Saturday, March 22, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
March 22 2008

The Cooperative Research History Commons is a mammoth and growing body of collected data on a host of world topics. It’s run by the Center for Grassroots Oversight ("CGO"), which was formed in late 2006 and known before that as the Center for Cooperative Research. Founded by Paul Thompson and supported by donations and a slew of researchers, this group was responsible for the Complete 9/11 Timeline and all its sub-categorical variations so frequently-cited by 9/11 researchers (anything with attached). The most important aspects of this were also compiled into the 2004 master tome The Terror Timeline, which I eagerly bought and have thumbed through excessively, as can be seen by looking at my copy (below).
I was deeply honored that they approached me last year to help update their entries relating to the Pentagon attack and Flight 77 and related developments. They couldn't get Pickering I guess but I was game. I was in touch with Mr. Thompson himself but my main contact was member Kevin Fenton, who showed me the ropes and helped much with editing and advice. With so much emphasis on solid sources, and proper formatting for each entry, it was natural for me to procrastinate completion, and to focus on quality over quantity for what I did finally contribute. So for the record and to have them all referenced in one spot, these are the six entries I submitted (always in way too long a form at first)
- The ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report
- Background of the ASCE investigation
- Punch-out hole not explained in reports
- Another entry on the punch-out exit hole
- My most important contribution - the 330-degree loop before impact
- And an entry about Rumsfeld's 2001 missile "admission."

I feel bad that I never pulled my full weight relative to what Kevin had to outlay to get me going, but I found the process too tedious to keep at it. I do hope to contribute more to the History Commons in this and other areas, at some future time, but for the time being I have cancelled my obligations to them to focus on these other activities.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
March 18 2008
last update 3/23 3am

Okay, so here’s my response to Rob Balsamo’s new masterpiece Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible. Yet again, we hear, some things taken together with other things have again proven the official story of the Pentagon attack is physically impossible. He dated the piece March 13 so he could say dramatically “"Beware The Ides Of March" could not be a more appropriate introduction to this article as it appears the government story regarding the events at the pentagon is officially dead.” Again the merry-go-round spins and in the end… again…. everyone disagrees still. I weary of this game, and this latest seems really a pathetic attempt. But it is in my area and people have asked my opinion, so I guess I need to cover it.

After infinite CIT re-posts of Pilots for Truth misfindings, it seems it was Rob Balsamo’s turn to catch them back. “Thanks to the hard work done by Citizen Investigation Team, they alerted us to review figures regarding topography and obstacles along the flight path of American 77 according to the government story. […] According to the government, American 77 final approach to the pentagon is depicted below.”
This graphic is not produced by the government, but by Merc Mercy CIT. I’m sure it’s fairly close to accurate, but is it close enough to say where the plane was relative to this 5-foot wide ‘obstacle?’ I’d have to say no. But Balsamo acts as if the government had drawn the line that took the plane right into or over this VDOT transmitter tower, 169 ft tall (including 6-foot antennas on top) above a ground elevation of 135 feet. He never explains whether or not this tower WAS hit, just takes a point right above it as a starting point. From this he did a bunch of math, with too many steps it seems to me, and decided that such a descent from above the tower to the light poles and into the building level would require 11.2 Gs of force.

“Conclusion = Impossible for any transport category aircraft to descend from top of VDOT Antenna to top of pole 1 and pull level to "impact hole" as reported by the government story and seen in the DoD "5 Frames Video". 11.2 G's was never recorded in the FDR. 11.2 G's would rip the aircraft apart.”

I don’t intend to get into the math of all this, but John Farmer’s response is worthy of note: Mission impossible He found that Balsamo’s numbers didn’t add up to what he said they did, double-checked and found the g-force would be 3.5, not 11.2. “So “impossible” is not the word I would use Rob.”

Then he also passed on the video interview of witness Ed Paik explaining how the antenna on top was indeed damaged. Somehow this was not included in Balsamo’s post even though his sources were there when Paik said this. Ranke had to add after that indeed Paik said this but, as Ranke explained back in 2006 “he just deduced this because he saw them working on it the next day. We confirmed with the VDOT employees that the antenna was not clipped.”

This maintenance was routine then, and just happened to occur one day after the plane flew right over it. Says CIT. Perhaps… But doubts remain; the only photo anyone’s yet found that shows the tower on 9/11 after the strike, by Steve Riskus, shows some hints of a damaged antenna, as Farmer discovered. I can see this, the deformation of the shorter right spire, and it's an intriguing possibility; as Arabesque puts it:

""We have a plane that many witnessed flying by the area the previous day. We have the flight data recorder suggesting that the plane might very well have been in line to hit the top of the tower and continue its trajectory; impacting the light poles and the Pentagon. We have a witness who confirms that the plane was flying at the approximate height of this tower and that he suspected that it was damaged from an impact with the plane as it was being repaired the next day--the two meter antenna replaced by a repair-man. If it can be proven that the tower was damaged from the incoming plane, this would be another compelling piece of evidence for the south of CITGO gas station approach and impact into the Pentagon; corroborated by the flight data recorder no less.""[e-mail]

However, this photo is just not clear enough for me. It’s essentially a needle in the distance, lost in a digital haystack. Any slight artifact will warp it too easily. In fact when people were TRYING to take a good picture in 2006, it almost looks like one antenna is missing entirely (below). I don’t think we’ll ever see a picture clear enough to say unless it was taken by the repairman, but I'd need to see better evidence it was NOT damaged before I'd believe that either (a copy of the work order for 9/12 stating the reason for the repair, for example). I’m leaving this aspect ambiguously undecided and moving on.
Whether the plane flew just over this spindly 'obstacle' or nicked its top, the descent issues are roughly the same - a descent from 305ft MSL to about 35-40, a total non-linear descent of 270 feet over a span of about 3400 feet. This means a descent of 165 feet from FDR last frame before the antenna and another app. 235 feet dropped from the antenna to the first light pole in the same rough distance but at higher speed. I'm no pilot, but a lower altitude at the tower makes a bit more sense.

For a different aspect on aircraft height, Terry Morin at the Navy Annex (aka FOB) placed the Boeing “essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. 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.” For this I’ll us a graphic I used earlier when CIT argued a similar problem relating to descent angles and impossible stuff, just updated a bit. It’s a panoramic graphic so here’s the right half with a reasonable descent angle to the light poles and impact.

And here is the important half, with the tower added to scale and cross-sectional placement. Oddly, my previous lines extended back take it over the tower neatly, but that’s a pretty steep descent. It looks like it would cause 3.5-11.2 Gs, considering the range offered so far. If we take Morin’s account as closer, which I tend to, it had to be much lower, which offers a more reasonable pitch, but takes the plane well below the top of the tower. This means an impact if Merc’s government line is accurate.

But I doubt it is. Flight paths aren't perfectly straight. They wiggle a bit, especially I would think at high speeds in the lower atmosphere. In another post I established that the witness record and physical damage best fits with a moderate left bank over the Navy annex, and likely a slight left curve to the flight path between the Navy Annex and Route 27 where it leveled slightly, with an apparent left bank of about –5-6° evident in the impact damage.

So considering all we know here is a proposal I offer: I had first favored the purple swerve, but after reviewing Morin I'm betting on the green line at the moment, or else the purple one.
- Final trajectory by pole and building damage - ≈ 61°
- Final FDR heading ≈ 59.9° (these are shown in red at the corners).
- The big yellow dot at lower left is the last reported position in the FDR data we have
- The yellow line a straight shot from there to the damage path. This indeed crosses over or within a few feet of the tower, probably too close for comfort if it weren’t high enough.
Before going graphically away from straight lines, I added for comparison two non-straight attempts to explain the ‘official’ evidence. In magenta a 2004 estimate by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins with a notable wiggle to it. He’s a pilot. Also in dark blue is an estimate by “Plan 271,” based on eyewitness reports from Dawn Vignola.

The two variations I’ve traced in green and purple are the most moderate explanations. While the green path fits best with Morin's account, the purple one is perhaps more consistent with left bank clues. Note the scale here – 500 feet is just a short line - and that each path is traced along the fuselage centerline. To clear the tower north or south it need only pass 62 feet away (124-foot wingspan). On closer inspection they pass about 250 feet from the tower, so I could’ve made them much milder. In fact I'm thinking the best fit is about 1/3 from the yellow line to the green one, with perhaps a left turn starting earlier, just after the tower, giving it a noticeable left tilt as it approached Route 27.

But even this extreme, both visibly look possible and reasonable – connecting two nearly identical trajectories with a gentle curve away and back, and still safely north or south of the tower. Altitude options open up. Either way, it looks like a reasonable avoidance procedure of a minor object on the attack path. if it were that low, which the witnesses and FDR seem to indicate.

Purple swerve - Max angle required to avoid the tower ≈ 68°
Min angle required to avoid the tower ≈ 53°
Green swerve - about the same
Time frame: app 6-7 seconds from the yellow dot
Any pilots? How impossible is that?

This is a non-issue – a needle of an obstacle that would be missed almost by definition if the path were anything other than perfectly straight, which it probably was. It’s also a non-issue because all previous attempts to ‘prove the official story impossible’ have failed under the test of verification. All that’s happening here is the wrong data being looked at the wrong way and attributed back to reality in a repeated straw man maneuver that’s giving many a case of hay fever. There is nothing impossible about what happened, and as a relative non-issue that seems prohibitively tedious to either prove or debunk I’m not even taking this one to the forums.
Update 3/23:
I took it to the forums a little. 9/11 Blogger (comments page 2) - Above Top

update 3/19:

note: in the graphic above I somehow screwed up the 500' scale, making it actually represent about 400 feet. Luckily my margin was still wide enough that these mild swerves are still a fit, both passing well over 100 feet from the antenna tower.

update 3/21:
I just located again Russell Pickering's take on Paik's antenna memories from the old old LCF, 9/10/06:

"I went to the VDOT to confirm it hadn't been hit. It had not. Then in Edward's interview I asked him if he actually saw it hit the tower and he said no. Then I asked him if it hit the solid metal part of the tower and he said no. What he said was that it hit a smaller antenna of 2-3 meters in length on the top. He ended up telling us the reason he thought it had been hit was because he saw somebody up on the tower working the next day.

What had happened then is he incorporated a conclusion from something he saw later into his memory of the original account. The real story is that when the FBI took over the VDOT as a command post they added antennas to the tower for communication."
[emph. mine]

So it actually was not a coincidence people were up there the day after a plane flew by there. There was a direct cause and effect relationship between the two, as that plane had turned the area into a major hurking crime scene of the utmost national security importance. They needed many things, including communications. And perhaps the old antenna was also coincidentally damaged by the plane and replaced at the same time. That certainly can't be ruled out and in fact may well be the case judging by the new evidence coming to light. And that would certainly be another problem for the north path fly over story.

Update 3/23: CIT's take was not coincidence of antenna work but rather that it was not damage-related. They seem the feel it was the military, not the FBI, who put up the new antenna. And we have further confirmation that it was not damaged: John Farmer has confirmed the fact again with the VDOT smart center manager. He offered no details beyond "that was not true!," but as Farmer noted "if anyone should know it would be him (he would have to approve the replacement cost since he was the manager)." [e-mail]

Thursday, March 13, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Initial posting: March 13 2008
last update: 3/15 12 am

This is a partial post for now, to which I'll add later. Primarily it's to alert anyone who cares of my new video, following off my previous analysis Who is Person #1? I'm not confident saying it is Robert Turcios, but it's the only person who could be him, given his stated (general) location and (pre-plane) activities.

Online Videos by
Veoh page

Among some other points and spiffy music, the core of it is the conflict between the 2006 account of Robert Turcios and this possible Turcios recorded supposedly on 9/11. This panoramic patchwork demonstrates the basic idea.

I should have done it with the lower earthen mound as it was on 9/11 but that didn't occur to me. There aren't many good photos of that. Here's one that shows it - earthen, unseeded, and looking to the stupid eye like a plywood wall. Note that this photo is taken from a high point and would have an obscured view if at ground level as Turcios was.
Also, Turcios' or anyone's north-of-the-Citgo claim is contradicted by this same camera view, which also captures a large shadow on the road behind (south of) person 1. This shadow is consistent for size, shape, location, and timing with a Boeing 757 on the damage path, and traveling at 530 mph about 110 feet off the ground. Dead serious. All this is explained at this post. I invite anyone to find fault with that analysis other than 'the video is fake!'

Citizen Investigation Team's approach to this conflict of evidence is, of course, ignore the video. They insist it was altered to discredit Turcios, and disparage anyone who dares look at this as valid evidence. They do make a compelling case for removal of key views, which would prove some type of alteration. I'm doing some analysis on that at the moment, and reviewing the findings of others and will finally have something to say on it soon.

