OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR 9:38

PENTAGON ATTACK TIMELINE QUESTIONS PART 3: OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR 9:38
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
August 7 2008
Last Updated 8/10/09

For those who see no reason to question the official time of the Pentagon attack, this post will be unnecessary. But for those confused by claims of different times, primarily 9:30-32 am, this may prove quite useful. If you're willing to learn... (sigh). Of all the times cited for the impact/explosion/whatever at the Pentagon on 9/11, one stands above as the most-cited, most-supported, and most-likely true – by this I mean, approximately, 9:38 am. Officially the explosive impact of Flight 77 is given as 9:37:45 or :46 based, it seems, on the Flight Data Recorder. In reality, the impact time is impossible to pin down exactly, but likely a bit after this, probably between 9:37:50 and :55 (see FDR section, first up). Following is a nearly-comprehensive list of the most direct evidence establishing the impact at right around that time.

1) Flight Data Recorder:
Much rhubarb has been made of the information on Flight 77’s Flight Data Recorder and how it doesn’t match the reality necessary to get it inside the Pentagon where it was said to be found. The last frame of data recorded is 9:37:44 or :45, depending on the exact file one’s looking at. While this is officially the moment of impact, the recorded values do not match those evident in the physical damage (most important – too high!) This is taken by some nitwits/liars as proof the plane didn’t hit. Another view takes this as a clue that this last data is actually NOT from the moment of impact, but a mile or more back, as the INS positioning says (it’s prone to error of about 1/2 mile I hear). Most analysts have come to this realization, though opinions differ on how far back, how much data is missing, and why (which is beyond the scope of this piece). Estimates range from 2 to 10 seconds remaining to impact at last frame, with the upper end of 8-10 seeming most likely to me, and placing impact at 9:37:50 or later. This slight variation of the “official” time alternates with it in the list below and illustrate that roughly all evidence points at a roughly 10 second time range best rounded to the minute as 9:38.

2) Radar:
We’ve always heard the radar data supported and defined this impact time, but fact is it can’t tell us exactly when, or even if, the plane impacted. The raw data of the Air Force’s 84th radar evaluation squadron (84RADES) was released in 2006 to researcher John Farmer, showing all returns from the DC area on 9/11. As I understand it, ‘blips’ are sent and returned every 12 seconds; the last three attributed to Flight 77 are at 9:36:48, 9:37:00, and 9:37:12 (see graphic at right, from Marco Bolletino’s reconstruction of the data). Before the next return, the airliner dropped below the coverage level of app.2,000 feet above ground [this altitude is passed by FDR about 9:37:18]. There is an established NEADS clock issue, known to be app. 25 seconds slow relative to other clocks in the FDR and at ATC facilities. Therefore, the last return would actually be at about 9:37:37, with impact presumably some seconds after that. This support is vague but would hint at an impact somewhat later than the official time less than ten seconds hence. On the other hand, the FDR pressure alt for 9:37:37 is 786 ft AGL, which seems too low to be just disappearing from radar. Perhaps I’m confused on the timeline discrepancy. Anyway, it’s all there… it doesn’t prove a 9:38 impact, but it fits it just fine.

1a+2a) FDR/Radar Combo:
In its Final Report, the 9/11 Commission gives the impact time of 9:37:46 [p 96], citing as its source NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77," created Feb. 19, 2002 by the National Transportation Safety Board. The full document in question is available in PDF form [here. The report in turn lists its sources as FDR data “as well as” (implying no conflict with) “radar data from the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air Route Traffic Control Centers, approach control at Washington Dulles Airport, and the U.S. Air Force’s 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron.” [This is the data examined above]. From this, the report summarizes that “the airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530 miles per hour) at impact with the Pentagon. The time of impact was 9:37:45 AM.” Ooh! A one-second discrepancy! And both were likely a bit early, with the Commission closer it seems.

3) Arlington County Emergency System:
From Arlington County After-Action Report, and its first-hand access to emergency communications , we can see that key information was called in just before and after the 9:38 mark, and reactions followed in the next minutes, as recorded and logged as at a time generalized as 9:38. [emph mine].

“In the moments immediately before impact at the Pentagon, the Arlington County ECC began receiving 9-1-1 calls reporting a low flying airliner that seemed off the normal flight path. When the crash actually occurred at 9:38 a.m., all area communications seemed simultaneously overwhelmed. Firefighters calling the ECC couldn’t get through. Relatives of Pentagon workers found cellular and land lines jammed. Emergency traffic flooded radio channels.” [page A-34]

“Captain Steve McCoy and the crew of Engine 101 were […] traveling north on Interstate 395 [when they saw] a commercial airliner in steep descent, banking sharply to its right before disappearing beyond the horizon. At 9:38 a.m., shortly after American Airlines Flight #77 disappeared from sight, a tremendous explosion preceded a massive plume of smoke and fire. Unable to pinpoint the precise location, Captain McCoy immediately radioed the Arlington County Emergency Communications Center (ECC), reporting an airplane crash in the vicinity of the 14th Street Bridge or in Crystal City.” [page A-34]

At 9:38 a.m., a large smoke plume appeared beyond the Rosslyn skyline. Arlington County Police Corporal Barry Foust radioed the ECC that he saw an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon. The ECC swung into action [page A-35] […] [B]etween 9:41 a.m. and 9:43 a.m. on September 11, the ECC Administrator, Steve Souder, acting on his own initiative, contacted the Fairfax, Alexandria, and District of Columbia fire departments. He gave them identical instructions: deploy four engines, two trucks, one rescue unit, four EMS units, and a command officer to a staging area short of the Pentagon and hold them there until called forward.” [page a25]

4) C130 pilot report via FAA:
The 9/11 Commission briefly discussed the “second plane” at the Pentagon, a C-130H cargo plane dubbed “Golfer 06.” The Commission noted on page 26 of their final report:

“At approximately 9:38 A.M., the C130H aircraft reported to Reagan Airport controllers that the aircraft it was attempting to follow crashed into the Pentagon.” The source is given as “FAA audio file, Washington Tower, Tyson/Fluky Position, 9:38:52 .-M.; FAA letterhead memorandum, 'Partial Transcript; Aircraft Accident; AAL 77; Washington, DC; September 11, 2001,’ 7.

Although the two planes had crossed path just a minute before, both radar and the pilot’s own words agree that Golfer 06 was too far away to see Flight 77 itself at impact, but was close enough to see the smoke and to know where it was coming from. Certainly the impression was there from the beginning, and was only confirmed as it approached at 9:38, passing nearest to impact point at 9:39:15, after which it veered off to the north and west and continued on to witness the crash site of Flight 93 as well before reaching base in Minnesota.

5) 9:39 News Report - NBC:
Among the most solid clues to at least the general time of the attack of the Pentagon attack is in NBC News coverage of the 9/11 events. [video link - when watching the video, note that it starts at 9:12 am, so the video time is to be added to this for the real time] At perhaps 10 seconds after the 9:39 mark [26:24 video time], the newsroom interrupted its coverage to let Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski bring them their first news of something awry there. He told the nation:

"I don’t want to alarm anybody right now, but apparently - it felt, just a few moments ago, like there was an explosion of some kind, here at the Pentagon.” He explains he was on the east side of the mammoth building, opposite from the impact, so it was a big explosion. He saw no smoke from his side, inside the E ring, and didn’t know what was going on. “I just stepped out in the hallway, security guards were herding people out," he explained, meaning some time at least had elapsed. So far impact is looking to be one minute, 15 seconds before this broadcast. Sounds like “moments” to me.

6) Security video time stamps – Pentagon, Doubletree, Citgo:
Though neither the Citgo or Doubletree videos, released in 2006, shows the official time in their on-screen clocks, both timers roughly bracket it: Doubletree – 9:34:10 impact (app 3:35 behind) Citgo 9:40:36 (app 2:51 ahead)
It’s a very small sample to be conclusive, but this is what’s called a normal distribution, that sets a center point of app. 9:37:00. That’s pretty close for a sampling of two clocks, one of which also bears the default date of Jan 1 1993 [for a clue to the professionalism and precision of their deployment].
Regarding the time stamp of the Pentagon’s own CCTV gate cameras that famously captured the plane and impact, Col. Alan Scott told the 9/11 Commission in May 2003:

“The timeline on the impact of the Pentagon was changed to 9:37 -- 9:43 is the time that was reported that day, it was the time we used. And it took about two weeks to discover in the parking lot of the Pentagon this entry camera for the parking lot, which happened to be oriented towards the Pentagon at the time of impact, and the recorded time is 9:37. And that's why the timeline went from 9:43 to 9:37, because it is the best documented evidence for the impact time that we have.” [source]

It should be noted that the time stamp is not reproduced on-screen. The initial five released framed show a time of the following evening Sept 12 – much to the delight of mystery-mongers, it’s more likely the time the frames were processed and labeled “plane,” “impact,” etc… but they seem to have been recorded in the 9:37 slot on the correct day, and were in fact instrumental in setting the time initially. We find later it’s actually near the end of that minute, but still technically not 9:38.

