First Posting
9/24/08, 2am
updated 9/28, 11 pm
Alright, so at the JREF, this "Turbofan" character has been making a lot of noise in Anti-Sophist's FDR thread, criticizing the "pros" there and acting as if he knows everything about Flight data recorders, and along the way hinting at the old Balsamo sticking-point, the refusal of sane people to debate him on the phone. Well, I'm only half-sane, and offered to accept his challenge on condition he send me two dozen homemade cranberry muffins. He unexpectedly took me up, and after a series of PMs where we started out actually haggling over the muffins, we decided on last night. I was at work, but took a break when he called, about 5:45pm, put the speakerphone on, and recorded my fairly down-key conversation with Tino, as he gives his true name. For those familiar with his on-screen persona, so remarkable arrogant and Balsamo-esque, his real-time discussion manner is so much more - Canadian. It's almost like two different people, and the Tino I talked with in fact knew little about FDRs, having only garnered his knowledge from talking with PfffT, and couldn't even cite the values that were so discrepant in the final frame of data. The audio turned out pretty decent, and as soon as I decide a good way to share it, and for good measure confirm his consent to do so, well, then I'll do so, and add some notes and stuff.
---
Here's the audio
Boomp3.com
Additional Notes: [apologies for being so slow. I'm fairly busy elsewhere these days]. Regarding the audio, the line noise came out worse than I though - unshielded cables, please try to ignore. I figure there's no point in arguing for a win with a sock puppet or irrational person who's simply set in their course; as Swift says, via Pomeroo, "you can't reason someone out of something he was never reasoned into." So I may come across soft, but hardness hardly seemed necessary against this underwhelming opponent, and I was speaking to the (hypothetical) reasonable person inside who's ready to stop being led astray. Other notes later.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
PILOTS FOR 2+2=5
September 21 2008
possible updates
For what it's worth, Pilots For 9/11 Truth recently released a new video based on math and stupid, that tries to say some stuff about the Pentagon attack. They're hoping to sell it, and so maybe have a breakthrough to push it with, like finally deciding on a theory of what did happen rather than just raising leading questions pointing towards no plane hit, held back out of "professional caution" and responsibility. LMAO. Please do not buy it, unless you support their long-running practical joke on gullible suckers. I don't even plan to watch it, but their talking points about the video focus on the presence of some serious math to correct their earlier egregious errors, months in the process of correcting. I'm fully capable of understanding the formulas I either failed to learn or forgot after High School, but only with the kind of time and attention I won't devote to facts whose only purpose is to debunk stupid shit I already know is wrong. Therefore, for those inclined to follow the math, especially those who lean towards believing the video, here is a link to John farmer's posts breaking down the "errors."
PFT Fantasy Flight Path and further analysis.
Myself, I don't feel like wasting any time on this. But if I change my mind, I'll plunk more stuff into this link. This is quite sparse, so I'm sure I'll have to add something.
---
Their G-Force on final descent analysis was relesed for viewing in a promo short video. Essentially, it’s a response to their epic 11.2 G error (admitted even!), first proposed in the Arlington Topography piece earlier this year. The correction was several months in the making, and only slightly different - 10.14G in the best case scenario. Now 11.2 Gs was waaaay off from what everyone more reasonable found, and it would appear the reason for the still-large gap is that peoples’ presumptions differed. His descent path is shown here in yellow, my notes added.
They presume, as I knew, a descent from just above the antenna tower to low enough to strike the first light pole by the time it got there. Two problems – it did indeed have to end where they show, but not start. The antenna tower is maybe 5 feet wide, and there’s no evidence if it was directly over, to the left, or to the right of it. All we know is close, and judging by eyewitness accounts, it was considerably lower than the top, so either left or right (and I’m banking on left, or north).
There is some evidence the antenna may well have been damaged, but it's not conclusive. If true, this would leave PffT's initial altitude presumption nearly correct, and contradicts the lowness described by both Morin and Paik. What correlates is a plane tens of feet above the Annex roof, I'd say closer to 30-50 feet above rather than 90-110 above as PfffT decide is the "lowest possible." It would be laterally quite near the tower, near enough to seem to have impacted it near the top. This would put it over Columbia Pike, and and running near-parallel the building's edge. Numerous witnesses (including Paik via gestures and Morin via seeing stripes on one side) confirm the plane was in a mild left bank, with right wing high. If the plane passed north of the tower, the right wingtip would be nearest the tower and its antenna at the top.
So, the descent from altitude, at the very least, cannot resonably be presumed as directly above the tower, greatly effecting the steepness of the resultant dive to the light poles. Second, and more important, the nature of the dive change is at issue – he has a sudden pivot, two straight lines bumping into each other, rather than like an actual plane's single uninterrupted parabolic curving movements. Ooops! My first comment was that this descent “has been sponsored by the letter L,” ala Sesame Street, and Reheat and other JREFers aptly took to calling it the ‘hockey stick’ descent. [Horatius did a funny comic strip on it] Apply sharp corners to “alleged” flight paths and you’ll force all change to one point and get unrealistic G-force calculations. Thanks PfffT for illustrating bad reasoning at work. Now just up the volume on the certainty language and demands for phone debates, and you can perhaps at least provoke people into wasting time, as a consolation prize for not being accurate.
