CIT Fraud Revealed

[BCR]

By now, most people on this forum are familiar with this image from a CIT video.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Edwardpointsouth.gif

It has appeared on forum after forum, time and time again, as a ‘recreation’ of Edward Paik’s observation of AAL77 on September 11, 2001 and we are led to believe that this is also where he was when he made it. This is a location outside of the A-One Auto facility on Columbia Pike, about 50 feet in front of the shop.

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

Shinki Interview (http://bluecollarrepublican.com/911files/shinki_paik.mp3)

Now, a follow-up with Ed Paik on location shows that indeed Ed was INSIDE the shop when he saw the plane. He recreates his actual POV and direction of sighting in this image.

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

This demonstrates that CIT has been very deceptive and less than honest in regards to the information they have been promoting. That is why many of us have asked to see and/or hear the entire recorded eyewitness accounts recorded by CIT, NOT the edited and staged versions they have released in their productions.

Craig, it is time to release ALL of the recorded interview footage. It is time for a new investigation and a new movement, or should I say the CIT-Truth Now movement. This is a case of "eyewitness speaks, conspiracy revealed", but the conspirators are Crag and Aldo, and the conspiracy is to conceal the truth.

[240-185]

CIT Fraud Revealed
I am tempted to add "among many others" :D

[leftysergeant]

The idiot CIT cameraman stood in the wrong place and couldn't see that Paik was pointing over his should at a power pole right on the edge of the street, so I guess it hardly matters that they came outside. Stupid always floats to the surface.

[BCR]

The idiot CIT cameraman stood in the wrong place and couldn't see that Paik was pointing over his should at a power pole right on the edge of the street, so I guess it hardly matters that they came outside.

Actually it does. One is a case of stupidity, the other is a case of deception.

[Brainache]

Seriously? CIT is less than 100% honest? Never! Monkee Boy and The Fatman are my heroes, they wouldn't lie about something like this!

What is the world coming to, when you can't trust paranoid loons on the internet?

[16.5]

Excellent work, as usual.

I have repeatedly stated that CIT should have published ALL their raw video years ago.

Their deception is now indisputable.

[beachnut]

Now math skills would be good for CIT, they could take the POV of Paik and see 77 would be about 466 feet away. Using about 30 degrees and the fact the RADALT at the time is near 233 feet. OOPS, that matches RADAR and FDR data; CIT failed.

BCR shows steps professional aircraft accident investigators use; the next step may be Paik using a yard stick to line up his POV; take the angle and other observations; like the police watching 77 (or FDR, RADAR) fly down the road, then you nail a point where 77 passed in space. What does CIT use?

BCR ruins conspiracy; CIT is a conspiracy to sell lies to the gullible

WARNING another CT web site ... other people who support idiotic delusions on 911, other conspiracy theorists with undefined zero evidence scenarios of stupid on 911 find CIT is a special case of super-stupid-investigating. (http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-cit-witnesses-do-not-corroborate.html) How do some CT use rational thought to discredit other CTers, but fail to apply the same skeptical critical thinking to themselves? Albeit I only scanned this web site of woo for a few seconds...

[mudlark]

By now, most people on this forum are familiar with this image from a CIT video.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Edwardpointsouth.gif

It has appeared on forum after forum, time and time again, as a ‘recreation’ of Edward Paik’s observation of AAL77 on September 11, 2001 and we are led to believe that this is also where he was when he made it. This is a location outside of the A-One Auto facility on Columbia Pike, about 50 feet in front of the shop.

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

Shinki Interview (http://bluecollarrepublican.com/911files/shinki_paik.mp3)

Now, a follow-up with Ed Paik on location shows that indeed Ed was INSIDE the shop when he saw the plane. He recreates his actual POV and direction of sighting in this image.

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

This demonstrates that CIT has been very deceptive and less than honest in regards to the information they have been promoting. That is why many of us have asked to see and/or hear the entire recorded eyewitness accounts recorded by CIT, NOT the edited and staged versions they have released in their productions.

Craig, it is time to release ALL of the recorded interview footage. It is time for a new investigation and a new movement, or should I say the CIT-Truth Now movement. This is a case of "eyewitness speaks, conspiracy revealed", but the conspirators are Crag and Aldo, and the conspiracy is to conceal the truth.


Your imagination and deceit know no limits.

1. When was this image taken?
2. Do you have an image of his face so we can see that this is really Edward and not Shinki?
2. Where is the audio or video footage of the interview proving what he is really saying?
3. Why would you provide audio from his brother Shinki who did not see the plane at all yet fail to record Edward when he is the actual witness?
4. You claimed that Shinki said Ed was inside when the plane flew by but the audio from your "interview" with him is so horrible that I can't understand it. Why don't you provide a transcript?

And here´s a recap on what you were saying on the other thread

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5481702&postcount=619

Paik describes the 'black' which would result from being in the plane's shadow, again a perfect match for the fdr path and altitude considering the sun's elevation and describes it south moving west to east.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5470497&postcount=396

Originally Posted by A W Smith
Edward Paiks back was to the plane. He was facing into his shop.


And his brother says (http://bluecollarrepublican.com/911files/shinki_paik.mp3) that Edward ducked and covered his head as the plane flew over.

So AWSmith says that he was ´facing his shop´ to which you replied ´AND...Edward ducked and covered his head as the plane flew over´

He was also in the ´shadow´ of the plane...outside or inside?

Caught again Farmer.

Now the cheerleaders chime in behind you without examining your ´evidence´...wow.

[BCR]

http://bluecollarrepublican.ipower.com/zoe/files/paik2.JPEG

Oh just wait Craig/Alpo, video and more details are on the way. We can only go by what your star witness says. He says he was inside the shop. But I'm sure you already knew that.

[mudlark]

Excellent work, as usual.

I have repeatedly stated that CIT should have published ALL their raw video years ago.

Their deception is now indisputable.

Cheerleader number one.
Excellent work? LMAO

[mudlark]

http://bluecollarrepublican.ipower.com/zoe/files/paik2.JPEG

Oh just wait Craig/Alpo, video and more details are on the way. We can only go by what your star witness says. He says he was inside the shop. But I'm sure you already knew that.

Is THAT pic meant to be the ´killer shot´?
Provide the transcript of your interview with his brother.
An audio/video of Paik actually ´admitting´ that he was ´inside the shop´.
Until then, you´re blowing hot air.

Until then THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1E6HHOfBbE) is his only recorded confirmation of what he saw.

[leftysergeant]

Cheerleader number one.
Excellent work? LMAO

That is Paik. Alpo is screwed.

[beachnut]

Is THAT pic meant to be the ´killer shot´?
Provide the transcript of your interview with his brother.
An audio/video of Paik actually ´admitting´ that he was ´inside the shop´.
Until then, you´re blowing hot air.

Until then THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1E6HHOfBbE) is his only recorded confirmation of what he saw.


CIT video has Paik pointing across the street to the FDR and RADAR flight path; CIT narration says Paik supports the NoC path; they ignore their own interview evidence and make lies. Watch the video on the Internet and see Paik point south big time as CIT ignores and spins a delusion. Listen to what Paik says as he debunks CIT.
CIT videos have the same plot; witnesses debunk CIT delusions, as CIT narration ignores reality.

You have fallen for idiotic delusions and the worse investigators on earth bar none!

Go to his video cited above, at 4:04 Paik points to the real flight path he is trying to explain as CIT makes up moronic lies and proves they are idiots at investigation.

4:04 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1E6HHOfBbE)You just debunked yourself and CIT and you will not stop being a poster of lies and delusions; why?

[willhaven]

By now, most people on this forum are familiar with this image from a CIT video.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Edwardpointsouth.gifHow much for the yellow MGB?

[beachnut]

How much for the yellow MGB?
At 4:04 in the video presented by the CIT cheerleader, Paik points to the flight path and CIT missed it! The video is proof they are a fraud also.

CIT videos pretty much seal the deal that CIT are the worse investigators in the world, they are given real evidence and turn it into paranoid dirt dumb delusions.

[BCR]

Is THAT pic meant to be the ´killer shot´?

Oh no, that is just the tease. I did not take the picture and Shinki's audio is there for you to listen to already. Ed is just confirming what Shinki said, he was inside the shop.

So as soon as our man on the scene finishes his report and uploading his pictures and video, I'll link it. By the way, Paik is not the only eyewitness being re-interviewed. I know you guys are busy with the 'egg on your face', but I'm not going to rush this. It is just too much fun.

[mudlark]

Oh no, that is just the tease. I did not take the picture and Shinki's audio is there for you to listen to already. Ed is just confirming what Shinki said, he was inside the shop.

So as soon as our man on the scene finishes his report and uploading his pictures and video, I'll link it. By the way, Paik is not the only eyewitness being re-interviewed. I know you guys are busy with the 'egg on your face', but I'm not going to rush this. It is just too much fun.

The Shinki audio is undecipherable.
Nobody here would accept it if I presented it as evidence.
Damn nobody here has even accepted all the video evidence from the NOC witnesses OR their signed flightpaths.
Empty words, especially from you or ´wait and see´ innuendo don´t cut it.
Until you present a confirmed on camera interview with these witnesses, this thread is finished before it has even begun.

Later.

[16.5]

Is THAT pic meant to be the ´killer shot´?
Provide the transcript of your interview with his brother.
An audio/video of Paik actually ´admitting´ that he was ´inside the shop´.
Until then, you´re blowing hot air.

Until then THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1E6HHOfBbE) is his only recorded confirmation of what he saw.

I knew it! What a freaking Double standard!

Why don't you ask the same questions of the CIT mutts?

WHERE IS THEIR RAW VIDEO.

I know Shakey and Fat Aldo are reading this thread.

[Justin39640]

The Shinki audio is undecipherable.
Nobody here would accept it if I presented it as evidence.
Damn nobody here has even accepted all the video evidence from the NOC witnesses OR their signed flightpaths.
Empty words, especially from you or ´wait and see´ innuendo don´t cut it.
Until you present a confirmed on camera interview with these witnesses, this thread is finished before it has even begun.

Later.

You mean the videos where they all agree the plane hit the building yet CIT claims it flew over?. Yeah nice journalism.

[BCR]

The Shinki audio is undecipherable.
Nobody here would accept it if I presented it as evidence.
Damn nobody here has even accepted all the video evidence from the NOC witnesses OR their signed flightpaths.
Empty words, especially from you or ´wait and see´ innuendo don´t cut it.
Until you present a confirmed on camera interview with these witnesses, this thread is finished before it has even begun.

Later.

Denial is a wonderful thing :)

[beachnut]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/PaikpointssouthdebunksCIT.jpg
While CIT make up lies, Paik, to the ignorance of CIT, points to the south (OK 158 degrees true I think).

For math geeks, take his angle and you get the offset of 77, the RADALT is reading about 233 at this point. That puts 77 close to the real path of 61.2 to 61.5 true track.

This is 4:04 from this CIT video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1E6HHOfBbE

Download the video and save it, CIT will have to edit out this to make them not look so dumb; wait, they will still look as dumb as they can be as they spew lies and delusions.

I need that popcorn gif as I wait for real researchers to present real evidence.

I have to suspect CIT does not watch their own work and those that support CIT do not have any reality based comprehension skills as holes you can drive galaxies though show up in CIT work.

[BCR]

Yeah beach, and don't ya love the 'it ain't evidence if it ain't on youtube' generation :mghissyfit

[DGM]

Damn nobody here has even accepted all the video evidence from the NOC witnesses

I seriously doubt we've seen all the video evidence. All I've seen is what CIT wants me to see. And just to add, I'm not impressed.

[beachnut]

Yeah beach, and don't ya love the 'it ain't evidence if it ain't on youtube' generation :mghissyfit
Based on the pure lack of evidence and logic displayed by mudlark, it is easy to imagine poor mudlark is sitting with Balsamo or Craig posting what they say, or he/she is like turbofan, letting Balsamo, Craig, or some other failed CIT member post for them in mudlark's basement.

CIT makes up junk idea; picking up the junk ideas of CIT and supporting them is not the stuff of critical thinking.

[mudlark]

I seriously doubt we've seen all the video evidence. All I've seen is what CIT wants me to see. And just to add, I'm not impressed.

And you ARE impressed with this ´evidence´?

[mudlark]

Based on the pure lack of evidence and logic displayed by mudlark, it is easy to imagine poor mudlark is sitting with Balsamo or Craig posting what they say, or he/she is like turbofan, letting Balsamo, Craig, or some other failed CIT member post for them in mudlark's basement.

CIT makes up junk idea; picking up the junk ideas of CIT and supporting them is not the stuff of critical thinking.

Listen, Beachnut, I don´t post for ANYBODY but myself.
Did you and BCR see the post I made on the other thread pointing out both your numerous false claims?
Critical thinking? :eek:

[mudlark]

I knew it! What a freaking Double standard!

Why don't you ask the same questions of the CIT mutts?

WHERE IS THEIR RAW VIDEO.

I know Shakey and Fat Aldo are reading this thread.

The only double standards I see are eminating from various people here.
¨physical evidence over rides all´...yet you claim that the FOIA released NTSB data is ´missing seconds´ and are willing to believe it BEFORE the NTSB/ASRS even make their opinion known on WStutt´s program...uh huh..

You´ve jumped right in to slap Farmer on the back for this *ahem* evidence?

I want a transcript because I can´t hear ANYTHING apart from hissing, a phone ringing and a weird laugh. There is no visual to confirm WHO is talking!

He shows a pic of an (apparently) Asian guy with a baseball cap on and says
´LOOK! EVIDENCE OF FRAUD´...lmao.
Yeah, double standards..

Can´t wait to hear the ´interview´ with the other witnesses. Especially the ANC guys. Did BCR tell the interviewer to make sure to point out to Middleton and the rest of the ANC guys that they saw it ´generally south´?
That their memories must be bad?

Tell Brooks that he doesn´t ´know what he saw´?
Oh yeah, tell Lagasse that he can´t trust the word of police officers who can´t remember where the poles were and that it doesn´t matter that they are ´105% sure´ that´s what they saw.

Tell Roosevelt Roberts that he saw the C130 and not a ´commercial plane´
That it was really 1000ft agl and NOT ´50-100ft agl´

Tell Morin the plane was outside the Annex wings and he COUD have seen the stripes.

Tell Boger which side of Citgo he REALLY saw the plane.

Tell Turcios that he was actually running away and that he is only one of three ´data points´ (100% data points at Citgo though)

Tell George Amman that the plane didn´t fly towards the ANC parking lot.

While he´s there have a rummage around for all the witnesses that claim to have seen the plane fly over the Annex and tell them they were wrong.

Don´t forget the people who witnessed a right bank.

Those who say the plane took 8-15 seconds.

Tell Boger too that he was wrong about the height of the plane crossing the lawn.

Gonna be a lonnnnng video huh?

I´ll get the popcorn and we can all watch it together.

[Bobert]

Is THAT pic meant to be the ´killer shot´?
Provide the transcript of your interview with his brother.
An audio/video of Paik actually ´admitting´ that he was ´inside the shop´.
Until then, you´re blowing hot air.

Until then THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1E6HHOfBbE) is his only recorded confirmation of what he saw.
Why would he have to, "admit" anything?
He is a witness or are you saying that he is in on it as well?

[beachnut]

Listen, Beachnut, I don´t post for ANYBODY but myself.
Did you and BCR see the post I made on the other thread pointing out both your numerous false claims?
Critical thinking? :eek:
Your lies were seen, and I was only giving you an excuse for believing idiotic delusions to save you the embarrassment of believing dirt dumb delusions of a fly over never seen by humans, videos cameras which have the explosion from the backside, not on RADAR, and more. Plus you clearly don't understand DNA and have to support CIT delusions that it is planted, and the lampposts were planted in your failed opinion.

You missed the fact you have zero flight paths that work for NoC. You failed to understand the insane NoC is due to CIT and Balsamo trying to sell nut case ideas on DVD.

Show me the math for the NoC, the one and only verified NoC flightpath! You don't have a flight path? Darn.

[16.5]

long typical cit drivel snipped.

Yawn.... tl:dr

I scanned that crap for a link to the raw video... didn't see it.

Did see a reference to Roosevelt Roberts.

Yeah, the guy who said that the plane exited out the South Parking lot.

Genius, guys, absolute genius.

Add the pirouette over the Pentagon to your flight path calculations, will ya boys?

[jaydeehess]

mudlark,
The CiT is already telling each and every witness, including many of their own supposedly NoC witnesses, who state that the plane hit the Pentagon that they are all wrong. each and every one of them are all wrong despite the fact that they all, each and every one of them, agree absolutly only on this single occurance.

,,,,,or so I would assume given your last post.
They HAVE told Boger he is lieing right?
They HAVE told Morin that he was facing north right?
They HAVE told Paik that his speculation the next day that the plane had hit the tower is patently stupid since it was 600 feet north of the tower, right?
They have told the ANC witnesses that they did not actually see an impact with the Pentagon right?
They have told Lagasse and Brooks the CiT contentions about a flyover based partly on their statements, right?

Tell me, what was the reaction when these things were told to these people?

[carlitos]

The only double standards I see are eminating from various people here.
¨physical evidence over rides all´...yet you claim that the FOIA released NTSB data is ´missing seconds´ and are willing to believe it BEFORE the NTSB/ASRS even make their opinion known on WStutt´s program...uh huh..

You´ve jumped right in to slap Farmer on the back for this *ahem* evidence?

I want a transcript because I can´t hear ANYTHING apart from hissing, a phone ringing and a weird laugh. There is no visual to confirm WHO is talking!

He shows a pic of an (apparently) Asian guy with a baseball cap on and says
´LOOK! EVIDENCE OF FRAUD´...lmao.
Yeah, double standards..

Can´t wait to hear the ´interview´ with the other witnesses. Especially the ANC guys. Did BCR tell the interviewer to make sure to point out to Middleton and the rest of the ANC guys that they saw it ´generally south´?
That their memories must be bad?

Tell Brooks that he doesn´t ´know what he saw´?
Oh yeah, tell Lagasse that he can´t trust the word of police officers who can´t remember where the poles were and that it doesn´t matter that they are ´105% sure´ that´s what they saw.

Tell Roosevelt Roberts that he saw the C130 and not a ´commercial plane´
That it was really 1000ft agl and NOT ´50-100ft agl´

Tell Morin the plane was outside the Annex wings and he COUD have seen the stripes.

Tell Boger which side of Citgo he REALLY saw the plane.

Tell Turcios that he was actually running away and that he is only one of three ´data points´ (100% data points at Citgo though)

Tell George Amman that the plane didn´t fly towards the ANC parking lot.

While he´s there have a rummage around for all the witnesses that claim to have seen the plane fly over the Annex and tell them they were wrong.

Don´t forget the people who witnessed a right bank.

Those who say the plane took 8-15 seconds.

Tell Boger too that he was wrong about the height of the plane crossing the lawn.

Gonna be a lonnnnng video huh?