7) Eyewitnesses:

Considering the known unreliability of eyewitness recollection, and that most people do not directly time-stamp their memories, it should not be surprising that this sector of the evidence is the least clear on the actual impact moment. Just a few of the published accounts provide useful clues, while many specifically disagree or are hopelessly vague. The oft-cited “9:30” is too common a rounding point to be taken too seriously, and it appears several times. A small sampling that are said to specifically cite something more like 9:32 were outlined in a previous post. But the sampling of five below does establish a normal distribution around the minute all other evidence is pointing at.

“It was about 9:35 […] it came from the south. […] I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down came down right over 395 into the Pentagon.” – Don Wright
“At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards… in front of me.” - Donald R. Bouchoux
“At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me.” - Vin Narayanan
“At 9:35, as we were watching this on TV, we heard over the loudspeaker “All medical personnel report to the front desk of Medical.” We did not know at that time that the Pentagon had been hit.” - Captain William B. Durm
“About 9:30 or so — I don't know the exact time, maybe quarter to 10 — we were still in the conference room, and we heard and felt the loud explosion of the plane hitting the Pentagon, and it reminded me of an earthquake.” – Lt. Col. Frank Bryceland [note: the mid-point of the range from 9:30-45 is 9:37:30.]

Update:As the brilliant JREF member Mangoose pointed out to me a while back:

I would also draw your attention to the witness account of William Paisley who posts as Pinch at JREF and who has a blog http://www.instapinch.com/.

You might want to contact him directly but he has elsewhere related that he was at Crystal Park 3, 10th floor on 9/11, and was watching NBC coverage of the terrorist attacks; when he saw Jim Miklaszewki's report at 9:39:10 he took a few steps to his office window and immediately saw a billowing, building mushroom cloud of black smoke rising up above the roofs of the buildings between his building and the Pentagon. This is pretty good confirmation that the explosion was not too much sooner than 9:39.

8) Wall clocks at the Pentagon:
In the Book Pentagon 9/11 [Goldberg, 2007] is pictured a wall clock from an office above the impact area, stopped at 9:36:27 – one minute, 25 sec behind the time in discussion. This is reasonably close and solid evidence of the general time at least.
Ironically enough, the famous 9:30-ish stopped clocks, which stand as the best (basically only) evidence for a blast at that early time, may also support the 9:38 time-frame. Non-nutty 9/11 Truther Russell Pickering decided that the low time is a case broken mechanisms as the clocks hit bottom-first after falling from their mounts, with simple gravity responsible for pulling the hands down to near bottom. He issued a challenge for anyone to take, which no 9:32 event supporters did, For one, CIT ally Mirage of Deceit (nutty) later confirmed the results (link unavailable). The pictures indicate the minute hands were somewhere past the 6, not before, but little else can be said for sure. But since everything else says it all went down at 9:38, is it not reasonable to call these a double-confirmation of that time with gravity rounding it down towards 9:30? [note: although it seems to have fallen differently and onto carpet, a similar effect could be behind the above clock’s being behind – or perhaps someone at the Pentagon actually was synched over a minute behind.]
Case Closed
So now that the 9:38 case looks strong enough to actually absorb even the best early-attack evidence, I’d like to turn to some assorted other evidence that doesn’t fit, and for shits and giggles use it to craft smtig even stupider than the 9:32 Pentagon attack meme (which CIT doesn’t even buy). Who knows, some bold Truther might just run with the 9:30-or-before scenario (oops, they already have) or the 9:25 WTC attack (no takers yet).

CLOUT FLYOVER WITNESS

CLOUT FLYOVER WITNESS - FIRST AND FURTHER THOUGHTS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
posted May 20 2008,
last update 6/9 3am

Craig Ranke, Citizen Investigation Team on Clout 5/15: "We recently have an exclusive interview with Two people saw the plane continue on past the Pentagon [...plays clip of one, see below...] this gentleman that proves the plane continued on after the explosion”

Host Richard Greene in response: "With all due respect Craig I don’t think it proves it. It’s certainly one person’s testimony which I’ve never heard before.” [and then he gave Honegger four minutes to repeat things he had, again.]

Aldo Marquis, CIT: "you guys heard it. We've got a flyover witness(es)."

Marquis: "Trust us people.....this is THE best flyover witness imaginable and his account is rock solid and corroborated." [note: possible confusion between 'imaginable' and 'possible']

Flyover theory first decided on by CIT around September-Nov. 2006. First time CIT has something they're comfortable calling a flyover witness? Just now, May 2008. And they have two. And more to come all of a sudden. Alright, but regarding this one, I’m not aware yet how they got ahold of this witness. He’s another Pentagon Police Officer, and given their track record for being straight with CIT in the past, that’s a bad starting point.

Witness location - working security at the time at the south parking lot loading dock. It's not clear if he was out in the little lot or under the roof (see graphic below). Time: just after the first violent event. [not made clear in audio itself]

Transcript from poor compression of audio of audio:
“I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe only seven steps away from there so it’s just extrememly close. You could see that plane just as clear as day.”
[...] “It was, to me, at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.”
[…] Aldo: ”[...]you saw it over the south parking lot?”
“Right. Around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the light poles like – had to be no more than 50 feet, or less than a hundred feet."
Aldo: "Wow. Are you 100% certain it was a jet, an actual jet plane?"
“Commercial aircraft”
Aldo: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?"
"Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It it was two aircraft, that’s for sure."

This of course ties in very well with their two-plane cover story flyover explanation. However, as for the implications regarding the alleged flight path, am I understanding this correctly? CIT? You aren't banned here like I am at your forum. Your blathering isn't allowed, but a straight answer is. What am I missing? Was the plane literally OVER the south lot? How did it get there do you think and when?
Location of 'lane 1' thanks to a DoD PDF image courtesy Boone870. It fits my guess and makes the flyover to this part of the lot even less probable. It had to have looped around and come back just for this little show that so very few saw.

Regarding CIT's previous flight path, am I being deceptive and picking their worst fit? Well it would have to pass about through the blast fireball for the trick to work, and we know where that happened. As for angle, all would be impossible for a plane of any size at any speed to bank like that, but I'll let CIT's offering speak for themselves. How well does a path from the 'impact point' to the south parking lot work with any of these? (r-click, new window). Did it loop around and return, or what?
This one really doesn't fit
For a "3D" perspective on how impossible it is to connect all this to their long-awaited flyover witness!
Blue works best here, but none make much sense
The reasonable right bank in response to Reheat- Sacrificing witness details to try and satisy physics (still fails)
SPreston's effort from just a few days ago - oops! He was trying to help.

Update: Thanks to the on-the-ball John Farmer, we have an ID on this witness: DPS officer Roosevelt Roberts. Like Brooks and Lagasse, he was interviewed by the LoC in 2001 (Nov 30), interview available here. The interview is a bit confusing as to timeline (he saw the plane at 9:11 am?), as is his new interview, but he places a plane over the south lot, apparently after the explosion (audio gap leaves it a bit unclear). However, the LoC site says Roberts "talks about watching the plane before impact." I'll have a more detailed analysys later. I may know what's up with this and why this might prove a rather ironic twist. Keep an eye out.
---
Update: Aldo explains, sort of:
pinch: "So, can you clarify? Did the aircraft fly north of the Citgo, or did it overfly the south parking? You can't have both."
Aldo Marquis CIT; "Actually you can, especially if his perspective led him to believe it was "over" the parking lot. Especially if he is refering to south parking on the north side of the Pentagon, near the loading docks on that side. Especially if he is referring to the east end of south parking.

Okay, Aldo... you don't know where he was? What did he say when you asked him to clarify his position? Have you sent him a picture to draw the flight path on? This is important stuff, the FLYOVER WITNESS, and where he puts it going after that is important to understanding where to look for witnesses next, don't you think? South parking lot means what? Over means what? Lane one area is where? Plane was headed 'away' which way? Did you lose Roberts' phone number or do you intend to keep it nice and vague and all about the 'after' aspect? 'The plane was proven to be doing impossible things after the event so it didn't impact' just doesn't cut it. If it can't happen, guess what? It didn't. Please Citizen Investigators call him back and record the clarifications and get a flight path from him. It is worth it, isn't it?
---
Further developments, bound to keep being interesting:
The Flyover Theory Gets Some Faux Clout: The story behind the first airing.
When and Where? Establishing the open questions
Reality/TV If Roberts thinks he saw "another plane," what was the one before it that "hit the building?" It's not as obvious as CIT makes it seem.
- his 2001 interview with USU's Brennan in fraternity w/Brooks and Lagasse - Original tape missing
- Big Eyewitness news coming!!!: Regarding my attempt to contact officer Brooks. No luck so far... piece needs updated and will be updated again as needed.
---
Also, Roberts is mentioned in The PentaCon, I recall, by Officer Brooks, and argued about a bit between him and Lagasse. I'll have to dig that back up.