Discussion on the G-Force video:
Pilots For 911 Truth
JREF
Above Top Secret
CIT forum
possible updates
For what it's worth, Pilots For 9/11 Truth recently released a new video based on math and stupid, that tries to say some stuff about the Pentagon attack. They're hoping to sell it, and so maybe have a breakthrough to push it with, like finally deciding on a theory of what did happen rather than just raising leading questions pointing towards no plane hit, held back out of "professional caution" and responsibility. LMAO. Please do not buy it, unless you support their long-running practical joke on gullible suckers. I don't even plan to watch it, but their talking points about the video focus on the presence of some serious math to correct their earlier egregious errors, months in the process of correcting. I'm fully capable of understanding the formulas I either failed to learn or forgot after High School, but only with the kind of time and attention I won't devote to facts whose only purpose is to debunk stupid shit I already know is wrong. Therefore, for those inclined to follow the math, especially those who lean towards believing the video, here is a link to John farmer's posts breaking down the "errors."
PFT Fantasy Flight Path and further analysis.
Myself, I don't feel like wasting any time on this. But if I change my mind, I'll plunk more stuff into this link. This is quite sparse, so I'm sure I'll have to add something.
---
Their G-Force on final descent analysis was relesed for viewing in a promo short video. Essentially, it’s a response to their epic 11.2 G error (admitted even!), first proposed in the Arlington Topography piece earlier this year. The correction was several months in the making, and only slightly different - 10.14G in the best case scenario. Now 11.2 Gs was waaaay off from what everyone more reasonable found, and it would appear the reason for the still-large gap is that peoples’ presumptions differed. His descent path is shown here in yellow, my notes added.
They presume, as I knew, a descent from just above the antenna tower to low enough to strike the first light pole by the time it got there. Two problems – it did indeed have to end where they show, but not start. The antenna tower is maybe 5 feet wide, and there’s no evidence if it was directly over, to the left, or to the right of it. All we know is close, and judging by eyewitness accounts, it was considerably lower than the top, so either left or right (and I’m banking on left, or north).
Terry Morin: “I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude.”
Edward Paik: "It almost hit my roof [...] If [the plane was a] little bit lower… it would have hit the [Navy Annex] building almost it seemed like. [The wing] knocked down the antenna… the plane was in the middle of the road… that’s why it hit the Antenna."
There is some evidence the antenna may well have been damaged, but it's not conclusive. If true, this would leave PffT's initial altitude presumption nearly correct, and contradicts the lowness described by both Morin and Paik. What correlates is a plane tens of feet above the Annex roof, I'd say closer to 30-50 feet above rather than 90-110 above as PfffT decide is the "lowest possible." It would be laterally quite near the tower, near enough to seem to have impacted it near the top. This would put it over Columbia Pike, and and running near-parallel the building's edge. Numerous witnesses (including Paik via gestures and Morin via seeing stripes on one side) confirm the plane was in a mild left bank, with right wing high. If the plane passed north of the tower, the right wingtip would be nearest the tower and its antenna at the top.
So, the descent from altitude, at the very least, cannot resonably be presumed as directly above the tower, greatly effecting the steepness of the resultant dive to the light poles. Second, and more important, the nature of the dive change is at issue – he has a sudden pivot, two straight lines bumping into each other, rather than like an actual plane's single uninterrupted parabolic curving movements. Ooops! My first comment was that this descent “has been sponsored by the letter L,” ala Sesame Street, and Reheat and other JREFers aptly took to calling it the ‘hockey stick’ descent. [Horatius did a funny comic strip on it] Apply sharp corners to “alleged” flight paths and you’ll force all change to one point and get unrealistic G-force calculations. Thanks PfffT for illustrating bad reasoning at work. Now just up the volume on the certainty language and demands for phone debates, and you can perhaps at least provoke people into wasting time, as a consolation prize for not being accurate. Discussion on the G-Force video:
Pilots For 911 Truth
JREF
Above Top Secret
CIT forum
Saturday, September 13, 2008
FAA? WTF?
FAA'S NoC ANIMATION
first posting Sept 13 2008, 12 am
Last update 10/8 2am
So, John Farmer is, I guess, back from Arlington and has received reams of new data, this time from the FAA. He alerted Arabesque and I via e-mail.
I get a lot of these from him and don't even usually keep up. But the second e-mail here, about the included animation, made me sit up and take notice.
It shows, more or less, CIT's concocted path over the Navy Annex, with a hard hard right bank/turn and a passage north of the citgo, followed by low level impact (higher only to allow the right wing). I have just been in the middle of laying out the overabundance of North-path clues (there should be roughly nil), including the NTSB's earlier animation to similar effect, so this was doubly ironic as it hit me. This is so insane, the easiest explanation I can think of is... Farmer's pulling my leg?
Two stills, with real and CIT paths (quite app) in the usual colors overlaid. These are from the Youtube version, but Farmer made a higher resolution version available for download and viewing.
