THE “WISDOM” FRAUD’S “NATIONAL SECURITY BRIEFING”

Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 7 2009
Updated July 21

Enver Masud is some kind of “peace activist” based in Virginia and a 9/11 Truther who made it onto my mega-list of no-757-at/in-the-Pentagon theorists just for saying "after three years of investigation, I still can't offer an alternative theory. But I have collected sufficient evidence to show that it is very unlikely a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon." Three years wasted just to say what so many others have – he’s only interested in insisting the “official story” must be wrong, but tacitly admits there’s no other explanation that doesn’t sound moonbat stupid.

Was I hasty for including him on my list? The other day I was informed of an upcoming public event he’s hosting a few days hence dedicated to hammering on that very point. This late in the game, mid-2009, anyone honest and not deeply impaired has no more excuse. Mr. Masud is the founder of something called “The Wisdom Fund,” which is - unwisely - hosting this "National Security Briefing" that “will reveal groundbreaking, independent, verifiable evidence” regarding “the official account of American Airlines Flight 77 that is alleged to have struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001” and therefore possesses “serious geopolitical and historical implications.” Oh my gosh, look at all those syllables – no abbreviations for this highly serious person!

Too bad everything to be presented is known to be utter trash. The featured speakers aside from Masud are to be Citizen Investigation Team (both Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke are slated) and Pilots for 9/11 Truth (represented by one Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, who somehow isn’t on my fraud-ass liar list yet). Founder Rob Balsamo’s frequent flier miles are apparently as run out as his phone cards. These two “brother organizations” are generally understood – within and without the “Truth movement” - to be the most pathetically persistent, obnoxiously dishonest, banned-everywhere manipulative provocateurs with among the highest debunk-to-learning ratios ever recorded.

Aldo and Craig’s CIT has a new website claiming a legal strategy and citizen call to arms etc., even using words like “misprison of treason.” It almost looks impressive if you haven’t already seen the clowns in their dressing room, dressing as clowns. They will talk as serious as they need to and in fact get louder the deeper into credibility deficit they drag themselves. They will be sharing their “time for action” spiel based on their few oddly wrong NoC witnesses, their epic fails at mangling other witness evidence to fit the notion, and their completely fabricated and insane fly-over explanation.

Now obviously pilots are smart expert people since they know how to fly,or used to, or whatever, and Masud will have you know “Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained the Flight Data Recorder data following a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the National Transportation Safety Board.” Yes they did, and they’ve located several genuine discrepancies between the final seconds of data and the final seconds of the “official flight path.” They’ve tried hard to avoid the obvious conclusion that the two times just don’t correlate since the data stops short of the final seconds of flight and the impact. That’s why it’s higher than it should be, pitching differently, on a different heading, and in a different location.Masud explains further:

Leaving aside the discrepancies between the official account of Flight 77, and the Flight Data Recorder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculated a radius equal to about 579 feet. From this they calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 34 Gs, i.e. 34 times the force due to gravity. There has been some criticism of the calculations performed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and they have answered their critics. [bold mine - see below)

I forgot that they ever claimed 34 Gs, which is insanely impossible (I hear). For a while they had stuck with a corrected 11.2 Gs, which still was considered fatal to a 757. This too was admitted wrong by Balsamo and crew, and they answered with the same error, slightly modified to 10.14 Gs, and it took many months to complete this in over-hyped video form. The “answer” was a link to that video (as above), and my own review is here. To summarize, they use a stupid method to decide the starting altitude at the Navy Annex, completely ignoring two of their own key witnesses (Paik and Morin), then presume a straight descent from there to the first light poles, followed by a sudden leveling. I don’t even need to be an expert to see why this approach (falsely labeled “the government story”) yields whacked-out impossible numbers. I don't know the numbers on my purple arc, but it looks pretty reasonable to me.
Masud's reason for such serious concern in gathering these great minds is partly explained in a recent missive entitled “Scientific Evidence That Flight 77 Did Not Strike The Pentagon." Ooh, scientific evidence! I’ve spent a while looking at that myself (see to the right, and below). Among the thing’s he’s sure to have seen then is the neat line along which all damage happened – through five light poles torn down and tossed aside, a trailer-size diesel generator, vent structure, construction trailers and fence, and then through the building – outer wall, support columns, inner office space, walls, furniture, and human inhabitants, scattering as it went, until a few heavy parts exited through another exterior wall into the A-E drive. There’s the scientific uniform match of airplane debris with a 757 painted in American Airlines standards, and the scientific process that identified nearly all bodies with DNA and the passengers of Flight 77 (though I confess I wasn’t there and can’t prove that process was not faked). There’s the flight data recorder, which contained the data for all but the last few seconds of flight, describing its own journey leading towards just the spot where it was found. A careful correlation of eyewitness accounts yields the usual outliers and memories that diverge on certain details, but a general pattern emerges consistent with one craft – an AA 757 – doing one thing – crashing into the Pentagon’s ground floor. The radar data also matches, as does the available surveillance video.