LIKE TWO BULLDOZERS

NEIT 749 PHOTO SHEDS LIGHT ON DAMAGE PATH
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 27 2008

Whatever I think of some of John Farmer’s propositions, I have always appreciated his unparalleled use of FOIA and other channels to increase the body of available data about the Pentagon attack. Among the three dozen plus Center for Military History witnesses he’s obtained so far, one at least brought additional material aside from testimony. This witness is designated NEIT 749, a Helicopter Pilot with the Fairfax County Police Dept. He was not a witness to the event, and only saw the aftermath from the air. When he was interviewed by CMH in late April 2002,they also collected at least some of the officer’s photos, which Farmer was able to retrieve copies of, in mid-resolution, and share them at his site. He does ask that they be cited to Center for Military History / Fairfax County Police.

As far as I can see, these are all-new, never-before published images, 24 of them, most aerial long-shots of the damage and recovery staging areas. There is really nothing much revolutionary in the images that jumps out at me, but perhaps I’m just worn out on all this. One, image #100-0008, shows a new view of the downed light poles, partially assembled at the guardrail. I’m not sure yet if there are any new clues in that pile, that’s for later. For now I’m struck more by image #100-0028 (above), an early aerial shot from just north of the impact area and looking across the pre-building damage area at a unique angle.

“Obstacles” of note labeled are in this enlarged crop, most previously identified in my “obstacle dodge post. For some stupid reason, a lot of entities have latched onto the cable spools as evidence against a large plane strike. I’ll look at that a bit below. The diesel-powered generator trailer and fence are of course widely noted as evidence for the right engine’s passage through that corner of the construction area. The ‘mystery debris’ I had previously thought perhaps part of the generator, but here we can see right behind it a concrete footprint (parked’ behind the van), to which something had apparently been attached. I looked at the vent structure in detail later, Its corner was famously nicked by the ground-level left engine, but hardly anyone has looked at the inside elements of this recessed structure. ‘Vault 1’ as I’ve labeled here was apparently scraped over, its hinged door pushed back and warped (see above post for closer side-photos) What I’ve here labeled vault 2 is probably the original resting place of the propped-open door assembly dented and hurled back. This is visible as a tent-like shape in many photos (here only half-visible). A tipped over Bobcat tractor as previously seen is even further behind that.

Without reference it seems a chaotic scene. But I have reference, and this photo also allows us a unique view of the area where I can line up the column lines and the “official” plane profile relative to them, and trace this back.

The tipped fuselage would have a clearance of perhaps ten feet at the right, and perhaps five at the wall. Its right side/wing faring a bit higher than the left. The famously non-tipped, non-damaged 6-foot cable spools furthest from the building were thus likely passed just over, and the one at center likely rolled a bit from the right – probably on wake just after the plane passed. The two further in seem to be spread away from the others right along the fuselage path as it descended, and tellingly, it’s these two that are tipped over and of course singed/burnt from the intense deflagration at impact, which they were in the range of.

Otherwise, the fuselage had little real effect prior to the building, and it’s the engine paths that are interesting here. All evidence puts their impact points roughly at column lines 11 and 17, the left engine at ground level and right engine a bit higher, These I traced back from impact in orange, along the ground (width app, slight perspective skew). Refer to the above graphic where the objects were highlighted and compare to these areas. The general excellent fit stands out, as framed by the fence damage and vent corner nick, and as everyone has noticed. What pops out here, aside from the curious lack of clutter in the actual engine troughs, is the precision of the lines marking their paths. The trailer and mystery debris on the right, both seem pushed aside just far enough to let pass a barreling multi-ton RB211 engine. On the left, the lid from vault 1, the lid assembly from vault 2 or wherever, and the Bobcat’s direction of tip all clearly follow the rough outer edge of the left engine’s swathe. Forward (on the plane’s path) and to the right or left, depending. Like two low-flying aerial bulldozers came in on the “official path” to fake us all out.

That is what some “investigators” would call a suspiciously precise forensic clue – like so much else about the attack, it just lines-up a little too “cookie cutter.” Would a real airliner fake an airliner’s damage so perfectly? Short answer: yes, it would, and it probably did.

LET’S TALK ABOUT IT THEN - THE WITNESSES

LET’S TALK ABOUT IT THEN - THE WITNESSES
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 22 2008
edits 7/23 2am

The Paper / The Witness Roster
Although it does not deny a 757 impact at the Pentagon, John Farmer’s recent paper You All Just Haven’t Talked About it, and its second Plane north path flyover theory proposition deserves special attention and a solid panning. At the outset he warned me:

“You are referring to my little essay as if it were some conclusive theory or something. It is not and was never asserted to be. My only assertion is that there is an evidence set for something more going on in the sky over the Pentagon and DC area at the time of the attack than the public record accounts for.”

But however seriously he meant it, the paper is far more specific than that. It spends its first seven pages on the evidence in the Citgo video supporting a north path aircraft – one solid but inconclusive clue – and the last six pages call on five eyewitness accounts that ultimately offer little if any assistance to the case: William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, Roosevelt Roberts, Center for Military History witness “NEIT428,” and “mole,” an anonymous source from a chat forum. One of these, Roberts, was immediately removed. Originally the paper said:

“Add to this another DPS Officer, Roosevelt Roberts who in a 2001 audio interview claims he ran out from the loading dock near the Pentagon southern lot and saw another plane flying low over the south lot, and there is no doubt that AAL77 was not alone.”

As it happened, the paper’s release roughly coincided with Citizen Investigation Team’s on-air announcement of having talked with that witness as a “second plane”/ flyover witness. Within days, after absorbing this new testimony, Farmer announced a change of heart: “I have had to remove DPS Officer Roberts as a second plane witness. 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.” Oddly enough from his account, it seems clear that Flight 77 was alone.

So right up front that leaves us four to deal with and two I’m already pretty sure are liars – the original Defense Protective Service Citgo witnesses cited by CIT in The PentaCon. He did not include CIT’s other Citgo witness Turcios, for obvious reasons, but this curiously impossible account did not alter his enthusiasm for the others that also make no sense to the same end. He decided based on an interesting interpretations that “when SGT Brooks and SGT Lagasse’s accounts are taken objectively, they both seem to be describing two different plane approaches simultaneously. One is consistent with the southern path (Lagasse’s yaw and Brook’s vibration) and the other with a northern approach.” Interestingly, like Turcios and Roberts, both only cite one plane bearing these traits.

Lagasse's Yaw
The core of Farmer’s analysis of DPS Sergeant Lagasse is his well-known north-path testimony considered with his final moment “yaw” (nose oriented a bit sideways from the plane’s forward direction) which meant that “it approached the Pentagon at another angle consistent with the actual flight path of AAL77." Now that sounds interesting, considering he already describes the south-path action of crashing low into the building. "In other words," Farmer explains "when he first saw it, he was looking at the right side" of a plane north and set to not hit "and then at the end he is looking at the left side of it," as he'd see of the real impact plane, and "as he would have a plane passing the south side of the station."

This observation spurred to me to reason out a few of Lagasse's early observations to Dick Eastman from June 2003 that had confused me before. When Eastman asked the agitated but open officer “how much of the plane was visible to you as it went in?” Lagasse responded that he “could see the fuse, tail, port wing and starboard wing root” at its final moment, but not the right outer wing. This perhaps fits better with a south approach (seeing left side), but both angles are similar at such a distance. He cites the rise of Route 27 as his view limiter at right, but I used the tree here).

More interestingly, he describes to Eastman the impact of this plane that had passed north of him:

“[It] was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over theannex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building were it met the ground. There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same time the wing was involved with the trailer…” [source]Indeed, a left rudder turn would lead to a left yaw matching the right side hitting first as the right wing entered the construction area. Since Construction storage trailers were either to the left of impact or too far right to be struck, and the right wing/engine is known to have torn through the generator trailer at about the time the nose struck, right side first, it seems most likely Lagasse meant this trailer and deduced from the evidence the actual impact angle. From this Farmer’s leap almost makes sense except for the glaring problem that he did not see his own north path plane he’d been tracking remaining high up and flying at least 60 feet – four fuselage-widths – above the crashing one.

So he does give clues consistent with both the north and south path, but gives them all to only one plane, which “literally hit the building were it met the ground.” While this fits with the trailer evidence he saw, it does not explain either the deflection angle of debris he noted (to the left/north) or the downed light poles, which he also saw and “remembers” in the wrong location - along his path, where he also places the damaged taxi. For this interpretation to work, he'd have to be constructing in his own mind a yaw AND a steady descent in order to fuse the two. In short, his testimony never made sense, and it’s only gotten more surreal with more verification. Lagasse is, at best, an unreliable witness. Period. His “yaw” changes this not one bit, and leaves me yawning as evidence for two planes.

Brooks' Vibration
Brooks’ value to Farmer’s thesis hinges on his 2001 LoC interview. Thanks to CIT’s 2006 verification, we know Brooks’ (stated) location, and I’ll reserve judgment on Farmer’s reading of his parked orientation and PoV. Although these are key to understanding this account, it’s something CIT did not sort out, and I at least am just guessing there. By describing a plane off to his left (and ahead?) while hearing a loud sound/vibration behind him, all well before impact, Brooks allowed Farmer to state “if SGT Brooks 2001 account is taken literally, then he was hearing a plane pass behind him while watching another plane to his left.”

