Support 911Blogger


New Paper at The Journal of 9/11 Studies

A new paper by Dr. Frank Legge and Warren Stutt has been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is entitled “Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon.”

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

Here is an excerpt:

“There have, however, been other interested parties who looked at the available data and came to different conclusions. Researcher John Farmer concluded that there was indeed a defect in the file and that about 4 to 6 seconds of data was missing from the end. If this is true it would be easy to find a flight path which would permit the plane to descend and pull up safely. Despite this finding the adherents of the contrary theories have remained adamant that the plane flew over the building or could not have survived the final pull-up. They continue to maintain that the official account of the path of the plane, which necessarily includes impact with the Pentagon, is false. A number of analyses have been presented which indicate that there are elements of the official account of the attack on the Pentagon which are false but it is our purpose to show that the FDR data is not one of them.”

Many interested parties have discussed the issues related to this paper, but few have been willing to approach it with a thoughtful, objective manner and with attention to detail. As we have in the past, my co-editor Steve Jones and I call for a similarly thoughtful, objective and detailed response that addresses all the evidence. If such a response can be made, we would welcome it as a submission to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

This research paper has undergone thorough peer-review

prior to publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Thank you for this work, Dr. Legge and Warren Stutt. I hope that my friend Barrie Zwicker will study this paper, along with the recent statement by David Chandler and Jon Cole here at 911blogger.

I agree with Kevin Ryan and wish to underline his challenge:

"Many interested parties have discussed the issues related to this paper, but few have been willing to approach it with a thoughtful, objective manner and with attention to detail. As we have in the past, co-my co-editor Steve Jones and I call for a similarly thoughtful, objective and detailed response that addresses all the evidence. If such a response can be made, we would welcome it as a submission to the Journal of 9/11 Studies."

"IF SUCH A RESPONSE CAN BE MADE," indeed.

Show "So Much for Peer - Review?" by Pur_SSyn

This is spam...as it is already posted and replied to below..

Everything is outside it's limits at this speed...?

Anyway, see my technical reply below with the original post from Pur_SSyn.

This is not an open forum where this behaviour is tolerated, this is 911blogger.com

John

Any Author Comments Regarding FDR File Authenticity?

Questions have been raised over the years regrading the authenticity of 9/11 FDR data. Most other major government 9/11 data or opinions have been met with skepticism and even been found to be flawed on occasion.

correlations

I have been graphing some columns of the file looking for things that don't line up correctly but have not found any as yet.

Show "I'm curious..." by Swingdangler

it's open for peer review by the world, now

PFT has already made some comments on their forum. If PFT or anyone else wants to put together a critique or their own study, they can submit it to JO911S for peer review. If not accepted, they can publish it elsewhere and the interested public can examine them both and decide for themselves.

i think the peer review process

list of peer reviewers isn't necessarily an instantly open book
following the correct academic proceedure that seems to be how it works
however some peer reviewers might announce themselves later on if they wish to
(just going by what i've learned here)

Important paper

This refutes the Pilots for 9/11 Truth conclusion that Flight 77 was too high to have hit the Pentagon.

I commend Frank Legge and Warren Stutt for doing this necessary work. We needed more than a precautionary principle given the stakes-- we needed a scientific analysis of the FDR. Of course this is not a default to the official story-- it is a refutation of false claims. The Pentagon attack was an inside job for various other reasons.

Show "9/11 false flag Pentagon attack" by jonathan mark

Narrow focus?

That's an interesting comment, Jonathan, for several reasons.

First, I received a message from you just two days ago that included several links to Pentagon articles, one of which was entitled "Hard evidence exists that American Airlines Flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 — the laws of science refute the official account of 9/11" In this article, a former DOE and World Bank employee tells us that the laws of science were violated because of data from the FDR.

Secondly, your "truth leaders conference" has spent a considerable amount of time dealing with, and thereby overstating the importance of, the flyover theory. On a related note, your conference has also mischaracterized the hateful, totally unsubstantiated accusations made by RCFP as an issue of censorship, a claim that is false in several obvious ways.

In both those instances, why did you not simply say then, as you have now, that this issue is too narrow to be discussed? Is it because this paper gives hard evidence that contradicts your previous beliefs on the subject?

The official explanation for what happened at the Pentagon is false by all accounts. The problem is that a number of suspicious characters have worked hard to promote the false contention that "the entirety of the official story about the Pentagon is that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon." That is not the official story about the Pentagon, and saying so is like saying that World War II was only about Nagasaki. Instead, the official story about the Pentagon includes numerous claims which are unproven or clearly false. I have written about a dozen of those questions recently.

It seems clear that Flight 77 was probably not flown by any human pilot, and that there is much evidence suggesting that explosives were used. Additionally, it was very odd that the Pentagon was hit in the least occupied area of the building, that had just been renovated (by the company that later cleaned up ground zero).

With this paper we hope to see progress on the many unanswered questions about the Pentagon but it is possible that all energies will continue to be consumed with the one (less important, imo) question of "what hit the Pentagon." In any case, I'm glad to see that you, Jonathan, are finally coming around.

Show "Over-reaction and miss communication" by jonathan mark

Focus would be good

That was a very long (1854 word) reply that did not answer the one question I asked.

Since when is this topic too narrow for you (or now, as you say, a minor point)? It wasn’t too narrow or too minor on January 8th, when you sent me your latest message that included four links to Pentagon articles, including the one referring to the FDR as proof of violation of the “laws of science.”

If you can answer that, I would appreciate it.

Once we’ve gotten past that, please consider the following. If I were to make these two claims, would you think I was accusing you of being a censor?

1. “It is now 100% confirmed that Jonathan Mark is an enemy of the truth movement as a whole and is engaged in an open campaign of attack on good truthers.”
2. “Jonathan Mark’s ‘truth leader’s teleconference’ has been infiltrated by agents working for the other side”

You might ask -- how do I know that it is “100% confirmed that Jonathan Mark is an enemy of the truth movement?” How do I know it is not only 80% confirmed? If it were only 65% confirmed, would that mean that he is not a censor?

Similarly, how do I know that Jonathan Mark’s self-proclaimed truth leaders have been infiltrated by “agents working for the other side?” For that matter, how do I know how many sides there are and who is on them? If we discovered that Jonathan was on the fourth side of a dodecahedron of truth leaders would that mean he was not a censor?

Hopefully you see how ridiculous this is, to claim that the attacks by RCFP had anything to do with censorship. If you still do not see it, make note that I was censored by RCFP when I proposed this article for publication in response. I guess censorship only works one way for them.
http://911truthnews.com/up-a-crooked-creek-censorship-and-civility-in-th...

Show "referred emai questioned.. and reply" by jonathan mark

Thankyou Jon

You often provide good reference material- I appreciate it.

Show "judge and jury.." by jonathan mark

Is there anything that is untrue...

In my "hit piece?" Oh, look at what Barrett is promoting today.

Show "hit piece due to your focus" by jonathan mark

Where have you been Jonathan?

I posted a picture about something Barrett posted JUST yesterday. You say I "pick out one controversial topic," but again, that is just from one day. There are literally 100's of examples of how horrid this man has been over the last several years. You think having a conversation about whether or not Hitler was good, giving credence to the idea that he may have been, is good for this cause?

Bullshit.

I'm glad there's nothing inaccurate in either of these postings.

http://911truthnews.com/a-response-to-kevin-barretts-attacks/
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=97772&postcount=1

Show "Mark is on the mark here. " by dave mann
Show "And I might add" by dave mann

Barrett's off-topic- additional posts will be removed

the subject of this thread is the new paper by Legge and Stutt

PS if you want to discuss Barrett, find one of the many posts related to him at 911blogger, post a comment and bump it up in the tracker.

Or go to this truthaction thread: http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1887&sid=7bf71f29617c0c4f9d...

Thank You

Thank you.

I'll vote down

Anyone I see that promotes, defends, or mentions Kevin Barrett in a positive breath.

He is an OBVIOUS LIABILITY to any social movement dumb enough not to exclude him.

ABSOLUTELY

The movement needs to grow up and clear the decks of these crazy plants. If it isn't obvious that this guy is a harm to us then I wanna ask what do you think this movement is really all about. There's a lot of bullshit in this movement and it makes me angry because the stakes are too high and the cause is too important. Let's just say it, there's a lot of people promoting 9/11 truth that are harmful to us and those people need to be denounced. Just as in the national debate over the Tucson shooting it's time for us to re-evaulate the way we present ourselves to the world with our rhetoric and our style of argument

Dave Mann and John Mark

If you are trying to defend the incredibly offensive as well as anti-semitic views and actions of Barrett I am simply appalled. Everyone should go to that truth action thread which Jon Gold and Loosenuke have posted and read the amazing comments and disgusting images that Barrett promotes and ties to the 9/11 Truth movement. Making excuses for his racism and instagatory behavior makes me equally as sick to my stomach. Dave and John, you are either ignorant of Barrett's recent behavior or, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Either way, your support of this awful individual most certainly is a problem for 9/11 truth.

Voting is bad?

Hmmmm, that's an interesting perspective

Show "Voice of reason !" by dave mann

Thank you...

Thank you Frank and Warren for providing the general public with an honest, accurate, analysis of the FDR data concerning AA77 which slammed into the pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Something nobody else has produced in over 9 years!

FDR data supports AA 77 Pentagon crash, not flyover or tampering

It has been previously reported by PFT that the FDR data shows the plane was too high to hit the Pentagon, was N of the damage path, and the data stops 4" short of the Pentagon. The NTSB animation shows the same thing.

However, according to this study by Legge and Stutt, the FDR data for N644AA/Flight 77 shows a continuous flight path from take off at Dulles to crash at the Pentagon. Researcher Warren Stutt obtained his own copy of the FDR file and found an undecoded frame, which, when decoded, contained the final 4" of flight, which ends at the Pentagon.

The altitude apparently corresponds fairly closely to the radio heights (see pg. 12, note 4 for explanation), as well as the heights marked off by the damage path; clipped poles, tree tops, generator, damage to the Pentagon, witness reports. "[C]orrections ranged from 1 to 17 feet." (pg. 10)

The FDR data putting the plane to the north of the damage path is within a margin of error for this FDR:
"The data file shows that the course position error at take-off from Dulles is much greater than the error at the end of the final flight. The large error at the beginning may have resulted from drift of the inertial navigation system while the plane was on the ground. These errors are apparently largely corrected during flight, presumably by reference to Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) and VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR), which provide distance and direction from ground stations. Also available at the time was the Global Positioning System (GPS). Significant position errors were nevertheless noticed in the data from most of the normal landings described above, and corrections were made. It was noticed that the errors became larger while the plane was taxiing toward its parking spot, at which time it would presumably be too low to receive DME and VOR correcting signals. It may seem surprising that GPS was not correcting drift, but the NTSB has released a document which lists GPS as 'not working or unconfirmed'.(pg. 13)

"The average latitude error was 329 feet and the maximum error was 1197 feet. The average longitude error was 663 feet, maximum error 1410 feet. It is clear from this study that the position reports produced by this aircraft were prone to error, producing recorded tracks which were parallel with, but offset from, their real tracks. It is therefore not surprising that this was also found to be the case with the final flight. " (pg. 13)

In addition, the damage path, plane parts, and more than several dozen eyewitnesses say the plane hit the Pentagon; at least 17 witness accounts correspond w/ the official path prior to the Pentagon impact: http://911blogger.com/news/2009-12-27/south-path-impact-documented-adam-... (also see debate in comment thread).

It is interesting that NTSB reports GPS as "not working or unconfirmed"; Aidan Monaghan's research has shown that GPS could have been used to control planes remotely, prior to Sept. 11, 2001.

"It is not our position that we have proved the data file authentic. It is of course impossible to do so. However the file is such a vast collection of inter-related information that it would be extremely difficult to manipulate without leaving evidence in the form of items which did not correlate correctly. We have not found any such evidence. That is sufficient for the case we develop." (pg. 16 n11)

Can anyone produce evidence this FDR or the data were tampered with, or that the data was manufactured and not from Flight 77 on 9/11? Legge and Stuff are not claiming they've proven it wasn't tampered with, but that it would be difficult to do so and hide evidence of this, due to the complexity and inter-relatedness of the data in the set.

margin of error

That was a good setting out of the essential points loose nuke, but I do not agree that a north path is within the margin of error of the FDR. It would be if all we had was the final position, but we have more - we have the long line of position reports which provide the track angle with great precision.

What the FDR does is provide support to the only eyewitness I am aware of who was in a position to follow the plane by eye right to impact and who was also positioned in between the north path track and the real track of the plane, Albert Hemphill. He said repeatedly that the plane passed over his right shoulder and flew straight to impact. The north path track would have been over his left shoulder. Years later he was asked if the plane went north of the Citgo service station and he thought it did. If you look at the map you will see a right shoulder track goes south of the Citgo, however CIT uses that one slip to claim him as a north path witnesses. This should be an eye opener to anyone who trusts the work of CIT.

margin of error v. position precision

"I do not agree that a north path is within the margin of error of the FDR. It would be if all we had was the final position, but we have more - we have the long line of position reports which provide the track angle with great precision."

Perhaps I misunderstood the info in the paper, and the previous reports on the FDR data plus the NTSB animation; are you saying the FDR data puts the plane on the official path? I understood that the FDR puts the plane N of the damage path, but that the FDR was likely incorrect, due to the technology not being able to record position with greater lat/long precision than the margin of error you reported.

FDR track

The FDR cannot be said to describe precisely the location of the track but it does describe precisely the angle of the track, about 61 degrees from due north. We must look for other evidence to establish the location of the track. Of course we look for evidence of damage in the vicinity of the Pentagon. We find that the damage trail through the light poles and inside the Pentagon lines up as near as can be measured with the track angle of the data, about 61 degrees. Have a look at the image here:
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/fdr-info

The point which you are perhaps missing is the consistency of the position points. If you draw a line through twenty position reports you find very little scatter - we can confidently define the track angle to within a degree.

You cannot take any notice of the NTSB animation whatsoever regarding track angle. It has clearly been calculated incorrectly, resulting in a track angle out by about 10 degrees. The NTSB has said it did not use the animation for any official purpose.

NTSB Animation

The NTSB animation in question does not appear within the NTSB animation work products page and a FOIA request of mine for this video was returned indicating that no record of this animation was located. Anyone wishing a copy of this NTSB reply can request one from me via e-mail.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/animations.htm

The only party to my knowledge alleging to have received an official copy is a Calum Douglas. This animation has been utilized by both sides of this debate.

I have made a subsequent identical FOIA request for this animation with a plan to appeal any negative findings, as their FOIA appeals officer has generously provided information on other matters not required by the FOIA and who may confirm or deny the existence of this animation.

As well, the only media who have broadcast this animation and alleged it to be a NTSB work product to my knowledge is TrueTV, perhaps on the advice of those participating in the recent Pentagon episode broadcast.

AA 77 NTSB Animation Does Exist

After a second request of the NTSB, they did provide a copy of the AA 77 animation video contained on a DVD with a file size of 3.25GB.

Will post a copy of the NTSB FOIA reply letter shortly.

track angle v. position points

Gotcha. My point was more that the FDR data cannot precisely describe where the plane was in reality; it does so w/in a margin of error. Your point is it's largely precise in describing the track angle, which parallels the damage path.

"If you draw a line through twenty position reports you find very little scatter - we can confidently define the track angle to within a degree."

The graphic at the link is helpful; if there's a future edition of the paper, I suggest including that. However, it would also be helpful to include lines tracking the potential error margin; "within a degree" over "twenty position reports." It may be the actual track of the plane was slightly more east than north, compared with the red and green lines, based on the accounts of Paik and Zakhem (they thought the plane was over top of them), as well as the damage to the VDOT tower. Morin's and Hemhill's accounts put the plane south of their position, though they also describe it as being on top of them. I'm sure it felt like it was, being so low- and a 757 has a 125' wing span. Anyway, the photo on pg. 3 of the damage to the pole; that seems to clearly mark the position of the right wing tip, and the damage to the Pentagon facade gives a roughly precise location for the fuselage. Seems there's another margin of error in knocking down the lamp poles; the body could have been some yards to the right or left and still hit them all, from what I recall.

One other thing to take from this, is that the FDR track does not correspond at all with the lines traced out by CIT's witnesses, except Keith Wheelhouse. Significantly, all of those who thought the plane was further north were all north of the plane, including Hemphill; a common perspective error known as parallax can account for their impression that it was. People who were south of the track described the plane as coming up 395.

