Monday, July 6, 2009


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 7 2009
Updated July 21

Enver Masud is some kind of “peace activist” based in Virginia and a 9/11 Truther who made it onto my mega-list of no-757-at/in-the-Pentagon theorists just for saying "after three years of investigation, I still can't offer an alternative theory. But I have collected sufficient evidence to show that it is very unlikely a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon." Three years wasted just to say what so many others have – he’s only interested in insisting the “official story” must be wrong, but tacitly admits there’s no other explanation that doesn’t sound moonbat stupid.

Was I hasty for including him on my list? The other day I was informed of an upcoming public event he’s hosting a few days hence dedicated to hammering on that very point. This late in the game, mid-2009, anyone honest and not deeply impaired has no more excuse. Mr. Masud is the founder of something called “The Wisdom Fund,” which is - unwisely - hosting this "National Security Briefing" that “will reveal groundbreaking, independent, verifiable evidence” regarding “the official account of American Airlines Flight 77 that is alleged to have struck the Pentagon on September 11, 2001” and therefore possesses “serious geopolitical and historical implications.” Oh my gosh, look at all those syllables – no abbreviations for this highly serious person!

Too bad everything to be presented is known to be utter trash. The featured speakers aside from Masud are to be Citizen Investigation Team (both Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke are slated) and Pilots for 9/11 Truth (represented by one Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford, who somehow isn’t on my fraud-ass liar list yet). Founder Rob Balsamo’s frequent flier miles are apparently as run out as his phone cards. These two “brother organizations” are generally understood – within and without the “Truth movement” - to be the most pathetically persistent, obnoxiously dishonest, banned-everywhere manipulative provocateurs with among the highest debunk-to-learning ratios ever recorded.

Aldo and Craig’s CIT has a new website claiming a legal strategy and citizen call to arms etc., even using words like “misprison of treason.” It almost looks impressive if you haven’t already seen the clowns in their dressing room, dressing as clowns. They will talk as serious as they need to and in fact get louder the deeper into credibility deficit they drag themselves. They will be sharing their “time for action” spiel based on their few oddly wrong NoC witnesses, their epic fails at mangling other witness evidence to fit the notion, and their completely fabricated and insane fly-over explanation.

Now obviously pilots are smart expert people since they know how to fly,or used to, or whatever, and Masud will have you know “Pilots for 9/11 Truth obtained the Flight Data Recorder data following a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the National Transportation Safety Board.” Yes they did, and they’ve located several genuine discrepancies between the final seconds of data and the final seconds of the “official flight path.” They’ve tried hard to avoid the obvious conclusion that the two times just don’t correlate since the data stops short of the final seconds of flight and the impact. That’s why it’s higher than it should be, pitching differently, on a different heading, and in a different location.Masud explains further:
Leaving aside the discrepancies between the official account of Flight 77, and the Flight Data Recorder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth calculated a radius equal to about 579 feet. From this they calculated the force on the Boeing 757 at 34 Gs, i.e. 34 times the force due to gravity. There has been some criticism of the calculations performed by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and they have answered their critics. [bold mine - see below)
I forgot that they ever claimed 34 Gs, which is insanely impossible (I hear). For a while they had stuck with a corrected 11.2 Gs, which still was considered fatal to a 757. This too was admitted wrong by Balsamo and crew, and they answered with the same error, slightly modified to 10.14 Gs, and it took many months to complete this in over-hyped video form. The “answer” was a link to that video (as above), and my own review is here. To summarize, they use a stupid method to decide the starting altitude at the Navy Annex, completely ignoring two of their own key witnesses (Paik and Morin), then presume a straight descent from there to the first light poles, followed by a sudden leveling. I don’t even need to be an expert to see why this approach (falsely labeled “the government story”) yields whacked-out impossible numbers. I don't know the numbers on my purple arc, but it looks pretty reasonable to me.
Masud's reason for such serious concern in gathering these great minds is partly explained in a recent missive entitled “Scientific Evidence That Flight 77 Did Not Strike The Pentagon." Ooh, scientific evidence! I’ve spent a while looking at that myself (see to the right, and below). Among the thing’s he’s sure to have seen then is the neat line along which all damage happened – through five light poles torn down and tossed aside, a trailer-size diesel generator, vent structure, construction trailers and fence, and then through the building – outer wall, support columns, inner office space, walls, furniture, and human inhabitants, scattering as it went, until a few heavy parts exited through another exterior wall into the A-E drive. There’s the scientific uniform match of airplane debris with a 757 painted in American Airlines standards, and the scientific process that identified nearly all bodies with DNA and the passengers of Flight 77 (though I confess I wasn’t there and can’t prove that process was not faked). There’s the flight data recorder, which contained the data for all but the last few seconds of flight, describing its own journey leading towards just the spot where it was found. A careful correlation of eyewitness accounts yields the usual outliers and memories that diverge on certain details, but a general pattern emerges consistent with one craft – an AA 757 – doing one thing – crashing into the Pentagon’s ground floor. The radar data also matches, as does the available surveillance video.

Nothing about any of this fails to comport with the rest, no matter how many perceived “anomalies” people want to pretend exist. Masud in response offers and spends paragraphs carefully explaining “A simple formula, familiar to high school students, [that] may debunk the official account...” and later "this fact [that PFT's calc's provide crazy numbers] alone is sufficient to debunk the official account of Flight 77." Is it any wonder I don’t feel like learning the formulas now and double-checking? Math on paper does not trump three-dimensional reality, especially when you set up your variables wrong. If it seems to contradict the facts on the ground, then you did it wrong. Masud didn’t even do it himself I’m sure – he merely cites Pilots for Twoof’s previous findings (“they calculated”), previously shown wrong many times (just Google it). No bad not doing the math, mate, I haven’t either. But one of us trusts Pilots for Twoof and one doesn’t. I'm quite happy with my choice.

Only for those who are genuinely confused, believe these people might have something, yet sane enough to recognize epic idiocy when you see it, just look for a bit and you’ll find it becomes quite clear. For those who can make it to the “briefing” and would like to have your voice heard or pretend these things are worth confronting the given info is this:

July 11, 2009
10:00 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.
NRECA Conference Center
4301 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA
Admission is free. Lunch not provided. Aldo will have to bring his own buffet. It should be some wicked sick entertainment. I'll follow the news from it but then back to hibernation for me.

Update, 7/21:
Nothing yet except some fun little spats about attendance numbers. looks like "tens," perhaps nearing 100 attended. Whoot. Some uber-serious things were probably said, future of mankind, global justice, mistrial of prison, yada yada. NO video or anything yet. When there is I'll check the content and have a little fun batting around that ball of yarn. Whoot.

Sunday, February 8, 2009


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
February 8 2009

Well, this is my first Frustrating Fraud post since my Lloyd's cab piece on November 2 last year, so in over three months. No I have not been "suicided," in case anyone was concerned. I had to step back a bit from the quiet, corpse-strewn battlefield I was still thrashing about in. Once backed off and returned to civilian life, I find, lo and behold, I am obsessive - if not with blogging about the ridiculousness of flyover clowns, then about avoiding the same. I can't promise I won't return and finish up some stuff, but I certaily can't promise that i will. I have much better things to do, and finally am actually doing them. Thanks all who read for reading. Long live rationality.