---first thoughts, unedited
Any thoughts, people? All I can think of is what - the - fuck?
Or, wait... mmmaybe FAA based it on radar and/or FDR up to the end of that data (the loop and all looks fine on first glance) and then stupidly tried to fuse in the NTSB's apparent final moments, hoping they had some reason for putting it on that path for the seconds they were missing (I'd guess 6-10?) ... Just mysteries. This is going to turn out interestingly.
---
Further Developments
Discussion on this took off all over with the expected rapidity, but a more dynamic embrace than some expected.
CIT Forum discussion Craig and Aldo, who seethe with venom against Farmer, and aren't 'taking the bait' as it were. They speak of "chess moves" and such... Very sophisticated over there, their apprehension and ruminations! On the other hand, many like Rob Balsamo at the PfffT forum were giggling with excitement, while CIT strongly advised caution, leading to a curious argument about which dishonest track to take. CIT messenger Domenick DiMaggio (aka Terrocell, TC329) also started a JREF discussion thread about it, stating at one point:
Whatwhatwhat? Nonetheless, this is where things took off with both confusion and learning. First, beyond disseminating it, the FAA seem to have no role in this short video. JREF member Gumboot first questioned their authenticity and/or their relevance, but over the first couple pages identified the logos onscreen (www.stk.com and HQ NORAD/USSPACE/AN), and found STK was the Satellite Tool Kit Radar module, marketed by Analytical Graphics, Inc. (AGI), a company that makes software for "national security and space professionals for integrated analysis of land, sea, air, and space assets." He noted "the big golf ball things" seemed to be FAA Long Range Radar sites, and decided this may well be "a radar-based map for NORAD purposes," possibly "to determine which radar sites AA77 passed through, so that 84th RADES knew which data to collect for their analysis." Definitely getting somewhere.
Radar based... north path... I would have figure it out eventually, but Celestrin beat me to it. No wonder CIT were apprehensive - they knew about the false return placed for whatever reason, just north of the Citgo, and I had to point out that it wasn't their north path plane, at least 1,000 feet to low for radar to see. Celestrin made the connect:
I looked at it a bit the other night and did some graphic comparisons just to see what patterns popped out. I took the peach map from the NTSB's Flight Path Study and set the final map of the animation over it [below]. Note the apparent offset in rotation and location of the loop cross point. I'm not actually sure if the whole path is rotated, or this is just a local distortion from roughness. It is rough and unrealistic in its movements.
Farmer instantly pointed out "Look at the loop you idiots, it is a square with rounded corners!" I noticed this too, as did Celestrin. The "squarish" appearance of the turn manuever also suggests that the data, which was used in the animation, wasn't continous." Given 12-second intervals between returns is "too fine for the animation," he wondered "what if one takes the RADES data 1 minute apart," or every fifth radar return, and got this.
When I marked the spots where straight lines start curving, and overlaid it with the 84 RADES returns for the loop, it looks more like this was based on taking every other 84 RADES return (pink dots) as anchor points, and replaced the intervening ones with straight lines or full curves, depending.
This in turn may be a clue to the north path’s appearance. Consider this pattern in light of these final three points of RADES data (the points stupidly connected above]. There may be a different dynamic at play here, but it seems similar in pattern – draw a straight line to, or near, the north point, and then a sharp curve to try and meet, or orbit, the next aberrant return just south of impact. Considering there may be a rotation of the path relative to the map, or vice-versa, and perhaps a slight spatial offset, the actual mapped curve may not be where it looks to be onscreen. Interestingly, when I rotate the line to fit the real path, the turn is about seven degrees, or the amount the NTSB's final map was rotated from its own lat-long grid. [Propos to Farmer for the background image establishing the real path beyond a reasonable doubt]. This is not my final answer, but I'm pretty sure it's close to correct, or on the right track at least.
---
More on the source
Pilots for 911 Truth forum member "Paranoia" looked at AGI's STK.com website and found some interesting information verifying Gumboot's ID. [link]. Of interest is a winter 2002 presentation by AGI President and CEO Paul Graziani, regarding their 9/11 animations. The accompanying powerpoint presentation confirms he's discussing this very simulation - it's pictured on page 5. In his delivered remarks [PDF link ], Graziani explained to assembled conventioneers how "actual FAA radar data was used to accurately recreate the events and model the flight paths of hijacked airlines as well as the responding military aircraft." Actual data, it would seem so. Accurate, only sorta... Of interest is the line "complex problems that once took weeks or months to complete, now take only seconds or minutes when employing software capabilities." Maybe they should have at least spent hours on this one.
Additional update: Just to clarify, this is a NORAD product, not FAA. This powerpoint presentation, from a June 2002 STK users conference, explains the project a little. It covered all four flights, plus responding fighters, all from FAA-supplied radar data.
---
The Video: I refined slightly the final returns angle, and put it together in video form, viewable with notes here.
first posting Sept 13 2008, 12 am
Last update 10/8 2am
So, John Farmer is, I guess, back from Arlington and has received reams of new data, this time from the FAA. He alerted Arabesque and I via e-mail.
