Questions for 911files about his research

[TheLoneBedouin]

911files,

Welcome to the jref forum.

I'm glad you joined because I have questions regarding your research and conclusions.

From what I have read regarding your work and prior statements, you have come to the conclusion that the 2006 released NTSB data and 2007 released 84th RADES data have been "doctored" or manipulated on some level and that the Pentagon security video is "not even reality" and that there is "no way" it is true.

You have also come to the conclusion that flashes in the CITGO security video prove a north side flyover of SOMETHING at the same time of the attack.

Is this still your position?

If not what made you change it and what made you originally have that position to begin with?

Also, just curious about your logic in this regard because it seems to be contradictory....but do you understand how if any government data has been shown to be manipulated or "doctored" as you put it, that this implicates a cover-up/deliberate deception and sets a clear precedent that logically, in the very least, must be acknowledged and heavily considered when looking at other government controlled and provided information?

Thanks in advance for your candid response to my questions.


Also....you are heavily cited throughout Mark Gaffney's brand new book about the E4B.

In fact you are credited as the author of the "Afterword" that addresses CIT's research.

You reference the ANC witnesses as if their identities were still unknown even though you had already seen the interviews CIT conducted with them and released a few weeks before the book went to print.

You specifically used the account of ANC employee Russell Roy (who didn't see the attack jet at all and only saw the C-130) to pose the question of whether or not the "2nd plane" he saw AND the north side approach jet the CITGO witnesses saw was one in the same, and was actually the E4B photographed by Linda Brookhart over DC that had just performed a tree-top level north side flyover timed perfectly with a south side impact of AA77. In essence a 3 plane theory when considering the C-130!

You wrote:

Quote:

The witnesses at the ANC claim the plane turned back to the left towards the Washinggon DC area. Mark Gaffney and "Pinnacle" have documented a plane that approached the White House from the Washington Monument area, which was photographed by Linda Brookhart as it turned over the White House towards the Capital building. Further, Peter Jennings at 09:41, 2 1/2 minutes after the Pentagon event official time of 09:38. So is the plane witnessed by the Citgo and ANC witnesses the same plane? Without more definitive evidence regarding the direction the plane left the area, it is difficult to say.

page 296 of "The 911 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America"

But you already knew that there most certainly WAS "more definitive evidence" in this regard that you had publicly acknowledged and even congratulated CIT on!

You knew his name was Russell Roy, you knew he described a propeller plane that turned away BEFORE the Pentagon and banked around and flew away NW over ANC, not across the river to DC where all evidence (including the alleged radar data) says the E4B stayed at all times.

And you knew he independently corroborated all the other ANC employees about the C-130 approaching from the NW, confirming what CIT had already determined based off statements from C-130 pilot Steve O'Brien, fatally contradicting the 2007 released 84th RADES data.

Surely you must see how it makes no sense to once again suggest the honest witnesses on the ground (who independently corroborate each other) were all wrong based off data that you had already deemed manipulated, and while also having accepted a precedent of OTHER government provided data being manipulated as well.

Right?

Especially while simultaneously using the same witnesses to suggest a north side E4B flyover that would obviously have to have been manipulated out of the data!

You must see the fatal contradictions in your assertions and behavior here.

[T.A.M.]

Another call out thread. Yes, very productive use of the JREF forums.

Why do I bother?

TAM

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Another call out thread. Yes, very productive use of the JREF forums.

Why do I bother?

Buck fifty house brands at happy hour baby!!

[16.5]

Hey, TLB, welcome back!

Say, last I recall you and the frauds at CIT were going to get me the math that shows that an airliner could actually fly the CIT NOC flight path. Man, even complete sheep like the CIT fans must be wondering, hey, why do Craig and FatAldo refuse give old 16.5 the math? Gee maybe because a plane could not have pulled those maneuvers that it had to have done? Doesn't bother you?

Why don't you and the mutts at Pffft get me that math?

[BCR]

Sorry, I no longer waste time answering CIT misrepresentations of my research or "conclusions". Serious-minded, rational people need only to inquire.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by 911files

Sorry, I no longer waste time answering CIT misrepresentations ...

If only more people would echo this first part of your post, CIT would wither and die from the lack of attention, which is pretty much all they are in it for after all. *Sigh*


And welcome to the forums!

[Bobert]

Its nice to see 911files posting, good stuff!
Also nice to see that Mac came back to address TF and his silliness.

[BCR]

Thanks guys, but I actually came here to learn from some of the brain power here at JREF. Unlike some folks, I don't have all of the answers.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Originally Posted by 911files

Sorry, I no longer waste time answering CIT misrepresentations of my research or "conclusions". Serious-minded, rational people need only to inquire.

