Friday, April 25, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
April 24 2008

Previously I have written on my reasons for contacting the NTSB over Flight 77 FDR data, and on the empty envelope I got for my FOIA pains. But for some reason, I never did post the results of the middle part where I contacted the Safety Board’s Public Affairs dep’t. I did mention it once or twice but have never explained in detail or showed the e-mails. I didn’t include it in my FOIA video, which would have made it even more boring. So it came across like a bit of an ambush when I first posted this stuff at Above Top the other day after Rob Balsamo/johndoex said:

“This is almost as good as when CL refused to contact the NTSB when he accused us of fabricating the animation.”

He knows damn well that I contacted them if not the full story. Perhaps he thinks I made it all up. But for the record, I’m still surprised how quickly I contacted them, considering what a procrastinator I usually am. I started my first animation/FDR-centered ATS thread on May 27 last year, with my initial well-founded (but ultimately wrong) doubts over the animation’s authenticity. I first found undeniable evidence of NTSB pedigree late on May 29 (Slob’s video posting at Google), and then found more info over the next few days, which had people saying the ball was in my court - time to try it myself.

Even though it’s not my normal thing, I decide to try a unique approach and start with the public affairs department, hoping to score a ‘media liaison’ to help from the inside. It was on the afternoon of June 6th that I called them and talked to a guy named Ted Lopatkiewicz (it’s pronounce lo-pat-ke-wikz, for those who have a hard time), who I later found is the department director, and whom Balsamo has called 'the Joseph Goebbels of the NTSB.' I don’t know why he answered the phone instead of some subordinate, but not even knowing who he was, I got tongue-tied, and followed up with an e-mail at his request. [I considered recording the call, but figured I’d be even more nervous that way, plus I was trying for the human touch as opposed to the legalistic.] Later that night, I filed an online FOIA request for good form and then fired off an e-mail, sent June 7 at 2:37 am. It read as follows:
Director Lopatkiewicz

My name is Adam Larson, the guy with the 9/11 questions who spoke with you briefly yesterday afternoon. I’m not sure it’s normal to have reached the director of the office directly, and I’m a bit embarrassed, so right to the point:

I’m sure you’re used to precise questions, but mine are actually many and varied. They regard the flight data recorder from aircraft no. N644AA, American Airlines Flight 77, that of course hit the Pentagon on September 11 2001. I’ve been researching the subject for quite a while, starting as a “conspiracy theorist” looking into what I first thought were silly claims that no plane had hit the building. On closer inspection, I found the claims were even sillier than I thought.

Recently I’ve turned to looking into the Flight Data recorder to see what it can tell us, but have run into widespread confusion. I am fairly conversant with the issues, the publicly available information, like the “Specialist’s Factual Report,” which I have studied closely, and the general outlines of FBI vs. NTSB mandates. My technical questions regard not so much the actual data though as information about the data – questions about information previously released by the NTSB under the Freedom Of Information Act; specific pieces of evidence that have been made public but remain poorly documented. A person who knows the data well would be good to talk to, help me compare files, or anything of that nature, and perhaps you or your office could at least help point me in a fruitful direction.

That is I have definite questions, but first I need to know if this is the office for me. After reviewing the options, I’ve decided it is my best hope. The website explains Public Affairs “Provides […] point-of-contact liaisons for news media representatives.” I’m not exactly news media but am a journalist of sorts in that I run a 'blog and am active in discussion forums and generally respected within my narrow field of focus.

The issue at hand, and the reason I contact you, is that there are some questions about apparently erroneous data attributed back to the NTSB that is causing a lot of confusion in the public at the moment. I believe it’s in the Safety board’s interest to actively help me, and the public, sort this out a little bit. I’m not looking for an explanation, just any additional information that can be had to help shed light on the situation.

I’m also doing what I can through normal FOIA channels, but there is only so much I can actually find out that way, and so am exploring this possibility as well.

I'm sorry if I'm terribly off-base in my request. Thank you for your time and consideration.


Adam J. Larson
Spokane, WA

As Rob and Jeff Hill and others found, they aren't answering questions. The director responded right before lunch the next day, 11:53 am:
Mr. Larson:

As I explained to you when you called me yesterday, the National Transportation Safety Board provided technical support to the federal government's investigation into the terrorist attacks on September 11, which was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Among the assistance we provided were identification of aircraft parts and read-outs of flight recorders recovered from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania sites (we understand no recorders were recovered from Ground Zero). Because this was not a Safety Board investigation,
it would be improper for us to discuss investigative findings. We did release, under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, some of the factual information that we provided to the FBI; as you are aware, that information is
available on our website. Any interpretation or explanation of those data would
have to be rendered by the FBI.

Thank you for contacting me, and good luck on your project.

Ted Lopatkiewicz

So the NTSB are the ones who made this messed up data, but since they turned it over the FBI, it’s the FBI, who know nothing about how it was rendered, that I’d need to ask. I also recall responding to this letter but don’t seem to have saved it. It was something short and sweet to the effect of ‘thanks for nothing.’ I could have pushed it, but I‘ve seen how much good that’s done others – some fodder for the ‘9/11 truth radio’ shock jocks is all; “listen to that evasiveness in the face of belligerence!” They’re the same with the timid as well I found with my experiment, and being timid, I had double reason not to push it.

Then I just waited and got the same letter everyone else did talking about the same enclosed discs only without the discs, and THEN I just looked at it and figure out the part that most interested me, the north flight path, and proved it was caused only by a grid/map rotation, with no help from either NTSB or PFFFT. All else that seems off with the last frame of data I’m chalking up to last frame recorded thousands of feet away, followed by missing seconds of data, of whatever length makes most sense. That ball is out of my court. So that's the missing chapter in all the detail it's worth or more.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
April 21 2008
[rough ]

Criminal manipulation of the Citgo security video became a necessary charge for CIT as soon as the video was released on September 15 2006. It was quickly noticed that their 'star witness' Robert Turcios, first announced just five days earlier, was not visible in the video reacting as he said he did. While he had claimed to run out of view to a raised mound to see the plane on a north path and perform a pull-up before apparently impacting, Russell Pickering felt the only person that could be the witness is seen under the canopy at impact and running inside the store after. This is indeed what the video shows. Video contradicts this witness account = video is wrong, wrong, wrong.

CIT of course has zero evidence, aside from this conflict, that Robert was edited out, that another person who runs inside was edited in, or that the shadow of Flight 77 on the road behind that person was painted in south of the station. They also have no absolute proof the video is manipulated at all, but they do have the findings of others that seem to indicate this. They’ve cited John Farmer, who protests, and who has found no signs of tampering. They’ve cited a guy called “Interpol” at the Loose Change Forum. And most importantly, the manipulation that proves the evidence disproving Turcios was proven by Russell Pickering himself, who denied that this is what he proved, and his suspicious behavior vis-à-vis the video and Turcios eventually led Aldo at least to suspect that Pickering himself was involved in the alteration - that he had just proven. As Ranke summed up more soberly:

“Strangely; Russell has been virtually silent about some of the most important, and in my opinion, best work that he has ever done. Ultimately his research proves evidence tampering which is a Federal crime within itself. [… Russell found that the FBI] removed this critical camera a couple of hours after the event: Because THEY MANIPULATED THE DATA TO REMOVE THE VIEW OF THE CAMERAS THAT HAD A VIEW OF THE PENTAGON THAT RUSSELL HAD JUST PROVEN WERE REMOVED AFTER THE ATTACK!”

