say no plane!

[jaydeehess]

´

Here are the trees in question that he stated ´blocked my view´

http://i48.tinypic.com/sn2gk5.jpg

Same trees from another angle on the Columbia Pike turn at the foot of the Annex.

http://i46.tinypic.com/20idp1g.jpg



Given that we have already seen several aerial shots of the area in which the entire line of trees is quite obvious, why would you post these two shots neither of which is from within 500 feet of where Morin was standing?

[A W Smith]

Given that we have already seen several aerial shots of the area in which the entire line of trees is quite obvious, why would you post these two shots neither of which is from within 500 feet of where Morin was standing?

yes, Why use photos of the trees close up? and then falsely claim that Morin couldn't see over them? Disingenuous desperation! The Annex as we all know is at a higher elevation than the descending sweeping left turn of Columbia pike at the trees.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/ingersolnavyannex.jpg

[mudlark]

Why do you guys keep debating this guy on totally unreliable eyewitness accounts, when the whole CIT theory is just dumber than a box of rocks? A flyover instead of a crash has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. It would be the stupidest if it wasn't for the planted light poles they also have to include, now that takes first place in the stupid idea category. They must think the (insert evil organization here) is run by retarded first graders that are also heroin addicts to come up with those ideas

These eyewitnesses are ´unreliable´ because....?

[mudlark]

You drew those lines, I didn't.

I drew those lines? Wtf are you talking about?
Those are YOUR paths.
Which witness described ANY of those paths?
Which witness described the exaggerated banks over Arlington Cemetery?
Over and behind the ANC buildings?
YOU created those ridiculous paths. The NOC witnesses certainly didn´t.



NO! Those lines are the result of an impossible flight path which you say happened. The math shows they were impossible.

Read above. Stop lying. It´s pathetic.
Yes YOUR math based on YOUR paths are impossible.



Then show the math

The math (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=122) has been linked to numerous times.



No, I didn't ignore anything! They create impossible flight paths.

YOU created the impossible paths.

[A W Smith]

These eyewitnesses are ´unreliable´ because....?

Because the alleged NOC flight paths are not physically possible. Got Math?

[mudlark]

Fine! You explain how he could possibly 'feel the heat' given off by the jet exhaust, mudlark.

I expect that the ONLY possible way for that to happen would be for the plane to actually be passing him not at 50 feet agl, not 25 feet agl but actually closer than 10 feet agl in at the very least a flat trajectory yet from this altitude you expect the aircraft to have risen over the Pentagon.

That is something you would have to ask William Middleton.
What is more important about his statement on feeling the heat is that he is trying to give an idea of how CLOSE the plane was to him.
Which part of your anatomy are you pullig those agl figures from??
Have you ever been in the proximity of a 757 at 350 mph?
If not, explain.

Then there is the FACT that if the aircraft had been that close to Middleton and had gotten there by flying down Patton drive , as Middleton states, then neither Paik nor Morin could possibly have seen the plane let alone a shadow of this aircraft pass through Paik's garage as per his brother's statement.

Again?
In his CIT interview he described the plane as coming from ´between the Hilton (Sheraton) and Navy Annex´
The path he drew BEFORE the plane actually reached his POV is understandable given the circumstances.
He also went on to describe the plane heading towards the ANC carpark.
The SOC path is in NO WAY described.

Both Paik and Morin place the plane OVER the Annex.

So, apparently Middleton is wrong concerning the plane's flight path. This much has been established over and over.

Wrong in what regards? In relation to the other NOC witnesses?
He still places the plane over the ANC carpark as confirmed by the other witnesses. he also places it NOC (obviously).
The only thing that has been ´established´ is that he DEFINITELY did not see it on the SOC path. Corraborated.

You also said he was with the other ANC witnesses who you say were not watching as the aircraft passed them (they were running and you said Middleton was running as well) and Middleton could easily be experiencing the IR heat from the fireball while facing away from the Pentagon and assuming it was the jet exhaust.

Wrong. I never said he was with the other ANC witnesses.
Middleton was further towards the Annex so the rest of your ´story´ is bunk.
Obviously you haven´t watched his interview or you would have known this.
Noted.
Go watch the interviews before you present your ´theories´

That ,,, OR Middleton was facing the Pentagon while the others ran, in which case he has described the aircraft actually HITTING the Pentagon (he does say that doesn't he?).
You choose, Middleton was looking and seeing the plane hit or he was running away and not watching the plane. Choose one!
Either way the CiT conjecture loses!

He was watching from an obscure viewpoint of the Pentagon facade.
Again, you´re patting yourself on the back before checking the FACTS regarding him ´running´ anywhere or me saying as such.

Furthermore, Middleton is claiming that the aircraft is so close to him that he felt the heat of the engines yet Lagasse, Brooks and Turcois all also say the plane flew right over them, despite their being well south of Middleton, and none of them said they felt the heat of the engines though.

You DO know that Middleton was on a higher ground level than the Citgo witnesses?
He was roughly 80ft ASL and they were roughly 40 ft ASL.
Again, you´ll have to ask or better still TELL Middleton he is lying.

So if they were off in their estimation of where the plane was and it was actually much closer to Middleton than to them it again brings up the FACT that if the plane was where Middleton put it then Paik and Morin could not have seen it.
We know that Paik and Morin saw it and that the shadow passed through Paik's garage and therefore, once again we know that Middleton is wrong. If Middleton is wrong about the flight path then the flghtpath is further south and he is therefore also wrong about the heat he felt.

They were not ´off´ in putting the plane NOC.
They all agree to this.
I´ve already covered this path both here and other posts to you on this very point.
Paik saw the plane go over the Annex. He could not see where it exitted.
Morin saw the plane over the Annex from WITHIN the wings.
Given that the official speed of 782 feet per second, that would mean that the plane would have cleared the Annex and would have been in descent over the trees in 0.7 seconds.
Middleton ASSUMED that the plane had come down that road but in the CIT interview he described it as descending from the Sheraton down over the Annex when it came into his view.
Again go look at the interview to actually SEE his POV then maybe you´ll understand.



It matters not that Middleton says he felt the heat from the exhaust since it is physically impossible for him to have, if he is correct then it makes Lagasse, Brooks, Turcois, Morin and Paik all wrong.

Tell HIM that. CIT reported what HE said.
Either way, he is reinforcing the point of how CLOSE the plane was to him whether he could or could not physically feel the heat of the plane.
AGAIN, tell me what this ´physical fact´ is based upon!

Boger: Specifically and unequivocably states that he watched the aircraft enter the Pentagon.

He is also 100% on NOC and the low level lawn approach wasn´t what he saw.

Morin: The Ingersol photo is NOT taken fromwhere Morin was. It can easily be 50-75 feet west of his location from where he saw the aircraft go beyond the trees.http://es.tinypic.com/r/33ts9dg/6

It could be 5 feet out from the Annex given the 0.7 second timeframe I outlined. Just howfar out do YOU believe he could have gotten in this time after running from 10 feet within the wings?
Add to that too his reaction time. Are you suggesting that he saw the plane and ran to his alleged POV as soon as he saw it? Truthful logical answer now please...

Morin, Brooks, Turcois, Lagasse, Boger and Middleton (if he was looking, you choose) were all in prime position to see an ascent over the Pentagon. They were watching the plane's approach and several watched right up to the point that the fireball occured yet none report this. Neither does anyone anywhere else.

The fireball was allegedly 200 feet in diameter and the shockwave was felt more than 2 kilometers away. The ANC guys said they could feel the heat of it. Lagasse admitted he dove into his car.
Have you ever stood and actually WATCHED an explosion? Without ducking?
Flinching? Diving for cover?
The fact that they place it NOC makes the damage caused from lightpole 1 to the building itself impossible.

540 MPH: At what point was the aircraft doing 540 MPH? Was it doing so as it passed the Annex?
At 792 feet per second (540 MPH) it would not have reached the northern bend of Columbia Pike in one second so Morin's estimate of 'a few seconds' is not that far off given that a person's estimate of time is really not all that good especially in situtations in which they are not consciously trying to track the passage of time and the plane had not yet reached its max velocity as it passed the Annex.
At this rate of 792 fps it would still be 4 seconds away from the Pentagon but it was not yet at that velocity so 4 seconds is the absolute lower limit.

The FDR ´data´ interpretted by Farmer and Warren Stutt places the plane at 1 second intervals with up to 850ft sparsity at the twp points which run along the Annex. 50mph MINIMUM.
´One second´ is nothing. Let´s be honest here. For him to see the plane, react, get to his alleged POV and then go on to describe events during which he described a ´phase of..NOT KNOWING MUCH´..c´mon.
He claims that the plane took between ´13 and 18 seconds´ to reach the Pentagon. THAT is a big difference.

A finer point may be made regarding Turcois as well. The security tape seems to indicate that much of his story was made up in that it shows him running not towards the embankment and watching the aircraft, but into the gas station!
However, even if we take him at his word he states that the plane went behind the embankment and he did not see it again. He saw the fireball but no aircraft. He states that the plane crashed because he never saw the plane again but he says he did see the fireball. He does not indicate that he looked away between the time the plane went below his line of sight and the appearance of the fireball and he did not see the plane ascend and rise over the Pentagon. So either the fireball occured well in front of the Pentagon and the plane flew through it, or the plane did not ascend and hit the Pentagon.

Either Turcois is a witness for impact, or he is exaggerating his story and did not see the plane the way he related to Craig.

Even IF he ran inside the gas station and he is ´lying´/´exaggerating´ (let´s be clear here) would he not have SEEN the plane first? The plane he saw NOC?

Well we know for certain that the fireball did not occur a 10, 20, 100 several hundred, feet in front of the Pentagon. The only evidence of the origin of the fireball puts it AT the Pentagon wall. In order for the plane to fly through this fireball and thus be masked from Turcois' view (and all others, Brooks and Morin among them) the aircraft would have to have gone vertical within a few dozen feet (along the earth). Furthermore flying anything through a fireball containing pieces of a concrete building is not exactly conducive to the continued ability of an aircraft to perform any flight manouver at all, to say the least.

