Army Center for Military History FOIA Complete

[jhunter1163]

I believe poster ktesibios is an audio engineer. He might be of assistance to you.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, I for one appreciate your application of logic to TLB's silliness and I understand why you are doing so. However, I regrettably will be starting a thread later this evening which is going to be taken out-of-context by TLB and his buddies at CIT as "evidence" of their hypothesis. Anyone wishing a preview so that they can prepare may send me a pm and I will advance some of the data. I especially need to hear from anyone with a background with audio waveforms.

Go right ahead. As I stated before, I accept all evidence.

The key is to treat all the evidence in total, something TheLoneBedouin and his club have failed to do.

I have no unusual expertise in audio, unfortunately.

 

[jhunter1163]

ETA: Create your own here:

http://ruletheweb.co.uk/b3ta/bus/

 

[BCR]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=81&pictureid=602[/qimg]

 

[bje]

This is nothing but an agrument from incredulity. Period. Nevertheless I have answered your question here. This is the part that you ignored:

The gist of it is that the decoy jet was meant to fool most people into believing that it hit the building but the 2nd plane cover story would be out there as an explanation for the people who actually saw it fly over or away from the building.

So it would be close enough to the damage to fool people but also a bit off track to more easily be written off as a "2nd plane".

That, of course is nuts. Any flyover would have easily been seen 360 degrees around the Pentagon as I illustrated earlier, except for those conveniently placed by you on the approach side of the flight path where the fireball would block seeing the jet fly away. As I already demonstrated, anyone in a wide area around the Pentagon would be able to see a flyover had one occurred.

That, of course, is why you choose only to report eyewitnesses around the Citgo station. Those outside that narrow line of sight with jet and fireball would be in a position to clearly see any flyover had one occurred.

And you want us to accept your notion that the government could hoodwink an unknown number of people all around the Pentagon and extending across the Potomac, with different viewing positions, TLB?

Don't forget how this refuted you months ago on that claim where you had to claim the security video was "doctored" to erase the flyover jet. But you flummoxed yourself by forgetting that you can't erase live human beings vision:

Not only that, those on the opposite side, like on the bridges, would see a jet flying directly at them as the fireball rose behind the jet. Even a reasonable person in that position would be likely to associate the aircraft with the fireball, as in an attack with bomb or missile. Nascent truthers with the low intelligence and gullibility that you depend on would, of course, jump to that conclusion right away.

And, of course, you want your following to believe there would be NO ONE, much less dozens of people, who would have been reporting that to the news media, their friends - anybody who would listen, as fast as they could.

THAT is the intellectual dishonesty for which CIT is well known. You've lost big time, TLB.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

So why did it take five tries for you to answer the question?

It didn't. I answered in post 155 of this thread with the exact same post. Your reply was:

I just read through both of those posts, and I don't see how they even peripherally address a single one of the issues I raised.

So don't pretend that I don't understand your posts, ok Mackey?

Is it, because perhaps, your explanation is insufficient? Quite mad, in fact?

Okay, Mackey- see what you want to see.

So, parsing it carefully:

There was one aircraft. It flew a different trajectory than the "fake" impact story. It was also a different aircraft color, and possibly configuration. (You agreed to this before.)

Yes.

The aircraft trajectory was different so that, if anybody saw it, they might believe it wasn't the impact aircraft at all, but in fact a second aircraft.

Yes.

Also implicit in the above, if the aircraft trajectory matched the "fake" impact story, nobody would believe it was the phantom second aircraft, therefore the nonconforming trajectory is necessary.

No. The "second aircraft" was quite real- it was the C130. That you don't know this basic fact shows that you haven't viewed the evidence and again exposes your confirmation bias in favor of the official story.

Total nonsense. This redefines ridiculous.

Ok. Go ahead and make your own hypothesis, but make sure it agrees with all the evidence.

You are postulating a decoy aircraft that you wanted nobody to see.

No, the plane was a psychological tool. They wanted people to see it fly exactly where it did so in order to confuse the issue.

You assume that, if it flew over the Pentagon and somebody saw it do so, that they'd believe a cockamamie story about a second plane (at the same time, which nobody has presented) if it came along one heading but not the other.

Too bad your assumptions are wrong. E.g.

September 15, 2001. Terry Scanlon, Daily Press.
Kellly Knowles, a First Colonial High School Alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines Jet towards the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion.
"Thank God somebody else saw that. There was most definitely a second plane.", Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane or if the they do, they're hiding it for some reason."

And deception is not the only method of hiding the flyover. No doubt gaslighting from people who are so sure the official story is correct, a self-assured physicist for example, convinces some people.

Oh yeah, since we have a first-hand account of flyover witnesses,this "point" is moot anyway.

Now, back to the issue of evidence -- you throw tantrums over me not "viewing" or "accepting" evidence,

It's a proven fact. You didn't even know about the C130.

but what about you? What evidence do you accept?

Only independent evidence, as should everyone.

I want you to make a list for me of the evidence that exists, and which you accept or reject. No need to explain why, just make a list. I'll bet you reject a heck of a lot more evidence than I do.

Maybe, I do. But if so, with good reason.

Like I said, you need someone to help you understand my posts.

Says the guy who just contradicted himself about whether my post addressed his question.

Go ahead, Mackey. Tell us your hypothesis. And make sure it fits all of the evidence.

 

[DGM]

TLB:
What the hell is " independent evidence"? Only that collected by someone supporting a certain conclusion?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

TLB:
What the hell is " independent evidence"? Only that collected by someone supporting a certain conclusion?

No, just the opposite. It must be independently verifiable as well.

 

[DGM]

No, just the opposite. It must be independently verifiable as well.

All of the "official side" evidence is verifiable. You just have to choose to do so. Choosing not to is a confirmation bias.

 

[R.Mackey]

It didn't. I answered in post 155 of this thread with the exact same post. Your reply was:

[etc.]

So don't pretend that I don't understand your posts, ok Mackey?

But you haven't answered my questions even now. All you did was repeat a bunch of nonsense that doesn't answer my questions, and that's what I remarked on. There is no way anyone is going to confuse the later, slower, higher, turboprop-powered C-130 with a "North of CITGO" airliner / airliner simulant, on the deck, barely clearing the Pentagon. That's crazy.

Furthermore, going back to this post of mine, you haven't even touched the following:

1. Why was the phantom aircraft not painted to look like an American Airlines aircraft?
2. Why wouldn't they fly it on the correct heading?
3. Why wouldn't they actually hit the lightpoles they were supposed to have hit?

Your answers, please.

Okay, Mackey- see what you want to see.

Not really. I'm certainly not seeing a lot of cooperation from you.

No. The "second aircraft" was quite real- it was the C130. That you don't know this basic fact shows that you haven't viewed the evidence and again exposes your confirmation bias in favor of the official story.

OK, thanks for clarifying. I thought you were referring to yet another aircraft, one that clearly didn't exist.

Again, there is no way anyone is going to confuse the C-130 with AA 77 or the phantom simulant you were talking about. This isn't a position error of a couple hundred feet, like North or South of your precious CITGO. It's a radical difference in heading, altitude, speed, aircraft type, etc. There is absolutely no way the C-130 can be confused with something that disappeared into/behind a fireball at the Pentagon.

I know all about the C-130, I was merely trying to make some sense of your hypothesis. It is apparently even wackier than I had thought.

Ok. Go ahead and make your own hypothesis, but make sure it agrees with all the evidence.

Cannot be done. Some of the evidence is contradictory. You admitted to this before. In particular, some people saw (according to you, but I accept that they said this) the aircraft in one location, where others saw it somewhere else. You cannot reconcile all of the evidence perfectly, no matter how complicated a made-up story you come up with.

The reason you can't is because you haven't taken into account observational accuracy. This is standard practice. For instance, if I measure (as I have) that the speed of light is 3.03 x 10⁸ meters per second, instead of the accepted figure of 2.998 x 10⁸ meters per second, that doesn't mean light traveled slower in my laboratory. Or that I'm lying. Or that I've discovered a new fundamental particle.

Likewise, just because somebody remembered or saw an aircraft in one place or another doesn't mean that it definitely was there. This is, again, a confusion between evidence and hypothesis. The evidence is that so-and-so said what they saw. The hypothesis involves whether or not they were right, to what degree of accuracy, and so on.

Don't mix them up.

Now, since you dodged my question yet again, I am soooo surprised, list the evidence you take into account. List it all. It should take you no more than about two or three minutes to do so. This is Step One of scientific investigation. Since you are so intent in following it, you should have already done this. Let's see what you're considering, and see if you are missing anything. I'll be glad to fill in the holes for you.

No, the plane was a psychological tool. They wanted people to see it fly exactly where it did so in order to confuse the issue.

Again, hypothesis. And it does not explain why they flew it somewhere else. It would be much more effective had it flown, you know, where they said it did, instead of actually contradicting them. If I want to convince you that I've just conjured a rabbit in my hat, I don't send a lemur running across the stage and then tell you it was actually a rabbit, and actually in my hat..

Too bad your assumptions are wrong. E.g. [anecdote from Kelly Knowles]

How is that quote one of my assumptions..? You are incredibly difficult to follow.

And deception is not the only method of hiding the flyover. No doubt gaslighting from people who are so sure the official story is correct, a self-assured physicist for example, convinces some people.

Show me some other methods, then. I've yet to hear one.

Oh yeah, since we have a first-hand account of flyover witnesses,this "point" is moot anyway.

Nope. What you have is, again, evidence, that needs to be considered with all the other evidence. You're really bad at this.

It's a proven fact. You didn't even know about the C130.

Explained above. Of course I did.

Only independent evidence, as should everyone.

Sounds like weasel words. List your evidence, all of it, and we'll see.

Maybe, I do. But if so, with good reason.

It's possible. Show me what you reject, and why, and we can see about that.

Says the guy who just contradicted himself about whether my post addressed his question.

See above.

Go ahead, Mackey. Tell us your hypothesis. And make sure it fits all of the evidence.

Sure. AA 77 hit the Pentagon as advertised. Nothing was planted. The C-130 flew as reported and as tracked on radar.

It doesn't fit all the evidence, because it can't (witnesses contradict each other, so nothing can), but it certainly fits more than your story does. Make your list, and I'll prove it to you.

 

[HyJinX]

Apparently, it's really hard for TLB to answer your questions R.Mackey, so that must be why he started a new thread. Cowardly...but predictable.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Mackey,

This is why I avoided going into this with you.

You have not viewed the evidence and you do not get it.

I have not been inclined to explain something to you when you refuse to view the evidence.

CIT has uncovered direct EVIDENCE of a 2nd plane cover story starting with the proven false confirmed C-130 "shadowing" claim of Keith Wheelhouse. They did this via meticulous analysis of the series of media reports that focused on him and other witnesses to this alleged "shadowing" plane that veered away at the same time as the explosion.

Obviously the C-130 did not do this but REPORTS of this in the media would help placate any flyover witnesses. Most people aren't aware of what a C-130 looks like or exactly what airline supposedly hit each building on 9/11.

Reports of ANY "shadowing" plane obviously would serve as perfect cover for anyone who saw a plane flying away from the building.

The reports were deliberately ambiguous at first and these fake "shadowing" reports were simply blended with the REAL reports of the C-130 that we now know wasn't in the airspace until about 3 minutes after the attack.

The people reading these initial reports during all the hysteria and confusion in the first weeks after the event did not have the benefit of being aware of the years of research of CIT.

The fact that the details were initially ambiguous and the blending of reports for obfuscations is what made it effective.

CIT does not claim that people who saw the C-130 come in later and confused this with the attack jet on the scene.

It was the subsequent REPORTS of this blending it with a proven fraudulent and deliberately planted "shadowing" claim that did the trick.

If someone was confused about the plane they saw flying away those reports would provide an excuse so they could let it go.

If they went so far as to report this strange plane flying away it would be written off as the C-130 or simply as an "anomalous" account.

 

[Alt+F4]

You have not viewed the evidence and you do not get it.

You don't understand the evidence. With the exception of DNA from a baby, all passengers of AA77 died in the wreckage of the Pentagon. Why do you ignore this? Oh yeah....I remember, you only care about what folks on the Internet think about you. the dead, murdered by terrorists.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey,

This is why I avoided going into this with you.

You have not viewed the evidence and you do not get it.

[bunch of nonresponsive crap deleted]

Prove it.

Prove that your little videos say what you claim they do. Quotes, time indexes, or it didn't happen. Maybe I just missed it, or maybe you're a liar. Show me.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Prove it.

Prove that your little videos say what you claim they do. Quotes, time indexes, or it didn't happen. Maybe I just missed it, or maybe you're a liar. Show me.

I don't have to go back and get time stamps because the proof is in the presentations I mentioned earlier and I know this for a fact because I watched them.

So if you did watch them and simply "missed" the elaborate details they go into regarding the 2nd plane cover story then fine.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take your word for it.

I didn't believe that you had because your posts indicate to me that you haven't.

But let's put all the cards out on the table so I'll know what information you have viewed and what you simply "missed".

Please list all of the presentations from CIT that you have watched IN FULL from beginning to end. Also indicate the ones that you only partially watch and indicated at what point you stopped.

A chronological list of all their presentations is located here.

Thanks.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Ahh, "the fact that you disagree with me means that you haven't seen what I've seen." You can do better than that...

 

[R.Mackey]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take your word for it.

[But then]

But let's put all the cards out on the table so I'll know what information you have viewed and what you simply "missed".

You have a strange way of giving me the benefit of the doubt.

What presentations do you think are relevant to this discussion, and why? I'll tell you if I've watched all, some, or none of them. Otherwise, you're diving further and further off-topic. This is ridiculous.

 

[bje]

I don't have to go back and get time stamps because the proof is in the presentations I mentioned earlier and I know this for a fact because I watched them.

No one has to watch any presentations for you to directly answer questions posed to you over a period extending almost three years that you refuse to answer.

For instance, you can answer this question without me having to watch your videos:

Given your claim that a jet flew fast and low over and away from the Pentagon, a necessary consequence would be that there were scores, if not hundreds, of people all around the Pentagon in a position to witness any flyover under those parameters.

There were the drivers stuck in traffic on the freeways, some directly facing the Pentagon. They would easily have seen the explosion and any aircraft flying away.

Ditto for those stuck in traffic on the bridges directly across form the Pentagon with traffic not only facing the Pentagon, but in the line of sight of the aircraft coming in their direction with the explosion behind the aircraft.

Ditto for those in buildings and in the surrounding Pentagon parking lots.

But you refuse to explain why there are absolutely no reports of any such event. Instead, you claim to rely on a government employee (oh, the irony) who gave contradictory reports that one of your own "presentations" reveals left you and Aldo completely confused by what Roberts meant.

So, you can answer those questions without anyone having to view the presentations.

Why won't you, TLB?

 

[bonavada]

If they went so far as to report this strange plane flying away it would be written off as the C-130 or simply as an "anomalous" account.

I can't get my head around the convoluted C-130 angle presented by TLB.
I gather that the C-130 was used as cover for the jet that went NOC and overflew the Pentagon, correct? Isn't it the case then, that many, many witnesses should have reported TWO aircraft subsequent to the explosion?

Madder and madder

BV

 

[Bell]

I can't get my head around the convoluted C-130 angle presented by TLB.
I gather that the C-130 was used as cover for the jet that went NOC and overflew the Pentagon, correct? Isn't it the case then, that many, many witnesses should have reported TWO aircraft subsequent to the explosion?

Madder and madder

BV

I don't get it either

Also, why would there be a C-130 in the Pentagon airspace in the first place? It is not as if they had to track a hijacked airplane, right TLB?