All he really did to that end was write this, and a few other posts like it, regarding I believe his first visit to the Citgo station during their joint-venture, on August 22 2006:

"According to the manager of the Citgo [...] They were evacuated for about two hours from the Citgo and minutes after they reopened the camera was taken. She never viewed the video herself. [...] The Citgo manager physically took me out under the canopy and showed me the location of the removed camera. It was pointed at pump 2. [...] The manager described this one as having had a clear view of the Pentagon wall and quite a bit north as well." [source]

Three things about this camera were found out by Pickering, all via the manager, whose name has been given only as Barbara. The first two key to making the alteration case, the third helpful for making the first two work:
1) The location of the camera and confirmation that it had a view of the Pentagon, as seen in the passage above.
2) The camera was on-line and recording on 9/11, so it's not being in the final video proves alteration. I don’t have Russell’s explanation handy but Ranke said “They [...] manipulated these views from the data […] We know this because the manager of the citgo TOLD US that the views were online.”
3) The camera was physically taken – for no reason I can fathom – and never replaced, which is why it was not there when she pointed to it. “I’m not making it up! The FBI took it!”


True, there is no such view in the video, and there is a remarkable asymmetry in the known video camera set-up. IF a camera were at that spot on 9/11 and pointed the right direction, it’s arguably possible it could have captured valuable clues of a possible north flight path (although unlikely IMO comparing to other views that are included).

Also, one must wonder how many managers they needed, when all the old stories cite Jose Velasquez, a Costa Rican native, as in charge at the time. He’s the one who said in 2001 that "I've never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film," but it may have shown the impact. I’m sure someone has talked about this situation somewhere, but I couldn’t find it easily enough. Barbara’s account of evacuation and video seizure minutes after returning fits with Velasquez fine and makes perfect sense. her knowledge of these details indicate she was in the know and on the premesis on that day of the attack, or at least had been informed enough to seem that way. Anyway, let’s presume she was there, but that does not prove that she was being truthful about what happened when she talked to Pickering and later to Marquis and Ranke. 

So… in essence, “some of the most important, and in my opinion, best work” that Pickering ever did was… to pass on the words of the Citgo manager. That’s it. Barbara provided the 'proof,' all on her own free will for whatever reason, weeks before the video was even released. Is this suspicious in itself? Not really, but what it it were part of a larger pattern? All throughout the discussion is a presumption by CIT that there’s no way the word of the CITGO MANAGER who actually TOLD them something could ever be suspect. As manager of a military facility she might well be part of a military deception to support the official story, but any clues that counter it must by default be honest slips from someone not up-to-date enough on the details.

And did she ever slip and keep slipping; this helpful manager is of course the same person who two days later freely offered the account of Robert Turcios, an employee of hers she was “90% sure” could verify a north path (perhaps she hadn’t asked him yet if he would?). Is it possible she knew what the video showed, and so in proving the video manipulated offered this evidentiary escape clause, for anyone who chose to use it, as cover for the witness? She was careful to echo Velasquez in claiming not to have seen the video, so this would seem unlikely. But of course things are not always as they seem.

I’m guessing she was also the one who approved the on-site interviews with Turcios, Lagasse, and Brooks two months later as the north path just congealed all around her head, apparently humming away oblivious to the implications. I’m not concerned at the moment with exactly why Barbara proved so helpful to the emergence of this meme, but is it not curious how much all of this hinges on that one woman? A need to protect the witness she and she alone provided, using evidence that she provided. And for failing to embrace this loop as CIT has enthusiastically done, there’s something wrong with the movement at large. As craig ranke put it:

“You see this is EXACTLY why Aldo and I get frustrated with the "movement".

Russell Pickering should have freaked out when this video was released and used all of his connections to get people to realize how incredibly important it is that the government released data that we KNOW was manipulated and can prove it with simple testimony from the Citgo manager.
[emph mine]

This is HUGE! But instead it's ignored and used by Russell, John Farmer, Caustic Logic, and even Dylan Avery to support the government story! This is how bad some people out there want CIT to be wrong and the official story to be right.

CIT will continue to scream loud about this and all evidence that proves a 9/11 military deception and cover-up but it does no good falling on deaf ears.”

[source - is craig really unaware aware that excessive screaming is a prime cause of deafness?]

Anyway, so there’s your best proof from CIT that the video is manipulated somehow, and whether or not actual view information was altered, which was always the point, all such questions are rendered moot and the evidence is to be ignored altogether, except in the fact that it further implicates the perps via the absolutely proven manipulation. Now I would never claim to have proven anything here, but looking at all this, it's clearly worth noting how entirely well this manager managed the situation; even before Craig and Aldo put the CIT in Citgo, Barbara had already added the Go.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
April 23 2008
edits - 4/24 4am

Pentagon Paradigm Shifts
Following the delirious euphoria of no-757-impact certainty in much of the 9/11 Truth movement, there was a strong backlash in 2005 and after as Hoffman, Pickering, Desmoulins, Rivero, Sferios, Salter, etc. tackled the evidence at the Pentagon and found the prevailing meme sorely lacking. Debunkers from outside the movement made gains as well on all fronts, especially regarding the Pentagon issues, made as they were almost exclusively of straw. In general people started noticing the size and consistency of the eyewitness record and of the impact hole. It was looking bad for the anything-but-a-757 meme passed of from Meyssan to Pentagon Strike and 911 In Plane Site and all over the Internet.

Dick Eastman and his Zionist-engineered south-path-killer-jet-with-weaponized-air- vortices insanity, and its north-path-decoy-flyover, as covered in part 1, was among those looking staler every day. as seen in part 2, his star witness Sgt. Willaim Lagasse was at the time the only witness who clearly described the airliner as passing north of him at the Citgo station, ruling out all the impact damage, which happened on a different path (taken by the F-16 killer jet). So Lagasse had rescued Eastman’s theory with his testimony in mid-2003 (accidentally it would seem), but as Eastman faded into obscurity, Lagasse too saw his moment in the spotlight pass. By early 2006, no one much cared what side of the Citgo the 'decoy' plane flew on, but the idea was out there, floating around among those who wondered what really happened at the Pentagon.

The Louder Than Words guys (Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, and Jason Bermas) were among those who seem to have missed the no-757-is-bs memo. In their massively successful 2005 Loose Change second edition, they showed how the light poles ‘just popped out of the ground’ undamaged, spoke of a single JT8D engine found inside a single 16-foot hole, and speculated that a cruise missile had hit the Pentagon. They also started their own Loose Change discussion forum in February 2006, to which several aspiring researchers signed on in its early months, impressed by the sudden high profile of the video and hoping to add to future editions.

