CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION PART II: THE LADIES OF 13th AND POE
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
February 3 2008
update 2/11 2amNote: Thanks to LCF member bileduct for starting me seeing these patterns. This here is the “Convoluted manipulative disinfo” version of the article, which explains all my points adequately. For those with less patience, see also my “despicable scumbag” summary version. Northern Redezvous / Southern AnchorCraig Ranke, the argumentative co-founder of
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) announced back on December 10 2007 the release of their new video
"Flight 77" The White Plane: “CIT further exposes the mainstream media cover-up with this extremely important new 37 minute short revealing what the people of Arlington REALLY saw on 9/11.” [
source] Their early 2007 video
The PentaCon had already set the damning flight path from the Pentagon, north of the Citgo, and back to the Navy Annex (see graphic below). This follow up is centered on four witnesses further back along the flight path, and their main finding, as the title implies, is that “the plane people saw tree top level over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion at the Pentagon was white.” They speak of a “media cover-up of this white jet” to be confused with and erased by the E4B that circled the capitol shortly afterwards. [
source] The
PentaCon witnesses had disagreed on the color but that didn’t matter; it was all about the flight path then. Now that four people used the word 'white,' this is reported as the most significant aspect and the flight path clues are ignored. For this reason I will first, in this piece, ignore the color issue and focus on what CIT has downplayed – what the plane was remembere to have actually
done with its whiteness, according to these witnesses.

This new eyewitness data, in addition to the old, gave CIT as an inescapable reality this yellow swerve (red labels and arrows mine), what Craig has elsewhere described as “the flight path that has been getting established for us by the people of Arlington.” While the curves are extreme for an aircraft that size, I’d guess this path is entirely possible for a 757. However I cannot visualize it happening without two very sharp turns with accompanying steep wing banks - one turn left, with right wing pointed up towards the sun, a rapid leveling and straightening on a more northerly heading, then an even sharper turn to the right, during which its right wing would need to be dipped quite low over the Navy Annex. Keep this in mind when looking at this as it has been re-created in the graphics below, yellow each time. The southern portion of this path, from the Navy Annex down, is what
The White Plane and its witnesses are said to illustrate.
9 comments:
Excellent work, Adam.
I was putting something like this together at the time I was banned.
In no way whatsoever do Hubbard, Cindy and Veronica support the imaginary flight path they have produced. It's amazing that Craig claims that none of these witnesses gave any kind of information regarding a flight path, despite Hubbard's very clear testimony otherwise.
But then again, I've found at least two threads where Craig uses Mike Walter to support a right hand bank/turn over the Navy Annex which is absolutely fucking ludicrous when you read his account.
Check out this thread -> http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/61552/1 for an example of how Craig and lapdog Avenger flat out refused to place the plane on the map based on Cindy's testimony.
Like you, I also have my doubts that Veronica even saw the plane. She mentions the bathroom at Cindy's place but it would seem odd that they were both in there at the same time, especially given that Cindy does not mention her being there. There's the possibility that she may have been looking out another window, however, but she definately doesn't put the plane heading north towards the Navy Annex.
These slippery CIT arseholes will hang themselves through their own witnesses.
We think alike on the Veronica/Condy issue, and the others too. I think I read that thread, but I'm sick of switching my machines. I'll read the news over there I guess when they let me again. Are you IP blocked too, or is that unique? Anyway, I know it's cheating a bit since you wanted THEM to draw it. Anyway...
I went back and watched Paik - no report of a turn, but I think he does indicate a bank with his arms. Guess what? It's starboard high, the opposite of what's needed to do a right turn over the annex, but consistent with Walter and other witnesses, and the mechanical damage path in general. :)
So... two dudes see the official path but shift it by perspective - one north one south - draw a line between them, interview a few people whose accounts are ignored, and then make the whole thing about how the plane was 'white' with vague markings.
Yyyyyeah.
I'm fairly certain they're not IP banning people. You've probably cached your login credentials in a cookie. I got around the ban by deleting all of my cookie and password information (Internet Options -> General Tab -> Browsing History - Delete -> Delete Cookies & Delete Passwords) which now allows me to browse the forums as a guest.