We could try not taking it literally then, but there is some room for speculation here and Farmer takes it. I would guess the sound from behind was bouncing off the Pentagon, or perhaps the Citgo. But it’s possible it was a different plane, one left/ahead, one behind, which means about at the Pentagon, or just passing north or south of him and perhaps two seconds from impact, depending on how he was facing. He reported no impact or explosion at this time – not until the one he was watching approach from the west and impacted about two seconds after passing him, clipping light poles along the way, he thinks.

This means the flyover plane was well ahead of the impact one judging by Brooks’ narrative, to the tune of seconds at least (nowhere near the number he ticks off...). This certainly complicates Lagasse’s yaw interpretation! He saw the north path flyover plane pass and believe IT impacted, which necessitates the planes fly in simultaneously – at least one of these two reading has to be wrong. And no other witness describes another jet flying over the Pentagon several seconds before the impact.

NEIT428's Low Plane
The 428th witness interviewed by the Army’s Center for Military History is an Arlington National Cemetery worker and among those available now in Farmer’s FOIA collection. The key part of his account is this:

“Well, when we came out of the warehouse we heard this boom, you know, this big explosion. And we, all we could see was the smoke and the heat [...] after that happened, we looked up in the sky and there was another plane. So, you know, so we panicked. So we started running, you know. So I just dropped on the ground. The plane was so low we were thinking it was going to do the same thing, but the plane made a turn and went in the opposite direction.”

His name is still unknown to me, but I believe this is one of the ANC Ommpah-Loompahs verified in uniform and on-site again in CIT’s upcoming video smash hit whatever the hell it’s called (see the trailer around anywhere). If so my take should be considered in light of this, but whatever he may have said later, this is about his testimony as known to Farmer when he wrote this:

“My first impression was that this must surely be the C-130 known to arrive in the area a minute or so later. However, the altitude of that plane was relatively high and it seems unusual that they would duck for cover in response to it. The interviewer fortunately asks a follow-up question regarding the altitude.

“It was low enough that it could touch the building, the warehouse. It was close.””

Farmer wondered about the “documented […] plane that approached the White House from the Washington Monument area [and was] over the White House at 09:41” and if this was “the plane witnessed by the Citgo and ANC witnesses.” [emph mine] I would guess C-130 with confused altitude clues. He could see the cockpit and perhaps the people in it because it was at a distance to the west, as the C-130 was, and he was seeing its nosecone higher than he remembers and perhaps lower than we’ve all been thinking. Also he was likely nervous and exaggerating any possible threat.

NEIT428 mentions a turn to “the opposite direction,” a U-turn, which none of the witnesses describe for the “decoy” plane but only for the C-130, as Farmer well knows. If “the opposite direction” as he states is "to the left towards the Washington, D.C. area” as Farmer decides, then it must have been coming fromthe DC area when he first saw it, which does not well fit with, for example, Lagasse’s west-east flight past the Citgo. A 30-40 degree turn to the left does not equal the “opposite direction,” which requires about 180 – like the C-130 did. Of Farmer andNEIT428, one has to be wrong about the turn described by NEIT428.

Furthermore, if this witness’ second plane is NOT the C-130, then his failing to notice the C-130 in addition to it is at least slightly odd. And finally, he had second plane pass but not impact after the crash there. This clearly complicates Brooks’ impact after flyover interpretation and Lagasse’s simultaneous passage – of the paper’s proposed readings of Lagasse, Brooks and NEIT 428, at least two have to be wrong about the order of events.

Mole's 757 "over the mall"
And the fourth remaining witness in this sorry parade finally gives us something a bit more promising, but it’s an anonymous online source. Back in March 2002, Screen-name “mole” posted at the techguy forum the following:

“My Team Leader came in to say as he was coming in to the building, he saw a 757 flying in a peculiar location roughly over the Mall. (We now know that was the 757 that hit the Pentagon as it did circle downtown DC, supposedly looking for a target, possibly the Whitehouse which is not as easy to pick out from the air as the Capitol or the Pentagon, before heading west again, then turning east for its final run at the Pentagon.)”

This account is not scientifically precise, and in fact dead wrong on 77 being over the capitol (it was a common urban legend at the time) but it is probably legit as evidence and worth a look. Timeline is key, and the original post does make clear that before hearing this report, mole’s wife “called to tell me there was smoke showing from further down the Mall in the direction of the Whitehouse,” almost certainly the smoke from the Pentagon, further in that direction and the only smoking thing in the area at the time.

The timeline after is less clear, but I might guess he saw the E4-B pass at 9:46, eight minutes after the Pentagon strike. This craft is based on a 747 mode, not 757, which is interesting since mole explained how after this “I saw the outline of a 747-400 flying slowly south to north nearly directly over head at a low altitude. Planes never flew there as it is restricted airspace, almost over the Capitol.” Radar later showed this craft passed the capitol mall a second time at 9:49, but north-south near the mall’s west side, and he says it flew south-north, as it did on the first pass at 9:45:30 before turning left and passing E-W just a few blocks north of the White House.

Therefore, it seems likely after all to speculate that the “757” seen before this was NOT the E4-B, and quite possibly a post-77 second plane. Or it could be 77 itself, with “mole” or his team leader misreading the location clues to put it over the capitol rather than across the river. That might seem like a stretch, but considering how little over-the-mall evidence there really is, it can’t be dismissed. Despite these ambiguities, Farmer has no problem stating of mole’s account:

“With witness statements like this, it is clear that the 911 Commission failed in its job to fully explain to the American public exactly what happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.”

No, sorry. It’s clear that we need some clarification on this. The author “knew” Flight 77 was looping over the capitol, but since then we’ve learned it did not, at least officially. Did this “knowledge” compel him to remember hearing it was over the Capitol, when really no location was stated? What we have here is an anonymous unverifiable account passing on a second hand report of a “757 […] roughly over the mall” at some unspecified moment around the attack time, before or after. And it was taken by mole as supporting the crash of that plane. For any other purpose, it's anecdotal evidence, weak and not able to be strengthened ever.

Conclusion: Gravel
So that’s my panning of half the paper, the other half being the video clues I’m not done with yet. Farmer’s optics and video analysis skills are no help on this side, his law-enforcement “extensive experience working with witnesses” has been of little help either, and his statistical insights failed to tip him off to the low odds that this would all pan out. The process of panning is to separate valuable ore from ordinary rock, and at risk of carrying the metaphor too far,, after watching all this gravel sift out the bottom, I’m left with a keen sense of how empty my pan is. A couple faint sparkles of fool's gold, I'd guess. Does it get any better than this?
ETA: Re-considered then in light of this paper never meaning to have argued anything concrete, and the fact that it clearly does argue something pretty cogent, it seems this notion was being floated, or offered as a possibility with some potential value. Or what, John? A thought exercise, a little mad-libs imagination moment just couched in serious terms for effect, a prank to amuse yourself? In the peer review sense, I have to offer my best assessment of your intelligence and intentions, and hope the last is the case.
ETA 7/27: In fact, perhaps this was just a strawman CIT parody disposable construct for that idiot Caustic to joust to the ground triumphantly, which I guess would be amusing. If so, it was fun on my end too, and thanks.

LOSING FLIGHT 77

July 21
The official accounts of radar/transponder tracking and communications problems with following Flight 77 tried to explain how the weaponized airliner was allowed to get within a few minutes of its target undetected. In total this has been taken by many (including myself) as an impossible or at least suspicious string of errors, allowing a third successful attack one hour into the new war. The Pentagon WAS protected by a mobile air-to-air missile defnse system, or was supposed to be, and the system failed as fighters were first alerted of the danger by a columnar smoke signal saying mission failed.

A useful new entry at 911 Myths regarding this - Losing Flight 77 - is up now to shed some light on it. I haven't really read it yet, this is just a tip-off. Calling on arguments by the relatively respectable and non-loony 9/11 Scholar Nafeez Ahmed, the 9/11 Commission Report and hearings, original interview with Colin Scoggins, and more, Mike W concludes:

Not a single one of Ahmed's arguments entirely withstands scrutiny, then. His most substantial point comes in the differing NORAD timeline, but the problems here are well-known, and Ahmed fails to provide independent confirmation to show that their version of events was correct. What's more, the NORAD tapes (released in full after Ahmed completed his book) contradict their timeline, for example clearly showing that they knew nothing of Flight 77 until after 9:30 on 9/11. And so while Ahmed claims victory, the reality is very different: the balance of evidence continues to support the 9/11 Commission timeline for Flight 77.

Additional discussion at JREF with technical input from Gumboot.

JOHN FARMER’S NORTH PATH CLUE

JOHN FARMER’S NORTH PATH CLUE
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 17 2008
Update July 27

John Farmer and I agree on many things about the Citgo video, starting with our willingness to even call it what it is - evidence of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. We agree on the shadow of the south path impact aircraft . We agree on the video’s relevance to Robert Turcios’ testimony. On the famous north canopy flash we agree on its origin lining up only with sunlight, making it irrelevant to flight path questions, although I still find that odd in some ways.

Nearly half of Farmer’s recent second-plane north-path flyover paper is dedicated to explaining the Citgo video and how it actually supports the possibility. Even as I’m finding the whole paper something I hope is a joke, there is one valid north path clue and it’s in the video, allowing us to agree on that once again.

“I examined every flash of light or other optical event fully until I was satisfied with the source of each,” he explained, and all but one “could be associated with real-world events” (I’m presuming he means the “official story”). “At 09:40:37, in camera number 2 (south entrance) a light begins to appear on the rough concrete wall to the left of the entrance door,” the first two frames of which are shown at left with the wall shown at center, in a Farmer-provided site photo.

9:40:37 is video clock time, which is about two minutes ahead of the real time, as this light appears at the same moment all clues indicate the crash at the Pentagon happening. As Farmer notes, "in the very first frame, the light is shining over the top of the corner of that wall which is slightly raised from the roof line." Farmer explains the angles of the walls (see my own graphic below) and notes “the light is originating from a point to the left (less than 52.5 degrees from north) and approximately 3 degrees upward relative to horizontal. In simpler terms, the light source is airborne at a relatively low altitude and at least 17-18 degrees north of the impact area!”I can’t vouch for the more precise aspects, but at least I can agree to the basic idea. As he further explained it in an e-mail to me with this accompanying graphic.

“In the first frame where the “flash” is visible, there is a silhouette cast on the concrete wall. This effect can be replicated in one way, and ONLY in one way. So initially, the light source MUST be to the north-east of the wall corner in order to cast the silhouette observed.”
Alright, so I understand the concept, and I’ll call it ‘the silhouette thing,’ a valid clue of a light source from the north. Must this be a plane on a/the north path though? Altitude is important here. I considered the fireball and its known northern (and upward) angle of deflection/propogation. However looking at the scale of difference required this can be dismissed right out. It didn’t spread that far north. I don’t know enough to rule out last light of the banking plane, reflected from another object along that line, like some sign up on a high overpass nearby or something. It does arrive at that upper ledge just before the main light washes the whole wall there for over two seconds.

So I can’t vouch for the implications, I concur that it is viable evidence of some kind of light somewhere over there at that time. It’s in his attempt to divorce all the following east entrance light from what seems to me its true source and give it to an aircraft with, it seems, bizarre reflective properties, that Farmer almost seems to be talking backwards in the vein of our ol’ pals CIT.

“This is a shadowed area which immediately rules out light from the Pentagon fireball.”

Ummm, no. Open sunlight would drown it, but shadowed areas angled the right way would be where to look for fireball glow. He does correctly state that the fireball “would illuminate the entire area under the canopy, not just a spot on a concrete wall.” For two seconds or more after this one strange frame, it appears to me the intense but diffuse light actually being emitted just 1500 feet away DID illuminate every upright surface about right, even under the north canopy. This issue will require a separate post.

Update 7/27: I had meant to include this observation at first but forgot. The usual frame rate when "action" mode is off, and which I had always seen in the other views, was 3 frames per second. Among the things that first struck me about the silhouette thing is that its camera's view has at least four, and perhaps five or six, distinct frames in the pivotal 9:40:37 slot, and action is not blinking. Regarding this, You All Just Haven't Talked About It explains:

"This particular camera is one of the few that refreshes twice in the multiplexer sequence. So it captures a frame, and then 1/30th of a second later captures another. Then it must sequence through 7 frames before refreshing again. This is fortunate, since the first captured frame gives for that instant a definitive clue as to the origin of the source."

FLYOVER LINK DOESN’T LINK

FLYOVER LINK DOESN’T LINK
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 15 2008

Digging through John Farmer’s north-path flyover paper You All Just Haven’t Talked About it, I had to respond to this one point and draw attention to a little-known but verifiable witness that could confirm or deny it.

“Mark Gaffney and Pinnacle have already documented a plane that approached the White House from the Washington Monument area and was photographed by Linda Brookhart as it turned over the White House towards the Capitol Building.”

Before continuing, I should note that although we’re on bad terms at the moment, Farmer did send me Pinnacle’s documents to review, and I will. I’m still waiting for Gaffney’s book (is it out yet or what? I pre-ordered it months ago!) And for reference, this is the plane in question as snapped by Brookhart - refer to this picture when reading Farmer’s attempt to ambiguously blend this craft with the one seen by Lagasse, Brooks, and “NEIT428:”
“Further, Peter Jennings reported a plane over the White House at 09:41, 2 1⁄2 minutes after the Pentagon event official time of 09:38. So is the plane witnessed by the Citgo and ANC witnesses the same plane? Without more definitive evidence regarding the direction the plane left the area, it is difficult to say.”

The white four-engine plane over the capitol could not have been the same silver 2-engine AA airliner seen on the north flyover path. Further, the direction the plane left the area according to the Citgo witnesses was none. So no, it can't be the same plane. It's not "difficult to say" from my end, but I understand how others might have a harder time deciding.

For now I want to focus on a link in this path Farmer did not cite: Lt. Col. Stuart Artman. A local Florida paper described him on 9/15/01 as a 44-year old "licensed commercial airline pilot of the Army Reserve and engineer in Winter Haven, Florida” and gives his location at the time as “walking near the Washington Monument when he saw a plane fly low over the city." The only direct quote was "I saw the plane that hit the Pentagon. It went behind some trees." The paper followed with “then he saw the smoke.” [source]

It went behind trees, he saw smoke, he feels it hit the Pentagon. Deduced, of course. Here is a graphic highlighting the Monument area, which he was at or near, so exact PoV is unknown. There are several bands of trees he could mean, most likely on his side of the River. A CIT-type north path flover is in yellow, continuing towards the monument area, and the official path ending at the Pentagon is in purple.
Did it fly all the way to his rough location without re-emerging from behind the trees? Was he right under a really dense tree so he didn’t even see it overhead? Because he did not say the plane also flew over the Pentagon after the impact. He did not report any plane heading through the plume right towards him and on to the Capitol. If he had seen this, would he have called that “the plane that hit the Pentagon?” The paper did say “low over the city,” but this means nothing. It’s possible the reporter just doesn’t know the layout or didn’t ask specific enough questions to know if it was over DC or over Arlington.

Perhaps these weaknesses led Farmer to not include Artman in his short five-witness lineup for his paper, but CIT saw it differently, citing this brief account in The Pentagon flyover video, in their list of six additional witness accounts in support of the decoy plane looping over the Capitol either before or after it "hit the Pentagon." Aldo Marquis CIT also cites Artman’s account in his C-130 flight path essay in support of the contention:

“It is clear from a number reports that the plane flew over DC or the Capitol, so we really can't accept that it "had not crossed over towards the White House or towards the Capitol", as Mineta tries to assert.”

Who could believe Bush’s man Mineta over “a number of reports?” Never mind that it’s not just him, but also the radar, the black box, all the physical evidence, the roster of witnesses describing a path ending at the Pentagon, and the total lack of witnesses to any flyover, including the supremely well-placed Lt. Col. Artman that indicate the plane was perhaps headed towards the monuments and the mall but never got that far, having been traumatically absorbed by the Pentagon short of crossing the river.

Can Mr. Artman be contacted by CIT or Farmer, Gaffney, Pinnacle, or any other flyover proponent to get some details on this flight roughly over his head that was omitted from the scrap of his account we have? This is very Important I should think. Perhaps he was being censored in ’01 and maybe he’s been “gotten to” since, but it should not be left unexplored. He does seem to appear in people searches, all you guys, and all the clues you need are in this very post. I would perhaps offer to try myself, but I have no questions for the man and the onus is on those trying to prove some stupid hobbled-together "deception." Best of luck.

CHOKE ON THIS, DICK EASTMAN!

FLIGHT 77's SHADOW
July 6 2008
Update July 11

Mr. Eastman, if you're reading this:

I see you are still active on the internet, having recently contacted Ron Weick to alert him of another compilation of your post-CIT/PentaCon e-mails praising "Greg Ranke" et al... It appears this was first posted and then analyzed by debunkers here (apparently pulled since) and otherwise ignored as fruity.

God bless those San Juan Capistrano kids, eh? I understand Integrated Consultants' animation bowled you over back in August 2006 and briefly convinced you for - how many hours? - that Flight 77 really did actually knock down the poles and impact the building as all the witnesses who were there said. Luckily CIT immediately started "proving" with your star witness and two more that, even though there was no "killer" F-16, the flyover decoy plane really did pass north of the Citgo and NOT impact.

Well here - in addition to the nicely linear damage that IC worked in to explain the south-of-Citgo real flight path and impact, we have the video proof - and have for almost two years now - that places that plane right on the path to do all that. I tell you man, if that little cartoon knocked you flat, what does this do for ya?

Online Videos by Veoh.com
This a re-working of my previous post from last year. The only change is the distance to the plane (before, 195', now 175) and a resultant altitide change from 115 to 105 ft above the shadow (all approximate). It's not a big change and it's all in a general range. It all fits as well as ever - essentially, perfect.

