Sunday, June 1, 2008

CIT/PENTACON {Masterlist}

CIT/PENTACON {Masterlist}
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Last Updated 3/4/08

Released: late Feb 2007 by Citizen Invetigation Team (CIT)
Aldo Marquis: Researcher/co-prod/co-writer/co-Dir/narrator
Craig Ranke: Co-dir/co-writer/on-site interviews
Jeremy Harris: Editor
One hour, 20 minutes
View The PentaCon, Smoking Gun version here:

Google Video page
The - their site

Update: 7/6/07 In an attempt to help Ranke (Jack Tripper) calm down and deal with the issues, I'm removing my full review from circulation. He feels it is deceptive. I never felt it was written or approached quite right, but left it as-is to preserve what had become a large piece of my little history here. So of course I kept a copy myself.
I will also direct readers to Arabesque's far-superior critical review:
Update 12/6: I just re-posted my original review here with comments and updates. I will add points to this from time to time and treat it as a running critique.
Update 3/4/08: Since this is where I linked to mt PentaCon review, I'll also link to may partial review of their second feature-lentgh mockumentary The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off. Not surprisingly, it doesn't explain shit about the optical illusion they pulled off to make a flyover appear to so many as a low-level impact, but rather use misread adjectives to establish the flight path further back from the flyover point.

Note the lively comments section below, and with each post. Very little censorship occurs here.

For the intrepid investigators / ruthless researchers of Citizen's Investigation-ish Thing, aka Comedy Improv Team, aka CIT, I have a growing body of works, most of them fairly recent, leading to allegations of hyper-stimulated obsession. I giuess that's about right, which is a problem - for CIT, anyway. Here are the self-hosted FF posts that deal directly with them and their 'evidence.' They're entitled to their own opinions regarding the North-of-Citgo (NoC) flightpath, but not their own facts. Therefore...

post rating for hardness of the hit against CIT's arguments:
* = marginally related or little direct effect
** = moderately strong refutation(s) of CIT assertions included
*** = damn that's gotta hurt, few reasonable people could walk away from this believing them at all

Rebuttals of their physical evidence claims:
** - Column 14AA: The Smoking Gun that Fell Away
** - Foundation Damage
*** - Fireball Fakery: Challenge to CIT
** - Right Wing Damage Continuity
*** - Cookie Identification Team: So CIT says much of the damage doesn't line up right with a 757 impact, but what about the spots where it does match? Eh, it lines up too well.
*** - Those are points in response to specific CIT claims. See also my physical evidence masterlist for more of the mutually-corroborating evidence of a full-on 757 impact.

** - CIT Eyewitness Verification Part 1: The Previously Suspicious Father McGraw
*** - CIT Eyewitness Verification Part II: The Ladies of 13th and Poe
- “Convoluted manipulative disinfo” version
- “despicable scumbag” summary version
** - Chad Brooks, 2001: Left Behind? [Don't take the title literally - IMO he first saw it left and ahead]
*** - Sgt. Brooks Draws a Line
* - William Lagasse, 2001 [No apparent conflict but little support for NoC path]
* - Lagasse And Eastman Part 1: Eastman and the Decoy Theory
** - Lagasse And Eastman Part 2: The Fortuitous Debunker
*** - Lagasse And Eastman Part 3: Another Lagasse/the Second Generation
** - On the Account of Steve O'Brien: CIT's C-130 Findings re: Flight 77
* - A Fork in the Road
*** - The Trouble With Turcios
* - 18th st. witness location
** - Roughshod over the suspicious ones - the witnesses CIT does not trust. One of them is...
*** - Joel Sucherman, NoC witness?
* - Query to CIT: Timmerman view, left side?
** - Chaconas: An Intolerable Interpretation
*** - Clout Flyover Witness: Roosevelt Roberts series - several posts compiled here - understanding CIT's first publicized "flyover witness."
*** - Morin: The Conventional Wisdom
"It's a perspective issue": On Bobloblaw's score - CIT poor research/dishonesty (your pick) + beligerence and eventual surrender = great entertainment. Re: witness Sucherman and sad attempts to alter his view.
** - Flyover Link Doesn't Link
The South Path Impact, Documented: Thirteen NoC witnesses and zero for the south path? Then why did I have to stop at 13 just to conserve time?
- See also PentaCon review

