Flake extends his attacks on Trump and the GOP — all the way back to the dawn of birtherism

WaPo ^ | August 6, 2017 | Avi Selk

[Seizethecarp]

But Sunday, as he promoted his book on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Flake took his assault on Trumpism back years further — all the way to the pre-dawn of Trump’s political rise, to “when the birtherism thing was going on,” as Flake put it to host Chuck Todd.

“Some people did stand up, but not enough,” the senator said. “That was particularly ugly.”

“Did you do enough?” Todd asked.

Flake smiled. “On that, I think I did.”

Flake was a congressman in 2011, when Trump flirted with a presidential run against President Barack Obama.

The current president did so “spouting all sorts of Four-Pinocchio innuendo that had long ago been debunked,” as The Washington Post wrote at the time.

Trump wrote a letter to the editor in the New York Times, for example, advancing a host of bogus evidence against Obama’s birth in the United States and, thus, his legitimacy to occupy the White House.

[txhurl]

Oh, please. You both spend your lives stabbing for the truth. Now is the absolute WORST time to give up on each other.

[Fred Nerks]

That might be because you started it. I was with you right up until the diver and the dummy. Sorry, I just cannot see it the way you and your side-kick who swallowed a dictionary and writes like a cranky lawyer see it all. That doesn’t mean I’m a paid operative on the payroll of the denizens of the Swamp.
I would like to leave it now. Get your book published the usual way so that people can buy a hard copy, and good luck.

[4Zoltan]

Hi everybody,

Sorry I haven't responded sooner. As many of you know working for Brennan can keep us very busy. I don't have time to respond to all of the stupidity in rx's post in #130 but wanted to start here.

In #130, rx posted this image with colored arrows pointing to all the "saw cuts" on the Fuddy PT6A-114 engine:

https://postimg.org/image/kky7lptcd/

Now please consider the following images:

This first one is of the twin engine mounts for a PT6A-140 engine.

As most of you can tell there is a squared off stub to which two diagonal mounting arms are welded.

This next image is of a PT6A-114 engine from a Cessna 208 Caravan that crashed in Canada. The most in the group will see that there is a squared off center stub to which two diagonal mounting arms are welded.

This last image is of the same PT6A-114 engine but from a different angle. You can see the mounting stub clearly. I include it because you can also see how the tubular mounting frame fractures under stress. But I'm sure certain folks will look at that fracture and explain how it is proof that someone started to saw cut the tube but stopped for some unknown reason.

Took me about ten minutes of searching for "PT6A-114 engine mounting assembly" to find these images.

rx - you need to read up on Mixed Raster Content compression. It explains most of what you wrote about the LFBC PDF and is why Zullo said they could never get a conviction on a forgery charge with the computer stuff.

Enough for now, got to go destabilize some governments and of course there are always politicians to corrupt.

[4Zoltan]

Just for clarity - a side by side image of the some of the things that rx/butter are calling "saw cuts" versus how they look in place on an engine.

It is clear that the two straight angular cuts are not "saw cuts" by underwater frogmen but rather manufactured cuts in the mounting frame. The other fractures in the diagonal arms of the mounting assembly are irregular and not simply "saw cuts". Probably caused by the plane rolling around on the rocky bottom as explained by the recovery team and the NTSB.

[humblegunner]

You are disparaging the fine work done by the
Ninja Frogmen Underwater Aircraft Shop.

You better stop it or Soros will start sending you money.

[4Zoltan]

What makes you think he doesn’t already at least according to butter.

Will you be at the next meeting with Bannon?

[humblegunner]

Will you be at the next meeting with Bannon?

Huma handles scheduling.

I'm just "talent".. pretty low on the roster.

[rx]

It may well have taken you only 10 minutes to come up with these pictures. Maybe that's why (OK, there may be other reasons) these are not pictures of the same type of plane or same type of mount, or same engine variant as the Cessna Grand Caravan (CGC) that was involved in the Fuddy incident.

A Cessna 208 is a Caravan and a Cessna 208B is a Grand Caravan. The latter is the type in the Fuddy crash. If such details are of too little importance for you to assure the accuracy of your comments, I suggest you just move along, because otherwise you seem to think we should be satisfied with your half-fast, slap-dash job when others have spent years looking at these issues and vetting their results with other experts to assure what they conclude is accurate and correct.

Similarly to this treatment, we saw in your earlier post #67 that you would attempt to use the crash of a different Caravan for which also happened to be video to draw conclusions about the Fuddy hoaxed crash. The parallel you attempted there was roughly, "See, that craft lost power, yet isn't that a smoothly running engine sound that could be heard?"

As in that example, which you apparently thought to be sufficiently analogous to the Fuddy case at hand as to be instructive and overpower our argument of a hoaxed failure, you implicitly claimed that video portrayed a Caravan with a smoothly running engine, therefore, it would not be unreasonable to hear a normal sounding engine on the Fuddy ditching segment video. That is not a reasonable extrapolation for many reasons.