Track angle through damage

I eventually decided the best way to find this track angle was to run a line from the VDOT camera pole to the impact mark of the right wing tip on the Pentagon. Having done that, and creating construction lines around the plane's wingspan, I found all the right poles were hit and none of the wrong poles. This provides a far more precise angle than a line avoiding the wrong poles and aiming for the large impact hole in the building, which was all we could do if the VDOT camera pole was not utilized.

clarification of VDOT tower

when i said VDOT tower, i was actually referring to a VSP tower on VDOT property; more info in this section:
IV. Shinki Paik said the VDOT tower antenna was “bent over … about 60, 70 degrees”
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/shinki-and-ed-paik-accounts-v...

"I eventually decided the best way to find this track angle was to run a line from the VDOT camera pole to the impact mark of the right wing tip on the Pentagon."

That would be very precise- i didn't know the right wing tip mark on the Pentagon had been determined.

Looking again at your graphic, I see the red line looks like it puts the plane on a track that could have clipped the tower, though it still seems like the witnesses i named would have realized the plane was further south than they described it as, if it had been on the red line track.

The VSP tower can be seen on a google earth map- there's a map available for shortly before 9/11, in the history.

More info on the VSP tower here, incl. coordinates:
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrApplication.jsp?applKey=396...

Locating the track

I do not think it is easy for a person on the ground to estimate accurately how far away a track is. When Hemphill was asked if the track was as far south as the VDOT (VSP) tower he said "That would be a little too far." yet the track is actually south of the tower.

Thanks for the coordinates by the way. The best I had before was using the shadow of the tower in Google Earth maps. The Apr 1996, Apr 2006 and Aug 2010 maps have very clear shadows. It seems Google Earth can be a bit out as the tower by its shadows appears to be 10 to 20 feet further east than it should be by its coordinates.

There has been no confirmation that the tower antenna was hit. Paik didn't see it hit.

How Were The Previous Landing Locations Determined?

Were previous landing locations and times derived from the FDR data?

There seems to be varying opinions regarding AA 77's true tail number, as tracked by the BTS.

However, UA 93's pre-9/11 flight history is available through the BTS database. It would be interesting to learn if UA 93's FDR derived pre-9/11 landings locations and times data corresponded with the BTS pre-9/11 landings locations and times data.

Of course, the BTS online data for AA 77 and UA 93 is not supported by FOIA records for the same flights:

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-06-22/update-us-bts-foia-records-911-pla...

Show "RADAR ALT." by Pur_SSyn

Hello Pur

http://www.gamelogos.com/temp/starboard-wing2.jpg

I have no reason to think that the Low Range Radio Altimeter would not be close to accurate enough for this papers purpose as the angle to the horizontal is very small so the sampling rate is not so important.

I agree the LRRA is not designed for this speed as it returns could be affected but by taking a practical look at the figures it seems that it did the job rather well. What Legge is saying in this paper is based on the overall probability and the LRRA is the best source of altitude below 2500 ft period. Also the LRRA would fail if it was not receiving a good return signal as it's logic knows when it is in error.

This paper from the perspective of some one who is qualified to to fit and repair the LRRA system and the DFDR system, this is a good description of what is rational and probably from the raw data.

Sour grapes does not sour this research, while a paper in rebuttal might which we all hope you and others will take the time to prepare for peer review and publishing asap!

Good day sir.

John Bursill - Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Avionics - Boeing 767/747 and 737 Series. L503114

The fact

that the FDR was found inside the Pentagon sorta confirms its measurement of its own altitude ;-)

Besides... that catastrophic and sudden deceleration demonstrated in the paper was to do what... to surf the fireball? LOL

An FDR found in the Pentagon cannot ever support flyover. The tendency of the downward sloping graphs of the various 'unreliable' altitude measurements also supports the trustworthiness of the radio height, and Frank argues this in the paper. Elaborately.

when surfing fireballs always use

a surfboard made of the same material as the hijackers' passports

Radalt errors? No!

pur_SSyn

I do not know where you obtained the information that the radio height system would not work at the speed that the plane was flying. I can however guess it was from Rob Balsamo, as I he has said the same thing as you.

In fact the speed limit you quote, 330ft/sec, is not the horizontal speed but the vertical speed. Even flight AA77 was not descending anywhere near that fast.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth has made a big case that our paper is rubbish based on this 330ft/sec limit. It appears that even skilled aviation experts can get the simplest things wrong. It reminds me of the case they made that the plane could not have pulled out of the dive on approach to the Pentagon as the g-force would be 10.14. It only requires the simplest math to show that this figure is very wrong.

I think this is very sad as they could make a great contribution to 9/11 truth if they were willing to admit errors and limit their focus to real evidence. I still have hope for them.

Previous landings

"Were previous landing locations and times derived from the FDR data?"

Yes. We made no attempt to verify them by other means.

Could A Comparison Of UA 93's FDR/BTS Data Be Done?

I can't find my copy of UA 93's FDR disk to run through Warren Stutt's decoder.

It would be very interesting to see if the FDR touchdown/location data coincides with the BTS data.

Thanx Frank.

Show "Existing stiils and unreleased video" by Ferric Oxide

You asked some questions

See also: here and here.

Roosevelt Roberts is actually a SoC witness and not a flyover witness. Please read the comment threads linked above. Read the transcript. Study the topography. Even if Roosevelt Roberts actually was a 'flyover witness' (he's not), the turn he describes, if combined with CIT's NoC approach, would be aerodynamically impossible.

The C-130 was dispatched to follow AA 77. Tragically, this was all that the multi-trillion dollar US air defense system proffered Americans on 9/11. Like those news helicopters in NYC, somehow the US could mobilize anything that flies BUT actual fighter jets to thwart the attacks.

Show "See here " by Chris Sarns
Show "RR saw 1 plane" by Chris Sarns
Show "Huh?" by Swingdangler

RR did NOT see the C-130

At 6:25 the screen says "the second plane - the C-130"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSjZDDzmXFE&feature=player_embedded

Roosevelt: It was, . . it was heading, . . . back across 27 . . .

The screen shows the flight path of the C-130 leading the viewer to think Roosevelt saw it turning away but the C-130 was 3 miles to the west of the Pentagon at the time of the impact and arrived at the Pentagon about two minutes later.
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Roosevelt: and it looks like. . . it appeared to me, I was in the south, and that plane was heading . . . southwest. . . coming out.

Aldo: So like banking around; turning back around?

Roosevelt: Correct.

The screen shows the C-130 turning to the north and then west, not to the south west.

Roosevelt: Banking- banking around, coming back out, turning southwest. . . and going straight across.

The video is incorrect in saying that Roosevelt saw the C-130.

I think he did

but it's rather irrelevant, Roosevelt Roberts was a SoC witness. This discussion, as far as I'm concerned, was settled, which is why I'm no longer actively responding to your challenges. I'm responding now because I don't want to create the impression that I can't.

In the post above, you show the C-130 flight path, which ends in a U-turn to the southwest, and simply exclaim "The screen shows the C-130 turning to the north and then west, not to the south west." Note that the "Roosevelt Roberts Explained"-video also shows the amateur footage of the C-130 making a U-turn.

Anyways, if this is supposed to be some kind of joke, I'm not laughing. I think you are simply invested in a NoC + impact scenario, and you are thus unable to let it go, like CIT can't let go of flyover. Well, to each his own, but I fully reject NoC and I'm not going to go along with a middle-of-the-road solution, that still violates the evidence.

Time for me to confront you with a question, too: Did the plane hit light poles 1 & 2? Did it hit the generator? If the answer is no, what are the implications? Note that you needn't really differentiate if you argue a possibility only. It's the same to me whether you do or do not...

Show "It's a very sad day" by Chris Sarns

Have you considered the possibility

that this is a psy-ops set up? - disinformation designed to create endless arguments?

CIT could very well be an orchestrated campaign to divide and conquer. That has been the result and the great RR debate seems to be a part of that plan. RR's explanation of where the plane came from can be interpreted in two ways as can what explosion he witnessed just before running outside. By design perhaps?

We know that the TM has been infiltrated. We know they plant disinformation to confuse the issue and foster acrimonious arguments.

