CIT Fraud Revealed

[Jackanory]

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.


FYI - I'm not American either. KSM has great relevance in every topic because his evidence alone refutes all and everything that truthers say. FACT.

You dont believe the physical evidence or the science and make stuff up like Noc/Soc.

An aircraft hyjacked by terrorists recruited by KSM hit the pentagon. He admits this. This puts the Noc/Soc arguements in the same place as the rest. If you wish to continue discussing Noc/SoC then you need to explain why it is of any relevence given that the perpetrator has already confessed and his version of events matches exactley that that we all witnessed and which all other evidence points.

[carlitos]

As they say, good luck with that. I gave up on that poster a while ago. She doesn't seem to answer direct questions, IIRC.

[dudalb]

As they say, good luck with that. I gave up on that poster a while ago. She doesn't seem to answer direct questions, IIRC.

If you mean our Empress, all she does is post links to batcrap crazy left wing websites.
She is fun when she goes into her routine of how misunderstood Milosovec was, and how all the Serbian atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo were Western Propaganda.
She is also a huge admirer of Putin.
Make your own judgements as to where she is coming from.

[Childlike Empress]

Pfft, dudalb, i thought you'd given up on this stuff. You forgot to mention Stalin. LOL.

[leftysergeant]

I won't attempt using software that I have seen so far used only to produce crap for results.

An ´artistic eye´ doesn´t quite debunk it.

An artistic eye is the first thing to apply when evaluating an over-all graphic result.

To a machine, it makes perfect sense, but, to a Mark I eyeball, your stuff is goofy as all hell. Sometimes it takes a human, preferrably one trained in observing this sort of thing, to tell the machine is i wrong.

You just need to learn that a computer is an elctronic idio savavant.


Perfect memory, not a bloody clue.

[beachnut]

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.

´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://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadelynDebunksCITBigTime.jpg

You DO see the problem here?

Her POV was obstructed

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadleneCITDebunked.jpg

In an e-mail exchange with Russell Pickering she also claim

Does the plane ´tilt´ anywhere in the FDR data within the last 8 seconds of flight? At 540+mph?

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.

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..

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

Wow, lie number 3, all in one post. (New record for you?)


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.

Paik points south, as you spew moronic delusions from CIT moronic investigators.

She is supported by physics, FDR, DNA, all the other witnesses saw the same plane she saw over her. Yes, she could see Flight 77 because it was up in the air, not on the ground behind trees, up in the air.

She saw 77 on the official flight path as did all CIT witnesses if you understood how to interpret witness statements. Sorry I am a trained investigator in aircraft accidents and trained to interview witnesses; CIT did nothing right except video tape witnesses pointing to the south flight path; you failed and spew the lies of CIT out of ignorance; why do you spread lies and why can't you do math?

CIT has to call her a liar, as the FDR and RADAR support her! You failed again and posted another CIT witness who supports reality, you call the official flight path as the best you can do is spread moronic lies and apologize for terrorists poorly.

She called CIT creepy, she was right, but she left out stupid on 911 issues, dirt dumb stupid.

You posted a lie, the FDR and RADAR support her account, you lost this one.

2,223 gs of stupid lies from Balsamo and CIT. Can't much worse than 11.2 gs still posted by Balsamo but then he makes up 2,223 gs! How stupid are p4t? 2,223gs worth, not a single pilot from pilots for truth are able to support CIT, save Balsamo, they are his crack team of nut case idea manufacturers, and there is not a thing you can do to fix it due to your lack of knowledge, zero math skills, and zero physics! You have failed to personally support a single CIT path with math! You can't? Why?

Got math.


Does the plane ´tilt´ anywhere in the FDR data within the last 8 seconds of flight? At 540+mph?
Yes, you failed to check before you ask a stupid question. Don't worry CIT does not understand the FDR, just like you. Yes at 483 KIAS, flight 77 tilt turn radius is 32 miles! Good luck math-man! LOL, the tilt she saw gave a turn radius of 32 miles, good going CIT and you, a cult member of the pathetic lie of Noc from CIT, Balsamo's failed investigators. Do you do any math at all? Do you try to use science, or is hearsay and moronic lies your special skill?

You failed to prove I lied, math proves you a liar; next time learn math. Education is the key to avoid fraud...


CIT works like this;
When witnesses clearly debunk the moronic NoC they call the witness a liar and make up lies about why they are not correct!

Paik points south, Paik draws a line south of the CITGO station, CIT tries to ignore the truth and presents a path Paik can't draw with accuracy as the NoC, but the path is impossible due to physics. mudlark can't do physics so mudlark repeats idiotic delusions from CIT.

FDR, DNA, RADAR, make all you post a lie made up out of ignorance.

[A W Smith]

here's where it all falls apart for you muddy

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


http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/34oabuu.jpg

[mudlark]

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.

He said this in YOUR recording? I would really like (if not need) a transcript. The recording is God awful (inside pocket?)

Even in Larson´s interview Shinki clearly states

00:30

Referring to his brother Ed

¨He went out (points outside)¨

In Craig´s interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SeOa6AQyt0

¨..at the last moment my brother jumped out the office (sic) and as soon as he went out he was just scooping down and then at that moment I think the plane flew over..¨

In either case, Ed is nowhere near where CIT promoted his position.

They ´promoted his position´?

Where on this map has Ed Paik circled his position? The map that has been in the public domain for years. The map that I recently posted here before this nonsense clearly stating what the circle represented.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikmap-2.jpg

Paik brought Larson outside to show a clearer perspective of what path the plane took. Just as I´m sure he did with Craig.

Let me ask you this. If this had been such a revelation, why didn´t Russell Pickering, who became as vehemently anti-CIT as any of you here, point this out? Because it is irrelevant and/or HE didn´t realize either.
He was with the first group who interviewed him remember?


I see you have done a lot of NoC v SoC stuff. That is off-topic! The topic is CIT fraud.

Tell your friend Beachy. He brought it up.
60-70% of any thread regarding NOC is off-topic unless you count insults (boring childish ones at that) and repetitive lies. Yourself, Beachnut and a few others being the main instigators.

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!

YOu seem to be the only one who claims that Shinki said that his brother was inside.
When did CIT ever claim, given the map I just posted, exactly WHERE Ed Paik was situated??
Are you going to claim that he could see nothing from where he was?
Look at Larson´s own video around the 01:30 mark and tell me had had no clear view. An excellent view of the proposed SOC path which he in no way described.

How can you promote this video even when it further damns the SOC myth?

[mudlark]

here's where it all falls apart for you muddy

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


http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/34oabuu.jpg

We have already been over this Smith.
The 128ft wingspan COULD fly this trajectory

http://i48.tinypic.com/x4m2vs.jpg

I WAS going to say ´why don´t you ask Paik yourself what he described´ but one of your friends has already confirmed it :)

[JimBenArm]

(With apologies to Bill Murray and the movie "Meatballs")

We are the CIT, so pity us!
We're a dork, a fool plus an idiot!
We lead witnesses and quote mine (we're subhuman slime!)
We're the doofus CIT!

[mudlark]

I won't attempt using software that I have seen so far used only to produce crap for results.



An artistic eye is the first thing to apply when evaluating an over-all graphic result.

To a machine, it makes perfect sense, but, to a Mark I eyeball, your stuff is goofy as all hell. Sometimes it takes a human, preferrably one trained in observing this sort of thing, to tell the machine is i wrong.

You just need to learn that a computer is an elctronic idio savavant.


Perfect memory, not a bloody clue.

Yeah but in the same breath you claim along with others that eyewitness testimony is ´unreliable´ and have stretched just how ´wrong´ they were to surreal limits.

If you seriously believe that the program which made the Physical Sun and Sky images is "crap", you may not want to get into any structure. vehicle or machine designed by AutoCAD, as its the same company.

http://usa.autodesk.com/

Ask Farmer if he has figured out how to make a physical sun and sky yet in his program and that if he disagrees with the images.

Farmer has the same program. Farmer gave Rob Balsamo the program. Farmer couldnt figure out the lighting in the program.
Ask him if he can find someone to run the data provided through this very accurate 3D program and debunk it. Until then, the ´Mark 1 eyeball´ is definitely NOT a viable rebuttal. Sorry.

[A W Smith]

We have already been over this Smith.
The 128ft wingspan COULD fly this trajectory

http://i48.tinypic.com/x4m2vs.jpg

I WAS going to say ´why don´t you ask Paik yourself what he described´ but one of your friends has already confirmed it :)

:dl: not if it flew over his roof! Be a sport muddy and show us what window of the Sheraton it flew through to go over Paik's roof and then fly over Morins head ten feet inside the edge of the annex, And then from there make a loop around the Citgo and fly over the pentagon fireball.

[mudlark]

(With apologies to Bill Murray and the movie "Meatballs")

We are the CIT, so pity us!
We're a dork, a fool plus an idiot!
We lead witnesses and quote mine (we're subhuman slime!)
We're the doofus CIT!

Is that it? JREF debate at its best.

[JimBenArm]

Is that it? JREF debate at its best.
It's not debate. There's nothing to debate. They're morons, their ideas are stupid, and anyone who listens to them is dumber than a bag of rocks.

Only a CITer can't recognize mockery when it's plainly presented to them...

[mudlark]

:dl: not if it flew over his roof! Be a sport muddy and show us what window of the Sheraton it flew through to go over Paik's roof and then fly over Morins head ten feet inside the edge of the annex, And then from there make a loop around the Citgo and fly over the pentagon fireball.

Where in the image posted above does the plane have to deviate in the slightest?
It is on a direct course for the Navy Annex.

´Smith jumps in again before using the grey matter´

http://i46.tinypic.com/2im3kpe.gif

[mudlark]

It's not debate. There's nothing to debate. They're morons, their ideas are stupid, and anyone who listens to them is dumber than a bag of rocks.

Only a CITer can't recognize mockery when it's plainly presented to them...

I have a good sense of humour.
I recognise bores when i see them.

[BCR]

Farmer has the same program. Farmer gave Rob Balsamo the program. Farmer couldnt figure out the lighting in the program.
Ask him if he can find someone to run the data provided through this very accurate 3D program and debunk it. Until then, the ´Mark 1 eyeball´ is definitely NOT a viable rebuttal. Sorry.

Wrong, Farmer has figured out the program. However, as demonstrated over-and-over again, it IS NOT a scientifically accurate program for forensic purposes.

For forensics, AutoCAD or Solidworks is required because they are designed for such purposes. Maya is a graphics package for animation and film making. And yes, I can use both AutoCAD and Solidworks. I work the math because it is empirical and objective. Software packages such as Maya are subjective, based on the whims of the animator. For example, the crazy flight path simulations done by P4T. The math does not check with the animation results.

FYI:

I don't base my conclusions on cartoons. I will not waste my time making one to counter P4T. I have better uses for my time. But if Rob wants to send me his complete Maya scene then I'll be happy to go over his values.

[ElMondoHummus]

Is that it? JREF debate at its best.

Dude, the debate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158703) was settled (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109066) years ago (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4180974). What JBA did wasn't debate. It was point and laugh.

If other people missed that point, I'd be astonished. But given truthers inability to recognize plain truth right in front of them, I simply cannot be surprised here.

[beachnut]

Is that it? JREF debate at its best.
You support lies, and the math proves all the paths you have for NoC are not possible. Which is the path? Got RADAR for your path?

You said there was a tilt, what is turn radius of the tilt that the FDR supports? Any math or physics? Did you take any science in school?

The fraud of CIT may be due to incompetence in math, and no training at taking witness statements and interpreting 483 KIAS flight paths. CIT has no training and make up lies which you can't support by showing the math for one of your fake paths.

Remember, all CIT witnesses support Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon and knocking down the lampposts. Now what? More lies from CIT by proxy.

Present you own work for the path you support; include g force and bank angle and speed. Madelyn proves CIT failed, Madelyn called CIT creepy. Madelyn is right. What does CIT do with Madelyn?

[mudlark]

You´ve reposted my post but have you actually bothered your a*se to read it?

Go to bed Beachnut. Night night.
Another failed attack on CIT.
Try another NOC witness. I´ll be waiting.

[JimBenArm]

I have a good sense of humour.
I recognise bores when i see them.
Only someone with no sense of humor ever states they have a good one. People who are completely unaware of their lack of humor feel the need to state how much of one they have.

Funny how you can recognize bores, but can't recognize boors. Or morons, for that matter.

[Hokulele]

Yeah but in the same breath you claim along with others that eyewitness testimony is ´unreliable´ and have stretched just how ´wrong´ they were to surreal limits.

If you seriously believe that the program which made the Physical Sun and Sky images is "crap", you may not want to get into any structure. vehicle or machine designed by AutoCAD, as its the same company.


You do understand the difference between drafting software and design software, yes?

[A W Smith]

Where in the image posted above does the plane have to deviate in the slightest?
It is on a direct course for the Navy Annex.

´Smith jumps in again before using the grey matter´

http://i46.tinypic.com/2im3kpe.gif

Is that a gif of how you got your head injury?

Here muddy, Here is your problem drawn directly across your "wingspan"

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

[Hokulele]

Wrong, Farmer has figured out the program. However, as demonstrated over-and-over again, it IS NOT a scientifically accurate program for forensic purposes.

For forensics, AutoCAD or Solidworks is required because they are designed for such purposes. Maya is a graphics package for animation and film making. And yes, I can use both AutoCAD and Solidworks. I work the math because it is empirical and objective. Software packages such as Maya are subjective, based on the whims of the animator. For example, the crazy flight path simulations done by P4T. The math does not check with the animation results.

FYI:

I don't base my conclusions on cartoons. I will not waste my time making one to counter P4T. I have better uses for my time. But if Rob wants to send me his complete Maya scene then I'll be happy to go over his values.


Wait, they are using Maya for this?

Mudlark, you do understand the difference between design software, drafting software, and freaking animation software, yes?

[beachnut]

You´ve reposted my post but have you actually bothered your a*se to read it?

Go to bed Beachnut. Night night.
Another failed attack on CIT.
Try another NOC witness. I´ll be waiting.
Madelyn debunks CIT, CIT has to say she is wrong. Paik draws a flight path south of the Citgo, and they have to say that is wrong and present the other path he drew, he can't draw from his POV.

Go back to Balsamo and his failed pilots club, Balsamo is not an airline pilot, he is not qualified. CIT is not trained, and they can't figure out a flight path due to Balsamo's 2,223 gs of failed math.

Post the math for the path you have, or follow your own advice. Good night CIT repeater of lies and moronic delusions.

Paik supports the south flight path and your own drawing of 77 on the south of the road makes an NoC flight path impossible. You can't figure this out because you can't do the math.

I am in bed now, and can debunk you in my sleep; The sad part for CIT, no one needs to be a trained aircraft accident investigator to see CIT conclusions are idiotic delusions; dumb ideas. And there is nothing you can do to save CIT from failure. physics? any knowledge on flying?

[16.5]

I have a good sense of humour.
I recognise bores when i see them.

Says the hero who put me on ignore because I ask for:

1. the raw video

2. the math to support the impossible flight path.

Edited for civility.

[Dog Town]

Says the hero who put me on ignore because I ask for:

1. the raw video

2. the math to support the impossible flight path.

Moderated content removed.

So much for ignore.

[ElMondoHummus]

And here it is:

One other thing I noticed, from the first comment thread at the OC Weekly, was yet another tantalizing glimpse into their beliefs:


He [Schou] goes on, “-pause for circus music- a magic trick in which a military plane painted to resemble an American Airlines jet flew low over the Pentagon while explosives took down a wall of the structure in a convenient cloud of smoke, thus allowing the plane to fly away and secretly land somewhere, presumably at nearby Reagan National Airport. Unfortunately, their film The PentaCon, doesn’t provide any evidence of this.”
We don’t provide evidence for this because it is not our claim. We never said the decoy jet in question was painted to look like an AA jet and in fact we claim the opposite. The evidence we provide suggests that it did not look like an AA jet since most independent witnesses we spoke with describe different colors.


Source (http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/breaking-news/pentagon-flyover-hysteria-rock/)

This little detail is new to me. So let me see if I've got it straight:

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

To do this, They executed the following:

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

The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.
I am reasonably certain that the above is the stupidest hypothesis ever conceived for any purpose, including parody, intentional humor, or even stress tests of human perception in psychological experiments.

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

That was posted 21st August 2008. And nothing they've done has given anyone any reason to reconsider current opinion regarding their sanity or rationality. It's ignore time for the CIT fanboy.

[Hokulele]

That was posted 21st August 2008. And nothing they've done has given anyone any reason to reconsider current opinion regarding their sanity or rationality. It's ignore time for the CIT fanboy.


Ignore? But, but, but, I just learned that they are using Maya, freaking animation software out of all of the products currently on the market, to prove their point. They are finally talking about something I have a bit of expertise in. :(

(And I am willing to prove my expertise via PM, not publically as I do not need a bunch of nutbars flooding my inbox.)