In your example, the propeller's noise was much louder than any engine noise. Because of the existence of the loud propeller sound, I don't think I could hear an actual engine noise on that recording. The propeller normally operates in the 1600-1900 RPM range, where the engine operates at much higher frequencies (15k-37.5k) RPM. When the video camera's volume auto-limiter comes into play, it suppresses the entire amplitude spectrum, making the quieter sounds seem to have even less sound energy. Only the loudest sounds can be heard. One sees this in the NTSB-distributed Fuddy take-off portion as well. Only in a limited number of places can one hear the engine. Most often, one hears only the propeller's turning. Also, since the engine frequency is generally at a high frequency, the full sound with its overtones will not register easily on a video recorder as the the microphone's audio pick-up response is not good at all above 16kHz, let alone when such frequencies have been brought down by an auto-limiter.

But the basic, overriding misconceptions you manifest in your attempt to use that other Caravan crash example are three-fold: 1) the Fuddy ditching segment had no propeller sound, 2) the pilot (and the Fuddy Estate lawyer on his behalf) repeated to the media that the engine had stopped, and 3) to the USCG Commander the pilot represented that he had attempted two engine restarts, both of which failed, which that USCG Commander of course put in his official report. So A) there was no smoothly-running (or otherwise, sputtering) engine noise to be heard in the skydiver example, and B) since the Fuddy pilot represented that the engine stopped with the "bang" and there was no sound in the 1600-1900 RPM range for the ditching segment, the 15k+ sound one hears smoothly running in the Fuddy ditching segment is the smoothly-running engine." Now, why do you suppose someone put two propeller-like noises onto their broadcast of the ditching segment? Certainly someone in that loop would know that if the propeller is turning on a CGC, one often can't hear the engine sound. Thus, if one hears a propeller sound inside a CGC cabin, an uninitiate may think he hears an engine sound, but it just wouldn't be true.

Given the Fuddy pilot's misrepresentations, one is forced to understand for a number of reasons, all that reinforce one another, that if he had merely unfeathered the propeller, he likely could have made the runway safely, if that was the conclusion he sought. At the end of the take-off video, he astonishingly and deliberately chose to 1) turn away from the airport, 2) fly 3/4 mile away from the airport, and 3) lose over 750' of altitude. Each of those--if he hadn't done them--could have independently helped him land safely at the airport.

This time around, you're apparently proposing that looking at wreckage of another plane's (and type/engine/mount) wreckage should be more persuasive regarding the Fuddy Crash than NSTB and media pictures of the actual craft and crash itself. Such a premise is laughable. What's wrong with letting your esteemed drive-by commentary refer to the Fuddy craft pictures? Do they not obviously show what it is you wish they would say?

Mixed raster compression could no more have generated the many, unique anomalies on BHO's LFBC that are indicative of forgery than a magical layer creation theory (asserted and roundly debunked, but only after so many trolls, shills and online sycophants "just couldn't let go," constantly making up further-afield stuff) that Fuddy's HDOH copier supposedly wrought.

The difficulty with getting a conviction owes directly to the fact that no document examiner has yet had the opportunity to examine the original--and whom does the world have to thank for keeping everyone from seeing that (claimed) original? Yet, here, at their TheF***ow.com nest, they regularly put this forth as if it we must believe it, for they think it implies that rafts of examiners that have seen copious elements of forgery actually "got bupkis."

You may be clever, but by these indications so far, it would appear to be "only by half." We'll breathlessly await your next drive-by, strafing-run analysis, this time using actual Fuddy crash pictures and NTSB conclusions and commentary from the Fuddy crash report.

[Fantasywriter]

Just as a general observation, I have never met a clever Obot. It takes a special kind of mind to efend a pathological liar to the degree that Obots do. Clever Obama supporters—there are a few—see the warts and like him anyway. Obots can’t see the warts. Lacking even a modicum of objectivity at such a basic level is incompatible with cleverness.

But you did say, ‘by half,’ so maybe we’re on the same page here.

[Fantasywriter]

efend = defend

[rx]

All should note 4Zoltan's intellectual dishonesty at work!

She/He says, "other fractures..in the mounting assembly are irregular and not simply "saw cuts." So not "simply." Is that like, "[f]for saw cuts on which the cutter had cut 90% through the member, it caused an irregular breakage of the remainder?" I might accept that in a couple of cases--maybe in that upper saw cut here, immediately below. It looks like a saw cut for which the last little arcing piece just might have broken off.

Look at how 4Zoltan misleadingly cropped out the cut on the lower member in her post #204, which I have here above enlarged, and see how--at minimum, each of the upper and lower members clearly manifest straight line cuts that in no way were "crushed and battered in a manner consistent with being repeatedly rolled over on a hard, uneven surface by wave action." as the NTSB investigators put in their report. On the lower piece, there are even paint-cleared scrapings that remind one of a plumber's pipe cutter. So, yes, maybe they had that tool, too.

Above we see another couple of human-intervention separations that look like a Jaws of Life. So it does appear that there were perhaps three or more people causing these separations.

One cannot say at least two of these three in the following example are anything other than saw cuts. Just one saw cut would prove the point that this engine was cut off its firewall, but see the lengths to which her intellectual dishonesty will allow herself to be taken. See how he/she cropped my picture! See how she/he attempts to call a clear saw cut to be called a "Deformed tube fracture!" That would be like looking at the middle, torn strands of a 20-foot thick professionally-felled tree and saying, "See, the forces of nature must've blown that tree over!"