We know what ´for certain´? based on what? Various witnesses claim that the plane hit the lawn before ´impacting´. That the fuselage blew up on the lawn according to Timmerman, Renzi and to a certain degree, Sepulveda.
You are approaching this as if people would be analyzing the plane as it ´crashed´. MOST were ducking in their cars. Cowered with fear as the ANC guys were (and look how far away they were)
ALL the witnesses within the lawn area either described the plane as being at 3rd floor area. Including Boger.
Wedge 1 had recently been retrofitted to ABSORB bomb blasts. Damage was contained WITHIN that area.

You can scrutinize the NOC accounts all you want. You cannot debunk corraborative testimony simply by cherrypicking certain details of what they described.The outcome is the same. You still failed.

[mudlark]

Why did you post this picture as evidence of what Morin would see? You are as deceptive as the CIT boys. This picture was taken from the NORTH side of the Annex area, NOT where Morin was. It was also taken well after the event.

Shame on you.

Ingersol claimed that the timestamp on that photo was no more than 3-4 minutes after the explosion. The DOD removed it from his collection.
That photo is taken from an even BETTER POV than Morin would have had.
Out from the 5th wing towards the fence that runs along the Annex.
Where are you suggesting he reached within a less than a second timeframe??

[mudlark]

I don't know anyone (except CIT and Balsamo) who could possibly be this stupid. Assuming the aircraft began a turn over Morin in order to pass North of the Citgo it would require 75 degrees of bank and about 4 g's. There is no transport category aircraft in existence which has the roll authority to accomplish this. Then, the aircraft must reverse the turn in the opposite direction in order to fly over the impact point. This would even be difficult to impossible to accomplish in an F-22 Raptor! A transport category aircraft could not accomplish either turn at any flyable speed.

END OF DELUSION!

Jesus man..that is NOT a suggested flightpath. It is simply a line demonstrating where the Air Force Memorial is in relation to Morin´s POV.
The placemark Morin said that the plane would have hit if it had been there at the time.
It certainly IS NOT what you drew on YOUR false flightpath. Just one of many details you failed to include in your ´debunk´:rolleyes:

[mudlark]

Because it is a cheap recorder with an internal mic used for my own reference purposes, not posting on the internet. However, when I say I talk to someone, people like you scream 'liar, liar, pants on fire', so it is posted just as evidence that I did talk to him. It was also near the phone, which happened to ring while we were talking.

I was not making cute little videos and audios to make a few bucks or sell a few DVD's. My recordings are for my own reference so that I can recall correctly. Something CIT does not seem to realize, memory degrades over time and the more distant in time, the less reliable the recall.

Your memory must be shot. You keep posting and I keep rebutting..then you start over again. Or is it really a memory problem?

[Reheat]

Jesus man..that is NOT a suggested flightpath. It is simply a line demonstrating where the Air Force Memorial is in relation to Morin´s POV.
The placemark Morin said that the plane would have hit if it had been there at the time.
It certainly IS NOT what you drew on YOUR false flightpath. Just one of many details you failed to include in your ´debunk´:rolleyes:

You really shouldn't invoke religion based on your pathological lying history. You drew the lines where Morin said the aircraft flew. All I then did was try to turn so as to then fly to the impact point WHERE ALL OF YOUR FREAKIN' WITNESSES SAID IT FLEW.

Is there anyone on the planet who understands aerodynamic physics who believes I created those arcs for the sake of art work. NO, those arcs are the result of applied aerodynamic physics/math.

STOP the CRAP! Airplanes don't fly along lines YOU draw. They fly in accordance with aerodynamic math. You have to be one of the most ignorant fools on the planet to believe aircraft can fly the lines you draw. Welcome to CIT mentality. Unadulterated ignorance personified.

[A W Smith]

What happened?

Guess his library card ran out. Or a power failure at Starbucks.

[Reheat]

I drew those lines? Wtf are you talking about?
Those are YOUR paths.

NO, They are paths based on the application of proper math, which you don't have a clue about.


Which witness described ANY of those paths?

You are so ignorant you don't have a freakin' clue, do you?


Which witness described the exaggerated banks over Arlington Cemetery?
Over and behind the ANC buildings?

If you had a freakin' clue you'd understand. You have none, so you continue to wallow in a pit of clueless ignorance.


Read above. Stop lying. It´s pathetic.
Yes YOUR math based on YOUR paths are impossible.

That is precisely the point. The NOC crap is a delusion. Finally you understand. :D


YOU created the impossible paths.

No, YOU created them by not verifying whether or not the paths described by YOUR witnesses were possible.

[Reheat]

I cease to be amazed by the clueless ignorance displayed by these CIT maroons. It utterly confounds me that there are people with even a high school level education who could be so utterly clueless. Sometimes I wonder if it's not just an act, but I really don't think it is. It is truly sick, disgusting, and pathetic all wrapped up in a repulsive human form of deliberate ignorance.

[Reheat]

What happened?

Guess his library card ran out. Or a power failure at Starbucks.

Or needed a fix (more likely).

[16.5]

Because the alleged NOC flight paths are not physically possible. Got Math?

Wow, the nightly cut and paste from the CIT mutts got c-c-c-c-c-combo broke!

NICE!

[Mangoose]

It could be 5 feet out from the Annex given the 0.7 second timeframe I outlined. Just howfar out do YOU believe he could have gotten in this time after running from 10 feet within the wings?
Add to that too his reaction time. Are you suggesting that he saw the plane and ran to his alleged POV as soon as he saw it? Truthful logical answer now please...


How many times has Morin's September 2001 statement been read to you? His original claim, written immediately after the events, does not claim that he was 10 feet within the wings. It claims that he was already 10 steps out of the Annex into the parking lot, while making a turn to the security building, when he first detected something unusual, hearing the sound of the plane bouncing off the Annex walls. Then "two or three seconds after that" the plane "came into view". Then after that the plane was "on top of him". Then he described watching to plane all the way until it was obscured by trees. What trees would have been visible to him? Even in his recent statement, he still mentions the trees. You know full well that the mention of trees points to a SOC flight path; no trees would have blocked his view on a NOC path ... the building itself would have blocked his view.

[jaydeehess]

That is something you would have to ask William Middleton.

Well no, I don't. The CiT should have. Sorry I live over 1000miles from D.C.

What is more important about his statement on feeling the heat is that he is trying to give an idea of how CLOSE the plane was to him.
Yeah, I got that. He believed that the heat he felt was from the jet exhaust as it passed him by.

Which part of your anatomy are you pullig those agl figures from??

What altitude agl are YOU saying the aircraft was at in order to have the plane low enough to cause a bystander feel the heat of the aircraft?
50? 25? 10?
I am saying that in my experience, having walked on airport tarmacs and having been on the side of runways as heavy jets take off I have never felt jet exhaust. In order for Middleton to feel thisthe jet would ahve had to be somewhere close to as high off the ground as it would be if it were sitting on the ground on its wheels. ODD then that NO ONE at all from any angle describes the plane as having scraped the ground as it passed over ANC.
Have you ever been in the proximity of a 757 at 350 mph?
If not, explain.

I have been within 300 feet of a pair of Voodoo fighters going vertical with full afterburners lit.
I have been on major airport runways both in and out of my vehicle.
What have you done?



Again?
In his CIT interview he described the plane as coming from ´between the Hilton (Sheraton) and Navy Annex´
The path he drew BEFORE the plane actually reached his POV is understandable given the circumstances.

So if Middleton's drawing puts the path coming down Patton Drive but he is wrong about that what does this say about the veracity of the other's drawings.
Why did the CiT put a path coming along Patton Drive in the pic with the multiple paths if they did not believe it was correct or even what their witness was describing?
He also went on to describe the plane heading towards the ANC carpark.
The SOC path is in NO WAY described.
Neither is it a credible description of the path of the aircraft. You have already posted that it does not match the drawing.

Both Paik and Morin place the plane OVER the Annex.

AGAIN! Paik also says he thought it would hit his roof. How could it possibly be that low AND get over the Annex? His path also requires the plane miss the Sheraton by only a few feet yet does he ever say anything about this near miss which would be extremely visible to him? NO!
The next day though he opines that maybe it had hit the VDOT tower. If the plane had passed over his head and then the Annex it would never be closer than a wingspan and a half to the tower yet he wondrs if maybe it was hit while never mentioning that it had barely missed the Sheraton.
Wonderous.

Morin says it was on the outer edge of the Annex. He was walking and thus facing, south. He never describes having to turn around to see the aircraft. His description of the path of the aircraft, including his watching it go behind the trees, is deciededly a SoC path with the aircraft barely over the Annex.



Wrong in what regards? In relation to the other NOC witnesses?
He still places the plane over the ANC carpark as confirmed by the other witnesses. he also places it NOC (obviously).
The only thing that has been ´established´ is that he DEFINITELY did not see it on the SOC path. Corraborated.
Wrong in that his account is inconsistent with the accounts of several other witnesses among the CiT 'stars' and thus you can either accept him and discount the others, or vice versa.
Your idea of corroboration takes a very wide swath and calls it 'identical'. Yet oddly you find it inconceivable that the error margin could extend the other way.



Wrong. I never said he was with the other ANC witnesses.

Well when I said that Middleton had watched the aircraft hi the Pentagon you said that all the ANC witnesses were running, didn't you?


He was watching from an obscure viewpoint of the Pentagon facade.
Again, you´re patting yourself on the back before checking the FACTS regarding him ´running´ anywhere or me saying as such.
Hey, IIRC the running was what you told me. Sorry!

Still he either was not facing the Pentagon and running as were the other ANC witnesses (who were running because they thought it would hit them? yet none of them 'felt the heat'!) OR he was watching the aircraft pass by him and ,,,,,,,,,,, saw a fireball erupt, the aircraft enter the fireball?


You DO know that Middleton was on a higher ground level than the Citgo witnesses?
He was roughly 80ft ASL and they were roughly 40 ft ASL.
Again, you´ll have to ask or better still TELL Middleton he is lying.

AGAIN then just how high agl was the plane as it passed over Middleton so low that he felt the exhaust?
Lying?? Only the CiT assumes a lie when a simple error would explain the discrepancy.


They were not ´off´ in putting the plane NOC.
They all agree to this.
I´ve already covered this path both here and other posts to you on this very point.

Fact is that although Middleton's account is inconsistent with several other witness accounts you continue to adhere to the idea that they can all be right about their accounts. Why? Because they all put the plane in that mysterious zone known as NoC. If a witness had said that the plane passed along the Canadian border then headed for the pentagon right over their heads you would include it!