Among those who signed up were Aldo Marquis (as Merc) in April, and Craig Ranke (as Lyte Trip) in June, two cats from Southern California who would later of course form Citizen Investigation Team. Russell Pickering of, a Seattle native, also joined in May under his own name, and shared his knowledge of the evidence, which had been leading him to posit the impact of a remote-controlled 757. As Pickering proceeded with reconciling his ‘mechanical damage path’ and witness analysis, Lyte and Merc held out against this trend with their own research showing again no such crash was possible. All three impressed the LTW guys into the summer, with Pickering being made a moderator and Merc proposing a brilliant plan.

A Gem From Arlington
According to Merc, it was he who first suggested, some time in the summer, a research trip to the Pentagon to gather clues about this increasingly contentious aspect. Avery and his partners agreed it was a good idea, and all three decided to go along, and decided to bring Pickering in as well to form a six-man “elite Pentagon research team.” The team sprang into action and, aside from Merc and Lyte, assembled in Arlington on Monday, August 21. On Tuesday morning, Pickering was at the Citgo making first contact there as Marquis and Ranke arrived. 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.”
L-R: Bermas, Rowe, Avery, Pickering, Marquis. Photo by Craig Ranke (app), Arlington VA August 22 2006 word balloons by Marquis, a mood clearly communicated by his pose for the camera here.

The team's few days there were filled with witness interviews, area photography, meetings with various bureaucrats, and a wee bit of partying at night. On Thursday afternoon Merc and Lyte caught their plane back to California, but not before first visiting the pivotal Citgo station with the full team. They filmed the area until they were briefly detained and had most of their photos/video deleted. As I understand it was this same day that, as Merc later summarized:

“We talk to the manager of the Citgo station in person in 2006 and she tells us about her employee Robert Turcios who saw the plane. SHE told us that Robert saw the plane on the north side and that this has always been his story. We instantly thought about Lagasse's email to Dick Eastman and red flags went off like crazy.” [source]

These were the good kind of red flags, of course, the kind you charge at. And he had Eastman and Lagasse to thank for the insight to know the value of this gem freely offered by that manager of a military facility. As he explained to me on the phone, “the only thing that ever gave me a clue to the north side approach was Lagasse’s account through Dick Eastman. When we went there […] it wasn’t like we were looking for any – or being led to any specific witnesses,” [3:30] but admits “Lagasse and the north side were in the back of my mind during that entire first trip,” and especially right after they were led to a specific witness that reminded him of that. [source – 3:30 and 4:50]

Shift Change - August 25 2006
Across the country in Washington State, that distant guru was apparently unaware that his findings were setting off alarms as they met, in Merc’s mind, with the elusive corroboration Eastman himself never received. In fact, it was a different mood entirely in Yakima, and it would seem old Dick had reached the end of his decoy flyover rope. At 3pm on August 25 he wrote on the subject of [frameup] “I am wrong about Flight 77 Pentagon. Outstanding video simulation of attack on the Pentagon using Boeing 757,” he noted, too weary to even type complete sentences. [source]

He was referring to Mike Wilson and Integrated Consultants’ computer generated 3-D animation showing how the impact likely happened. This accurate but imprecise recreation, posted in video form at Youtube back in late June, “shows poles, smoke trail” in a convincing enough manner that Eastman was forced to surrender; “I now believe that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon - that this explanation best fits the data. Please pass this around - I don't want to hold up the search for truth any more than I already have.” [source]

I thank JP Desmoulins for alerting me to this truly odd memorandum, which seems to roughly mark the end point of his tracking of Eastman and Lagasse. Reading of his unexpected surrender, I suspected sarcasm at first; nothing from the laws of physics, of logic, of any evidence, had altered his course before. But his language is quite clear – he asks the movement to continue without him. Note also how he says “I am wrong,” not ‘was wrong.' He was still there, just stripped down by the persistence of the debunkers, but until whenever, Eastman had announced his resignation from the case, at 3pm on August 25, news he had asked his readers to spread. Two interlocked theories, the F-16 impact one and the north-path airliner flyover one, lost a champion that evening. But it would seem it gets darkest before dawn, and just then, a whole lot happened at once to revive one of those, if not the other.

At the very moment Eastman hit the submit button on his resignation, the next generation of north-path flyover champions were typing up their proposal to replace him. There is no evidence Eastman followed these developments, or that he didn’t, but having returned to the west coast the previous evening, Merc was typing up his notes. Just two hours after Eastman’s pessimistic plea, he posted the first report on their findings at the LCF, entitled “There Was A Plane!” “Hey guys, I'm back and have some interesting news for you all. THERE WAS A LARGE PLANE SEEN DIVING TOWARDS THE PENTAGON! We have interviewed several eyewitnesses who saw it.” Does this mean he too had seen the light and was now promoting a 757 impact? Hardly. He offered a brief synopsis of their general witness findings, to be elaborated later, and closed with this more mysterious revelation regarding the pivotal Citgo gas station the official path passed south/east of (read 'west' here as 'north'):

“The Citgo manager said her employee places the plane on the OTHER SIDE of the Citgo, the left side or west side (blue line), she is "90% sure", there is a follow-up due on this... So spread the word. There was a plane at least as far back as the Sheraton, Navy Annex, and Citgo gas (WRONG SIDE!!) Flyover anyone? [emoticon – waving a white flag] There is more to come! Stay tuned.”
Above is the graphic that had its first airing as describing the yet-unnamed witness' account. And THIS in turn tied in with the NTSB’s own animation, just posted at Youtube on the 24th by Pilots For 9/11 Truth, which of course also showed the plane flying almost where Eastman, Lagasse, and now this employee had placed it, as well as too high to hit anything relevant. A major shitstorm was set to blow in within a remarkably short time, and more than any other moment, the evening of August 25th marks both the terminus of the old north-path insanity and the birth of the new, with curiously precise timing suggesting a shift change at a gas station.

Chess Moves Around CIT’s Lagasse
Indeed there was more to come, with two different words on the same subject being spread through the night and following weeks. As Eastman receded, reports came in from Pickering and Lyte Trip on the removed cameras, their tour of the Virginia Dept. of Transportation, more interview details (Walter, England, Zackem, McGraw, Paik, Pugh, etc.), and lively discussion of the implications. All parties agreed there was a large silver or white airliner in the evidence and no missile or killer F-16. But from there they disagreed; Lyte posted a pivotal thread on September 9 titled “We've Narrowed It Down To 2 Possible Scenarios... Impact or Fly-over?

The next day the bomb was dropped by his partner declaring which one made more sense; Merc titled the thread “Citgo Witness I Spoke W/ Breaks The Case Wide Open, Flyover?” The announcement was big news at the LCF, perhaps a cause, and definitely a beneficiary, of the mass of users online the next day, (1,225 at 3:27 pm, a forum record), to mark the five year anniversary of the attacks.

In the published details of phone discussions with this still-unnamed employee, conducted on the 5th and after, we can see glimpses of a highly curious account; aside from the north path testimony, he also described the plane as gray and very unlike an American Airlines style, and he was the first to report any kind of pull-up of the plane, which for once directly indicated a possible fly-over. This added to his obvious value to the scenario in the ‘back’ of Merc’s mind, but not apparently enough at once to trip his overkill sensors.

