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 (2,638 Views)
nicepants

Posted Image

Posted Image

Looks like 2 different paths to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Looks like 2 different perspectives to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bileduct

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


I swear that you just told me in another thread that witnesseses such as "Veronica" and "Mrs. Hubbard" didn't give you a flight path (even though they both indicated the plane was headed in the direction of I395).

Now you're telling me that they support Edward Paik's angle of approach, which puts the plane to the north of I395.

How far can you reach before you snap?
Edited by bileduct, Jan 27 2008, 07:00 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 27 2008, 04:58 PM
Looks like 2 different perspectives to me.
It's not the same path even if you adjust the perspective. Look at where it goes over the buildings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

This is what Edward saw, described, and drew.
Posted Image
Posted Image

Draw a line from where Jamal saw the plane, make it NOT hit the Sheraton, and you have your angle of approach.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 28 2008, 10:32 AM
This is what Edward saw, described, and drew.
Posted Image
Posted Image

Draw a line from where Jamal saw the plane, make it NOT hit the Sheraton, and you have your angle of approach.
Edward's path doesn't have it going the same direction you show in those photos.

But, then again, edward has drawn 2 different paths.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Draw a line based on the witness statements starting with Jamal and ending with the citgo witnesses. We based our flight path estimation on all of this evidence. We only expect them to be approximately correct and understand how they are not computers. Go ahead....draw your own flight path based on this evidence and post it for everyone to see. Thanks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 28 2008, 12:05 PM
Draw a line based on the witness statements starting with Jamal and ending with the citgo witnesses. We based our flight path estimation on all of this evidence. We only expect them to be approximately correct and understand how they are not computers. Go ahead....draw your own flight path based on this evidence and post it for everyone to see. Thanks.
The line would have to be a couple of football fields wide to be able to match up with all of your witness accounts & drawings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 28 2008, 12:39 PM
The line would have to be a couple of football fields wide to be able to match up with all of your witness accounts & drawings.
Huh?

No it doesn't.

You simply approximate where each of them places the plane.....make a plot point on a map for each placement and draw a line.

This is what we came up with:
Posted Image
Posted Image

Go ahead, give it a try.

Draw your own estimation based on this evidence.
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 28 2008, 12:45 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 28 2008, 12:44 PM
nicepants
Jan 28 2008, 12:39 PM
The line would have to be a couple of football fields wide to be able to match up with all of your witness accounts & drawings.
Huh?

No it doesn't.

You simply approximate where each of them places the plane.....make a plot point on a map for each placement and draw a line.

This is what we came up with:
Posted Image
Posted Image

Go ahead, give it a try.

Draw your own estimation based on this evidence.
Yes, they do....Lagasse draws it far north, and brooks has it over the middle of the trees. Approximately 700 feet apart, but I digress.

You want one line for each? We would have about 8 or 10 lines.

Unless you draw a line that's about 700 feet wide, you will be drawing a line that contradicts one or more of your witnesses.
Edited by nicepants, Jan 28 2008, 01:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Perhaps you don't get it yet so let me explain it once more.

Witnesses are not computers. It is not reasonable for you to expect any of them to be perfectly correct about a "flight path" of a plane they saw for about 2 or 3 seconds with a limited vantage point.

It is reasonable to expect them to be approximately correct and to estimate the approximate placement of the plane based on their statements.

Do that for each witness, estimate a single point on the map for each and draw a line connecting them.

This will give you a fight path estimate based on ALL the data.

This is how we estimated the approximate flight path that we present.

Go ahead, give it a try and post what you come up with.

Thanks.
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 28 2008, 01:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 28 2008, 01:46 PM
Perhaps you don't get it yet so let me explain it once more.

Witnesses are not computers. It is not reasonable for you to expect any of them to be perfectly correct about a "flight path" of a plane they saw for about 2 or 3 seconds with a limited vantage point.

It is reasonable to expect them to be approximately correct and to estimate the approximate placement of the plane based on their statements.

Do that for each witness, estimate a single point on the map for each and draw a line connecting them.

This will give you a fight path estimate based on ALL the data.

This is how we estimated the approximate flight path that we present.

Go ahead, give it a try and post what you come up with.

Thanks.
So instead of drawing a path that agrees with each witness, you just find some kind of average?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 28 2008, 02:43 PM
So instead of drawing a path that agrees with each witness, you just find some kind of average?
Since it is only reasonable to expect them to be approximately correct and since all witnesses have a very limited vantage point from different perspectives it makes more sense to simply consider their individual placement of the plane in general rather than any individual continuous flight path that by nature would be more prone to errors.

Placement in general is much easier for any witness to determine or remember than exact heading, direction etc.

And since the most accurate way to determine the flight path would be to consider ALL of their individual placements of the plane, and since we know there can only be one flight path, yes.....

The best way to estimate the flight path is to consider the approximate placement of the plane from each witness and average them out.

This is what we have done.

Go ahead, try it yourself and post what you come up with.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 28 2008, 03:08 PM
The best way to estimate the flight path is to consider the approximate placement of the plane from each witness and average them out.


I disagree. Plotting an "average" of each account guarantees that you get the wrong result.

Using that kind of logic, if someone says they saw a white plane, and someone else says the plane was black, you would figure the average and conclude that the plane was grey. The problem here being that NO one reported a grey plane...you've just done made a conclusion that contradicts both witnesses.
Edited by nicepants, Jan 28 2008, 03:21 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 28 2008, 03:20 PM
Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 28 2008, 03:08 PM
The best way to estimate the flight path is to consider the approximate placement of the plane from each witness and average them out.


I disagree. Plotting an "average" of each account guarantees that you get the wrong result.

