Tuesday, June 26, 2007


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud

Previously having shied away from the issue directly, superstar documentarian Michael Moore recently gave a video interview to 9/11 Truth activists that expressed support for their inside job beliefs. Two reporters from We Are Change.org and Infowars.com captured the interview and published it on June 20. This interview is big news on the internet in 9/11 circles for what the Infowars-affiliated Jones Report called Moore's “clear departure from the 'government negligence' picture he painted in his film Fahrenheit 9/11.” Since he made that film about three years ago, Moore told his interviewers, he’s had firefighters tell him of “explosions” at the World Trade center. He remarked that official investigations thus far “haven’t even told us HALF the truth,” and expressed hope for a new investigation.
Google video link to interview

Then he said “lemme just give you one thing that I’ve asked for for a long time,” and turned to and lingered on the Pentagon attack. Noting the well-surveilled nature of the area, he told the interviewer “I wanna see the video, I wanna see a hundred videos that exist of this. Why don’t they want us to see that plane coming in to the building?” This is of course the prime driver of suspicions over that strike – the fact that we haven’t seen it, except two low-res and dubious frames and trace only in another of the four videos released so far. Video masterlist Moore is aware of the other lines of questioning as well – the precision approach that we’re told took the plane into the Pentagon’s ground floor but without marking the lawn: “to hit a building that’s only five stories high that expertly uhh, I believe that there will be answers in that videotape and we should demand that tape.”
Moore talks animatedly about Pentagon video secrecy

The usual implication of video secrecy opponents is that they must be hiding something contrary or embarrassing. Personally I’m not so sure the tape would show us much other than what the witnesses and building damage have been saying so far. Even a precision guided 757 looks the same on video. But Moore is too vague on this to be called a fraudster just yet and to his credit, he neither agreed nor disagreed with the interviewers about another major no-757 issue - the ever-shrinking entry wound. When asked if he was aware the “the [impact] hole is about eight feet wide,” he said “I’m not very good at the physics [inaudible], but believe me, I intend in my own way to find some answers. Thank you for whatever you’re doing.”

This could prove interesting. If Moore adds his weight to the cameras issue, we may just finally see better what they’re hiding. Now taking bets! Oddly enough, Scott Bingham at Flight77.info, a pioneer in the video release field, is not terribly sanguine about this development:

Michael Moore wants to see the the 100 or so videos from cameras that ring the Pentagon. In our original lawsuit we asked for every video the government has. If there are indeed 100 or so videos with some of those showing the plane in flight as Moore suggests, I don't know how a person can (working within the system) get those videos if the government states they don't exist (as they have stated within our lawsuit). Again, I think the "9/11 Truth Movement" should focus its efforts away from the soup that is the 9/11 Pentagon story.
Source: http://www.flight77.info/

Thursday, June 21, 2007


Adam Larson/Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 21 2007
Updated 6/26

[Note: This investigation is done under terms of the Freedom of Information Act, requesting documents from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). I was spurrred to it by my suspicions over previous FOIA-obtained NTSB data published by Pilots for 911 Truth. ]

Before I even went the normal FOIA route, I first tried a different strategy, contacting the Public Affairs Department. This effort proved interesting but came to naught. I will write a post about that soon. I followed this up with a Freedom of Information Act request via the online form at the NTSB site:

I am lodging a request for items regarding aircraft no. N644AA American Airlines Flight 77 that crashed on September 11 2001. Items I would like to have sent to me:

1) any and all animations/reconstructions of the FDR data from Flight 77
- a working copy that others have received, including a erroneously-labeled time stamp. (this is available online for visual reference)
- If possible any other animations, like the one presented by the 9/11 Commission in a mid-2004 presentation, aired on C-Span, but for which I can find no information. If this was NTSB-produced and is releasable it would be very useful.

2) electronic attachments listed for the Specialist's Factual report (doc ID DCA01MAO64)
- DCA01MAO64_tabular.csv
- D226A101-3G.pdf
- 757-3b_1.txt

3) Other files:
- AAL77_tabular.csv (if different from CSV listed above)
- Original L3 compressed raw AA77 FDR file

I had despaired on reading "turnaround could range from 3 weeks to 1 year or more," as I filed my request on June 7. The response is dated June 12. It was put in my mailbox on the 15th or 16th while I was out of town and I found it on Sunday the 17th. This swift response paralled two other members at Above Top Secret.com, as well as John Farmer’s receipt at around the same time. Here is the letter I recieved [ny name is redacted here even though it’s on the article header on the off-chance this jpeg gets re-posted all over – my street address is also not something everyone needs to know].

It looks like pretty much the same thing everyone else has been getting, as Rob Balsamo (John Doe X) said I'd get if I asked. The same officer that signed Undertow’s and Snowygrouch’s letters, Melba D. Moye, the same wording, the more recent apology for the wrong time stamp, etc. Sound like the one I’m looking for. It informed me of my recent query, and stated “enclosed is the information you requested on a CD-ROM and a data DVD.” At the bottom are the words “enclosures: tpc,” whatever exactly that means.

So what's on the discs? I don't know. They weren't enclosed. The letter was folded in thirds, placed in a letter-size 8.5x3.75" envelope with nothing else. The envelope was not moisture sealed but secured with clear tape. My address was handwritten, and it had a proper looking address with the warning “official business penalty for private use $300.00” and a handwritten code C10-40 (FOIA).
I guessed maybe "enclosed" means in the mail, and started presuming I'd soon have my own copy of the green and purple cartoon with the wrong altitude, wrong lat/long plot, and wrong final bearing that Pilots for 911 Truth and others have been wondering over. But now it seems it’ll be slow in coming, and I’ll have to write in to get this figured out; “In the even that you perceive this response as a denial of some aspect of your request, you may appeal this response by writing” to the NTSB’s managing director Joseph Osterman. They’re all gonna know me real well down there before all this is done.

So while the animation’s direct link to the NTSB remains to be totally verified on my end, the letter sure looks like part of the overall pattern reported so far by FOIA recipients, and it appears I was probably in error for doubting the animation's NTSB pedigree. But strangely, I've been singled out for this silent treatment, some set of factors witholding total confirmation...


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Updated 6/21/07

(Split-off from the support columns masterlist)
----Let’s look at the roughly 12x16 foot hole apparent on the second floor, where the Foam Fraud has wrongly attracted attention as the main fuselage entry point. The ASCE reported "on the second floor, the facade was missing between column lines 11 and 15. This was caused by the impact of the upper parts of the Boeing - mostly tailfin and horizontal stabilizers. While "windows and their reinforcing frames were still in place between column lines 11 and 13," their Performance Report listed Column 14AA as “missing,” the only one so designated on the second floor. [1]

Yet through some magic, many 9/11 Truthers have found the column there and concluded no plane fuselage entered. Which is mostly true, since the main fuselage entered below that, a disconnect that pops up again and again. Here’s where it all comes back to: in the shot above, even the evident wall-removed hole between column lines 13 and 15 seems to have an intact and vertical support running down the middle of it. Ralph Omholt of Physics 911 noted this “vertical column, next to the purported entry hole on the second floor. Not even a small plane could have hit at the purported location, without destroying the column; inwardly. Note the general good condition of the windows; this wasn’t a major impact zone of a B-757.” [2]

Likewise, but more emphatically, Citizens Investigative Team, producers of the documentary The PentaCon, list this column as unequivocally present and one of their prime clues to look elsewhere for the missing 757. CIT co-founder and PentaCon narrator Aldo Marquis shared the above graphic and told me, in the Above Top secret forums:

“The biggest smoking gun besides the undamaged foundation and the no tail section damage is column 14AA. THIS reduces the size of the "fuselage hole.” It is clear that the two windows were blown out. Would it be more likely or less likely to leave a segment of column hanging in the middle of the "fuselage hole?" [3]

Again, this is not the main point of fuselage impact, but rather the tailfin hole, officially, which in a sense also discredits another of their smoking guns - hte lack of a tailfin hole. I set out to explain this to him, along with three other points. Here are the points I made, his responses in the discussion thread, and my responses to his responses (added here, after I decided it was useless to push it there):

Caustic Logic: THIS dangler is your smoking gun #2?
Marquis: “Yes. No amout of warping of the mind or rationalizing will not change that.”
(Well, that about set the tone…)

Caustic Logic: “1) Jim Hoffman: this “hanging object […] appears to consist in part of remains of the steel reinforcements that were part of column 14. […] it might have pivoted as the plane entered the building, and then fallen back into a vertical position.” [4]
Marquis: “"Might". Again, this is ridiculous. People like you and Jim Hoffman are dangerous to the truth. You will calmly suggest irrational suggestions in order that you mold the mind of the reader. I am not going to comment on Jim Hoffman's silly suggestion more than that. I may not be an expert, but neither is he. He is a software engineer. Not an aeronautical engineer or building engineer.”
(He ignored the point here, replacing defense entirely with offense. None of us are experts, but he feels he’s entitled to be right when he can’t even tell a plane’s nosecone impact from its tailfin hole.)