They would not get to keep this witness without a fight. Just five days later, on September 15, Judicial Watch released to the public the Citgo station security video, obtained through lawsuits, and with no forewarning. Avery chimed in “I'd hate to say we caused any part of this, but our team sure caused a stir at the gas station....” Merc added immediately “I'd hate to say it had anything to do with our star witness, but what timing.” Pickering took a look at the multiplexed video and decided the only person that could be Turcios can be seen running into the store after the impact, contrary to his story given to Merc (this was quite a while before John Farmer or myself decided the same). Naturally, a massive fight ensued. On October 5 Merc said “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 unfortunate reality. A counter chess move if you will.”

The video must be altered, CIT has argued in defense of their witness, and Pickering’s work was said to have proven this, even though he denied it. Eventually this debate expanded to the point where Pickering asked Merc to clarify some hints: “do you believe I am a government agent and was involved in the alteration and release of the Citgo video to sabotage your work? Yes or no?" Merc responded quite reasonably “your behavior and actions indicate to me this is a possibility. But I do not know for sure one way or the other," hoping to cast some blanket doubt over his fellow researcher whose ability to communicate the truth threatened their endeavor.

Things had clearly devolved among the elite research team, and opinions differed strongly whether it was Russel’s stubborn and “deceptive” adherence to “the official story” that was to blame, or the absurd beliefs, belligerent antics and tactical accusations coming from the other side. As the LTW core guys worked out their anticipated Loose Change Final Cut on into 2007, they seemed to favor Pickering’s even hand while repeatedly banning and re-admitting Merc and Lyte. Much bitterness prevailed and harsh words were exchanged. Pickering later professed his pleasure with the final cut of Loose Change, once it was released in late 2007, while CIT had to comfort themselves with bit parts and being listed in the credits as in the “Arlington Crew.”

Not ones to keep all their eggs in one basket, by that time the duo had pursued their own avenue, which transformed them into the hard truth warriors known as Citizen Investigation Team. Their calling took them back to Arlingon, back to the Citgo, to their Lagasse and of course to Eastman’s original, and even further. They would “irrefutably” establish the flight path of the plane people saw with no reference at all to any mechanical damage or any other clue that the plane actually hit anything but air. As for the physical evidence, this would still be 'the crime,' but all faked by… some… means. Doesn’t matter. A “military deception” would soon be ‘100% proven’ by CIT and Sgt. Lagasse would, again, help unquestioningly establish it [no, that wasn't a typo].

Wednesday, April 16, 2008


As a sideline, I decided to see what I could learn from this previously unpublished witness located by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) in November 2007, and still unpublished. Here is what I had to go on, from a report on their third trip to Arlington:

"We caught our plane Monday late afternoon but not without doing some canvassing for some new witnesses in the neighborhoods right before the driving range of Army Navy Country Club where Jamal saw the plane. Most people weren't home because they were at work just like they would have been on 9/11 but almost all the retired people we found confirmed that they heard the plane or knew that it flew over the area. However we did find one more person who actually saw the plane and although he did not remember the color he further corroborates the flight path that has been getting established for us by the the people of Arlington."[source]

That's it. Date: Nov. 12. Time: afternoon (sun: southwest). Witness location: between houses like these near the ANCC driving range. I scanned the hood for matching surroundings and found this as the best fit, a residence on S. 18th St. The direction he’s indicating – about due north - makes no sense as a flight path, but seems just the direction he looked to see the plane - ie, he was south of it.
Jamal ElKournayti’s literally read description (as seen in CIT's The White Plane) puts plane right over this witness' house. CIT’s now-passe impossible proposal (not gospel but the only specific model they’ve yet offered) puts the plane entirely south of his house. In either case he would not likely recall it north enough to warrant a lateral indication; he’d be pointing straight up. Clearly we’re looking for a path that passed a bit further north of these.
Interestingly, the official path runs at a heading of 60 degrees real according to the FDR – almost exactly the heading elKournayti’s account yields when read literally – and running about 16-1700 feet north of his path and this witness’ location. I think this path, here in purple and ending where the last frame of data shows it, is a quite possible contender for both witnesses, since much other evidence suggests it happened whether or not it fits their years-later descriptions or doesn’t. Jamal’s memory would have to be tainted with massive perspective error to give a path directly over the trees near his position, but for this witness, well… that’s all I had to go on.

Monday, April 14, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
April 14 2008
edits 4/15 2am

No matter how much I look into it, there's plenty about the Pentagon attack and the evidence around it that's over my head. I'm no expert, but also naturally suspicious, and fear linking to erred or dishonest findings. So naturally I shy away from citing 'expert X' on whatever (especially those with "x" at the end. Or "amo.") unless I can understand the issue myself at least enough to say whether the assertion makes sense. But John Farmer's work has proven more than worthy of mention even if I haven't verified it myself. And it's occurred to me that people shouldn't only come here for the 'convoluted' results of my own analysis and findings.

In that spirit and because of its relevance to the other evidence, I must finally mention a discrepancy Farmer had previously identified - a 25.3-second timeline difference between real time/FDR and the clocks used by NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector) on the morning of the attack. This had previously been noted by the 9/11 Commission and borne out by comparitive analysis, and now he's elaborated on that with some additional FOIA-released information and more study.
NEADS 25.3 Second Time Difference Explained He found evidence about the NEADS clock that, rather than a steady uniform time difference:

"The patterns in the chart indicate that the NEADS radar data was NOT real-time and real-world. The pattern clearly indicates at least 3 different processing units were being used to process the data between the time it was collected at the radar site and then fed to the end-user (in this case the data files). This fits with the fact that “exercises” were running that day, but it also brings the entire NEADS segment of the data into question. I would suggest that researchers compare the NEADS radar returns with those in the SEADS databases (which appear at this point real-time) whenever possible."

I still don't get the whole thing but I'll be darned if this doesn't sound very interesting. Processing units? For NEADS, where the whole attack happened? How was the radar data being processed? Please keep an eye on this issue, in case I don't ever figure it out and 'clarify' it for everyone. Okay, everyone figure it out well in case of that eventuality, so people can set me straight right quick. ;)

Friday, April 11, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
April 10 2008
last updates 4/16

My recent Youtube video That Darn NTSB cartoon, part 1, featured Rob Balsamo/Johndoex vocally promoting north path ‘data’ supposedly from Flight 77’s black box and ‘corroborated by Pentagon police officers…” I was explaining the issue and working up to a video explaining my previous findings that the ‘north plot data’ was just an illusion created by turning the final map the wrong way, which I had always taken him as denying. Balsamo left a comment: ”lol... this has to be the worst case of cherry picking i have ever seen. Bravo CL, you have out done yourself.”

