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:
18 comments:
A Critical Review of ‘The PentaCon - Smoking Gun Version’
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smoking-gun.html
You might find this useful--I quoted your review of the film. Regards,
Arabesque
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!
Leave a comment here if you have any questions or feedback.
Regards,
Arabesque
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.
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.
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.
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...
:)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13548
Looks like Jim Hoffman has updated his "Hoax Promoting Videos" page:
http://www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html#pentacon
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...
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.
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.
And for anyone else, that site is
http://911files.info/
Post a Comment