Paik saw the plane go over the Annex. He could not see where it exitted.
AGAIN! Paik also says he thought it would hit his roof. How could it possibly be that low AND get over the Annex? His path also requires the plane miss the Sheraton by only a few feet yet does he ever say anything about this near miss which would be extremely visible to him? NO!
The next day though he opines that maybe it had hit the VDOT tower. If the plane had passed over his head and then the Annex it would never be closer than a wingspan and a half to the tower yet he wondrs if maybe it was hit while never mentioning that it had barely missed the Sheraton.
Wonderous.


Morin saw the plane over the Annex from WITHIN the wings.
From 10 feet from the outer edge of the Annex he says it was right over him/over the edge of the Annex. Why does the CiT put it behind him?
His original statement puts him 10 feet OUTSIDE the wings of the Annex and he started from that point having seen the plane directlly over him.. Why does the CiT put the plane over the Annex BEHIND him ?


Given that the official speed of 782 feet per second, that would mean that the plane would have cleared the Annex and would have been in descent over the trees in 0.7 seconds.

792 fps WHEN? At impact?

Middleton ASSUMED that the plane had come down that road but in the CIT interview he described it as descending from the Sheraton down over the Annex when it came into his view.

AGAIN then that is not the path drawn on the pretty CiT illustration of the witness flightpaths.


Tell HIM that. CIT reported what HE said.
Either way, he is reinforcing the point of how CLOSE the plane was to him whether he could or could not physically feel the heat of the plane.
AGAIN, tell me what this ´physical fact´ is based upon!

The fact that in order to feel the heat he would have to be at the same level as the engines. If the plane were that low there would have been other reports of the plane having scraped the ground at the ANC.

He is also 100% on NOC and the low level lawn approach wasn´t what he saw.

Boger: Specifically and unequivocably states that he watched the aircraft enter the Pentagon. If you insist he is a NoC witness I insist he absolutly refutes a flyover.

It could be 5 feet out from the Annex given the 0.7 second timeframe I outlined. Just howfar out do YOU believe he could have gotten in this time after running from 10 feet within the wings?

You assume he was able to get to the outside of the Annex in time to observe the aircraft getting past the last Annex block and thus be accurate on how long it took.


Add to that too his reaction time. Are you suggesting that he saw the plane and ran to his alleged POV as soon as he saw it? Truthful logical answer now please...

Actually I believe he may have began running even before the plane came into view and that he was reacting to the odd sound of a screaming aircraft approaching.


The fireball was allegedly 200 feet in diameter and the shockwave was felt more than 2 kilometers away. The ANC guys said they could feel the heat of it.

Wow, the ANC guys, further away than Middleton(according to you) felt the heat of the explosion. Thanks for that.

Lagasse admitted he dove into his car.
Yep, but his account is completely accurate right?

Have you ever stood and actually WATCHED an explosion? Without ducking?
Flinching? Diving for cover?

Yes actually. You?

The fact that they place it NOC makes the damage caused from lightpole 1 to the building itself impossible.

the physical damage actually illustrates that they are in error.

yeah, yeah I know, spooks running around downing poles and planting aircraft parts, cabbies and guys in vans unloading lamp poles and carefully placing it on the cab. A magic explosion within the building that causes more damage to the first floor front wall than it does to upper floors or the back wall and somehow manages NOT to send the debris from 90-100 feet of first floor missing concrete wall onto the front lawn.

then more spooks planting an DFDR with the wrong flight data in it, and aircraft seats with bodies in them, body parts of the people who boarded flight 77



The FDR ´data´ interpretted by Farmer and Warren Stutt places the plane at 1 second intervals with up to 850ft sparsity at the twp points which run along the Annex. 50mph MINIMUM.

yes how about that, an FDR with data that supports the common narritive.
Damned spooks!


Even IF he ran inside the gas station and he is ´lying´/´exaggerating´ (let´s be clear here) would he not have SEEN the plane first? The plane he saw NOC?
how much veracity or accuracy would you then attribute to his account? Obviously you buy it 100% soley because it supports your politically motivated preconceived world view.


We know what ´for certain´? based on what? Various witnesses claim that the plane hit the lawn before ´impacting´. That the fuselage blew up on the lawn according to Timmerman, Renzi and to a certain degree, Sepulveda.

In fact a chunk of the concrete curb was punched out and it looks very much like it would have been caused by the port engine so they were not far off. It WAS at ground level when it hit.

You are approaching this as if people would be analyzing the plane as it ´crashed´.

YOU are assuming that all the witnesses were analyzing the approach when in fact they would have been watching, horrified.
MOST were ducking in their cars. Cowered with fear as the ANC guys were (and look how far away they were)

Not Boger! Not Turcois(if you take jis story verbatim)
ALL the witnesses within the lawn area either described the plane as being at 3rd floor area. Including Boger.

NONE describe it as hitting the top floor let alone flying over the building and as you point out several report it AT ground level.
Wedge 1 had recently been retrofitted to ABSORB bomb blasts. Damage was contained WITHIN that area.
Link?
AFAIK it was designed for bomb blasts that occured outside its walls.
The second floor was constructed of wood yet this 'explosion' did not rip upward through several floors but managed to blow out 100 feet of blast resistant concrete wall (without depositing this debris on the lawn.

You can scrutinize the NOC accounts all you want. You cannot debunk corraborative testimony simply by cherrypicking certain details of what they described.The outcome is the same. You still failed.

Cherry picking, me, ,,,that's rich.
BOGER SAID HE WATCHED THE PLANE ENTER THE BUILDING, NoC or no NoC, he says the plane hit the building and so did several others AND no one saw it fly over. No one saw it enter an existing fireball.
Not to metion that......
Flying through a fireball containing concrete debris is very much ill advised in any aircraft.

Well boyz and grils, I am off on a vacation for a week.
try not to miss me muddy.

[BCR]

Ingersol claimed that the timestamp on that photo was no more than 3-4 minutes after the explosion. The DOD removed it from his collection.
That photo is taken from an even BETTER POV than Morin would have had.
Out from the 5th wing towards the fence that runs along the Annex.
Where are you suggesting he reached within a less than a second timeframe??

http://i48.tinypic.com/sn2gk5.jpg

Edited for rule 0 anyone can tell this was not taken by Ingersol and it most likely the 12th or the 13th when it was taken! Now stop the crap!

[Woody-]

These eyewitnesses are ´unreliable´ because....?

Because all eyewitness accounts are unreliable when compared to physical evidence.

How many times has it been reported that a person has been cleared of a murder or rape due to DNA testing that wasn't available when they were sentenced? It is because the physical evidence (The DNA) overturns eyewitness's that swore they had the right person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory

[jaydeehess]

http://i48.tinypic.com/sn2gk5.jpg

Edited quote of modded post. anyone can tell this was not taken by Ingersol and it most likely the 12th or the 13th when it was taken! Now stop the crap!

Mud needs to post the link when he is referring to a specific photo. I think he means the one taken from the Annex parking area with the smoke rising in the background.

[jaydeehess]

Because all eyewitness accounts are unreliable when compared to physical evidence.

How many times has it been reported that a person has been cleared of a murder or rape due to DNA testing that wasn't available when they were sentenced? It is because the physical evidence (The DNA) overturns eyewitness's that swore they had the right person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory

Victims who were staring in the face of their rapist have been shown to be wrong by DNA evidence that clears the accused.

Witnesses at crime scenes have often related conflicting even mutually exclusive reports.

[BCR]

Mud needs to post the link when he is referring to a specific photo. I think he means the one taken from the Annex parking area with the smoke rising in the background.

Yes, but this is the one he posted earlier claiming to be Morin's view of the trees. I think he is just posting stuff to be posting stuff without even thinking about what it is he is posting.

[BCR]

As promised, here is the 2010 Edward and Shinki Paik interviews done by Eric Larson.

q3aCPyagWT8

He has also written an exhaustive review of the Paik interviews and critique of CIT's handling of the interviews.

Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts (http://911reports.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/shinki-and-ed-paik-accounts-vs-cit-methods/)

[switchpoint]

These eyewitnesses are ´unreliable´ because....?

Because you asked a human being, five years after an event, the spatial relationship between a fixed object on the ground and a moving overhead object traveling about 730fps with an event duration in the neighborhood of, maybe 3 seconds. Human beings are not video cameras.

[leftysergeant]

There is also the fact that some of them are going to toally freak and misremember things when such an absurdity a kamikaze attack happens right in front of them.

[Jackanory]

These eyewitnesses are ´unreliable´ because....?

...........because the CIT interviewer will misrepresent what witnesses originally said.

Mudlark - you seem infatuated with the specifics about time/space/area/speed etc - yet you can not even establish if one of these witnesses was 10 feet from a building, 10 paces (25 -30ft) from building let alone quote any of these witnesses correctly. If this witness had been running then he could even have been 40 -50ft from building. Puts a whole new perspective on that witnesses perspective. No?

Dont suppose it matters really. Your not very good at lying or deception here. It may work over at youtube though. Maybe its time to change to the right sock because the left one is becoming a little smelly.

[Reheat]

As promised, here is the 2010 Edward and Shinki Paik interviews done by Eric Larson.

John, quite obviously you have proven the OP to be correct and (no surprises here) CIT distorted the Paik interviews. Ed Paik doesn't have a clue about which way the aircraft was headed other than in the general direction of the Pentagon. He is obviously even guessing about where it was in relation to Columbia Pike. He only caught a fleeting glimpse and CIT has embellished and distorted Paik's perspective for their fraudulent purposes.

Go Home CIT, you're finished.

[CurtC]

Once more, with feeling:

If Paik saw the plane anywhere near his shop, the plane went on the south side of the Citgo. It could not physically fly a path that went to the north and then swerved back to the Pentagon.

End of story. If you believe that Paik saw the plane, then CIT are wrong.

[16.5]

As of this writing, CIT’s full video footage from their interviews with Shinki and Ed Paik have not been made public.

Bears repeating.

How many times have I pointed out the CIT has failed to release their raw video?

I can imagine that there is much consternation at the CIT tree house.

[BCR]

John, quite obviously you have proven the OP to be correct and (no surprises here) CIT distorted the Paik interviews. Ed Paik doesn't have a clue about which way the aircraft was headed other than in the general direction of the Pentagon. He is obviously even guessing about where it was in relation to Columbia Pike. He only caught a fleeting glimpse and CIT has embellished and distorted Paik's perspective for their fraudulent purposes.

Go Home CIT, you're finished.

Actually Reheat, it is not me but the truther community that is outing these phony 'researchers'. Erik has simply followed-up leads provided by myself and others in the truther community and packaged it up in a nice neat bundle. They have been exposed as frauds by the same group they espoused to be the hero's of. Kinda ironic don't ya think?

[Reheat]

Kinda ironic don't ya think?

Yes, that's quite amusing. Dishonesty is universally repugnant, but these scum bags take it to a new level.

[nicepants]

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 1) Yes
2) The path ends at the Pentagon because they believed it had crashed at that spot.

There is no reason to treat these 2 things differently.


The two above statements are contradictory. That all witnesses on record in that area place the plane NOC leans towrds the latter being false.

There you go, rejecting one thing they say based on the other thing they say. Using that logic we could also lean towards NOC being false because "all witnesses on record place the plane impacting the pentagon".

So...they could be wrong...but not wrong enough for the plane to be south of the Citgo?
...
Turcios places it NOC.
So no.

This is contradicted by the paths you posted...see my explanation below:If by ´some of the paths´ you mean Middleton´s path and Turcios, yes it is.
The SOC path is a further 240 ft away from Middleton´s path....

It's not how far they are from the "SOC Path", but how far they are from each other which illustrates the minimum margin of error.

(Assuming that the citgo is 100' wide) A flight path that's reported 200 feet north of the citgo with a margin of error of 500 feet could have actually been 200 feet SOUTH of the citgo. Do you agree or disagree?

These eyewitnesses are ´unreliable´ because....?

Because they claim that the plane flew north of the Citgo and subsequently impacted the Pentagon. A scenario which is impossible, even according to CIT. That makes every single one of those eyewitnesses wrong.

[twinstead]

Because they claim that the plane flew north of the Citgo and subsequently impacted the Pentagon. A scenario which is impossible, even according to CIT. That makes every single one of those eyewitnesses wrong.

Yup. This is using CIT's logic against them.

[Childlike Empress]

As promised, here is the 2010 Edward and Shinki Paik interviews done by Eric Larson.

q3aCPyagWT8

He has also written an exhaustive review of the Paik interviews and critique of CIT's handling of the interviews.

Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts (http://911reports.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/shinki-and-ed-paik-accounts-vs-cit-methods/)


Do not post-by-proxy for banned members; content removed.

[Jackanory]

Moderated content removed.

Independently confirmed! Craig sure can skirm.

So he made how many attempts at interviewing his witnesses? And still cant get his lies in order?

Show us the original unedited VT Craig. No?

[16.5]

Moderated content removed.

RIDICULOUS CIT SHILL CUTS AND PASTES GARBAGE FROM A BANNED IDIOT

CE, I am astonished that you continue to mindlessly regurgitate these frauds' omissions and ridiculous excuses: it was all Shinki's Fault!! And for god's sake, don't just cut and paste their ramblings

Here, let me bold this part of the article that Craig (in complete and utter desperation mode) ignores:

"As of this writing, CIT’s full video footage from their interviews with Shinki and Ed Paik have not been made public."

What part of that statement did you miss when slurping deeply from the well that is CIT's pathetic excuses?

Stop being a freaking mindless shill.

[Childlike Empress]

Calm down, buddy. He's exactly right. Logic beats spin once again.

[16.5]

Calm down, buddy. He's exactly right. Logic beats spin once again.

What the hell? You are agreeing with me?

Well, that is new. I mean, Craig's spin that he was to young and dumb to understand what his witnesses were saying is easily the most pathetic spin I have EVER seen in my life. He is not young, but it seems we agree that he is still a farking moran.

Of course he could clear this all up by releasing the raw videos, but we all know that is never going to happen.

[GlennB]

Calm down, buddy. He's exactly right. Logic beats spin once again.

Childlike Empress, did you ever find time to look into that 'bank angle' question I put to you some pages ago? It was over in the "8 out of 8" thread, but the same question is asked in #247 of this thread.

[Childlike Empress]

#247? Without numbers for 3., how did you come up with numbers for 4.? What are plausible speeds and why?

[GlennB]

#247? Without numbers for 3., how did you come up with numbers for 4.? What are plausible speeds and why?

To the advantage of CIT theory, you choose the gentlest turn that is reasonably consistent with the several yellow NoC paths we see on the CIT graphics.

Choose a min and max speed then see how it looks, it's only two inputs to the bank-angle calculator after all. About 2 minutes effort. I'd suggest 300mph and 500mph, but the joy of this little exercise is you get to see how different parameters affect the bank angle.

Here (http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html)is the calculator.

[Childlike Empress]

I'm not stupid, Glenn. If you want to present an argument, flesh it out. I don't need you to tell me math - based on speculation.

[GlennB]

I'm not stupid, Glenn. If you want to present an argument, flesh it out. I don't need you to tell me math - based on speculation.

There is no 'speculation', it's a reasonable scientific exercise.
The easiest NoC curve of the approach can be pinned down from the CIT yellow lines (barely clipping the north of Citgo canopy) A 757 is subsonic, so choose reasonable min and max approach speeds to envelope the whole exercise.

[cornsail]

When we interviewed Ed the first time off-location, his English was pretty bad and we were all a bit confused regarding his account INCLUDING exactly where he placed the plane, but our impression that he was outside was already established because of Shinki.

Is that how the interview with him was presented?

"His English is so bad that we couldn't ask him where he was at the time and we can't figure out where he says the plane was, but here he is anyway..."

My main concern was making sure to get him on location so I could document the flight path he was describing accurately and with zero ambiguity which is why I had him illustrate it on 3 separate images.

Did it occur to Craig that given his language barrier difficulties, Paik might not be able to understand him very well either? Those lines he drew were obviously not what he saw, considering he saw what sounds like shadow of a wing outside the window for about 1 second. So what did he think he was supposed to be drawing?

I'm not crying fraud, because it might just be incompetence, but releasing the raw footage would help clear things up.

[funk de fino]

I'm not stupid, Glenn. If you want to present an argument, flesh it out. I don't need you to tell me math - based on speculation.

Your support of the CIT seems to contradict your first sentence.

They are frauds.

[Garb]

Childlike Empress, I'm curious what your opinion is on the witnesses who state they saw flight 77 crash into the Pentagon.

Wouldn't that be impossible with the supposed NORTH OF CITGO flight path?

And which testimony do you believe to be the right one? The crash witnesses or the NOC witnesses?

[leftysergeant]

You cannot see the Navy Annex from where Ed is standing outside, and he keeps pointing south. Shinki keeps mentioning the grey belly of the aircraft.

It was south of his position.

[beachnut]

Moderated content removed.

...
Paik only goes as far as the middle of the road for an estimate of 77, and this is failure for the NoC if you understand math/physics. This makes the NoC impossible due to G force and witness testimony which does not have 80 degree of bank.

Please understand the roll rate of a 757, which you have zero clue what it is, make the NoC impossible from the middle of the road.

Due to human perceptions, the middle of the road Paik thinks (and he clearly said he thinks or estimates it, or maybe English and witness interpretation is out of your skill set) he saw 77, become the real flight path supported by RADAR and the FDR.

The speed is on the FDR, the final speed seconds after Paik is 483 KIAS, and the impact at the Pentagon is exactly the kinetic energy damage by a 757 airframe. Science makes CIT a bunch of idiots on this issue as they push impossible flight paths and fail to interpret witnesses statements to support reality.

I have investigated aircraft accidents and CIT did the worse analysis of Paik I have ever seen and you support their failed madness with talk, and posting poppycock from a drugged out moron, Craig. I suggest CIT go to college and gain some knowledge before their next attempt at being investigators. I have no idea how they can do worse, but then I never thought I would see Balsamo top 11.2 gs with 2,223 gs. Got math?

Clearly math and physics are not in your bag of tricks as you fall for the paranoid moronic delusions of the CIT NoC. When you look up the turn radius for aircraft flying at 483 KIAS it becomes clear CIT have no idea what is going on, and they are the research branch of p4t, Balsamo's failed pilots on 911 group of 2,223 g morons on 911 issues, they offer not theory because they have no skill except making up paranoid delusions.

[BCR]

Calm down, buddy. He's exactly right. Logic beats spin once again.

You are right. You are claiming now that Erik is simply a better researcher and does better analysis of eyewitness accounts than does the CIT folks. No fraud, just incompetence? Is that your argument?

[DGM]

I found this part particularly funny:

edit @mods: Given the replies below, i'm sure this will be reported in the usual dishonest way as "posting on behalf of a banned member". Notice that the part i posted is exactly on topic and has nothing to do with Craig's ex-membership here. He just happens to be the journalist accused of "fraud" in this thread.
:p

[beachnut]

I'm not stupid, Glenn. If you want to present an argument, flesh it out. I don't need you to tell me math - based on speculation. Sure, go ahead show us the NoC. The real NoC to include bank angles, g force and all to match the FDR. No one at CIT has refuted the FDR. And the FDR shows the exact flight path p4t and CIT said was impossible because they can't do the math.

CIT and you are the speculators in paranoid conspiracy theories and you can't present a single reality based NoC flight path to save your failed delusional theory.

Need the equations? Need some help from a real pilot?

For 77 to go from right over Paik office to fly over the Pentagon at the impact point where CIT says it was hidden by the explosion (which was really the jet fuel fireball, the exact size of the fuel from a 483 KIAS impact to a building like the Pentagon which any trained aircraft accident investigator would know as do rational people) takes 75 degrees of bank and 4 gs, and thus Paik would not see 77 at all from inside his office. Since Paik says he saw the right wing, the bank angle was less than 10 degrees; oops.

Please present your fantasy math to support the failed ideas of CIT.


Is this a joke???
... Craig's ... He just happens to be the journalist accused of "fraud" in this thread.
Craig is not a journalist, he is a liar or dumber than a rock when it comes to this topic. Craig is a fraud if you call him a journalists. Unless you define a journalist as someone who makes up moronic lies to fool the uniformed gullible masses of conspiracy minded paranoid people.


Got any reports of 75 degrees of bank? no

Paik sees the right wing because 77 was banking right, the right wing was down 5.8 degrees. Paik's point of view from inside his office places 77 about 35 to 40 degree up from his position. Math. Craig's lack of knowledge on witness interviews is complete and proved each time you watch his video. How he mangles the statements is his only skill, as he makes up idiotic conclusions. You could build a model, or even see this in your head if you had the math and geometry skills to see reality.

[A W Smith]

Edward and Shinki both describe the shadow passing right to left from their office perspective facing the street parallel to Columbia pike. For them to have seen the shadow. it had to be on the south-east side of Columbia pike. Else it flies through the Sheraton. It it was flying in a north easterly direction at an angle directly over their shop. Morin could not have seen it. And its as simple as that.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Aone.jpg

oh and this?

He just happens to be the journalist accused of "fraud" in this thread. :dl: What an ass.

Here CE. Perhaps you should brush up on the definition of "Journalist (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=definition+of+journalist&aq=0c&aql=f&aqi=g-c2&oq=definition%22+journalist+&fp=c26c79a56c95bda8)"

[pgimeno]

Here's a scenario I see as plausible re Ed Paik's testimony.

Ed sees the right wing of the plane. The plane is banking to the right, so the wing appears even bigger in his view, which makes he feel the plane even closer than it actually is. Add the surprise factor to the potential error in distance estimation.

In my opinion, he thinks the plane is so close that he estimates the plane's body to be over the office, so he estimates (and draws) the trajectory as going over the Navy Annex. Obviously that trajectory is not what he sees. However, let's consider that the plane may (or should I say must, to save other buildings?) be farther than he estimates.

Now, he sees the wing at a certain elevation with respect to him, but if we don't consider the perceived distance as reliable, all we know is that the plane is somewhere in the straight line from his eye and towards that elevation.

If we take the shadow testimony literally, we can estimate the actual ground distance from the plane to the office where he sees it using the FDR's agl altitude and the sun angle. This is subject to error, since the flash perceived could indeed be of exterior objects as has been already pointed out in this thread.

The math is trivial: given an angle of a right triangle and the opposite cathetus, find the other cathetus. I think that that's what A W Smith has calculated (posts #242 and #293). Give or take one wingspan plus some extra distance for the flashing of nearby objects causing the sensation that the shadow is over the office, and there it is: Ed Paik confirms SoC and the official flight path.

[16.5]

Huh, no wall of posts cut and pasted in ten minutes?

I guess the truthers are still reeling from the Craig, I was young and stupid admission.

Now he is old, but still stupid.

(Don't let the Jonas Brothers hair cut fool you, the guy is in his early forties. Aldo is in the low forties too, 40 stone.)

[twinstead]

Aldo is in the low forties too, 40 stone.

Oh no he di'int!

[leftysergeant]

Erm...The only way Ed could see the right wing is if it were directly over his head, and we do not see that in the line he drew. The fuselage would otherwise be in the way, unless it was banking a bit to the left, putting the wing below the fuselage. But then, it could not have flown over the Annex without some rivet-popping g-loads.

This is confusing beyond belief.

[Longfellow]

Craig Ranke a journalist?

I guess that makes me the King of Siam.

[BCR]

This is confusing beyond belief.

I think that is because people are trying to read more into a recall than is there. At 450+ knots and less than 500 feet agl, inside a building looking out a window as it passed, scared out-of-his-wits, just how much do you think he really saw?

He saw something fly over going generally west to east, south of his location. Beyond that is expecting way too much.

[Scott Sommers]

Do I understand this correctly? You guys have been arguing for 11 pages over where a shadow was?

My reading of all this is that no matter where your 'witnesses' say they saw a shadow, they go on to say that the object was a plane and that it crashed into the Pentagon. So the argument isn't over whether the object was a plane or whether it crashed into the Pentagon. Everyone seems to agree on that. The argument going on here is about the accuracy of eyewitness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory) details in personal accounts of an object that was traveling at over 500 miles an hour that was encountered for only a very brief period of time.

Have I missed something?

[BCR]

Do I understand this correctly? You guys have been arguing for 11 pages over where a shadow was?

Not me. The OP is that CIT promoted fraudulent and staged eyewitness POV's. The rest is just fluff.

[Garb]

Do I understand this correctly? You guys have been arguing for 11 pages over where a shadow was?

My reading of all this is that no matter where your 'witnesses' say they saw a shadow, they go on to say that the object was a plane and that it crashed into the Pentagon. So the argument isn't over whether the object was a plane or whether it crashed into the Pentagon. Everyone seems to agree on that. The argument going on here is about the accuracy of eyewitness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory) details in personal accounts of an object that was traveling at over 500 miles an hour that was encountered for only a very brief period of time.

Have I missed something?

Like I have said before, the discussion regarding the NOC witnesses is irrelevant because there are witnesses who saw a commercial airliner smack into the Pentagon. Because the damage corroborates a SOC flight path, that is the path it had to have taken. End of story.

[pgimeno]

Erm...The only way Ed could see the right wing is if it were directly over his head, and we do not see that in the line he drew. The fuselage would otherwise be in the way, unless it was banking a bit to the left, putting the wing below the fuselage. But then, it could not have flown over the Annex without some rivet-popping g-loads.

This is confusing beyond belief.

This is a diagram of what I meant (sorry for my crappy drawing ability):

http://www.formauri.es/personal/pgimeno/xfiles/11-s/Ed-Paik-POV.png

The angles and relative sizes don't represent the proper ones. I'm just trying to illustrate the point, showing how Ed Paik may be corroborating the FDR/radar path.

The angle of the upper limit of the eye's sight from the window (the upper red line) should match that of the sun, for the shadow to go over the office and keep consistency.

[beachnut]

Not me. The OP is that CIT promoted fraudulent and staged eyewitness POV's. The rest is just fluff.

Paik points south of his office and the shadow confirms his story.

Madlene Zakhem has the plane on the official flight path "directly over her" and she says 77 did not go over the Navy Annex. Oops. This means she will be thrown under the bus by the drugged up CIT dolts she calls "creepy".

No not over the Annex, went straight to the Pentagon.
From her position direct to the Pentagon impact is with in 3 or 4 degree of Flight 77 real path.

[BCR]

Madlene Zakhem has the plane on the official flight path "directly over her" and she says 77 did not go over the Navy Annex. Oops. This means she will be thrown under the bus by the drugged up CIT dolts she calls "creepy".

Oh no, she is definitely Mossad :popcorn1

[leftysergeant]

I have to admit that I had a hard time following what the CiT interviewers were trying to ask Ed. But, if he saw the airplane from where he was standing, he would have had a hard time visualising where it went past the roof of the building next to him. I do not see the Annex there. It seems to me that even flying a little way out from the Annex, it would appear to be flying over the center of it.

I can actually understand Ed almost as well as I understand what the Complete Idiot Team asks him.

[Jackanory]

CIT went and spoke with their 'witnesses' with a clear agenda and intentions of deceipt.

CIT asked leading questions to atleast one 'witness' that they now admit themselves had difficulty in speaking/understanding the English language. They asked leading questions of people who where not aware of the deceiptful way in which their answers would be used. Perhaps Ed Paik and Stinki should be concidering some form of legal retribution as clearly they are being misrepresented on here/youtube etc. Surely a law/laws exist in America to address this?

CIT have deceiptfully misrepresented their 'witness' statements and edited the videos they took. Yet the evidence that CIT shows us simply illustrates this deceipt. They have infact 'debunked' themselves and will continue to wriggle and squirm using sockpuppets to dig themselves deeper. Let them!

[16.5]

I notice Craig's rebuttal is up.

It contains absolutely nothing more than a number of ad hominem attacks, and a bizarre declaration that the fact their idiotic videos were proven as deceptive somehow supports their idiotic theory.

Notably, of course, Craig and Aldo don't offer to release their raw videos.

Of course.

Incompetent frauds.

[cornsail]

Where?

[16.5]

Where?

http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=15729

[jhunter1163]

Man. Craig, who's your dealer? He's got some goooooooood stuff. Hook a guy up, huh?

[leftysergeant]

http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=15729

The stupid in that link just burned my corneas. The mush-brained twit does not even try to defend his assertion from the shadow evidence. Whadda marooooon!

[DGM]

The stupid in that link just burned my corneas. The mush-brained twit does not even try to defend his assertion from the shadow evidence. Whadda marooooon!
That's the beauty of being CIT, you can pick and choose what you want to believe and everyone (In their minds) thinks your right. :rolleyes:

[cornsail]

http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=15729

Wtffffffffffffffffffff what do they think Paik thought he was supposed to be drawing when he "illustrated the flight path"? There is no way he could have witnessed anything like the lines he drew from inside!

[A W Smith]

I have to laugh. When confronted with Morin's testimony that he watched the tail of flight 77 dip as it headed toward the pentagon. The argument touted by the Citizens Ignorance Team is that Morin couldn't possibly have witnessed that because he was 10 feet within the annex wings when he first became aware of the noise of the plane. But we are to accept without question the flight path drawn by Edward Paik who was surrounded by the four walls and ceiling of a tiny service station office. His only view was a brief shadow from this window.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/paikwindowf.jpg

Yet through this window. CIT gets and promotes this path

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2.jpg

[A W Smith]

its been quite a few days and we haven't had a wall of posts from our buddy Muddy, Is the show over?


jkUbR4PGh9g

[beachnut]

its been quite a few days and we haven't had a wall of posts from our buddy Muddy, Is the show over?
It is possible mudlark gained knowledge and skill to do math to see all the flight paths of CIT are impossible based on CIT's own work.

mudlark scavenging in the CIT river of stupid, came up with no items of value.

[16.5]

Oh Hai!

I'm guessing that Mudlark has been tasked by the CIT overlords with a significantly more important job.

Which does not include releasing the *********** actual raw video that the mutts are basing their idiotic theory on.

Great job morans.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I'm still waiting to report my actions to citizen investigation team but unfortunately that part of the website hasn't been setup yet. It's only been 9 months.

I'm sure those whopping 735 page views per day made all those trips to Arlington worth the effort. This whole "project" paid for itself, didn't it. :rolleyes:

[Scott Sommers]

Perhaps agents of the entity responsible for this deception have finally caught up with him. Afterall, such powerful beings wouldn't be letting pions like CIT run around revealing their carefully executed plans.

