CIT Fraud Revealed

[A W Smith]

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.


Answer my question
when you ran the software yourself, using the scene model and plane model he provided you with. and the data i posted above. What exactly did you find?

[beachnut]

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.
Stuff out of your... Think you messed that one up. But great evidence to support CIT.

How it is obvious she is not familiar with the software CIT and the failed pilot cult make cartoons with?

CIT is not "pre-decided" to be fools, they are liars and idiots who make up delusions about 911. Proof!: take any of their flight paths and do the math. They are nuts who can't do math. But go ahead support the 2,223 gs of special Balsamo math endorsed by CIT. Which path is a the NoC, as Paik points south?

"Not well in the brain"? Who is supporting flight paths that can't be possible. Show the NoC flight path from CIT that is possible, and you will see CIT are not well in the brain. You support idiotic flight paths made up by math morons, and you can't fix their failed ideas.

[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.


No, he has only linked to some of the data, certainly not all of it, and nowhere has there been any examples of the methods used to process this data. Judging by the screen captures provided in the first 6 pages of this thread, whoever generated the Google Earth image "proving" the shadow could not have hit Paik's office clearly had no idea what they were doing.

And no, I have always labeled Maya as "animation" or as "visualization" software. I have labeled their effort as a "cartoon", which is what it is. Unless mudlark is willing to provide evidence that this cartoon was created with accuracy, why should anyone naively assume it is?

And as to your second accusation, you might want to go back to some of BCR's earliest threads here, when he was still posting under his previous user name. He and I did go nine rounds over his data, his methods, and his accuracy. Once we were satisfied that the numbers were correctly calculated for the purposes for which they were intended, then and only then did I take his results "for granted".

So, to the meat of the issue, have you done as much for the PfT cartoon? Would you please provide the source data you used and what calculations you did to arrive at the conclusion that it is accurate? In other words, are you willing to shoulder the burden of proof of this claim that mudlark seems to have abandonded?

[Childlike Empress]

Smith, i don't answer your question. You know that thew whole argument with this software is only about the interpretation of the testimony of ONE of the witnesses. And you know that it's a desperate "argument".

[Childlike Empress]

Hokulele, your answer makes me wanna puke. Laughable. Re-examine your integrety, pseudo.skeptic.

[Hokulele]

Hokulele, your answer makes me wanna puke. Laughable. Re-examine your integrety, pseudo.skeptic.


Does this mean you won't be providing access to the Maya scene files?

I am sad. :(

[16.5]

No, that's not what he linked to. You are very lazy in thinking, and in cohorts with pathological liars. Congratulations.

Whoa, she joined up with CIT?

Wow.

Nice of you to join the conversation, though. Say, did the CIT mutts release the raw video of Paik's interview yet?

I mean, they have already admitted that they incompetent, so aren't you curious just how incompetent they are CE?

[A W Smith]

Smith, i don't answer your question. You know that thew whole argument with this software is only about the interpretation of the testimony of ONE of the witnesses. And you know that it's a desperate "argument".
so you concede that the shadow can in fact reach Paiks shop using the Warren decode data points and the correct altitude and azimuth of the sun. So you now brush it off as " only about the interpretation of the testimony of ONE of the witnesses."

CE: do you know what a balk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balk) is? Because you just did it.

[Childlike Empress]

Does this mean you won't be providing access to the Maya scene files?

I am sad. :(


You don't need data input for your run of MAYA to get the crux of the evidence CIT have obtained. Yes, you are sad.

[BigAl]

You don't need data input for your run of MAYA to get the crux of the evidence CIT have obtained. Yes, you are sad.

Anything anyone does with MAYA is fiction unless it shows that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon

[A W Smith]

You don't need data input for your run of MAYA to get the crux of the evidence CIT have obtained. Yes, you are sad.
Someone Stundie this,

[Hokulele]

You don't need data input for your run of MAYA to get the crux of the evidence CIT have obtained. Yes, you are sad.


No, that is reversing the burden of proof again. I do need the data used by PfT in order to verify its accuracy since that is the claim on the table.

Can you provide this data?

[tsig]

You don't need data input for your run of MAYA to get the crux of the evidence CIT have obtained. Yes, you are sad.

She can plug in any old numbers and prove CIT wrong?

[Childlike Empress]

It was offered to you several times, you are just not capable of recognizing it for what it is. What's with the cartoon software? Why should i provide this data (already provided to you from "official" sources) when you've shown that, if you don't lie about your expertise, you lie about the outcome of plugging this data into this software? The cartoon software that isn't capable of modeling the situation, according to you? Scum? *yawn*

[tsig]

No, that is reversing the burden of proof again. I do need the data used by PfT in order to verify its accuracy since that is the claim on the table.

Can you provide this data?

Wait a minute. Isn't this the same bunch that laughed at the NIST computer simulation and complained that they could not get data files?

(truther groups are starting to blur in my mind)

[Hokulele]

It was offered to you several times, you are just not capable of recognizing it for what it is. What's with the cartoon software? Why should i provide this data (already provided to you from "official" sources) when you've shown that, if you don't lie about your expertise, you lie about the outcome of plugging this data into this software? The cartoon software that isn't capable of modeling the situation, according to you? Scum? *yawn*


Please quote where I said this is "cartoon software" and that it isn't "capable of modeling the situation".

And no, as has been noted several times, mudlark has posted links to sun data, Warren's decode data, but that is it*. As A W Smith has shown (including the calcs!), this data on its own disproves PfT's claim. Mudlark has given us screen captures, not source data, of DEM data and screen captures, not source data, of the Maya scene. Without the source data and the explicit methodology, there is no way to test PfT's claims for truth.

So in the end, we have PfT's cartoon and A W Smith's calculations which show different results. Since anyone here can verify A W Smith's work, and no one can verify that PfT actually used the data mudlark linked, much less used it correctly, there is no reason to accept their claim. Further evidence is required.

Can you provide such evidence?



ETA: * - Mudlark has linked to the PfT forum, but not to any specific data, and I have already explained why this is insufficient.

[tsig]

It was offered to you several times, you are just not capable of recognizing it for what it is. What's with the cartoon software? Why should i provide this data (already provided to you from "official" sources) when you've shown that, if you don't lie about your expertise, you lie about the outcome of plugging this data into this software? The cartoon software that isn't capable of modeling the situation, according to you? Scum? *yawn*

If you had just provided a link instead of blowing about why you won't, you could have saved a lot of typing.

[Childlike Empress]

Further evidence of what?

[Hokulele]

Further evidence of what?


Evidence that the claims PfT is making are based on accurate data and methodologies. The easiest way to do this would be to provide the original files used in Maya.

Anyway, it is almost pau hana here, so I will be logging off pretty soon. I look forward to viewing these files in the near future.

[A W Smith]

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

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/whut-ian.jpg

[beachnut]

No, that's not what he linked to. You are very lazy in thinking, and in cohorts with pathological liars. Congratulations.
She is not lazy, she is correct in her thinking. Very correct. This based on reality, not your delusional world of impossible flight paths and the most moronic flyover non-theory.

Cohorts? Cahoots works better. Not that it would be bad to be in a cohort with her, it beats being in the delusional cohort of CIT and Balsamo's failed pilot cult of stupid on 911.

CIT is a fraud and the more you post like this, the more proof is no evidence will ever originate from you to save the moronic flight paths made up due to incompetence and zero math skills.

Which flight path do you think CIT will use as the NoC single integrated flight path and can you support it with math?
Have you see their latest cartoon trying to debunk the official flight path my making it a NoC flight path.
They moronically debunk their own flight path. They use a cartoon presentation to do it. Double failure = CIT (math)
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Edwardpointsouth.gif
South of the CITGO confirmed by Paik, and math supports Paik's flight path. Behind Paik is the VDOT area where Madelyn also support the official flight path and debunks the failed NoC by CIT.

The latest cartoon by CIT and Balsamo, has 77 flying over Paik north of the Citgo, and then it weaves back to knock down the lampposts and impact the Pentagon. Then Balsamo does the math and says the official flight path based on his parameters is impossible. What are the parameters. Balsamo uses the NoC flight paths as his parameters, thus proving his NoC non-theory is nonsense and he is a liar and a fraud like his failed investigators CIT.

[Childlike Empress]

The data sources were provided to you. You fail to be one of the cool kids, because the kool kids are able to plug the ***** original data into the appropiate software, Hokulele. either you are not an AutoCAD teacher or you are lying about the issue. Either case, you are pretending.

[beachnut]

You don't need data input for your run of MAYA to get the crux of the evidence CIT have obtained. Yes, you are sad.
OH? Please list the evidence.

You can't list the evidence, they made it up. They can't do math to see their flight paths are all a fraud. Can you do the math and discover they are frauds?

You fail to understand flight physics and at the bank angles 77 was doing as it passed Paik at 470 knots (KIAS) the turn radius is like 30 miles. Do you understand physics and how this makes the NoC flight paths a lie based on moronic failure to interpret witness statements correctly?

[A W Smith]

The data sources were provided to you. You fail to be one of the cool kids, because the kool kids are able to plug the ***** original data into the appropiate software, Hokulele. either you are not an AutoCAD teacher or you are lying about the issue. Either case, you are pretending.


prove this wrong

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

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

here is the calculator

http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/shadowcaster_height.html

prove me wrong, get to work, the freedom of the world depends on it.

[jaydeehess]

CE, people are trying to nail down exactly what data points were used. This is quite simple really, provide the numbers used to generate the scenes and if it is replicated AND corressponds to the data in the original sources then fine, it was done correctly.
If the data points used do not corresspond to that from origianl sources then PfT made the data up.
If, using the data points PfT claims to have used and those match the original sources BUT the scene generated does not match what PfT has been showing then PfT is in error or worse.

Clear now?

Seems the TM is allowed to 'question everything' but that reciprocity in this is not to be considered.

[Childlike Empress]

You just didn't pay attention. Why don't you acknowledge the fact and stay out of the discussion? Oh, it's not about knowledge at all? Sorry, jdhess. Go away and take the other conformist ideologues with you. *rollseyes goods night*

[JimBenArm]

You have to love it when people who know nothing about something are the ones who make the loudest pronouncements.
You know how blind people's hearing gets enhanced to compensate? I've come to realize that stupid people's mouths get bigger for the same reason.

[AJM8125]

You have to love it when people who know nothing about something are the ones who make the loudest pronouncements.
You know how blind people's hearing gets enhanced to compensate? I've come to realize that stupid people's mouths get bigger for the same reason.

Natural compensation. More room for their feet.

[beachnut]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1CITConfirmsOfficialFlightPath.jpg
Notice the heading CIT give the plane nearest Paiks shop is impossible the heading of 77 was 70 degree magnetic as this time, CIT has the wrong heading. FRAUD

Notice both planes are SOUTH of the road. From these two location, if both planes have a heading near 70 degree (61.2-61.5 true track) they can both hit the Pentagon and do the damage as seen on 911.

A NoC from here is impossible. CIT is a fraud and they debunk themselves with both planes south of the road when Passing Paiks location, they debunk their own flight path which they can't say which one is the real flight path.

You just didn't pay attention. Why don't you acknowledge the fact and stay out of the discussion? Oh, it's not about knowledge at all? Sorry, jdhess. Go away and take the other conformist ideologues with you. *rollseyes goods night*
Where is that evidence you said CIT based their work on?
Where is the math to support the flight paths of CIT? Can you do math to show which path is the real NoC? Which one is it? Pick one.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1CITdelusions.jpg
All the yellow paths are impossible; so which one is the NoC real flight path? And for extra credit why are all the CIT witnesses pointing to the blue-green flight path? Just asking questions, but I know you can't answer. See the 30 to 80 g turn? Wow, how did CIT make up all these failed paths? Can't the figure out which one is the right one?

[Childlike Empress]

Edited for civility.

Please remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

[JimBenArm]

Just saying someone constantly lies doesn't make it true.
Well, except in someone's fevered imagination.
Considering that person is a no brainer -oops- planer, small wonder.

[beachnut]

Edited for civility.? Another great post, and I see you did list all of CIT evidence as requested.
1. {∅}
That list of my lies is as big as your list of CIT evidence. Good job as Paik points south out of his office; pointing to the real flight path.

But go ahead show us the math for the real NoC flight path. Can you do it? Get some help from your cohorts that you are in cahoots with. Balsamo does some real moronic math to match your opinions which you support CIT with. His 2,223 gs was a classic out of the park for paranoid conspiracy theorists who sell DVDs filled with lies to suckers.

I can expect your math with the evidence list, right?

Don't get upset with CIT moronic math or the fact CIT witnesses point to the flight path which has 77 on a heading of 70 degrees. CIT is a fraud and it is easy to see; what is stopping you?

[BCR]

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.

CE, the MATH does not agree with the P4T Maya results. It is that simple. Math is real world, and Maya creates visualizations of people's imaginary worlds. Science is real-world and anything asserted must pass peer review. That means putting up (the data) or shutting up. Got data?

[BCR]

Edited for civility.

The equations are thousands of years old. Do the math for yourself and think for yourself.

[ElMondoHummus]

This is laughable.

It was offered to you several times, you are just not capable of recognizing it for what it is.


And no, as has been noted several times, mudlark has posted links to sun data, Warren's decode data, but that is it*.

... ETA: * - Mudlark has linked to the PfT forum, but not to any specific data, and I have already explained why this is insufficient.

The data sources were provided to you.

No. They. Weren't. As Hokulele said, they are incomplete. What about "incomplete" do you not understand?

[bje]

You don't need data input for your run of MAYA to get the crux of the evidence CIT have obtained. Yes, you are sad.

CIT has never provided the necessary evidence to support it's claims as mudlark illustrates. Why are you still confused about that, CE?

[mudlark]

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".

We can go round in circles with this discussion Hokulele.
I honestly don´t know what the problem is.
The data inputted into making those images has been continually linked to.

You claim you know how to use these programs. The data is there. Just do your own and see what YOU come up with.

If YOUR results differ THEN maybe we will be able to swap notes on the step by step input of data. Maybe.

On the "math" statement, I can read between the lines..

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5615699&postcount=564

It is a 3D animation graphics software package for making cartoons...The software is used to make fairly nice cartoons with very good graphics...


You have played along on that assumption too. It is false.
Can we now drop the capability issue of Maya or do I have to post more links?

[mudlark]

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by 16.5
Ignore is the last refuge of the coward. QUOTE]

You are on ignore because of constant insults and not adding anything to the debate but repeated 2 liners.
Afraid of you? No, you are just..annoying.

[Mr.Herbert]

why did paik draw two lines?

where is the animation of the fly over/ around?

where are the interviews with the contractors that assisted in planting the bombs?

what walk-in freezer was used to keep the cadavers frozen?

[beachnut]

We can go round in circles with this discussion Hokulele.
I honestly don´t know what the problem is.
The data inputted into making those images has been continually linked to.

You claim you know how to use these programs. The data is there. Just do your own and see what YOU come up with.

If YOUR results differ THEN maybe we will be able to swap notes on the step by step input of data. Maybe.

On the "math" statement, I can read between the lines..

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5615699&postcount=564



You have played along on that assumption too. It is false.
Can we now drop the capability issue of Maya or do I have to post more links?
Bring the data, list it, email it. You can't do math, you can't email data. Wow, a double failure which is indicative of your support for the CIT fraud.

Do the math, a plane which is south of the road from Paiks office can't do the NoC flight path. Sorry, but the physics of flight preclude your delusions on 911. The physics of flight prove you wrong.

The hint CIT junk is delusional is the 2,223 g support from Balsamo and his cult of do nothing pilots. Why not post these delusions at the p4t forum where propaganda and terrorists loyalist hang out doing moronic math.

When will you do the math yourself?
When will you pick a flight path for the NoC?
Why are CIT witnesses pointing south?




You are on ignore because of constant insults and not adding anything to the debate but repeated 2 liners.
Afraid of you? No, you are just..annoying. oops, he is not on ignore if you talk to him... no wonder you can't see CIT is a fraud, you lack some logic skills.
You can't tell him he is on ignore if you are ignoring him, that is not ignoring him. Like the flight paths of many for NoC, you have to pick one, you can't have many impossible flight paths you have to pick one. Do the math. And then go, oops, all CIT flight paths are poppycock, Paik pointed south, CIT is a fraud. Easy if you got math and logic, hard if you lack those simple skills.

[mudlark]

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).

You don´t "subtract ones who´s testimony is "inconvenient"???
Are you actually serious?

You (you ARE talking for everyone no?) claim that the NOC witnesses are "wrong", "mistaken", "misremembered" and in some cases may be "lying".

The Navy Annex witnesses, ALL of them are mistaken due to "perspective".
Terry Morin possibly had the BEST perspective. He claimed that the plane flew "over the top" of him while he was "10 feet witnin the wings"

The most transparent issue of witnesses being " subtracted" are the ANC and Citgo witnesses.
Not a group of individual accounts in regard to SOC/NOC. Corraborative testimony. ALL witnesses within the NOC area have been "subtracted".

RooseveltRoberts has been TOTALLY painted as an anomaly, that the explosion he witnessed before he saw "the second plane" was on the TV!
He has been "subtracted"

All the "rightbank" witnesses which number among them proposed "impact witnesses".

The majority of witnesses within the Pentagon lawn area who contradict the altitude in the final seconds. Wanda Ramey claimed that the plane "skipped" up to the third floor level. Sean Boger describes the right bank, NOC and publically questions the gatecam on altiude. Even Sepulveda and Liebner contradict altitude. The former even said he saw the plane at the Henderson Hall area. The barracks behind and to the RIGHT of the Navy Annex looking from the Pentagon.

Those who I have no problem in "subtracting" from the equation are alleged impact witnesses who on further investigation turn out to be inaccurate or unconfirmed journalistic accounts, weren´t even there or were in no position to witness such an event.

The bottom line here is that CIT´s verified witness accounts can in no way be compared to said individual media reports. A whole set of corraborated witness testimony is being tossed aside here.

Individual testimony has been deemed "worthless" by certain people here. But to ignore ALL the witnesses who were in the best possible position to differentiate between NOC and SOC is completely dishonest and illogical.

That the FDR records a totally different flightpath IS the problem.
Remember that this FDR has no serial number.
That JREFers themselves claim that seconds are missing from it.
That even when Warren´s extra data is included that the plane STILL misses the lightpoles.
That not ONE definitive SOC witness has been put forward in this thread let alone corraborative testimony to back eachother up.

Zakhem´s testimony contradicts itself AND the plane would NOT be in view to her if the NTSB path is followed. She even contradicts Warren´s right roll data.

Keith Wheelhouse was in no position to see which side of Citgo the plane flew on. That he described the C130 ´shadowing it´ is false. No ambiguity or discussion necessary on this point.

By the way the head of the FBI claimed that the CVR provided "nothing useful"

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.

Corraborative witness testimony IS evidence.

You´ll have to point out the "misinterpretations". They are on camera telling a very definitive story of WHERE they saw the plane. You are beating a dead horse here and you know it casting doubt on what they said. It´s on record.

"Cherry-picked"? There are twice as many more witnesses who CIT have attempted to contact.
They interviewed all they could among the route 27 witnesses.
Remember Mike Walter? :)
The lawn witnesses. Sean Boger and Wanda Ramey.
Many witnesses are military based and refuse to be interviewed.
So that´s a lie.

The´"animation" argument came about when BCR claimed that the shadow "proved" SOC. I have provided a physical rebuttal to that claim.
The ball is in your court to do your OWN image to debunk it.


Doesn't matter what you say about Ed Paik. None of that overturns or refutes any of the electronic or physical evidence.

It DOES matter otherwise why was this thread started?
The "physical evidence" is not documented. (You questioned MY interpretation of evidence?)
The NTSB supplied "elecronic evidence", when we follow it to the letter is described by no-one. Shows that the plane was too high to hit the lightpoles.
That the g-forces necessary to pull off the manouevre were not recorded. Especially the constant 4gs quoted by Mackey.

YOU are the one who is relying on an unverified program to push the extra seconds claim. NTSB has not verified this program.Or the ASRS.
YOU ae pushing the conspiracy theory that FOIA supplied data from the FDR is incomplete. Until YOU clear this up it is YOU who is ALSO questioning the "electronic evidence".

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.

These "minute points" are necessary to build up a consolidated witness map. That YOU cherrypick witnesses without going beyond unverified press reports seems to be acceptable. It isn´t to me.

Links to the "tons of debris" (plane parts I take it?), please.

The Pentagon DID contain dead bodies. Those of the Pentagon workers and military. I have seen no documentary evidence to support the DNA retrieval and identification of passengers.
Remember that passenger DNA was not allegedly found until 2 weeks after the event. The FBI took over on 21st September.

Again the CVR was "destroyed".


Links to first responder observations please. Taking into account what I said in my previous post.



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.

The more you look at your proposed "physical evidence" the less substantial and above reproach it is.

"Your honour, here are the plane parts minus documentation, serial number and chain of custody"
"Your honour here is AN FDR recorder..no there is no serial number..this guy claims to have a program that suggests seconds are missing from it...yes I know the NTSB have never commented on this..and yes I know the ASRS hasn´t either..though there must be or the plane could not have physically hit the Pentagon OR the lightpoles...

Who found it?
3 or 4 people, but we will say..an FBI photographer...
Where was it found? Both at the impact hole and C-ring. It was found beside a cockpit seat. No we have no photos of this seat..and no the FDR is situated in the back of the plane..

Yes we do have witnesses. A whole bunch of them contradict the SOC path, altitude, speed and trajectory. Some even mention a right bank..yesss..at 540mph..who´d have thunk.
Who contradicts the NOC witnesses? Umm..we have a few media quotes here somewhere...no, not verified or confirmed. Many were looking out windows 2km away...yeah, I know the people within the immediate vicinity would have had a far better perspective...and yes they corraborate..
Well, even the media quotes don´t contradict them, no..
We have 100s of impact witnesses..what? exact number?...umm..many are anonymous, a few weren´t actually there, a lot of them contradict the altitude, speed and manouevre too..there were quite a few who admitted to NOT seeing any impact, a few just heard it, a few just MENTION seeing a plane, there are a lot of second hand testimonies, a few have retracted what the media quoted them as saying..I´ll have to get back to you on that.

But we DO have the FDR to prove an impact...no good?



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.

Same old rhetoric on "overwhelming evidence" that you can supply no documentation on.
Ryan Mackey´s piece is an opinion piece based on incredulity.
I could write the exact same piece but replace a few words such as "3 towers collapse when 2 planes crash", "19 fanatics take over and dominate Eastern US skies" ,"USAF is paralyzed due to exercises which happened to be taking place that day", Hani Hanjur flew a 757 like an F16, didn´t scrape the lawn and the tail, wings and engines squeeeeed into that hole" , "all 85 tapes contained "nothing useful" etc, etc..

The CVR was "destroyed". First solid one ever mind you.

Nice to see you´ve taken that ra-ra skirt off and dropped the two-liners btw.

By the way if you want me to prove the disinfo give me a shout. No problem.

[16.5]

[QUOTE=Profanz;5633600]QUOTE]

You are on ignore because of constant insults and not adding anything to the debate but repeated 2 liners.
Afraid of you? No, you are just..annoying.

1. where is the math to support CIT's fantasy path

2. where are the raw videos of CIT's interviews?

I understand how annoying these question are.

[mudlark]

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?

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?

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 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.

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?

And YOU have failed to answer my question to you in relation to the qualifications of these "1000" people who allegedly found debris.

It´s very easy to generalise. Just like the "100s" of impact witnesses lie.
You have to dig deeper into the details, background and nuts and bolts of each and every "witness" that is put forward.
Who reported it? Is it first hand testimony? Is the testimony corraborated?
Verified?
Gravy listed 8000 names. So what? Names are just that, Names.
Do what CIT has been forced to do. Even though they had a pair of swingers and went to the area themselves to gather testimony they were then asked to interview more people. They did.
Now the entire burden of ALL witnesses is placed on their shoulders to find out why people claimed to have witnessed an impact. They did. And DECIMATED the "100s of witnesses to an impact" lie.
They CANNOT interview military or police. They are forbidden. YOU know this.

Specifics MUST be given on these individuals as an interview is out of the question. You are asking the impossible...which is why I assume you brought this up?

If you are asking me to buy the "official" book (bible) on the Pentagon attack..nah. If you have the quotes, names, etc. Post them.

[UNLoVedRebel]

why did paik draw two lines?
The more the better. This way CIT can use whichever lines they want and throw out ones they don't. Remember Keith Wheelhouse? His "doesn't count."

[beachnut]

All the "rightbank" witnesses which number among them proposed "impact witnesses".

That JREFers themselves claim that seconds are missing from it.
That even when Warren´s extra data is included that the plane STILL misses the lightpoles.


Zakhem´s testimony contradicts itself AND the plane would NOT be in view to her if the NTSB path is followed. She even contradicts Warren´s right roll data.


It DOES matter otherwise why was this thread started?
The "physical evidence" is not documented. (You questioned MY interpretation of evidence?)
The NTSB supplied "elecronic evidence", when we follow it to the letter is described by no-one. Shows that the plane was too high to hit the lightpoles.
That the g-forces necessary to pull off the manouevre were not recorded. Especially the constant 4gs quoted by Mackey.





The Pentagon DID contain dead bodies. Those of the Pentagon workers and military. I have seen no documentary evidence to support the DNA retrieval and identification of passengers.

Where was it found? Both at the impact hole and C-ring. It was found beside a cockpit seat. No we have no photos of this seat..and no the FDR is situated in the back of the plane..

Yes we do have witnesses. A whole bunch of them contradict the SOC path, altitude, speed and trajectory. Some even mention a right bank..yesss..at 540mph..who´d have thunk.

But we DO have the FDR to prove an impact...no good?

Ryan Mackey´s piece is an opinion piece based on incredulity.



Please post a rebuttal of Mackey done by you. Balsamo came up with 2,223 gs, and Mackey hit the FDR numbers almost exactly. You bring up the FDR that shows an impact with the generator trailer, proves impact. You should not post junk from CIT and Balsamo, you should make up your own lies.

Mackey can do math, you, CIT and Balsamo can't.

Why post lies and expose your failure to understand 911, physics, and math all by blindly supporting the lies of CIT.

Where is your math to support a NoC flight path?

Why does Paik point south?

[mudlark]

I had originally said that Warren´s lat/long data was used in the "shadow image". It was actually his ALTITUDE data at the point in question.
I had queried the following post you made:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5622331&postcount=638

"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/ubbthread...ber=188285&an= "


I was informed that the positional statement I made was incorrect.

I cleared this up here:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5628644&postcount=676

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.

Unlike others, I do actually try my best to verify statements made to me, including the calculations you provided in that post..
Your assertion that lat/long data on GoogleEarth is unreliable is true.

Doesn´t that then make Warren´s datapoints a moot point? Or are you happy with it because it works out in your favour?

Before you pat yourself on the back there Smiffy, and this is for Hummus too:

On further examination I also found the following:

1. The sun data used in your analysis is wrong. It is an hour too late. US Naval Observatory reports time as EST. You need to adjust for EDT. You should have read the thread I linked at P4T for verification. Here it is again.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...showtopic=19556

2. Your altitude is too low given the sun data you did use (but again, the sun data you used is also wrong.. GIGO as I´ve been told various times).

You are using 42.40 degrees from US Naval Observatory data. You are using this because the impact time was reported as 09:37 am and this is the altitude of the sun at that time reported by USNO. But, the USNO reports their data in terms of Eastern Standard Time. The impact time is reported in terms of Eastern DAYLIGHT time. 09:37 am EDT is the same as 08:37 EST. You need to use the data point from the USNO under 0837, which is 31.8 degrees for Sun altitude.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Sun_Altit...h_091101%20.txt

So your azimuth is also wrong as well as the position data used (mybad in part but yourbad too for accepting long/lat given the post you made questioning their accurateness)... .and so is Farmer.

Yourself and Farmer are the ones guilty of GIGO and all you people are backing them up without even checking it... typical.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Doesn´t that then make Warren´s datapoints a moot point?Hi Craig. What coif are you styling these days?

[mudlark]

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

You´re realy stretching Herbert.
Paik can be seen in the CIT video doing that dot himself.
For the plane to be SOC, it HAS to be following the SOC path that lines up with the damage and course/headings extracted from the NTSB data.

Pathetic.

[Sam.I.Am]

I don't understand. Why are they posting a screenshot when Maya is fully capable of doing an animation from the start of the turn/descent all the way to after the impact? You'd think that it would be all over youtube by now...

[ElMondoHummus]

You don´t "subtract ones who´s testimony is "inconvenient"???
Are you actually serious?


Yes, I am serious: You're not supposed to do that. But CIT does. It's an issue of simple logic and honesty in research, but that is not something CIT is known for.

Your problem is that CIT ignores witnesses, and ignores testimony inconvenient to their claims. Here are two example threads among many that illustrate this, found within seconds:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4596513
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4537744

Illustrative quote, from a different thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3708515) than the two examples linked above:
Their other south parking lot witness Levi Stephens (http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic9.htm)does not mention a flyover

his location is at "A" in this photo
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/Pentagon%20folder%202/LevisPosition.jpg


"A... is about right on the mark. Notice it's a one way street that allows you to circle South parking. I was looking for a parking spot. So as the plane flew in I had to physically turn around to watch it. I stopped there when I noticed how low the plane was. The reporter sort of misquoted me I was actually driving away from the Pentagon directionally as I wasn't facing the building."



Does CIT mention anything about that?

Here's another thing you need to realize (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary):


136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One wPentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
itness was an Air Traffic Controller and
4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.


You don't discard datapoints simply because they're inconvenient. And that is exactly what CIT does.


You (you ARE talking for everyone no?) claim :words:

Blah blah blah. Radar evidence (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162306). Witness (http://flight77.info/witnesses.php) testimony (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary). Evidence submitted in court (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html). Read "Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11 (http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055)" for what first responders say. Watch what the eyewitnesses say (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2542954&postcount=1).

The FDR does not record a "totally different flightpath". It records a totally different flightpath from the fictional one CIT tries to pass off as the truth. It records the true flightpath. CIT pushes a false one.

We are not ignoring witness testimony. What we're doing is telling you why CIT has got it all wrong.

We are not ignoring evidence. What we're doing is telling you that you are ignoring it because it is inconvenient to you. The plethora of evidence is inconvenient to you because it all leads to conclusions other than the conspiratorial ones.

And one more time, to drive the point home:
...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.

Ryan's right. All that any of the CIT blathering deserves in response is this post. It sums up the insanity.

[beachnut]

All the "right-bank" witnesses which number among them proposed "impact witnesses". right bank is on the FDR, so? Are you saying the witnesses confirm the FDR?
Since you can't do math let me explain the final 5 seconds of right bank have as average of 3.89 degree right bank, with a maximum of 6.38 degrees. Turn radius of 33 miles to 54 miles. You failed again. You have to use math, or you are lost. What is your point?

That JREFers themselves claim that seconds are missing from it. We were right, the NTSB decode was missing 4 seconds. The pilots for truth decode was missing 5 seconds. The seconds were not missing, but nobody looked at the raw data for the missing seconds, and the pilots for truth stolen software decode did not work on the last 5 seconds of data. We were right.
That even when Warren´s extra data is included that the plane STILL misses the lightpoles. The extra data was always there, no body knew it. The data was not missing. The final 4 seconds support 77 impacting the lamppost because it is only 20 to 30 feet above the overpass when the RADALT reads 4 feet.

Zakhem´s testimony contradicts itself AND the plane would NOT be in view to her if the NTSB path is followed. She even contradicts Warren´s right roll data. Madelyn saw flight 77 south of her position. That matches the FDR, and she said tilted left.
Let me show you again. She sees left tilt, 77 is in a right bank.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadelynSeePlaneTiltLeft.jpg
Left tilt to me. See see the cockpit from the front, so she see a left tilt. Her testimony does not contradict the FDR, it confirms it!
Do you fly much? Madelyn puts 77 on the SoC and debunks CIT. CIT is fraud because they ignore her testimony.
The "physical evidence" is not documented. (You questioned MY interpretation of evidence?)
You must be right! oops wrong again.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77engine.jpg
A piece of evidence, used in court. Try again, your lies are too easy to debunk, refute and call delusions. Is Balsamo helping you?

The NTSB supplied "elecronic evidence", when we follow it to the letter is described by no-one. Shows that the plane was too high to hit the lightpoles. Balsamo says this, he can't get anything right. BIG LIE, you can't prove because the FDR has 4 feet for the solid RADALT reading as it crosses the overpass. Darn so easy using Balsamo's own, "the RADALT is a hard number".
Paik was pointing south from his office. CIT is fraud, Balsamo can't do math. These are truths, and you post lies.
That the g-forces necessary to pull off the manouevre were not recorded. Especially the constant 4gs quoted by Mackey. LOL, you are cherry picking. Mackey and I agree about 1.7 gs is requried to fly over the VDOT tower and impact the Pentagon and knock down all the lamppposts. Got physics? No, you got delusions.
Mackey, I, reaheat and more agreed about 1.7 or 2 gs was good enough.
Balsamo said 34 gs after his 11.2 g and now he has 2,223 gs. Good for him let us look at the FDR!
FDR says the last four seconds are below samled at 8 hz, go ask you mom what 8 hz
means.
0.725
0.659
0.92
0.858
0.94
1.121
0.828
0.783 .854g average 3 seconds to go, Hani is pushing over to hit the Petagon.
0.982
0.986
0.927
0.776
1.25
1.037
1.231
1.721 1.114 average now 2 seconds to go, Hani has started a pull up to avoid the overpass now his aim-point due to over controlling.
1.604
1.781
1.762
1.964
1.879
2.264
2.044
2.181 1.935 1 seconds to go Hani is pulling 2 gs to avoid the ground. He comes within 20 to 30 feet of impacting the overpass, the RADALT reads 4 feet! LOL, the FDR proves impact, I am an aircraft accident investigator and an engineer.
Balsamo is nuts and never was a left seat airline pilot.
1.675
1.744
1.65
1.504
1.785
1.655
1.861
1.946 1.728 g as 77 impacts the generator, everyone who sees the impact with see something different from their persective, Boger sees 77 enter the Pentagon. The roll angle is zero now, and becomes left bank at generator impact; oops, confirmation of impact is the FDR, but the FDR inforamtion stops due to no time left to store the final values.
The physics done by Mackey matches the FDR; funny how physics really works, you should have taken physics and you would not be stuck making excuses for idiots, CIT and Balsamo, and apologizing for terrorists, a kind of terrorists loyalist.
The 4 gs is one of the cases he covered you missed the other work. You are a FRAUD too. Cherry pick your way to stupid conclusions. You missed the 1.7 g stuff; so sad you can't do physics yourself. 3 cases Mackey did are close in modeling what 77 did when it flew and impacted the Pentagon. 4 g was the extreme case but the RADALT near 180 feet AGL at the VDOT tower supports case A, B, and C, and matches the FDR. NOT good for CIT and Balsamo who can't do physics, or math.

The Pentagon DID contain dead bodies. Those of the Pentagon workers and military. I have seen no documentary evidence to support the DNA retrieval and identification of passengers.
The Passengers along with Pentagon victims were processed properly. You are trying to tell a lie.
Where was it found? Both at the impact hole and C-ring. It was found beside a cockpit seat. No we have no photos of this seat..and no the FDR is situated in the back of the plane..
Why can't the FDR reach the C-ring after the landing gear made the way clear. Not good at physics, and without physics you can't make a
case for where the FDR would be found after fire efforts were done. Sorry, you are exposing your lack of knowledge. But go ahead try again and support it with physics not your standard failed opinions based on hearsay and lies from CIT.

Yes we do have witnesses. A whole bunch of them contradict the SOC path, altitude, speed and trajectory. Some even mention a right bank..yesss..at 540mph..who´d have thunk.
Right bank is in the FDR, good job, the witnesses confirm the SoC flight path as does math. Good job you proved CIT is a fraud again.

But we DO have the FDR to prove an impact...no good? Only to people who can't do the math. Like CIT and Balsamo; they can't do much but sell DVDs with lies.

Ryan Mackey´s piece is an opinion piece based on incredulity. Because you can't do real math and real math looks like opinions to you. Good job, you proved you can't do math; it is not surprizing you think Mackey's physics is an opinion. Got math? Not you.

This is classic. The math done by Mackey clearly has the correct numbers matched by the FDR. You failed again, by posting junk handed you by CIT and Balsamo. If you looked up Mackey's work you would see clearly how real physics matches what Hani had to pull in g force. But you post junk prepared by Balsamo and CIT without doing your own work. Sad you are a proxy poster for CIT and Balsamo the dumbest people on 911 issues.


Mackey's work (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109066)
Case A and Case B
Forcing the aircraft to pull up six feet higher than minimum causes the aircraft to flatten out before impact. In both cases, the aircraft is still descending when it contacts the Pentagon -- a situation consistent with an amateur crash approach. Case A experiences only 0.62 g of acceleration, or a total of 1.62 g of g-loading; Case B implies 0.66 g and 1.66 g respectively.
Both of these cases are not only within the Boeing 757-233's performance envelope, but in fact not terribly unusual in ordinary operation, apart from the altitude. Such a low stress level would not imperil any aircraft.
Case B and C
Retaining the higher impact point and forcing the plane to hit the light pole at a lower altitude forces the aircraft to dive more initially, then pull up shorter and sharper. The acceleration increases from 0.66 to 0.93 g (1.93 g airframe stress). This figure is still easily within the performance envelope of the aircraft, and not difficult for an amateur pilot.

The "M" word times two, Mackey and MATH! Mackey say 1.62 g to 1.93 g in two cases of impacting the Pentagon. Look at the FDR again. Average last 4 seconds, 1.41 g, last 3 seconds 1.59, last 2 seconds 1.83, and the last second 1.73.
IS 1.62 and 1.93 in the ball park? YES!
It is not Mackey who says so, it is math and PHYSICS! Good work Mackey.

Math! its what proves CIT is a FRAUD

[A W Smith]

Oops ya cought me mudlark. Garbage in garbage out. Got the new numbers, Now lets see what happens to the shadow when the sun's LOWER ON THE HORIZON!!

:dl:

08:37 31.8 112.5


Its coming!

[A W Smith]

Ready? Set? GO! (oh I used a "shadow length calculator" this time)
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/DSTazimuthrevision-1.jpg

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

[Hokulele]

So your azimuth is also wrong as well as the position data used (mybad in part but yourbad too for accepting long/lat given the post you made questioning their accurateness)... .and so is Farmer.


So, care to provide the actual data used to make the cartoon? This is the whole reason why it is completely useless to try and guess what assumptions were made by the end user.

(Hm, it sounds like the EDT corrected sun data would put the plane closer to the path and altitude originally calculated by the adjusted decode information, especially if the quote regarding the shadow of the plane is true.)

[beachnut]

Oops ya cought me mudlark. Garbage in garbage out. Got the new numbers, Now lets see what happens to the shadow when the sun's LOWER ON THE HORIZON!!

:dl:

08:37 31.8 112.5

Its coming!
mudlark says...
You need to use the data point from the USNO under 0837, which is 31.8 degrees for Sun altitude. When I was a young pilot, figuring out local time vs Zulu time and messing up was a new pilot's faux pas.

Is he getting this from the nuts at CIT, or Balsamo? With the lower sun angle he is debunking himself.

Got math?

[A W Smith]

(Hm, it sounds like the EDT corrected sun data would put the plane closer to the path and altitude originally calculated by the adjusted decode information, especially if the quote regarding the shadow of the plane is true.)
hmmmmmm! Seems so! PFT (when they wake up) will tell him he shoulda shut his pie hole. So we went from roughly a 230 foot shadow, to a 338 foot shadow!!:dl:


Thank you Mudlark! Now the only variable I didn't bother to correct this time is the altitude drop since she shadow is about a dozen parking spaces east of its original plot, So maybe a couple feet. but well within the fuselage diameter for the error.

[Reheat]

hmmmmmm! Seems so! PFT (when they wake up) will tell him he shoulda shut his pie hole. So we went from roughly a 230 foot shadow, to a 338 foot shadow!!:dl:

This is so funny I've been ROFLMAO since I found that the shrimp mudlark caught A W on the STD versus DST time. He was so proud that some one at pffft caught the error that he pounced all over it without realizing it would destroy his argument further.

It's very similar to the math/physics deficiency in that he has no clue about three-dimensional space....none. It has shown up numerous times over the course of this charade. Does everyone remember the vertical versus the horizontal clock reference? How 'bout all of those flight paths which are impossible for ANY aircraft to fly! Yessireeeee, this is one crack investigator. That's why this crack team of idiots came up with this idiotic scheme in the first place. They have no clue about much of anything that matters and simply keep displaying arrogant ignorance the longer they perpetuate the lunacy.

Good show! If my count is anywhere near accuate this makes about the tenth time on as many issues this idiocy has been destroyed.

How in the hades anyone could be deceived by it is far beyond my comprehension......

[tsig]

You just didn't pay attention. Why don't you acknowledge the fact and stay out of the discussion? Oh, it's not about knowledge at all? Sorry, jdhess. Go away and take the other conformist ideologues with you. *rollseyes goods night*

Still no data or links to data or anything.

[bje]

And YOU have failed to answer my question to you in relation to the qualifications of these "1000" people who allegedly found debris.

On the contrary. I answered your question directly. None of us has any reason whatsoever to question that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon and that the wreckage was from AA77. YOU do. YOU are the one who claims that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, remember, mudlark? Whether it was 100 people or 1,000 people it is YOUR responsibility to interview them, find out their "qualifications", and ask them what wreckage they recovered. You now need to answer my questions directly ann support your claims.

It´s very easy to generalise. Just like the "100s" of impact witnesses lie.Then what are you doing sitting around for eight years when you should have gotten the specifics directly from those involved? What kind of investigators never bother to do an investigation?

You have to dig deeper into the details, background and nuts and bolts of each and every "witness" that is put forward.But you haven't? Why not? It's YOUR job, not ours.

Who reported it? Is it first hand testimony? Is the testimony corraborated? Verified?It's YOUR job. If you had done your job, you would have known first-hand. I'm sorry, mudlark, we told Craig and Aldo years ago that it was CIT's responsibility to do its homework and you're here telling us that, no, you want us to do YOUR homework. Now, honestly, mudlark, how crazy is that?

Gravy listed 8000 names. So what? Names are just that, Names.I already stated unequivocally that we are confident that you are at least capable of picking up a telephone book, looking up the phone number, and start making phone calls, correct? So WHY do you and CIT refuse to contact these key eyewitnesses? How many more years are you going to put it off, mudlark?


Do what CIT has been forced to do. Even though they had a pair of swingers and went to the area themselves to gather testimony they were then asked to interview more people. They did.You have admitted in every post that CIT did not contact any eyewitnesses who had direct contact with the wreckage. One cannot avoid evidence. They were right there, in Washington, DC, and FAILED to do a proper investigation. Why are you proud of that fact, mudlark, when you should be highly embarrassed at CIT's ineptitude?

