Thursday, December 20, 2007


The SantaCon: Elves Speak, Conspiracy Revealed
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
December 20 2007
update 12/26

I guess it’s a bit late to put this up with everyone dropping offline for the holidays, but the idea just hit me. Just some goofy good-hearted fun from an ‘obsessed’ fan of the wrong type – no particular vitriol meant here. And I am now officially pretty much on vacation until January. I may tinker a bit but expect nothing much new until 2008. Wow, the year is done - so this is Christmas, and what have I done? If I had the time and inclination right now I'd wax philosophic but meh... I'll spare you all. Go do your own deep thinking.

Wishing all, even the fraudsters, a pleasant non-specific early winter observance and a graceful transition to a better year.

I found the response interesting when I posted this at the Loose Change Forum.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 14 2007 10am
Updated 12/19 2am

Recently I agreed again to a phone debate/discussion with Aldo and Craig of Citizen's Investigative Team. This happened on page two of the comments section at my first 9/11 Blogger post. I was reacting in silliness to provocations like this:
Aldo: "Then you have the "team" that came out after to help reinforce [the 'official story']. "John Farmer", "Arabesque", and "Adam "Caustic Logic" Larson".
There is not a doubt in my mind that we are dealing with ops here.
I dare Adam Larson to provide a history and proof of his identity. I defy Arabesque to do the same.
You can all laugh, but what they do is called "neutralization". This is exactly what COINTEL ,does amongst other things, like calling us "frauds", "profiteers", "liars" etc.
Neutralizing is dangerous. It leaves us in limbo, it leaves us stuck with no real resolution. It is meant to cause jut enough doubt that you feel you don't know what happened and leave confused."
Craig: "This is an information WAR and the government has the benefit of control of the media, all the power, technology, money, and methodology to manipulate and DECEIVE the masses.
This isn't MY investigation it is the TRUTH MOVEMENT'S investigation that has the momentous task of working against all of that.
By not clarifying what side of this information war you are fighting for you are by default working to defend the government.
All we are doing is figuring out ways to lift the veil of lies to uncover further proof that will help to deprogram the masses.
If you fail to understand and acknowledge this then you are a clear enemy in this information war."

The terms were set, numbers swapped, and a date of November 14, 3:30 pm agreed to chat with Aldo was agreed to. In light of my agreeing to the phone thing, Craig said "your willingness to debate us online and now this recorded call has me leaning towards you being a brainwashed minion of the Pickering/Hoffman/Arabasque squad rather than a professional." Along the way we agreed no one would win a 'debate,' or at least we could never agree on who won, so it'd be a discussion. We also decided I'd talk with Aldo and Craig at the same time.

Craig called about 3:30 as agreed; Aldo had backed out for some reason, so the two of us talked about witnesses, logic, investigations, evidence, flyover, impact, etc. It was essentially civil, low-key. Unfortunately I was a bit tired and not too nimble on my toes, so I largely just let him talk. It's pretty boring really from my end. He calIed me wishy-washy several times and I stammered a lot. But there are interesting parts, like where he questiooned the timing of my appearance on the scene (along with Arabesque's) as they were first releasing their crucial data.

Here is CIT's posting of the first debate in video form. God, I hate my voice and sometimes my brain. Hah! You can 'see' it here - notes added are theirs of course.

[direct link]
And then on December 3 I followed through on round 2 with Aldo and Craig at the same time. I actually held my own a little better this time, but we still have a Kennedy-Nixon dynamic going on, where radio listeners claim Nixon won the debate while Kennedy took it hands-down with TV audiences. While we had earlier agreed not to call it a debate since both sides would simply claim they had won it, it seems that's how it's turned out anyway: Cit has posted on their "Recorded debates with Adam Larson", which they clearly feel they've won, while of course I know I won whether or not it'd be obvious just listening to the tones of triumphalism in our voices. On content and logic I win hands-down, which is why I do better onlne with all my data here and some time to think out what I'm going to say. Anyway, here it is, the only way they could trick me into re-posting their famous 4-way north-path witness montage:

[direct link]

Thursday, December 13, 2007

THE LADIES OF 13th AND POE (summary)

The Frustrating Fraud
February 3 2008

Note: This is the “despicable scumbag” summary version of the article; for those with more patience, see also my “Convoluted manipulative disinfo” version which explains all my points adequately.

While Citizen Investigation Team (CIT)’s original video The PentaCon had established the north-of-Citgo (NoC) flight path back to the Navy Annex, their follow-up video "Flight 77" The White Plane claims to further defy the official path with four more witnesses further back. Their main finding that all four seemed to agree on was that “the plane […] was white.” I’ve chosen to ignore that aspect for now and focus on where and how the witnesses said the white plane flew.
The flight path is anchored in the south by Jamal El Kournayti, who saw the plane over the Army-Navy county club’s driving range, placing the plane well south of the previous accounts. The path and location CIT drew for their video is accurate to what El Kournayti describes, and is the better part of a half-mile off the ‘official path,’ but with about the same heading. For the yellow path to work, the attack plane would have to connect to the path drawn by PentaCon witness Edward Paik over the Navy Annex NNE of Jamal. Both men should have reported a turn or at least the accompanying bank. But neither describes one in their account or is asked about it. El Kournayti’s gestures indicate a straight sweep across the sky on a bearing of about 65°. So somewhere between Jamal and Edward the plane would need to shift to the north and do all its turning. Hopefully there were witnesses in that space.

The other three witnesses cited in The White Plane are three women who live in the 13th and Poe neighborhood, just southwest of the Navy Annex, and indeed between Edward and Jamal. Mrs. Hubbard was interviewed at her home; she declined to be videotaped and talks of an unseen flight path:

“It came right between these two houses […] I saw the tip of it going that way [...] It came this way. It came across here. And it went between the house with the gray roof […] and the big house. It pulled up so that it would miss those trees and then the next thing I saw was the puff of smoke.”

With no visual clues at all, the best I have to go on is that she saw the plane from her east-facing den window, and she “thought it had hit the highway,” meaning the raised curving portion of I-395 northeast of her. But CIT’s yellow composite squiggle passes entirely behind her house and out of view, even as she’s included as a witness to this path’s middle stretch. For her to see, it would have to curve at least somewhat to the east of her window, then almost due north to the corner of the Navy Annex, sharpening the turn to rendezvous with Paik’s line.

Witness Veronica saw the plane at her cousin’s house, and indicated an ENE direction of flight, which CIT ignore and focus on her cousin, Cindy Reyes. Reyes’ account is confusing for direction but seems to be primarily eastbound with some degree of north trend as well, since it was “at an angle.” Neither she nor Veronica mention or are asked about seeing any turn of the airplane or wing bank.

Both paths in this graphic agree on general distance from the window, but this double-corroborated testimony of Cindy and Veronica - straight and ENE - seems to more strongly support the purple line, which is in fact the precise “official path” of Flight 77.

Among the 13th and Poe witnesses there are clearly no direct clues for the middle stretch of the yellow CIT squiggle, nor the associated turns and banks, and in fact some serious points against them. The Citizen Investigators tacitly admit this with statements like “there is no need to determine the exact placement of the plane or a flight path at all.” After the revolutionary flight path up north the issue of plane direction is clearly back-burner now.

Their basic approach is to ignore the directional clues of the 13th and Poe witnesses and instead “draw a line from where Jamal saw the plane to where the citgo witnesses saw the plane. […] That's what we did. That is scientific, logical, and the most accurate way to interpret this data.” They had to invent an unsubstantiated north deviation and two sharp banks no one reported seeing, and then have challenged myself and others to do the same; “think of all of their placements as being approximate and create the best estimation you can using ALL of their accounts. Go ahead, do it and show me what you come up with.” Okay so here are three versions with three different sets of assumptions, CIT’s swerve in yellow and the official path in purple for reference:

CIT has the gall to manipulate the data thus and then pretending a major discrepancy, offer false dichotomies like “if you believe the official story you have to accept that virtually all of [the witnesses] are completely lying. […] So do you trust real people or do you trust the government?” For those who they think have chosen the latter they have harsh words that fit their own method to a T:

“are you so sick and demented that [the CIT-presented witnesses] are just values in a logic equation? Do they represent actual witnesses and human beings who are scared about what they saw or are they just names and statements that you can play circle games with because you think you understand "logic"?”