[UNLoVedRebel]

That's a theory I can believe. Maybe the establishment also genetically engineered the world's biggest Adam's Apple and put it in Ranke's throat because that is one massive gullet.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/27494498bdfdb97b42.jpg

[BCR]

I really wish you had not posted that picture :nope:

[beachnut]

I really wish you had not posted that picture :nope:
Creepy. What witnesses think about CIT.


"Math, Who needs math, I have Aldo!"

[jaydeehess]

To the advantage of CIT theory, you choose the gentlest turn that is reasonably consistent with the several yellow NoC paths we see on the CIT graphics.

Choose a min and max speed then see how it looks, it's only two inputs to the bank-angle calculator after all. About 2 minutes effort. I'd suggest 300mph and 500mph, but the joy of this little exercise is you get to see how different parameters affect the bank angle.

Here (http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html)is the calculator.

I'm not stupid, Glenn. If you want to present an argument, flesh it out. I don't need you to tell me math - based on speculation.

Come on CE, the request is quite simple really.

Given the flightpaths that the CiT promotes as being representative of the descriptions offered by the people they interviewed find a path that is
a) consistent with those interview based flightpaths
b) subsonic
c) consistent with the descriptions of the eyewitnesses('fast', 'engines screaming', large twin engined aircraft etc..)
d) capable of being flown by aircraft obeying the known characteristics of flight.
e) which ends up within 25 feet of the roof of the Pentagon vertically(slightly more than the height of the fuselage), and within 100 feet laterally of the impact area(approx one wingspan)

So for instance a flight path that requires the aircraft in question to bank at an angle greater than say, 15 degrees for more than half a second or which would have to be at a speed of less than 120 mph (which looks positively pokey from the ground) would not be consistent with the descriptions of the aircraft even if the path is consistent with them.

Neither would opining that we, 'don't know what technonlogy [/i][/b]they[/b][/i] have' in order to have some type of craft follow a path. (Which I refer to as invoking magic)

[GlennB]

Come on CE, the request is quite simple really.

Given the flightpaths that the CiT promotes as being representative of the descriptions offered by the people they interviewed find a path that is
a) consistent with those interview based flightpaths
b) subsonic
c) consistent with the descriptions of the eyewitnesses('fast', 'engines screaming', large twin engined aircraft etc..)
d) capable of being flown by aircraft obeying the known characteristics of flight.
e) which ends up within 25 feet of the roof of the Pentagon vertically(slightly more than the height of the fuselage), and within 100 feet laterally of the impact area(approx one wingspan)

So for instance a flight path that requires the aircraft in question to bank at an angle greater than say, 15 degrees for more than half a second or which would have to be at a speed of less than 120 mph (which looks positively pokey from the ground) would not be consistent with the descriptions of the aircraft even if the path is consistent with them.



I don't think Childlike Empress was too happy at the prospect of doing 5 minutes work. Work that would have fatally undermined her/his delusion.

[jaydeehess]

I don't think Childlike Empress was too happy at the prospect of doing 5 minutes work. Work that would have fatally undermined her/his delusion.

Oh, I understand that perfectly.

CE is making excuses not to to the work rather than simply admitting incompetance in doing such work or, if that is incorrect, not doing it because it is obvious that it would nullify the CiT contentions in that it would require a steep bank that no witness has described.

[BCR]

Okay, the last I noted, the claim by those defending CIT is that their work was incompetent, not fraudulent. Is that where everything stands at the moment? CE and mudlap have been conspicuously missing for several days now.

[jaydeehess]

Okay, the last I noted, the claim by those defending CIT is that their work was incompetent, not fraudulent. Is that where everything stands at the moment? CE and mudlap have been conspicuously missing for several days now.

I'd go along with the redefinition from fraudulent to incompetant. It also absloves the CiT from nefarious intent and instead simply makes them buffoons. Much nicer than accusations of deliberate fraud, but hey, I'm Canadian that's the way we are. (nice that is! :D )

[A W Smith]

Okay, the last I noted, the claim by those defending CIT is that their work was incompetent, not fraudulent. Is that where everything stands at the moment? CE and mudlap have been conspicuously missing for several days now.

Well,, Its getting pretty close to Valentines day. Maybe their on a cruise or shopping for chocolates?

[BCR]

Well,, Its getting pretty close to Valentines day. Maybe their on a cruise or shopping for chocolates?

That's it, they are out shopping for my Valentine's day present :pigsfly

By the way, I really like those chocolates with the creamy strawberry filling.

[jaydeehess]

BCR, that was you on Colbert Report?

[BCR]

BCR, that was you on Colbert Report?

Not that I am aware of. But I do have my senior moments and forgets stuff.

[Childlike Empress]

Okay, the last I noted, the claim by those defending CIT is that their work was incompetent, not fraudulent. Is that where everything stands at the moment? CE and mudlap have been conspicuously missing for several days now.


Practically i think it is because we lost interest for the moment. It's quite silly actually and as we see, you strive on our attention. Your charade attempts have failed again - broken sticks crawled back under his surrealistic rock and Erik Larson has managed to pull his own leg twice. Aldo Marquis thinks he's a PoS and Pat Curley thinks he's not delusional. Congratulations, Erik. I would be pissed about such a record. So long.

[16.5]

Practically i think it is because we lost interest for the moment. It's quite silly actually and as we see, you strive on our attention. Your charade attempts have failed again - broken sticks crawled back under his surrealistic rock and Erik Larson has managed to pull his own leg twice. Aldo Marquis thinks he's a PoS and Pat Curley thinks he's not delusional. Congratulations, Erik. I would be pissed about such a record. So long.

WOW! Exceptionally worthless comeback, CE, why did you bother?

Uh, so you are just going to ignore the fact that your heroes have been exposed as frauds?

Send me a PM when the douchebags release the original footage, will ya?

kthxbye

[Garb]

Practically i think it is because we lost interest for the moment. It's quite silly actually and as we see, you strive on our attention. Your charade attempts have failed again - broken sticks crawled back under his surrealistic rock and Erik Larson has managed to pull his own leg twice. Aldo Marquis thinks he's a PoS and Pat Curley thinks he's not delusional. Congratulations, Erik. I would be pissed about such a record. So long.

You would think if you have any belief whatsoever that 9/11 could have been carried out by the United States government that you wouldn't lose interest.

Or perhaps you are just arguing for arguments sake and know that the idea of the plane passing north of Citgo is ridiculous, but can't help but to nit-pick and argue with the big bad JREFers.

[A W Smith]

Practically i think it is because we lost interest for the moment. It's quite silly actually and as we see, you strive on our attention. Your charade attempts have failed again - broken sticks crawled back under his surrealistic rock and Erik Larson has managed to pull his own leg twice. Aldo Marquis thinks he's a PoS and Pat Curley thinks he's not delusional. Congratulations, Erik. I would be pissed about such a record. So long.


What you mean wii, white girl? You're the first girl to climb the ladder to the tree fort? Did you get a membership card and a two way wrist video recorder? Did they show you their secret stash of shadow porn? Did you hang goth black curtains and give the fort that woman's touch? When you cleaned up the place and made all kinds of room in Craig's tree fort closet, Was he able to come out of it?

[tsig]

What you mean wii, white girl? You're the first girl to climb the ladder to the tree fort? Did you get a membership card and a two way wrist video recorder? Did they show you their secret stash of shadow porn? Did you hang goth black curtains and give the fort that woman's touch? When you cleaned up the place and made all kinds of room in Craig's tree fort closet, Was he able to come out of it?

I think CE is a he.

[BCR]

So CE has retracted the incompetence plea and left them with nothing but guilty of fraud as charged? The OP was NOT the flight path. The OP was (and is) NOT NoC or SoC. The OP is that the CIT boys knew that Edward was INSIDE the shop and purposely filmed him well outside the shop to falsely lead people to believe that Edward could see more than he could see. That is the OP. The OP has been proven true and the CIT defense is that Erik is just better at interview analysis than CIT is (Craig's assertion anyways). So incompetence or fraud? Which is it?

[16.5]

So CE has retracted the incompetence plea and left them with nothing but guilty of fraud as charged? The OP was NOT the flight path. The OP was (and is) NOT NoC or SoC. The OP is that the CIT boys knew that Edward was INSIDE the shop and purposely filmed him well outside the shop to falsely lead people to believe that Edward could see more than he could see. That is the OP. The OP has been proven true and the CIT defense is that Erik is just better at interview analysis than CIT is (Craig's assertion anyways). So incompetence or fraud? Which is it?

Until they release the unedited video, and stop their attacks on witnesses like Lloyde? FRAUD.

What ever happened to old mudlark anyway?

[cornsail]

Will CIT be correcting their video and apologizing for the mistake that lead to such a misleading presentation of Paik's account?

[cornsail]

So CE has retracted the incompetence plea and left them with nothing but guilty of fraud as charged?

CE is posting based on some kind of emotional connection with CIT, as I think he more or less said himself. Since he mostly hasn't been interested in talking about evidence, I don't care about his "stance" or whatever is...

I would like to hear from mudlark though. Whatever negative things you can say about him, he's generally been tenacious and willing to go into the evidence (aside from a few dodges).

I'd also (again) like to see an apology and correction by CIT. The only responses I've seen (aside from the quote CE provided) have been cocky and pathetic, admitting no error or responsibility.

[jaydeehess]

Practically i think it is because we lost interest for the moment. It's quite silly actually and as we see, you thrive on our attention. .

Malapropism fixed for you CE.

The JREF existed before Sept 11/01 and will exist well after the CiT are gone and forgotten.

In the mean time the CiT clones continue to come here every once in a while.
Who needs who to thrive?

[twinstead]

In the mean time the CiT clones continue to come here every once in a while.
Who needs who to thrive?

Indeed

[Macgyver1968]

Man...we are really scraping the barrel.

[twinstead]

Man...we are really scraping the barrel.

