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.


Arabesque said...

For a much shorter debunking of the flyover theory see here:

Pentagon Flyover Theory: RIP

Be sure to check out the video 15 seconds after the attack on I-395 south of the Pentagon. The smoke hasn't even reached the top of the video screen yet. Perhaps it might be possible to estimate how fast the smoke has risen? Maybe this is something you could look at.

According to Russell Pickering:

I have witnesses with footage of the area behind the Pentagon at the moment of impact that I have talked to in great detail. They had three cameras running. They SWEAR that nothing flew over the building. So who is right? The video shows that if your imaginary flyover happened the plane would have had to go significantly south. There were multiple people there watching. NOTHING flew over according to them.”

Caustic Logic said...

Yes, I meant to mention that piece too. It's linked to now. Just based on what you have there, an obituary is premature, but as an added illustration - some videos that don't show a flyover - it's worthwhile.

Well I just watched that C-130 video again. Interesting. Unfortunately, again, I think 15 sec is plenty of time for any flyover to have disappeared. Remember it only took two sec from the Citgo, so imagine a seven times that before the camera started rolling.

The limitations of video.

Only camera at the right area, and already running would do much good. Like the ones Russell is talking about there... hm.. good catch. I had heard about a live camera there, app. unreleased/censored. I think it was Craig who talked about it actually.

I shall have to look it up sometime.
I like how you offer links for everything. If I were that organized I'd be able to do the same.

Arabesque said...

Well Caustic, I agree with you that it doesn't show the plane. But what it does show is enough.

Here's why, as I explained on the LC forum. It took him seconds to get out his video recorder. Presumably he looked behind him before getting out the recorder right? That's human response. Looking back, he saw the smoke, and decided to get out his camera. In 15 seconds, that's pretty fast don't you think? If he saw a plane flying over the Pentagon, it's quite simple--he would have pointed his camera at it. A low flying plane is not something that you wouldn't notice. The camera shot reveals just how easy it would be to spot a flyover--the conditions were very clear.

Moreover, the camera man has spotted the C-130. He noticed THAT plane and was pointing his camera at it. So if you're telling me he would notice the C-130, but not the plane that flew over the Pentagon... that's pretty unlikely don't you think? In this light, it is actually pretty strong evidence.

A plane is not something you hide easily, and combined with the eyewitness testimony, it is clear what happened.

Anonymous said...

Have Brooks, Lagasse and Turcios ever been re-interviewed following the release of the PentaCon?

I'd be really interested to hear what they would say if challenged about their statements. How would they respond, for example, when faced with a mass of physical evidence pointing to a southern flightpath, which is irreconcilable with their accounts?

That said, what if they were challenged and remained steadfast? Are they simply dismissed as either mistaken, lying or disinfo?

Arabesque said...

In response to the all-seeing i, I would make the following points.

The witness evidence is revealing for several reasons, and there are good ways of evaluating eyewitness testimony, and there are ways of cherry picking it.

For example, all of the N. of CITGO witnesses explained that the plane hit the Pentagon. This is not something easily misremembered or forgotten. Other details with our memory are easier to misplace and forget. When we are talking about a 500 mph plane flying into the Pentagon, certain details will be less clear than others, and more easily mistaken with the passage of time. This is proven again and again, and only common sense.

If you understand eyewitness testimony in this regard, and compare it to the TOTAL body of eyewitness testimony, you can make JUDGMENTS on which statements are reliable, and which are not. For example, if you cannot find anyone to support the claim that a plane flew over the Pentagon, you can be pretty well convinced from an analytical point of view that it did not happen.

So in this sense, reality could be far more complex than "they are lying", or "they are disinfo". The passage of time effects the validity of eyewitness testimony. This is a basic fact. They could be correct about certain parts of their testimony, and wrong in others. More or less depending on how soon after the event they provide the testimony. Hints, like getting the wrong location of light pole damage and a taxi cab are evidence to suggest which parts of the testimony are reliable and which are not. Having a large body of testimony gives us evidence to compare how frequently claims are repeated--the more often repeated, the more credible. The FULL body of the eyewitness testimony must be used to figure out what happened at an event to reach a credible or scientific conclusion.

Anonymous said...

Hello, Raven from the LC forum here.

You guys might be interested to know that I'm elevating the debate at the LC forum in the Pentagon section. I'm sick of the CIT groupie trolls and I have decided that I am going to put them to shame, again. Thought you guys might want to join in the fun.



Arabesque said...


I've seen your work at the forum Raven, and it looks good to me. Nice to hear from you. I'll check it out.

I hope you liked my expose on CIT.

Caustic Logic said...

Good job over there Raven. I'll be providing backup at some point. Don't argue too well - don't want you stealing my thunder there. :)

Arabesque: camera - I see your point. I guess it's possible they meant to film the flyover (dude! get out your camera and fillm that plane... c'mon! It's getting away! Battery's dead? C'mon it's... never mind. Just film the Pentagon."
witness memories: Other things that can affect 'memory:' reading things online, getting a memo telling people to tell any CTers they talk to just what they wanna hear. Etc. Could be more than simple lying of course. Motives... subconscious...

All-Seeing I - hello Steve! I've heard that Brooks saw the PentaCon and described it as 'a real eye-opener.' I'm not sure that's true but wouldn't doubt it.

Anonymous said...

Raven here,

CL, I won't steal your thunder. I'm just waiting for you guys to post you findings, so I can start shoving it in their faces. If I bring it up myself, you know what kind of accusations will be thrown. Their so crazy dishonest, it's ridiculous.

And of course, they call me a liar and a troll, a JREF debunker, etc., when the opposite is true, and the KNOW it because they see me post there elsewhere.

I wish they weren't allowed to run so rampant there, but they get banned and just pop up with new usernames,etc. This shit has been going on before I got there (about a year ago), so even I don't know the full story on these clowns. All I know is that they are dishonest as heck.

Caustic Logic said...

I was just being a butt with the thunder thing and with playing Devil's advocate w/Arabesque's camera thoughts.

That's an ambiyious thread there, Raven. I think it is about dead, and that's objectively measurable. Actually it was born dead, most everyone realizes it now, and I think we're nearing the point where CIT themselves will have to admit it or keep holding that dead baby and get the stink deeper into themselves.

Ooh that sounded harsh, but it's how it is.

Craig said...

Nice literary license but you are STILL off the mark. The "looked the devil in the eye" comment most certainly meant that we had literally looked willing operatives in the eye although the word "devil" was a metaphor. We simply never specified who the willing operatives are and Dylan and all you guys ran with it as a direct attack on Lloyd specifically. You tried to twist it to STILL refer to Lloyd direct in this promised "retraction".

You guys can run rampant with your constant empty attacks and word twisting because at the end of the day you simply look obsessed.

Raven calling us "so dishonest" without a single example to cite. You subscribing to Arabesque's "ridiculous antics and outrageous behavior" claim while ADMITTING you attacked us first.

Keep on with your obsession on CIT while we will keep presenting evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job. People will certainly be able to tell who is really contributing productively.

It's tiresome and pathetic and simply demonstrates how emotionally attached to your 757 impact conspiracy theory that you really are.

Arabesque said...

"conspiracy theory"

"tiresome and pathetic"

"emotionally attached"

"empty attacks"


I believe these statements constitute "projection". CIT's anger management issues are noted. Someone needs a vacation... just don't fly over the Pentagon on your trip... it might flare up some issues you're dealing with.

Thanks for the feedback on my review though! Your feedback is valued. Have a nice day.

Caustic Logic said...

Word up, buddy. Word up.

But they're so very angry that we refuse to get it. They're being so productive after all, producing their 'gift' to us all.

Craig: I realize my literary license isn't 100% fair. But it's not exactly off-base either now, is it?

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for exposing the absolute absurdity of the CIT. They are loonies with an agenda, and a great detriment to the Truth Movement. I have been on other forums where they are pushing their crap on others, and accusing everyone who doesn't see it their way or points out glaring inconsitencies as disinfo agents or some other rot. I am tired of these no plane whack jobs hijacking the movement and fooling people with their deceptive video making tactics and cherry picking stuff that fits their agenda.

They stink of some sort of deliberate disinformation spread.

Caustic Logic said...

The stink is so over-done, even their appearance of disinfo is itself a distraction. There is exactly one reason to engage the fools, and that is for amusement. I had mine, produced like fifty de-bunking articles, each with a dozen points, so that's like 600. Anyone foolish enough to believe their hype without doing some quick verification (which should bring them here) will do just that, and so what?

I'm not sure there's anything left for the "Truth Movement," but simply bickering with those accused of obstructing the investigation will just make you into another CIT. Ugnore the loons, drop all the MIHOP stuff, demos and all, focus on the few verifiable oddities ( Sliney, Leidig, Myers - search it), the qui bono angle, historical precedent for false flag, and accept the remaining mysteries for what they are and you'll have a durable case, if not one leading to instant revolution.

That's my advice anyway. Peace.