Regarding the circumstantial case for alteration, Aldo Marquis recently reminded the viewers of the person 1 video "What he failed to mention in his youtube is that the CITGO video was released 10 days after we obtained Robert's very important account and 5 days after announcing it publically”
I will mention that here and now. Here is the proof - collected posts CIT love to brandish:

And now this timing 'coincidence' in a fuller context:
Tucios and Video Timeline convergence
Dec. 15 2004 – To counter growing secrecy-fueled conspiracy theories, Judicial Watch files a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Defense Dept. requesting the release of several videos including from “the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station.”
Jan 2005 - DoD admits to Judicial Watch it had a video of the impact but it must remain secret for the duration of the long-running Moussaoui trial.
Sept. 9 2005 – Scott Bingham/ lawsuit against the DoJ yields the Maguire declaration announcing 85 videos in possession of DoJ and at least one showing the impact.
Feb. 22 2006 – Judicial Watch files suit to the DoD to release this “video that allegedly shows United Flight 77 striking the Pentagon.”
April 6 2006 - Aldo Marquis joins the Loose Change forum as Merc, gains respect with research threads like "A 757 Does Not Fit, Photographic analysis and Irregularities" (May 15).
May 4 2006 - Moussaui is sentenced to life, the trial is over, and the old reason for refusing disclosure evaporates. Video release seems more likely after this date.
May 16 - Confirming that impression, JW releases its first new video – the gate cameras we saw stills from back in 2002.
June 22 – Perhaps inspired by their success with the DoD, Judicial Watch files a lawsuit against the FBI for video release.
June 23 - Marquis/Merc is joined at the LC Forum by his future CIT cohort Ranke (as Lyte Trip), and both quickly become moderators of the Pentagon forum. At some point after this, Merc suggests a research trip to Arlington; "It was my idea. Craig and I decided to go. I mentioned it to Dylan and Russell, and Dylan asked if they could make it a joint research trip that included Russell, since Dylan was going to be in DC around the same time we planned our trip." [source]
July 31 – Moussaoui trial exhibits released in their entirety, an unprecedented move in a federal case. Could videos be far behind?
August 21-25 2006 – Marquis, Ranke, Pickering, Avery, Bermas, and Rowe conduct their research trip to Arlington to gather clues about the Pentagon attack.
August 22 – Pickering is at the Citgo making first contact as Marquis and Ranke arrive. Ranke later summarized “This turned out to be very good because he established contacts making it easier for us to return and talk with people there later.”
Aug 24 – The ‘elite research team’ visits the Citgo again to film the area, are detained and have most of their photos/video deleted. Ranke and Marquis depart on a 3:00 flight to California. (pre-planned, not a hasty retreat).
Aug 25 - Merc posts a quick synopsis solidifying his role as a stellar researcher: "Hey guys, I'm back and have some interesting news for you all. THERE WAS A LARGE PLANE SEEN DIVING TOWARDS THE PENTAGON!" There was still debate about whether the witnesses indicated an impact or a fly-over of course...
August 31 – The first full post-trip analysis, very detailed and with many photos, is posted by Lyte Trip at the LCF.
September 5 – Marquis, after following-up with the station’s manager, has his first phone discussion with a Citgo employee (Robert Turcios) who saw a gray plane pull-up on the north path. He speaks to Turcios a second time before the 10th and a third time shortly after.
September 10: Merc first posts at the forum about this witness who “breaks the case wide open” and indicates a flyover.. This is the graphic that gets its first airing as describing the yet-unnamed witness' account. September 11: the five year anniversary of the attacks arrives – a propitious time to release any held videos. It passes with nothing still. But due to previous actions mentioned above, discs of the video containing that witness are probably in the mail.
September 14: Ranke/Lyte emphasizes at the LCF the importance of Turcios: “The witness 100% refutes the mechanical flight path. No other witness account is as significant.”
September15 – After receiving a copy from the FBI, Judicial Watch releases the Citgo station security video for public viewing at Youtube. The big news about it was how it still didn’t show the actual impact but JW president Tom Fitton says “Now that it has been released to the public, there is no reason for further speculation about what it does or does not show." Hardly!
The Response
September 15: Dylan Avery: “i'd hate to say we caused any part of this, but our team sure caused a stir at the gas station....” Merc: “I'd hate to say it had anything to do with our star witness, but what timing.” [source] Note the curious use of 'hate' by both.
September 16 and after - analysis by some and reasons for denial from others, endless debate over what the video shows. It doesn't show what Robert says, that much is clear.
Oct 5: Marquis posts: “I believe the Citgo video was released SPECIFICALLY because of the Citgo witness and his account. I no longer believe this as a possibility, but as an unforunate reality. A counter chess move if you will. I have more reason to believe this now but can't elaborate on it at this point. But I will in the near future. [...] This is a clever trick in response to the Citgo employee's account. Simply more bad video with a few editing/graphic/lighting tricks, just like the others. Perhaps something more complex. Look at the date of my Citgo Witness thread ( My first phone call was the week of labor day), and then look at the date of the Citgo video release. As stated earlier, "Not coincidence"."
[So they read the old LCF that closely, eh? "Quick! They're talking to that witness we forgot to kill... let's edit the video to discredit him, then let these guys interview him on the premesis on video anyway, after we still forget to kill him." ???]
Nov 6? 2006: Marquis and Ranke are on a CIT-only research trip and meet with Turcios (as well as Paik, Lagasse, and Brooks) and get him to affirm his pre-video-release story on camera for the ages. He complies but his performance is awkward and not terribly believable.
Feb 28 2007: Pickering to Merc: "The question is - do you believe I am a government agent and was involved in the alteration and release of the Citgo video to sabatoge your work? Yes or no?" Merc to Pickering: "You behavior and actions indicate to me this is a possibility. But I do not know for sure one way or the other." [source]
Mid-2007? - Joh Farmer posts his first findings of a person who may be Turcios visible in the security video.
Aug 30 2007: Ranke 8/30/07: "The release of the proven manipulated video data was done to discredit Robert Turcios since he is not visible in the video." Method for deducing this- the video shows no one doing what Robert says he did and where. So no Robert. Which is a problem for... the video.

more forthcoming ...

and stuff
also to come.

Wednesday, March 5, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
March 5 2008
Last update 3/14 2am

Craig Ranke the other day left this comment at John Farmer's newly revived blog regarding some things Farmer had said: “you will not find a single statement from us where we have accused ANY witnesses as being liars, government agents, or where we have "condemned" them for anything," Ranke admonished. The "Dishonrable" and "deceptive" intentions of this baseless accusation were clear; "You are simply lying about us again as usual.” Farmer passed this along to me, and it triggered me to put this together, something I’ve been thinking about for a while; a list of all the witnesses that Ranke (aka Lyte Trip) and Aldo Marquis (aka Merc) of Citizen Investigation Team have accused of being liars, government agents, or otherwise condemned to evidentiary oblivion in their Eastman-esque info-universe.

Oh I’m a fine one to talk, CIT will protest – Caustic Logic the operative with his zany 'deep cover operative' disinfo NoC witness theory. I meant to cover that first but this post was getting WAY too big with the Mea Culpa attached. So I’ll cover that in another post and we’ll see how crazy it is… Back to the current subject in which CIT’s own words are at issue.

Referring to the case of Dawn Vignola (see below) and the word ‘roughly,’ which he felt were at issue, Ranke said “we have not even published anything on her yet so to say we've treated her (or any witness) "roughly" is a lie.” Really? Then why the distinction “we have not even published anything on her?” Is there something in this process that might be called rough? “I can GUARANTEE that we did not treat her "roughly" in any way at all. We have all of our conversations with her recorded […] When we were at their home it was a short and perfectly civil meeting.” I’m sure there are no sounds of a scuffle in those recordings, or even raised voices. I don’t think that was ever the point.