It's all rather sad though really. I believe that you, nicepants and I were all banned on the same day - nicepants appears to have been gotten an outright ban as opposed to a two week ban such as mine. There's one or two others taking up the fight against these clowns but they're really starting to pollute the forums with their filth (eg. "rivetless panelling" bullshit pushed by Avenger).
Who is Avenger, by the way? He really seems to go in to bat for CIT in a big way.
I love the first two minutes of "Flight 77 The White Plane, where Thomas Trapasso's account is thrown out the window because he couldn't have possibly seen the plane fly over the driving range because of all the trees in the way...
... except that Trapasso saw the plane fly directly over his head, directly in line with the OFP.
But that's ok, just mention his political connections, casually point at the fact he changed his story (hey man, he said 300 feet above ground and now he's saying tree top level!) and all of a sudden you have an... unreliable witness.
Funny how both Lagasse and Brooks both changed their stories about seeing light poles struck down and they somehow maintain their credibility.
Particularly Brooks who puts the plane in two different places in an hour!
I'll just wait. Says my ban is up tomorrow, ho I coulda sworn it had said today. I think the problem is I was banned logged in - I seemed to still be listed as reading the C-130 thread still a few days ago, and log out is an option I can't click.
I'm really not inclined to slog through that. I can get a lot more done blogging. If you get back, I wish you luck. I'm not sure who Avenger is. I've suspected Aldo in a calmed down ban-resistant version a time or three, but whatever. Who are you? Who am I?
Rivetless panels, jeez... I never did develop a solid answer for that, but I'm sure there is one. Every other point is proven BS, and there's nothing new under the sun.
Thanks for the comments. Peace at you.
Our detractors often lament about the fallibility of witness accounts in an effort to downplay the north side testimony. CIT has never denied that eyewitnesses are quite fallible as we have fully understood this fact throughout our investigation. This is exactly why the scientific process of independent corroboration is so important to us.
But now that this argument has ran it's course, ironically, CL has decided to go off "bileduct's" cue and surgically parse each word of every witness we present in an effort to cast doubt and twist the information to work with the official flight path even though this is impossible.
Let's make one thing crystal clear......CIT has NEVER expected any witness who wasn't directly underneath the plane to be able to relay an accurate flight path. Not even the citgo witnesses.
The reason being, due to perspective issues, if the plane was not directly over the top of the witness it would be very difficult to tell the exact location AND heading of the plane that they would have only seen for a second or two.
Edward Paik is the only witness we report who placed the plane directly over the top of him with Jamal having it almost directly above him.
This put Edward in the BEST position of any reported witness to be able to tell the location and heading of the plane without perspective issues. Particularly since he saw it on the approach coming from the direction of the same neighborhood where Cindy Reyes, Veronica, and Mrs. Hubbard all saw the plane.
For anyone else perspective issues would make it EXTREMELY difficult to be able to tell exact location and heading of a plane that they saw for a couple of seconds.
The only thing we expected them to be able to do is give an approximate position of the plane in relation to their location.
That has nothing to do with a "flight path".
We then took each approximate position of the plane from ALL the witnesses and we estimated our own approximate flight path based on that data with the full understanding that there would be a margin of error in each account as well as in our estimation.
Yes I had the citgo witnesses draw a flight path but it was merely to get something on paper showing where these critical witnesses place the plane in relation to the station which was the perfect reference point to their vantage as well as the beginning of the physical damage, the light poles. A true make or break situation for the official story.
Anyone else further back in the path did not have as critical of a vantage point since they could not see the Pentagon or the citgo at all. Because of this their placement of the plane was not make or break for the official story. All we should logically expect to get from any witness is an approximate location of the plane in relation to the property on which they were standing. We MUST consider perspective issues and speed of the plane would mean that any of them would likely mistake the plane as closer or further away than it really was. None of the "ladies of 13th and Poe" could accurately prove whether the plane could have or could not have caused the physical damage.
This is pure and simple common sense that I shouldn't have to explain but the intensified efforts by some to accuse us of "manipulating" the evidence necessitated this response.
So here is the synopsis.......
