ARABESQUE ON THE ABSURDITY OF CIT ANTICS
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?”
Note: 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.