‘Rough’ might not be the right word, and not with the witnesses themselves. Riding roughshod over their accounts, which reflects back on them of course, and often over their general character and credibility, is more like it. Easy dismissals of whole testimonies via what I’m calling the ‘couldn’t see shit’ maneuver, willful ignorance or minimizing of key details, flippant if vague accusations, adduced sinister connections, and a general sorting into credible witnesses and dubious ones, each with its own rules and standards. All these are employed in the CIT cherry orchard, where harvests are hand-picked, and that is undeniable.

The reasoning for and the resistance to this sorting was explained by Ranke in a discussion of the USA Today Parade (see below):

"I understand how it is hard to put a human face to this crime in any way and that it's much easier to assign blame to an entity like "the government" as opposed to living humans. But living humans were involved. They had to be. Complicit operatives were present during this incredible military black psychological operation of deception. It's up to the citizens to decide who the genuine witnesses are and who the liars are. It's not easy but we must make that determination.” [source]

Well they sure make it LOOK easy. CIT tops their professed belief in fraudulent video, radar, FDR, planted and ridiculous contrived physical evidence, and a totally unseen pull-up flyover, with a long line of eyewitnesses whose accounts can’t be trusted. They have reasons at the ready to dismiss a good portion of published recollections, ready to copy and paste when anyone tries to counter them with a pesky eyewitness account of, say, a low impact with a slight left bank. Many were just dismissed because they couldn't see something or other, or are 'unconfirmed.' Others are dismissed via serious flaws and some of these people perhaps deserve some doubt. Perhaps some are just mistaken, or duped, but the dubiousness of some accounts seems to CIT to go deeper than that.

This is serious stuff here, a matter of good and evil. As Aldo once and infamously said: "I can say I've spoken directly to operatives from the Pentagon attack. I have looked the devil in the eye."The man does have some theological insights; his Myspace page has info on Masonic architecture, old-school American Satanists, and the Israeli Supreme Court building with its inverted Cross walkway where some vague 'they' "plan to seat the "Anti-Christ." He has later clarified that he meant the overall plot - the attack, the cover-up, the whole sinister operation - was 'the devil' in that statement, but some person or persons on this list - in fact in the somewhat shorter list of ones they've spoken to - was part of it, the eye into which he peered and saw the darkness pulsing beneath. Craig backs him up: "if 'demon' isn't a fitting description for someone willingly involved what is?" [ source] Just as demons are sent from the devil, operatives are sent from the op. However literally we should take this, their evidence deals with the more earthly level, and so here are the witnesses they'd have us know have issues.

The Suspicious Ones
1) Lloyd England – Not necessarily ‘an operative from the Pentagon attack ,’ but probably, and so suspicious he gets his own short video; ‘The First Known Accomplice?” and CIT and their allies make a huge deal of his account all over the place. Little wonder they try; on the surface he’s the best light pole witness in the sense that he says the plane flew over him just as the pole came flying through his windshield. ‘Did you actually SEE the plane hit the poles,” the old CIT standard, gets real silly in this case. The reason they keep at it and put the cab on their main page is it’s a strong point for them in that England’s account of the big pole segment piercing the windshield and coming to rest long heavy end out without leaving a mark on the hood doesn’t make much sense. Of course that doesn’t prove anything except that a witness is telling a story that makes no sense; his windshield was damaged in a way other than he says, obviously. Like by a different piece of pole. When I first met Ranke as "Jack Tripper," he challenged me "Name one witness I have dismissed as a plant besides Lloyd." [source] Their apparent “Lloyd-bashing” is a persistent magnet for criticism, so CIT now goes to pains to explain “We haven’t even accused Lloyd of anything even though his story is physically impossible and proven false by the evidence. We have always maintained that he may have been coerced or manipulated which would make him a victim.” [source] But whatever they make of why, his evidentiary credibility, and all evidence connected to it, is toast. And that this piece of toast appeared right at that crucial spot and time is another clue that deception is afoot. Convenient. Ranke: “At this point the debate regarding what happened at the Pentagon boils down to whether you choose to believe the CITGO witnesses or Lloyd.” No. I don’t have to fully believe either. Period.

2) Stephen McGraw – Also suspicious enough to warrant his own short video; “From the Law to the Lord,” which “features our interview with former Department of Justice attorney turned Catholic priest Stephen McGraw” to let him “tell his story on camera and to confirm or deny some of the suspicious details in his previously published account.” Though he admits he didn’t actually see the lamp poles hit, he inexcusably describes a low impact, controlled and straight from 20 feet over his head from the left and arguably behind, making him a solid south path/impact witness. He’s also coincidentally a member of Opus Dei, a much-distrusted Catholic sect, so good choice… “The well known dubious details surrounding this secret society,” Ranke remind us, include “espionage, perversion,” and that it’s “favored by the Washington elite,” all “relevant points when considering McGraw's high profile involvement with 9/11.” On changing plans to minister to the dead and wounded at the Pentagon, Ranke affirms that “shirking his commitment to a mourning family waiting at the cemetery with their loved one in a casket is most definitely a questionable act.” They seem to presume he wasn’t even at the scene until after the crash, but “place him under the official path” 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. It’s clear they don’t take him seriously as a witness, just let him talk, ignore the words, and say “Opus Dei.”

3) Bob Dubill - An editor at USA Today, a mainstream media employee of some influence, and far too many of them from that one paper on that short stretch of road that day just ‘heading to work.’ They of course have a whole video on the ”USA Today Parade.” Nothing specific against Dubill I noticed.

4) Richard Benedetto: USA Today reporter, member of the suspicious parade of witnesses. Ranke has emphasized “the relevance of Gannett/USA Today as far as mainstream media manipulation goes in general and how it's a major propaganda arm of the governement similar to fox news,” and the “incredible coincidence” of six of them “being within .16 of a mile in the most critical area to witness the attack.” [source] I confess this is an odd coincidence at 9:30 am, but it really depends how many people worked there and were drawn there each day. There are roads in Seattle where at any given moment anywhere near rush hour, every other car has at least one Microsoft employee in it.