The FAA has sent me via certified mail all of the records I requested in my Court action. It is going to take the entire weekend to go through it all, but it looks like the ATC audio and radar records for 1332 – 1344 for Washington ARTCC, Dulles, Reagan, Andrews and Baltimore.
If this turns out to be everything I think it is, then CIT is going to be squirming a little more.
I get a lot of these from him and don't even usually keep up. But the second e-mail here, about the included animation, made me sit up and take notice.
I attempted to send you guys the whole video, but it was too big for some mailboxes. You are the first to see this (I hope) and you just know CIT and Rob are gonna love it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQsyt_7c1H8
It shows, more or less, CIT's concocted path over the Navy Annex, with a hard hard right bank/turn and a passage north of the citgo, followed by low level impact (higher only to allow the right wing). I have just been in the middle of laying out the overabundance of North-path clues (there should be roughly nil), including the NTSB's earlier animation to similar effect, so this was doubly ironic as it hit me. This is so insane, the easiest explanation I can think of is... Farmer's pulling my leg?
Two stills, with real and CIT paths (quite app) in the usual colors overlaid. These are from the Youtube version, but Farmer made a higher resolution version available for download and viewing.
---first thoughts, unedited
Any thoughts, people? All I can think of is what - the - fuck?
Or, wait... mmmaybe FAA based it on radar and/or FDR up to the end of that data (the loop and all looks fine on first glance) and then stupidly tried to fuse in the NTSB's apparent final moments, hoping they had some reason for putting it on that path for the seconds they were missing (I'd guess 6-10?) ... Just mysteries. This is going to turn out interestingly.
---
Further Developments
Discussion on this took off all over with the expected rapidity, but a more dynamic embrace than some expected.
CIT Forum discussion Craig and Aldo, who seethe with venom against Farmer, and aren't 'taking the bait' as it were. They speak of "chess moves" and such... Very sophisticated over there, their apprehension and ruminations! On the other hand, many like Rob Balsamo at the PfffT forum were giggling with excitement, while CIT strongly advised caution, leading to a curious argument about which dishonest track to take. CIT messenger Domenick DiMaggio (aka Terrocell, TC329) also started a JREF discussion thread about it, stating at one point:
they faked it and now they're releasing fake evidence to corroborate cit's evidence and yet still try to prove an impact. and as soon as you guys put the cats down and erase lloyd from the history books they can get away with their evil plans.
Whatwhatwhat? Nonetheless, this is where things took off with both confusion and learning. First, beyond disseminating it, the FAA seem to have no role in this short video. JREF member Gumboot first questioned their authenticity and/or their relevance, but over the first couple pages identified the logos onscreen (www.stk.com and HQ NORAD/USSPACE/AN), and found STK was the Satellite Tool Kit Radar module, marketed by Analytical Graphics, Inc. (AGI), a company that makes software for "national security and space professionals for integrated analysis of land, sea, air, and space assets." He noted "the big golf ball things" seemed to be FAA Long Range Radar sites, and decided this may well be "a radar-based map for NORAD purposes," possibly "to determine which radar sites AA77 passed through, so that 84th RADES knew which data to collect for their analysis." Definitely getting somewhere.
Radar based... north path... I would have figure it out eventually, but Celestrin beat me to it. No wonder CIT were apprehensive - they knew about the false return placed for whatever reason, just north of the Citgo, and I had to point out that it wasn't their north path plane, at least 1,000 feet to low for radar to see. Celestrin made the connect:
RADES data has been available for months and it shows the exact same North of Cthulhu poperties as this animation. [...] Why is it such a wonder that an animation, which most likely uses the same data, would also show the plane further north?
I looked at it a bit the other night and did some graphic comparisons just to see what patterns popped out. I took the peach map from the NTSB's Flight Path Study and set the final map of the animation over it [below]. Note the apparent offset in rotation and location of the loop cross point. I'm not actually sure if the whole path is rotated, or this is just a local distortion from roughness. It is rough and unrealistic in its movements.
Farmer instantly pointed out "Look at the loop you idiots, it is a square with rounded corners!" I noticed this too, as did Celestrin. The "squarish" appearance of the turn manuever also suggests that the data, which was used in the animation, wasn't continous." Given 12-second intervals between returns is "too fine for the animation," he wondered "what if one takes the RADES data 1 minute apart," or every fifth radar return, and got this.When I marked the spots where straight lines start curving, and overlaid it with the 84 RADES returns for the loop, it looks more like this was based on taking every other 84 RADES return (pink dots) as anchor points, and replaced the intervening ones with straight lines or full curves, depending.
This in turn may be a clue to the north path’s appearance. Consider this pattern in light of these final three points of RADES data (the points stupidly connected above]. There may be a different dynamic at play here, but it seems similar in pattern – draw a straight line to, or near, the north point, and then a sharp curve to try and meet, or orbit, the next aberrant return just south of impact. Considering there may be a rotation of the path relative to the map, or vice-versa, and perhaps a slight spatial offset, the actual mapped curve may not be where it looks to be onscreen. Interestingly, when I rotate the line to fit the real path, the turn is about seven degrees, or the amount the NTSB's final map was rotated from its own lat-long grid. [Propos to Farmer for the background image establishing the real path beyond a reasonable doubt]. This is not my final answer, but I'm pretty sure it's close to correct, or on the right track at least.
