CIT Fraud Revealed - Page 11

16.5 · 3rd February 2010, 08:29 AM

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

Bears repeating.

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

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

BCR · 3rd February 2010, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Reheat

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

Go Home CIT, you're finished.

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

Reheat · 3rd February 2010, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by BCR

Kinda ironic don't ya think?

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

nicepants · 3rd February 2010, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by mudlark

Originally Posted by nicepants

They don't "all agree on the path of the plane", but they do all agree on certain aspects of that path such as:

1) It was north of the citgo
2) It ended at the pentagon where the plane crashed into it

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

There is no reason to treat these 2 things differently.

Originally Posted by mudlark

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

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

Originally Posted by mudlark

Originally Posted by nicepants

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

...
Turcios places it NOC.
So no.

This is contradicted by the paths you posted...see my explanation below:

Originally Posted by mudlark

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

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

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

Originally Posted by mudlark

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

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

twinstead · 3rd February 2010, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by nicepants

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

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

Childlike Empress · 4th February 2010, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by BCR

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

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

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

Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts

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

Posted By:Locknar

Jackanory · 4th February 2010, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Edited by Locknar:

Moderated content removed.

Independently confirmed! Craig sure can skirm.

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

Show us the original unedited VT Craig. No?

16.5 · 4th February 2010, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Edited by Locknar:

Moderated content removed.

RIDICULOUS CIT SHILL CUTS AND PASTES GARBAGE FROM A BANNED IDIOT

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

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

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

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

Stop being a freaking mindless shill.

Childlike Empress · 4th February 2010, 07:26 AM

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

16.5 · 4th February 2010, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

What the hell? You are agreeing with me?

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

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

GlennB · 4th February 2010, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

Childlike Empress · 4th February 2010, 07:41 AM

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

GlennB · 4th February 2010, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

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

Here is the calculator.

Childlike Empress · 4th February 2010, 07:52 AM

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

GlennB · 4th February 2010, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

cornsail · 4th February 2010, 08:00 AM

Quote:

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

Is that how the interview with him was presented?

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

Quote:

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

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

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

funk de fino · 4th February 2010, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

They are frauds.

Garb · 4th February 2010, 08:55 AM

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

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

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

leftysergeant · 4th February 2010, 08:56 AM

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

It was south of his position.

beachnut · 4th February 2010, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

Edited by Locknar:

Moderated content removed.

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

BCR · 4th February 2010, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

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

DGM · 4th February 2010, 02:09 PM

I found this part particularly funny:

Quote:

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

beachnut · 4th February 2010, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

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

Sure, go ahead show us the NoC. The real NoC to include bank angles, g force and all to match the FDR. No one at CIT has refuted the FDR. And the FDR shows the exact flight path p4t and CIT said was impossible because they can't do the math.

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

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

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

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

Is this a joke???

Originally Posted by Childlike Empress

... Craig's ... He just happens to be the journalist accused of "fraud" in this thread.

Craig is not a journalist, he is a liar or dumber than a rock when it comes to this topic. Craig is a fraud if you call him a journalists. Unless you define a journalist as someone who makes up moronic lies to fool the uniformed gullible masses of conspiracy minded paranoid people.

Got any reports of 75 degrees of bank? no

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

A W Smith · 4th February 2010, 03:58 PM

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

oh and this?

Quote:

He just happens to be the journalist accused of "fraud" in this thread.

What an ass.

Here CE. Perhaps you should brush up on the definition of "Journalist"

pgimeno · 4th February 2010, 04:20 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

16.5 · 5th February 2010, 05:50 AM

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

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

Now he is old, but still stupid.

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

twinstead · 5th February 2010, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Aldo is in the low forties too, 40 stone.

Oh no he di'int!

leftysergeant · 5th February 2010, 06:23 PM

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

This is confusing beyond belief.

Longfellow · 5th February 2010, 08:44 PM

Craig Ranke a journalist?

I guess that makes me the King of Siam.

BCR · 5th February 2010, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

This is confusing beyond belief.

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

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

Scott Sommers · 5th February 2010, 09:56 PM

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

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

Have I missed something?

BCR · 5th February 2010, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan

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

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

Garb · 5th February 2010, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan

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

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

Have I missed something?

