NORAD's "Lies" Explained?

I have been perusing the blog of Miles Kara, a 9-11 Commission staffer. To be honest, it is a humbling experience, because it shows the vast amount of knowledge the Commission accumulated compared to the small amount that even I, who know the subject matter well, have managed to grasp. It's sort of like the difference between going to a movie and being on the set of a movie while it is being filmed.

Miles covers the NORAD "lies" here, and it's eye-opening to say the least.

There was one critical and two other serious mistakes in the timeline. The critical error was the 9:24 time for AA77. The accurate NEADS log information was: “American Airlines No. N334AA hijacked.” N334AA is the tail number for AA11, not AA77, a basic fact apparently never checked by any NORAD, CONR, or NEADS staff officer with either American Airlines or FAA.

The 8:43 time for UA175, was impossible and never explained in any document or during any interview conducted by the Commission staff. It was most likely a NORAD misunderstanding of information from FAA. That is the approximate time that UA175 was hijacked, a fact only known post facto.

So, the 9:24 time for Flight 77 is actually a time for what I call "Phantom Flight 11". For awhile NORAD and the FAA thought that Flight 11 was not the plane that hit the North Tower, and that it was still en route to Washington DC. This error becomes compounded:

On the day after the hearing Colonel Scott sent an e-mail to Colonel Marr, with a copy to the Commission staff, stating that it became easier to explain the Langley fighter scramble in terms of UA93 than AA77. It is clear from that email that neither Scott nor Marr, whose staff supported Scott, took the time to listen to the tapes or look at the actual transcripts. The NEADS staff, and Colonel Scott, had sufficient data available to them to find the rebirth of AA11 misinformation and the real reason for the Langley scramble. If they found it they did lie. If they did not they could not tell the truth. They could not solve their Sudoku puzzle.

Hence the erroneous assertion that the military found out about Flight 93 long before they did.

A Little Assistance

I occasionally mock the folks over at Truth Action as the "responsible" wing of the Troofers, but here's an occasion where they deserve the adjective without the scare quotes.

To set the stage, it's a post about a woman who witnessed the Pentagon crash on 9-11. She was interviewed by CIT, but they have not seen fit to include her testimony in any of their films. Indeed, Aldo and Craig have misrepresented her viewpoint and discounted her testimony about the impact.

The thread was originally posted in January of this year and quickly died down, but it was resurrected recently by a CIT-head named Thetan1974. Among the points he raises is this:

Sure, the victims could have been on it, but the "hijackers'" DNA was never found and FBI only "believes" Hani Hanjour did it. No proof at all.

And what follows is a terrific job of debunking.

Arcterus:

Yeah, that's right. The FBI just "believes" it. They pulled a hijacker out from a hat and said "I have a gut feeling about this!" Then they consorted their FBI Bibles which stated Hanjour was the pilot, thus confirming their beliefs, and so started the Church of the FBI.

Back in reality, it would be obvious that Hanjour would be the pilot since he was the only one of the five Pentagon hijackers who had any flight training.

And:

Well, we know he was on the plane, and we know that he was the only hijacker with any flight training. Is there any other reason? Maybe, I don't know. Probably. I don't have an exhaustive list of the evidence for that off the top of my head. But it's so obvious it would have been him, if anyone, that I don't really know why you're even asking. I mean, even if it wasn't him, so what? It was a different hijacker. What difference would that make? It's like you're being the devil's advocate. You know, that or a troll.

You have the DNA of everyone on the flight except for 5 unidentified strands which just happen to be the same as the number of hijackers on board. Plot twist?

Let me give Arcterus a hand on the DNA. Not only were there five unidentified strands which just happen to be the same as the number of hijackers on board, but two of the strands were definitely proven to be from brothers. And two of the hijackers (Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi) on board Flight 77 were in fact siblings.

Cockpit Door Sensor Proves "Truthers" Were Right All Along

I'm not going to be able to debunk this story:

Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act.

I kept telling our bosses at the New World Order that they had to be careful, because the Troofers only have to be right once, whereas Moloch has to be right all the time. How the heck could they release data that proved that nobody opened the cockpit door on Flight 77 at all? Worse still, the data show that nobody opened the cockpit door on the prior 11 or so flights. Apparently the flight crew never brought in a meal to the pilots, and the pilots never had to take a leak.

Yep, I'm convinced now that Occam's Razor tells us that there was no hijacking of Flight 77. Perhaps it is time now for the 9-11 Truth Movement to acknowledge that their best evidence is not superdupernanothermitate, but the Pentacon.

Still More April Gallop

James posted the other day about her lawsuit. Apparently it includes some mention of the CIT "flyover" nonsense, which generates some amusing commentary over at Truth Action Forum.

One of the overwhelming factors for those concerned about "disinfo" is the citing of witnesses who claim to have seen the strike happen. Indeed on 911 Blogger, this is exactly the case and has resulted in some voting down of those who are prepared to see beyond the implications of the infamous "honeypot" warning, as I believe Jim Hoffman christened it.

I examined a cited witness claim in detail to see what gives, and this is what I found. But I couldn't see a way to post it at Blogger so here it is here.

He goes on to parse the witness claim and shows an aerial which "proves" she could not have seen what she claims to have seen, and we're off to the races:

CIT have applied similar scrutiny to the oft-quoted "witnesses", but again of course, most of us are too lazy to double check, and accept words such as those of Ms. James at face value. God help us.

A couple of the responsible (I won't use the scare quotes this time) folks over there moan about the inclusion of the CIT nuttiness. But it's like trying to herd cats and before long the accusations are flying:

We know what highway she was on & we know where the trees are/were (trees take years to grow) & therefore we can prove exactly where or where not she might have EXACTLY been when she saw the plane & if she could or could not have seen it impact the Pentagon!It appears as if she could not have both had her view blocked by trees & seen a plane hit the Pentagon!Either way we have her pegged as a liar.

Another co-conspirator!

Thanks W, that was exactly the kind of rational response I was hoping for. Except perhaps for the liar part...

Somebody says that CIT's claims have been debunked by Frustrating Fraud (true), but Stefan demurs:

I haven't found CIT's claims to be debunked at all, by FF or Arabesque (who after all, just repeats FF's arguments).

And chek NI:

Rebutted to your satisfaction perhaps, but not to mine or apparently April Gallop's. And most definitely not "debunked". Repeating US Govt. "evidence" does not equate to being on 'solid ground'.
Have you even begun critically examining those alleged "100+" witness statements or do you just take it as read that someone else has?

Daniel (who just joined over there today) brings up the Great God Griffin:

No, you are definately *NOT* the only one. And recent polls indicate that as of 2006 at least 12% of Americans - 36 million - and a majority of 9/11 skeptics including leading researchers such as David Ray Griffen, do NOT accept the government's version that a Boeing 757 smacked into the Pentagon. However, it doesn't appear that this view is welcome here on this forum, so I'm afraid to say any more.

Leading researcher? Exactly what research has David Ray Grifter done?

Siddhartha attempts to be reasonable:

Do you feel the inclusion of missile and flyover theories strengthens Gallop's case? Or are you just cheering it because you support those theories?

But hastens to assure us he's solidly agnostic:

By the way, just to be clear, I don't adhere to any particular theory regarding what did or did not hit the Pentagon.

LOL! It's times like these that I almost feel sorry for the responsible "Truthers". Almost.

Update: The thread over there just keeps getting better and better:

Are we to pretend that internal explosions before the alleged impact didn't occur?
What the hell was going on between 9.32 and 9.38?

LOL! Yes, of course there were lots of explosions going on inside the Pentagon six minutes before Flight 77 hit.

I am talking about many honest researchers/activists who have been branded "disinfo", etc., for merely presenting *EVIDENCE* regarding holes in the government's Pentagon claims - folks such as PFT and many others who don't fall into your presumptuous box. Some of these people, including the CIT researchers, actually traveled to Arlington and gathered first hand evidence and interviews, which is way more than what many of those who have viscously attacked them have done for bringing any sort of clarity to this contentious area of 9/11 truth, I must say.

Aldo and Craig honest researchers? The guy goes on and on about "David Ray Griffen"; one would think such an acolyte would at least know how to spell the grand poobah's last name!

Pilots for 9-11 Truth R02 Flight Path Verified

And why that's pretty bad news for the CIT boys:

The P4T RO2 is the flight data recorder decoded, not a theory. The short of it, the distance from navigation aids (VOR's) has been confirmed as recorded in the RO2 (fdr). The positional data has been confirmed using multiple radar sites along the flight path to verify that data as well. There are no holes in the data, so contrary to some theories, the plane did not land in KY/Ohio/WV and get replaced by a drone of some kind. The radar and RO2 data ends at the Sheraton Hotel area (to the south). Projected forward, it corresponds to the downed light poles and impact area (south of the Citgo). There is no evidence of a "fly-over" or other such hypothetical outcome. The data ends at the Pentagon area.

(Bolding added)

Excellent work by 9-11 Files, and thanks to him for translating it into non-technical jargon for me.

A Discussion of the Flight Data Recorder Information for Flight 77

As has been requested several times by Bill Giltner, here's the thread at JREF going over the information retrieved from the FDR of Flight 77. IIRC the PfT Truthers like to say that the FDR ends with the plane still a couple hundred feet in the sky and this proves that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Anti-Sophist and several other people explain some of the potential problems:

1) Instrument Error
First, and foremost, if the sensor or instrument is giving the recorder a bad number, it’s obviously not going to record the right one. This type of error must be dealt with on an instrument by instrument basis. Any reconstruction should justify the precision used for each value attained. Please keep in mind that all other errors in this document are due to the recording system, and the lost information in the processed version of its data. The uncertainty caused by the data scheduling into a frame, plus the digital buffering, is in addition to any instrument errors.

False Claim: I already debunked the lagging altimeter nonsense!
(The recording-system errors discussed in this document are in addition to, and independent of, any instrument errors.)

2) Intra-frame Time Error
Since we do not have the frame descriptor, all we know is that N samples are taken during a 1 second period. This means that 1/N of a second is the possible error range for a particular data point. With the frame descriptor, this error would be completely removed if using the raw FDR data.

False Claim: The aircraft’s speed at 09:37:14.00 was 305.5 knots!

3) Digital Buffering Latency
One of the most important purposes of the DAU is to buffer digital outputs from things like the ADC (Air Data Computer). It is a reasonably safe assumption that the Air Data Computer updates the DAU at least once per sampling, and more than likely twice. This means that for a 1-Hz sample, recorded into the data stream, the actual measured time could have been anywhere in the entire previous second. This means, combined, a digital reading in the CSV file, like Computed Airspeed, which comes from the Air Data Computer, has an enormous error range, in the vicinity of 2 seconds, although 1.5 seconds is probably a safe estimate (0.5s for the buffering latency, and 1s for the uncertainty of when the sample was actually recorded). More then likely, the raw data stream has embedded the actual measurement times, so this error might be completely removed using the raw FDR data.

False Claim: The worst case scenario for the 9:14:14 frame’s airspeed is 9:14:14.00, then!
(Yes, that is the worst case time it could be recorded… not measured).

There's lots more, but it's even more technical. This is one of those cases where I bow to the experts and say "Have at it," because I'm clearly not going to understand the answer at any kind of a detailed level.

On the non-expert level, I just kind of roll my eyes at the thought that the Troofers have that the government faked FDR information for Flight 77 but screwed up and left the plane a couple hundred feet up in midair. What are we supposed to think, that the guy who was assigned to do it is secretly a troofer but doesn't want to lose his job, so he faked the data but left clues that it was fake. Now that PfT has exposed it, wouldn't he lose his job anyway?

Interview with Boston Center Air Traffic Controller

No, not with Robin Hordon, who was last an ATC 26 years ago. It's an interview with a guy who was at Boston Center on 9-11-01, when the hijackings took place. It makes for fascinating reading, especially with the NORAD tapes being released this week as well. Kudos to Ref and Cheap Shot for putting this together; highly recommended!

Gibbering Idiots

Sometimes I just despair at the stuff that the crackpot brigade considers evidence. Somebody discovered that American Airlines had edited its own Wikipedia page! Ooga booga! And more important it was a change in the entry regarding Flights 11 and 77 on 9-11-01. I'm not sure whether the change was to or from the following:

Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757, and American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767. Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.

The bold portion is what has changed. Again, I'm not sure whether the person at American who made the changes added or deleted that bit, but it doesn't matter, because it fits the conspiracy theory either way. If an American employee added that part, he's a bold whistle-blower, while if he deleted it, he's involved in the coverup.

The underlying claim, that neither Flight 11 nor Flight 77 was scheduled that day, is, of course, absurd. This is what we refer to as the "Sacred List" fallacy. There are many, many lists around and inevitably one will be found that does not seem to mention something involving 9-11. This then becomes the Sacred List that the plotters either forgot to revise or did not revise because it was illegal to do so (since the plotters are happy to murder 3,000 people but wouldn't tamper with a list somewhere).

I cannot locate the list the Wikipedia entry mentions because there are dozens of databases at the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the claim on this one doesn't cite which database. I'd suspect it's one used to calculate something like percentage of on-time arrivals, where of course it would not be accurate to include these four flights. Indeed, many databases exclude parts of 9-11 for these very reasons. For example,

Table 12. Air Carrier Occurrences Involving Illegal Acts (Sabotage, Suicide, or Terrorism), 1986 through 2006

Note

Other than the persons aboard aircraft who were killed, fatalities resulting from the September 11, 2001 terrorist acts are excluded from this table.

Table 5. Accidents, Fatalities, and Rates, 1987 through 2006, for U.S. Air Carriers Operating Under 14 CFR 121, Scheduled and Nonscheduled Service (Airlines)

Years followed by the symbol * are those in which an illegal act was responsible for an occurrence in this category. These acts, such as suicide, sabotage and terrorism are included in the totals for accidents and fatalities but are excluded for the purpose of accident rate computation. Table 12 contains a list of illegal act occurrences involving US air carriers for the period covered by this table. Other than the persons aboard aircraft who were killed, fatalities resulting from the September 11, 2001 terrorist act are excluded from this table.

The Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder Once More

This post popped to the top of JREF again and showed once again why Anti-Sophist is so despised by the "no-plane at the Pentagon" Deniers and so respected by Debunkers.