I am not a member of CIT and this post has nothing to do with CIT.

My questions are quite serious and completely rational. I am only going off things that you have said in the past as documented here and here.

Why are you refusing to discuss your own claims?

[Jonnyclueless]

let me give it a try TLB

Hey 911files

I read your research and it seems you think the world is flat and controlled by NWO shapeshifters. It also seems that you believe that chemtrails are being used to keep the Sun orbiting the Earth.

Do you still stick to these claims, and if not, what made you change your mind?

And please don't refuse to address these claim of yours.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

let me give it a try TLB

Hey 911files

I read your research and it seems you think the world is flat and controlled by NWO shapeshifters. It also seems that you believe that chemtrails are being used to keep the Sun orbiting the Earth.

Do you still stick to these claims, and if not, what made you change your mind?

And please don't refuse to address these claim of yours.

Busted I repented of all of those things long ago, now I too believe in the tooth fairy.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Well it's unfortunate but not surprising that you wouldn't want to discuss your stated positions in this regard at this forum.

Obviously the members here wouldn't be as friendly to you if they saw you defend your statements claiming all of that government data has been "doctored".

Here is a couple of them for the record. You said:

Quote:

"I've caught them lying out the teeth buddy! (laughs) I mean what really convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt was the NTSB data. That is such an obvious misinformation campaign right there it isn't even funny. That stuff is so doctored. It just isn't even funny."

[...]

"The first thing I noticed in 3Ding is the Pentagon gate cameras....no way, no way. Ok that plane came in and hit those two poles, it had a certain angle of attack coming in. Ok...the Pentagon gate cameras have the thing sittin' on the ground. Naw naw naw that's not even reality. "

source

Not to mention the fact that you believe the citgo security video supports
the citgo witnesses' north side claim as shown in your essay linked above that was published in Gaffney's book released only weeks ago.

Frankly I find it strange how you could agree that all of this evidence supports a north side flyover yet you would still feel the need to focus so much angst, resentment, and sarcasm towards CIT. You do understand how a north side flyover of anything at all at the time of the attack proves a cover-up and deception right?

[TheLoneBedouin]

Also, if you wouldn't mind commenting on this quote from page 102 of Mark Gaffney's new book:

Quote:

John Farmer, who favors no particular theory about 9/11, has also found solid evidence that radar data may have been altered in the case of the Pentagon strike.

[...]

He presentes both physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that a second plane was in the vicinity at the time of the Pentagon strike. He thinks the other plane may have shadowed whatever struck the building. Farmer's paper is relevant to this discussion, because there is no hint in the RADES radar data that a second plane was in the area.

(emphasis added)

That's some pretty strong rhetoric that you allowed Mark Gaffney to publish about your assertions.

Of course he is referring to you suggesting the citgo witnesses and the citgo security video corroborate a north side flyover.

The funny thing is that you also suggested this "2nd plane" was the E4B exactly like CIT said you would, and exactly like they have stated was the entire purpose of the E4B to begin with.

Don't you find that a bit ironic?

[BCR]

Okay, I will bite on this one. I have found solid evidence that may have been altered, the operative word is MAY. It also MAY be simply a technical glitch along the way. At this point, I simply don't know. Mark has some strong opinions regarding what happened on 9/11, which I may or may not agree with. He and I have had some VERY strong debates on a number of things and I respect his passion and opinion even if I don't agree with it. And yes, I am still exploring the radar data for anomalies and working with a number of individuals to resolve them. At this point however, we have found NO evidence of omissions or alterations which can be substantiated.

I did not know Craig recorded my phone call with him. I am not Wheelhouse or England. I will be filing a complaint with the Attorney General of California's office tomorrow. That is illegal in California, thanks for the heads up. And yes, I have already demonstrated that the CSV file data has been altered, the lateral acceleration shifted, and the positional data offset, etc, etc, etc. It is a matter of record in a Court complaint and I don't think anyone here denies that. The Pentagon gate camera footage does have issues, and again I don't think most people here deny that either. That is a far cry from flying the plane over the Pentagon.

Here is what you can't stand though. That was back in early 2007, and Craig asked me a number of times to call him, and I finally did. Funny how he distorts that. And in another thread here, I openly admit that when I first sought out professionals to get help, I went to P4T and thier "brother" organization for assistance. But I soon learned that they distorted evidence and in many cases had no clue what they were talking about.

What you do not know Mr. CIT, is that many of the people who post here already know me, and already know my work, and they asked me to sign up, which I finally did. So you are not going to cause me any problems here. We may disagree on a few things, but we fully acknowledge that open and honest debate is healthy. Mutual respect for one anothers opinions even if we don't agree if they are based on solid evidence. That means disagreeing without attempting to attack each others character or ideas.

My issues with CIT is that they attack innocent bystanders who's only crime was to survive one of the most horrible experiences of their lives. My issues with P4T is that Rob Balsamo is a fraud and decided I was the enemy when I called CIT out for it. Have you ever seen people die? Have ever smelled burnt flesh mingled in with smoke? Have you ever survived something and then wonder every day of the rest of your life why you are alive and the other person is not? To publicly abuse people who have is a crime.

Yes, I do see secondary evidence trails in the Pentagon evidence set. Like I said, I don't wear blinders. Down the road, evidence may develop to explain that secondary evidence set, but for now there simply is nothing to explain some of it. Was some of the public release information altered and doctored? There is no doubt in my mind that it was. To what end? I don't know. I'm honest enough to say that.

Tell your buddies at CIT I will be filing a criminal complaint for wire-tapping.

[BCR]

I just got through listening to that phone call recording for the first time. I notice Craig did not include the first part of the call (some good stuff there if I recall correctly). And yeah, I think anyone listening to it can tell I had been listening to P4T too much. They will also hear that I continue to say "I don't know". Otherwise, nothing I'm not particularly ashamed of in the call (except I still had a lot of data to collect).

But I am still going to pursue every civil and criminal avenue at my disposal for Craig recording my phone call and posting in on the internet without my permission. They may not be any legal opinions, but I am sure going to pursue any that are open. I know they think it is cute, but all it does is show what unethical and low-down scumbags they really are and proves I was right to dump them and P4T.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Sorry to see that your own statements and recent published claims got you so riled up. CIT has had that recording posted with your name in the title of the thread for months. You know there is nothing "damaging" about that casual call other than it reveals your contradictory behavior.

Contradictory behavior like suing 9/11 truth researchers whose work you cite in a brand new book as valid evidence of a deception on 9/11.

Why are you so mad at them?

[BCR]

Tell it to the Judge.

[dtugg]

911files, you might want to save the phone call before they can get rid of it if you haven't done that already.

[BCR]

I have archived the mp3 and the forum thread.

[Jonnyclueless]

You should thank TLB for bringing this up and making you aware. Good job TLB!

[funk de fino]

This is why I would give no personal info to any of the pft or cit clowns. Despite the best efforts of Turbofan and the like.

I would like to say to 911 files that I read some of your work and commend the time and effort you put in to your investigation and the fact that when you find something to be at odds with what you originally thought you amend your reasoning and do not fall into the MO of denialism (not that I am calling you a truther).

I tried to bring some of your work to this forum in a debate with turbofan earlier but he wanted nothing to do with it.

I hope the twats are charged and made to pay for their cowardly snideness.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin

Sorry to see that your own statements and recent published claims got you so riled up. CIT has had that recording posted with your name in the title of the thread for months. You know there is nothing "damaging" about that casual call other than it reveals your contradictory behavior.

does having it for months make it legal?

[jhunter1163]

911files:

Poster LashL here is an attorney, and no fan of the CIT. You may want to PM her and ask her for some advice.

[BCR]

See, it completely escapes these guys why someone would be pissed off about having a personal phone call recorded without permission and then posted on the internet. It is called an invasion of privacy and breach of trust you bozo's! I don't care if we were talking about the weather, it would be the same deal.

What you guys call "contradictory behavior", is called learning to most sane people. When you were a kid, you believed in Santa Claus. As you grew older, you learned that Santa Claus was not real. When I was a child, I thought the Sun rose in the east and set in the west. It did not take very much education for me to learn that it was the Earth moving, not the Sun. So, if over several years I happen to learn something, well, most folks would consider that a good thing. So there is nothing in your post that irritated me. It was not until I saw quotes from a phone call I made almost two years ago that my blood started to boil.

I hope that I continue with the "contradictory behavior".

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by 911files

See, it completely escapes these guys why someone would be pissed off about having a personal phone call recorded without permission and then posted on the internet. It is called an invasion of privacy and breach of trust you bozo's! I don't care if we were talking about the weather, it would be the same deal.

What you guys call "contradictory behavior", is called learning to most sane people. When you were a kid, you believed in Santa Claus. As you grew older, you learned that Santa Claus was not real. When I was a child, I thought the Sun rose in the east and set in the west. It did not take very much education for me to learn that it was the Earth moving, not the Sun. So, if over several years I happen to learn something, well, most folks would consider that a good thing. So there is nothing in your post that irritated me. It was not until I saw quotes from a phone call I made almost two years ago that my blood started to boil.

I hope that I continue with the "contradictory behavior".

What?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Farmer's got a message for CIT:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by 911files

See, it completely escapes these guys why someone would be pissed off about having a personal phone call recorded without permission and then posted on the internet. It is called an invasion of privacy and breach of trust you bozo's! I don't care if we were talking about the weather, it would be the same deal.

What you guys call "contradictory behavior", is called learning to most sane people. When you were a kid, you believed in Santa Claus. As you grew older, you learned that Santa Claus was not real. When I was a child, I thought the Sun rose in the east and set in the west. It did not take very much education for me to learn that it was the Earth moving, not the Sun. So, if over several years I happen to learn something, well, most folks would consider that a good thing. So there is nothing in your post that irritated me. It was not until I saw quotes from a phone call I made almost two years ago that my blood started to boil.

I hope that I continue with the "contradictory behavior".

No, it does not escape them. They are simply ignorant ****ers who don't give a **** about people or their personal lives or their right to privacy, or anything at all really.

CIT and PFT are the fringe of the fringe, and the worst of the worst. They almost make people like Alex Jones seem...Tolerable.

I hope you not only bring them to court, I hope you win a large monetary settlement.

TAM

[Turbofan]

Originally Posted by 911files

I went to P4T and thier "brother" organization for assistance. But I soon learned that they distorted evidence and in many cases had no clue what they were talking about.

Quote:

Rob Balsamo is a fraud.

(disclaimer: Farmer has expressed to P4T that all email correspondence with him is open to the public after posting private emails to his blog, so the below is not a breach of TOS, all email addys below are in public domain and since i am a member of P4T, i have access to P4T emails)

Edited by Myriad:

e-mail removed.

Quote:

See, it completely escapes these guys why someone would be pissed off about having a personal phone call recorded without permission and then posted on the internet. It is called an invasion of privacy and breach of trust you bozo's! I don't care if we were talking about the weather, it would be the same deal.

Farmer, you post private emails on your blog almost daily. And now you're crying about a phone call which is not illegal to record with one party consent in your state? Not to mention you gave Craig permission? You're a walking contradiction.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by TheLoneBedouin

Sorry to see that your own statements and recent published claims got you so riled up. CIT has had that recording posted with your name in the title of the thread for months. You know there is nothing "damaging" about that casual call other than it reveals your contradictory behavior.

Contradictory behavior like suing 9/11 truth researchers whose work you cite in a brand new book as valid evidence of a deception on 9/11.

Why are you so mad at them?

Originally Posted by 911files

Tell it to the Judge.

The day "shooting themselves in the foot" becomes a valid substitute for "legitimate research and evidence gathering" the truth movement will be the greatest whistleblowers in history.

[16.5]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Farmer, you post private emails on your blog almost daily. And now you're crying about a phone call which is not illegal to record with one party consent in your state? Not to mention you gave Craig permission? You're a walking contradiction.

Uh quoting the mutts over at Pfft isn't exactly proof that Craig got permission, now is it Turbo fan?

"Coincidently, he's on JokeREF trying to stir up some drama. As a good friend of mine says, "Farmer is a walking contradiction".

I suspect he's getting heat from a certain authority figure, or soldout and is getting a nice pay cheque to spin the truth.

Why else would someone with a history of finding anomalies with government data suddenly change his mind?"

"jokeRef." Hey Turbo, how is that math coming along? You and Cap'n Bob still still counting on your fingers?

[GStan]

Originally Posted by 16.5

Uh quoting the mutts over at Pfft isn't exactly proof that Craig got permission, now is it Turbo fan?

"Coincidently, he's on JokeREF trying to stir up some drama. As a good friend of mine says, "Farmer is a walking contradiction".

I suspect he's getting heat from a certain authority figure, or soldout and is getting a nice pay cheque to spin the truth.

Why else would someone with a history of finding anomalies with government data suddenly change his mind?"

"jokeRef." Hey Turbo, how is that math coming along? You and Cap'n Bob still still counting on your fingers?

I could get a great laugh from that if I didn't feel so sorry for people who actually believe that to be true. Er, wait. I meant to say, I might feel sorry for people who actually believe that to be true if I weren't so busy laughing at them.

[BCR]

To clear up a misconception, I am not suing CIT. I might later on, who knows. I have been working the phones with various law enforcement agencies in California, including the Hi Tech Crimes Center. I don't think the boys understand that this is criminal activity.

Right now we are attempting to nail down the City Police agency who should take the lead. Ranke lives in Orange County, but it is just a question of which city has jurisdiction. This will take a few days, but fortunately there are records in the Court system which are helping.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by 911files

To clear up a misconception, I am not suing CIT. I might later on, who knows. I have been working the phones with various law enforcement agencies in California, including the Hi Tech Crimes Center. I don't think the boys understand that this is criminal activity.

Right now we are attempting to nail down the City Police agency who should take the lead. Ranke lives in Orange County, but it is just a question of which city has jurisdiction. This will take a few days, but fortunately there are records in the Court system which are helping.

I can't imagine those guys have anything worth the hassle of suing over. Criminal charges are probably the way to go. Hand it off to a prosecutor and watch them run with it.



Crap, I'm gonna need more popcorn.

[Turbofan]

Such a sore loser.

How is the lawsuit going with the NTSB for missing seconds?

[T.A.M.]

About time someone looked into just what those idiots can and cannot do with regards to their recordings, and witness harrassment.

TAM

[Turbofan]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

About time someone looked into just what those idiots can and cannot do with regards to their recordings, and witness harrassment.

TAM

..when a call is across state lines it comes under Federal Statute, which only requires one party consent.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

Be civil and polite

Posted By:Tricky

[BCR]

Turbo, it is going quite well thank you. The FAA settled out of court and released the requested records, and negotiations with the FBI’s attorney are indicating that the requested videos are soon to be released. Of course we are just now entering the discovery phase, so it will be interesting to see what the Vaughn indices will show. The NTSB has yet to respond, but we are moving forward slowly but surely Turbo. Thanks for asking.

So you are supportive of criminal activity Turbo? So if CIT is making illegal phone recording of witnesses who don't want to talk to them (against California law) and then posting them on the internet (against Federal Law), you see no problem with that? If they use the same illegal methods to attack and malign witnesses who's only guilt is having been a part of something so horrible that most people would rather forget, this is okay with you?

Just want you to clarify exactly what it is you are supporting.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Farmer, stop blowing smoke...when a call is across state lines it comes under Federal Statute, which only requires one party consent.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

I see your understanding of the law is just as bad as your understanding of FDRs.

The call is covered under California law, it was illegal for Ranke to record the call.

Is there anything you guys do understand?

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by Turbofan

Farmer, stop blowing smoke...when a call is across state lines it comes under Federal Statute, which only requires one party consent.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

And yet, according to the state-by-state link to the left of the info you yourself just posted (I'm assuming this is Orange County CALIFORNIA we're talking about):

Quote:

California

It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties. Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632. It is also a crime to disclose information obtained from eavesdropping. However, an individual can still be convicted without disclosing information. Two appellate courts have held that there is no disclosure or publication requirement for violation of the Privacy Act by recording confidential communications without consent. Coulter v. Bank of America, 28 Cal. App. 4th 923 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994). Marich v. MGM/UA Telecommunications, Inc., 113 Cal. App. 4th 415 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).

Eavesdropping upon or recording a conversation, whether by telephone or face-to-face, when a person would reasonably expect their conversation to be confined to the parties present, carries the same penalty as intercepting telephone or wire communications. A California appellate court ruled that a network’s broadcast of a news report that used excerpts from secret recordings during two patient examinations violated the privacy rights of the physician, who had a reasonable expectation that his communications with his patients would be private and not recorded. Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc. 110 Cal. App. 4th 156 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/california.html

If he recorded it in California, that's where the law was broken. It doesn't have to be deferred to the feds simply because that's where the other end of the conversation was coming from (of course neither of us are lawyers so acting like we're so sure of something based on an Internet link would be presumptuous to say the least).

And take note, these are for the most part laws that apply to journalists who have lost these cases despite being able to afford real legal teams financed by major newspapers and other media outlets. I'm sure the gaggle of top attorneys CIT has on retainer will be tickled pink upon learning your cheerleading has landed them in a situation where they so much as have to address any of this.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Drudgewire

If he recorded it in California, that's where the law was broken.

Nope. It doesn't matter where it was recorded. See here from the same link Turbofan provided but didn't bother reading (surprise surprise surprise!):

Quote:

The Supreme Court of California in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney applied California wiretap law to a company located in Georgia who routinely recorded business phone calls with its clients in California. California law requires all party consent to record any telephone calls, while Georgia law requires only one party consent. The state’s high court, applying choice of law principles, reasoned that the failure to apply California law would “impair California’s interest in protecting the degree of privacy afforded to California residents by California law more severely than the application of California law would impair any interests of the State of Georgia.”