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

pgimeno · 6th February 2010, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

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

This is confusing beyond belief.

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

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

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

beachnut · 6th February 2010, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by BCR

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

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

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

Quote:

No not over the Annex, went straight to the Pentagon.

From her position direct to the Pentagon impact is with in 3 or 4 degree of Flight 77 real path.

BCR · 6th February 2010, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by beachnut

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

Oh no, she is definitely Mossad

leftysergeant · 6th February 2010, 06:33 AM

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

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

Jackanory · 6th February 2010, 07:16 AM

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

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

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

16.5 · 6th February 2010, 09:50 AM

I notice Craig's rebuttal is up.

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

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

Of course.

Incompetent frauds.

cornsail · 6th February 2010, 10:42 AM

Where?

3rd February 2010, 08:29 AM	#401
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,642	As of this writing, CIT’s full video footage from their interviews with Shinki and Ed Paik have not been made public. Bears repeating. How many times have I pointed out the CIT has failed to release their raw video? I can imagine that there is much consternation at the CIT tree house.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,642

3rd February 2010, 09:00 AM	#403
Reheat Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: In Space Posts: 2,030	Originally Posted by BCR Kinda ironic don't ya think? Yes, that's quite amusing. Dishonesty is universally repugnant, but these scum bags take it to a new level.
	__________________ Debunking the North of Citgo Theory

3rd February 2010, 02:27 PM	#404
nicepants Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,720	Originally Posted by mudlark Originally Posted by nicepants They don't "all agree on the path of the plane", but they do all agree on certain aspects of that path such as: 1) It was north of the citgo 2) It ended at the pentagon where the plane crashed into it 1) Yes 2) The path ends at the Pentagon because they believed it had crashed at that spot. There is no reason to treat these 2 things differently. Originally Posted by mudlark The two above statements are contradictory. That all witnesses on record in that area place the plane NOC leans towrds the latter being false. There you go, rejecting one thing they say based on the other thing they say. Using that logic we could also lean towards NOC being false because "all witnesses on record place the plane impacting the pentagon". Originally Posted by mudlark Originally Posted by nicepants So...they could be wrong...but not wrong enough for the plane to be south of the Citgo? ... Turcios places it NOC. So no. This is contradicted by the paths you posted...see my explanation below: Originally Posted by mudlark If by ´some of the paths´ you mean Middleton´s path and Turcios, yes it is. The SOC path is a further 240 ft away from Middleton´s path.... It's not how far they are from the "SOC Path", but how far they are from each other which illustrates the minimum margin of error. (Assuming that the citgo is 100' wide) A flight path that's reported 200 feet north of the citgo with a margin of error of 500 feet could have actually been 200 feet SOUTH of the citgo. Do you agree or disagree? Originally Posted by mudlark These eyewitnesses are ´unreliable´ because....? Because they claim that the plane flew north of the Citgo and subsequently impacted the Pentagon. A scenario which is impossible, even according to CIT. That makes every single one of those eyewitnesses wrong.
	__________________ Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein

3rd February 2010, 02:59 PM	#405
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,572	Originally Posted by nicepants Because they claim that the plane flew north of the Citgo and subsequently impacted the Pentagon. A scenario which is impossible, even according to CIT. That makes every single one of those eyewitnesses wrong. Yup. This is using CIT's logic against them.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

4th February 2010, 07:26 AM	#409
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 7,833	Calm down, buddy. He's exactly right. Logic beats spin once again.
	__________________ Breaking The Set

3rd February 2010, 08:46 AM	#402
BCR Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Memphis Posts: 2,239	Originally Posted by Reheat John, quite obviously you have proven the OP to be correct and (no surprises here) CIT distorted the Paik interviews. Ed Paik doesn't have a clue about which way the aircraft was headed other than in the general direction of the Pentagon. He is obviously even guessing about where it was in relation to Columbia Pike. He only caught a fleeting glimpse and CIT has embellished and distorted Paik's perspective for their fraudulent purposes. Go Home CIT, you're finished. Actually Reheat, it is not me but the truther community that is outing these phony 'researchers'. Erik has simply followed-up leads provided by myself and others in the truther community and packaged it up in a nice neat bundle. They have been exposed as frauds by the same group they espoused to be the hero's of. Kinda ironic don't ya think?

