9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

New Interview With Pentagon Witness Confirms CIT Reports And Findings ( Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum ) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=19556

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_images/ip.boardpr/menu_action_down-padded.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat; cursor: pointer; background-position: 100% 50%; ">rob balsamo
post Yesterday, 08:00 PM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 7,692
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



First a bit of background....

As we know, there are some who claim they are searching for the Truth, yet spend most of their days and nights attacking CIT (and P4T) due to our work.

Recently, an individual who constantly spends his time attempting to discredit and attack CIT (and me personally from what i hear) has moved to the DC area from what i understand. I wont mention any names as i refuse to give him and his minions such publicity. But many of you already know who he is and which group of people he travels. It is a group who spend most of their time gossiping and attacking others. This reminds me of an old saying...

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people."


With that said, these people have taken a small break in their gossping about others and decided to actually go out and interview witnesses.

A recent paper was published by one of the above mentioned individuals who recently interviewed Ed Paik. This individual thinks he debunked CIT's research and that Paik statements when researched thoroughly support the South Flight Path as required by the govt story and physical damage.

Some excerpts from his paper and interviewing Ed Paik.
(Again, original author name edited due to the fact we wish to give him as little publicity as possible)

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_images/ip.boardpr/css_img_quote.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: rgb(228, 234, 242); border-top-width: 1px; border-right-width: 1px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 4px; border-top-style: dotted; border-right-style: dotted; border-bottom-style: initial; border-left-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-bottom-color: initial; border-left-color: rgb(131, 148, 178); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; margin-top: 2px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: auto; padding-top: 3px; padding-right: 3px; padding-bottom: 3px; padding-left: 3px; background-position: 100% 50%; ">QUOTE
III. From inside the office, Ed Paik saw the right wing- and perhaps the fuselage

Ed Paik’s testimony is consistent from 2006 and 2010 regarding his being in the office when the plane passed by. It’s also consistent in that, in addition to the loud jet sound and his impression that the plane was very low, he clearly recalls seeing a big, black wing (Ed saw the wing from underneath, shadowed from the sun). The only significant difference is that in the 2006 LC/CIT/Pickering interview, he said he saw the body of the plane (perhaps an engine?), which he described as “gray” (similar to an American Airlines plane). Also in the 2006 interview, he said he believed the right wing tip was extending over Columbia Pike- far enough to hit the VDOT tower:

RP: "Did you see anything about the airplane, how many engines, what color, anything about the plane?"

Ed Paik: "Uh, no, I just only- feeling's it looks like a- black wing- very huge, black wing. That's what I saw then."

Aldo Marquis and another person: "Black wings?"

Ed: "Yeah."

Aldo: "Do you remember what color the plane, the body was?"

Ed: "Body's look like gray- kind of gray. And the wing- underneath wing is looked like, uh, black, because I saw it like (turns head, then turns back, motioning with hands, fast). Soon as the uh- passed, away. (Avery 0:56, Larson 5:41)

------

Russell Pickering: "In relation to your street, would you say like here's one wing tip, here's another wing tip- right in the middle of the airplane, where would you put that in relation to the street?"

Ed Paik: "Right wing; right wing is at the end of the street. Left wing, I cannot see the (inaudible). Right wing is at end of street."

Russell: "The right wing was as far out as the tower, so the center of the airplane was near the road."

Ed: "Yeah, on the road, yeah. That's why it hit the antenna." (Avery 2:44, Larson 6:20)

[snip]

In my interview of him, Ed says that he did not see the body, but he describes the wing as a “triangle”. Considering Ed’s 2010 statement describing the wing as a “triangle” in conjunction with his 2006 statement in which he describes the body as gray, it may be that he saw the wing close to the base, and that he got a glimpse of the fuselage in 2001- enough to recall its color, in 2006.

2010.... interview:

EL: "To be clear, when you looked outside, how much of the plane could you see- just the wing part, or could you see any of the body?"

Ed Paik: "No. Just the- body side- [points to his roof] my roof side [places hand above his head] "

E: "OK, so all you saw was the wing."

Ed: "Right hand side, the wing. That is my feeling -because- if I see the one that is left-hand side, then I can see the body, and [inaudible]. But I don't see anything, only kind of a triangle side [makes shape with hands]- kind of an- a wing [motions with right hand, West to East]. One second or two."