Jamal and Edward Paik have the strongest testimony as far as exact placement of the plane without perspective isses because both had a clear unobstructed view of the approach AND both were either virtually or directly underneath the plane.
There is no way to reconcile the official flight path with either of their accounts but their accounts are not irreconcilable with the less likely to be accurate 13th and Poe witnesses either. There is a lot of room for error in what we report but there is ZERO room for error in the official flight path due to the NTSB data and the physical damage.
Cindy, Veronica, and Mrs. Hubbard did not and could not see the plane on the approach at all and had the worst vantage to be able to accurately tell heading and location. Could their placement of the plane work with the physical damage or even potentially the FDR? Sure! But they must be reconciled with Jamal, Edward, and the NOC witnesses whose accounts can NOT work with the physical damage or the FDR. Plus they all thought the plane was white. Since their placement of the plane does not prove the official story correct OR wrong we found the fact that they all remember the plane as white to be more significant. There is nothing deceptive or manipulative in this.
So no matter how hard CL and Bileduct try to pick their testimony apart and expect pinpoint accuracy it doesn't matter. It is a sad desperate effort to dismiss ALL of the data or falsely accuse us of being deceptive.
So what is CL's point? He is desperately trying to suggest that the less likely to be accurate placements of the plane by Mrs Hubbard, Veronica, and Cindy support the official story and completely dismiss all of the more likely to be accurate placements of the plane by Jamal, Edward, Brooks, Lagasse, Turcios, and Boger.
But it doesn't work that way. You have to reconcile ALL of the evidence.
Jamal and Edward gave us the strongest points to establish the flight path and the citgo witnesses combined with the bank over the Navy Annex reported by Sean Boger not only prove them correct but also prove that 9/11 was an inside job.
This is an undeniable fact and nothing that any of the "ladies of 13th and Poe" claim contradicts this.
Thanks you. That's entirely too much to digest now and I didn't read a word of it unless it's what you posted at LCF which I read about 1/4 of. I will tear it down as I see fit and at my own leisure. No need to submit further comments, that essay should suffice, and you have your other forums.
I always thought something about the term 'Truther" made it ironic that the people who describe themselves that way so often embrace liars. Ah well... there's the Department of Justice, of Defense. Perhaps after the Jonesian revolution, the core 9/11 Truthers who towed the hardcore MIHOP voodoo line will be the cadre that forms the Ministry of Truth.
Cheers.
Sorry for the bottleneck Biley
imaginary trascript of phone message to Trepasso:
"Listen man, your account is like suspicious. you should talk to us, at this bar I know, and clear up some details man..."
He never called back. See? Suspicious... He also said the plane was right over him, which is the only witnesses who can even see a flight path. Hmmm...
I like how he didn't just work for Clinton but for angry Hitlerish Clinton.
from above, bileduct:
It's all rather sad though really. I believe that you, nicepants and I were all banned on the same day - nicepants appears to have been gotten an outright ban as opposed to a two week ban such as mine. There's one or two others taking up the fight against these clowns but they're really starting to pollute the forums with their filth
I think that episode is worthy of a title a an event in my mini-history here - the PentaCon purge of '08. It's obviously too late now for me to get back in and help clean up the pollution. Plus I'm not a mod. I can't ban them. All I can do is add to the ugliness by pointing out how obvious and cartoony their lies, improvised wigglings, distractions, accusation, ad homs, appeals to anything available, and defensive belligerence really are.
So the pollution pools up, he let gather there and bury it. I can't actually bury a whole forum any better, but for my part I did my own little funeral ceremony and it's buried to me.
Cause of death: suicide.
short answer to Craig's long essay:
Sorry, no go. People see flight paths. They described them right to you. You were just too busy playing connect the dots so you ignored SOME of them that didn't fit. “the flight path that has been getting established for us by the people of Arlington” you say. Ignoring what people give you and inserting your own info is called falsification at my old job and they fire people for it instantly. So no one does it. You just take down what the respondent says and report it factually. Any error is just that - sporadic and statistically insigniificant. This is not error, you did it three times in a row and even devised this improv philosophy for WHY that's okay.
It's not. You're fired. You're done. You're buried to me. Yet I sense more zombie battles coming...
Post a Comment