I´ll get the popcorn and we can all watch it together.
While your popcorn popper is warming up, perhaps you could answer the question. It was in ALL CAPS, so maybe you missed it (even though you quoted it in your post?) Here it is again, put a little more boldly.

Why don't you ask the same questions of the CIT mutts?

WHERE IS THEIR RAW VIDEO.

[beachnut]

Boger tells everyone he watched Flight 77 enter the Pentagon. CIT witness says 77 impacted the Pentagon; all CIT witnesses say 77 impacted the Pentagon while Craig says north and the witnesses point to the south. CIT is comedy if they were not telling lies about dead people.

CIT witnesses point to the south; oops

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/cit10221pointssouth.jpg
Points south and says 77 impacted Pentagon!

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/citw22311pointssouth.jpg
Points south and says 77 impacted Pentagon!

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/cit10222pointssouth.jpg
Points south and says 77 impacted Pentagon! This NWO operative says 77 flew over the Navy annex, and he is right, 77 was at exactly on the real flight path and could be seen over the Annex! talk about dolts, CIT are lords of mega stupid. The polygon over the Annex is where 77 was, and where this NWO agent places 77; exactly; math required; why balsamo has no clue...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/cit10223overannexrealfltpath.jpg
Over the Annex but on the official flight path; bad news for CIT and those who follow them deeper into the pit of ignorance. GE proves CIT delusional...

[DGM]

And you ARE impressed with this ´evidence´?
No! I like the complete story. Before you jump saying the the OS is not complete, it's far more complete then anything CIT has come up with.

[Scott Sommers]

mudlark,
The CiT is already telling each and every witness, including many of their own supposedly NoC witnesses, who state that the plane hit the Pentagon that they are all wrong. each and every one of them are all wrong despite the fact that they all, each and every one of them, agree absolutly only on this single occurance.

,,,,,or so I would assume given your last post.
They HAVE told Boger he is lieing right?
They HAVE told Morin that he was facing north right?
They HAVE told Paik that his speculation the next day that the plane had hit the tower is patently stupid since it was 600 feet north of the tower, right?
They have told the ANC witnesses that they did not actually see an impact with the Pentagon right?
They have told Lagasse and Brooks the CiT contentions about a flyover based partly on their statements, right?

Tell me, what was the reaction when these things were told to these people?

This surprise anyone at all. These are the same guys who can look at a 20-man demonstration and tell you America is on the verge of a Truther-led revolution. How much more of this crap can one take? These guys are a bottomless pit of crap. They show no shame at making things up or telling witnesses that they did not see what they saw.

We all know they are the heroes of their own imagination. I just wish they wish they would stop harassing people and making up stories.

[mudlark]

Your lies were seen, and I was only giving you an excuse for believing idiotic delusions to save you the embarrassment of believing dirt dumb delusions of a fly over never seen by humans, videos cameras which have the explosion from the backside, not on RADAR, and more. Plus you clearly don't understand DNA and have to support CIT delusions that it is planted, and the lampposts were planted in your failed opinion.

You missed the fact you have zero flight paths that work for NoC. You failed to understand the insane NoC is due to CIT and Balsamo trying to sell nut case ideas on DVD.

Show me the math for the NoC, the one and only verified NoC flightpath! You don't have a flight path? Darn.

Point out my ´lies´ Beach. I´ve pointed your and Farmers.

I have repeatedly posted the NOC math supplied by Balsamo and AWSmith admitted that nonbody had done a mathematical rebuttal of this precise paper on the NORTHSIDE possible flightpaths.

[mudlark]

Why would he have to, "admit" anything?
He is a witness or are you saying that he is in on it as well?

Farmer claims to have a ´scoop´, even starting a thread under a sensational heading based on what...his word that there is ´evidence´ on the way discrediting Ed Paik´s testimony as to what he saw?
He shows two pics of an unidentifiable person which actually looks like security cam footage within a kiosk. THEN claims it is backed up by an inaudible unverifiable audio recording of ´somebody´.
Sorry, but given Farmer´s track record in the short time I´ve been posting here, I wouldn´t trust him as far as I could throw him.


´in on it´? What are you babbling about?

transitive verb 1 admit : to concede as true or valid

The only people calling into question the integrity of these witnesses are regular contributors on this forum

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4123585&postcount=10

¨IMO Lagasse is the strongest case for liar. Brooks may have been just following his lead. Turcios seems to have a different origin. The rest of the witnesses are too ambiguous for me to call.¨


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3974889&postcount=1

Robert Turcios, the Citgo employee. Watch his testimony in The PentaCon, Smoking Crack Gun version [19:00 –30:00]. Is it really so clear that he’s being honest here?

(...)

A bad sign: The witness’ behavior is dodgy and unsettled. He fidgets, hands in pockets, the sunglasses of course. In places he’s clearly trying to keep a straight face. Did anyone else catch him starting to bust up at 22:50, right before mentioning the pull-up?

If he’s not lying, that means he honestly believes all the tripe he’s spewing, and must have been thinking of a joke when he nearly laughed.

(...)

I know he's not a "twoofer," but there's something wrong with Robert.


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3994365&postcount=42

CL:

I'm not convinced about a prank, frankly. Maybe the ANC guys cooked something up, but they didn't know the Citgo guys, Morin, Paik, Boger, or any of the others. In my opinion, for whatever that's worth, a prank is unlikely.

That´s just a taste of what passes for debate here and shows the desperate measures that are being pursued in blackening the names and integrity of these witnesses.

[mudlark]

long typical cit drivel snipped

That ´drivel´ is what you guys have been pushing for weeks now and I´ve put you right each time.
Thanks for admitting it :D


Yawn.... tl:dr

I scanned that crap for a link to the raw video... didn't see it.

Did see a reference to Roosevelt Roberts.

Yeah, the guy who said that the plane exited out the South Parking lot.

Genius, guys, absolute genius.

Add the pirouette over the Pentagon to your flight path calculations, will ya boys?

Just exactly WHAT would you expect to see if there WAS any raw video?
They described what they saw. They drew the paths. What? What else?
Blowin hot air again. Why don´t you send another childish playground insult privately?

[mudlark]

mudlark,
The CiT is already telling each and every witness, including many of their own supposedly NoC witnesses, who state that the plane hit the Pentagon that they are all wrong. each and every one of them are all wrong despite the fact that they all, each and every one of them, agree absolutly only on this single occurance.

Ed paik did not witness any ´impact´
He ran towards the Pentagon after the plane had passed over him and ´saw the orange flames´

Roosevelt Roberts did not witness any ´impact´
´when the explosion hit´ he was in South Parking and had no view. On top of that he was INSIDE the building. So no, he was not an ´impact witness´

Darrell Stafford CMH interview
(http://www.thepentacon.com/neit420)

Interviewer: Did you feel it?

Stafford : You could feel the heat on your back....I wasn´t sure how soon to turn around because it went ´boom boom´ and I was still kind of covered up and then I started to peek back and there was this huge ball of fire...

Darius Prather

"nobody was trying to look see if it was actually going to hit the building or not hit the building. So everybody was running in the opposite direction for their lives."



Donald Carter and Darrell Stafford were actually with Darius Prather.
They saw the plane approach their carpark from the Navy Annex and all ´ran for their lives´

William Middleton

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

Yes he is convinced the plane impacted but given his NOC testimony, this is impossible to reconcile.

35:00 Interview starts
37:15 points to where he saw the plane from the North side of the Navy Annex
¨from in between what´s that..the Hilton (Sheraton) and the
Navy Annex and he started dropping¨
38:40 ¨I could feel the heat from the plane itself..it was that close¨
41:47 ¨It came right over the parking lot (ANC)¨
42:20 ¨Ït had to be 10 to 15 seconds before impact¨
43:00 The view of the Pentagon from his POV


Maria de la Cerda CMH (http://www.thepentacon.com/neit567)

I hear what I think is a flyover, over my head because that is standard.
(...)
And I looked, I looked directly up for it and I also had some tree cover so I wasn´t able to see, but I was facing the Pentagon and I saw something really fast going toward the Pentagon with the swoosh and I´ll never forget it, it was so fast and then a huge fireball explosion and then smoke.


Maria de la Cerda approx location (http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/marialocation2-2.jpg)

Maris de la Cerda approx POV (http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/marialocation.jpg)

She could not physically see any ´impact´ and conveys that she saw the fireball.
(She says that she believed that the plane struck ´the other side´.
´The plane that disappeared´ What height was the plane at when she thought this??)

Terry Morin

The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.

He witnessed the explosion. He did NOT say he saw nor COULD he PHYSICALLY see the plane enter the building from his POV which is very close to the following Ingersoll shot:

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/ingersolnavyannex-1.jpg

How could he possibly have seen the tail of the plane as it crossed the lawn allegedly on a low-level trajectory?
How could he have gotten to this POV and given so much detail if it took 5 seconds from the Navy Annex to the facade of the Pentagon given the official 540mph speed which he also contradicted?
How could he have witnessed the tail ´dip to the right´ if it was on the SOC path?
More importantly look at where the smoke is emanating from in the photo. The ´impact zone´ is not in view.
He saw the fireball, not an ´impact´.

,,,,,or so I would assume given your last post.
They HAVE told Boger he is lieing right?

That´s ´lying´ btw..
YOU are the one who makes this claim.
CIT have never editted ANY witness as to whether they believed they saw or believed they saw an ´impact´
Point out one witness they have done this to.
Boger´s interview is covered here (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=269). He believes he witnessed an impact but totally contradicts the official flightpath, speed and the low-level trajectory in the 5 frames.
Are you saying that he is ´lieing´ about the rest of his testimony?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/SeanBogersPOV-1.jpg


They HAVE told Morin that he was facing north right?

Whether he was facing North or facing South WITHIN the wing of the Annex, his recorded statement to Craig Ranke is the most damning

06:50

¨MORIN: WHEN THE PLANE WENT RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF ME I WAS WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE WING (OF THE ANNEX)

CRAIG : SO YOU WERE KINDA IN BETWEEN THEM (THE WINGS OF THE ANNEX)

(...)

MORIN: I WAS INSIDE..FLEW OVER THE TOP OF ME¨


¨I HAD NO SIDE-VIEW. IF I HAD HAVE HAD A SIDE-VIEW I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE STRIPES AND IDENTIFY IT AS AN AMERICAN AIRLINES JET..I DIDN´T SEE THE STRIPES, ALL I COULD SEE WAS THE BELLY¨

So is he lying too? How come he didn´t describe the necessary
SOC official path that would have looked like this

SOC, clear side-view, NOT OVER the described Annex path Morin clearly described (http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/gifs/morinPOVsouth.gif)

They HAVE told Paik that his speculation the next day that the plane had hit the tower is patently stupid since it was 600 feet north of the tower, right?

His ´speculation´ has been covered numerous times.

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

PICKERING: You didn't SEE it hit the tower.

PAIK: At that time no I didn't see that. Because, uh, next morning the, uh, the repair guys go up there.


They have told the ANC witnesses that they did not actually see an impact with the Pentagon right?

As above. Only William Middleton claims to have actually witnessed an ´impact´. Understandable given the circumstances but impossible NOC.


They have told Lagasse and Brooks the CiT contentions about a flyover based partly on their statements, right?

Whatever their ´contentions´, they STILL stick to what they said they saw.

¨Obviously what I saw happened, therefore the conclusions made by people who didnt see it can be flawed...I accept the fact that there can be miscalculations on my part, but NOT whether or not the plane was on the North or South side of the gas station."

~Sgt William Lagasse after watching The PentaCon and responding to the ASCE



Tell me, what was the reaction when these things were told to these people?

Do you believe they would actually CHANGE their stories on hearing the implications of what they said?
That´s the point here. They told their stories to CIT on camera, further cemented it with signed diagrams of the flightpaths they saw.
Boger was recorded as was Morin and Roberts.
What their reaction would be is irrelevant as is any ´reaction´ regarding witness testimony. They corraborrate NOC. End of story.

Mind retracting the numerous falsehoods you have just made?
Or will this just go on the top of the pile that have been stacking up?

Do you really believe that you and the handful of other posters here are the only people reading these threads and that they won´t see the lies I´ve pulled you and others up on?

Keep posting.

[mudlark]

Boger tells everyone he watched Flight 77 enter the Pentagon. CIT witness says 77 impacted the Pentagon; all CIT witnesses say 77 impacted the Pentagon while Craig says north and the witnesses point to the south. CIT is comedy if they were not telling lies about dead people.

CIT witnesses point to the south; oops

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/cit10221pointssouth.jpg
Points south and says 77 impacted Pentagon!

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/citw22311pointssouth.jpg
Points south and says 77 impacted Pentagon!

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/cit10222pointssouth.jpg
Points south and says 77 impacted Pentagon! This NWO operative says 77 flew over the Navy annex, and he is right, 77 was at exactly on the real flight path and could be seen over the Annex! talk about dolts, CIT are lords of mega stupid. The polygon over the Annex is where 77 was, and where this NWO agent places 77; exactly; math required; why balsamo has no clue...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/cit10223overannexrealfltpath.jpg
Over the Annex but on the official flight path; bad news for CIT and those who follow them deeper into the pit of ignorance. GE proves CIT delusional...

That post speaks for itself beachnut. LMAO!
Apart from the fact that it is pure nonsense and manipulation of still images to fit that warped imagnation of yours, how do you explain the PATHS they ALL drew and signed? Slip of the pen or..?

[stewieg]

CIT and fraud. Is anyone really suprised here. Kind of like saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by me

CL:

I'm not convinced about a prank, frankly. Maybe the ANC guys cooked something up, but they didn't know the Citgo guys, Morin, Paik, Boger, or any of the others. In my opinion, for whatever that's worth, a prank is unlikely.

I stand by this. It's not likely that there was any collusion by the ANC guys; most likely they were mistaken about where the plane was in relation to the Annex, an entirely understandable error when you consider they could only have seen it for a second or two at most and were being asked several years after the fact.

[beachnut]

Point out my ´lies´ Beach. I´ve pointed your and Farmers.

I have repeatedly posted the NOC math supplied by Balsamo and AWSmith admitted that nonbody had done a mathematical rebuttal of this precise paper on the NORTHSIDE possible flightpaths.
No, you only pointed out you are gullible and unable to understand 911.
You have proved you ignore evidence.

You support liars with empty rhetoric.
You have not posted the math for the single one and only NoC flight path because the aerodynamic are impossible. You can't resolve the 80 g flight path the CIT idiots posted out of complete ignorance of aerodynamic with the help of, albeit the 2,223 g help, of Balsamo the not an airline pilot or qualified to fly passengers. You hooked up with some idiots and now are posting more junk which has been debunked for 8 years.

Possible flight paths? LOL, there is only one flight path and your CIT buddies have to ignore it to sell their lies on DVD.

Flight paths? You don't have a real flight path yet? Can't do the math?

[beachnut]

That post speaks for itself beachnut. LMAO!
Apart from the fact that it is pure nonsense and manipulation of still images to fit that warped imagnation of yours, how do you explain the PATHS they ALL drew and signed? Slip of the pen or..? Boger did see 77 impact the Pentagon, he was right next to the impact; you support liars who have to all everyone else liars like you do. Good job you are a CIT expert.
You fall for CIT lies; Witnesses can't draw a flight path of an aircraft that is tangential to them. Do you understand reality? No you don't you support the idiotic delusions of CIT.

All the witnesses point to the south; can you explain that? NO

All you can do that is real is LYAO, you best effort

Does CIT email mudlark this tripe? Holy CIT SPAM. How many people lack the knowledge and the skills to see CIT are full of poppycock?

mudlark sounds like a Balsamo name. CIT was exposed, now what do you do? Disneyland?

[mudlark]

No! I like the complete story. Before you jump saying the the OS is not complete, it's far more complete then anything CIT has come up with.

Yes, the OS has hammered those square pegs into the round holes real good.
Guess some people are easily satisfied.

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by me



I stand by this. It's not likely that there was any collusion by the ANC guys; most likely they were mistaken about where the plane was in relation to the Annex, an entirely understandable error when you consider they could only have seen it for a second or two at most and were being asked several years after the fact.

Sorry ´cooked something up´ has a different meaning to what you just posted.

Sure about the ´several years after the fact´ comment? There were three CMH interviews carried out with these guys. Ask Farmer, he claims to have got them made public but funnily enough he made just the same comment as you.

[mudlark]

CIT and fraud. Is anyone really suprised here. Kind of like saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

You might want to read my posts on the ´fraud´ passing as debate here.

[16.5]

Yawn, it has been a long night at the tree house, and the latest CIT slurper comes in with a complete non-rebuttal to the OP.

Craig, Fatty, we get it, you can't respond to the OP, or supply the math, or release the raw video.

So we get another complete derail.

Bull **** about people other than Paik, reported.

Come on Mud, was Paik inside the building or not?

[mudlark]

No, you only pointed out you are gullible and unable to understand 911.
You have proved you ignore evidence.

You support liars with empty rhetoric.
You have not posted the math for the single one and only NoC flight path because the aerodynamic are impossible. You can't resolve the 80 g flight path the CIT idiots posted out of complete ignorance of aerodynamic with the help of, albeit the 2,223 g help, of Balsamo the not an airline pilot or qualified to fly passengers. You hooked up with some idiots and now are posting more junk which has been debunked for 8 years.

Possible flight paths? LOL, there is only one flight path and your CIT buddies have to ignore it to sell their lies on DVD.

Flight paths? You don't have a real flight path yet? Can't do the math?

You want ONE NOC flightpath from a group of eyewitnesses?
Balsamo has done the math using numerous parameters including the official 540mph speed.
I´ve linked to it 10 times.
Your own ´expert´ already admitted that there had been no math done in response to debunk it.
You´re making me post like you Beachnut. A broken record.

[Edx]

As much as I know CIT and frauds and liars... I do hope the OPer isn't exaggerating,

[16.5]

That post speaks for itself beachnut. LMAO!
Apart from the fact that it is pure nonsense and manipulation of still images to fit that warped imagnation of yours, how do you explain the PATHS they ALL drew and signed? Slip of the pen or..?

The same way as always, mud, their paths are impossible.

How are the tree house boys doing on their math?

[16.5]

You want ONE NOC flightpath from a group of eyewitnesses?
Balsamo has done the math using numerous parameters including the official 540mph speed.
I´ve linked to it 10 times.
Your own ´expert´ already admitted that there had been no math done in response to debunk it.
You´re making me post like you Beachnut. A broken record.

Mud, ya gotta do the whole CIT path, boyo, you know that by now.

But this is about Paik, please keep on subject.

kthxbye

[mudlark]

Yawn, it has been a long night at the tree house, and the latest CIT slurper comes in with a complete non-rebuttal to the OP.

Craig, Fatty, we get it, you can't respond to the OP, or supply the math, or release the raw video.

So we get another complete derail.

Bull **** about people other than Paik, reported.

Come on Mud, was Paik inside the building or not?

