Aircraft, DCA, FAA, IAD, RADES, and WTF?!?!, Discrepancies found in radar sets and arrival logs Options

[tnemelckram]

[Moved by d from Pentagon forum per poster's request. Original title was "Dca Alleged Radar Clip 9:00 To 10:00, [shows[/suggests] government lies & disinformation]" As the topic has evolved a bit to government agency alleged "stray aircraft" in the DC/MD/VA area(s) it has been moved here and the title changed with tnemelckram's authorization.]

I just downloaded this Lotus Screen Cam .exe file from Farmer's Website:
http://www.aal77.com/faa/faa_foia.htm

This is the file name: 1 AEA 2869 disc 1 DCA CDRTM AAL-77 9-11-01.exe

It takes about 10 minutes to download. There might be some interesting things to see here. If it can be relied on, it appears to show everything that happened in the air that day from 9 to 10 AM, including LOOK (AA 77), GOFER, and the EC4.

I compared it to this list of landings: http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5086/ua93dcarn8.jpg

ASH 5767 was the last to land at DCA. The next landing on the list is AMT 133, which approaches from the northwest, turns south, flies almost over the Pentagon at about 2500 feet, and then turns north to follow ASH 5767. While doing so, it comes real close to AA77. After the AA77 LOOK blip merges with the Pentagon, you see AMT 133 turn away from DCA and eventually land at Dulles.

The next two planes on the list, PDC 4977 and DAL 1744, also abort their landings, head in the opposite direction, and appear to land at the Baltimore airport.

It does not show any more landings at DCA up to 10 AM, so the list shows only these planes' intended destination.

The suspicious AAL 568 also makes an appearance. I thought that its path was consistent with a flight from DFW. When it first shows up on the northwest edge of the screen it appears to be on a southwest-northeast path, and then quickly turns south, then north into the Dulles landing path, and lands at Dulles. At around 9 to 9:15 AM, another DAL plane (DAL 730, which I presume also came from Dallas) follows the same early path. It lands at DCA well before 9:37 AM.

(title edited by mod to be more accurate)

This post has been edited by dMole: Dec 22 2008, 07:56 AM

[tnemelckram]

At about 13:28:20 on the timer, you see AA 77 enter the screen right at the middle of the right hand margin and can follow it all the way until it disappears. . If you play it at fast speed, it looks like a red sperm swimming toward its destiny.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

and?

Government provided data released many years after the event is automatically invalid evidence.

We must only accept independent verifiable evidence.

The witnesses on the ground prove a deception.

These government cartoons are worthless and we already know how John Farmer is a proven liar and traitor to our country.

[tnemelckram]

and?

And nothing. I'm just interpreting what the video supposedly shows. I never said it proved anything. I prefaced the posts "If it can be relied on".

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I prefaced the posts "If it can be relied on".

Fair enough.

It can't.

That must be made clear if these lies are to be discussed at all.

[dMz]

While I can see both points of view, I certainly think that additional eyes reviewing this "information" is a good thing. We have already found evidence of Reagan DCA vs. Dulles IAD "snafus." (And yes, I do know the acronymistic likely-DoD? origin of this "word"). Then there is the "Cleveland" factor...

Related FAA threads are at:

Aal568 "mystery" Plane Out Of Dfw, Landing at DCA 10:13 EDT per FAA
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15750

Amt133 "b752", from MDW to DCA on 9/11/2001
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=14981

Delta Flight 2315, Had Near-miss with UA175
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13332

Delta 89 Boston-las Vegas / Diverted To Cleveland, Started my blog
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4792

Delta Flight 1989, KBOS > LAX, emergency landed in Cleveland
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13330

This also showed up in my UA[L]93 research, since FAA shows one of those arriving at DCA on Sep. 11, 2001 as well. I'll let the reader do his/her own math on these...

[Craig Ranke CIT]

While I can see both points of view, I certainly think that additional eyes reviewing this "information" is a good thing.

Not really.

It is invalid evidence.

Unless by viewing it you think you can prove how it was manipulated it must only be discussed within context of what it is.

Lies.

Otherwise we fall right into their trap.

[tnemelckram]

Craig . . . re: your post no.3 . . . relax. I'm well aware of the dubious nature of anything coming from the government via FOIA, and of your difficulties with Farmer, in particular his recent shenanigans regarding "two planes" or one plane making two loops.

First, I think the way the video depicts AA 77 is highly suspect. AA 77's track is always red while those of all other places are white. All other red returns look like they come from stuff on the ground. My thinking is that the AA 77 video was altered later and/or added later and/or altered later to terminate it at the Pentagon. However, that the information in it about all the other planes is accurate and might be valuable to us.

2. If all the other planes are depicted accurately, the video supports your debunking of the "two planes" and "one plane, two loops" theories. It does not show any plane that could have been a second plane. Nor does it show any plane making two loops.

3. I was in Rosslyn last May and watched the planes on a day when they were landing from the north (as opposed to from the south on 9-11). I saw lots of low flying planes in the relevant areas. I thought it possible that before 9:38 AM on 9-11 DCA was landing planes from both directions in a scramble to get them down because of the ground stop. Thus witnesses might have confused uninvolved low landing planes with the Pentaplane; (2) witnesses might have erroneously associated such planes with the Pentaplane; or (3) on the other hand, this would have provided some cover for the fly over. As I said in 2 above, the video does not show any planes in a position to cause this if it correctly depicts all planes other than AA 77. I think this strengthens (or at least sharpens) CIT's position.

4. The provenance of this video and the DCA landing spreadsheet is NTSB via FOIA to Farmer and then from Farmer to us via the Internet. I thought it would be interesting to compare two different data sets with the same origin for contradictions, which is what I did. It turns out that one records post 9:38 AM flights landing at DCA at a specific time while the other depicts those same flights landing at Dulles or Baltimore-Washington at other times. This suggests that the spreadsheet only records the intended destination and landing time for post 9:38 DCA arrivals and I hope this is helpful to others.

5. True or false, the video shows that AA 77 was clearly visible to DCA for 11 minutes and for I guess 50 miles prior to it, for lack of a better phrase, reaching the same latitude and longitude as the Pentagon. This suggest that it was visible a lot longer than that.

6. I don't think that Farmer is lurking behind every tree. Specifically, I don't think he played with this video. The government would be in the best position to alter its depiction of AA 77 appears or to inject AA 77 into it wholesale.

7. I don't recall the specific things in items 2 though 5 above being reported or offered for discussion before. I am only trying to be helpful. We are all in this together.

8. Other NTSB to Farmer to Internet items have been discussed and speculated upon. That is all that I am doing.

9. To the extent that I can, I prefer to satisfy myself instead of taking the word of anybody without any critical thought. This rule has universal application. Thus I thought the OCT didn't stand up. The holes that CIT, Pilots and others have blasted in the OCT do stand up, but only after I examined them and satisfied myself. This thread is just part of that process.

10. With all this in mind, could you kindly change the heading of this thread back to my original words? I don't think it was misleading or inaccurate in context and I trust that everybody on this Board is a reader. Such editing is the mark of things that we all oppose.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Thanks for the detailed response.

This gives me the opportunity to make my point perfectly clear.

I have to take off right now but I'll give you a full response later.

The title change is completely appropriate and necessary.

[tnemelckram]

Hi DMole!

While I can see both points of view, I certainly think that additional eyes reviewing this "information" is a good thing.

A. I agree for two reasons.

(1) When there is something to cover up, even false information fits in somewhere. Its issuance alone suggests a cover up. The people who issue it become suspect. Whatever appears to be false points to a weak point to probe and suggests where the true facts might be found.

(2) Part of this video, or only one aspect of it, might have been falsified while the rest is true. The part that is likely to be true can be useful. That is what I am trying to do. I think that the depiction of AA 77 in red is suspect but that of the other planes in white is accurate.

B. Viewed through this lens, I think it sheds some light on some of the planes you mentioned.

(1) Aal568 "mystery" Plane Out Of Dfw, Landing at DCA 10:13 EDT per FAA - although he video ends too soon to be sure, it appears to follow the pattern of other plance diverted to Dulles up until 10:00 so it probably landed there close to 10:13.

(2) Amt133 "b752", from MDW to DCA on 9/11/2001 - the video shows it landing at Dulles at about 9:58. The spreadsheet listing DCA landings has it landing at 9:43.

(3) UA[L]93 arriving at DCA on Sep. 11, 2001- the above suggests that the spreadsheet contains planned destinations and landing times. If this is true and why UA 93 at 10:28 is listed, then it suggests that the real problem for the government is not explaining what happened to it after it landed but instead explaining why a hijacker (or anybody else) would communicate a change in flight plan.

C. You mentioned the military. The video shows a lot of other interesting military activity in addition to the EC4 shown on CNN (this old friend is labeled VENUS77 in the video.

1. At about 13:18, a plane labeled VENUS22 takes off from Andrews. I assume it is another EC4. It immediately flies due west under lane used by the landing planes approaching DCA from the south. Then it turns south parallel to the DCA landing path and AA77 approaches while it is on this leg. After a while it turns northeast on a line that takes it south east of Andrews and DC to a point east of Andrews. It is flying on this line toward that pointwhen the AA 77 blip "terminates". After this, it turns west and flies toward Andrews, making a couple of tight circles in the process. Then, apparently having completed its mission on behalf of the nation, it lands at Andrews around 13:54.

2. At about 13:27, a plane labeled WORD31 takes off from Andrews. It follows the same early path as VENUS 22, but then continues heading west instead of turning south. The AA 77 blip appears at 13:28 flying east and for a while it appears that WORD 31, proceeding west, is on an intercepting path. Around 13:33, it abruptly turns south off the intercepting path and it appears to give AA 77 the widest possible berth (although a possible explanation is that it did this to avoid climbing into the Dulles landing approach path apparent in the video). After half-circling to the south of Dulles, the end of the video shows it on a northwest course a few minutes before 10 AM. On this course, it appears that Shanksville lies yonder.

3. At 13:32:10, a blip labeled "5175" rises from the Pentagon or, more precisely, from the exact same spot where the AA 77 blip later terminates. It immediately proceeds at low altitudes northwest along the now ground-stopped DCA take off path (the last take off was shortly before 9:30). Never exceeding 1000 feet, it continues northwest until shortly after AA 77 disappears, and then abruptly turns around and returns to and flies past the Pentagon heading south. I cannot recall where it lands, if at all. From all this, I gather that this is a military helicopter that took off from the Pentagon.

4. The three fighter planes (the first is labeled 7777) appear from the southeast at about 13:52. The quickly turn to the southwest and fly toward VENUS 77, which is now south of DC. AT this time, VENUS 22 appears to be in the process of landing at Andrews.

[tnemelckram]

Hi Craig!

Thanks for the detailed response. This gives me the opportunity to make my point perfectly clear.

Like you, I view anything coming from the government with at jaundiced eyes. The difference seems to be that having been at it longer than me, your condition is more advanced than mine. I think the AA 77 depiction in the video is probably false, while that of the other planes is probably true. In my subsequent posts above, I generally apply that premise to certain open issues outside the scope of CIT's position. I don't think that premise. as applied undermines CIT's position in any way.

I have to take off right now but I'll give you a full response later.

Before you do, I want to alert you to an incorrect statement in my first post.
I said that AMT 133 "flies almost over the Pentagon". That is incorrect. It never appears to be any closer than about two miles west of the Pentagon, and is well to the south when AA 77 (or the plane popularly known as AA 77) is closing in on the Pentagon. Thus there is no chance that it would be confused by your witnesses or any other witnesses. My statement, as written, might have been interpreted as suggesting such a possibility.

The title change is completely appropriate and necessary.

I am on your side. A flame war over this would be a waste of both of our energy. However, I think the participants are tough-minded, knowledgeable SOB's that can't be misled and thus don't need such protection.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Craig . . . re: your post no.3 . . . relax. I'm well aware of the dubious nature of anything coming from the government via FOIA, and of your difficulties with Farmer, in particular his recent shenanigans regarding "two planes" or one plane making two loops.

Farmer never said that. That was Gaffney. But it was only via email. It was way too stupid of an idea for him to publish.

Farmer used the ANC witnesses to push a 2 plane disinformation bomb that involved the E4B performing the north side flyover while "AAL77" hit the building as reported on the south side at the same time.

First, I think the way the video depicts AA 77 is highly suspect. AA 77's track is always red while those of all other places are white. All other red returns look like they come from stuff on the ground. My thinking is that the AA 77 video was altered later and/or added later and/or altered later to terminate it at the Pentagon. However, that the information in it about all the other planes is accurate and might be valuable to us.

This gets right to the root of the problem here.

However the data "looks" to you is irrelevant. We provide independent verifiable evidence that proves it is fraudulent. You can't prove manipulation by looking at it.

We have proof they fabricated the C-130 flight path as well as of course the "AA77" flight path not to mention they had to have completely removed the radar track for the flyover decoy aircraft.

So I'm sorry but because the evidence proves manipulation of the data on this incredible level there isn't a reason on earth to consider ANY of it valid for any reason whatsoever.

That would be illogical.

2. If all the other planes are depicted accurately, the video supports your debunking of the "two planes" and "one plane, two loops" theories. It does not show any plane that could have been a second plane. Nor does it show any plane making two loops.

Clearly.

Gaffney never published his "2 loop" theory because it's so absurd.

But he maintains throughout his book that the 84 RADES data was manipulated to remove the E4B only to retract the claims right after the book was released.

See how that works? They hold up a reason, it gets "debunked" and now the 84 RADES and all this new short-range data supposedly checks out just fine!

No.

It is fraudulent and we prove it with independent verifiable evidence.

There is no debate about this.

These guys are lying and it sure as hell ain't cause they're real "truthers".

3. I was in Rosslyn last May and watched the planes on a day when they were landing from the north (as opposed to from the south on 9-11). I saw lots of low flying planes in the relevant areas. I thought it possible that before 9:38 AM on 9-11 DCA was landing planes from both directions in a scramble to get them down because of the ground stop. Thus witnesses might have confused uninvolved low landing planes with the Pentaplane; (2) witnesses might have erroneously associated such planes with the Pentaplane; or (3) on the other hand, this would have provided some cover for the fly over. As I said in 2 above, the video does not show any planes in a position to cause this if it correctly depicts all planes other than AA 77. I think this strengthens (or at least sharpens) CIT's position.

I don't follow you.

There is no way regular air traffic could be mistaken for the north side flyover timed perfectly with the explosion.

The alleged radar data is fraudulent.

We have proof of this.

There isn't a reason on earth to use it as evidence for anything unless you can somehow technically prove it was altered which I highly doubt anyone can.

It is evidence for evidence tampering.

Period.

4. The provenance of this video and the DCA landing spreadsheet is NTSB via FOIA to Farmer and then from Farmer to us via the Internet. I thought it would be interesting to compare two different data sets with the same origin for contradictions, which is what I did. It turns out that one records post 9:38 AM flights landing at DCA at a specific time while the other depicts those same flights landing at Dulles or Baltimore-Washington at other times. This suggests that the spreadsheet only records the intended destination and landing time for post 9:38 DCA arrivals and I hope this is helpful to others.

That's fine and I would never have a problem with discrepancies or potentially useful pieces of information being identified and pointed out.

All I'm saying that if this data is to be discussed it must only be presented for what it is.....invalid government provided data that has been proven fraudulent.

5. True or false, the video shows that AA 77 was clearly visible to DCA for 11 minutes and for I guess 50 miles prior to it, for lack of a better phrase, reaching the same latitude and longitude as the Pentagon. This suggest that it was visible a lot longer than that.

There was no "AA77" in Arlington at the time of the attack and the flight path depicted has been proven fraudulent so no, I don't see this as a valid point.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 20 2008, 10:01 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

6. I don't think that Farmer is lurking behind every tree. Specifically, I don't think he played with this video. The government would be in the best position to alter its depiction of AA 77 appears or to inject AA 77 into it wholesale.

I never accused Farmer of that.

He is merely their conduit and a proven lying traitor to this country.

7. I don't recall the specific things in items 2 though 5 above being reported or offered for discussion before. I am only trying to be helpful. We are all in this together.

I know man.

Please don't take offense.

I am only trying to keep things in perspective.

8. Other NTSB to Farmer to Internet items have been discussed and speculated upon. That is all that I am doing.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Farmer is a proven liar who disseminates disinformation.

Speculation regarding proven fraudulent disinformation is never a good idea.

If I ever see it I will speak out against it.

9. To the extent that I can, I prefer to satisfy myself instead of taking the word of anybody without any critical thought. This rule has universal application. Thus I thought the OCT didn't stand up. The holes that CIT, Pilots and others have blasted in the OCT do stand up, but only after I examined them and satisfied myself. This thread is just part of that process.

That's great man.

The data was released so of course I don't think we should pretend it doesn't exist.

But it is imperative that if it is discussed it is only discussed within context of the absolute fact that it has already been proven fraudulent by the currently known independent verifiable evidence available.

10. With all this in mind, could you kindly change the heading of this thread back to my original words? I don't think it was misleading or inaccurate in context and I trust that everybody on this Board is a reader. Such editing is the mark of things that we all oppose.

Well I announced that I edited it and I explained why.

I am not censoring discussion. I am merely pointing out facts and keeping the discussion within the context of these critical facts.

Please don't be offended but the title as I edited it should stay.

Peace!

Craig

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 20 2008, 10:00 PM

[tnemelckram]

Hi Craig!

I am responding to your Posts No. 12 and 13, which responded to my No. 8, by using the paragraph identifiers in my No. 8 as a guide.

Preamble.

Farmer never said that. That was Gaffney.

I called Farmer's actions in connection with "two planes" and "one plane, two loops" shenanigans because I thought that it was a good description of his overall course of conduct and avoided the need to put words in his mouth. I was too lazy to look up anything he said but I do recall what he did. As I understand Gaffney, Farmer basically withheld information and allowed Gaffney to put his foot in his mouth in his book.



Paragraph "First"

However the data "looks" to you is irrelevant. We provide independent verifiable evidence that proves it is fraudulent. You can't prove manipulation by looking at it. We have proof they fabricated the C-130 flight path as well as of course the "AA77" flight path not to mention they had to have completely removed the radar track for the flyover decoy aircraft.

You question the logic of accepting the video to the extent that it shows planes other than purported AA 77 and tossing out its depiction of AA 77. I agree that falsis in unis, falsis in omnibus is a sound logical tool. I discard it here because I think the following logic supports selective acceptance of the video's depiction of other planes:

1. CIT and Pilots have provided convincing evidence that "AA 77" was not on the path shown and too high to hit the Pentagon. Therefore it would have flown over the Pentagon and continued on its path. However, the video stops the radar return at the Pentagon instead of continuing it. It contradicts the evidence (including some of the government's own evidence) so the entire flight path shown must be tossed.

2. On the other hand, I am not aware of any similar evidence that contradicts the location of all of the other planes that I discuss (I don't discuss GOPHER 6). Therefore there is no reason to toss the video's depiction of the other planes that I discuss.

3. For reasons obvious to both of us there is a lot to be gained by falsifying "AA 77". I don't see what could be gained by falsifying the other planes I discuss. Why do extra work when it is not necessary or beneficial?


Paragraph Numbered 2.

We agree.


Paragraph Numbered 3.

There is no way regular air traffic could be mistaken for the north side flyover timed perfectly with the explosion.

An eyewitness to an exciting event can make any number of mistakes, confusion being one of the most likely. An accurate account can be cast in doubt if there is a source of possible confusion. If you asked any of these eyewitnesses what steps they took to ensure that the plane they are reporting was the only plane around, the would answer that they did nothing. Its better to prevent this by eliminating other planes with some other evidence such as this clip.


Paragraph Numbered 4.

We mostly agree. I would present it as government provided data that has been proven fraudulent in one important respect but not in other respects.

Paragraph Numbered 5.

There was no "AA77" in Arlington at the time of the attack and the flight path depicted has been proven fraudulent so no, I don't see this as a valid point.

I was referring to when the clip first shows the alleged AA 77, which is about 50 miles and 11 minutes away from the Pentagon. It suggests that the plane location was determinable even earlier end further out. True or false, the government's own data undermines the government's claim that the plane was difficult to react to. You can use false data provided by the adversary offensively to attack another contradictory claim by the adversary, and its overall credibility, without accepting that same data as true in connection with the issue that drove the adversary to provide it in the first place.

Paragraph Numbered 6.

I do not recall you ever accusing Farmer of playing with the video. I was just making a pre-emptive strike.


Paragraph Numbered 7.

We agree. Cool Beans!

Paragraph Numbered 8.

I

'm not sure what you mean here.

I was just saying that there was precedent on this Board for examining evidence that is known to be part false to see whether it might have value for other purposes.

Paragraph Numbered 9.

We agree again! Its hard to disagree with what I said.

Paragraph Numbered 10.

Please don't be offended but the title as I edited it should stay. Peace!

This editing matter is insignificant, and our substantive disagreements are very slight. But I feel that I should defend my turf.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

No need to defend turf.

As you said we are on the same team.

The fact that we have very strong independent verifiable evidence proving the C-130 flight path fraudulent is very relevant to this discussion.

It means that we have evidence that "other planes" were fabricated.

And just so we're clear here.......the evidence we provide shows how the ENTIRE flight path of "AA77" was fabricated and that the loop of the real decoy attack jet actually flew over DC skies before ending up tree top level over Arlington and flying north of the citgo and continuing past the Pentagon. So it wasn't a mere altering or termination at the Pentagon. It was complete fabrication.

You said this:

1. CIT and Pilots have provided convincing evidence that "AA 77" was not on the path shown and too high to hit the Pentagon. Therefore it would have flown over the Pentagon and continued on its path. However, the video stops the radar return at the Pentagon instead of continuing it. It contradicts the evidence (including some of the government's own evidence) so the entire flight path shown must be tossed.

While the last part is 100% accurate the rest of your statement here leads me to believe you are a bit confused regarding the difference between the primary claims of P4T and CIT.

The fact that the NTSB data shows the plane too high to hit the Pentagon is not evidence for a flyover.

It is evidence that the NTSB data is irreconcilable with the physical damage and therefore fraudulent.

A lot of people erroneously get the impression that we believe the NTSB data is the actual black box of the flyover jet.

We do not.

There is no evidence for this.

We have never cited the NTSB data as evidence for a flyover. Like the alleged radar data, the alleged black box data is proven fraudulent government provided information.

It is evidence for sloppy evidence planting (which alone is enough to prove a military deception on 9/11), but not for a flyover.

So in light of the precedent set with the NTSB data as well as the overwhelming evidence proving significant evidence tampering of the alleged radar data when considering more than one plane, it is not prudent to accept ANY of it as valid even if you don't understand why other parts may have been manipulated as well.

Mostly because we will never know for sure all that was manipulated or all that was not.

But I'll take it a step further...


EVEN IF we did not have ANY evidence that it was altered or fraudulent at all...it would STILL be our responsibility as skeptics to refuse to accept it as valid evidence simply because it was completely controlled, vetted, and provided for the suspect.

All data controlled and provided for solely by the suspect must automatically be considered invalid evidence.

We MUST only accept independent verifiable evidence.

That is our mission and we must militantly adhere to it at all costs if we are to expose a massive psychological deception on this level.

This is actually a very important discussion and I am glad we're having it.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Dec 21 2008, 01:56 AM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

The fact that the NTSB data shows the plane too high to hit the Pentagon is not evidence for a flyover.

It is evidence that the NTSB data is irreconcilable with the physical damage and therefore fraudulent.

A lot of people erroneously get the impression that we believe the NTSB data is the actual black box of the flyover jet.

We do not.

There is no evidence for this.

Just to underscore this important point and common misconception...

NONE of the witnesses describe the plane anywhere near the altitudes reported in the fraudulent alleged black box data:

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/cgi%20povs/FDR_Pent_Alt1_ab.jpg)

[Craig Ranke CIT]

NONE of the witnesses describe the plane anywhere near the altitudes reported in the fraudulent alleged black box data:

I take that back.

Indicted christian fundamentalist republican congressman Rick Renzi did!


(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/streekingdown.gif)

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[tnemelckram]

Hi Craig!

In response to your Nos. 15 and 16:

I agree that if the end of the flight path is demonstrably false you have to toss out the whole flight path shown. Falsis in unis, falsis in omnibus applies to that flight path.

I understand the nuances of what the NTSB data shows. I just tried to summarize it because I thought a summary was adequate to make my point about the false flight path.

I agree that there should be grave doubts about the provenance of the black box and/or the data. Also that proper authentication of the data is the logical prerequisite to presenting any data at all, regardless of how much that actual data might help or hurt the government claims. That's the way it would go in court. Even if you know you can rip the evidence apart, it's still better to prevent it being presented in the first place.

However for me this is a place where I can set aside the lawyer. I prefer to rush to the later issue about how the data does not agree with the government story when I try to convince somebody that the Commission Report is fatally flawed. Its much easier to play the tail end of the NTSB animation derived from the "FDR" data than it is to wade through all of the accounts about how the black box was found. Plus you'll always have some ass willing to testify that he found it in due course. Lastly once you realize that the data does not show the crash even if it is true, the question of where the data came from naturally follows and is asked in a more agreeable manner.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Dec 21 2008, 02:07 AM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

True or false, the government's own data undermines the government's claim that the plane was difficult to react to. You can use false data provided by the adversary offensively to attack another contradictory claim by the adversary, and its overall credibility, without accepting that same data as true in connection with the issue that drove the adversary to provide it in the first place.

I should address this direct too.

False.

Certainly not when the contradiction only serves the purpose of a white wash.

The notion that the plane should have been noticed (merely implicating LIHOP) becomes immaterial compared to the implications of the data itself being fraudulent or that the plane didn't hit the building (MIHOP).

If you cite the data to your "benefit" per se you are automatically accepting it as valid evidence and get caught in their trap.

This is what we must avoid at all costs and is my main point here.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

However for me this is a place where I can set aside the lawyer. I prefer to rush to the later issue about how the data does not agree with the government story when I try to convince somebody that the Commission Report is fatally flawed. Its much easier to play the tail end of the NTSB animation derived from the "FDR" data than it is to wade through all of the accounts about how the black box was found. Plus you'll always have some ass willing to testify that he found it in due course. Lastly once you realize that the data does not show the crash even if it is true, the question of where the data came from naturally follows and is asked in a more agreeable manner.

I'm not really following you here.

How the alleged black box was allegedly found has nothing to do with the fact that we provide independent verifiable evidence proving the 2006 NTSB data as well as the 2007 released 84 RADES data and now the 2008 released DCA data fraudulent.

Yes we know people claim they found a physical black box.

There is nothing to prove the chain of custody ensuring the data released came from that black box.

These are the facts.

I know it's complex, hard to explain, and hard to understand for many or most but that is not fair justification for simplifying the situation or accepting government data as valid for the sake of discussion.