FAA ATC Audio Anomalies

[Gravy]

Anyway, to be clear, 911files, was the "no redactions" comment from the FAA in response to you actually showing and explaining your findings? Was there any comment on the 13 missing minutes? Or was that a response to a general question of yours?

 

[BCR]

Anyway, to be clear, 911files, was the "no redactions" comment from the FAA in response to you actually showing and explaining your findings? Was there any comment on the 13 missing minutes? Or was that a response to a general question of yours?

Actually Gravy, my contact with them was in regards to a similar anomaly in the IAD audio at a critical point. And yes, it was a very detailed analysis. Darn, I'm still trying to get an explaination for the RADES time anomaly and I've been working back channels on that one. Same story at the NTSB.

This data release is part of a Court action so hopefully during discovery (if I continue that far) they will respond further.

 

[BCR]

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.

The problem with this hypothesis is that I am comparing two replications of the same audio data. Corruption in the original should show up in both replications and not produce two different records.

You are correct, there could be other reasons beyond redaction or intentional alteration. Hence, the reason for the thread.

 

[BCR]

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

blah blah

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.

blah blah

Okay, read it again TLB.

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.

I refer you to Gumboot's post above. There can be multiple reasons for the gap and anomaly beyond intentional redaction and/or alteration. I do not agree with his particular hypothesis for the reason stated (the reason he cited should impact both duplicate files). We are reasonable people and we can disagree. I have exhaustively demonstrated empirically that the AAL77 FDR is missing the final 6 or so seconds of data. Reheat has a possible technical reason that could have occurred as well. I find his hypothesis very reasonable, but not definitive. So the existance of an anomaly is NOT proof of intentional tampering. Quite frankly, in that case we need the serial bit stream to narrow that one down.

So, this thread is solicit other opinions as to the nature of the anomaly, NOT to assert that it was intentionally done.

alter - to make different without changing into something else .

Being altered does not require human intervention. Technical processes or some other non-human actor can initiate the alteration.

 

[Mangoose]

911files: I am interested in the work you refer to on the gate camera. Do you have a link? I did an analysis of the background features in the images a while back in this forum, and I was able to improve the image quality of the view prior to the attack slightly via astronomy image stacking software.

 

[gumboot]

The problem with this hypothesis is that I am comparing two replications of the same audio data. Corruption in the original should show up in both replications and not produce two different records.

You are correct, there could be other reasons beyond redaction or intentional alteration. Hence, the reason for the thread.

My apologies, I missed that point. How did you determine that these two recordings were created from the same source data?

 

[BCR]

911files: I am interested in the work you refer to on the gate camera. Do you have a link? I did an analysis of the background features in the images a while back in this forum, and I was able to improve the image quality of the view prior to the attack slightly via astronomy image stacking software.

Pierre took his analysis off the web in mid 2007 due to the insanity of the truth movement. He and I continued to work "off-the-record" on a few things (the Tribby video for example) for around a year and then he went silent. That was a significant loss because he was a professional CGI artist who understood the new digital video medium very well. Got a link to your stuff?

 

[BCR]

My apologies, I missed that point. How did you determine that these two recordings were created from the same source data?

Another good point. I am assuming that there is only one original record. I'm not sure why there would be more than one, but might be something to consider.

 

[grmcdorman]

I think another possibility, 911files, is that the recordings do have a common source, but different errors were encountered when the source (tape?) was read. This is not uncommon for media of all sorts, especially tapes; the act of simply removing and reinserting the medium can change the amount of good data recoverable from a marginal source.

 

[BCR]

I think another possibility, 911files, is that the recordings do have a common source, but different errors were encountered when the source (tape?) was read. This is not uncommon for media of all sorts, especially tapes; the act of simply removing and reinserting the medium can change the amount of good data recoverable from a marginal source.

Again, I agree with it being in the realm of possibility. I also agree that the "gap" could simply be some type of glitch in the unit making the second version. The amplitude for the left-channel is quite different for both recordings which certainly reflects differences in the unit(s) making the copies. What led me to discount this is the phase shift in the channels.

I think everyone has had the experience of watching a video where the soundtrack is out of phase with the video portion. That is pretty much the same thing as what is happening here for a segment of the audio when the right-channel (time marker) is out-of-phase with the left-channel (communications). I think the time frame of the anomaly is a very serious consideration. The fact that the entire tape (DCA 108) represents a few hours of audio, but the only segment showing the anomaly happens to coincide with communications with the "mystery plane" and primary event time frame, really does stretch probabilities. But, could happen.

 

[Gravy]

I think the time frame of the anomaly is a very serious consideration. The fact that the entire tape (DCA 108) represents a few hours of audio, but the only segment showing the anomaly happens to coincide with communications with the "mystery plane" and primary event time frame, really does stretch probabilities. But, could happen.

I agree that the timing of the anomaly (if it is an anomaly) is interesting, but perhaps it's simply a matter of a glitch that happened because because of the number of systems in use, attempts to improve communications, etc., because of the attacks.

I have no idea if that's a possible cause, but my point is that you seem to be thinking that such an anomaly is very unlikely to have happened around the time of a major terrorist attack, when the truth may be that that's when such an anomaly would be most likely to happen. (My first guess would be a redaction that wasn't reported to you, but you get my point.)

I'm slightly baffled by your use of the words "mystery plane" and "infamous CNN white jet." You seem to be ascribing qualities to these aircraft based on your interests. To me, the presence of airborne military assets around Washington D.C. on 9/11 is expected. While I encourage your efforts to learn about these things, I do not expect to be apprised of what all those assets were or of all communications with them. That Mark Gaffney – who proved to be one of the worst dunces I've encountered in his correspondence with me – wrote a whole book about the "mystery" E4B (forward by David Ray Griffin), strikes me as hilarious. Or really sad. Where should that plane have been?

ETA: Sorry to be off topic, but I can't help but notice that Gaffney's actually promoting an appearance with Bill "Modified Attack Baboon" Deagle, who may be one of the 10 batpoo-craziest people in America.

 

[JamesB]

Hey, Wild Bill Deagle is my hero. I want one of those genetically modified attack baboons!

 

[Quad4_72]

I am really confused by this thread. What exactly are you trying to figure out 911files? I am not trying to start anything, but I just don't see how any of this is relevant to a 9/11 conspiracy.

 

[Bobert]

Ahhh!

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

No it doesn't, calm down!

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

You CIT frauds LOVE TO assume the meaning of what people say as long as it fits your twisted, delusioned thinking.

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.

Yes we get it in other words you are overly obsessed with 911 Files.
Everyone pretty much knows this already.
Now you have also made it seem like you are the spoiled brat jealous of his bigger, more intelligent brothers new bike.

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.

Is typnig in clear and understandable ENGLISH a problem for you?

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.

AKA I am a jealous spoiled brat.
Why is that you hate JREF so much yet seem jealous that 911 Files is embraced here?
Why is that?

 

[BCR]

I am really confused by this thread. What exactly are you trying to figure out 911files? I am not trying to start anything, but I just don't see how any of this is relevant to a 9/11 conspiracy.

Well, I would suggest that CIT and P4T refuse to acknowledge the radar and ATC audio's as evidence since they have been altered by the government. That has been the claim for some time. Since data integrity is at the heart of CT stuff, I believe it is very relevant.

 

[dtugg]

Well, I would suggest that CIT and P4T refuse to acknowledge the radar and ATC audio's as evidence since they have been altered by the government. That has been the claim for some time. Since data integrity is at the heart of CT stuff, I believe it is very relevant.

Come on, you know that those morons would claim that it is fake no matter what since it contradicts their fantasy. Even if it is proven that the anomalies mean nothing they would still ignore it. They are already way too far down the rabbit hole to let little things like evidence get in their way.

 

[ktesibios]

There are several questions that I think would need to be answered before any intelligent interpretation of the artifacts in these audio files could be undertaken:

1. What was the original format of the ATC recordings? If analog, what was the tape size, track configuration and tape speed? If digital, what was the tape format and sample rate? Were the original recordings made on one single medium (i.e., reel, cassette or drive) or are they spread among multiple media? If all this audio didn't fit on a single medium, what method was used to ensure no loss of information due to the need to change tapes?

2. Was the timing signal on track 2 recorded simultaneously with the ATC communications on the original? Is the timing signal a standard machine-readable format such as SMPTE/EBU time code or something proprietary?

3. What is the copy history of the recordings you received? Are they dubs from the original recordings or copies of copies? If the latter, how were the intermediate copies made?

4. What procedure was used to make the copies you have? Was it a digital dub from a digital source or a digital copy from an analog source? Are the digital files you received claimed to be a continuous copy made in a single pass or was it necessary to stop and, for example, change source tapes?

Is the audio on your copy a mix of multiple tracks on the original? For example, a logging system might use a multitrack recorder (say, an 8 track MDM) and print transmit audio to track 1, receive audio to track 2, local comm loop to track 3, etc. In making a cub, the copyist might mix all the voice tracks together and print them to one track of the copy, thus putting everything that was said in one place.

I'd be interested in taking a look at these files to see if I can make sense of any of the artifacts. I would need copies of the original .wav files and some text pointing out where in each the features of interest are located. If the .wav files are too large to be emailed I could set up an account on our ftp server to which they could be transferred.

I should mention that my access to tools is likely to be spotty in the near future. We've got Slayer coming in on Monday and I expect them to monopolize our tracking room and ProTools rig for the next couple of months. I might be able to wheedle our rental company into letting me have access to a rig in my spare time...

PM me if you want to discuss it.

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

That Mark Gaffney – who proved to be one of the worst dunces I've encountered in his correspondence with me – wrote a whole book about the "mystery" E4B, strikes me as hilarious. Or really sad. Where should that plane have been?

I have to agree with you on this Gravy. What's worse is that the entire premise of the book is based on the notion that the plane was in the skies DURING the attack and altered out of the alleged radar data released from 84 RADES via 911files in Oct 2007.

The entire "Afterword" in the book was authored by 911files. Gaffney said it was meant to buttress one of the main themes of the book that the RADES data had been deliberately altered as a cover-up for these "E4B's". 911files did this by asserting a 2-plane conspiracy theory involving the north side flyover of the E4B or some other plane with a simultaneous impact of "AA77". He cites the work of CIT as evidence for this disinformation conspiracy theory while deliberately misrepresenting the ANC witnesses as support for this as well.

Hey 911files,

Do you have a link to a pdf of your article so people can check it out?

Obviously it is quite relevant to this thread since it was also meant to show evidence manipulation.

 

[BCR]

Come on, you know that those morons would claim that it is fake no matter what since it contradicts their fantasy. Even if it is proven that the anomalies mean nothing they would still ignore it. They are already way too far down the rabbit hole to let little things like evidence get in their way.

I think you guys are looking at this in the inverse. I used as a "control" two versions of the TYSON audio. They showed no symptoms of alteration, whether intentional or otherwise. Since there are obvious quality control symptoms with the KRANT sector, the TYSON sector (C-130 and Pentagon area) shows not such symptoms, destroying any such claims with EVIDENCE (ain't that what TLB is always wanting?).

 

[BCR]

I have to agree with you on this Gravy. What's worse is that the entire premise of the book is based on the notion that the plane was in the skies DURING the attack and altered out of the alleged radar data released from 84 RADES via 911files in Oct 2007.

The entire "Afterword" in the book was authored by 911files. Gaffney said it was meant to buttress one of the main themes of the book that the RADES data had been deliberately altered as a cover-up for these "E4B's". 911files did this by asserting a 2-plane conspiracy theory involving the north side flyover of the E4B or some other plane with a simultaneous impact of "AA77". He cites the work of CIT as evidence for this disinformation conspiracy theory while deliberately misrepresenting the ANC witnesses as support for this as well.

Hey 911files,

Do you have a link to a pdf of your article so people can check it out?

Obviously it is quite relevant to this thread since it was also meant to show evidence manipulation.

Actually no TLB, the thesis is NOT evidence manipulation. It is not related to this discussion in any sense what-so-ever. However, it is still right there at AAL77.COM where it has always been. Please try to stay on topic TLB.