Tuesday, December 11, 2007


Pentagon clock stopped at 9:57:40, almost precisely 20 minutes after the official story’s 9:37:46 impact of a pirated Boeing 757. The cause of this stoppage is NOT good evidence of the moment of the ‘first event;’ it seems to have frozen by melting, after one gear too many fused together in the jagged inferno that took nearly 200 lives.
This post is primarily to organize sub-posts of the Pentagon Attack Timeline Questions series, a project inspired by the 9:32 revisionism campaign spearheaded by Barbara Honegger.
Part 1 - The Elastic Timeline. Collapse time revision, intro to 9:38 evidence, 9:43 event evidence.
Part 2 - Another Six Back? The 9:32 Case. Honeegger, Gaffney, Terral - three different cases tap into the 9:32 frozen clocks.
Part 3 - 9:32 Event Evidence Addressed Does it hold water? Only in powdered form.
Part 4: 9:38 Event Evidence Addressed
Part 5: Fun with Timelines (forthcoming)
Timeline Indicated by Preponderance of Evidence:
8:20 am: American Airlines Flight 77 departs Dulles International Airport (about 20 miles from the Pentagon and the Capitol) headed for Los Angeles, ten minutes behind schedule.

8:54 - Flight 77 is hijacked, leaves its charted course, turns to the south, loses transponder signal and stops communicating with controllers.

8:55-9:25 - The hijacked flight turns east and travels back towards it point of origin near Washington. Controllers do not have access to primary radar, so with transponder off the plane becomes invisible for a half-hour until it appears on Washington-area screens at 9:25.

9:34-9:37 – The plane enters its final loop before impact, turning 330 degrees southwest of the Pentagon in three minutes, dropping the whole time. It then straightens out on a magnetic heading of 70 degrees and closes in straight and fast.

9:37:46 (give or take a few seconds) – impact with ground floor of the Pentagon’s west face at 530 mph.

Time given to evacuate the building: none.

Sunday, December 9, 2007


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Posted July 25 2007
last updated 12/9/07

Note: This article deals with Steve Koeppel's loop map only. Arabesque has also posted an excellent post partly on this article, related with the three planes-confusion (FL77, a C-130, and an E-4B "doomsday plane," all verified in the area at the time), later expanded to cover other areas.
Note 12/9: Steve Koeppel himself (I presume) has popped in here to help explain some things (see comments below). "I did state that I had been an Air Force and Reserve navigator (I am NOT pilot in the military! Would somebody clear that up?!?)" Yes. Koeppel was not an Air Force Pilot as cited by The Power Hour. He was an Air Force navigator. "AT THAT TIME (early 2002) my intent was get suggestions on why there weren't any tourist photos (of Flight 77) [...] I made no claim to creating the unimpeachable analysis," he clarifies, "nor was that my intent; that's why I put so many qualifiers in my post." Good. Among the scant evidence he called on to create his path, one escaped my detectors and still does: "after disappearing from the radar scope the aircraft had had reappeared approaching D.C. from the north and was thought to have been aiming at the White House..." See below for full comment.
For years after 9/11, as controversy swirled over the details of the Pentagon attack, a working draft of the highly suspicious reported 3/4-circle loop in the flight path became widely used to cast doubt on the official story. This grand loop over Washington became one of the unifying points of agreement between Hunt The Boeing Pentagon no-planers and remote control-757 advocating “plane-huggers.” The general gist was eloquently summed up by Nila Sagadevan in early 2006:

“[T]his fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot […] found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway” [1]

While this sounds compelling, the flight path he’s talking about never existed. It was bolstered and seeded in the movement, above all, by this map:Those who cite this precise angle of turn, point out the lack of White House defensive fire as the plane passed within a mile or two of it, or of the plane going out of its way to avoid Rumsfeld’s office, for which it was headed, are probably referring to this map, if to anything specific. Russell Pickering’s Pentagon used it to illustrate; “you can see where the White House was passed.” He also carefully cited the map’s originator, which makes it easy enough to look up and double-check. Author: Former Air Force Pilot Steve Koeppel, Palm Springs, CA [2]

This led me to Koeppel’s undated piece, from way back, some time in 2002 it seems (it was mentioned by Hufschmid in Painful Questions, released 2002). The map and explanation of it were hosted originally by The Power Hour, producers of 911 In Plane Site, which is among the worst 9/11 videos ever, often dismissed as a too-long joke on the Truth Movement. Whatever the merits of his hosts, Koeppel's piece there explained how he reasoned out the map; none too promising is how he starts out with (apparent) inexplicable ignorance over the general contours of the flight:

“It was fairly simple to find the WTC routes, but I have yet to see a map showing the route flown by the aircraft that was said to have hit the Pentagon. So I read some of the reports and put together the attached maps. […] I'm surprised that I haven't seen this map — or ANY map — of the Pentagon airplane's approach. Given all the information that we were deluged with in the weeks after the attacks, it surprises me that this graphic was omitted.” [3]

The flight path of Flight 77 was not omitted by any measure, and it was not hard to find – even I knew the general outline of the flight, as : first published in Time, Newsweek, etc in the days after the attacks. Yes, the return path was a dotted line back then, estimated obviously, and too vague yet to show 77’s final loop, which was apparently his main question. But all these paths have proven broadly accurate in that the 757 headed west, turned south over the WV-KY-OH border area, lost transponder, and returned, heading east straight to the Pentagon. “Guardian” was one of the few that noted of Koeppel’s path “that this is a very strange flight path for an aircraft coming from the east and planning to crash into the Pentagon.” [4] It’s at least as odd for Flight 77, which was coming in from the southwest and finally impacted from the southwest, to wind up swooping down on the Pentagon from the northeast as in Koeppel’s map.

As an ill-fated aside before explaining his sources, Koeppel pointed out “what's surprising is how many news sources got the information wrong. For example, look at this graphic from Reuters, which has the attack on the wrong side of the Pentagon:”
Above is the graphic he used [right-click, new wiindow to enlarge], labeled “The Pentagon Attack” and featuring a six-point timeline of events, along with a grossly incorrect impact point shown. What’s at least as surprising, in my opinion, is where Koeppel explains “I based my map of the attack path on a description of the attack (see Pentagon Attack) which said the plane was initially picked up on radar east-southeast of Dulles heading at high speed toward Washington.” [5] Red flag! He introduces the erred Reuters graphic, and then tells us his whole analysis is based on a single account, and it’s this same graphic.

Another wrong point in it he (understandably) failed to catch was its understatement of the loop by 60° – it was indeed to the right (south) but was actually 330°, nearly full circle, a descriptor widely used outside of the source he chose. As for how he came up with the southward swoop, Koeppel explained it as starting from “the 270 degree right turn” leaving him “puzzled.” A “near-circular” turn to the right, off an approach from the west, to hit the Pentagon at the final angle he gave no clue of being aware of, Koeppel might’ve guessed something like the official and logical connecting loop (here in yellow). Instead, he decided to bring it in from the north; “I realized that [the 3/4 loop] would provide a simple set of landmarks for the pilot. Just intercept the Potomac River north of town, follow it south until you see the Washington Monument or Capitol,” and then, as the Reuters guy said, make a 270 degree right turn and hit the far north edge of the west wall at the fourth-floor level. So thinking like a novice pilot, he found an arbitrary 270° line of landmarks in that area that might guide one to the target, and then presumed that to be the most logical flight path that he felt “meets all the conditions in the description.” Below is a map that helps clarify that his entire red arc is indeed east-southeast of Dulles, barely, and this seems to be a plausible path – if we disregard the official and logical flight path up till then (blue).

If the final loop Koeppel arrived at (red) was to be connected with the official story path (blue), that would necessitate the purple arc, or something similar, to connect the two. Since he was generally aware of the plane's position before turning (blue asterisk in the center of my map, actually pretty close to the official flight path, and nowhere near "the Potomac river north of town"), he in fact was implying the purple arc. However, he fails to explain or illustrate this turn to the left/north around and over DC, which is nowhere in his Reuter’s graphic or any other account. He made no mention of the full implied loop of roughly 400° from there needed for his loop to work.