** - Open Letter from the "Light Side": Craig offers truce/partnership. Ain't happening.
*** - How the Citgo Video Contradicts the North-Side Claim: An Analysis of... Flight 77's Shadow? Some excellent clues say yes, and it's south of the station.
* - CIT-CL Phone Discussions: Embedded audio/video of CIT's postings with some notes. (two discussions, about an hour each).
** - Arabesque on the Absurdity of CIT Antics
* - The SantaCon/2007 Adios
*** - Bank Notes: CIT has found exactly ONE direct clue to support all the turns and tilts required for their flight path, ignores clues from their own witnesses and others that contradict their theory, confuse the issue with improper terminology and vagueness, and all to propose a flight path that appears next to impossible.
* - ...ahem.And then the Jreffers prove the path impossible and so on...
* - Obstacle? Impossible. CIT's stint at providing the 'government story' graphics doesn't help PFT overcome their math deficiencies.
*** - Proof that CIT was manipulated?: The Citgo manager, Robert, and the proven manipulated video.
* - Bobby Balsamo Caption Contest: CIT "op-research" on me.
*** - Six Miles Southeast: Did Scoggins MEAN southeast, and was this from radar?
* - A Visual Encounter?Scoggins doesn't know if it wa east or west but it was by eye, not radar. That doesn't sound right. CIT loves it.
*** - Radar = Visual = Southwest: Oops for CIT - it's both visual and radar and both say southwest.
** - Reheat, Reasoning, Radii: Regarding Reheat's Debunking the NoC paper. I toss CIT a bone? Sorta...
** - A Mirage of Plausibility Ally Mirage of deceit was trying to help here, but helped illustrate again what Reheat was trying to show. oops.
* - Filet of Flounder
* - Walter, Pickering, Lagasse on CIT

Most of my anti-CIT activities have been in chat forums, where I've taken an activist stance in the past. These are some of the relevant threads at Above Top, Loose Change Forum, and elsewhere where others and I have intensely clashed with Craig and to a lesser extent Aldo, and their supporters. Just a partial list - I've stopped keeping track.
Review of Caustic Logic's Review of the PentaCon
">Challenge to Caustic Logic (eyewitnesses)
The PentaCon a hoax? Erred assumption but good debate
Retraction: PentacCon is NOT a hoax
Lack of Foundation Damage puts an end to 757 debate (hardly)
- First Things First: What hit the light poles?
- Open Letter to Adam Larson
- Are the Citgo witnesses government plants?: Craig responds to my wacky conspiracy theory
- LCF thread I hijacked to explain the south of Citgo shadow
- ATS thread I started about the south of Citgo shadow
- Craig's thread about our phone chat.
- Fireball fakery: My thread at LCF
- ATS thread Craig started in response to my fireball fakery piece
- Raven's LCF thread "Flyover Theory RIP"
- TerrorCell's LCF thread "2 More North Side of Citgo Witnesses"
- Interesting thread about CIT, SantaCon, trolls, sock puppets...
- Actual C-130 Interaction With The Decoy Jet; & the ACTUAL flight path of "Flight 77" Page 8 is where I get banned and thereafter quit the new LCF
- ATS thread on Sucherman's 2:00 north-path placement - here's where I quit ATS as well.

- Having lost his Conspiracy Master, forum-weilding status at Above Top, Craig started his own dedicated invisionfree discussion forum for CIT. I'll include a link here in case any discussion happens there.
CIT Forum debate call to me
I feed my addiction (rebuttal - please see Sucherman piece).


Arabesque said...

A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’

You might find this useful--I quoted your review of the film. Regards,


Caustic Logic said...

Wow, that is quite a post there. I'm skimming it now, thanks for the heads up. Mine was just slapped together, doesn't compare to what you've done here. Splendid!

Arabesque said...

Leave a comment here if you have any questions or feedback.


Caustic Logic said...

Yes, since your blog has no comments option (its usually an unused waste anyway). I still did not read your whole piece - I fear you put in too much work for these nimrods, but that's between you and your lifeline. I'm still not done with them myself... I see you used my graphic and I'm pleased, but felt I should share the response of Craig Ranke (aka "Jack Tripper") to it.
"That image is the most deceptive idiotic confusing piece of crap ever. The plane banked over the navy annex. That's what Mike Walter and other witnesses reported."
So FYI my lines apparently don't explain their full testimony to his liking. Just the relvant part.

Arabesque said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Arabesque said...

I'm debating these people on 9/11 Blogger... it really is frustrating.

They even got a warning from the site admin because they were being so rude to me. How dare I attack their "smoking gun" evidence!

I admit I like to kill disinformation, and I am following your NTSB report with interest... maybe there is something going on here beyond what I had considered, but I'll have to wait until you come to some conclusions to mull it over.

I’d really like to see an end to the disinformation at the Pentagon as much as you do.

Arabesque said...

For the record there is strong evidence that the plane did fly over the navy annex. I don't disagree with the PentaCon on this point. In fact, my opinion is that Paik's testimony doesn't really contradict the possibility of light pole damage because it's "too close to call" in regard to the plane passing north of the CITGO gas station. His flight path at the end of the annex looks a little odd to me.