Sunday, November 2, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 2 2008

In the time I’ve been doing this blog, I haven’t talked much about Pentagon attack witness Lloyd England and his damaged taxi. Citizen Investigation Team have made the counter-intuitive lack of damage to the hood one of their central proofs of “military deception” at the Pentagon, accused the likeable old guy of being "the first known Accomplice?," and indirectly anyway, a "demon." Maybe by accident, whatever... In fact, their overplaying of the issue, and the strong reactions of their multitude of critics, is one of the reasons I haven’t jumped into this crowded fray. It's too obvious, and I just have to be different.

The other reason is I thought they probably had a point, in that England’s own story seems problematic. He insists the long portion of the pole, as seen in front of his cab in numerous photos, is what pierced his windshield and remained sticking heavy-end out far over the hood without apparently touching it. Previously I had agreed with CIT that seemed unlikely, but sided with Pentagon attack researcher Russell Pickering, who had instead proposed a smaller piece of the pole actually doing the damage; Lloyd’s story was simply wrong, for whatever reason.

I did bother to put together the below attempt at judging the pole segment's true size - many have claimed this is 30 feet long or greater, but they seem to be misunderstanding the role of perspective here. My attempt is rough, but this should be close.

Recently I also noted their paranoia-laced warning that they had a new video coming of their ‘latest encounter’ with the old man who “is caught and is guilty” and “the primary one who would have explaining to do.” That video is now out, an hour and a half of them having stupid arguments in Lloyd’s home, with his wife helping string the lads along, on the road, and Craig explaining it all later with too few buttons done on his shirt. Lloyd seems a sharp enough old kook, and the video is fascinating in its own ways, but the finer points of this sprawling epic of absurdity would derail from the main point worthy of a new post – another case of CIT accidentally (??) getting too much evidence and helping us see what really happened, despite their best efforts.

They took Lloyd up on his previous offer to inspect his taxi themselves, and they drive out into the country where he had it stored in the woods, under tarps that weren't too tight. This in itself is fascinating, like an excursion to the Titanic, a historical relic sinking into the Virginia soil, a spider web draped over the steering column, visible through the even more caved-in windshield where the massive aluminum pole *allegedly* entered years ago and nearly skewered its mow-famous driver.

They again found the damage inconsistent with Lloyd's story, and again took to re-explaining the super-scientific obeservation that the heave end of a see-saw goes down. Since the heavy end, and most of the pole's length, was outside, it would not stick up in the air on its fulcrum. Craig tells us "Science proves that this is impossible," referring to the following picture, which he selected:

Apparently he failed to notice the trick here - the little hook holding the girl's end to the earth. This simple device renders the see-saw moot. Please keep this in mind, as it's a better example than he realized. We have a fulcrum - the marked indentation just to the right of center of the dashboard frame. This is on par with a light pole diameter, and the point of entry through the windshield. True, the hood's edge shows no sign of crushing, but given the angle of rest, the might may have met it more edge-wise, and the pile of windshield may also have initially helped hold it up. It would then have to be at a fairly steep downward angle for this to work, which would in turn fit with the rest of the pole sticking up, all above the hood.
"So the dash was the main alleged fulcrum," Craig summed up, " and the other would be the back seat." This is wrong - if there were two fulcrums, they would be this "alleged dent" and the front passenger seat left shoulder, as seen below, knocked well backwards. This was almost certainly in a lower position than shown here, under the weight of the pole as it stretched back to the back seat.

The clincher is the destination, the back seat. I'll write more later, but here is one of their pictures, including the tear they acknowledge but consider too tiny for a massive 5-inch diameter light pole:

The light end of the pole would have been held by the backrest part of the back seat - not the leather, but the actual seat assembly, with its wire frame and all. You can see where something warped it back (on impact) and upwards a couple of inches, leaving a wide gap between the top and bottom sections. This is beneath, and in addition to, the tear that may have been from entry or from when they pulled it out, or a bit of each. It seems unlikely the surface leather had in any part in anchoring the see-saw, but rather metal that was designed for, at the least, supporting the weight of American passengers (light pole segment app. weight - 200-220 lbs). The pole may have forced itself in there a foot or more deep as well, and found additional counter-force in some part of the car's chassis it pierced or was wedged under. They did not look under the car or inside the trunk for any such clues.

If anyone wanted to do some calculations on how impossible Lloyd's story is, here are the variables:
- Pole length overall – my take - app. 23 ft including 18” base
- expected weight, and distribution of that along the narrowing length - erg, math...
- degree of bend, and its length and location along the pole - see my graphic above for one estimate.
- Line from bash dent to seat gouge – lateral difference is negligible – it seems to have come in almost straight back
– Vertical line - Exact dimensions of Lincoln Town car interior would need to be known for either of these. I'd guess 5-8 feet of pole was on the inside side of the dashboard fulcrum.
- depth of penetration into the back seat - I'd wager at least several inches.
- lateral rotation of the bend on entry - vertical, sideways? I'd wager sharp end down, as it seems most others have.
- effective strength of the seat frame and/or any chassis elements holding the light end down against the heavier end's pull.

You could go about defining all these as best as possible and applying the known formulae, But I tend to agree with Craig that the simple analogy presented in that priceless photo is good enough, and renders any need for calculation moot.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008


CIT amping up the crazy – nastier witness attacks

[copied over from a JREF thread]

With CIT “to ignore or not to ignore” has been the question. But I’ve just seen some insanity that sharpens the question. Since their flyover witness turned out to be simply toying with the boys, and their miraculous list of 13 NoC witnesses was achieved by including six copies of the same perspective error, the next step was clear: amp up the attacks on those witnesses who can’t even arguably fit their theory. Two cases are worthy of mention.
They’re preparing to release another video of “CIT's latest encounter” with Lloyd England, the elderly cab driver who was nearly killed when something smashed through his windshield right on the “official flight path.” I’ve kept somewhat quiet on their attacks against him, perhaps because it’s too obvious and oft-noticed – a leading edge persistent bad move. Aldo whines:

[...] we have also had to endure a campaign that has painted us as evil-doers who attacked a poor old man, accusing him of being a mass murderer involved in Pentagon attack when nothing could be further from the truth.
Orly? Please explain.
It is clear to us that he knows what he did and […] he is trying to confuse and cover up this incident while he slips in ambiguous references to how 'big' this operation was.

Oh, well that's... quite... different... from what the smear "campaign" said? This is getting spooky. Aldo is soliciting members at the gang’s forum for "thoughts on Lloyd England and his involvement in the Pentagon attack." This is the second half of the post, which you have to read to even glimpse the depths these loons are dangling over.

It will be clear to anyone who has been following this saga, and who has the attention span, that this man is not telling the truth.

When you watch this footage he may make you angry. We ask that you please view the entire presentation and think about the fact that the plane has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have flown on the north side of the Citgo. Again, the implications of this are far-reaching and land right at Lloyd's doorstep since he is the primary one who would have explaining to do.

I can assure you this will be the wildest ride yet in relation to our ongoing investigation. I am sure a lot of you may leave with some sort of sadness or anxiety after watching this presentation, because it will be clear to all who and what we are dealing with. In some sense, I have even felt sorry for Lloyd because it is clear to him and anyone watching, that he knows he is caught and is guilty. I am still in shock over what I watched and heard in these interviews.

I am looking for constructive discussion/feedback on how you feel about Lloyd and what type of light you think he should be portrayed in. I am also looking for solutions/suggestions on how we can get this man or his interviews and our evidence in front of gov't investigators. To be honest, at this point you would have all you need to march into your local representative's office and demand action.