4th February 2010, 07:31 AM	#410
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,642	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress Calm down, buddy. He's exactly right. Logic beats spin once again. What the hell? You are agreeing with me? Well, that is new. I mean, Craig's spin that he was to young and dumb to understand what his witnesses were saying is easily the most pathetic spin I have EVER seen in my life. He is not young, but it seems we agree that he is still a farking moran. Of course he could clear this all up by releasing the raw videos, but we all know that is never going to happen.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,642

4th February 2010, 07:32 AM	#411
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,924	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress Calm down, buddy. He's exactly right. Logic beats spin once again. Childlike Empress, did you ever find time to look into that 'bank angle' question I put to you some pages ago? It was over in the "8 out of 8" thread, but the same question is asked in #247 of this thread.
	Last edited by GlennB; 4th February 2010 at 07:35 AM.

4th February 2010, 07:41 AM	#412
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 7,833	#247? Without numbers for 3., how did you come up with numbers for 4.? What are plausible speeds and why?
	__________________ Breaking The Set

4th February 2010, 07:49 AM	#413
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,924	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress #247? Without numbers for 3., how did you come up with numbers for 4.? What are plausible speeds and why? To the advantage of CIT theory, you choose the gentlest turn that is reasonably consistent with the several yellow NoC paths we see on the CIT graphics. Choose a min and max speed then see how it looks, it's only two inputs to the bank-angle calculator after all. About 2 minutes effort. I'd suggest 300mph and 500mph, but the joy of this little exercise is you get to see how different parameters affect the bank angle. Here is the calculator.
	Last edited by GlennB; 4th February 2010 at 07:51 AM.

4th February 2010, 07:52 AM	#414
Childlike Empress Ewige Blumenkraft Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Ivory Tower Posts: 7,833	I'm not stupid, Glenn. If you want to present an argument, flesh it out. I don't need you to tell me math - based on speculation.
	__________________ Breaking The Set

4th February 2010, 07:56 AM	#415
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,924	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress I'm not stupid, Glenn. If you want to present an argument, flesh it out. I don't need you to tell me math - based on speculation. There is no 'speculation', it's a reasonable scientific exercise. The easiest NoC curve of the approach can be pinned down from the CIT yellow lines (barely clipping the north of Citgo canopy) A 757 is subsonic, so choose reasonable min and max approach speeds to envelope the whole exercise.
	Last edited by GlennB; 4th February 2010 at 08:00 AM.

4th February 2010, 08:00 AM	#416
cornsail Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: ohio Posts: 2,693	Quote: When we interviewed Ed the first time off-location, his English was pretty bad and we were all a bit confused regarding his account INCLUDING exactly where he placed the plane, but our impression that he was outside was already established because of Shinki. Is that how the interview with him was presented? "His English is so bad that we couldn't ask him where he was at the time and we can't figure out where he says the plane was, but here he is anyway..." Quote: My main concern was making sure to get him on location so I could document the flight path he was describing accurately and with zero ambiguity which is why I had him illustrate it on 3 separate images. Did it occur to Craig that given his language barrier difficulties, Paik might not be able to understand him very well either? Those lines he drew were obviously not what he saw, considering he saw what sounds like shadow of a wing outside the window for about 1 second. So what did he think he was supposed to be drawing? I'm not crying fraud, because it might just be incompetence, but releasing the raw footage would help clear things up.
	Last edited by cornsail; 4th February 2010 at 08:01 AM.

4th February 2010, 08:47 AM	#417
funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Alba Posts: 10,789	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress I'm not stupid, Glenn. If you want to present an argument, flesh it out. I don't need you to tell me math - based on speculation. Your support of the CIT seems to contradict your first sentence. They are frauds.
	__________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. Christopher 7 - There is no need to contact them for conformation. That is just a denial tactic

4th February 2010, 08:55 AM	#418
Garb Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 873	Childlike Empress, I'm curious what your opinion is on the witnesses who state they saw flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. Wouldn't that be impossible with the supposed NORTH OF CITGO flight path? And which testimony do you believe to be the right one? The crash witnesses or the NOC witnesses?
Garb Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 873	__________________ When I changed to my new computer, I was worried about info on the old computer being used for identity theft and such. Folks said: "Just yank the hard drive" and somesuch. But I blew up the apartment. Only way to be safe. -kookbreaker

4th February 2010, 08:56 AM	#419
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	You cannot see the Navy Annex from where Ed is standing outside, and he keeps pointing south. Shinki keeps mentioning the grey belly of the aircraft. It was south of his position.