Now the entire burden of ALL witnesses is placed on their shoulders to find out why people claimed to have witnessed an impact. They did. And DECIMATED the "100s of witnesses to an impact" lie.No, as you and we well know, CIT found NO eyewitnesses that saw any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon. NONE of CIT's eyewitnesses saw any jet fly over the Pentagon. CIT did not find ANY eyewitnesses from the hundreds on the freeways, bridges, or in the Pentagon parking lots who ever stated they saw any jet fly over the Pentagon. You understand that CIT claims that a jet flew abnormally low and fast over and away from the Pentagon, just as the "explosion" went off behind the jet, don't you? And Craig Ranke ADMITTED that people were in a position to witness such an event ALL AROUND the Pentagon:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_159394a90a10347d02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17388)

But not one person has ever reported seeing any jet fly over and away from the Pentagon as Craig Ranke and Pilots for 9/11 "Truth" claim. None, zero, nada. Why not, mudlark?

They CANNOT interview military or police. They are forbidden. YOU know this.Oh? Apparently CIT doesn't know that and voilated the law. Or did they make up the interviews they did with:

- Pentagon Heliport air traffic controller, Sean Boger
- Pentagon Police Officer, Sgt. William Lagasse
- Pentagon Police Officer, Sgt. Chadwick Brooks
- Pentagon Police Officer, Roosevelt Roberts

Please explain why you are contradicting CIT, mudlark.

Specifics MUST be given on these individuals as an interview is out of the question. You are asking the impossible...which is why I assume you brought this up?It is your obligation to demonstrate that you cannot interview any of those who had direct contact with the wreckage. But you admit you haven't even made the effort. Again, that is YOUR responsibility. I brought this up with CIT years ago for the very clear reason that ANY investigation, whether done by amateur citizens like CIT, or professionals, must deal with ALL of the evidence. Of course CIT knows that it must deal with all of the evidence particularly since NONE of CIT's claims supports any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon nor has CIT made any attempt to determine the nature or identity of the wreckage from inside the Pentagon whatsoever. CIT refuses as you are now doing.

If you are asking me to buy the "official" book (bible) on the Pentagon attack..nah. If you have the quotes, names, etc. Post them. I am asking you to provide evidence for your claims. You are making every effort to make excuses why you won't.

Sorry, there is only the evidence, and if you haven't fulfilled your obligation to interview those who had direct contact with the wreckage and you have no eyewitnesses to any jet flying over and away from the Pentagon when Craig Ranke ADMITS that so-called "flyover" jet would have been easy to see by anyone near and around the Pentagon, then it's obvious that you and CIT have absolutely no ability to claim the wreckage is NOT from AA77 nor that any jet flew over and away from the Pentagon.

We know that CIT and its supporters, as well as all 9/11 "Truth" Movement believers, are not able to answer inconvenient questions. The true sign is your attempt to evade the questions by asking questions in response, i.e., trying to shift the burden of proof off your shoulders. It doesn't work. YOU have to support both your claims and the implications of those claims:

1. When do you intend to get the evidence of what wreckage was recovered from inside the Pentagon?

2. When do you intend to interview any of the people who had direct contact with the wreckage?

3. When do you intend to tell us what the wreckage is if you do not believe the wreckage is from AA77 and that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon?

4. When do you intend to present direct, verifiable evidence and testimony that anyone say a jet fly over and away from the Pentagon as you and CIT claim?

5. Why do you claim that CIT "...CANNOT interview military or police. They are forbidden," when CIT did just that? Why are lying about that, mudlark?

The burden of proof for your claims rests entirely on your shoulders. You need to answer the questions about your claims and present us the evidence CIT refuses to. So, mudlark, it is now time for you to step up to the plate and answer the questions posed to you.

[funk de fino]

@mudlark: excellent work, but futile. Working average braindead mainstream forums is much more effiicient. Those "opponents" here are just not well in their brain.

You've lost it.

[W.D.Clinger]

It's very similar to the math/physics deficiency in that he has no clue about three-dimensional space....none. It has shown up numerous times over the course of this charade. Does everyone remember the vertical versus the horizontal clock reference? How 'bout all of those flight paths which are impossible for ANY aircraft to fly! Yessireeeee, this is one crack investigator. That's why this crack team of idiots came up with this idiotic scheme in the first place. They have no clue about much of anything that matters and simply keep displaying arrogant ignorance the longer they perpetuate the lunacy.
All true, but our mudlark has made some progress. After giving up on his original argument that the plane's shadow would fall south of the plane, he's come up with a legitimate fact (daylight savings time) implying the plane was even farther south than A W Smith had calculated.


Good show! If my count is anywhere near accuate this makes about the tenth time on as many issues this idiocy has been destroyed.

How in the hades anyone could be deceived by it is far beyond my comprehension......
Well, mudlark and Childlike Empress appear to be the only people still being deceived by it...
;)

On to mudlark's latest:
Individual testimony has been deemed "worthless" by certain people here.
Mudlark has himself rejected a majority of the individual testimony.

But to ignore ALL the witnesses who were in the best possible position to differentiate between NOC and SOC is completely dishonest and illogical.
Why then has mudlark been ignoring them?

That the FDR records a totally different flightpath IS the problem.
Remember that this FDR has no serial number.
That JREFers themselves claim that seconds are missing from it.
Please try to keep up, mudlark. In October of last year, Warren Stutt (http://www.warrenstutt.com/) proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the CSV files were missing the final seconds. He did that by recovering those seconds from the binary data, which had been in PfT's possession all along.

That even when Warren´s extra data is included that the plane STILL misses the lightpoles.
False.

That not ONE definitive SOC witness has been put forward in this thread let alone corraborative testimony to back eachother up.
False.

And so on.

Mudlark later points out, correctly, that the CVR was destroyed, but his main concern is to throw stones at the flight data recorder (FDR). Once upon a time, before Warren had recovered the final seconds of FDR data, that FDR was the primary piece of physical evidence being cited by mudlark's favorite mathematician technobabbler, Rob Balsamo, whose 11.2g/10.14g/2223g/58g errors have become a running joke in this forum and elsewhere (http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/). Back then, Balsamo's interpretation of the FDR data was based on his denial of the missing seconds. Now that the missing seconds have been recovered, mudlark's only recourse is to dismiss the FDR.

As BCR and others have shown, however, the FDR is consistent with several ground radars and a host of other evidence. If the FDR was faked and planted, then all of that other evidence had to have been faked and planted also: the radar data, the light poles, the majority of the eyewitnesses that mudlark dismisses, even several of the CIT witnesses who insist that the plane they saw hit the Pentagon. If mudlark were right about the FDR, then the attack on the Pentagon and its coverup would have involved active participation by thousands of American traitors. It's more likely that our self-described mudlark is trying to sell us more trash.

[cornsail]

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

What is interesting is that he could not have witnessed any of the flightpath he drew at all, except for the tiny segment passing by his shop. Where did the northward bend over the navy anex come from? He had absolutely no vision of the plane once it passed his shop.

And why is the area of the photo limited in such a way that the correct/official flightpath (where it could actually be visible from his shop) area is not even included in the photo at all.

Interesting that despite this, Paik starts off by trying to draw outside of the photograph anyway before the likely coaching took place.

[cornsail]

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.

Paik never had "NOC" testimony.

Your response is childish. CIT owes a correction and an apology in lieu of their major mistake regarding Paik's location. Instead, they respond with insults and childish "thanks for proving us right" type comments, because a portion of their interview was confirmed.

How did Paik draw the plane's flightpath, when he didn't see anything other than a wing going by outside his window for 1-2 seconds?

[cornsail]

Did any of those "1000" directly say that they found wreckage from Boeing 757-200, N644AA?

This is complete nonsenseous and you know it. Are you saying that a plane other than a Boeing 757-200 could have hit the pentagon? Like maybe a Boeing 757-300? Or Boeing 757-200 N645AB?

[Edx]

Did any of those "1000" directly say that they found wreckage from Boeing 757-200, N644AA?
What exactly did the wreckage consist of?

You know full well that even Sgt Lagasse said he saw plane wreckage.

"I found a compressor blade and carbon fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the engines smashed...but intact in the building."
- Sgt Legasse in an email to Dick Eastman.

[cornsail]

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.

Why is it "obvious"? Can you explain this to us?

Your comments on MAYA are embarrasing.

Which of his comments are "embarrasing" and why?

You don't need data input for your run of MAYA to get the crux of the evidence CIT have obtained.

??

Why should i provide this data (already provided to you from "official" sources) when you've shown that, if you don't lie about your expertise, you lie about the outcome of plugging this data into this software?

Where did he lie about his expertise and where did he lie about the outcome of plugging data into the software?

The cartoon software that isn't capable of modeling the situation, according to you? Scum? *yawn*

Classy.

Do have some actual evidence he/she is lying? Child? *sneeze*

You fail to be one of the cool kids, because the kool kids are able to plug the ***** original data into the appropiate software, Hokulele.

"Kool kids"?

If you're right about this it should be easy to provide the scene files to prove it. Did you actually do this yourself or are you just making assumptions in line with your point of view and calling everyone who contradicts them a liar?

[ElMondoHummus]

Which of his comments are "embarrasing" and why?

Psssst: Hokulele's a she.

Just lettin' you know before she strikes us with lightning. :boxedin:

[cornsail]

Ah, sorry Hokulele (I threw a he/she in there somewhere but missed the earlier ones).

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Buying Loose Change DVD's: $20.00

Supporting A&E for 9/11 Truth: $10.00 (give or take)

Getting your ass handed to you on JREF for having mass histeria & paranoia: PRICELESS!

[WilliamSeger]

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.

You don't need Maya to figure out that Balsamo's graphic is whacked, either. A little common sense and visualization will do.

http://zoesflight.com/files/edpaik.JPEG

Paik is pointing up at about a 35o angle, and being generous, he may have been able to see up about 45o. A simple 2D drawing to scale shows that if the plane was really on the path he drew, and was at least high enough to clear the Annex building, Paik would have seen nothing at all, not even the very tip of the wing.

http://opendb.com/images/paik.jpg

If we assume that he could have seen as much as 45o upward, then the plane was, at the very least, as far SSE of him as it was above the ground. The shadow clinches it, as A.W. Smith shows: Paik is an "official path" witness.

[BCR]

Ready? Set? GO! (oh I used a "shadow length calculator" this time)
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/DSTazimuthrevision-1.jpg

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

You know, you could have just used the general equation I already gave ya.

distance to ground track = height above horizontal/tangent(angle)
distance to ground track = 210/0.62 = 338.7

Oh my, the same result. But then again, that is using real world math. I understand that P4T/Maya math may not agree however. How did mankind manage to survive without P4T's mathematical revelations?

[Brainache]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Mudlark for exposing the CIT fraud by pointing out the daylight saving time error in AW Smith's calculation. Before Mudlark pointed it out, there was a 0.00001% chance that CIT were on to something big, now however, their NOC theory lies smashed to pieces on the anvil of mathematics.

Hooray For Mudlark!! A real champion for truth!

[Hokulele]

Ah, sorry Hokulele (I threw a he/she in there somewhere but missed the earlier ones).


No worries, I have certainly been called worse things on this thread. :D

[mudlark]

Ready? Set? GO! (oh I used a "shadow length calculator" this time)
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/DSTazimuthrevision-1.jpg

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

Congrats for finally fixing the mistake.... now make a wider picture to show us that when using heading/course data, the aircraft will not line up with the physical damage from your plotted position.

I´ll do it for you..

http://i49.tinypic.com/2s8rd55.jpg

Before BCR chimes in with the "Error band!" mantra..an argument which in effect allows you guys to tweak the path to suit your opinions..once and for all tell me and everyone WHICH is the SOC path?

Is it the one through which BCR claims that the VDOT tower may have been struck, only a page or two ago?

Is it the one YOU are pushing still, even though I told you that the shadow cast in the images I posted are based on the NTSB heading/course data and the physical damage a page or two ago and NOT Warren´s datapoints?

Is it the one described by Madelyn Zakhem which Beachnut insists that she saw which had to be further North than yours for her to see the cockpit, and which was in a ´left-tilt´?

Or is it the "consolidated path" which DOES line up with the physical damage?

You can all calm down now..try again Smiffy.

[mudlark]

No, that is reversing the burden of proof again. I do need the data used by PfT in order to verify its accuracy since that is the claim on the table.

Can you provide this data?

...as i said, forget about it Hokulele.
You KNOW exactly what I was proposing.

BCR was the one who stated that the shadow proved SOC. I provided a physical debunk.
The burden is on you.

[mudlark]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Mudlark for exposing the CIT fraud by pointing out the daylight saving time error in AW Smith's calculation. Before Mudlark pointed it out, there was a 0.00001% chance that CIT were on to something big, now however, their NOC theory lies smashed to pieces on the anvil of mathematics.

Hooray For Mudlark!! A real champion for truth!

You DO see the problem here when somebody claims something and you don´t check it out for YOURSELF. Wow..and CIT are the "cult"?

[Hokulele]

...as i said, forget about it Hokulele.
You KNOW exactly what I was proposing.


Right, and I want you to support what it is you were proposing.

Although, I can see why you would want people to forget about this...

BCR was the one who stated that the shadow proved SOC. I provided a physical debunk.
The burden is on you.


And BCR provided the reasoning and data behind this conclusion. Something you have yet to do.

[mudlark]

What is interesting is that he could not have witnessed any of the flightpath he drew at all, except for the tiny segment passing by his shop. Where did the northward bend over the navy anex come from? He had absolutely no vision of the plane once it passed his shop.

And why is the area of the photo limited in such a way that the correct/official flightpath (where it could actually be visible from his shop) area is not even included in the photo at all.

Interesting that despite this, Paik starts off by trying to draw outside of the photograph anyway before the likely coaching took place.

I HAD thought that you were maybe an honest critical thinker Cornsnail, but this post is beyond ridiculous.
He saw the plane pass OVER his shop. He could only see the right wing and part of the fuselage.
The interview was conducted by one of your own.

Where the hell are you suggesting the path is that he SHOULD have described???

SOC would have been in plain sight to him from where he was.

Not so long ago you were posting witness testimony from 2km away LOOKING THROUGH A WINDOW. Windows are made of concrete in your part of the world? Don´t answer that..

[mudlark]

Right, and I want you to support what it is you were proposing.

Although, I can see why you would want people to forget about this...




And BCR provided the reasoning and data behind this conclusion. Something you have yet to do.

I want YOU to forget about it.
You are obviously dodging the issue after stepping up to the plate on your knowledge in this area. Now you want the data that went into creating it, NOT to check the data but to set the parameters up for you! LOL

As I said..

[mudlark]

You know, you could have just used the general equation I already gave ya.

distance to ground track = height above horizontal/tangent(angle)
distance to ground track = 210/0.62 = 338.7

Oh my, the same result. But then again, that is using real world math. I understand that P4T/Maya math may not agree however. How did mankind manage to survive without P4T's mathematical revelations?

Help Smiffy with the math on the REAL path in the image will ya?

[Hokulele]

I want YOU to forget about it.


As I noted, I can see why.

You are obviously dodging the issue after stepping up to the plate on your knowledge in this area. Now you want the data that went into creating it, NOT to check the data but to set the parameters up for you! LOL


You realize the parameters are the data, yes?

As I said..


Said, but not supported. Here I sit and wait, patiently...

[Sam.I.Am]

Mudlark, intentional misspellings of other members names is against the MA.

[mudlark]

You don't need Maya to figure out that Balsamo's graphic is whacked, either. A little common sense and visualization will do.

http://zoesflight.com/files/edpaik.JPEG

Paik is pointing up at about a 35o angle, and being generous, he may have been able to see up about 45o. A simple 2D drawing to scale shows that if the plane was really on the path he drew, and was at least high enough to clear the Annex building, Paik would have seen nothing at all, not even the very tip of the wing.

http://opendb.com/images/paik.jpg

If we assume that he could have seen as much as 45o upward, then the plane was, at the very least, as far SSE of him as it was above the ground. The shadow clinches it, as A.W. Smith shows: Paik is an "official path" witness.

He claimed to have seen part of the fuselage too.
And what heading is your plane on?? You do know the Sheraton is directly behind?
You are assuming that the plane literally went straight over his shop.
His map clearly shows he saw it coming in at an angle.

Pen the hotel in behind and see if you reach the same results.

You are contradicting his testimony, his map(s) and the topography.
Just letting you know.

A little "common sense" needed :)

[mudlark]

Mudlark, intentional misspellings of other members names is against the MA.

Good to know, I´ll start reporting people who call me Mud, Muddy, etc etc..I thought I was "dead" to you anyway..

[technoextreme]

Before BCR chimes in with the "Error band!" mantra..an argument which in effect allows you guys to tweak the path to suit your opinions..once and for all tell me and everyone WHICH is the SOC path?

Why are we debating someone who thinks that measurement equipment is 100% accurate?
Ready? Set? GO! (oh I used a "shadow length calculator" this time)
God...... What is it with truthers thinking that drawing lines is an accurate method of measuring distance in a photo?

[BigAl]

He claimed to have seen part of the fuselage too.
And what heading is your plane on?? You do know the Sheraton is directly behind?
You are assuming that the plane literally went straight over his shop.
His map clearly shows he saw it coming in at an angle.

Pen the hotel in behind and see if you reach the same results.

You are contradicting his testimony, his map(s) and the topography.
Just letting you know.

A little "common sense" needed :)

Common sense tells us that a couple hundred people who's names we know describe Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon and the entire aircraft and all the passengers were found inside.

[mudlark]

As I noted, I can see why.




You realize the parameters are the data, yes?




Said, but not supported. Here I sit and wait, patiently...

Yeah, you keep doing what you´ve been doing since this was brought up. Sit there.

[mudlark]

Okay, nothing else worth commenting on here.
See you tomorrow Smith. (Is that okay samiam?)

[Hokulele]

Yeah, you keep doing what you´ve been doing since this was brought up. Sit there.


If you cannot support your arguments, there is nothing else anyone needs to do to counter them.

Yay, I can keep sitting here! :)

[A W Smith]

Okay, nothing else worth commenting on here.
See you tomorrow Smith. (Is that okay samiam?)


What did I ask you a few days ago about the accuracy of the google earth overlays? and if the pin locations were verified via GPS on site? The physical evidence of the flight path trumps all mudlark.

ETA: and its a bit disingenuous to attach my name to a flight path I never drew.

[twinstead]

God, there is NOTHING worse than somebody who is arrogant while being totally wrong.

mudlark, keep on keeping on, m'kay?

[BCR]

Why are we debating someone who thinks that measurement equipment is 100% accurate?

God...... What is it with truthers thinking that drawing lines is an accurate method of measuring distance in a photo?

Oh and it is even worse, they think it is both 100% accurate and 100% precise :)

[Hokulele]

Oh and it is even worse, they think it is both 100% accurate and 100% precise :)


Are you saying I can't just add as many zeros after the decimal as I like?


:sulk:

[TjW]

Oh and it is even worse, they think it is both 100% accurate and 100% precise :)


Are you saying I can't just add as many zeros after the decimal as I like?


:sulk:

Well, of course you can. But your credibility may change depending on how many you like. :)

[Hokulele]

Well, of course you can. But your credibility may change depending on how many you like. :)


I would like eleventy!!!1!1!

No, make that eleventy-one.

[twinstead]

I would like eleventy!!!1!1!

No, make that eleventy-one.

I'll see your eleventy-one, and raise you an eleventy-five.

[Hokulele]

Eleventy-five%%%%55%5%



That just looks weird.

[twinstead]

Eleventy-five%%%%55%5%



That just looks weird.

Crap. You know, when I see it on the screen like that, I must concur.

[BCR]

Since some folks are mathematically and scientifically illiterate, I thought this image might help.

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

That little 'bell shape' is what I am talking about in regards to 'error'. It is normal and it did not exist then one might think someone was making something up (pulling numbers out of their a%!). So if someone disputes the error band in the correlation of multiple measurement systems, then the dispute would only be to the variance of the band, not whether it exists or not. I have already pointed out that there are issues with both the accuracy and precision of the model. However, I understand those issues and have offered a data based adjustment to compensate for them. Sadly for P4T, the adjustment is still well SoC.

[Hokulele]

May I borrow that graphic? I have had a few cases where I have had to explain the difference between accuracy and precision, and that makes it as clear as anything.


And a%%%55%% is better than eleventy-five%%55%5%%.

[twinstead]

May I borrow that graphic? I have had a few cases where I have had to explain the difference between accuracy and precision, and that makes it as clear as anything.


And a%%%55%% is better than eleventy-five%%55%5%%.

Ha. 5 times better, eh? I stand vindicated! Wait. Not so much. Crap again!

[BCR]

May I borrow that graphic?

Why certainly, I thought the same thing, that is why I stole it from Wikipedia myself :)

[Hokulele]

Why certainly, I stole it from Wikipedia myself :)


Heh, serves me right for not even thinking of Wiki when trying to explain such things. :cool:

[Grizzly Bear]

Have we figured out yet what the freaking point is when all witness data points to a plane impact in a freakin' building? I've long considered the NOC theory stupid for the illiteracy in how witness statements are analyzed. I need nothing else, credulity's shot long before it enters technical territory.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

CIT and their few followers seem to believe that, if witness testimony could be plotted on a graph, that 13 outliers are somehow more significant than the entire bulk of the remaining testimony.

This just gives me another reason to post this:

http://images.cl1mh4224rd.com/jref/the-evidence_1.gif

http://images.cl1mh4224rd.com/jref/the-evidence_2.gif

Those dots on the fringes are what CIT focuses on. And that's retarded.

http://images.cl1mh4224rd.com/jref/the-evidence_3.gif

[beachnut]

... make a wider picture to show us that when using heading/course data, the aircraft will not line up with the physical damage from your plotted position. You forgot to include reality in your plot. You now have another delusion based on your failure in math, physics, and more. Do you understand flying?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1CITattemptAtMathFailed.jpg
...
the wing span of the jet is perpendicular (another math term CIT and Balsamo are not able to understand) to the flight path. It is funny because the line you drew is in the ball park for impact. Are you drawing lies as if 77 drove into the Pentagon on GE. Error band.
... Before BCR chimes in with the "Error band!" mantra..an argument which in effect allows you guys to tweak the path to suit your opinions..once and for all tell me and everyone WHICH is the SOC path? You are right who needs math, it will ruin your moronic delusions made up by the Balsamo and CIT. There are errors in Google Earth so you can't forget the error band. But since you don't do math forget reality and stay put on your delusion, the one you already debunked.