Using that kind of logic, if someone says they saw a white plane, and someone else says the plane was black, you would figure the average and conclude that the plane was grey. The problem here being that NO one reported a grey plane...you've just done made a conclusion that contradicts both witnesses.
But there is no need to determine the exact placement of the plane or a flight path at all.

We only need to determine the approximate placement of the plane in relation to the citgo to prove a deception.

It is unreasonable to suggest that it is even possible to determine the exact placement of the plane from witness statements.

So to say it's "wrong" would not be accurate since our only claim is that the approximate placement is correct.

Your analogy of determining color is completely irrelevant to the placement of the plane.

In fact read this analogy that underscores this point perfectly:

100 written witness statements exist regarding a massive fatal car accident between a 4 door sedan and a truck on a particular corner of a busy intersection in the center of town. The accident was caused by a dog on the road. 7 credible witnesses who frequent the intersection on a daily basis before and since the accident were interviewed a few years later, most on location. 2 are local police officers.

All 7 independently state the accident occurred on the same corner of the intersection. None of the other 93 written statements directly contradict this claim. Would a jury be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the 7 are correct about which corner of the intersection the accident was on?

To expand on this........the 7 witnesses differed in regards to the exact color and make of the car and truck involved but all matched as far as more general details like the fact that it was a 4 door sedan and a truck. Would this cause the jury to completely dismiss all of their testimony?

Also......none of the 7 witnesses saw the dog and were fully convinced that it was the fault of the truck driver. Does this mean the dog did not cause the accident, that the truck driver was at fault, or that their placement of the accident on the same corner should be dismissed?



Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 28 2008, 04:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 28 2008, 04:02 PM
nicepants
Jan 28 2008, 03:20 PM
Craig Ranke CIT
Jan 28 2008, 03:08 PM
The best way to estimate the flight path is to consider the approximate placement of the plane from each witness and average them out.


I disagree. Plotting an "average" of each account guarantees that you get the wrong result.

Using that kind of logic, if someone says they saw a white plane, and someone else says the plane was black, you would figure the average and conclude that the plane was grey. The problem here being that NO one reported a grey plane...you've just done made a conclusion that contradicts both witnesses.
But there is no need to determine the exact placement of the plane or a flight path at all.

We only need to determine the approximate placement of the plane in relation to the citgo to prove a deception.

A difference of 300 feet would place some paths south of the citgo.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
It is unreasonable to suggest that it is even possible to determine the exact placement of the plane from witness statements.


I don't suggest that they be exact, but an error of 300 feet, for example, is enough to place it on the other side of the citgo

Craig Ranke CIT
 
Your analogy of determining color is completely irrelevant to the placement of the plane.


Why is my analogy irrelevant? You're making a conclusion that's contradictory to what your witnesses reported, just as in my analogy. If you believe mine is irrelevant, be detailed as to why.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
In fact read this analogy that underscores this point perfectly:


FYI: An analogy usually isn't supposed to be more complicated than the situation that it alludes to, but I'll play along anyways:

How do we know that all 7 witnesses are correct about where the accident took place?
Edited by nicepants, Jan 28 2008, 04:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

nicepants
Jan 28 2008, 04:10 PM

A difference of 300 feet would place some paths south of the citgo.

What does the "difference" between them have to do with any individual path or the average between them?

Nothing. However, even still, the physical damage path is closest to Robert and is at least 500 feet away from him so even if the plane was on the complete opposite side of the station from what they all say within 300 feet it still wouldn't line up with the light poles or physical damage.

Of course there is no logic in ignoring their vantage point and the fact that they all place it on the north side.



Quote:
 

I don't suggest that they be exact, but an error of 300 feet, for example, is enough to place it on the other side of the citgo


But not line up with the physical damage so 9/11 is STILL proven to be an inside job.



Quote:
 


Why is my analogy irrelevant? You're making a conclusion that's contradictory to what your witnesses reported, just as in my analogy. If you believe mine is irrelevant, be detailed as to why.


My analogy explained this in detail for you.



Quote:
 



How do we know that all 7 witnesses are correct about where the accident took place?


Because the high level of independent corroboration would prove it beyond a reasonable doubt according to any jury on earth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
nicepants

Craig Ranke CIT
 
nicepants
Jan 28 2008, 04:10 PM

A difference of 300 feet would place some paths south of the citgo.

What does the "difference" between them have to do with any individual path or the average between them?

Nothing. However, even still, the physical damage path is closest to Robert and is at least 500 feet away from him so even if the plane was on the complete opposite side of the station from what they all say within 300 feet it still wouldn't line up with the light poles or physical damage.

Of course there is no logic in ignoring their vantage point and the fact that they all place it on the north side.


The logic would be that further investigation needs to take place, because your witnesses contradict themselves and each other.

Craig Ranke CIT
 
Quote:
 

I don't suggest that they be exact, but an error of 300 feet, for example, is enough to place it on the other side of the citgo


But not line up with the physical damage so 9/11 is STILL proven to be an inside job.


But it would prove that your witnesses were all wrong, wouldn't it?


Stundie
 
Quote:
 


Why is my analogy irrelevant? You're making a conclusion that's contradictory to what your witnesses reported, just as in my analogy. If you believe mine is irrelevant, be detailed as to why.


My analogy explained this in detail for you.


Your analogy did not explain the supposed errors in my analogy.


Craig Ranke CIT
 
Quote:
 



How do we know that all 7 witnesses are correct about where the accident took place?


Because the high level of independent corroboration would prove it beyond a reasonable doubt according to any jury on earth.


Not if the jury is shown physical evidence that doesn't agree with the witnesses' claims.
Is it possible for the witnesses to be wrong and still agree?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply