Monday, October 6, 2008

A MAN MISREAD, AGAIN

A MAN MISREAD, AGAIN
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
October 6 2008
Updated 10/7 1pm


Among the 13 north-of-Citgo witnesses recently published by CIT, is one I finally looked into a bit, an Arlington National Cemetery Facility Manager named George Aman. Like so many of the others, he was previously documented by the Center for Military History [all relevant cases catalogued and available here], and CIT says verified again by them. Unlike ANC witnesses Middleton, Prather, Stafford, and Carter, they do not offer a photo, any video, a drawn flight path, or any recordings or direct quotes. He's as "off the record" as anyone else. However, CIT will have the public know that:

"In both the CMH interview and in our interview George is clearly describing the plane north of the gas station and right over the parking lot in front of the maintenance buildings where he was in his office. […] In fact you can see how on page 19 of his CMH interview he specifically describes the plane as "turning and gliding" which instantly supports the north of the gas station bank as described by all the other ANC workers."

Planes can only "turn" and "glide' north of the Citgo? That's certainly news to me! What else do they have? Nothing new that they shared, just his old interview for reference. They cite him as NEIT 420, so I checked my files and although an ANC employee, it didn't seem a match for Aman. This one is interesting for its own reason, however. It would seem the audio tape had gaps far worse than those plaguing the recording of officer Roberts [all not in [square brackets] is as transcribed by CMH.].

“[…] I’m walking in this direction and ___. . . (20 seconds) and this is just about on top of the building, scraping the building […] And he ____ the building, he appeared that ___+ direction ___ . . . (95 seconds) and it went by, right passed out [sic] and went over there […]”

Damn, that’s a lot of evidence lost, more than remained, it would seem, leaving us a jumbled pile of loose words. In fact, this is perfect CIT mystery material, full of holes to fill in and “verify.” Will we see NEIT 420 appear on the NoC or whatever acronym list in the near future? Luckily the actual 420 link provided in CIT’s big essay connected instead to NEIT 419, which seems to be the correct transcript for the witness they cite and identify as Aman. Among the key passages:

[p 5] “[...] I open up my things here and I’m looking out and I see this big, large airplane and it looks like, I thought it was going to hit the building here […] coming down here and I thought it was coming, going to hit this building. […] The plane flies right over the parking lot here”
[p 19] "[...] When I seen he was kind of turning and gliding when he came across here, across the parking lot but when he got out right in front here, it sounded like he poured the coals on it."

If it were literally "over the parking lot," rather than "across" a line in the distance over the lot in his FoV, the plane would probably be invisible to him inside the building looking up at it out the window. His window faced south, so it had to be some distance south of his building. His impression that it might hit his building alos jibes with a heading towards it, rather than parallel. This does not sound like a purely west-east path like NoC, but rather with a north trend (towards him) like SoC.

And, sweet Jesus, he's a light pole impact witness like I've never seen before! Page 20, right between his "gliding" bit and the "honest embellishment" of seeing passengers' faces inside - how is this consistent with an "automatic" north path?

"When I was looking over here and I seen things fly up in there, not knowing really what the hell they were but come to find out they were street lights. So the plane was clipping the tops of the streetlights off."

Looking forward to publication of this verification interview. Want list: the part where he actually says anything about the plane being north of anything - the part where you got him to explain he was just told about the light poles and deduced the actual flying things he remembered seeing - the part where he describes it banking hard right - the part where he sees it pull up rather than hit low - anything.
---
ETA: Craig of CIT informs me that the audio interview with Aman IS in the new video. My bad, as I only skimmed it. I'll report back now that they've released it, like a while ago. Also, 420 is Darrell Stafford, one of their ANC witnesses. Perfect CIT material is I guess recognized by CIT without prompting from me. And he paid off big time. (see comments below - a rare acceptance of a Craig comment).
---
update on Aman's testimony: My fault was in not noticing the video had two parts. Geroge’s interview is the first one in part 2, app 3:00 in. He doesn’t remember the color of the plane, seeing the C-130, or doing the CMH interview at all. What he does remember is the noise, and how it seemed to come in directly over the navy Annex when he first saw it. This proves nothing, however - from his PoV north of the scene, either path could well seem that way. He repeats “I thought it was going to smash into our building,” and this too can support either path – one was headed from southwest to northeast, and turning slightly north (towards them) along the way, The NoC path would only be coming right towards him only while over the Navy Annex, so when he first saw it, it would already be turning sharply away from them (right, south) and towards the pentagon.

He was asked about the parking lot and at 4:08 said “yeah, yeah” in response to “it was directly over the top of that?” At 5:05 he calls the plane “right over the parking lot,” and repeats it at 5:30. Again, unless it was very low, he likely wouldn’t really see it from inside if it were directly over. In fact it was further south, as it would have to be. At 5:14 he’s asked north or south of the citgo, he responds in I think an odd tone “it was right in between, in BETWEEN, the citgo gas station, AND – and the, the, the maintenance complex.” Below is a field of View analysis if he were outside the windowand in the parking lot he had the plane “over.” Note the inherent curve of the view, a natural “fisheye” effect of panoramic views that could warp one’s perception of the plane’s actual movements – the natural bias here would be to suggest a right turn, with it looking furthest north (closest/largest) as it passed them.
[right-click, new window for larger view]

What’s visible from inside would be a cropped version of this, set back to the north about 50 feet and behind a mid-height wrought-iron fence, and some number of vehicles, leaving an uncertain view of points of reference like the Citgo. I for one could probably not tell from here with any accuracy, whether it was north or south. Clearly we’re down to the range of reasonable perspective issues as explanation for his NoC testimony. But whatever the case, there it is - it’s certainly not their strongest case, but he said it was north, like the others did.

Oh, and of all the light pole witnesses to NOT ask if he just deduced that part, I didn’t hear Craig mention the light poles. The image above shows what a clear view he had of the first two, and though the fence may have obscured them, he remembers seeing the “things flying.” Obviously another deduction, too obvious to even bother asking I suppose?

13 comments:

Craig said...

Misread by you!

George Aman is labeled correctly as #419 on our site and his recorded phone interview most certainly is included in our presentation you big dummy.

#420 is Darrell Stafford and his video taped interview is also included.

They are both quite blatantly and obviously 100% unspinnable north side witnesses which is why you hilariously claim you refuse to listen to their accounts so you can continue to have an excuse to spew your dishonest spin and idiotic confusion.

Funny how you think people don't see the ridiculousness of your hypocritical obsessive blogging about witness accounts you allegedly refuse to review!

Anonymous said...

I swear, listening to Ranke babble on and on about his irrefutable proff is getting a tad bit old. Craig, enough already!

Caustic Logic said...

Useful info that moves the analysis along accepted. No "alleged," I DID refuse to look at the vid until last night. You don't seem all proud of what he says, no quotes, no drawings... but I will listen to what's there and see how compliant this one was.

As for idiotic confusion, well at least you're not a confused idiot. it takes a certain clear intelligence to craft a CIT-stupid argument. You lie, and it's so bad it's not even funny comedy, but black humor.

Anonymous said...

Adam Larson is an accomplice to the cover-up of mass murder on 9/11/01.

He is a traitor to the United States of America.

Why don't you confront George Aman? The same George Aman who said it was in between the gas station and the cemetery. So we could hear about how he beat you like a red head step child.

Craig said...

Those images are not from his POV, they are from the very parking lot that he, and everyone else, including Lagasse from the opposite perspective, says it flew directly over.

He straight up admits to deducing the light poles in the CMH interview.

Getting him to reiterate this deduction years later would prove nothing. Getting him to clarify his exact placement of the plane proves everything and clearly added with his original "turning and gliding" statement and his "directly over the parking lot" claim he corroborates the BANKING north side approach just like everyone else.

The south side approach would NOT appear to be coming towards ANC AT ALL yet this is what they all describe. Coming towards the maintenance buildings = north side approach.

You are way passed the point of intellectual dishonesty if you are going to continue to deny these are north side witnesses or that the north side approach has been proven.

Have you watched Middleton yet?

Have you listened to Boger?

Just stop all this ridiculously convoluted BS spin and deal with the evidence like an honest human. You were wrong. They are not all in on a disinfo conspiracy and they ALL support a north side approach.

Caustic Logic said...

Craig and anonymous critic:
"Why don't you confront George Aman? The same George Aman who said it was in between the gas station and the cemetery. So we could hear about how he beat you like a red head step child."

You have his number, why don't you confront him for me. Yeah, hey george, you know how your north-side testimony proves a military deception and flyover, and that someone tricked your eyes real good to think it impacted, but the US Gov't is murderers, as you've bravely proven? Yeah, we thank you for that, but there's this crazy janitor guy who thinks you may have suffered a slight perspective error. Traitorous, huh?

Please record this call, so i can hear him gutting you like an anonymous pig on the slaughterhouse floor.

"just like everyone else."
You really appear mentally challenged to keep asserting this. You mean everyone else except Zakhem, Mcgraw, England, Wallace, Morin 2001, Hemphill, Riskus, Probst, Wheelhouse, the radar, FDR, video cameras, physical damage...

Yes, of course, all dubious, at best. All that's real is 13 witnesses, except where they all simultaneously hallucinated an impact that "didn't happen."

Yeaaaahhhh - you know ridiculously convoluted BS spin when you see it.

"Those images are not from his POV"
Really? Cause I wrote above that
Below is a field of View analysis if he were outside the windowand in the parking lot he had the plane “over.”
[...] What’s visible from inside would be a cropped version of this, set back to the north about 50 feet and behind a mid-height wrought-iron fence, and some number of vehicles, leaving an uncertain view of points of reference like the Citgo. I for one could probably not tell from here with any accuracy, whether it was north or south.

Didja miss that? The one with a fence covering the Citgo is closer, right? It was over a point north of the Citgo... total fact!
---
I'm past intellectual dishonesty? What's out there? Is that like deader than dead?

He admits deducing the light poles? So what do you think those flying things really were then? Was the staging more complex than you previously presumed? Or did he just make the things up, like he did the passengers? I don't rreally care, I just noted how you tried to skirt around it.

Listened to Boger, didn't watch Middleton yet. After seeing how the real path would seem to curve closer to them in the middle (graphic above), I'm starting to think you might be right that they didn't purposefully lie. I liked Boger's right yaw account. What does bank do to the nose? Does it make it come in not straight? Didn't lagasse mention a yaw? Was it to the right? What direction WAS it banking? Boger didn't say, he just explained the yaw. Great one, a man misread again.

reading comprehension, not too great.

It's fun to not ignore you, but that's all the time i have for it now.

Craig said...

You're spinning like a top and you know it. Boger never said or described a yaw! LOL!

He described a right turn/tilt/bank, not a yaw. Obviously as a professional he knows more about aircraft than you and would know the difference.

Same with the ANC guys. There is no way they could possibly give such detailed banking north side accounts if the citgo witnesses were all simultaneously and ridiculously "mistaken".

You're being silly now and you know it.

Now that you've broken down and decided to cop to at least being in the process of finally viewing their accounts, view the 2nd half of P4T's latest with POV comparisons for you:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7134448689829125037

Obviously his animated POV's are way more accurate than your fisheye composite image from the parking lot which is NOBODY'S point of view.

Caustic Logic said...

Fin PoS didn't post my comment. Time wasted, doubly so! But some people may still find this ambiguous enough to warrant discussion, and as the two brightest minds on the opposite sides of the station...

Quickly then I'll re-summarize - I'm not sure the ANC guys were just mistaken. Toy plane guy in particular might be a knowing liar. Go ahead and tell darrell I said that, I dare you. I know kung fu.

Yes, that's no one's actual PoV, but there IS distance involved. Small, bigger, smaller. It wouldn't explain a right bank, but it might look like a sort of right turn, with an "apex" pointing right at the witness area, just like the turn they drew.

I'm spinning things cause you're handing me spun facts, and I'm correcting.

Like Boger - what exactly is a turn/tilt/bank/spin, in his words? When you ask, the pro cites the nose cone not coming in straight, "tilted" to the right. That's a lateral angle, which is a yaw. He did say there was a wing bank IIRC, but you failed to gather the info about the direction of that separate thing. I'd guess it was left, and fairly mild.

Why he thinks or says it was NoC I can't say. The same perspective issues from ANC do not apply for him. If he clarified a sharp right bank on top of that, I'd be fairly sure we had a prankster here.

Caustic Logic said...

Fin PoS didn't post my comment. Time wasted, doubly so! But some people may still find this ambiguous enough to warrant discussion, and as the two brightest minds on the opposite sides of the station...

Quickly then I'll re-summarize - I'm not sure the ANC guys were just mistaken. Toy plane guy in particular might be a knowing liar. Go ahead and tell darrell I said that, I dare you. I know kung fu.

Yes, that's no one's actual PoV, but there IS distance involved. Small, bigger, smaller. It wouldn't explain a right bank, but it might look like a sort of right turn, with an "apex" pointing right at the witness area, just like the turn they drew.

I'm spinning things cause you're handing me spun facts, and I'm correcting.

Like Boger - what exactly is a turn/tilt/bank/spin, in his words? When you ask, the pro cites the nose cone not coming in straight, "tilted" to the right. That's a lateral angle, which is a yaw. He did say there was a wing bank IIRC, but you failed to gather the info about the direction of that separate thing. I'd guess it was left, and fairly mild.

Why he thinks or says it was NoC I can't say. The same perspective issues from ANC do not apply for him. If he clarified a sharp right bank on top of that, I'd be fairly sure we had a prankster here.

Caustic Logic said...

Fin PoS didn't post my comment. Time wasted, doubly so! But some people may still find this ambiguous enough to warrant discussion, and as the two brightest minds on the opposite sides of the station...

Quickly then I'll re-summarize - I'm not sure the ANC guys were just mistaken. Toy plane guy in particular might be a knowing liar. Go ahead and tell darrell I said that, I dare you. I know kung fu.

Yes, that's no one's actual PoV, but there IS distance involved. Small, bigger, smaller. It wouldn't explain a right bank, but it might look like a sort of right turn, with an "apex" pointing right at the witness area, just like the turn they drew.

I'm spinning things cause you're handing me spun facts, and I'm correcting.

Like Boger - what exactly is a turn/tilt/bank/spin, in his words? When you ask, the pro cites the nose cone not coming in straight, "tilted" to the right. That's a lateral angle, which is a yaw. He did say there was a wing bank IIRC, but you failed to gather the info about the direction of that separate thing. I'd guess it was left, and fairly mild.

Why he thinks or says it was NoC I can't say. The same perspective issues from ANC do not apply for him. If he clarified a sharp right bank on top of that, I'd be fairly sure we had a prankster here.

Caustic Logic said...

Ooops. So now I'll post it three times in a row. lol, 10 comments. Happenin blog, eh? 11 now! Aaughhh!

Anonymous said...

Craig:

Please put up or shutup already! If you are so sure why don't you go to the press? I forgot, they won't pay you for your information!

Caustic Logic said...

Agreed, anon. We can't make these things shut up, but I can cut off the noise from at least this post. Closed to CIT, get to work on the trial, not typing more arguments with traitorous scum. huh? Prove us wrong, your words hold no weight.