In short, despite his ignorance of “ANY map of the Pentagon airplane's approach,” Koeppel was able to place the plane properly before its turn, but then invented the wild purple and red maneuver and only explained and illustrated the second half of it. He called this analysis and map “my contribution to the effort to try to make sense of an insane event. I don't know if it adds clarity or static, but it seems a part of the puzzle that has been missing.” [6] Looking at the method that gave us that half-map, it was clearly static he added. What’s surprising is that no one apparently caught on and this map became almost gospel. It was so widely used and believed to explain the oddity of the Pentagon attack (which is still odd enough) that it was interpreted by “Guardian” as possibly official; “the claimed flight path of flight 77 over Washington. […] In reality, flight 77 never existed.” [7]

The real loop, 330° to the south off an easterly approach, was new to some of the top 9/11 Pentagon researchers in mid-August 2006. At the Loose Change forum, Killtown showed the NTSB yellow-line loop map, seen in the just-released Flight Path Study. He labeled this as “new,” compared to Koeppel’s map, labeled “old.” Pickering, who had promoted the “old” map by featuring it on his site and working it into his other material, responded “the new flight path data does not change everything,” but it did help indicate to him that “I have a lot of re-writing to do these days!” Another member noted Pickering’s reliance on Koeppel’s map, and wondered of Koeppel “what he based his information on?” The question was not answered there, but I hope this analysis helps shed some light on the subject. [8]
More people who had fallen for it at some point (besides me, not that I even looked close until now): Jim Hoffman at one point used Koeppel's map to illustrate how a "Spiral Attack Maneuver Avoids Top Brass."
The bastards at Judicialinc captioned the map "NORAD's story that Hani Hanjour flew a 757 doing 600 MPH at 7000' and went into a 270 degree decending turn and hit the Pentagon, is absurd."

[1] Segadevan, Nila.“The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training.” Looking Glass News. Feb 20, 2006 storyid=5115
[2] Pickering, Russell. “Analysis of Flight 77 Flight Path” Pentagon
[3], [5], [6] [Koeppel, Steve. Analysis of Flight 77: Flight Path by a Former Air Force Pilot.” The Power Hour. Undated.
[4], [7] Guardian. “Flight 77 and the Pentagon. What Really Happened?” Undated.
[8] Pickering, Russell, Terry Zarzoff, and Killtown. Comments posted August 12 2006. Loose Change Forum -> The Pentagon -> "New Flight 77 Path Different (of Course)."

Thursday, December 6, 2007


Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 8 2007
last updated 12/9/07

The TLC Wheel
The picture at left was taken by an unknown photographer on September 12 and shown in a The Learning Channel documentary. The location is in the Pentagon’s A-E Drive, at the far end of the plane’s trajectory between rinds B and C, just outside the curious 'punch-out' exit hole. It’s of a wheel rim generally thought to be from Flight 77. No missile I know of uses landing gear with wheels, but smaller planes do, and debate has raged over whether or not this is the precisely and verifiably a 757’s wheel or from something smaller.

Karl Schwarz, among his information that was “hand-delivered to New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer,” decided the wheel is “the type made by B.F. Goodrich in their aerospace division. They also made the wheels for the 757 but a simple proportional check of width versus diameter will easily show that the below photo is not of a wheel hub from a 757 [...] This radius being about the same as the width of the wheel hub is also another clue that the 757 story is a Bush Lie." To clue us in on the truth, he noted that this looks like an A3 Skywarrior wheel - if it had the wrong wheels. "This is the type of wheel hub one would expect to find as one of the two rear wheels on an A-3 refitted with current equipment rather than equipment that is no longer being manufactured." [source]

Schwarz’s radius/width wheel analysis was apparently passed on by Dylan Avery in Loose Change first edition and then misinterpreted by the debunkers at “Internet Detectives” as radius/diameter: “I'm not sure what [Avery] means by this, as all circular objects have a diameter twice their radius.” [2] Anyway, in comparing the same images Avery used, which the Detectives considered good enough, we see clearly that the rim width/hub radius at left (red/blue) is about exactly the tire width/hub radius at right - the radius/width of the C Ring rim matches that of a 757.

Another point I recall seeing made at LetsRoll 911 was the difference in the holes placed radially around the center mount. Both seem to have a symmetrical arrangement but a differing number – the Pentagon rim with eight, the intact gear sporting ten, it seems. This is not so odd though, as Russell Pickering found out with some research, the 757-200 series (which Flight 77 was) uses precisely two different types interchangably - "one with 10 slots and one with 8." It's hard to say which type FLight 77 was equipped with, since, as Pickering found, "airlines are not obligated to use the same rim and gear manufacturer on a particular aircraft.” [source] My guess is it had eight holes. In fact the debunkers at found a photo showing the very craft in question - tail number N644AA - sporting main gear wheels with eight slots, just like the one that wound up in the drive. If it was planted, it was done right. But where are the other seven main gear wheels? Or the two nose gear wheels?

More Wheels

Above is a photo first published back in September. I first found it at the Loose Change Forum (halfway down page), posted by LCF member Digest, who had just re-deployed, to Iraq I would guess. Additional details remain hazy, but it would seem to be in the A-E Drive as well, and shows some apparent engine parts as well as a glimpse of the main gear strut (which I'll discuss in a moment) and a main gear wheel assembly with two battered wheels attached that seem to match the TLC wheel. Compare this with the main gear seen on a 757 (left).

The Strut(s)

Then we can see what had once attached this wheel to the plane, a massive hydraullic leg found in the C Ring just inside the exit hole – not far from the wheel. This appears to be one of two main landing gear struts. Pickering wasn’t at first sure of the size of this clearly hydraulic artifact. He speculated it might be something from inside the building, like “the cylinder from a trash compactor,” but noted “if it could be proven that it was from an aircraft other than a 757 [that] would obviously be significant.” The inset is from the photo above - it bears the same hallmarks, and could be either the same strut or its counterpart.
Then he located another photo that clarified the scale of the thing, filling much of a room, as seen above, and compared this shot with a photo of a 757 landing gear in the shop, which Pickering obtained and I’ve superimposed for human scale. Taken together, these led Pickering to conclude “it must be a landing gear,” and its trunion link layout and other clues strongly suggesting a 757's. [source] Some scientists interviewed for the Dutch TV program Zembla were shown these photos [video link - 1:50 mark] and decided it was likely from a 757.

Whatever the merits of the too-small wheel analysis, after reviewing this massive, fundamental, and highly likely 757 part buried in the wreckage, any further discussion of the precise type of wheel at the end of it would now seem doubly ludicrous. All the HTB people have left now is the contention that these photos were stage-managed, the parts planted, or complete CGI forgeries. And they probably will make that case, if they bother acknowledging this evidence at all, as well as that the wheel in the forgeries is far too small. But for those who rely exclusively on evidence like Loose Change, Pentagon Strike, In Plane Site, or Painful Deceptions, the solution is simple - they will never be confronted with the landing gear photo, which was excluded from all these in-depth videos for some reason.

The Tire/Gear At Impact

Additionally, a single large tire - or at least half of one - was seen in the A-E Drive, in close proximity to the wheel found there. It is not pristine, but relatively intact for having passed through 300 feet of building. Perhaps this has to with being shielded by the rest of the plane. Of all eyewitness reports, only Noel Sepulveda recalls the landing gear down before the plane impacted. Other witnesses specifically report the landig gear was NOT extended at impact. William Lagasse: "The 757’s flaps were not deployed and the landing gear was retracted." [fifteen corroborating accounts compiled by Arabesque], and so remained safely tucked within the plane's underside, presumably until the fusealge came apart around it.

What We've Seen

What we've seen is actuall a decent percentage of the landing gear, mostly just inside and outside the 'punch-out' hole which was semi-officially caused by some unspecified part of the Landing gear. One massive main strut apparently came to rest inside this opening, perhaps the same one was later photographed outside in the drive, along with the two wheel segment, which may well have been pulled out from inside. All of the gear we can identify as likely exiting the building on its own is that lone piddly wheel and tire, photographed from the beginning on the pile of rubble fanning out from the hole. The rest of the gear not shown on this page, if it was there at all, was buried somewhere inside that high-security installation and not publicly shown yet to my knowledge. One sobering possibility that should be considered is whether perhaps the smaller, unseen nose gear had detached early on, in its folded and dense postion, and buried itself nearly intact in a victim's torso. Would this photo be released if so? I actually hope not.