Your participation is appreciated.
Get your Guy Fawkes masks ready, it's a-comin! Good thing they took it right to a legal laevel, it was starting to seem like they were hoping someone would demand answers in blood at Lloyd's literal doorstep. Just so we're clear, CIT has issued no such fatwa.
Madlene Zakhem, the suspicious south-path testifying Crypto-Jew (their characterization) is hashed over publicly again. Her “bizarre behavior” is finally enunciated – she had her arms crossed and seemed “stand-offish” in her interview, and later cut the lines of communication with the CIT. Oh man, this is sooo juicy… She cut them off right after this e-mail from August 6 2007:

I hope you remember us. We visited your office in August of 2006 with Russell Pickering and conducted an impromptu, unrecorded interview in front of the VDOT/STC where you claim you saw the plane fly over.

We returned after that debating and discussing the information we had obtained. Subsequently, we parted ways with Mr. Pickering.

Mr. Pickering is now publically stating that yourself and the late Mr. Christopher Landis said we were "creepy". This is clearly a problem if you did not say this, as it casts doubt on our integrity and credibility as researchers/filmakers.

Of course, Mr. Landis cannot speak for himself. […]
Cut-in for context: Christopher “Kit” Landis was another VDOT employee, who had given CIT the disc with high res Jason Ingersoll photos. They later noted “he wasn't able to give us specific answers” about the suspicious light poles, and “was notably nervous during our questions.” After this, “Christopher Landis committed suicide,” which they found “an extremely strange and suspicious twist that we can only pray is a coincidence,” but probably not, since it happened “about a week after we had obtained the CITGO witnesses testimony on film.” [source] So, a recently dead guy she knew, however well, is dragged into the conversation. Perhaps awkward... Luckily it was only in passing...
[…] But we feel it is appropriate that you shed some light on this matter as we feel that we treated both you and Mr. Landis fairly and with respect in the limited interactions that we had with you. In fact, we met with Mr. Landis for only a few minutes and said very little while waiting for the CD of photos he was burning for us.

Can you please explain what we did that was considered "creepy" or can you please clarify, for the record, what you told Russell Pickering that would cause him to arrive at this conclusion? Frankly, we believe he is making this up for his own reasons.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
Her response could have been ‘what’s creepy? THAT? And YOU! And it’s getting worse!" But she was more calm, and stating in part:
You are in error and proceeding upon a false assumption. […] I decline your request and I assume that you will not pursue this frivolous claim any further. Any further writing would constitute an unfair burden on me. My desire is to "put these things to rest."”

Too little too late, lady. Aldo's brilliant mind summed up the questions thus:
Is Madlene merely an opportunist who wanted attention for what she claimed was a traumatic event? Was Madlene drastically mistaken? Unlikely. Or is Madlene an operative of some sort?

I have made comments about her jewish sounding last name and possible Israeli accent. Is there a possibility she is Mossad? Perhaps. But one thing is for sure. She certainly was not telling the truth about what she saw on 9/11.

I'm getting the feeling we may just see CIT's evidence in a coutroom someday - as an insanity plea defense.

Thursday, October 16, 2008


October 16 2008

Recently a fellow JREF member started a thread about CIT witness Sgt. Lagasse and his amazing wrong placement of the famous downed light poles. In the video below, at 5:45 he explains how he didn't see the light poles struck, and at 6:00 CIT dares to explain the "official story" pole locations and sets up a never-repeated feat of mental gymnastics. Lagasse can't abandon his NoC testimony now without saying something really dumb. So he does, and insists "nothing happened over here," where light poles were knocked across the road and into at least one car. He's in his own little universe here, clearly indicating pole and cab troubles further north where nothing happened. If he saw anything, as they came down, as they lay after the attack, or later in photos, he had to know they were at the overpass on 27 at the cloverleaf, not along a flat stretch north of there.

CIT chose not to use Lagasse's testimony as proof that Lloyd's cab and the downed poles were actually somewhere other than "official photos" show them. It would be the consistent thing to do, since he said it, but then acknowledging that the plane impacted the building where it meets the ground would be consistent as well. Running with this misinfo would be too obviously self-debunking even for the Comedy Improv Team, so they have explained how Lagasse is "in denial," warping his memories to fit the true trajectory. He can't grasp the horror of the light poles in the wrong spot, so he's shifted it all to where it 'should be.' Only stuff on the ground can shift like that of course, never the plane. He has to be right on that.

6:07 "No chance. There's no chance. If... and as a matter of fact, I know for A fact that this light pole [...] there was a light pole here that was knocked down, and there was a light pole here that was knocked down, not any over here." [indicating the real location] [...] None of these light poles over here were knocked down. They were here. NONE of these were knocked down."

He also denies any "official story" that has the plane south of the Citgo. He may be technically correct, but every element of the "official story" in fact mandates that it DID pass that way. The only "official story," he says, is the Arlington County After-Action Report, which does not mention the light poles or trajectory at all, but does softly indicate a path back to the poles in their graphics. So he didn't deduce their placement from that. Hmmm....

Interestingly, his story has changed over the years. This is what Lagasse said in a 2003 e-mail exchange with pre-CIT north-path flyover proponent Dick Eastman:
2. You did not say whether you saw the poles being struck down. Am I right
in assuming that you did? Did you see how high on any of the poles contact was made?

3. Can you recall seeing what part of the plane struck any of the poles?

Question #2.... near the top....yes I saw the plane hit them..granted at the
speed it was traveling I cant be 100% sure of exactly where on the
poles...but I did remember a black and orange cab that was struck by one of

Question #3 Wings....there was composite material from the wings in the
area around the poles that had been struck..the fuse could have struck one
of the poles as well.

Y'all can do the math on this yourselves. I just wanted to post that graphic.

Friday, October 10, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
October 9 2008
2am - minor edits

Maria De La Cerda is one of Citizen Investigation Team’s thirteen touted north-of-the Citgo witnesses, proving the flyover they all "simultaneously hallucinated" the opposite of. A member of an Army band who was at Arlington National Cemetery, (about where the eye is in the graphic below), she had been interviewed by the Army’s Center for Military History in February 2002 as NEIT 567. She first became known to the public by this name after John Farmer secured the release of many of these hundreds of CMH interviews in 2007.

CIT had initially found her “one of the most compelling accounts," and had her supporting both a north path (she described the plane as “directly up” and “over my head”) and set to be their second “flyover witness,” on the strength of her statement that the plane “seemed like it struck on the other side” from the one where she later observed the damage. Early in their analysis Aldo of CIT had gushed that NEIT 567 “thought that it flew over the Pentagon and crashed on the other side!!!" which, of course, "sounds like a flyover account to me.” Except that what was missing was always the "flew over and" part.

Later on, they managed to find her name and phone number, and in mid-2008, seven years after the event, verified Maria De La Cerda's account in their usual style, and featured the audio in their ambitiously self-destructive new video, at about 24:00 into part 2. Thankfully, they seem to have scratched the flyover witness plan and only decided to brand one (that Joker Roosevelt) with that distinction. But they did continue to hint at pull-up or flyover clues. They also dropped the “over” aspect, as this would place the plane too far north to support their other NoC witnesses. But they did find another reason to take her as a north path witness in their new video and companion article.

"Admittedly Maria is one of the weaker witnesses in support of the north side evidence because she could not see the gas station at the time of the attack and because of her hazy memory in regards to the plane in general."

