Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Question for CIT regarding Edward Paik
Topic Started: Jan 26 2008, 03:05 AM (2,637 Views)
bileduct

At 16:51 in your video Edward Paik draws the flight path of the plane.

Now, I could not find this image on your website at all (why is this?), so I've reproduced Paik's drawing here.

Posted Image

Now, forgive me if I am wrong, but doesn't this make Paik a south side witness?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

bileduct
 

Now, forgive me if I am wrong, but doesn't this make Paik a south side witness?
You are 100% wrong.

JREFERS have made some sad attempts to dismiss Edward Paik's account as not supporting the north of the citgo claim.

This is completely false.

Edward Paik drew three versions of the flight path:
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image


Plus he described where the plane came from and where it went which firmly establishes the angle of approach.
Posted Image
Posted Image

He is corroborated on the approach by Mrs. Hubbard, Cindy Reyes, Veronica, and Jamal who were all further back.

He is corroborated on the north of Columbia Pike by all the CITGO witnesses.


The deceptive flight path that you and the JREFERS have pulled out of your asses while completely ignoring what Edward drew and described is this:
Posted Image


Except that is NOT the angle that Edward describes or drew in any of his images. You are simply straightening it out to make it end up south of the CITGO!

In fact if the plane did what you have illustrated it would have hit the Sheraton.

Here is a more accurate extension of Edward's flight path demonstrating the true angle he describes in relation to the official flight path:
Posted Image
Posted Image

North of the CITGO.

Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 26 2008, 03:28 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Oh and it is on our website.

click on this link and read.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Plus what you people fail to acknowledge is that the entire plane HAS to be on the south side of Columbia Pike at all times to match up with the light poles.

There is zero room for error in the physical damage path.

Even your fake ass parallel with the Navy Annex flight path (reported by Terry Morin but NOT Edward Paik) contradicts the physical damage flight path!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Here is the REQUIRED physical damage path that has zero room for error compared to a generous version of the path that Edward drew and described:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

Posted Image

Now, if that yellow line were to be extended all the way to the Pentagon, where I wonder, would it have hit? Would it be consistent with the irrefutable known impact point?

Would you be so kind as to extend the yellow line all the way to the Pentagon to answer this, or is there a reason you've only drawn it as far as the Citgo station?

Additionally, is this angle of approach reconcilable with Lagasse and Brooks' testimony?

Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

The plane banked over the Navy Annex, bile.

It had to have.

Edward Paik proves it and Sean Boger saw it.

Something similar to this:

Posted Image
Posted Image

Planes don't have to go straight lines.

Did you know that even Mike Walter claims the plane banked?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

Quote:
 
Planes don't have to go straight lines.

Did you know that even Mike Walter claims the plane banked?


THANKYOU for bringing that up.

First of all, let's have a look where Mike was on the day. I believe you have an image showing his approximate location:

Posted Image

Now what did Mike actually say?

MIKE WALTER: I will never forget that day, trapped in traffic and then I rolled down the window and heard the sound of the jet overhead. I wasn’t surprised. I worked in the USA today building in Roslyn nearby and we were used to seeing a lot of choppers coming to the helipad at the Pentagon and a lot of commercial jets heading to Reagan which is nearby. But for some reason I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure. I watched as it continued to dip from the sky, diving towards the Pentagon. There are some trees that are adjacent to 27 the road I was stuck on, so the jet went out of sight momentarily. Then I picked it up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion. There was a huge fireball. There was the initial shock of what had just happened. All of the drivers seemed to be in a trance. Then suddenly it ended when a woman began to scream, “They just hit the Pentagon, get back, get back.” She backed her SUV back and forth until she was able to create a crease and then she sped out of the area on the emergency lane. That’s when all hell broke loose as people began trying to get out of the area any way they could, some went forward, and others turned their cars around and drove in the wrong direction. All in an effort to get out of the area.
- http://www.pentagonresearch.com/mike.html

Now for Mike, from his position approximately 8 or 9 car lengths to the south of the passing aircraft, to see the underbelly of the aircraft it would have to be banking to the left (left wing down, right wing up).

Your diagram, which puts the aircraft much further north, requires the aircraft to have been banking to the right (left wing up, right wing down), and the underbelly of the aircraft would not have been visible to anyone south of the Pentagon on Route 27.

Guess what else Mike says?

He says that it was an American Airlines jet and that he witnessed it slam directly into the Pentagon.
Edited by bileduct, Jan 26 2008, 08:23 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Ahem...

http://thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm#UsaToday

Mike Walter said a lot of things. I think you are going to to learn a lot about Mike Walter.

Why don't you start there, Bile.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 26 2008, 10:49 AM
Ahem...

http://thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm#UsaToday

Mike Walter said a lot of things. I think you are going to to learn a lot about Mike Walter.

Why don't you start there, Bile.
CLASSIC!

One CIT member uses Mike Walter to support a banking maneuver that would suggest a north side flyover (except his testimony suggests the plane banks in the wrong direction), and when refuted, another CIT member swoops in with CIT "evidence" that Mike has problems telling the truth!

Absolutely phenomenal, guys!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

Quote:
 
Except that is NOT the angle that Edward describes or drew in any of his images. You are simply straightening it out to make it end up south of the CITGO!


Uh huh.

Edward's drawing.

Posted Image

My interpretation.

Posted Image

They both look south of the Citgo to me.

Paik is therefore a south side witness. End of story.
Edited by bileduct, Jan 26 2008, 11:42 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

bileduct
Jan 26 2008, 11:25 AM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 26 2008, 10:49 AM
Ahem...

http://thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm#UsaToday

Mike Walter said a lot of things. I think you are going to to learn a lot about Mike Walter.

Why don't you start there, Bile.
CLASSIC!

One CIT member uses Mike Walter to support a banking maneuver that would suggest a north side flyover (except his testimony suggests the plane banks in the wrong direction), and when refuted, another CIT member swoops in with CIT "evidence" that Mike has problems telling the truth!

Absolutely phenomenal, guys!
Mike Walter's account doesn't make sense on many levels.

I never said I believed him.

But for some reason he felt the need to throw that "graceful bank" into his story.

Was he trying to blend his fabricated account with what the plane really did?

Make your own determination but a bank in his view AT ALL completely destroys the official story.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

bileduct
Jan 26 2008, 11:41 AM


They both look south of the Citgo to me.

Paik is therefore a south side witness. End of story.

Your "interpretation" ignores what he says, what he drew, and the fact that the Sheraton wasn't hit.

Edward was very clear about the angle of approach and this is corroborated by Jamal, Cindy, Mrs. Hubbard, Veronica, and Donald Symmes.

Posted Image
Posted Image

None of those people could have seen the plane on your flight path and it would have exploded over Edward's head after slamming into the Sheraton.

Your desperate "interpretation" to try and force the official story to work despite the mountain of evidence we have proving it false falls completely flat bile.

You are in denial.
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 26 2008, 01:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

bileduct
Jan 26 2008, 11:41 AM
My interpretation.
Posted Image

They both look south of the Citgo to me.

Paik is therefore a south side witness. End of story.
This line even lines up with the "middle of the trees" claim by Sgt. Brooks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 26 2008, 08:56 PM
This line even lines up with the "middle of the trees" claim by Sgt. Brooks.
Even?

You must mean in addition to lining up with exploding over Edward Paik's head after hitting the Sheraton.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reddawn

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 26 2008, 12:56 PM
You are in denial.
Denial? LOL.

You're not big on irony, are you?

From what I've seen you don't like analogies either but here's one for you.

A guy walks into a store with a gun and demands all the money. The clerk complies and the robber is out of there within 2 minutes.

There are 10 customers inside the store that witness all of it. They all pretty much say the same thing.

However, one witness swears he had on a blue shirt although the other nine say it was green. Of course, blue and green are pretty close so we're willing to cut him some slack.

Additionally, the guy who said it was a blue shirt picks him out of line-up and swears that was the guy.

So, the "fact" that he swears the robber had on a blue shirt trumps everything else and means the whole scene was fake/planted/part of a CT.

Am I close here?

Your CIT theory seems to be based on cherry picking witnesses and only using "part" of their rememberance of the occasion.

Oh, by the way. There was also a video of the guy who robbed the store. It may have been
of poor quality but it coroborates that he was the guy.

So, who's in denial?
Edited by Reddawn, Jan 26 2008, 09:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Your analogy makes no sense.

Please equate it to the north side witnesses and explain.

Here is a more appropriate one:


100 people have written statements as being witnesses to a massive fatal car accident on a single corner of a busy intersection right in the center of town. 7 of them who frequent the intersection on a daily basis before and ever since the accident are independently interviewed about it a few years later, most interviews filmed at the intersection.

All 7 state that the accident was on the same corner of the intersection. None of the other 93 written statements directly contradict this.

What are the odds that all 7 are wrong and that it was on a completely different corner?


Let me know if you don't get how it pertains to the north side claim and I will explain it for you.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

To extend the analogy.........let's say that the 7 differed on the color of the cars involved or that security cameras revealed that some weren't exactly correct about what seat they were sitting in at the coffee shop across the street when they witnessed it.

Does that indicate that they are likely incorrect about what corner of the intersection the accident was on even though they all independently said it was the same one?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 26 2008, 09:04 PM
nicepants
Jan 26 2008, 08:56 PM
This line even lines up with the "middle of the trees" claim by Sgt. Brooks.
Even?

You must mean in addition to lining up with exploding over Edward Paik's head after hitting the Sheraton.