[1] Schwarz, Karl W. B. “Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble Part 5: Exploding the myth of the Bushes as an all-American family.” Online Journal, via
[2] “Loose Change, section two: The Wheel Hub.” Internet Detectives.

Wednesday, December 5, 2007


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
December 5 2007 3am
last updated 8/10/09

All The 9:32 Duckies Lined Up
In the previous post I established the overall logic (found wanting) of the claims for a 9:32 attack at the Pentagon, vs. the official time of 9:37:45. Now it’s time to analyze the evidence that is behind all this theorizing; something got people wondering ‘what happened at 9:32?’ We’ve looked at the two frozen clocks a bit, and will return to them by the end, so let’s start with the yet-unexamined supporting evidence first. If some major violence happened at that time and was covered up, it might leave traces pointing at some kind of coherent reality. Until he was temporarily banned and then seems to have stayed away, LCF member Terral hammered away at a nine-point list of evidence for his 9:31:39 missile impact [1], based on Barbara Honegger’s five-point list of a pre-plane bombing at about that time [2]. Analyzing the two together and dismissing those that have nothing to do with a set time of about 9:32 I have identified seven points, including the clocks combined as one point. Supports attempted for 9:30 I have disregarded as too early to fit this model and will be addressed separately in a later post.

The meat and potatoes of 9:32 evidence is as follows, as debunked as I care to try for along the way:

1) An Early FAA Chronology: A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) document called Executive Summary - Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis - September 11, 2001 reported that at “0932 ATC AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon.” [3] Assembled just six days after the attacks, this official report’s stated time has since been amended – cover-up or correction? ATC (air Traffic Control) means radar; they don’t see things crashing, just disappear from screens, which happens when it drops below a certain altitude. In the case of the Pentagon attack, it appears the plane dropped off screens at 9:37:15, 30 seconds before impact, not the 5-6 minutes before required for this report to be correct. Many have taken this as a temporary slip and admission of reality - but one still openly available despite its damning implications.

Another likely possibility is that this report was somehow wrong, perhaps a confused report reflecting, for example, the 9:34 call mentioned by Gaffney in the previous post– “American 77's lost […] they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.” [4] It seems likely to guess it crashed – perhaps this report was hasty and based on some initial report to this effect without double-checking – and not necessarily a clue of anything.

Regarding early FAA reports from 9/11 and their relevance on timeline questions, for Flight 11 they reported (at one point, it's also since been revised) a shooting of passenger Daniel Lewin at 9:18 am (it had crashed at 8:46, documented and uncontested) and then “at 9:25 am, this flight crashed directly into one of the towers of the world trade center.” [5] Compared to AA’s flight 11 mix-up (possibly the origin of the ‘Phantom Flight 11’ that distracted defenders from the real threat of Flight 77), a single mis-citation of 77’s crash time is quite mundane.

And besides, it seems highly unlikely that ATC with their radar screens would report a non-plane related 9:32 explosion, however they may have heard about it, as evidence for the disappearance of a plane they were tracking - So this evidence’s connection to Honegger’s case is less than clear.

2) Per Stig Møler: The son of two Danish parliamentarians and a member of Det Konservative Folkeparti [6], Møler was in Washington, D.C. on 9/11, two months prior to his being appointed Foreign Minister of Denmark. The morning of the attack, Honegger recounts, “he looked out, heard an explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon. He immediately looked at his watch, which read 9:32 am. He gave radio interviews in Denmark the next morning in which he stated that the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32.” [7]

This seems to be good evidence; one would think if his watch was five minutes off, he'd know that and correct for such a momentous occasion. Or is he simply embellishing the watch check, and actually filling in the time based on some flawed source? [The FAA’s chronology would not be released or days, so that’s not a possible culprit]. Or is Honegger inserting the watch embellishment herself, while Møler only ever said it happened at 9:32? Her sources was listed as “interview with Denmark Radio P3, September 12, 2001, 6:15 am Denmark time.” The excerpt she included said “I saw smoke and fire rising from the Pentagon at 9:32...My first impression was that a bomb had been detonated at the Pentagon.” That in itself doesn’t clear things up, and being disinclined to find the original audio and get it translated, I’ll leave this point as vague at best.

Update: Someone named Josarhus from Denmark checked out the interview, joined and started a thread at the JREF forum about this:
Further more Per Stig Møller CLEARLY states that he thinks the time was around 9:32-9:34 based on when the meeting was supposed to end. The meeting was supposed to end at 9:30, but he didn’t look at his watch. In other words the time could very easily correspond with the official time of the crash.

To make it short, if anybody in the future claims that Per Stig Møller said that he heard an explosion and saw smoke and flames 5 minutes before the plane hit the Pentagon, tell them that the claim is based on an incorrect translation by the Dane Henrik Melvang and on deliberate distortions by Barbara Honegger.

3) Robert Andrews Top Civilian at Pentagon and director of “Special Operations” under Rumsfeld, Andrews shared with Honegger another wristwatch recollection. He told her in an interview that he had been in the Pentagon’s basement when “a violent event caused the ceiling tiles to fall off the ceiling and smoke to pour into the room. Andrews immediately looked at his watch, which read approximately 9:35 am but which was set fast to ensure timely arrival at meetings, so the actual time was closer to 9:32.” [8]

Barring another embellishment by the author (who does seem unable to provide direct quotes where witnesses clarify they got the time from their watches), this is quite specific and good evidence – almost too good. A Rumsfeld aide tells us the event occurred at 9:32. I'm starting to wonder if there really is a pattern behind all this evidence besides coincidence, but that it’s closer to Pentagon disinfo than emerging reality. If so, Rummy's 'missile-transcription” set the trend. Does ‘special operations” include disinfo work? Otherwise, maybe he just misspoke and said 9:35 when he meant to say 9:45. Then he could be referring to the 9:38 plane impact or to the later explosion around 9:43, depending on just how far ahead his watch was.

4) Al Gonzales Before becoming Attorney General, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales gave a lecture at Honegger’s Naval Postgraduate School in which, as Honegger noted, “Gonzales explicitly and clearly states that “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32”. [9] It’s matter of public record and probably true that he indeed said this, but I don't see why it necessarily means anything. He may have just read an erred report – like the FAA’s cited above – while doing his background research for the speech. Or if there were an official effort to seed this idea, as suggested by Honegger's Andrews interview, there's no good reason to rule out Gonzales deciding to affirm it almost to Honegger's very face for her later use. For the moment I'll stick to the more innocent explanation.

5) The Doubletree Video Timestamp:
Neither the Pentagon nor the plane that hit it are visible in the Doubletree security video; with its view blocked by the raised roadway nearer the camera, only the massive column of fire and smoke in the distance gives us a clue that the Pentagon was struck at – 9:32? The video is very glitchy; an onlooker in the lot also blinks in and out of the screen twice and a totally different camera view of another parking lot comes and goes and later wrestles for dominance with the main view. The time-stamp is as jumpy and flickery as the picture but moves unsteadily along a natural timeline stamped 9:34. As the explosion rises at 9:34:42, the timeline then flickers to 9:32:43, which hold for one second until rolling back to 9:34:44. [10] A minute change precisely at the second rollover, simply showing a 2 instead of a 4 during that slot seems just a glitch; the date field also changes for one second at different points. 09-11-2001 briefly turns to 9-03-2001 (at 9:30:54). No one has yet claimed this as evidence of an explosion at the Pentagon eight days early.

Passing up the chance to make a fool of herself again, Honegger failed to include this anomaly of the minute space as evidence for here case, but 9:32:43 was taken up enthusiastically by Terral and analyzed (see above, his graphic) as another solid proof of his 9:31:39 event. “The proof is in the pudding,” he explained. “The Double Tree Security Video shows signs of monkey business. :0) I cannot tell you ‘why,’ but can show you ‘what’ the evidence clearly reveals from the 9:32:43 AM recorded explosion taking place […] This is another case of the ‘evidence’ supporting my 9:32 AM “first explosion”” hypothesis.” [11] Terral clearly is implying it was altered from 9:32 except for that frame, but as I asked him, “why would they 'alter' the time of the 9:32 blast to look like the 9:38 blast, but change the time to 9:34 instead and then let it flicker back to 9:32 at the end? What on Earth can this prove?” [12] Proof by glitch as further 'corroboration’ of a 9:32 event. He even used the quotes himself, and included that trademark clown face emoticon. This is just how seriously the case deserves to be taken.

6) April Gallop’s watch: A third wristwatch recollection related by Honegger Is that of April Gallop, an “Army employee with a Top Secret clearance,” had stopped by her office with her newborn son Elisha when her section exploded. Honegger’s point in including this curious witness was that “Ms. Gallop still has the watch she was wearing that morning, which stopped shortly after 9:30.” [13]

April certainly went through hell that day, with her baby, and suffered serious injuries to her right leg I believe, so it’s possible her watch was mechanically stopped by something that hit her arm as well. And if so, we have another stopped clock showing a time closer to 9:32 than 9:38. Given what Gallop went through, it may seem cold to cast aspersions, but of all the points on this list, she is in my opinion the most compromised by mis/disinformation concerns. Among the oddities of her account(s), she later told Jim Marrs “I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb. There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel […] I figure the plane story is there to brainwash people.” [14] She’s also helped promote the PentaCon, and has described climbing out through the entry hole, which she has elsewhere incorrectly verified as “perfectly round” and “didn't appear to be big enough for the 757.” [15]

Even Terral knew not to touch this point, and she was not included in his five-point list. He explained “I omit Ms. Gallop’s testimony from my work entirely, because the other ‘clock damage’ appears to be from the ‘concussion’ of the explosions and not from an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). That means Ms. Gallop needed to strike her wrist against something at this critical time to stop the movement mechanism, OR my EMP suspicions are inaccurate.” [16] Okay, perhaps credibility was not his reason, but it should have been.

7) Those Clocks:

The pivotal evidence that started the whole search for a 9:32 event is that double-corroborated time recorded on those two famous clocks. This point has also proven the hardest to debunk with certainty. Since I have no solid rebuttal, and since this post is already too long, I'll just summarize what's up with that. Pickering seems to suggest mechanical damage after 9:32, with the diesngaged minute hands falling with gravity towards - but not quite to - the six, and proferred a challenge for anyone to try it at home and videotape the results. [17]. To my knowledge no one has taken him up (I have a clock but need to borrow a camera). In short, I have no sure answer for the clocks showing the wrong time. Just on their own strength, the possibility that they're right must be considered. Therefore, these seem to me the main possibilities:

1) Both clocks were about right and stopped at the impact time around 9:32
2) Both clocks stopped around 9:38 but were six minutes behind by sheer coincidence
3) Both stopped at 9:38 but the mechanism was broken so the minute hands only swung back towards the 6 or something to that effect.
4) Subtle psyop to confuse people: “be sure to move than hands back to 9:32 before the museum guys pick it up…”
5) Combinations and permutations – one was six minutes behind, the other broken, etc.

Why Not 9:32?
Some might wonder why I would bother dismantling this timeline construct. After all, if 9:32 were proven, a massive lie would be uncovered that could unlock yet more secrets. The problem with this case is that no matter how solid it seems at first glance, compared to the 9:38 case, it absolutely fails to hold water. With so little supporting evidence that pans out to suggest anything in particular happening at that time, two clocks does not a valid alternate make. Even if we ignore Honegger’s silly and unsubstantiated bombing/A3 attack, or Terral’s missile/flyover-and-A3 attack, just taking the first explosion at 9:32 as from the 757 impact (ala Gaffney), dozens of points of data had to be shifted ahead to around 9:38 for no good reason I myself can see. The next post in this series will endeavor to show just how much corroborating data would have to have been coordinated to bolster the official timelie. It’s really quite a bit…

rest coming...

[1] Posted by Terral. Oct 15 2007, 04:02 PM. Loose Change Forum -> 9/11 Research -> The Pentagon -> “Best Evidence Of The Time Of Pentagon Explosion” -> Page 1.
[2] [7] [8] [9] [13] Honegger, Barbara. The Pentagon Attack Papers: Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie. Appendix to The Terror Conspiray by Jim Marrs. Published September 6, 2006. html link - PDF link
[3] Federal Aviation Administration. Executive Summary - Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis - September 11, 2001 September 17 2001.
[14] Marrs, Jim. Inside Job. Origin Press. 2004. Page 26.
[17] Posted by Russell Pickering, September 20 2007, 12:32 PM. Loose Change Forum -> 9/11 Research -> The Pentagon -> “Clock Question - Did Internal Explosions, Stop the clocks 5 to 11 minutes before…” -> Page 1.
rest coming...

Tuesday, December 4, 2007


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 26 2007 1:45pm
last update 12/7 2pm

Fellow blog-format 9/11 researcher Arabesque has been up to some good works on the Pentagon lately; besides his Pentagon Flyover Theory RIP (actually more a short catalog of the visual clues that there was no flyover), now he’s posted CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy, an exhaustive and worthy critique of Ctizen Investigative Team. Primarily using the words of CIT and their detractors, Arabesque examines and exposes the two-man core team (they also have a third member I hear, though I don’t know who) that produced The PentaCon and the reborn ‘proven’ fly-over theory, based on eyewitness reports (first-hand confirmed, multiple-corroborated, recorded, and still wrong IMO) and their own initial (and incorrect IMO) hunches. He addresses some background, their theory’s origins, the logic of and evidence for a flyover, and their methods of debate and evasion. If there is one source you’d like to read on CIT’s approach, this one is perhaps the best and most exhaustive.

Among many quotes backed by dozens of links, this Russell Pickering gem from the old Loose Change Forum caught my attention. As someone who has worked very closely with CIT, his insights are extra valuable, so we must take note when he tells Craig, as he did shortly before The PentaCon's release:

“When I watched you guys bending reality in person conjuring up black operations for everything that didn’t agree with you - I saw where this was going. When your partner tipped over and the forums melted down - it was clear what the motives were. But I do have to admit your dissociation from reality has exceeded what I thought possible… Ego is a blinding force - but spreading this as gospel and irrefutable instead of adding it to the body of evidence truthfully and honestly is .........”

With all the emphasis CIT places on the validity of witness testimony as strong enough to counter the wider confluence of evidence, their take regarding the account of Lloyd England, the cab driver whose windshield was pierced by a light pole fragment after the plane sent it flying, is one ironic sore point for critics. Perhaps since his case contradicts their theory (though officially because it’s internally inconsistent) they feel Lloyd is a government plant and the ‘first known accomplice’ of the planted light-pole cover story. Arabesque found this about their villain:

“Dylan Avery observed of the CIT investigators, “anyone who's watched [CIT’s] behavior on our [Loose Change] forum knows exactly where [they] stand. ‘The generator damage? It was faked! The light poles? They were faked! These eyewitnesses? They're lying or agents! Bla bla bla...’ Aldo's tirade in the TNR pretty much seals the deal. You think Lloyd England is a government operative, ‘THE DEVIL’ as Aldo put it.” Ranke attempted to justify calling Lloyd the taxi cab driver a “devil” by saying, “if ‘demon’ isn’t a fitting description for someone willingly involved what is?”
There has been some confusion over who said and meant what in this case. Aldo's original quote, in a radio interview, apparently talking about Lloyd, was: "I can say I've spoken directly to operatives from the Pentagon attack. I have looked the devil in the eye." I had a phone conversation with Aldo yesterday where he clarified that he meant it in a more figurative sense; the overall plot - the attack, the cover-up, the whole sinister operation - was 'the devil.' Lloyd just the eye into which he peered and saw the darkness pulsing beneath. They maintain that he could be simply duped into playing along, and manipulated against his will into lying about what happened, and thus be simply an unwitting surrogate of the devil's works. But clearly he is a window onto the abyss, and that he happens to be the one witness whose south path testimony they've verified, they must place him in special quarantine, apparently rimmed with [metaphorical] theological barbwire.
Although I helped 'the hooded one' on this with some e-mails, most of what's in there he found himself and neither that help nor this post constitutes a full endorsement of every word in Arabesque’s piece. But it seems pretty much spot-on, and I agree with his closing line: “Aside from the weakly supported flyover hypothesis, whether intentional or not, the ridiculous antics and outrageous behavior of the CIT researchers are damaging and destructive to the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.” Does that sound unfair? Read the piece, especially the harsh words/attempted intimidation against other researchers (Arabesque for one had taken more than his share) and also note this quick list of charges they’ve leveled against me in different forums (admittedly all after I first attacked them with strong language of my own):