Caustic Logic: “2) Here’s how the plane is alleged to have entered. It doesn’t seem too odd to me that a partial column 14 might have survived the impact, attached at the top end but not the bottom.”
Marquis: “This is more deceptive artistic rendering.”
(Wrong. I only claimed it represented the official story, and it was carefully prepared to match that in all proportions. It may not be100% precise but accurate enough to make my point, which he entirely ignored, again.)

Caustic Logic: [referring to above “deceptive artistic rendering”] “3) Look at that fuselage top – it couldn’t permanently defy the 2nd floor slab plowing into it edgewise, but couldn’t help but dent it at that spot either. The ASCE agrees with me on this point that the slab shows signs of breaching there:” “The removal of the second-floor exterior column on column line 14, probably by the fuselage tail, suggests that the second-floor slab in this area was also severely damaged even before the building collapsed.” [5] I offered the shot below:
“Look at the glow in the center and notice the floor seems to start a ways in. Therefore C14 would have had no floor to anchor to.”
Marquis: “Nothing conclusive about that photo.”
(it’s one of those things you either see or don’t).

Caustic Logic: “4) Oddly enough, there is another famous shot that shows no column at all in that very spot. Pentagon photoshopping? Or dropped dangler? If this was such a mighty column that would have barred entry to a 757, then why did it disappear on its on within 20 minutes (before collapse)? Am I wrong? Did smoking gun #2 fall away of its own accord?”
Marquis: "Adam, we can not continue this dialog if you are going to be decpetive by using lower resolution photos. The column was there after the event. PERIOD."

Not period. Rather, comma, "apparently, in this one photograph." Okay, the pic I used was a little small, but is resolution really an issue when we have a span of evidence like this? Four of the clearest shots of the area I’m familiar with, which I've used above and elsewhere, and which the CIT themselves might've used: One shows column 14AA hanging in there after the fire foam was sprayed. In one (lower left), no foam has yet been sprayed and the damning column is not evident (though there may be hanging elements back in the smoke). The other two show again after the foam was applied no apparent vertical members. No sign. I’m remembering the old Sesame Street segment about which one of these things just doesn’t belong. It's the one with a column. And it’s one of their “smoking guns” no matter what, that led them to look at the eyewitnesses for an explanation of where the plane went if not into the building.

As we had started out:
Caustic Logic: Of course any realizations would be too little too late of course, and I don't expect a course change.
Marquis: Apparently I should expect the same with you.
Apparently we were both right.
[1] Mlakar, Paul et al. “The Pentagon Building Performance Report.” American Society of Civil Engineers. January 2003. P 17 PDF version. www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
[2]Omholt, Ralph. “9-11 and the IMPOSSIBLE: The Pentagon. Part One of An Online Journal of 9-11.” Physics 911. Undated. http://physics911.net/omholt
[3] Posted by Aldo Marquis June 9 2007, 11:36 am, at: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread286140/pg4
(Cited responses on following pages of the thread)
[4] Hoffman, Jim. ERROR: 'Surviving Columns Preclude 757 Crash' http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/columns.html
[5] See 1 – page 37.

Monday, June 4, 2007


June 4 2007

I haven't been able to post anything new, update my old posts, or respond to new comments lately, as I've just stumbled into a major hullaballoo about the supposed NTSB flight path animation for Flight 77. In the post TEN DEGREES FROM TRUE: THE "NTSB ANIMATION" IS FLAT WRONG, first done at Above top secret.com the same night (May 27) I outlined my case as to why the animation discrepancy Pilots for 9/11 Truth had used for their video Pandora's Black Box actually worked against the Pilots. This is becuase it is internally inconsistent, showing both a 90 and a 70 degree heading at the same time, and because of it's unclear paper trail and NTSB pedigree.

Frequent references to a "new" animation that popped up during the thread turned out to be another copy of the same animation also said to be from the NTSB. This DVD was recieved May 24 and posted online May 26. Also The Pilots had just re-obtained it themselves, all the same problems and all, this time with a better cover letter and stronger NTSB linkage. The shadow possibility that this blatantly wrong animation is indeed from the officials on high is now directly the possibility I'm looking at, with all that implies or doesn't.

I had no idea all this was happening as I started that thread based on what I knew - oops - and now I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed, as Pilots founder John Doe X is calling me and my cohorts out for not knowing our stuff, and challenging us to contact the NTSB ourselves. But it's too late to turn back now, and the next step is indeed to get some information from the NTSB myself.

So nothing new right now, but this week I'll have something to report.