Sunday, November 2, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 2 2008

In the time I’ve been doing this blog, I haven’t talked much about Pentagon attack witness Lloyd England and his damaged taxi. Citizen Investigation Team have made the counter-intuitive lack of damage to the hood one of their central proofs of “military deception” at the Pentagon, accused the likeable old guy of being "the first known Accomplice?," and indirectly anyway, a "demon." Maybe by accident, whatever... In fact, their overplaying of the issue, and the strong reactions of their multitude of critics, is one of the reasons I haven’t jumped into this crowded fray. It's too obvious, and I just have to be different.

The other reason is I thought they probably had a point, in that England’s own story seems problematic. He insists the long portion of the pole, as seen in front of his cab in numerous photos, is what pierced his windshield and remained sticking heavy-end out far over the hood without apparently touching it. Previously I had agreed with CIT that seemed unlikely, but sided with Pentagon attack researcher Russell Pickering, who had instead proposed a smaller piece of the pole actually doing the damage; Lloyd’s story was simply wrong, for whatever reason.

I did bother to put together the below attempt at judging the pole segment's true size - many have claimed this is 30 feet long or greater, but they seem to be misunderstanding the role of perspective here. My attempt is rough, but this should be close.

Recently I also noted their paranoia-laced warning that they had a new video coming of their ‘latest encounter’ with the old man who “is caught and is guilty” and “the primary one who would have explaining to do.” That video is now out, an hour and a half of them having stupid arguments in Lloyd’s home, with his wife helping string the lads along, on the road, and Craig explaining it all later with too few buttons done on his shirt. Lloyd seems a sharp enough old kook, and the video is fascinating in its own ways, but the finer points of this sprawling epic of absurdity would derail from the main point worthy of a new post – another case of CIT accidentally (??) getting too much evidence and helping us see what really happened, despite their best efforts.

They took Lloyd up on his previous offer to inspect his taxi themselves, and they drive out into the country where he had it stored in the woods, under tarps that weren't too tight. This in itself is fascinating, like an excursion to the Titanic, a historical relic sinking into the Virginia soil, a spider web draped over the steering column, visible through the even more caved-in windshield where the massive aluminum pole *allegedly* entered years ago and nearly skewered its mow-famous driver.

They again found the damage inconsistent with Lloyd's story, and again took to re-explaining the super-scientific obeservation that the heave end of a see-saw goes down. Since the heavy end, and most of the pole's length, was outside, it would not stick up in the air on its fulcrum. Craig tells us "Science proves that this is impossible," referring to the following picture, which he selected:

Apparently he failed to notice the trick here - the little hook holding the girl's end to the earth. This simple device renders the see-saw moot. Please keep this in mind, as it's a better example than he realized. We have a fulcrum - the marked indentation just to the right of center of the dashboard frame. This is on par with a light pole diameter, and the point of entry through the windshield. True, the hood's edge shows no sign of crushing, but given the angle of rest, the might may have met it more edge-wise, and the pile of windshield may also have initially helped hold it up. It would then have to be at a fairly steep downward angle for this to work, which would in turn fit with the rest of the pole sticking up, all above the hood.
"So the dash was the main alleged fulcrum," Craig summed up, " and the other would be the back seat." This is wrong - if there were two fulcrums, they would be this "alleged dent" and the front passenger seat left shoulder, as seen below, knocked well backwards. This was almost certainly in a lower position than shown here, under the weight of the pole as it stretched back to the back seat.

The clincher is the destination, the back seat. I'll write more later, but here is one of their pictures, including the tear they acknowledge but consider too tiny for a massive 5-inch diameter light pole:

The light end of the pole would have been held by the backrest part of the back seat - not the leather, but the actual seat assembly, with its wire frame and all. You can see where something warped it back (on impact) and upwards a couple of inches, leaving a wide gap between the top and bottom sections. This is beneath, and in addition to, the tear that may have been from entry or from when they pulled it out, or a bit of each. It seems unlikely the surface leather had in any part in anchoring the see-saw, but rather metal that was designed for, at the least, supporting the weight of American passengers (light pole segment app. weight - 200-220 lbs). The pole may have forced itself in there a foot or more deep as well, and found additional counter-force in some part of the car's chassis it pierced or was wedged under. They did not look under the car or inside the trunk for any such clues.

If anyone wanted to do some calculations on how impossible Lloyd's story is, here are the variables:
- Pole length overall – my take - app. 23 ft including 18” base
- expected weight, and distribution of that along the narrowing length - erg, math...
- degree of bend, and its length and location along the pole - see my graphic above for one estimate.
- Line from bash dent to seat gouge – lateral difference is negligible – it seems to have come in almost straight back
– Vertical line - Exact dimensions of Lincoln Town car interior would need to be known for either of these. I'd guess 5-8 feet of pole was on the inside side of the dashboard fulcrum.
- depth of penetration into the back seat - I'd wager at least several inches.
- lateral rotation of the bend on entry - vertical, sideways? I'd wager sharp end down, as it seems most others have.
- effective strength of the seat frame and/or any chassis elements holding the light end down against the heavier end's pull.

You could go about defining all these as best as possible and applying the known formulae, But I tend to agree with Craig that the simple analogy presented in that priceless photo is good enough, and renders any need for calculation moot.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008


CIT amping up the crazy – nastier witness attacks

[copied over from a JREF thread]

With CIT “to ignore or not to ignore” has been the question. But I’ve just seen some insanity that sharpens the question. Since their flyover witness turned out to be simply toying with the boys, and their miraculous list of 13 NoC witnesses was achieved by including six copies of the same perspective error, the next step was clear: amp up the attacks on those witnesses who can’t even arguably fit their theory. Two cases are worthy of mention.
They’re preparing to release another video of “CIT's latest encounter” with Lloyd England, the elderly cab driver who was nearly killed when something smashed through his windshield right on the “official flight path.” I’ve kept somewhat quiet on their attacks against him, perhaps because it’s too obvious and oft-noticed – a leading edge persistent bad move. Aldo whines:

[...] we have also had to endure a campaign that has painted us as evil-doers who attacked a poor old man, accusing him of being a mass murderer involved in Pentagon attack when nothing could be further from the truth.
Orly? Please explain.
It is clear to us that he knows what he did and […] he is trying to confuse and cover up this incident while he slips in ambiguous references to how 'big' this operation was.

Oh, well that's... quite... different... from what the smear "campaign" said? This is getting spooky. Aldo is soliciting members at the gang’s forum for "thoughts on Lloyd England and his involvement in the Pentagon attack." This is the second half of the post, which you have to read to even glimpse the depths these loons are dangling over.

It will be clear to anyone who has been following this saga, and who has the attention span, that this man is not telling the truth.

When you watch this footage he may make you angry. We ask that you please view the entire presentation and think about the fact that the plane has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have flown on the north side of the Citgo. Again, the implications of this are far-reaching and land right at Lloyd's doorstep since he is the primary one who would have explaining to do.

I can assure you this will be the wildest ride yet in relation to our ongoing investigation. I am sure a lot of you may leave with some sort of sadness or anxiety after watching this presentation, because it will be clear to all who and what we are dealing with. In some sense, I have even felt sorry for Lloyd because it is clear to him and anyone watching, that he knows he is caught and is guilty. I am still in shock over what I watched and heard in these interviews.

I am looking for constructive discussion/feedback on how you feel about Lloyd and what type of light you think he should be portrayed in. I am also looking for solutions/suggestions on how we can get this man or his interviews and our evidence in front of gov't investigators. To be honest, at this point you would have all you need to march into your local representative's office and demand action.

Your participation is appreciated.
Get your Guy Fawkes masks ready, it's a-comin! Good thing they took it right to a legal laevel, it was starting to seem like they were hoping someone would demand answers in blood at Lloyd's literal doorstep. Just so we're clear, CIT has issued no such fatwa.
Madlene Zakhem, the suspicious south-path testifying Crypto-Jew (their characterization) is hashed over publicly again. Her “bizarre behavior” is finally enunciated – she had her arms crossed and seemed “stand-offish” in her interview, and later cut the lines of communication with the CIT. Oh man, this is sooo juicy… She cut them off right after this e-mail from August 6 2007:

I hope you remember us. We visited your office in August of 2006 with Russell Pickering and conducted an impromptu, unrecorded interview in front of the VDOT/STC where you claim you saw the plane fly over.

We returned after that debating and discussing the information we had obtained. Subsequently, we parted ways with Mr. Pickering.

Mr. Pickering is now publically stating that yourself and the late Mr. Christopher Landis said we were "creepy". This is clearly a problem if you did not say this, as it casts doubt on our integrity and credibility as researchers/filmakers.

Of course, Mr. Landis cannot speak for himself. […]
Cut-in for context: Christopher “Kit” Landis was another VDOT employee, who had given CIT the disc with high res Jason Ingersoll photos. They later noted “he wasn't able to give us specific answers” about the suspicious light poles, and “was notably nervous during our questions.” After this, “Christopher Landis committed suicide,” which they found “an extremely strange and suspicious twist that we can only pray is a coincidence,” but probably not, since it happened “about a week after we had obtained the CITGO witnesses testimony on film.” [source] So, a recently dead guy she knew, however well, is dragged into the conversation. Perhaps awkward... Luckily it was only in passing...
[…] But we feel it is appropriate that you shed some light on this matter as we feel that we treated both you and Mr. Landis fairly and with respect in the limited interactions that we had with you. In fact, we met with Mr. Landis for only a few minutes and said very little while waiting for the CD of photos he was burning for us.