Indeed, she had “tree cover” and thick - the Citgo station was invisible, as was most of the Pentagon, and all she saw of impact itself was the fireball rising high over the trees. When talking to CIT, she gives the impression this is the first thing she saw, and her memory being of high fire meant she thought it hit “on top” of the building, a memory that seems to have replaced “other side” (which she no longer recalls saying - see video, 31:10). That is, a high hit memory has nothing to do with the altitude of the plane; as CIT fairly summed up the point:

"[S]he initially thought that it "seemed like it hit the other side"! [...] She confirmed this to us in our interview but at this point her memory turned it into the fact that she initially thought the impact was "on top". She ended up reconciling this in her mind by the fact that this is "where the fireball was" so this is what likely caught her eye."

On that "hazy memory of the plane," at several points in her CIT verification she seems confused about whether or not she saw the plane at all before the crash, but Craig asked where it was in relation to the Citgo anyway. She said, with a bit of prodding, that it seemed to be “over Arlington Cemetery,” [32:00] but this can only be some sort of deduction, and of roughly no value. It’s this useless guess that is their reason to claim her as one of 13 NoC witnesses, aside from their bogus contention that “she likely would not have seen it at all from her location if it was on the official flight path.”

So this verification doesn’t do much to support the north side, nor to help us understand what her “other side” claim meant, since she can’t even recall making it. Now if she had seen the plane, this may have meant something - a deduction based on witnesses trajectory. If anything significant had faded by 2008, it may have still been fresh in 2002 when she actually recalled the “other side” impression as well as:

"I saw something really fast going to the Pentagon with the swoosh and I'll never forget it, it was so fast, and then a huge fire ball, explosion and smoke.”

Well, she forgot it, but Maria apparently saw the plane in flight, at least a glimpse, so she’d have some clue of its trajectory. Having seen this, she’d had to actually deduce a hit, behind the trees, to some side other than the one that was impacted. Apologies for the confusing graphic, presuming different path origins, including ones directly over her.

There are only four choices for the other side, and the only one that makes much sense caused me to place her on my own short list of SOUTH OF THE CITGO witnesses. Not the strongest, since she couldn’t actually see the station… but at least it fits her fresher memories, rather than the useless thing where the plane was maybe nearer the ANC than the Annex, at some point when she maybe saw it. But the fact that she recalls it “hitting on top” rather than “flying over the top,” as she must have actually seen, makes her memories “a prime example,” CIT announced, of “the power of illusion/deception in contrast to the vulnerability of the human mind.”

Try the power of the plane hitting the Pentagon, not flying over, and her view being blocked, and most of a decade having passed. This is the kind of crap they say when they know they don't have any real evidence to present. "Well she doesn't help much, but that's because she was maybe fooled, which shows how everyone else must've been fooled, which makes her a whatever... north, y'know... deception... witness... thing."

Wednesday, October 8, 2008


October 8 2008 4am

Just thought I'd post this, regarding Levi Stephens. Should be self-explanatory.

ETA: For the record, this seems to verify that they really did talk to Stephens, which many have doubted, since they haven't been able to share the audio. I've never doubted them on that, and in fact I thank them for gathering more good evidence for where the plane really was. Stephens couldn't even see the Citgo from where he was, so when he says it passed north of the station, it means little. But when he sees the brown dirt mound just south of it, the one that Turcios wasn't standing on, reflected in its undercarriage, which he could see, that's something useful.

Undefined deception of smoke and mirrors proposed. Mirrors here only seem to be revealing reality.


October 8 2008 2am

Watch Another NoC Cartoon? in Activism Videos  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.comFor some reason, the video doesn't seem to play all the way through here, but seems to work fine at the Veoh page, linked beneath it.

Analysis of the recently-released NORAD-made animation of Flight 77's final approach, which, like the earlier NTSB cartoon, shows the plane flying North of the Citgo, which is wrong. This time, they also have it banking hard right over the navy Annex like Citizen investigation Team argue... and it was made in 2002, from radar records it seems. Again, I've located the likely technical reason for this error, if not the original intent.

For an intro to this recreation, please see my previous post on the subject, which incorrectly attributed it to the FAA.
Additional Notes: Forthcoming.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008


October 7 2008, 2am

Any similarity to any internet persona is just that. Over at the JREF, there are some brilliant minds working on the last chapter of the drawn-out Ultima1 saga (name changed here to Uno Supremo to protect his privacy). There's a prevailing notion that a 45-year-old NSA analyst's teenage (?) son has hijacked his dad's identity and files to 'prove' his irrelevant credentials at the forums, to bolster his annoying nonsense and terse insults. I voiced support for this take, but I'm really not so sure - there's a certain confidence to his drivel, and a latent sophistication. While we wait for his promised FOIA document showing that Flight 93 was intercepted (if not shot down - parts of it are classified he says), they're taking in all the little details (like how he shows his own name when posting identifying docs, but not when posting FOIA letters filed by Ultima1), and in at least one case, contacting the authorities over his perceived violations of NSA "opsec." There is certainly something psychological driving this odd little person, and perhaps something disturbing may come of this. I remember an accusation leveled by a critic over at that I can't relocate with searches (was it pulled finally?). IIRC he got the last name wrong, but called this person (the identity Ultima1 professes to, born Feb 2, 1961) a pornographer and a sick man.

Putting aside the more disturbing possibilities, and the issues of his claimed credentials, we're left with the universally puzzled-over Ultima1, recently banned from, shortly after I called him a crash-helmeted "geek on a leash" that they keep around to drive traffic. An average of like 50 posts a day, each of 20-40 words, 35% misspelled. Running the hamster wheel all day and night, too easy to make fun of. For those who've been annoyed by run ins with him, here's another caption contest for catharsis. Submit your favorite Ultima1 quotes below, as comments, and I'll do up all or the best, depending how many submissions I get. Or do your own if you got the software. Here's mine, for a starter. Nowhere near the best...

Monday, October 6, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
October 6 2008
Updated 10/7 1pm

Among the 13 north-of-Citgo witnesses recently published by CIT, is one I finally looked into a bit, an Arlington National Cemetery Facility Manager named George Aman. Like so many of the others, he was previously documented by the Center for Military History [all relevant cases catalogued and available here], and CIT says verified again by them. Unlike ANC witnesses Middleton, Prather, Stafford, and Carter, they do not offer a photo, any video, a drawn flight path, or any recordings or direct quotes. He's as "off the record" as anyone else. However, CIT will have the public know that:

"In both the CMH interview and in our interview George is clearly describing the plane north of the gas station and right over the parking lot in front of the maintenance buildings where he was in his office. […] In fact you can see how on page 19 of his CMH interview he specifically describes the plane as "turning and gliding" which instantly supports the north of the gas station bank as described by all the other ANC workers."

Planes can only "turn" and "glide' north of the Citgo? That's certainly news to me! What else do they have? Nothing new that they shared, just his old interview for reference. They cite him as NEIT 420, so I checked my files and although an ANC employee, it didn't seem a match for Aman. This one is interesting for its own reason, however. It would seem the audio tape had gaps far worse than those plaguing the recording of officer Roberts [all not in [square brackets] is as transcribed by CMH.].

