Sunday, March 2, 2008


The Frustrating Fraud
February 26 2008 12:30 am
updated 2/26 5pm

The long-awaited feature-length follow-up to The PantaCon is now released. Earlier today Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team announced the release of The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off at Above Top 911 forum.
Additional discussion:
Loose Change Forum
Pilots for 911 Truth forum
CIT Forum
Signs of the Times Forum

One hour and forty minutes. More solid evidence proving a deception. Here it is, with a still screen of Koeppel's map based on a few crumbs of error that happens to resemble the final path they're now proposing based on half-a-loaf of error:

Google Video link
I’ve just been skimming through and in fact I’m seeing enough bullshit already it’s making me tired to think of a full debunking, even though I’ve already done most of the work in recent discussions. Regading their findings of the C-130 pilot’s account, their once-rotated map is shown both corrected [9:45] and still rotated [41:40] and they’re still calling the north part of the 'official' outbound flight not far enough north, his view of the mall not beautiful enough by radar, and calling the outbound heading of 255 degrees ‘southwest’ (225°) and fatally contradictory to his description of ‘west’ (270°).

They told me I was ‘dead wrong’ in my guess at their full flight path:

But watching what they did [10:20-13:00 then 16:55-17:30 then 34:40-35:00] it was actually about right in the key spots. It crosses the Potomac twice, skirts north of the Capital, and follows about the 'official' (too far south) C-130 path back across. This is a rough rendering at least of their full proposed path merging previous findings with new CIT witnesses Chaconas, O'Brien, Scoggins, Mineta, and Belger [36:05]:

About 20 minutes of the video is consumed by the account of the much-anticipated Charter Boat Captain – one Steve Chaconas – who describes seeing the decoy plane crossing the river from the east south of the capitol [17:30]. He felt by visual clues it was a commercial airliner, but couldn’t offer CIT anything else, not even a general color or a number of engines. [19:05-19:20]. That’s odd. Later he rambles about confusion, media misrepresentation, open questions, etc. [26:45 – 27:30] That’s useful. CIT witnesses have an uncanny penchant of making themselves useful like this. That’s odd.

They also scored a Keith Wheelhouse interview, digging for simultanaeity of “C-130” and impact as attributed to him in early reports [starts 46:25]. Radar and other data indicates the C-130 passed the area a full two minutes after, while Wheelhouse was cited as seeing it shadowing Flight 77 as if to appear as one blip on radar. This has always been one of the eyewitness mysteries – is that just confused reporting or what he really saw?

In the interview he does confirm that he saw the two planes together [48:20], but also draws the official flight path for 77 (south of the Citgo) and the U-turn attributed to the C-130 [54:07]. They finally have a clear, on-camera corroborated south path witness, and the only thing odd is the now-confirmed same-time aspect, which still contradicts all other evidence and so is still probably wrong. I’ll have to come back and analyze how they deal with all of this, but so far they hint (it seems to me) that Wheelhouse is their elusive flyover witness who for whatever reason turned it into a C-130 after it flew over.

And of course they address the white E4B with its blue stripe that they now feel the decoy was painted to resemble, to help conceal the decoy as it circled Washington a second time before the E4B showed up. (no video of either pass of course). And then the C-130 playing into Wheelhouse's possible flyover account and possibly into Chacones' possible gray 4-engine airliner passing over... Thank god for CIT to help us sort out all this confusion. There are different nuggets in there - an interview with Narayanan, etc., to which I'll have to return. Mineta's "DRA," Scoggins' 6 miles southeast er, southwest... ABC's 9:40 'plane circling the White House.' There are answers for all these, most pretty obvious and vehemently denied by CIT.

Recent revalations, like their flight path offering being physically impossible and being based on proven fraudulent eyewitness ‘interpretations’,’ left me primed to accept this new release. The feeling I get watching this case come together finally is one of liberation; it’s finally clear even to me that CIT actually stands for Comedy Improv Team. This whole thing seems not even so much disinformation, nor simple ‘conspiracy profiteering,’ but more like some long-running prank fronted with a fierce poker face and some high-minded semantics about ‘truth’ and ‘justice.’ Why should I even waste any more time on this noise pollution? Is anybody really fooled?

Optional: Graphic Representation courtesy CIT that sums up this latest effort


bileduct said...

Ranke has made an effort to place on the map the landmarks that Mrs. Hubbard describes and now we have, as her testimony already describes, the plane heading in the general direction of I395 and not the Navy Annex as required by the ridiculous CIT flight path.

So how do CIT dismiss this description of a flight path?

Perspective issues.

Caustic Logic said...

Good to hear from you again and sorry for the delay.

"Response to bileduct, we will never avoid the truth."
Hah! No need. Just get the truth banned from your claimed forums, then let the truth avoid your own forum like the plague, as is natural... So he gives a few locators, neat. Still doesn't sound northbound. I liked his photo of the Shraton visible 'from her house." Yeah, the middle of the street in from of... not on the lawn... or the porch... or inside looking out to the east.

If this whole thing is NOT just a prank meant to be uncovered, then why did they even include Hubbard's account at all? They should have just left it out, or at least placed her as living in a different spot. Who would've known? Honesty in the oddest places...

So whaddya think of the new movie?

bileduct said...

Ugh, I found it painful and annoying in the extreme. I completely lost interest after Wheelhouse and didn't bother with the rest.

More of the same crap... Person X saw Y and Z.

Y supports the flyover, Z doesn't.

Person X was in a good position to see Y, so we should take that account as INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF A COVERUP!

Person X appears, according to CIT, to not be telling the truth about Z, so we must ignore everything they say except for Y, which is INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF A COVERUP.


Wheelhouse marks his location on the map but then CIT "debunk" his claims by showing the viewpoint he had... if he'd been standing 300 feet from where he indicated he was.

The more crap these clowns put out the stupider the story gets. Like Dom's insistence that the "White Vans of 9/11" spirited the downed light poles to the scene of the crime.

Comedy Improv Team indeed.

Caustic Logic said...

Their original flight path is borderline impossible requiring the plane to go near sideways one way and then the other in a matter of a few seconds. The new path averages them back together as the final smooth twirl of this cinnamon roll maneuver.

Certifiably Insane Theory.