I responded “if I'm picking cherries that implies I'm ignoring things. Regarding my analysis of the FDR north path, using YOUR OWN words, what am I ignoring? The actual 'north plot data?' Or what?” His explanation was interesting, “CL, we have been saying the "map may be rotated" since Aug 2006.” I didn’t recall that ever seeing them say anything like that, but spurred by this comment, I did look around a bit and am left asking “Cherry picking? What else should a cherry-hungering blogger do when he finds himself in a friggin’ cherry orchard? Dig around for a raspberry bush?”

Did he or some other member say once, somewhere, the "map may be rotated"? Probably so since he put it in quotes and gave it a date, and they say a lot of things – the question is how, when, where, how often? Is this the impression that comes through? Where can I read/hear these thoughts? “Clearly you don’t remember when I told you the same thing during our first exchange,” he tipped me off. I did miss this first time around, and going back to the passages he likely means here, from my thread at Above Top, I see why. I’ll cover this at the end; first the cherries. This is not a perfect sampling by a long-shot, but I have enough cherries for a whole pie. I have less fresh ones than fermented vintage from his earlier activist phase before he was banned everywhere. I was made more familiar along the way with his well-known tactics of appeal to expertise, to their impressive roster, distractions and insults, pretending his opponents are all stupid and lazy, lengthy irrelevant re-posts and links, links, links… Clearly he enjoys being banned, and values true discussion roughly nil.

The Issue: Headings and Rotations
First, to understand the significance of any of this, one must understand somewhat the heading/map issue. The simplest way to explain this is with this on-screen discrepancy – the heading dial (lower right) reads 70, meaning degrees from the magnetic pole, which corresponds with the FDR-recorded heading. Considering magnetic declination in the area at that time of 10.08° this means a path about 60° from the true north pole, which closely matches the physical damage path before and into the Pentagon. To end at impact, a line on this heading would have to pass south of the Navy Annex and Citgo gas station, where the light poles were severed. The path that we see on the screen however passes well north of the Annex, the Citgo, and the poles, on a heading relative to landmarks that has been multiple-verified by everyone as about 78-80° real, so 88-90° magnetic. So in the picture above, the heading dial and the visual path do not match; one of them must be wrong. [more info here] Either the ground map is rotated wrong while the plane’s movements are accurate to the data, or the ground clues are accurate to the data with the heading dial and all other data altered to cover this up.

Considering the first option matches the rest of the more raw data, nearly matches the physical damage path (for heading) and as I’ve shown is visually verifiable as being the case to anyone who takes the time, the answer is clear.

The alternative - they altered the data to fool us but forgot to alter one rendering of it – the cartoon, the only version most people could see an understand - is of course worth considering but seems a bit silly. That would be like writing a screenplay, filming the movie, deciding you don’t want people seeing it, re-writing the screenplay, then sending the new screenplay out to theaters while slipping in the original movie that was never re-done. Ready to launch a fledgling Truth group to stardom…

The Orchard
I stand accused of distorting Rob’s claims to make him out as unquestioningly supporting the second hypothesis when, in fact, he’s always remained open-minded on the rotation issue. This is what I found, in chronological order except two dates covered at the end. Remember we're mostly discussing the screen here, the visual animated path and the heading dial. Which has he cast more doubt on?

8/24/06, on first posting of the animation’s final maneuver, “About This Video This is the final maneuver performed by the aircraft which hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This animation was provided by the NTSB and is accurate in terms of the flight data recorder on board this aircraft.” No mention or notice yet of the north path aspect which, other than location of the final map, is all that really conflicts. The altitude is about right, which was his point. [source]
11/28/06, Democratic Underground: “When we first received the animation, i had thought perhaps the NTSB messed up on the graphical presentation as well (we went over this briefly on today's Jack Blood broadcast). However, if you look at the initial phases of flight (particularly the take off), it is lined up perfectly with the taxiways and runway as the aircraft taxi's out for take off. Also, we have further evidence which confirms the flight path.. including witnesses, which will be put together in a report. […] The facts conflict with the official fairy tale. […] the professionals at the NTSB dont make mistakes in terms of magnetic variation (as shown in the initial phases of flight).” [source]
3/27/07 at the Loose Change Forum: “Heading indicator altered to match southern approach... however plot confirms North of Citgo testimony given by Pentagon Police Officers. (Please try not to delete this if you want truth)” [source]
5/9/07 – Micheal Herzog interview, RBN “the NTSB data, the plot, the animation that they plot out, has it on the north side of that Citgo gas station […] The north path that we’ve been trying to get answers for, from the NTSB and FBI, is also corroborated by Pentagon police officers, filmed on location, betting their life on it that it was on that side of the gas station. […] [The PentaCon] corroborates the flight data recorder as far as the flight path being north… I mean, right there, it’s dead to rights, right there that the investigation needs to be opened.”
6/4/07 – first comments at ATS, special treatment below: “The heading (in the little instrument) was altered, to confuse the average layman and to grab suckers to buy the official story and the fact the professionals at the NTSB 'screwed up' in their plot.”
6/7/07: “Fact - The NTSB plotted the aircraft north of the govt story flight path” [source]
6/8/07 more at, as with 6/4, see below: he mentions that at one point, “i had thought the NTSB may have screwed up a bit and rotated the map a bit.
7/31/07 e-mail: “Im not trying to sound derrogotory here, but do you happen to have a learning disorder? […] as a side note, the map isnt rotated, and the heading in the csv file does not line up with the physical damage.”
8/3/07 e-mail: Q: You're sure the final map isn't rotated relative to the background lines? A: “Put Google Earth into the same perspective as NTSB animation map with grid lines (you satisfied yet that the animation is from the NTSB? lol), lat/long on ground. You will see very little difference in angles.” [wrong - the difference is exactly that seen between the animation path and heading dial - about 17 degrees]
9/19/07, e-mail: “The map isnt rotated. We are not sure exactly how the NTSB made their plot as they are refusing to answer any questions. […] The only thing that doesnt correspond is the heading in the heading indicator at end of flight in which John Farmer did a great job locating the alterations.” [note: Farmer no longer holds this view (it was a 'first guess') and thinks johndoex is a kook - my words, not his].
9/24/07, Above Top Secret: "I'll let you in on a little secret. It doesnt matter if the map is rotated or not. We are not arguing that fact in the latest 3D animation. [...] The map rotation just isnt that important, especially since we place the aircraft on 61.2 degrees and it still doesnt account for physical damage." [source]
4/?/08: “CL, we have been saying the "map may be rotated" since Aug 2006.”

initial doubts
As the two bolded examples show, johndoex had indeed, at one time, been wiling to entertain the obvious and proven conclusion. As the rest of the text above shows, he quickly stopped believing in it for some reason. As I started my thread at Above Top alerting people, clumsily I confess, to the discrepancy that challenged the north path 'data' in late May 2007, Rob weighed in on June 4. I hadn't yet decided the map was rotated, but that was seeming the most likely.