“[…] I’m walking in this direction and ___. . . (20 seconds) and this is just about on top of the building, scraping the building […] And he ____ the building, he appeared that ___+ direction ___ . . . (95 seconds) and it went by, right passed out [sic] and went over there […]”

Damn, that’s a lot of evidence lost, more than remained, it would seem, leaving us a jumbled pile of loose words. In fact, this is perfect CIT mystery material, full of holes to fill in and “verify.” Will we see NEIT 420 appear on the NoC or whatever acronym list in the near future? Luckily the actual 420 link provided in CIT’s big essay connected instead to NEIT 419, which seems to be the correct transcript for the witness they cite and identify as Aman. Among the key passages:

[p 5] “[...] I open up my things here and I’m looking out and I see this big, large airplane and it looks like, I thought it was going to hit the building here […] coming down here and I thought it was coming, going to hit this building. […] The plane flies right over the parking lot here”
[p 19] "[...] When I seen he was kind of turning and gliding when he came across here, across the parking lot but when he got out right in front here, it sounded like he poured the coals on it."

If it were literally "over the parking lot," rather than "across" a line in the distance over the lot in his FoV, the plane would probably be invisible to him inside the building looking up at it out the window. His window faced south, so it had to be some distance south of his building. His impression that it might hit his building alos jibes with a heading towards it, rather than parallel. This does not sound like a purely west-east path like NoC, but rather with a north trend (towards him) like SoC.

And, sweet Jesus, he's a light pole impact witness like I've never seen before! Page 20, right between his "gliding" bit and the "honest embellishment" of seeing passengers' faces inside - how is this consistent with an "automatic" north path?

"When I was looking over here and I seen things fly up in there, not knowing really what the hell they were but come to find out they were street lights. So the plane was clipping the tops of the streetlights off."

Looking forward to publication of this verification interview. Want list: the part where he actually says anything about the plane being north of anything - the part where you got him to explain he was just told about the light poles and deduced the actual flying things he remembered seeing - the part where he describes it banking hard right - the part where he sees it pull up rather than hit low - anything.
ETA: Craig of CIT informs me that the audio interview with Aman IS in the new video. My bad, as I only skimmed it. I'll report back now that they've released it, like a while ago. Also, 420 is Darrell Stafford, one of their ANC witnesses. Perfect CIT material is I guess recognized by CIT without prompting from me. And he paid off big time. (see comments below - a rare acceptance of a Craig comment).
update on Aman's testimony: My fault was in not noticing the video had two parts. Geroge’s interview is the first one in part 2, app 3:00 in. He doesn’t remember the color of the plane, seeing the C-130, or doing the CMH interview at all. What he does remember is the noise, and how it seemed to come in directly over the navy Annex when he first saw it. This proves nothing, however - from his PoV north of the scene, either path could well seem that way. He repeats “I thought it was going to smash into our building,” and this too can support either path – one was headed from southwest to northeast, and turning slightly north (towards them) along the way, The NoC path would only be coming right towards him only while over the Navy Annex, so when he first saw it, it would already be turning sharply away from them (right, south) and towards the pentagon.

He was asked about the parking lot and at 4:08 said “yeah, yeah” in response to “it was directly over the top of that?” At 5:05 he calls the plane “right over the parking lot,” and repeats it at 5:30. Again, unless it was very low, he likely wouldn’t really see it from inside if it were directly over. In fact it was further south, as it would have to be. At 5:14 he’s asked north or south of the citgo, he responds in I think an odd tone “it was right in between, in BETWEEN, the citgo gas station, AND – and the, the, the maintenance complex.” Below is a field of View analysis if he were outside the windowand in the parking lot he had the plane “over.” Note the inherent curve of the view, a natural “fisheye” effect of panoramic views that could warp one’s perception of the plane’s actual movements – the natural bias here would be to suggest a right turn, with it looking furthest north (closest/largest) as it passed them.
[right-click, new window for larger view]

What’s visible from inside would be a cropped version of this, set back to the north about 50 feet and behind a mid-height wrought-iron fence, and some number of vehicles, leaving an uncertain view of points of reference like the Citgo. I for one could probably not tell from here with any accuracy, whether it was north or south. Clearly we’re down to the range of reasonable perspective issues as explanation for his NoC testimony. But whatever the case, there it is - it’s certainly not their strongest case, but he said it was north, like the others did.

Oh, and of all the light pole witnesses to NOT ask if he just deduced that part, I didn’t hear Craig mention the light poles. The image above shows what a clear view he had of the first two, and though the fence may have obscured them, he remembers seeing the “things flying.” Obviously another deduction, too obvious to even bother asking I suppose?

Wednesday, October 1, 2008


This is not a truly important point I suppose, but an old pet peeve. The security gate camera "tailfin" and the magical white plume of smoke behind it. Most people on both/all sides of the debate seem to see it this way, whereas I've always felt the white IS the plane, and the 'tailfin' some sort of artifact. A while back I did a video to explain why, and I just finally got around to posting it. here, for people with too much time on their hands.

Watch Flight 77: The White Blur in Activism Videos  |  View More Free Videos Online at
Note to CIT adherents: I borrowed their video title in a sense, since they made such a case of all those witnesses describing the plane as white. This in no way rules out its actually being silver - all those witnesses (ElKournayti, Reyes, Veronica, Mrs. Hubbard) saw it from the south. Guess which direction the sun shines from? Add to the white plane witnesses this video and Alan Wallace, both from a similar vantage point just north of the impact point. Both saw it from the north and STLL describe it as white, so maybe it really was white... but both Wallace and the video have the plane flying in low and impacting the building, so that's not something CIT wants to hear... Hmmm, what to conclude...

Thursday, September 25, 2008


First Posting
9/24/08, 2am
updated 9/28, 11 pm

Alright, so at the JREF, this "Turbofan" character has been making a lot of noise in Anti-Sophist's FDR thread, criticizing the "pros" there and acting as if he knows everything about Flight data recorders, and along the way hinting at the old Balsamo sticking-point, the refusal of sane people to debate him on the phone. Well, I'm only half-sane, and offered to accept his challenge on condition he send me two dozen homemade cranberry muffins. He unexpectedly took me up, and after a series of PMs where we started out actually haggling over the muffins, we decided on last night. I was at work, but took a break when he called, about 5:45pm, put the speakerphone on, and recorded my fairly down-key conversation with Tino, as he gives his true name. For those familiar with his on-screen persona, so remarkable arrogant and Balsamo-esque, his real-time discussion manner is so much more - Canadian. It's almost like two different people, and the Tino I talked with in fact knew little about FDRs, having only garnered his knowledge from talking with PfffT, and couldn't even cite the values that were so discrepant in the final frame of data. The audio turned out pretty decent, and as soon as I decide a good way to share it, and for good measure confirm his consent to do so, well, then I'll do so, and add some notes and stuff.
Here's the audio
Additional Notes: [apologies for being so slow. I'm fairly busy elsewhere these days]. Regarding the audio, the line noise came out worse than I though - unshielded cables, please try to ignore. I figure there's no point in arguing for a win with a sock puppet or irrational person who's simply set in their course; as Swift says, via Pomeroo, "you can't reason someone out of something he was never reasoned into." So I may come across soft, but hardness hardly seemed necessary against this underwhelming opponent, and I was speaking to the (hypothetical) reasonable person inside who's ready to stop being led astray. Other notes later.