It is obvious that CIT is intentionally causing disruption and division and this is argument about RR, based on a CIT interview, has all the qualities of intentional disinformation designed to disrupt and divide the TM.

I think

CIT are probably not paid by the neocons
They're just people that did a lot of hard work starting with the premise that as the neocons had lied about 9/11 in general then they had lied about AA77 in every detail.
Perhaps they also fell for a neocon trick whereby the neocons acted guilty about AA77 as if they had something to hide as they only released 5 grainy images of the crash.
By restricting info the neocons created confusion amongst their detractors.
Now the peer reviewed work is in.
Bravo to the boffins in the TM again!
There are of course details about AA77 that the whole TM agrees on more or less and it is this that is the lie from the neocons, whereas i think AA77 thanks to hi technology devices, a stand down, and not hani hanjour slammed into the pentagon
Thanks to lots of info i changed my mind from a LC2e opinion on flight 77 and the CIT flyover
LC2e showed me the twin towers defied physics as the collapse rate was aprox gravity speed - for that im grateful as i've learned so much since that massive shock and not just about 9/11 and met so many amazing people in the TM, and the public and the police (very civilized working class peeps usually!)
CIT showed us a possible theory- I appreciate that and am grateful, but i think, weighing up the scientific evidence, it's time for all to ditch missiles and AA77 crash skepticism
anyway CIT:
I welcome them when they have a really good think about all this, see the new peer-reviewed paper and bring their talents and abilities to join us who seem to have the right picture on AA77's demise
It will take time for this to happen
Some may drop out of the movement
some may back themselves further into a corner
others like me may switch from being AA77 crash skeptic
we need to be nice to them so they don't feel embarrassed
they are well meaning people im sure unless someone can show me a bank of Carlyle group check with their names on it ! :)

Show "The official videos of" by tit2

the manchester airport plane's smoke

seems dark against the sky but against the background of stationery aircraft beyond the runway it seems a lighter hue

[EDIT:
i freezed frame at 007 then that was remeniscent of the fab 5 frames]

Douglas HIlton BSc (Hons) (only just)

Show "I do not think that the smoke" by tit2

White smoke!

In my 24 years of experience with large gas turbine engines they produce white smoke when oil is burning while black smoke is produced by rich engine combustion of jet fuel.

The only engines I have seen producing black smoke due to oil burn is propellar aircraft which I have very little experience.

Regards john

Hi Ferric Oxide

Haven't heard from you for a long time. I remember you collected a lot of useful photos at one time and addressed issues in a logical manner.

Re Roosevelt Roberts, his statements are unclear. Some say he was watching the c-130, some that he described the plane heading south west, some that he saw it heading east toward the Pentagon. However not one of his remarks can be interpreted as supporting fly over.

thx

again! 8)

Show "Mr. Roberts" by Ferric Oxide
Show "Clarification" by Swingdangler

Roberts reported the plane as "headed east ... towards DC"

Why'd he run out? Perhaps he had a reaction to what he saw on TV, or a bomb may have gone off a few or several seconds too early. In any case, the silver plane he described as flying about 50' above the light poles, around lane one, he said was "headed east ... towards DC", and later in the intvw he confirmed it came from the SW. http://911blogger.com/node/20826

Later on, when asked, he talks about a plane he refers to as a "second plane', and this one he thought did a u-turn and flew away. He describes no detail on this plane, and gives no landmarks or direction other than "back across 27" and flying SW, where it came from.

Many witnesses reported the C-130 as being close behind in time and space, and lower. So whose correct? Eyewitness reports differ regarding anything, it may have looked that way from where they were standing. C-130 accounts http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=42599#42599 and the 17+ South Path witnesses http://911blogger.com/news/2009-12-27/south-path-impact-documented-adam-... all corroborate Roberts.

The first plane matches the description and flight path of AAL 77. The second, the C-130. The only planes that match these descriptions and flight paths are AAL 77 and the C-130.

There are no flyover witnesses, including Roberts. A flyover, meaning where the passengers must've been killed elsewhere or 'in on it', is something else for which there is no evidence. These kinds of baseless claims have turned members of the public off because it's inaccurate, wrong and unhelpful. It also makes the movement a target for discredit, disrespect, disrepute.

That sums it up

quite well...

BTW, imo, RR ran out to scope the area... they were going to threatcon delta, he had seen the WTC plane impact (UA 175) on TV and he wanted to see if anything was threatening the Pentagon at that time. It was his job, RR was DPS.

Sure enough, something was about to harm the Pentagon, and RR was outside just in time to see it approach... on a southerly path: AA 77.

After it impacted, RR speaks of 'stuff falling from the ceiling' and 'people screaming' and he draws his weapon.

Show "Why did he run out?" by Swingdangler

misinterpretation, accusation, insinuation

There are some things about Roberts' testimony that are unclear. Something that is clear, is that in the CIT intvw he said the plane he saw when he first stepped outside came from the SW and was "heading east, towards DC". As I pointed out above, his placing this silver jet engined plane about 50-100' above the light poles 'around lane one', matches AAL 77 on the S path. If it was on the alleged N path, he couldn't have seen it.

He doesn't mention hearing or feeling an explosion just after he saw this plane, but in the CMH interview he says, "I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot. This was about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then there was dust - stuff coming from the ceiling, and you could hear people scream." Alan Wallace, who was close to the impact point, said the engines of the plane were the loudest thing; the impact/explosion sounded like a crunch to him. Probably hundreds of thousands of people in the area heard a huge explosion or boom, at least several dozen are on record. Roberts doesn't talk about how loud the plane was, but it must've been, considering how close he was - and he doesn't talk about how loud the explosion was that prompted him to run outside; he just says in the CIT interview, "From the sound of the explosion hit till I ran outside." But if it was loud, his hearing could've been temporarily affected, like Wallace's.

After he saw this plane "heading east, towards DC", he went back into the Pentagon and started "forcing people out of the building". Aldo doesn't ask and Roberts doesn't give info on how long after seeing the plane "heading east, towards DC" he saw a plane heading SW. It could be that after getting people out of the building a couple minutes later, he took a look around for other planes, saw the C-130 and watched it for a bit. It's not clear from his account whether he realized this plane was a different one, and thought Aldo knew this, or if, in the distance, he actually thought it was the same plane. Further questioning could clear this up. In fact, it may have already been cleared up; Aldo talked to Roberts later, but CIT has never made this conversation public, which is strange, cuz they've recorded a number of people w/o permission and made their accounts public. For instance, there's no evidence they got Roberts' permission to record or release this interview.

In any case, the C-130 (after the pilot reported that the plane hit the Pentagon) flew SW after doing a U-turn. The location/heading/radar track roughly fits Roberts description, which has no detail on the plane, and is vague on location/heading; "heading.. back across 27 ... heading like uh... south west.. coming out.".

Aldo Marquis: So from where, from where then headed away from the Pentagon, which direction was it heading?

Roosevelt Roberts: From the... uh.. can you repeat that one more time please?

Aldo Marquis: Yeah, when it was heading away from the Pentagon, this .. this second plane, do you remember which direction it was heading?

Roosevelt Roberts: It was heading.. back across 27, and it looks like, it appeared to me I was in the south, and that plane was heading like uh... south west.. coming out.

Aldo Marquis: So like banking around, turning back around?

Roosevelt Roberts: Correct.

Some parts of Roberts' testimony are unclear, but there's no justification for claiming he's a flyover witness.

SwingDangler: "I have just displayed how you have taken Roberts account, twisted it, misrepresented it, and made dishonest claims about it. It is in plain sight and without arguement that you have done this. My next question, what is your motive for doing this?"

Incorrect; SwingDangler- and CIT- have made claims about what can be deduced by Roberts testimony that are based on misinterpretation of some elements of it, while ignoring other elements of it, in particular the parts of it that corroborate the S path.

The accusation that I've "twisted it, misrepresented it, and made dishonest claims about it." is false. There's no justification for questioning my motive, i.e. implying I'm intentionally trying to mislead people.

I...

Found this audio from June 2nd, 2005. Just shows that even back then, there was unacceptable behavior within the "9/11 Truth Movement." The name of the person talking is Karl Schwarz. Someone who put forward some bad information, and as a result, I looked like an idiot in front of some of my friends. Taught me a very valuable lesson about putting forward good information.

http://home.comcast.net/~gold9472/jonappeal.mp3

ptech

i think about Indera Singh when that black box is brought up:

INDIRA SINGH: Ptech was with Mitre [Corporation] in the basement of the FAA for two years prior to 9/11. Their specific job is to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force in the case of an emergency. If anyone was in a position to know that the FAA, that there was a window of opportunity or to insert software or to change anything it would have been Ptech along with Mitre.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:c1YAfIICFoIJ:www.ju...

Show "So in otherwords...." by Swingdangler

i think the peer review process

isn't necessarily devoid of pilots
thats privy information as to who peer reviewed
i would like to read a few critiques of the paper by named confirmed pilots

revisions

Swingdangler,

Thanks for providing an opportunity to discuss the "What hit...Disinformation..." paper. Contrary to your assertions, the revisions of this paper only covered trivial errors. All revisions were done to provide more information and clearer information to help people, some of whom appeared rather slow, to understand the arguments. I am preparing another version to include reference to the work of Warren Stutt.

Regarding the question of aviation experts being highly skilled at understanding the arguments, I need only draw your attention to the calculation by Rob Balsamo that g-force would have destroyed the plane on approach to the Pentagon. It only takes high school maths to show that his calculation is so far out as to be laughable.

Equally surprising is Balsamo's comment:
"If Legge were right, We would have plowed into a runway long ago on a foggy night shooting approaches. And so would every other pilot who shoots those approaches (this is why even debunkers who claim to be pilots understand Legge's paper is garbage."

Pilots do not depend on the pressure altimeter as they approach the runway. Visual pilots look at the runway to judge when to commence the flare. The idea of taking your eyes off the runway to look at the altimeter at this critical moment would be absurd! Eyes are better than altimeters for landing. Instrument pilots use radio height or ILS with glide slope. Ground proximity warnings are generated by radio height, not by the altimeter. Automated landings do not depend on the altimeter alone. Nobody cares whether the altimeter is accurate near the ground. There is no need to check it. Everybody knows that radio height, accurate to about 1 foot, is the thing to depend on. The accuracy of the altimeter can never be anything like that.

There is however one situation in which radio height would not be safe to use by itself until the plane was over the runway. That would be the case if the ground sloped upward steeply before the runway. ILS with glide slope could still be used. This would be specified in the landing procedures for that airport.

It is also important to note that our paper does not say that all aircraft suffer divergence between pressure altitude and radio altitude as they descend to land. Perhaps it is only Boeing 757s. Perhaps it is only the particular plane that hit the Pentagon. We found the divergence in all the 12 flights of that plane on the file. 12 out of 12 seems pretty consistent.

Swingdangler you imply that I would allow political beliefs to sway my scientific judgement. This is a first order insult. Such attacks usually indicate an absence of evidence. See what you can deduce from this:
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/

Show "Thank you..." by Swingdangler

I think you should be banned

I think you should be banned from this site for promoting Scholars for 911 truth and Jim Fetzer. You are unhelpful to us and you should source your claims with greater care. Photos don't lie, and there are all kinds of actual photos of the plane that hit the pentagon. It makes no sense for the perpetrators to have taken flight 77 and done something else with it if the explanation they were going to give was that "a plane hit the pentagon". There are five frames they did release, photos they made available, and there are a lot of eyewitnesses too. So just stop it, because those of us who really care about the truth would never keep this no-plane theory alive when so much evidence indicates otherwise.

Show "Huh? " by Swingdangler

What?

Here are your questions + the answers to go with them:

"1. Asked if any pilots or aviation professionals were consulted during the writing of this paper or during its peer review process. They don't even have to be from PFT for that matter."

(1) Want to see pilots completely humiliating P4T? Go read the comments of Reheat, Pinch and Beachnut on JREF and ATS. I don't like these people at all, but they are utterly decimating the CIT / P4T clowns, and thus, thanks to CIT / P4T, who claim to represent the 9/11 Truth Movement, we are also getting UNWANTED CREDIT for YOUR FAILURES. Thank you but no thank you.

Anyways, stop arguing from authority and address the analysis. P4T have no credibility and no authority of any kind. Balsamo is the worst klutz of the bunch, and he's the head honcho. Go figure.

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo.html
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

"2. Deconstruted [sic] Loose Nukes [sic] erronious [sic] arguement [sic] regarding the Roosevelt Roberts account. And I asked his motive as to why he twisted and misrepresented it."

(2) Loose nuke explained Roosevelt Roberts' account exactly as it is. It's CIT's lies and distortions you should be enraged about. But you're not, you're determined to help them lie about Roosevelt Roberts, Terry Morin, Keith Wheelhouse, Father McGraw, Madeleine Zakhem, Mike Walter, and all the other witnesses CIT have attacked or misrepresented. Good job!

"3. Tried to engage a conversation between actual pilots and/or aviation system analysis and the author's of this paper. I suspect Frank is reading Rob's email to him so maybe that helps. "

(3) Warren Stutt discovered a serious bug in FDR decoding software. This requires skills in software and data reverse engineering, the most difficult area of expertise in IT. That makes him pretty damn qualified as an analyst. You are arguing from authority AGAIN, and AGAIN, I must remind you that P4T HAVE NO AUTHORITY.

Rob's e-mail? About what? What can Rob possibly do to help the Truth Movement? Currently, he's helping the Truth Movement flush years of hard work and effort right down the toilet.

If I am to judge your dexterity in the field of 9/11 research on this current display, then I'd wager both Ryan Mackey and Mark Roberts would eat you alive. But if that's what you were good at, go back to doing that, and stop perverting the 9/11 Truth Movement with flyover b.s.

Answer 0? Answer this: what does the LOC description of the Roosevelt Roberts interview say? You know, the one written by Jennifer Brennan, Don Brennan's daughter, who got CIT into contact with Roosevelt in the first place. What does it say Swingdangler? I want to hear you say it.

We don't owe you ANYTHING. Quite the opposite. You owe us a @#*&%#@ flyover witness!!

FLYOVER WITNESS: 0

More fascinating questions

* Does the fact that the FDR was found inside the Pentagon support Legge's analysis?

* Does it confirm the height reported in the now recovered missing frames?

* That catastrophic deceleration seen in the FDR data, what's it for? To surf the fireball?

* When will you, CIT and P4T stop this insanity?

Swingdangler

You say: "I find those who accept the full portion of the official story regarding any of the 4 flights as political". This is an example of the way in which most of the attacks on our paper are logically flawed. This is the "straw man" fallacy. We never said we accept the full official story. We said there are reasons to doubt the official story but "the FDR data is not one of them". I trust you didn't read the paper carefully, otherwise I would have to assume you are being deliberately deceptive.

After quoting my website you say:

"If I follow your logic correctly, you suggest the authorities decided long ago to withold evidence, not follow proper procedures, etc. to cause in fighting among truthers within a movement that did not exist until years after the event. Great forsight on behalf of the perps or an illogical squence to cast doubt on anything other than the official story?"

Do you not think that the perpetraters, who spent millions of dollars on 9/11, would not have done some forward planning? It makes perfect sense to conclude that they would have given thought to the fact that many people would become suspicious. They were right. What better way to weaken the arguments of those who were suspicious than by having them argue against one another. The king hit will come when the public starts to demand a new investigation and they fear prosecution. They will release proof the damage was done by a 757 and throw the movement into chaos. Will you be proud of your efforts on that day?

--------
Speaking from Rob,
Frank says.. "I need only draw your attention to the calculation by Rob Balsamo that g-force would have destroyed the plane on approach to the Pentagon. It only takes high school maths to show that his calculation is so far out as to be laughable."
That is exactly the problem with Frank. He is using High School math, not aerodynamics.

Thanks Rob. Glad to see you set your position out so clearly again. Notice that the calculation you got wrong was about g-force. You reply by talking about V-G diagrams, which are about airspeed. That is called "shifting the goal posts". It is a sign you lost the previous argument. You have been supplied by Steven Jones with an explanation why your g-force calculation was way out. Why have you not responded to him?

Ventriloquist dummy

It appears Rob Balsamo is using you as his ventriloquist dummy.

You quote him saying this:

"Frank says.. "I need only draw your attention to the calculation by Rob Balsamo that g-force would have destroyed the plane on approach to the Pentagon. It only takes high school maths to show that his calculation is so far out as to be laughable."
That is exactly the problem with Frank. He is using High School math, not aerodynamics."

Note that Rob makes no effort to defend his g-force calculations, because he knows they are wrong. Therefore, he retorts with a "I know you are but what am I".

Frank isn't saying he relies on high school math only, just that this is all that is required to make the requisite calculations, and yet Rob Balsamo fails even on that level of difficulty.

Rob Balsamo invaded a classical guitar mailing list with his flaming idiocy and incompetence, and he bumped into a mathematician while doing so. It cost him.

http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo.html
http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Ephemera/Sept11/Balsamo/balsamo2.html

Rob, if you're reading this: you're a dangerous, incompetent fool. I'm not a pilot, so I probably can't defend myself against most of the technobabble you throw up to confuse people, but I know that if anybody wants to stay alive they shouldn't get into a plane with you behind the controls. God knows your arrogance blinds you to your own incompetence. You used to say you "lean towards planes at the WTC", didn't you? Was this because your tin foil hat UFO buddy John Lear influenced you with his outrageous NPT nonsense? Or did you come up with that all on your own? Have you made up your mind yet?

And Swingdangler, by citing Pilotsfor911truth and Rob Balsamo, you are committing the fallacy of appealing to misleading authority. As demonstrated by W.D. Clinger's mathematical humiliation of Rob Balsamo, Balsamo is no authority of any kind.

Yes, apparently a PhD chemist knows more about flying than a former pilot. Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Frank Legge a former pilot too?

What does it say about trusting 'experts' if so many "pilots for 9/11 truth" are this wrong about their own field of expertise?

Can somebody tell me who said the above? Is it the C-130 pilot?

Response from PFT and FDR expert

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American 77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimino-AA77-FDR.html

Investigative R

911 Blogger is no place to expect an essay in response to the long mish mash of confused thinking you linked to. Pick out your most serious concern and I might respond to it.
___________________________________________________

Added later:
Anyone interested in a response to the above link might like to view this:
http://www.scienceof911.com.au/pentagon/rebuttal

Authenticity of the FDR

As far as I am aware there is no proof that the alleged FLT 77 FDR that is the apparent source of all the data that is being discussed here is authentic.. The information released on the FDR includes no serial numbers and if it were genuine it would. As far as I know there have been no serial numbers produced to identify the aircraft alleged to be FLT 77 so even if the wreckage apparently found at the Pentagon is a Boeing 757 there has never been released information that can lead to a history of that aircraft.
All the discussion here and at Pilots For 911 Truth on the released flight path data from the FDR is spurious and a red herring. Dr's Frank Legge and Warren Stutt's beautifully reasoned paper is meaningless junk unless an authentic evidence trail and identity for the FDR can be established.

Steve 112 re a "beautifully reasoned paper"

Thank you for the complement. Regarding whether it is meaningless depends on what you think it sets out to prove. It does not claim the data is authentic. Pilots for 911 Truth claims that the data file proves the official account of the course of the plane false. It does not. It corresponds with the offical account. Therefore it clearly proves Pilot's most central, foundational belief is false.

Regarding whether the data is authentic, surely it falls to the skeptics to find some evidence that it is not, some discrepancy between its components, some clue to prove it is faked. So far there has been nothing, just strident assertions that it is flawed. Pilots claim the file lacks crucial aircraft ID. Does it matter? Warren Stutt has files from authentic flights, some of which do not contain the aircraft ID. Apparently it is not crucial and does not matter.

You claim that if the file were genuine the NTSB would have released serial numbers. Perhaps they did, but to whom? This was a crime scene remember, not an accident. The NTSB was therefore beholden to the FBI. If the FBI wished to maintain the confusion about the Pentagon incident, withholding serial numbers would be a neat way to do it. It is quite apparent that the FBI, like NIST, is under control of some unseen force and uses confusion.

Unseen forces identified

The director of the FBI and the director of NIST. I'm not being facetious... I fully expect these people to be appointed to corrupt the agencies or institutions they preside over. The same goes for Supreme Court justices, congressmen, governors and presidential candidates. Occasionally someone slips through with ethics, but this is rare.

Keith Olbermann was just fired from MSNBC. Why? He brings too much ethics to the table. He lampooned Lieberman recently... I guess logrolling, rubber spine Lieberman the epitome of what's wrong with politics, had the last laugh. Long live the corporate world.

Blind to the facts

"As far as I know there have been no serial numbers produced to identify the aircraft alleged to be FLT 77 so even if the wreckage apparently found at the Pentagon is a Boeing 757 there has never been released information that can lead to a history of that aircraft."

DNA evidence. Because these were the people aboard flight 77, weren't they? Does it matter to you at all, or are you just trying to be obtuse?

But... I understand...it's all fake. And because you and others have decided it's fake, you have decided those who recovered the DNA evidence are suspect. But to really decide if they are suspect, you would need to know if the DNA evidence is fake. Or real. But you can't, because the people who gathered the pieces and the doctors who did the identification are suspect. Why again? O... yes.. because...

By the way, your comment, insightfully worded as it is, is brainless prattle. Does the previous sentence make sense to you? No? Then why would you construct a similar nonsensical sentence in reference to Legge's paper? Just trying to score points, perhaps?

Show "Pilots for 911 Truth vs. Legge" by 9elevened

good case for inside job

9elevened, you make a good case for 9/11 bieng an inside job. Well done. What you do not do is provide any evidence that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon whch can stack up against the massive weight of evidence that it did.

The FDR file corresponds with the radar data. Why doubt it?

The FDR file corresponds with many eyewitnesses who were close. Why doubt it?

Hundreds of people must have seen the plane approach. None reported seeing it fly over. Therefore it hit.

Try again

This time, source each and every claim (which by the way, I've all heard thirty times before and I have an answer to each and every one, don't worry) and leave out anything that has nothing to do with whether or not a 757 crashed at the Pentagon, such as who is a zionist and who isn't. Here is a template.

Research is hard work. Ignorance isn't a virtue.

By the way, Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy show is something experienced Pentagon researchers laugh at. The deep, rumbling, shaking, rolling over the floor belly laughter kind. If I see another show like that I might get a seizure from laughing and do myself an injury.

Unsubstantiated claim

In a private email exchange, Frank Legge and I discussed our differences and came to agreement on two of the three points we had been debating. He gave me permission to quote him.

My statement:
"I don't promote the NoC flight path,"

Frank's response:
"You could have fooled me"

The rest of my statement:
"I just make the point that even if the plane did take the NoC flight path, that does not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon."

Frank's response:
"We all agree with you about this."

The problem is the false claim by CIT supporters that I am promoting the NoC flight path. This is a strawman argument. I have stated that I do not know what happened numerous times yet many people still think that I promote the NoC flight path, I do not. This is testament to the success of the CIT disinformation campaign.

* * * * *

My statement:
"I suggest we don't engage it that quagmire at all and stick to the witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. That is the direct refutation and the easiest for the newcomer to understand." [Referring to arguing NoC v SoC witnesses]

Frank's response
"Roosevelt Roberts can be a quagmire because he appears to have said things which contradict one another."

Frank had said as much in our public debate.
"I don't think Roosevelt's testimony is clear enough to pursue further."
"If it was the second aircraft it must have been the C-130 and that would have been much higher, not "over the light poles". There are too many contradictions here for us to be able to say what happened"

* * * * *

People ask me why I continue with this debate but they do not ask SnowCrash and Loose Nuke why they persist in claiming Roberts is a SoC witness based on a CIT interview that Frank and I agree is not at all clear.

SnowCrash and Loose Nuke insist that Roberts is a SoC witness. They state as if it were a fact that Roberts saw two planes, the one that hit the Pentagon and the C-130 that arrived 2 minutes later.

Loose Nuke posted this 3 days after I had given up arguing the point on this forum.

"There are some things about Roberts' testimony that are unclear. Something that is clear, is that in the CIT intvw he said the plane he saw when he first stepped outside came from the SW and was "heading east, towards DC".

Loose Nuke's reasoning is:
"the silver plane he described as flying about 50' above the light poles, around lane one, he said was "headed east ... towards DC", and later in the intvw he confirmed it came from the SW. Later on, when asked, he talks about a plane he refers to as a "second plane', and this one he thought did a u-turn and flew away. He describes no detail on this plane, and gives no landmarks or direction other than "back across 27" and flying SW, where it came from."

"The first plane matches the description and flight path of AAL 77. The second, the C-130. The only planes that match these descriptions and flight paths are AAL 77 and the C-130."

"It could be that after getting people out of the building a couple minutes later, he took a look around for other planes, saw the C-130 and watched it for a bit. . . . . . In any case, the C-130 (after the pilot reported that the plane hit the Pentagon) flew SW after doing a U-turn. The location/heading/radar track roughly fits Roberts description,

SnowCrash agrees:
"Loose nuke explained Roosevelt Roberts' account exactly as it is."

position

Perhaps it is clear to some who have studied the records more carefully than I have, that Robert's testimony is clear. It is not clear to me so I will not be drawn into further discussion. I will not look more carefully at the testimony either. We don't need it.

Someone was discussing the

Someone was discussing the distinct possibility that for some, this level of thread engagement, this introduction of yet another ( 2 plane fly over tweek ) in the un-scientific barrage from the fly over folks is a form of setting mine traps for more intense future destabilization efforts against the Truth Movement. I would have to wholeheartedly agree with that assertion. The Pentagon debate has succeeded in drawing away valuable attention within the movement away from efforts that are far more productive. Let's refocus people. There's WARS going on the last I checked, 9/11 Wars as David Chandler recently referred to them.

I will vote up Chris Sarns if that's all I ever have to do at 911blogger.

John

I agree

There is a good case that the support for the overfly theory is the most significant problem the truth movement faces at the present time. Assembly of arguments that dispose of this support is an important task.

as i dont have proof of agents infotrating (my new word)

to lay mines i prefer to think of the people obsessively taking detrimental slants at the growing consensus of 9/11t as being either mentally ill or backed into a false reasoning corner due to ego and fear of embarrassment

whether they are agents of some sick PR company (they helped with babies/incubators/kuwait/gulf war I) so wouldn't they help with infotraiting (the sell outs)?

but anyway

whether agents, mentally ill or good guys backing themselves into a corner i agree wholeheartedly that we should not allow ourselves to be identified as a no 757 crash at the pentagon movement and should be well versed and ready to deflect that BS if/when it comes

JESSE VENTURA WAKE UP ! wake up (echo)

To finish on a positive i advise everyone to read Cognitive Infiltration by DRG
Despite possible inconsistencies where he puts "impossible" where perhaps he should have put "highly improbable" for calls from aircraft, the general meaning of the book is greatly uplifting as it is an intellectual decode of something written by an intellectual- Cass Sunstein
DRG shows us where the keys are to understanding an esoteric, coded meaning to Sunstein's 10 theses.
the decoded meaning is attacking the 911 conspiracy theory- the 911 conspiracy theory of... GO READ THE BOOK!!!

Of course I insist

I'm very insistent on telling the truth. CIT's spin goes much further than the premises they get their misinformation victims to agree to.

I think it's quite important that the single witness CIT claims witnessed a flyover, actually witnessed a 757 approach on a SoC path. I think it's quite important that Roosevelt Roberts emphatically states he saw two planes (the plane on TV obviously excluded) I think it's quite possible that Roosevelt mistook the C-130 for a commercial plane, but that's not the key issue. The key issue is that Roosevelt Roberts is a SoC witness, and that this is bitterly ironic. It's the quintessential and most outrageous lie perpetuated by CIT.

And yet you shy away from it, for reasons that are all to clear to me: you have persistently argued that NoC + impact is a possibility if quixotic fabrication of physical evidence is deemed possible. Logically this is correct. Empirically, it isn't. Besides, you never answered my questions about Lloyd England and the light poles. NoC + Impact theory is an ugly compromise. I reject it unequivocally. I know you have several witty and shrewd tactics at your disposal to spin your dedication to the NoC + impact position. One is to argue you don't believe NoC but that NoC + impact could be a valid possibility nonetheless. But since that isn't what happened, I could truly care less.

Yes, I insist Roosevelt Roberts is a SoC witness, it's in the description of his interview for the Library Of Congress. It clearly states he saw the plane before impact. I don't like truth movement politics much. I'm steadfastly dedicated to telling people exactly what happened at the Pentagon. I'm sorry, but you dropped the ball on Roosevelt Roberts. Roosevelt Roberts is misrepresented by CIT, in more ways than one. It's not just the fact that the NoC + U-turn flyover he describes is aerodynamically impossible, it's the fact that his eyewitness account obliterates flyover, buried by CIT under yet another layer of shameless spin.

I have no political motives to frame Roosevelt Roberts as SoC witness, this is a matter of integrity. It's unbelievable that I too overlooked this at first, until broken sticks and jimd3100 hammered it home. My epiphany came reading my own Roosevelt Roberts transcript a few more times. The full extent of the misrepresentation of his witness testimony is an affront, and I intend to say so... loudly.

What is politically expedient for the 9/11 Truth Movement, how to make friends not enemies... enough of that already. I don't care. Call Jeniffer Brennan and prove me wrong. Stop spinning Roosevelt Roberts' testimony to save face. Arabesque, Broken Sticks, Erik Larson, Adam Larson, Jim, we all agree on this matter. I suspect Jeff also agrees, but I haven't heard him say so. Too bad Russel Pickering and John Farmer quit 9/11 research, because they probably would as well. More prolific researchers frogmarched out of the picture by the CIT bully machine.

Argumentum ad nauseam

We agree that Roberts is not a flyover witness. Why can't you just leave it at that?

Why do you persist in making a definitive claim based on supposition and a very confusing CIT interview?

In the end you have to say he mistook a C-130 straight wing prop plane for a commercial airliner with jet engines. You also have to interject that he went outside again a couple minutes later to see the C-130 which was nowhere near the south parking lot so it was definitely not the plane he described in his original interview. Neither supposition is realistic.

The whole CIT thing is to draw attention, time and energy away from the hard evidence of controlled demolition and focus on endlessly arguable evidence about the Pentagon.
Your endless arguments using supposition and your claim that Roberts is [definitely] a SoC witness is effectively accomplishing the same end as CIT's endless arguments.

After a year of dealing with Mr. Gage not being able to admit that he got conned I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ego.

Like I said

You have a drawer full of charming rhetorical tricks to divert attention from the fact that Roberts is a SoC witness, and to obscure your own committal to NoC + impact.

I've noticed one of them is that you only complain about the normal discussion back-and-forth when you feel your position is eroding. You then phrase your gripe as either 'argumentum ad nauseam', 'arguing in circles' or 'engaging the disinfo bots'.

This means you don't mean what you say: it's meaningless debate posturing. You argue NoC + impact relentlessly at 911oz and elsewhere, so don't make excuses.

"Why do you persist in making a definitive claim based on supposition and a very confusing CIT interview?"

(A) It's not confusing anymore, maybe it is to you, not my problem (B) It's not just CIT's interview, but also the LoC interview, including the unequivocal description by Jennifer Brennan and (C) It's the best explanation for his observation.

"In the end you have to say he mistook a C-130 straight wing prop plane for a commercial airliner with jet engines."

Not necessarily. In the interview, Roberts switches back and forth between describing the two planes he saw. It's equally likely that he describes the approaching plane again while CIT makes it look like he's describing the departing plane. It's also entirely possible that he mistook the C-130 for a commercial aircraft, as have others.

"You also have to interject that he went outside again a couple minutes later to see the C-130 which was nowhere near the south parking lot so it was definitely not the plane he described in his original interview."

The plane Roberts saw in the south parking lot was AA 77, the first plane. Maybe you are more confused than CIT could ever get you. Your obfuscation is worse in some respects.

"Neither supposition is realistic."

That's what you think.

"The whole CIT thing is to draw attention, time and energy away from the hard evidence of controlled demolition and focus on endlessly arguable evidence about the Pentagon."

No, it's the result of two guys forcing a nonsensical theory down the throats of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Their position is crafted such that they exclude all evidence but the selectively picked tidbits that support 'flyover'. There is not a sliver of direct evidence that CIT are 'disinfo agents'. Your comment baselessly implies their work is a psyop. You use this tactic to silence your debating opponent. After all, if your assertion is correct, you can subsequently paint me as an unwitting psyop amplifier. As soon as the conversation dies down, you pick up the pace at another place, another time. It's nothing more than a debate tactic.

"Your endless arguments using supposition and your claim that Roberts is [definitely] a SoC witness is effectively accomplishing the same end as CIT's endless arguments. "

No. Your steadfast dedication to a failed compromise between CIT's lies and reality is what's rotten here. The argument might be endless, whether with you or with CIT. If you think the argument is endless, you're free to stop. After all, if you mean what you say, it is within your power to do so. But you don't.

"After a year of dealing with Mr. Gage not being able to admit that he got conned I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ego."

I'm in the fortunate position of not having to deal with that. But I get what you're implying here. I'm not making this about me, which is why I credit the awesome research by others to whom I am deeply indebted. Some people are easily overlooked, such as Adam Larson, Russel Pickering, John Farmer... and even the occasional JREFer who can be bothered to respond to research with more than just acerbic put downs.

Summary: Roosevelt Roberts was listening to news reports of the World Trade Center attacks when the Pentagon was hit. He talks about watching the plane before impact, his immediate reaction, the removal of people from the scene, the injuries and physical condition of survivors, misinformation, rescue workers, and other aspects of the attack.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/afc911bib:@field%28DOCID+@li...

Call Jennifer Brennan and 'disabuse' me. Roosevelt Roberts isn't talking: he and his wife feel CIT misrepresented his experience. CIT misrepresenting witnesses? No way! What about you Chris? How about an answer to my questions about Lloyd England?

Show "Willful blindness - subject shift - strawman " by Chris Sarns

Non sequitur

It doesn't matter what Frank believes you believe, if matters what you believe. It doesn't matter what CIT believes or claims you believe, it matters what you believe.

Then surely, you can answer my questions about Lloyd England.

I'm off for now...

Chris, I object

to your using my out of context remark to sustain your case. Certainly, logically, the NoC path does not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon, but it is not relevant because other things prove the NoC path did not occur. Give it up.

You expressly gave me permission to repeat that statement

As you just confirmed:
"Certainly, logically, the NoC path does not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon"

That has always been my position and you agree so there is no problem here.

"but it is not relevant because other things prove the NoC path did not occur."

It disproves the CIT claim - that is relevant.

There is more than one way to skin a cat and we should not ignore something that disproves the CIT claim that the NoC flight path precludes the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Distraction

To keep arguing this point is a total distraction from the real issue which is that the plane hit the Pentagon, did the observed damage, and was on the south path, as shown by radar, the FDR and many witnesses. Distraction is counter-productive. It is harmful. Give it up.

You have made valuable contributions in the past, showing that the investigative methods of CIT are flawed and cannot be trusted. You make the case there that to trust CIT is unscientific and therefore foolish. You blazed the trail there and others have followed. Why do you not continue this line?

I disagree

Pointing out the fallacy of the CIT/NSA claim is very important and your asking me to "give it up" does not make any sense IMO.

To claim that proving CIT's theory wrong is a distraction and harmful is rather bizarre.

Already

CIT is already proved wrong in a thoroughgoing way. We don't need this distraction. If something is proved wrong it is wrong. As stated above I will not be drawn into any further discussion of Robert Roosevelt's testimony. It is a distraction and we don't need it. In the same way I will not be drawn into any further discussion of the "NoC could hit" theory. It is a distraction and we don't need it.

What we need now is sharp clear focus on the things that work best. We don't need more evidence - we have enough. What we need is better communication of the clear evidence that 9/11 was an inside job to the public. The more the public sees us scrapping the worse our presentation. Presentation is now the critical issue.

A quote from Adam Ruff's latest e-mail threat

"Consider yourselves warned then that your actions now in attempting to suppress pentagon evidence may have dire legal or social consequences for you later on when the truth finally wins out and you have to answer to the people for what you did."

Adam Ruff, 2011-01-25

You make a lot of sense Frank, but I don't think this is going to go away soon. I'm not impressed by Adam and his vain threats, but I see the steadfast determination by him and the rest of the CIT gaggle to disrupt the 9/11 Truth Movement in 2011.

but who is doing it?

"Consider yourselves warned then that your actions now in attempting to suppress pentagon evidence may have dire legal or social consequences for you later on when the truth finally wins out and you have to answer to the people for what you did."

I think this is a neat statement by Adam Ruff. The only question he doesn't satisfactorily answer is: who is attempting to suppress evidence? Is it the "plane hit" or the "plane flew over" people?

So we don't know what the seriously worded message means...

"What does this say?"

CIT is already proved wrong in a thoroughgoing way

I agree. The most convincing and easily understandable proof that the plane hit the Pentagon are the statements by the CIT witnesses themselves.

The Fight Data Recorder information was supplied by the government that is known for falsifying information. It is being disputed by "experts" on the other side. Your analysis of the FDR may convince the choir but not the congregation. The average person is not impressed with highly technical data. KISS

We don't need this distraction. If something is proved wrong it is wrong and the witness statements prove CIT is wrong.

All twelve witnesses that CIT interviewed who could see the Pentagon said they SAW the plane hit the Pentagon, and a thirteenth said it did not fly over the Pentagon.

CIT claims that Maria de la Cerda is a flyover witness but she said:
North side flyover part 2 at 26:30
Craig: "Does that mean you didn't necessarily see the plane approach, it was already ah, but you do remember seeing an object."
Maria: "Yea, I saw the impact, I saw a fireball."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=996642030910430700#

Sean Boger - Official interview 11-14-01
"I just see like the nose and the wing of an aircraft just like coming right at us and he didn't veer. You just heard the noise, and then he just smacked into the building, and when it hit the building, I watched the plane go all the way into the building."
"So once the plane went into the building, it exploded, and once it exploded, I hit the floor and just covered my head."
http://www.thepentacon.com/neit299

Robert Turcios
NSA Supplemental at 25:30
Craig Ranke: Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?
Robert Turcios: Fly over the Pentagon??? No, the only thing I saw was a direct line to go into the Pentagon. (It) collided.

Sgt. Brooks
NSA Supplemental at 37:56
Craig Ranke: Were you actually able to see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Brooks: Correct, from this location, where I'm standing right now, directly turning around and watching that plane literally go into…the Pentagon

Sgt Lagasse
NSA Supplemental at 42:38
And it flew into the building with very slight control movements. Yawed substantially into the building. It kinda made a, it kinda swooped into the building, which I guess is indicative but hitting the building, it kinda, you know, smashed into it.
49:40 Craig: Did you see the plane hit the building?
Sgt. Lagasse: Yes.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-pentaconsgv.html

Keith Wheelhouse
2nd plane cover story at 9:36
And then it just evaporated into the side of the building.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3383333411025014760#

Penny Elgas
Interview with Jeffrey Hill - 2010
"It just flew in,. . . . . Just when it got to the wings I think, then there was an explosion which was all black smoke."
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pe_060509.mp3
Original interview
"I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building."
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=30

Terry Morin
Original interview
"As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. . . . . . . The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/sgydk.html

Dawn Vignola
2:00 "I saw the, it was an American Airlines 757 and it came in, it hit the side, it hit the heliport, it came down Columbia Pike and hit the heliport.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvmtq98Qv6A

Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman
0:40 "And I saw it hit right in front, it didn't crash, it didn't appear to crash into the building. Most of the energy was dissipated hitting the ground."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhUhExuv6vk

Vin Narayanan
"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. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon.
The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/17/first-person.htm

Joel Sucherman
8:20 "I seen it coming across my windshield and then I'm looking out the side passenger window and that's where I see the collision with the Pentagon.
Craig "So did you see it impact or were there trees in the way?"
Joel "No, there were no trees in the way at all. I did see it impact."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3506984191989953274#

Albert Hemphill
"He hit the Pentagon at about the second window level."
"He smacked right into the building"
"I saw one plane and I saw it hit."
"I saw the one plane and what I saw is, I saw it hit."
"All I can tell you is what I saw. I didn't see the plane clear the Pentagon."
"The plane that I saw from my vantage point, didn't pull up, didn't turn right, it didn't turn left, it went right into the Pentagon."
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/1/Albert-Hemphill-5-24-2010.mp3

* Yawns all around *

Can I see ONE, just ONE of the G%($%)^* videos that are supposed to exist of this event.

Fond of fallacies....that's #2!