“Havent read this thread... but heres a reply from P4T Co-Founder.” He linked to where he had just explained elsewhere “the headings in the csv file and animation were altered... The NTSB plotted the animation from take off on runway 30 at Dulles to end of recording based on lat/long (see the grid on the ground? See the yellow poles extending from the aircraft to the ground? Yeah.. thats a plot). The heading (in the little instrument) was altered, to confuse the average layman and to grab suckers to buy the official story and the fact the professionals at the NTSB 'screwed up' in their plot.” In other words, the final animation map is the ONLY real clue to heading, not nan error, and so all other data from the dial to the FDR decodes that show the same, were altered. He also summarized “the animation heading (instrument reading) was altered to show a southern approach. If the heading wasnt altered it would show 090 Mag or 080 True. Just as the plot shows to the north of Citgo.”

A few days later on the 8th, he posted for us all a rundown of his thinking on the flight path discrepancy, “in a nut shell, the timeline, files, how they were obtained. the making of small video clips on youtube.. the introduction and reasons why to start questioning the flight path instead of thinking it was an error.. and the making of our film.” They started by deciding the animations truly was NTSB, despite no paper trail, because it matched the other data they put out. After this, they quickly noticed that it didn’t match, which is what made this proven NTSB product so interesting of course.

“We noticed the flight path right away that it was off in the animation. We didnt pursue it initially because i had thought the NTSB may have screwed up a bit and rotated the map a bit. So we proceeded with altitude and the like... remember.. its late august 2006. Then i made a video regarding the final maneuver and lack of intercept... you probably seen it.. many have. .Dated Aug 24, 2006. (note, we arent even worried about the flight path at this point because we think the map is rotated) […] meanwhile.. Craig and Aldo were working on their research. .went to DC.. etc. They came back and said "We have a witness who places the plane North of the Citgo!".. And i said.. well great.. now the flight path goes into the rest of the conflicts with official story.. and a new video was born...”

So that's it. It looked like an error, but some external ‘witnesses’ and all they have to do with data translation issues shifted the analysis of the FDR. Gov't-supplied witnesses that match something that’s likely an error in gov’t-supplied data should raise red flags. Rob sees a red flag and charges. Now the video screen is real and all reality rotated around it. Rob, I’m sure you’ll see this sooner or later; feel free to show me your more reasonable side in action. I'm not listening to any more interviews or registering for your forum just to fish for quotes. But this sampling here don’t look too good. You tacitly and indirectly admit now that the map is probably just rotated, and point out that you suspected that at first. So what went wrong in between? Hm?
4/12: I forgot to include this line from his comments on my video page:
"Yes, later i had made the statement that the "map is not rotated" via email which you promptly posted on your blog, despite the numerous interviews i have done to the contrary. Think about that.. :-)"
Yeah, I started thinking about that and that's how this post came to be. Mr. Hyde, please quit telling me you're also some reasonable Dr. Jekyl, somewhere, in the interview I can't find, when you've been running around saying shit like that posted above.

4/16: New quote, e-mail Rob sent out a while back to someone else and saw fit to share with me:
"Map rotation is pretty much what we been saying since day 1 and have said on almost every radio and TV interview. We thought the map was rotated when we first got the animation, that is why we worked on [other issues...] The flight path is secondary and [...] the other issues are primary. [...] We did briefly look into the rotation [...] which it appeared the map was not rotated, and eventually were going to look into it more thoroughly. But since CIT has found new witnesses to a DRA (Down The River) approach, i dont think we are going to bother much more with the flight path and leave that up to the people who were there and actually saw it.

[...] we later included the flight path in our "Questions to the US Govt" on our pentagon page because there are many independent north side witnesses (we wouldnt have even bothered with the flight path had there not been any NOC witnesses).

The professionals at the NTSB just dont "rotate" maps by mistake. They do these types of animations on a regular basis. Since there are so many NOC witnesses, perhaps someone (a whistleblower?) at the NTSB rotated the map intentionally to get people looking into a north of citgo approach? Who knows...."
[emph mine - I tend to agree, which is part of why I'm looking into this][source]
The witness-proven east of the river bs thing is not proven at all but what Balsamo is saying here is ALL the FDR data is out the window now - an obvious fake since it doesn't match the witnesses. (who essentially don't exist - one odd, vague guy and some misread other evidence, etc...).

So it was rotated, and probably not on accident. Rob and I seem to be agreeing on this. A backwards mag rotation might make sense, but man what sloppy work. But seven degrees? The JREFfer types will have to think of their own explanations. Step two... hmmm.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008


CIT's flight path can't be impossible because we never had one
CIT's flight path can't be impossible because we never had one

And we still don't.

The only thing we say we have proven is the very general claim that the plane came from east of the river and flew north of the citgo.

We have NEVER committed to an exact "flight path" and have only put out a couple of images with quickly drawn hypothetical estimates that were not meant to be taken as gospel.
Here are a few more potential final banks that would still fit with the witnesses perfectly.


I have entirely too much to say on this; it's like a logjam. So I don't think I'll bother. Maybe.

Friday, April 4, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
First draft - April 6 2008
edits 4/8

Recently I started looking again into the layout of the surveillance cameras at the Citgo station/Navy Exchange, first using as a base John Farmer's graphic made after on-site inspection in 2007 [left - figure 4 in his Citgo video overview PDF, an informative read]. The green circles represent views present in the multiplexed video released in September 2006 [see below]. The yellow circle is the area lit up at about the moment of impact. Red circles indicate cameras there or said to have been but whose views were not included. These will be the main focus of this article.

The numbering for the cameras is based on multiplexer slot labeling and verified by the view shown from each (see sample screen below). Cameras 5, 6, and 7 watched the inside of the store, while 3 and 4 looked from its outside walls over the canopy/pump areas. The #1 label is somewhat arbitrary since its view is not represented, but there is a slot for it on the final screen - labeled '1 ICE' [upper left corner in the screen below]. That spot is filled by the composite screen in miniature, which means, to Farmer, that the camera was offline at the time of recording. His site photos confirm an ice machine at the south/east entrance, so this is the best guess for camera 1.

The main focus of this article will be on the two camera positions on the north canopy's west edge. These were left unnumbered in Farmer's graphic, since there was no spaces for them in the multiplexed image as released. For reference, I chose to call them 8 and 9, with 9 at the corner and 8 closer to the store. Below is Russell Pickering's drawing after on-site investigation in August 2006 [source], labeled by view title, not camera number. The one I've called 9 is labeled here 'missing camera.' Indeed, its place in these graphics is honorary; no camera has ever been photographed in that spot to my knowledge.

Pickering explained the reason this spot was included with such a label, at the Loose Change Forum in September 2006:

"According to the manager of the Citgo [...] They were evacuated for about two hours from the Citgo and minutes after they reopened the camera was taken. She never viewed the video herself. [...] The Citgo manager physically took me out under the canopy and showed me the location of the removed camera. It was pointed at pump 2. [...] The manager described this one as having had a clear view of the Pentagon wall and quite a bit north as well." [emph. mine] [source]
Previously most researchers had believed the video, not the actual camera, was seized 'within minutes' of the attack. But Pickering found out on the pivotal group-research trip that it was actually taken hours afterward, along with one of the actual cameras, for uncertain reasons. In this Pickering photo (above, pink labels by me, black and red by him) we can see the indicated location of the one said to have been taken by the FBI, as I've labeled it, camera 9. Camera 3 is also visible here, labeled but not important, and camera 8 is nestled at the pillar with its own view that was also not present in the final. Note the position of this camera when looking at the photo below, also by Pickering [source]. In this view, again, pink is mine, we can clearly see another camera even closer to the store (labeled by me "?"). It's featured in neither Farmer's nor Pickering's layouts. Also no view present in the video, of course.