Sunday, September 21, 2008


September 21 2008
possible updates

For what it's worth, Pilots For 9/11 Truth recently released a new video based on math and stupid, that tries to say some stuff about the Pentagon attack. They're hoping to sell it, and so maybe have a breakthrough to push it with, like finally deciding on a theory of what did happen rather than just raising leading questions pointing towards no plane hit, held back out of "professional caution" and responsibility. LMAO. Please do not buy it, unless you support their long-running practical joke on gullible suckers. I don't even plan to watch it, but their talking points about the video focus on the presence of some serious math to correct their earlier egregious errors, months in the process of correcting. I'm fully capable of understanding the formulas I either failed to learn or forgot after High School, but only with the kind of time and attention I won't devote to facts whose only purpose is to debunk stupid shit I already know is wrong. Therefore, for those inclined to follow the math, especially those who lean towards believing the video, here is a link to John farmer's posts breaking down the "errors."

PFT Fantasy Flight Path and further analysis.

Myself, I don't feel like wasting any time on this. But if I change my mind, I'll plunk more stuff into this link. This is quite sparse, so I'm sure I'll have to add something.
Their G-Force on final descent analysis was relesed for viewing in a promo short video. Essentially, it’s a response to their epic 11.2 G error (admitted even!), first proposed in the Arlington Topography piece earlier this year. The correction was several months in the making, and only slightly different - 10.14G in the best case scenario. Now 11.2 Gs was waaaay off from what everyone more reasonable found, and it would appear the reason for the still-large gap is that peoples’ presumptions differed. His descent path is shown here in yellow, my notes added.
They presume, as I knew, a descent from just above the antenna tower to low enough to strike the first light pole by the time it got there. Two problems – it did indeed have to end where they show, but not start. The antenna tower is maybe 5 feet wide, and there’s no evidence if it was directly over, to the left, or to the right of it. All we know is close, and judging by eyewitness accounts, it was considerably lower than the top, so either left or right (and I’m banking on left, or north).
Terry Morin: “I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude.”
Edward Paik: "It almost hit my roof [...] If [the plane was a] little bit lower… it would have hit the [Navy Annex] building almost it seemed like. [The wing] knocked down the antenna… the plane was in the middle of the road… that’s why it hit the Antenna."

There is some evidence the antenna may well have been damaged, but it's not conclusive. If true, this would leave PffT's initial altitude presumption nearly correct, and contradicts the lowness described by both Morin and Paik. What correlates is a plane tens of feet above the Annex roof, I'd say closer to 30-50 feet above rather than 90-110 above as PfffT decide is the "lowest possible." It would be laterally quite near the tower, near enough to seem to have impacted it near the top. This would put it over Columbia Pike, and and running near-parallel the building's edge. Numerous witnesses (including Paik via gestures and Morin via seeing stripes on one side) confirm the plane was in a mild left bank, with right wing high. If the plane passed north of the tower, the right wingtip would be nearest the tower and its antenna at the top.

So, the descent from altitude, at the very least, cannot resonably be presumed as directly above the tower, greatly effecting the steepness of the resultant dive to the light poles. Second, and more important, the nature of the dive change is at issue – he has a sudden pivot, two straight lines bumping into each other, rather than like an actual plane's single uninterrupted parabolic curving movements. Ooops! My first comment was that this descent “has been sponsored by the letter L,” ala Sesame Street, and Reheat and other JREFers aptly took to calling it the ‘hockey stick’ descent. [Horatius did a funny comic strip on it] Apply sharp corners to “alleged” flight paths and you’ll force all change to one point and get unrealistic G-force calculations. Thanks PfffT for illustrating bad reasoning at work. Now just up the volume on the certainty language and demands for phone debates, and you can perhaps at least provoke people into wasting time, as a consolation prize for not being accurate.

Discussion on the G-Force video:
Pilots For 911 Truth
Above Top Secret
CIT forum

Saturday, September 13, 2008


first posting Sept 13 2008, 12 am
Last update 10/8 2am

So, John Farmer is, I guess, back from Arlington and has received reams of new data, this time from the FAA. He alerted Arabesque and I via e-mail.

The FAA has sent me via certified mail all of the records I requested in my Court action. It is going to take the entire weekend to go through it all, but it looks like the ATC audio and radar records for 1332 – 1344 for Washington ARTCC, Dulles, Reagan, Andrews and Baltimore.

If this turns out to be everything I think it is, then CIT is going to be squirming a little more.

I get a lot of these from him and don't even usually keep up. But the second e-mail here, about the included animation, made me sit up and take notice.

I attempted to send you guys the whole video, but it was too big for some mailboxes. You are the first to see this (I hope) and you just know CIT and Rob are gonna love it!

It shows, more or less, CIT's concocted path over the Navy Annex, with a hard hard right bank/turn and a passage north of the citgo, followed by low level impact (higher only to allow the right wing). I have just been in the middle of laying out the overabundance of North-path clues (there should be roughly nil), including the NTSB's earlier animation to similar effect, so this was doubly ironic as it hit me. This is so insane, the easiest explanation I can think of is... Farmer's pulling my leg?

Two stills, with real and CIT paths (quite app) in the usual colors overlaid. These are from the Youtube version, but Farmer made a higher resolution version available for download and viewing.

---first thoughts, unedited
Any thoughts, people? All I can think of is what - the - fuck?

Or, wait... mmmaybe FAA based it on radar and/or FDR up to the end of that data (the loop and all looks fine on first glance) and then stupidly tried to fuse in the NTSB's apparent final moments, hoping they had some reason for putting it on that path for the seconds they were missing (I'd guess 6-10?) ... Just mysteries. This is going to turn out interestingly.

Further Developments
Discussion on this took off all over with the expected rapidity, but a more dynamic embrace than some expected.
CIT Forum discussion
Craig and Aldo, who seethe with venom against Farmer, and aren't 'taking the bait' as it were. They speak of "chess moves" and such... Very sophisticated over there, their apprehension and ruminations! On the other hand, many like Rob Balsamo at the PfffT forum were giggling with excitement, while CIT strongly advised caution, leading to a curious argument about which dishonest track to take. CIT messenger Domenick DiMaggio (aka Terrocell, TC329) also started a JREF discussion thread about it, stating at one point:

they faked it and now they're releasing fake evidence to corroborate cit's evidence and yet still try to prove an impact. and as soon as you guys put the cats down and erase lloyd from the history books they can get away with their evil plans.

Whatwhatwhat? Nonetheless, this is where things took off with both confusion and learning. First, beyond disseminating it, the FAA seem to have no role in this short video. JREF member Gumboot first questioned their authenticity and/or their relevance, but over the first couple pages identified the logos onscreen ( and HQ NORAD/USSPACE/AN), and found STK was the Satellite Tool Kit Radar module, marketed by Analytical Graphics, Inc. (AGI), a company that makes software for "national security and space professionals for integrated analysis of land, sea, air, and space assets." He noted "the big golf ball things" seemed to be FAA Long Range Radar sites, and decided this may well be "a radar-based map for NORAD purposes," possibly "to determine which radar sites AA77 passed through, so that 84th RADES knew which data to collect for their analysis." Definitely getting somewhere.

Radar based... north path... I would have figure it out eventually, but Celestrin beat me to it. No wonder CIT were apprehensive - they knew about the false return placed for whatever reason, just north of the Citgo, and I had to point out that it wasn't their north path plane, at least 1,000 feet to low for radar to see. Celestrin made the connect:

RADES data has been available for months and it shows the exact same North of Cthulhu poperties as this animation. [...] Why is it such a wonder that an animation, which most likely uses the same data, would also show the plane further north?

I looked at it a bit the other night and did some graphic comparisons just to see what patterns popped out. I took the peach map from the NTSB's Flight Path Study and set the final map of the animation over it [below]. Note the apparent offset in rotation and location of the loop cross point. I'm not actually sure if the whole path is rotated, or this is just a local distortion from roughness. It is rough and unrealistic in its movements.Farmer instantly pointed out "Look at the loop you idiots, it is a square with rounded corners!" I noticed this too, as did Celestrin. The "squarish" appearance of the turn manuever also suggests that the data, which was used in the animation, wasn't continous." Given 12-second intervals between returns is "too fine for the animation," he wondered "what if one takes the RADES data 1 minute apart," or every fifth radar return, and got this.

When I marked the spots where straight lines start curving, and overlaid it with the 84 RADES returns for the loop, it looks more like this was based on taking every other 84 RADES return (pink dots) as anchor points, and replaced the intervening ones with straight lines or full curves, depending.

This in turn may be a clue to the north path’s appearance. Consider this pattern in light of these final three points of RADES data (the points stupidly connected above]. There may be a different dynamic at play here, but it seems similar in pattern – draw a straight line to, or near, the north point, and then a sharp curve to try and meet, or orbit, the next aberrant return just south of impact. Considering there may be a rotation of the path relative to the map, or vice-versa, and perhaps a slight spatial offset, the actual mapped curve may not be where it looks to be onscreen. Interestingly, when I rotate the line to fit the real path, the turn is about seven degrees, or the amount the NTSB's final map was rotated from its own lat-long grid. [Propos to Farmer for the background image establishing the real path beyond a reasonable doubt]. This is not my final answer, but I'm pretty sure it's close to correct, or on the right track at least.

More on the source
Pilots for 911 Truth forum member "Paranoia" looked at AGI's website and found some interesting information verifying Gumboot's ID. [link]. Of interest is a winter 2002 presentation by AGI President and CEO Paul Graziani, regarding their 9/11 animations. The accompanying powerpoint presentation confirms he's discussing this very simulation - it's pictured on page 5. In his delivered remarks [PDF link ], Graziani explained to assembled conventioneers how "actual FAA radar data was used to accurately recreate the events and model the flight paths of hijacked airlines as well as the responding military aircraft." Actual data, it would seem so. Accurate, only sorta... Of interest is the line "complex problems that once took weeks or months to complete, now take only seconds or minutes when employing software capabilities." Maybe they should have at least spent hours on this one.

Additional update: Just to clarify, this is a NORAD product, not FAA. This powerpoint presentation, from a June 2002 STK users conference, explains the project a little. It covered all four flights, plus responding fighters, all from FAA-supplied radar data.
The Video: I refined slightly the final returns angle, and put it together in video form, viewable with notes here.

Friday, September 12, 2008


September 12 2008, 2am

I meant I heard the last word I needed to from officer Roberts and that I meant it to be my own last word regarding him. But of course it’s not that easy, and it’s worth a few more given two critiques from CIT critics, rather than CIT. John Farmer rightly took issue with me, finding the title “strangely arrogant” and it was. I was feeling a bit cocky after hearing the full interview and feeling it all fall into place. So sue me. Since he’s in Arlington at the moment for the Pentagon memorial’s opening and doing some fruitful research, I have to give John some props and yield that of course this is all my opinion. And I don’t care if MY word is the last or not – so long as it’s in there.

A couple critiques however: Farmer says “First, I think it is very clear that Officer Roberts believes he made his observation AFTER the impact event.” Whatever he believes, as Farmer himself earlier noted, “if his CIT follow-up interview is accurate, he most likely saw AAL77 as it came down from the Citgo area and across Route 27.” The full interview is better. The first half is all 77 stuff. We both know what 77 did. IF he vaguely *experienced* a plane hitting some building and THEN saw 77 approach… what other explanation?

Regarding “His directional descriptions are quite ambiguous, such as describing the plane leaving the area southwest.” I’m not seeing the ambiguity, sorry. A U-turn – definition? Same way in, same way out. All directions are southwest. Where is the evidence he’s confused about what southwest means?

And at Above Top Secret where they have no tolerance for sock puppets or anonymous people if they’re on my computer, the still tolerated “Biscuit Cough” has offered his thoughts as well, bringing it into the “discussion” there. He finds my “twist on it” to be “very interesting” but probably “incorrect.”

Some critiques here: First, I am not “Frustrating Fraud” [or “Frustrated Fraud”]. The adj – noun construct implies I AM a Fraud, as opposed to the BS my blog of that title is about. Not to nit-pick, and I’m sure it was unintentional. Okay, so you cited Roosevelt: “ten seconds […] seven steps” and so on and asked:

“It would seem that if he were watching it on the television, there must have been a television in the booth with him?”
One would only come to this conclusion if we didn't read the apparent cut into the 2001 interview.”

What? Did you miss the part where the TV, and his awareness of the attacks coming from it, is about all he talks about? In his original interview, and in my video, he specifies the TV he was watching in the booth, up until he runs outside. And the cut isn’t “read in,” it’s there and he did say something we can only guess at. Previous narrative defined by the TV screen, then “as I hung up the phone [cut] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV.” Fill in the gap then if you have a better idea. “I looked back at the TV and saw”, or something to that effect, is my guess.

“It appears FF is saying he watched the second plane hit in NYC and jumped up and ran outside to the south loading dock. Odd response, IMO.”

Remember, this was preceded by awareness of the shit in NY already, the issuing of Threatcon Delta, and his awareness of his responsibility. ‘We could be hit next,’ y’know? So he goes out to assess the situation, watch for one of them crazy ass planes… It’s what I might do.

“So in summary, I think FF has a few things he needs to deal with: Roosevelt's testimony that there were two planes [and] that the plane was flying over the lane one area, southwest away from the Pentagon, back across 27.”

Agreed – these are the two irresolvable problems. I’ll spare us the full breakdown, but most points he relays fit with my interpretation just fine. The implication that the plane sighting is at 9:11-ish can’t be correct in CIT’s version either. Anything 77-related he saw was at 9:38 or so, and he MUST be wrong on this point. Right? Implied immediacy of “the explosion” and the low-flying plane. Did it simply follow “9:12 or 9:11” into the error wormhole?

Points that cannot fit:
Agreement to “two aircraft in the area” – one impacting unseen and the other seen after - “it was two aircraft, that’s for sure.” [5:50] the one he saw came from “where the first plane had flown into the Pentagon” [6:15] -first plane again implies the second.
The left turn to the Mall Entrance side, loop around back over 27 and departure to the southwest, mentioned all through the second half of the interview. This can’t figure into CIT’s story either, which is why they’ve decided he’s just confused.

Note that all of his statements that cannot fit come after 3:48. BC, what did you mean by “His testimony that it was flying "back across 27" was not given when he was asked to speculate.”? He was never asked to speculate, but if you mean after the “second plane” flying “away from the Pentagon” was mentioned, wrong. That’s what happened at 3:48, the only question he asks to be repeated, and the only one he had to think about for several seconds before answering. Anything unusual after that is highly suspect as evidence. All the second-plane stuff is after that. Hand-waving about “confusion” and “it’s all AFTER the event…” is the only alternative to even drag this one through the gate.