Can you please explain what we did that was considered "creepy" or can you please clarify, for the record, what you told Russell Pickering that would cause him to arrive at this conclusion? Frankly, we believe he is making this up for his own reasons.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
Her response could have been ‘what’s creepy? THAT? And YOU! And it’s getting worse!" But she was more calm, and stating in part:
You are in error and proceeding upon a false assumption. […] I decline your request and I assume that you will not pursue this frivolous claim any further. Any further writing would constitute an unfair burden on me. My desire is to "put these things to rest."”

Too little too late, lady. Aldo's brilliant mind summed up the questions thus:
Is Madlene merely an opportunist who wanted attention for what she claimed was a traumatic event? Was Madlene drastically mistaken? Unlikely. Or is Madlene an operative of some sort?

I have made comments about her jewish sounding last name and possible Israeli accent. Is there a possibility she is Mossad? Perhaps. But one thing is for sure. She certainly was not telling the truth about what she saw on 9/11.

I'm getting the feeling we may just see CIT's evidence in a coutroom someday - as an insanity plea defense.

Thursday, October 16, 2008


October 16 2008

Recently a fellow JREF member started a thread about CIT witness Sgt. Lagasse and his amazing wrong placement of the famous downed light poles. In the video below, at 5:45 he explains how he didn't see the light poles struck, and at 6:00 CIT dares to explain the "official story" pole locations and sets up a never-repeated feat of mental gymnastics. Lagasse can't abandon his NoC testimony now without saying something really dumb. So he does, and insists "nothing happened over here," where light poles were knocked across the road and into at least one car. He's in his own little universe here, clearly indicating pole and cab troubles further north where nothing happened. If he saw anything, as they came down, as they lay after the attack, or later in photos, he had to know they were at the overpass on 27 at the cloverleaf, not along a flat stretch north of there.

CIT chose not to use Lagasse's testimony as proof that Lloyd's cab and the downed poles were actually somewhere other than "official photos" show them. It would be the consistent thing to do, since he said it, but then acknowledging that the plane impacted the building where it meets the ground would be consistent as well. Running with this misinfo would be too obviously self-debunking even for the Comedy Improv Team, so they have explained how Lagasse is "in denial," warping his memories to fit the true trajectory. He can't grasp the horror of the light poles in the wrong spot, so he's shifted it all to where it 'should be.' Only stuff on the ground can shift like that of course, never the plane. He has to be right on that.

6:07 "No chance. There's no chance. If... and as a matter of fact, I know for A fact that this light pole [...] there was a light pole here that was knocked down, and there was a light pole here that was knocked down, not any over here." [indicating the real location] [...] None of these light poles over here were knocked down. They were here. NONE of these were knocked down."

He also denies any "official story" that has the plane south of the Citgo. He may be technically correct, but every element of the "official story" in fact mandates that it DID pass that way. The only "official story," he says, is the Arlington County After-Action Report, which does not mention the light poles or trajectory at all, but does softly indicate a path back to the poles in their graphics. So he didn't deduce their placement from that. Hmmm....

Interestingly, his story has changed over the years. This is what Lagasse said in a 2003 e-mail exchange with pre-CIT north-path flyover proponent Dick Eastman:
2. You did not say whether you saw the poles being struck down. Am I right
in assuming that you did? Did you see how high on any of the poles contact was made?

3. Can you recall seeing what part of the plane struck any of the poles?

Question #2.... near the top....yes I saw the plane hit them..granted at the
speed it was traveling I cant be 100% sure of exactly where on the
poles...but I did remember a black and orange cab that was struck by one of

Question #3 Wings....there was composite material from the wings in the
area around the poles that had been struck..the fuse could have struck one
of the poles as well.

Y'all can do the math on this yourselves. I just wanted to post that graphic.

Friday, October 10, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
October 9 2008
2am - minor edits

Maria De La Cerda is one of Citizen Investigation Team’s thirteen touted north-of-the Citgo witnesses, proving the flyover they all "simultaneously hallucinated" the opposite of. A member of an Army band who was at Arlington National Cemetery, (about where the eye is in the graphic below), she had been interviewed by the Army’s Center for Military History in February 2002 as NEIT 567. She first became known to the public by this name after John Farmer secured the release of many of these hundreds of CMH interviews in 2007.

CIT had initially found her “one of the most compelling accounts," and had her supporting both a north path (she described the plane as “directly up” and “over my head”) and set to be their second “flyover witness,” on the strength of her statement that the plane “seemed like it struck on the other side” from the one where she later observed the damage. Early in their analysis Aldo of CIT had gushed that NEIT 567 “thought that it flew over the Pentagon and crashed on the other side!!!" which, of course, "sounds like a flyover account to me.” Except that what was missing was always the "flew over and" part.

Later on, they managed to find her name and phone number, and in mid-2008, seven years after the event, verified Maria De La Cerda's account in their usual style, and featured the audio in their ambitiously self-destructive new video, at about 24:00 into part 2. Thankfully, they seem to have scratched the flyover witness plan and only decided to brand one (that Joker Roosevelt) with that distinction. But they did continue to hint at pull-up or flyover clues. They also dropped the “over” aspect, as this would place the plane too far north to support their other NoC witnesses. But they did find another reason to take her as a north path witness in their new video and companion article.

"Admittedly Maria is one of the weaker witnesses in support of the north side evidence because she could not see the gas station at the time of the attack and because of her hazy memory in regards to the plane in general."

Indeed, she had “tree cover” and thick - the Citgo station was invisible, as was most of the Pentagon, and all she saw of impact itself was the fireball rising high over the trees. When talking to CIT, she gives the impression this is the first thing she saw, and her memory being of high fire meant she thought it hit “on top” of the building, a memory that seems to have replaced “other side” (which she no longer recalls saying - see video, 31:10). That is, a high hit memory has nothing to do with the altitude of the plane; as CIT fairly summed up the point:

"[S]he initially thought that it "seemed like it hit the other side"! [...] She confirmed this to us in our interview but at this point her memory turned it into the fact that she initially thought the impact was "on top". She ended up reconciling this in her mind by the fact that this is "where the fireball was" so this is what likely caught her eye."

On that "hazy memory of the plane," at several points in her CIT verification she seems confused about whether or not she saw the plane at all before the crash, but Craig asked where it was in relation to the Citgo anyway. She said, with a bit of prodding, that it seemed to be “over Arlington Cemetery,” [32:00] but this can only be some sort of deduction, and of roughly no value. It’s this useless guess that is their reason to claim her as one of 13 NoC witnesses, aside from their bogus contention that “she likely would not have seen it at all from her location if it was on the official flight path.”

So this verification doesn’t do much to support the north side, nor to help us understand what her “other side” claim meant, since she can’t even recall making it. Now if she had seen the plane, this may have meant something - a deduction based on witnesses trajectory. If anything significant had faded by 2008, it may have still been fresh in 2002 when she actually recalled the “other side” impression as well as:

"I saw something really fast going to the Pentagon with the swoosh and I'll never forget it, it was so fast, and then a huge fire ball, explosion and smoke.”

Well, she forgot it, but Maria apparently saw the plane in flight, at least a glimpse, so she’d have some clue of its trajectory. Having seen this, she’d had to actually deduce a hit, behind the trees, to some side other than the one that was impacted. Apologies for the confusing graphic, presuming different path origins, including ones directly over her.

There are only four choices for the other side, and the only one that makes much sense caused me to place her on my own short list of SOUTH OF THE CITGO witnesses. Not the strongest, since she couldn’t actually see the station… but at least it fits her fresher memories, rather than the useless thing where the plane was maybe nearer the ANC than the Annex, at some point when she maybe saw it. But the fact that she recalls it “hitting on top” rather than “flying over the top,” as she must have actually seen, makes her memories “a prime example,” CIT announced, of “the power of illusion/deception in contrast to the vulnerability of the human mind.”

Try the power of the plane hitting the Pentagon, not flying over, and her view being blocked, and most of a decade having passed. This is the kind of crap they say when they know they don't have any real evidence to present. "Well she doesn't help much, but that's because she was maybe fooled, which shows how everyone else must've been fooled, which makes her a whatever... north, y'know... deception... witness... thing."

Wednesday, October 8, 2008


October 8 2008 4am

Just thought I'd post this, regarding Levi Stephens. Should be self-explanatory.

ETA: For the record, this seems to verify that they really did talk to Stephens, which many have doubted, since they haven't been able to share the audio. I've never doubted them on that, and in fact I thank them for gathering more good evidence for where the plane really was. Stephens couldn't even see the Citgo from where he was, so when he says it passed north of the station, it means little. But when he sees the brown dirt mound just south of it, the one that Turcios wasn't standing on, reflected in its undercarriage, which he could see, that's something useful.

Undefined deception of smoke and mirrors proposed. Mirrors here only seem to be revealing reality.


October 8 2008 2am

Watch Another NoC Cartoon? in Activism Videos  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.comFor some reason, the video doesn't seem to play all the way through here, but seems to work fine at the Veoh page, linked beneath it.

Analysis of the recently-released NORAD-made animation of Flight 77's final approach, which, like the earlier NTSB cartoon, shows the plane flying North of the Citgo, which is wrong. This time, they also have it banking hard right over the navy Annex like Citizen investigation Team argue... and it was made in 2002, from radar records it seems. Again, I've located the likely technical reason for this error, if not the original intent.