This opens up new possibilities; the removed camera was later replaced but in a different spot - it was never taken at all, just moved over prior to August 2006 - it was not even moved, with the manager yanking Pickering's chains pointing to an empty spot where they never had a camera. Although it seems a prime spot to have one.

There are obvious time line issues and no certainty that the video set-up was the same from 9/11 to 2006 or 2006 to 2007, or till now. All we have is three contended camera positions along the north canopy's west edge, two cameras in 2006, and no views from any of these three locations in the Citgo video (only cam 3 covered the north canopy). This is admittedly a bit odd. Considering all photographed and alleged camera positions, however many were there and online on that morning, this is the slate as I see it (below). There is a definite asymmetry here. (red camera angles rough, based on above photos, black line deduced as a logical angle for the missing camera).

In this context I can see why people would suspect views were removed; the alternative seems to be that on September 11 as Flight 77 flew by on whatever side, all the camera views towards the Pentagon and/or the north path were just off-line, like the VDOT's cameras are said to have been. Considering field of view and resolution issues I doubt any of them would catch anything that was much above the ground or any more than a few hundred feet away. Thus little was likely missed, but it looks kind of like they're fostering mystery here.

But then again camera 4 was left in, or painted in, whichever you prefer... and it shows what's almost certainly the shadow of Flight 77 following the ground south of the station.

Thursday, April 3, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Dec 1 2007 1:30am

This post will serve to announce the arrival of, John Farmer's new website, and to gather issues, news, links, thoughts, etc. related to it. The site is an offshoot of Farmer's, this one dedicated to sharing the primary source evidence he has gathered through FOIA requests and however else. Already I've downloaded a video of radar returns ('84 RADES') overlaid with NEADS audio, and the C-130 video. There is the Citgo video, higher resolution than available anywhere else, various documents, and now some previously unpublished eyewitness accounts coming forth, which promise to be very interesting.

posts at The Frustrating Fraud
- 11/8/07: Farmer C2C interview/RADES data alert
- 1/16/08: Missing Seconds - my Last FDR Post
- 1/29/08: Farmer Legal Actions Update
- 4/14/08: NEADS Data Timeline Alteration
- 5/26/08: CMH witness interviews

Tuesday, April 1, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Last updated 12/8/2014

Special thanks to Joël van der Reijden, AKA Joe R. of The Project for the Exposure of Hidden Institutions, for his excellent compilation of Fraud supporters, which I cite often for this post. (for those ascribed to Joe R., use this link to verify).

At well over 100 entries now, the list is being downgraded to 80% font to conserve valuable internet space.