Well, yea, but I'm sure you'll gather together a paper clip, some string, a toothpick, and a pine cone to salvage the thread, right Macgyver? ;)

[Macgyver1968]

Well, yea, but I'm sure you'll gather together a paper clip, some string, a toothpick, and a pine cone to salvage the thread, right Macgyver? ;)

Sorry..we're just hitting a dry spell on truthers lately....we need better truther to make fun of. :)

[Jackanory]

Sorry..we're just hitting a dry spell on truthers lately....we need better truther to make fun of. :)

Recycled ones need not apply...........but if you must;)

[mudlark]

I have to laugh. When confronted with Morin's testimony that he watched the tail of flight 77 dip as it headed toward the pentagon. The argument touted by the Citizens Ignorance Team is that Morin couldn't possibly have witnessed that because he was 10 feet within the annex wings when he first became aware of the noise of the plane.

Wrong. He told Craig Ranke he was 10 feet within the Annex wings when the plane flew overhead.


But we are to accept without question the flight path drawn by Edward Paik who was surrounded by the four walls and ceiling of a tiny service station office. His only view was a brief shadow from this window.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/paikwindowf.jpg

Given Paik´s (repeated) description of events to Adam Larson in his video

http://i45.tinypic.com/2rykrxf.jpg

01:36

Ed Paik : ¨I saw big black wing head that way (points in same direction that he tells Craig Ranke in his earlier interview)

02:40

On asked where the body of the plane was in relation to his shop

Ed Paik: ¨The body was over my building (points straight up at ceiling of his office)

04:55

Again reiterates that the body was above his shop.
¨All I saw was the wing¨
(...)
¨If I could see the left hand side then I could see the body..no..
all I could see was triangle (left wing)¨

08:35

Repeats how low the plane was and that if it was higher he would have been able to see more of the plane


YOU tel me what other path he would possibly have drawn given his assertion that he could only see the right wing. That the body of the plane went over his roof. That it was very low.

One thing is 100% certain from watching both CIT and Larson´s interview with Ed Paik. His story is consistent. Larson´s interview actually bolsters the former.



Yet through this window. CIT gets and promotes this path

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/CITGO2.jpg

No matter how you try and spin this he describes NOTHING of an SOC approach. He would have seen the WHOLE plane, both wings and fuselage.
The plane would have been flying over the altitude of the Sheraton Hotel.

Larson´s interview has narrowed Paik´s POV even more to the point that he described what he could PHYSICALLY see. One wing. From his position..NOC.
Without a doubt.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2q38ay1.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/oqbxgy.jpg

[mudlark]

its been quite a few days and we haven't had a wall of posts from our buddy Muddy, Is the show over?


jkUbR4PGh9g

Are you nuts Smiffy?
I was away on holiday for a week.
I´m back to congratulate Adam Larson for confirming the NOC flightpath
Ed Paik witnessed. Well done.

[mudlark]

Okay, the last I noted, the claim by those defending CIT is that their work was incompetent, not fraudulent. Is that where everything stands at the moment? CE and mudlap have been conspicuously missing for several days now.

So CE has retracted the incompetence plea and left them with nothing but guilty of fraud as charged? The OP was NOT the flight path. The OP was (and is) NOT NoC or SoC. The OP is that the CIT boys knew that Edward was INSIDE the shop and purposely filmed him well outside the shop to falsely lead people to believe that Edward could see more than he could see. That is the OP. The OP has been proven true and the CIT defense is that Erik is just better at interview analysis than CIT is (Craig's assertion anyways). So incompetence or fraud? Which is it?



Clearly it's neither incompetence nor fraud on CIT's part since now we know for sure (as confirmed by Larson) that YOU lied in your "OP" regarding what Shinki says in your indecipherable recording.

You said:

However, as revealed a few years ago during my interview with his brother Shinki Paik, Ed was INSIDE the shop when the plane flew by.


We now have proof that this was obviously not what Shinki told CIT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SeOa6AQyt0) in 2006 and not what he told Larson in 2010.

00:30

Referring to his brother Ed

¨He went out (points outside)¨

So it is YOU who has been proven a fraud while Shinki provides a perfect explanation for why CIT thought Ed was outside and went ahead and interviewed him there.

So now to desperately try and save face you say:

The OP was NOT the flight path.

Except his placement of the plane directly over his brother's shop IS what proves the plane did not hit the light poles or the building and this was CONFIRMED by Larson regarding Paik, is corroborated by Morin, all the ANC guys, the Citgo witnesses, and of course Sean Boger.

So why did you lie about Shinki's account in the OP? Are you a fraud, incompetent, or both?

[16.5]

Wow, Mudlark returns.

Welcome back. Did your heroes release their raw video yet? No?

Anyway, I want to congratulate you on posting the incredibly deceptive picture, showing the "view" out the window.

Is there a reason that you failed to show the extreme bank that is required to get the plane from the spot you show, then North of Citgo, and back over the impact site?

Why don't you and the tree fort kids pull out the calculators and calculate that flight path, OK champ?

I'll cut you a break, I won't even ask about the descent and pull up.

[mudlark]

CE is posting based on some kind of emotional connection with CIT, as I think he more or less said himself. Since he mostly hasn't been interested in talking about evidence, I don't care about his "stance" or whatever is...

I would like to hear from mudlark though. Whatever negative things you can say about him, he's generally been tenacious and willing to go into the evidence (aside from a few dodges).

I'd also (again) like to see an apology and correction by CIT. The only responses I've seen (aside from the quote CE provided) have been cocky and pathetic, admitting no error or responsibility.

Remember that Shinki was the first to be interviewed and stated both then and in Larson´s interview that his brother was OUTSIDE as the plane passed.
Ed Paik even brought Larson outside to describe the path that he saw.
Larson also found out how poor Ed Paik´s English (spoken) is.
That he was outside or a few feet inside does not change a thing.
The fact that he could not see the body or left wing of the plane should be taken as physical evidence alongside his eyewitness testimony.

What other path could he describe from what he saw from his shop?

http://i46.tinypic.com/ohim1c.jpg

Larson and Farmer are so intent on spinning the ´fraudulent´ line on CIT that this is all they have left.
So much so that this video interview has been released to try to prove a dubious point and at the same time bolstering the testimony of an NOC witness? No wonder it took so uch time to release. Were there second thoughts after the build-up BCR had been giving it? Or was this time devoted to how they would have to try and spin the fact that Paik STILL described an NOC flightpath? (Sorry for thinking out loud..it´s not directed at you personally) I mean..wow.


By the way, which ´dodges´ are you referring to?

[twinstead]

mudlark why do YOU think that no raw videos have been released? Aren't you curious too?

[beachnut]

....
http://i46.tinypic.com/ohim1c.jpg

...See the white house on the right! A lady who works at VDOT says Flight 77's flight path came from the south west and was right over her, not north or south but right over here making it the official flight path.

She is a CIT witness CIT had to say was not telling the truth. But she nails the flight path very close to the real path which caused the kinetic energy damage to the Pentagon.

Do you understand physics? The damage to the Pentagon is on the flight path of Flight 77, this is physics, and it proves the flight path is that which knocked down the lampposts which people saw hit by 77.

All the CIT witnesses agree Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. CIT fails again and they are paranoid conspiracy theorists who sell dirt dumb DVDs suckers; why do fail to comprehend reality and spew CIT lies for them?

Then you present this image which proves flight 77 can't be norht of the CITGO, NoC, and overfly the impact zone. Too many Gs, too much bank angle for where you say 77 was. Sorry, but physics and math are required and you can't do the work, Balsamo can only do 2,223 gs of failed physics.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1impossibleflighpath.jpg
The plane on the left can't go NoC and overfly the impact damage, even p4t and CIT have do a very moronic presentation proving the same. Sorry,l but you got to present the math so you can see you just presented another moronic lie.

Bet you thought you could get through life without math, but you made a mistake.

Paik pointed south! darn, so do all the other CIT witnesses who were north of the south flight path. Funny as CIT video debunks CIT lies.

[switchpoint]

That he was outside or a few feet inside does not change a thing.


Wow....really? So it doesn't matter where a witness was? Really?

Does it matter if they are blind?

Does it matter if they are living or dead?

Does it matter if they are real or imagined?

What other part of physical reality is irrelevant?

[leftysergeant]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1impossibleflighpath.jpg


Okay, let's take a look at the shadows here. Neither of the shadows are in the right location. The shadow representing the SoC path is probably too far back and not far enough toward the shop. That following the NoC plane is to close to the rear of the aircraft and not far enough beyond the roof of the shop.

Whoever created these images needs a basic art course.

[leftysergeant]

That he was outside or a few feet inside does not change a thing.
The fact that he could not see the body or left wing of the plane should be taken as physical evidence...

WTF? If he were inside or just exiting the shop, he would have seen trhe right wing without cranking his neck back at a sharp angle. If he were standing far enough out in the parking lot to have seen the Navy Annex, thus to describe the path that the aircraft took passing over it if the plane were passing him on the north, he would have had to turn to face the shop to see it go by.

He is facing south in every video.

Your ride is here.

[mudlark]

mudlark why do YOU think that no raw videos have been released? Aren't you curious too?


The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version and The North Side Flyover but these presentations contain the interviews in full.

The interviews are extremely long and extremely detailed so this is likely why attention to this information didn't take off until they released their more concise presentation National Security Alert just last year.

The average person has a short attention span and apparently you do as well since it seems you have failed to watch the interviews in long form.

Since of course the ONLY detail that is cited by CIT proving 9/11 was an inside job is the north side approach, and since all of these witnesses have names and can be contacted as Larson just proved, this simple claim is 100% verifiable by ANY of you.

Are you really doubting that if CIT had somehow "twisted" their placement of the plane that none of you would have figured it out by now or that none of the witnesses would have spoken out against them?

Larson has confirmed the obvious regarding Ed Paik. The notion that even though Paik's north side flight path is now independently confirmed but that somehow CIT twisted the accounts of Lagasse, Brooks, Turcios, and all the ANC guys to place the plane on the north side is flat-out ridiculous.

Hopefully Larson interviews them as well.

[mudlark]

Wow....really? So it doesn't matter where a witness was? Really?



There is a serious difference between what I said and the scenarios you are
presenting, no?
Though if they were SOC witnesses...

Ed Paik could STILL see the plane from his POV.
He STILL says that he could not see the left wing.
He STILL says that the body of the plane went over his roof.

http://i46.tinypic.com/34oabuu.jpg

02:40

On asked where the body of the plane was in relation to his shop

Ed Paik: ¨The body was over my building (points straight up at ceiling of his office)

He STILL maintains that the path he described to Craig Ranke has not changed.