While it's true that some mount pieces might look to be saw cuts when they're not, the many other cuts that can be seen (hoses, cables, tubes and ducts, as well!) all make it plain that there had to have been people performing these cuts before the salvor said he came upon these pieces already lying separate on the ocean floor, which the NTSB repeated for their report. The NTSB is by no means filled with incompetents and their entire team would have had to have been compromised by one or more corrupt influences to have come to the conclusions they did, that “[t]he airframe was fragmented into numerous pieces, which were crushed and battered in a manner consistent with being repeatedly rolled over on a hard, uneven surface by wave action."

And these other cuts, too, that 4Zoltan conveniently choose to crop out.

There's no "crush[ing] and batter[ing] in a manner consistent with being repeatedly rolled over on a hard, uneven surface by wave action on any of those arrowed connections at all!

Even a first and only saw cut would prove human intervention and that the NTSB was compromised. If one were intellectually honest, after seeing the twentieth saw cut that couldn't be explained away as some kind of "fracture" one would have to give it up, but no, we're seeing utter intellectual depravity here. You're totally compromised shills, that here have tried to explain this away or claim it's all "crap"! The utter dishonesty of you folk is such that you lead Conservative observers from these parts to wonder how, without substantial payments, you'd been willing to degrade yourselves so badly.

And this is just one of the several nooks and crannies of this hoaxed event, all of which manifested features of this being a hoax. That you folk don't admit any of it, yet keep on shilling really makes the rest of us wonder what's it's going to take to get people like you to return to a civilization where honest arguments can be had on the basis of facts and evidence, so those discussions aren't so totally skewed by political interests, job promotions/security, payola, etc.

Conservatives desperately want such a world, but we know there are others who are unperturbed to see their neighbors destroying police cares, halting cars of innocents on the roadways, only to let the mob destroy their property, assault the driver, burn the car and twirl socks with rocks into the faces of anyone who would get in the way. That apparently gives some of you no pause whatsoever, even while you cheer on the destruction of a civilization's historical monuments.

[SaveFerris]

Thanks for the ping.

If I may ask, what NTSB incident is this? I assume we’re looking at an aircraft engine?

[4Zoltan]

On the left (yellow arrows), 2013 Hawaii crash:

Cessna 208B Grand Caravan (N687MA c/n 208B-1002) with PT6A-114A engine

On the right (black arrows), 2012 Canada crash:

Cessna 208B Grand Caravan (C-GAGP, c/n 208B-1213) with PT6A-114A engine

Sorry to prove your stuff is such crap. But that's just the way it is. Maybe you can fix it in your next book. Next time try not to be comfortable with 25% error in your calculations.

[Fred Nerks]

Conservatives desperately want such a world, but we know there are others who are unperturbed to see their neighbors destroying police cares, halting cars of innocents on the roadways, only to let the mob destroy their property, assault the driver, burn the car and twirl socks with rocks into the faces of anyone who would get in the way. That apparently gives some of you no pause whatsoever, even while you cheer on the destruction of a civilization's historical monuments.

[4Zoltan]

Hawaii
NTSB - WPR14FA068

Canada
TSB - A12C0154

[SaveFerris]

I surmised we’re looking at the Fuddy crash?

What is the overriding issue?

Is it about the aircraft sinking, basically intact and then coming up a hunk of twisted metal?

[4Zoltan]

It is about the engine mounts. Look at post 203.

I contend that the engine mount has a center stub which is squared off and has two diagonal arms welded to it. rx contends the center stub was saw cut while under water by frogmen.

I accept the word of the salvage crew and the NTSB that the plane was torn part by heave swells and rolling on the rock bottom.

[Nifster]

What did I ever do to you?

[SaveFerris]

Well, some of it does look kinda sawn off. Some damaged.

Nevertheless, I DO say that Fuddy’s death was pretty convenient and potentially tied up a loose end.

Though she was obviously beholden to her weirdo Indonesian religion dude, who looked strikingly like Obama; from the front anyways.

But then, there have been many convenient deaths surrounding Obama and the Clintons. I doubt they were all coincidence.

But hey, that’s just me.

[Fred Nerks]

You haven’t noticed the frogman, the divers, the ‘green’ flotation device, the ‘fact’ that Yamamoto wasn’t Yamamoto, that there was a blow-up dummy with red hair on the aircraft, that the Navy had a submarine on stand-by to pick up Fuddy and secret her away to where she could be given a new face and body and a new ID?
Sure, her death might have been convenient as you say, but the assertion that there was a wax dummy in the coffin at her funeral and none of the mourners who filed past it, noticed...
That’s just the half of it.
Btw, you will have to buy the book to get the full story. And I’m not buying it.
If Fuddy was meant to die, the aircraft may have been tampered with while it stood unattended on that insecure small island airstrip, and they were ALL meant to die.
But that isn’t half as interesting as the cast of thousands it would have taken to fill the pages of a book.