For an intro to this recreation, please see my previous post on the subject, which incorrectly attributed it to the FAA.
Additional Notes: Forthcoming.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008


October 7 2008, 2am

Any similarity to any internet persona is just that. Over at the JREF, there are some brilliant minds working on the last chapter of the drawn-out Ultima1 saga (name changed here to Uno Supremo to protect his privacy). There's a prevailing notion that a 45-year-old NSA analyst's teenage (?) son has hijacked his dad's identity and files to 'prove' his irrelevant credentials at the forums, to bolster his annoying nonsense and terse insults. I voiced support for this take, but I'm really not so sure - there's a certain confidence to his drivel, and a latent sophistication. While we wait for his promised FOIA document showing that Flight 93 was intercepted (if not shot down - parts of it are classified he says), they're taking in all the little details (like how he shows his own name when posting identifying docs, but not when posting FOIA letters filed by Ultima1), and in at least one case, contacting the authorities over his perceived violations of NSA "opsec." There is certainly something psychological driving this odd little person, and perhaps something disturbing may come of this. I remember an accusation leveled by a critic over at that I can't relocate with searches (was it pulled finally?). IIRC he got the last name wrong, but called this person (the identity Ultima1 professes to, born Feb 2, 1961) a pornographer and a sick man.

Putting aside the more disturbing possibilities, and the issues of his claimed credentials, we're left with the universally puzzled-over Ultima1, recently banned from, shortly after I called him a crash-helmeted "geek on a leash" that they keep around to drive traffic. An average of like 50 posts a day, each of 20-40 words, 35% misspelled. Running the hamster wheel all day and night, too easy to make fun of. For those who've been annoyed by run ins with him, here's another caption contest for catharsis. Submit your favorite Ultima1 quotes below, as comments, and I'll do up all or the best, depending how many submissions I get. Or do your own if you got the software. Here's mine, for a starter. Nowhere near the best...

Monday, October 6, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
October 6 2008
Updated 10/7 1pm

Among the 13 north-of-Citgo witnesses recently published by CIT, is one I finally looked into a bit, an Arlington National Cemetery Facility Manager named George Aman. Like so many of the others, he was previously documented by the Center for Military History [all relevant cases catalogued and available here], and CIT says verified again by them. Unlike ANC witnesses Middleton, Prather, Stafford, and Carter, they do not offer a photo, any video, a drawn flight path, or any recordings or direct quotes. He's as "off the record" as anyone else. However, CIT will have the public know that:

"In both the CMH interview and in our interview George is clearly describing the plane north of the gas station and right over the parking lot in front of the maintenance buildings where he was in his office. […] In fact you can see how on page 19 of his CMH interview he specifically describes the plane as "turning and gliding" which instantly supports the north of the gas station bank as described by all the other ANC workers."

Planes can only "turn" and "glide' north of the Citgo? That's certainly news to me! What else do they have? Nothing new that they shared, just his old interview for reference. They cite him as NEIT 420, so I checked my files and although an ANC employee, it didn't seem a match for Aman. This one is interesting for its own reason, however. It would seem the audio tape had gaps far worse than those plaguing the recording of officer Roberts [all not in [square brackets] is as transcribed by CMH.].

“[…] I’m walking in this direction and ___. . . (20 seconds) and this is just about on top of the building, scraping the building […] And he ____ the building, he appeared that ___+ direction ___ . . . (95 seconds) and it went by, right passed out [sic] and went over there […]”

Damn, that’s a lot of evidence lost, more than remained, it would seem, leaving us a jumbled pile of loose words. In fact, this is perfect CIT mystery material, full of holes to fill in and “verify.” Will we see NEIT 420 appear on the NoC or whatever acronym list in the near future? Luckily the actual 420 link provided in CIT’s big essay connected instead to NEIT 419, which seems to be the correct transcript for the witness they cite and identify as Aman. Among the key passages:

[p 5] “[...] I open up my things here and I’m looking out and I see this big, large airplane and it looks like, I thought it was going to hit the building here […] coming down here and I thought it was coming, going to hit this building. […] The plane flies right over the parking lot here”
[p 19] "[...] When I seen he was kind of turning and gliding when he came across here, across the parking lot but when he got out right in front here, it sounded like he poured the coals on it."

If it were literally "over the parking lot," rather than "across" a line in the distance over the lot in his FoV, the plane would probably be invisible to him inside the building looking up at it out the window. His window faced south, so it had to be some distance south of his building. His impression that it might hit his building alos jibes with a heading towards it, rather than parallel. This does not sound like a purely west-east path like NoC, but rather with a north trend (towards him) like SoC.

And, sweet Jesus, he's a light pole impact witness like I've never seen before! Page 20, right between his "gliding" bit and the "honest embellishment" of seeing passengers' faces inside - how is this consistent with an "automatic" north path?

"When I was looking over here and I seen things fly up in there, not knowing really what the hell they were but come to find out they were street lights. So the plane was clipping the tops of the streetlights off."

Looking forward to publication of this verification interview. Want list: the part where he actually says anything about the plane being north of anything - the part where you got him to explain he was just told about the light poles and deduced the actual flying things he remembered seeing - the part where he describes it banking hard right - the part where he sees it pull up rather than hit low - anything.
ETA: Craig of CIT informs me that the audio interview with Aman IS in the new video. My bad, as I only skimmed it. I'll report back now that they've released it, like a while ago. Also, 420 is Darrell Stafford, one of their ANC witnesses. Perfect CIT material is I guess recognized by CIT without prompting from me. And he paid off big time. (see comments below - a rare acceptance of a Craig comment).
update on Aman's testimony: My fault was in not noticing the video had two parts. Geroge’s interview is the first one in part 2, app 3:00 in. He doesn’t remember the color of the plane, seeing the C-130, or doing the CMH interview at all. What he does remember is the noise, and how it seemed to come in directly over the navy Annex when he first saw it. This proves nothing, however - from his PoV north of the scene, either path could well seem that way. He repeats “I thought it was going to smash into our building,” and this too can support either path – one was headed from southwest to northeast, and turning slightly north (towards them) along the way, The NoC path would only be coming right towards him only while over the Navy Annex, so when he first saw it, it would already be turning sharply away from them (right, south) and towards the pentagon.

He was asked about the parking lot and at 4:08 said “yeah, yeah” in response to “it was directly over the top of that?” At 5:05 he calls the plane “right over the parking lot,” and repeats it at 5:30. Again, unless it was very low, he likely wouldn’t really see it from inside if it were directly over. In fact it was further south, as it would have to be. At 5:14 he’s asked north or south of the citgo, he responds in I think an odd tone “it was right in between, in BETWEEN, the citgo gas station, AND – and the, the, the maintenance complex.” Below is a field of View analysis if he were outside the windowand in the parking lot he had the plane “over.” Note the inherent curve of the view, a natural “fisheye” effect of panoramic views that could warp one’s perception of the plane’s actual movements – the natural bias here would be to suggest a right turn, with it looking furthest north (closest/largest) as it passed them.
[right-click, new window for larger view]

What’s visible from inside would be a cropped version of this, set back to the north about 50 feet and behind a mid-height wrought-iron fence, and some number of vehicles, leaving an uncertain view of points of reference like the Citgo. I for one could probably not tell from here with any accuracy, whether it was north or south. Clearly we’re down to the range of reasonable perspective issues as explanation for his NoC testimony. But whatever the case, there it is - it’s certainly not their strongest case, but he said it was north, like the others did.

Oh, and of all the light pole witnesses to NOT ask if he just deduced that part, I didn’t hear Craig mention the light poles. The image above shows what a clear view he had of the first two, and though the fence may have obscured them, he remembers seeing the “things flying.” Obviously another deduction, too obvious to even bother asking I suppose?

Wednesday, October 1, 2008


This is not a truly important point I suppose, but an old pet peeve. The security gate camera "tailfin" and the magical white plume of smoke behind it. Most people on both/all sides of the debate seem to see it this way, whereas I've always felt the white IS the plane, and the 'tailfin' some sort of artifact. A while back I did a video to explain why, and I just finally got around to posting it. here, for people with too much time on their hands.

Watch Flight 77: The White Blur in Activism Videos  |  View More Free Videos Online at
Note to CIT adherents: I borrowed their video title in a sense, since they made such a case of all those witnesses describing the plane as white. This in no way rules out its actually being silver - all those witnesses (ElKournayti, Reyes, Veronica, Mrs. Hubbard) saw it from the south. Guess which direction the sun shines from? Add to the white plane witnesses this video and Alan Wallace, both from a similar vantage point just north of the impact point. Both saw it from the north and STLL describe it as white, so maybe it really was white... but both Wallace and the video have the plane flying in low and impacting the building, so that's not something CIT wants to hear... Hmmm, what to conclude...

Thursday, September 25, 2008


First Posting
9/24/08, 2am
updated 9/28, 11 pm

Alright, so at the JREF, this "Turbofan" character has been making a lot of noise in Anti-Sophist's FDR thread, criticizing the "pros" there and acting as if he knows everything about Flight data recorders, and along the way hinting at the old Balsamo sticking-point, the refusal of sane people to debate him on the phone. Well, I'm only half-sane, and offered to accept his challenge on condition he send me two dozen homemade cranberry muffins. He unexpectedly took me up, and after a series of PMs where we started out actually haggling over the muffins, we decided on last night. I was at work, but took a break when he called, about 5:45pm, put the speakerphone on, and recorded my fairly down-key conversation with Tino, as he gives his true name. For those familiar with his on-screen persona, so remarkable arrogant and Balsamo-esque, his real-time discussion manner is so much more - Canadian. It's almost like two different people, and the Tino I talked with in fact knew little about FDRs, having only garnered his knowledge from talking with PfffT, and couldn't even cite the values that were so discrepant in the final frame of data. The audio turned out pretty decent, and as soon as I decide a good way to share it, and for good measure confirm his consent to do so, well, then I'll do so, and add some notes and stuff.
Here's the audio
Additional Notes: [apologies for being so slow. I'm fairly busy elsewhere these days]. Regarding the audio, the line noise came out worse than I though - unshielded cables, please try to ignore. I figure there's no point in arguing for a win with a sock puppet or irrational person who's simply set in their course; as Swift says, via Pomeroo, "you can't reason someone out of something he was never reasoned into." So I may come across soft, but hardness hardly seemed necessary against this underwhelming opponent, and I was speaking to the (hypothetical) reasonable person inside who's ready to stop being led astray. Other notes later.

Sunday, September 21, 2008


September 21 2008
possible updates

For what it's worth, Pilots For 9/11 Truth recently released a new video based on math and stupid, that tries to say some stuff about the Pentagon attack. They're hoping to sell it, and so maybe have a breakthrough to push it with, like finally deciding on a theory of what did happen rather than just raising leading questions pointing towards no plane hit, held back out of "professional caution" and responsibility. LMAO. Please do not buy it, unless you support their long-running practical joke on gullible suckers. I don't even plan to watch it, but their talking points about the video focus on the presence of some serious math to correct their earlier egregious errors, months in the process of correcting. I'm fully capable of understanding the formulas I either failed to learn or forgot after High School, but only with the kind of time and attention I won't devote to facts whose only purpose is to debunk stupid shit I already know is wrong. Therefore, for those inclined to follow the math, especially those who lean towards believing the video, here is a link to John farmer's posts breaking down the "errors."

PFT Fantasy Flight Path and further analysis.

Myself, I don't feel like wasting any time on this. But if I change my mind, I'll plunk more stuff into this link. This is quite sparse, so I'm sure I'll have to add something.
Their G-Force on final descent analysis was relesed for viewing in a promo short video. Essentially, it’s a response to their epic 11.2 G error (admitted even!), first proposed in the Arlington Topography piece earlier this year. The correction was several months in the making, and only slightly different - 10.14G in the best case scenario. Now 11.2 Gs was waaaay off from what everyone more reasonable found, and it would appear the reason for the still-large gap is that peoples’ presumptions differed. His descent path is shown here in yellow, my notes added.
They presume, as I knew, a descent from just above the antenna tower to low enough to strike the first light pole by the time it got there. Two problems – it did indeed have to end where they show, but not start. The antenna tower is maybe 5 feet wide, and there’s no evidence if it was directly over, to the left, or to the right of it. All we know is close, and judging by eyewitness accounts, it was considerably lower than the top, so either left or right (and I’m banking on left, or north).
Terry Morin: “I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude.”
Edward Paik: "It almost hit my roof [...] If [the plane was a] little bit lower… it would have hit the [Navy Annex] building almost it seemed like. [The wing] knocked down the antenna… the plane was in the middle of the road… that’s why it hit the Antenna."

There is some evidence the antenna may well have been damaged, but it's not conclusive. If true, this would leave PffT's initial altitude presumption nearly correct, and contradicts the lowness described by both Morin and Paik. What correlates is a plane tens of feet above the Annex roof, I'd say closer to 30-50 feet above rather than 90-110 above as PfffT decide is the "lowest possible." It would be laterally quite near the tower, near enough to seem to have impacted it near the top. This would put it over Columbia Pike, and and running near-parallel the building's edge. Numerous witnesses (including Paik via gestures and Morin via seeing stripes on one side) confirm the plane was in a mild left bank, with right wing high. If the plane passed north of the tower, the right wingtip would be nearest the tower and its antenna at the top.

So, the descent from altitude, at the very least, cannot resonably be presumed as directly above the tower, greatly effecting the steepness of the resultant dive to the light poles. Second, and more important, the nature of the dive change is at issue – he has a sudden pivot, two straight lines bumping into each other, rather than like an actual plane's single uninterrupted parabolic curving movements. Ooops! My first comment was that this descent “has been sponsored by the letter L,” ala Sesame Street, and Reheat and other JREFers aptly took to calling it the ‘hockey stick’ descent. [Horatius did a funny comic strip on it] Apply sharp corners to “alleged” flight paths and you’ll force all change to one point and get unrealistic G-force calculations. Thanks PfffT for illustrating bad reasoning at work. Now just up the volume on the certainty language and demands for phone debates, and you can perhaps at least provoke people into wasting time, as a consolation prize for not being accurate.

Discussion on the G-Force video:
Pilots For 911 Truth
Above Top Secret
CIT forum

Saturday, September 13, 2008


first posting Sept 13 2008, 12 am
Last update 10/8 2am

So, John Farmer is, I guess, back from Arlington and has received reams of new data, this time from the FAA. He alerted Arabesque and I via e-mail.

The FAA has sent me via certified mail all of the records I requested in my Court action. It is going to take the entire weekend to go through it all, but it looks like the ATC audio and radar records for 1332 – 1344 for Washington ARTCC, Dulles, Reagan, Andrews and Baltimore.

If this turns out to be everything I think it is, then CIT is going to be squirming a little more.

I get a lot of these from him and don't even usually keep up. But the second e-mail here, about the included animation, made me sit up and take notice.

I attempted to send you guys the whole video, but it was too big for some mailboxes. You are the first to see this (I hope) and you just know CIT and Rob are gonna love it!

It shows, more or less, CIT's concocted path over the Navy Annex, with a hard hard right bank/turn and a passage north of the citgo, followed by low level impact (higher only to allow the right wing). I have just been in the middle of laying out the overabundance of North-path clues (there should be roughly nil), including the NTSB's earlier animation to similar effect, so this was doubly ironic as it hit me. This is so insane, the easiest explanation I can think of is... Farmer's pulling my leg?

Two stills, with real and CIT paths (quite app) in the usual colors overlaid. These are from the Youtube version, but Farmer made a higher resolution version available for download and viewing.

---first thoughts, unedited
Any thoughts, people? All I can think of is what - the - fuck?

Or, wait... mmmaybe FAA based it on radar and/or FDR up to the end of that data (the loop and all looks fine on first glance) and then stupidly tried to fuse in the NTSB's apparent final moments, hoping they had some reason for putting it on that path for the seconds they were missing (I'd guess 6-10?) ... Just mysteries. This is going to turn out interestingly.

Further Developments
Discussion on this took off all over with the expected rapidity, but a more dynamic embrace than some expected.
CIT Forum discussion
Craig and Aldo, who seethe with venom against Farmer, and aren't 'taking the bait' as it were. They speak of "chess moves" and such... Very sophisticated over there, their apprehension and ruminations! On the other hand, many like Rob Balsamo at the PfffT forum were giggling with excitement, while CIT strongly advised caution, leading to a curious argument about which dishonest track to take. CIT messenger Domenick DiMaggio (aka Terrocell, TC329) also started a JREF discussion thread about it, stating at one point:

they faked it and now they're releasing fake evidence to corroborate cit's evidence and yet still try to prove an impact. and as soon as you guys put the cats down and erase lloyd from the history books they can get away with their evil plans.

Whatwhatwhat? Nonetheless, this is where things took off with both confusion and learning. First, beyond disseminating it, the FAA seem to have no role in this short video. JREF member Gumboot first questioned their authenticity and/or their relevance, but over the first couple pages identified the logos onscreen ( and HQ NORAD/USSPACE/AN), and found STK was the Satellite Tool Kit Radar module, marketed by Analytical Graphics, Inc. (AGI), a company that makes software for "national security and space professionals for integrated analysis of land, sea, air, and space assets." He noted "the big golf ball things" seemed to be FAA Long Range Radar sites, and decided this may well be "a radar-based map for NORAD purposes," possibly "to determine which radar sites AA77 passed through, so that 84th RADES knew which data to collect for their analysis." Definitely getting somewhere.

Radar based... north path... I would have figure it out eventually, but Celestrin beat me to it. No wonder CIT were apprehensive - they knew about the false return placed for whatever reason, just north of the Citgo, and I had to point out that it wasn't their north path plane, at least 1,000 feet to low for radar to see. Celestrin made the connect:

RADES data has been available for months and it shows the exact same North of Cthulhu poperties as this animation. [...] Why is it such a wonder that an animation, which most likely uses the same data, would also show the plane further north?

I looked at it a bit the other night and did some graphic comparisons just to see what patterns popped out. I took the peach map from the NTSB's Flight Path Study and set the final map of the animation over it [below]. Note the apparent offset in rotation and location of the loop cross point. I'm not actually sure if the whole path is rotated, or this is just a local distortion from roughness. It is rough and unrealistic in its movements.Farmer instantly pointed out "Look at the loop you idiots, it is a square with rounded corners!" I noticed this too, as did Celestrin. The "squarish" appearance of the turn manuever also suggests that the data, which was used in the animation, wasn't continous." Given 12-second intervals between returns is "too fine for the animation," he wondered "what if one takes the RADES data 1 minute apart," or every fifth radar return, and got this.

When I marked the spots where straight lines start curving, and overlaid it with the 84 RADES returns for the loop, it looks more like this was based on taking every other 84 RADES return (pink dots) as anchor points, and replaced the intervening ones with straight lines or full curves, depending.

This in turn may be a clue to the north path’s appearance. Consider this pattern in light of these final three points of RADES data (the points stupidly connected above]. There may be a different dynamic at play here, but it seems similar in pattern – draw a straight line to, or near, the north point, and then a sharp curve to try and meet, or orbit, the next aberrant return just south of impact. Considering there may be a rotation of the path relative to the map, or vice-versa, and perhaps a slight spatial offset, the actual mapped curve may not be where it looks to be onscreen. Interestingly, when I rotate the line to fit the real path, the turn is about seven degrees, or the amount the NTSB's final map was rotated from its own lat-long grid. [Propos to Farmer for the background image establishing the real path beyond a reasonable doubt]. This is not my final answer, but I'm pretty sure it's close to correct, or on the right track at least.

More on the source
Pilots for 911 Truth forum member "Paranoia" looked at AGI's website and found some interesting information verifying Gumboot's ID. [link]. Of interest is a winter 2002 presentation by AGI President and CEO Paul Graziani, regarding their 9/11 animations. The accompanying powerpoint presentation confirms he's discussing this very simulation - it's pictured on page 5. In his delivered remarks [PDF link ], Graziani explained to assembled conventioneers how "actual FAA radar data was used to accurately recreate the events and model the flight paths of hijacked airlines as well as the responding military aircraft." Actual data, it would seem so. Accurate, only sorta... Of interest is the line "complex problems that once took weeks or months to complete, now take only seconds or minutes when employing software capabilities." Maybe they should have at least spent hours on this one.

Additional update: Just to clarify, this is a NORAD product, not FAA. This powerpoint presentation, from a June 2002 STK users conference, explains the project a little. It covered all four flights, plus responding fighters, all from FAA-supplied radar data.
The Video: I refined slightly the final returns angle, and put it together in video form, viewable with notes here.

Friday, September 12, 2008


September 12 2008, 2am

I meant I heard the last word I needed to from officer Roberts and that I meant it to be my own last word regarding him. But of course it’s not that easy, and it’s worth a few more given two critiques from CIT critics, rather than CIT. John Farmer rightly took issue with me, finding the title “strangely arrogant” and it was. I was feeling a bit cocky after hearing the full interview and feeling it all fall into place. So sue me. Since he’s in Arlington at the moment for the Pentagon memorial’s opening and doing some fruitful research, I have to give John some props and yield that of course this is all my opinion. And I don’t care if MY word is the last or not – so long as it’s in there.

A couple critiques however: Farmer says “First, I think it is very clear that Officer Roberts believes he made his observation AFTER the impact event.” Whatever he believes, as Farmer himself earlier noted, “if his CIT follow-up interview is accurate, he most likely saw AAL77 as it came down from the Citgo area and across Route 27.” The full interview is better. The first half is all 77 stuff. We both know what 77 did. IF he vaguely *experienced* a plane hitting some building and THEN saw 77 approach… what other explanation?

Regarding “His directional descriptions are quite ambiguous, such as describing the plane leaving the area southwest.” I’m not seeing the ambiguity, sorry. A U-turn – definition? Same way in, same way out. All directions are southwest. Where is the evidence he’s confused about what southwest means?

And at Above Top Secret where they have no tolerance for sock puppets or anonymous people if they’re on my computer, the still tolerated “Biscuit Cough” has offered his thoughts as well, bringing it into the “discussion” there. He finds my “twist on it” to be “very interesting” but probably “incorrect.”

Some critiques here: First, I am not “Frustrating Fraud” [or “Frustrated Fraud”]. The adj – noun construct implies I AM a Fraud, as opposed to the BS my blog of that title is about. Not to nit-pick, and I’m sure it was unintentional. Okay, so you cited Roosevelt: “ten seconds […] seven steps” and so on and asked:

“It would seem that if he were watching it on the television, there must have been a television in the booth with him?”
One would only come to this conclusion if we didn't read the apparent cut into the 2001 interview.”

What? Did you miss the part where the TV, and his awareness of the attacks coming from it, is about all he talks about? In his original interview, and in my video, he specifies the TV he was watching in the booth, up until he runs outside. And the cut isn’t “read in,” it’s there and he did say something we can only guess at. Previous narrative defined by the TV screen, then “as I hung up the phone [cut] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV.” Fill in the gap then if you have a better idea. “I looked back at the TV and saw”, or something to that effect, is my guess.

“It appears FF is saying he watched the second plane hit in NYC and jumped up and ran outside to the south loading dock. Odd response, IMO.”

Remember, this was preceded by awareness of the shit in NY already, the issuing of Threatcon Delta, and his awareness of his responsibility. ‘We could be hit next,’ y’know? So he goes out to assess the situation, watch for one of them crazy ass planes… It’s what I might do.

“So in summary, I think FF has a few things he needs to deal with: Roosevelt's testimony that there were two planes [and] that the plane was flying over the lane one area, southwest away from the Pentagon, back across 27.”

Agreed – these are the two irresolvable problems. I’ll spare us the full breakdown, but most points he relays fit with my interpretation just fine. The implication that the plane sighting is at 9:11-ish can’t be correct in CIT’s version either. Anything 77-related he saw was at 9:38 or so, and he MUST be wrong on this point. Right? Implied immediacy of “the explosion” and the low-flying plane. Did it simply follow “9:12 or 9:11” into the error wormhole?

Points that cannot fit:
Agreement to “two aircraft in the area” – one impacting unseen and the other seen after - “it was two aircraft, that’s for sure.” [5:50] the one he saw came from “where the first plane had flown into the Pentagon” [6:15] -first plane again implies the second.
The left turn to the Mall Entrance side, loop around back over 27 and departure to the southwest, mentioned all through the second half of the interview. This can’t figure into CIT’s story either, which is why they’ve decided he’s just confused.

Note that all of his statements that cannot fit come after 3:48. BC, what did you mean by “His testimony that it was flying "back across 27" was not given when he was asked to speculate.”? He was never asked to speculate, but if you mean after the “second plane” flying “away from the Pentagon” was mentioned, wrong. That’s what happened at 3:48, the only question he asks to be repeated, and the only one he had to think about for several seconds before answering. Anything unusual after that is highly suspect as evidence. All the second-plane stuff is after that. Hand-waving about “confusion” and “it’s all AFTER the event…” is the only alternative to even drag this one through the gate.

Simplest resolution and my guess and final word from me unless someone has smething remarkable to offer:

He saw 175 on TV at 9:10 and noted the time, ran outside and saw nothing.
He came back in and watched for a few minutes, made some calls or something. Remember, it’s threatcon. He’s in crisis mode here. Not the best for memories.
He went back out at 9:30-ish and after a bit saw Flight 77 appear over the lane one area, approach quickly over 27 at light pole level, and disappear around the corner at impact.
Two months later his memory was confused, so nearly all the wait time between the TV crash and the real plane was forgotten and compressed to about 2 minutes. He also left the actual impact un-described and implied – one second there’s a plane, the next, dust from the ceiling and people screaming. He either can’t recall it clearly, or feels no need to say it.
All the weird stuff everyone’s debating about and/or dancing around was made up under special and observable conditions.

Crazy, huh? The alternative is… a second/flyover something plane re-creating Flight 77’s approach right after a vaguely described impact/fakery event, and then defying physics with a maneuver that would have been invisible to Roberts anyway, and that haven't been seen by anyone else. Or he’s just confused and talking gibberish, probably ‘cause they “got to him.” Maybe I did…

So in essence, of all the hundreds of recorded witnesses, his ambiguity on the first plane-into-building event, plus his silence on the real impact make him uniquely confusing, and ripe for the plucking by flyover/second-plane enthusiasts. He’s at least as confusing when further probed, and not surprisingly does little to either prove or disprove the earlier issues. Those who can’t get enough mystery, carry on. There's still a lot of space between the words to play in.

Monday, September 1, 2008


Coming back online
first posted June 9 1pm

I've chosen to go with a Veoh account. The upload time is quite a bit better than Youtube's and the picture quality is, eh, about the same. They're downloadable it seems, but seems to be a time lag, with video trailing a bit behind audio. Anyway, I'll post all the links here, and update as I go.

C-130 Flight Path: An analysis of the various sources regarding the flight path of C-130 Golfer06, the famous second plane at the Pentagon after Flight 77''s crash. Pilot account, 84 RADES radar track, Eyewitness accounts, and even on-site video. Emphasis here is on the outbound flight, where others have found a clear discrepancy between the pilot's account and the radar data. Hogwash. Nothing in this video necessarily contradicts anything else.
-F.F. Companion Post

The Trouble With Turcios: This 9-min. video looks at the Nov. 2006 account of Robert Turcios - The PentaCon's (and the world's) only pull-up-before Pentagon-impact witness. Building on the analysis in "Citgo Video: Who is Person #1?" the centerpiece is his 9/11/01 video-recorded actions. Some say the video is legit, other say it's altered. Either way, it don't support Turcios' story in the least.
-F.F. Companion Post

That Darn NTSB Cartoon, pt. 1: The "FDR" North Path: Intro to the north-of-the-Citgo (NoC) aspect of the NTSB Flight 77 black box animation. It has been touted by some as real evidence of FDR "north plot data," but oddly it does NOT match the FDR itself, even as it matches the simultaneous NoC witnesses. Parts 2 and 3 chronicle my research into WHY the animation differes from the other data.

Pentagon 911 No 757 - The Boeng Doesn't Fit:
The 911 Truth - the hole is too small!!! Brilliant insights by Mayssan, Von Kleist, Williams, Avery+Rowe, and Pugh, just a few of those who've seen and alerted the world to the single too-small 16 ft hole in the Pentagon! Vs. blatant gov. loyalist lies about some "90-foot hole"! Is this video for real? You decide.

That Darn NTSB Cartoon, pt. 2: The Authenticity Sidetrack: Again, talking about the NTSB's flawed recreation of AA77's flight to the Pentagon, this time narrated by me (sorry - it's necessary). Basically this part outlines why I probably shouldn't have publicly questioned the animation's origins. (6:37)

Flight 77's Shadow: For all those screaming for video footage of the Pentagon attack, we need to understand no news cameras were rolling there, and security cameras are not geared to film planes in the air. The CCTV gate cams caught the plane at ground level and its impact, and the Citgo station security video (released Sept. 2006) caught this - the plane's shadow on the ground. Right size, right shape, right place, right time for Flight 77.
-F.F. Explanatory Companion Post (predates the video)
-F.F. video release companion Post (6:55)

That Darn NTSB Cartoon Part 3: The North Path Explained: The North Path Explained. There have been different reasons given for the animation's path passing north of the Navy Annex and Citgo, but it can't be ignored that, as I've found and show here, the ground grid wrong orientation and final map orientation total 17 degrees of wrongness, which is exactly how far off the animation is from the actual FDR data. I doubt it was a pure mistake, but it has nothing to do with where the plane actually was. (6:47)

The Last Word on the "Flyover Witness": CIT's long-awaited and much touted Pentagon "flyover witness" turns out to be... not that. (11:26)

Friday, August 29, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
First posted August 28 2008
Video added September 4

Online Videos by

So a while back I posted about a packet I had sent to CIT's alleged Pentagon “flyover witness” Roosevelt Roberts. It was returned to me unclaimed, either declined or sent to the wrong address. I had a second place to try him, and at least half-meant to. My general MO however is to not to bother the witnesses over idiotic miscontructions of the Comedy Improv Team or others, and even though I wanted clarification, I had been dawdling on trying again to contact him. Recent developments have shown me there is really no need to break my pattern. Everything was already explained well enough for my liking.

CIT had first aired an edited collage of his interview on Air America back in May, touted as the much-awaited lone witness to the flyover decoy plane immediately after the “impact” explosion. Finally SOMEONE immune to the unexplained optic trickery that fooled everyone else! There were some questions raised, and the team had been holding back their full interview, which is why I set out to contact Roberts. However, CIT recently released it at their discussion forum, apparently full and uncut, and I can see why they were sitting on it. I was first alerted to this by CIT critic “Biscuit Cough,” who transcribed it and offered some analysis at their forum and at Above Top Secret on the 18th. [Excellent work, mate!]

The audio file was posted as a subset of a separate issue: “C130 Arrived On Scene Nearly 3 Minutes After Event, Definitely not the plane Roosevelt saw.” Aldo Marquis preceded the link with a preamble to set the tone, which I’ve copied below with my corrections bracketed in red.

Pentagon officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr was at the loading docks and experienced the explosion [on TV, of Flight 175 at the WTC] (which he [Aldo] thought was [supposed to be] the impact [of 77 at the Pentagon]) inside. He details lights flickering and pieces of ceiling falling [lights unclear, ceiling problems only AFTER he saw the plane, below]. He then takes about "7 steps" out to the edge of the east end of the loading dock in South Parking lot and sees a "silver commercial aircraft liner w/jet engines (not propellors)" [over the lane one area, so west of him] traveling from the 27 side or from [actually TO] "where the 'first plane' hit" traveling east towards DC [and then departing the opposite direction, “southwest coming out”]. He said it was very low, he estimated 50 ft to less than 100 ft over the South Parking lot [lane one] area, he said it was banking and coming around to the mall entrance side [after being led to start making shit up]. Most importantly he described it like a 'pilot who missed the landing zone target and was coming back around' [and flying away to the southwest, which no one else reports]. Roosevelt saw the flyover plane [no, he saw Flight 77 on the approach and just didn’t describe the impact].

This interview for me represents the final word on Roberts, and it’s his own. Here's my attempt at drawing a light path. How did CIT have a hard time interpreting these words into a path? The loop here is perhaps tighter than he meant. Will have to be checked against other evidence to gauge its likely scale. I don't want to be accused of tightening it to make this breakthrough account seems less likely than it really is. This confirms their flyover findings perfectly, right?

ETA: Some words after the last word.

Friday, August 15, 2008


August 15 2008

Oh man, I can't just ignore this new little article from the OC Weekly - journalist Nick Schou wants Orange County residents to know "If you believe a passenger jet hit the Pentagon on 9/11, then these local ‘citizen investigators’ say you’ve been . . .

I note that he misspells Lagasse (unless I have been) and gets CIT's name wrong (Citizens Investigative Team, rather than Citizen's Investigation-ish Thing, or Comedy Improv Team). Otherwise, a great piece. Among the new things is someone else's take on the idiocy I've been dwelling on for too long, and interviews with three people who've dealt with the CIT - Mike Walter, Russell Pickering, and DPS/PFPS Sgt (now Lt I hear!) William Lagasse.

Those interviews made Walter probably the most well-known eyewitness to what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, which is why, a little more than five years later, in November 2006, he found himself hosting a barbecue for a group of eager young men who were making Loose Change, a documentary about the terrorist attacks. After getting a telephone call from a self-described 9/11 researcher named Russell Pickering, Walter invited Pickering and Dylan Avery, the film’s director, to his house in Fairfax, Virginia.

They showed up with a couple of other people Walter had never spoken with: Craig Ranke, a fast talker with wild eyes, and Aldo Marquis, a heavyset guy who didn’t talk much. The two said they were helping Avery and Pickering with research for their film. Walter chatted casually with the pair, and at one point, he realized that Ranke was surreptitiously tape-recording the conversation.

That was weird, he thought. And increasingly, so was the conversation itself. Although Pickering and Avery seemed relatively normal, Ranke and Marquis appeared to be on a mission to prove that the Pentagon plane crash never happened. They wouldn’t listen to anything that contradicted this notion.

“I understand why people have certain feelings about this government,” Walter says. “There are things this administration did that I’m not pleased with, but facts are facts. I was on the road that day and saw what I saw. The plane was in my line of sight. You could see the ‘AA’ on the tail. You knew it was American Airlines.”

Marquis and Ranke simply refused to believe Walter saw what he saw. “They were saying things like, ‘Are you sure the plane didn’t land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?’ They kept coming up with all these scenarios.

“Some of those guys [at the party] were young and nice and disaffected [about] their government,” Walter concludes. “And some of them were crazy.”

After noticing Ranke’s not-so-subtle effort to secretly tape-record their conversation—and realizing that Ranke and Marquis weren’t interested in hearing anything that contradicted their notion that a plane didn’t actually hit the building—he refused to submit to an interview.

“They thought they were really going to uncover this thing, and I tried to set them straight,” Walter says. “The next day, I told them I wasn’t going to talk to them, and later, I found out they were really hammering on me on the Internet.”

Walter’s friend Troy Hanford, who was also at the barbecue, says that Pickering and Avery seemed like “opportunists” who were just trying to make it in Hollywood. “They wanted to be the next Michael Moore team,” he said. “The other guys”—Marquis and Ranke—“their objective was to unseat the U.S. government.”

[Russell] Pickering, who now runs an antiques store in Washington, recently told the Weekly he’s aware Ranke and Marquis consider him to be a government operative. “They firmly believe that about me,” he says, adding that his experience with Marquis and Ranke motivated him to drop out of the conspiracy movement. He still believes that 9/11 was an inside job, but Pickering strongly disagrees with Ranke and Marquis’ fly-over theory, which isn’t supported by a single eyewitness. “Nobody looked up and saw a plane fly over the Pentagon and fly away. Nobody reported a fly-over.”

When reached at the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA)—the official name of the Pentagon police agency, where he’s now a lieutenant—Legasse groaned when he heard the names Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis and said he couldn’t comment without permission from a press officer.

Oops! Damage control! Oddly enough, Chad Brooks' corroboration was not even mentioned in the piece, but Pentagon Force Protection Service tells Schou:
Chris Layman, a PFPA spokesman, said the agency now prohibits officers from speaking directly to the media, but he sent the Weekly a brief, written statement saying the Pentagon “was hit by American Airlines Flight 77 at 9:37 a.m., killing all 64 passengers and crew and 15 Pentagon employees,” that the event was “witnessed by hundreds of people,” and while some “have their own theories,” the “facts have been verified and are clear.”

That's not the whole article, so go ahead and read it.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
first posted August 12 2008
last update 10/11

NOTE: The full post isn’t done – I’ll be adding some details and graphics for a couple days. I've opted to simplify the process by not citing and linking to all my sources. Dig around if you have any doubts. Props to Mangoose at JREF for a couple of these leads.

“We Tried…”
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) brags of their growing list of explicit eyewitnesses to a North-of-Citgo (NoC) flight path that rules out their decoy plane hitting the Pentagon or anything on the ground, no matter what any of the same witnesses themselves say to the contrary. I believe they’re claiming 13 such witnesses at the moment, as featured in their latest full-length mockumentary, and sure to grow judging to their rhetoric. Corroborated 13 times! That’s fatal to the “official story”, which has the plane passing south of the Citgo station along the path of physical destruction before and into the Pentagon and ending there. CIT frequently boast how “all the witnesses” place the plane north of the Citgo, as clearly as they saw it crash into the building anyway, and NONE of them saw the plane on the south path.

The claim was repeated, for example, in our first phone ‘debate’ in November 2007 [40:00–42:00 or so], in their new video [link above, 3:20 in] and recently at the Loose Change Forum, when Aidan Monaghan was probing CIT’s Aldo Marquis. "Are there any south-of-Citgo witnesses?" he asked. Marquis responded simply “That is a negative,” and re-posted the one-liner ten minutes later for emphasis. And it’s not that they haven’t looked; they tried hard to debunk their own findings, but as their main site explains:

“We tried to find someone who might have seen it on the south side but it just wasn't happening.
We sure haven't been able to find ANYONE who is willing to directly contradict the north side claim AND we have not found a single previously published account that directly contradicts it either.”

How odd. I didn’t really have to even try to find previously published south path accounts, although a startling number have been pre-dismissed by CIT as among the suspect. I will offer my services free of charge. I found 13 worth making graphics for, though I’m sure there are some others. In fact, it could be said that all witnesses who saw the plane at all, whatever they may say later, saw it on the south path.

The Scene and the Spectators
The “official path” (violet in the graphics below) runs roughly along I-395 at its bend, but nearer parallel with Columbia Pike and the edge of the Navy Annex it flanks (the big harmonica building). The path had to be nearly straight but with a slight left curve and accompanying mild wing bank - left low, right high. After the Annex (entirely south), it passed south of the Citgo station (the smallish structure after), descending as it crossed Route 27, striking lamp poles, skimming the lawn, and entering the building low. The north path is also shown below for comparison, in yellow. This is CIT’s most-widely promoted possibility, never meant to be THE path, and shown to be aeronautically improbable (as have their others, to differing degrees). This angles across the Annex s-n, banking hard right along the way (left high), passing to the north of the Citgo almost at Arlington National Cemetery, descending a bit, then pulling up to fly over, yet somehow appearing to still impact low into the building.
The reason their case has some traction is the same reason that even 13 accounts can’t override the overwhelming case for the real event - eyewitnesses are the weakest type of evidence. Memory is notoriously prone to various errors and psychic distortions. Their memories are usually vague on trivial details like which side of a gas station the plane passed by, easy to be confused, misread, and maybe deliberately dishonest, especially when pushed on points like the above. There are however exceptions that freely and clearly delineate the “official path.” Now just as the whole point of NoC is that it means no impact, the unanimous impact reports could be taken as evidence the plane was on the path consistent with the damage caused. I could also use altitude clues to rule out a pull-up above the light poles, ruling out all but the “official path.” Either would make my job entirely too easy, so here I will only cite specific South of the Citgo (SoC) clues as they sporadically pop up. This is a short list and there are plenty of others that offer decent clues pointing directly at a south path, but these here are13 of the strongest that each confirm it in multiple ways.

1) Albert Hemphill
At the Navy Annex, “peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon.... the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike.” He also gives the wing bank (remember, north path means left high) “He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight […] As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings […] as he impacted low on the Westside of the building
2) Terry Morin
Another witness at the Annex (“FOB” in account). From his stated vantage point, Morin could only see the plane for the length and detail he describes if it were on the south path. CIT and Pilots for Truth have cited problems with the line of sight blocking final moment and this is valid – and doubly so for a plane passing entirely north of that line. "Teri" Morin has changed his once-vilified story and this one has gotten very weird, to hear the dispatches from CIT-land. I don’t believe them. This is what we know Terry Morin said right after the event:

“I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling […] One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. […] The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). […] The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage […] Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. […] As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft.”

Trees to the northeast of the building is the only thing that doesn’t fit – he must mean northeast of where the plane had passed the Annex. These run along the Pike as it bends, at the crest of the hill looking down over the Pentagon (at the "n" in "line of sight"). Seeing stripes is consistent with it being a tad south of him and banked left.

3) Madelyn Zakhem
A VDOT employee previously published as a witness, Zakhem was verified by the LTW/CIT/Pickering entourage in August 2006. Aldo Marquis was not impressed and noted soon after participating “her account placed the plane "inches" from the roof of this small building [she was at]. With the left tilted down. Unfortunately, this would place it BELOW treetop level which we all know is impossible.” A figure of speech read too literally and debunked is a straw man tactic of course, and a convenient one, as the building that plane was (some number of) inches directly above, clearly puts it on the south path, and with the official bank to the left. Marquis later expanded at Above Top Secret : "Trees blocking her view. Madlene is a suspect witness. She is clearly lying about the flight path. We know because Edward blew it out of the water and we interviewed her, and now her bizarre behavior is explained.” [For Edward Paik, see below]. They can’t find any south path witnesses who’ll go on record, but the reason for strenuously denouncing this witness specifically IS that she’s a south path liar on record with THEM. So Aldo pulls the old Crypyo-Jew move: “Madlene Zackem, the lady with the jewish last name, Israeli accent while displaying a crucifix around her neck is not telling the truth about what she saw."

4) Edward Paik
The guy who blows "Madlene"'s account "out of the water" is not really a strong case for a south path in that his testimony and flight path drawn for CIT in late 2006 directly contradicts it - three versions running across the Navy Annex and thus pointing either OTC (Over-the-Citgo) or slightly NoC. However, his account is jumbled and has south path clues mixed in. When he first talked to the CIT guys and Russell Pickering earlier, he had said he thought the plane clipped an antenna tower just south of Columbia Pike: the wing "knocked down the antenna… the plane was in the middle of the road… that’s why it hit the Antenna." It didn’t really do this, (or did it?) but for him to think so, it would have to be close to it, which it almost certainly was. Also even as he draws a path entirely north of the Pike, his instinctive gestures belie ambiguity, pointing almost straight down the road, and indicating a left bank, which directly contradicts the massive right bank needed to go ONA and NoC. I believe he’s a south path witness and for whatever reason his account came out sort of supporting the north path (really it’s right between the two). How odd that the guy who proves suspicious crypto-Jew Zakhem a liar matches her account more than it differs!
5) Keith Wheelhouse
Wheelhouse, the famous C-130 ‘shadowing’ witness, was actually ‘verified’ by CIT, and for their cameras DREW the south-of-Citgo path to a T. The graphic below is based on his drawing as shown by CIT, rotated correctly to north, CIT’s path added for reference, and his lines color-coded. Light blue is his 77 path, south of the Citgo, .Lavender is the C-130 divergence he put down, happening at about the same time. They already felt he was part of the “ambiguous blending” of the C-130 and the decoy - timewise - to disguise the flyover jet (oh, it was the other plane that veered away a few seconds later…). So this drawing only affirmed their suspicions that he’s a government operative by showing the decoy plane come in on the south path while the “2nd plane,” which he describes as a C-130, peels away well short of the impact point. Once ‘verified’ at least, this here could only provide cover for… the gray, 4-prop C-130 that flew that path about a minute after The silver/white 2-engine flyover plane that no one saw or reported anywhere near the fireball and flyover point is left naked. Some operative!

6) Alan Wallace
One of three firefighters at the heliport for the President’s scheduled arrival later in the day. “The plane had two big engines, appeared to be in level flight, and was only approximately 25 feet off the ground and only about 200 YARDS from our location.” He was a bit off on the color, but felt it was close enough to match: “The airplane appeared to be a Boeing 757 or an Air Bus 320- white with blue and orange stripes. Mark later recalled the plane was silver and even identified that it was American Airlines.” White/orange/blue – silver/red/blue - close enough. Similarly with heading? “I later said the plane approached the Pentagon at about a 45 degree angle, but later drawing showed it was closer to 60 degrees.” I’m presuming here he means relative to the building’s west wall, where 90 would be a perpendicular track. From this there are two 45 degree-angle paths (in orange below). His account shows no perceived discrepancy between the angle he thought he saw and the final official path he saw later, so we must look for the “45 degrees” closest to this. Which one is a fit for ANY proposed path?

7) Timmerman/Vignola
Witnesses Hugh “Tim” Timmerman and his then-girlfriend Dawn Vignola saw the plane from a upper-floor apartment south of impact. With a panoramic view, they were able to see most of the path from at least the Navy Annex and forward. Timmerman had more plane knowledge and lodged a detailed report, while Dawn first spoke to the news on 9/11 and years later talked with another person going by the name Plan 271 online, who drew this path (in blue) based on her description. The apartment location wrong and the view blocked by another building (long red arrow) is set a bit wide, perhaps to fudge it in the interests of privacy (too late!) So the span where it passed the Citgo is deduced – did it suddenly swerve north there? No, because it had no time to correct from the left turn it was observed in (surely not as shown here, distorted by perspective, but the idea is the same), and a north path would mean the plane pulled-up and over, but to these witnesses it seemingly crashed into the ground just before the building.
8) Father Stephen McGraw
*Alleged witness DoJ lawyer and spooky just-ordained Opus Dei Catholic-priest* Stephen McGraw has described the flight path as from directly over his car, about 20 feet up and descending ahead of him and to his right to the impact point where he clearly saw it impact. He even told this to Aldo and Craig, and so all we need is his location to draw the path to the building, which CIT didn’t think to gather and hasn’t tried since. This line should also include, as McGraw deduced afterwards, the light pole that was clipped “just before it got to us” and the taxi damaged by it (see England, below) that was “just a few feet away from my car.” The plane passed from over the pole/cab area to over him and descended ahead all on a line he feels was “controlled and straight” into the building and CIT dismisses him as a “no-pather” witness and highly suspicious. CIT got no verification of his location, and they doubt he was at the scene at all, more likely fabricating for his Opus Dei NWO masters. He was placed in the correct spot (“a few feet” from England’s taxi and ahead of pole 1) in their graphics, “because we are typically discussing his account in the context of the official story,” which, in CIT land, is now a proven lie.

9) Penny Elgas
Headed north on Route 27 “almost in front of the Pentagon,” Penny Elgas reported “I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there - very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there.” Finally a witness that mentions the Citgo, and a reason others don’t, and a side! It’s tempting to simply declare it was passing along Columbia, which puts it south, but she only placed it over the road. Below I offer NoC and SoC variants for comparison. She recalled it coming “toward my car” and passing low “about 4-5 car lengths in front of me.” Along the way, the plane was descending and “banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport.” Left or right turn? Coming from NoC, it’d have to bank right, which means right wing low. South path could be level and straight or, some evidence shows, banking slightly left wing low. With the right wing closest to her, Elgas said “I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground.”

Straight at her, banking left and passing ahead of, and then impacting, which she is quite clear on. She actually had a piece of the plane
land in her car
, confirming her location about under the plane as it started losing parts, which a NoC plane would not do. She is a south path witness, plain as day, and no hunt was necessary. Why does CIT still claim no published SoC witnesses even though this one is quite well-published? Oh she’s all kinds of suspicious, her account is too public, too detailed, the plane part thing is too weird, and she has government connections. Not a real DC witness and not worth talking to. “Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect," they say.