We still have no proof that the Citgo video was manipulated in any maningful way.

ETA: Dick, I know this must be hard to take and I can imagine why you might be bitter, man. Also, thanks to my posting at JREF and Brainster/Pat Curley's re-posting at Screw Loose Change, the video is already at 390 views, pretty good for a few days with no twooferbots fluffing the numbers up. A few debunkerbots I suppose, but somehow those annoy me less. Check the comments section.

Add'l info 7/11: I've never made this clear enough, but this shadow is actually more than two dots. there's an additional small dark patch visible between them, and a faint line of shadow to the right of them. These correspond roughly to the left wing root and forward wing edge as predicted by plane shadow at the right heading. Even without seeing these, the two dots should be evident to anyone who maps out what we would see, but with these additional bits managing to come through, it becomes undeniable. If you spot any inconsistencies here in heading, do remember the aircraft may have been on a slightly different heading at that point, in a slight yaw (flying a bit sideways from its heading) and there's also the angle of view of the roadway, seen more from above in the bottom graphic and more from level in the top.

FILET OF FLOUNDER

FILET OF FLOUNDER
July 3 2008

On June 26 I received my packet for Officer Roberts, unopened and un-received. I had sent it three weeks earlier, hoping to get some clarification on aspects of his eyewitness account. Perhaps I picked the wrong address, or he's out of town, who knows? They said they made two attempts to deliver, and couldn't find anyone to give it to. Maybe he was there and refused it. I don't know.

Anyway, now that I'm started I won't stop that easy. I have the info I paid for, and I know others who know how to talk to him... so I e-mailed Craig Ranke on Tuesday. Here's how that went:

Me: "Well hey, it's been a while. Hope you guys are doing well personally and floundering professionally. The reason I write is to say that my package for Officer Roberts was not received/accepted. [...] Before I waste any more time, I was wondering if you or Aldo would be willing to help me out, either with the right address or if possible his phone number? This will help get me to confirm this account again, which would be great for you guys."

Ranke: "You expose your dishonest intentions and personal obsession with us in your 2nd sentence. You don't care about truth you simply want CIT to "flounder professionally".

You are desperately fishing for ammo to preempt us with spin.

Relax and wait to see all the data."

Me: "Nice excuse. You damn well know my "dishonest intentions" and it would be disrespectful to conceal them. Plus it wouldn't work. So really what you're saying is "no because you're a detractor." Does this mean you really are twisting his words and don't want anyone else messing up your formula? And I'm not obsessed here, I'm following up. I don't even care about your next batch of smoking gun witnesses, I'm only watching the legal developments at this point."

This avoidance despite his earlier statement to Bobloblaw and I:

"Please feel free and call ALL the witnesses.

We encourage it.
[...]
Thanks for helping to verify our claims.

It's about time that The Frustrated Fraud finally did as well.

I sure hope Roosevelt responds to him."

So did he discover I was a deceiver/denier AFTER this statement, or was he just posturing? Oh well, I didn't really expect help, just thought I should try. I still have other addresses to try.

Only news about how CIT's massive proof is playing out in the courts will catch my attention now. As so many others have, I urge CIT to quit wasting their time gathering more evidence and provoking and slinging insults at insane illogical critics and take it to an wise and impartial judge and get this show moving! Otherwise fighting them have grown as stale as fighting the short guy below - who's worried about "preempting" HIS next move?

POLL: WHICH IS MOVING? LIGHT OR CAR?

POLL: WHICH IS MOVING? LIGHT OR CAR?
And Solar angle analysis
July 1 2008

I'm having a hard time seeing any motion of this car, and in fact the light seems to be moving across the car. This video does use a cross-fade that isn't there, and it seems the original dimmer light remains while a brighter light shining closer to the car's front adds to and overwhelms it, holding for only one frame (action mode off, 3fps).


This is the car, in low res, sorry - a black, shiny one, and judging by its response, driven by a police or emergency responder-type, possibly off-duty. I estimate its orientation when still (a line running between the license plates) in the neighborhood of 20˚from north.


The angle of the light IS a very close match at least for the angle of light from the sun (azimuth, 113˚), just about perpendicular to the car's still position, meaning a reflection back along nearly the same line, roughly the same one camera 3 was on relative to the patrol car, and so registers a reflection pointing 'straight up." Geometrically, it all lines up, but the sun doesn't move like that. It can't be from the plane, as it happens at impact, over a second after the plane left that area. It's nowhere near a match for light angles from the impact area, so it's not the explosion that was happening then. At least not directly.

Any thoughts, anyone?
---
Update: Well, looks like I've annoyed Farmer for the last time, and he hasn't the time to explain how the car is moving when it seems to not be. Because I'm an idiot I need to get a new extraction of the video to find similar flashes to this one, but the lo-res 5-min version I have contains none that I see, despite multiple cars passing the same spot. All reflect light dimly from a certain spot to a certain band on the canopy, but only this one has this bright flash. At 9:36:50 video time a dark car drives by the same area, no such effect. A 9:37:17 a white car casts a dim light all across as it passes, no single bright flash. Farmer insists the other flashes are there as other cars pass, and so I suppose they are. But I'll need to see it myself at this point.

On the other hand, I finally did vertical angle analysis based on the known solar altitude of 32˚above the horizon and it IS looking even more like sunlight after all. The tricky part of this for me was always deciding on the reflection plane incline of this unknown automobile. I'm not a car guy, but thinking in terms of a possible patrol car, I looked at a Ford Crown Victoria, which I hear is the standard model. Perspective aside, the incline angle here is about 34˚from vertical at mid-window, curving further at the top. Considering the gentle curve of the car's side panel, the angle from vertical would degrease down the side, until the near the bottom, where it would be zero at some point, and then curve inward just a bit at the bottom. We can't tell where exactly the light is reflecting from, but an incline of about 20-32˚is likely for anything in that zone.
23˚from vertical, roughly, is what's needed to bounce light from the sun up under the canopy. This is a likely incline at about door-handle-level. So this would tend to indicate, as the source, something bright and high along the same line as the one towards the sun. ie, car moving or not, both lateral and vertical analysis indicate this is just the sun after all, or a bizarre coincidence if not.

But the car really doesn't seem to move, it's already reflecting the same sort of dimmer light from a similar angle as the other cars that pass, and this lonely flash of sunlight happens right at impact when there's that bright fireball as well. So... mysteries remain, at least for me, but this not seeming direct evidence of the attack and not a core issue, I'm leaving it here. To the south end fireball light effect.

FARMER'S 2ND PLANE THEORY: FIRST THOUGHTS

FARMER'S 2ND PLANE THEORY: FIRST THOUGHTS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 27 2008
edits 11:45pm

We in the field of 9/11 studies owe a debt of gratitude to John Farmer for all he’s done to gather and share new evidence and analysis, most recently a consultant on research for Mark Gaffney’s new book The 9/11 Mystery Plane. He has always embraced the coherent body of evidence showing the attack plane plowed into the Pentagon from a south path, causing the extensive damage and death there. For most purposes and so far we’ve been on the same page, informational ‘allies’ in opposition to Citizen Investigation Team's north-path flyover, faked damage, and fooled witnesses meme. But his new effort You all just haven’t talked about it, made available in PDF at his 911files.info blog on Friday, clarifies a latent argument he’s been hinting at on the sidelines for over a year now - as he explained:

“I’m in trouble with the “fly-over” boys because I am convinced that the evidence shows that a large commercial plane flew down along the south side of the Citgo station and hit the Pentagon. Now, I’m going to be in trouble with the no “fly-over” crowd because I now believe that the evidence strongly supports a plane flying north of the Citgo station. So here it is folks, my way of making everyone mad at me…”

Oh, I’m not mad, though a bit disappointed. I’m not sure what exactly he thinks happened, but it apparently involves a plane on the north path in addition to the impact craft, passig over/by the Pentagon and then crossing over to the Capitol. There is some compelling evidence of a second plane in the area just after (or before?) the attack. He calls on CIT witnesses Brooks and Lagasse, CMH witness NEIT 428, and a couple of others. And then there’s the north path evidence he’s found in the Citgo video; he’s undeniably done some pivotal work with the south views, but the north views I need to look closer at because I’m not seeing it yet.

CIT responded almost instantly to this odd announcement; Ranke proclaimed rather confidently that “[Farmer] admits that we have been right all along and that a plane DID fly north of the citgo and fly over the building,” but insisted on obfuscating the obvious by mixing it with the 'official' plane causing the all-fake south path evidence. He further elaborated on this at the Loose Change Forum:

”Do you guys understand how ironic and symbolically huge this is? One of our worst detractors has been forced to fully EMBRACE what we assert! He knows the evidence we present is so strong that he must try to somehow incorporated it into the official story! It's absolutely classic and a MASSIVE indicator that they are in full spin mode.”