---
More on the source
Pilots for 911 Truth forum member "Paranoia" looked at AGI's STK.com website and found some interesting information verifying Gumboot's ID. [link]. Of interest is a winter 2002 presentation by AGI President and CEO Paul Graziani, regarding their 9/11 animations. The accompanying powerpoint presentation confirms he's discussing this very simulation - it's pictured on page 5. In his delivered remarks [PDF link ], Graziani explained to assembled conventioneers how "actual FAA radar data was used to accurately recreate the events and model the flight paths of hijacked airlines as well as the responding military aircraft." Actual data, it would seem so. Accurate, only sorta... Of interest is the line "complex problems that once took weeks or months to complete, now take only seconds or minutes when employing software capabilities." Maybe they should have at least spent hours on this one.
Additional update: Just to clarify, this is a NORAD product, not FAA. This powerpoint presentation, from a June 2002 STK users conference, explains the project a little. It covered all four flights, plus responding fighters, all from FAA-supplied radar data.
---
The Video: I refined slightly the final returns angle, and put it together in video form, viewable with notes here.
Friday, September 12, 2008
I KNEW IT WOULDN’T BE THE LAST WORD…
September 12 2008, 2am
I meant I heard the last word I needed to from officer Roberts and that I meant it to be my own last word regarding him. But of course it’s not that easy, and it’s worth a few more given two critiques from CIT critics, rather than CIT. John Farmer rightly took issue with me, finding the title “strangely arrogant” and it was. I was feeling a bit cocky after hearing the full interview and feeling it all fall into place. So sue me. Since he’s in Arlington at the moment for the Pentagon memorial’s opening and doing some fruitful research, I have to give John some props and yield that of course this is all my opinion. And I don’t care if MY word is the last or not – so long as it’s in there.
A couple critiques however: Farmer says “First, I think it is very clear that Officer Roberts believes he made his observation AFTER the impact event.” Whatever he believes, as Farmer himself earlier noted, “if his CIT follow-up interview is accurate, he most likely saw AAL77 as it came down from the Citgo area and across Route 27.” The full interview is better. The first half is all 77 stuff. We both know what 77 did. IF he vaguely *experienced* a plane hitting some building and THEN saw 77 approach… what other explanation?
Regarding “His directional descriptions are quite ambiguous, such as describing the plane leaving the area southwest.” I’m not seeing the ambiguity, sorry. A U-turn – definition? Same way in, same way out. All directions are southwest. Where is the evidence he’s confused about what southwest means?
And at Above Top Secret where they have no tolerance for sock puppets or anonymous people if they’re on my computer, the still tolerated “Biscuit Cough” has offered his thoughts as well, bringing it into the “discussion” there. He finds my “twist on it” to be “very interesting” but probably “incorrect.”
Some critiques here: First, I am not “Frustrating Fraud” [or “Frustrated Fraud”]. The adj – noun construct implies I AM a Fraud, as opposed to the BS my blog of that title is about. Not to nit-pick, and I’m sure it was unintentional. Okay, so you cited Roosevelt: “ten seconds […] seven steps” and so on and asked:
“It would seem that if he were watching it on the television, there must have been a television in the booth with him?”
One would only come to this conclusion if we didn't read the apparent cut into the 2001 interview.”
What? Did you miss the part where the TV, and his awareness of the attacks coming from it, is about all he talks about? In his original interview, and in my video, he specifies the TV he was watching in the booth, up until he runs outside. And the cut isn’t “read in,” it’s there and he did say something we can only guess at. Previous narrative defined by the TV screen, then “as I hung up the phone [cut] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV.” Fill in the gap then if you have a better idea. “I looked back at the TV and saw”, or something to that effect, is my guess.
“It appears FF is saying he watched the second plane hit in NYC and jumped up and ran outside to the south loading dock. Odd response, IMO.”
Remember, this was preceded by awareness of the shit in NY already, the issuing of Threatcon Delta, and his awareness of his responsibility. ‘We could be hit next,’ y’know? So he goes out to assess the situation, watch for one of them crazy ass planes… It’s what I might do.
“So in summary, I think FF has a few things he needs to deal with: Roosevelt's testimony that there were two planes [and] that the plane was flying over the lane one area, southwest away from the Pentagon, back across 27.”
Agreed – these are the two irresolvable problems. I’ll spare us the full breakdown, but most points he relays fit with my interpretation just fine. The implication that the plane sighting is at 9:11-ish can’t be correct in CIT’s version either. Anything 77-related he saw was at 9:38 or so, and he MUST be wrong on this point. Right? Implied immediacy of “the explosion” and the low-flying plane. Did it simply follow “9:12 or 9:11” into the error wormhole?
