FAA ATC Audio Anomalies

[BCR]

As many are already aware, I assisted Mark Gaffney with the technical aspects of the radar data related to the E4B(s) in the DC area during the Pentagon attack time frame. Contrary to suggestions otherwise, I continue to collaborate with a number of very qualified and capable individuals “off-the-record” regarding those flights.

There are actually three “mystery planes” being researched. The first is a Gulfstream with the call-sign VENUS22 which departed Andrews AFB at 13:17 on a flight plan to Greenbrier Valley Airport located at Lewisburg, WV on a Camp Springs One departure. VENUS22 did not complete its flight to LWB, but after hand-off to FLUNKY, diverted back to Andrews AFB and landed at 13:47. The second is an E4B with the call-sign WORD31 that departed Andrews AFB at 13:25 on a flight plane to Ouffit AFB on a Camp Springs One departure. The third is an E4B with the call-sign VENUS77 which departed Andrews AFB at 13:43 without a flight plan. VENUS77 was originally headed due north (near P-56) and then did a loop north of the White House to head back south towards Richmond, VA. After arriving in the Richmond area, VENUS77 changed its call-sign to ADDIS77 and ultimately left the area in the direction of Ouffit. VENUS77 is the now infamous CNN white jet and featured on the cover of Gaffney’s book.

Research into these flights currently involves an effort to account for some odd maneuvers related to VENUS22, in particular the abandonment of its flight plan after hand-off to FLUNKY. That ATC audio was not provided by the FAA. In an effort to fully identify the gaps in audio coverage for follow-up with the FAA, a number of redactions in the provided audio were noted. The response from the FAA regarding these omissions and redactions to-date simply asserts that they have provided ALL of the available audio and that no redactions were made. This thread will focus on those redactions, beginning with a significant one identified on the TYSON sector audio.

The ATC audio waveform above is from the DCA 98 wav file. The file is stereo file with the right-channel (bottom waveform) which carries a reference signal for establishing the position (time) of the audio. The left-channel (top waveform) is the actual communications record. The files available at AAL77.COM are mp3 versions of the left-channel ONLY. This was necessary for internet archiving due to the massive file size associated with the original wav files and background noise generated by the right-channel. In this case, the time is ~13:51 and the KRANT controller is communicating with VENUS77 regarding his turn towards Richmond, VA. Not only is an obvious “cut” in the audio observed, but the amplitude (red line) of the right-channel is different prior to the redaction.

The amplitude change can be observed to begin at 13:33 in the DCA 98 file, indicating that the recording is anomalous for the interval from 13:33 to 13:51, representing the entire time segment related to the Pentagon event.

The DCA 108 waveform for the same time interval does not exhibit the amplitude change in the right-channel. In order to evaluate this further, I took two different files representing the same data and matched them in starting point, segment length and file size. The two original files are:

1 DCA 98 KRANT 1305-1410 UTC.wav
1 DCA 108 F2 1332-1344 UTC, TYSON 1325-1348 UTC, KRANT 1329-1344 UTC.wav

I took the DCA 98 file and trimmed the file to start at the point that the DCA 108 KRANT coverage begins (13:29) and then extended the time segment covered by both 14:44.953 and file size of 148 mb. This equates to 13:44 for the DCA 108 version, but as will be seen later, a different end time for DCA 98. I uploaded these two files for others to download and explore the anomaly further.

DCA 98
DCA 108

The time interval difference is not in itself an anomaly. The sampling rates for two independent recording devices can be off significantly and since are most likely a function of the device used to copy from the original record. However, such a sampling interval discrepancy would affect both channels equally and once compensated for, the original record should still be consistent.

By using the TYSON segment of the DCA 108 and comparing it with the DCA 105 TYSON audio for the same interval (image above), this can be illustrated better. In both files, events in the left-channel correspond to the same marker in the right-channel. Although the time intervals show the same type of sampling difference, the two files are completely in phase with one another, indicating the same original source is being copied.

The waveform comparison above is for the DCA 98 and DCA 108 files taken at the point (red line) that the amplitude change in the right-channel occurs (KRANT). As can be seen, the markers lose synch and the two channels are no longer in phase. This strongly indicates that the left-channel has been altered in some fashion in one, if not both of the files, and the original file is not represented.

There is a lot more analysis that needs to be done to assess the anomaly further. It is my hope that readers can shed some insight into understanding the root cause.

 

[Gravy]

Exactly what are you seeking to discover?

 

[BCR]

Exactly what are you seeking to discover?

If I knew that, I could close-up shop. But to be precise.....the "what".

 

[Thunder]

Boy..and people accuse ME of having no life.

What exactly is this about?

 

[BCR]

Boy..and people accuse ME of having no life.

What exactly is this about?

This is what they call "retirement". It is about demonstrating what government data looks like when it has been altered. Some folks like to claim that government data (radar, atc, etc) is invalid because it has been altered. For the most part, the ATC audio files appear intact, but in attempting to reconstruct the activities of the E4B's, anomalies in the audio files appear.

Contrary to popular belief, a complex data file such as this cannot be altered without leaving a "signature". Most likely, the redactions are related to COOP/COG activities (the Nation was under attack).

 

[Gravy]

If I knew that, I could close-up shop. But to be precise.....the "what".

Well, I understand that you want to identify some planes by using ATC records. And I understand that you think there were redactions made to the recordings. Questions:

1) What do you think IDing the planes will tell you, or are you just interested in the knowledge for its own sake?

2) Why not show your work to the people you got the records from and ask their opinion? Perhaps there's a simple explanation that precludes "a lot more analysis."

3) Is there a reason why anyone here should get involved? There is at least one audio engineer here with experience in forensics, but I'd suggest offering to pay him if you can't articulate a good reason why he should spend his time on this.

 

[BCR]

Well, I understand that you want to identify some planes by using ATC records. And I understand that you think there were redactions made to the recordings. Questions:

1) What do you think IDing the planes will tell you, or are you just interested in the knowledge for its own sake?

2) Why not show your work to the people you got the records from and ask their opinion? Perhaps there's a simple explanation that precludes "a lot more analysis."

3) Is there a reason why anyone here should get involved? There is at least one audio engineer here with experience in forensics, but I'd suggest offering to pay him if you can't articulate a good reason why he should spend his time on this.

Gravy, if you are not curious, then fine. Don't read the thread. If you don't care that records of what happened are being withheld, then that too is your perogative. I for one however am quite interested. As far as #2 goes, already done and they simply deny the redactions exist. In regards to #3, this is the record of the 911 events. Some people are interested in that record. If interested, then pursue it. If not, then don't read the thread.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, if you are not curious, then fine. Don't read the thread. If you don't care that records of what happened are being withheld, then that too is your perogative. I for one however am quite interested.

I'm all for your wanting to learn these things. I'm interested in why they strike you as important. It's no more surprising to me that there might be redactions than it is that there would be E4-B's in the air: it's what I would expect. However, I would want them to acknowledge any redactions.

As far as #2 goes, already done and they simply deny the redactions exist.

You showed them your work and explained it?

In regards to #3, this is the record of the 911 events. Some people are interested in that record. If interested, then pursue it. If not, then don't read the thread.

Not necessary to be so defensive. But you dove into this thread without explaining why you think it's important to have this information. Perhaps I was a bit put-off by your mention of Gaffney, a common dunce with a bit of a paranoid streak, so I apologize if I came off as being negative towards your work.

 

[BCR]

Gravy, I am not being defensive. I'm presenting an anomaly. If you wish to discuss the anomaly, I'm game. If you don't care, then that is okay as well. I simply don't care much for speculation as to what it means or does not mean. Just interested in others thoughts, not "what do ya want to know for" stuff.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Gravy, if you are not curious, then fine. Don't read the thread. If you don't care that records of what happened are being withheld, then that too is your perogative. I for one however am quite interested. As far as #2 goes, already done and they simply deny the redactions exist. In regards to #3, this is the record of the 911 events. Some people are interested in that record. If interested, then pursue it. If not, then don't read the thread.

Easy... easy. I realize that Gravy's post can be read as questioning the worth of this line of research. But really, reread it. He did ask "are you just interested in the knowledge for its own sake?", and that's an entirely legitimate answer. Plus, points 2 and 3 are constructive suggestions. And to be fair, Gravy's #2 question does point at the most efficient way to get an answer as to why the recording shows that anomaly.

Maybe some have jumped you a bit too hard at other times, but really, you've pretty much demonstrated that you're willing to go where evidence takes you, and not reject stuff just because it's inconvenient (*cough* TLB *cough*). Which is good. But I wouldn't read Gravy's post as suggesting that you shouldn't take this route. Only that it would help to have more clarification as to what you're looking into. That's all.

ETA: Blah... Gravy already posted.

Anyway, don't take some of these questions as commentary saying you shouldn't do this. Only that we're not seeing where you're going.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

It is about demonstrating what government data looks like when it has been altered. Some folks like to claim that government data (radar, atc, etc) is invalid because it has been altered. For the most part, the ATC audio files appear intact, but in attempting to reconstruct the activities of the E4B's, anomalies in the audio files appear.

Ahhh!

This thread is very revealing because it exposes you as a fraud to BOTH sides of this discussion.

Gravy has launched the dogs on you because you are asserting evidence manipulation which is proof of a cover-up and deception.

This has prompted you to reveal your true intentions which are to create the impression that you are the ultimate authority on what data has been manipulated and what has not.

Make sure that everyone realizes how 911files has already admitted in the past that a clear precedent has already been established for evidence manipulation with the security gate video and the NTSB data.

Although he has admitted this he has always contradictorily ignored this precedent in general on the basis that evidence manipulation only exists if HE can spot it!

Exactly like he tries to suggest in the quote above.

So in this case he has found a way to show that he can spot evidence manipulation.....but it only implicates a cover-up of LIHOP.

Still a crime but obviously a white wash considering the research of CIT.

This thread is CLASSIC and if nothing else should reveal to the jref community the incredible levels that some people out there are willing to take this in order to ride both sides of the fence for pure deceptive obfuscation purposes.

 

[bje]

Translation:

TLB needs an excuse to run away from his obligations in other threads. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[Gravy]

Easy... easy. I realize that Gravy's post can be read as questioning the worth of this line of research.

Yeah, and I apologize for that. While I'm not terribly interested in the topic, I am interested in why 911files is interested. I haven't communicated with him or her before. A simple, "I'm trying to compile as complete a record as possible of the Pentagon attacks" would suffice, or a more specific explanation if one exists. I do think that's helpful when trying to recruit people.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Yeah, and I apologize for that. While I'm not terribly interested in the topic, I am interested in why 911files is interested. I haven't communicated with him or her before. A simple, "I'm trying to compile as complete a record as possible of the Pentagon attacks" would suffice, or a more specific explanation if one exists. I do think that's helpful when trying to recruit people.

Oh, don't apologize. I probably should've written "misread" instead of "read". And all I was doing was pointing out that you were asking constructive questions, that's all.

 

[BCR]

Ahhh!
Gravy has launched the dogs on you because you are asserting evidence manipulation which is proof of a cover-up and deception.
.

No it is not. We don't know why that particular audio was redacted. You are speculating. My discussion with Gravy is "why do I want to know?", which has nothing to do with anything.

Although he has admitted this he has always contradictorily ignored this precedent in general on the basis that evidence manipulation only exists if HE can spot it!

Incorrect TLB. Show me evidence of manipulation or alteration, don't just say that it is. Actually, Pierre did a study that showed the issues with the gate camera's. I reviewed his work and agreed with his conclusions. So don't just say "911 was an inside job!" Show me some evidence. Then we can discuss the evidence, not your belief.

 

[Baylor]

I'm all for it. Farmer's already done good work with the Citgo security footage and Reagan's radar data. CIT has the opportunity to explain to us why they write off "government data" as fraudulent. It'd be a breath of fresh to hear them after putting up with the "unanimous" witness testimonies for so long. Just don't hold your breath. I don't think they'll be rattling us with their lectures on radar theory anytime soon.

 

[beachnut]

The flight plan on 911 would be a problem, with all flights ordered to land, the E4B might have to delay in some sort of holding area until the airspace can handle him or he can climb above the mess!

An E4B is a national asset, they may of alerted the crew to get the darn thing airborne as an emergency to avoid being a target on the ground from another attack.

You may trick your way into the airspace, but you will pay for it in a penalty box (holding) until you get a real clearance.

Just some thoughts on airspace, but we have experts here who can help on airspace. The time anomalies on recordings, it happens.

I trust after time you will find something or run out of experts to help you.

I love how TLB thinks a discussion is an attack. The delusional ideas of TLB can't hand a real debate, or discussion, they are not allowed to question Balsamo at fringe dolt pilots forum (p4t forum) where Balsamo is the truthNAZI, like the soupNAZI, but the line is “no truth for you”.

TLB is not use to free speech, free thought, or the truth.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

Actually, Pierre did a study that showed the issues with the gate camera's. I reviewed his work and agreed with his conclusions. So don't just say "911 was an inside job!" Show me some evidence. Then we can discuss the evidence, not your belief.

How can you accept Pier Paolo Murru's work and reject CIT's. He proves that the security footage was manipulated.
CIT's work is the other piece of the puzzle that you continue to ignore.

Did you ever ask Pier what he thinks of CIT?

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

No it is not. We don't know why that particular audio was redacted. You are speculating. My discussion with Gravy is "why do I want to know?", which has nothing to do with anything.

So you're not suggesting that the presence of this "anomaly" potentially means the evidence was manipulated?

Could you be any more less clear?

Look at you trying to say you aren't saying what you are saying!

Too much.

That most certainly IS what you are asserting and I quote you at the bottom of this post.

Incorrect TLB. Show me evidence of manipulation or alteration, don't just say that it is. Actually, Pierre did a study that showed the issues with the gate camera's. I reviewed his work and agreed with his conclusions. So don't just say "911 was an inside job!" Show me some evidence. Then we can discuss the evidence, not your belief.

You are not responding to what I said. You are using Pier (and misspelling his name) to redirect the conversation.

All I know is that YOU have said the security video was "not reality" and that the NTSB data has been "doctored".

You have ignored this precedent and instead tried to position yourself as the be all end all authority when it comes to detecting "anomalies" as if all data where YOU can't detect an anomaly MUST be legitimate.

This is the entire purpose of this thread as indicated by you in these two posts:

We discovered anomalies in a few of the ATC audios. How? By independently verifying the waveforms. Real-world records that have been altered show symptoms. The TYSON audio (with the C-130) does not show such symptoms. The KRANT audio does. Data can be independently verified.

It is about demonstrating what government data looks like when it has been altered. Some folks like to claim that government data (radar, atc, etc) is invalid because it has been altered. For the most part, the ATC audio files appear intact, but in attempting to reconstruct the activities of the E4B's, anomalies in the audio files appear.

Obviously you ARE suggesting that this data has been manipulated which is a CRIME that implicates a direct cover-up of a DEEPER CRIME and you know it.

You're not going to get away with playing both sides of the fence in this forum.

 

[gumboot]

I don't know if anyone else has pointed it out, but your central premise is a false choice fallacy, namely:

1) Either the audio is entirely intact, absent of anomaly
OR
2) The material has been redacted prior to release

For clarify, the definition of "redacted" is that something has been edited or revised for the purpose of publication. In this context, I hope we can agree that "redacted" is intended to mean "intentional removal of some part of the data by the government, for purpose of concealing said data".

Your claim that the anomaly must mean data has been redacted is entirely unsupported.

Just to give one example of a potential explanation of anomalies and time shift between seemingly matching audio; it is possible that the ATC tapes, like the NORAD tapes, were recorded on DAT. In fact, my understanding is this is exactly how they were recorded - reference Boston ARTCC pulling the tapes to determine the "we have some planes" transmission.

It is also my understanding that both the FAA and NORAD's tapes sat largely untouched for several years after 9/11, until the 9/11 Commission demanded them.

DAT, like all magnetic tape, is not designed for long-term storage. Over time compression on the tape due to coiling around the reel disrupts the data and leads to corruption. This corruption can manifest in a variety of different ways.