No. The flight path in the photo places the plane as going "over the middle of the trees", which is what Sgt. Brooks reported.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aldo Marquis CIT
Member Avatar

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 26 2008, 12:53 PM
bileduct
Jan 26 2008, 11:25 AM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 26 2008, 10:49 AM
Ahem...

http://thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm#UsaToday

Mike Walter said a lot of things. I think you are going to to learn a lot about Mike Walter.

Why don't you start there, Bile.
CLASSIC!

One CIT member uses Mike Walter to support a banking maneuver that would suggest a north side flyover (except his testimony suggests the plane banks in the wrong direction), and when refuted, another CIT member swoops in with CIT "evidence" that Mike has problems telling the truth!

Absolutely phenomenal, guys!
Mike Walter's account doesn't make sense on many levels.

I never said I believed him.

But for some reason he felt the need to throw that "graceful bank" into his story.

Was he trying to blend his fabricated account with what the plane really did?

Make your own determination but a bank in his view AT ALL completely destroys the official story.

Yes, couldn't it be that Mike Walter was really on the scene, but not on the highway?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

bileduct
Jan 26 2008, 11:25 AM
Aldo Marquis CIT
Jan 26 2008, 10:49 AM
Ahem...

http://thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm#UsaToday

Mike Walter said a lot of things. I think you are going to to learn a lot about Mike Walter.

Why don't you start there, Bile.
CLASSIC!

One CIT member uses Mike Walter to support a banking maneuver that would suggest a north side flyover (except his testimony suggests the plane banks in the wrong direction), and when refuted, another CIT member swoops in with CIT "evidence" that Mike has problems telling the truth!

Absolutely phenomenal, guys!
:ouch:

PS: the physical damage to the building matches a left-low bank angle, which would show belly to Walter and others southerners.

Craig:
Quote:
 
Make your own determination but a bank in his view AT ALL completely destroys the official story.


Come again? Oh, you mean bank as in turn, not bank as in roll. Some confusion there sometimes. I'm no pilot but I think a turn always requires a bank, whereas a bank does not necessarily cause a turn. The preoponderance of evidence suggests it was essentially straight of bearing but banking/rolling left wing low, so his story is quite healthy for the official story, not harmful. It does not match what all you more legit witnesses say, which is why he goes in the bad pile of suspicious/dubious so-called 'witness' liars and operatives and such.

IMO this is the formula:
So long as you have both piles available to toss 'em on as you go, there's no need to fear digging in and finding a few south pathers/clear impact/light pole/etc. witnesses. Just interview only people with any oddities/suspiciousness you can manipulate, and don't let 'em pile up too deep, and the NOC construct might still shine through for awhile, with a steady infusion of supporting 'findings' anyway.

Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

Quote:
 
Your "interpretation" ignores what he says, what he drew

Excuse me?

Did Edward Paik not draw a flight path on a printed image as shown below? Is that not his name at the bottom? Did he not sign and date it?

Posted Image

Please demonstrate how my image below is a radical departure from this hand drawn, named, signed and dated scan of Edward Paik's impression of the plane's flight path. No really, please.

Posted Image

Quote:
 
and the fact that the Sheraton wasn't hit.

NOW you're getting at the heart of the matter, Craig! Eyewitness accounts are NOT INFALLIBLE. Edward Paik drew his impression of the flight path which would have resulted in the plane hitting the Sheraton, but everyone knows it didn't!

Quote:
 
Edward was very clear about the angle of approach and this is corroborated by Jamal, Cindy, Mrs. Hubbard, Veronica, and Donald Symmes.

Now you are lying.

You have grossly misrepresented all of these witness accounts (can't say for Donald Symmes, have not looked into his account yet) to support your imaginary flight path.

I have created separate threads to deal with these people. I have become quite familiar with your diversionary tactics now, so let's keep to the topic of discussion, kthnx.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 26 2008, 09:04 PM
nicepants
Jan 26 2008, 08:56 PM
This line even lines up with the "middle of the trees" claim by Sgt. Brooks.
Even?

You must mean in addition to lining up with exploding over Edward Paik's head after hitting the Sheraton.

So by your own admission the flight path drawn by your NOC witness is impossible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

bileduct
Jan 27 2008, 09:12 AM
So by your own admission the flight path drawn by your NOC witness is impossible.
Huh?

No.

The flight path YOU drew is.

Edward has it on an angle that makes it possible and is corroborated by all the other witnesses we found further back.

Do you know what the word "angle" means?

Please look it up.

You failed to depict it in your image which is very deceptive.

Why are you lying about Edward's account?
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 27 2008, 12:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Furthermore Bile,

Why are you comparing two completely different perspectives when Edward drew one with the same perspective? Not only are you misrepresenting what he drew but the image from the Sheraton does not equate to the satellite image. You are proving yourself a liar because Edward DID draw on a satellite image proving your claim false.

Here is what Edward drew:
Posted Image

Here is how you lied about his claim:
Posted Image

Why are you lying about his claim?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply