It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The PentaCon a HOAX?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   
ah, i stand corrected, but still 13 out of X...wasnt X>100 that the "official" story interviewd that day? still a VERY small percent IMO.

now, if 13 out of even 100 said that the official story lined up with what they saw then id look at it with more of a "huh, well that IS odd, maybe they got something" attitude, but for a few people to very convieniently agree wtih them is just...not convincing to me.

also, what would have been more compellnig is if they had gone to interview people cold, no real theory, and developed the theory based off what they heard, but as p49t and cit seem to have been looking for witnesses to back up their version i find it suspect. but thats just me.




posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Caustic,

I don't have time to go into the details of your posts today. However, you raise a valid point re putting the spotlight specifically on The PentaCon.

That said, with the ties between CIT and P49T, and knowing that CIT used Pandora's Black Box to promote the release of the PentaCon, it would seem unreasonable to disconnect The PentaCon from the possibility of being involved in a hoax or cover-up of some sort at this point.

The question is really simple. Was the animation from the NTSB or was it faked to promote P49T and The PentaCon. Just because The PentaCon divorced the animation after the movie was released doesn't mean the producers weren't aware of possible fakery. And if they are aware of the fakery, it's a bit intellectually dishonest for them not to point out that the animation, which happens to support their witnesses, is fake.



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Here we go again , all the " truth virus " people fighting over 10 feet ..
lame ....



posted on Jun, 3 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
First of all there is no fighting going on here. Secondly, it's not about 10 feet. It's about how the animation that is supposedly from the NTSB shows something different from the cvs, and what that means for the PentaCon. This is an attempt to do serious research and find out what's going on with this, and who knew about it.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 02:25 AM
link   
You guys are so WAY off base its actually pretty funny.

1. The Animation was supplied by the NTSB. Cover letters from the NTSB are in our forum. Try clicking some links. Or perhaps goto NTSB.gov and get your own. .the same as we have. Or you can call 202-314-6000 as we have done asking questions based on their provided data which does not support the govt story.

2. Goto main page of pilotsfor911truth.org. Scroll down. Look at the press release and the analysis. Dont forget to look at the names signed off on the PR. Two of which are USAF Accident Investigators (Does "Caustic Logic" have any experience in this area? Didnt think so). Dont forget to find the core members list at pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html. All those names are also included on the PR (didnt want to make the PR more than two pages so we only put our most experienced on the PR itself). The PR was sent out to all Alternative media and over 1,000 Mainstream Press throughout the USA and Canada. Not one MSM has written back. I bet Caustic Logic feels the MSM is still independent?

3. Listen to some of the audio archives regarding the flight path in the animation, the altered headings, etc. (You people really need to do more research). If you had listened to the audio recordings and done your research, you wouldnt be saying what you are saying now.

4. It might help you to contact the organizations directly and ask questions before assuming a "hoax" (you know.. sort of like what P4T did with the NTSB on a recorded call and what CIT did filming on location). Not one person has contacted us regarding this so-called "Hoax". But then again, it only shows the discipline of the research offered here.

5. If anyone does have any questions, our email address is on the bottom of every page at pilotsfor911truth.org. Feel free to email us as we do respond promptly.

6. If anyone would care to debate our claims (which are fact if you have any aeronautical knowledge) , we have an open invitation to debate. Email us to work out the details and venue. We do not waste time debating on the internet. Our internet use is strictly for professional correspondence and research. Either have the courtesy and professionalism to debate in person (or recorded audio), or you're just another anonymous keyboard commando behind a screen wasting our time (as apparent with the poor research shown in this thread). If we do set up a recorded debate, you can post the results to your hearts content on every internet forum you wish. It will be sure to go up on our front page as well.

7. The headings in the csv file and animation were altered... do your research and ye shall find the analysis done by a mathematician/statistician who reverse engineered both the animation and csv file. The NTSB plotted the animation from take off on runway 30 at Dulles to end of recording based on lat/long (see the grid on the ground? See the yellow poles extending from the aircraft to the ground? Yeah.. thats a plot). The heading (in the little instrument) was altered, to confuse the average layman and to grab suckers to buy the official story and the fact the professionals at the NTSB 'screwed up' in their plot. Again, we didnt make the animation, the professionals at the NTSB diid. So far they refuse to answer our questions regarding the conflicts such as flight path, altitude and vertical speed. Our organization has a good idea why... (hint - they cant answer, it only opens up a can-o-worms for them).

Hope this helps most of you.

Cheers!
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilotsfor911truth.org



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Ok.. i have some time. .so im going to help some of you out...

First cover letters from NTSB -

Most Recent to oldest -
UA93 and AA77 Animation, April 2007
z9.invisionfree.com...

AA77 Animation provided through Snowygrouch in UK-
(same AA77 animation as we got above)
Late August 2006-
z9.invisionfree.com...

AA77 csv file provided through UnderTow early Aug 2006 -
z9.invisionfree.com...

We did notice the animation flight path right away. But we did not report it (right away) and instead worked on altitude because we thought the same as you when we saw the heading. We had thought the NTSB messed up in their plot and rotated the map slightly. However, when Aldo and Craig (CIT) notified us of the witness(es) they had which confirmed the animation plot north of Citgo, we added the flight path to the rest of the questions for the NTSB which can be found here - pilotsfor911truth.org... - scroll down.

Then we also made a flight path video - also can be found on above page.

We also called the FBI and NTSB trying to get answers to above questions - recording found on same page. Newer FBI recording found on PBB2 DVD in the extras, which also includes call with FDR Expert. Here is an excerpt of the call with FDR Expert.




FDR Expert: No, it’s unlikely that you could skew the flight path or change the altitude or something like that. It would be blindingly obvious if there was a step change going on and you would, there are techniques for smoothing these kinds of things. We do see them but there are techniques we have for smoothing them out because they’re clearly nonsense.

P4T Rep: Ok, so it’d be eliminating erroneous data points basically, uh.

FDR Expert: Yeah, I’m gonna get to that. It’s, uh, and its not a rocket science algorithm we use to do it. It’s fairly straight forward but what it does do is stop step changes and things. (inaudible) And certainly in more modern aircraft where we’ve got more data like, I, I haven’t looked at your data but it’s a 757-200, is that right?

P4T Rep: That’s right, yeah.

FDR Expert: Ok, well a 757-200 will have things like ground speed, air speed, uh, or have wind speed, wind direction. It will have latitude, longitude and what we can do is we can do a gross error check if we know where you took off from and when you consider that we know what the longitude and the lateral and vertical acceleration to be the aircraft is recorded at very high sample rates. So long as you know where you took off from, we can work out exactly where you were and we can then use things like heading, wind speed, ground speed, to correlate that data so that if there was something odd going on for example, if we were suffering for mag-shift, mag-shift is a GPS thing where the ground, um, the Global Positioning System suffers from positional errors we can actually work out the difference, we can work out at where the airplane truly was by pure physics as in it weighs this much, it was traveling at this speed, heading in this direction, and experience these accelerations, up, down, left, and right. We can then look at the GPS data and say here, here is where the mag-shift started at same point and it, mag-shift can be introduced by the flight magnet systems by, um, ground-radio transmitting errors. But at the end of the day, we have some really quite sophisticated tools to work out exactly where the airplane was.



I have personally done several radio interviews describing exactly as above. The audio interviews can be found in our multimedia section at the forums or main website.

(Cont Below)



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   
A few months ago we were contacted by a math and statistics expert who had downloaded and analyzed the NTSB data. He reversed engineered the data.

These were his findings...

csv file was altered to show a southern approach (animation is included later in the thread)
z9.invisionfree.com...

And finally, when using the csv file (animation) headings, this is the picture...

Blue line represents heading as depicted in NTSB data, 62 feet represents half of 757 wingspan. As you can see, it doesnt reach pole 1.



With the work of the Math expert, we now know why. Because the headings were altered to show a southern approach. All links to the full work can be found above.

Again, if anyone has questions feel free to email us. It might be a good idea to email us before publishing your opinions as it might save you some time typing. If anyone would like to debate this work, please email us to work out the details and venue. Thank you for reading.

Cheers!
Rob

edited for typos


[edit on 4-6-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
You guys are so WAY off base its actually pretty funny.

Or are you laughing from nervousness?
Either way, thanks popping in.

For real JDX? Anyway I'll presume so...

Surprisingly enough, I have already looked at most of the info you provided. Tho I admit I'm not clear on all details, I'm fairly up to date, and will carefully respond point-by-point.


1. The Animation was supplied by the NTSB. Cover letters from the NTSB are in our forum. Try clicking some links.


So I've heard, and perhaps so. I'm aware of one NTSB cover letter SAID to be connected to the animation. Without even links, I've made it available here, and here again in case you did not follow Lear's philosophy of reading the whole thread first:



Or perhaps goto NTSB.gov and get your own. .the same as we have. Or you can call 202-314-6000 as we have done asking questions based on their provided data which does not support the govt story.

Thank you, and I will call that number if it's not the maintenance department. I will find someone who'l talk to me and help, 'cause otherwise chances are dim. I suspect not wanting a hang-up or brush-off would help my chances as well.


2. Goto main page of pilotsfor911truth.org. Scroll down. Look at the press release and the analysis. Dont forget to look at the names signed off on the PR.

But that's where the Kucinich blog came from, tho here without some words like the initial "ad hock." So you've got Bowman too huh? I hadn't written him off until now.


The PR was sent out to all Alternative media and over 1,000 Mainstream Press throughout the USA and Canada. Not one MSM has written back. I bet Caustic Logic feels the MSM is still independent?


Oh you got me there. The corporate media has sidelined you, so you MUST be onto the truth. (sarcasm)


3. Listen to some of the audio archives regarding the flight path in the animation, the altered headings, etc. (You people really need to do more research). If you had listened to the audio recordings and done your research, you wouldnt be saying what you are saying now.


If by this you mean your phone calls to the NTSB, that's plural, so I know I haven't heard 'em all. But the one, just in passing, seems it was poorly handled on your man's end. However, the NTSB person also seemed oddly dodgy. I forget just how it went... If I encounter this too, I'll take it as a sign of something. In fat I wouldn't be surprised if this is a policy of theirs.


4. It might help you to contact the organizations directly and ask questions before assuming a "hoax" (you know.. sort of like what P4T did with the NTSB on a recorded call and what CIT did filming on location). Not one person has contacted us regarding this so-called "Hoax". But then again, it only shows the discipline of the research offered here.

Sorry I didn't give you a heads up. Please feel free to address or dodge the actual issues as you see fit.


6. If anyone would care to debate our claims (which are fact if you have any aeronautical knowledge) , we have an open invitation to debate. Email us to work out the details and venue. We do not waste time debating on the internet. Our internet use is strictly for professional correspondence and research. Either have the courtesy and professionalism to debate in person (or recorded audio), or you're just another anonymous keyboard commando behind a screen wasting our time (as apparent with the poor research shown in this thread). If we do set up a recorded debate, you can post the results to your hearts content on every internet forum you wish. It will be sure to go up on our front page as well.


Wow, you guys sound serious and experty. It would almost be appealing to enroll for an aeronautical engineering degree now so i can slap my ceds against yours in eight years. But this expertise appears to impair one's thinking from what I gather, so I'll save my money and time and just keep going as I am. This "poor research" you speak of - if mine, please cite it back to me. Don't be shy.
Anonymity: My name is only a few clicks away from anyone who wants to know knows it, tho it carries no letters denoting expertise just yet. But I got no problem saying Adam J Larson of Spokane WA fully endorses his own views expressed by him as Caustic Logic. If you pass thru, contact me somehow and we can schedule a discussion/debate if you like. I don't feel much like doing a podcast for you, but maybe...

Finally the issues: Next post - I need to think on it more...



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Click on more links CL.. you're getting there... one of the letter addresses the animation directly (yes.. the word animation and all).. for both UA93 and AA77. It also addresses the errors in the clock annotation and the fact of how accurate they want their information given through the FOIA (they do not address any other possible errors.. matter of fact, they refuse to address it.. if you listen to the recorded calls, or call them yourself.. but perhaps you dont want facts). Also, I suppose you can go to www.ntsb.gov... and get your own animation... but perhaps that might not suit your possible agenda and accusations? Wouldnt want to have facts.. right?


As far as some of our team members...

Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAG HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

Guy S. Razer, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
3,500+ Hours Total Flight Time
F-15E/C, F-111A/D/E/F/EF, F-16, F-18, B-1, Mig-29, SU-22, T-37/38, Various Cvilian Prop
Combat Time: Operation Northern Watch
USAF Fighter Weapons School Instructor
NATO Tactical Leadership Program Instructor/Mission Coordinator
USAF Material Command Weapons Development Test Pilot
Combat Support Coordination Team 2 Airpower Coordinator, South Korea
All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team Operations Officer
Boeing F-22 Pilot Instructor
MS Aeronautical Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University


George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.)
30 year career managing aircraft maintenance activities
Licensed commercial pilot
Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic
Aircraft accident investigator

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Sound 'experty' enough for you? You have anything close to this type of experince?


Again, if you arent going to click on links, make phone calls, or email us.. i guess you can proceed with your agenda and accusations here without doing thorough research. Others who are professionals know where to go. As you can tell, we add new aviation professionals regularly.. or perhaps you dont know that.

Anytime you would like a real professional debate. Please stop being a keyboard commando with poor research and contact us.

Cheers!
Rob


[edit on 4-6-2007 by johndoex] typos

[edit on 4-6-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Seeing your other posts Rob, will comment on them if there's anything left to say.


7. The headings in the csv file and animation were altered... do your research and ye shall find the analysis done by a mathematician/statistician who reverse engineered both the animation and csv file.

Another expert I'm sure and it proves your case I presume? Sorry I don't feel like digging thru your site right now and I admit I don't know every scrap of the story. I'm on this one part for now.


The NTSB plotted the animation from take off on runway 30 at Dulles to end of recording based on lat/long (see the grid on the ground? See the yellow poles extending from the aircraft to the ground? Yeah.. thats a plot). The heading (in the little instrument) was altered, to confuse the average layman and to grab suckers to buy the official story and the fact the professionals at the NTSB 'screwed up' in their plot.

So just to clarify since we have your attention, the animation in the screen is correct, and the falsifying was in altering the number in the dial to match the other faked FDR data, correct? (Including the CSV of "plots used," which shows 70 mag). If so, then what's new? Of course you've uncovered the fake 70 mag path that is shown in the dial and faked out with planted poles, smasked generator, etc and hundreds of feet of angled damage to the Pentagon, just so they could fly this plane over, remove the telltale FDR, plant it in the Pentagon (it was found just inside the "punch-out hole!"), then took this real data, scrubbed it out and turned 90 to 70, but just - missed - this - one - manifestation - of the REAL plots - and accidentall they slipped YOU the animation, the only real FDR data that happened to be in THE most visible manifestation, while all other were faked and scrubbed.
Or are there other FDR sources that verify the 90 heading? There's like ten versions of what it says now, and I don't know them all.


Again, we didnt make the animation, the professionals at the NTSB diid. So far they refuse to answer our questions regarding the conflicts such as flight path, altitude and vertical speed. Our organization has a good idea why... (hint - they cant answer, it only opens up a can-o-worms for them).


I started this thinking fraud from your end somewhere, as is clear. But really all I can show is what you've argued - the animated flight path is off from the official story. Beyond that it's a matter of opinion and how you weigh evidence, and in my effort to reduce infighting I chill on charges or implications of forgery against you guys. I still haven't seen everything, and should do some more research. But I see you're standing by the NTSB's authorship, and I'll take your word at least that you really believe this.


Hope this helps most of you.


I've still to check all your links and graphics - I'm open but fear I may beyond help. Thanks for trying either way.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Thanks Rob/JDX. I cannot absorb any more tonight, and I am seeing new things, so...
Let me call truce, call this NTSB as you have been, and as the new FOIA thing by "SLOB" seems to indicate etc.
I stand by the analysis of the animation itself, what's wrong relative to what, etc. And The NTSB is doing serious psyops here with this sloppy cartoon fakery and so on.
I hope to learn more. I'll document as best I can anything new.
You can call me Adam now if you like tho I dig the branding
Peace.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   
You're asking questions on links/work i have provided. I cannot come to your house and hold your finger to click your mouse.

Perhaps you would like me to copy and paste all the work here?

Ok... i see you're lazy.. so i'll do one for you...

This one pertains to the csv file...


Recent email exchange with a mathmatics and statics expert in reverse engineering data...

QUOTE

Rob,

I posted a little analysis I did based on the FDR data and it suggests that my hypothetical was indeed what was done to the data. I’ve demonstrated it to my satisfaction and I’ll leave the rest in your capable hands. My guess is the simulation was done before the data alteration (that is why in the video it flies north of the Citgo station). To be honest, they really did do a sloppy job in the alteration and I would expect better from our civil servants. The guy who did the work should be fired for not doing a sanity check before releasing it.

911files.info...

I just needed to know if I was dealing with one or two planes before continuing with my own work.

Regards,

John Farmer




QUOTE
From: Pilots For Truth [mailto: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 10:31 AM
To: John Farmer
Subject: Re: My hypothetical seems to be the case

Hi John,

Are you saying that the .csv file was altered in heading to match the south flight path?

If i understand your work correctly and what you explain above. .this is exactly what you are saying. Give me a call when you get a chance if you can.

Rob



QUOTE

John Farmer wrote:
Yep…



Highlights from his article...

First, let me make it perfectly clear that I am using the NTSB data from the FOIA csv file. I have not altered it in anyway, except to separate components (such as breaking the velocity into horizontal and vertical components). Everything I’m going to cover, others will be able to replicate.

(snip)

What has been done is to take the distance deviation I already discussed and spread it across the horizontal velocity component. In the real world, this equates to longitude. In other words, the longitude data has been “fitted” to hide the angular change in the later part of the flight path. In doing so (for reasons discussed in my prior post) the arrival coordinates changed and since the error was distributed along the entire flight path, the beginning coordinates were also changed (primarily in the horizontal).

The coordinate error could have been easily corrected with a similar correction (introduce an offset). Fortunately, whoever applied the change forgot to do a “sanity check”. Had they done so, I would still be scratching my head.

Hopefully I have made this presentation fairly straightforward. If not, feel free to leave comments below or email me.



there is another for the animation... do i need to get that one for you as well? Or can you perhaps click some links i provided?

Ok... gotta run.. its been fun. Dont try to hard to spin it up now..


Cheers!
Rob

typos






[edit on 4-6-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   
delete - double post

[edit on 4-6-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Truce accepted. Please contact us in the future if you have questions. I'll even give you my number to speed up the process...


Rob

typos -its 5am here... working all night

[edit on 4-6-2007 by johndoex]



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
also, what would have been more compellnig is if they had gone to interview people cold, no real theory, and developed the theory based off what they heard, but as p49t and cit seem to have been looking for witnesses to back up their version i find it suspect. but thats just me.


To the extent that this is still a thread about the 'Con, I would have to second that observation. It can't be proven that they led people or whatever, but my wild guess is they started out with the flight path in mind and other than Lagasse had to dig for it a bit...



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
This "poor research" you speak of - if mine, please cite it back to me. Don't be shy.


I forgot which thread we were in. So why is this all happening here? Oh yeah, Nick's poor research. Oops.

Sorry Nick.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
A few months ago we were contacted by a math and statistics expert who had downloaded and analyzed the NTSB data. He reversed engineered the data.


How do you "reverse engineer" the data? Seriously, being an engineer, I would love to understand the methodology in "reverse engineering" raw data files from the FDR. Sounds more like another way of telling the math/statistics expert what you wanted the findings to show, and then having him come up with a way to show these findings.

The foundation of this entire "NTSB" analysis is built on the quicksand of trusting that the data given to you by snowygrouch actually came from the NTSB. The letter from the NTSB simply says they sent a FOIA request to somebody. What does that prove? Nothing, other than somebody sent the NTSB a FOIA request. There is no chain of evidence, other than snowygrouch's say-so, that the animation is what the NTSB sent. And listing the credentials of your members is totally irrelevant if they're analyzing animations and csv files that didn't really come from the NTSB.


But most importantly, why are you still selling Pandora's Black Box if you know the animation you're basing the entire movie on is FAKE!? You can't argue for the wrong flight path and altitude based on a fake animation. This is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty, in my opinion. Your movie argues that FL 77 missed the light poles and flew over the Pentagon, and your ENTIRE evidence you're using for this claim is an animation that you argue is phony. Please explain how you justify this leap in logic.

If you were to do anything, why not just have a brief video that shows the NTSB animation and csv file don't match each other? This is more damning than the content of the animation ever could be. Of course then the discussion would be about authenticating the origin of the data, and not about altimeter trim settings, etc., where you can claim the expertise of your members trumps the expertise of the layperson.

PS What's *REALLY* funny is the explanation that the animation was tampered with but that it still proves anything about where FL 77 was on 9/11.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Previously I've downplayed any direct connections between the PentaCon and PBB - but that was mostly from ignorance, and here right from the horse's mouth is one take on the connection:


Originally posted by johndoex
We did notice the animation flight path right away. But we did not report it (right away) and instead worked on altitude because we thought the same as you when we saw the heading. We had thought the NTSB messed up in their plot and rotated the map slightly. However, when Aldo and Craig (CIT) notified us of the witness(es) they had which confirmed the animation plot north of Citgo, we added the flight path to the rest of the questions for the NTSB which can be found here - pilotsfor911truth.org... - scroll down.

Then we also made a flight path video - also can be found on above page.


For research purposes.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
How do you "reverse engineer" the data? Seriously, being an engineer, I would love to understand the methodology in "reverse engineering" raw data files from the FDR. Sounds more like another way of telling the math/statistics expert what you wanted the findings to show, and then having him come up with a way to show these findings.


From what I've seen, his findings were roughly ours. So maybe reverse engineering is what we've done. You look at the data anf figure out what was happening to make that data be recorded.

The problem, as you point out, is the reliability of the data that's being looked at. Could there be things other than the plane causing these numbers to appear? Of course, as some don't even match source-to-source we agree somethng's wrong somewhere.

PS What's *REALLY* funny is the explanation that the animation was tampered with but that it still proves anything about where FL 77 was on 9/11.

Indeed, it's almost as if they laid out several discrepant sources of data and each spot there was a difference, they picked the most conspiratorial one. The others then become fake. This seems to be how they decided which parts to use and which to discard, when of course, the real issue is THE DATA HAS BEEN ALTERED by someone to confuse us, and is useless as evidence unless you invent a use to guide you thru as they have or as an OCT zombie would, or dig in and REALLY find out which NTSB sources and numbers are most likely correct. Instead we get "they're all right and wrong, it's confusing, trust us, the spookiest and most illogical version is the true one and the rest are official lies."

That's just how it seems to me of course.



posted on Jun, 4 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Caustic Logic

I seriously commend you for taking on this challenge, but one thing to note if the problem is truly with the NTSB then that is pretty well bona-fide proof they been screwing with things.

You took a huge leap, but it may pay off in a big way.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join