July 31, 2009

Misinformation: Flight 77 Flight Path "Contradicts" Official Story according to "Black Box Data"

Misinformation: Flight 77 Flight Path "Contradicts" Official Story according to "Black Box Data"

By Arabesque

In Summary:

  1. The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) of Flight 77 supports the official flight path
  2. The Animation could not exist without the FDR data. The Flight animation is supposed to be a "reconstruction" based on the black box data (FDR), and yet it does not match the data found in the FDR for Flight 77.
  3. Many mistakenly believe and claim that the flight animation "is" the FDR when they are two separate things.
  4. It cannot reasonably be claimed that the "animation" represents the actual flight path of Flight 77 because the animation does not match data found in the FDR. An animation is a "reconstruction" and is not the "original" source of the data.
It is frequently claimed that the "Black Box" data of Flight 77 shows a flight path which contradicts the official story of the Pentagon attack. On the truthaction forum, Snowy Grouch, also known as Callum Douglas, a 9/11 researcher who has studied the flight data recorder and animation writes:
I would also like to know who EXACTLY are these people who are claiming that the animation is the black box data or similar. Provide some links please otherwise its just conjecture.
Unfortunately, this belief is fairly widespread from the comments on forums that I have encountered. I have had to post responses several times on 911blogger, correcting this claim. In fact, shortly after Callum Douglas requested evidence of these individuals, a forum poster in the very same thread no less, repeated this false claim saying, "The 'imaginary' north flightpath is supported by the FDR raw data file". So much for "conjecture", then. It is hardly the only example. Pilots for 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo also confuses the FDR and animation on the radio stating:
The information that we have from the NTSB right now as it stands, this airplane's not hitting the Pentagon. And that's from the flight data recorder. What they say is from the Flight data recorder.... The NTSB data. The plot, the animation that they plot out, It has it on the north side of that CITGO gas station... [The CIT witnesses]... corroborate the flight data recorder as far as the flight path being North... The heading... that they show in the hard data file that we have... it shows that it kind of lines up with the south path.
In this interview, Rob Balsamo refers to a "flight data recorder" and "animation they plot out". These are two separate things and the flight data recorder (FDR) does NOT support a north path. In fact, as you can see above, Balsamo also later acknowledges that the "hard data file" supports the official flight path. Callum Douglas writes that the claim that the "FDR" supports the north path is completely false:
The raw FDR files do show the plane on the correct path as I make perfectly clear in all my public engagements.
The controversy and confusion exists because the FDR data does not match the flight animation as Caustic Logic has pointed out:

The Animation and FDR are two separate things. In the 9/11 truth movement, many confuse this and mistakenly believe that the FDR and flight animation are the same thing. As a consequence of this mistaken belief, many mistakenly claim that the "FDR" contradicts the official flight path. While it is true that the animation contradicts the official flight path, it is also true that the FDR supports the official flight path as shown in the image above.

Several points should be made here:
  1. The Black box data is not the same as the flight path animation data
  2. The animation is supposed to be a "reconstruction" of the black box data and yet they do not match
  3. The Black box Data supports the official flight path.
Why the contradiction between the FDR and animation? This is unclear and where there is controversy. On his blog, Caustic points out that the animation has an incorrect magnetic declination and Calum Douglas responds:
The question is... do you believe that seasoned professionals at the NTSB with decades of experience in crash re-construction FORGOT about magnetic declination! One of the most basic concepts in map reading and navigation... Most unlikely, so the question is why does the animation give a north path and the FDR file a south one? If I were you I`d try phoning the NTSB, see how far that gets you.
Unfortunately, at this time the NTSB has refused to clarify or explain the discrepancy between the FDR and animation. This has resulted in adding to the ongoing controversy.

However, the "animation" cannot exist without the original black box data. This is because the original source of the data for the animation should originate from the FDR. It cannot be claimed that the "animation" is right and the "black box is wrong" since the animation is a reconstruction based on the black box data. It is possible that a mistake was made in the reconstruction of the data and seems to be the most plausible explanation at this point. John Farmer writes:
I have put in an FOIA with the NTSB requesting the parameters used to generate the animation, but to date there has been no response. Some have said that the animation is generated using the physics data in the FDR. If that is the case, then that would account for the deviation observed if the heading data had indeed been tampered with. That does not mean that is the case, but certainly is a possibility. That is why it is important to understand how the animation was generated. I will leave that to others since it really is in the domain of professional pilots and aeronautical engineers (outside my expertise).
The NTSB explains how they generate an animation from the FDR:
Dan Bower is an Aerospace Engineer at the NTSB who is directly involved with analyzing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders. Unfortunately, there are many different formats this information can take. The FDR data, says Bower "is different for each airplane and each style of Flight Data Recorder." Because of that, he adds, "as soon as we have an accident, we call the airplane manufacturer to get the conversion algorithms... On Bower's PC, which runs the Windows NT Operating System, he uses multiple software packages to manipulate and animate the FDR data in a variety of ways. "We have some flight performance software that allows simulations with three, four and six degrees of freedom," explains Bower. Within that software and other packages, Bower can animate the data as charts and graphs, using an airplane model or as cockpit instruments changing over time. While these animations don't offer the level of detail or realism that comes from the SGI, they are used to illustrate factual data in the best way possible. The software that Bower uses can also output data in the format used for the SGI-based animations. Once the data is moved to that machine, one goal is to make the animation look as realistic as possible. For this process, detailed models are used, backgrounds are carefully constructed and terrain models are incorporated into the scene. A lot of time is also devoted to determining which viewpoint or viewpoints to use for viewing the animation."
Far from being a "simple" process, it seems that there is indeed room for error in creating a flight animation. It stands to reason that it is possible that a mistake could have been made in the creation of the animation. And this is where the controversy only gets stranger because the 9/11 commission also had an animation of Flight 77 and this animation supported the official flight path. In other words there are at least two animations and they do not match.