Aldo and Craig have collectively accused me of using COINTELPRO disruption tactics, if not part of an organized program then a flunky wannabe or a brainwashed member of the CIT attack teams. They’ve accused me of ‘covering for the perps’ and trying to support the DoD’s innocence (which is irrelevant to my evidence-driven case). I’ve been accused of being on ‘the dark side’ (and invited to the ‘light side’), being a bad writer (often true), lying (a lie), using ‘deceptive’ graphics (not on purpose ever), using ‘irrelevant’ evidence, stretching the limits of credibility, being inconsistent with my own logic, making no sense/being ridiculous, and seriously arguing a conspiracy theory that isn’t even worth thinking about. They’ve distorted the points I've 'admitted' or 'conceded,' accused me of using a pseudonym to hide my efforts to smear them at the Loose Change forum just because they aren’t there to defends themselves (I happened to finally sign up just after they had been banned), manufacturing a LIHOP site at the last minute, apparently as cover for my anti-truth actions, and censoring comments on my blog (not true to any meaningful degree).

They have also proven able to see reason, to solidly show me wrong when I'm wrong (these are the cases where I've 'admitted things' - the other times it's their word against mine as to who was right). They have argued solid points, offered solid evidence, and given me and others credit where it was warranted and not threatening to their case. Why exactly they turn this reason switch off the rest of the time is anyone’s guess. I have my own hunches.

Friday, November 30, 2007


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 28 2007
working copy - last update 12/4 2 am

Introductory Note:
This is not exactly the original as I posted it – I seem to have lost that unfortunately. But this is a version before I added some alterations to appease Craig Ranke/CIT and before I finally pulled it (back in July) for causing too much friction for my liking. I’ve repeatedly been accused of ‘conceding’ that my review was unjustified, etc. by virtue of pulling it, and this has been used by CIT to attack me as a disinfo/COINTELPRO/operative, or brainwashed nimrod sent to neutralize them, or whatever. This has some good reason, like that I attacked them first with the now-infamous phrase “Pentagon-sponsored disinformation.” This line is oft-quoted by Craig to justify his stance towards me. I honestly have no personal problem with their whole hard truth warfare thing (though it is troubling when coupled with other observations, like thse below). So for the record, I re-post it here in its original context with all typos and errors left in but notes added in this format.

And keep in mind I had just seen the video a couple of times and had little background information and somewhat less knowledge of all evidence in general. I was pretty sure a 757 impacted, but a bit stumped by the coherency of the north path testimony, and all I could really think of other than me being wrong on all points was coordination – and I said so. But the strength of Craig’s response, and too much attention on a piece that I didn’t write all that well left me embarrassed and wanting to pull it. But with the advantage of another nine months-worth of knowledge, I regret my initial suspicions less and less, and either way, in the interest of clarity, here is what I said before these guys ever had said a word to me.


Caustic Logic is forced to review: "The PentaCon: Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed" (smoking gun version)
Update: March 5 2007

This rather troubling video opens with a CG rendition of the Flight 77 “flyover maneuver,” followed by the opening credits, which announce solemnly “Citizen Investigation Team is forced to present” … a grisly, over-the-top montage of foreign people killed at the hand of the US military. All this murder, justified by imperial greed and… the PentaCon! Both the video’s graphic fixation with the physical building and with the sins of wars planned from within those five rings, immediately bolsters my gut reaction that this is indeed Pentagon-sponsored disinformation. With this attitude wrapped around and supported by another set of dissolving claims, the video’s title is apt either way.

I certainly don’t mean to belittle the suffering unleashed by the “World War IV” made possible by 9/11 and its string of unlikely 'failures.' I simply take issue with their manipulation of the emotional urgency this lends the debate to try and ram their conclusions through the BS detectors of ‘9/11 Truthers.’ Though true motives are impossible to divine for certain, the tingle of disinfo I got was real and has its reasons: as I added in a later update, this would serve as “a possible self-aggrandizement sarcastically disguised with demonization,” and using the anti-DoD citizen team would effectively mask the operation, if not a little too perfectly. Or it could just be my paranoia. Whatever.
The first several minutes are spent with Aldo Marquis’ exceptionally smooth and relaxed voice endlessly setting up the official flight path, showing repeatedly the soon-to-be damning cover-story testified to by government lies and the physical evidence. This is said to conflict with just-discovered eyewitness accounts that again “prove” that, whatever exactly happened on 9/11, no 757 hit the Pentagon.

I watched the shorter, “smoking gun” version of the PentaCon, which promises to be far more popular than the longer research edition.* This one hour, twenty minute work draws on four separate accounts that place the attack plane unequivocally on a flight path different from the previous official one, well to the north and thus incapable of clipping the light poles on the official path or causing the extensive damage to the building’s lower floors. The main points giving these accounts enough weight to counteract the others we’ve heard, as Marquis listed them:

* Note:
As of November, still not released.
1 – The four accounts jibe with each other – at least on the one pivotal point they focused on, though on other points they still disagree, their flight paths don't match up terribly well (see below), and their descriptions of the plane differ.
2 – The question is simple – was the plane coming in to your right or left? (and which way were you facing? Oh wait, was that before the plane… no wait, I was over here, then…)
3 – The witnesses had the “best possible” vantage point to see the attack – not exactly, but three of the four had pretty good views.
4 – The witnesses are credible; two of them are Pentagon cops! *
5 – Their testimony was filmed on-location to accurately re-enact and recall what they saw, and besides...
6 – Everybody remembers 9/11 clearly, especially if they happened to see an off-white United Airlines 737 hitting the Pentagon from the northwest.

* Note: The other two have nothing like Defense Protective Services employment to cast leverage on their recollections, since they are naturalized immigrant citizens, with no secret, threatened deportation hearings or anything, or so we should presume.
1) Edward Paik, an auto mechanic, was working at his shop just west of the Navy Annex, and saw the plane fly right over him and very low over the surrounding rooftops. His only salient description is of black wings (shadow? He would’ve seen it from below). His English proficiency is limited, and he seems a bit confused in his awkward, eight-minute testimony to Ranke, trying to keep his clipboard at one point. His account, all in all, placed the black-winged plane on a near-straight line from south of the Navy annex, the closest of the four to the official story, but sending it north of the Citgo.
New graphic – Terry Morin’s account read literally (ie, wrong), the official path borne out by much evidence, Paik’s drawn path across the annex, and the CIT composite path merged from their four main witnesses. Note the different elements each got right or wrong; north-south location and compass heading. It’s my firm belief that Paik and Morin saw the same thing but just decribed it differently enough to create two out-runners near the official path, and that CIT took the northernmost of these two and morphed it yet further north to fuse with thir three main witnesses, below.
2) Robert Turcios was at work at the Citgo station when he saw a large, twin-engine, wide-winged “gray” plane. He later clarified it was more silver, with no markings he remembered, which is roughly consistent with American Airlines’ nearly-paintless paint job. He was 100% certain it flew on the north, though he saw no light poles hit in the perhaps one second the plane was visible. Shortly before the building, he saw the plane pull up over a 20-foot-high over-road traffic sign - and thence, one would think, over the building. Turcios seemed confused and a bit annoyed when Ranke asked about a flyover and/or second plane; as Marquis’ voice-over explained, the witness still believes the silver jet hit the building, even though his account makes it “impossible." The subtle implication seems that Turcios is an idiot, but if pressed, the CIT folks would probably say he just had to believe it hit but that this bias does not adequately mar his testimony.
Note: Turcios' testimony had him at the station's south end, and running up the little mound to see the plane pull up. This is not shown in the proper view of the Citgo security video, which CIT strenuously denounce as irrelevant evidece regarding their Citgo-centered case. It was an anti-Turcios smear, they insist, first released just ten days after they first announced on September 5 2006 that they had a north path witness. As Craig explains, the video release was “done to discredit Robert Turcios since he is not visible in the video.” Another possibility is the video is real and their witness was simply not there to do what he says he did and his testimony is bogus. And again, besides Robert not being represented, there is a large shadow inserted consistent with a plane to the south of his (reported) position, when he had indicated it was just north. Proven manipulated? They had better hope so.
Some observations on Turcios’ account: was he even outside the station?
A unique intuitive reaction to the Turcios interview by StevenWarRan (apparently no longer up) noted the subject “gets upset in direct proportion to the pressure placed on him to say a certain thing in a certain way, I saw a common attribute hidden by its obviousness: the quick ins and outs, sometimes only a few words long, without any continuity, like computer viruses battling.”
John Farmer flash presentation: I’m not sure this is really Turcios here but it’s interesting nonetheless.
3) Sgt. Chadwick Brooks was a Pentagon police officer on patrol at shortly after 9:00 am, when he pulled into a parking lot next to the Citgo to catch news on the New York attack. After he'd been there a while, the plane suddenly came in from the west, to the north of the station. He saw impact and fireball, presuming that the plane impacted building, but saw no light poles hit. He thought it was a 737, and emphasized to Ranke the plane’s size and large number of people on board. He saw no second plane.