10) NEIT 567
This witness is among the CMH interviews, designated with a number like the rest, and according to CIT “one of the most compelling accounts.” A member of an Army band who was at the ANC, her location as read by CIT is actually accurate, I believe, and labeled below. Partial account:

“I hear what I think is a fly over, over my head because that's standard. [...] And I looked, I looked directly up for it, and I also had some tree cover so I wasn't able to see, but I was facing the Pentagon [...] And we're facing the site that was struck. And that's what was also weird, is that it seemed like it struck on the other side whereas I found out later, I saw [the impact point?] so that whatever plane that disappeared, it was it happened so quickly.”

Aldo Marquis announced “She describes the plane as being "over my head" and having looked "directly up" for it which can only be the north side flight path,” which is not true. It would be A north path, but nowhere near the one they’ve been promoting. “Tree cover” implies a lateral distance with several trees in the way, rather than straight up through a single tree’s branches. This means it was at some distance, I think we can all agree to the south. Marquis also trumpets how she “thought that it flew over the Pentagon and crashed on the other side!!! […] Sounds like a flyover account to me.” She said no such thing. What did she mean about the other side thing? She knew where it hit, so we have four choices to work with here, below. Only one makes sense to me and it strongly implies a south path with perspective error.

ETA: A more detailed debunking of her inclusion as a CIT NoC witness

11) Steve Riskus
Headed south on Route 27, well north of the crash site when he saw the plane come in low and crash square into the building. When offered a graphic showing two possible flight paths he explained “The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit...”
He erroneously gives his distance from the plane about 100 feet or so when he actually would have been over 1,000 feet up the road from the plane. A 10x factor mis-estimation might seem unlikely, but he himself placed the plane about right on the map and just that far away. Just not a numbers guy apparently, but definitely a south path witness.
Riskus also said “It knocked over a few light poles in its way,” but has affirmed to others and to me in an e-mail that he did not actually notice this event. Like most other pole-impact witnesses, he admits deducing this from the evidence and, one might suspect, from the match between the observed path and damage.

12) Wanda Ramey
However, at least one observer bucks the trend – DPS/PFPS officer Wanda Ramey says she saw the poles clipped by the plane. "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up and crashed into the west side of the building.” Ramey says, explicitly, that she saw this, unlike most other deducing light pole witnesses. CIT say they have tried to find her and verify that she truly differs from the others, but have had no luck. The original article described her as having “a clear view” from “the mall plaza booth.” My best guess as to the exact location of this is included below, and gives here a wide-angle view from a moderate distance of about 900 feet from the pole impacts. Perhaps the key to noticing the pole pruning is distance, not closeness, as CIT have presumed.
ETA: Ramey was at some point interviewed by CIT, and they have made the audio available. They'd been trying a while to get ahold of here to confirm or deny that she saw the poles actually hit. She could do neither, after years of memory atrophy, etc,, couldn't recall if she actually saw that or not. She does however specify a left bank, the "slant" being the wing nearest her lower than the other, which further supports the south path.
13) Lloyd England
So suspicious is this elderly cab driver that he gets his own short video; ‘The First Known Accomplice?” It’s not surprising that CIT and their allies make a huge deal of his account all over the place and put his damaged taxi cab on their main page. Unluckily for their case, he’s the best light pole witness, who says plane that passed right over his car “was so low it hit the light pole. And when it hit the pole it knocked the light part off and nothing came through the car but the pole itself." He screeched to a halt at an angle there, he says. “Did you actually SEE the plane hit the poles,” the old CIT standard, gets real silly in this case, but oddly enough, even Lloyd, who was closest of all, failed to actually SEE the pole(s) being struck, and offers a possible clue to why others missed it. He told the CIT/LTW/Pickering “elite research team” “this airplane flew over top of my car. It was real close, and uh, I just looked at it. And when I looked at it flying over, something - [glass?] - a loud noise happened and the pole came through the dashboard, right through the car, all the way to the rear.”

This looks bad for their planted light debris theory. Luckily, the specifics of England’s accountare problematic. He has clarified in detail how the big curved pole segment is what stabbed his car and nearly killed him (the one out front in the picture below). That this would enter the windshield and come to rest long heavy end out as he says without leaving a mark on the hood doesn’t make much sense. This proves nothing except that a witness is telling a story that apparently makes no sense; his windshield was likely damaged by a different pieces than he says, and he constructed the memory he’s shared, perhaps honestly or perhaps not. This shows why witness accounts are weaker than objective verifiable evidence, but CIT is determined to make it a strong something. Since “his story is physically impossible and proven false by the evidence,” they’ve decided he was actuallt involved in the planting of the pole and was making the story up to cover for it. They’re unsure if he’s a willing accomplice or simply a “coerced […] victim,” but simply wrong is not an option, nor is it conceivable to them that he’s actually right, even though most people who think it out can’t see how.

As the CIT video asks of this account, “isn’t it interesting how Lloyd’s story supports the official flight path while being irreconcilable with the eyewitness flight path?” That’s right – not a witness. “At this point the debate regarding what happened at the Pentagon boils down to whether you choose to believe the CITGO witnesses or Lloyd.” Well whaddya know, a fasle dichotomy.

Conclusion: 8=0?
CIT’s wild-eyed fast talker Ranke recently reiterated the bogus claim yet again, in response to Mangoose at the JREF forum: “None of the witnesses we spoke with placed the plane on the south side of the gas station.”

Alright then, just from this list of people who place (or at least strongly imply) Flight 77 SoC, they spoke with Zakhem (understood her south path testimony, and used it to dismiss itself), Vignola (breaking agreements and burning bridges along the way), and with that liar Wheelhouse (it was THEY who gave him the paper to draw his south path on!) When they talked with Paik, and got him to draw lines that were either NoC or OtC they also video-recorded his south-path-supporting gestures. They of course talked to Morin, Ranke says, and I think they talked with Riskus via e-mail as it seems everyone has. McGraw spoke more with Avery and Pickering, but CIT was present at the taping, and they used the footage in a video dedicated to tearing down and obfuscating his south path testimony. Same with Lloyd England, and they even make it look like they defied ‘the devil by stealing his cab light. Where’s Mr. T when you need him to defend his fellow DC cab drivers? So just out of these thirteen south path witnesses, the CIT have spoken with EIGHT! Of these eight witnesses, at least four have been strenuously dismissed as non-witnesses of the most sinister kind, doubt cast on two, and two distorted and claimed as NoC after all. So by CIT logic, no, they haven’t found any south path witnesses in their journeys and likely never will. That’s just neat how much they’re winning. Good for them.
Post-13 witnesses with no graphics guaranteed:
14) Here's another, if weaker, SoC witness, using Aldo's formula for NEIT 567: Levi Stephens, who later is said to have said it was NoC, had earlier said "I was driving away from the Pentagon in the South Pentagon lot when I hear this huge rumble, the ground started shaking … I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex. It flew over the van and I looked back and I saw this huge explosion, black smoke everywhere." Now no one is saying it was directly over the van, but how far NoC could it be and even seem that way? Hasn't he been placed around the lane one area? Why does he report a plane over there before the explosion rather than "after" like Roberts?
ETA: Also, a real SoC view is strengthened by CIT's own interview with Stephens, where they say he says it was north of the Citgo. As if it helps their case, they point out how he thought it was not an AA jet due to its unusual paint scheme - including a brown or tan underbelly. No one else really reported this (except I think Omar Campos), and most people thought it was a silver in color, as AA would be. Funny enough, the bottom of a silver plane would reflect the colors beneath it. A north-of-Citgo path would mostly show grass green, while a SoC passage would put it over the brown or tan unseeded, just built dirt mound just south of the station.
15) Roosevelt Roberts: Speaking of Roberts, his full interview reveals quite clearly a witness to Flight 77's actual SoC approach. It was a silver airliner with jet engines, he saw it in the space to the west over the south lot ("around the lane one area"). It was coming from the west ("from the 27 side ... heading east towards DC", from the southwest, past where I-395 merges with Route 27, from "almost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, Pentagon right there. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction." And it was banking about 50-100 feet above the ground, just above the light poles. All the stuff about a second plane headed away is made up. The "another plane" he saw was clearly NOT after 77's impact, if he saw it coming in on the path 77 took, at its altitude, with its appearance.

16) NEIT 405: Another CMH interviewee, on one of the walkways on either side of the loading dock at the south lot. So nearly the same position as Roberts. "Walking on that elevated area that's right outside the door. It's actually on the second floor level. And I turned and glanced off to my right [...] I saw a plane coming over 395 and very, very low. Essentially coming into eye level as it flew across 395 and come across the end of the south parking off to my right as I went through that door." Across 395 probably means 27, and it appearing over the end (lane one edge) of the lot indicates it was probably SoC.

17) George Aman: CMH witness NEIT 419, Arlington Nat'l Cemetery facilities manager, inside a south-facing office at the time of the attack. He saw the plane descending and impacting out the window, and said so to CIT. His ability to determine just how far away it was or what it was over, would have been very limited. He placed it as passing between the Citgo and the ANC south maintenance parking lot. That's north of the Citgo, about as far north as witness should be expected to warp a plane passing them over a great distance. [Fuller explanation]. So how on earth is he a SoC witness? Light poles. CIT says no one actually saw them get hit. Ramey had said she did but can't remember now when they ask. Brooks said he did, but recanted to CIT. It was deduction, he said. George Aman, from his perspective, had a clear view of the first poles up on the bridge mound a few hundred feet away, and had said back in 2001/02 "When I was looking over here and I seen things fly up in there, not knowing really what the hell they were but come to find out they were street lights. So the plane was clipping the tops of the streetlights off." CIT had every chance to ask him if he deduced this, but just decided instead that he clearly was and it wasn't worth asking. [see comments at link above] They know he's a SoC witness.