Points that cannot fit:
Agreement to “two aircraft in the area” – one impacting unseen and the other seen after - “it was two aircraft, that’s for sure.” [5:50] the one he saw came from “where the first plane had flown into the Pentagon” [6:15] -first plane again implies the second.
The left turn to the Mall Entrance side, loop around back over 27 and departure to the southwest, mentioned all through the second half of the interview. This can’t figure into CIT’s story either, which is why they’ve decided he’s just confused.
Note that all of his statements that cannot fit come after 3:48. BC, what did you mean by “His testimony that it was flying "back across 27" was not given when he was asked to speculate.”? He was never asked to speculate, but if you mean after the “second plane” flying “away from the Pentagon” was mentioned, wrong. That’s what happened at 3:48, the only question he asks to be repeated, and the only one he had to think about for several seconds before answering. Anything unusual after that is highly suspect as evidence. All the second-plane stuff is after that. Hand-waving about “confusion” and “it’s all AFTER the event…” is the only alternative to even drag this one through the gate.
Simplest resolution and my guess and final word from me unless someone has smething remarkable to offer:
He saw 175 on TV at 9:10 and noted the time, ran outside and saw nothing.
He came back in and watched for a few minutes, made some calls or something. Remember, it’s threatcon. He’s in crisis mode here. Not the best for memories.
He went back out at 9:30-ish and after a bit saw Flight 77 appear over the lane one area, approach quickly over 27 at light pole level, and disappear around the corner at impact.
Two months later his memory was confused, so nearly all the wait time between the TV crash and the real plane was forgotten and compressed to about 2 minutes. He also left the actual impact un-described and implied – one second there’s a plane, the next, dust from the ceiling and people screaming. He either can’t recall it clearly, or feels no need to say it.
All the weird stuff everyone’s debating about and/or dancing around was made up under special and observable conditions.
Crazy, huh? The alternative is… a second/flyover something plane re-creating Flight 77’s approach right after a vaguely described impact/fakery event, and then defying physics with a maneuver that would have been invisible to Roberts anyway, and that haven't been seen by anyone else. Or he’s just confused and talking gibberish, probably ‘cause they “got to him.” Maybe I did…
So in essence, of all the hundreds of recorded witnesses, his ambiguity on the first plane-into-building event, plus his silence on the real impact make him uniquely confusing, and ripe for the plucking by flyover/second-plane enthusiasts. He’s at least as confusing when further probed, and not surprisingly does little to either prove or disprove the earlier issues. Those who can’t get enough mystery, carry on. There's still a lot of space between the words to play in.
I meant I heard the last word I needed to from officer Roberts and that I meant it to be my own last word regarding him. But of course it’s not that easy, and it’s worth a few more given two critiques from CIT critics, rather than CIT. John Farmer rightly took issue with me, finding the title “strangely arrogant” and it was. I was feeling a bit cocky after hearing the full interview and feeling it all fall into place. So sue me. Since he’s in Arlington at the moment for the Pentagon memorial’s opening and doing some fruitful research, I have to give John some props and yield that of course this is all my opinion. And I don’t care if MY word is the last or not – so long as it’s in there.
A couple critiques however: Farmer says “First, I think it is very clear that Officer Roberts believes he made his observation AFTER the impact event.” Whatever he believes, as Farmer himself earlier noted, “if his CIT follow-up interview is accurate, he most likely saw AAL77 as it came down from the Citgo area and across Route 27.” The full interview is better. The first half is all 77 stuff. We both know what 77 did. IF he vaguely *experienced* a plane hitting some building and THEN saw 77 approach… what other explanation?
Regarding “His directional descriptions are quite ambiguous, such as describing the plane leaving the area southwest.” I’m not seeing the ambiguity, sorry. A U-turn – definition? Same way in, same way out. All directions are southwest. Where is the evidence he’s confused about what southwest means?
And at Above Top Secret where they have no tolerance for sock puppets or anonymous people if they’re on my computer, the still tolerated “Biscuit Cough” has offered his thoughts as well, bringing it into the “discussion” there. He finds my “twist on it” to be “very interesting” but probably “incorrect.”
Some critiques here: First, I am not “Frustrating Fraud” [or “Frustrated Fraud”]. The adj – noun construct implies I AM a Fraud, as opposed to the BS my blog of that title is about. Not to nit-pick, and I’m sure it was unintentional. Okay, so you cited Roosevelt: “ten seconds […] seven steps” and so on and asked:
“It would seem that if he were watching it on the television, there must have been a television in the booth with him?”
One would only come to this conclusion if we didn't read the apparent cut into the 2001 interview.”
What? Did you miss the part where the TV, and his awareness of the attacks coming from it, is about all he talks about? In his original interview, and in my video, he specifies the TV he was watching in the booth, up until he runs outside. And the cut isn’t “read in,” it’s there and he did say something we can only guess at. Previous narrative defined by the TV screen, then “as I hung up the phone [cut] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV.” Fill in the gap then if you have a better idea. “I looked back at the TV and saw”, or something to that effect, is my guess.
“It appears FF is saying he watched the second plane hit in NYC and jumped up and ran outside to the south loading dock. Odd response, IMO.”
Remember, this was preceded by awareness of the shit in NY already, the issuing of Threatcon Delta, and his awareness of his responsibility. ‘We could be hit next,’ y’know? So he goes out to assess the situation, watch for one of them crazy ass planes… It’s what I might do.
“So in summary, I think FF has a few things he needs to deal with: Roosevelt's testimony that there were two planes [and] that the plane was flying over the lane one area, southwest away from the Pentagon, back across 27.”
Agreed – these are the two irresolvable problems. I’ll spare us the full breakdown, but most points he relays fit with my interpretation just fine. The implication that the plane sighting is at 9:11-ish can’t be correct in CIT’s version either. Anything 77-related he saw was at 9:38 or so, and he MUST be wrong on this point. Right? Implied immediacy of “the explosion” and the low-flying plane. Did it simply follow “9:12 or 9:11” into the error wormhole?
Points that cannot fit:
Agreement to “two aircraft in the area” – one impacting unseen and the other seen after - “it was two aircraft, that’s for sure.” [5:50] the one he saw came from “where the first plane had flown into the Pentagon” [6:15] -first plane again implies the second.
The left turn to the Mall Entrance side, loop around back over 27 and departure to the southwest, mentioned all through the second half of the interview. This can’t figure into CIT’s story either, which is why they’ve decided he’s just confused.
Note that all of his statements that cannot fit come after 3:48. BC, what did you mean by “His testimony that it was flying "back across 27" was not given when he was asked to speculate.”? He was never asked to speculate, but if you mean after the “second plane” flying “away from the Pentagon” was mentioned, wrong. That’s what happened at 3:48, the only question he asks to be repeated, and the only one he had to think about for several seconds before answering. Anything unusual after that is highly suspect as evidence. All the second-plane stuff is after that. Hand-waving about “confusion” and “it’s all AFTER the event…” is the only alternative to even drag this one through the gate.
Simplest resolution and my guess and final word from me unless someone has smething remarkable to offer:
He saw 175 on TV at 9:10 and noted the time, ran outside and saw nothing.
He came back in and watched for a few minutes, made some calls or something. Remember, it’s threatcon. He’s in crisis mode here. Not the best for memories.
He went back out at 9:30-ish and after a bit saw Flight 77 appear over the lane one area, approach quickly over 27 at light pole level, and disappear around the corner at impact.
Two months later his memory was confused, so nearly all the wait time between the TV crash and the real plane was forgotten and compressed to about 2 minutes. He also left the actual impact un-described and implied – one second there’s a plane, the next, dust from the ceiling and people screaming. He either can’t recall it clearly, or feels no need to say it.
All the weird stuff everyone’s debating about and/or dancing around was made up under special and observable conditions.
Crazy, huh? The alternative is… a second/flyover something plane re-creating Flight 77’s approach right after a vaguely described impact/fakery event, and then defying physics with a maneuver that would have been invisible to Roberts anyway, and that haven't been seen by anyone else. Or he’s just confused and talking gibberish, probably ‘cause they “got to him.” Maybe I did…
So in essence, of all the hundreds of recorded witnesses, his ambiguity on the first plane-into-building event, plus his silence on the real impact make him uniquely confusing, and ripe for the plucking by flyover/second-plane enthusiasts. He’s at least as confusing when further probed, and not surprisingly does little to either prove or disprove the earlier issues. Those who can’t get enough mystery, carry on. There's still a lot of space between the words to play in.
Monday, September 1, 2008
CAUSTIC LOGIC VIDEOS
Coming back online
first posted June 9 1pm
I've chosen to go with a Veoh account. The upload time is quite a bit better than Youtube's and the picture quality is, eh, about the same. They're downloadable it seems, but seems to be a time lag, with video trailing a bit behind audio. Anyway, I'll post all the links here, and update as I go.
C-130 Flight Path: An analysis of the various sources regarding the flight path of C-130 Golfer06, the famous second plane at the Pentagon after Flight 77''s crash. Pilot account, 84 RADES radar track, Eyewitness accounts, and even on-site video. Emphasis here is on the outbound flight, where others have found a clear discrepancy between the pilot's account and the radar data. Hogwash. Nothing in this video necessarily contradicts anything else.
-F.F. Companion Post
The Trouble With Turcios: This 9-min. video looks at the Nov. 2006 account of Robert Turcios - The PentaCon's (and the world's) only pull-up-before Pentagon-impact witness. Building on the analysis in "Citgo Video: Who is Person #1?" the centerpiece is his 9/11/01 video-recorded actions. Some say the video is legit, other say it's altered. Either way, it don't support Turcios' story in the least.
-F.F. Companion Post
That Darn NTSB Cartoon, pt. 1: The "FDR" North Path: Intro to the north-of-the-Citgo (NoC) aspect of the NTSB Flight 77 black box animation. It has been touted by some as real evidence of FDR "north plot data," but oddly it does NOT match the FDR itself, even as it matches the simultaneous NoC witnesses. Parts 2 and 3 chronicle my research into WHY the animation differes from the other data.