As for Turcios: his flight path is very close to a flight path that would account for the light pole damage as well. It's the other testimony that is "off the wall" weird.

Take special note of the fact that Lagasse claims that “nothing happened” where the actual light poles came down. He’s very sure of this fact to the point of denying the “official story” about where the light poles came down. He misplaces both the light poles and taxi cab, although the PentaCon has indicated that the taxi may have been moved. I have not verified this.

Eric Bart has already made a flight path based on the eyewitness testimony and I think it is very accurate. It has the plane flying over the navy annex. I have a link to this graphic in my post.

Caustic Logic said...

I didn't know Griffin had already cited it - I don't follow all the news and I've never really trusted DRG anyway, or anyone. So you were actually forced to take it on... I just borrowed their intro but it's actually true. But I had just chosen the beat of tackling Pentagon-related disinfo,and so was forced into it, knowing they had their own support team and forum at ATS, where I'd just signed up. So I've had to deal with Ranke directly, dunno if you saw that sordid episode. I'll do a post about it sometime.

It's good to see someone else on this tangent. I'll have to respond more in a bit...

Caustic Logic said...

Wow, this comments section is really getting a workout finally.

as for the flight path, I've seen evidence for all kinds of flight paths, and one down the middle of the Navy annex is one. Eyewitnesses are too vague, but the trend is towards a span from mid-anex to a little south of the building. Personaly I think further to the south, about what the FDR shows, but I've no time to debate it.

These are all way off from those PentaCon eyewitnesses. I agree Paik is proably about right. It seems their set up is to put a human face on the theory so people can't doubt it without calling Pentagon cops and immigrants liars. Whatever. I don't know why, but Lagasse's wrong. He's been wrong from day one, and I suspect the movie was made around his buried north-of-Citgo accounts. I suspect a Dick Eastman link in that, as a common thread.

I need to read your blog now.

Arabesque said...

The plane probably flew on the outer edge of the Navy Annex. This appears to be supported by the testimony.

This by the way is contradictory evidence against the testimony of the Pentagon Police Officers. They claim that the plane flew north of the Annex, and this is not supported by the testimony.

If you take out their two accounts (due to the strong claims of it flying by the edge of the Annex) and just look at the other two PentaCon witnesses that are "too close to call" you really see how weak this "smoking gun" PentaCon hypothesis really is.

Arabesque said...

I've read some of your discussion on ATS. I see that CR issued a challenge to you about finding witnesses who contradict his flight path:

"Now in regards to the light poles......

He will only find 2 that specifically say that they "saw" the light poles being clipped.

Wanda Ramey and an "anonymous" military man."

I've answered his challenge for you in my review. His statement that only two people "saw" the plane hit the poles is dead wrong! I've got close to twenty statements, and he still insists that these people did not "see" it. I’ve got more witnesses who directly contradict his flight path of course, and then there are the 100 witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Arabesque said...

Thanks for the praise on your site CL. I may update my review further as there is more that I can say about the film. I've got more evidence that some of the testimony is inaccurate.

You may keep the comments here.

From the standpoint of motive: Assuming the plane was flown by remote control, why would the planners fly the plane over (and make themselves look complicit) when they could fly it into the building (and make the hijackers look complicit)?

I fail to see how any rational person would make a plan to do something like that.

Arabesque said...

Looks like even Dylan Avery doesn't believe the North of Citgo claim

"How does a plane flying on the North side cast a shadow and cause reflections that correspond with a plane flying on the South side?"

Arabesque said...

Looks like Jim Hoffman has updated his "Hoax Promoting Videos" page:

Caustic Logic said...

Sweeet! I was hoping he'd have more of his own to say, but at least he picked a good source. Thanks for drawing my attention back here too for the LC link. I just re-read that. Very interesting. Avery seems caution, testing te waters...

BCR said...

Good job with the review arabesque :) I did one too (lost now, but soon to be redone) comparing the statements to the Citgo video. I have never been so viciously attacked on something as I was over it (labeled government agent) until I had enough of Craig and Aldo and named them liars and fruitcakes.

They really don't like me now that we have the RADES radar data. Guess what? No "flyover plane" shows up on radar. Oh yes, I forgot, the government doctored that too.

Caustic Logic said...

Hey BCR, sorry for the late response.

Your review was actually lost? So was the rest of your online stuff lost too, or just removed from the site and saved? I'm cringing with pain if the former is the case. I'd be curious to see that review when you get it back up, and kudos again on the new research. I've found you to be involved in some silliness before but also some work of unparalleled quality and value. Much appreciated.

Caustic Logic said...

And for anyone else, that site is