E: "What do you mean, 'triangle side'?"

Ed: "Looks like [traces out triangle shape with hands]- right-hand side"

Erik: "It was like the right wing, that you saw?"

Ed: "Right wing, that's right." (4:51 - segment starts at 4:19)


So, it's clear through all interviews that Ed only saw the right wing and perhaps the fuselage.

Some argue that Ed thinks the aircraft was closer to his shop due to the fact the shadow of the aircraft may havepassed over his shop with the aircraft still on the south path as needed to cause the physical damage at the Pentagon. This is impossible as demonstrated below.

I have constructed a 3D scale model of the Arlington area as most of you who are familiar with our presentation of "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon" already know. The software used is able to depict the exact position of the sun and cast shadows during render exactly as positioned on 9/11/01 at 09:37am in Arlington, VA.

(Instructions here on how such sun direction is obtained in 3D Software. Just a quick search i did as i clicked the first hit. You can find much more through google "physical sun and sky").

Without further ado.... i'll let the images speak for themselves.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/North_South_Shadow720x480_TEXT.jpg)

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Paik_POV_North_South_Sun720x480_TE...)

Altitude for South Path Aircraft based on Flight Data Recorder decode performed by Warren Stutt.

Altitude for North Path Aircraft based on statements made by Ed Paik.

If anyone would like to confirm the Sun data.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/p4t/Sun_Altit...h_091101%20.txt
Source based on data obtained from here.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php

I can also make animations of the above if needed but it will take a very long time due to my machine is a bit ancient and the Arlington 3D region i constructed is very graphics intensive. Please feel free to help us grow and become more efficient by picking up a DVD package or making a contribution through our ChipIn applet at the bottom of the forum.

Conclusion: The latest interview with Ed Paik initiated by our detractors further supports a North Approach as originally reported by CIT. It is physically impossible for an aircraft on the North Approach to cause the physical damage at the Pentagon.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_images/ip.boardpr/menu_action_down-padded.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat; cursor: pointer; background-position: 100% 50%; ">Craig Ranke CIT
post Yesterday, 09:25 PM
Post #2





Group: Contributor
Posts: 914
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Thanks for that Rob!

A full response from CIT regarding this "attack" that actually only helped independently confirm that we reported Ed Paik's north side approach description accurately is here:

CIT rebuttal to" Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts vs. CIT Methods"
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_images/ip.boardpr/menu_action_down-padded.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat; cursor: pointer; background-position: 100% 50%; ">rob balsamo
post Yesterday, 09:49 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 7,692
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_images/ip.boardpr/css_img_quote.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: rgb(228, 234, 242); border-top-width: 1px; border-right-width: 1px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 4px; border-top-style: dotted; border-right-style: dotted; border-bottom-style: initial; border-left-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-right-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-bottom-color: initial; border-left-color: rgb(131, 148, 178); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; margin-top: 2px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: auto; padding-top: 3px; padding-right: 3px; padding-bottom: 3px; padding-left: 3px; background-position: 100% 50%; ">QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Feb 4 2010, 09:25 PM) *
Thanks for that Rob!


Anytime bud. Those people are their own worst enemy...lol

FYI, Farmer introduced me to the above software back in 2007. He started learning it before i did.

From what i understand, he still cannot combine poly's properly, hasnt a clue with respect to lighting... the list goes on.

Not surprising considering the idiot couldnt even understand basic G Loading and Vector analysis.

Is it any wonder why he refuses to debate us and instead attacks us daily? (from what im told...)

Whatever..lol

By the way, Will Clinger? Remember that guy? Supposedly an "MIT PhD" who is obsessed with my work but refuses to sign up here or confront us directly? Well, for some reason...(hmmm...lol) ... he is no longer able to keep his libel and defamation filled web pages on his Northeastern University server. He recently was forced to pay a commercial host to upload his bullshit obsession with me.

And from what i understand, he is going to be paying a lot more if he doesnt get his act together.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_images/ip.boardpr/menu_action_down-padded.gif); background-repeat: no-repeat; cursor: pointer; background-position: 100% 50%; ">tumetuestumefais...
post Today, 11:34 AM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 531
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



Very nice job Rob, looks like this snakes on the end bite their tail and dust. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

Views: 42

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service