... Is it the one through which BCR claims that the VDOT tower may have been struck, only a page or two ago? You are messing up again, you want 77 lower, not higher. It will debunk you more if you raise 77 higher, you need 77 to hit the tower now, but that debunks you too! "error band"!

... Is it the one YOU are pushing still, even though I told you that the shadow cast in the images I posted are based on the NTSB heading/course data and the physical damage a page or two ago and NOT Warren´s datapoints? Warren's data? It is the FDR data Warren decoded when the p4t dolts failed to decode the last 5 seconds, the 5 seconds found that Balsamo said can't be missing or were not missing; or some garbage; we told him data was missing from the decode. But... You failed to provide the data you used, you talk about it but never presented the data. Warren's data confirms the real flight path. you made a mistake

... Is it the one described by Madelyn Zakhem which Beachnut insists that she saw which had to be further North than yours for her to see the cockpit, and which was in a ´left-tilt´?
Madelyn saw 77 on the real flight path south of her, and coming at her with a left tilt which is a right bank from the cockpit.

A right bank is a left tilt from Madelyn's point of view. Sorry, you failed.

... Or is it the "consolidated path" which DOES line up with the physical damage? 77 clearly knocked down the lampposts, so all you have to do is make a error band starting from the posts back-wards to see you have proved 77 can do the SoC. Failing to make a rational conclusion, you prove CIT is a fraud with 2,223 gs of stupid.


http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1EMC2einstein.jpg
well do you ?

No need to tweak the path, the path was seen by CIT witnesses pointing south and debunking CIT. The plane was flying in air, not driving on the ground, or on a google earth math.

[Longfellow]

God, there is NOTHING worse than somebody who is arrogant while being totally wrong.

mudlark, keep on keeping on, m'kay?


I see it as quite the opposite. To me, there's nothing more funny than somebody so arrogant while being so wrong.

Of the 'newest' crop of truthers, I must say Mudlark has caused more laugh-out-loud moments for me than any of the others. I had Telltale Tom first for a while until it became bleedin' obvious that the poster is deliberately trying to be funny - - which rules out their being a 'truther' as everyone knows that 'truthers' have no sense of self-humor. My philosophy is 'if I can't laugh at myself then I must be unconscious'.

Truthers can't laugh at themselves. It must be a rule or summat.

[Mangoose]

The Pentagon DID contain dead bodies. Those of the Pentagon workers and military. I have seen no documentary evidence to support the DNA retrieval and identification of passengers.


AA587 crashed in Queens in 2001, killed 5 people on the ground. The crash site DID contain dead bodies. Those who were killed on the ground. I have seen no documentary evidence to support the DNA retrieval and identification of passengers. Have you? Any you seen this info for ANY plane crash in history? Or will you conclude that AA 587 had no passengers?

[cornsail]

I HAD thought that you were maybe an honest critical thinker Cornsnail, but this post is beyond ridiculous.

I try to be. I don't see how there is anything dishonest about my post.

He saw the plane pass OVER his shop. He could only see the right wing and part of the fuselage.
The interview was conducted by one of your own.

Not sure what this has to do with my post. I'm talking about the drawn flightpath.

Where the hell are you suggesting the path is that he SHOULD have described???

I thought I made it clear what I was talking about. My main question, which I've asked several times now, is about what the flightpath Paik drew is supposed to mean. He only saw anything of the plane for 1-2 seconds as it was passing his shop. He stated this clearly in the interview. He also said that he didn't see the plane at all after he went outside. So what is the line he drew (which bends north over the navy anex and ends at the pentagon) supposed to be? It's clearly not a flightpath he witnessed, other than perhaps a tiny portion of it.

SOC would have been in plain sight to him from where he was.

SOC meaning south of Citgo??

Not so long ago you were posting witness testimony from 2km away LOOKING THROUGH A WINDOW.

Yeah--a window with a view of the pentagon.. I also conceded that at least one of the impact witnesses I brought up (the kindergarten teacher) was unlikely to have seen the actual impact. What's your point? I never argued that Paik couldn't see anything because he was looking through a window. He said himself that all he saw was a wing for 1-2 seconds! So what did he think he was drawing? And why is it presented as a witnessed flightpath?

Windows are made of concrete in your part of the world? Don´t answer that..

:confused:

You still haven't answered the question..

[cornsail]

fwiw mudlark, I don't think you're an idiot, liar or scumbag, but your heavy bias in favor of your conclusions is blinding you from anything that contradicts them. at least you aren't behaving like CE. but can you concede a point? can you accept the possibility that you're wrong?

[Scott Sommers]

fwiw mudlark, I don't think you're an idiot, liar or scumbag, but your heavy bias in favor of your conclusions is blinding you from anything that contradicts them. at least you aren't behaving like CE. but can you concede a point? can you accept the possibility that you're wrong?

But this is not true. These are obnoxious people that scare ordinary people. CIT has accused an old taxi driver of being an agent or confederate of a major government operation to coverup the Pentagon crash. Truely sick people might take this to mean Lloyd England should be dealt with differently that merely following him around wasting his time. Witness Dawn Vignola was apparently very upset (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165608) by the CIT version of her account.

CIT remind me of the kid who gets beaten everyday by the school bully or by his dad who then goes around beating up the smaller kids in the neighborhood. Stupid? Perhaps not. Crazy? I don't know. Pathetic? Definately.

[cornsail]

True... I wouldn't extend the same niceties to Craig or Aldo, but AFAIK mudlark is not them. They are nastier from what I've seen.

[Scott Sommers]

True... I wouldn't extend the same niceties to Craig or Aldo, but AFAIK mudlark is not them. They are nastier from what I've seen.

I've met members of racist millitias and drank beer in this bar in Itewon Korea.
http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs027.snc1/2470_52822354929_635389929_1469674_7109406_s.jpg
where - at least in 1995 - they hung flags of the Confederacy (although apparently this (http://www.stripes.com/articlephoto.asp?section=104&article=26448&photo=3&count=3) is the owner). Everyone was very polite to me. but then I'm very white.

I have just found they have a Facebook group for the bar and if you look through the photos they have listed, you'll find pics of Confederate flags. Very nice people though.

[cornsail]

"very nice" and "racist militia" does not compute to me (conditional niceness sure...). I don't see racism as analogous with believing crazy theories though. From a KKK speech in the US: "we don't need a reason to hate them!"

weird to hear about Confederate flags there btw! I know Korea is a very racist country, but I wasn't aware any groups there associated so strongly with US racism

[Scott Sommers]

"very nice" and "racist militia" does not compute to me (conditional niceness sure...). I don't see racism as analogous with believing crazy theories though. From a KKK speech in the US: "we don't need a reason to hate them!"

weird to hear about Confederate flags there btw! I know Korea is a very racist country, but I wasn't aware any groups there associated so strongly with US racism

It's a US military bar. Those are white people waving the Confederate flag - that's why i provided the links. And as I said, very nice white people. At least to me.

My point is that these CIT morons might seem fine enough to you, but they're perfectly willing to terrorize innocent people. They don't have the excuse of being crazy. They know they're terrorizing people and calling them liars. They know they're doing this and have decided to do it anyway - and continue to do it. They should be in jail.

[WilliamSeger]

He claimed to have seen part of the fuselage too.
And what heading is your plane on?? You do know the Sheraton is directly behind?

Uh, no, the Sheraton is not directly behind the most plausible flight path, and my drawing has nothing to do with the heading anyway.

You are assuming that the plane literally went straight over his shop. His map clearly shows he saw it coming in at an angle.

Uh, no, I'm demonstrating that if it was anywhere near over his shop, then he couldn't possibly have seen what he said he saw. That was the point.

Pen the hotel in behind and see if you reach the same results.

Sorry, that doesn't make enough sense to respond to. My diagram simple concerns what he could have seen at the angle of view available to him, not the heading of the flight path.

You are contradicting his testimony, his map(s) and the topography. Just letting you know. A little "common sense" needed :)

Duh. Well, I guess I need to spell it out for you: He's contradicting the flight path he drew by what he says he saw, and what he says he saw is consistent with the flight path indicated by every other piece of credible evidence. Here's a hint: The plane was in the air, not rolling on the ground, so all those "signed" flight paths you've got are meaningless. People frequently misjudge those kinds of things when they're just guessing how far away something is, and there's nothing up there to compare against.

[pgimeno]

Sorry, that doesn't make enough sense to respond to. My diagram simple concerns what he could have seen at the angle of view available to him, not the heading of the flight path.

And you, as I did before, forgot about the marquee in the shop. It limits the sight angle even more.

[cornsail]

It's a US military bar.

Oh, gotcha. I was just conversing with my roommate earlier about racism in Korea, so that threw me off.

My point is that these CIT morons might seem fine enough to you, but they're perfectly willing to terrorize innocent people. They don't have the excuse of being crazy. They know they're terrorizing people and calling them liars. They know they're doing this and have decided to do it anyway - and continue to do it. They should be in jail.

Craig and Aldo do not seem fine to me at all. I'm very sure they're dishonest (even if for the sake of "proving" a conclusion that they actually believe) and I know Aldo, at least, to be an egomaniac.

In the case that mudlark is Craig some of those complementary comments can be considered retracted. As of now, though, I'm not sure who he is so I'm just treating him as a random CIT supporter. More flies with honey and whatnot... Unlike Childish Empress, I don't feel the need to regard everyone who disagrees with me as the scum of the Earth, unless they prove it to me.

[BigAl]

My answers in bold

You don´t "subtract ones who´s testimony is "inconvenient"???
Are you actually serious?

Correct. You put each statement in the context of all the testimony and evidence. That would put us up by hundreds to your 8. Physical evidence trumps testimony. We have the entire aircraft and all the bodies inside the Pentagon.

"Cherry-picked"? There are twice as many more witnesses who CIT have attempted to contact.
They interviewed all they could among the route 27 witnesses.
Remember Mike Walter? :)

What about Walters? He's pissed that Twoofers have misquoted him. He saw the plane and thinks no-planers are nuts. Here he is on a short video saying so.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1177892305

Links to the "tons of debris" (plane parts I take it?), please.

Book: Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11: 150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses by Patrick Creed



The Pentagon DID contain dead bodies. Those of the Pentagon workers and military. I have seen no documentary evidence to support the DNA retrieval and identification of passengers.
Remember that passenger DNA was not allegedly found until 2 weeks after the event. The FBI took over on 21st September.

Tell it to the folks at AFIP. The full article names the scientists that did the work. You can ask them if the faked the data on all the passengers and crew.



Operation Noble Eagle: Forensic and psychosocial aspects of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology's response to the September 11 Pentagon attack

Military Medicine | September 1, 2002 | Wagner, Glenn N | CopyrightAssociation of Military Surgeons of the United States Feb 2009.

The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) responded to the tragic events of September 11 by providing a multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists, and support personnel to the Dover Air Force Base morgue. This team conducted one of the most comprehensive forensic investigations in U.S. history. AFIP staff also deployed to the Pentagon Family Assistance Center to establish a DNA reference collections operation, and to Somerset County, Pennsylvania, to collect tissue specimens recovered from the crash site for DNA analysis. All DNA analysis took place at the.

Wagner, Military Medicine September 1, 2002 (you have to access it from a university or library)





Experts ID 184 Pentagon Fatalities (Jan 2002)

by Christopher C. Kelly Public Affairs, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology played a major role in Operation Nobel Eagle investigations, officials said. AFIP is an executive agency of the Army surgeon general.

Many of the Pentagon casualties were badly burned and difficult to identify, an official said. Of the 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were passengers on American Airlines Flight 77. Only one of those who died made it to the hospital; the rest were killed on site. For some victims, only pieces of tissue could be found.

AFIP's team of forensic pathologists, odontologists, a forensic anthropologist, DNA experts, investigators and support personnel worked for more than two weeks in the mortuary at Dover Air Force Base, Del., and for weeks at the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville, Md., to identify victims of the attack.

"Our staff represented every branch of service," said Navy Capt. Glenn N. Wagner, AFIP director. "We also received tremendous support from the doctors, nurses and technicians stationed at Dover who participated in the investigation."

AFIP used a well-designed and tested system for identifying the Pentagon victims. When remains arrived at Dover Air Force Base, a scanning device searched for the presence of unexploded ordnance or metallic foreign bodies. FBI experts collected trace evidence to search for chemicals from explosive devices and conducted fingerprint identifications.

Forensic dentistry experts then performed dental charting and comparison with existing dental records. Full-body radiographs followed to document skeletal fractures and assist in identification, followed by autopsy inspection. At autopsy, forensic pathologists determined the cause of death, and a forensic anthropologist determined race, sex and stature of victims when necessary.

An epidemiologist managed the tracking system for data collected during the autopsy process, and tissue samples were collected for DNA identification and further toxicology studies. Forensic photographers documented injuries and personal effects. Finally, mortuary specialists embalmed, dressed and casketed remains.

For eight days a full complement of AFIP forensic specialists worked 12-hour shifts to complete the identification system.

From DNA samples sent to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory, scientists there generated DNA profiles of the victims. Their work also included the victims of United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Somerset County, Pa.

The DNA lab's entire staff of 102 DNA analysts, sample processors, and logistics and administrative personnel worked 12-hour shifts, seven days a week to complete the work.

DNA identifications for Flight 93 victims were sent to the Somerset County Coroner's Office for release. The Department of Defense released identification of Pentagon victims. All but four who worked in the Pentagon were identified. AFIP identified all but one of the passengers of Flight 77.

From the January 2002 Mercury, an Army Medical Department publication.
http://911review.org/Wget/www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/releases/afip.htm




Again the CVR was "destroyed".

Anything you say.

Links to first responder observations please. Taking into account what I said in my previous post.


Book: Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11: 150 interviews with participants and eye-witnesses by Patrick Creed

[BCR]

It's a US military bar. Those are white people waving the Confederate flag

I'm white and I wave a Confederate flag every now and then. I don't see the issue or comparison.

[Reheat]

weird to hear about Confederate flags there btw! I know Korea is a very racist country, but I wasn't aware any groups there associated so strongly with US racism

For your information the Confederate flag is not necessarily a symbol of racism. It is simply a heritage symbol for many. Being from a border state means that I had ancestors on BOTH SIDES, so don't generalize based on ignorance of ALL of the issues. There were multiple issues involved and many of the participants in the Confederacy didn't have a vested interest in slavery.

Equating Korean attitudes toward race as similar to US racism is another indication of a profound ignorance of the issues involved. Korean attitudes stem primarily from a hatred of the Japanese for attrocities committed during the approximately 40 years of their Colonization of Korea and a desire to preserve the "purity" of their race (such as it is). I agree that they have a racist attitude, but it is directed toward all of those who are non-Korean not necessarily anyone of any specific race.

Sorry for the momentary continuation of the derail. Now, back to the lunacy of CIT.

[Reheat]

I'm white and I wave a Confederate flag every now and then. I don't see the issue or comparison.

But, you do that because you are from the wrong end of the State! :D

[Scott Sommers]

For your information the Confederate flag is not necessarily a symbol of racism. It is simply a heritage symbol for many. Being from a border state means that I had ancestors on BOTH SIDES, so don't generalize based on ignorance of ALL of the issues. There were multiple issues involved and many of the participants in the Confederacy didn't have a vested interest in slavery.

Equating Korean attitudes toward race as similar to US racism is another indication of a profound ignorance of the issues involved. Korean attitudes stem primarily from a hatred of the Japanese for attrocities committed during the approximately 40 years of their Colonization of Korea and a desire to preserve the "purity" of their race (such as it is). I agree that they have a racist attitude, but it is directed toward all of those who are non-Korean not necessarily anyone of any specific race.

Sorry for the momentary continuation of the derail. Now, back to the lunacy of CIT.

Are you guys nuts? Did you even read the post? Koreans have NOTHING to do with this. The bar is in Korea. It is owned by a Korean. NO Koreans go there. NONE. It is a bar set up for service men in the United States military. I said this already. It has nothing to do with Koreans.

Besides, I don't care what nostalgic feeling some people get from the Confederate flag. Nobody except white people go there. There is a blues bar across the street where most of the customers are black GIs. I have been there many times. The only coloured person, including Koreans I ever saw in the Grand Old Opry was a Indian MP. Coloured GIs do not go in there. They have a sign behind the bar that says 'The South Will Rise Again'

[Reheat]

Are you guys nuts?

If you read my reply it was NOT addressed to you. There was no misunderstanding on my part.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm white and I wave a Confederate flag every now and then. I don't see the issue or comparison.


A lot of people associate the Confederate flag with slavery.

[cornsail]

For your information the Confederate flag is not necessarily a symbol of racism. It is simply a heritage symbol for many. Being from a border state means that I had ancestors on BOTH SIDES, so don't generalize based on ignorance of ALL of the issues. There were multiple issues involved and many of the participants in the Confederacy didn't have a vested interest in slavery.

Oh WTF, he specifically told me they were a racist militia. I didn't infer that from the fact that there was a confederate flag there. Sheesh.

Equating Korean attitudes toward race as similar to US racism is another indication of a profound ignorance of the issues involved.

No kidding? That's why I expressed surprise when I thought the two were associated with each other.

Korean attitudes stem primarily from a hatred of the Japanese for attrocities committed during the approximately 40 years of their Colonization of Korea and a desire to preserve the "purity" of their race (such as it is). I agree that they have a racist attitude, but it is directed toward all of those who are non-Korean not necessarily anyone of any specific race.

I wasn't trying to bash all Koreans, I just meant that there is a lot of racism there. And I don't agree there is no race specificity to it, but I'd rather not get into a debate on that right now..

I struck multiple nerves apparently. Not intentional.

[Hokulele]

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/68904b4f4f179a870.gif

[BCR]

I struck multiple nerves apparently. Not intentional.

Not really, just poking fun at the comparison.

A lot of people associate the Confederate flag with slavery.

Yeah, well a lot of people associate it with heritage. My great-unc A.C. McCleary fought with Bedford Forrest (wrote a little book about the experience). We take a lot of pride in the good ole battle flag.

Some see NoC (slavery), and more rational folks see heritage (SoC).

Like Reheat said, I'm from the right side of the State :)

[bje]

Okay, nothing else worth commenting on here.

No one is really surprised you're running away, mudlark. And Craig Ranke is furious that you screwed up CIT's "story" so badly.

[mudlark]

What did I ask you a few days ago about the accuracy of the google earth overlays? and if the pin locations were verified via GPS on site? The physical evidence of the flight path trumps all mudlark.

ETA: and its a bit disingenuous to attach my name to a flight path I never drew.

I extended the path from which you are drawing your conclusions.
It is NOT the path based on NTSB heading/course AND physical damage.

It IS the flightpath you drew. It is Warren´s flightpath.

http://i47.tinypic.com/14tx1rc.jpg

The "physical damage" is IMPOSSIBLE from the path you are using.

[mudlark]

Oh and it is even worse, they think it is both 100% accurate and 100% precise :)

Farmer, what other alleged path can PHYSICALLY line up with the physical damage?

YOU are the one who was suggesting that the plane struck the VDOT tower in this very thread a couple of pages ago.
Do you still stand by that? Or have you now changed your mind to suit Smith´s argument?

The FOIA released NTSB data supports this path. The NTSB data that YOU claim "trumps" eyewitness testimony, yet YOU nor anybody here can pinpoint any path bar those who suit each indvidual argument.

It is YOU who promoted the "consolidated path"

http://es.tinypic.com/r/2unue14/6

The NOC witness paths are derided for being variable yet the SOC "path" from before the Navy Annex is just as variable.
THIS is the "electronic evidence" which is superior to witness testimony?
Judging by the varied arguments in this thread, the SOC path has been rendered ambiguous.


PLEASE tell me which path is THE SOC path given what I have said.
It MUST be compatible with the various parameters recorded by ALL the data sets.

The speed alone makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the aircraft to be on a different course as set out by you.

Why? Because there is NO room for margin of error for the plane to manouevre from any other suggested course within such a restricted timeframe.

Any such manouevre is also lacking in Warren´s data regarding the 4-6º right roll.
It is a CONTINUOUS right roll up until 0.7 seconds before the end of his data.
There is NO left tilt, never mind left bank up until and possibly AFTER the plane allegedly reached lightpole 1.

http://i47.tinypic.com/v8n12d.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/14tx1rc.jpg

So YOU tell me. Is Warren´s data wrong? The path certainly doesn´t go through the lightpoles.

Which path is compatible with Warren´s right roll data AND the lightpole damage.

It certainly isn´t the path Smith has pinned his colours to.

Bank angle does not change the course according to the data. Check Track Angle True parameter in the data. You'll see the course changes by 0.3 tenths of a degree during this final leg. It is a straight line!

Less than 5 degrees of bank is not going to change your course over a 4 second period doing more than 450 knots...

So..

Again, do you still maintain that the plane struck the VDOT tower?
(Even though your FOIA request refuted this claim, among other things..).
The VDOT tower is within the "consolidated path" too.
Or just like Smith were you committing the classic logical fallacy of starting a theory with a conclusion like P4T and CIT are constantly accused of?

Your "band of errors" has just been narrowed down to one path.
There can be no ambiguity.

Ironic that it was ME who had to pinpoint THE proposed SOC path huh?

[mudlark]

CIT and their few followers seem to believe that, if witness testimony could be plotted on a graph, that 13 outliers are somehow more significant than the entire bulk of the remaining testimony.