Talking of broken records..
Farmer has made the assertion that Paik was inside the shop. Tell HIM to prove it. It´s HIS ´thread´
While you´re at it, ask him why he was arguing the other night that Paik was ´in the shadow of the plane´ AND facing towards the outside of it.

Derail? Just making sure people see the facts (again).

[beachnut]

You want ONE NOC flightpath from a group of eyewitnesses?
Balsamo has done the math using numerous parameters including the official 540mph speed.
I´ve linked to it 10 times.
Your own ´expert´ already admitted that there had been no math done in response to debunk it.
You´re making me post like you Beachnut. A broken record.
Post a the real flight path, you have all those witnesses did not they have the same path or not?

All Balsamo's paths are impossible; you should have used math.

[mudlark]

Mud, ya gotta do the whole CIT path, boyo, you know that by now.

But this is about Paik, please keep on subject.

kthxbye

I´ve been following your posts champ on other threads. SAME words over and over.
No links, no math, nothing.
The math HAS been provided.
Bye bye. You´re on ignore bore.

[beachnut]

I´ve been following your posts champ on other threads. SAME words over and over.
No links, no math, nothing.
The math HAS been provided.
Bye bye. You´re on ignore bore.
You have the flight path or not? You have the real flight path?

I have the exact flight which knocked down lampposts and you have flight paths of 80 Gs. You have delusion, I have evidence.

Why not stop SPAMing your lies and refute Paik who clearly points south as Craig makes up moronic lies. Use evidence. Oops, you only have delusions. Cool bring your real evidence when you guys settle on one flight path which does not exceed the bank angles seen by your own witnesses who point the south flight path on your own video.

You don't watch your own videos, or you fail to comprehend you own videos. So sad.

The one flight path you will use? Any day; soon? When? 2,223 gs, Balsamo is the expert at math. Please don't post his failed math, use your own math and show us the flight path you have as the real NoC; you can't have each flight path from your witnesses who clearly pointed to the flight path that knocked down the lampposts.
Paik is the subject, have you debunked him yet?

[16.5]

Talking of broken records..
Farmer has made the assertion that Paik was inside the shop. Tell HIM to prove it. It´s HIS ´thread´
While you´re at it, ask him why he was arguing the other night that Paik was ´in the shadow of the plane´ AND facing towards the outside of it.

Derail? Just making sure people see the facts (again).

OK! Will do!

Ask Shaky and Fatty when they will release their unedited video of their interview with Paik. I am sure they will do that, right champ? I mean, you are demanding the same from the OP, it is CIT's claim, I am sure they will torrent their raw video, right?

Hell, fan boy, you gotta be demanding that right, otherwise you just seem like a hypocrite, and you aint a:

God Damn Hypocrite

right?

[16.5]

I´ve been following your posts champ on other threads. SAME words over and over.
No links, no math, nothing.
The math HAS been provided.
Bye bye. You´re on ignore bore.

WIN

All you gotta do is ask these guys for objective facts and evidence, and man, the game is freaking OVER!

[beachnut]

... Paik, Ed was INSIDE the shop when the plane flew by.
Shinki Interview (http://bluecollarrepublican.com/911files/shinki_paik.mp3)

... follow-up with Ed Paik on location shows that indeed Ed was INSIDE the shop when he saw the plane. He recreates his actual POV and direction of sighting in this image.

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

... CIT has been very deceptive and less than honest ...

Craig, it is time to release ALL of the recorded interview footage. ...
And during the video CIT releases they must be total idiots as Paik keeps telling his story showing where 77 is with CIT filming which confirms this photo of Paik point to 77 flying by.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/PaikpointssouthdebunksCIT.jpg
Watching the CIT video shows Paik debunking the narration as the narration goes off on a delusional flight path of woo only a few idiots would believe, or some must miss the evidence due to lack of comprehension.

Paik proves CIT is making up their own flight paths, and if you do the physics/math on the CIT flight paths they are all impossible.

Only those who can't do math fall for Balsamo's false presentation on the NoC flight paths. If you can do math/physics you can debunk Balsamo, if you can't, you post his lies as your evidence. Got math? Got physics? Prove it

[Edx]

Quoted for Mudlark :)


OK! Will do!

Ask Shaky and Fatty when they will release their unedited video of their interview with Paik. I am sure they will do that, right champ? I mean, you are demanding the same from the OP, it is CIT's claim, I am sure they will torrent their raw video, right?

Hell, fan boy, you gotta be demanding that right, otherwise you just seem like a hypocrite, and you aint a:

God Damn Hypocrite

right?

[JimBenArm]

Ah, come on, 16.5! They already have posted all their facts and all their math! Don't demand more from them. They aren't capable of it. The only thing they know is the ebil gubmint says that somtin hapined, an if the ebil gubmint says it, it cain't be so!

Nothing else matters to them. There exists no evidence you can provide that will convince them. Don't engage them. Just mock them. Entertainment is the only valuable thing they provide. Lord knows, it ain't smarts!

By the way, even if every person who saw the plane said it went SOC, does it really matter, if every single one of them agrees it hit the Pentagon? Just askin'!

Not that any of you could give an answer that makes a lick of sense. I just want to see your contortions again. It's funny!

[AJM8125]

Ask Shaky and Fatty... <snip>
:dl:

[jaydeehess]

Ed paik did not witness any ´impact´
He ran towards the Pentagon after the plane had passed over him and ´saw the orange flames´
Having trouble with reading comprehension Mudlark? I was refering to every single witness who was in postiton to see the impact, including but not limited to, those among the CiT stars who were in said position, state that the plane impacted the Pentagon


Roosevelt Roberts did not witness any ´impact´
´when the explosion hit´ he was in South Parking and had no view. On top of that he was INSIDE the building. So no, he was not an ´impact witness´

?? "he was in South Parking and had no view" and "he was INSIDE the building"?? Is there indoor parking in the south lot?

Wasn't Roberts originally touted as a flyover witness by the CiT?



Darius Prather
",,passing us and went straight into that building"
but according to Stafford , (second hand inference) Prather wasn't looking.


Donald Carter and Darrell Stafford were actually with Darius Prather.
They saw the plane approach their carpark from the Navy Annex and all ´ran for their lives´
""nobody was trying to look see if it was actually going to hit the building or not hit the building. So everybody was running in the opposite direction for their lives."
So although the CiT is quite confident in the opinion of these men that the plane was on a flight path that was somewhere south of the Citgo station, they are also quite confident that these men were incorrect in their assumption that there was a reason to run. After all if the plane was not going to hit the building then there would be little reason to run away. In fact they had assumed it was going to hit the ground prior to getting to the Pentagon. THAT is why they were running.
Now why would they think that? If the plane was SoC it was even further away. If it was where Lagasse put it then Lagasse was in even greater danger than Prather. Hmmm, maybe geography offers an answer? Perhaps........?
Looking laterally at the aircraft they had little reference to determine how far distant the plane was. Except that is, for the line of terrain, and along the commonly accepted path the land is higher than where they were. If they assumed it was closer, and seeing the plane close to the terrain they would conclude the plane was in danger of crashing very close to them. It would appear even lower, agl, than it really was.

William Middleton

Yes he is convinced the plane impacted but given his NOC testimony, this is impossible to reconcile.

I have pointed out that it would have been impossible for Morin to even see the aircraft if it were where Middleton puts it. Therefore if it is impossible to reconcile his flightpath and his unequivocal statement that the plane hit the Pentagon, yes, one of those things must be incorrect. Given that Morin (and Paik) could not have seen a plane along Middleton's path then it is Middleton's path that must be incorrect which leaves his statement that the plane hit the Pentagon intact.

Maria de la Cerda

She could not physically see any ´impact´ and conveys that she saw the fireball.
(She says that she believed that the plane struck ´the other side´.
´The plane that disappeared´ What height was the plane at when she thought this??)

Her statement conveys that she had only a momentary view of the aircraft. She had probably the least amount of time to determine anything about it. She basically says exactly that so her speculation that it hit the far side is really based on very little information.

Terry Morin

He witnessed the explosion. He did NOT say he saw nor COULD he PHYSICALLY see the plane enter the building from his POV
I did not say that about Morin. I said that he was 10 feet from walking out from between the wings and that he put the plane directly overhead. I said that this is 600 feet south of Middleton's path and would also put 40 feet of the starboard wing south of the Annex meaning that Morin was looking up and his body was facing south. This means that it would have been impossible for Morin to see a plane along Middleton's path. Morin is also closer to the plane than Middleton and thus his placement would be more accurate than Middleton's or many others especially given that he had the sides of the building as reference. He also states that he then saw the plane go down beyond the trees. He simply could not have seen that for a path that would take the plane north of the Citgo station. Therefore Morin is a SoC witness.


How could he possibly have seen the tail of the plane as it crossed the lawn allegedly on a low-level trajectory?

He said that all he could see was the top of the vertical stabilizer. He does not claim to have been able to actually see the lawn but its a big lawn and he knows where it is.

How could he have gotten to this POV and given so much detail if it took 5 seconds from the Navy Annex to the facade of the Pentagon given the official 540mph speed which he also contradicted?
How long does it take you to run 15-20 feet?

How could he have witnessed the tail ´dip to the right´ if it was on the SOC path?
He was incorrect about that I suppose. After all it is at this point that he has the smallest view of the aircraft.

More importantly look at where the smoke is emanating from in the photo. The ´impact zone´ is not in view.
He saw the fireball, not an ´impact´.

AGAIN, I have never stated that Morin saw the impact. Stop saying that I have.
BTW that picture is at least 50 feet west of where Morin was , isn't it?

However, Morin would have had an absolutly great view of the aircraft rising before the fireball. The fireball must not reach the level of the roof until the aircraft has already passed the wall since flying an aircraft through a fireball would have likely had it crash in the Potomac(now that would be embarrassing for the spooks no?)

That´s ´lying´ btw..
YOU are the one who makes this claim.
CIT have never editted ANY witness as to whether they believed they saw or believed they saw an ´impact´

WOWSERS!!
You really need to go over Boger's statement again. Did he or did he not state that he saw the plane hit then ducked down and did the CiT or did they not say that Boger must have ducked before the plane hit thus accusing Boger of lieing?


Boger´s interview is covered here (http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=269). He believes he witnessed an impact but totally contradicts the official flightpath, speed and the low-level trajectory in the 5 frames.
Are you saying that he is ´lieing´ about the rest of his testimony?
NO, I am saying, and have said it before, that he is incorret about the path the plane took. That refers to what he saw happening starting a mile away whereas what he says he saw a few dozen feet away concerning a 77 foot high building and a 100 foot long aircraft is more likely to be correct.




They HAVE told Morin that he was facing north right?

Whether he was facing North or facing South WITHIN the wing of the Annex, his recorded statement to Craig Ranke is the most damning

Yes yes it is. He clearly puts the aircraft near the south edge of the Annex, not the north edge let alone over Patton drive.

So is he lying too? How come he didn´t describe the necessary
SOC official path that would have looked like this

No, he is merely a little off. Less than the wingspan of the aircraft unlike Middleton who is at least off by 5 times the wingspann of the aircraft.



They HAVE told Paik that his speculation the next day that the plane had hit the tower is patently stupid since it was 600 feet north of the tower, right?
His ´speculation´ has been covered numerous times.

I am not saying that his speculation would in any way be considered accurate HOWEVER if the plane was 2 - 5 times its wingspan north of the tower why would Paik even consider this a possibility? If nothing else it proves he was facing south thus illustrating Middleton is incorrect.

As above. Only William Middleton claims to have actually witnessed an ´impact´. Understandable given the circumstances but impossible NOC.

Covered above.


What their reaction would be is irrelevant as is any ´reaction´ regarding witness testimony.

You will note that what they might say NOW is a topic YOU brought up.

They corraborrate NOC. End of story.

Except that Middleton is shown to be wrong about the flightpath but does corroborate others who witnessed impact(remember I am including those that the CiT dismiss such as reporters and military contractors in cars and office buildings.). Except that Morin is shown to be a SoC witness. Except that Boger states quite unequivocally that he saw impact (just like Middleton).

Mind retracting the numerous falsehoods you have just made?
Or will this just go on the top of the pile that have been stacking up?Do you really believe that you and the handful of other posters here are the only people reading these threads and that they won´t see the lies I´ve pulled you and others up on?


How is this going to work if you keep stealing my lines?:rolleyes:



Keep posting.

No problem, I will.

You too.

[jaydeehess]

The math HAS been provided.
.

Given that the first attempt was the 11 g calculation that a grade 12 science student could have understood was a complete balls-up, why should anyone give the PfT any credence in the math department?

[jaydeehess]

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/PaikpointssouthdebunksCIT.jpg


Paik points south with the VDOT tower in the background. A day after the event Paik speculates that the plane may have hit that tower.
However the CiT say that Paik put the plane basically over the road in front of his shop (or 500-600 feet to the north a 'la Middleton) so why would Paik even speculate that it was over 100 feet further south at all?

OR

Paik was in his shop and not where the CiT interviewed him. This means he simply could not have been looking north, still makes his speculation about the tower odd if the plane was much closer to him , and certainly illustrates Middleton's error.

[nicepants]

OR

Paik was in his shop and not where the CiT interviewed him. This means he simply could not have been looking north, still makes his speculation about the tower odd if the plane was much closer to him , and certainly illustrates Middleton's error.

None of CIT's videos (that I've seen) show Paik specifying exactly where he was standing during the event.....maybe that part got edited out.

[16.5]

I've been keeping my eye on this thread.

The CIT toadies were perfectly happy to regurgitate and cut and paste CIT's earlier "videos" but when it come to something new, they ignore the OP, whine that I was asking them unfair questions, and were perfectly content to let this new thread drop off the first page.

Where are all the CIT fan boys and girls now?

[jaydeehess]

None of CIT's videos (that I've seen) show Paik specifying exactly where he was standing during the event.....maybe that part got edited out.

I included the first choice in order to show that no matter whether Paik was in the front lot or at the front window, the CiT contention that anything close to Middleton's description of the flight path simply must be in error.
Given that both Paik and Morin illustrate that Middleton was in error it supports the view that Middleton is in fact in error.
The rst of the ANC witnesses also put the aircraft along the north side of the Annex which is inconsistent with what Morin stated and they were in the same general area that Middleton was. Thus we can infer that the error induced in Middleton's estimation of where the plane was due to the angle and the geography could also be in play for these others at the ANC.

Not that the CiT will ever see it that way, their political world view gets in the way.

I've been keeping my eye on this thread.

The CIT toadies were perfectly happy to regurgitate and cut and paste CIT's earlier "videos" but when it come to something new, they ignore the OP, whine that I was asking them unfair questions, and were perfectly content to let this new thread drop off the first page.

Where are all the CIT fan boys and girls now?

It is odd considering the number of times that we have had them say, 'go and interview the witnesses yourselves". It has been done with Paik!

[16.5]

This demonstrates that CIT has been very deceptive and less than honest in regards to the information they have been promoting. That is why many of us have asked to see and/or hear the entire recorded eyewitness accounts recorded by CIT, NOT the edited and staged versions they have released in their productions.

Craig, it is time to release ALL of the recorded interview footage. It is time for a new investigation and a new movement, or should I say the CIT-Truth Now movement. This is a case of "eyewitness speaks, conspiracy revealed", but the conspirators are Crag and Aldo, and the conspiracy is to conceal the truth.

It hasn't been quite a week but I notice that on the other sites CIT and its gaggle of sock like appendages like to frequent, the response to this post has been NOTHING.

I assume that having been caught in a massive, outrageous deception, Craig and Aldo have abandoned their charade.

[beachnut]

CIT and fraud. Is anyone really suprised here. Kind of like saying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

Which of the many flight paths will CIT pick as their real NoC flight path? Can CIT go back and interview more witnesses and do worse? Yes, I have faith they have not reached their apex in presenting failed conclusions.

[Jonnyclueless]

Are we still pretending mudlark isn't one of the kids from CIT?

[BCR]

It hasn't been quite a week but I notice that on the other sites CIT and its gaggle of sock like appendages like to frequent, the response to this post has been NOTHING.

I assume that having been caught in a massive, outrageous deception, Craig and Aldo have abandoned their charade.

Oh, there is much more to come. The full Paik account is still being written by Erik, but he is done with Vignola's account (I just started a thread for it). More to come, same 'bat time', same 'bat channel'.

[mudlark]

I'm not sure what Shinki told BCR in that indecipherable audio file he provided that nobody in the entire forum has been able to quote or transcribe, but it's pretty clear in this interview from 2006 that he claims Edward ran outside and ducked just before the plane flew over...

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

:confused:

[BCR]

Well mudlark, which is it? Was he standing where CIT had him? Was he inside and then ran outside as you translate Shinki to say? Or was he inside as he is now claiming? And is Vignola lying when she says she watched the plane fly into the side of the Pentagon and saw nothing fly over? Paik points south and Vignola points north, so obviously by the time Paik saw it was not over the Annex, but south of it. So any way you spin it (especially if he was outside where CIT videotaped him) he was pointing at a less than 45 degree angle south of the Annex. A bonafide SoC eyewitness :)

[leftysergeant]

If Paik saw the plane from a window and then ran outside, the plane would have to have been south of his shop when he first became aware of it. That he mentions the VDOT tower at all indicates to my mind that he was aware of it's being in close proximaty to the plane, else it would not have been an important feature of the scene he was looking at. He had too many other distractions at that instant to notice much of anything else but that big honking noisy thing that had just appeared so incongruously in the field of his vison.

Solidly SoC.

[mudlark]

Well mudlark, which is it? Was he standing where CIT had him? Was he inside and then ran outside as you translate Shinki to say? Or was he inside as he is now claiming? And is Vignola lying when she says she watched the plane fly into the side of the Pentagon and saw nothing fly over? Paik points south and Vignola points north, so obviously by the time Paik saw it was not over the Annex, but south of it. So any way you spin it (especially if he was outside where CIT videotaped him) he was pointing at a less than 45 degree angle south of the Annex. A bonafide SoC eyewitness :)

What is it that you are having trouble understanding here besides your own interview with Shinki? Why can't you provide a quote or a transcript showing how you didn't lie about what he said?

I can easily provide one from this 2006 interview proving he said the opposite:

Shinki Paik: And at the last moment my brother jumped out the office and as soon as he went out he was just scooping down and I was sitting here, and then standing, and then I think at that moment a big airplane just flew over.

[...]

Shinki: As soon as he went out, jumped out he was scooping down on the ground and then I think he thought something hitting him and then I see here inside the kind of black cloud a little bit.

Ranke: A shadow?

Shinki: Yeah.


See how easy that was? Shinki was VERY clear and I can actually hear the words he said. Clearly Shinki claims that Ed ducked down outside BEFORE the shadow went over his shop.

So did Shinki change his story to you or did you lie about what he said? I can't tell from your recording and it doesn't seem like anyone else here can either..

[twinstead]

That post speaks for itself beachnut. LMAO!
Apart from the fact that it is pure nonsense and manipulation of still images to fit that warped imagnation of yours, how do you explain the PATHS they ALL drew and signed? Slip of the pen or..?