“They?” Indeed, Craig is clearly saying that that Farmer is part of some team effort, a disinformation campaign by the perpetrators to obscure CIT’s work:

“The very first moment this shadowy character appeared on the scene focusing heavily on the research of CIT (while pretending to support us) we knew he was disinfo. We knew he was ambiguously pushing the notion that 2 planes were simultaneously approaching the Pentagon, one that hit the building and one that passed on the north side of the citgo and flew over the building. All this as a means to cover up and obfuscate the evidence that we present.”

Other suspicious clues unearthed by Scooby and Shaggy CIT include Farmer’s “pseudo-technical over-analysis of the government data,” failed political campaigns, odd variations of his middle initial indicating a fake name, and the like, to decide he is “controlled opposition.” It’s no big secret he’s not an effective politician and has promoted both ‘sets of evidence,’ if ambiguously. He first gained my attention early last year by supporting the apparent north path data in the FDR [as promoted by Pilots for 9/11 Truth], which I later debunked (not his specific claim, which I never understood, but I did identify the real reason for the visible path difference), helping us start off on the wrong foot. He’s maintained the validity of north path clues since then, like while discussing the light effects in the Citgo video in August 2007: “careful [analysis] of the solar angle, angle of wall, height of other obstacles, gives incidental evidence of both the northern and southern flight paths. Neither is conclusive, but the case can be made for either.” [emph. Mine, source] At the time it seemed either-or, but now he's decided they existed simultaneously.

And again, as we’ve agreed on other points I’ve never been able to get on the same page regarding north path evidence. I had a strong bias of course - it’s seemed to me the anathema of truth. This in itself is a reason to suspect there really is something up with the north path and hence the noise inserted by CIT. Now I will try again to see it. Farmer has never advocated a non-impact all-fakery Pentagon attack, and still does not, so as devoted to no 757 at (in) the Pentagon theories, this blog does not have to address this interesting new development. But that would be the easy way out. John was thinking ahead to this when he said to Ranke in his comments section:

“Now see Craig, Adam is going to study my analysis and rip it to shreds over at his place in a few days. But he is nice about it, nothing personal. That has to be done Craig, it is called peer review. That is how true researchers sort out fact from fiction.”

A statement like this makes me almost wonder if he really means all this as a sort of experiment, but taking him at his word, we have a genuine proposal worthy of consideration by fellow researchers. For those running ahead and reading the PDF, you’ll see that the article is built partly around the new-to-me witness Roosevelt Roberts, whose account is on its face in clear contradiction with the official one plane only impact story. An important update from Farmer to note when reading it:

“I have had to remove DPS Officer Roberts as a second plane witness. 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. His account needs further research and clarification.”

Whatever new info really triggered it, this changes things in Farmer’s favor; his placement of the plane complicates a flyover, and Roberts did indeed say silver, while the flyover plane is said by both Farmer and CIT, if I’m not mistaken, to be White and sorta E4B-ish. Now as for Lagasse… well, this is for later. But CIT is still enthusiastically embracing Roberts' account, since he was just announced as their long-awaited flyover witness. Since I meant to dig and think deeper on that anyway, this analysis will tie into both CIT's case and Farmer's call for clarification. I will talk about the rest of You all just haven’t talked about it when I know what I'm talking about.

A MIRAGE OF PLAUSIBILITY

A MIRAGE OF PLAUSIBILITY
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 23 2008

Since I melted down there a while back, I am not allowed to post at the Above Top Secret.com 9/11 forum, even anonymously. This is clearly what I wanted at the time, and generally now as well, but I do feel compelled to comment on an argument posted there by CIT ally Mirage of Deceit (MoD). The point of his post was “regarding the MATH,” which the critics there have been demanding, as per Reheat’s challenge and CIT’s inability to provide a single possible flight path to accommodate all their official-deception-proving claims. While others simply deflected as if aerodynamic realities don’t matter, Mirage had the balls to step up and offer one single arc to fit the witness accounts in question, and showed the math he claims makes it a possible one.

Well the dude has some knowledge of piloting and the dynamics of flight, I’ve always handed him that, and he did put some thought into this. Plenty of others can question or verify his mathematical methodology, but I haven’t the patience. In fact I’m inclined to give MoD the benefit of the doubt on numbers, since they seem to make sense and, like Reheat but better, what MoD has done here is a brilliant job of again illustrating how – well, impossible - the over-Navy-Annex, north-of-Citgo, Pentagon-flyover scenario really is.

Like Reheat but with perhaps less awareness of the witness account details, Mirage took some set of variables into account [including “the guy stood by the Navy Annex (SW corner)”] and came up with a path (reproduced below) quite different from CIT’s original famous impossible estimate. He offered these numbers based on his “beizer curve”:

”Distance from Pentagon: 0.6169687 nm
Approx. required heading change: 30°
Assuming an airspeed of 350 kts:
Time to pentagon: 0.0017 hrs (or 6.3 secs)
Performing a rate one turn, in 6.3 seconds the aircraft could turn: 18.9°
Bank angle required for this turn at this speed: 42°”

First off, speed - the witnesses nearly all describe the plane vaguely as being quite fast, but there’s quite a spread now. Officially by FDR it was at 530 mph, or 460 kts, while Morin’s updated account, according to Ranke, supports a speed between 117-163 mph. (MoD cites “approx. 130-160 kts” as the applicable stall speed, where it falls out of the air). Most witnesses give airspeeds in the range of 250-450 kts [Arabesque compilation]. Lagasse estimated a reasonable “400 miles an hour,” or 347 kts, which is about what MoD used and found, oddly enough “at that speed, the turn STILL isn't possible.”

He was not deterred though, since “according to eye-witnesses though, it was [possible],” and with speed being “the only factor we have to play with,” he tried presuming the barely supportable and “more leisurely 250 kts,” or 288 mph, which yields these better numbers and conclusion:

”Time to pentagon: 0.0024 hrs (or 8.8 secs)
Performing a rate one turn, in 8.8 seconds the aircraft could turn: 26.4°
Bank angle required for this turn at this speed: ~32°
[…] allowing for possible errors in my calculations (specifically on heading change), the second scenario, flying slower at 250 kts, is possible.”

Ooh! A single flight path that’s possible if it were flying less that 288mph, or 72% of what Lagasse thought he saw, and 54% of the speed suggested by the FDR and the Citgo video shadow/impact interval.

Aside from the low speeds needed for his path, the most important shortfall of the proposal is the opposite of what MoD claimed: The flight path he proposes “is also more in line with the eye-witness accounts of what they saw from their various vantage points.” More explicitly:

“After watching the videos from CIT, it is clear the witnesses draw very similar flight paths on the photos. Given that the aircraft needed to fly over the Navy Annex in order for the witness there to see and describe what he saw, we can reasonably conclude the flight path was NOT as described at the start of this thread, but was in fact a VERY plausible, gentle curve.”
This is it. For those familiar with the scene, the ridiculousness of this graphic will be readily visible. It should be noted his graphic was posted as an external link so readers had the option of not seeing it at all, and his line is so thin and faint one can even miss it if they click the link. That’s good for MoD, because it’s the worst effort I’ve seen yet to explain the north path witnesses.

I brightened the line below, and measured the gap between his ‘plausible’ overflight point and impact (fireball) center, which all witnesses traced their paths to (roughly at least). The distance here ≈ 420 feet. Nearly all witnesses had Flight 77 flying low into the bottom part of the impact fireball just before it happened, not 400 feet-plus to the left of the top of it just after it blew up. I also included CIT-cited witnesses to consider, as used by Reheat - Paik, Morin, Turcios, Brooks, and Lagasse – with best direct readings here sketched roughly in blue. So what has been illustrated here, and I tend to agree with it, is that something like CIT’s proposal is aerodynamically impossible if it flew at half the official speed, on a path different from what the witnesses describe, to a spot 420 feet to the left of the flyover-hiding fireball. People rip on Reheat, including myself, for misrepresenting CIT’s findingsto prove them impossible, but this proposal takes the cake for off-baseness for the opposite reason. It’s only remotely similar to something that would really fit, more distorted than Reheat’s, but it’s the best he can came up with for aeronautical plausibility and it can’t possibly the way it happened. If this is the best it gets, or anywhere near it, then Mirage of Deceit has helped us all see that CIT will never be providing a plausible flight path and we can all stop asking. I only hope MoD will own up to the implications of his achievement rather than pretending this helps his “investigator” friends.