This just gives me another reason to post this:

http://images.cl1mh4224rd.com/jref/the-evidence_1.gif

http://images.cl1mh4224rd.com/jref/the-evidence_2.gif

Those dots on the fringes are what CIT focuses on. And that's retarded.

http://images.cl1mh4224rd.com/jref/the-evidence_3.gif

That´s...umm..interesting logic.

Does the same logic apply (and I´m getting as tired of spelling this out as many are of reading/ignoring/twisting it) to the Navy Annex and right-bank witnesses? Where are they represented in those dots?

You do realize that 100% of witnesses within the best area to see whether the plane was NOC or not, ALL described an NOC flightpath?
That would make one bigass dot right there..

You also realize that there are a severe lack of "dots" representing SOC path witnesses (whereever that path may actually be)?

You do realize that the "impact witness" lists linked to are severely wanting to in both actual impact witnesses AND that NOBODY contradicts an NOC path? Many actually reinforce the contradictions to the official story.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=959

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=960

The NOC witnesses are by no means "outliers".

Okay, glad we cleared that up.

[mudlark]

You forgot to include reality in your plot. You now have another delusion based on your failure in math, physics, and more. Do you understand flying?

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


Umm..Beachnut?
That path is not "Mudlark´s".
It is Warren´s plotted path.
The path that Smith claims the shadow was cast from onto Paik´s shop.

http://es.tinypic.com/r/14tx1rc/6

:)

[mudlark]

I see it as quite the opposite. To me, there's nothing more funny than somebody so arrogant while being so wrong.

Of the 'newest' crop of truthers, I must say Mudlark has caused more laugh-out-loud moments for me than any of the others. I had Telltale Tom first for a while until it became bleedin' obvious that the poster is deliberately trying to be funny - - which rules out their being a 'truther' as everyone knows that 'truthers' have no sense of self-humor. My philosophy is 'if I can't laugh at myself then I must be unconscious'.

Truthers can't laugh at themselves. It must be a rule or summat.


There is a difference between playground humour/smarm and the humour you are suggesting.
You and others continue to claim that I am "wrong" when I have pointed out the glaring error in AWSmith´s image.
It´s not your fault. Everybody else has jumped onto the "bandwagon" without checking the facts out for themselves. Now THAT is funny. :)

[beachnut]

The sun angle kills CIT flight path as does physics.

Mudlark shows up and can't do the math for a single CIT flight path; wait they have no rational flight path.

Paik is still pointing south as are most CIT witnesses.

All CIT witnesses agree Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.

Thus: CIT is a fraud.

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah the fun of using the most unreliable form of evidence to dismiss the most reliable form of evidence. And yet CIT seems oblivious as to why they aren't taken seriously. Not even within the truther movement.

[mudlark]

AA587 crashed in Queens in 2001, killed 5 people on the ground. The crash site DID contain dead bodies. Those who were killed on the ground. I have seen no documentary evidence to support the DNA retrieval and identification of passengers. Have you? Any you seen this info for ANY plane crash in history? Or will you conclude that AA 587 had no passengers?

The point you are making is totally irrelevant to what I said.
We are talking about possible callous mass murder.
The Queens crash was not a very probable black op.
None of the victims of the Queens crash demanded an open enquiry?
Even from victims of the Pentagon. April Gallup..remember her?

[Jonnyclueless]

Beachnut

Wouldn't the sun angle not be a problem if they demonstrate that the Earth is flat and the sun circles directly above?

"The Queens crash was not a very probable black op"

Oh and this one is very probable? lol.

[mudlark]

But this is not true. These are obnoxious people that scare ordinary people. CIT has accused an old taxi driver of being an agent or confederate of a major government operation to coverup the Pentagon crash. Truely sick people might take this to mean Lloyd England should be dealt with differently that merely following him around wasting his time. Witness Dawn Vignola was apparently very upset (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=165608) by the CIT version of her account.

CIT remind me of the kid who gets beaten everyday by the school bully or by his dad who then goes around beating up the smaller kids in the neighborhood. Stupid? Perhaps not. Crazy? I don't know. Pathetic? Definately.

Pot calling kettle...
Lloyd England is the ONLY physical witness to a lightpole goig through his windshield.
HE even denies that he was where he HAD TO BE.
The NOC testimony refutes his claims (as does he). The lightpoles could not be physically struck from this flightpath.
He has even admitted that "it was planned"! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho)

The entire premise of his story is physically impossible.

Dawn Vignola´s "account" is a non-story because there IS no publically available account of her story made by CIT.
The Dawn Vignola thread here (is it actually still going??) was proven to be a falsehood.
If you have a link to WHERE this "version of her account" has been twisted by CIT can be found please post it. At least show us where this occurred.

That analogy is pathetic. Posters here act like playground/high school bullies.
Photoshop and verbal insults are par for the course.
Put it this way. I was never bullied because I stood up to them.

[A W Smith]

I extended the path from which you are drawing your conclusions.
It is NOT the path based on NTSB heading/course AND physical damage.

It IS the flightpath you drew. It is Warren´s flightpath.

http://i47.tinypic.com/14tx1rc.jpg

The "physical damage" is IMPOSSIBLE from the path you are using.


I drew no path. I drew the length of a shadow from an object at a 210 foot altitude STARTING FROM Paiks shop. Where the shadow ended is where the shadow ended. I did not say it was the tip of the right wing. I did not say it was the tip of the left wing. There is a 124 feet 10 inch range that the total wing span could theoretically fall into, ASSUMING the 210 foot altitude is accurate to begin with.

And there you go with your push pins again, Are you that stupid? Did you not read where I asked you TWICE if the locations of your pins was verified with GPS on site? Did you not remember the problems with accuracy Google Earth has with overlays?

[beachnut]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadelynSeePlaneTiltLeft.jpg
Madelyn see left tilt. I see a left tilt; anyone else? The FDR shows a 5 to 6 degree right bank, like this photo of an aircraft. When you are in front of the flight path like Madelyn, you could say that is a left tilt.

Unless my arms have been switched that photo is a left tilt; anyone who argues can, it is relative to your point of view. Lucky for me CIT documented the direction Madelyn sees 77 above her. They do the work, and fail to do the logic. Are they that bad at this?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadelynDebunksCITBigTime.jpg
She sees 77 up in the sky. Just like Paik points to the south out his office.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadleneCITDebunked.jpg
This line of sight from Madelyn puts 77 on target for the Pentagon; no NoC. Now mudlark with twist her story to fit his idiotic delusion and CIT moronic fantasy flyover. CIT is evidence free for 8 years.

[mudlark]

This one is for the guy who believes his diagram represents Paik´s testimony in that the plane flew parallel to the shop.
He also claims that the Sheraton is not directly behind Paik´s shop and that his "planes" represent what he drew on his map. That the other plane was following the SOC path:

http://i45.tinypic.com/14khdvt.jpg

http://es.tinypic.com/r/mb09ok/6

Okay?

[mudlark]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadelynSeePlaneTiltLeft.jpg
Madelyn see left tilt. I see a left tilt; anyone else? The FDR shows a 5 to 6 degree right bank, like this photo of an aircraft. When you are in front of the flight path like Madelyn, you could say that is a left tilt.

Unless my arms have been switched that photo is a left tilt; anyone who argues can, it is relative to your point of view. Lucky for me CIT documented the direction Madelyn sees 77 above her. They do the work, and fail to do the logic. Are they that bad at this?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadelynDebunksCITBigTime.jpg
She sees 77 up in the sky. Just like Paik points to the south out his office.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadleneCITDebunked.jpg
This line of sight from Madelyn puts 77 on target for the Pentagon; no NoC. Now mudlark with twist her story to fit his idiotic delusion and CIT moronic fantasy flyover. CIT is evidence free for 8 years.

You are claiming that a civilian would see a "left tilt" the way you do Beachnut.
You didn´t finish her quote. She said that the plane executed the "left tilt" to avoid hitting the VDOT tower. Work it out...

[Mr.Herbert]

Posters here act like playground/high school bullies.
Photoshop and verbal insults are par for the course.


What are you talking about?


http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/2hands.jpg

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/untitled-3.jpg

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/CIT.jpg

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/NEWCIT.jpg

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/lgo-menranke.jpg


Oh... Hunt the Ranke:

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

[beachnut]

I drew no path. I drew the length of a shadow from an object at a 210 foot altitude STARTING FROM Paiks shop. Where the shadow ended is where the shadow ended. I did not say it was the tip of the right wing. I did not say it was the tip of the left wing. There is a 124 feet 10 inch range that the total wing span could theoretically fall into, ASSUMING the 210 foot altitude is accurate to begin with.

And there you go with your push pins again, Are you that stupid? Did you not read where I asked you TWICE if the locations of your pins was verified with GPS on site? Did you not remember the problems with accuracy Google Earth has with overlays?
Now I expect Craig to be that dumb!

How does CIT get their loyal terrorists apologist cult members to post at a skeptics forum?

Don't tell him there are errors on google earth, then he might understand the "error band" and have to learn math.

Who said the shadow was over the shop? Why can't the shadow next to the shop? Plus the left wing is higher than the right wing, so you can add to the height. Bank angle.

Notice how CIT and their proxy poster have to avoid presenting math for their 80 degree banked impossible, and delusional NoC flight paths.

They threw the impossible flight paths under the bus with Boger, and Madelyn.

[beachnut]

You are claiming that a civilian would see a "left tilt" the way you do Beachnut.
You didn´t finish her quote. She said that the plane executed the "left tilt" to avoid hitting the VDOT tower. Work it out...
OOPS!

You did it again, you just MOVED the flight path FURTHER south! LOL

The FDR has the bank angle, from the p4t decode at this time is 6 degree right bank.
You just said 77 tilted left to avoid the VDOT tower, this is great!

Yes a civilian would say tilted left you non-pilot CIT cult member! Silly, a pilot would look up at a plane coming his way and say right bank for this.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadelynSeePlaneTiltLeft.jpg
Madelyn looks up and see 77 she knows the VDOT tower is near her and she say left tilt.

This is a right bank, the FDR confirms a right bank, Madelyn says left tilt to avoid the VDOT tower from this point of view make 77 on the correct impact flight path.

Looks like left tilt is a good answer, I can tell the civilian it is a right bank for a pilot. But sure looks like a left tilt to avoid the VDOT tower. New path time!

Like you sun angle, you have just debunked CIT again. I actually was trained to interview witnesses and have experience with the old left tilt stuff. Good job reminding me what she said! Nice self-debunking.

[mudlark]

Just a little taste of the Maya program in action to show where you are wrong Smith.

http://vimeo.com/9630751

And of course the math:

http://i46.tinypic.com/mv6k4o.jpg

Enjoy..:)

[mudlark]

Distance between Shadow and plane = Aircraft Height Above ground/tan (Sun Angle)

x = 230/tan(31.8)

x = 370 feet.


http://i45.tinypic.com/20r92t1.jpg

[A W Smith]

You are claiming that a civilian would see a "left tilt" the way you do Beachnut.
You didn´t finish her quote. She said that the plane executed the "left tilt" to avoid hitting the VDOT tower. Work it out...


Left tilt

Tower

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

[mudlark]

OOPS!

You did it again, you just MOVED the flight path FURTHER south! LOL

Madelyn Zakhem contradicts herself.
Do you now retract what you just said on the left tilt statement?
Now Beachnut..think about it...she claims that the plane had to make this left tilt to avoid the tower.
She also claims that she could see the cockpit.
Tell me how those two statements correlate please.

The plane HAD to follow a straight line to line up with the physical damage.
Are you suggesting that there were twists and turns involved during this 540mph 4 second precise manouevre given that Warren´s data records NO left roll/tilt/bank for the entire duration of the final seconds of the flight data? Really?

[mudlark]

Left tilt

Tower

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

I´ve just rebutted that nonsense. Forget that and get to the posts pertaining to your erroneous claims on the images.

[A W Smith]

I´ve just rebutted that nonsense. Forget that and get to the posts pertaining to your erroneous claims on the images.


Did you get to the GPS overlay verification yet? With all your frenetically desperate "wall of posts" picture postings I seem to have missed the post that you addressed GPS accuracy in. Care to link to it?

[beachnut]

The shadow could pass to the south of the shop and still interrupt reflected light into the shop. Sorry, but witness statements have to be backed up with hard evidence and match physics, math and reality.

The RADALT can be moved about 100 feet from where you think it was due to RADALT being sampled word 31, this is after you do the best you can to locate the frame relative to where it was taken; etc.

Darn, we have to add about 16 feet to the RADALT to compensate for the calibration. OOPS

That gives 10 feet higher, the bank angle gives 6 to 7 feet higher.

Do we need a Kalman filter for this?

[Jonnyclueless]

"Lloyd England is the ONLY physical witness to a lightpole goig through his windshield.
HE even denies that he was where he HAD TO BE."

And thus pointing out why eyewitness testimony is not considered reliable.

Oh, unless one is dishonest enough to be starting with a conclusion.

Which is funny because when a witness's testimony doesn't add up to your pre-determined conclusion, they are "lying". But when a witnesses testimony matches with your pre-determined conclusion, but doesn't match the reliable evidence, th reliable evidence is wrong.

[beachnut]

Madelyn Zakhem contradicts herself.
Do you now retract what you just said on the left tilt statement?
Now Beachnut..think about it...she claims that the plane had to make this left tilt to avoid the tower.
She also claims that she could see the cockpit.
Tell me how those two statements correlate please.

The plane HAD to follow a straight line to line up with the physical damage.
Are you suggesting that there were twists and turns involved during this 540mph 4 second precise manouevre given that Warren´s data records NO left roll/tilt/bank for the entire duration of the final seconds of the flight data? Really?
Don't ask the question unless you know the answer! ...

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadelynSeePlaneTiltLeft.jpg
A bit more than 6 degree of bank here, and only about 2.5 degrees down pitch, Madelyn had a view like this or better, and I see the cockpit (the part cut off at the top is the windows of the cockpit) and a left tilt to avoid the tower. Madelyn debunks your delusion, be thankful you have JREF to help you out of the pit of ignorance, CIT and Balsamo's pit of lies.

The 6 degrees is a turn super CIT person. Wait till you figure out aircraft fly in the air!
BETTER! YEP, the pitch angle was down to 5 degrees, much lower than a normal approach. So the cockpit is more visible!

Left tilt proves to be a right bank, and cockpit see due to pitch being 5 degrees down.


You are like a murder suspect who is not a lawyer defending himself; you are not doing well. Your CIT friends can't figure out anything about 911, and Balsamo is no help as he makes up 2,223 gs of dolt-math; when he gets the math right it is applied moronically and does not match reality. There are no pilots helping you as you debunk yourself each time you post. I only have 36 years of flying experience and 35 years as an engineer; how many years have you been failing at 911 issues?

You have the fancy software, you could see what Madelyn saw but you refuse to investigate you only regurgitate.

I have visualized this CIT witness by placing 77 where he implies he saw it, it matches the FDR and the path of physical evidence. You could do this on your fancy software I don't need to know 77 impacted the Pentagon based on reality based evidence you have to ignore.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/cit10222pointssouth.jpg
Points south, they all report shallow banks and point south. Makes the NoC impossible. If you take your fancy software you can model what he see and here is a polygon of the plane over the annex with not so fancy software.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/cit10223overannexrealfltpath.jpg
Top of the polygon is over the Annex but on the real flight path.

All these witnesses never saw a 757 this close and fast before and is why they all drew curved flight path as it got relatively closer. It is an illusion CIT turns into moronic delusions of impossible flight paths.

[Scott Sommers]

Pot calling kettle...
Lloyd England is the ONLY physical witness to a lightpole goig through his windshield.
HE even denies that he was where he HAD TO BE.
The NOC testimony refutes his claims (as does he). The lightpoles could not be physically struck from this flightpath.
He has even admitted that "it was planned"! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GHM5f9lVho)

The entire premise of his story is physically impossible.

Dawn Vignola´s "account" is a non-story because there IS no publically available account of her story made by CIT.
The Dawn Vignola thread here (is it actually still going??) was proven to be a falsehood.
If you have a link to WHERE this "version of her account" has been twisted by CIT can be found please post it. At least show us where this occurred.

That analogy is pathetic. Posters here act like playground/high school bullies.
Photoshop and verbal insults are par for the course.
Put it this way. I was never bullied because I stood up to them.

I know, this is all so true. Thank you for your work that's been so instrumental in identifying Lloyd and Dawn as agents for the reptilian overlords of the New World Order. You guys deserve a Pulitzer Prize for all this. Have you tried selling it to one of the major news networks? Or even talking about it to anyone on the street? Surprised that people run away or that women call you creeps and lock up their children when you walk by? I'm not.

[Hokulele]

Just a little taste of the Maya program in action to show where you are wrong Smith.

And of course the math:


So, do you have the source information for this cartoon? Do you know what the average positional error is for GE images?

[BCR]

What kind of insanity is mudlark posting now? Mudlark, that is not the scene file. We need the scene file. If you can't produce the scene file for verification then you are not saying anything worth paying attention to. More cartoons won't get it.

[Hokulele]

What kind of insanity is mudlark posting now?


Pictures, no data, no error discussion. Same ol', same ol'.

[BigAl]

Madelyn Zakhem contradicts herself.
Do you now retract what you just said on the left tilt statement?
Now Beachnut..think about it...she claims that the plane had to make this left tilt to avoid the tower.
She also claims that she could see the cockpit.
Tell me how those two statements correlate please.

The plane HAD to follow a straight line to line up with the physical damage.
Are you suggesting that there were twists and turns involved during this 540mph 4 second precise manouevre given that Warren´s data records NO left roll/tilt/bank for the entire duration of the final seconds of the flight data? Really?

Whatever.

Flight 93 crashed into the Pentagon. We have hundreds of eyewitnesses.

[A W Smith]

Whatever.

Flight 93 crashed into the Pentagon. We have hundreds of eyewitnesses.


LOL wrong thread Al, Flight 77

[Scott Sommers]

Whatever.

Flight 93 crashed into the Pentagon. We have hundreds of eyewitnesses.

Oh, is that what this is about? I'd almost forgotten about the claim that Lloyd England is a deep cover agent for the New World Order.

You mean you don't believe that CIT are national heroes completely dispelling the myth of Islamic terrorism? Don't you know that 911 Truth is the most divisive issue in America? It has split apart friends, colleagues and families? 911 Truth is the voice of revolution and either you're on one side or the other. We know which side that Mudlark is on. He's on the side that's waiting for that Pulitzer Prize, that Conscience-in-Media Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience-in-Media_Award), or perhaps even the Congressional Medal of Honor for their risk in exposing the truth about a regime that murders thousands.

[Scott Sommers]

I'm also wondering about how those light poles really got knocked down. We all know there was no American Airlines jet, right? ha ha ha ...anyway, how did it really get knocked down then? Some dudes with a power saw cut it down? They cut all of them down and no one noticed? I bet there never was a light pole there. Who would know if they just made up the whole thing? Then they get an old man and his FBI wife to tell a story about the pole flying into his cab. Who would know that there never was a light pole there at all? The insurance companies would go along, right? They're all in bed with the New World Order, right? This is so sinister. How can our friends at CIT sleep at night knowing this? I'd be afraid the Men in Black would be after me. Good job guys. Keep up the fight against evil.

[tsig]

I'm also wondering about how those light poles really got knocked down. We all know there was no American Airlines jet, right? ha ha ha ...anyway, how did it really get knocked down then? Some dudes with a power saw cut it down? They cut all of them down and no one noticed? I bet there never was a light pole there. Who would know if they just made up the whole thing? Then they get an old man and his FBI wife to tell a story about the pole flying into his cab. Who would know that there never was a light pole there at all? The insurance companies would go along, right? They're all in bed with the New World Order, right? This is so sinister. How can our friends at CIT sleep at night knowing this? I'd be afraid the Men in Black would be after me. Good job guys. Keep up the fight against evil.

Teh light poles were knocked down by the blow back from the wall breaching charges used to make the small round hole in the Pentagon.\cit mode

[dtugg]

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=101&pictureid=1328

[wargord]

Pot calling kettle...
Lloyd England is the ONLY physical witness to a lightpole goig through his windshield.
HE even denies that he was where he HAD TO BE.
The NOC testimony refutes his claims (as does he). The lightpoles could not be physically struck from this flightpath.
He has even admitted that "it was planned"!

First I would like to point out that badgering an old man on his memories on a day years prior does not give credence to their, your, cause. As we all know anyway, testimonials are unreliable.

He denies where he was when the light pole struck his taxi. In other interviews he said he had to force the car to stop. Meaning he was driving when the light pole entered his vehicle. As can be seen from the driving in the video it is not that far from the first set of signs to the second, where his cab finally stopped. Lloyd is talking about where he was when he was hit and when the plane flew over. This is known because Craig starts off talking about the flightpath.

At the end when he is being recorded, though he doesn't know it, he is talking about the entire events of that day being planned. And they were. They were planned by the hijackers. Craig uses his words to mean he is talking about the government because it fits in with Craig's already made conclusion that the US government did it.

I would also like to point out that Craig admits in the beginning of the video to committing a felony. It is a felony to record someone without their consent in VA, DC, and MD. Each states laws come with hefty punishments. He again admits to committing a felony when he says Lloyde didn't know he was being recorded at the end of the video.

Yours, and CIT's, thesis is that we cannot trust the government because they are criminals. How can we trust the CIT when they admit they are also criminals? How can we trust you, you advocate for these criminals?

The entire premise of his story is physically impossible.

To you only because it doesn't mesh with your conclusion.

Dawn Vignola´s "account" is a non-story because there IS no publically available account of her story made by CIT.
The Dawn Vignola thread here (is it actually still going??) was proven to be a falsehood.
If you have a link to WHERE this "version of her account" has been twisted by CIT can be found please post it. At least show us where this occurred.

That analogy is pathetic. Posters here act like playground/high school bullies.
Photoshop and verbal insults are par for the course.
Put it this way. I was never bullied because I stood up to them.

It is funny that you say this because it is you posting the most photoshopped pictures. If your posts here are an example of how you stood up to bullies I would say you got beat up hourly. Also, if you were never bullied why did you need to stand up to bullies?

[funk de fino]

Lloyd England is the ONLY physical witness to a lightpole goig through his windshield.

What about pulling it out? I thought another witness helped him pull it out?

If it was there, then how did it get there. If it was not, how did it get to be lying on the gound next to his vehicle after the fact?

There is also evidence that proves his claims about exactly where he was mean nowt.

[WilliamSeger]

This one is for the guy who believes his diagram represents Paik´s testimony in that the plane flew parallel to the shop.
He also claims that the Sheraton is not directly behind Paik´s shop and that his "planes" represent what he drew on his map. That the other plane was following the SOC path:

http://i45.tinypic.com/14khdvt.jpg

http://es.tinypic.com/r/mb09ok/6

Okay?

This one is for the guy who didn't get it the first two times: My diagram has nothing whatever to do with the heading of the plane. It concerns what Paik could and could not have seen out that window, given his vertical field of view. It's a demonstration that Paik's flight path cannot be correct if his description of seeing one wing and the fuselage is accurate. It's already been pointed out that there's no reason to think his heading is accurate, given that field of view, and my diagram demonstrates that if he saw a wing and fuselage, then the plane must have been well SSE of that window. So it's also a challenge to the picture you posted purporting to show what Paik would have seen out that window. (And, BTW, in addition to not providing the location of the planes in that image and the vertical angle being viewed, you have not provided the simulated camera focal length, which would determine the total angular field of view.) Considering what you're trying to disprove -- that Paik's testimony is inconsistent with the "official" flight path -- that image is ridiculously inadequate. Blowing more smoke about the heading doesn't improve the situation.

Okay?

[jaydeehess]

Madelyn Zakhem contradicts herself.
Do you now retract what you just said on the left tilt statement?
Now Beachnut..think about it...she claims that the plane had to make this left tilt to avoid the tower.
She also claims that she could see the cockpit.
Tell me how those two statements correlate please.

If she could see the cockpit that indicates that she is describing an aircraft coming towards her.

Looking at the aircraft then the wing to her left tilted down, a "left tilt" to a lay person. However that is the plane's right wing that is tilting down and thus a right bank. A right bank will take the aircraft to its right , which in this case means further south.

The aircraft banked right to avoid the VDOT tower then which also indicates that its left wing was closer to the tower than its right wing thus putting the aircraft south of the tower.

Simple huh?

[jaydeehess]

Whatever.

Flight 93 crashed into the Pentagon. We have hundreds of eyewitnesses.

77

[Wolrab]

What a colossal waste of time. These idiots do not deserve any response other than pictures of the dead strapped to their seats. They start off with a completely false premise, and argue "what ifs" that are impossible. Their entire house of cards is based on the memories of a two or three second episode years ago (and CIT's insane interpretations of said memories). They don't even have the balls to do any research or call the people that picked up the roasted flesh and twisted wreckage. Their fly-over is always conveniently ignored as they can't produce anything to back it up.
If any lurkers out there are at all swayed by any of these fools, they were lost to begin with.

[beachnut]

Teh light poles were knocked down by the blow back from the wall breaching charges used to make the small round hole in the Pentagon.\cit mode
It sucked them toward the explosion. More silent sucking explosives.

CIT has not limit to the stupid ideas they can make up and Balsamo is so dumb he can't from a theory.

[BCR]

Your "band of errors" has just been narrowed down to one path.
There can be no ambiguity.

Ironic that it was ME who had to pinpoint THE proposed SOC path huh?

Mudlark, you have no idea what you just posted do you? Take the Warren decode and plot it at take-off at Dulles, then come back and we'll talk INS drift and measurement system error.

Oh never mind, I've already done it for you.

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

Since there can ONLY be one 'official path' according to Warren's decode, reckon the plane took off from a parking lot instead of the runway.

[beachnut]

...
Since there can ONLY be one 'official path' according to Warren's decode, reckon the plane took off from a parking lot instead of the runway.
He has no idea why the systems can be off 2000 feet but pilots can bring the plane in to inches on the runway center line save the p4t who can't hit the Pentagon in the safety of a simulator. He hooked up with pilot worse than terrorist who 75 percent of the time can hit targets as big as runways.

mudlark has not looked at the FDR heading system to see what the real headings were or calculated the real course.

The FDR has no NoC flight path because those paths are all impossible and he has dropped them like they drop witnesses who watched 77 impact the Pentagon.

mudlark is only here to post links to CIT to get more soda money for Craig from increased traffic.

mudlark owes us the NoC flight path headings and points to pin down the NoC with math. They did a cartoon implying 77 was on the NoC but can't knock down the lampposts which also debunks any NoC because they can't fly over the damage. Dolts making cartoons; they also made an instantaneous reversal from 89 degree right bank to 89 degree left bank.

[Brainache]

Are we done here? I would say yes. CIT's fraud has indeed been revealed over and over again in this thread (amongst others). The CIT cheer squad, such as it is, has only managed to add more info to the SOC flight path and continues to ignore all of the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
Anybody with any sense at all can see this, but somehow I still think Mr Mudlark will continue to push his delusions here. Why? It can't be for money.

Why do you do it Mudlark? You know you are wrong, we know you are wrong, all the lurkers know you are wrong, my 12 year old daughter knows you are wrong and yet you persist. WHY?

[bje]

Anybody with any sense at all can see this, but somehow I still think Mr Mudlark will continue to push his delusions here. Why? It can't be for money.

Why do you do it Mudlark? You know you are wrong, we know you are wrong, all the lurkers know you are wrong, my 12 year old daughter knows you are wrong and yet you persist. WHY?

Because we all keep responding...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Flight 93 crashed into the Pentagon.


Shhh! They don't know that!

[BCR]

mudlark is only here to post links to CIT to get more soda money for Craig from increased traffic.

Has anyone here really followed a link posted by mudlark? I give folks credit for having more brain power than that on this forum. Speaking of which, here is some advice for mudlark and his P4T pals.

http://zoesflight.com/files/DrinkDerive_Fullpic_1.gif

[JimBenArm]

Has anyone here really followed a link posted by mudlark? I give folks credit for having more brain power than that on this forum. Speaking of which, here is some advice for mudlark and his P4T pals.

http://zoesflight.com/files/DrinkDerive_Fullpic_1.gif

Do you actually think they'll get it?

[mudlark]

The sun angle kills CIT flight path as does physics.

Mudlark shows up and can't do the math for a single CIT flight path; wait they have no rational flight path.

Paik is still pointing south as are most CIT witnesses.

All CIT witnesses agree Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon.

Thus: CIT is a fraud.

Beachnut, please tell me what the official SOC path is.
Farmer claims that there is a "margin of error". Do you agree given Warren Stutt´s data that I have posted and the directional damage.
Please, no rants, it should be a simple answer because you claim that there is only ONE SOC path compared to the NOC witnesses´ variable paths.
OR are there more than one possible SOC paths?
Take into account the post I made.

The rest of your post has repeatedly been debunked in whole or in part by me in previous posts. Please stay on topic with the specific questions I have just raised.

The math on the shadow has just been posted for you. What do YOU find wrong with it?

[mudlark]

Ah the fun of using the most unreliable form of evidence to dismiss the most reliable form of evidence. And yet CIT seems oblivious as to why they aren't taken seriously. Not even within the truther movement.

I have just given physical proof debunking BCR´s claim and AWSmith´s image and math regarding the possibility of the shadow of the plane reaching Paik´s shop.
Are you actually reading this thread or...?

Aah..just noticed your name.

The "most reliable form of evidence", according to BCR (and the rest given their ambiguity or non comments on the matter) does NOT show THE proposed SOC path. It is varied because of a "margin of error", according to him.

The directional damage, specifically the lightpole damage, narrows this path down to one specific path. That any variation to this path is possible is also refuted by Warren Stutt´s data regarding a mere 0.3º change in course for the entire duration of the final seconds and NO left wing manouevre at all.
It in effect shows a straight line

There is NO "margin of error" given this physical evidence. OR is Warren´s data wrong/mistaken?

[mudlark]

I drew no path. I drew the length of a shadow from an object at a 210 foot altitude STARTING FROM Paiks shop. Where the shadow ended is where the shadow ended. I did not say it was the tip of the right wing. I did not say it was the tip of the left wing. There is a 124 feet 10 inch range that the total wing span could theoretically fall into, ASSUMING the 210 foot altitude is accurate to begin with.

And there you go with your push pins again, Are you that stupid? Did you not read where I asked you TWICE if the locations of your pins was verified with GPS on site? Did you not remember the problems with accuracy Google Earth has with overlays?

So, you believe that the SOC path is more along the lines of Warren´s plotted path? That point is along his path.If you believe this ONE piece of the Paik brothers´ testimony and totally ignore the rest, you are also forced to maintain that the plane had to have been on this path.

Remember Warren´s data does not mention ANY left bank or roll necessary to line up with the damage.


The point you drew to is NOT on the directional damage SOC path.
I have shown you the math and the image of the shadow in relation to the TRUE proposed SOC path.The shadow could not physically reach Paik´s shop.

Are you actually trying to add another 124 feet into the equation to muddy the waters Smith?
The image is measured from the fuselage of the plane. Even with the left wing, and the left wing´s length only added on, it STILL doesn´t reach.

Those "stupid push pins were plotted by Warren himself.
Did YOU not read where I have repeatedly said this?

They were also plotted using GE lat/long..

[mudlark]

This one is for Beachnut:

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

http://i49.tinypic.com/29lzk06.jpg

http://i45.tinypic.com/29oq16p.jpg

Are you SURE you want to carry this argument regarding Madelyn Zakhem?

[mudlark]

Now I expect Craig to be that dumb!

How does CIT get their loyal terrorists apologist cult members to post at a skeptics forum?

Don't tell him there are errors on google earth, then he might understand the "error band" and have to learn math.

Who said the shadow was over the shop? Why can't the shadow next to the shop? Plus the left wing is higher than the right wing, so you can add to the height. Bank angle.

Notice how CIT and their proxy poster have to avoid presenting math for their 80 degree banked impossible, and delusional NoC flight paths.

They threw the impossible flight paths under the bus with Boger, and Madelyn.

Read my post to Smith. Another JREFer dissing Warren? Wow.

Why can´t it be NEXT to the shop? How the hell could Shinki have seen it as he states in Larson´s interview when he was in the BACK?? Where he could not see the ground? Weak effort Beachnut.

Anser the post I made to you.

Where is the SOC path given the points I made?

[16.5]

c-c-c-c-c-combo breaker!

Hi Craig!

[mudlark]

OOPS!

You did it again, you just MOVED the flight path FURTHER south! LOL

The FDR has the bank angle, from the p4t decode at this time is 6 degree right bank.
You just said 77 tilted left to avoid the VDOT tower, this is great!

Yes a civilian would say tilted left you non-pilot CIT cult member! Silly, a pilot would look up at a plane coming his way and say right bank for this.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1MadelynSeePlaneTiltLeft.jpg
Madelyn looks up and see 77 she knows the VDOT tower is near her and she say left tilt.

This is a right bank, the FDR confirms a right bank, Madelyn says left tilt to avoid the VDOT tower from this point of view make 77 on the correct impact flight path.

Looks like left tilt is a good answer, I can tell the civilian it is a right bank for a pilot. But sure looks like a left tilt to avoid the VDOT tower. New path time!



Thank You. So the SOC path IS in fact the "consolidated path" that Farmer has promoted?

According to you it may even be FURTHER South given that the plane had to avoid the tower.

Or did it hit the tower? BCR? BCR?? :D

[mudlark]

Did you get to the GPS overlay verification yet? With all your frenetically desperate "wall of posts" picture postings I seem to have missed the post that you addressed GPS accuracy in. Care to link to it?

Oops again Smith. You´ll have to ask Warren about that.

[mudlark]

What kind of insanity is mudlark posting now? Mudlark, that is not the scene file. We need the scene file. If you can't produce the scene file for verification then you are not saying anything worth paying attention to. More cartoons won't get it.

Hahaha. Pathetic.

The data used for the path is the NTSB Heading/Course and Altitude data.

The data for the Sun is from the US Naval Observatory.

The data for Topography is from USGS DEM.

Stop asking for the "data". The data is all there. Use whatever program you want.

So when you and Hokulele were asking for "data", you really want the "scene files"???
Thank you for proving my point about wanting it set up for you!

Scene files are not "data". The only reason you want the scene files is because you cant build your own like the author has with the actual data. Furthermore, how can you expect him to give you his scene files that he spent countless hours putting together to people who constantly personally attack and libel him??? You must be delusional.

I have posted screenshots of the scale for those who wish to check the construction. If they want to build their own using the same data that was used, for comparison, you KNOW where to get the data.

I have corrected the EST vs EDT, flight path.. .etc. Now you want the actual construction given to you on a platter because you cant build your own with the data provided?


Whats next, are you going to want me to give you the PC and laptop which built the scene as well?

Stop making hairbrain excuses. Put up or shut up..both of you.
It´s transparent and it´s getting very tedious.

Why not grow a pair of gonads and go ask Rob yourself?

[BCR]

Mudlark, come back when you have something beyond cartoons and we'll talk.

[Hokulele]

Oops again Smith. You´ll have to ask Warren about that.


Does this mean you do not know the accuracy of Google Earth?

[mudlark]

This one is for the guy who didn't get it the first two times: My diagram has nothing whatever to do with the heading of the plane. It concerns what Paik could and could not have seen out that window, given his vertical field of view. It's a demonstration that Paik's flight path cannot be correct if his description of seeing one wing and the fuselage is accurate. It's already been pointed out that there's no reason to think his heading is accurate, given that field of view, and my diagram demonstrates that if he saw a wing and fuselage, then the plane must have been well SSE of that window. So it's also a challenge to the picture you posted purporting to show what Paik would have seen out that window. (And, BTW, in addition to not providing the location of the planes in that image and the vertical angle being viewed, you have not provided the simulated camera focal length, which would determine the total angular field of view.) Considering what you're trying to disprove -- that Paik's testimony is inconsistent with the "official" flight path -- that image is ridiculously inadequate. Blowing more smoke about the heading doesn't improve the situation.

Okay?

Blah blah..you had me at hello..
Listen, your diagrams had nothing in relation to either the testimony, or the topography and obstacles.
Are you seriously saying that the "SOC" plane as depicted in your drawing was somehow accurate in relation to his POV?
Or are you another who likes to move the SOC path about to suit the argument.
I´ve just pointed out where the SOC path HAD to be to line up with the physical damage.
NOW go do your drawing with all the above points taken into account. See if you come to the same conclusions.

[mudlark]

Mudlark, you have no idea what you just posted do you? Take the Warren decode and plot it at take-off at Dulles, then come back and we'll talk INS drift and measurement system error.

Oh never mind, I've already done it for you.

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

Since there can ONLY be one 'official path' according to Warren's decode, reckon the plane took off from a parking lot instead of the runway.

Reread the post Farmer.
What I pointed out in Warren´s data points to a STRAIGHT LINE from the Navy Annex to Route 27.

IF the plane was "slightly North" of the official SOC path depicted by the NTSB data and the directional damage, there are NO manouevres recorded demonstrating any such thing.

One of three possibilities exist for YOU on your insistence that the plane flew SOC.

1. Warren´s data is wrong.

2. The SOC path did not line up with the physical damage.

3. ALL the electronic data, including Warren´s right roll parameters MUST be as you say. That the "consolidated path" is the ONLY SOC path compatible.

Take your pick. Cut the crap.

"Talk" BCR? Answer my post honestly.

Are there any manouevres recorded in Warren´s data, where I have pointed out regarding the right roll that would make the plane anything other than on your "consolidated path" according to this data? There is NO left bank/roll recorded from WELL before the Navy Annex.

Explain.

[mudlark]

Are we done here? I would say yes. CIT's fraud has indeed been revealed over and over again in this thread (amongst others). The CIT cheer squad, such as it is, has only managed to add more info to the SOC flight path and continues to ignore all of the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
Anybody with any sense at all can see this, but somehow I still think Mr Mudlark will continue to push his delusions here. Why? It can't be for money.

Why do you do it Mudlark? You know you are wrong, we know you are wrong, all the lurkers know you are wrong, my 12 year old daughter knows you are wrong and yet you persist. WHY?

I wouldn´t be so sure on the "lurkers".
I´ve rectified every lie that has been made (and which are continually posted still)
I´ve answered every point.
There has been no "fraud" proven whatsoever. This thread has in fact reinforced Ed Paik´s NOC testimony.
The shadow claim by BCR has proven NOC.
BCR´s claim that the VDOT tower was "struck" has been proven a falsehood.

You talk about fraud, yet BCR brought up the VDOT nonsense in the FULL KNOWLEDGE that it is false. HE received the FOIA request on the damage. NONE. Yet he went ahead and started it anyway.

Now the regulars here are reduced to disgusting insults and photoshop when a genuine anomaly is raised regarding the "electronic evidence" and the SOC path.

These guys need help. I just HOPE that the honest critical "lurkers" are keeping note of this behaviour and weak style of debate and "counterarguments" bereft of links, truth and logic.

Do you think they would be satisfied with ANY answers to my post on the SOC path? Doubt it.

[beachnut]

This one is for Beachnut:

Are you SURE you want to carry this argument regarding Madelyn Zakhem?
Plane is too low, the pitch is wrong, the bank angle is too high. The plane is not where Madelyn said it was. Plus she said it banked to miss the tower, you have the plane in the wrong place the plane was 220 feet and higher when she saw it.

The heading in the FDR has 77 on these heading for the last 5 seconds;

These headings debunk CIT/Balsamo dirt dumb delusional math free paths they can't publish because they are impossible to fly.

59.8
59.8
60.1
60.5
61.2
True headings, not possible with CIT idiotic NoC non-flight path made up by idiots at CIT and pushed by the failed pilot Balsamo the failure at math and flying.

And Paik points south. Not doing good.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/b757b737.jpg
That 757 is big, no wonder CIT witnesses think 77 was closer to them than it was. Too bad CIT is not smart enough to understand witness statements as they were never trained. Why have CIT failed?

[BCR]

Take your pick. Cut the crap.

"Talk" BCR? Answer my post honestly.

Mudlark, please do cut the crap and post the source data (the Maya scenes). All you are doing is talking BS. Come see me when you have something to offer.

[ElMondoHummus]

Mudlark posted another cartoon? Not even the full animation, but just screenshots? http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/laughing-smiley-007.gif

Wow... guess all those bodies were planted then, huh? Guess all these people who saw the jet hit (http://mouv4x8.perso.neuf.fr/11Sept01/A0082_b_They%20saw%20the%20aircraft.htm) were shills too (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary).

:rolleyes:

[beachnut]

Beachnut, please tell me what the official SOC path is.
Farmer claims that there is a "margin of error". Do you agree given Warren Stutt´s data that I have posted and the directional damage.
Please, no rants, it should be a simple answer because you claim that there is only ONE SOC path compared to the NOC witnesses´ variable paths.
OR are there more than one possible SOC paths?
Take into account the post I made.
The rest of your post has repeatedly been debunked in whole or in part by me in previous posts. Please stay on topic with the specific questions I have just raised.
The math on the shadow has just been posted for you. What do YOU find wrong with it?
go first, present the math and the flight path for the NoC. Go ahead make my day present the one and only great flight path you have for your proved NoC. You said you have it, are you telling another big idiotic failed lie?
You have not path! CIT/Balsamo and you have no NoC.
There is no flight path NoC; NO Flight path north of the Citgo Station because you can't produce it. I demand you produce your flight path or retract you moronic delusion.


Farmer is right, there are errors, but we know 77 knocked down the lampposts. But you can't figure it out. The RADALT declared exact by Balsamo is 4 feet as 77 starts knocking down the lampposts. Balsamo debunks Balsamo. Warren decoded what Balsamo sat on for years. lol, Balsamo said the data can't be missing for any reason, but the reason was he could not decode it. Failure and fraud.

Too bad the air was moving on 911. Farmer is right because the air moves, the compass is not exact, the witnesses are only good to verify the evidence found in the FDR. Was the plane shaking left and right sort of. Yes Middleton says so; the FDR verifies Middleton. CIT fails.

Flight 77 flew and knocked down the lampposts, flight path along the damage path. Flight 77 was over the road when the RADALT read 4 feet which is 20 to 30 feet over the road, with the wingtips at 35 feet when it crossed the bridge/overpass. FACT backed up with hard evidence. Debunks the flyover.

The FDR supports the damage. you agree given Warren Stutt´s data that I have posted and the directional damage. What are you talking about?
CIT witnesses point so the SoC flight path.
The FDR information for position is accurate 1000 to 2000 feet, what do you want to do with your failure now?

My posts debunk CIT, and Balsamo's failed 2,223 gs of paranoid idiotic rant. A failed pilot, Balsamo is reduced to selling DVDs full of idiotic lies. You support idiotic delusions; why can't you do math?

You are only here to post links to p4t cult of stupid, where dumb white guys can make up dirt dumb ideas and be praised by idiots.

Balsamo is a nut case who changes links to randi.org because he is a dolt; 2,223 gs of pure stupid with a group of dirt dumb cult members who have can't do much but slap their truthNAZI on the back when he regurgitates some lie he makes up, or they clap for his math, 2,223 gs must of been a standing ovation for the dumbed down cult members.

Your posts are on par with Balsamo's math.

There is only one flight path, and the FDR has it. Why can't you figure it out?
What is the heading accuracy.
What is the wind accuracy?
Have you, or can you take the true heading and find a true course?
Do you know what a true course is?
Can you give me the true course for the last 5 seconds?
Do you know the difference between heading and course?
How high was Flight 77 when the shadow passed in front of Paiks office?
Was the shadow in front of Paiks office?

Did you say the real flight path has to be straight?
Why is the heading go from 59.8, to 60.1, to 60.5 to 61.2 in the last 5 seconds. Did you think it flew straight? These are four different headings for the last 5 seconds, and these are only good for a moment, one sample.

What is the course for these headings? Hello? What is the error in the heading system? Hello?

Why is Mackey right about the G force; because he has physics and you don't understand much of anything as you get your ideas from CIT and Balsamo who have you posting their ideas. Can't you think for yourself?

Present the NoC or CIT is a fraud.


I think the shadow is 387 feet long or longer.

Madelyn debunks CIT this is why CIT calls her a liar, or says she can't see what see said she saw. The rest of CIT delusions are based on what people said, so if you drop Madelyn and can't fit her in your delusion, you FAIL.

CIT witnesses point to the flight path that knocked down the lampposts and most of them think 77 was closer to them for a few reasons. Noise, the engines were 100 percent, and these people have never been this close to 100 percent engines, and a 757 is big, so they think the big fast plane is closer due to size. Their brains make them think the large plane they think is smaller, closer.
Sorry to burst your lack of knowledge failure but you can take your Balsamo lies and CIT delusions and go back to the pit of ignorance.

There is only one flight path, and the FDR has it; how do you want me to describe it for you? You can't tell us the math for a flight path, the data for your cartoons, or the error in google earth. Do you understand reality?

[Dog Town]

Why not grow a pair of gonads and go ask Rob yourself?

Why the whole third person thing?

[beachnut]

...
The data used for the path is the NTSB Heading/Course and Altitude data.

Which is it, heading or course? Show the data; list it. Data dump. Is it a straight line? You mean the Warren decode. Right?

I had to present the data and with my thesis to earn my masters degree. Why are you lazy on this issue?

You also have not give us the NoC flight path yet. Where is the NoC flight path?

[BCR]

Why the whole third person thing?

Yep, and mudlark posting stuff as 'proof' of something but unable to post the source data. Why would anyone want to go ask Rob about anything regarding 9/11? He is the biggest source of disinformation on the planet in that regards (okay, maybe CIT is the biggest and Rob struggling to dethrone them). It is mudlark's responsibility to back up his stuff. If he can't, then they are just cartoons.

[cornsail]

I thought I made it clear what I was talking about. My main question, which I've asked several times now, is about what the flightpath Paik drew is supposed to mean. He only saw anything of the plane for 1-2 seconds as it was passing his shop. He stated this clearly in the interview. He also said that he didn't see the plane at all after he went outside. So what is the line he drew (which bends north over the navy anex and ends at the pentagon) supposed to be? It's clearly not a flightpath he witnessed, other than perhaps a tiny portion of it.

...

You still haven't answered the question..

bump

[cornsail]

I´ve answered every point.

Not even close. Responding to a post containing a point is not the same as answering it.

[Brainache]

I wouldn´t be so sure on the "lurkers".
I´ve rectified every lie that has been made (and which are continually posted still)
I´ve answered every point.
There has been no "fraud" proven whatsoever. This thread has in fact reinforced Ed Paik´s NOC testimony.
The shadow claim by BCR has proven NOC.
BCR´s claim that the VDOT tower was "struck" has been proven a falsehood.

You talk about fraud, yet BCR brought up the VDOT nonsense in the FULL KNOWLEDGE that it is false. HE received the FOIA request on the damage. NONE. Yet he went ahead and started it anyway.

Now the regulars here are reduced to disgusting insults and photoshop when a genuine anomaly is raised regarding the "electronic evidence" and the SOC path.

These guys need help. I just HOPE that the honest critical "lurkers" are keeping note of this behaviour and weak style of debate and "counterarguments" bereft of links, truth and logic.

Do you think they would be satisfied with ANY answers to my post on the SOC path? Doubt it.

I was going to respond to this point by point, but you have nothing Mudlark. Not one thing that would make a rational person believe your theory.

Lets look at your so-called evidence for a NOC flight path:

Some witness statements recorded years after the event.

That is all you have. These witnesses all say the plane hit the building. Not one saw a fly-over.

The physical evidence shows that a NOC flightpath is impossible. Therefore your witnesses are confused about the location of a plane they saw for a few seconds one day years ago. Big surprise.

[wargord]

I wouldn´t be so sure on the "lurkers".
I´ve rectified every lie that has been made (and which are continually posted still)
I´ve answered every point.
There has been no "fraud" proven whatsoever. This thread has in fact reinforced Ed Paik´s NOC testimony.
The shadow claim by BCR has proven NOC.
BCR´s claim that the VDOT tower was "struck" has been proven a falsehood.

You talk about fraud, yet BCR brought up the VDOT nonsense in the FULL KNOWLEDGE that it is false. HE received the FOIA request on the damage. NONE. Yet he went ahead and started it anyway.

Now the regulars here are reduced to disgusting insults and photoshop when a genuine anomaly is raised regarding the "electronic evidence" and the SOC path.

These guys need help. I just HOPE that the honest critical "lurkers" are keeping note of this behaviour and weak style of debate and "counterarguments" bereft of links, truth and logic.

Do you think they would be satisfied with ANY answers to my post on the SOC path? Doubt it.

Why are you still advocating for known felons?

[dtugg]

I wonder why muddy even bothers. Obviously, he hasn't nor will he ever convince any sane person. I don't mind him humiliating himself though. It's pretty funny.

[wargord]

I wonder why muddy even bothers. Obviously, he hasn't nor will he ever convince any sane person. I don't mind him humiliating himself though. It's pretty funny.

He is entertaining.

[pgimeno]

Scene files are not "data". The only reason you want the scene files is because you cant build your own like the author has with the actual data. Furthermore, how can you expect him to give you his scene files that he spent countless hours putting together to people who constantly personally attack and libel him??? You must be delusional.

Now that's delusional. The scene files are the way of checking that the representation is correct and has not introduced errors or misguides that favor your delusions. Why do you think Mike J. Wilson provided the scene files? Why didn't he keep them for himself after all the work it cost him? Why did he give them away even to people who support the conspiracy craziness? The reason is that anyone should be able to verify the accuracy of his model and that's why he released it, as you're being asked to do here. Thanks to the model, everyone can verify that his images are not deceitful as may yours be until you prove otherwise by providing the scene files. Mike J. Wilson did not ask everybody to make their own scene to check his conclusions, that's NOT the way to go. He provided the scene files, THAT is transparency, THAT is the way to go.

I have posted screenshots of the scale for those who wish to check the construction. If they want to build their own using the same data that was used, for comparison, you KNOW where to get the data.

First, that's shifting the burden of proof, most notably now that it's so clear that Paik's testimony blatantly contradicts NoC.

Second, if BCR or Hokulele or anyone did a render proving you wrong, you would claim that the scene is incorrect for whatever reason, even if you haven't proved that your scene is correct.

So, put up or shut up.

It´s transparent and it´s getting very tedious.

You may mean 'transparent' as in 'invisible', not in the usual meaning of transparency.

[TruthersLie]

Mudlark, you have no idea what you just posted do you? Take the Warren decode and plot it at take-off at Dulles, then come back and we'll talk INS drift and measurement system error.

Oh never mind, I've already done it for you.

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

Since there can ONLY be one 'official path' according to Warren's decode, reckon the plane took off from a parking lot instead of the runway.

I have often thought that the pilots were taking off from the grass... usually due to the rough ride... Thank you BCR for proving it. Those long runways are just decorations.

[Jackanory]

I wouldn´t be so sure on the "lurkers".


All 15 of them. Thats gotta be another $150 if all buy your dvd. I would suggest that if there are any lurkers left that they spend the cash on a digitally remastered copy of Close Encounters of The 3rd Kind. Get it out once in a while and put it back again. Oh...... a little like this NoC/SoC cartoon caper.

Make stuff up, get caught lying then make up more stuff (with a few technical words and fancy graphics) to cover your lies.

100's and 100's of posts later and ......................................

Still left with lies built on lies.

Its turned into a Capt Bob v Craige Ranke sketch show, each competeing to tell the biggest lie to a 'handful' of people who dont believe them anyway. I suppose once the divorces were over they had nothing to lose.

[BCR]

You talk about fraud, yet BCR brought up the VDOT nonsense in the FULL KNOWLEDGE that it is false. HE received the FOIA request on the damage. NONE. Yet he went ahead and started it anyway.

Lets look at this shall we. I examined in great detail EVERY aspect of Edward and Shinki Paik's accounts. When way back in 2006 or so, the CIT boys learned of the 'tower damage' claim, they simply dismissed it and instead focused on aspects of Ed's story that reinforced their delusion, going to the extreme of video-taping him out by Columbia Pike as his POV. This in spite of his initial claim that he was inside the shop.

I sought to corroborate their account in regards to the tower. I have made those results pretty transparent and made the 'official' documentation public. However, in spite of the denials by VSP and Virginia, low-and-behold, there is a large crane parked next to the VSP antenna tower on the 12th-13th just as the Paik's claim. CIT started the story that the work was to 'enhance' the tower for the FBI, yet VSP and Virginia deny that as well.

So, Ed has been quite honest and forth-coming for years now with essentially the same story. But don't promote one aspect of it that cannot be verified and ignore the aspects that can be verified or dismissed. His story is what he recalls, and I dare say that five years after the event, there are going to be problems with the recall. However, I put more weight on a 'bent antenna' they both watched for an extended period of time being replaced than I do on 'the right wing' of something Ed saw for a fraction of a second while in the process of ducking.

Sorry, Ed's account of seeing the antenna work (verified with satellite imagery) has been verified. The only question(s) remaining is what kind of work was done and why are 'official' channels denying it?

[WilliamSeger]

I´ve rectified every lie that has been made (and which are continually posted still)
I´ve answered every point.
There has been no "fraud" proven whatsoever. This thread has in fact reinforced Ed Paik´s NOC testimony.

Okay, I'm convinced. Mudlark lives off the grid in his own private Idaho.

The only conceivable conclusions that can be drawn from this thread are that Paik could not have seen the path he drew and which CIT have promoted as "evidence"; that he could not have seen what he said he saw -- the wing, part of the fuselage, and a shadow passing over the building -- if the plane had been on that path; and that what he said he saw out that window is consistent with the path indicated by all the physical and documentary evidence that he is supposedly proving must have been faked. And yet, Mudlark makes another appeal to simple contradiction and declares victory.

Obviously, this can go on endlessly, but what's the point?

[bje]

I´ve answered every point.

You haven't been able to answer any questions, mudlark.

Remember?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5638036&postcount=809

You ran away again from explaining this:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_159394a90a10347d02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17388)

Try again, mudlark.

[tfk]

.... Blowing more smoke about the heading doesn't improve the situation.
Okay?

It does if "blowing smoke" is all Craig, uh, mudlark's only remaining option.

Tom

PS. When someone offers his impression that the CIT bozos behave as if they were "bullied in school", your reply "No, I wasn't" may entitle you to "authority" over this question.

But it doesn't do much for "anonymity".
Or "credibility" either, for that matter.

[tfk]

BTW mudlark,

How many of your witnesses have the plane rolled up into a 45°, 60° or 85° bank. As would be necessary to follow some of the flight paths that you've described.

Especially if you hadn't taken the airspeed down to about half of its reported value, of course.

You do know that it'd be kinda tough for a 757 sized jet to just clear the top of the Pentagon if it were standing on its right wing in order to swoop around to overfly that South parking lot, don't you.

[tfk]

Excuse me for interjecting.


Farmer, what other alleged path can PHYSICALLY line up with the physical damage?


The ONE that lines up with the physical damage is the only one that a person with a functional brain will consider.

Of course, you can consider as many alternatives as you want ...


YOU are the one who was suggesting that the plane struck the VDOT tower in this very thread a couple of pages ago.
Do you still stand by that?


Re VDOT Tower: Don't know. Don't care.

I DO know that the one and only plane that approached, and then impacted, the Pentagon struck those lamp posts.


The FOIA released NTSB data supports this path.


The NTSB data supports the "official flight path" thru the lamps, thru the outer wall, and thru the building on the path of the damage.


The NOC witness paths are derided for being variable yet the SOC "path" from before the Navy Annex is just as variable.


It's not "the NOC witnesses" that are being "derided".
It is "the NOC witness interviewers" and their lack of objectivity that is being derided.


THIS is the "electronic evidence" which is superior to witness testimony?


The physical evidence, the electronic (FDR, RADES, etc) evidence AND the eyewitness testimony all concur. AA77 hit the Pentagon.

A tiny percent of the eye-witness testimony, when mangled by a couple of bozos with agenda, has been folded, spindled & mutilated beyond recognition.


Judging by the varied arguments in this thread, the SOC path has been rendered ambiguous.


Only in a couple of deluded imaginations.


The speed alone makes it IMPOSSIBLE for the aircraft to be on a different course as set out by you.

Why? Because there is NO room for margin of error ...


You clearly don't understand what the word "no" (in "no margin of error") means. You may want to look it up. Unfortunately, in order to replace "no" with a correct term, some maths will be required. A task that seems completely beyond your ability.


... for the plane to manouevre from any other suggested course within such a restricted timeframe.


Well, it's a darn fortunate thing for the official version that the flight path is pretty much a straight line, ain't it.

Kinda throws a cold bucket of water on all those curved lines that YOU are offering, don't it?


Bank angle does not change the course according to the data. Check Track Angle True parameter in the data. You'll see the course changes by 0.3 tenths of a degree during this final leg. It is a straight line!


Yup.


Less than 5 degrees of bank is not going to change your course over a 4 second period doing more than 450 knots...

So..


Thanks for throwing your support behind the official flight path.


Or just like Smith were you committing the classic logical fallacy of starting a theory with a conclusion like P4T and CIT are constantly accused of?


Something massive & dramatic happened.
A boat load of people witnessed it.
A boat load of physical evidence exists for analyzing what transpired.

You don't start with a conclusion.
You start with an epistemology that goes something like:

1) Analyze all the physical evidence (knowing that there are margins of error to all instrumentation).
2) Analyze the eyewitness testimony (recognizing from long experience that this is one of the least reliable forms of evidence).
3) Come to a conclusion.
4) Make sure that your finished product (your conclusions) is reasonably reconcilable with 1 & 2 the above.

You ignore 1).
You ignore 95% of your eyewitness testimony, thereby failing 2).
You fail miserably at 4).

Because you fail at 4), by definition you failed 3).

Zero for 4.

Other than that, you did GREAT!


Your "band of errors" has just been narrowed down to one path.
There can be no ambiguity.


Pssst, there was ALWAYS "only one flight path". The one proven by all the physical evidence.


Ironic that it was ME who had to pinpoint THE proposed SOC path huh?


"Ironic"? No.
"Delusional"? Yup.

Tom

[Wolrab]

As to whether the plane struck the tower or not, wouldn't it have been prudent for the PTB to check the tower for any damage seeing how a jetliner flew very close to it and there was a massive explosion just down the way?

[jaydeehess]

Beachnut, please tell me what the official SOC path is.
Farmer claims that there is a "margin of error". Do you agree given Warren Stutt´s data that I have posted and the directional damage.
Please, no rants, it should be a simple answer because you claim that there is only ONE SOC path compared to the NOC witnesses´ variable paths.
OR are there more than one possible SOC paths?




1) Obviously the aircraft flew only ONE path
2) There is an FDR recording of the flight data indicating the path it flew.
3) The Instruments and the method of recording will introduce a margin of error in the numbers that are recorded.


This much is obvious to anyone who has ever dealt with any type of measureing equipment.
The plot of the flight path is one of the recorded data but if one is to be completely honest it should be a wide stroke that includes the margin of error. So, yes, the plane flew but one path but the FDR data of that path must be looked at as being accurate within a margin of error of perhaps a half a wingspan to either side.

Contrast that with the accuracy of eye witness statements. We have the CiT 13 reporting the aircraft all over the place, from the south corner of the Navy Annex to over Patton Drive. The CiT make much about all of these putting the aircraft north of the FDR described path however each of them is viewing from north of that path as well and it has been pointed out time and again that because of the size of the aircraft and the short duration of viewing that eyewitnesses will consistently indicate that the plane was closer than it was in reality.
The worst case, IMO, being that they promote as accurate the descriptions given by the ANC witnesses in that they were running for their lives. This would, if accurate, put the aircraft several hundred feet south of the Citgo, yet at the same time Morin puts the aircraft over the south edge of the Navy Annex, while Boger describes seeing the aircraft enter the Pentagon.
They have been shown that such a path is physically impossible (from the south edge of the Annex to ANC and then to the impact point)for an aircraft as large and as fast as is described both by eyewitnesses and the FDR data, and that even a more agile aircraft flying slower would be in an extreme bank which no witness describes.

It is immediatly obvious to anyone then, that there is a wide margin of error in the witness flight paths but the CiT refuses to discuss margins of error, instead maintaining that each witness is accurate on one detail only, NoC. Yet many of these same witnesses describe an aircraft hitting the pentagon and none of them describes a flyover or even that they had assumed it would hit the top few floors. The CiT dismisses these parts of multiple reports with little to no reasoning other than it does not fir the CiT's own story.
Its too bad that there are not 13 corressponding witnesses who were standing to the south of the flight path as they may well have reported the a/c well south of the FDR described path.

Of course any southern viewer would immediately be dismissed by the CiT as they would simply not fit the CiT's own story.

[jaydeehess]

As to whether the plane struck the tower or not, wouldn't it have been prudent for the PTB to check the tower for any damage seeing how a jetliner flew very close to it and there was a massive explosion just down the way?

Not really. It would only be relevent to those who do not believe that the plane hit the Pentagon. The fact that the DNA of the passengers was found in the Pentagon and that the FDR data indicates that the plane flew to the Pentagon and that the physical damage done to the Pentagon is consistent with a very large , fast object having hit it where multiple witnesses say it did are more than enough to conclude that indeed a plane hit the Pentagon.

The damage done to the VDOT tower may well have not been caused by the plane, or it may have. Its a minute detail among a huge amount of evidence that a plane flew into the Pentagon.

[BCR]

Not really. It would only be relevent to those who do not believe that the plane hit the Pentagon.

Yes sir, if the State of Virginia was to suddenly produce the work order for the repair, it would prove nothing except that the State of Virginia was in on the cover-up (in some quarters).

[jaydeehess]

Yes sir, if the State of Virginia was to suddenly produce the work order for the repair, it would prove nothing except that the State of Virginia was in on the cover-up (in some quarters).

yes, of course the only reason anyone would want this w.o. is to verify that damage was caused by the aircraft but those who actually believe thatthe a/c crashed into the Pentagon would not be asking for except to show those who do not believe and those who do not believe will simply dismiss any further evidence anyway.

All the work in obtaining such a w.o. would bring the term 'spinning one's wheels' to mind.

The CiT and mudlark are quite happy to dismiss Boger and other's statements that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon including such detail from a few that they thought the plane hit the ground in front of the outer wall. No one at all says they thought it hit, or would have hit, the upper floors, which is something you might expect if the plane was to flyover the building. Let alone the fact that no one watching the plane approach the Pentagon or from sides other than the attacked side, say they saw the plane rise over or exit over the Pentagon.

The CiT story is born from the imaginations of a handful of people and the only way they can make other information fit their story is to also make up reasons to ignore it, and to accept as fact the descriptions of a few people and twist the descriptions of others.

[mudlark]

Post summarily deleted due to continued breach of Rule 4.

[mudlark]

Which is it, heading or course? Show the data; list it. Data dump. Is it a straight line? You mean the Warren decode. Right?

I had to present the data and with my thesis to earn my masters degree. Why are you lazy on this issue?

You also have not give us the NoC flight path yet. Where is the NoC flight path?

I noticed a whole RANT before this one and you still didn´t answer the question I asked you.

Given that you are wrong on the course of the plane outlined by Warren´s data and that it was STRAIGHT, does the plane not have to be on the "consolidated path"?

That´s all I´m asking Beachnut. It´s like trying to get blood from a stone with this simple question.

And YOU want CIT/P4T to give you a specific NOC path based on witness testimony yet given the "infallible" electronic evidence NONE of you will claim exactly where the SOC path is??

Remember. Straight line for 11 seconds. Now pin your colours to the SOC path.

One of you..

[mudlark]

Yep, and mudlark posting stuff as 'proof' of something but unable to post the source data. Why would anyone want to go ask Rob about anything regarding 9/11? He is the biggest source of disinformation on the planet in that regards (okay, maybe CIT is the biggest and Rob struggling to dethrone them). It is mudlark's responsibility to back up his stuff. If he can't, then they are just cartoons.

Haha.

This coming from the same guy who said this..

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

and who just a few pages ago tried to get ONE person to back him up on the VDOT mast "strike".

I have more links to your "work" but I´m more interested in what your take is on the post I just made regarding the SOC path.

Stop avoiding the issue and answer me please.

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by cornsail
I thought I made it clear what I was talking about. My main question, which I've asked several times now, is about what the flightpath Paik drew is supposed to mean. He only saw anything of the plane for 1-2 seconds as it was passing his shop. He stated this clearly in the interview. He also said that he didn't see the plane at all after he went outside. So what is the line he drew (which bends north over the navy anex and ends at the pentagon) supposed to be? It's clearly not a flightpath he witnessed, other than perhaps a tiny portion of it.

...

You still haven't answered the question..


Just WHERE does he draw a map of this "bend"? Are you actually referring to his shaky freehand line which goes over the Annex?
Note where his path ends in CIT´s presentation of all the NOC witnesses

http://i45.tinypic.com/10rk07b.jpg

He said that he could only physically see the right wing and part of the fuselage as it flew over the "roof".

IF the plane had been on the SOC path he would have had a clear view of it.

He only saw anything of the plane for 1-2 seconds as it was passing his shop

What is your point?? he SAW the plane. He describes the SAME events in both interviews.

WHERE else could he have logically deduced that the plane DID go given the physical description?

Your logic is the same as somebody saying that a person sees an object thrown over a roof, but he couldn´t see the other side, so did the object land on the other side!

Do YOU believe that the plane flew SOC according to his testimony?
Do YOU believe that the plane flew anywhere ELSE but where he said given his testimony and POV?

C´mon. Drop it.

[mudlark]

Okay, I'm convinced. Mudlark lives off the grid in his own private Idaho.

The only conceivable conclusions that can be drawn from this thread are that Paik could not have seen the path he drew and which CIT have promoted as "evidence"; that he could not have seen what he said he saw -- the wing, part of the fuselage, and a shadow passing over the building -- if the plane had been on that path; and that what he said he saw out that window is consistent with the path indicated by all the physical and documentary evidence that he is supposedly proving must have been faked. And yet, Mudlark makes another appeal to simple contradiction and declares victory.

Obviously, this can go on endlessly, but what's the point?

If I say that an impact witness could not physically SEE an impact, I am accused of labelling them "shills" or "liars".

AWSmith (where is he anyway??) tried to prove that the shadow that was mentioned by the Paiks proved SOC. But his image totally ignored the SOC path. The image and video I posted have yet to be debunked by the instigator of this claim. BCR.

He has been interviewed by CIT and one of the most anti-CIT minded people on this forum. Erik Larson.

BOTH interviews resulted in the same outcome. He described the plane as being on what ONLY can be described as an NOC path.

Exactly WHERE has this thread "proven" that Ed Paik "could not have seen what he said he saw.."

YOUR drawing? In which I have pointed out numerous mistakes, as opposed to the P4T image and video based on verifiable parameters AND witness compatible, is based on neither.

Now THAT is what can be classed as a "cartoon".

[mudlark]

I see some are saying that since Mike J. Wilson gave his "scene files" for his Solidworks presentation, that we should give our scene files.

First of all, i cant find any links to his Solidworks scene files at his site...

http://mikejwilson.com

His links are all broken on his site... are they working for you?

Secondly, his presentation is not based on ANY data. His analysis was published prior to the release of the FDR data. He didnt use any topography data, nor Sun data. Mike Wilson's analysis is truly a cartoon, just look at it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

In his video, he claims he makes available the models used, not the scene files. Anyone can find the models for free at 3D Warehouse, or pay for better models from any store online.

You people have the data, you have the math. The math has proven Maya precise in the same manner as AW Smith and Farmer attempted their analysis using Google Earth (although Farmer and AW Smith have been proven GIGO).

Bottom line - It is physically impossible for an object on the SoC flight path as dictated by the NTSB heading/course/altitude data, and required by the physical damage, to cast a shadow on Ed Paik's shop at 09:37:45 EDT on Sept 11, 2001.

It is clear none of you have the expertise to construct Arlington based on the data and have nothing left to argue but empty posturing ot get a free construction of Arlington in order to manipulate the files and data worse than you already have.

[mudlark]

Mudlark, please do cut the crap and post the source data (the Maya scenes). All you are doing is talking BS. Come see me when you have something to offer.

Answer my question. Where is any other data available either through the NTSB FOIA FDR data or in Warren´s data that points to any manouevre other than the straight line depicted in the electronic "evidence" that I have just pointed out?

It´s a simple question. Surely you can tell this "moron"?

The Maya scenes? In other words "give us a hand to set it up because we don´t know how to". The data is there. Stop wasting people´s time with this childish dodge. They can see through it.

[mudlark]

Mudlark posted another cartoon? Not even the full animation, but just screenshots? http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/laughing-smiley-007.gif

Wow... guess all those bodies were planted then, huh? Guess all these people who saw the jet hit (http://mouv4x8.perso.neuf.fr/11Sept01/A0082_b_They%20saw%20the%20aircraft.htm) were shills too (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary).

:rolleyes:

The "cartoon" jibe is getting OLD.
Ask farmer or Hokulele how their "debunk" of it is coming along.

As for the links to "impact witnesses", have a gander through these links THEN come back to me.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=959

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=960

I see you failed to link to documented plane parts for Flight 77. Maybe next time?

[mudlark]

Excuse me for interjecting.



The ONE that lines up with the physical damage is the only one that a person with a functional brain will consider.

Have you actually read the post concerning my attempt to get a straight answer on THE proposed SOC path?
According to Warren´s data the plane flew in a straight trajectory for the last 11 seconds.
The physical damage path cannot be classed as being within a series of paths based on "margin of error"
Why all the ambiguity? I know why but that´s for later.


Re VDOT Tower: Don't know. Don't care.

I DO know that the one and only plane that approached, and then impacted, the Pentagon struck those lamp posts.

BCR brought up the VDOT tower, not me.
Interesting insight into this guy seeing how HE requested the FOIA which clearly states that there was NO damage.

If you are referring to "lightpole witnesses"..

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51

Your only proof is that they were on the ground. NOBODY confirms SEEING them struck.



The NTSB data supports the "official flight path" thru the lamps, thru the outer wall, and thru the building on the path of the damage.

The NTSB data also reveals that the plane was too high to hit the lightpoles.
The data actually stops at the lightpoles according to the officially released NTSB data. Unless you are referring to Warren´s decode which has never been explained, commented on or verified by the NTSB.

In conversation between Rob Balsamo and Warren the data doesn´t add up to impact either.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18239&st=0&p=10778248&#entry10778248


It's not "the NOC witnesses" that are being "derided".
It is "the NOC witness interviewers" and their lack of objectivity that is being derided.

Their testimonies were pretty transparent to me. They ALL place the plane NOC on video. They drew maps to bolster what they said.
Please don´t pretend that some posters here have a low opinion of these witnesses. They have been called "CIT stars", "outliers", whe they are FAR from being that They have been accused of "lying" both here and by the author of the video in question in this thread.

God knows what they privately think of Ed Paik, given the total irrational logic concerning his testimony.


The physical evidence, the electronic (FDR, RADES, etc) evidence AND the eyewitness testimony all concur. AA77 hit the Pentagon.

The RADES data has been disproven by the pilot of the C130 himself, O´Brien..

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=325&view=getlastpost

The FDR proves that he plane was too high to hit the lightpoles.
The FDR has NO serial number to identify it as having come from Flight 77.

all witness testimony certainly does NOT concur. The "100s of witnesses to an impact" fairytale is dead. The majority of witnesses within the basin of land between the Navy Annex and the Pentagon describe anything BUT the alleged SOC path.
"Over the annex", "North of Citgo", "right bank", "8-15 seconds flight".
Even the "lawn witnesses" contradict the low level approach on the "5 frames".
One even clearly describes NOC.

So no, you are WAY off on that one.

A tiny percent of the eye-witness testimony, when mangled by a couple of bozos with agenda, has been folded, spindled & mutilated beyond recognition.

100% of witnesses within the NOC area and 100% at the Citgo station itself all agree NOC. FAR from a "tiny percent". Again refer to the statement above.
This argument on a "few outliers" should be penned to describe the SOC "witnesses" whoever he/she is..
Prove that their testimony has been "spindled". You can´t.


You clearly don't understand what the word "no" (in "no margin of error") means. You may want to look it up. Unfortunately, in order to replace "no" with a correct term, some maths will be required. A task that seems completely beyond your ability.

Sigh..BCR claims that there is a "margin of error" regarding the SOC path.
CIT is constantly hounded to plot ONE NOC path based on witness testimony alone.
YOU say the "electronic evidence" provides AN SOC path yet nobody has the stones to pin their colours to one.
Instead, they have just as wide an array of paths as NOC.
The only difference is, as I have pointed out, that Warren´s data, which I take it you agree with, points to a 0.3º change in course over the final leg of the plane´s flight.
His data records a constant minor right roll. In effect, a straight line.
No left roll/bank.
Given the directional damage and this dataset, the plane MUST follow the NTSB plotted path. Farmer´s "consolidated path".

http://es.tinypic.com/r/eb5wgi/6

Given what I have said, isn´t this the ONLY SOC path?

[Hokulele]

The "cartoon" jibe is getting OLD.
Ask farmer or Hokulele how their "debunk" of it is coming along.


Without the scene files, there really isn't anything to debunk. Unsourced assertions are worthless. Pgimeno explained this very clearly, and yet you haven't addressed the main points, choosing instead to waffle on with some tu quoque.

Until the scene files are made available, there is no reason to assume competence on the part of the model builder.

[mudlark]

Well, it's a darn fortunate thing for the official version that the flight path is pretty much a straight line, ain't it.

Kinda throws a cold bucket of water on all those curved lines that YOU are offering, don't it?


That´s ALL I wanted to hear. I wanted you guys to STICK to this path if you are going by the NTSB data AND Warren´s data.

You see, THAT is the precise problem. This right bank and NOC has been described not only by the NOC officially confirmed witnesses but by witnesses all over the place.

That you can ignore "some" witnesses is one thing, but to ignore a plethora of them is illogical and dishonest.

On a separate note..


HOPEFULLY WHEN I RETURN TOMORROW ONE OF YOU WILL ANSWER MY POST AND STOP DODGING AND CHANGING THE SUBJECT.

[mudlark]

Without the scene files, there really isn't anything to debunk. Unsourced assertions are worthless. Pgimeno explained this very clearly, and yet you haven't addressed the main points, choosing instead to waffle on with some tu quoque.

Until the scene files are made available, there is no reason to assume competence on the part of the model builder.

In all seriousness Hokulele..blah.

[Hokulele]

In all seriousness Hokulele..blah.


Seriously though, do you understand why the scene files are required? Do you understand why this is the same issue as CiT releasing the raw interview tapes? If you cannot, or will not, understand this point, you will never understand why CiT and PfT continually fail.

[BCR]

Answer my question. Where is any other data available either through the NTSB FOIA FDR data or in Warren´s data that points to any manouevre other than the straight line depicted in the electronic "evidence" that I have just pointed out?

You have not offered any evidence, only speculation. Sorry, I don't need the P4T data and/or scenes. I really could care less about it. You are offering the Maya animations as evidence of something, not anyone else on this board. If you wish to do that, you need to present the material used to create the cartoons if you want them accepted as anything else but cartoons. I'll take math and physics over cartoons any day.

Now go play in the treefort with the other little kiddies.

[beachnut]

Okay, so now you have to be schooled by a "moron" at this point Beachnut..
Here is the True Course from Warren's data for the last 11 seconds.
61.2
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.2
61.2
61.2
61.5
61.5 LOL, this is funny stuff.
... failed again, that is TRACK ANGLE TRUE, and it is not the last 11 seconds. You know why? No.

What is the difference between Heading and Course?

These are the true course, you know why? Prove me wrong, it takes math and you can't do it, and Balsamo can't do it; who are you going to call? Not CIT, they can't do much or than moroic lies and idiot delusions.
61 - 61.3
61 - 61.1
62 - 61.6
62 - 61.6
62 - 62.4
Last five seconds of True Course and they are different than the lies you posted and you don't have a clue. It Hertz doesn't it! Math, it does a mind good.

Here are the true headings for the last 12 seconds, I go you one better.
59.8
59.8
59.4
59.4
59.4
59.4
59.8
59.8
59.8
60.1
60.5
61.2
... the real flight path knocked down lampposts and impacted the Pentagon. If you had physics in your skill set you would run not walk away from the insanity of the paranoid nut case "moron" Balsamo and his CIT team, the Crazy Idiot Team. Got math; doubt it

Failure for the CIT message kid.

Why can't you post a NoC flight path you guys can stick with, or you will not post a flight path because they are impossible?

All NoC flight paths have big giant banked turns, where as the reality flight path has small banked turns.

[Hokulele]

It Hertz doesn't it!


That is almost as bad as BCR's "Don't Drink and Derive" poster.

[16.5]

Gee, Mudlark is back and blasts out 11 straight posts in 20 minutes.

Again.

Night after night.

Containing link after link after link to CIT's web site.

Anybody question that Shaky Craig and Fat Aldo are pulling the strings?

This is exactly what they did with their last stooge.

[BCR]

Sigh..BCR claims that there is a "margin of error" regarding the SOC path.

Get the claims straight mudlap. BCR claims that the MEASURED path by the various instruments has an error range associated with it. The actual flight path does not have a "margin of error", only the techniques used to measure it.

I'll leave your other nonsense for the pilots to deal with if they are so inclined. Do you really not care how ignorant all of this dribble you are posting makes you look? I guess the short answer is no.

[beachnut]

That is almost as bad as BCR's "Don't Drink and Derive" poster. We could vote.
I could not pass it up, sampled at .5 Hz, the poor kid without math is failing faster than free fall into the pit of Balsamo's 2,223 gs of stupid math. He has no clue the values vary and that the sample is only good for a fraction of a second, good enough for accident investigation, but not very practical for him.

Wait till he finds out the heading systems have errors in them.

Some one is not very skeptical of CIT and the p4t cult of failed pilots with bad math. Will he be upset when he figures out he joined a skeptic forum?

As Paik clearly points south out of his office window to Flight 77 doomed due to the terrorists mudlark, CIT and Balsamo apologize for as if they were friends. Balsamo needs to be more truthful and change his cult to, Pilots Apologizing For Terrorists.

Paik points south.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/PaikpointssouthdebunksCIT.jpg
Looks bad for CIT as Paik points south like most CIT witnesses. The real flight path is where they are all pointing. Too bad CIT never went to school to learn how to take and interpret witness statement for aircraft incidents. It is amusing how stupid CIT statements and videos are.

[beachnut]

Get the claims straight mudlap. BCR claims that the MEASURED path by the various instruments has an error range associated with it. The actual flight path does not have a "margin of error", only the techniques used to measure it.

I'll leave your other nonsense for the pilots to deal with if they are so inclined. Do you really not care how ignorant all of this dribble you are posting makes you look? I guess the short answer is no.

Don't think he understands why you are right.

[Hokulele]

Don't think he understands why you are right.


The truly sad part is that he doesn't even seem to be trying to understand either what people post here, or even what his own arguments are saying.

[bje]

Guess at which window seat mudlark is sitting on the Fantasy Flyover Flight and win a chance to throw a pie in Craig Ranke's face:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_159394a90a10347d02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17388)

[wargord]

Okay, so now you have to be schooled by a "moron" at this point Beachnut..

Here is the True Course from Warren's data for the last 11 seconds.

61.2
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.5
61.2
61.2
61.2
61.5
61.5

Beachy, why do you lie?

That is a straight line.



Lie number 2 in the same post.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif

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

http://i45.tinypic.com/200z8dh.jpg

He points EVERYWHERE but South.
Please don´t post the manipulated gif you guys are so fond of or I´ll prove you a liar again.

How are we to accept what the CIT say when we all know they are proven felons? They have admitted to committing a felony while doing their "research" on Lloyde England. How are we to know they didn't commit any other criminal acts or lies in their other "research?" What makes them better then the criminal government you don't trust?

[jaydeehess]

Get the claims straight mudlap. BCR claims that the MEASURED path by the various instruments has an error range associated with it. The actual flight path does not have a "margin of error", only the techniques used to measure it.
.

I tried explaining that above but apparently I might exist to mudlark in quoted fashion only.

[beachnut]

The NTSB data also reveals that the plane was too high to hit the lightpoles. From the FDR the RADALT read 4 feet the time it crosses Washington Boulevard knocking down lampposts. It is big lie Flight 77 is too high to hit the lampposts.

Balsamo knows Flight 77 is low, he calls the RADALT a hard number, so it is 4 feet. Knowing the 4 feet is the value for landing gear touchdown add about 16 feet and we have 77 just above cars on Washington Boulevard.

The data actually stops at the lightpoles according to the officially released NTSB data. Unless you are referring to Warren´s decode which has never been explained, commented on or verified by the NTSB. LIE
Another BIG lie. The data is verified and sent out on DVD by the NTSB. Warren decoded the data where p4t stolen software decode failed. The data does not stop, you are making up a lie and a dirt dumb statement of woo.

The NTSB released all the data! mudlark for CIT is making up lies. The data stops when 77 impacts the generator. Balsamo knows this, or is too stupid to figure it out.


In conversation between Rob Balsamo and Warren the data doesn´t add up to impact either.
That is because Balsamo is dumber than dirt when it comes to the FDR. Balsamo sat on the data for years and Warren's decode shows impact with the generator. Too bad you are not an aircraft accident investigator or you could figure this out.

No, Warren knows the data indicates impact, he can't tell Balsamo because Balsamo will ban him. There is no debate at p4t insane pilots cults with the wannabe pilots regurgitating Balsamo's failed math and praising his insane paranoid claims. Is Balsamo still saving those bullets to kill people who see he pushes lies?

Their testimonies were pretty transparent to me. They ALL place the plane NOC on video. They drew maps to bolster what they said.
CIT witnesses point to the south flight path, wake up and see the videos as the dolt Craig talks over their testimony and makes up lies.
Boger see 77 impact the Pentagon, you saying he lied? Madelyn points to 77 south of her location; you saying she lied? You are the liar and the one who can't produce the math to support any of the many idiotic failed NoC flight paths.

God knows what they privately think of Ed Paik, given the total irrational logic concerning his testimony.
Paik points south. You failed again. Don't you like Paik?


The RADES data has been disproven by the pilot of the C130 himself, O´Brien.. CIT moronic lie.
The RADES data is proved right; you can't produce but links to idiots. The C-130 flew the route RADES shows, you are regurgitating lies from CIT and Balsamo. You have no means of checking or proving your statements; thus the lie remains a dumb one at that.
Failure and Fraud is CIT

news - Warren is being thrown under the bus for decoding the data the NTSB sent him, and p4t failed to decode with stolen software.
A frame is 4 seconds, the p4t lined up the frames wrong with their stolen software so they are missing 5 seconds. The NTSB decode is missing the final four seconds because a frame is 4 seconds and the last FRAME was incomplete. Warren did not care, he decoded it anyway; thank you Warren.

Why did debunkers not decode the raw data? Because debunkers know the FDR was found in the Pentagon! Thus Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. End of story save the idiots at CIT and p4t where no lie is dumb enough not to be posted by their cult member who like to post lies and failed math and physics; like CIT and Balsamo.

[jaydeehess]

Guess at which window seat mudlark is sitting on the Fantasy Flyover Flight and win a chance to throw a pie in Craig Ranke's face:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_159394a90a10347d02.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17388)

my pick,,, 13A

[jaydeehess]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_159394a90a10347d02.jpg

who was it that was looking out their office window and saw the crash occur and why did they not see this instead?


Oh,, yeah, because they ae a gov't shill?

[ElMondoHummus]

The "cartoon" jibe is getting OLD.

Accurate, though.


As for the links to "impact witnesses", have a gander through these links THEN come back to me.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=959

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=960


Oh, yawn. Bore me some more. Here's the deal when you don't subtract witnesses or make deliberate efforts to misinterpret (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary):

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
7 said it was a Boeing 757.
8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.
15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
3 took photographs of the aftermath.
Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."
And of course,
0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.
You have a gander at what Aziz ElHallan, Mickey Bell, Sean Boger, Omar Campo, Michael DiPaula, Frank Probst, Jack Singleton, Steve O'Brien, and Mike Walter - all people who directly witnessed the impact - have to say. Then you get back to us. Until then, you've got nothing.


I see you failed to link to documented plane parts for Flight 77. Maybe next time?

Documented plane parts? Moussaoui trial evidence, genius. Multiple photographs of the parts on the Pentagon lawn were submitted into evidence and not objected to by Moussaoui's defense. One piece is even on display in the Smithsonian (http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=28). Furthermore, the radar data and the FDR and the DNA forensics put the jet there.

Feel free to tell Allyn E. Kilsheimer (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6#flight77debris) that the debris and human remains were faked. Tell Staff Sgt. Mark Williams (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm#more) the bodies he found still strapped to their airplane seats were faked. Tell any of the Arlington or DC first responders and cleanup folks that what they saw was faked (http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055). I dare you. I would pay to see that.

The fact of the matter is, the presence of FL77 wasn't proven by just the wreckage. It was proven by all the evidence converging. It was proven by the witnesses seeing the impact and the radar data demonstrating that it was there and the phone calls from the onboard victims and the witnesses seeing the jet impact and the recovery of the FDR and bodies and the forensic identification of the passengers and the testimony of the first responders and so many other converging classes - not pieces, classes - of evidence. You seriously think the nitpicking and misinterpretations of witness statements, as well as a few screenshots of a cartoon really overturns the mass of evidence firmly establishing what happened on that day?

This is why no one respects you all. You have no idea how to properly evaluate evidence. All you know is obsession.

[ElMondoHummus]

... so that any lurkers hanging about can truly appreciate the depth of lunacy that CIT represents:

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.

I only wish I were compassionate enough to also pity you people. Problem is, my disgust is vying with my contempt for those who would choose to distort history so.

Lemme know when you figure out a way to incorporate the accounts of the witnesses to the impacts, debris, and passenger remains. Let me also know when you come up with something better than an excuse for the electronic evidence. But pardon me if I don't hold my breath.

[TjW]

Just for grins, mudlark, what do you suppose that big blurry thing is captured on video by the very slow monitoring camera, just before the big fireball? Regardless of whether it went north or south of some particular spot before it got to the spot where it was videoed, what do you suppose it could be? It's roughly as big as an airliner, and it's very close to the ground. None of the witnesses mentions two airliners, or even an airliner and a missile.
Is this the 757 just before it pitched up and flew over the Pentagon?