Nothing about any of this fails to comport with the rest, no matter how many perceived “anomalies” people want to pretend exist. Masud in response offers and spends paragraphs carefully explaining “A simple formula, familiar to high school students, [that] may debunk the official account...” and later "this fact [that PFT's calc's provide crazy numbers] alone is sufficient to debunk the official account of Flight 77." Is it any wonder I don’t feel like learning the formulas now and double-checking? Math on paper does not trump three-dimensional reality, especially when you set up your variables wrong. If it seems to contradict the facts on the ground, then you did it wrong. Masud didn’t even do it himself I’m sure – he merely cites Pilots for Twoof’s previous findings (“they calculated”), previously shown wrong many times (just Google it). No bad not doing the math, mate, I haven’t either. But one of us trusts Pilots for Twoof and one doesn’t. I'm quite happy with my choice.

Only for those who are genuinely confused, believe these people might have something, yet sane enough to recognize epic idiocy when you see it, just look for a bit and you’ll find it becomes quite clear. For those who can make it to the “briefing” and would like to have your voice heard or pretend these things are worth confronting the given info is this:

July 11, 2009
10:00 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.
NRECA Conference Center
4301 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA
Admission is free. Lunch not provided. Aldo will have to bring his own buffet. It should be some wicked sick entertainment. I'll follow the news from it but then back to hibernation for me.

Update, 7/21:
Nothing yet except some fun little spats about attendance numbers. looks like "tens," perhaps nearing 100 attended. Whoot. Some uber-serious things were probably said, future of mankind, global justice, mistrial of prison, yada yada. NO video or anything yet. When there is I'll check the content and have a little fun batting around that ball of yarn. Whoot.

CL-TURBOFAN DISCUSSION

First Posting
9/24/08, 2am
updated 9/28, 11 pm

Alright, so at the JREF, this "Turbofan" character has been making a lot of noise in Anti-Sophist's FDR thread, criticizing the "pros" there and acting as if he knows everything about Flight data recorders, and along the way hinting at the old Balsamo sticking-point, the refusal of sane people to debate him on the phone. Well, I'm only half-sane, and offered to accept his challenge on condition he send me two dozen homemade cranberry muffins. He unexpectedly took me up, and after a series of PMs where we started out actually haggling over the muffins, we decided on last night. I was at work, but took a break when he called, about 5:45pm, put the speakerphone on, and recorded my fairly down-key conversation with Tino, as he gives his true name. For those familiar with his on-screen persona, so remarkable arrogant and Balsamo-esque, his real-time discussion manner is so much more - Canadian. It's almost like two different people, and the Tino I talked with in fact knew little about FDRs, having only garnered his knowledge from talking with PfffT, and couldn't even cite the values that were so discrepant in the final frame of data. The audio turned out pretty decent, and as soon as I decide a good way to share it, and for good measure confirm his consent to do so, well, then I'll do so, and add some notes and stuff.
---
Here's the audio
Boomp3.com
Additional Notes: [apologies for being so slow. I'm fairly busy elsewhere these days]. Regarding the audio, the line noise came out worse than I though - unshielded cables, please try to ignore. I figure there's no point in arguing for a win with a sock puppet or irrational person who's simply set in their course; as Swift says, via Pomeroo, "you can't reason someone out of something he was never reasoned into." So I may come across soft, but hardness hardly seemed necessary against this underwhelming opponent, and I was speaking to the (hypothetical) reasonable person inside who's ready to stop being led astray. Other notes later.

PILOTS FOR 2+2=5

September 21 2008
possible updates

For what it's worth, Pilots For 9/11 Truth recently released a new video based on math and stupid, that tries to say some stuff about the Pentagon attack. They're hoping to sell it, and so maybe have a breakthrough to push it with, like finally deciding on a theory of what did happen rather than just raising leading questions pointing towards no plane hit, held back out of "professional caution" and responsibility. LMAO. Please do not buy it, unless you support their long-running practical joke on gullible suckers. I don't even plan to watch it, but their talking points about the video focus on the presence of some serious math to correct their earlier egregious errors, months in the process of correcting. I'm fully capable of understanding the formulas I either failed to learn or forgot after High School, but only with the kind of time and attention I won't devote to facts whose only purpose is to debunk stupid shit I already know is wrong. Therefore, for those inclined to follow the math, especially those who lean towards believing the video, here is a link to John farmer's posts breaking down the "errors."

PFT Fantasy Flight Path and further analysis.

Myself, I don't feel like wasting any time on this. But if I change my mind, I'll plunk more stuff into this link. This is quite sparse, so I'm sure I'll have to add something.
---
Their G-Force on final descent analysis was relesed for viewing in a promo short video. Essentially, it’s a response to their epic 11.2 G error (admitted even!), first proposed in the Arlington Topography piece earlier this year. The correction was several months in the making, and only slightly different - 10.14G in the best case scenario. Now 11.2 Gs was waaaay off from what everyone more reasonable found, and it would appear the reason for the still-large gap is that peoples’ presumptions differed. His descent path is shown here in yellow, my notes added.
They presume, as I knew, a descent from just above the antenna tower to low enough to strike the first light pole by the time it got there. Two problems – it did indeed have to end where they show, but not start. The antenna tower is maybe 5 feet wide, and there’s no evidence if it was directly over, to the left, or to the right of it. All we know is close, and judging by eyewitness accounts, it was considerably lower than the top, so either left or right (and I’m banking on left, or north).

Terry Morin: “I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude.”
Edward Paik: "It almost hit my roof [...] If [the plane was a] little bit lower… it would have hit the [Navy Annex] building almost it seemed like. [The wing] knocked down the antenna… the plane was in the middle of the road… that’s why it hit the Antenna."

There is some evidence the antenna may well have been damaged, but it's not conclusive. If true, this would leave PffT's initial altitude presumption nearly correct, and contradicts the lowness described by both Morin and Paik. What correlates is a plane tens of feet above the Annex roof, I'd say closer to 30-50 feet above rather than 90-110 above as PfffT decide is the "lowest possible." It would be laterally quite near the tower, near enough to seem to have impacted it near the top. This would put it over Columbia Pike, and and running near-parallel the building's edge. Numerous witnesses (including Paik via gestures and Morin via seeing stripes on one side) confirm the plane was in a mild left bank, with right wing high. If the plane passed north of the tower, the right wingtip would be nearest the tower and its antenna at the top.

So, the descent from altitude, at the very least, cannot resonably be presumed as directly above the tower, greatly effecting the steepness of the resultant dive to the light poles. Second, and more important, the nature of the dive change is at issue – he has a sudden pivot, two straight lines bumping into each other, rather than like an actual plane's single uninterrupted parabolic curving movements. Ooops! My first comment was that this descent “has been sponsored by the letter L,” ala Sesame Street, and Reheat and other JREFers aptly took to calling it the ‘hockey stick’ descent. [Horatius did a funny comic strip on it] Apply sharp corners to “alleged” flight paths and you’ll force all change to one point and get unrealistic G-force calculations. Thanks PfffT for illustrating bad reasoning at work. Now just up the volume on the certainty language and demands for phone debates, and you can perhaps at least provoke people into wasting time, as a consolation prize for not being accurate.

Discussion on the G-Force video:
Pilots For 911 Truth
JREF
Above Top Secret
CIT forum

FAA? WTF?

FAA'S NoC ANIMATION
first posting Sept 13 2008, 12 am
Last update 10/8 2am

So, John Farmer is, I guess, back from Arlington and has received reams of new data, this time from the FAA. He alerted Arabesque and I via e-mail.

The FAA has sent me via certified mail all of the records I requested in my Court action. It is going to take the entire weekend to go through it all, but it looks like the ATC audio and radar records for 1332 – 1344 for Washington ARTCC, Dulles, Reagan, Andrews and Baltimore.

If this turns out to be everything I think it is, then CIT is going to be squirming a little more.

I get a lot of these from him and don't even usually keep up. But the second e-mail here, about the included animation, made me sit up and take notice.

I attempted to send you guys the whole video, but it was too big for some mailboxes. You are the first to see this (I hope) and you just know CIT and Rob are gonna love it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQsyt_7c1H8

It shows, more or less, CIT's concocted path over the Navy Annex, with a hard hard right bank/turn and a passage north of the citgo, followed by low level impact (higher only to allow the right wing). I have just been in the middle of laying out the overabundance of North-path clues (there should be roughly nil), including the NTSB's earlier animation to similar effect, so this was doubly ironic as it hit me. This is so insane, the easiest explanation I can think of is... Farmer's pulling my leg?

Two stills, with real and CIT paths (quite app) in the usual colors overlaid. These are from the Youtube version, but Farmer made a higher resolution version available for download and viewing.



---first thoughts, unedited
Any thoughts, people? All I can think of is what - the - fuck?

Or, wait... mmmaybe FAA based it on radar and/or FDR up to the end of that data (the loop and all looks fine on first glance) and then stupidly tried to fuse in the NTSB's apparent final moments, hoping they had some reason for putting it on that path for the seconds they were missing (I'd guess 6-10?) ... Just mysteries. This is going to turn out interestingly.
---

Further Developments
Discussion on this took off all over with the expected rapidity, but a more dynamic embrace than some expected.
CIT Forum discussion Craig and Aldo, who seethe with venom against Farmer, and aren't 'taking the bait' as it were. They speak of "chess moves" and such... Very sophisticated over there, their apprehension and ruminations! On the other hand, many like Rob Balsamo at the PfffT forum were giggling with excitement, while CIT strongly advised caution, leading to a curious argument about which dishonest track to take. CIT messenger Domenick DiMaggio (aka Terrocell, TC329) also started a JREF discussion thread about it, stating at one point:

they faked it and now they're releasing fake evidence to corroborate cit's evidence and yet still try to prove an impact. and as soon as you guys put the cats down and erase lloyd from the history books they can get away with their evil plans.

Whatwhatwhat? Nonetheless, this is where things took off with both confusion and learning. First, beyond disseminating it, the FAA seem to have no role in this short video. JREF member Gumboot first questioned their authenticity and/or their relevance, but over the first couple pages identified the logos onscreen (www.stk.com and HQ NORAD/USSPACE/AN), and found STK was the Satellite Tool Kit Radar module, marketed by Analytical Graphics, Inc. (AGI), a company that makes software for "national security and space professionals for integrated analysis of land, sea, air, and space assets." He noted "the big golf ball things" seemed to be FAA Long Range Radar sites, and decided this may well be "a radar-based map for NORAD purposes," possibly "to determine which radar sites AA77 passed through, so that 84th RADES knew which data to collect for their analysis." Definitely getting somewhere.

Radar based... north path... I would have figure it out eventually, but Celestrin beat me to it. No wonder CIT were apprehensive - they knew about the false return placed for whatever reason, just north of the Citgo, and I had to point out that it wasn't their north path plane, at least 1,000 feet to low for radar to see. Celestrin made the connect:

RADES data has been available for months and it shows the exact same North of Cthulhu poperties as this animation. [...] Why is it such a wonder that an animation, which most likely uses the same data, would also show the plane further north?

I looked at it a bit the other night and did some graphic comparisons just to see what patterns popped out. I took the peach map from the NTSB's Flight Path Study and set the final map of the animation over it [below]. Note the apparent offset in rotation and location of the loop cross point. I'm not actually sure if the whole path is rotated, or this is just a local distortion from roughness. It is rough and unrealistic in its movements.Farmer instantly pointed out "Look at the loop you idiots, it is a square with rounded corners!" I noticed this too, as did Celestrin. The "squarish" appearance of the turn manuever also suggests that the data, which was used in the animation, wasn't continous." Given 12-second intervals between returns is "too fine for the animation," he wondered "what if one takes the RADES data 1 minute apart," or every fifth radar return, and got this.

When I marked the spots where straight lines start curving, and overlaid it with the 84 RADES returns for the loop, it looks more like this was based on taking every other 84 RADES return (pink dots) as anchor points, and replaced the intervening ones with straight lines or full curves, depending.



This in turn may be a clue to the north path’s appearance. Consider this pattern in light of these final three points of RADES data (the points stupidly connected above]. There may be a different dynamic at play here, but it seems similar in pattern – draw a straight line to, or near, the north point, and then a sharp curve to try and meet, or orbit, the next aberrant return just south of impact. Considering there may be a rotation of the path relative to the map, or vice-versa, and perhaps a slight spatial offset, the actual mapped curve may not be where it looks to be onscreen. Interestingly, when I rotate the line to fit the real path, the turn is about seven degrees, or the amount the NTSB's final map was rotated from its own lat-long grid. [Propos to Farmer for the background image establishing the real path beyond a reasonable doubt]. This is not my final answer, but I'm pretty sure it's close to correct, or on the right track at least.

---
More on the source
Pilots for 911 Truth forum member "Paranoia" looked at AGI's STK.com website and found some interesting information verifying Gumboot's ID. [link]. Of interest is a winter 2002 presentation by AGI President and CEO Paul Graziani, regarding their 9/11 animations. The accompanying powerpoint presentation confirms he's discussing this very simulation - it's pictured on page 5. In his delivered remarks [PDF link ], Graziani explained to assembled conventioneers how "actual FAA radar data was used to accurately recreate the events and model the flight paths of hijacked airlines as well as the responding military aircraft." Actual data, it would seem so. Accurate, only sorta... Of interest is the line "complex problems that once took weeks or months to complete, now take only seconds or minutes when employing software capabilities." Maybe they should have at least spent hours on this one.

Additional update: Just to clarify, this is a NORAD product, not FAA. This powerpoint presentation, from a June 2002 STK users conference, explains the project a little. It covered all four flights, plus responding fighters, all from FAA-supplied radar data.
---
The Video: I refined slightly the final returns angle, and put it together in video form, viewable with notes here.

THE FLYOVER THEORY GETS SOME FAUX CLOUT

THE FLYOVER THEORY GETS SOME FAUX CLOUT
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 19 2008
updated 5/22 1am

Last Thursday night, May 15, saw a remarkable happening of Fraudsterism via the relatively high-profile venue of the Air America radio network and Richard Greene’s Clout program, of which I’d never heard until two days before the show. This tip-off, brought to my attention by an e-mail from a friend, was a press release by Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

05/13/08 - We hope you'll join us regarding the issues surrounding the Pentagon Attack this Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 9pm Eastern on Air America Radio with your host Richard Greene, Co-Produced by Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder, Pilots For 9/11 Truth.
Guest will be:
Craig Ranke from Citizen Investigation Team
Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder, Pilots For 9/11 Truth
Kevin Barret
Individuals supporting the govt story – TBA
[emph mine - original posting]
Background on how Greene and the Pilots hooked up back in March.

For this "Week of Truth" installment, the TBA part wound up meaning, it seems, ‘tiny blocks allowed’ for the only debunker to both be invited and respond, Ron Weick of Hardfire. He took his invitation to a JREF thread but scored no supporters. To hear Balsamo talk they were cringing in fear but really it looks more like skulking and/or sighing in exasperation. I had several good reasons for not getting directly involved, but did try to get a message through to Greene. I urged him to have CIT and PFT on with their promised groundbreaking revelation, but to be aware of my findings about their previous findings. I put the ball in his court, where it already was. If Greene doesn't research his guests, or ignores that they are promoting hoaxes, that's his own problem.

On the other side the list of ‘truthseekers’ invited for the program eventually expanded to include Barbara Honegger, Col. George Nelson, and even the eminent David Ray Griffin was able to take some time to elaborate his decrepit, myopic opinion of the Pentagon attack. Barrett apparently backed up to make room and did not appear, which helped, but… CIT's Aldo Marquis later complained of this over-booking "we are being drowned out. Two many chiefs and not enough Indians. This is why we will fail. We have incredibly important evidence and Ron Weik and Barbara Honegger get more air time than Craig and Rob did. Sucks. All old info all bunk. Whatever, you guys heard it. We've got a flyover witness(es)." [He's not exactly sure if it's plural yet.]Update: the Clout flyover witness

I too was mostly looking to hear the portion where the original guests were featured and this revelation triumphantly ejaculated, but unable to catch it live I had to rely on the later-posted audio links. Ranke and Balsamo were pushed to the last block, the link for which was the only one that didn't work (and still doesn't four days later). Due to delays in getting the segment in question (see below), the review has been delayed. I'll post it separately.

Clout Links:
- Clout episode blog page Entire show minus final segment with CIT and PFT available for listen here, as well as 200+ comments (several by myself and "Hetware" it seems, have been deleted with no explanation).
- Entire show in compressed (poor) wma format, but in one convenient zip file. Provided by Pilots For 9/11 Truth. (theirs is part 1 here, understandably.)

BOBBY BALSAMO CAPTION CONTEST

first posted April 20
last updated 5/5 1 am

At least at the CIT Forum I’m allowed to read any posted attacks against me, unlike at some other forums where one must register their computer with the owners to even read it, which I refuse to do. Craig got mad about my ‘attack’ on a witness he’s about to publish. They offered no link to the actual attack, as they don’t link to ‘disinfo’ and banned me from posting there for being disinfo, of course, as dis-disinfo would be called by disinfo.

He again resorted to my “ego-driven obsession” admission, which I injected into his quote repertoire intentionally as a dye marker to gauge when he really has nothing else to offer.
To prove I said this, he even finally offers a direct link to my 'disinfo.' I've seen it, and can document it. I make a bad point, they call me on it. He's wrong! Here's why. Then I consider that, reformulate and hit back... and suddenly it's either a fluffed-up bluff, an accusation of incoherency (what? I couldn’t hear ya! What?) or failing even that, it’s the ego/obsession thing, or perhaps I’m an “operative” if I’m dealing with Aldo.

And when that stops working it devolves further... PFFFFT and CIT are now so confident of their facts they have resorted to comments about my job, my appearance, my kitchen, and my girlfriend’s 10-year-old son. [link to their stupidity, which I always offer since I trust my readers to decide for themselves].

I was hoping to keep the kid out of all this, and I had a feeling of dread one night recently when I realized I had still been logged into his account when responding to one of Rob’s lying posts on my video page. I hoped he'd be mature enough to leave that alone, but got myself worked up worrying about it for reasons I can’t fully explain, and can’t expect Rob to understand. So of course he passed the link on to CIT who make an animated gif of me where Nick coaxed me to be in one his shorts – getting hit in the head with a ball of clay and falling down like a dork in my messy kitchen. They captioned this with witty lines about me being deceptive and knocked over by CIT’s evidence and shit like that. I chuckled a bit despite myself. They all had a great time, not playin, making fun of my hair and skinniness, whatever. [eh, see them there] Hahaha! I look like dork in my messy kitchen! This is okay since I did this earlier for CIT using Ranke's public picture:

But for my own reasons, I had really been hoping to keep Nick out of this, at least by name, but too late now. What pissed me off most was when Rob, probably belligerent drunk, asked “I wonder if that "Nick" kid was the same "Nick" we were arguing with last year on ATS.” After I had asked him to not drag the kid into it, he said “Adam.. YOU brought the kid into this by having him post on the net (if in fact it was the same Nick. Going by his replies, it sure seemed like a 10 yr old).” [emph mine] Yes Rob. Last year when he was nine I had him argue with you online. He’s a smart kid, just not smart enough to use a screen name other than his own. I brought it down on us. For some reason this whole thing really pissed me off. I told him if we were in the same room I’d punch him in the face. I’m sure he’d win the fight, but still…
update 4/22 nick 7261 argues fine, this is just another insult. perhaps little nick could argue rob down, i dunno, but big nick did well - he was over-zealous and sometimes stupidly wrong, but really smart and biting at moments too.

Rob did correctly point out that it was never top-secret, that “you can scroll through "related videos" on the right margin of your "CausticLogic" videos and find "AdamSonOfLars" and vice versa.” Yes, I never liked that and that’s my fault - but it was somehow never a problem until a couple days after that stupid slip that gave him this opportunity to do some accidental op research. So you got your funny pictures, and whatever else. Account closed, new one if there is will be firmly separated and any further drawing in of my personal life and family into this - should be avoided for many reasons. Harassers for 911 truth doesn't have the same ring...

Stick to the issues please Rob. Still no explanation for what you meant by all those cherries I made that pie out of. Still no (public) correction to your patently ridiculous G-force calcs based on an irrelevant thought exercise. Nothing beyond the word of a FDR salesman that that wrong data is 1 sec or less from the wall, tho we hear you have more evidence somewhere. And how about that airfones thing? You can’t get your own shit together yet you can always find time to sling more insults. Oh, and to go enjoy your water sports.

I mean, I could go off on that stupid picture you slapped me with of your lying fat ass on that waterskiing adventure, sucking up the $$$ that suckers keep sending you for DVDs and barbecue aprons, but that would be side-stepping the issues and engaging in childish personal attacks on your motives and appearance.

But while we all wait for updates and/or admissions, this will help while away the time. First, I’ll let anyone else decide what to put in this balloon. Submit entries in comments section below. I’ll add my own later. Winners will be posted, and recieve nothing more. Then I can call it even and move on to you continuing to ignore and downplay your own lies and not-quite-lies as I finally stop bothering "holding your hand" and trying to walk you towards a more truthful path.
---
update 4/22 I’m less angry now - my girlfriend thinks it's not such a big deal... she's more upset that i deleted the page. I’m new to the sorta-parent thing and was trying a bit too hard with the 'protective' thing. Also Craig, thanks for the tips. you may just be better at parenting advice than at running an 'investigation.' keep trying and you may find your calling.
update 5/5: In fact I have Rob to thank for helping me realize I don't want video accounts tangled and there''s no way it seems if they're even looked at on the same computer. So I'm deleting my Youtube videos and not watching others. Also, the contest is decided after I received Rob's entry as well (see comments below). This is the winner.

PILOT X AND THE 440 FOOT GAP

FLIGHT 77 ALTITUDE QUESTIONS
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
April 9 2007
last edited 4/15 @ 9:32 pm

In mid-2006, new doubts about the five-year-old Pentagon attack were found, built right into a government-produced animated flight path of AA Flight 77. The group Pilots For 9/11 Truth (P49T) have been able to capitalize on the inherent contradictions in this CG cartoon - most notably in their January 2007 video Pandora’s Black Box Chapter Two - to somewhat convincingly suggest an entirely new flight path that in different (and often contradictory) ways, disproved the official flight path and, if correct, make the plane’s impact a steep improbability. [I'm working on more detailed posts about both sources and discrepancies]. The latitudinal aspect of the new 757 denial trajectory, the apparent flight well to the north of the official path, is one anomaly in this animation, but will be covered elsewhere. Here we’ll focus on the altitude questions, which are, no pun intended, a little over my head and the heads of others, a fact that at least one side in the debate seems to be using to its advantage.

The animated video file was based on the flight data recorder (FDR) of the doomed 757, rendered by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and released in mid-August 2006 via a FOIA request by a P49T-affiliated researcher. By August 20, P49T co-founder Rob Balsamo (aka John Doe X) had come into possession of the damning flight simulation and wrote about it at the group’s site. The final frame was key: it shows the animation stopping abruptly, as the original data supposedly did, with the plane on-screen still hundreds of feet away from the Pentagon and still far above it. Time at this location: 9:37:44, the second before the plane is supposed to have hit the building. While at that very second the CCTV camera north of the attack path was snapping a plane cruising in about five feet off the ground, the onscreen altimeter reads 180 feet. The plane in this animation could not have hit the Pentagon, at least not at the official time. It would have been several seconds late by the speed and descent rate up to that point. But it cuts there, at about the right time but quite the wrong place, and we were thus prevented a glimpse of the fly-over, the secret landing, and the safe removal of the FDR to be planted back at the Pentagon. (??) These are the gaps we must fill in to reach the "Truth."


Screenshot of the final frame: The time is ajusted to GMT, not EDT, so 13:37:44 should read as 9:37:44. The resolution here is easier to read than in the low-res video of the final maneuver available for free viewing online here

Balsamo explains: “You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet. This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level.” [1] This is also 440 feet above the ground. Thus “the 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB.” [2]

As John Doe X, Balsamo has put together several long – and lonely - posts explaining this true altitude conclusion at the Pilots’ site, and apparently has been pretty aggressive in promoting and defending it elsewhere. [3] I haven’t been able to independently verify his 300-foot correction, but initially guessed it was quite possibly correct. Either way, there is a re-set protocol; from what I gather of the reason behind this, FAA regulations mandate pilots use local atmospheric pressure settings when in the lower, more crowded airspace – below 18,000 feet (FL180). Above that point they re-set to a baseline pressure setting of 29.92. On its ascent, we're told, both the animation and the other data show Flight 77’s altimeter re-set from local pressure (30.21) to 29.92 at about 8:28 am). Pandora’s Black Box shows an altitude drop at that point from 18273 to 18058, a difference of 215 feet; so a rise of perhaps 300 feet when switching back to a nearly-same presure setting on the descent seems plausible, but the corresponding, FAA-mandated re-set is not shown in the animation, and hence the cover-up.

This may not seem surprising – why would Balsamo suspect there should be such a re-set despite the change of control from FAA-certified pilot to suicide hijacker? The reason he has a problem here, and really its own problem, is the other P49T data, also obtained separately by FOIA request, indeed did show the re-set from 29.92 to 30.23. Balsamo summed up the non-animated data “show[s] the altimeter being set in the baro cor column on the descent through [18,000 feet].” [4] I’ve checked and it does. Taking that as truth, the Pilot(s) asked the government why “the animation altimeter does not show it being set?” The question was rhetorical; the answer they had already decided on was that the omission was to make a strike look somewhat less impossible; “this is a blatant cover-up to confuse the average layman in hopes no one would adjust for local pressure to get True Altitude. Too bad for them we caught it.” [5]

A member at JREF named “Anti-Sophist” who describes himself as an Air Force trained flight data expert and electrical engineer, summed up of "JDX"s 300-foot correction “if his true altitude number is correct, he is actually on to something, […but…] No one seems to agree with his "true altitude" calculation except for him.” [6] To see what effect the "cover-up" had, and to help clear up which impossible altitude seemed more likely, I looked into the Pilots’ comparative data, a CSV file for Excel, called AAL77_Tabular, where the pressure re-sets at 18,000 feet are recorded each way. This document forms the basis of my FL018 research (thread coming), but I have yet not been able to independently verify its authenticity. Oddly enough, the recorded altitude does not change at all with the adjustment and there is no meaningful discrepancy!

Ascent:
time - Hg - alt
8:27:58 30.21 17938
------------------------------ FL180
8:28:00 - 29.91 - 18015
8:28:02 - 30.21 - 18093
8:28:04 - 29.91 - 18170
8:28:06 - 29.94 - 18247
8:28:08 - 29.91 - 18324
8:28:10 - 29.92 - 18402
8:28:12 - 29.91 - 18483

Descent:
time - Hg - alt
9:24:12 - 29.91 - 18205
9:24:14 - 29.92 - 18126
9:24:16 - 30.23 - 18049
------------------------------ FL180
9:24:18 - 30.01 - 17972
9:24:20 - 30.23 - 17895

The pressure was reset at 8:28, with no 300-foot drop in altitude, and re-set on descent, again with no effect. Yet it shows essentially what the "altered" animation shows at termination: 173 feet compared to its 180. [7] So the data here shows two pressure re-sets, 302 feet at takeoff, 173 at the end. The animation shows 300 at takeoff, ONE reset, and 180 at the end. The pilots insist the data and animation match except for "the blatant cover-up" of neglecting the second re-set, turning the data's real alt of 480-ish to 180. But in reality, the animation and this CSV file match from A to Z despite the alleged cover-up and that extra 300 feet is looking like a red herring.

But even without Pilot X’s "correction," a Pentagon attack could not have occurred by a plane that far from the building, and that high, by either the CSV file or the animation. Considering this animation also shows the northern flight path that rules out this plane reaching either the Pentagon or the light poles before it, a whole slew of glitches, or perhaps some other explanation, would be required to debunk this damning NTSB-supplied animation.

One interesting tack is to compare all available sources, check their degrees of authenticity/verifiability, and then compare which comport with which and, as Sesame Street used to urge us, find “which one of these things just doesn’t belong.” There is an investigation of this underway, going very slow so far but it should be up soon.


Sources:
[1], [2] Flight Data Recorder Analysis - Last Second of Data - 09:37:44 08/20/06 http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
[3] John Doe X. Fdr Vertical Speed, Altimeter lag issues addressed as well. Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum: Flight Number: American 77. Posted October 15 2006, 08:41 AM http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=106&st=0&
[4], [5] Questions for the US Govt regarding AA77 Flight Data Recorder. Posting date unlisted
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
[6] “AA77 FDR Data, Explained.” Posted by: Anti-Sophist. October 13 2006at 9:10 pm. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047
[7] AAL77_Tab - Excel document - downloaded from: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=64&st=0&

OLD MILITARY FRAUDSTERS WITH WEIRD NAMES

With their specialized training and lifetimes of dedicated service to country to call on, the military retiree crowd was much sought after by those seeking to push their interpretations of 9/11, and there was a steady stream of “defectors,” curiously consistent especially regarding the attack on the Pentagon. Dave Von Kleist, producer and host of 9/11 In Plane Site, is apparently not military himself, but is married into it via his wife Captain Joyce Riley Von Kleist (US Army, ret.). Herself a Gulf War vet and a nurse interested in health and natural cures, she’s the founder of American Gulf War Veterans Association, crusading for justice over Gulf War syndrome (or “biological warfare conducted on U.S. military members, and corporate bio-genocide levied on the planetary population.”) [1] It was perhaps Joyce who introduced Dave to the AF Colonel and Army General he has cited as supporting his views. Their curiously relevant expertise has lent credibility (in some minds) to the otherwise ludicrous theories expressed in 911 IPS.

Stubblebine giving his “where is it?” interview

Major General Albert Stubblebine is President of the Natural Solutions Foundation, for natural health and longevity, now retired after a 32-year Army career. He’d been Commanding General of the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), 1981-84. Reportedly an oddball who's previously created Remote Viewing for the purpose of Army intelligence gathering, [2] helped wreck the UFO movement in the 1980s, and reportedly believes he can walk through walls. He styled himself an evil Yoda to the Army’s Luke Skywalker, once giving, as James Lippard put it, "a seemingly very poorly received talk to the heads of the Special Forces at Fort Bragg about the need to train the troops to perform psychic healing, levitation, invisibility, and bursting the hearts of animals with their minds. Shortly after the talk, Stubblebine resigned in humiliation." [3]

But despite his eccentricities, his sharp eye and keen mind were highly valued; in addition to heading INSCOM, Stubblebine was once the head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. “I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job,” he explained in an interview for William Lewis' 2006 IPS follow-up video One Nation Under Seige. With this background, he looked at photos of the hole in the Pentagon “and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole.’ So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?” [4] Who am I? (Sorry, couldn’t resist). He can walk through walls no problem, but for a plane to fly/pour through that hole is simply too much to ask of the old man.

Von Kleist dropped Stubblebine’s esteemed name during an interview with Glenn Beck on CNN, as well as pointing to the testimony of retired Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force, as supporting his claims regarding 9/11. This means something, since Nelson has behind him a 34-year USAF career, including as an aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. In addition to core-member status in Pilots for 9/11 Truth and having a permanent top-post status at one of LetsRoll911’s forums for “Colonel George Nelson Confirms Pod” (on the second plane to hit the WTC), he also noted in a a well-written and presumably well-researched essay:

“[N]ot one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. […] With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. […] a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.” [5]

These are just the tip of the iceberg. There’s also Capt. Russ Wittenberg, a Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions under his belt. More relevant is his 35 years of experience as a Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines, flying all Boeing models and allegedly the very two United planes (allegedly) hijacked on 9/11 Regarding the Boeing 757, which allegedly hit the Pentagon, “the airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous.” Beyond this, he had stock contributions to the Fraud. “It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.” [6]

Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army, is the retired former director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. Regarding the impact at the Pentagon he has said “when you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile.” [7] Well, if all these esteemed, independent and retired experts agree a missile did it, I must be wrong after all. How on Earth could the Pentagon get to a bunch of retired military guys to partake in Rumsfeld’s obfuscation plot? It’s not like they’re sworn to do his bidding, at least not since they all went “rogue.”

Col. Donn de Grand Pré on the watch for barbarians inside the gates

Finally there's Col. Donn de Grand Pré, USA (ret.), who served in Burma and China during World War II and was twice wounded commanding combat forces in Korea. Later, under then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, he was chief arms negotiator for the Middle East. He oversaw the sale of over a hundred billion dollars worth of military equipment, and was still a Pentagon arms negotiator in the 1970s under President Ford. [8] Soon after the second attempt on his life, Ford told Donn “something has gone terribly wrong in our country when a president can no longer walk among the people.” An official, BTP Holdings/AFP-connected website explains:

“This jarred Donn from his heady pursuit of striving to become the world’s leading arms peddler. Disillusioned with our government’s course, both at home and abroad, Donn exited Washington, DC for his farm in Virginia where he began an intensive program of research which slowly unmasked a deadly “Bolshevik” peril to our Republic […] “hidden Barbarians” already inside the gates; an enemy totally dedicated to the destruction of our sovereignty as a nation-state and the enslavement or extermination of all who might block their plans for World domination.” [9]

Since 1975, Colonel de Grand Pré has written a number of books, including his three-volume novel series Barbarians Inside the Gates, released in 2000. 9/11 apparently fit right into his mythos, and after that pivotal day his list of questions expanded: “was the official version of 9-11 a gigantic hoax? Did the War Party, led by Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and other Neocons lay the groundwork for a major Mideast War? Did they trigger the 9-11 tragedy?” [10] In February 2004 de Grand-Pre outlined for Alex Jones “how 9/11 was carried out by order of an inside group of Neo-Cons.” He claimed to personally know the pilot who shot down Flight 93. On the same show, he was asked about what hit the Pentagon and answered “it was a cruise missile. It could have been a Global Hawk. It was not a commercial aircraft."[11]

[1] "Gulf War Syndrome: Biological Warfare Conducted on U.S. Military Members, and Corporate Bio-Genocide Levied on the Planetary Population." Natural Health and Longevity Resource Center. A Lecture By Captain Joyce Riley in Houston, Texas on January 15, 1996 http://www.all-natural.com/riley.html
[2] Stubblebine bio. http://www.undersiegemovie.com/bio_stubblebine.html
[3] From "The Men Who Stare at Goats" By Jon Ronson. http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2005-04-17.htm
[4], [5], [6] Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Critics of 9/11 Commission Report U.S. MILITARY OFFICERS: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
[7] Szymanski,Greg. "High-Ranking Army Officer - Missile Hit Pentagon: Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings
Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicates Depleted Uranium Used." Rense.com. August 19 2005. http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm
[8], [9] http://www.neoconned.com/index.php?id=124
[10] http://btpholdings.com/barbarians.html
[11] "Transcript: Alex Jones Interviews Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.): Explosive New 9/11 Revelations and Explanations.” Feb. 29 2004. http://www.prisonplanet.com/022904degrand.html