IF the plane had been travelling in ANY of the proposed SOC paths, he would have been able to see BOTH wings.

04:55

Again reiterates that the body was above his shop.
¨All I saw was the wing¨
(...)
¨If I could see the left hand side then I could see the body..no..
all I could see was triangle (left wing)¨

08:35

Repeats how low the plane was and that if it was higher he would have been able to see more of the plane


http://i45.tinypic.com/2q38ay1.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/oqbxgy.jpg

[mudlark]

See the white house on the right! A lady who works at VDOT says Flight 77's flight path came from the south west and was right over her, not north or south but right over here making it the official flight path.

She is a CIT witness CIT had to say was not telling the truth. But she nails the flight path very close to the real path which caused the kinetic energy damage to the Pentagon.



She contradicts the Annex witnesses (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=487) and the NOC witnesses (http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html)
NOBODY corraborates her account.

The hijacked plane was coming up Columbia Pike, unbelievably low. It
exploded into the Pentagon seconds after nearly skimming the rooftop of
the Smart Traffic Center.

Madelyn Zakhem, executive secretary at the STC, had just stepped outside
for a break and was seated on a bench when she heard what she thought was
a jet fighter directly overhead. It wasn't. It was an airliner coming
straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. "It was huge! It was silver.
It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the
ground.... I was crying and scared," Zakhem recalls.
Source (http://www.roadstothefuture.com/VA_Sept21.txt)

´Treetop level´? ´nearly skimming the rooftop of the STC´?
She certainly corraborates Ed Paik in this regard. How does this fit with the altitude data?
The plane was allegedly in a descent from over 200ft according to Warren Stutt´s data. Higher than the Sheraton.

Here is her alleged POV

http://i45.tinypic.com/2lu80ax.jpg

You DO see the problem here?

Her POV was obstructed

http://i50.tinypic.com/bj5z53.jpg

In an e-mail exchange with Russell Pickering she also claimed

From: Zakhem, Madlene R.

To: 'Russell Pickering'

Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:28 AM

Subject: RE: Question on August visit

Hi:

I did say that I saw the plane go over VDOT Buildings and tilting to the left while landing avoid the tower.

Madlene Zakhem

Does the plane ´tilt´ anywhere in the FDR data within the last 8 seconds of flight? At 540+mph?


Do you understand physics? The damage to the Pentagon is on the flight path of Flight 77, this is physics, and it proves the flight path is that which knocked down the lampposts which people saw hit by 77.

All the CIT witnesses agree Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Lie. Ed Paik, Terry Morin and 4 of the ANC witnesses either weren´t in any position to see an ´impact´ or claimed that they didn´t.
The NOC testimony makes this physically impossible.

CIT fails again and they are paranoid conspiracy theorists who sell dirt dumb DVDs suckers; why do fail to comprehend reality and spew CIT lies for them?

I´ve continually pulled you up on your lies Beachnut throughout this and other threads.
I have watched ALL of CIT´s videos free of charge. They are publically available on the net. Lying again..


Then you present this image which proves flight 77 can't be norht of the CITGO, NoC, and overfly the impact zone. Too many Gs, too much bank angle for where you say 77 was. Sorry, but physics and math are required and you can't do the work, Balsamo can only do 2,223 gs of failed physics.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1impossibleflighpath.jpg
The plane on the left can't go NoC and overfly the impact damage, even p4t and CIT have do a very moronic presentation proving the same. Sorry,l but you got to present the math so you can see you just presented another moronic lie.

Bet you thought you could get through life without math, but you made a mistake.

Your ´physics´ are based on officially sanctioned unverified data, which no witness described. Altitude, trajectory and speed are contradicted at EVERY turn.

The ´2,223gs´ was cleared up publically by Rob Balsamo here. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=20)
Warren accepted this and passed it on to JREF.

OK, the math looks good to me now. I'll alert J.R.E.F. that you have fixed the math. I still need to research pressure altitude to true altitude conversions before coming to any conclusions.

Warren.


Did you miss that?

Paik pointed south! darn, so do all the other CIT witnesses who were north of the south flight path. Funny as CIT video debunks CIT lies.

Wow, lie number 3, all in one post. (New record for you?)

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikmap-2.jpg

He ´pointed South´ yet drew this path. Slip of the pen?
That the other NOC witnesses actually saw the plane SOC shows you have delusions I can´t begin to fathom.

[mudlark]

WTF? If he were inside or just exiting the shop, he would have seen trhe right wing without cranking his neck back at a sharp angle. If he were standing far enough out in the parking lot to have seen the Navy Annex, thus to describe the path that the aircraft took passing over it if the plane were passing him on the north, he would have had to turn to face the shop to see it go by.

He is facing south in every video.

Your ride is here.

You misunderstood what I meant.

He could only see the right wing. ´Very low´, the body of the plane passing over his shop roof.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2rykrxf.jpg

These are Ed Paik´s words, not CIT´s or mine, confirmed through Larson´s interview.
It was never claimed that he could physically see the Annex by me nor where his precise POV was. He drew his path based on what HE saw and experienced.

Now the fact that he could only see the right wing further contradicts SOC.

[mudlark]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1impossibleflighpath.jpg


Okay, let's take a look at the shadows here. Neither of the shadows are in the right location. The shadow representing the SoC path is probably too far back and not far enough toward the shop. That following the NoC plane is to close to the rear of the aircraft and not far enough beyond the roof of the shop.

Whoever created these images needs a basic art course.

Lefty if you or anybody else doubts the authenticity of these images why don´t you disprove them by using the program that made them?

http://wiki.bk.tudelft.nl/toi-pedia/MR_Using_the_Physical_Sun_and_Sky_environment

Sun data

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Sun_Altitude-Azimuth_091101%20.txt

Data obtained from here

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php

An ´artistic eye´ doesn´t quite debunk it.

[GlennB]

...
Now the fact that he could only see the right wing further contradicts SOC.

So, mudlark, why does not one single witness report the 70°+ bank angle required to make the Paik/NoC/impact turn?
Or anything remotely close to that?
Doesn't that give you pause for thought?

[BCR]

So why did you lie about Shinki's account in the OP? Are you a fraud, incompetent, or both?

No lie mudlap, he said Ed was inside when he first saw the plane, THEN he went outside and ducked. Ed clearly states that he was inside when he ducked. Both said he was inside when he saw the plane, but they give different accounts of where he was when he ducked. So is one lying? I'll go with what Ed says since he should know where he was when he ducked.

In either case, Ed is nowhere near where CIT promoted his position. I see you have done a lot of NoC v SoC stuff. That is off-topic! The topic is CIT fraud. You say neither, but sorry, it is one of the two or both. I go with both, but definitely fraud since they admit that Shinki told them that Ed was inside when he saw the plane. No mention of that in the Pentacon production, so fraud!

[carlitos]

I know that this is obvious, but who cares if a handful of witnesses:
- are mistaken
- are being quoted out of context
- are lying
- etc.

This proves nothing, when we have the totality of evidence. The plane couldn't have physically flown where they say. There is no conpiracy. The plane hit the pentagon in front of hundreds of witnesses. The passenger, crew and terrorist DNA was identified at the Pentagon. It's an open-and-shut case. We know for an absolute fact that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, especially after years go by. Therefore, CIT is wrong. Their beliefs are not reality-based.

Moreover, the fact that "CIT" won't do anything with this bombshell information, except try to make a few bucks on DVDs and win admiration on the internet, simply confirms their irrelevance. I realize that they are annoying, but really my life is just fine whether mudlark defends them or not.

Sorry for preaching. Consider it as a little Sauvignon-Blanc-induced Zen for a Friday. :)

[Childlike Empress]

In either case, Ed is nowhere near where CIT promoted his position. I see you have done a lot of NoC v SoC stuff. That is off-topic! The topic is CIT fraud. You say neither, but sorry, it is one of the two or both. I go with both, but definitely fraud since they admit that Shinki told them that Ed was inside when he saw the plane. No mention of that in the Pentacon production, so fraud!


But but but, Farmer - Shinki told them, backchecked by Larson, that Ed was outside the building. Surely an innocent mistake of yours that you will soon retract. But leaves you with - no fraud.

[Jackanory]

I know that this is obvious, but who cares if a handful of witnesses:
- are mistaken
- are being quoted out of context
- are lying
- etc.

This proves nothing, when we have the totality of evidence. The plane couldn't have physically flown where they say. There is no conpiracy. The plane hit the pentagon in front of hundreds of witnesses. The passenger, crew and terrorist DNA was identified at the Pentagon. It's an open-and-shut case. We know for an absolute fact that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, especially after years go by. Therefore, CIT is wrong. Their beliefs are not reality-based.

Moreover, the fact that "CIT" won't do anything with this bombshell information, except try to make a few bucks on DVDs and win admiration on the internet, simply confirms their irrelevance. I realize that they are annoying, but really my life is just fine whether mudlark defends them or not.

Sorry for preaching. Consider it as a little Sauvignon-Blanc-induced Zen for a Friday. :)

And if that wasnt enough then i am sure that KSM's guilty plea of planning the whole thing will sink all speculation about who saw and said what. None of this NoC/Soc matters and those that keep it rolling along are simply feeding the cycle of silly. Stop!

Shinki, Ed, Craig, Aldo and co are sunk but you keep them afloat with all this toing and frowing of video, picture, quote stuff.

KSM has given his version of events. He has coughed to the whole deal. He has coughed to the planning, the funding, the logistics, the training and the execution of 911. He coughed to the location of training camps and the command structure in place. He has named names. The listed details in his indictment came from him. The majority of the evidence and details being used against him came from him. He will implicate all 19 terrorists (and maybe more) that he recruited and plead guilty to it all. He will do this infront of a packed courtroom and not a waterboard in sight. He is proud of his achievement and will tell you so.

[Jackanory]

But but but, Farmer - Shinki told them, backchecked by Larson, that Ed was outside the building. Surely an innocent mistake of yours that you will soon retract. But leaves you with - no fraud.



All irrelevent. What ya gonna do about KSM?

[Childlike Empress]

I'm not american. If you're not interested in the topic, go away. Here (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html)'s a good read about KSM, so you got something to do.