Simplest resolution and my guess and final word from me unless someone has smething remarkable to offer:

He saw 175 on TV at 9:10 and noted the time, ran outside and saw nothing.
He came back in and watched for a few minutes, made some calls or something. Remember, it’s threatcon. He’s in crisis mode here. Not the best for memories.
He went back out at 9:30-ish and after a bit saw Flight 77 appear over the lane one area, approach quickly over 27 at light pole level, and disappear around the corner at impact.
Two months later his memory was confused, so nearly all the wait time between the TV crash and the real plane was forgotten and compressed to about 2 minutes. He also left the actual impact un-described and implied – one second there’s a plane, the next, dust from the ceiling and people screaming. He either can’t recall it clearly, or feels no need to say it.
All the weird stuff everyone’s debating about and/or dancing around was made up under special and observable conditions.

Crazy, huh? The alternative is… a second/flyover something plane re-creating Flight 77’s approach right after a vaguely described impact/fakery event, and then defying physics with a maneuver that would have been invisible to Roberts anyway, and that haven't been seen by anyone else. Or he’s just confused and talking gibberish, probably ‘cause they “got to him.” Maybe I did…

So in essence, of all the hundreds of recorded witnesses, his ambiguity on the first plane-into-building event, plus his silence on the real impact make him uniquely confusing, and ripe for the plucking by flyover/second-plane enthusiasts. He’s at least as confusing when further probed, and not surprisingly does little to either prove or disprove the earlier issues. Those who can’t get enough mystery, carry on. There's still a lot of space between the words to play in.

Monday, September 1, 2008


Coming back online
first posted June 9 1pm

I've chosen to go with a Veoh account. The upload time is quite a bit better than Youtube's and the picture quality is, eh, about the same. They're downloadable it seems, but seems to be a time lag, with video trailing a bit behind audio. Anyway, I'll post all the links here, and update as I go.

C-130 Flight Path: An analysis of the various sources regarding the flight path of C-130 Golfer06, the famous second plane at the Pentagon after Flight 77''s crash. Pilot account, 84 RADES radar track, Eyewitness accounts, and even on-site video. Emphasis here is on the outbound flight, where others have found a clear discrepancy between the pilot's account and the radar data. Hogwash. Nothing in this video necessarily contradicts anything else.
-F.F. Companion Post

The Trouble With Turcios: This 9-min. video looks at the Nov. 2006 account of Robert Turcios - The PentaCon's (and the world's) only pull-up-before Pentagon-impact witness. Building on the analysis in "Citgo Video: Who is Person #1?" the centerpiece is his 9/11/01 video-recorded actions. Some say the video is legit, other say it's altered. Either way, it don't support Turcios' story in the least.
-F.F. Companion Post

That Darn NTSB Cartoon, pt. 1: The "FDR" North Path: Intro to the north-of-the-Citgo (NoC) aspect of the NTSB Flight 77 black box animation. It has been touted by some as real evidence of FDR "north plot data," but oddly it does NOT match the FDR itself, even as it matches the simultaneous NoC witnesses. Parts 2 and 3 chronicle my research into WHY the animation differes from the other data.

Pentagon 911 No 757 - The Boeng Doesn't Fit:
The 911 Truth - the hole is too small!!! Brilliant insights by Mayssan, Von Kleist, Williams, Avery+Rowe, and Pugh, just a few of those who've seen and alerted the world to the single too-small 16 ft hole in the Pentagon! Vs. blatant gov. loyalist lies about some "90-foot hole"! Is this video for real? You decide.

That Darn NTSB Cartoon, pt. 2: The Authenticity Sidetrack: Again, talking about the NTSB's flawed recreation of AA77's flight to the Pentagon, this time narrated by me (sorry - it's necessary). Basically this part outlines why I probably shouldn't have publicly questioned the animation's origins. (6:37)

Flight 77's Shadow: For all those screaming for video footage of the Pentagon attack, we need to understand no news cameras were rolling there, and security cameras are not geared to film planes in the air. The CCTV gate cams caught the plane at ground level and its impact, and the Citgo station security video (released Sept. 2006) caught this - the plane's shadow on the ground. Right size, right shape, right place, right time for Flight 77.
-F.F. Explanatory Companion Post (predates the video)
-F.F. video release companion Post (6:55)

That Darn NTSB Cartoon Part 3: The North Path Explained: The North Path Explained. There have been different reasons given for the animation's path passing north of the Navy Annex and Citgo, but it can't be ignored that, as I've found and show here, the ground grid wrong orientation and final map orientation total 17 degrees of wrongness, which is exactly how far off the animation is from the actual FDR data. I doubt it was a pure mistake, but it has nothing to do with where the plane actually was. (6:47)

The Last Word on the "Flyover Witness": CIT's long-awaited and much touted Pentagon "flyover witness" turns out to be... not that. (11:26)

Friday, August 29, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
First posted August 28 2008
Video added September 4

Online Videos by

So a while back I posted about a packet I had sent to CIT's alleged Pentagon “flyover witness” Roosevelt Roberts. It was returned to me unclaimed, either declined or sent to the wrong address. I had a second place to try him, and at least half-meant to. My general MO however is to not to bother the witnesses over idiotic miscontructions of the Comedy Improv Team or others, and even though I wanted clarification, I had been dawdling on trying again to contact him. Recent developments have shown me there is really no need to break my pattern. Everything was already explained well enough for my liking.

CIT had first aired an edited collage of his interview on Air America back in May, touted as the much-awaited lone witness to the flyover decoy plane immediately after the “impact” explosion. Finally SOMEONE immune to the unexplained optic trickery that fooled everyone else! There were some questions raised, and the team had been holding back their full interview, which is why I set out to contact Roberts. However, CIT recently released it at their discussion forum, apparently full and uncut, and I can see why they were sitting on it. I was first alerted to this by CIT critic “Biscuit Cough,” who transcribed it and offered some analysis at their forum and at Above Top Secret on the 18th. [Excellent work, mate!]

The audio file was posted as a subset of a separate issue: “C130 Arrived On Scene Nearly 3 Minutes After Event, Definitely not the plane Roosevelt saw.” Aldo Marquis preceded the link with a preamble to set the tone, which I’ve copied below with my corrections bracketed in red.

Pentagon officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr was at the loading docks and experienced the explosion [on TV, of Flight 175 at the WTC] (which he [Aldo] thought was [supposed to be] the impact [of 77 at the Pentagon]) inside. He details lights flickering and pieces of ceiling falling [lights unclear, ceiling problems only AFTER he saw the plane, below]. He then takes about "7 steps" out to the edge of the east end of the loading dock in South Parking lot and sees a "silver commercial aircraft liner w/jet engines (not propellors)" [over the lane one area, so west of him] traveling from the 27 side or from [actually TO] "where the 'first plane' hit" traveling east towards DC [and then departing the opposite direction, “southwest coming out”]. He said it was very low, he estimated 50 ft to less than 100 ft over the South Parking lot [lane one] area, he said it was banking and coming around to the mall entrance side [after being led to start making shit up]. Most importantly he described it like a 'pilot who missed the landing zone target and was coming back around' [and flying away to the southwest, which no one else reports]. Roosevelt saw the flyover plane [no, he saw Flight 77 on the approach and just didn’t describe the impact].

This interview for me represents the final word on Roberts, and it’s his own. Here's my attempt at drawing a light path. How did CIT have a hard time interpreting these words into a path? The loop here is perhaps tighter than he meant. Will have to be checked against other evidence to gauge its likely scale. I don't want to be accused of tightening it to make this breakthrough account seems less likely than it really is. This confirms their flyover findings perfectly, right?

ETA: Some words after the last word.