---
Pentagon 911 No 757 - The Boeng Doesn't Fit:
The 911 Truth - the hole is too small!!! Brilliant insights by Mayssan, Von Kleist, Williams, Avery+Rowe, and Pugh, just a few of those who've seen and alerted the world to the single too-small 16 ft hole in the Pentagon! Vs. blatant gov. loyalist lies about some "90-foot hole"! Is this video for real? You decide.
---
That Darn NTSB Cartoon, pt. 2: The Authenticity Sidetrack: Again, talking about the NTSB's flawed recreation of AA77's flight to the Pentagon, this time narrated by me (sorry - it's necessary). Basically this part outlines why I probably shouldn't have publicly questioned the animation's origins. (6:37)
---
Flight 77's Shadow: For all those screaming for video footage of the Pentagon attack, we need to understand no news cameras were rolling there, and security cameras are not geared to film planes in the air. The CCTV gate cams caught the plane at ground level and its impact, and the Citgo station security video (released Sept. 2006) caught this - the plane's shadow on the ground. Right size, right shape, right place, right time for Flight 77.
-F.F. Explanatory Companion Post (predates the video)
-F.F. video release companion Post (6:55)
---
That Darn NTSB Cartoon Part 3: The North Path Explained: The North Path Explained. There have been different reasons given for the animation's path passing north of the Navy Annex and Citgo, but it can't be ignored that, as I've found and show here, the ground grid wrong orientation and final map orientation total 17 degrees of wrongness, which is exactly how far off the animation is from the actual FDR data. I doubt it was a pure mistake, but it has nothing to do with where the plane actually was. (6:47)
---
The Last Word on the "Flyover Witness": CIT's long-awaited and much touted Pentagon "flyover witness" turns out to be... not that. (11:26)
first posted June 9 1pm
I've chosen to go with a Veoh account. The upload time is quite a bit better than Youtube's and the picture quality is, eh, about the same. They're downloadable it seems, but seems to be a time lag, with video trailing a bit behind audio. Anyway, I'll post all the links here, and update as I go.
C-130 Flight Path: An analysis of the various sources regarding the flight path of C-130 Golfer06, the famous second plane at the Pentagon after Flight 77''s crash. Pilot account, 84 RADES radar track, Eyewitness accounts, and even on-site video. Emphasis here is on the outbound flight, where others have found a clear discrepancy between the pilot's account and the radar data. Hogwash. Nothing in this video necessarily contradicts anything else. -F.F. Companion Post
The Trouble With Turcios: This 9-min. video looks at the Nov. 2006 account of Robert Turcios - The PentaCon's (and the world's) only pull-up-before Pentagon-impact witness. Building on the analysis in "Citgo Video: Who is Person #1?" the centerpiece is his 9/11/01 video-recorded actions. Some say the video is legit, other say it's altered. Either way, it don't support Turcios' story in the least.-F.F. Companion Post
That Darn NTSB Cartoon, pt. 1: The "FDR" North Path: Intro to the north-of-the-Citgo (NoC) aspect of the NTSB Flight 77 black box animation. It has been touted by some as real evidence of FDR "north plot data," but oddly it does NOT match the FDR itself, even as it matches the simultaneous NoC witnesses. Parts 2 and 3 chronicle my research into WHY the animation differes from the other data.---
Pentagon 911 No 757 - The Boeng Doesn't Fit: The 911 Truth - the hole is too small!!! Brilliant insights by Mayssan, Von Kleist, Williams, Avery+Rowe, and Pugh, just a few of those who've seen and alerted the world to the single too-small 16 ft hole in the Pentagon! Vs. blatant gov. loyalist lies about some "90-foot hole"! Is this video for real? You decide.
---
That Darn NTSB Cartoon, pt. 2: The Authenticity Sidetrack: Again, talking about the NTSB's flawed recreation of AA77's flight to the Pentagon, this time narrated by me (sorry - it's necessary). Basically this part outlines why I probably shouldn't have publicly questioned the animation's origins. (6:37)---
Flight 77's Shadow: For all those screaming for video footage of the Pentagon attack, we need to understand no news cameras were rolling there, and security cameras are not geared to film planes in the air. The CCTV gate cams caught the plane at ground level and its impact, and the Citgo station security video (released Sept. 2006) caught this - the plane's shadow on the ground. Right size, right shape, right place, right time for Flight 77. -F.F. Explanatory Companion Post (predates the video)
-F.F. video release companion Post (6:55)
---
That Darn NTSB Cartoon Part 3: The North Path Explained: The North Path Explained. There have been different reasons given for the animation's path passing north of the Navy Annex and Citgo, but it can't be ignored that, as I've found and show here, the ground grid wrong orientation and final map orientation total 17 degrees of wrongness, which is exactly how far off the animation is from the actual FDR data. I doubt it was a pure mistake, but it has nothing to do with where the plane actually was. (6:47)---
The Last Word on the "Flyover Witness": CIT's long-awaited and much touted Pentagon "flyover witness" turns out to be... not that. (11:26)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