4th February 2010, 01:12 PM	#421
BCR Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Memphis Posts: 2,239	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress Calm down, buddy. He's exactly right. Logic beats spin once again. You are right. You are claiming now that Erik is simply a better researcher and does better analysis of eyewitness accounts than does the CIT folks. No fraud, just incompetence? Is that your argument?

4th February 2010, 02:09 PM	#422
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,306	I found this part particularly funny: Quote: edit @mods: Given the replies below, i'm sure this will be reported in the usual dishonest way as "posting on behalf of a banned member". Notice that the part i posted is exactly on topic and has nothing to do with Craig's ex-membership here. He just happens to be the journalist accused of "fraud" in this thread.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

4th February 2010, 03:25 PM	#423
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,890	Originally Posted by Childlike Empress I'm not stupid, Glenn. If you want to present an argument, flesh it out. I don't need you to tell me math - based on speculation. Sure, go ahead show us the NoC. The real NoC to include bank angles, g force and all to match the FDR. No one at CIT has refuted the FDR. And the FDR shows the exact flight path p4t and CIT said was impossible because they can't do the math. CIT and you are the speculators in paranoid conspiracy theories and you can't present a single reality based NoC flight path to save your failed delusional theory. Need the equations? Need some help from a real pilot? For 77 to go from right over Paik office to fly over the Pentagon at the impact point where CIT says it was hidden by the explosion (which was really the jet fuel fireball, the exact size of the fuel from a 483 KIAS impact to a building like the Pentagon which any trained aircraft accident investigator would know as do rational people) takes 75 degrees of bank and 4 gs, and thus Paik would not see 77 at all from inside his office. Since Paik says he saw the right wing, the bank angle was less than 10 degrees; oops. Please present your fantasy math to support the failed ideas of CIT. Is this a joke??? Originally Posted by Childlike Empress ... Craig's ... He just happens to be the journalist accused of "fraud" in this thread. Craig is not a journalist, he is a liar or dumber than a rock when it comes to this topic. Craig is a fraud if you call him a journalists. Unless you define a journalist as someone who makes up moronic lies to fool the uniformed gullible masses of conspiracy minded paranoid people. Got any reports of 75 degrees of bank? no Paik sees the right wing because 77 was banking right, the right wing was down 5.8 degrees. Paik's point of view from inside his office places 77 about 35 to 40 degree up from his position. Math. Craig's lack of knowledge on witness interviews is complete and proved each time you watch his video. How he mangles the statements is his only skill, as he makes up idiotic conclusions. You could build a model, or even see this in your head if you had the math and geometry skills to see reality.
	Last edited by beachnut; 4th February 2010 at 03:38 PM.

4th February 2010, 03:58 PM	#424
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	Edward and Shinki both describe the shadow passing right to left from their office perspective facing the street parallel to Columbia pike. For them to have seen the shadow. it had to be on the south-east side of Columbia pike. Else it flies through the Sheraton. It it was flying in a north easterly direction at an angle directly over their shop. Morin could not have seen it. And its as simple as that. oh and this? Quote: He just happens to be the journalist accused of "fraud" in this thread. What an ass. Here CE. Perhaps you should brush up on the definition of "Journalist"
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude. Last edited by A W Smith; 4th February 2010 at 04:30 PM.

4th February 2010, 04:20 PM	#425
pgimeno Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 1,299	Here's a scenario I see as plausible re Ed Paik's testimony. Ed sees the right wing of the plane. The plane is banking to the right, so the wing appears even bigger in his view, which makes he feel the plane even closer than it actually is. Add the surprise factor to the potential error in distance estimation. In my opinion, he thinks the plane is so close that he estimates the plane's body to be over the office, so he estimates (and draws) the trajectory as going over the Navy Annex. Obviously that trajectory is not what he sees. However, let's consider that the plane may (or should I say must, to save other buildings?) be farther than he estimates. Now, he sees the wing at a certain elevation with respect to him, but if we don't consider the perceived distance as reliable, all we know is that the plane is somewhere in the straight line from his eye and towards that elevation. If we take the shadow testimony literally, we can estimate the actual ground distance from the plane to the office where he sees it using the FDR's agl altitude and the sun angle. This is subject to error, since the flash perceived could indeed be of exterior objects as has been already pointed out in this thread. The math is trivial: given an angle of a right triangle and the opposite cathetus, find the other cathetus. I think that that's what A W Smith has calculated (posts #242 and #293). Give or take one wingspan plus some extra distance for the flashing of nearby objects causing the sensation that the shadow is over the office, and there it is: Ed Paik confirms SoC and the official flight path.
	Last edited by pgimeno; 4th February 2010 at 04:23 PM. Reason: formatting

5th February 2010, 05:50 AM	#426
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,642	Huh, no wall of posts cut and pasted in ten minutes? I guess the truthers are still reeling from the Craig, I was young and stupid admission. Now he is old, but still stupid. (Don't let the Jonas Brothers hair cut fool you, the guy is in his early forties. Aldo is in the low forties too, 40 stone.)
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,642

5th February 2010, 05:54 AM	#427
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,572	Originally Posted by 16.5 Aldo is in the low forties too, 40 stone. Oh no he di'int!
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

5th February 2010, 06:23 PM	#428
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Erm...The only way Ed could see the right wing is if it were directly over his head, and we do not see that in the line he drew. The fuselage would otherwise be in the way, unless it was banking a bit to the left, putting the wing below the fuselage. But then, it could not have flown over the Annex without some rivet-popping g-loads. This is confusing beyond belief.

5th February 2010, 08:44 PM	#429
Longfellow St. Louis Cardinals Fanatic Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Baseball Heaven Posts: 286	Craig Ranke a journalist? I guess that makes me the King of Siam.
	__________________ Sometimes I feel as if I'm the Captain of a leaky lifeboat cast endlessly adrift upon a sea of fools. *1996-2011 Thank you Tony LaRussa for one of the best eras in Cardinals Baseball* NL Pennant wins: 1926, 1928, 1930, 1931, 1934, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1946, 1964, 1967, 1968, 1982, 1985, 1987, 2004, 2006, 2011 World Series wins: 1926, 1931, 1934, 1942, 1944, 1946, 1964, 1967, 1982, 2006, 2011

5th February 2010, 09:10 PM	#430
BCR Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Memphis Posts: 2,239	Originally Posted by leftysergeant This is confusing beyond belief. I think that is because people are trying to read more into a recall than is there. At 450+ knots and less than 500 feet agl, inside a building looking out a window as it passed, scared out-of-his-wits, just how much do you think he really saw? He saw something fly over going generally west to east, south of his location. Beyond that is expecting way too much.

5th February 2010, 09:56 PM	#431
Scott Sommers Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,641	Do I understand this correctly? You guys have been arguing for 11 pages over where a shadow was? My reading of all this is that no matter where your 'witnesses' say they saw a shadow, they go on to say that the object was a plane and that it crashed into the Pentagon. So the argument isn't over whether the object was a plane or whether it crashed into the Pentagon. Everyone seems to agree on that. The argument going on here is about the accuracy of eyewitness details in personal accounts of an object that was traveling at over 500 miles an hour that was encountered for only a very brief period of time. Have I missed something?
	__________________ for the original publication Who Still Believes in 9/11 Conspiracies? for Google Books Becoming Taiwan: From Colonialism to Democracy

5th February 2010, 10:36 PM	#432
BCR Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Memphis Posts: 2,239	Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan Do I understand this correctly? You guys have been arguing for 11 pages over where a shadow was? Not me. The OP is that CIT promoted fraudulent and staged eyewitness POV's. The rest is just fluff.

5th February 2010, 10:43 PM	#433
Garb Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 873	Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan Do I understand this correctly? You guys have been arguing for 11 pages over where a shadow was? My reading of all this is that no matter where your 'witnesses' say they saw a shadow, they go on to say that the object was a plane and that it crashed into the Pentagon. So the argument isn't over whether the object was a plane or whether it crashed into the Pentagon. Everyone seems to agree on that. The argument going on here is about the accuracy of eyewitness details in personal accounts of an object that was traveling at over 500 miles an hour that was encountered for only a very brief period of time. Have I missed something? Like I have said before, the discussion regarding the NOC witnesses is irrelevant because there are witnesses who saw a commercial airliner smack into the Pentagon. Because the damage corroborates a SOC flight path, that is the path it had to have taken. End of story.
Garb Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 873	__________________ When I changed to my new computer, I was worried about info on the old computer being used for identity theft and such. Folks said: "Just yank the hard drive" and somesuch. But I blew up the apartment. Only way to be safe. -kookbreaker

6th February 2010, 12:29 AM	#434
pgimeno Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 1,299	Originally Posted by leftysergeant Erm...The only way Ed could see the right wing is if it were directly over his head, and we do not see that in the line he drew. The fuselage would otherwise be in the way, unless it was banking a bit to the left, putting the wing below the fuselage. But then, it could not have flown over the Annex without some rivet-popping g-loads. This is confusing beyond belief. This is a diagram of what I meant (sorry for my crappy drawing ability): The angles and relative sizes don't represent the proper ones. I'm just trying to illustrate the point, showing how Ed Paik may be corroborating the FDR/radar path. The angle of the upper limit of the eye's sight from the window (the upper red line) should match that of the sun, for the shadow to go over the office and keep consistency.

6th February 2010, 12:30 AM	#435
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,890	Originally Posted by BCR Not me. The OP is that CIT promoted fraudulent and staged eyewitness POV's. The rest is just fluff. Paik points south of his office and the shadow confirms his story. Madlene Zakhem has the plane on the official flight path "directly over her" and she says 77 did not go over the Navy Annex. Oops. This means she will be thrown under the bus by the drugged up CIT dolts she calls "creepy". Quote: No not over the Annex, went straight to the Pentagon. From her position direct to the Pentagon impact is with in 3 or 4 degree of Flight 77 real path.

6th February 2010, 03:50 AM	#436
BCR Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Memphis Posts: 2,239	Originally Posted by beachnut Madlene Zakhem has the plane on the official flight path "directly over her" and she says 77 did not go over the Navy Annex. Oops. This means she will be thrown under the bus by the drugged up CIT dolts she calls "creepy". Oh no, she is definitely Mossad

6th February 2010, 06:33 AM	#437
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	I have to admit that I had a hard time following what the CiT interviewers were trying to ask Ed. But, if he saw the airplane from where he was standing, he would have had a hard time visualising where it went past the roof of the building next to him. I do not see the Annex there. It seems to me that even flying a little way out from the Annex, it would appear to be flying over the center of it. I can actually understand Ed almost as well as I understand what the Complete Idiot Team asks him.

6th February 2010, 07:16 AM	#438
Jackanory Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: UK Posts: 1,339	CIT went and spoke with their 'witnesses' with a clear agenda and intentions of deceipt. CIT asked leading questions to atleast one 'witness' that they now admit themselves had difficulty in speaking/understanding the English language. They asked leading questions of people who where not aware of the deceiptful way in which their answers would be used. Perhaps Ed Paik and Stinki should be concidering some form of legal retribution as clearly they are being misrepresented on here/youtube etc. Surely a law/laws exist in America to address this? CIT have deceiptfully misrepresented their 'witness' statements and edited the videos they took. Yet the evidence that CIT shows us simply illustrates this deceipt. They have infact 'debunked' themselves and will continue to wriggle and squirm using sockpuppets to dig themselves deeper. Let them!
	__________________ The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract. Oliver Wendell Holmes

6th February 2010, 09:50 AM	#439
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,642	I notice Craig's rebuttal is up. It contains absolutely nothing more than a number of ad hominem attacks, and a bizarre declaration that the fact their idiotic videos were proven as deceptive somehow supports their idiotic theory. Notably, of course, Craig and Aldo don't offer to release their raw videos. Of course. Incompetent frauds.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,642