He did ask for a challenge, in his closing line: “Debunkers?” Yes, reporting, and I do have an answer, and some questions. I challenge him to come here and defend it. Comments are open (meaning will be allowed), and I’m all ears. My first 11 questions are these:

1) Morin - is this at all parallel to the south edge of the FoB as he describes? Is any of it ahead of him visible on his line-of –sight?
2) Paik – does this match his drawings, any of them, at all? Does it come anywhere near his earlier gestures verifying Morin’s account of it passing south of the FoB and down Columbia Pike?
3) Turcios – Does it come north of the station anything like he describes? Does it correspond with his path from there to the same spot at the Pentagon?
4) Lagasse – It’s northiness is about right, but does this match his flight path from there on or the light poles he felt were downed?
5) Brooks - same as above.
6) Which witnesses describe anything like the severe 32 or 42-degree right bank this would require? Lagasse: “There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn...” CIT on Paik: “he specifically said in our first interview how he did not notice a wing tilt.” Others support a slight left bank between the Annex and Pentagon, but effectively level.
7) What happened to CIT’s recently proved over the Annex path? This one, like the original impossible path, is almost entirely north of it.
8) The most common cited time for near-impact witnesses seeing it from around the Citgo to impact for around 2-3 seconds (Lagasse and Turcios among them), the same time testified by the Citgo video shadow/light time span (app 2.2 sec), and about half the time required for this cited speed. How do you explain so many sources halving the time?
9) What happens when we try to include the Driving Range-area witnesses, and the imagined north path no one saw connecting that to this arc at it start? How does that affect its subsequent maneuvers?
10) What if we include witnesses AT Arlington Nat’l Cemetery who report the plane as “over” them, and which CIT has also taken at face value? Including these does what for the flight path?
11) What happens when we factor is the post-flyover maneuvers now attributed to R Roberts and J Sucherman 3—5 seconds after impact? Roberts is said to have it flying away, as he says over the ‘lane one area,’ so off to the southwest, just as Sucherman sees the plane coming back for a second attack FROM the west, before turning away?

Update: From ATS link above:
ThroatYogurt: “Your flightpath shows flight 77 too far away from the impact area to support CIT's claim that it was a military deception. In order for it to be pulled off, the plane would have to be VERY close if not directly above the impact zone.”

MoD: “Please scrutinize the drawing a little more - you're missing the point where I drew the line with a beizer curve that is far from uniform in radius. If it was drawn properly, it would actually pass over the alleged impact point. […]the line isn't as accurately drawn as I'd like. It's most correct around the Citgo area, but straightens out again after that point.”

“If it was drawn properly?” Who screwed it up? Is it possible to draw it again but right, and let us know how those numbers come out?

update 6/25: I've been trying to get messages through at ATS, where I'm still a non-posting member, but it's been telling me for a couple days that the "U2U System Is Temporarily Disabled." Can anyone else still on good terms there verify this?
7/2: System went back up right after that, message in to MoD, no response yet. I don't care if he tries to defend or drop this proposal, just thought I should let him know myself that he'd been challenged.
Update 7/8: Forgot to mention it, but he did respond, in comments below.

”IT’S A PERSPECTIVE ISSUE”

”IT’S A PERSPECTIVE ISSUE”
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 19 2008

“Bobloblaw,” the anonymous but effective debunker of Citizen Investigation Team claims, has scored some solid hits against CIT lately, contacting their witnesses, accepted and suspect, to set the record straight as much as possible. So far he’s keeping it all off-the-record, and I can’t vouch for what’s really going on, but I tend to believe him that one of those contacted is USA Today editor Joel Sucherman (suspect, highly), who contests CIT’s placement of him, which I already found was grossly dishonest.

However, I had bought their location he could not be at as it was “underneath the flight path” and thus offered no side view of the plane to fit his account of seeing its AA stripes. Sure enough, the spot they filmed on their 2006 drive up Route 27 and included in their USA Today Parade video is right next to light poles they labeled #2 and #3, the originals of which were struck down by the plane’s wings on that day. Bobloblaw however looked closer at this light pole labeling (also viewable as stills here) and found it wrong. He challenged Craig Ranke CIT, in a thread at their forum named after me, and eventually got Ranke to admit to being wrong on pole #1 and, therefore, the others.

I had not caught this myself, or analyzed their pole labeling, but saw it as soon as Bobloblaw mentioned it. And there’s little excuse for it escaping these Citizen researchers (both of them) even as they used the wrong poles to make absolutist arguments to disprove a witness account they don’t like. Spurred by Bobloblaw’s challenge, ranke took his case to the experts at the Loose Change Forum: “Light pole/camera mast perpective question; which is in front?” Even his sympathetic friends felt it necessary to acknowledge the obvious; Look-Up said “the pole must be closer to the observer than the VDOT mast,” while SPreston and 22205 concurred and tried to spin it all back on “Bob” as a blown-up non-issue. Ranke relented at this point: “It appears to be behind the VDOT mast in those images but it is not. That threw me off. It's a perspective issue but the error is mine.”

While it may appear, in stills at least, that this pole is behind the VDOT camera mast, it is clearly before (south of) the overhead sign structure, while pole #1, the first taken down by the right wing, would be on the other side (north) of it. This graphic illustrates the concept, with multiple pole positions down Route 27 highlighted and traced across to their counterpart across the road. The pole placement could have been easily verified against satellite photos, site photos by others, and whatever else. These all indicate the arrangement on the left is light pole, VDOT mast, overhead sign, pole 1, pole 2, then an ordinary pole. If this were pole 1, they’d have to wonder what happened to the last pole before the overhead, or why pole #1 looked so big. Apparently they didn’t, officially anyway.

It always looked to me too the light pole was behind, the way the mast seems to totally cover it and also its truss arm as they are passed and separate. This made me even wonder if they re-painted the mast in to make it seem in front, but in fact the poles would merge and the arm would not really show against, so it appears most likely an innocent illusion. It should be noted this is an optical effect, not a perspective problem, as the perspective shift is clear in CIT’s own video and sequential images from it. When you see it, it gets trippy for a second, then you adjust and say ‘oh, okay. That makes more sense.’ This is how some of us learn.

I’m unable to view the CIT forum (they’ve blocked me for some reason), but Bobloblaw collected some Ranke quotes from the debate he and fellow critic “Stinky Puh” engaged Ranke in. After getting second and third opinions, he did cede the point, as these compiled quotes show:

Ok ok.

I admit it now.

I went over the video again.

I concede I mislabeled the poles.

I publicly apologize to bob and stinkey.

Well, that might seem quite gracious of him, until you read the list Bobloblaw passes on of Ranke’s words up to that point, where for ten pages he denied the conclusion I and everyone else reached instantly once spurred to look at it.

Please stop wasting my time with this nonsense.

You and Stinkey are ridiculously wrong.

Everyone knows this.

... because I am right and you are wrong.

Pole one is BEHIND the vdot mast in every image liar.

So either admit you are a liar or a stubborn fool because you are WRONG.

I am not wrong.

Your stubbornness with this demonstrates how you are willing to say ANYTHING to cast doubt

This is fact and you are wrong.

Seriously man.

If you can't concede this you will have to go.

You are wrong.

You will concede or leave.

Do you get it yet?

Ok then you are banned.

You can come back when you admit it.

You have to admit you are wrong.

It's because you know you are wrong.

Pathetic.

So either admit you are a liar or a stubborn fool because you are WRONG.

You better do SOMETHING productive because so far you are batting zero.

You have proven yourself manipulative and deceptive.

You will be banned.

Why did it disappear?

Did aliens take it as I drove down the road?

No.

It's nothing but a perspective issue.

Wow. Yeah, see, Ranke’s got this perspective where he’s determined to prove Sucherman a liar. And this is where we get into the relevance of this ‘error’ Ranke’s owned up to like the big man he is. This mislabeling shifts the flight path on the left one pole placement - about 110 feet - to the south. On its face, this is significant but not the biggest deal in the word. As he said
“No harm no foul as my original point doesn't really change anyway. I'm only off by a pole.”

Nope. In addition to this ‘non-foul,’ that makes him ‘only” off by 100 feet-plus on the left-hand side, he also ignored perspective and verification on the right, placing his “pole #3” as the first one visible after the overhead sign, right across the street from his pole #2 (actually #1). This puts his pole placement TWO spots off on the right, for a difference of app. 250 feet by my measurements. This is a second egregious mistake he might have avoided if he even tried, and implies a flight path nearly straight across the road, whereas the real pole-testified path slants more up the road as well as across (purple below).
[More graphics and some juicy comments available here]

Looking at this graphic and keeping in mind that he was on the right half of the road headed north, the implications are clear. The issue at hand is whether he could be past the trees and thus have a clear view of impact as he said, while still being far enough south of the plane to see its side. So this fortunate labeling error, read back as evidence, wound up shifting the path feet about 200 feet south, shrinking the area to put Sucherman in accordingly and squeezing him back behind the trees to make him a big fat liar when he said “no trees.” Fact is, however, under the overhead sign = past the trees + could well see the plane and its stripes just fine. From the vantage below, the impact zone itself is still barely obscured by some branches at the far right. The plane I slapped in is at about the right scale, and the approximate right angle and shows just why these “investigators” might have wanted to pull it all south a ways. Oops, they did. If only this were the first time…
As Ranke is quick to point out, all of this does not change the 2:00 and passenger window claims that, as I had previously pointed out, corroborate each other and, read literally, make him a north-path witness. While both are likely just memory errors, it is uncanny how they happen to support the same thing CIT was looking for but missed. All this revalation has spurred Ranke to alter course on Sucherman and claim "I guess you're right Larson. He HAS to be a north side flyover witness! LOL!” What the hell is he LOLing about? They squandered this gift already and are still dealing with the fallout from the distortions necessary to do so.