And how do YOU explain the ultimate convergence of those paths, and the paths of the other non NoC witnesses, at the freakin' Pentagon? tell you what...I'd be a HELL of a lot more impressed with flyover witnesses than I am with these anomalous NoC witnesses you think trump all the other evidence.

[BCR]

See how easy that was? Shinki was VERY clear and I can actually hear the words he said. Clearly Shinki claims that Ed ducked down outside BEFORE the shadow went over his shop.

Yes I do see how easy that was. You just used Shinki to verify that the plane was along the fdr/radar path. Go find where the Sun was and where the plane had to be for the shadow to go over his shop. A simple math exercise. Man you guys are so easy.

I will also note that you are conceding that Craig/Alpo knew that Paik was not where they filmed his POV, thus verifying the OP.

[DGM]

What is it that you are having trouble understanding here besides your own interview with Shinki? Why can't you provide a quote or a transcript showing how you didn't lie about what he said?

I can easily provide one from this 2006 interview proving he said the opposite:



See how easy that was? Shinki was VERY clear and I can actually hear the words he said. Clearly Shinki claims that Ed ducked down outside BEFORE the shadow went over his shop.

So did Shinki change his story to you or did you lie about what he said? I can't tell from your recording and it doesn't seem like anyone else here can either..
The shadow of the plane was just outside the door?


Damn, BCR you beat me to it.:mad:

[beachnut]

Yes I do see how easy that was. You just used Shinki to verify that the plane was along the fdr/radar path. Go find where the Sun was and where the plane had to be for the shadow to go over his shop. A simple math exercise. Man you guys are so easy.

I will also note that you are conceding that Craig/Alpo knew that Paik was not where they filmed his POV, thus verifying the OP.

It would be a new moment in moronic math at CIT and p4t as Balsamo comes up with some geometry effort 2,223 Gs worse than his math attempts. Wonder if they can stop mudlark from exposing their ignorance?

Humorous; mudlark fell into your trap and exposed his lack of logic and try to defend the moronic conclusions and failed claims of CIT.

[16.5]

What is it that you are having trouble understanding here besides your own interview with Shinki? Why can't you provide a quote or a transcript showing how you didn't lie about what he said?

I can easily provide one from this 2006 interview proving he said the opposite:



See how easy that was? Shinki was VERY clear and I can actually hear the words he said. Clearly Shinki claims that Ed ducked down outside BEFORE the shadow went over his shop.

So did Shinki change his story to you or did you lie about what he said? I can't tell from your recording and it doesn't seem like anyone else here can either..

Wow, did you just admit that CIT's video showing Paik "point of view" was fraudulent? Wow. That is one hell of a damaging admission there.

[DGM]

Wow, did you just admit that CIT's video showing Paik "point of view" was fraudulent? Wow. That is one hell of a damaging admission there.
Mudlark's going to be in big trouble when he gets back to the tree-fort.:o

[leftysergeant]

Wouldn't the plane have to have been to the south of the shop to have cast a shadow over it?

[A W Smith]

Wouldn't the plane have to have been to the south of the shop to have cast a shadow over it?
yup

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php
Astronomical Applications Dept.
U.S. Naval Observatory
Washington, DC 20392-5420

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
o , o ,
W 77 06, N38 52

Altitude and Azimuth of the Sun
Sep 11, 2001
Eastern Standard Time

H... M .............. Altitude .. Azimuth east of north

09:40................. 42.4................. 127.1

[BCR]

Yep, Craig made a new little video covering Shinki.

-SeOa6AQyt0

Thanks Craig! You just verified the 'official flight path' and revealed that you were aware that Paik was NOT where you filmed him for your 'fantasy recreation'. You guys crack me up :)

[tsig]

Mudlark's going to be in big trouble when he gets back to the tree-fort.:o

He'll claim he knew it all along and it somehow proves his point.

[mudlark]

You can't calculate where the shadow would be without knowing the altitude of the plane. If the plane "almost hit my roof" as Edward claimed and was "only about 3 feet above the Navy Annex" as claimed by Darius Prather there is no reason it couldn't have cast a shadow over Shinki's shop from the north path.

[BCR]

Here is an image from 9/12/2001 with the distance (484 feet) from the A-One Auto shop at an angle of 127 degrees azimuth (direction of Sun).

http://bluecollarrepublican.ipower.com/zoe/files/paik_sun.jpg

The angular elevation of the Sun is 42 degrees, so using very simple trigonometry, the altitude of the plane along the correlated fdr/radar path should be:

Tan(42) = altitude/484 feet, or altitude = 0.9*484 feet = 435 feet agl

It is already known that the correlation is shifted slightly south and has an associated range of error with it. According to the Warren decode, the RA indicates an agl altitude of ~ 230 feet, so by substituting the distance can be calculated to equal 255 feet.

http://bluecollarrepublican.ipower.com/zoe/files/paik_sun2.jpg

Using the two as extrema, the red oval gives the most reasonable positional area if a shadow was cast on the shop. Interestingly enough, a path through this area would also take the plane over the VSP/VDOT tower, explaining why both Shinki and Edward thought the plane had caused the damage to the antenna they claim was 'damaged'.

All of this is very subjective based on eyewitness accounts and no one can say for certain which portion of the shadow Shinki saw. It does however confirm the less than 45 degree elevation of the plane as described by Edward. It is also consistent with the other eyewitness accounts in this area (VDOT Mossad agent and Morin).

Thought I would save the math challenged a little work.

[mudlark]

Mudlark's going to be in big trouble when he gets back to the tree-fort.:o

Haha, you guys crack me up.
Start a thread about CIT ´fraud´ on the ´basis´ that Paik was INSIDE his shop.
Shinki just cleared this ´fraud´ up.
NOW Paik WAS outside, but a few metres from where he was interviewed?
Stretttttching. Make your minds up.
I see only one fraud here. This thread.

[BCR]

You can't calculate where the shadow would be without knowing the altitude of the plane. If the plane "almost hit my roof" as Edward claimed and was "only about 3 feet above the Navy Annex" as claimed by Darius Prather there is no reason it couldn't have cast a shadow over Shinki's shop from the north path.

We have empirical data to estimate the altitude in this region, not subjective "almost hit my roof". How would Edward know if he was ducking? Inescapable fact, the plane was to the south of Edward at a less than 45 degree angular elevation. To promote Edward Paik as an NoC eyewitness is not based on any connection with reality and CIT's distortions and misrepresentations of his account are contemptible.

[BCR]

Haha, you guys crack me up.
Start a thread about CIT ´fraud´ on the ´basis´ that Paik was INSIDE his shop.
Shinki just cleared this ´fraud´ up.
NOW Paik WAS outside, but a few metres from where he was interviewed?
Stretttttching. Make your minds up.
I see only one fraud here. This thread.

I told you mudlark, we are saving the best for last. Just giving you time to dig the hole deeper.

[A W Smith]

Almost hit his roof Mudlark? Are you now asserting flight 77 flew THROUGH the Sheraton?

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


Paik's shop is hidden just behind that small strip mall. Behind their A-One Auto Clinic sign

[mudlark]

435 feet above ground level

Wow I hope you told Ed Paik it was that high when it just missed ´the roof´?
And it dropped almost 350 ft in a fraction of a second before it reached Morin?
Wowww...

[16.5]

Wow I hope you told Ed Paik it was that high when it just missed ´the roof´?

Hee hee hee!

Are you really *********** claiming that it almost hit his roof that was about 15 feet high???

How stupid do you think people are? The answer is, they are nowhere near as dumb as Shakey Craig and Fat Aldo.

Cripes, someone stundie this garbage.

[beachnut]

Wow I hope you told Ed Paik it was that high when it just missed ´the roof´?
And it dropped almost 350 ft in a fraction of a second before it reached Morin?
Wowww...

You missed the range of values. The shadow is a wing span wide shadow. Comprehension skills are required to avoid being stuck believing delusions from CIT. Math helps too.

The neat part about Paik pointing from his office and the shadow are how they support each other; this is a great witness agrees with the evidence of the day kind of analysis not see when CIT uses stupidity to guide their predestined moronic flyover.

[dafydd]

I´ve been following your posts champ on other threads. SAME words over and over.
No links, no math, nothing.
The math HAS been provided.
Bye bye. You´re on ignore bore.

Prove the math then.

[mudlark]

Almost hit his roof Mudlark? Are you now asserting flight 77 flew THROUGH the Sheraton?

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


Paik's shop is hidden just behind that small strip mall. Behind their A-One Auto Clinic sign

Pfff...

Watch the video

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

The roof that he points to is the one next door.

He calls them "my roofs" but if you didn't notice English is his second language.

He also says he thought it was going to hit the last wing of the Navy Annex.

This matches perfectly with his illustration where he also indicated his location with a circle:


http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikmap-4.jpg

His illustration leaves zero ambiguity for what he is describing yet you are in full denial mode anyway.

[A W Smith]

Pfff...

Watch the video

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

The roof that he points to is the one next door.

He calls them "my roofs" but if you didn't notice English is his second language.

He also says he thought it was going to hit the last wing of the Navy Annex.

This matches perfectly with his illustration where he also indicated his location with a circle:


http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikmap-4.jpg

His illustration leaves zero ambiguity for what he is describing yet you are in full denial mode anyway.


His path illustrates the shadow path. Go ahead. Put a 124' 10" wingspan centered over his line in front of the Sheraton. The wing clips the Sheraton. End of story. Shinki Paik could have not seen the fuselage or the shadow of flight 77 from inside the shop office had it flown via Edwards illustration given the azimuth and altitude of the sun at that location that time of day on that date.

[mudlark]

We have empirical data to estimate the altitude in this region, not subjective "almost hit my roof". How would Edward know if he was ducking? Inescapable fact, the plane was to the south of Edward at a less than 45 degree angular elevation. To promote Edward Paik as an NoC eyewitness is not based on any connection with reality and CIT's distortions and misrepresentations of his account are contemptible.

Sorry, not buying your feigned disgust on ´misrepresentation´ based on my recent ´debate´ with you on these witnesses.

YOU are the one calling Edward Paik a liar.

It has nothing to do with the subjectivity of his description.
YOU say he saw the plane where he didn´t say. That it was at a MUCH higher altitude than he described. That it was on a different trajectory than the one he described, plotted and signed. That he could not have seen the plane almost hit his roof because he ´ducked´.

Why did he duck when the plane was so high above him? How could he believe that the plane was going to strike the roof if it WAS so high AND on the alleged trajectory?

Enough of the hypocrisy.

[leftysergeant]

Why did he duck when the plane was so high above him? How could he believe that the plane was going to strike the roof if it WAS so high AND on the alleged trajectory?

Because it was FREAKIN' HUGE and it was far lower than it was supposed to be and looked far bigger than it was supposed to look.

It's scary. The human response is to duck.

[BCR]

Sorry, not buying your feigned disgust on ´misrepresentation´ based on my recent ´debate´ with you on these witnesses.

YOU are the one calling Edward Paik a liar.

First, I could care less about what you buy and don't buy. Second, I am not calling Paik a liar, I am calling Craig and Alpo liars.

[Edx]

Because it was FREAKIN' HUGE and it was far lower than it was supposed to be and looked far bigger than it was supposed to look.

It's scary. The human response is to duck.

Conspiracy theorists dont understand what its like in the real world.

if they hear "explosion" it means bombs, if they hear someone "ducked" it means it was virtually on top of them.

[mudlark]

His path illustrates the shadow path. Go ahead. Put a 124' 10" wingspan centered over his line in front of the Sheraton. The wing clips the Sheraton. End of story. Shinki Paik could have not seen the fuselage or the shadow of flight 77 from inside the shop office had it flown via Edwards illustration given the azimuth and altitude of the sun at that location that time of day on that date.

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

There ya go. 124.52ft
getting desperate now AWSmith?

Deb Analuf
14th floor Sheraton Hotel

"Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window," Anlauf said during a telephone interview from her hotel room this morning. "You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible.¨

[CurtC]

That the CIT guys included Paik's statements cracks me up. The fact that he saw the plane at all, whether directly overhead or somewhat to the south of him, completely disproves the North of Citgo idea. It would be impossible for a plane at high speed to go over Paik, North of the Citgo, and then turn to be at the hole at the Pentagon.

I made this years ago:
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u27/kikapurider/CITGO2.jpg

[Edx]

There ya go. 124.52ft
getting desperate now AWSmith?

Deb Analuf
14th floor Sheraton Hotel


You aren't suggesting they could actually touch it are you?

[tsig]

I told you mudlark, we are saving the best for last. Just giving you time to dig the hole deeper.

tsig post #86:

"He'll claim he knew it all along and it somehow proves his point."


Just have Randi send me my million in small unmarked bills.:D

[A W Smith]

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

There ya go. 124.52ft
getting desperate now AWSmith?

Deb Analuf
14th floor Sheraton Hotel
:dl:

Looks like i'm not the one who's desperate
Thread the needle much Craig? This is also the second time you used Edwards difficulty with the English language to throw ambiguity on his testimony.

[mudlark]

Because it was FREAKIN' HUGE and it was far lower than it was supposed to be and looked far bigger than it was supposed to look.

It's scary. The human response is to duck.

Yeah, I´ve been saying that for a LONG time as regards the Route 27 witnesses and Sean Boger. But because I said it, I´m apparently calling them ´liars´.

I´m not nor have I ever said that Ed Paik didn´t ´duck´. He ducked in the CIT video interview BUT went on to describe what he saw.
His testimony is in his own words. The flightpath was drawn and signed by HIM.
What I´m questioning is why he would duck given the alleged 450ft agl of the plane ACROSS the road from him apparently NOT going over his shop and the Annex as he states.

[leftysergeant]

Conspiracy theorists dont understand what its like in the real world.

if they hear "explosion" it means bombs, if they hear someone "ducked" it means it was virtually on top of them.

Having spent a lot of time less than ten feet from the edge of a runway, even an F-4 looks like it takes up half the sky as it lines up for a landing. A bit intimidating the first time you see it.

And if you see it in a context which suggests that it is about to crash, it is even more intimidating. Every bit of your attention is focused on that big threatening moving object.

[mudlark]

:dl:

Looks like i'm not the one who's desperate
Thread the needle much Craig? This is also the second time you used Edwards difficulty with the English language to throw ambiguity on his testimony.

There is no ambiguity regarding his flightpath drawing.
As leftysergeant has just said, the plane was ´FREAKIN HUGE!´
Passing by a hotel window at 350mph. She contradicts the official path AND backs up Paik´s placement of the plane.
You said the plane´s wingspan was too large to fly by the Sheraton given Paik´s drawing. You were wrong. Again.
Even given any margin of error. The plane can fly that path.
End of story.

[A W Smith]

There is no ambiguity regarding his flightpath drawing.
As leftysergeant has just said, the plane was ´FREAKIN HUGE!´
Passing by a hotel window at 350mph. She contradicts the official path AND backs up Paik´s placement of the plane.
You said the plane´s wingspan was too large to fly by the Sheraton given Paik´s drawing. You were wrong. Again.
Even given any margin of error. The plane can fly that path.
End of story.

Passing by the hotel window? Are you for real? What pilot would do that?
I need to post this image again.
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Aone.jpg

[twinstead]

There is no ambiguity regarding his flightpath drawing.
As leftysergeant has just said, the plane was ´FREAKIN HUGE!´
Passing by a hotel window at 350mph. She contradicts the official path AND backs up Paik´s placement of the plane.
You said the plane´s wingspan was too large to fly by the Sheraton given Paik´s drawing. You were wrong. Again.
Even given any margin of error. The plane can fly that path.
End of story.

I just bet you wish you had a witness to that 'FREAKIN HUGE' plane pulling up and roaring over the top of the Pentagon, huh?

[mudlark]

That the CIT guys included Paik's statements cracks me up. The fact that he saw the plane at all, whether directly overhead or somewhat to the south of him, completely disproves the North of Citgo idea. It would be impossible for a plane at high speed to go over Paik, North of the Citgo, and then turn to be at the hole at the Pentagon.

I made this years ago:
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u27/kikapurider/CITGO2.jpg

Ed Paik´s very insistence that the plane flew over the Navy Annex AT ALL contradicts the official path fatally.
If you watch the video of him making the path above he first pinpoints where he KNEW the plane was supposed to have impacted and draws the line you show so that the point of where he saw the plane fly over the building and the ´impact zone´ meet up.
He places the plane at an angle going over the roof.

Please do NOT pull the manipulated translation of him ´pointing South´ as I have thoroughly debunked this and shown it for what it is. Pure manipulation.
He was pointing at the roof to give an idea of the ALTITUDE of the plane.

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

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/edpaiksextendedpath-1.jpg

[mudlark]

Passing by the hotel window? Are you for real? What pilot would do that?
I need to post this image again.
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/Aone.jpg

You are talking literally (not wanting to use banned words on this forum)

Ask Deb Analuf. Is she lying too Smith?

The alleged path through the lightpoles missing the VDOT cam mast isn´t an ´eye of a needle´ manouevre either? Incredible.
You have no problem whatsoever believing that Hani Hanjur pulled off the manouevres including the low level lawn approach yet you doubt this scenario?

You guys trip yourselves up at every turn.

Post another ´laughin dog´

[mudlark]

I just bet you wish you had a witness to that 'FREAKIN HUGE' plane pulling up and roaring over the top of the Pentagon, huh?

Bet you wish you had ONE SOC witness?
I know which would catch MY eye more..a ´FREAKIN HUGE´ explosion.

Roosevelt Roberts saw a FREAKIN HUGE ´commercial plane´ ´after the explosion hit´ ´50-100 ft agl´..

[A W Smith]

You are talking literally (not wanting to use banned words on this forum)

Ask Deb Analuf. Is she lying too Smith?

The alleged path through the lightpoles missing the VDOT cam mast isn´t an ´eye of a needle´ manouevre either? Incredible.
You have no problem whatsoever believing that Hani Hanjur pulled off the manouevres including the low level lawn approach yet you doubt this scenario?

You guys trip yourselves up at every turn.

Post another ´laughin dog´

Texas sharpshooter fallacy much Craig? Hanjour didn't miss the VDOT camera pole. And You know that. Also didn't miss the tree top to the north of the VDOT cam pole at the overpass. And damn near crashed into the lawn. But didn't. So what of it? Why would ANY pilot fly so close to the Sheraton looming in his windscreen? Shock and awe for poor Debbie? She saw a shadow. Which was cast upon the Sheraton.

[A W Smith]

Bet you wish you had ONE SOC witness?
..

Morin

[DGM]

Bet you wish you had ONE SOC witness?
I know which would catch MY eye more..a ´FREAKIN HUGE´ explosion.

Roosevelt Roberts saw a FREAKIN HUGE ´commercial plane´ ´after the explosion hit´ ´50-100 ft agl´..
So all your witnesses were wrong on that aspect but dead nut on as far as the fast moving flight path. Got it.:confused:

[twinstead]

mudlark, your position is untenable. I can only guess at your motivation for continuing to argue something as ludicrous as the plane pretending to crash into the Pentagon, then veering up and screaming over the top of the building as a decoy explosion is detonated--and believing that without a shred of evidence or eye witness accounts of a flyover.

All because a few anomalous witnesses don't jive with the commonly-held narrative of the flight path. Whatever. It's freaky crazy.

[CurtC]

Ed Paik´s very insistence that the plane flew over the Navy Annex AT ALL contradicts the official path fatally.

If the plane actually went over the Annex Building it requires a slight modification to where we otherwise think it went exactly. I will agree to that.

What you didn't address, however, is my main point. If it went over Paik and eventually went to the location of the Pentagon hole, there is no way that it could have gone on the North side of the Citgo station, as you can tell from the photo I posted above.

I mean, we can discuss the accuracy of Paik's estimation that it went over the Annex. That's hard to tell from his statements and drawings. But if you believe that he saw the plane at all, it's fatal to the "North of Citgo" idea.

[HyJinX]

Bet you wish you had ONE SOC witness?
I know which would catch MY eye more..a ´FREAKIN HUGE´ explosion.

Roosevelt Roberts saw a FREAKIN HUGE ´commercial plane´ ´after the explosion hit´ ´50-100 ft agl´..

Bet you wish, after all the time, money and effort you've put into your NoC claims and research, that you didn't have to constantly defend it and that people would just buy into it so you would be whatever it is you want to be. You've been at this quite a while now...don't you think that if your "evidence" had any merit to it that that the 9/11 truth movement would embrace you and that you'd be known all over the world for bringing down the evil gubmit?

...or are you simply satisfied with continually arguing your non-existent gobble-de-gook on internet forums?

[leftysergeant]

Can Paik even see the Navy Annex from his shop? I didn't see it in the video or the GIF. Are you sure he has even visualized the position of the Annex in relation to his shop?

As for Anlauf, the palne looked almost close enough to touch because, from her position, it looked FREAKIN' HUGE.

I well remember one incident when I had mechanical problems on my truck dead in the middle of the runway at Seymour-Johnson just as a BUFF was about to land on minimum fuel. I barely managed to get off the runway. When the plane passed me, it looked roughly the size of battleship. Panic can distort your perception of size and distance.

[JimBenArm]

Can Paik even see the Navy Annex from his shop? I didn't see it in the video or the GIF. Are you sure he has even visualized the position of the Annex in relation to his shop?

As for Anlauf, the palne looked almost close enough to touch because, from her position, it looked FREAKIN' HUGE.

I well remember one incident when I had mechanical problems on my truck dead in the middle of the runway at Seymour-Johnson just as a BUFF was about to land on minimum fuel. I barely managed to get off the runway. When the plane passed me, it looked roughly the size of battleship. Panic can distort your perception of size and distance.
So you're saying a battleship almost landed on you?

[leftysergeant]

So you're saying a battleship almost landed on you?

Actually, I just took people's word that it was a b-52. But it did look big enough to be a battle ship. Of course a battleship would not have been moving 800MPH.

[JimBenArm]

Actually, I just took people's word that it was a b-52. But it did look big enough to be a battle ship. Of course a battleship would not have been moving 800MPH.
According to truther math, it could move twice that speed.:p

[Dave Rogers]

According to truther math, it could move twice that speed.:p

Let's see. Length (160 feet) x maximum takeoff weight (488,000lb) / service ceiling (50,000 feet) = 1560mph.

Damn it, you're right!

Dave

[Mr.Herbert]

Can Paik even see the Navy Annex from his shop? I didn't see it in the video or the GIF. Are you sure he has even visualized the position of the Annex in relation to his shop?

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z204/CaptainObvious2007/edcomputer2.jpg

Here is the view.

[tsig]

According to truther math, it could move twice that speed.:p

I think the debunker picture is becoming clear.

Battleships traveling at 1600 mph hit the buildings.

You debunkers official story just keeps getting more and more weird.

ETA: sorry to see you've drunk the Kool Aid Dave but with all your math you forgot one thing. It would take an experienced captain to aim his boat and hit those towers not some troglodyte towel wearers.

[Dumb All Over]

Hi Mudlark,

I'm sure my question has has been answered before but I can't seem to find it in the forums. It is important for perspective's sake that I know who I'm directing questions and answers to. Are you Craig or are you Aldo?

Thanks,
DAO

[jaydeehess]

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

There ya go. 124.52ft
getting desperate now AWSmith?


Interesting!
Although this is where he draws the path of the plane it would put the plane more than twice its wingspan north of the VDOT tower which the next day Paik speculates may have been clipped by the plane.
We note that if Paik was in the parking lot where the CiT interviewed him he cannot see the roof of the Annex but he can see the VDOT tower.

At best this suggests that Paik's drawing is incorrect. It is unlikely that he would have wondered if the plane had clipped the tower if he never saw the plane anywhere close top the tower and especially if it were more than a wingspan north. However given that he cannot see the Annex from where he was he could easily be incorrect in his estimation of where the Annex is.

Now if the port wing actually was within a few feet of the Sheraton (as Alauf's literal statement suggests) AND the center of the fuselage within 75 feet of the VDOT tower (which would certainly allow Paik's next day consideration to be a valid speculation) it would mean that the plane was essentially following Columbia Pike, along a path that would take it south of the Citgo.

[jaydeehess]

Can Paik even see the Navy Annex from his shop? I didn't see it in the video or the GIF. Are you sure he has even visualized the position of the Annex in relation to his shop?

As for Anlauf, the palne looked almost close enough to touch because, from her position, it looked FREAKIN' HUGE.

I well remember one incident when I had mechanical problems on my truck dead in the middle of the runway at Seymour-Johnson just as a BUFF was about to land on minimum fuel. I barely managed to get off the runway. When the plane passed me, it looked roughly the size of battleship. Panic can distort your perception of size and distance.

An additional anecdote;

I was at the glideslope shack and done my work there when I asked ATC ground control for clearance back to the shop. It was refused as there were several inbound aircraft. I was told to call back in 30 minutes. I went out to watch the planes land which put me only a few dozen feet from the edge of the runway.

I watched as the first a/c came in, a 747. It seemed slow and unspectacular until it touched down. Only then is it obvious that it is moving at 2 1/2 to 3 times a car's highway speed and just how freakin huge it really is. As it passed me I could have sworn that I was under the wing, and the main gear, and possibly the nose gear as well, was definately on the ground.

Even without panic one's estimation of the size, distance and elevation of an aircraft can be quite a bit off. I had time to watch a plane, which I had utterly no trepidation about, come in while the 9/11 witnesses had seconds as they witnessed an aircraft that they did not know was coming and which was well off the path of aircraft they were used to being on approach to National.
I wonder how that might affect their accuracy?

Now, mudlark, we have already established that if Paik and Morin saw the plane then it was not where Middleton put it over Patton Drive.
Correct or not?

[beachnut]

...

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/edpaiksextendedpath-1.jpg 76 degrees of bank and 4.1 Gs to make it to the flyover not counting time to roll in and out; oops, another impossible turn; unless you have a witness who saw 76 degrees of bank. Got one?

It is funny Paik points to the south flight path and you post a 76 degree bank turn required lie, delusion, pure stupid turn that never happened. Do you get paid to post idiotic delusions?

How fast does a 757 roll into 76 degree of bank? This if real funny because by the time the jets rolls into 76 degree of bank after passing the CITGO, it would be past the Pentagon and miss the flyover. Math is a real good thing to have when you work with CIT and p4t who can't do math. Did you try physics? Got any skills beside posting lies from CIT?

Please tell us the roll rate for the 757; got any clues?

[Gamolon]

Yep, Craig made a new little video covering Shinki.

-SeOa6AQyt0

Thanks Craig! You just verified the 'official flight path' and revealed that you were aware that Paik was NOT where you filmed him for your 'fantasy recreation'. You guys crack me up :)

Question.

People are bring up "shadows".

At 1:47-1:48 in the video above, Shinki says that a shadow of the plane appeared INSIDE his office. If the center/body of the plane was over TOP of his office, is it possible for a shadow to be cast IN his office?

If you take the end of the wingtip (62 feet from center) and with the sun being at 42 degrees, doesn't that put the plane's wingtip at a height of about 55ft?

Am I looking this right?

[DGM]

The plane in that case would have hit the Sheridon (?) hotel.

[W.D.Clinger]

Fish in a barrel...

You want ONE NOC flightpath from a group of eyewitnesses?
Balsamo has done the math using numerous parameters including the official 540mph speed.
I´ve linked to it 10 times.
Your own ´expert´ already admitted that there had been no math done in response to debunk it.
Yes, mudlark has linked to the Balsamo/Desideri paper many times. Several of us have pointed out that pages 1 and 4 of that paper contain mistakes. Instead of addressing the math, mudlark's been telling us to take it up with Balsamo, whose 11.2g/10.14g/2223g/58g calculations were off by a factor of 5 to 1000+ and have become a running joke.

I´ve been following your posts champ on other threads. SAME words over and over.
No links, no math, nothing.
The math HAS been provided.
Bye bye. You´re on ignore bore.
Oh dear: mudlark appears to be telling fibs.
:rolleyes:

Several people here have provided links to legitimate mathematics that refute mudlark's and/or Balsamo's assertions. It is mudlark who has steadfastly refused to discuss mathematics or physics here.

You can't calculate where the shadow would be without knowing the altitude of the plane. If the plane "almost hit my roof" as Edward claimed and was "only about 3 feet above the Navy Annex" as claimed by Darius Prather there is no reason it couldn't have cast a shadow over Shinki's shop from the north path.
North of the Tropic of Cancer, it would be quite remarkable for any object's solar shadow to fall south of the object itself. I'm talking about planet Earth, of course; shadows may behave differently on TrutherWorld.
:p

[twinstead]

Trutherworld would be a cool addition to Walt Disney World. There could be the roller coaster sensation called Squib of Terror, a holographic plane ride, manufactured phone calls from famous people, Idiots of the Caribbean, Haunted Klinkety Klunk Mansion.

If they serve beer I'm THERE!

[CompusMentus]

Trutherworld would be a cool addition to Walt Disney World. There could be the roller coaster sensation called Squib of Terror, a holographic plane ride, manufactured phone calls from famous people, Idiots of the Caribbean, Haunted Klinkety Klunk Mansion.
If they serve beer I'm THERE!


:=]


errrm "One Flew Over the Pentagon"? "North Side Story"? "Rebel Without the Foggiest"?

I'll get me coat........


Compus

[CurtC]

I wouldn't visit any amusement parks where my safety depends on the engineering expertise of Truthers.

[jaydeehess]

The plane in that case would have hit the Sheridon (?) hotel.

,and possibly the Annex? 55 feet is only 5 stories

[Pi_314]

Body and a shadow of a body?


Thats what it sounds like at the 2.29 mark of the irreconcilable brothers film with ole Eddy the mechanic. Sometimes you miss things when editing to commit fraud. I'll wager the unedited version would be a laugh a minute. Bet you will never see that version.

-SeOa6AQyt0

[dtugg]

I wonder if the CITiots are fully aware of the extent of their fraud, or if they have somehow deluded themselves into not seeing it.

[tsig]

I wonder if the CITiots are fully aware of the extent of their fraud, or if they have somehow deluded themselves into not seeing it.

I'm sure they think they're doing it for a Higher Cause. Kinda like the liars for Jesus.

[Hokulele]

I'm sure they think they're doing it for a Higher Cause.


$$

[dtugg]

$$

I would agree that money may be a possible motive except for the fact that there is no way that they have made any money off of this ridiculous charade. With the plane tickets alone, I would bet that they have lost a ton of money. And then factor in the likely thousands of hours they have spent on this crap. There is no way that they have sold enough DVDs to cover all of this. And also, Craig apparently has a good job paying over 100k/year. I just can't see money being a motive in this. I think that they are either literally insane, or it is about inflating their egos, or some combination thereof.

[Hokulele]

Well, I think it all goes back to the complete inability to admit making mistakes that has been seen repeatedly when dealing with 9/11 CTists. I am guessing that at the beginning, the Dyspeptic Duo saw the money being made by people like Avery and thought they could replicate that success. Even though they are most likely losing money over this whole nonsense, they simply cannot admit that it was a mistake from the get-go.

[Jonnyclueless]

If you guys think this stuff is crazy you shoulda seen Craig and Aldo's conspiracy theory before they came up with this silly concoction. They used to claim that the plane parts were planted and pointed to a white passenger van in the pictures as the van used to transport all of the plane parts at the scene.

I couldn't make this stuff up.

[BCR]

I'm sure they think they're doing it for a Higher Cause. Kinda like the liars for Jesus.

They are NWO operatives tasked with discrediting the 911 Truth Movement by making it look like a bunch of crazy morons. They have been very successful in their assignment and I was told at the last NWO meeting that they might be promoted to run the Memphis NWO operation. :jaw-dropp

[dtugg]

Well, I think it all goes back to the complete inability to admit making mistakes that has been seen repeatedly when dealing with 9/11 CTists. I am guessing that at the beginning, the Dyspeptic Duo saw the money being made by people like Avery and thought they could replicate that success. Even though they are most likely losing money over this whole nonsense, they simply cannot admit that it was a mistake from the get-go.

Good point. This is also possible.

[dtugg]

They are NWO operatives tasked with discrediting the 911 Truth Movement by making it look like a bunch of crazy morons. They have been very successful in their assignment and I was told at the last NWO meeting that they might be promoted to run the Memphis NWO operation. :jaw-dropp

I think that this is about a billion times more likely than the NoC/Pentagon flyover idea. Although that doesn't really say much.

PS: Are you John Farmer/911files? If so, I didn't notice that you were back until now. Good to see you again.

[BCR]

Are you John Farmer/911files? If so, I didn't notice that you were back until now. Good to see you again.

:whistling Did I blow my cover?

[mudlark]

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


Again?? Jesus...

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

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

Got that?


We note that if Paik was in the parking lot where the CiT interviewed him he cannot see the roof of the Annex but he can see the VDOT tower.

At best this suggests that Paik's drawing is incorrect. It is unlikely that he would have wondered if the plane had clipped the tower if he never saw the plane anywhere close top the tower and especially if it were more than a wingspan north. However given that he cannot see the Annex from where he was he could easily be incorrect in his estimation of where the Annex is.

Now if the port wing actually was within a few feet of the Sheraton (as Alauf's literal statement suggests) AND the center of the fuselage within 75 feet of the VDOT tower (which would certainly allow Paik's next day consideration to be a valid speculation) it would mean that the plane was essentially following Columbia Pike, along a path that would take it south of the Citgo.

Umm..let´s see how ´wrong´ you guys are claiming his description actually was..

Here´s Farmer´s ´JREF accepted´ flightpath

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

Here is the actual height Farmer claims the plane to be as it passed Ed Paik´s shop (450ft) The Sheraton roof in view.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/farmeraeriel150m.jpg

Just to put this into perspective..the Annex is 70ft tall. The tallest spire of the Air Force Memorial is 270ft tall.
Deb Analuf wouldn´t have even SEEN the plane until it had reached point -3
allegedly descending from almost 250ft ABOVE the Sheraton 460+ft to her and Ed Paik´s right.

Here is where Farmer´s path actually places the plane (-4)

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/farmerofficialpathaeriel1.jpg

Distance from Paik´s pov to data point -4 = 460 ft

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/farmerofficialpathaeriel2.jpg


You can cry ´witness subjectivity´ all day but as with the other NOC witnesses, to claim that they are SO spectacularly off is ridiculous.
How does BCR´s above assertions correspond in ANY way whatsoever with what Paik described?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif

´..and then at the time feeling like IT ALMOST HIT MY ROOF´

Don´t pat yourself on the back just yet Jaydeehess.

[mudlark]

,and possibly the Annex? 55 feet is only 5 stories

The Annex is 23m/70ft.

[Thunder]

you know, if truthers spent as much time working for a new investigation, as they spend debating with debunkers on JREF, there would have been a new investigation by now.

***** and giggles. that's all this is about. just ***** and giggles.

[Gamolon]

Why do 5 of the 13 witnesses place the plane's flightpath over the annex and everyone else puts the flightpath north of the annex?
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/6a00d8341c0ac653ef01156eca1f48970c-.jpg

Do the 8 eyewitness flightpaths to the north of the annex now invalidate the 5 that say it went over the annex? Who is telling the truth here?

Mudlark?

[Thunder]

Who is telling the truth here?

Mudlark?

i guess you didn't see one of yesterday's stunning admissions.

They do not need truth...all they need is doubt.

;)

[Childlike Empress]

Why do 5 of the 13 witnesses place the plane's flightpath over the annex and everyone else puts the flightpath north of the annex?


That's not true.

It doesn't help btw if you start treating every single testimony as if it were the absolutely exact truth. They are all in range of expectable exactness for witnesses, the closer the plane was to them, the better.

The corroboration is the point which renders the blue line, where nobody saw the plane flying, moot.

[Horace Wheeljack]

Mudlark,

Edward Paik says in the CIT interview that the wings were over the road (Columbia Pike), why do you think CIT choose to ignore this and make a reconstruction of the plane completely over the Annex?

Terry Morin states in his interview with CIT that the plane was not completely over the annex but over the edge, why do you think CIT choose to ignore this and make a reconstruction of the plane completely over the annex?

It is clear that CIT have misrepresented these witness accounts in an attempt to support a north of citgo claim. This is very dishonest wouldn't you agree?

[Scott Sommers]

you know, if truthers spent as much time working for a new investigation, as they spend debating with debunkers on JREF, there would have been a new investigation by now.

***** and giggles. that's all this is about. just ***** and giggles.

This is a good point. CIT Truthers talk on JREF. AE911 Truthers talk to each other, but in fact, almost all of them don't do anything except sign their name somewhere. WAC Truthers talk to each other on Facebook. No one seems in the slightest interested in getting themselves noticed. I keep saying this to the Truther freaks we have here, start picketing TV stations or firehouses. No one cares about what you do right now. Do something that really gets attention. Either that or shut up.

[Childlike Empress]

@Horace: It doesn't matter, even if it were true. Look at the blue line, the official data. Nowhere north of Columbia Pike.

That's what you should be worried about.

[Horace Wheeljack]

CE,

I understand that Paik and Morin's recollections are not exactly on the official path but CIT have fraudulently represented their accounts to support a north of citgo claim. This is thoroughly dishonest.

If they were honest researchers they would have included Paik and Morin as south of citgo witnesses but note that they were placing the plane north of the official path.

[Childlike Empress]

You have not shown any dishonesty (on CITs part, that is). You have made false allegations.

You know where the other witnesses were: Much further away from the blue line than Paik and Morin.

It's actually very simple, that's why it's so dangerous and the spinners are in heavy rotation.

[twinstead]

How about we plot a line for every single witness who claims to have seen the plane fly over and display them, not just CIT's witnesses. What would that look like?

[Jackanory]

You have not shown any dishonesty (on CITs part, that is). You have made false allegations.

You know where the other witnesses were: Much further away from the blue line than Paik and Morin.

It's actually very simple, that's why it's so dangerous and the spinners are in heavy rotation.

CE

Despite the glaringly obvious attempt at deceipt from CIT, that we all see, can you comment on why it is that you believe them? Which part of their 'investigation' clinches it for you?

[Gamolon]

That's not true.

It doesn't help btw if you start treating every single testimony as if it were the absolutely exact truth. They are all in range of expectable exactness for witnesses, the closer the plane was to them, the better.

The corroboration is the point which renders the blue line, where nobody saw the plane flying, moot.

CIT are using 13 eyewitnesses that put the plane north of the CITgo. You mean to tell me that those 13 eyewitnesses, placing the plane in a different flightpath than the official story, negate the official flightpath? Yet when I try and use 8 of the 13 to negate (or draw into question) the flight path of the 5 "over the annex" eyewitnesses, it's different?

Why can't I use the same methodology/criteria that CIT does to question the 13 eyewitness flightpaths? Why do 8 eyewitnesses show north on the annex while 5 show over the annex?

[Garb]

You have not shown any dishonesty (on CITs part, that is). You have made false allegations.

You know where the other witnesses were: Much further away from the blue line than Paik and Morin.

It's actually very simple, that's why it's so dangerous and the spinners are in heavy rotation.

I'm curious of what your opinion is on the witnesses that say they witnessed flight 77 crash into the Pentagon.

Doesn't that make the CIT witnesses irrelevant?

[Horace Wheeljack]

CE,

The dishonesty is crystal clear -

Firstly, Edward Paik say in the CIT interview that the wings were over the road, CIT choose to ignore this and show a reconstruction of the plane flying completely over the navy annex.

Morin also says to Ranke that the plane was only over the edge of the annex, CIT choose to ignore this and fraudulently show a reconstruction of the plane flying completely over the annex.

This cant be any clearer. CIT are misrepresenting witness accounts to support their north of citgo claim. It is dishonest and it should not be condoned. You must be able to understand this.

[Gamolon]

The corroboration is the point which renders the blue line, where nobody saw the plane flying, moot.

Another question CE. If not one person out of the hundreds that were out and about that day in that area DID NOT SEE the plane fly the official flightpath, why does CIT only have 13 eyewitnesses? How many people did they interview?

[dtugg]

Another question CE. If not one person out of the hundreds that were out and about that day in that area DID NOT SEE the plane fly the official flightpath, why does CIT only have 13 eyewitnesses? How many people did they interview?

Craig has said that he has talked to dozens of witnesses. Oddly enough only 13 are part of their "evidence". I would bet a large sum of money that they talked to plenty of people who put the plane on the "official" flight path.

[Gamolon]

They are all in range of expectable exactness

Is there a margin of error for placing real world objects onto a map using FDR/radar data? Anyone?

I am asking because I don't know.

[mudlark]

Fish in a barrel...

Ya think?


Yes, mudlark has linked to the Balsamo/Desideri paper many times. Several of us have pointed out that pages 1 and 4 of that paper contain mistakes. Instead of addressing the math, mudlark's been telling us to take it up with Balsamo, whose 11.2g/10.14g/2223g/58g calculations were off by a factor of 5 to 1000+ and have become a running joke.

Oh dear: mudlark appears to be telling fibs.
:rolleyes:

Several people here have provided links to legitimate mathematics that refute mudlark's and/or Balsamo's assertions. It is mudlark who has steadfastly refused to discuss mathematics or physics here.

Smith, you keep SAYING that the math has been debunked but

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

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

You wanted specific parameters from witness testimonies.
You asked for the impossible yet Balsamo tried to compensate by running various witness compatible flightpaths AND at the official 540mph speed.

You want to argue math with somebody who has already admitted that it would be above their head on the technicalities but you haven´t the cojones to argue your point with the people who actually presented the math.
You mention the 11.2 g in the full knowledge that Pilotsfor911truth have publically admitted their mistake.

I have personally asked Rob balsamo if you are barred from the site and he said ´No´
He told me that you are more than welcome to argue your points with him. Either at the forum or in public.

Your excuse that you would be treated unfairly is a cop-out.
I´m here taking abuse and reading your and other´s snide comments but that doesn´t deter me.

Originally Posted by mudlark
You can't calculate where the shadow would be without knowing the altitude of the plane. If the plane "almost hit my roof" as Edward claimed and was "only about 3 feet above the Navy Annex" as claimed by Darius Prather there is no reason it couldn't have cast a shadow over Shinki's shop from the north path.


North of the Tropic of Cancer, it would be quite remarkable for any object's solar shadow to fall south of the object itself. I'm talking about planet Earth, of course; shadows may behave differently on TrutherWorld.
:p

What do you not understand about that post??
Are you telling me that a shadow could NOT have been cast on Ed Paik´s shop given the low altitude Ed paik described and NOT 450ft agl as suggested by BCR.
He claimed that he thought the plane was going to hit the ROOF.
What angle are you suggesting the sun was at that a shadow would have MISSED??

haha

It just tastes sweeter that you made a smartass comment to follow your illogical argument. Thanks. I knew i could count on you.

As an old friend, whatever his name is, used to say
kthxbye

[Gamolon]

Craig has said that he has talked to dozens of witnesses. Oddly enough only 13 are part of their "evidence". I would bet a large sum of money that they talked to plenty of people who put the plane on the "official" flight path.

Is there a list of all the people he talked to? Does he give a location were these witnesses were located that day?

[Mr.Herbert]

Is there a list of all the people he talked to? Does he give a location were these witnesses were located that day?

The Douche-Bag Duo have yet to release the entire list of those they spoke with. The ones they interview give their locations.

[dtugg]

Is there a list of all the people he talked to? Does he give a location were these witnesses were located that day?

The only ones I am aware of are in their retarded videos. But given that there are only 13, and that Craig says he talked to dozens, one would think they are hiding something.

[mudlark]

CE,

I understand that Paik and Morin's recollections are not exactly on the official path but CIT have fraudulently represented their accounts to support a north of citgo claim. This is thoroughly dishonest.

If they were honest researchers they would have included Paik and Morin as south of citgo witnesses but note that they were placing the plane north of the official path.

Who drew this path? Craig? Aldo?

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

The very fact that Morin placed the plane over the Annex is contradictory to the official story.
Elsewhere on these threads, BCR claimed that NOBODY saw a Navy Annex flyover. That if the FDR/RADES say it didn´t then it didn´t.
Among the 19 Navy Annex flyover witnesses whose testimony has been discarded by him Terry Morin is the most specific.

¨MORIN: WHEN THE PLANE WENT RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF ME I WAS WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE WING (OF THE ANNEX)

CRAIG : SO YOU WERE KINDA IN BETWEEN THEM (THE WINGS OF THE ANNEX)

(...)

MORIN: I WAS INSIDE..FLEW OVER THE TOP OF ME¨

(...)
¨CRAIG: WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT THE PLANE FLEW ON THE SOUTHSIDE, SOUTH OF COLUMBIA PIKE?

MORIN: NO FRICKIN´ WAY. IT FLEW OVER THE TOP OF ME¨

(...)

¨I HAD NO SIDE-VIEW. IF I HAD HAVE HAD A SIDE-VIEW I WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THE STRIPES AND IDENTIFY IT AS AN AMERICAN AIRLINES JET..I DIDN´T SEE THE STRIPES, ALL I COULD SEE WAS THE BELLY¨


Those words are from the horse´s mouth. Not from Craig. Not from Aldo.

Others here have also claimed that the Navy Annex witnesses´ perspective may have made them BELIEVE what they saw.
They ignore this testimony constantly.

So who´s being dishonest?

[mudlark]

Is there a list of all the people he talked to? Does he give a location were these witnesses were located that day?

Watch it here Gamolon.

http://vimeo.com/4777716

[Mr.Herbert]

Those words are from the horse´s mouth. Not from Craig. Not from Aldo.


The "horse" that stated this was assured his interview was not going to be published.....



So who´s being dishonest?

:rolleyes:

[mudlark]

The only ones I am aware of are in their retarded videos. But given that there are only 13, and that Craig says he talked to dozens, one would think they are hiding something.

They have talked to many. The main witnesses in the video presentation are ALL of the witnesses within the ANC/Citgo area.

[HyJinX]

They have talked to many. The main witnesses in the video presentation are ALL of the witnesses within the ANC/Citgo area.

And which saw a flyover again?

[Mr.Herbert]

Watch it here Gamolon.

http://vimeo.com/4777716


Why are you lying? The National Security Alert vomit does NOT give the list of those they spoke with. You know this. Liar.

Is see the sock changed his story:


The main witnesses in the video presentation are ALL of the witnesses within the ANC/Citgo area


Interesting. When will we hear from all the others? Well?

[Mr.Herbert]

And which saw a flyover again?

didn't you get the Memo? If we are to believe that Roberts saw the plane in the south parking lot...it would have been a fly ... AROUND. Geeesh!

[Garb]

Mudlark: What say you regarding the witnesses who say they actually witnessed Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon?

[mudlark]

The "horse" that stated this was assured his interview was not going to be published.....




:rolleyes:

How could they NOT publish it given the seriousness of what he said?
Did ´Shinki´ know that he was being recorded by Farmer on that God awful tape? Doesn´t sound like it.

Craig and Aldo were being accused of ´dishonesty´ in their presentation of Morin and paik´s testimonies. They weren´t. It´s all recorded. paik drew the map. morin places the plane OVER the Annex. End of story.

[Pardalis]

You sure use strange apostrophes.

[HyJinX]

How could they NOT publish it given the seriousness of what he said?
Did ´Shinki´ know that he was being recorded by Farmer on that God awful tape? Doesn´t sound like it.

Craig and Aldo were being accused of ´dishonesty´ in their presentation of Morin and paik´s testimonies. They weren´t. It´s all recorded. paik drew the map. morin places the plane OVER the Annex. End of story.

Yes, that story certainly makes for poor fiction. Good luck with that.

[Mr.Herbert]

THEY LIED mudlark.... END OF STORY.

What did releasing that do for the Douche Duo? NADA! NOTHING! They are still the laughing stock of the Retard Rodeo that is the truth movement.

[dtugg]

They have talked to many. The main witnesses in the video presentation are ALL of the witnesses within the ANC/Citgo area.

How do you know? Are you one of them? Or do you just think that everybody should just take the world of your retarded heroes? And even if those two morons did include the interviews from everybody in that area that they talked to in their "evidence" there is no way you can say it is ALL of them from that area. Also, why didn't your fraudulent gurus include witnesses from different areas, since they apparently talked to many of them? Those people tell them something they didn't want to hear?

[W.D.Clinger]

delete

(I'll address this later.)

[Gamolon]

They have talked to many. The main witnesses in the video presentation are ALL of the witnesses within the ANC/Citgo area.

Why from within that area only? Did they talk to anyone on the other side of the road? What about folks that would have been beneath the official flight path? Anyone interviewed in that area?

[Jackanory]

Why did he duck when the plane was so high above him? How could he believe that the plane was going to strike the roof if it WAS so high AND on the alleged trajectory?

Enough of the hypocrisy.

Mudlark

I am not aware if the airspace above Paik shop is used regulary, frequently, infrequently or not at all. Maybe someone else could confirm/clarify this.

Regardless, i am going to assume that no large commercial or military aircraft would normally be witnessed flying over that location at the suggested altitudes being argued here. I am assuming that 911 was the first time in residents lifetimes that this happened! (Aircraft recognition in this senario is a different topic altogether).

This would therefore indicate to me that such an occurance of an unexpected low flying noisy aircraft screaming through the sky at ?mph would be quite unerving and frightening. I would assume that given such a situation you would duck too. Have you ever driven under a low bridge whilst in the safety of your car and ducked. Why?

He ducked, he didnt duck -so what? It seems it just adds a bit more wow woo to the story and nothing more. Specific reaction to something of such magnituide would be fight or flight. Perhaps paik just got scared and decided for flight.

[Reheat]

¨MORIN: WHEN THE PLANE WENT RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF ME I WAS WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE WING (OF THE ANNEX)

Those words are from the horse´s mouth. Not from Craig. Not from Aldo.

So who´s being dishonest?

Contrary to the math/physics CIT/pffft have shown, here's the math for that path?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC

So who´s being dishonest?

[Pardalis]

So who´s being dishonest?

My god, it's contagious! :eek:

[Horace Wheeljack]

Mudlark,

Craig and Aldo were being accused of ´dishonesty´ in their presentation of Morin and paik´s testimonies. They weren´t. It´s all recorded. paik drew the map. morin places the plane OVER the Annex. End of story.
Its not end of story, Morin categorically does not place the plane over the annex, you can hear him correct Ranke in an exasperated tone as Ranke is trying to direct him towards thinking this, he says the plane "is over the edge of the annex not completely over it", CIT deviously choose to ignore this admission and fraudulently claim he is a north of citgo witness. He is a south of citgo witness without question, he even acknowledges the wings may have been over Columbia Pike.

Although some of Paiks drawings (like the one you used in post 174) can be used to argue for a north of citgo claim, other drawings (like the one CurtC posted in 104) show a south of citgo claim. CIT cant just pick and choose which bit of his account they can shoehorn into their north of citgo theory and ignore the fact that he said the wings were over Columbia Pike because it doesn't support them. The honest approach is to look at the totality of his account which is undeniably south of citgo.

It is foolish to continue arguing that Paik and Morin are north of citgo witnesses.

[Childlike Empress]

Mudlark quoted Morin. If you are going to claim that these quotes are incorrect, i'm going to point you to his testimony (again) and everybody can check for themselves that it's you who is dishonest (or misled by liars).

[beachnut]

Ya think?

Smith, you keep SAYING that the math has been debunked but


You wanted specific parameters from witness testimonies.
You asked for the impossible yet Balsamo tried to compensate by running various witness compatible flightpaths AND at the official 540mph speed.

You want to argue math with somebody who has already admitted that it would be above their head on the technicalities but you haven´t the cojones to argue your point with the people who actually presented the math.
You mention the 11.2 g in the full knowledge that Pilotsfor911truth have publically admitted their mistake.

I have personally asked Rob balsamo if you are barred from the site and he said ´No´
He told me that you are more than welcome to argue your points with him. Either at the forum or in public.



Balsamo's 11.2 G is still posted. Oops, Up for over a year, soon 2 years of stupid still posted.

2,223 Gs, wow, if you could do math, you might see Balsamo is a fraud selling lies on DVD, 10 bucks.

Please present the flight path and the math for NoC; if you can't then the flight path never happen.

The Paik flight path takes over 4 Gs and 76 degree of bank but that is with instant bank;

What is the roll rate for a 757? If you can't do the flight dynamics you have no flight path; this is called failure.

All the witnesses support the "official" flight path. Paik points right to it.

You have failed to present a flight path; why, because all the flight paths drawn are the perceptions of the real flight path from each perspective. If you were a trained aircraft accident investigator you would not fall for the lies of CIT; the overflight never seen.

Boger watched 77 impact. CIT witnesses all agree 77 impacts the Pentagon.

[Mr.Herbert]

Mudlark quoted Morin. If you are going to claim that these quotes are incorrect, i'm going to point you to his testimony (again) and everybody can check for themselves that it's you who is dishonest (or misled by liars).


Keep up, Troll. CIT assured Morin that his statments would NOT be used or published. CIT recorded him (with or without him knowing I am not sure) and decided that his testimoney was so critical to their investigation, they went against the wishes of Morin and released their recording.

Again... who was dishonest?

[Hokulele]

What do you not understand about that post??
Are you telling me that a shadow could NOT have been cast on Ed Paik´s shop given the low altitude Ed paik described and NOT 450ft agl as suggested by BCR.
He claimed that he thought the plane was going to hit the ROOF.
What angle are you suggesting the sun was at that a shadow would have MISSED??

haha

It just tastes sweeter that you made a smartass comment to follow your illogical argument. Thanks. I knew i could count on you.

As an old friend, whatever his name is, used to say
kthxbye


Hmm, I seem to recall something about physical evidence trumping eyewitness accounts. I also seem to recall that, if eyewitness accounts are used, details tend to be more accurate than guesstimates.

We have an eyewitness account of a shadow crossing a particular building vs. a guesstimate as to direction, location, and altitude. I wonder which is more likely to be correct....

[Horace Wheeljack]

CE,

I'm not claiming that the quotes mudlark used are incorrect. He is choosing to not quote the part where Morin states that the plane was only over the edge. This is dishonest and shouldn't be this hard to understand.

[beachnut]

CE,

I understand that Paik and Morin's recollections are not exactly on the official path but CIT have fraudulently represented their accounts to support a north of citgo claim. This is thoroughly dishonest.

If they were honest researchers they would have included Paik and Morin as south of citgo witnesses but note that they were placing the plane north of the official path.

Who has eyes on the top of their head; looking up is a 30 to 45 degree angle, not 90 degrees. All the witnesses CIT have support the official flight path exactly. From their point of view they saw 77 fly by on the 61.2 to 61.5 degree flight path (true track) and if properly interviewed each one will point to the flight path as they do in the CIT videos pointing to the south flight path.

poor mudlark has problems with similes like most of 911 truth

as mudlark say with most disrspect, "kthxbye", he snubs us all as he pushes lies which he can't see are lies...

[Garb]

Mudlark quoted Morin. If you are going to claim that these quotes are incorrect, i'm going to point you to his testimony (again) and everybody can check for themselves that it's you who is dishonest (or misled by liars).

I will ask you again.

What is your take on the witnesses who state that they saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon?

Does that testimony not make CIT's witnesses irrelevant?

[DGM]

I will ask you again.

What is your take on the witnesses who state that they saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon?

Does that testimony not make CIT's witnesses irrelevant?
I think for CIT this falls into the "cast a doubt and they will ignore everything else" argument. It doesn't work in real life but, hey... they're "truthers"... what do they know about real life.

[A W Smith]

Ya think?





Smith, you keep SAYING that the math has been debunked but

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

Originally Posted by Smith
¨Unfortunately, you have also given the impression of denying those logical consequences of your argument. Hence it would be a waste of time for PfT or us or anybody to run the math on those specific 8 or 9 flight paths. Your logical inconsistency already refutes your argument.¨You wanted specific parameters from witness testimonies.
You asked for the impossible yet Balsamo tried to compensate by running various witness compatible flightpaths AND at the official 540mph speed.

You want to argue math with somebody who has already admitted that it would be above their head on the technicalities but you haven´t the cojones to argue your point with the people who actually presented the math.
You mention the 11.2 g in the full knowledge that Pilotsfor911truth have publically admitted their mistake.



Just who is it exactly you are quoting?

[BCR]

Here is the actual height Farmer claims the plane to be as it passed Ed Paik´s shop (450ft)

Why are you misquoting me? I said the record indicates ~230 feet agl, but the extrema (high end using very rough approximations) is ~450 feet assuming the path model mean is considered. I said that there is error in that estimate, already established and yet to be quantified in the latitude. However, based on the physical damage and RA topography match that shift is most likely less than 120 feet too far south-southeast. I gave a range of values for the most likely event window. The closer to the extrema, the less likely that the value is true.

For people such as yourself who seem to be completely lacking in math and/or logic skills that is interpreted to mean that the altitude could be 450 feet, but most likely less than 450 feet. Please don't play in my sandbox. You'll lose.

Just an FYI:

The model path is fitted to known empirical data. Every measurement system has error associated with it can the variance of that error is dependent upon the system used to measure a given point. In this case, the PLA ARSR has a normal variance, the IAD, DCA and ADW ASR's have normal variance associated with each, but independent from one another. Then the FDR INS has a measurement error associated with it. The RA has a normal variance associated with it. So the model is derived by developing the 'best fit' to multiple measurement systems, and will have normal variance associated with it. This principle applies whether you are using radio waves (radar), light or a yardstick to measure a position. Once that fit was developed, the model was fine-tuned using the RA to obtain the 'best fit' to the topography. So, it represents an approximation based on the data.

Intuitively, I know the model is shifted ~120 feet south-southeast. However, that is a subjective estimate, not an objective one. I could just shift th model up to compensate, but then it would no longer be an empirical model based on objective data. It is just simply the best path approximation that can be obtained using the radar/fdr positional data. ANY math/physics literate person understands that there it is NOT exact, but an approximation. You can compare the model points with points from the various ASR paths to get an idea of how accurate the approximation is. The greatest separation along the model range between between the most accurate radar path, DCA, ranges between 67 - 180 feet north of the model. So the highest probability for the true path is 123 +/- 56.5 feet north-northwest of the model position. However, there are only 3 data points to estimate the shift with and the INS is in a state of correction following the 330 degree turn and operating outside normal tolerances. This is at best an educate guess. What can be said is that there is no evidence to indicate anything beyond a 180 foot deviation. Using the 'best guess' estimate of ~120 feet, then the distance along the ground to the plane is only around 400 feet away from A-One with an altitude of 360 feet. The lower extrema is only 333 feet from A-One with an altitude of 299 feet agl. So the lower extrema agrees fairly well with the recorded RA of ~230 feet agl considering only 3 data points are available to make the estimation.

Consider the alternative that the plane was over Columbia Pike as some are suggesting. That would be a range of only 100 feet and altitude of only 90 feet based on ONLY one subjective data point (Paik account interpretation) which is not even close to the recorded 233 feet agl. So if you don't mind, I'll go with the fitted empirical model with the understanding that I already know (subjective) that it is shifted by an estimable amount using three empirical data points. I would go ahead and apply the correction to the model, but then it would no longer an empirical model, but something I pulled out of my a__. In other words, based on empirical modeling, the 'official path' is a much better fit for Paik's observation than the CIT 'over the Annex' model.

You should try this with sub-micron tolerances sometime with an LMS system. Oh the joy!

[triforcharity]

Pfff...

Watch the video

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

The roof that he points to is the one next door.

He calls them "my roofs" but if you didn't notice English is his second language.

He also says he thought it was going to hit the last wing of the Navy Annex.

This matches perfectly with his illustration where he also indicated his location with a circle:


http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikmap-4.jpg

His illustration leaves zero ambiguity for what he is describing yet you are in full denial mode anyway.

There is no circle on that illustration, just FYI.

ETA: My bad, after closer inspection, there is a small circle there. Still doesn't negate the fact that you're a fraud Mud.

[leftysergeant]

The circle still puts him in a position from which he could not determine its heading in relation to the Navy Annex. The line leading north of Citgo is totally conjectural.

As I have stated before, the apparent size of the aircraft from the witnesses points of view distorts the proportions, thus positions, of more distant objects.

[Pardalis]

Having a problem with the quote function Mudlark?

He also seems to have a problem with the apostrophe key. I don't understand why he uses the acute accent instead of the apostrophe. :confused:

[W.D.Clinger]

Smith, you keep SAYING that the math has been debunked but

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

My name is Will, not Smith. You linked to my post but said you were quoting Smith. You are confused.

You wanted specific parameters from witness testimonies.
You asked for the impossible yet Balsamo tried to compensate by running various witness compatible flightpaths AND at the official 540mph speed.
Describing a specific flight path to within an estimated range of error is not only possible, but necessary for your argument. BCR has done it. You haven't.

None of Balsamo's flight paths match any of the 8 or 9 yellow lines in the CIT-produced image you have been citing to explain your story. In particular, none of Balsamo's flight paths end at the impact site, as all of your yellow lines do.

You want to argue math with somebody who has already admitted that it would be above their head on the technicalities
The highlighted person would be you, I presume. Arguing math with you would be pointless, because you don't know anything about it. That hasn't kept you from vouching for Balsamo's math in this and other threads, which makes your own mathematical judgement as relevant as Balsamo's.

but you haven´t the cojones to argue your point with the people who actually presented the math.
Another lie, mudlark. As I told you earlier, I argued with Rob Balsamo's sock puppet at ATS (http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/Cap%27n_Bob_meltdown_p01.pdf). It did not go well for Rob, who melted down after demonstrating his incompetence by (among other things) insisting a quadratic equation with no linear term could produce a linear trajectory.

You mention the 11.2 g in the full knowledge that Pilotsfor911truth have publically admitted their mistake.
Only to replace it with their 10.14g mistake, which I mentioned also and has not been retracted, augmented later by Balsamo's 2223g, which he has retracted only to replace it with his 58g mistake, which I mentioned also and he has not retracted. The correct answer for both of those closely related problems is less than 2g. (http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/balsamo2.html) Balsamo's 11.2g/10.14g/2223g/58g mistakes, some retracted and some not, are a fair summary of his technical competence.

I have personally asked Rob balsamo if you are barred from the site and he said ´No´
The last person who said he had spoken to Rob Balsamo about me turned out to be Rob himself, when he was hiding behind a dishonest screen name at ATS.

Are you telling me that a shadow could NOT have been cast on Ed Paik´s shop given the low altitude Ed paik described and NOT 450ft agl as suggested by BCR.
He claimed that he thought the plane was going to hit the ROOF.
What angle are you suggesting the sun was at that a shadow would have MISSED??
BCR has already answered this, noting that your "450ft agl" is the extreme end of a generous error range. BCR's range of altitude estimates includes the altitude calculated from the FDR data (http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/Jokes/Balsamo/Software/) at the distance of Paik's shop. That altitude lines up with the altitude calculated from the g-forces recorded by the FDR, which agree in turn with the less than 2g that is the correct mathematical result for Balsamo's hilarious 11.2g/10.14g/2223g/58.2g calculations.

It just tastes sweeter that you made a smartass comment to follow your illogical argument. Thanks. I knew i could count on you.

As an old friend, whatever his name is, used to say
kthxbye
Take care, mudlark. If you hang out with morons, you may start to talk like them.

[tsig]

My name is Will, not Smith. You linked to my post but said you were quoting Smith. You are confused.


.

No, the board software is conspiring to make him look bad.:p

[Macgyver1968]

He's Will Smith? Really? Show us how you "get giggy with it" :)

[leftysergeant]

[insert sound of skidding brakes here]

People! If the plane cleaered the Sheraton and passed directly over Paik's head, it would have to have passed over the NA in such a place where Morin would not have seen it.

[mudlark]

Why are you misquoting me? I said the record indicates ~230 feet agl, but the extrema (high end using very rough approximations) is ~450 feet assuming the path model mean is considered. I said that there is error in that estimate, already established and yet to be quantified in the latitude. However, based on the physical damage and RA topography match that shift is most likely less than 120 feet too far south-southeast. I gave a range of values for the most likely event window. The closer to the extrema, the less likely that the value is true.

For people such as yourself who seem to be completely lacking in math and/or logic skills that is interpreted to mean that the altitude could be 450 feet, but most likely less than 450 feet. Please don't play in my sandbox. You'll lose.

Interesting you should say that BCR because the radalt reading on Warren Stutts program is 233ft agl as you say. Are you also using Warren´s plotted co-ordinates?

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/AAL7720Last20820Seconds.jpg

Aren´t the radalt readings ´solid´ numbers? I mean the 4ft agl radalt reading for example..is that open to the lonnnng winded explanation you gave which in essence gives you wiggle room to cry ´margin of error´ if the path doesn´t ´fit´?

Are you saying that the 233ft agl reading isn´t exact?

Anyway..

Dataframe 151364 being the approximate alleged point in question.

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

This data point isn´t where you are claiming the shadow of the plane was cast from are you? Surely given the azimuth it would be past the midway point between 151364 and 151364, in a descent of 40ft per second.
According to this rate of descent the plane would have been 210ft+ agl.

270ft away from the shop.

I used the azimuth function on Google Earth for September 11 2010 at 09:37am and found that the 2001 data was the same(give or take a decimal point)

42º Altitude 126.2ºAzimuth (E of N)

I then plotted Warren´s (red) ´your´(yellow) positional data points here

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

Are you trying to tell me that given your altitude and positional estimation
that the shadow could have reached Ed Paik´s shop?
Look at the shadow of the Sheraton hotel. It measure 186ft in length at its longest. This being cast from a roughly 200ft tall building.

The point where the plane would have cast a shadow in the direction of Ed Paik´s shop is between (-3) and (-4).
Even at the upper range of 450ft. from your path, the shadow would not cover the 540ft distance from this point.

A friend of mine sent me an approximatation of where the shadow would have fallen using a 3D program which contains the exact topography and dimensions of the Navy Annex/Arlington/Pentagon area.
He plotted the Azimuth using the correct figures and came up with this conclusion on the plane´s position according to Warren´s program and explained above:

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

Know what was funny though?

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

IF the plane follows your path at up to 450ft agl, the shadow cannot reach the shop.
IF the plane follows Warren´s path, the shadow cannot reach the shop.
IF, and testified to by Ed Paik, the plane follows what he described, the shadow does INDEED reach the shop.

Thought I would save the math challenged a little work.

You can blind (and possibly bore) readers of this thread with the technobabble which I´ve been told you don´t really understand yourself by certain pilots, but I´m FAR more stubborn and willing to research than you could possibly imagine.

[mudlark]

Just who is it exactly you are quoting?

Oops, thought that was you.
The quote still stands as regards you claiming that math has been linked to me directly rebutting the NOC math presented by Pilotsfor911Truth.
According to Clinger there hasn´t even been any done.

[BCR]

You can blind (and possibly bore) readers of this thread with the technobabble which I´ve been told you don´t really understand yourself by certain pilots, but I´m FAR more stubborn and willing to research than you could possibly imagine.

Well, you did not understand a thing I said. Oh well, didn't expect you to. The only person 'bored' is obviously you because I don't use technobabble. My degree is in mathematics, what is your's in? I wrote the book for global operations (Asia, Europe and US) and the statistical procedures used here for process control and alignment of measurement systems. It is not 'technobabble' when you know what you are talking about.

The answer is yes, I used the positional data from Warren's decode (if you had read the post you would know that). The INS system that measured that position drifts during extremes, that is why it updates using the DME and other references during fight. If you plot the INS positional data for the beginning of flight, you would know that. It has to be aligned with the other more accurate measurement systems (ASR radar). The QA check is DME. The 'best fit' agrees with the DME record that Capt Bob is so fond of (what you plotted does not). Nice try though.

[BCR]

I´ve been told you don´t really understand yourself by certain pilots

Been talking to Capt'n Bob again huh?

[A W Smith]

You do realize mudlark that it's 42.4 degrees from the horizon? and not from vertical?


Look at the shadow of the Sheraton hotel. It measure 186ft in length at its longest. This being cast from a roughly 200ft tall building.

[BCR]

IF the plane follows your path at up to 450ft agl, the shadow cannot reach the shop.
IF the plane follows Warren´s path, the shadow cannot reach the shop.
IF, and testified to by Ed Paik, the plane follows what he described, the shadow does INDEED reach the shop.

I give you the math and you give pretty pictures with no way of replicating the results? Are you nuts? Anyone on this board can replicate my numbers and the math is what it is. We have no way of knowing what numbers are used for that pretty picture and not many folks have or know how to use the software (Maya) properly. I do know how to use it and I also know how hard it is to set up the lighting in it accurately. So forgive us if we don't take your word for it :)

[BCR]

You do realize mudlark that it's 42.4 degrees from the horizon? and not from vertical?

So funny :yahoo

[A W Smith]

and your google azimuth is wrong. Go ahead, check the heading of the yellow line you drew. You will find it is 108º e of n . Not 126.2º All you did was follow the shadows,

[W.D.Clinger]

It seems mudlark is having just as much trouble quoting JREFers as he and CIT have been having when quoting eyewitnesses.

Oops, thought that was you.
The quote still stands as regards you claiming that math has been linked to me directly rebutting the NOC math presented by Pilotsfor911Truth.
According to Clinger there hasn´t even been any done.
PfT hasn't done any math that matches the 8 or 9 yellow lines in the CIT-produced image mudlark has been promoting. On the other hand, several JREFers have provided links to math that directly rebuts those yellow lines.

Several JREFers, including myself, have also provided links to math showing that the Balsamo/Desideri paper mudlark has been citing contains errors on pages 1 and 4.

[BCR]

I am going to try this again so that even mudlark can understand it. I'm sure that at some point in his life, he took a chemistry or physics class. These classes usually have labs associated with them, so mudlark, remember back to when you was in high school mixing up those smelly chemicals. Your instructor would have you measure something (weight, volume, etc) several times and then take an average of those measurements and report the results. Now remember this as I continue, because that average value is what I am talking about. This is not technobabble, it is something you learned in high school.

The reason you were asked to make a number of measurements is because there was always some error associated with each. The difference between the highest measurement you took and the lowest is called a the range. The collection of those measurements is the population, and if they are graphed, they will form something called a distribution. I won't go into explaining what a distribution is because you would not understand it, but it is important to note that most measurements of this type will fall into a normal (Gaussian) distribution. How far from the average (mean) is often called the spread and is an indicator of the variance. Some measurement systems have a very large spread, while others have a much smaller one. Now, if you used two different scales to weigh an object in the lab, you'll find that the average is different for each. Why? Because each has different slightly different properties and calibration attributes. No two things are ever exactly alike. This leads to discussion of precision and accuracy, but I don't want to confuse you.

So, you can take one measurement device, for example the INS positional value in the Warren decode and it will have a different average and spread than say the DCA ASR positional values. That means to find the average that actually represents reality, it is best to use an average based on ALL of the available measurement systems, and of course that mean old spread is going to still be there so it has to be estimated as well.

Now eyewitnesses are simply measurement devices with their own unique problems with precision and accuracy (very poor), but they can be used to get a rough path estimate. But remember that spread? What CIT has done is before the Annex area, they used ONLY witnesses from the south side of the suspected flight path. So, in that area the average skewed to the south because only that side of the spread was being measured. After the Sheraton, they have taken ONLY those on the north side of the suspected path which skewed the average to the north side of the path because only that half of the spread was being considered. Now, IF and only if they had taken eyewitness accounts from BOTH sides of the suspected (official path as they like to call it), then they would have been able to average those accounts and the average would be a better representation.

So mudlark, you and CIT are dismissing all of that stuff they tried to teach you in high school science lab and presenting measurements taken ONLY on the north half of the suspected path (hint: overwhelming majority of the CIT witnesses point south). If you disregard the scientific approach to measuring things, then how can any of you claim (as CIT does) to be using the scientific approach? Please, come back to reality soon. I hope this has been clear enough for you without any techobabble. I don't think I can simplify it any further for you.

[leftysergeant]

A friend of mine sent me an approximatation of where the shadow would have fallen using a 3D program which contains the exact topography and dimensions of the Navy Annex/Arlington/Pentagon area.
He plotted the Azimuth using the correct figures and came up with this conclusion on the plane´s position according to Warren´s program and explained above:

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



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

The Fail Boat has landed.

Get where I'm going with this?

[tsig]

Been talking to Capt'n Bob again huh?

Or Captain Bob is hearing voices in his head again.

[beachnut]

Bet you wish you had ONE SOC witness?
I know which would catch MY eye more..a ´FREAKIN HUGE´ explosion.

Roosevelt Roberts saw a FREAKIN HUGE ´commercial plane´ ´after the explosion hit´ ´50-100 ft agl´.. All the CIT witnesses are SoC witnesses, they all point south on Video! They all say 77 impacted the Pentagon, no flyover.

Roberts? lol, one guy thinks a C-130 is a commercial plane; good job with the great Roberts whose testimony makes it clear he has no clue what time it was when he saw the C-130. You should listen to your source before you present it as evidence for your delusions.


The shadow did not have to cross over the office to see the shadow effect. The light reflecting off the ground in front of the office could have cast a reflected shadow or interruption of reflected light in the office.

There is more error or possible location for the shadow. But mudlark has to get the angles right before he does a simulation, and his simulation with the jet in a bank casting a shadow on Paiks office shows a 757 can't fly north of the Citgo and impact the Pentagon.

Mudlark; with all your p4t pilot connections, please state the roll rate for a 757. Good luck, you can't answer the simple quesions it is not surprizing you have problems with reality.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1CITDelusion.jpg
What is the roll rate for a 757? What is the G force required to do the flyover from here? Do you know what roll rete is?

[jaydeehess]

[insert sound of skidding brakes here]

People! If the plane cleared the Sheraton and passed directly over Paik's head, it would have to have passed over the NA in such a place where Morin would not have seen it.

THX L.S., seems to me I have been saying similar things for a while now

[Edx]

I give you the math and you give pretty pictures with no way of replicating the results? Are you nuts? Anyone on this board can replicate my numbers and the math is what it is. We have no way of knowing what numbers are used for that pretty picture and not many folks have or know how to use the software (Maya) properly. I do know how to use it and I also know how hard it is to set up the lighting in it accurately. So forgive us if we don't take your word for it :)

Pretty picture are more fun than maths.

[leftysergeant]

Know what was funny though?

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

IF the plane follows your path at up to 450ft agl, the shadow cannot reach the shop.
IF the plane follows Warren´s path, the shadow cannot reach the shop.
IF, and testified to by Ed Paik, the plane follows what he described, the shadow does INDEED reach the shop.

And if you rotate that plane to parallel the road, you have almost exactly what we have been trying to tell you.



You can blind (and possibly bore) readers of this thread with the technobabble which I´ve been told you don´t really understand yourself by certain pilots, but I´m FAR more stubborn and willing to research than you could possibly imagine.

Can we get that in proper English using something like standard syntax? I have no idea what that means, other than that you are stuck on...

Maybe i had best not say that...

[WildCat]

He also seems to have a problem with the apostrophe key. I don't understand why he uses the acute accent instead of the apostrophe. :confused:
Hey, at least he's not one of those no-punctuation no-capitalization no-paragraph wall of text truthers...

[EvilBiker]

Ya know, I just cannot understand the level of cognitive dissonance expressed by the CIT idiots crowd bunch pair. As far as I can see, it all boils down to this:

1. For all the damage to take place as is currently shown, ie. downed light poles, damaged generators, building damage, etc. etc., a SOC flight path is needed.

2. However, our 13 witnesses say a NOC flight path took place.

3. Ergo, all the damage was staged.

In future, I'm going to use the term "C.I.T."ing evidence instead of the old "shoehorning".

[beachnut]

...
Aren´t the radalt readings ´solid´ numbers? I mean the 4ft agl radalt reading for example..is that open to the lonnnng winded explanation you gave which in essence gives you wiggle room to cry ´margin of error´ if the path doesn´t ´fit´?

Are you saying that the 233ft agl reading isn´t exact?

...
This data point isn´t where you are claiming the shadow of the plane was cast from are you? Surely given the azimuth it would be past the midway point between 151364 and 151364, in a descent of 40ft per second.
According to this rate of descent the plane would have been 210ft+ agl.

270ft away from the shop.

I used the azimuth function on Google Earth for September 11 2010 at 09:37am and found that the 2001 data was the same(give or take a decimal point)

42º Altitude 126.2ºAzimuth (E of N)

Are you trying to tell me that given your altitude and positional estimation
that the shadow could have reached Ed Paik´s shop?
Look at the shadow of the Sheraton hotel. It measure 186ft in length at its longest. This being cast from a roughly 200ft tall building.

You can blind (and possibly bore) readers of this thread with the technobabble which I´ve been told you don´t really understand yourself by certain pilots, but I´m FAR more stubborn and willing to research than you could possibly imagine. Pilots who spew delusions; lol

Is this where you place 77? You understand the flash of a shadow they saw in their office could be the shadow changing the reflected light in their office? Uncertainly? Do you have any skills at aircraft accident investigation and interviewing witnesses? (neither do CIT)
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1CITfailure.jpg
Where 77 was? If so, increase that bank angle to 73 degrees and bend those wings to 3.42 Gs. You can't handle the math and no one saw flight 77 pulling 3.42 Gs in a turn at a bank angle of 73 degrees. Balsamo has no clue how to do math, you just admitted BCR use of math and science is over your head and you have no clue or how to apply what he said; now clearly confirmed.

You proved there is no NoC, CIT can't do math to show their flight paths were impossible. Got 73 degrees of bank? lol

With the RADAR altimeter, you need to know when in time the RADALT reading was taken to find where it was taken. ... there is uncertainly in how high 77 is due to many factors.

... 4 feet, is about 20 feet below the fuselage of 77, as 77 crossed the road knocking down lamppost, because 77 was low as per witness statements, just before impact. You want the 233 to be exact? Then you have to add the offset of the RADALT for wheels down at touchdown, to zero. You have to add 16 feet or 12 feet; do you have a clue as you and CIT and Balsamo the 2,223 G failure in flight procedures without an ATP rating spew junk try to act so precise and you mess it up!

Your pilot expert Balsamo is not ATP rated! He is kind of nuts...I will not apologize for it this time. I will be there for his death should America fall into Civil War. That is not a threat. .that is a promise.

If he gets in my way of defending our Constitution.. it will be my pleasure to put a bullet in his head to defend our Constitution from enemies foreign or domestic." –"Pilots for Truth" founder Robert Balsamo,
Are you in good company; you disdain real math/science and support made up flight paths out of thin air supported with 2,223 gs of stupid.


Since p4t want the RADALT to be solid numbers then the 4 feet proves 77 impacted the lamppost and then the Pentagon. Good work refuting CIT/p4t delusions in one easy got you to support the FDR again.

Explain the 61.2 to 61.5 true track and how the headings in the FDR do not support the made up NoC. Explain why the DNA of flight 77 Passengers was found in the Pentagon.


I have not seen people brag how they are not able to understand math and science as they present lies and false information but you did.
Aren´t the radalt readings ´solid´ numbers? I mean the 4ft agl radalt reading for example..is that open to the lonnnng winded explanation you gave which in essence gives you wiggle room to cry ´margin of error´ if the path doesn´t ´fit´?
You are trying to be cute, as you prove you don't understand the science required to see your ideas are delusions.

Yes the long winded junk applies to the 4 feet, but since the error in the RADALT is one foot for the proper use, and 77 is not over standard approach type terrain, your cuteness goes down the tubes to expose your ignorance. In addition, where the 4 foot takes places is subject to the long winded stuff, and you have to add the offset because zero on the RADALT is based on touchdown, wheels down.

Better stay away from the pressure altitude, errors in that system can exceed 200 feet. You will be buried by science again. Why are you attracted to the 2,223 G failure of Balsamo and CIT? oops

[Jackanory]

Unfortunately the internet permits anyone to anonymously post what they like, when they like and wherever they like - and then fade into obscurity never to be seen again. No come backs.

I can guarantee that Mudlark will eventually fade away having been beaten to death repeatedly and exposed as a fool - or gets banned, but he will surface again as Skylark, Kestrel, Albatros or Falcon to do it all again. Sad sad man. As too will HI, Ultima, etc etc etc.

[leftysergeant]

Pilots who spew delusions; lol

Is this where you place 77? You understand the flash of a shadow they saw in their office could be the shadow changing the reflected light in their office? Uncertainly? Do you have any skills at aircraft accident investigation and interviewing witnesses? (neither do CIT)

Ooh! Ooh! I have. As a Fire Protection Specialist (AFSC 57150,) it was part of my job description to preserve materials relevant to an investigation of a crash of fire incident.

From my examination of the impact area on the facade of the Pentagon, I see imprints of an aircraft.

Now, do any of the Complete Idiots Team have some fancy story to explain those marks?

(Think I have time to cook and eat a five-course Ethiopian dinner while I am waiting? I'm think of cooking up some ful.)

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1CITfailure.jpg
Where 77 was? If so, increase that bank angle to 73 degrees and bend those wings to 3.42 Gs. You can't handle the math and no one saw flight 77 pulling 3.42 Gs in a turn at a bank angle of 73 degrees. Balsamo has no clue how to do math, you just admitted BCR use of math and science is over your head and you have no clue or how to apply what he said; now clearly confirmed.

This is pretty sorry modelling, too. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the picture seems to me to show the right wing tip depressed, which would mean that the aircraft was turning slightly to the right. That is south of the Navy Annex.:confused:

I have not seen people brag how they are not able to understand math and science as they present lies and false information but you did.

Ermm...I had to take high school algebra twice to get a D, so I do not follow most of the math in any of these areas, but I do have some experience around aircraft, both real and in scale models, and none of this crap makes much sense to me. All I know is that whoever did these graphics for mudlark has no bloody clue about some of the basics of art and composition. (I got As in art.)

That they present such visually confusing graphics suggests to me that they are confused about the speatial relatiojnships btween objects.

Best way to fail an art class is to put shadows in the wrong place.

Mudlark, your grade for this period is FAIL.

[twinstead]

Best way to fail an art class is to put shadows in the wrong place.


Well, the best way to fail an art class is to come in drunk, fondle the teacher, and throw up all over your desk, but yea, I see your point.

[GlennB]

P
... you disdain real math/science and support made up flight paths out of thin air supported with 2,223 gs of stupid.


That's a lot of stupid :jaw-dropp

[BCR]

So, no response from mudlap yet? Reckon the tree fort is busy making some more cute pics for us :)

[nicepants]

They have talked to many.

The question is HOW MANY?!

Your answer should be a positive integer...not an arbitrary descriptive statement or word.

[mudlark]

And how do YOU explain the ultimate convergence of those paths, and the paths of the other non NoC witnesses, at the freakin' Pentagon? tell you what...I'd be a HELL of a lot more impressed with flyover witnesses than I am with these anomalous NoC witnesses you think trump all the other evidence.

They all drew their paths, including the ANC guys who ADMITTED to not actually witnessing any ´impact´, to the same point because they knew AFTER the event just exactly where the supposed impact was.

´Anomalous´ as to what? The ´physical evidence´ that nobody has supplied documented proof of?
They are hardly ´anomalous´ to any other witness testimony that day. You cannot produce ONE SOC witness. If you had, I´d say THEY would be ´anomalous´.
The NOC witnesses ALL agree to the path of the plane. They make up 100% of all witnesses on record within that crucial area on record.

[mudlark]

Oh, there is much more to come. The full Paik account is still being written by Erik, but he is done with Vignola's account (I just started a thread for it). More to come, same 'bat time', same 'bat channel'.

Poor 16.5...having to insult by proxy.

Mods I have repeatedly reported this lying insult. Any chance of following the rules here?

I´ve been over to the Vignola thread...still no links to where CIT ´twisted´ her words? (I believe that thread is finished)
Yeah ´bat channel´ describes the Vignola thread perfectly.

[mudlark]

Well mudlark, which is it? Was he standing where CIT had him? Was he inside and then ran outside as you translate Shinki to say? Or was he inside as he is now claiming?

And is Vignola lying when she says she watched the plane fly into the side of the Pentagon and saw nothing fly over? Paik points south and Vignola points north, so obviously by the time Paik saw it was not over the Annex, but south of it. So any way you spin it (especially if he was outside where CIT videotaped him) he was pointing at a less than 45 degree angle south of the Annex. A bonafide SoC eyewitness :)

As I ´translate Shinki to say´? There is no ambiguity in what he said.
Vignola and Timmerman could not physically see any ´impact´ from their POV. They both would have had a 0.3 second window of oppurtunity to catch the explosion.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/vignolacircle-1.jpg

Timmerman stated very clearly that he lost sight of the plane through the hi-rise buildings that blocked his view. He AND Vignola would have had to have been staring fixated at the very point of ´impact´ to even catch the explosion.

Paik does NOT point South. Stop lying.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikheading.gif

´..and then at the time feeling like IT ALMOST HIT MY ROOF´


How does your path fit with that description? How does your alleged altitude fit that description? It doesn´t.

Please don´t show the manipulated Paik gif or I´ll show you up again.

[mudlark]

If Paik saw the plane from a window and then ran outside, the plane would have to have been south of his shop when he first became aware of it. That he mentions the VDOT tower at all indicates to my mind that he was aware of it's being in close proximaty to the plane, else it would not have been an important feature of the scene he was looking at. He had too many other distractions at that instant to notice much of anything else but that big honking noisy thing that had just appeared so incongruously in the field of his vison.

Solidly SoC.

Shinki, his brother describes it differently.

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

Shinki Paik: And at the last moment my brother jumped out the office and as soon as he went out he was just scooping down and I was sitting here, and then standing, and then I think at that moment a big airplane just flew over.

[...]

Shinki: As soon as he went out, jumped out he was scooping down on the ground and then I think he thought something hitting him and then I see here inside the kind of black cloud a little bit.

Ranke: A shadow?

Shinki: Yeah.


Ed Paik was also asked about what he VDOT tower in a separate interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZL97reiuWE

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

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


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

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

[mudlark]

The circle still puts him in a position from which he could not determine its heading in relation to the Navy Annex. The line leading north of Citgo is totally conjectural.

As I have stated before, the apparent size of the aircraft from the witnesses points of view distorts the proportions, thus positions, of more distant objects.

http://i659.photobucket.com/albums/uu311/buckwheat_bucket/paikmap-4.jpg

He describes the plane as ANYTHING BUT an SOC path.
He pointed OVER the white facade that can be seen in the following pic, at an angle. HE points towards the Navy Annex.

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

The VDOT is further to the right in the pic and it was allegedly travelling at a MINIMUM of 233ft agl according to Warren Stutt´s radalt data which is unquestionably accepted by you guys.
That his testimony is so distorted is stretching it to the point where you are claiming that he saw the opposite of what he actually described.
THAT is the only real distortion here.

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by mudlark
I´ve been told you don´t really understand yourself by certain pilots

Been talking to Capt'n Bob again huh?

Among others.


I give you the math and you give pretty pictures with no way of replicating the results? Are you nuts? Anyone on this board can replicate my numbers and the math is what it is. We have no way of knowing what numbers are used for that pretty picture and not many folks have or know how to use the software (Maya) properly. I do know how to use it and I also know how hard it is to set up the lighting in it accurately. So forgive us if we don't take your word for it :)

FACT Warren Stutt´s program provided the positional data (the actual plotted points were done by him)
FACT His program also provided the 233ft agl (minus 20+ft at the necessary point)
FACT The Azimuth for September 11 2001 at 09:37am was plotted into this 3D program and provided this ´pretty picture´

It is based off data that you repeatedly uphold as factual.
Are you now saying that Warren´s radalt reading at this point may be off?
That his positional data may be off?

Even if it is ´off´ or a ´mean´ path it would mean that the path is even further away and so is the shadow.

Don´t just take my word for it. Run the math through the program you mentioned and show me the result YOU come up with.
Even the Google image I posted shows that the shadow could not have reached from EITHER path.

[mudlark]

*snipped* condascending bs from a person who is continually being torn to shreds by professional pilots who actually know what they are talking about..anyway..go on..

*snipped*..as above...go on..

So, you can take one measurement device, for example the INS positional value in the Warren decode and it will have a different average and spread than say the DCA ASR positional values. That means to find the average that actually represents reality, it is best to use an average based on ALL of the available measurement systems, and of course that mean old spread is going to still be there so it has to be estimated as well.

As I said before, this ´spread´ which, I take it slides to the South, makes the possibility of making this shadow over Paik´s shop even MORE physically impossible.
As does your path.

Now eyewitnesses are simply measurement devices with their own unique problems with precision and accuracy (very poor), but they can be used to get a rough path estimate. But remember that spread? What CIT has done is before the Annex area, they used ONLY witnesses from the south side of the suspected flight path.

Wow, do you know of others who refute them? I mean, you must or you wouldn´t bring that point up.
This ´rough path estimate´ you talk of. You DO know that ALL witnesses on record within the NOC area corraborrated to the very basic placement of the plane on the North side of the Citgo Gas Station? That´s a pretty heavy ´spreadsheet´ of data pointing to only one conclusion.
On the other hand, that spreadsheet is looking pretty piss-poor on the South of Citgo placement...but go on..

So, in that area the average skewed to the south because only that side of the spread was being measured.

Can´t wait to see those other ´southside´ witness interviews.

After the Sheraton, they have taken ONLY those on the north side of the suspected path which skewed the average to the north side of the path because only that half of the spread was being considered.

As above..

Now, IF and only if they had taken eyewitness accounts from BOTH sides of the suspected (official path as they like to call it), then they would have been able to average those accounts and the average would be a better representation.

Who exactly was ON the southside to be interviewed? And from what vantage point?

The drivers on the I-395 motorways? Some of them described a right-bank or that the plane flew over the Annex (we won´t include them eh?). MANY described losing view of the plane from the far lanes.

One witness who was in the region of the southern approach path springs to mind. Levi Stephens. HE placed the plane ´closer to Arlington Cemetary´. NOC.
PennyElgas also springs to mind. She placed the plane ´to the side of and not much above the (Citgo) gas station´
Sean Boger was literally between the two paths.

Go on..

So mudlark, you and CIT are dismissing all of that stuff they tried to teach you in high school science lab and presenting measurements taken ONLY on the north half of the suspected path (hint: overwhelming majority of the CIT witnesses point south).

Lie (I can tell what ´schooling´ you had)

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

Go on..

If you disregard the scientific approach to measuring things, then how can any of you claim (as CIT does) to be using the scientific approach? Please, come back to reality soon. I hope this has been clear enough for you without any techobabble. I don't think I can simplify it any further for you.

You´ve made it perfectly clear BCR.

You have no witnesses who counter the NOC claims. None.
That´s a pretty conclusive spreadsheet.

[A W Smith]

Among others.




FACT Warren Stutt´s program provided the positional data (the actual plotted points were done by him)
FACT His program also provided the 233ft agl (minus 20+ft at the necessary point)
FACT The Azimuth for September 11 2001 at 09:37am was plotted into this 3D program and provided this ´pretty picture´

It is based off data that you repeatedly uphold as factual.
Are you now saying that Warren´s radalt reading at this point may be off?
That his positional data may be off?

Even if it is ´off´ or a ´mean´ path it would mean that the path is even further away and so is the shadow.

Don´t just take my word for it. Run the math through the program you mentioned and show me the result YOU come up with.
Even the Google image I posted shows that the shadow could not have reached from EITHER path.

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


here is mine, note the heading?


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

[BCR]

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

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

[beachnut]

...
You have no witnesses who counter the NOC claims. None.
That´s a pretty conclusive spreadsheet.
Pointing to the south flight path. lol
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pointingSouthOops.gif
These CIT witnesses in the CIT video are pointing to the SoC flight path. Exactly pointing, and CIT can't figure out so they present delusional flight paths that take over 70 degree of bank.

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

[Garb]

You´ve made it perfectly clear BCR.

You have no witnesses who counter the NOC claims. None.
That´s a pretty conclusive spreadsheet.

I have some.

How about the eyewitnesses who stated they saw Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon?

Do they do a sufficient job of countering the NOC claims?

[Scott Sommers]

No, no, this is all so obvious. It is the JREF that stands alone on this issue. Don't you know that 911 Truth divides the nation? Families, friends, and colleagues are broken over the implications of 911 Truth. Bazillions of professional in the construction industry, firefighting and law enforcement protest the incredible claims of a criminal government. Huge demonstrations fill the streets and there are law suits everywhere. 911 Truth is changing our nation and with heros like CIT leading the way, we only have a future with liberty and freedom to look forward to.

[GlennB]

You have no witnesses who counter the NOC claims. None.
That´s a pretty conclusive spreadsheet.

mudlark - you could counter NoC yourself if you tried :

1. Resolve those several yellow lines into one reasonable curved flight path that passes just over the annex, curves round just NoC, then continues to curve round to the impact/flyover point. Not difficult.

2. Measure the resulting approximate radius of that curve. Not difficult.

3. Plug that curve radius plus a variety of plausible airspeeds into a bank-angle calculation. Not difficult.

4. Note that in all cases the bank angle is in the 70° to 87° range

5. Appreciate that not one soul reported such an unforgettable sight - or anything remotely close - and realise that there is something deeply flawed about the NoC flighpath theory.

[funk de fino]

Removed quoted content.

Whats the difference between paikpointsnorth and paikpointssouth?

Where was Paik when the shadow passed over him?

Supporting the flyover boys is the lowest of the low. Its excruciatingly embarrassing.

[BCR]

Removed quoted content.

There is nothing to call out. The path which is plotted by CIT would require a significant bank angle, which none of the witnesses described. And yes, they all point south at a less than 45 degree angle.

[dafydd]

No, no, this is all so obvious. It is the JREF that stands alone on this issue. Don't you know that 911 Truth divides the nation? Families, friends, and colleagues are broken over the implications of 911 Truth. Bazillions of professional in the construction industry, firefighting and law enforcement protest the incredible claims of a criminal government. Huge demonstrations fill the streets and there are law suits everywhere. 911 Truth is changing our nation and with heros like CIT leading the way, we only have a future with liberty and freedom to look forward to.

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