Wednesday, January 30, 2008

CIT'S C-130 FINDINGS RE: "FLIGHT 77"

CIT'S C-130 FINDINGS RE: "FLIGHT 77"
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
January 30 2008


Okay, so I'm banned for a week at the LCF for alluding to the well-known fact that Aldo Marquis is an asshole. [the events happen on page 8 of this thread, which is also about the C-130.] I will have more to write (and/or right) on this situation once I get some perspective. It's my first time being banned anywhere and I'm disappointed to find out my computer has been banned from allowing me to ever READ the forum, including the reason for my dismissal, or the answers CIT may or may not have offered to some questions I posed. Luckily I do have a old machine around to get around the IP block, and was barely able to read what followed. I'm not missing much it seems except continued evasion, decreased reason, argument from belligerence and incredible unchecked tirades from the CIT end. Really, some pretty insane activity from Aldo; it's like he wants out and has to do it the only way he knows - get banned for being to 'passionate' about 'truth' and 'justice' for people to handle.

On the other hand, Craig's response to my questions regarding witness Mrs. Hubbard were candid and useful.

But there was no response from either Aldo or Craig to these questions regarding their interpretation of the C-130 flight path and its 'actual' interaction with the fantasy flyover plane:

"Okay, I have a question about the outbound flight. Let's for a moment step back from the debate and go on the premise that your reading, north and west to just about over the capitol mall is correct, after which he describes his interaction with the plane, arcing from his left to north an then east, 10:00, 11:00 12;00 and descending. This part I agree with your reading, I think.

1) Is this graphic about right for what he saw that plane doing and about where?
2) You've mentioned reports of the plane being southeast of the capitol. Was this before or after this passage do you think?
3) Does he describe the plane as silver or white? Is this the flyover White Jet he saw or something else?
4) Do you think he may have been seen the C-130 and is mistakenly describing its flight path? (kidding)"

I'm not being facetious or anything here; I'm truly baffled by the implications of the C-130 being just west of over the mall when "Flight 77" came in ahead of them from the left, curved to their north and east, descending on the way. From what I have seen and heard so far of CIT's take, that would put the plane looping north of the capitol, at some point prior to its impact. I therefore open this post to comments from CIT if they wish to explain their findings in more detail to help us all determine the SIGNIFICANCE of this interpretation. I'll copy all relevant comments and thoughts into this post before finalizing it. If they have nothing to offer, I'm going to take this path shown above as the best available reading of their C-130 findings regarding the path of "Flight 77."

I'd like to start with the above list of questions as offered at LCF on my way out, and add one more:
5) How much time do you gather elapsed after seeing this arc before O'Brien saw the explosion? "Three phone calls later" = roughly how many minutes? (a range is fine).
---
Update: After he ignored it at LCF and here, I posted these questions for Craig again in an Above Top Secret.com thread. He ignored it there as well but finally sent me an e-mail that reads as follows:
"You are dead wrong about our analysis and I refuse to discuss it in your disinfo thread at ATS or at your disinfo blog. You can wait for our new presentation scumbag.

Why do you keep intentionally spreading disinfo with your confusing ass, contradictory, deceptive ramblings? People see right through you Larson. You are blatantly deceptive. We have exposed you many times over and people do not have tolerance for your lies and spin any longer.

"The u-turn at the end is what is corroborated by eyewitness accounts, O'Brien's own account, and now also a video, taken by Anthony Tribby."

"A UFO for sure."

How can a UFO corroborate anything?

The placement of the UFO does not corroborate the RADES data anyway EVEN IF it is the C-130.

Why are you such a liar?

Why are you so dedicated to defending mass murder?

You disgust me."

---
[BTW: He's lying about the video and radar not matching, and the UFO is almost certainly the C-130. See my video he's talking about yourself here.]
So I’m left feeling like I must be onto something, but having to guess at what the deception I’m accused of actually is. They had been so damn sure it was just over the mall I figured it was leading up to something, but this didn’t seem quite right. It would give us an overall flight pattern like this:
At present then my guess is they have actually placed the C-130 somewhat south of the Capitol. As Craig had earlier said, hinting at a correlation with the Charter Boat Captain on the river south of Reagan National:

"We were always stumped with how O'Brien's account didn't make sense with the 2006 NTSB flight path of AA77 until we talked with our newest witness who was on the Potomac River who reveals that the NTSB flight path is false and that the plane came from the EAST of the river and looped around north timed perfectly with the explosion at the Pentagon!"
[source]

By this mapping above, 77 was looping north and east of the C-130 to NORTH OF THE CAPITOL 'timed perfectly' with the explosion a few miles to the southwest. So I'm left guessing that after all the yammering about how the plane could ONLY be right over the Capitol, that the English language mandates it, that anyone who places it any further south is a dishonest goal-post-moving scumbag... must be qualified. Only CIT is allowed to disregard the words of O'Brien saying "north and west" and a "beautiful view of the mall" to actually be well SOUTH of the mall AFTER ALL, to match up with the loop the Charter Boat Captain describes! The special privileges Citizen researchers afford themselves.