[JimBenArm]

Ignore? But, but, but, I just learned that they are using Maya, freaking animation software out of all of the products currently on the market, to prove their point. They are finally talking about something I have a bit of expertise in. :(

(And I am willing to prove my expertise via PM, not publically as I do not need a bunch of nutbars flooding my inbox.)
So I should return the PayDays I bought for you?

[Hokulele]

So I should return the PayDays I bought for you?


If you can e-mail an edible PayDay, you are my new hero.

:p

[ElMondoHummus]

Ignore? But, but, but, I just learned that they are using Maya, freaking animation software out of all of the products currently on the market, to prove their point. They are finally talking about something I have a bit of expertise in. :(

(And I am willing to prove my expertise via PM, not publically as I do not need a bunch of nutbars flooding my inbox.)

Actually, I was only announcing what I was going to do. If you can find a new way to apply a smackdown to an old punching bag, go for it! I didn't think there were any new routes over such well-traveled territory, but leave it to CIT to find another way to fail. I sure as heck don't object to yet another comeuppance to such a group of deliberately obtuse idiots. In fact, I'd actually like to see that. I may even keep Mudlark off of ignore for a while just to watch. :popcorn3

[Hokulele]

Actually, I was only announcing what I was going to do. If you can find a new way to apply a smackdown to an old punching bag, go for it! I didn't think there were any new routes over such well-traveled territory, but leave it to CIT to find another way to fail. I sure as heck don't object to yet another comeuppance to such a group of deliberately obtuse idiots. In fact, I'd actually like to see that. I may even keep Mudlark off of ignore for a while just to watch. :popcorn3


It is just that it is so rare that one of the various CTists will post something about something I can actually speak to with some authority, I have to take every chance I get. I think the last time that happened, jammonius wanted to discuss Triangulated Irregular Networks (TINs), and everyone else promptly fell into a coma.

Hmph. :sulk:

[ElMondoHummus]

It is just that it is so rare that one of the various CTists will post something about something I can actually speak to with some authority, I have to take every chance I get. I think the last time that happened, jammonius wanted to discuss Triangulated Irregular Networks (TINs), and everyone else promptly fell into a coma.

Hmph. :sulk:

On the contrary, jammonius was the only one KO'ed by that. But I think he was an example of walking unconsciousness to begin with :boggled:...

But I thought it rocked. Seriously. The point had already been well proven, but you stuck it to him with his own images (or at least images he asked for... trying to remember). Note that he petered out just a page or two after you did that. The data he was all gung-ho about ended up refuting his argument. I thought it was the cherry on top of the sundae in that thread.

So don't feel bad. I loved it.

[Hokulele]

On the contrary, jammonius was the only one KO'ed by that. But I think he was an example of walking unconsciousness to begin with :boggled:...

But I thought it rocked. Seriously. The point had already been well proven, but you stuck it to him with his own images (or at least images he asked for... trying to remember). Note that he petered out just a page or two after you did that. The data he was all gung-ho about ended up refuting his argument. I thought it was the cherry on top of the sundae in that thread.

So don't feel bad. I loved it.


:blush:

[Hokulele]

I swear, I had nothing to do with, er, someone's reappearance in a totally unrelated thread. I thought the name had to be mentioned three times for a summoning.

[JimBenArm]

I swear, I had nothing to do with, er, someone's reappearance in a totally unrelated thread. I thought the name had to be mentioned three times for a summoning.
You don't get out of it that easy!

We still blame you!

[A W Smith]

It is just that it is so rare that one of the various CTists will post something about something I can actually speak to with some authority, I have to take every chance I get. I think the last time that happened, jammonius wanted to discuss Triangulated Irregular Networks (TINs), and everyone else promptly fell into a coma.

Hmph. :sulk:


You had to mention that name? Like magic. The critical sphincter is back posting on another thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5612838#post5612838)

[ElMondoHummus]

I swear, I had nothing to do with, er, someone's reappearance in a totally unrelated thread. I thought the name had to be mentioned three times for a summoning.

You had to mention that name? Like magic. The critical sphincter is back posting on another thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5612838#post5612838)

That was bizzare... and a little bit creepy. Talk of the Devil, see his horns (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/speak-of-the-devil.html). :boggled:

[Mangoose]

That was posted 21st August 2008.

Jeez, it's been that long?! I remember when that was posted. This whole CIT nonsense is just a dog chasing its own tail.....around and around and around and around and around...

[ElMondoHummus]

Jeez, it's been that long?! I remember when that was posted. This whole CIT nonsense is just a dog chasing its own tail.....around and around and around and around and around...

Dude, remember: That was after Ryan got sick of dealing with them over and over. So the carnival BS merry-go-round goes even farther back than that.

[Hokulele]

Seriously, if I really had the power of summoning, don't you think I would have resurrected, well, pretty much anyone else?

[Mangoose]

Yeah, I know the "Lyte Trip" days go way back before I joined, but it is just funny that carousel has been going round so constantly that I get surprised to get reminded that something like that is actually X years ago, and not a few months ago.

[ElMondoHummus]

Seriously, if I really had the power of summoning, don't you think I would have resurrected, well, pretty much anyone else?

Huh? You mean, you'd rather have someone like Christophera? Or Ultima? Bofors? Jammonius, oddly enough, doesn't match Christophera's depth of delusion (he merely believes in something wackier), he's not as dada-performance-art oblivious as Ultima, and he's not anywhere near being the same kind of jerk that Bofors is. As aggravatingly dumb as he is, he doesn't take the cake as far as intolerable conspiracy addicts. Not in that company.

[BCR]

Jeez, it's been that long?! I remember when that was posted. This whole CIT nonsense is just a dog chasing its own tail.....around and around and around and around and around...

It is amazing that it just keeps on going after being throughly discredited and explained. I guess some folks just don't learn very easily. Personally I'm getting rather bored with the CIT/P4T nonsense and don't even waste any significant time with their lunacy beyond poking fun at them (e.g. this thread).

[switchpoint]

The guy is pointing to the ceiling in his office!!! IN HIS OFFICE! He is inside! There is an opaque object (roof and ceiling) between him and what he is....witnessing.

I know the clowns in CIT have dismissed eyewitnesses who attest to seeing Flight 77 impact the Pentagon because they think there may have been a tree somewhere between them and the building. But this guy is considered infallible even though he is looking at his office ceiling and attesting to where the plane was.

Give it up.

[tsig]

The whole purpose of putting someone on ignore is that you DON'T want/care to see what he posts. If you DO want to see what he posted, take him off ignore.

DA

You are trying to explain physics to someone who can't comprehend how this forum works. I hear pigs singing in the background.

[tsig]

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.

If all the witness saw a pink elephant flying over them it wouldn't matter. One dead body trumps all the visuals.

[16.5]

It is amazing that it just keeps on going after being throughly discredited and explained. I guess some folks just don't learn very easily. Personally I'm getting rather bored with the CIT/P4T nonsense and don't even waste any significant time with their lunacy beyond poking fun at them (e.g. this thread).

Aldo has posted a video rebuttal here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkOv0-u6A0

[tsig]

(With apologies to Bill Murray and the movie "Meatballs")

We are the CIT, so pity us!
We're a dork, a fool plus an idiot!
We lead witnesses and quote mine (we're subhuman slime!)
We're the doofus CIT!

You should believe us 'cause we're stupid so we're just like you.


Buy my product

[tsig]

You´ve reposted my post but have you actually bothered your a*se to read it?

Go to bed Beachnut. Night night.
Another failed attack on CIT.
Try another NOC witness. I´ll be waiting.
Good NOC, pleasant dreams. The screams you hear are just the dead trying to ask you why you are pissing on their graves.

[tsig]

You do understand the difference between drafting software and design software, yes?

He really hasn't made the grade to using software.

[tsig]

Says the hero who put me on ignore because I ask for:

1. the raw video

2. the math to support the impossible flight path.

Mudlark is a whore for the tree fort mutts.

We really, really don't want to think what goes on in the tree fort.

(insert slimy infestations of masturbatory fantasies here)

[tsig]

If you can e-mail an edible PayDay, you are my new hero.

:p

Your wish is but our command m'lady


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Payday.JPG

[tsig]

You don't get out of it that easy!

We still blame you!

That's Lisa.

[mudlark]

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

The NOC witnesses corraborate the North path.
A ´handful´? They are ALL witnesses on record within that area.
I´m still waiting on ONE SOC witness.
Not ONE other witness contradicts the confirmed and verified NOC path, over the Navy Annex and right bank descriptions.
I´d say that´s more than a ´handful´.


- are being quoted out of context

They are on record. What are you saying? That Craig and Aldo TOLD them what to say?


- are lying

Who exactly is/are lying??
I know Larson started a thread claiming such a nonsense.



This proves nothing, when we have the totality of evidence. The plane couldn't have physically flown where they say.

This evidence is to be discarded on what grounds?
The ´totality of evidence´ is based on the word of government agencies.
The FDR? Even JREFers claim that the officially released data is wrong.
The ´impact time´, that there are seconds ´missing´.

That the plane ´couldn´t have physically flown where they say has been thoroughly refuted.

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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15854

Critics of this math have been answered here

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

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

There is no conpiracy. The plane hit the pentagon in front of hundreds of witnesses.

Disinfo, proven in my posts in the 8 out of 8 thread.

The passenger, crew and terrorist DNA was identified at the Pentagon. It's an open-and-shut case.

There are no records on chain of custody of said DNA.

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.

I know for an absolute fact that it is impossible that not one witness out of ´hundreds´ could fail to report or describe the SOC approach.
Again with the NOC witnesses described events ´after years go by´

FALSE. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158703&page=11)

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.

They along with Pilotsfor911truth HAVE been sending this information for years to various media outlets. That the mainstream media fails to act on this shows (as they have always done) that they have no backbone and/or complete bias.
I constantly see this bs on them making money from DVD sales. ALL THEIR VIDEOS ARE FREE. Stop lying.

My life is just fine too Carlitos. I´ll keep correcting your erroneous posts as long as you want mate.

Sorry for preaching. Consider it as a little Sauvignon-Blanc-induced Zen for a Friday. :)

Cheers big ears.

[mudlark]

Wrong, Farmer has figured out the program. However, as demonstrated over-and-over again, it IS NOT a scientifically accurate program for forensic purposes.

For forensics, AutoCAD or Solidworks is required because they are designed for such purposes. Maya is a graphics package for animation and film making. And yes, I can use both AutoCAD and Solidworks. I work the math because it is empirical and objective. Software packages such as Maya are subjective, based on the whims of the animator. For example, the crazy flight path simulations done by P4T. The math does not check with the animation results.

FYI:

I don't base my conclusions on cartoons. I will not waste my time making one to counter P4T. I have better uses for my time. But if Rob wants to send me his complete Maya scene then I'll be happy to go over his values.

Pfft..you KNOW that is bunk BCR.
I´ve been told that you don´t know how to use the program to its full capacity. Especially regarding lighting and shadows.

The Maya program as you well know is used in extremely complex calculations for dynamic collisions, add gravity, wind, etc.

It is discussed here:

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

Look at some of the images Pilots have made available using this program

http://i46.tinypic.com/35jimac.jpg

NOTE the reflecion of the Navy Annex on the fuselage of the plane.

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

Casting shadows using the azimuth of the sun at any given time

http://i46.tinypic.com/dwumwn.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/142u73m.jpg

You want Rob to give you the values? They are there for you to see in Warren´s decode.

How to produce these images:

http://wiki.bk.tudelft.nl/toi-pedia/MR_Using_the_Physical_Sun_and_Sky_environment

You already know the data on the azimuth on September 11 2001.

[mudlark]

You support lies, and the math proves all the paths you have for NoC are not possible. Which is the path? Got RADAR for your path?

You said there was a tilt, what is turn radius of the tilt that the FDR supports? Any math or physics?

Madelyn Zachem described a ´tilt´.

The math has been provided over and over by me.

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

[mudlark]

Is that a gif of how you got your head injury?

Here muddy, Here is your problem drawn directly across your "wingspan"

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

You´re being a pain now (or are you actually serious??)
Paik described the plane as going over his roof because he could only see the right wing.
You are arguing over a couple of metres margin of error in the full knowledge that no matter how you try and twist it, Paik clearly describes an NOC path both in CIT´s interview AND in Larson´s.

The wingspan of 128ft is drawn to scale on that image. It could fly past the Sheraton.

Whether it flew directly over his roof or across his yard it is NOC.

[mudlark]

Ignore? But, but, but, I just learned that they are using Maya, freaking animation software out of all of the products currently on the market, to prove their point. They are finally talking about something I have a bit of expertise in. :(

(And I am willing to prove my expertise via PM, not publically as I do not need a bunch of nutbars flooding my inbox.)

If you know how to use Maya prove the images posted wrong.
IF you had any ´expertise´ on this program you would know how highly accurate it is.

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




In 2003, Maya (then owned by Alias|Wavefront) won an Academy Award "for scientific and technical achievement", citing use "on nearly every feature using 3-D computer-generated images."[

MODELLING

NURBS, polygons and subdivision surfaces (or SubDivs or SubD's) are available in Maya.

Polygons are a widely used model medium due to its relative stability and functionality. Polygons are also the visualization bridge between NURBS and SubDivs. NURBS are used for their ready-smooth appearance and respond well to deformations in the Dynamics Workbench. SubDivs resemble a combination of both NURBS and polygons, but they are actually just a smoothed mesh[6]. They are ready-smooth and can be manipulated like polygons, resulting in a model of many objects including hands, faces, and other multi-topological constructions.




Non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS) is a mathematical model commonly used in computer graphics for generating and representing curves and surfaces which offers great flexibility and precision for handling both analytic and freeform shapes

http://freeartsoftware.com/

Autodesk software is known as the premier industrial design tool – used by virtually every car, design, and consumer product companies around the world.



Their Pdf description

http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/files/maya_2010_product_brochure_us.pdf

Features
Maya has been at the cutting edge of feature
development for over 10 years, and Maya 2010 is no
exception. The software is packed with tried and
tested features that help speed your project from
initial concept to finished renderings: polygon and
NURBS modeling, UV mapping and texturing,
animation and rigging, dynamic simulation tools,
tools for generating plants and other natural detail,
in addition to advanced compositing capabilities,
and a choice of four built-in renderers

Performance
Through a combination of multi-threading, algorithmic
tuning, sophisticated memory management, and
tools for segmenting scenes, Maya 2010 is engineered
to elegantly handle today’s increasingly complex
data sets without restricting the creative process.



Are you seriously trying to tell me that this program is NOT capable of casting an accurate shadow based on a simple set of data points (azimuth)
on an engineered topographically exact area as Pilotsfor911truth have done in the images i have posted? Seriously?

Can´t wait to see the results.

[A W Smith]

this bears repeating
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3966936&postcount=174

One other thing I noticed, from the first comment thread at the OC Weekly, was yet another tantalizing glimpse into their beliefs:

Originally Posted by CIT Craig Ranke, CIT
He [Schou] goes on, “-pause for circus music- a magic trick in which a military plane painted to resemble an American Airlines jet flew low over the Pentagon while explosives took down a wall of the structure in a convenient cloud of smoke, thus allowing the plane to fly away and secretly land somewhere, presumably at nearby Reagan National Airport. Unfortunately, their film The PentaCon, doesn’t provide any evidence of this.”

We don’t provide evidence for this because it is not our claim. We never said the decoy jet in question was painted to look like an AA jet and in fact we claim the opposite. The evidence we provide suggests that it did not look like an AA jet since most independent witnesses we spoke with describe different colors.

Source (http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/breaking-news/pentagon-flyover-hysteria-rock/)

This little detail is new to me. So let me see if I've got it straight:

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

To do this, They executed the following:

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

And, finally,

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


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

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

[JimBenArm]

NOC? Does that mean Not Of Consequence? Because it isn't. It hit the Pentagon, and it doesn't matter if anyone says it went North Of the Citgo or North Of Chicago to get there. It still hit, killed all the poor people on board and a lot of people in the Pentagon. All the rest of this is stupidity compounded by obstinance and ignorance.

[ElMondoHummus]

If you know how to use Maya prove the images posted wrong.
IF you had any ´expertise´ on this program you would know how highly accurate it is.


Highly accurate?? :eye-poppi

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/123864907860b51b18.bmp

He's all yours, Hokulele. All yours.

[BCR]

You want Rob to give you the values? They are there for you to see in Warren´s decode.

Yes mudlap, I want Rob to make available the Maya scene file he used to generate the animation. Until then you are using smoke and mirrors and asking us to take Rob's word for it. Please excuse us if we don't.

And no, Maya is NOT forensics software and IS only as good as the person inputing the parameters. It is a 3D animation graphics software package for making cartoons. It does accommodate a degree of usefulness in that a person can enter their own dynamics equations, but again, forgive me in not believing that P4T is capable of entering the correct equations.