5) Mary Ann Owens – news room assistant, included in USA Today parade, who 'saw' the plane fly over them on a point well south of the NoC path - portable human planted light poles! Ranke: “The plane was on the north side of the citgo. If these people simply had ambiguous memories that would be one thing but this is a far cry from that.” [source]

6) Joel Sucherman – Member of the USA Today parade, verified in the video, and his view verified – couldn’t see shit! Of course he passes off their concentration as a natural effect of that being the route to work and backed up. Regarding his account of the C-130 passing ‘3-5 seconds’ after impact, Ranke points out Sucherman is “highly publicized […] as one of the second plane witnesses, yet he would not identify the type of plane.” This is made to sound suspicious, and CIT has wondered if this account was “meant to ambiguously act as cover for the flyover?” [new video]

7) Mike Walter – USA Today Parade member, Very clear impact witnesss, view partially blocked by trees – CIT talked to him, had dinner in his house, mischaracterized his bank report, and decided he couldn’t see shit at some point or other and was making stuff up. Ranke: "I do not believe or trust Mike Walter for a single second and we have plenty of evidence to show deliberate contradictions in his account.” [source]

8) Vin Narayanan – Confirmed by CIT via phone [new video], he saw a second plane, presumably the C-130, ‘a couple minutes’ after impact, but is steadfast that it was a jet. Read back on Chaconas [see same link], who some feel saw the C-130 but decided it was a commercial jet, so a jet it must be says CIT. Ranke: Narayanan also “claims he saw a "2nd jet" fly over the building. Works as good cover for a flyover doesn't it?” [source]

9) John O’Keefe – in their new video, via Narayanan, CIT learns he too is part of the suspicious USA Today witness parade. They spoke with him and decided he couldn’t see it for 45 seconds as he says from "his now-confirmed alleged location." [new video]

10) Fred Gaskins – USA Today editor and a Pentagon witness, possibly part of the parade. Ranke: "No matter how you look at it, even if it WAS still rush hour, it strains credulity to suggest that so many reporters or editors would be in such a crucial location together during such an historically significant (and questionable) world event. Put that together with the fact that the trees blocked their view and the north of the citgo testimony and once again the implications are clear.” [source] Yeah, they had their plants blocked by trees. Great planning, as usual from the worldwide black-oppers.

11) Bobby Eberle – GOP USA connected = a liar about the Pentagon attack. Ranke: “Could you find anyone more dubious? His account reads like a fiction novel.” Shoomp, there goes another impact witness. [source]

12) Gary Bauer – PNAC connections = a liar about what he saw at the Pentagon. Ranke: “THERE IS NO PROOF HE WAS ON EVEN ON THE HIGHWAY. He is one of the PNAC signers. That would make him a suspect "witness".” Shooomp. In comes another probable plant. [source]

13) Steve Riskus – A clear and close impact witness with no GOP connections (he’s a skateboarder and a nice guy) who didn’t actually SEE the poles get hit, but is sure it hit the building, low, but not the ground. Ranke: “What a joke! Steve Riskus is obviously a plant. The website creation date is a dead give away […] no true skater would have a website with a front page as cheezy as this! And he has never bothered updating it in years. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.” [source] (Ranke has backed off this accusation - see comments section).

14) Penny Elgas – Extremely detailed low impact account from a perfect vantage point. She could see shit. “Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect. She claims the plane was 80 feet up which is too high to hit the poles and that it "banked" which also contradicts the official story while a bank is required in the north of the citgo flight path.” [source] He’s wrong about her banking account – it matches the official story.

15) Dawn Vignola – CIT has said that her news call-in from 9/11 about the plane impact was ‘coached’ by her roommate at the time, Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman. Suspicious. Listen for the ‘coaching’ yourself here - a voice in the background helping add technical details. Too bad she’s tainted, she was almost a useful witness. As Merc noted: “She told us multiple times that the plane was white, but for some reason had fused the AA into it, perhaps becuase of news reports, perhaps because of her roomate, Timmerman.” Aldo defends coaching charges: “He says it, she repeats it. Is that not coaching?” His list has her as “claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position.” [source] Here’s an interesting discussion between CIT and a source familiar with Dawn, one “Plan271.” Ranke explained they think it was “Vignola's husband” who “came to our forum anonymously and made viciously attacked us for no reason whatsoever.” Of course if he had no reason he wouldn’t do it, now, would he? You go cherry picking, some guy no likey you pick his wife’s cherries. Not surprising.

16) Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman – see above. An impact story liar who coached Vignola, later gave his own detailed account ” it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike […] and then I lost it behind a building. And then it came out, and I saw it hit.” CIT got to look through the view they shared and found they couldn’t see shit. “The highrise building in front of them to the left completely blocked their view of the final moments of the flight path so there is no way they would have been able to tell if the plane was north or south of the citgo,” and the fireball would have blocked the flyover. Ranke: “This hitting the ground claim by Ms. Vignola and even the "plane person" Hugh Timmerman completely contradicts the official story and is further PROOF that they deduced the impact and embellished these details.” [source] No. They saw it from high up so the details were less clear. One wing hit the generator and probably exploded while the other basically hit the ground, so it exploded at ground level just before impact. From above it would look like - it his the ground and blew up.

17) Noel Sepulveda - Ranke: “There is a lot of reason to doubt the legitimacy of this account and we were not able to find him for verification." [source] Sepulveda’s account is goofy, and I see reason to doubt its accuracy, but not necessarily its legitimacy. Not sure if they were trying to cast doubt here or just flinging a bit out of simple habit.

18) Afework Hagos – This witness “is not claiming to have SEEN the light poles get hit. We can't find a trace of this person existing at all but regardless...” [source] Funny enough, other than CIT proclamations, I can't find a trace of Aldo Marquis existing at all, but regardless… here I am dealing with someone going by that name sayin’ what they’re sayin’. Merc’s list has Hagos as “unconfrimed account-deduced? Lying?” [source]

19) Madelyn Zakhem – Merc noted after participating in an interview with her in 2006 “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 treeop level which we all know is impossible.” [source]Once again, when convenient, read a figure of speech too literally and debunk it. It was convenient, as the building that plane was some number of INCHES above, clearly puts it on the south path, and with the official bank and slight turn to the left. Marquis: "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. 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." [source] Wow, that is some suspiciously - what? Indeed it's the name. When I first heard of her, I misread and wondered if she was related to suspected "9/11 Mastermind" Dov Zakheim at the Pentagon. Obviously this didn't pan out, but there's apparently still some kind of play still being made on this vague perception.

20) Terry Morin – Ranke: “Due to all of these extreme contradictions with the official story and explicit exaggerated details meant to support's clear that Morin is either relaying a completely fabricated or else wildly embellished account.[source]

21) Don Mason – 2nd-hand account said he saw poles hit and a truck antenna. Ranke warns us Mason “was a Pentagon Renovation worker that is one of 3 PenRen workers cited in the ASCE report. Because of this he is a VERY suspect witness.” [source]

22) Frank Probst – PenRen bigwig, so at least as suspicious. Someone in the renovation program had to know about the column bowing-inward explosived built into the structure by Masonry Arts to fake an airliner impact. Why not Probst, who also gave a suspiciously precise account of the official impact story? Ranke: "a very small handful do place [the plane] somewhere along the physical damage path," where we know it wasn't. "These are very very few such as Frank Probst. It would be foolish for someone to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job but completely write off the possibility that ANY of the witnesses were planted.”[source] He had to be, or was compelled to lie later. Bigwigs don't as often get compelled. Probably an operative and participant in the mass murder.

23) Rich Fitzharris - The third Penren guy interviewed by ASCE so also suspect. He didn't even claim to see the impact however, so it would seem he was under-utilized. Perhaps this was just a touch of realism. That they'd all three be in the right spot might seem silly.

24) Aziz El Hallou – An odd case I didn't learn about until recently, proud owner of part of the plane... Merc: “Debunked lying witness, proven to be at Navy Annex.” [source] Compellingly indicated there anyway… this case is unique. I think they may have an opportunistic liar here. Or not ... Doesn’t prove much in itself, but put together with all the others … no, still nothing.

25) James Robbins - Merc: "a national-security analyst & NRO contributor for National Review, William F Buckley (CIA) publication." [source] Certainly not an outright accusation, but he sure does sound suspicious.

26) Dave Marra - Merc: "dubious, questionable witness-claims plane cartwheeled into building." [source] Further dubious details unsure, but it's true that event did not happen. Again like Sepulveda -reason to dismiss the witness, or just to not rely on his details? I'm not familiar with this one, so I'll just leave it there.

27) Thomas Trapasso - "Political appointee"under Clinton, looking for new cronyism when he ‘saw’ the plane on the official path and reported so. No appointments I've heard of in thanks. He was stiffed. Wouldn’t return CIT’s calls. Suspicious. Mentioned at the beginning of "Flight 77 The White Plane.”

28) Albert Hemphill – Marquis: “Albert Hemphill is a Lt. General with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The C-130 was not a "Navy electronic warfare aircraft", so that would serve to fuel the conspiracy theories about it controlling the plane. […] This account seems more like an account about the C-130 that "just happens to" give fuel to the theories. I'll let the reader decide which category that fits into.” [source]

29) Keith Wheelhouse – CIT verified him on video, his C-130 ‘shadowing’ 77 account promising possible flyover treasure… after he insisted the C-130 and 77 flew together in his view for 60 seconds, which is impossible for various reasons, but drew the official fight paths for each that conflicts with what CIT feels happened, and perhaps a little too perfectly. His location and POV were questioned, he couldn't see shit they found, his re-affirmed impossible timing proves him a liar, and yeah, his account isn’t right. I don’t know about his location, why he’s wrong, what he really saw, or what any of this proves. CIT wonders “were Joel [Sucherman] and Keith’s account meant to ambiguously act as cover for the flyover?” [new video] Note here the use of singular ‘account,’ softly implying they were handed the same script.

30) Alfred S. Regnery - A peripheral witness – too far from the scene to come into the debate much. I mentioned him once as seemingly supporting a south path and Ranke mentioned “He is the president of right wing mainstream publishing company Regnery publishing who put out books by Anne Coulter, Newt Gingrich, as well as Barbara Olson the famous right wing CNN pundit and alleged vicitim passenger of flight 77. Coincidental no?” [source] Yeah, that is odd. But we have another possibly dubious witness? Why didn’t he lie himself closer and say he saw it hit the light poles as Barabara wrestled the hijackers inside? That alone would have sold tens of thousands of extra books I'd think.

31) Mickey Bell/Jack Singleton – Ranke: “1. Mickey Bell's account is told by HIS BOSS. It is hearsay; not evidence." True. Deduced really. No original content. Nonetheless " 2. He is a Pentagon Renovation contractor and should therefore be considered automatically suspect. 3. He describes a bank which is inconsistent with the official story.” [source] Wrong. The bank is necessary for the physical damage, that's why he mentions it.

32) Rick Renzi – A witness who got on camera reporting a steep descent and impact, perhaps from east of the Pentagon, and offering no clue of a flyover. Then he became a Congressman, one of the 20 most corrupt I hear, GOP-neocon connected, and on February 22, 2008 he was indicted on charges of theft, extortion, and conspiracy. Ranke: “It's clear he was "free styling" details on 9/11 and pushing propaganda a month later by outlining the neocon agenda at the time that has since come true.” [source] He could be an opportunistic liar, but somehow I think he’s describing what he saw, just exaggerating the dive. His general honesty is not the issue here – it’s his account of the descent being too steep for CIT to feel it’s consistent with the official story or, of course, theirs, which required a negative dive (a pull-up) that every witness but one missed. Ranke: "No doubt Renzi was simply a bit too enthusiastic while being under briefed."

33) Steve Storti - Ranke: "Can you prove he was really there on 9/11? Did you interview him and get video tape of his view from that window to get his view? Either he is deducing the impact or he is lying. Most people were fooled but certainly some were planted witnesses and some accounts were completely fabricated." [source] Again, nothing specific against Storti, just a friendly reminder that some unspecified accounts - perhaps this one! - are works of fiction, not evidence. And he keeps saying this about every other account anyone offers AS evidence. And every account is dubious until it's verified by CIT, and the ones still found suspicious after that are the worst of them all.

A whole list of Lyte Trip witness dismissals collected by a JREFfer.

The following text and graphic appear in just this relation at The PentaCon website :

“We tried to find someone who might have seen it on the south side but it just wasn't happening.

Consider this an open request to all the witnesses that supposedly support the official story who are willing to go on record countering Edward, Robert, Chad, and Bill's placement of the plane .

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.

You better believe it's a smoking gun.”

Considering all this, is there not a clear message, if unintended, to this text-graphic placement? It’s clear what they want to believe, what they want to hear. Just say the right things or you’ll be suspicious too. Your religion, your legal affairs, your suspect employment, any scandals, all might be called on to discredit anything they don’t want to hear. They throw out innuendo like all this and then they invite witnesses to come forward and meet the smoking gun. Lo and behold precious few do, at least that are willing to be specific, and the witness pool stays nice and shallow so their tenuous construct won’t drown. In their own little info-universe anyway.

Monday, March 3, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
March 3 2008

I've just completed my first analysis of the Citgo security video extracted with Aimersoft DVD ripper from a disc sent by John Farmer, obtained by him from Juducual Watch and copied right off the original. The Software was not registered when I took all the cropped stills out, so it says 'Evaluation Copy." Sorry this looks unprofessional, but the data is still the same - just as allegedly fraudulent as it ever was. I can't prove to myself or anyone else this video is accurate and not doctored. So I won't even try. Let's just look at what it shows, whether or not that's what actually happened.

Youtube page link

What we have is blurry, ill-defined blobs that alone could be almost anything light or dark of some rough size, but by comparing to site photographs and tracking relative motion we can establish basically what’s going on. Various objects are here highlighted and persons tracked, especially one individual - marked in red as person 1 - who spends most of the time hovering between pump 1 and some mystery object.

The video is unreadable for the labels, so in order of appearance:
gas pumps and garbage can (green)
a truck or SUV that pulls in (blue)
'east entrance' doorway (green)
inner wall facing ENE (gold)
restroom door (green)
mystery object (yellow)
"unclear things happen here" (yellow)
person 1: ? (red)
other persons (purple)

The time-stamps for the segment I've analysed is 9:37 – 9:41 (camera time), looking at cameras 2 and 4, facing northwest and southwest respectively, and together covering the area under the station’s south canopy over its ‘east entrance’ and ‘single pump side.’ This is a photo re-creation (montage of two Farmer shots, 2007) of the FOV of cam 4, single pump side. Compare to labeling above.
The video shows this red-boxed someone hovering around the right pump, garbage can, and mystery object, doing things of an up-down back-forth nature. Details are nigh impossible to determine. This person goes into the restroom at 9:37:41 and apparently re-emerges at 9:39:04 then goes back to 'work.' At 9:40:35 a large shadow appears south of person 1, who moves suddenly, or drops something, in response, but stays put. Just after the glow that appears on the inner wall two seconds later, person 1 runs into the store via the east entrance door. Here are some key moments from the last segment.