Watch That Darn NTSB Cartoon, pt. 1: The "FDR" North Path

Also of interest is that the FDR data ends about "4-6 seconds" before impact. Caustic Logic quotes John Farmer who believes that the FDR was modified:
“The significance of this," Farmer contends, "is that at the final recorded position, the altitude data begins to make sense. The elevation of the area in the vicinity of pin #1 is ~150 – 160 feet above MSL. Add to that the radar altitude of 273 feet above ground level (AGL), […] an altitude of 420 – 430 feet above MSL matches well with witness accounts...” and explains in the conclusion: "Since investigators have assumed that the FDR data is representative until ~1 second prior to impact (stopping recording at impact) numerous false assumptions regarding the data have resulted. In fact, as discussed before, the EOF for the FDR reflects a position 4 – 6 seconds prior to impact due to the time error in the RADES data. Further investigation is warranted to determine how and why the FDR data set was altered."
It certainly appears as though data from the FDR is missing which I agree does warrant an explanation and additional investigation. This is not an insignificant question.

While some have claimed that they "faked" the FDR data, it cannot reasonably be claimed that the "animation" represents the actual flight path of Flight 77 because the animation supposed to be a "reconstruction" of the "original" data found in the FDR.

Interestingly, Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) has never used the animation to support their claims of an alternate flight path.

July 30, 2009

A Response to Misleading Claims About the CIT Flyover Debate

A Response to Misleading Claims About the CIT Flyover Debate

By Arabesque

It has come to my attention that several misleading arguments and claims have been made about my commentary on CIT. A witness at the Pentagon saw the light poles on the ground after the attack. Later in an interview, he gave the incorrect location of where they were placed. Completely ignoring this fact, it is alleged that:

“Arabesque deliberately omitted Lagasse’s explicit statement that he didn’t the see light poles hit.”
This statement is misleading as I have never claimed Lagasse saw the poles get hit. The relevant point that I made is the fact that he got the location of the poles on the ground wrong. Is this fact not relevant to CIT and their defenders? Apparently, it is not because they seem to completely ignore this while accusing "me" of being "deliberately" misleading. A simple question: If a witness gets the location of the light poles (and taxi cab) at the Pentagon wrong, is it relevant whether or not he saw the plane hit them to figure out the testimony he gave is factually wrong? Amazingly, for some people this is a really hard one to figure out.

On the truthaction forum, "Stefan" quotes CIT while making his point:
CIT: Did you see it hit any lightpoles?

Lagasse: Did not see them hit any light poles, but obviously when I got to the scene the lightpoles were down.

This most important piece of testimony Arabesque first omits, then denies
, then accuses the people who refer to it of making misleading statements.. The implications of Lagasse's testimony is self-evident to anyone who has heard what he actually says in context, rather than just the cherry picked quotes Arabesque feeds his readers.
Stefan "cherrypicks" and distorts:
  1. I did not quote Ranke's words "out of context". Ranke clearly states, "Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES?" The word "where" denotes "location".
  2. The question of whether or not Lagasse saw the "plane" hit the poles is completely irrelevant to the issue that he misplaced their location.
  3. I never "claimed" that Lagasse saw the plane hit the light poles, and yet Stefan is accusing me of "omitting" this fact. How could I "omit" information when it is completely irrelevant to the claim I am making?
If you have followed CIT and their debating tactics on forums, this kind of absurdly infuriating straw-man argumentation is frequently what you encounter. CIT and many of their defenders have never clearly acknowledged that Lagasse's statement that he got the location of the light poles wrong affects the credibility of his testimony, preferring to distract with the irrelevant point that he never saw them get hit by the plane. Well that's "interesting" because I never said that he saw the plane hit the light poles. I said that he got their location on the ground wrong.

Let's examine the original quotation by Craig Ranke in its original context:
Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES? Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE! That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.
Note that Ranke says, "remember where the light poles were knocked down... when he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES." As I explained above, "where" is a word used to describe "location". Lagasse did indeed remember "where" the light poles were knocked down, although Ranke claims above that he does not. For additional context, if you click the link on that quotation, you will see that Ranke was responding to a forum user who pointed out that Lagasse got the location of the poles wrong. Ranke's answer is clearly in response to this.

However, on the Truthaction forum, Stefan ridiculously attempts to claim that Ranke really meant, "see the 'plane hit' the light poles", but given the complete context of the full statement above (and the post that it was in response to), this would make Ranke's statement (i.e. "where the light poles were knocked down") completely nonsensical:

[Stefan claims Ranke meant:] "[Why would Lagasse] remember where the light poles were knocked down... when he DID NOT SEE [the plane hit the] LIGHT POLES."

Oddly enough, Stefan accuses "me" of taking words out of context, when in fact, this is exactly what he is doing. Again, "plane hit the poles" is completely unrelated to "where" they "were knocked down". Even if the meaning is changed to what Stefan claims Ranke meant, he still used the word "where" which is describing the location of the poles, and is completely unrelated to the issue of whether or not the plane hit them.

Clearly, Ranke's statement is deceptive as I have explained above. I am not claiming that Lagasse saw the light poles get hit by the plane. I am claiming that he placed them in the wrong location. In the diagram below, Lagasse got the location of the taxi cab and light poles wrong, placing them in the same location saying:

there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down

Not only did Lagasse get the light poles wrong, he was adamant that the light poles knocked down on 9/11 were not knocked down! He also misplaced the location of the Taxi cab which can be seen in the illustration above. This hasn't stopped CIT from repeating the claim that this witness is part of the "smoking gun" evidence that the plane flew North of the CITGO. CIT has refused to acknowledge in any clear way that Lagasse's testimony is not credible based on the mistaken testimony he has given.

It is important to note that CIT and Stefan do NOT acknowledge the fact that Lagasse's mistaken testimony affects the credibility of his flight path. In fact, CIT and Stefan bizarrely claim that the fact that Lagasse got the location of the poles wrong "only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.” Stefan supports this absurd position, writing:
[Legasse] incorrectly states that the light poles were in the same place as where he knew the plane was. It’s just logical deduction and all it does is speak to Laggasse’s unshakable certainty that the plane flew where he said it did.
This is a ridiculous claim on so many levels that it barely needs explanation. When a witness gives mistaken testimony, it does not make their testimony "more" credible, it makes it less so. And yet, CIT and their supporters absurdly claim against all reason that in fact, the opposite is true. And this is where CIT and their supporters tip their hand and reveal that they are not interested in a rational discussion of the Pentagon witnesses. They are going to claim that if a witness is mistaken about important details, it only proves how certain the witness was of the flight path. This is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

To the outside observer, it should rightfully seem bizarre that I would have to clarify these issues at all. That is, until you have observed a repeated pattern of deceptive argumentation from certain quarters of the 9/11 "truth" movement.

Kevin Barrett: " Anonymous cyber-entity... Arabesque [makes]... deceptive attacks on CIT"

Kevin Barrett: " Anonymous cyber-entity... Arabesque [makes]... deceptive attacks on CIT"

By Arabesque

In the past, Kevin Barrett has attacked me for directly quoting his own words. Outlandishly, Barrett claims that quoting his words is an example of "libel". In his latest attacks against me, he states:

These brave researchers [Craig Ranke, and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team] have been repeatedly smeared by -- who else? -- the anonymous cyber-entity that calls itself "Arabesque." This web handle (I have no idea if an actual person corresponds to it, or whether its true name is Operation Arabesque) specializes in cherry-picking little out-of-context word-turds from the internet, and assembling them into deceptive TIN RATS (They'll Never Read All This S**T). The result looks somewhat like actual scholarship to those unfamiliar with the genuine article, and provides those guided more by emotion than intellect -- especially people who are deathly afraid that the 9/11 truth movement will become identified with a claim that looks outlandish to the general public (!) -- with reasons to embrace their knee-jerk emotional reactions rather than engage intellectually with the evidence. (Check out this excellent deconstruction of Operation Arabesque's deceptive attacks on CIT.

It's funny how the opinions of real 9/11 truth leaders like David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage (who recently endorsed CIT's work) are ignored by certain 9/11 sites, while the deceptive nonsense spewing from the cyber-orifice of Operation Arabesque is accepted. It makes you wonder about the judgement, if not the sincerety [sic], of the people who run these sites.
This is not the first time that I have been attacked by Kevin Barrett. However, it should be noted that Barrett's claim that I have "attacked" CIT is completely false, and it is noteworthy that he does not provide a single example where I have done so. By making this statement, Kevin Barrett is slandering my reputation with a false claim, which he provides no evidence to support it with. In contrast, there are numerous examples of CIT attacking and slandering other 9/11 activists, just as there are many examples of Kevin Barret attacking 9/11 activists.

As for the "excellent deconstruction" of my work, I have partially responded to that on my blog already. Far from being "excellent", these deconstructions by "Stefan" take my words out of context, distort the actual words of Craig Ranke, and insinuates that witnesses who describe the plane hitting the Pentagon do not count as evidence of the flight path of the plane.

July 25, 2009

Why did a Civilian Air Traffic Controller do a better job of Defending the skies on 9/11 than NORAD?

Why did a Civilian Air Traffic Controller do a Better Job of Defending the Skies on 9/11 than NORAD?

By Arabesque

Was the Pentagon or NORAD "unaware" of the plane flying towards the Pentagon on 9/11? There is no compelling evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, there is very strong evidence that the plane was being observed as it flew towards the Pentagon. In testimony to the 9/11 commission, it was reported that:

During the time that the airplane [alleged flight 77] was coming [towards] the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president ‘do the orders still stand?’ And the Vice President [Dick Cheney] turned and whipped his neck around and said ‘Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??

Dick Cheney also admitted on a live TV interview that, "The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was… [struck]”

This was also confirmed by an FAA spokesperson who also revealed to the 9/11 Commission (but completely omitted from the final report):
Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD [meaning the NMCC in the Department of Defense], the Secret Service… The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD… The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest.”
Based on these and other facts, all on the record and irrefutable, there was clear knowledge and awareness of the plane incoming to the Pentagon. In fact, there is additional evidence strongly suggesting knowledge of this incoming plane. During the time of the plane incoming to the Pentagon, a C-130 Pilot was ordered to intercept the plane incoming to the Pentagon:
The C130 encountered flight 77 west of the Pentagon and literally followed it as it crashed into the pentagon. This is the first we learned of this aircraft (Norad did not mention it at the hearing). It raises a number of questions..."
One of these important questions raised is overlooked by many, including by members of the 9/11 truth movement. How was a C-130 pilot able to intercept the plane incoming to the Pentagon while NORAD was not? Significantly, we know from established reports that it was not NORAD who requested the C-130 to intercept the plane incoming to the Pentagon. In fact, it was a civilian air traffic controller from Reagan National Airport who asked the C-130 to intercept the incoming plane:
“When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.”
The controller "seemed to know" that there was a plane coming into the Pentagon. That's not an insignificant detail. This begs an obvious question overlooked by many: How could a civilian air traffic controller do a better job of intercepting aircraft on 9/11 than NORAD? Oddly enough (or perhaps not), the C-130 pilot was also 17 miles away from flight 93 when it crashed.

Also relevant to this mystery is that key officials were in fact promoted while none received demotions following the 9/11 attacks and that NORAD gave three contradictory explanations for its actions on 9/11. There are widespread reports of the plane being observed as it flew towards the Pentagon so it cannot be reasonably claimed that NORAD was "unaware" of the plane incoming to the Pentagon. In light of these and other facts, it is even more puzzling that a civilian air traffic controller was able to do what NORAD could not on 9/11.

July 15, 2009

William Lagasse: "These poles were not knocked down" CIT: "He didn't see the light poles"

William Lagasse: "These poles were not knocked down" CIT: "He didn't see the light poles"

Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (CIT) distort and promote unreliable witness statements as “smoking gun” evidence of "mass hallucination" at the Pentagon on 9/11

In this post I expose the following distortions and misleading claims:

  • CIT claims that Lagasse, a witness who misplaced the location of the light poles, taxi cab, and even his own location is "smoking gun" proof
  • CIT insinuate that the witness "did not see the light poles" when confronted with the fact that the witness misplaced the location of the light poles
  • CIT claims that the fact that the witness got the location of the light poles wrong "only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane."
  • CIT and their supporters confuse and obfuscate Lagasse's testimony that the "plane did not hit the light poles" with his statement that he "saw the light poles [on the ground]"
  • CIT misleadingly claim that Lagasse could "not" have seen the plane on the "south" side of the station because "[Lagasse] would not be able to see the plane through the building at all," when in reality, the CITGO gas station does not completely obstruct the view "at all".
By Arabesque

In their first documentary, Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis interviewed William Lagasse, a police officer and witness to the attack on the Pentagon. William Lagasse has always maintained that the plane struck the Pentagon on 9/11:

William Lagasse: “[The plane] flew into the building.”

In his recorded statements, Lagasse claims that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station. Craig Ranke has always maintained that his eyewitness account is “credible” and part of the “smoking gun” evidence that the plane did not hit the Pentagon. In fact, Lagasse’s testimony is not credible. As I pointed out in my original review, Lagasse misplaced the location of the light poles and the taxi cab:
[Ranke] then explains that “the official story says that the plane came on the south side and hit the light poles here [pointing].” Legasse responds:

“No Chance.There’s no chance. If… as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here [where Lagasse claims the plane flew] that was knocked down, and there was [another] here, that was knocked downnot any over herenone of these light poles over here were knocked down… I’ve never seen anything that was on the south side of that gas station—ever.”

This statement is factually inaccurate. In the statement above, William Lagasse denied that light poles knocked down on 9/11 were knocked down. He claims that they were knocked down in an alternate location. He also claimed that the taxi cab struck by the light poles were in an alternate location. Early on in the interview, Lagasse even misremembered his own location in the CITGO gas station. When this is pointed out and he is shown the video, he later corrects his account to match what is in the video. Even more striking, he places the plane where he mistakenly placed the taxi cab and light poles. Logic dictates, that if Lagasse saw the plane fly where the light poles were actually located, not where he mistakenly thought they were, he would have actually observed the plane on the south side of the CITGO gas station.

What has been Craig Ranke’s response to these facts which cast grave doubt on the reliability of Lagasse’s testimony? When pointed out by a user on the forum Above Top Secret that “The officer also pointed to the wrong place for the light poles as well. As he had trouble remembering what pump he was at”, Craig Ranke deceptively responded:
Why should he remember where the light poles were knocked down when he told us that he DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES? Of course he would believe that the light poles/physical damage that he DID NOT SEE (or read reports on after the fact) would line up with the flight path of the plane that he DID SEE! That only serves to prove how certain he is of where he saw the plane.
This statement is deceptive for several reasons:
  1. It is deceptive because Lagasse did indeed see the light poles as I quoted him describing their placement above.
  2. It is deceptive because Lagasse did not see the "plane" hit the light poles, which Craig Ranke is conflating with Lagasse’s statement that they were placed in the wrong location.
In other words, instead of acknowledging that Lagasse gave inaccurate testimony, Craig Ranke distorts the eyewitness statement by implying that he "didn’t see the light poles", when in fact, the witness only said he didn’t see the "plane" strike them. In fact, Ranke contradicted himself in that very same thread, when he wrote: "[Brooks,] like Lagasse, did NOT see any poles get clipped and merely deduced this after the fact from seeing the poles on the ground." So much for "not" seeing the light poles. In the statement above, Craig clearly denies that Lagasse saw the light poles, and yet in the very same thread, he contradicts himself.

This is not the only example of this. On 911blogger, after I wrote that that Lagasse "didn't even know where the light poles were actually knocked down", Aldo responded:
"WE HAVE TOLD YOU A MILLION TIMES. You can't see the poles from there... You are a joke and we're coming for you..."
This is an additional denial that the witness saw the light poles, despite his description of their placement that I quoted above. Instead of acknowledging that the witness got the location of the light poles wrong, Aldo deceptively claims that he "couldn't see the light poles from there." This is obviously misleading as Lagasse explains in CIT's own interview:
CIT: Did you see it hit any lightpoles?

Lagasse: Did not see them hit any light poles, but obviously when I got to the scene the lightpoles were down.
Clearly, CIT has engaged in a pattern of deceptively implying that the witness "could not see the poles" when in fact, he did see them and misremembered their actual location.

Similarly, I have been attacked by supporters of CIT who conflate and "confuse" Lagasse's statement that he did not see the "plane" hit the poles with the issue that he misplaced their location.

When it is pointed out that Lagasse could have been facing in the wrong direction, he responded that “I do not have eyes in the back of my head!” As I pointed out in my original review, we know that Lagasse got the location of the light poles and taxi cab wrong. We also know he even misremembered his own location in the CITGO gas station. It is not much of a stretch to point out that Lagasse could have misremembered which direction he was facing? In addition, Lagasse did not need "eyes in the back of his head" at all, since he only needed to be facing a slightly different direction to observe the plane on the "south" side of the CITGO gas station.

Ranke also implies that Lagasse could not have seen the plane on the "south" end of the station, writing:
"Obviously whether or not [Lagasse] was at the back or front pump has what he described as 'no bearing' as to his placement of the plane on the north side which is obviously true. [Lagasse] would not be able to see the plane through the building at all."
This is another obviously deceptive claim. It is certainly true that in general, people can not see through opaque objects obstructing their view. However, the CITGO gas station does not completely obstruct the view, and even if it did, it would not block your view of the plane as it passed over and by the CITGO station towards the Pentagon.

Despite these issues, CIT would outrageously have you believe that Lagasse is part of their "smoking gun" evidence when his testimony is filled with errors. As I have demonstrated, Lagasse's testimony is not credible.
1. He misplaces his own location
2. He misplaces the location of the light poles
3. He misplaces the location of the cab which was damaged by these light poles.
4. He claims the plane struck the Pentagon which directly contradicts his flight path and the theory that the plane flew over the Pentagon
Has this prevented CIT from promoting Legasse testimony about the flight path as a reliable? In fact, the opposite. When it is pointed out to CIT that Lagasse got the location of the taxicab and light poles wrong, they deceptively and repeatedly imply that Lagasse “did not see the light poles” or "could not see them", when in fact, Lagasse stated that they were in the wrong location and that he did not see the "plane" strike them. Despite these issues and the fact that this witness is adamant the plane struck the Pentagon, CIT has continued to promote this witness as a “credible” report of the flight path of the plane and that the plane flew over the Pentagon.

Clearly, this is blatantly deceptive and misleading and these distortions and misrepresentations by Craig Ranke should cast grave doubt on the credibility of "CIT" and their research.

July 9, 2009

CIT's Deceptive Flight Path Argument: "North" or "South"? What about "Hit the Pentagon"?

CIT's Deceptive Flight Path Argument: "North" or "South"? What about "Hit the Pentagon"?

By Arabesque

A Simple question for CIT and their supporters:

When a witness says the plane hit the Pentagon, is that part of the "flight path" or is it not? How could the question of whether or not the plane hit the Pentagon not be relevant to the flight path?

The CIT flyover (what I correctly rename to the "mass hallucination theory") largely depends on dismissing hundreds of witness accounts, and deceptively insinuating that the widespread and unanimous reports of the plane hitting the Pentagon do not count as evidence evidence of the "flight path".

This should be blatantly obvious, but apparently it is not to CIT and their supporters: When witnesses describe the plane striking the Pentagon, that is in fact part of the "flight path". There is a name for this logical fallacy and it is called "Special Pleading".

"The plane hit the Pentagon" is in fact the most important and significant claim regarding the "flight path", although CIT and their supporters would have you believe that it is not relevant, even when many of the various witnesses that CIT cite as evidence themselves claim the plane hit the Pentagon while completely hand waving away the fact that there are no credible reports of a flyover:

“We have never claimed that the citgo witnesses didn’t believe the plane hit the building. The claim we make is quite clear. Their independently corroborated placement of the plane proves they were deceived… The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military sleight of hand illusion in order to FOOL people into believing it hit the building.”
In other words, according to CIT and those who support their work, the Pentagon attack was a "mass hallucination" event in which any witness who claims that the plane hit the Pentagon was either deceived by an illusion or a government operative.

I have a difficult time explaining why this claim is taken seriously at all.

December 30, 2008

A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog!

A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog!

(If you are fed up with the silent Corporate Media)

By Arabesque

9/11 truth activists often complain about the Corporate sponsored media (MSM) and their collective silence when it comes to explosive 9/11 information. As just one example, Dr. Steven Jones, Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story was listed at #18 in the top 25 censored stories of 2007, by Project Censored.

But Jenny Sparks points out this surprising fact: 91% of the users of the Total911TruthNOW website do not have a blog. Does this hold true for other 9/11 forums? Think about this for a second: if you are serious about exposing the 9/11 cover-up, this means you are going to have to get your voice heard by effectively promoting 9/11 information. Joining a forum is a start, but if you are tired about the MSM not reporting 9/11 information, why not do something about it by starting your own blog?

As I explained on the truthaction.org forum,

... I would recommend it for anyone who is serious about 9/11 awareness... If you don't speak up, no one will hear you and the 9/11 cover-up will continue. It's that simple. I've had people tell me that reading my stuff has made a difference for them, and that's good enough for me... Even just creating a blog and linking to credible 9/11 sites... improves search rankings and brings new visitors to these sites.
Don't wait for someone else to expose the 9/11 cover-up. Get involved by reporting and promoting 9/11 information. Every person who speaks out by spreading credible information, 9/11 truth websites, and films will make a difference. If the MSM is not going to report 9/11 information, are you just going to keep waiting for them to do this, or are you going to take action and do something about it? Instead of passively reading information and listening to radio shows, why not get involved by spreading this information by promoting it on a blog? As Col Jenny Sparks explains, starting a blog is free:

Not everyone is ready or able to shell out for a site/hosting. This is where 911Blogger and other re-existing forums come in. But don't forget our lovely FREE corporate online service providers like Blogger.
A short tutorial by a support coordinator at blogger.com demonstrates how easy it is to setup a blog.

Free blog hosting sites include:

And of course, 911blogger.com. Along with participating in the 11th Day of the Month Campaign and other types of activism, all of these things will all add up together and the MSM censorship blockade and gatekeepers will be completely irrelevant.

If you start a new blog in part because of this article, link to it here so that others will add your blog to their links. Websites that are connected by many links get more traffic and are found higher in search rankings. For example, I get around 100 visitors a day to my blog and a lot of this traffic comes from search engines. This is why it is worthwhile to create your own separate blog: it can improve the rankings of sites like 911blogger.com and 911truth.org.

Don't forget to link to other 9/11 websites and blogs. Here are some that I especially recommend (although everyone will make their own list and have their own preferences):

Definitely include these sites:


Others that I recommend include:

etc. There are too many to mention

Supporting these sites by linking to them can only increase traffic to these sites and can only help build the 9/11 truth movement.

Why not make your 9/11/2008 resolution to start a 9/11 blog and become part of the alternative media to expose the 9/11 cover-up?

Can you think of a single good reason why any single 9/11 activist does not operate their own 9/11 blog or website?

A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog!

New 9/11 Blogs/Websites:

* http://911reports.wordpress.com
* http://911truthaotearoa.myfreeforum.org/index.html
* http://michaelfury.wordpress.com
* http://stj911.org/blog
* http://911awakening.com
* http://www.focus911.blogspot.com
* http://visibility911.com/ford
* http://coopassembly.blogspot.com
* http://moltomuerto.blogspot.com
* http://sftruthaction.blogspot.com
* http://londontruthaction.blogspot.com
* http://arcterus911.blogspot.com

Existing 9/11 Blogs and Websites endorsing A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog!

* 911truth.org
* http://truthaction.org
* http://www.911blogger.com
* http://arabesque911.blogspot.com
* http://www.edmonton911truth.com/
* http://tellstruth.webs.com/index.htm
* http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com
* http://www.911truthla.com
* http://blog.natanael.biz
* http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com
* http://crazyrichguy.wordpress.com
* http://ghettovilleusa.blogspot.com
* http://truthgonewild.blogspot.com
* http://zombieamerica.blogspot.com
* http://www.threebrain.blogspot.com/
* http://oneworlddeath.blogspot.com/
* http://hawkeyi.blogspot.com
* http://twenty13.wordpress.com/

Create a new blog, publish at least one post and I will add your site to this list. Post your blog link at 911blogger.com or truthaction. Any sites that wish to endorse the campaign I will add to the endorsement list.

I encourage all participating sites to link to each other and I will add all new sites to my link list.

November 28, 2008

Jon Gold Debates Pat Curley

October 22, 2008

Scholars for 9-11 Truth & Justice Misrepresented in Draft Bill Sent to 8 House Members

Scholars for 9-11 Truth & Justice Misrepresented in Draft Bill Sent to 8 House Members

By Arabesque

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice has published a press release in response to an article posted at OpEdNews. According to this OpEdNews article, the authors included:

[Three] Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice: Barry Ball, Barbara G. Ellis, Ph.D., and Warren Pease... Their draft bill took months of research, discussion, and writing before the final draft was sent for review and changes to Hirschhorn and 22 nationally recognized experts either on the 9/11 event or renown in the scientific and technological fields about the collapses.
The OpEdNews article is noteworthy due to its inclusion of discredited 9/11 theories in a draft bill sent to 8 house members. In fact, according to a prominent member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, he was previously contacted about the draft of the bill but declined supporting the bill because it, "[Called] for investigation into a number of long-discredited theories including DEW, pods, mini-nukes, pancaking and steel 'dustification.'" The Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice press release explains:
...On October 18, 2008, an OpEdNews article titled, "8 House Members View Draft Bill on Independent Science/Tech Probe of WTC 1, 2, 7 Collapses," was published by four members of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (STJ911.org). The authors of the article and draft bill are not spokespersons for Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, and therefore are individually responsible for it.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice does not endorse the draft bill due to the inclusion of numerous unscientific claims and misrepresentations, and condemns in the strongest of terms any associations between the organization and the claims presented by the authors of this bill. As stated at the front page of their website, Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice "take[s] care to present the strongest, most credible research available..."

While in agreement with the authors of this bill that a new investigation into the tragic events of September 11, 2001 is warranted, representatives of the Scholars group note that the draft bill and article lack basic scientific rigor and credibility, with statements such as, "the entire WTC [complex] was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW)," and the ideas that "nuclear materials, missiles or DEW weapons were used." The sister publication of the Scholars group, The Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/), has numerous peer-reviewed scientific articles refuting such claims.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice believes that a much better bill can be crafted using the strong analysis in articles by its members, several of which are recently published in scientific journals, including The Open Civil Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters Laboratories (UL) manager who was fired in 2004 for publicly questioning the NIST report, and a committee member of the Scholars' group, says the bill is harmful to the cause of exposing the truth. "Basically," he said, "asking Congress to investigate many poorly defined, and highly implausible hypotheses minimizes the chances that Congress would be willing or able to investigate the actual evidence for the demolition of three WTC buildings." In fact, the bill also omits any mention of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, which provided hundreds of questions left unanswered by the 9/11 Commission.

Scholars' member Dr. Steven E. Jones, a Professor of Physics, also notes that statements attributed to him in the bill are "errors . . . misrepresenting my published statements." Dr. Jones goes on to say, "It is unacceptable to misrepresent my views, as is done in this document by Ellis et al., and to ignore my published technical papers in established journals."

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of over 500 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001 attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method.

Clearly, the bill in its present form can only serve to discredit the 9/11 truth movement and its research; including writings published in peer reviewed journals. The inclusion of theories that have been exhaustively critiqued in the Journal of 9/11 studies and widely rejected by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement can only serve to discredit. However, a more credible bill could be conceivably crafted to detail the research of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, as well as inclusion of the unanswered questions by the Family Steering Committee.

This is not the first time that discredited theories widely rejected by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement have been presented to represent the 9/11 truth movement by association to U.S. government officials. For example, a 2007 press release by attorney Jerry Leaphart discussing a return for correction to NIST explained:

"Prof. Morgan Reynolds, with various evidence, challenges the assumption that large jet planes hit the towers... Dr. Wood, concludes from her study, that some type of Directed Energy Weapon was used to destroy most of the WTC buildings."
Reynolds' document entitled "What Planes?" asserts that video footage of the attacks on the World Trade Center were "simply based on impossible physics, rather like a 'Road Runner' or 'Tom and Jerry' cartoon". As already mentioned, many of these claims have been exhaustively discredited in the Journal of 9/11 studies, but these authors persist in their promotion of these discrediting claims. James Gourley explains:

"It's called discrediting by association... You've got these people saying that real planes didn't hit the WTC towers at all in their submission... That only discredits the rest of us, regardless of what the real motive behind it is."
What was particularly noteworthy about the NIST return for correction by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds is that it shortly preceded a submission by a "group of scientists, researchers and 9/11 family members" which challenged official reports of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, with "a Request for Correction (RFC) with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)." When NIST finally replied to this request for correction, they stated that they were "unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse".

This latest article which associates discredited claims with the 9/11 truth movement and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice has the similar function of discrediting by association, regardless of intent.

October 20, 2008

National Post: '9/11 Skeptics Resurface' and "Conspiracy Theories"

National Post: '9/11 Skeptics Resurface' and "Conspiracy Theories"

By Arabesque

I came across an October 20, 2008 article entitled '9/11 Skeptics Resurface' from a link posted by a user at 911blogger.com. In this article, Adrian Humphreys of the National Post writes:

While the 9/11 election scandals were short-lived, soon buried by the stock market meltdown, it served to ignite-- or perhaps reinvigorate -- a cross-country campaign to get 9/11 conspiracy theories on to the Canadian public's agenda. On newspapers' letters pages, on Web sites and in blogs, 9/11 skeptics burst out of the closet and urged others to follow suit, apparently convinced they formed a silenced majority.
I would like to ask the National Post: is it a "conspiracy theory" that not one single person within the FAA, NORAD, FBI, CIA, etc was fired or reprimanded after the events of 9/11? Is it a "conspiracy theory" that those most responsible for preventing the attacks were promoted? It is a "conspiracy theory" that investigations into the 9/11 attacks were blocked by the Bush administration for more than a year, or that evidence was destroyed or is being withheld? National Post, were the 9/11 war games involving hijacked airliners on 9/11 as reported by credible news sources a "conspiracy theory"? Shouldn't this information be something that the National Post should be educating their readers about? Is it also a "conspiracy theory" that NORAD intercepts aircraft hundreds of times a year, but on 9/11 we are told... well actually we were told three contradictory stories by NORAD! So when NORAD tells us three contradictory stories in an attempt to explain why they couldn't intercept any planes on 9/11, is that a "conspiracy theory" too? Senator Mark Dayton said in testimony during a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing that NORAD officials "lied".

Clearly, we can dismiss this without examination as simply another one of those "conspiracy theories". Members of the 9/11 Commission told the Washington Post that, "Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation." Of course we know that instead, key officials were promoted and never charged. Clearly, it was just some of those nutty conspiracy theorists in the 9/11 commission.

Please tell me National Post: is it also a "conspiracy theory" that the Family Member Steering Committee got 30% out of hundreds questions answered by the 9/11 Commission?

The "esteemed" mainstream media continuously fails to report on any of these facts in any serious way; instead producing a copious number of vapid and insulting (to our intelligence) attack pieces that ridicule fringe claims while ignoring any serious and unanswered questions about 9/11, such as questions from the family members which never got answered. The bankrupt use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" clearly indicates bias and lack of honest examination into the facts of 9/11. In retrospect, the embarrassing and shameful coverage of 9/11 by the mainstream media will be judged harshly by history.

October 10, 2008

9/11 Disinformation: NORAD "only" defended U.S. airspace from "outside threats"

9/11 Disinformation: NORAD "only" defended U.S. airspace from "outside threats"

By Arabesque

Why did NORAD fail to intercept any planes on 9/11? There have been many explanations, but one is that "Norad's radars were spread around the periphery of the U.S., looking outward for potential invaders," claimed a 2002 Aviation Week article.

This false claim has since been spread by defenders of the official story to explain why NORAD failed to intercept any planes on 9/11. For example, Jefferson Flanders defending the 9/11 official story repeats the false claim:

"To the question of our air defenses, U.S. air defenses were faced outwards. We were not looking for internal threats. There was no direct link between our FAA and the military. They had to pick up a phone and call. I think we need to remember the pre-9/11 environment."
During a U.K. 9/11 Debate, Nick Pope also repeated the false claim that:
"There were clearly failures... none of this makes it an inside job... this was a totally new threat. All the training manuals, all the mindset of all the air traffic controllers, the officials was configured on a threat from outside. This was new to them. It was beyond their experience and some parts of the system didn't work."
Similarly, Popular Mechanics repeats the false claim that:
"...NORAD's sophisticated radar... ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."
The claim that NORAD only was only prepared to reasonably defend against "outside threats" was repeated by General Richard Myers who said to the 9/11 commission:
"...we were directed to posture, looking outward, those were the orders that NORAD had, and it's had for, ever since the end of the Soviet Union when we had, at that time... So we were clearly looking outward. We did not have the situational awareness inward because we did not have the radar coverage."
But this claim is disinformation. In fact, in the very same interview with Richard Myers quoted above, Jamie Gorelick, a 9/11 commissioner debunked the claim:
"General Myers, if you listened to the Staff Statement this morning, I think that the question that has to be on the minds of the American people is, where was our military when it should have been defending us, and I think that is a fair question from a layman's point of view. And the response of NORAD, which you used to command, and which General Eberhart now commands, is that NORAD was not postured to defend us domestically unless someone was coming at us from abroad, and that has lots of implications. It has implications for where our fighters were to dispatch, how much we cared about the internal radars which didn't function particularly well, which you were, at NORAD, dependent on. It had implications for whether you can communicate with your fighter pilots when they're up in the air in the interior of the country. It has implications for how you quickly get authorities to the pilots. And so I want to explore very briefly this question with you, because for years the Department of Defense did, in fact, resist having a domestic mission. And, with all due respect, said this was a law enforcement function, we do not have a domestic role. It was very uncomfortable with that role, and I think it's important to address that. That's why I come back to this word posture, we were postured against an external threat. In my experience, the military is very clear about its charters, and who is supposed to do what. So if you go back and you look at the foundational documents for NORAD, they do not say defend us only against a threat coming in from across the ocean, or across our borders. It has two missions, and one of them is control of the airspace above the domestic United States, and aerospace control is defined as providing surveillance and control of the airspace of Canada and the United States. To me that air sovereignty concept means that you have a role which, if you were postured only externally you defined out of the job."
As Dean Jackson confirms, the claim that NORAD was "directed to posture... looking outward" is "[Utterly] false.... NORAD, since its inception in 1958, was tasked to monitor and intercept aircraft flying over American and Canadian air space seven days a week, 24 hours a day." A CNN article confims that NORAD, "is asked to investigate aircraft that do not file flight plans, contact ground controllers or identify themselves with transponders." Michael Ruppert explains in his book Crossing the Rubicon that "NORAD radar INCLUDES all FAA civil radar in the country and has added passive tracking abilities and the ability to determine altitude. The two systems are and were plugged in together on 9/11."

According to NORAD's own mission statement, the role of NORAD is to defend against both foreign and domestic threats.
Interceptions are standard operating procedure occurring hundreds of times a year. As well, NORAD gave three contradictory time lines and key officials most responsible for preventing the 9/11 attacks received promotions. Senator Mark Dayton stated that NORAD officials:
[Lied] to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people.”
In summary, the claim that NORAD's posture was against "outward threats" is a clear example of disinformation designed to mislead the public about NORAD's failure to defend the skies on 9/11. It is contradicted by NORAD's own mission statement and by the blatant fact that NORAD regularly intercepted aircraft hundreds of time a year.