Now I'm unaware of just where the river witness places the flight path, but it's probably not as far south as it would have to be to approach the C-130 as shown on radar. But it is obviously further south than their original 'beautiful view' would necessitate, and shows that O'Brien's account is indeed open to interpretation in CIT's mind, whereas when I had tried to say the same thing as they were INSISTING on the infallibility of that graphic, they said things like this: "Power of suggestion, up is down, left is right, north is south. Lies.” [Craig responding to an incorrect assessment of my video] Or this: "Just because you said it Adam. You can change anything at anytime and it all makes sense. You can say anything, up is down and down is up. I understand.” [Asshole Marquis, both quotes from the LCF thread linked to at top]

So I am "dead wrong" in my direct reading of the same infallible evidence CIT has provided me. So their assessment was wrong. After they insisted it couldn't be. "Up" is "down" now I guess just because they say so, even tho it was a deceptive treasonous scumbag lie at first when I said it.

Duly noted, for the record, yet again... the hypocrisy never stops.

5 comments:

bileduct said...

Good work on this. It would appear that CIT's next deception is to argue that the radar data corresponding with the flight path of the C130 is actually in fact the plane that performed the "flyover" at the Pentagon.

I've been banned as well, for 2 weeks, though I can't fault the reasoning.

The Flight 77 White Plane video reveals a lot about the CIT investigative methods. Three of their "White Plane" witnesses put the plane heading NEE towards I395, then they go and draw a map with the plane heading NNE towards the Navy Annex. When this is pointed out to them they curiously say that none of these witnesses described a flight path at all. But then their names are still used in other threads to corroborate the details of the flight path as described by Edward Paik, or "Jamal", or whoever.

Craig's answers to your questions regarding "Mrs. Hubbard" also interesting. He has her looking out a window that faces to the east, yet the map he draws from her testimony has the plane to the west (effectively behind her) and northbound.

Caustic Logic said...

Welcome bileduct! Yes, the best way to get Aldo to behave, the mods seem to feel, it to let him kmow they're serious about the rules. The best way to let him know that is to keep banning his adversaries and hopes he gets the message. Now they act like they fucking own the place again and can abuse anyone they want at will. The fact that you and I are the most perceptive and incisive critics and are both banned is telling.

I don't even want to go back BTW. Fuck that swamp.

Yes, indeed... more no path witnesses to follow McGraw. "it went this way..." etc. Which way? I loved this line:
"She saw the "tail" of the plane headed towards Edward Paik coming from Jamal." I don't recall those locations given in her account, nor it flying entirely behind her invisibly which they show and it which would almost have to do to make that ridiculous flight.

Are they even trying to be disinfo anymore or just desparate, flailing diversion?

Caustic Logic said...

The fact that you and I are the most perceptive and incisive critics and are both banned is telling.

That sure sounded arrogant. I meant AMONG the most... Nicepants in particular is still doing a splendid job. He'll probably be next to go of course.

Anonymous said...

Damn pentagon reality check, this was almost as good as your debate with Craig!

LOL
757 impact = FAIL

Caustic Logic said...

Thanks anonymous. I'm not sure how to read that. I write way better than I talk, so by 'good' I guess you mean 'bad.' Listen, it's not dissimilar; Craig says I'm dead wrong, this has been proven, this and that mammal's outta some bag, blah blah we win blah blah. About one ounce of actual sugar, some 'color' and tones of spin and we have cotton candy theorizing. Lines on a map drawn from loosely-read adjectives, unrovable-undebunkable-unverifiable points embraced, pretended proven, and then hailed for being undeunkable.

No matter how I sound or that I'm a janitor who's overfond of making colored lines, I have the studied awareness that nearly all actual facts weave into a coherent reality that - sorry! - happens to be physically what the 'suspicious' official story story says.

Planes were involved.
Buildings collapsed.
Thousands died.
It was a Tuesday.
It was the 'New Pearl Harbor'
Some kinda 757 impacted the Pentagon.

That's it. Get over it.

And if I'm just misreading your vague random comment, thanks for giving me the chance to rant that out.