This person's locations and activities generally - and partially - fit the account of only one published witness I know of. But I've heard it said that person is not in the video at all and they have offered an account that differs from these actions in important ways. It could also be another person doing similar things, or an inserted blob of pixels. Who is this person? Any guesses? Bonus points for hypotheses on the nature of the yellow-labeled mystery object and its relation to person 1.

Let the reasons to entirely ignore this evidence proceed as well... See comments below

Sunday, March 2, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
February 15 2008
updated 2/26 2am

Do You Even Know What A Bank is? Just Curious.
- Craig Ranke: "The plane banked over the Navy Annex [...] Did you know that even Mike Walter claims the plane banked?"
- Craig Ranke: "a bank in his view AT ALL completely destroys the official story."
- Aldo Marquis: "Ever speak to Mike Walter about seeing the plane in a bank? Just curious."
[source for both]

He asks because they did speak to Walter about the bank! At JREF back in April 2007 Ranke (as Lyte Trip) posted this text and graphic:
"He contradicts the official flight path. He claims he saw the plane do a "graceful bank" before gaining speed and flying into the building. There would be no "bank" in the official fllight path whatsoever that he could possibly see on route 27. But there most certainly IS a bank in the eyewitness flight path that we report!" [emph mine]
So Mr. Trip and his fellow citizen would have us believe that in the 'official story' "there would be no "bank" [...] whatsoever that he could possibly see on route 27." This is flat false. To understand what's up with this I need to clarify some confusion/conflation. To some minds a 'bank' is indistinguishable from a 'turn,' but a turn, as we all know, is a general changing of direction, while bank is:

"The angle between the wings and the horizon, as viewed from the rear of the airplane. An airplane with its wings level has zero degrees of bank. [...] Banking makes the plane turn. [...] This process is also called Roll." [source]

There is a natural, inevitable correlation between the two; usually banking means a turn just like smoke means a fire. However, just as smoke and fire are two different things, so are these two, and they can in fact be separated. A quick scan of anecdotal evidence - googling "bank without turning" and variations for about two hours - shows that its possible, and involves countering the tendency to turn using the rudder. In fact the rudder seems to be the key to both turning without banking and banking without turning. The best explanation I found is this, by Peter Sagar.

So when someone describes a plane 'banking,' they could possibly mean it colloquially as a turn, or they could mean - well, a bank of the wings, depending on the witness. This is a very important point to remember as we progress here, and when reading the analysis of Ranke and Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team, who make no such distinction. When they hear or say 'bank' they think or mean a turn, and refer to actual bank as 'tilt'. I've never heard them discuss tilt that I can recall, just bank, of course meaning turn. [explanation extracted here]

Discerning then the difference between the angle of a plane's wings and a general change of direction over space, let's address the normal relation between the two. If the right wing goes up, the left wing goes down, and the airplane is said to be in a bank to the left, and will naturally turn to the left. Any kid who zooms around on a bike will understand the concept. There are certainly formulas for bank/turn ratios, but in general, a level plane will go straight, and the steeper the roll, the tighter the resultant turn. How it's measured is seen from behind - right wing low is a positive number, and right high is a negative number. The tilt is measured in degrees, with level wings being 0 and wings straight up-and-down (plane sideways) being 90 degrees. Airliners try to stay level - a bank of 40 degrees is considered extreme, remarkable, rarely-seen, memorable, etc... Please keep this in mind.

Official Bank?
As CIT point out, the official story delivers a straight-shot path, about 70 degrees magnetic, 60 real, for at least two miles prior to impact. Therefore, any bank angle in the final stretch would be slight, or otherwise offset to keep straight. 'Straight' in this case is relative - the path may have had a slight bow that was not noticeable on the small scale most people saw it on. So in CIT terms, a straight line means no bank, and no bank probably means no tilt.

While there is no discernible turn in the official version of the final stretch, CIT will be saddened to learn that there is a bank [tilt] in the 'official story,' recorded in the physical evidence. A roll of about -6 degrees is evident in the wing prints at the facade impact point (IMO a bit more level and a few feet higher than shown here - ASCE graphic measured by me). This bank is generally consistent with the right-left damage before impact: the VDOT camera pole, tree damage, three light poles, diesel generator, etc. encountered by the right wing and engine at their respective heights, and two light poles, vent structure, trailers, and building foundation encountered by the left wing and engine. Though exact numbers are hard to deduce and the minutiae hotly debated, it's all consistent with a slight left bank like that shown here.

Due to the confusion over terminology, and other factors, debating this issue with CIT has been baffling, as they flatly state 'so-and-so wasn't in a position to see the bank,' etc. Couldn't see the bank? For God's sake, I railed... here's their own flyover animation: If I were right there being fooled by the flyover, nothing could fool me about its bank – about zero, perfectly level. So to be clear, they mean 'turn' in these cases and it makes sense that few witnesses would see a whole turn on the scale of even their tight yellow swerve. But since a turn is a change from one heading to another, and marked by a wing tilt as they call it, their recent eagerness to deny witnesses can see headings at all and their silence on 'tilt' are troubling. This leaves their findings very vague - and malleable.

FDR Insights
The numbers recorded for 'roll' in the original CSV file readout of the flight data recorder obtained by Pilots For Truth and others are instructive in what to expect in the last moments as far as turn and tilt. This quick list shows key points before and during its final turn (9:34-9:37, a right bank for nearly a full circle) and end of data:
h:mm:ss - roll
9:32:55 – +3.5
9:33:46 – +1.1
9:34:01 – +8.1
(nearly 8 degrees change in one second! The loop starts here.)
9:34:38 – +29.5
9:35:55 – +37.6
9:36:32 – +16.9
9:37:10 – +10.9
9:37:20 – +2.8
9:37:30 – +3.2
9:37:35 – +2.1
9:37:40 - -0.4
9:37:41 - -0.7 (-0.3 change/sec)
9:37:42 - +1.1 (+1.8 change)
9:37:43 - +3.5 (+2.4)
9:37:44 - +6.3 (+2.8)
[note: C-130 pilot Steve O'Brien estimated the plane's bank as he passed it as 30-40 degrees. By radar he passed it around 9:35-9:36. See above for comparison.]