The oddest part of Sgt. Brooks’ account is his recollection of the plane’s color, described as off-white or “champagne.” He thought markings were of a United Airlines plane, with blue letters, but UA planes have distinctive dark blue and mid-tone gray color schemes. And no one else has described a United plane, the official one of course being a red, white, and silver AA plane. Is he inserting the color scheme to fit with the airliner he thought (from news reports) had hit the building? Ranke doesn’t probe the sergeant on this, and the narrator fails to point out or explain anything as far as inconsistencies, instead moving on swiftly to their obviously favorite witness...

The silver-white problem has been worked out – CIT has decided the plane is now white, the flyover white jet that apparently came down the river and looped in from the southeast and then north of the Citgo. Apparently anyone who said silver meant white, and anyone who said white (or near white) meant white, not silver. Lettering and design color issues are probably addressed somewhere too. I'm behind on the specifics here.

Sgt. Lagasse and Brooks at the Citgo. Brooks has just drawn his flight path for Ranke.

4) Sgt. William Lagasse, a pentagon police dog handler, provided a rather solid presence to the northerly flight claims, having been already famous (in some circles) for his earlier testimony of the attack; the son of an aviation instructor, and familiar with all major plane types, he instantly identified the culprit undeniably a a silver AA jet, probably a 757. He had his dog in the car, which he was filling up at the Citgo station after chatting with some cops about the NY attacks, when he saw the blur perhaps 100 feet up and then heard it swooping down, in less than a second exploding against the building. No flaps or landing gear were down, and he could see shades pulled down on the windows as it came in from the north. He was pretty sure it actually hit with a “yawing” motion, having observed no pull-up. He saw no light poles seeing hit, but there were ones down so he presumed they were cut by this plane. He’s 100% “bet my life on it” certain that the plane flew over his left shoulder into the building, placing it to the north. Ranke did risk upsetting his interviewee by presenting him with a picture showing the clipped light poles, but Lagasse refused to believe it. Indicating the official flight path, he insisted "nothing happened over here. Period."

Lagasse is not suffering from vague memory, but specifically wrong memory. He specifically pointed out on a map where at least two poles were knocked down on his path that did not happen. Indicating the area he would have had to drive right through to get there, he said "none of these light poles over here were knocked down. They were here. NONE of these were knocked down." He also indicated Lloyd’s cab in that area, hundreds of feet from where it really was. CIT chalks this up to denial-driven memory alteration. Anyway, when Craig says the 'official story' put the pole damage further south, Lagasse responded - incredulously - “what official story? The only official story would’ve been the Arlington County Police Report done after the event. There’s no official story other than that. That’s the After-Action Report that was written by Arlington County.”

Just from this, it seems Lagasse feels it supports his north-side recollection. If he hadn’t studied it closely before speaking, he should have, because then he’d know how deep the ‘cover-up’ went. The text is rather vague on trajectory, but in several graphics throughout it indicated the official path (arrow at impact point) and clearly lines up with what Craig termed the official story. (note location of "forward assessment") The downed poles are on this path. Did Lagasse never see this and have his memory jogged? ‘At the cloverleaf? Oh yeah, that IS where the cab was…’

Lagasse also initially took them to the wrong spot, but then recalled on-camera his backing out from a different pump than he thought he was at, which Ranke notes with relief, as his testimony then matched his patrol car pulling out as captured on the Citgo’s security cameras. Lagasse had earlier cited that he was seeing the plane from the right side, meaning it was to his left, or north. This account at least is consistent with earlier, known testimony, but he clearly does not buy the no-757 theories, having repeatedly attacked the previous flyover theories of Dick Eastman. He can't be happy that his testimony is now being used to bolster - and quite well - another flyover theory. Or perhaps he's just doing his job as a link in the Pentacon disinfo web, having earlier earned anti-CT credentials in his spats with Eastman.
This fascinating 2003 analysis by Jean Pierre Desmoulins helps shed some light on the Eastman/Lagasse back story. This discussion has flared up time and again (like here). Craig has informed me, based on his assessment of possible motives, any such conspiracy theorizing is loopy, unsubstantiated, and so nuts he was being responsible in never bothering to consider it. Regarding this possibility of organized, malicious error in the accounts, I recently asked Craig “why have you have (so far as I’ve seen) never addressed this possibility at all until forced to? If you have ever publicly aired doubts about the main content of their accounts, or the possibility of systematic deception, now’s the time to link to it. Otherwise, embracing one ridiculous possibility as a ‘smoking gun’ while rejecting another without even bothering to explain why, to dismiss it as if it never existed, is a rather suspicious way to carry out an investigation.” He responded “The notion is so completely absurd that my answer is an emphatic NO. Nobody who went through what I went through would consider such a ridiculous assertion.” Is this an admission that he’s simply too deeply invested to turn back now? If so, he and Aldo had to both just not consider it at the beginning either, at least long enough to get this far ahead.
In concluding and synthesizing the accounts, Marquis explains some of the reasons the witnesses think the plane hit the building; they had been conditioned by news from NY to expect a plane to hit a building. This helped mask the plane’s flyover, and on the other side of the synchronous blast the plane simply blended in with normal air traffic, just nine minutes after all commercial flights were ordered to land, and slipped away in the rapidly thinning crowd to its own secret touchdown.
As of writing, no other-side witnesses witnesses testifying a flyover have yet surfaced. One attempt at finding one is “Barbara,” whom Woody Box presented as "a witness detected by ME to counter [the] claim that the flyover was observed by NOBODY." On 395 near the Potomac, Barbara saw "on the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and […] we saw […] it go down below the side of the road, and we just saw the fire that came up after that. […] I'm not sure exactly where the Pentagon, where it was in relationship to where the plane went down but they are relatively close to one another. ... whether it hit any part of that pentagon, I'm not sure." Going down and crashing doesn't sound like a flyover to me, but WB thinks it happened just on the other side, perhaps in the Pentagon's lagoon. Even considering this confusing and misread account, there is no direct evidence for a flyover anywhere, just the partial implications of the collected witness accounts CIT keep getting.
The video also cites report of a second plane just seconds behind the explosion, which then veered off. These reports could've been those who saw through the con and witnessed the explosive "impact" and the plane flying off, but their presumption of two planes, in the official story, was then quickly “turned into” the attack plane and the C-130 ordered to scope the scene. But the C-130 was not seen until at least a minute later, so the “second plane” people saw was the flyover jet fleeing the scene. As for the identity of the flyover fool-people plane, the CIT’s investigation had decided on a hybrid plane with some AA features as the most likely possibility, perhaps a re-painted E4B airborne command center plane, since another one of these painted pure white was also seen in the area.
They do not claim an E-4B, as I cited below, since no witnesses describe a 4-engie plane. However they do still claim the C-130 was sent in to confuse people who witnessed the flyover – it appears over the immediate area by radar and video about 2 min post-impact and way up there. Little confusion possible unless reports with things like 'moments later" are read too literally the wrong way. While the newly-released radar returns of the area matches an amteur video for C-130 path and time, but contradicts with recent testimony of the C-130 pilot given to Rob Balsamo and verified with CIT via e-mail. With this flightpath untaken in the CIT construct, its rough contours have been attributed to the charter boat captain's sighting of the white jet that then circled north and presumably flew over. I'm still hazy on this point, but something clearly isn't adding up. [graphic forthcoming]
So besides the flyover AA-painted E4B and the later C-130 scoping out the area, there would have to be another explanation for both the light poles and the building damage. I had initially seen this as their weak point and wondered how they would handle it, but was rather surprised at the inadequacy of their explanation. On-site bombs were used to fake the airliner impact and the 300-foot-deep penetration into the building, the space that would later be filled with planted bodies, plane parts, and the very FDR that would “prove” the plane never hit the building. The tops of the light poles, marquis explains, were torn off at some earlier time and simply planted near their mangled bases, perhaps the night before, except the one that allegedly hit the taxi's windshield, but the hood was not dented also so clearly the ploe didn't fall on the car. I guess he jumped out and smashed the windshield himself just as the feds dopped the pole next to the car.
This whole issue is very complex and my understanding of the taxi-pole issue is still only partial, but it seems to me driver Lloyd’s account does not add up. I’m far less certain than CIT as to what this means, however, and the rest of their physical case – especially at and within the building – is at least as elaborate and silly as I had suspected (see CIT Masterlist for my partial compilation of claims and debunkings)
This theory leaves many questions unanswered; they admit they don’t know what happened to the passengers, for example. But these are not not enough to keep Marquis from summing up confidently “this is enough evidence to cast doubt on all of the circumstances surrounding 9/11.” The northern flight and planted poles made it undeniably clear that the attack was planned from within, and clearly radical changes will be required due to this “smoking gun” evidence. At least until someone proves them wrong. Their own eyewitnesses almost do this for them:

