CIT Fraud Revealed

[BCR]

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



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

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.



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]

Quote:

CIT Fraud Revealed

I am tempted to add "among many others"

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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. 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]

Originally Posted by BCR

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

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...pointsouth.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

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...&postcount=619

Quote:

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...&postcount=396

Originally Posted by AWSmith

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

Originally Posted by BCR

And his brother says 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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Cheerleader number one.
Excellent work? LMAO

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by BCR

http://bluecollarrepublican.ipower.c...les/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 is his only recorded confirmation of what he saw.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by mudlark

Cheerleader number one.
Excellent work? LMAO

That is Paik. Alpo is screwed.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by mudlark

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 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 You just debunked yourself and CIT and you will not stop being a poster of lies and delusions; why?

[willhaven]

Originally Posted by BCR

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

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...pointsouth.gif

How much for the yellow MGB?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by willhaven

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]

Originally Posted by mudlark

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]

Originally Posted by BCR

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]

Originally Posted by mudlark

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 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]

Originally Posted by mudlark

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]

Originally Posted by mudlark

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]

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

[DGM]

Originally Posted by mudlark

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]

Originally Posted by BCR

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

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]

Originally Posted by DGM

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]

Originally Posted by beachnut

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?

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by 16.5

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]

Originally Posted by mudlark

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 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]

Originally Posted by mudlark

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?

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]

Originally Posted by mudlark

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]

Originally Posted by mudlark

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


Points south and says 77 impacted Pentagon!


Points south and says 77 impacted Pentagon!


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...

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]

Originally Posted by mudlark

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by beachnut

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]

Originally Posted by Bobert

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...5&postcount=10

Quote:

¨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...89&postcount=1

Quote:

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...5&postcount=42

Originally Posted by jhunter

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by 16.5

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

"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?do...5818116873233#

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Maris de la Cerda approx POV

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

Quote:

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:



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´.

Quote:

,,,,,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. 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/u...ogersPOV-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

Quote:

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¨

Quote:

¨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

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

¨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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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/l...ointssouth.jpg
Points south and says 77 impacted Pentagon!

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...ointssouth.jpg
Points south and says 77 impacted Pentagon!

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...ointssouth.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/l...ealfltpath.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..?