The software is used to make fairly nice cartoons with very good graphics. I claim no expertise in the software beyond using it to make crude 3D reconstructions on a small scale (less than several hundred feet). You are surely aware that a number of different lighting types are used in Maya. For me to comment on the Rob generated shadows, I would have to see how he has the scene set up, what lights he is using in the scene, whether his actual placements in the scene are correct, etc. Again, you guys have never taken my word for anything, so don't expect me to take Rob's word for it that he has all of this stuff set up correctly. He is a pilot, not a 3D artist

[Hokulele]

If you know how to use Maya prove the images posted wrong.
IF you had any ´expertise´ on this program you would know how highly accurate it is.


Does the phrase "garbage in, garbage out" ring any bells? Maya is not a design package and will not offer any solutions or alerts when the initial parameters are crap. As I tell my students in the AutoCAD classes I teach, "You may be able to draw and print your ideas on the computer, but that is no guarantee you will be granted a permit to build them."

ETA: I hadn't noticed BCR said pretty much the same thing. That will teach me to check and see if I am on the last page of a thread.

[carlitos]

They are on record. What are you saying? That Craig and Aldo TOLD them what to say?
No, but it's possible. Given that you have reviewed the unedited video, how would you describe their statements without the editing?


The ´totality of evidence´ is based on the word of government agencies.
OK, so that is a lie. Why are you lying?

Disinfo, proven in my posts in the 8 out of 8 thread.

disinfo? What the hell are you talking about?

There are no records on chain of custody of said DNA.
lie.

[twinstead]

There are no records on chain of custody of the DNA? mudlark, are you SERIOUS?

[BCR]

ETA: I hadn't noticed BCR said pretty much the same thing. That will teach me to check and see if I am on the last page of a thread.

No, maybe saying the same thing several different ways will drive it home (although I doubt it).

Mudlap,

The burden is not on me to prove your cartoons wrong, the burden is on those who present the evidence. Warren posted his results, his program and even the code for his program, nothing hidden. Yet you post cartoons and expect them to prove something. Now post the complete Maya scene so that Hokulele and I can run it in Maya (a free learning edition is available for anyone else wanting to check it out) and verify that the parameters used to generate those cartoons is as accurate as you claim. They are your claims, so put up or shut up.

[16.5]

The NOC witnesses corraborate the North path.
A ´handful´? They are ALL witnesses on record within that area.
I´m still waiting on ONE SOC witness.


No actually those are the ones that the mutts don't want to throw up on the gallows. There are LOTS of south of citgo witnesses, but the mutts declare that the should swing from their necks.

The good news is that none of them are near as heavy as aldo.

[GlennB]

Madelyn Zachem described a ´tilt´.

The math has been provided over and over by me.

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

Fraudulent.

One of the 'turn radius' figures on Rob's bank-angle chart equates to a ridiculous 11 miles. This doesn't allow the aircraft to pass through the key points of the curved approach unless you start to throw out key witnesses (from the NoC pov).

He refuses to insert any stall speed estimate as the plane type is 'unknown'. Laughable. Just put in reasonable estimates for a twin-engine jet of the reported size matey.

He states that a 35° bank - on an impossibly wide turn - 'matches' witness experience.

Then having created a little self-contradictory dream world of his own he cheerfully presents it to the public. Good grief.

[Jackanory]

Looks and sounds to me like the tree fort giggling socks have achieved their objective in drawing you all in to a discussion that started daft and will finish daft. Now argueing over a cartoon programme that has no relevence whatsoever.

I suppose it all boils down to the old 'if ya cant convince them with science baffle them with ********'. That is all this is. I sometimes wish Monty Python was still running.

Will you ever learn folks.

[BCR]

Looks and sounds to me like the tree fort giggling socks have achieved their objective in drawing you all in to a discussion that started daft and will finish daft. Now argueing over a cartoon programme that has no relevence whatsoever.

I suppose it all boils down to the old 'if ya cant convince them with science baffle them with ********'. That is all this is. I sometimes wish Monty Python was still running.

Will you ever learn folks.

And yet, here you are.

[Jackanory]

And yet, here you are.

Sad i know. Yet notice i wont be taken on the ride to fairy land. Its a joke to the tree fort John. You know it. I know it. The giggle is for them.

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by mudlark
They are on record. What are you saying? That Craig and Aldo TOLD them what to say?

No, but it's possible. Given that you have reviewed the unedited video, how would you describe their statements without the editing?


Total bunk. Dodge noted on the claim you made that they may be ´lying´ too.
How would I describe their statements? Watch it yourself. It´s all there for you to see.
Nice to know you make assumptions on the witnesses ´lying´ or being lead somehow when you haven´t even watched their FULL interviews yet.



The ´totality of evidence´ is based on the word of government agencies.

OK, so that is a lie. Why are you lying?

Then link me to the documentation of recovery of plane parts from Flight77.
The documentation on the serial number of the FDR recovered.
The chain of custody documentation for passenger and crew DNA.
The sequestered 911 calls in the area that morning.
The 85 videos that the FBI deemed ´irrelevant´.


Originally Posted by mudlark
Disinfo, proven in my posts in the 8 out of 8 thread.

disinfo? What the hell are you talking about?

You claimed that there were ´hundreds´ of witnesses to the incident. That is proven disinfo.
Many of the witness links are made up of anonymous testimonies.
Media embellishment.
People that weren´t even there.
People who contradict the official trajectory, altitude, manouevre and speed of the plane.
NOC witnesses.
Over the Navy Annex witnesses.
Right bank witnesses.

I can go through them if you want. No problem.


Originally Posted by mudlark
There are no records on chain of custody of said DNA.

lie.

Links?

[mudlark]

Yes mudlap, I want Rob to make available the Maya scene file he used to generate the animation. Until then you are using smoke and mirrors and asking us to take Rob's word for it. Please excuse us if we don't.

And no, Maya is NOT forensics software and IS only as good as the person inputing the parameters. It is a 3D animation graphics software package for making cartoons. It does accommodate a degree of usefulness in that a person can enter their own dynamics equations, but again, forgive me in not believing that P4T is capable of entering the correct equations.

The software is used to make fairly nice cartoons with very good graphics. I claim no expertise in the software beyond using it to make crude 3D reconstructions on a small scale (less than several hundred feet). You are surely aware that a number of different lighting types are used in Maya. For me to comment on the Rob generated shadows, I would have to see how he has the scene set up, what lights he is using in the scene, whether his actual placements in the scene are correct, etc. Again, you guys have never taken my word for anything, so don't expect me to take Rob's word for it that he has all of this stuff set up correctly. He is a pilot, not a 3D artist

In other words, you want Rob to show you how he did it?
Why don´t you just say this and cut the crap about the program being used for ´nice cartoons´. You know this is not true.

You DO know that Bombadier uses an "animation" program for their designs?

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?id=13566339&siteID=123112

Bombardier uses 3DS Max, which used to be a rival to Maya until Autodesk bought it out...

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?id=13577897&siteID=123112

Leading architects, automotive and consumer products designers, and creative advertising professionals use the Maya toolset to explore, validate, and convey their designs.

* Architecture—Maya offers a robust platform with powerful modeling toolsets that complement the building information modeling (BIM) workflow during conceptualization.
* Manufacturing—Complementing the Autodesk® Inventor®, Alias®, and Showcase® family of products, the Maya toolset is used by manufacturers, marketers, and their ad agencies for work ranging from conceptual modeling to advanced animated visualizations.
* Automotive—Maya is used by designers in automotive OEMs to complement the Alias and Showcase family of products for a variety of tasks such as modeling, data preparation and cleanup, and advanced visualization.
* Consumer products manufacturing—Maya enables consumer products manufacturers to turn digital prototypes into highly realistic advertisements—without the need for costly physical prototypes and photography shoots

..whether his actual placements in the scene are correct, etc. Again, you guys have never taken my word for anything, so don't expect me to take Rob's word for it that he has all of this stuff set up correctly. He is a pilot, not a 3D artist

´his actual placements´?
The SOC path is based on Warren´s data, both lat/long and altitude.
The topography is spot on. As you know.
So basically what you are asking is if the sun is positioned correctly?

Hokulele has promised to check this out.

[mudlark]

Does the phrase "garbage in, garbage out" ring any bells? Maya is not a design package and will not offer any solutions or alerts when the initial parameters are crap. As I tell my students in the AutoCAD classes I teach, "You may be able to draw and print your ideas on the computer, but that is no guarantee you will be granted a permit to build them."

ETA: I hadn't noticed BCR said pretty much the same thing. That will teach me to check and see if I am on the last page of a thread.

Read my post to BCR on this program.
´Garbage in, garbage out´? Only if the parameters in Warren Stutt´s decode data and the sun´s publically available specific positioning on September 11 2001 are wrong would it be ´garbage´
If you are referring to the topography and/or Rob Balsamo´s abilities, go ahead and prove him wrong.

Being a teacher in this area you should know how to reproduce the effects of accurate sun position and shadows in Maya?

Why do Bombardier also use an "animation" program for their designs?
I would check out those links I gave to BCR before you turn your nose up at its capabilities again.

[mudlark]

No, maybe saying the same thing several different ways will drive it home (although I doubt it).

Mudlap,

The burden is not on me to prove your cartoons wrong, the burden is on those who present the evidence. Warren posted his results, his program and even the code for his program, nothing hidden. Yet you post cartoons and expect them to prove something. Now post the complete Maya scene so that Hokulele and I can run it in Maya (a free learning edition is available for anyone else wanting to check it out) and verify that the parameters used to generate those cartoons is as accurate as you claim. They are your claims, so put up or shut up.

Wth are you on about BCR??
The ´evidence´ IS Warren Stutt´s data.

As Hokulele said ´garbage in garbage out´. If Rob gives you all the data on the Maya scene it would defeat the whole purpose of you and Hokulele ´debunking´ it.
YOU have to create the topography, the positioning and altitude of the plane, the position of the sun, so it´s your and Hokulele´s own ´garbage´

I have genuinely asked Rob if this is possible and he told me to tell you ask him here

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=19610&view=findpost&p=10782840

I have just seen why you refer to this program as solely for making ´cartoons´. Are these seriously your attempts at using this program?

http://i49.tinypic.com/21cgq50.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/2m4djzl.jpg

http://i50.tinypic.com/wrnbwg.jpg

??

Compare your efforts to what I posted. NOW I understand why you want the ´data´.
Hopefully Hokulele will fare better being a teacher and all.

Rob tells me that he learned from an expert who uses Maya to design components for GM and NASCAR. He made the 757 from scratch that you see in the Pilotsfor911Truth presentations. He is even in their credits...

Why don´t you guys go to these guys (http://www.digitaltutors.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=50) and tell them the software is only good for making cartoons.

Or... go to Bombardier and let them know that their aircraft were designed with rival software made for "cartoons".

[mudlark]

Looks and sounds to me like the tree fort giggling socks have achieved their objective in drawing you all in to a discussion that started daft and will finish daft. Now argueing over a cartoon programme that has no relevence whatsoever.

I suppose it all boils down to the old 'if ya cant convince them with science baffle them with ********'. That is all this is. I sometimes wish Monty Python was still running.

Will you ever learn folks.

I´m tired of hearing the ´sock´ accusation. Anybody who has ever debated craig and Aldo will know that my style is totally different from theirs. Enough.

This ´daft´ thread was instigated by John Farmer who is agreeing with you!
The debate on the ´cartoon programme´ began when I posted the image of the virtual sun/shadow on September 11 in response to the assertion made on this thread that Ed Paik´s brother confirmed that a shadow passed over their shop. The image proves that it couldn´t have if following the path and altitude of Warren Stutt´s data at this point.
It´s far from irrelevent.

[Mr.Herbert]

I´m tired of hearing the ´sock´ accusation. Anybody who has ever debated craig and Aldo will know that my style is totally different from theirs. Enough.


This ´daft´ thread was instigated by John Farmer who is agreeing with you!
The debate on the ´cartoon programme´ began when I posted the image of the virtual sun/shadow on September 11 in response to the assertion made on this thread that Ed Paik´s brother confirmed that a shadow passed over their shop. The image proves that it couldn´t have if following the path and altitude of Warren Stutt´s data at this point.
It´s far from irrelevent.[sic]



When will the cartoon creators show the fly over/ around. You know what I'm saying? I've been asking this for years now.

[mudlark]

Which "turn radius" is fradulent? Why have you refused to provide source? Not providing source seems to be a common experience around here at JREF.

Does Leftysarge still think he has a better "artistic eye" than Maya? Does Hokulele still think the P4T presentation is inaccurate?

Does Farmer/911Files/BCR still think that it is hard to create a "Physical Sun and Sky" after being provided a link to the directions numerous times?

Garbage in, Garbage out.. right?

Farmer, it appears your "cartoon" was truly GARBAGE!

Yes BCR, we know why you were unable to finish your Arlington construction and instead gave the program to Rob. It's because you dont know how to use Maya beyond making your silly cartoon. Click the link I gave to discuss it with Rob. Your "scene" is pathetic.



Your errors in vector analysis are also fully covered at P4T.

Rant over.

[DGM]

.

Rant over.

I tend to doubt it. :rolleyes:

[Jackanory]

Which "turn radius" is fradulent? Why have you refused to provide source? Not providing source seems to be a common experience around here at JREF.

Does Leftysarge still think he has a better "artistic eye" than Maya? Does Hokulele still think the P4T presentation is inaccurate?

Does Farmer/911Files/BCR still think that it is hard to create a "Physical Sun and Sky" after being provided a link to the directions numerous times?

Garbage in, Garbage out.. right?

Farmer, it appears your "cartoon" was truly GARBAGE!

Yes BCR, we know why you were unable to finish your Arlington construction and instead gave the program to Rob. It's because you dont know how to use Maya beyond making your silly cartoon. Click the link I gave to discuss it with Rob. Your "scene" is pathetic.



Your errors in vector analysis are also fully covered at P4T.

Rant over.

Take it easy Mud. You'll give yourself a heart attack.

I see that your still pushing your cartoon graphics again. I suppose back at the tree house its easier to manipulate the cartoon graphics than it to accept the FDR data, DNA, witness testimony and KSM's guilty plea. Maya means zilch. FDR, DNA v Tree House Maya ?Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[TjW]

Wth are you on about BCR??
The ´evidence´ IS Warren Stutt´s data.


Really? Which of the decoded elements is Sun azimuth and Sun elevation?

[beachnut]

Madelyn Zachem described a ´tilt´.

The math has been provided over and over by me.

http://doltpilotsspewinglies.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=15930
She debunks your CIT moronic flight paths as she points to the south flight path. You failed again. Good job, you got it down pat just like the math-moron Balsamo.

The tilt is in the FDR, 6 degrees of bank and you can't do the math; why did you fail to gain math skills like Balsamo the not ever an airline pilot leading the dolts at p4t?

You love lies and you post lies, this is another lie like all your moronic flight paths you and Balsamo can't do the math for! 2,223g of stupid, and the moronic investigators failed.

There are no records on chain of custody of said DNA.
...
Why do you post lies! Sorry, but it was very important to the fallen soldiers to be identified and it was a very solid chain of custody and if you had any skill in research you would know you spew lies! But instead you disrespect the military who died and the passengers by telling lies and the only thing you can do, but poorly, is apologies for terrorists and act like a terrorists loyalist; good job acting like a traitor to civilians and military.


There are no records on chain of custody of said DNA.
... Is this your original lie, or a Balsamo special 2,223 gs of stupid lie?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Mudlark clearly is following the "Truther Code of Conduct":

Truthers are told to do the following:

1. Deceive - Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 researchers into "Strawman" issues that are easily knocked down.

2. Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you cannot explain away.

3. Deny - Refuse to acknowledge that any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the 9/11 argument.

4. Discredit - Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of 9/11 researchers.

5. Repeat - Repeat the Conspiracy Theories constantly until you sound like a broken record.

6. Lie - When the evidence is overwelming, lie about everything.

[beachnut]

Mudlark clearly is following the "Truther Code of Conduct":

Truthers are told to do the following:
mudlark is spamming us with p4t dolt forum links hoping to get attendance up where no new idiots are signing up. It is a ghost town of moronic math and failed physics where the dumbest posts are allowed and rational posts are place in the Ghetto called debate.

mudlark is exactly like Balsamo, unable to do math, and can only post paranoid delusions made up out of 2,223-gs of ignorance.

mudlark posts lies and ignores evidence; it is what truthers and Balsamo do. I like his ability to avoid posting a possible flight path.


At the pilots for truthstupidLies forum the dolt neoNAZI truthNAZI Balsamo acts like a kid (like me) and maps links to randi.org to another name. He can't afford his dolts getting a dose of people thining for themselves away from his cult of dirt dumb stooges spew moronic ideas and lies.

Too bad the pilot for truth links are not labeled with a disclaimer you are about to be exposed to idiotic math and real dumb ideas, don't laugh yourself to death, take it slow, the stupid could hurt your head.

I find it fitting when Balsamo is not making up lies and telling people I had a stroke, another lie Balsamo lies to imply, he calls people who debunk his 2,223 gs of madness and insanity, government loyalist; I think of Jefferson, Lincoln, and JFK, and the ideals they stand for; Please mark me down as a government loyalist which Balsamo says he is saving a bullet to execute us. It is rare to find a dirt dumb paranoid nut case conspiracy theorist, which makes me think Balsamo is just trying to make a buck off of gullible people of which most will be cured of the terminal stupidity Balsamo personifies.

CIT is fraud; they take witnesses who support the real flight path and crucify them! They have to ignore Madelyn, but it is clear all the witnesses are pointing to 77 which appears over the Annex but is really on the real flight path up in the air! In the air, flying, a flight path of a LARGE jet looks closer to the untrained first time seeing a plane go 800 feet per second! LOL, Madelyn alone debunks and at the same time exposes the fraud of CIT; I copied the pages so they can't hid Madelyn under the carpet as she destroys CIT and exposes Balsamo as the dumbest pilot in the world who can't even figure out the feet in a nautical mile and can't do math; bad with numbers.
Madelyn Zachem described a ´tilt´.

The math has been provided over and over by me. ...
Fraud is saying Madelyn can't see what she saw; fraud.
And mudlark says he posted math, but is math free! no math from mudlark, just links to pure stupid...

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

mudlark is spamming us with p4t dolt forum links hoping to get attendance up where no new idiots are signing up. It is a ghost town of moronic math and failed physics where the dumbest posts are allowed and rational posts are place in the Ghetto called debate.

mudlark is exactly like Balsamo, unable to do math, and can only post paranoid delusions made up out of 2,223-gs of ignorance.

mudlark posts lies and ignores evidence; it is what truthers and Balsamo do. I like his ability to avoid posting a possible flight path.

I agree, it's very likely that his ability to use common sense & his brain is lacking considerably. Whatever he's thinking & whatever flight path he imagines, he can't dispute the physical evidence that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Photographic proof & witness testimony undermines his efforts to prove his claims.

[leftysergeant]

Being a teacher in this area you should know how to reproduce the effects of accurate sun position and shadows in Maya?

It's animation software, so I would assume that it will also not refuse and absurd instruction if it is just put in the right code.

Not, to someone who has studied art, it looks like someone just stuck stuff into the code at random.

The same altitutde and the same angle of the sun will, inevitabaly, WITHOUT EXCEPTION place shadows at the same angle from an airborne object.

Your crap is wrong.

[carlitos]

Total bunk. Dodge noted on the claim you made that they may be ´lying´ too.
How would I describe their statements? Watch it yourself. It´s all there for you to see.
Nice to know you make assumptions on the witnesses ´lying´ or being lead somehow when you haven´t even watched their FULL interviews yet. Please direct me to where I may view the FULL, unedited interviews. Thanks.

[Jackanory]

mudlark is spamming us with p4t dolt forum links hoping to get attendance up where no new idiots are signing up. It is a ghost town of moronic math and failed physics where the dumbest posts are allowed and rational posts are place in the Ghetto called debate.

mudlark is exactly like Balsamo, unable to do math, and can only post paranoid delusions made up out of 2,223-gs of ignorance.

mudlark posts lies and ignores evidence; it is what truthers and Balsamo do. I like his ability to avoid posting a possible flight path.

At the pilots for truthstupidLies forum the dolt neoNAZI truthNAZI Balsamo acts like a kid (like me) and maps links to randi.org to another name. He can't afford his dolts getting a dose of people thining for themselves away from his cult of dirt dumb stooges spew moronic ideas and lies.

Too bad the pilot for truth links are not labeled with a disclaimer you are about to be exposed to idiotic math and real dumb ideas, don't laugh yourself to death, take it slow, the stupid could hurt your head.

I find it fitting when Balsamo is not making up lies and telling people I had a stroke, another lie Balsamo lies to imply, he calls people who debunk his 2,223 gs of madness and insanity, government loyalist; I think of Jefferson, Lincoln, and JFK, and the ideals they stand for; Please mark me down as a government loyalist which Balsamo says he is saving a bullet to execute us. It is rare to find a dirt dumb paranoid nut case conspiracy theorist, which makes me think Balsamo is just trying to make a buck off of gullible people of which most will be cured of the terminal stupidity Balsamo personifies.

CIT is fraud; they take witnesses who support the real flight path and crucify them! They have to ignore Madelyn, but it is clear all the witnesses are pointing to 77 which appears over the Annex but is really on the real flight path up in the air! In the air, flying, a flight path of a LARGE jet looks closer to the untrained first time seeing a plane go 800 feet per second! LOL, Madelyn alone debunks and at the same time exposes the fraud of CIT; I copied the pages so they can't hid Madelyn under the carpet as she destroys CIT and exposes Balsamo as the dumbest pilot in the world who can't even figure out the feet in a nautical mile and can't do math; bad with numbers.

Fraud is saying Madelyn can't see what she saw; fraud.
And mudlark says he posted math, but is math free! no math from mudlark, just links to pure stupid...

Couldnt have said it better myself so just had to bump it up again. Beachnut you are a diamond amongst coal :)

[BCR]

Your errors in vector analysis are also fully covered at P4T.

Rant over.

No they are not, since I have made no errors in vector analysis. P4T just does not understand what vector analysis is. And yes, you got me, Rob makes much nicer looking cartoons than I do.

And no, I won't be going over to P4T to increase Rob's ratings. I used to go there, until I learned that the pilots and engineers that hang out at JREF are light-years more competent than those that hang out at P4T.

[beachnut]

No they are not, since I have made no errors in vector analysis. P4T just does not understand what vector analysis is. And yes, you got me, Rob makes much nicer looking cartoons than I do.

And no, I won't be going over to P4T to increase Rob's ratings. I used to go there, until I learned that the pilots and engineers that hang out at JREF are light-years more competent than those that hang out at P4T.
With that I am off to the park to test gravity and see if I can see planes fly over through trees here in San Jose posting on the road with 3 of my ~25 percent clones which understand physics which they will demo shortly.

Which part of Paik pointing south did CIT miss? Middleton is even funnier, he points over the Annex exactly where 77 was flying on course to the Pentagon at the shaky hands of Hani, who was so bad they gave him the largest target.

[leftysergeant]

I notice he is still ignoring the most glaring evidence that his stuff is wrong. He has still not accounted for the wrong angles between the aircraft and their shadows in his graphic.

[mudlark]

I tend to doubt it. :rolleyes:

Yep, lost it a bit there, I agree.
First time though after constant non-posts which are solely opinion based rants and insults.
I actually HAD thought on registering here that the debate would be more substantial and not sarcastic one-liners, indirect/direct insults and dishonesty. Know what I mean DGM?
Just find it annoying that NOTHING has been linked to to back up claims which some people KNOW are false.

[mudlark]

Hokulele, you claim...

"Maya is not a design package"

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

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?id=13577897&siteID=123112

Hokulele, you seem somewhat civil compared to others here, why not register at P4T forum to debate Rob on the topic? From my limited point of view, you have been proven wrong on every claim you've made with respect to Maya and prematurely said "How high?" when BCR said "Jump!". Do you still think Maya is just a "freakin animation software"? Do you think 3DS Max is also a "freakin animation software"? Care to put your name on that?

Didn't think so.

Rob will not be expecting you anytime soon i'm guessing. It's clear you also don't have a clue with respect to the capabilities of Maya.

How about you Lefty? Want to cast a glance with that bionic eye of yours over the Maya images at the P4T site?
Did you go to that Maya forum to tell them the program was ´crap´?

[mudlark]

Take it easy Mud. You'll give yourself a heart attack.

I see that your still pushing your cartoon graphics again. I suppose back at the tree house its easier to manipulate the cartoon graphics than it to accept the FDR data, DNA, witness testimony and KSM's guilty plea. Maya means zilch. FDR, DNA v Tree House Maya ?Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Name suits you mate.
You obviously haven´t read any links on this program.
I suppose the Purdue ´animations´ were ´pushed´ here when they were released (minus two engines at the Pentagon lol) and were labelled scientifically accurate.
The FDR data? JREFers don´t even accept it in its totality. They claim that the NTSB released data is ´missing seconds´.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163

The FDR itself was devoid of a serial number.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/14081

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2224/foiafaafdrcvrke8.jpg

The actual ´discovery´ of the FDR raises questions too never mind the data that is actually on it.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=5505

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15636
Anybody who was in a position to see the plane totally contradicts either the alleged trajectory, altitude and/or speed of it.

Even one of the posters here is unequivocal on how corrupt the info was and how the RADES data was ´manipulated´

NEADS 25.3 Second Time Difference Explained (Or, "I hate it when Craig is Right")

I told my nemeses at CIT that if I found evidence of tampering in the 84 RADES data that they would be the first to know and I am a man of my word. The NEADS clock was NOT running slower on 9/11. Rather its radar data was being collected, altered, and then fed into the system.

-John Farmer
Friday, April 11, 2008 3:31 AM

"I've caught them lying out the teeth buddy! (laughs) I mean what really convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt was the NTSB data. That is such an obvious misinformation campaign right there it isn't even funny. That stuff is so doctored. It just isn't even funny."

[...]


"The first thing I noticed in 3Ding is the Pentagon gate cameras....no way, no way. Ok that plane came in and hit those two poles, it had a certain angle of attack coming in. Ok...the Pentagon gate cameras have the thing sittin' on the ground. Naw naw naw that's not even reality."

-John Farmer via recorded phone call


Source (http://www.thepentacon.com/JohnFarmer.mp3)

Witness accounts? (http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html)

The ´hundreds of witnesses to an impact´ myth has been busted for what it is. Disinfo (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=959)

On these threads, anybody who described NOC has ´misremembered´, ´lied´,
are ´cointel´ (the video presentation in this thread actually advocates this) or are just plain ´wrong´

Same goes for the Navy Annex witnesses. (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=487)
They were all ´wrong´ due to their ´perspective´.
´Right bank witnesses´ are ´wrong´ too because..they just are..

KSM? Waterboard much??

Other people brought up the nonsense that Maya isn´t worth dirt, just like you. Just because it proves that the plane did not fly SOC according to the shadow witnessed by the Paik brothers?

It is in the video presentation in this thread. I have presented a debunk. It´s up to them to debunk it instead of pages of bullcrap that the program that made the images is solely for making ´cartoons´.

Okay Jack?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Just find it annoying that NOTHING has been linked to to back up claims which some people KNOW are false.

You know what's more annoying? That in over 8 years time you've had all that time to present any evidence on your side of the arguement. And when people ask you to produce the evidence you simply dodge it & go on to the next lame theory.

[mudlark]

Really? Which of the decoded elements is Sun azimuth and Sun elevation?

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

[mudlark]

Mudlark clearly is following the "Truther Code of Conduct":

Truthers are told to do the following:


Quote:
1. Deceive - Misrepresent the claims of 9/11 researchers into "Strawman" issues that are easily knocked down.

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

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5618341&postcount=596

The NOC witness evidence has never been refuted, other than by simply stating that they were ALL ´wrong´.
Not only them but ANYBODY who contradicts the FDR data.
[/QUOTE]

2. Dodge - Try to avoid or ignore any 9/11 evidence that you cannot explain away.

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

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5468963&postcount=215

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5469543&postcount=292

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5469614&postcount=307

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5469984&postcount=336

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5470148&postcount=348

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5472503&postcount=418

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5472490&postcount=414

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5476179#post5476179

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5472720&postcount=432

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5475677&postcount=555

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5479300&postcount=587

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5488976&postcount=643

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5490588&postcount=657

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5496270&postcount=685

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5500464&postcount=713

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



3. Deny - Refuse to acknowledge that any irrefutable evidence given is relevant to the 9/11 argument.

See above on ´irrefutable evidence´

4. Discredit - Use any possible ad hominem accusation to ruin the credibility of 9/11 researchers.

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

5. Repeat - Repeat the Conspiracy Theories constantly until you sound like a broken record.

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

6. Lie - When the evidence is overwelming, lie about everything.

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

[mudlark]

It's animation software, so I would assume that it will also not refuse and absurd instruction if it is just put in the right code.

Not, to someone who has studied art, it looks like someone just stuck stuff into the code at random.

The same altitutde and the same angle of the sun will, inevitabaly, WITHOUT EXCEPTION place shadows at the same angle from an airborne object.

Your crap is wrong.

That´s just opinion Lefty.
Warren´s EXACT long/lat and altitude data was entered into a topographically exact model of Arlington.
The azimuth and elevation of the sun were taken from a reliable source, the data of which nobody disputes here.
That you call it ´crap´ based on Art studies and the naked eye is not a scientific approach.

The author of the images was taught by and is advised by an expert who uses Maya to design components for GM and NASCAR.

At least Hokulele and BCR are TRYING to simulate the results...I assume..

[BigAl]

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

GIGO.

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

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

[mudlark]

Please direct me to where I may view the FULL, unedited interviews. Thanks.

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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1904445818116873233

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=996642030910430700&hl=es&emb=1

Are you actually going to watch them?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Answers in bold:

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

You have no evidence to verify your claims.

snip...

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

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

snip....

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

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

See above on ´irrefutable evidence´

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yet you have no evidence to help you? Talk about being a **************, huh??Edited for civility.

[mudlark]

Fraud is saying Madelyn can't see what she saw; fraud.
And mudlark says he posted math, but is math free! no math from mudlark, just links to pure stupid...

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

Here´s my ´non-math´ link ... again

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

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

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

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

WDClinger´s response to the math was noteworthy

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5489387&postcount=647

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

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

Later Pinocchio.

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

http://i49.tinypic.com/mj5kqd.jpg

Or is farmer´s path threw in the bin?

http://i47.tinypic.com/bg4ok0.jpg

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

http://i48.tinypic.com/v6t4xh.jpg

[Sam.I.Am]

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

just sayin'

[dtugg]

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

[Hokulele]

Hokulele, you claim...

"Maya is not a design package"

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


You understand the difference between design and visualization, yes?

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

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

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

"Incompetence in, incompetence out."

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I bet Doctor Samuel Mudd would put a facepalm to all of Mudlarks non-sense.

[BCR]

Or is farmer´s path threw in the bin?

http://i47.tinypic.com/bg4ok0.jpg

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

http://i48.tinypic.com/v6t4xh.jpg

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

Madelyn did see a plane, so ergo you are wrong and the already estimated error band and slight southerly shift is verified. Please come back when you have the original unedited interview tapes and Maya scene.

[BCR]

"Incompetence in, incompetence out."

It is strange that he wants to argue math, when he can't do math. He wants to argue 3D software, when he does not know anything about 3D software. It is like telling a doctor his diagnosis is wrong because they googled something different. And they wonder why they keep looking like complete fools.

[BCR]

I bet Doctor Samuel Mudd would put a facepalm to all of Mudlarks non-sense.

As for me, I am done with this thread. The mudlap foolish just keeps on going and it is getting rather boring addressing the same old wrong and cartoons. How do you argue with cartoons? The cartoons win.

[Hokulele]

It is strange that he wants to argue math, when he can't do math. He wants to argue 3D software, when he does not know anything about 3D software. It is like telling a doctor his diagnosis is wrong because they googled something different. And they wonder why they keep looking like complete fools.


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


ETA: Ack, I didn't notice that you were done with this thread. Why am I always posting late? :sulk:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

As for me, I am done with this thread. The mudlap foolish just keeps on going and it is getting rather boring addressing the same old wrong and cartoons. How do you argue with cartoons? The cartoons win.

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

Coincidence? Perhaps!! http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/Smileys/DancinChewie.gif

[Childlike Empress]

I see you don't object to BCR's and others altering of mudlark's name, hypocrite.

[16.5]

I see you don't object to BCR's and others altering of mudlark's name, hypocrite.

You talking to the mouse in your pocket CE?

[W.D.Clinger]

I see you don't object to BCR's and others altering of mudlark's name, hypocrite.
I'm with CE on this: We should respect mudlark's choice of screen name.

After wading through the excrement and waste at CIT, mudlark hawks what he has found. Unlike the 18th century mudlarks, this mudlark is trying to sell us the filth itself.

[funk de fino]

I see you don't object to BCR's and others altering of mudlark's name, hypocrite.

How do you know? Can you see what people have reported?

[beachnut]

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

So parrots on speed learned to fly high performance supersonic jet aircraft, earned masters in engineering, hold an ATP from the FAA (means I can fly left seat heavy jets with passengers, and I did), scuba dive, build super speakers, build quiet computers, and baby sit grandkids? What is your experience with speed mudlark?

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

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

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

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

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

If you did math you would see Madelyn's story matches the correct flight path; and if you would go outside more you will see you can see planes over trees, etc. Why is it only those who post like Balsamo, believe his dirt dumb delusions as he "offers no theories". lol
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadleneCITDebunked.jpg
CIT ignores Madelyn, a CIT witness who debunks them! I can see planes over trees, so the tree junk is another lie; CIT makes up lies, they have no other skills.

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

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

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

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

CIT is dirt dumb on interpreting witnesses:
In each CIT video of witnesses pointing to the south, CIT ignores their real testimony and makes up lies.

[carlitos]

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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1904445818116873233

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=996642030910430700&hl=es&emb=1

Are you actually going to watch them?
I asked for unedited video. The first one is edited. Unless the people that they were interviewing actually can disappear and appear in different places?

[cornsail]

This is boring. Mudlark, you're in full dodge and repeat mode now. The flightpath Paik drew was obviously not what he witnessed (he saw a wing of a plane, or a shadow of a wing for 1-2 seconds from inside his shop). What are these 'witnessed flightpaths' supposed to be?

[mudlark]

You understand the difference between design and visualization, yes?

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

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

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

"Incompetence in, incompetence out."

This is unreal.
YOU are the one who is brushing this image aside BEFORE checking its validity and accurateness for yourself.
YOU are the so-called ´teacher of AutoCAD´. You SHOULD be able to debunk it.
Have you actually followed the links I have posted as to Maya´s capabilities and its ´design vizualisation´?

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?id=13577897&siteID=123112

The ´cartoonist´ is an aviation professional taught and advised by an expert who uses Maya to design components for GM and NASCAR.

I have genuinely asked the author for the data you ask for and he wants you to go and ask him yourself. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19610)

´Incompetence´? Prove it.

[mudlark]

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

Madelyn did see a plane, so ergo you are wrong and the already estimated error band and slight southerly shift is verified. Please come back when you have the original unedited interview tapes and Maya scene.

Is this the same data that you claimed was ´manipulated´? (http://www.thepentacon.com/JohnFarmer.mp3)

How does Madelyn´s testimony correlate with Warren´s datapoints given that she wouldn´t have seen the plane at all on the ´consolidated flightpath´?

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.

´Tilting to the left´? Towards the Annex from her position?

http://es.tinypic.com/r/jfjmgz/6

Madlene Zakhem¨

¨..nearly skimming the rooftop of the Smart Traffic Center.¨

This testimony contradicts Warren´s decode. His data describes a roll to the RIGHT of between 4º and 6º starting well before the plane reached her alleged POV and continuing until 0.7 seconds before the end of his proposed path (which misses the lightpoles, I might add)

http://i46.tinypic.com/ibyrs4.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/oa0y8k.jpg

Warren data chart (http://i49.tinypic.com/98vx4z.jpg)

She also claims to have seen the cockpit..as it went overhead?

- Her testimony is woolly at best.
- Her POV was totally obscured by trees.
- She contradicts Warren´s data (which is wrong? Madelyn or Warren?)
- She contradicts Ed Paik and Terry Morin
- She contradicts every recorded witness or ´datapoint´ in the Annex area

She is NOT a definitive SOC witness.

[BigAl]

This is unreal.
YOU are the one who is brushing this image aside BEFORE checking its validity and accurateness for yourself.
YOU are the so-called ´teacher of AutoCAD´. You SHOULD be able to debunk it.
Have you actually followed the links I have posted as to Maya´s capabilities and its ´design vizualisation´?

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?id=13577897&siteID=123112

The ´cartoonist´ is an aviation professional taught and advised by an expert who uses Maya to design components for GM and NASCAR.

I have genuinely asked the author for the data you ask for and he wants you to go and ask him yourself. (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19610)

´Incompetence´? Prove it.

Given that the entire airplane and all the bodies were found inside the Pentagon and we have the radar tracks and FDR data that shows how it got there, you are a clear case of GIGO.

[mudlark]

As for me, I am done with this thread. The mudlap foolish just keeps on going and it is getting rather boring addressing the same old wrong and cartoons. How do you argue with cartoons? The cartoons win.

It´s YOUR thread! LOL.

You accused CIT of fraud regarding Ed Paik´s interview.
You failed. You actually bolstered and confirmed what Ed Paik told them.
The plane went NOC.

I´ve seen YOUR ´ cartoons´ mate :)
I´m still waiting on your and Hokulele´s debunk of those images. Instead you cover your ears and cry ´I´m not playing any more´.

[mudlark]

I'm with CE on this: We should respect mudlark's choice of screen name.

After wading through the excrement and waste at CIT, mudlark hawks what he has found. Unlike the 18th century mudlarks, this mudlark is trying to sell us the filth itself.

Hey Clinger, talking of excrement, I can´t seem to access your sites.
What´s up with that? :confused:

[LashL]

It's funny how posting via proxy sites messes up quotation marks and apostrophes, isn't it?


:rolleyes:

[mudlark]

snip

If you did math you would see Madelyn's story matches the correct flight path; and if you would go outside more you will see you can see planes over trees, etc

So the plane ´skimmed´ the roof of her building?
She could see the cockpit from there?
Did the plane execute a left bank as she says?

The path she describes takes the plane into Arlington Cemetery at 40ft agl on a descent if her testimony is to be taken literally.
I would like to know how it ´fits´with the official path(s) Beachy.
No rants please. Just a map or explanation will do.
Cheers.

[mudlark]

I asked for unedited video. The first one is edited. Unless the people that they were interviewing actually can disappear and appear in different places?

Exactly what more do you actually expect to see that isn´t contained within those videos I linked you to??
Tell me exactly what you think is editted or censored?
If any of the NOC witnesses believe they witnessed an impact, it is on record.

Tell Erik to go interview them. He did such a good job confirming Ed Paik´s testimony. Even more.

I suppose I could start asking Larson for his uneditted footage too?

[mudlark]

This is boring. Mudlark, you're in full dodge and repeat mode now. The flightpath Paik drew was obviously not what he witnessed (he saw a wing of a plane, or a shadow of a wing for 1-2 seconds from inside his shop). What are these 'witnessed flightpaths' supposed to be?

Boring Cornsnail?
I´m the one who´s bored HAVING TO repeat posts.
There is no debate here. Just opinion after opinion. Lie after insult. No links to back up claims.
I´m being accused of ´spamming´ for posting links to every point I make!

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

Paik said he saw the right wing of THE plane in question. He totally contradicts SOC with this statement alone. Along with his assertion that it was low..´above my roof´. The same story he told to CIT as he did to Erik Larson. It´s as simple as that.

I posted images provided to me created on a very widely used highly accurate and maneable program that has a lighting function which replicates shadowing given the parameters of the azimuth and elevation of the sun.

They proved (and have yet to be debunked) that the shadow could not physically have fallen on Ed Paik´s shop from SOC, using the positional and altitude data taken from Warren Stutt´s program.

It´s not ME who is providing the testimony but Ed Paik himself. What should be done..a third interview? We are going to hear the same thing.

What ´witnessed flightpaths´?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Exactly what more do you actually expect to see that isn´t contained within those videos I linked you to??
Tell me exactly what you think is editted or censored?
If any of the NOC witnesses believe they witnessed an impact, it is on record.

Tell Erik to go interview them. He did such a good job confirming Ed Paik´s testimony. Even more.

I suppose I could start asking Larson for his uneditted footage too?

Maybe because he knows that Truthers love to edit videos in order to lie. Windows Movie Maker is available ya know!

[JimBenArm]

Exactly what more do you actually expect to see that isn´t contained within those videos I linked you to??
Tell me exactly what you think is editted or censored?
If any of the NOC witnesses believe they witnessed an impact, it is on record.

Tell Erik to go interview them. He did such a good job confirming Ed Paik´s testimony. Even more.

I suppose I could start asking Larson for his uneditted footage too?

How can anyone tell you what they think is edited or censored when THEY DON'T HAVE THE UNEDITED VIDEO?
This is so stupid, it's off the scale!
But not without precedence, seeing as how it's CIT.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Boring Cornsnail?
I´m the one who´s bored HAVING TO repeat posts.
There is no debate here. Just opinion after opinion. Lie after insult. No links to back up claims.
I´m being accused of ´spamming´ for posting links to every point I make!

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

Paik said he saw the right wing of THE plane in question. He totally contradicts SOC with this statement alone. Along with his assertion that it was low..´above my roof´. The same story he told to CIT as he did to Erik Larson. It´s as simple as that.

I posted images provided to me created on a very widely used highly accurate and maneable program that has a lighting function which replicates shadowing given the parameters of the azimuth and elevation of the sun.

They proved (and have yet to be debunked) that the shadow could not physically have fallen on Ed Paik´s shop from SOC, using the positional and altitude data taken from Warren Stutt´s program.

It´s not ME who is providing the testimony but Ed Paik himself. What should be done..a third interview? We are going to hear the same thing.

What ´witnessed flightpaths´?

I can back him up on that, you are dodging!

[mudlark]

Given that the entire airplane and all the bodies were found inside the Pentagon and we have the radar tracks and FDR data that shows how it got there, you are a clear case of GIGO.

Links Al..LINKS!!

Flight 77 plane part documentation...chain of custody documentation...
FDR serial number...

Even Farmer doubted the authenticity of the 84 RADES and NTSB data.
The NTSB provided data is apparently missing 2/4/6/8 seconds...isn´t it?

NOBODY saw this alleged path. NOBODY.

You´re a clear case of FOC.

[beachnut]

It´s YOUR thread! LOL.

You accused CIT of fraud regarding Ed Paik´s interview.
You failed. You actually bolstered and confirmed what Ed Paik told them.
The plane went NOC.

I´ve seen YOUR ´ cartoons´ mate :)
I´m still waiting on your and Hokulele´s debunk of those images. Instead you cover your ears and cry ´I´m not playing any more´.
CIT failed, they are frauds.
Paik points south.
Middleton points south.
Madelyn points south.
Boger sees 77 enter the Pentagon.

CIT makes up delusions, you repeat them and then you call other people parrots because you can't do the math to see your paths from CIT are impossible delusions only you, CIT, and 2,223 g bad math Balsamo the failed pilot believe due to ignorance in physics, math, and logic.

The best part about CIT they are too stupid to edit out the parts that their own witness prove beyond a shadow of doubt the NoC is a moronic delusion. Are CIT still on drugs? Have you suggested rehab? With delusions like those you post from CIT they need help. Is Balsamo still going to kill people who disagree with his paranoid conspiracy theories?

[Hokulele]

This is unreal.
YOU are the one who is brushing this image aside BEFORE checking its validity and accurateness for yourself.
YOU are the so-called ´teacher of AutoCAD´. You SHOULD be able to debunk it.


How can I check its validity when you are unable to post the raw data used to create it? For example, what digital terrain model (DTM) did they use for draping the aerial imagery? If they didn't use one (and it certainly doesn't look like they did), what projection did they use for it? If they didn't even bother to use a projection, at what elevation is it pasted?

Without the very basic background information regarding how this cartoon was created, there is nothing to debunk other than the fact that it was apparently created by people who are either too incompetent to release their raw data, or have no idea what assumptions they used in the first place.

Incompetence in, incompetence out.

Have you actually followed the links
I have posted as to Maya´s capabilities and its ´design vizualisation´?


Ah, so you have no idea what the difference is between "design" and "visualization". Here's a small lesson for free. A design visualization package is used to take someone else's design, often generated as 2D shop drawings, and "visualize" it for someone, generally a layperson, who cannot read plan sets. It has nothing to do with creating the designs in the first place, and is well known to be woefully inadequate for vetting proper designs. This is why there are tools such as Navisworks for doing QA/QC, not Maya.

The ´cartoonist´ is an aviation professional taught and advised by an expert who uses Maya to design components for GM and NASCAR.


Ah, so someone who has no clue how to do design, and I would bet any amount of money that this "expert" does not use Maya to design components, but to render components designed with tools such as Pro-E, SolidWorks, Rhino, or Inventor.

You know, design software.

I have genuinely asked the author for the data you ask for and he wants you to go and ask him yourself.


I would rather ask a Benihana chef to give me a Swedish massage using his/her tools of the trade than register for a site that is well-known for capturing and making public the personal information of those who visit it. If your "expert" is unable to release his raw data, I would not only question his incompetence, but his integrity.

´Incompetence´? Prove it.


The very inability to release the raw data for this person's Maya "artistic interpretations" indicates their incompetence.

[beachnut]

Links Al..LINKS!!

Flight 77 plane part documentation...chain of custody documentation...
FDR serial number...

Even Farmer doubted the authenticity of the 84 RADES and NTSB data.
The NTSB provided data is apparently missing 2/4/6/8 seconds...isn´t it?

NOBODY saw this alleged path. NOBODY.

You´re a clear case of FOC. Flight 77 was identified, it is a fact; are you incapable of finding the evidence proving the point?

Chain of custody is important and the DNA meets that, you can't prove otherwise; you have not even tried; you just say so which a lie; you are a liar about the DNA and more. You have no evidence, all you do is post lies from CIT.

Prove the FBI does not have the FDR serial number! You have failed to prove anything so far; why? Why did the NTSB will not put serial numbers in their support work for a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION? oops I told you;

Farmer doubted the RADAR and NTSB; Farmer took all the RADAR sites and studied them to prove your flight paths are pathetic made up lies from CIT and Balsamo the failed math pilot. You just repeat the lies of CIT and call me a parrot on speed. Cool, Farmer does work, you talk.

Balsamo sat on the missing 4 to 5 seconds in the raw data he had and the p4t experts failed to decode. Pathetic pointing out how Balsamo and CIT are incompetent to figure out the data they sat on.

Everyone saw the real flight path which it is backed up by RADAR, FDR, and damage! The kinetic energy impact at the Pentagon is proof of the flight too; but you can't do physics to understand it!~ too bad

FOC, is that your next poor attempt at a Balsamo insult?

Good touch pointing out Farmer is a skeptic and proving you are not; why are you at JREF spewing Balsamo and CIT lies? To expose your ignorance on 911 and math, or to apologize for terrorists?

When will you post the math you did for a flight path?

[BigAl]

Links Al..LINKS!!

Book: _Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11_
150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses




NOBODY saw this alleged path. NOBODY.

The dozen radars that covered flight 77s path did.

You forgot to mention the flight data and voice recorders. They tell the same thing.

[A W Smith]

This testimony contradicts Warren´s decode. His data describes a roll to the RIGHT of between 4º and 6º starting well before the plane reached her alleged POV and continuing until 0.7 seconds before the end of his proposed path (which misses the lightpoles, I might add)





Those decode push pins on the google earth image, How did you arrive at their placement? Did you actually visit Arlington and verify the plot points with a GPS? Hokulele brings up an interesting point when she refers to the differences between a grid topographic system and a spherical one. Apparently there are issues with longitude / latitude accuracy in Google earth.

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=188285&an=

[Hokulele]

Those decode push pins on the google earth image, How did you arrive at their placement? Did you actually visit Arlington and verify the plot points with a GPS?


Heh. Precision vs. accuracy confusion in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

[BCR]

In Erik's video interviews, Edward makes an interesting remark concerning the replacement of the 'bent' antenna on the VSP tower. At 07:20, Edwards states, "...the crane comes here..." and goes on to explain that they used the crane to replace the antenna.

v=q3aCPyagWT8

In both Ed and Shinki's accounts, the time frame was the next day, or next couple days after the event. Shinki claims to have seen the 'bent' antenna on the day of 9/11.

Fortunately, with the new Google Earth historical imagery, it is possible for us to verify or dismiss this part of the Paik brothers accounts.

http://zoesflight.com/files/vsp11072001.jpg

The first satellite image is from September 7, 2001 which can serve as a reference to the area for comparison with later images. The VSP tower location is marked using the NAD83 coordinates from the FCC ASR Registry (http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrApplication.jsp?applKey=3965030). A-One Auto is to the upper left of the image (off image).

http://zoesflight.com/files/vsp11122001.jpg

The next image is from September 12, 2001 of the same area. The time appears to be around mid-day (based on shadows). On the 12th, there seems to be very little activity around the tower and not much has changed since the 6th.

http://zoesflight.com/files/vsp11132001.jpg

On September 13, 2001, the situation has changed dramatically around the tower. Low and behold, there seems to be a very large piece of equipment (red arrow) parked to the south of the tower with a tall structure casting a long shadow associated with it.

Consistent with Ed and Shinki Paik's accounts, there is indeed a large crane parked at the VSP tower which they claim was used to replace the 'bent' antenna. I don't know why inquiries with the State of Virginia, VSP, or VDOT have turned up no records for the work being done, but there is definitely something going on just as eyewitnesses describe.

Footnote:

I said earlier that I was done with this 'thread', but a more accurate statement would be I am done with the 'mudlap thread'. If he comes up with something other than cartoons let me know and I'll take him off ignore.

Houkele and I discussed the difference between spherical and topographical coordinates a year or so ago at some length as I recall. It is well to point out as AW Smith has already done to keep the distinction in mind. As mentioned in the documentation of my resultant model, there are NO datum corrections in any of the positional data calculated by me (I actually do provide the equations used). At the desired accuracy of my effort (+/- 0.25 seconds) datum errors are going to be well inside the error band (a plane can cover a lot of distance in 1/4 second at 400 knots!). Of course I don't expect CIT/P4T to grasp the concept of an error range associated with a model, so why even try to explain it to them. What I did want to point out though is that the FCC coordinates (NAD83 datum) are entered into GE for the VSP tower, they DO NOT align with the satellite imagery of the tower exactly (slightly east). That hopefully will illustrate that issue a little more clearly.

[cornsail]

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

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

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

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

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

Then there's the math.

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

Then there's the general plausibility argument.

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

What ´witnessed flightpaths´?

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

[carlitos]

Exactly what more do you actually expect to see that isn´t contained within those videos I linked you to??
Tell me exactly what you think is editted or censored?I don't know, which is why I'd like to see it. The filmmakers are biased in one direction, so anything that points in the other direction is no doubt on the virtual cutting room floor.

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

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

[mudlark]

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

The topography is made using USGS GIS and DEM maps.

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

Here´s an example

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/DC_Topography.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

[carlitos]

You understand the difference between design and visualization, yes?

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

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

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

....
If you really teach this stuff, you can prove it wrong or accurate pretty quickly, no? Use any program you want. The data has been posted for you ad nausaem. Either that, or you really dont have a clue how to use the program.

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

[mudlark]

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

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

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

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

Another ´sock´ accusation? Yaaaaaaaaaaawwwnn...

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

[carlitos]

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

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

[mudlark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BigAl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[carlitos]

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

[Hokulele]

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


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

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

Incompetence in, incompetence out.

[carlitos]

delete

[mudlark]

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

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

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


- are being quoted out of context

Take special note here Carlitos..


- are lying

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

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

´Documentary evidence´? Again another linkless post.

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

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

[mudlark]

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

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

Incompetence in, incompetence out.

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

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

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



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

[BCR]

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

YVDdjLQkUV8

It was created by Mike Wilson (http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/) using Solidworks, an actual design software package, unlike Maya. It took him in the neighborhood of 300 hours just to do this small segment. Unlike P4T, he does not just post a 'cartoon' and ask us to take his word for it. He posts all of his Solidworks files so that others can examine every measurement and value used for the animation, and if necessary to tweek it for their own use. Also unlike P4T, he is a certified user of the software.

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

[carlitos]

Take special note here Carlitos..

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


The DVD ´salesman´ label is BS. You know it. Their video presentations are free. You know this too.
Clearly, CIT hope that their DVDs will be purchased by "Truth" clubs and passed out in "street actions," which is why they offer them for sale in bulk.

OPTION 3: Purchase DVD Copies of National Security Alert

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

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

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

[beachnut]

...
I´ll just ask you one more time on this..can you link me to the documented parts of Flight 77?
...
The DVD ´salesman´ label is BS. You know it. Their video presentations are free. You know this too.
... You ignore all the evidence. The DNA is proof 77 impacted the Pentagon. The FBI collected evidence and the evidence was used at trial. Gee whiz, it makes it a slam dunk, you have failed again. Don't you pay attention, this simple photo from evidence is proof of 77. BTW, the NTSB does no do crime so you stop repeating the dirt dumb delusions of that failed dolt the p4t cult uses to cherry pick this old failed lie.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77engine.jpg
Trial evidence, and you can't refute it without evidence. lol, you failed. Good job presenting a hearsay lie. Why are you spreading lies from liars at p4t and CIT?


Te DVD salesman is BS? as you support the delusions of CIT and can't figure out CIT is selling DVDs (http://shop.thepentacon.com/main.sc;jsessionid=B2BAF176E7597F652DEFB28D171481A 0.qscstrfrnt04). Good one. Comedy in the morning, good for you.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1CITDVDsOfDeluiosnsDumbones.jpg
I should start selling this stuff, a good DVD cost 20 cents, bulk your profit on the DVD goes up; Capitalism is the drive, lies on DVD from the Creepy Investigation Team; go Madelyn. By supporting the lies of CIT, you become a salesman of woo too.

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

[Hokulele]

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

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



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


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

And it isn't GIGO, it is IIIO.

[ElMondoHummus]

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

You realize that BCR is John Farmer, do you not? And that he has indeed explained what he meant by "manipulated" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4258034#post4258034)? And that this has been discussed before, which means you're bringing up an old point that's not only been discussed already, but has been shown to not be significant, seeing as how the Dulles radar also tells us what we need to know?

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

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



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

Wow. Ignorance and arrogance. What a winning combination!

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

And it isn't GIGO, it is IIIO.

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

Ps. "Incompetence" is too nice a word for IIIO. I've got a better "I" word to use. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorance)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Mudlark is a troll!

rZ6j0_97zgs

[cornsail]

Tell me exactly what you think is editted or censored?

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

[jaydeehess]

Biased? You´re the one claiming that the witnesses´ dishonesty is a real possibility.
Stop clutching at straws. Their complete testimony is on record, warts and all. ...............Hahaha. Pot calling the kettle black there.

No one here has said they believe that any witness is lying except you and the CiT!

Specifically, but not limited to, the CiT claims England is lieing about his entire story and they claim Boger is lieing about watching the plane enter the Pentagon.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Te DVD salesman is BS? as you support the delusions of CIT and can't figure out CIT is selling DVDs (http://shop.thepentacon.com/main.sc;jsessionid=B2BAF176E7597F652DEFB28D171481A 0.qscstrfrnt04). Good one. Comedy in the morning, good for you.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1CITDVDsOfDeluiosnsDumbones.jpg
I should start selling this stuff, a good DVD cost 20 cents, bulk your profit on the DVD goes up; Capitalism is the drive, lies on DVD from the Creepy Investigation Team; go Madelyn. By supporting the lies of CIT, you become a salesman of woo too.

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

Watch out Bill Gates, the CIT juggernaut has proven to be unstoppable.

Title The Pentacon - Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed
Description 9/11 Pentagon Conspiracy Revealed
Daily Pageview 175
Daily Ads Revenue $2.53

http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.thepentacon.com
Every two days they can afford to buy a new pack of cigarettes.

Edit:

Even Kevin Federline's defunct website brings in more revenue.

Title Kevin Federline | Official Site
Description
Daily Pageview 461
Daily Ads Revenue $3.38

http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.kevinfederline.com

[carlitos]

I have to get a website. Free cigarettes yay!

Also:
Originally Posted by mudlark
That´s twice now you´ve accused me of ´dodging´. Mind backing that claim up?
I asked what the 'flightpath' Paik drew is supposed to be, since it obviously isn't something he witnessed. He also couldn't have seen anything "above his roof", he only could have inferred it.

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

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

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

Then there's the math.

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

Then there's the general plausibility argument.

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

[jaydeehess]

Cigarettes are apparently much cheaper in the USA than in Canada. When I quit smoking 20 years ago they cost $3.00 a pack IIRC. (Though we get 25 cancer sticks per pack)

[carlitos]

The liquor store in my neighborhood used to sell individual cigs for a quarter. I don't really smoke, but when I do, it's a delicious menthol. A minty treat in every smoke.

I like the british packets of 10. Sleek and stylish.

[Jackanory]

I like the british packets of 10. Sleek and stylish.

10's are a false economy but just as deadly. We could buy loosies for 5p each at the newsagents outside school in the early 80's. Those were the days. :cool:

[Mr.Herbert]

Watch out Bill Gates, the CIT juggernaut has proven to be unstoppable.

Title The Pentacon - Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed
Description 9/11 Pentagon Conspiracy Revealed
Daily Pageview 175
Daily Ads Revenue $2.53

http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.thepentacon.com
Every two days they can afford to buy a new pack of cigarettes.



$2.53 daily? I hear CIT bloated partner "Marquis McGriddle" uses this coin daily to endulge in his favorite early morning snack.

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/pic.jpg


You gotta love the mirror pic in the bathroom.

[Mr.Herbert]

I accepted its validity because of the ready available credentials of the authors.

Because we all know that Balsamo attracts nothing but the best when it comes to his "core members" such as Captain Dan Hanley. This douche started spewing crap about the airlines he was rewarded with this:

....I was rewarded by expulsion from the property on trumped up charges, thereby destroying my 35-year aviation career that I worked so hard to achieve, as do all commercial airline pilots.

Nice add to your core group Bob. Perhaps he can go back to unloading 1/4 pound beef patties off food trucks!

[BCR]

I was informed by someone that their GE dates the images from my earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5622968&postcount=640) as 9/11/2001 and 9/12/2001 (my version dates them 9/12 and 9/13 respectively).

So the date for the crane at the VDOT tower could be either 9/12 or 9/13, depending on which version of GE you have loaded up I guess.

[Hokulele]

I was informed by someone that their GE dates the images from my earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5622968&postcount=640) as 9/11/2001 and 9/12/2001 (my version dates them 9/12 and 9/13 respectively).

So the date for the crane at the VDOT tower could be either 9/12 or 9/13, depending on which version of GE you have loaded up I guess.


Just curious, are you using the free or the Pro version of GE?

[cornsail]

Specifically, but not limited to, the CiT claims England is lieing about his entire story and they claim Boger is lieing about watching the plane enter the Pentagon.

And Keith Wheelhouse. And all the impact witnesses.

[BCR]

Just curious, are you using the free or the Pro version of GE?

Free of course :)

[celestrin]

I was informed by someone that their GE dates the images from my earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5622968&postcount=640) as 9/11/2001 and 9/12/2001 (my version dates them 9/12 and 9/13 respectively).

So the date for the crane at the VDOT tower could be either 9/12 or 9/13, depending on which version of GE you have loaded up I guess.

GE's history slide tool is time zone dependent. The dates correspond with the computer clock by default. Someone in Hawaii would probably get the dates one day early. At least that's what I'm getting when I change the time zone for the tool to HAST...

[beachnut]

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/pic.jpg...
He is trying to sell fiction and lies about 911 on DVD.

Rock bottom prices?
You can have your DVDs made for you at 79 cents. So 500 DVDs at 2 bucks pulls in 1,000 dollars, for 605 dollars profit. Who is dumb enough to buy 500 dirt dumb DVDs? Fictional characters?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1clerksCITGoal.jpg
At least these guys were selling fiction and Kevin was able to buy back his comic books.

poor mudlark needs to stop posting; CIT does not want to support their delusions, they want to sell them on DVD at rock bottom prices and make 605 dollars on the 500 pack of stupid.

[mudlark]

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

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

Paik had originally drew his own map:

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

Are you honestly telling me that both independently verified sets of data, from both camps I might add, do NOT correlate?
You are being pedantic now in the suggestion that because he could not see the left wing and full body of the plane that he couldn´t have seen anything "above his roof".

What did he see? A right wing flying solo?? C´mon..

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

When did I "dodge" this? (or the former?)
What specifically did they witness? Did any of those witnesses happen to identify plane parts that of a Boeing 757-200, N644AA?
Please don´t tell me that they differentiated between victims within the Pentagon and airline passenger bodies.

If you have more detailed accounts, please tell me.


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

NOT another dodge from me.
I even had a personal discussion with you on this very subject.
I have never "disregarded" any "ïmpact witness".

The NOC witnesses, Navy Annex and right bank witnesses HAVEN´T been treated as you describe? As with those within metres of the lawn who contradict altitude?

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

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


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

When was this point raised?

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=911

There is a rundown on the above site of the possible views from the I-395.

Then there's the math.

Okay, now I KNOW you haven´t been following this thread.
I have linked to P4T´s NOC math numerous times.

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

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=122

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509

My response to the NOC math paper presented by Reheat

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5490588&postcount=657

An interesting and revealing response after so many posts busting my stones on the math

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5489387&postcount=647

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

P4T did the math on the AVAILABLE data, including many possible and more importantly witness compatible paths and ´right bank´ manouevres described. EVEN at the official speed of 540+mph.


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

On the one hand I "disregard" witnesses yet you call into question witness testimony as a whole?
And yes, I agree on that point BUT we are not talking of "details" in the way you are suggesting.
We have a group of verified witnesses who corraborate.
I have yet to see ONE witness contradict the NOC witnesses.
We have a group of " over the Navy Annex" witnesses. Right bank witnesses, etc..
It is intellectually dishonest to ignore ALL these witnesses.

Then there's the general plausibility argument.

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

Incredulity doesn´t come into it Cornsnail.
If the plane flew NOC it is physically impossible for an impact to occur.

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



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

Not being antagonistic, but I don´t see your point.
They were independently drawn by the witnesses themselves.
They ALL place the plane NOC. End of story.

[mudlark]

Those decode push pins on the google earth image, How did you arrive at their placement? Did you actually visit Arlington and verify the plot points with a GPS? Hokulele brings up an interesting point when she refers to the differences between a grid topographic system and a spherical one. Apparently there are issues with longitude / latitude accuracy in Google earth.

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=188285&an=

The "shadow¨ image I posted is based on Warren´s altitude data at this point and the trajectory is based on the NTSB heading/course data and physical damage.

The decode pushpins were plotted by Warren himself, but as you can see, his path misses the lightpoles. (I´m happy with that if you are :))

In fact, this data shows a continual right bank until the alleged 4ft radalt reading.

http://es.tinypic.com/r/fp4lv/6

The south path in the P4T analysis is not based on Lat/long.

It is based on NTSB heading/course data and the physical damage.

If you support the impact theory, you CANNOT budge from that line otherwise the aircraft will not line up with the physical damage.

Claim 2a (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163)

The above point is also explained in "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon¨ south path.. .or else it will NOT support an "impact" theory nor cause the physical damage observed at the Pentagon.

Secondly..

A slide show shows P4T´s scale of the construction of Arlington at the end of 9/11: Attack On The Pentagon. No one has disputed it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7134448689829125037#

The following are screenshots from the Maya program:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/scale_pics/757Height.JPG

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/scale_pics/757Length.JPG

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/scale_pics/Compass.JPG

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/scale_pics/FrontView.JPG

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/scale_pics/VDOTAnt_Pent.JPG

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

Edited, breaches of Rule 4. Do not hotlink to copyrighted material.

[mudlark]

In Erik's video interviews, Edward makes an interesting remark concerning the replacement of the 'bent' antenna on the VSP tower. At 07:20, Edwards states, "...the crane comes here..." and goes on to explain that they used the crane to replace the antenna.

v=q3aCPyagWT8

In both Ed and Shinki's accounts, the time frame was the next day, or next couple days after the event. Shinki claims to have seen the 'bent' antenna on the day of 9/11.

Fortunately, with the new Google Earth historical imagery, it is possible for us to verify or dismiss this part of the Paik brothers accounts.

http://zoesflight.com/files/vsp11072001.jpg

The first satellite image is from September 7, 2001 which can serve as a reference to the area for comparison with later images. The VSP tower location is marked using the NAD83 coordinates from the FCC ASR Registry (http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrApplication.jsp?applKey=3965030). A-One Auto is to the upper left of the image (off image).

http://zoesflight.com/files/vsp11122001.jpg

The next image is from September 12, 2001 of the same area. The time appears to be around mid-day (based on shadows). On the 12th, there seems to be very little activity around the tower and not much has changed since the 6th.

http://zoesflight.com/files/vsp11132001.jpg

On September 13, 2001, the situation has changed dramatically around the tower. Low and behold, there seems to be a very large piece of equipment (red arrow) parked to the south of the tower with a tall structure casting a long shadow associated with it.

Consistent with Ed and Shinki Paik's accounts, there is indeed a large crane parked at the VSP tower which they claim was used to replace the 'bent' antenna. I don't know why inquiries with the State of Virginia, VSP, or VDOT have turned up no records for the work being done, but there is definitely something going on just as eyewitnesses describe.

Footnote:

I said earlier that I was done with this 'thread', but a more accurate statement would be I am done with the 'mudlap thread'. If he comes up with something other than cartoons let me know and I'll take him off ignore.

Houkele and I discussed the difference between spherical and topographical coordinates a year or so ago at some length as I recall. It is well to point out as AW Smith has already done to keep the distinction in mind. As mentioned in the documentation of my resultant model, there are NO datum corrections in any of the positional data calculated by me (I actually do provide the equations used). At the desired accuracy of my effort (+/- 0.25 seconds) datum errors are going to be well inside the error band (a plane can cover a lot of distance in 1/4 second at 400 knots!). Of course I don't expect CIT/P4T to grasp the concept of an error range associated with a model, so why even try to explain it to them. What I did want to point out though is that the FCC coordinates (NAD83 datum) are entered into GE for the VSP tower, they DO NOT align with the satellite imagery of the tower exactly (slightly east). That hopefully will illustrate that issue a little more clearly.


Are you suggesting a conspiracy BCR? That there is an official cover-up?

Let´s see the VDOT saga played out..

Erik Larson (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=112&view=findpost&p=1513800):

"I've seen Farmer again confirm with the VDOT - after trying not to - that there was no damage. And I re-located and read Pickering's assessment that the FBI was putting up the extra antenna for communications."


The following is a person, who like most here HATES CIT and was hell bent on proving an SOC path:

Russell Pickering: (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12857&st=0&#entry7175834)

"I went to the VDOT to confirm it hadn't been hit. It had not. Then in Edward's interview I asked him if he actually saw it hit the tower and he said no. Then I asked him if it hit the solid metal part of the tower and he said no. What he said was that it hit a smaller antenna of 2-3 meters in length on the top. He ended up telling us the reason he thought it had been hit was because he saw somebody up on the tower working the next day.

What had happened then is he incorporated a conclusion from something he saw later into his memory of the original account. The real story is that when the FBI took over the VDOT as a command post they added antennas to the tower for communication.

If we hadn't taken the time to follow this through and get to the bottom of it we might have another Pentagon myth on our hands."



John Farmer: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4323669&postcount=1)

Lynn Spencer (author, "Touching History") joined me in a FOIA with the State of Virginia for any records of the activity on the tower in the 9/11/2001 time frame. The following is their 12/9/2001 response.


After thorough research by both VDOT and VSP personnel who were present that day, there was no damage to the antenna installation at Columbia Pike, September 11, 12, 2001. In addition, a request for information was directed to the VSP Radio Division, the owner of the antenna in question. They provided further confirmation that there was no damage to the antenna. There is no information that documents any activity on this structure/antenna.

Please let us know if we can help you in any other way.

Kim A. Kile-Davidson
Policy & Planning Specialist
Northern Virginia District


Just to reiterate, VDOT and VSP found no information that documents any activity or damage on this structure/antenna.

Kim A. Kile-Davidson
Policy & Planning Specialist
Northern Virginia District

The VDOT fully admits that the FBI took over their building so the fact that there is no record of some extra communications being added to the tower is no big surprise.
But there would be ZERO reason for them to cover up the fact that the plane hit the tower if this was actually the case.
Why would they??

ZERO witnesses report seeing the plane hit the tower (including Shinki) so there is ZERO independent evidence for this.

You tell me if there appears to be the damage you quoted:

VDOT tower Sepember 11 2001 (http://i50.tinypic.com/igf0aw.jpg)

[dtugg]

Seriously muddy, what cut of the CITiot/Pfffft sales do you get for shilling their insane nonsense? I realize that it can't be very much, but it if you don't have a job, which you surely do not, it must be better than nothing.

[carlitos]

Are you guys still SURE that Maya is only good for "cartoons" No, Maya is also useful for speaking with the indigenous people of the Yucatan.

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

[Mr.Herbert]

Show the animation of the plane flying around the explosion... .then tell us all how so many people missed it.

[mudlark]

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

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

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

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



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

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

[Mr.Herbert]

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

thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

[BigAl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[UNLoVedRebel]

He is trying to sell fiction and lies about 911 on DVD.
To be honest, I like Craig Ranke's videos. Where else can you find such an uncanny John Lennon impersonator?

[bje]

Take special note here Carlitos..

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

Take particularly special note here, mudlark.

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

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

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

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

[16.5]

P4T did the math on the AVAILABLE data, including many possible and more importantly witness compatible paths and ´right bank´ manouevres described. EVEN at the official speed of 540+mph.



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

[beachnut]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1CITDebunkedAgain.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly where IS the SOC path??
There seem to be as many SOC variations according to you as NOC. Is CIT paying you to act as dumb as their conclusion of a flyover never seen on 911? The flight path is defined by the damage to the lamppposts and the final headings and tracks in the FDR.

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

Why are these CIT witnesses pointing to the south flightpath?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pointingSouthOops.gif
The same flight path Madelyn points to. That is south for all the CIT math challenged drones. South! Pointing south. Why?

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

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

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

[Hokulele]

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


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

Incompetence in, incompetence out.

[ElMondoHummus]

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

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

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

To do this, They executed the following:

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

The aircraft in question was deliberately painted so as to not even resemble an American Airlines jetliner.
I am reasonably certain that the above is the stupidest hypothesis ever conceived for any purpose, including parody, intentional humor, or even stress tests of human perception in psychological experiments.

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

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

Just remember that, new folks. Just remember that.

[Hokulele]

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

Just remember that, new folks. Just remember that.


You can also link people to this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2741468&postcount=1

and this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5422000&postcount=108

Heh.

[BCR]

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

[ElMondoHummus]

You can also link people to this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2741468&postcount=1


Damn tootin'. Witnesses themselves negate the CIT hogwash.


... and this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5422000&postcount=108

Heh.

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

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

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

______________

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

[cornsail]

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

Paik had originally drew his own map:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read their accounts for yourself.

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

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

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

Of course, to an extent.


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

Yes, I remember that. But I disagree.

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

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

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

And this means...?

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

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

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

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

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

Keith Wheelhouse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That doesn't answer my question...

[mudlark]

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

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

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

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

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

"All" point to a south flight path? Hahaha

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

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

Peace.

[mudlark]

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

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

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

[mudlark]

Take particularly special note here, mudlark.

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

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

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

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

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

[BigAl]

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

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

[16.5]

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

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

Arguments from incredulity ROCK!

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

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

[beachnut]

You´ll have to link me to names, times, dates, what they actually found..
you know...specifics.
Did any of those "1000" directly say that they found wreckage from Boeing 757-200, N644AA?
What exactly did the wreckage consist of?
Sorry, it was done, the DNA proves you post lies made up by CIT.

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

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

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77engine.jpg
Evidence you can't refute; you never will. An engine from 77, the only 757 tracked to the Pentagon by multiple RADAR sites. Only a moron can't identify which plane crashed on 911 into the Pentagon.

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

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

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

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

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

[twinstead]

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

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

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

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

[BCR]

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

And yet we have no right to ask for the files used to create the P4T cartoon. No right to ask for the math for their proposed tooth fairy flight path. I can't believe you guys are still wasting time on this guy. When all he had to offer was cartoons, that was enough for me. But I guess when the tooth fairy is involved a cartoon is all you get.

[stewieg]

Because we all know that Balsamo attracts nothing but the best when it comes to his "core members" such as Captain Dan Hanley. This douche started spewing crap about the airlines he was rewarded with this:



Nice add to your core group Bob. Perhaps he can go back to unloading 1/4 pound beef patties off food trucks!

Never heard of him, what's his story?

[Mr.Herbert]

Never heard of him, what's his story?

He appears to be a whistle blower....

http://www.airline-whistleblowers.org/Correspondence.html

..and a dolt from PFFT....

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html

where he states this:

"Thanks for the honor of joining the elite ranks of Pilots for 9/11 Truth!"

[bje]

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

So, Mudlark, you don't know? Why is that?

You and CIT have had the information of where to find these people for years. I have repeatedly given it to CIT as part of their "investigation." But CIT refuses to get their statements. If you doubt that the wreckage was that of AA77, a Boeing 757, it is your obligation to demonstrate what those people recovered from inside the Pentagon.

None of has any reason to doubt that AA77 hit the Pentagon. ALL of the evidence converges on that fact. CIT claims that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon but flew over and away from it. So do you. The burden of proof to refute ALL of evidence that it did hit rests entirely on your shoulders and that of CIT.

CIT will not provide the statements of any of those who had direct contact with the wreckage despite knowing where to get it. Now it's your turn to either provide us those statements or run away like CIT did.

Thankfully, Mark Roberts made the job very easy for CIT and you Here is the link:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary


Emergency Response, Rescue Operations, Firefighting, Secondary Explosions


Conspiracists are afraid to have their fantasies destroyed, so they scrupulously avoid contacting the hundreds of Pentagon 9/11 first responders and the over 8,000 people who worked on rescue, recovery, evidence collection, building stabilization, and security in the days after 9/11. These are just some of the organizations whose members worked on the scene:
Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue, American Airlines, American Red Cross, Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington County Sheriff's Department, Arlington VA Police Department, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, DiLorenzo TRICARE Health Clinic staff, DeWitt Army Community Hospital staff, District of Columbia Fire & Rescue, DOD Honor Guard, Environmental Protection Agency Hazmat Teams, Fairfax County Fire & Rescue, FBI Evidence Recovery Teams, FBI Hazmat Teams, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams Maryland Task Force 1, New Mexico Task Force 1, Tennessee Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 1, Virginia Task Force 2, FEMA Emergency Response Team, Fort Myer Fire Department, Four U.S. Army Chaplains, Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit, Military District of Washington Engineers Search & Rescue Team, Montgomery County Fire & Rescue, U.S. National Guard units, National Naval Medical Center CCRF, National Transportation Safety Board, Pentagon Defense Protective Service, Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team, Pentagon Medical Staff, Rader Army Health Clinic Staff, SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams, Salvation Army Disaster Services, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County, Virginia Beach Fire Department, Virginia Department of Emergency Management, Virginia State PoliceYou would have to ask yourself why CIT would not want to interview any of these key eyewitnesses, wouldn't you? But they refuse to this day. Neither can CIT provide any plausible reason why over 1,000 people (much less 8,000 people) would not contest that the wreckage was from AA77 if it wasn't after eight full years.

Since CIT refuses to provide any statements from these people of what wreckage they saw, recovered, and sorted, none of us has any reason to doubt the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon or that anyone saw anything different. Now it is your turn, mudlark.

What wreckage did those people see, walk through, recover, and sort through on the Pentagon lawn?

[mudlark]

You can also link people to this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2741468&postcount=1

and this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5422000&postcount=108

Heh.

Those topics deserve a separate thread. The first link is ridiculous. Mickey Bell is even mentioned there. Go do some actual research on the media quotes and second hand testimony mentioned in that post and the unfounded, juvenile conclusions reached by its author.

As I said, in another thread.

Still waiting on your debunk of that image btw.

[mudlark]

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

Incompetence in, incompetence out.

Listen, Hokulele. Forget about it.
You dismissed the image before checking the readily available data and links to produce your OWN replication of the results and physically prove its accurateness.
That you and others simply throw insults not only at the authors of the image but at the verifiable capabilities of the program that created it without even TRYING speaks volumes.

I thought YOU at least were above playground tactics of debate.

Until you guys produce your own image, using the verifiable data, my assertion still stands.
An SOC flightpath could NOT physically cast a shadow on the Paik brothers shop.

[mudlark]

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

Just remember that, new folks. Just remember that.

Nice one Hummus.
Reduced to incredulity and the "nothing to see here move along" appeal.
CIT has not presented a ´theory´. It has produced evidence that nobody here has been able to debunk other than by repeated lies and dated disinfo on witnesses.

The video interview, which this thread is about, shows that even when a totally biased anti-CIT propagandist went to cast doubt on Ed Paik´s NOC testimony, he failed. Miserably.

I see that even the original OP author is now distancing himself from the heat.

Address the previous posts.

Did the plane hit the VDOT tower as BCR infers?

[mudlark]

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

Hahaha...wow.
Are you distancing yourself from the OP in this thread BCR?
Eric Larson made the video and did the interview.
YOU are the one that has been promoting it.
He obviously provided YOU with the screenshots before it was released.
It has blown up in both your faces and you know it.

Now you introduce the VDOT tower "strike" myth to save some face.
I noticed how quiet it has gone here in actually backing your claims.

And I personally don´t care who Eric Larson claims to represent.
And even less when they are part of a discredited disinfo campaign where so-called detractors such as yourself have taken him under your wing.

[Hokulele]

Listen, Hokulele. Forget about it.
You dismissed the image before checking the readily available data and links to produce your OWN replication of the results and physically prove its accurateness.
That you and others simply throw insults not only at the authors of the image but at the verifiable capabilities of the program that created it without even TRYING speaks volumes.

I thought YOU at least were above playground tactics of debate.

Until you guys produce your own image, using the verifiable data, my assertion still stands.
An SOC flightpath could NOT physically cast a shadow on the Paik brothers shop.


Your claim, your burden of proof.

[mudlark]

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

This coming from the "cheerleader" in the room.

As I have said to BCR, if the "truther" you are referring to is the same one that spends every minute of his spare time pushing the Pentagon Official Narrative...you have a contradiction in terms right there. Game on.
Anybody who pushes disinfo in the full knowledge that it is..repeatedly..commands no respect of mine.

[mudlark]

And yet we have no right to ask for the files used to create the P4T cartoon. No right to ask for the math for their proposed tooth fairy flight path. I can't believe you guys are still wasting time on this guy. When all he had to offer was cartoons, that was enough for me. But I guess when the tooth fairy is involved a cartoon is all you get.

Pathetic.
You, like Hokulele, discarded it before even trying to debunk it.
You have the data. Hokulele claims to have the expertise.
Put those heads together and come up with SOMETHING..anything.
Though judging on your previous efforts, I think Hokulele is on her own. :)

Still nobody putting their 2 cents worth in on the VDOT impact huh? LOL.

[mudlark]

Since CIT refuses to provide any statements from these people of what wreckage they saw, recovered, and sorted, none of us has any reason to doubt the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon or that anyone saw anything different. Now it is your turn, mudlark.

What wreckage did those people see, walk through, recover, and sort through on the Pentagon lawn?

All 1000 saw plane parts? Specifically parts of Boeing 757-200, N644AA?
Were all of them qualified to identify plane parts? Which specific plane parts were recovered and handled by 1000 people? I didn´t know there was so MUCH debris.

I don´t mean to be antagonistic, but you DO see my point when making broad generalisations without backing them up with specifics, links to interviews, verification of what they said, first hand recorded testimony, documented photographs of debris, recovery and chain of custody of parts from said Boeing 757 N644AA, etc, etc..

Gravy posted a lot of NAMES, that´s it.


The people posting here may "have no reason" to doubt an "impact" or are afraid to fall out of line on ANY point debunked by me, but I do.
Hopefully the people reading this can see through the lies and check out each and every link that I have given.

[mudlark]

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Actually, it is the author of this thread´s claim that Paik had mistaken and saw a shadow on the ground at his shop, when he describes seeing a right wing in the air... twice... and independently.

P4T has proven it is impossible for Paik to see a shadow anywhere near his shop based on data and simple vector analysis through Maya, a program you claim cannot do math and which BCR claims is "hard to set up the lighting".

YOU need to prove the claim Paik really saw a shadow. So far, you havent proven anything and P4T has proven you wrong with an industry leading program used for advanced simulation.

By the way, what data did Mike Wilson use for his Solidworks presentation? NTSB data? USGS? Naval Observatory?

Here's a hint.. Mike Wilson didn't use any data whatsoever. His animation is truly a cartoon.

[mudlark]

Cornsnail, I´ll have to answer your post later.

[Hokulele]

P4T has proven it is impossible for Paik to see a shadow anywhere near his shop based on data and simple vector analysis through Maya, a program you claim cannot do math and which BCR claims is "hard to set up the lighting".


No, you are claiming that they have proven this. Provide some evidence that this claim is true. While you are at it, please provide evidence that I have said "Maya cannot do math".

[A W Smith]

Mudlark
I proved pages ago (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5562794&postcount=242) that in fact a shadow CAN cross Paiks shop from the decode data points. Using basic math and the same azimuth altitude data you yourself sourced a copy of at PFT. There is no refuting it. The math does not lie.





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

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

[ElMondoHummus]

Nice one Hummus.


Oh, you liked that, didn't ya? Yeah, there's more. CIT lunacy is not my strong point, but then again it doesn't appear to be yours either. And you're an advocate... tsk tsk.


Reduced to incredulity and the "nothing to see here move along" appeal.


You didn't read Ryan's post, I take it. That wasn't incredulity, that was the logical consequence of the CIT narrative. Try to diminish it all you want, but it's built on what CIT says. That, you cannot deny.


CIT has not presented a ´theory´. It has produced evidence that nobody here has been able to debunk other than by repeated lies and dated disinfo on witnesses.


Funny how witnesses don't believe that FL77 went anywhere but into the Pentagon. Funny how none of them saw the jet fly over and fly away. Funny how all the electronic and physical data place FL77 at the Pentagon. Funny how the DNA and first responder testimony also places it there.

Lies... LOL. Keep tryin'. You are the one peddling lies. "Dated disinfo"... Laughable.

Let me tell you something: There's only one witness pool, and we use the same one that you do. The difference is that we don't subtract ones who's testimony is "inconvenient", nor do we try to twist their testimonies into things they are not. In other words: We're not the ones being dishonest about what they say. Nor are we the ones looney enough to try to pretend that their statements overturns physical and electronic evidence. And BTW, while we're here: There's nothing "dated" about pointing out that the CVR and FDR clearly put the jet in the Pentagon, as does the radar data (it goes beyond the RADES recordings, BTW... something you choose not to confront, since it's inconvenient).

CIT does not have "evidence". You have misinterpretations of witness statements, and cherry-picked ones at that. Don't try to talk to me about evidence; you're the one who tried to present an animation as evidence without supporting proof that the elements in the animation were accurately represented. So don't presume to insult the term "evidence". You clearly do not understand what the term entails.


The video interview, which this thread is about, shows that even when a totally biased anti-CIT propagandist went to cast doubt on Ed Paik´s NOC testimony, he failed. Miserably.

I see that even the original OP author is now distancing himself from the heat.

Address the previous posts.


Did the plane hit the VDOT tower as BCR infers?
Doesn't matter what you say about Ed Paik. None of that overturns or refutes any of the electronic or physical evidence.
I don't care about your minute points regarding the flightpath. No one imported tons of debris plus all the dead bodies. You can obsess over interpretations of minutiae till the cows come home, but none of it overcomes the bodies, the wreckage, the FDR/CVR and radar data, the airphone calls, or the first responders observations.
Your "evidence" is nothing more than attempts to shade and spin minute points. It's drops in an ocean of evidence illustrating what really happened. And what really happened is the narrative you seek to deny: That FL77 hit the Pentagon. Go ahead and parse witness statements to death, go ahead and post unreferenced animations with no datasets to verify accuracy. The evidence - not the incessant spins on witness statements, but the actual evidence - will always stand as proving FL77's fate.

Let me know when you're ready to confront the wreckage, first responders' observations, airphone calls, FDR and CVR data, etc. Let me know when you're ready to confront the logical results of CIT blathering that Ryan Mackey posted (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3966936#post3966936). If you somehow manage to experience a flash of reality, you might finally realize that you're peddling bunk, but I simply can't hold my breath. It's been years now, and your group's tune hasn't changed a bit. And neither do the answers, so don't be shocked to see many references to 2 and 3 year old posts. That's all you rate: Same old answers to the same old myths.

[ElMondoHummus]

A W Smith here is directly addressing one of your points. Feel like responding? Or will you do the same tap-dance that you've been doing with Hokulele and BCR?

Mudlark
I proved pages ago (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5562794&postcount=242) that in fact a shadow CAN cross Paiks shop from the decode data points. Using basic math and the same azimuth altitude data you yourself sourced a copy of at PFT. There is no refuting it. The math does not lie.





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

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

[bje]

All 1000 saw plane parts? Specifically parts of Boeing 757-200, N644AA?
Were all of them qualified to identify plane parts? Which specific plane parts were recovered and handled by 1000 people? I didn´t know there was so MUCH debris.

Why do you think I am asking YOU to tell US what wreckage from inside the Pentagon was seen, walked through, picked up, recovered, and sorted through? You're the one that doesn't believe AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, correct? So why are you and CIT refusing to get the statements from the people who handled the wreckage?

I don´t mean to be antagonistic, but you DO see my point when making broad generalisations without backing them up with specifics, links to interviews, verification of what they said, first hand recorded testimony, documented photographs of debris, recovery and chain of custody of parts from said Boeing 757 N644AA, etc, etc..Which makes it even stranger that you haven't interviewed or gotten any statements from any of those people who had direct contact with the wreckage, don't you think? Why would you not want to find out what the wreckage is if you don't think it's from AA77?

Gravy posted a lot of NAMES, that´s it.That's correct and you should be grateful that he made your job so much easier. We're all confident that you can look up phone numbers and addresses all by yourself, no? You've had eight years to do it, mudlark.

The people posting here may "have no reason" to doubt an "impact" or are afraid to fall out of line on ANY point debunked by me, but I do.The burden of proof is to support your claims; it is not our responsibility. You know that. So far, CIT has been completely unable to tell us what wreckage was recovered from the Pentagon; why no one out of hundreds of people all around the Pentagon could not see or hear a low-flying, screamingly-fast and loud jet flying over and away from the Pentagon if it had occurred; and how it is possible for any of all those witnesses to the be part of a cover-up and never breath a word. CIT has not been able to address these necessary implications stemming from it's "theory" since day one.

Hopefully the people reading this can see through the lies and check out each and every link that I have given.You forgot that you have still not answered my question nor provided any rational reason why you won't. You have to address these questions.

So, mudlark, why have you and CIT failed to do even the most basic investigative work? What wreckage did all those people walk through, pick up, remove from the inside of the Pentagon and sort openly, in public, on the Pentagon lawn after 9/11?

[BCR]

A W Smith here is directly addressing one of your points. Feel like responding? Or will you do the same tap-dance that you've been doing with Hokulele and BCR?

I prepped a nice triangle and made a nice table of values complete with equations, but then decided it was just a waste of time. You understand of course you will now have more cartoons to contend with.

[Mr.Herbert]

A W Smith also brought up the ink spot on the picture Paik originally signed. What is interesting is that he actually started to draw a line closer to Columbia Pike. This may not be the exact "official" path, but it's definitely SOUTH of the Citgo. Did CIT record Paik drawing these lines? I would like to see if any "coaching" was done. Why did he stop drawing his first line?

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/911-3soc.jpg




Oh, and can you ask Captain Douche if PFT will be bringing back these for the spring season?

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/pilot4truth.jpg

[ElMondoHummus]

You understand of course you will now have more cartoons to contend with.

I disagree. Mudlark is the only 'toon from CIT who's been posting so far. :D

.. Oh! Wait. You meant, animations as "evidence"... oh, yeah. Well, what was that definition of insanity again (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26032.html)? ;)

[twinstead]

It appears mudlark has NO idea what evidence the "official story" has to support it--and how compelling it is--because he's unwilling to do even the most cursory investigation to find out.

[funk de fino]

All 1000 saw plane parts? Specifically parts of Boeing 757-200, N644AA?
Were all of them qualified to identify plane parts? Which specific plane parts were recovered and handled by 1000 people? I didn´t know there was so MUCH debris.

I don´t mean to be antagonistic, but you DO see my point when making broad generalisations without backing them up with specifics, links to interviews, verification of what they said, first hand recorded testimony, documented photographs of debris, recovery and chain of custody of parts from said Boeing 757 N644AA, etc, etc..

Gravy posted a lot of NAMES, that´s it.

Why are CIT scared to interview any of them?

[Hokulele]

I prepped a nice triangle and made a nice table of values complete with equations, but then decided it was just a waste of time. You understand of course you will now have more cartoons to contend with.


Well, I am sure it was a very nice triangle. :)


Yeah, I had downloaded the sun location information and started to play with lighting, intending to see what type of results I get, then I realized that if mudlark ignores A W Smith's graphic and calculations, why should I bother?

However, one new question came up as I was thinking how I would attack this problem, and that has to do with error-checking my work. I figured I would create the scene using the values I found, then do a quick hand-calc to check and make sure the numbers matched. For example, I can take a reference object with a known height and location, calculate the expected azimuth/length of the shadow, and then compare that back to Maya. If I wanted to take things a step further, I could find an aerial image of the same reference object that has an accurate time/date stamp, and reference that back to Maya and my hand-calcs. Ideally, I would have other people do similar checks on my work to see if there are any mistakes I missed. This whole peer review process with raw data is what guarantees my simulation is as accurate as possible. This is similar to your explanation of including your equations with your calculated data.

Mudlark, did PfT do an error-checking, verification process on their cartoon? If so, please show their work. If not, well, incompetence in, incompetence out.

[twinstead]

While gleefully hand waving away everything we present to him, what mudlark doesn't realize is that if HE had the same amount of evidence of an inside job that WE have evidence it wasn't, that other investigation would have been long completed and a bunch of people would be in jail for mass murder by now.

[A W Smith]

Well, I am sure it was a very nice triangle. :)


Yeah, I had downloaded the sun location information and started to play with lighting, intending to see what type of results I get, then I realized that if mudlark ignores A W Smith's graphic and calculations, why should I bother?

However, one new question came up as I was thinking how I would attack this problem, and that has to do with error-checking my work. I figured I would create the scene using the values I found, then do a quick hand-calc to check and make sure the numbers matched. For example, I can take a reference object with a known height and location, calculate the expected azimuth/length of the shadow, and then compare that back to Maya. If I wanted to take things a step further, I could find an aerial image of the same reference object that has an accurate time/date stamp, and reference that back to Maya and my hand-calcs. Ideally, I would have other people do similar checks on my work to see if there are any mistakes I missed. This whole peer review process with raw data is what guarantees my simulation is as accurate as possible. This is similar to your explanation of including your equations with your calculated data.

Mudlark, did PfT do an error-checking, verification process on their cartoon? If so, please show their work. If not, well, incompetence in, incompetence out.


I did that quick and dirty calculation and google image a few weeks ago. And there are slight errors in it. IN HIS FAVOR! which is why he didn't point them out. But still it falls well within range of the shadows enormous size. I used five minute increments instead on one.

[BCR]

However, one new question came up as I was thinking how I would attack this problem, and that has to do with error-checking my work. I figured I would create the scene using the values I found, then do a quick hand-calc to check and make sure the numbers matched. For example, I can take a reference object with a known height and location, calculate the expected azimuth/length of the shadow, and then compare that back to Maya. If I wanted to take things a step further, I could find an aerial image of the same reference object that has an accurate time/date stamp, and reference that back to Maya and my hand-calcs. Ideally, I would have other people do similar checks on my work to see if there are any mistakes I missed. This whole peer review process with raw data is what guarantees my simulation is as accurate as possible. This is similar to your explanation of including your equations with your calculated data.

OMG, that is way more work than a poor pilot who sells DVD's for a living could ever manage. Here is a novel idea, I'll just give them the simple little math equation(s) from high school that should make life so much easier for them.

(tangent of angle) = altitude/(distance to ground track),
altitude = (distance to ground track)*(tangent of angle),
(distance to ground track) = altitude/(tangent of angle).

This simple relationship has been used since the building of the pyramids by several hundreds of generations of builders, timekeepers (they used to use the Sun's shadow to tell time you know) and sailors without fail. Now P4T with Maya proves them all wrong with cartoons.

[Hokulele]

... (they used to use the Sun's shadow to tell time you know) ...


No way! Next, you will probably expect me to believe that cartographers used to use the Sun to calculate latitude.

[A W Smith]

OMG, that is way more work than a poor pilot who sells DVD's for a living could ever manage. Here is a novel idea, I'll just give them the simple little math equation(s) from high school that should make life so much easier for them.

(tangent of angle) = altitude/(distance to ground track),
altitude = (distance to ground track)*(tangent of angle),
(distance to ground track) = altitude/(tangent of angle).

This simple relationship has been used since the building of the pyramids by several hundreds of generations of builders, timekeepers (they used to use the Sun's shadow to tell time you know) and sailors without fail. Now P4T with Maya proves them all wrong with cartoons.

Mudlarks gonna log on and in a flurry of posts will now claim through 3 d modeling that the pyramids of Egypt are incapable of casting a shadow.

[BCR]

No way! Next, you will probably expect me to believe that cartographers used to use the Sun to calculate latitude.

Oh no...the Mayans used Maya software. Get with the program woman!

[BCR]

My wrist sundial has stopped running

Just too darn funny :bgrin:

[Hokulele]

Oh no...the Mayans used Maya software. Get with the program woman!


Let me guess, their EULA expires in 2012?

[ElMondoHummus]

Let me guess, their EULA expires in 2012?

I don't know which smiley is more appropriate here: http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/facepalmsmiley.gif or :lolsign:.

[Childlike Empress]

Well, I am sure it was a very nice triangle. :)

Yeah, I had downloaded the sun location information and started to play with lighting, intending to see what type of results I get, then I realized that if mudlark ignores A W Smith's graphic and calculations, why should I bother?


For me it looks like you are plugging the stuff out of your rear end. It's obvious that you are not familiar with software like this. You look like someone who predecided that his "opponents" are fools and figures out too late that they themselves are the ones who are clueless. Your comments on MAYA are embarrasing.

@mudlark: excellent work, but futile. Working average braindead mainstream forums is much more effiicient. Those "opponents" here are just not well in their brain.

[Hokulele]

For me it looks like you are plugging the stuff out of your rear end. It's obvious that you are not familiar with software like this. You look like someone who predecided that his "opponents" are fools and figures out too late that they themselves are the ones who are clueless. Your comments on MAYA are embarrasing.


Which comments specifically? That it isn't design software? That any sort of scene, fictional or otherwise, can be rendered? That someone using the software should verify the sun locations provided by Maya against a third party?


ETA: And speaking of erroneous assumptions, your choice of possessive pronouns is incorrect.

[Childlike Empress]

It is the perfect software to visualize what they intended to visualize. Your shenanigans are nothing but embarrassing. And it's obvious that your are conscious of it and pretending.

[UNLoVedRebel]

You look like someone who predecided that his "opponents" are fools and figures out too late that they themselves are the ones who are clueless. Your comments on MAYA are embarrasing.
Singular? Plural? Male? Female? Same difference, eh? :rolleyes:

[Hokulele]

It is the perfect software to visualize what they intended to visualize. Your shenanigans are nothing but embarrassing. And it's obvious that your are conscious of it and pretending.


It is only perfect if their source data, initial assumptions, and the way those are brought together is perfect. This is the part for which mudlark is as yet unable to provide evidence. Maya does not have error-checking built into it, so if the parameters entered are wrong, the end result is wrong.

Perhaps you have access to these source files?

[A W Smith]

For me it looks like you are plugging the stuff out of your rear end. It's obvious that you are not familiar with software like this. You look like someone who predecided that his "opponents" are fools and figures out too late that they themselves are the ones who are clueless. Your comments on MAYA are embarrasing.

@mudlark: excellent work, but futile. Working average braindead mainstream forums is much more effiicient. Those "opponents" here are just not well in their brain.

I saw you posted in this thread CE and low and behold your ignorance never disappoints. It's basic math CE, Deal with it. The only thing they achieve with their modeling software is to obscure what they fudged in the data input,

[Childlike Empress]

@Hokulele: The source of the data is clear, mudlark linked you to it several times. You could plug this data into the program you pretend to not understand, but frankly, it's too late to regain credibility.

[Hokulele]

The source of the data is clear, mudlark linked you to it several times. You could plug this data into the program you pretend to not understand, but frankly, it's too late.


No, mudlark has linked to various pieces of data that can be used, but has not linked to the data that was actually used.

Do you have access to the original scene files and are you willing to share those?

[A W Smith]

The source of the data is clear, mudlark linked you to it several times. You could plug this data into the program you pretend to not understand, but frankly, it's too late.


We don't even need to CE. I reposted my debunk above. No need to jump through PFT hoops. We have proven that they are math challenged.

[tfk]

My wrist sundial has stopped running



It's the moisture. Mine does the same thing. Hates rain & snow.

But as soon as it dries out, it works perfectly.

Best part: I don't even have to re-set it!


Tom

PS. It also works very intermittently in Seattle, WA & Ithaca, NY. Must be some geographical anomalies or sumthin'.

[beachnut]

@Hokulele: The source of the data is clear, mudlark linked you to it several times. You could plug this data into the program you pretend to not understand, but frankly, it's too late to regain credibility.
CIT and Balsamo used it to make a cartoon of a plane doing things it can't. They made a cartoon of a plane path. The plane is not represented as it would be in the real world.

You can support fantasy, but this is reality. The reality is CIT has many false flight path and can't do the math to support any of them. You can't do the math to see they are wrong and now you support their cartoon delusions?

The best part Paik is still pointing out the south flight path.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/PaikpointssouthdebunksCIT.jpg
Need some help locating south? The CIT witnesses can help you.

As all the CIT witnesses.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pointingSouthOops.gif
south, south, south...

[A W Smith]

It's the moisture. Mine does the same thing. Hates rain & snow.

But as soon as it dries out, it works perfectly.

Best part: I don't even have to re-set it!


Tom

PS. It also works very intermittently in Seattle, WA & Ithaca, NY. Must be some geographical anomalies or sumthin'.


Ill just wait and change operating systems. I hear Steve Jobs is gonna come up with a SnowDial

[Childlike Empress]

No, mudlark has linked to various pieces of data that can be used, but has not linked to the data that was actually used.

Do you have access to the original scene files and are you willing to share those?


No, that's not what he linked to. You are very lazy in thinking, and in cohorts with pathological liars. Congratulations.

[Hokulele]

No, that's not what he linked to. You are very lazy in thinking, and in cohorts with pathological liars. Congratulations.


What do you think he linked to? If it is to the original scene files for Maya, does this mean you have downloaded and viewed them?

[A W Smith]

No, that's not what he linked to. You are very lazy in thinking, and in cohorts with pathological liars. Congratulations.
and when you ran the software yourself, using the scene model and plane model he provided you. with the data i posted above. What exactly did you find?

[Childlike Empress]

Hokulele: He has linked to all the data necessary to run a simulation in the program you, beside better knowledge, brand as "cartoon" software. While you take data from proven liars like BCR and beachnut for granted. Your stance is an insult to science and pseudo-skeptical to the extreme. Shame on you.