This graphic missed the reported turn that merged Paik’s path to the others, leading Craig to call it “the most deceptive idiotic confusing piece of crap ever.” CIT’s final synthesis, unless they’ve updated it, is this:

This vid is clearly more fraudsterism at heart, as evidenced by the thanks list at the end of the video, a veritable who's who of no-757 activists: Dylan Avery, Dick Eastman (surprise?), April Gallop, etc. Kat Turner, an actress who starred in Inland Empire (directed by Pentalawn-awed Loose Change fan David Lynch), was thanked for providing voice-overs for the PentaCon's research edition.
Avery had a falling out with CIT later on and is now ‘agnositc’ on what happened at the Pentagon.
Nonetheless, its evidence, along with the recently-released Flight 77 FDR evidence might have forced me to rethink the Pentagon attack and start allowing for a second plane. But even that isn’t the case made here - their theory is much simpler and dumber than even that. By denying the actual attack plane altogether in another frivolous overflight theory that treats the actual attack and its victims (both on the plane that hit and in the building that was hit) as secondary factors to explain away, they blew any chance of convincing me of this new flight path.
I still stand by that assessment, though how I worded it was manipulative sounding. I mentioned the dead - once! Un-provable black ops and ‘total control of the scene’ is explanation for any physical evidence that contradicts their theory, perpetrator control their explanation for other data that effectively conflicts. On the other hand, simple error is their reason for the bits of ‘fakery’ done wrong enough (like no foundation damage, the generator gouge, the poles laying the wrong way, fooling the north path witnesses into seeing an impact but not the right flight path) that they try to prove the impact impossible with it.
Curiously, the CIT don't even call on the new Black Box animation evidence despite its government pedigree and partial validation of the witness report, other than a brief nod to the PBB video by their "brother organization, Pilots for 9/11 Truth." This is one more clue that something is wrong with that aspect of the new fraud flight path, an analysis of which I'm well-into and will be posting more on soon.
'North path data' is illusion only: the FDR recorded the 'official path,' all but a few seconds of it. The NTSB animation seeming to show a course remarkably similar to what the witnesses described has been shown by me to be a rotation of the fial map, adding 20 degrees of heading and north of the Citgo apparently on accident. Luckily Craig disavows the FDR as governmnt-controlled data, but fiercely supports the anomolograhy of it done by his Pilots for Truth cohorts.

Thursday, November 29, 2007


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 29 2007
working copy update 11.30 1 am

The first two light poles of the five downed in the Pentagon attack were along the west side of Route 27, about 1000 feet from impact. Note here (graphic quite approximate, will be replaced soon) three green dots along the width of the flight path: pole 2 furthest north, pole 1, then a VDOT traffic camera pole that was left standing but suffered a superficial 'smudge,' presumably from the right wing tip. Effective wingspan across this line is approximately 210 feet. My intent here is to determine what I can about pole 1 and 2 damage to help me determine effective roll (wing bank) at that point, or what the fakery was trying to show, take your pick.

Pole 2
First, let's look at pole 2, the least clearly seen of the five downed. Russell Pickering's analysis at Pentagon compiled the few shots with it visible, peeking out from behind the bushes on the left side of the bridge mound. As this montage I made of the avaiable shots shows, this almost looks slender enough to be the smaller truss arm that holds the lamp head, or more likely the pole itself – its narrow upper end. The left wing would have hit it, and much too low to have directly caused that bend – presumably a secondary effect. There are no photos I'm aware of showing the main damage anything like what the other poles show.

Update: A previously unseen photo I ran across later may hold a clue to this pole, and vice-versa.

Pole 1
The first pole downed, numbered 076, is the famous pole that is said to have speared Lloyd England's taxi windshield, covered in some detail at Pentagon There is much, much written about this case - the inconsistencies in Lloyd's story, the damage inside the car and to his windshield, the lack of corroboration for his take that this long pole segment was completley sticking out of his car and was then removed by himself and a silent stranger. Most people who look into the case decide the story does not add up, but there are different theories as to what actually happened and to the significance of this mystery.

Update: It seems by a closer look at the damage to the cab that Lloyd's story is not as unlikely as I had thought.

There are also smaller parts visible (top shot, left: truss arm and lamphead, as well as another small straight piece further to the left, but for now I'm interested in the length of this prime piece of history; the '40 foot pole' that could not have fit in the cab – how long is it really? Unfortunately I can only get a range on original pole dimensions; Pickering says 28 feet, other say 30, and some say 40. After measuring photos back and forth with different numbers, ratios, I’ve decided on these proportions as a best fit, though still approximate:
Pole height: 32 feet
Base height: 16 inches
Full height to cap: 33.333 feet
Pole diameter at base: 8 inches
I also found the proportions of 1990s model Lincoln Town Car, which this seems to be: 77x219.” With al this, rough ratios were set, roughly averaged, estimated, and the apparent length of fragment on the roadway is 20-23 feet - perhaps a bit longer - about 14-16 feet of that straight.

It's probably not even new, but I've decided the part of pole 1 seen by Lloyd's cab is about 20-23 feet long, missing perhaps ten feet off the top, including the parts where the truss bolts down. Where that top part wound up is something I haven't looked into, but they could be simply the pieces on the road nearby, depending if the straight piece measure out right. It's also possible that a sizable chunk disappeared into the jet's engine (see below), causing the gray smoke visible trailing behind Flight 77 at impact.

This graphic, based on another light pole in the area, shows two impact scenarios that geometrically could explain the damage seen, including that unique bend, and the separation of the two parts. I'm not sure kinetically and forensically if either makes sense, just throwing it out there.

Attack Profile: How The Poles Fit In

Putting pole 1's damage into a larger framework that's half-done. While pole 2 is inconclusive, pole 1 damage - a curve and a shear - fits other clues as to the plane's altiude and right-high bank at that point. effective wingspan cutting across Route 27 – 205-215 feet – poles about 140 feet apart – I placed the light poles approximately into a graphic I was working with – between the camera mast scuff and tree damage alone I had a pretty good image of the plane. As it turns out a scaled 757 profile does fit. And the poles don't really mess it up. Perhaps I placed pole 1 a bit wrong, or underestimated the perspective a tad, because the bend of the pole also corresponds roughly with the engine's lower edge. All these points line up to have pole 2 clipped by the outer left wingtip 14-16 feet above ground, and give the plane about the same bank recorded in the damaged facade one second later as well as the generator, fence, retaining wall, and possibly foundation damage between.