At 9:37:36 the magnetic heading first hits 70.0 degrees and thereafter is steady, alternating between 70.0 and 69.6. Roll at that time is nominal and then shifting even to a slight left bank, back to right near the end, and then what? A final reading of 6.3 would mean right wing was tilted down to about the same degree the physical evidence has it tilted up, as Pilots For 911 Truth have celebrated. But the FDR is no help in this area – it stopped recording, or was truncated, or something, shortly before that point, somewhere in the neighborhood of 6-8 seconds shy of impact, which would have been around 9:37:50-55. With 12-13 degrees change required that’s about 2 degrees/sec or less, which fits previous trends quite reasonably. But this is all guess work... the machine is silent, and we have the physical evidence and the eyewitnesses, one of which we've covered.

Eyeballs on Wings
So in establishing turns, even if we're calling them banks, it's important to note the direction of the bank. The CIT witness-adduced swerve is shown above in yellow, to scale with the 'official' loop in green recorded by FDR and radar from 9:34-9:37. Check the sample rolls above at these times, and realize the CIT swerve would require a sharp left turn over the driving range, in excess of 40 degrees, a rapid correction, then an equally sharp right turn over the Navy Annex, so a right bank, with left wing very high.

One witness CIT is very excited about, Sean Boger, with a prime view from the heliport, does seem to describe this: "As he was coming towards me it just seemed like he was tilting the aircraft to his right." Barring some confusion (tilted meaning up or down? His right or the plane's?) this sounds great. But he also puts the plane north of the Citgo, so a grain of salt is in order. I also note that as an aviation pro, Boger might've been expected to use the proper term bank, but instead chose the more vague 'tilt' which CIT settled on, as supporting the plane's right... bank.

Which it would, of course. Right tilt-bank means right bank-turn, and this is supported by others in conflict with the official story. Like Mike Walter we hear. LCF part-time member Bileduct calling CIT on using Walter's banking report: bileduct perma-banned, thread closed. In this well-managed thread, Bileduct ejaculated: "You have indicated that Mike Walter described the plane in a banking maneuver over the Navy Annex. Your exact words were "He described the bank in detail to me, Aldo, Dylan, and Russell." My question for you... Did he say the plane banked to the left or the right?" To this simple question Craig responded "To be honest I don't remember. […] But I do recall that he had the plane making a "graceful bank" as it approached, not directly in front of him." Bileduct gloated for a moment then posted one of Walter's published accounts:

"I will never forget that day, trapped in traffic and then I rolled down the window and heard the sound of the jet overhead. [...] I looked up and saw the underbelly of the jet as it gracefully banked, then I watched in shock as the jet basically lined up the Pentagon in its sights and began to scream towards the mammoth structure." [emph mine]

'Underbelly' means it was above him - obviously - and also tilted at least somewhat right wing high. This is a left bank, not a right one, in which case its belly would be turned away. And that this happened in the distance - where the hairpin tirn to the right was supposed to be happening - was doubly troubling. Craig quickly responded "I do not believe or trust Mike Walter for a single second and we have plenty of evidence to show deliberate contradictions in his account. [...] He could not see the underbelly. He did not see the underbelly. He could not have seen the underbelly or a bank on the official flight path as well. This is just ONE of many fatal contradictions demonstrating how Mike Walter's statements are not truthful." Oh, and the tilt-bank wasn't necessarily OVER Route 27 [he doesn't describe it there - abbsence of description = description of absence]. Though the building damage shows a left bank still evident AFTER the road.

So what do other witnesses in the area say?

- Anderson, from far to the north and high up: "I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball."
- Elgas, same basic position as Walter, facing north on 27: "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. […] I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport [...] It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me [right] and the underside of the other wing [left] as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground." She cites a turn, using the word bank!
- Elliot, south-southeast of impact, watched it for several seconds: "I looked to my left and saw the plane coming in [...] It was banking and garnering speed."
- Hagos, on Columbia Pike (?): "It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance."
- Hemphill, at the east end of the Navy Annex, perfect view: "He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route [27] he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right [wing low] adjustment."
- Marra (on I-395 south of impact?): "The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." [which wing is unclear]
- Morrin, outside Navy Annex, under its path, plane dipping too low to see]: "I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn [roll] in that direction." [The bank as it passed him is unclear. It was high above him and just south, but he could see the AA markings on its left side, which might mean it was in a left bank]
- Owens: "the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon."
- Storti, apartment, Crystal City: 'he watched the plane cross over Route 395, tip its left wing as it passed the Navy annex...'
- Thompson: “The plane looked as if it were coming in for a landing — cruising at a shallow angle, wings level, very steady.”[this shows the bank was relatively slight - ie graceful - which might explain why there aren't more bank reports]

The best fit for all of these is a moderate left bank over the Annex, right wing high, leveling slightly just before impact, but not enough to keep the left engine from - more-or-less - hitting the ground in the last instant. And of course impact itself looks to have happened at a bank of about -6 degrees. But this was faked, and we know there was a right bank, thanks to CIT's witness verification. Except Walter. Verified LIAR!
But who the hell is this guy? Why does he keep impersonating the plane with his right hand higher than the left? Wasn't he in the best spot to see the sharp right bank over the Navy Annex? This is Edward Paik, interviewed by CIT in 2006, who places the plane's overall path fairly close to where they needed it. In the interview he’s never ASKED about tilt-bank, and doesn’t TALK about it. CIT informs me in an earlier interview he was asked about it but said he didn't notice one. His lines are essentially straight indicating wings about level. Yet at 11:42 in The PentaCon [verify, go ahead], describing the black wings, he extends his arms, right hand high, relaxes the gesture then repeats it the same. Is it just some tic, a spinal misalignment? No, at 12:52, striking a jesus pose, facing the OTHER way he somehow puts his LEFT hand higher to indicate the right wing. He even seems to think about it a moment first. Coincidence? Perhaps. But interesting.

CIT claims I made up this left bank gesturing of one of their prime witnesses. They claim he didn't remember one at all. They claim the plane was bank-turning right over him. It had to be, and about halfway to knife-edge. This would necessarily mean an extreme tilt-bank, right wing very low. He might then talk about the wingtip being too close, rather than the whole plane. He might remember such a remarkable tilt when first interviewed. He might gesture it left hand high. He might draw at least a slight right curve in his path, if he saw what CIT insists he saw. Ed Paik does none of these. Just the gestures above.

Composite path turns required: one to the left, one to the right.
PentaCon Smoking Crack version witness bank reports: zero right, one left (perhaps anyways)
White Plane witness bank reports: zero left, zero right.
Completely made up extreme turns to play connect-the-dots? Two. One left, one right.

Estimated wing bank accompanying the right turn according to experienced pilot 'Beachnut'?
"Take a google earth with the yellow path from Pentacon! You then find the radius of turn. From the radius and the speed from the FDR you get the need for something like 80 degrees of bank and 8.7 gs with the wings falling off in a big snap! Just take the radius and speed and look up an aircraft turn equation. Makes the turns required by the CIT to be impossible; as in made up."
Additional Discussion at Above Top Secret:
Main thread Craig wouldn't touch
Vs. thread Craig revived as a distraction, where we chatted a bit about bank (pages 3-4).


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