1 – “Anok”: – forum member, promotes socialist anarchism or something. Usually focuses on the WTC, but on the Pentagon has said: “We see hardly any wreckage that looks like a 757 other than the few easily plantable parts […]Well at least I made up my own mind.”
2 - Terrese Anye (guessed spelling): A certified environmental expert cited by Von Kleist in 911 IPS, as doubting a plane crash by physical evidence and absence of jet fuel. From an e-mail read by Von Kleist: "Looking at the total weight of this aircraft in conjunction with its velocity, the Pentagon should have been reduced to the thickness of a pancake.” Whay kind? Buckwheat? Buttermilk? The only credible allegation was her ability to cite the environmental regulations that deem jet fuel as hazardous waste (title 40), with no explanation of whether or not title 40 waste was present.
3.- Avenger: Forum entity I encountered at LCF: “Why would they plant a part with no rivets? Just got sloppy, I guess. Maybe they didn't expect anybody to get a close up or hi-res picture of it.” Avenger is a reliable enough CIT supporter who keeps close tabs on their findings, that I’ve suspected he might be Aldo Marquis. Though this appears unlikely, I've had good reason to suspect, vaguely calling him “A-Dog." He’s should be a CIT member like Domenick (see DiMaggio) but isn’t. Marquis has talked to Avenger once on the phone, he told me once on the phone, but knows little about him.
4 - Dylan Avery: Loose Change, Director and narrator. The most visible face and voice behind the Frustrating Fraud, for good or ill. Mostly ill, as he's an enthusiastic, erratic, and strangely incoherent pusher of the Fraud among other mostly bunk 9/11 theories in his widely-seen little "documentary." Referring to the alleged engines and fuel from Flight 77 "it is scientifically impossible that 12 tons of steel and titanium was vaporized by kerosene." Duh, that's why all the engine parts survived. To his credit he did give Russell Pickering some leeway in the formulation of LC Final Cut. Loose Change vs. Tight Continuity: The Change is Loose, and so is the backlash in 2006.
5 - Rob Balsamo (aka John Doe X): Co-Founder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Lied about “north plot data” to sync with CIT, and has left a track record littered with errors gross enough for even me to see. Has done (w/Undertow) additional FDR analysis proving this-and-that contradictions while ignoring the obvious conclusion that the ‘final moment’ was actually recorded several seconds before impact. In a retro theory, he postulates a missile DID cause the damage to the Pentagon, fired from the 400-foot flyover plane on its bombing run by an experienced ace pilot like himself, and perhaps even better: “Depending on the type of guided weapon, its very possible the attack on the pentagon was some type of bombing run with some type of MOAB.” source. Is known to be threatening to those who disagree with him: Russell Pickering, Sept. 6 2007: "Today I have been notified that "they are coming after me" and there is an "army". Please listen to the recording of Rob Balsamo on my answering machine."
6 - Ian Barksdale: Author of Where is Flight 77? a booklet published by Victor Thorn and WING TV-affiliated Sisyphus Press, part of their "Common Sense" series.
7 - Kevin Barrett: May 2006 "The Pentagon on Tuesday released the first video images of the emperor’s plane crashing into the military headquarters building in full regalia. [...] The video’s release was intended to quell obscene speculations by conspiracy theorists, who are obsessed by perverted fantasies about the plane’s alleged nudity. One such lunatic was reported to have greeted the video by remarking, “Clothes, hell! I don’t even see an airliner!” before being hauled away by Homeland Insecurity agents."
8 - "Bedoper": Creator of the site "No 757 Hit the Pentagon, You Idiot" "What the hell? The hole is too small. Not tall enough. NO RIGHT SIDE ENGINE DAMAGE. NO RIGHT SIDE ENGINE!"
9 - Dr. Fred Bell: Joe R: “Regular visitor of Coast to Coast AM. Founder of Pyradyne. Set up his own radio show on which, in early 2006, he began claiming that anyone who believed that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is an idiot.”
10 - Jason Bermas: Went to State University of New York in Oneonta with Avery, went on to become Loose Change's project researcher, which seems to mean collector of unsubstantiated internet theories. In September 2006, after working for moths with Pickering, he still believed the only damage to the Pentagon was 16 feet wide. That is really bad.
11 - Douglas Bickford: Uses Youtube video to alert the “brainwashed fucks” that he’s poisoning himself at Denny’s, leaders aren’t lizards, there was no plane crash at the Pentagon, and “BARBARA OLSEN FROM FLT 77 LIVES!” based on as internet article he tried to read to his viewers.
12 - "Bitterman": details forthcoming
13 - Lenny Bloom: Co-author with Skolnick of "Dot-Connectors' Notebook - part 1" stating in part: "In the 9-11 bogus "terrorist" atack, Olson's wife, Barbara, supposedly perished in a Moslem "terrorist" controlled plane hitting the Pentagon. Astute researchers contend, however, that it was a drone or missile, not a passengered plane, that hit a side of the symbol of American Imperial might [and Barb Olson], reportedly survived and face-lifted and otherwise disguised, is concealed in Sweden."
14 - Christopher Bollyn: Freelance journalist and Israel critic, fired in 2006 from American Free Press. Has been a staunch supporter of the fruad, pushing the the no-757 theory. He says while his hypothesis of a Global Hawk strike "is supported by evidence" as well as Sam Danner's testimony, "there is not a single piece of evidence, physical or photographic in the public domain to support the government version that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon." Bollyn takes on the Chertoffs
15 - Col Robert Bowman: USAF (ret) Directed all the Star Wars programs under Presidents Ford and Carter. Signed Pilots for 911 Truth’s March 2007 letter about evidence from Flight 77's FDR said to contradict "the official story."
16 - Andreas Von Bülow: Former German Defense Minister, came out in early 2002 with his 9/11 doubts, released a book called Die CIA und der 11. September alleging remote control for the planes (ala the 1970s-era "Home Run" system) for the WTC attack planes before the towers collapsed due to explosives, and that despite this great system's availability, no planes at all crashed into the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania.
17 - Pierre Henri Bunel: French military expert, former Major, who helped Meyssan argue in Pentagate that the 2002 stills show a bomb explosion at the Pentagon, not one from jet fuel.
18 - Alan Cabal: Undated column for New York Press: "Look at pictures, however, and it’s hard to believe that a Boeing 757 flew into the Pentagon. The damage is not in proportion to the claim, especially when one considers that two Boeing 757s are said to have taken down three skyscrapers. The Pentagon was dented, the plane evaporated."
19 - Jon Carlson: Associated with Police State 21, the Power Hour, Von Kleist, and 911 In Plane Site. A more ubiqitous promoter of the Fraud and other bunk 9/11 theories would be hard to find. Closing the coffin on the Pentagon lies, he said: "The A3 knocked out 5 foot long limestone blocks leaving a clear IMPRINT. Clearly two windows frames were knocked out with associated column damage and obviously no Flight 77 Boeing 757 (or the missile some claim) went through those two 5 foot openings." He then shows a photo with the alleged imprints covered in fire spray, but a scribbled plane outline showing where they'd be if we could see them.
20 - Eric Cartman: Animated "retard" conspiracy theorist as seen in South Park, October 2006 and the post Cartman's 9/11 Shocker. “We were told the Pentagon was hit by a hijacked plane as well. But now look at this photo of the Pentagon. The hole is not nearly big enough. And if a plane hit it, where’s the rest of the plane?”
21 - Fidel Castro: On the six-year anniversary of the attacks, and near the end his own life, the Cuban strongman wrote an article called The Empire and Lies in which he reportedly said of the Penagon attack "only a projectile could have created the geometrically round orifice created by the alleged airplane." Che would be so proud!
22 - Margaret Cho: Famous stand-up comedienne, star of brief TV show All-American Girl, in 2008 questioned the official story of what happened at the Pentagon: "Why are they not focusing on that? What are they hiding? Of course it's going to be monitored from every angle at every second and yet we have no footage of it - it's very mysterious." See also Michael Moore for this passive brand of duped fraudsterism. source
23 - Michel Chossudovsky: Canadian economist, anti-globalization activist, Center for research on Globalization." I had thought him pretty smart 9/11 skeptic, but according to Joe R. Chossudovsky too is a "long time promoter of the famous no-757 flash movie," presumably being Pentagon Strike. "In the past it was continuously featured on the introduction page of Globalresearch. Although it is a little bit less visible today, it is still there."
24 - Jane Christensen: Political Science teacher at Wseleyan College, N.C. Deceased November 2005, but had taught (or at least planned and offered) a college course based on 9/11 Conspiracy theories: 911: the Road to Tyranny (THe Alex Jones book being required reading). The class was apprently uncritical of the evidence, and oriented towards revealing the government hoax. One section outlined in the sylabus set for Feb. 8-10 was "The Pentagon Optical Illusion," based on the evidence laid out in the required film 911 In Plane Site. When Mark Robinowitz alerted her to her holocaust denier-derived source material she responded: "I rather think the "Holocaust" denial sites have a great deal of credibility since the "Holocaust" was the greatest hoax of all."
25 - William Christison: Former National Intelligence Officer and Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis. 29-year CIA veteran. "I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … An airliner almost certainly did not hit The Pentagon."
26 - Dennis Cimino: This “Navy Combat Systems Specialist” and FDR expert who enlightened Rob Balsamo has gone on record as well as against a 757 impact. Cimino
stated on Jun3 2007 “the visible evidence at the Pentagon is inconsistent with an impact by a Boeing 757. There was virtually no debris from the 80-ton airplane, except a few small pieces that were picked up by hand. Nor was there any evidence of holes in the building that surely would have resulted from the impacts of the two 6-ton RB-211 engines on the alleged Boeing 757. Similarly, at Shanksville, PA, the small gash in the earth is far too small to have resulted from the impact of a Boeing 757.” Above Top short thread on doubts over Cimino's creds
27 - Terral Lee Croft: Multi-forum joker who verbosely pushes a 9:32 am missile strike followed by a 9:36 am A3 skywarrior impact, perhaps with an airliner decoy flyover. A persistent CIT critic and spewer of over-lbeled, under-comprehended graphics and way-too-long posts filled with goofy sayings, blostering certainty, scriptural references, flippant accusations, and nothing of real value. Terral is finally banned about everywhere as a straw-man generator, perhaps hired by someone else to make themselves look good. Debating with CIT, who called him a disinfo agent: “You guys crack a 911Truther up! A real Disinfo Agent (heh) is the guy pushing the Official Flight 77 Cover Story that has no basis in reality whatsoever.”
28 - Peter Cross: On 9/11 a Presidential videographer, Cross says he became a no-757-at-the-Pentagon skeptic on 9/12, and then wrote, directed, and starred in Severe Visibility [2007] about a Major struggling with his knowledge that - !! - no 757 hit the Pentagon.
29 - Sam Danner: Now infamous self-described eyewitness to the Pentagon Global Hawk strike and Zionist-enforced evidence destruction. Within weeks he was recanting, admitting he was nowhere near the building at all that morning, he just wanted attention, really does believe its a missile, and apologized to Bollyn and Hufschmid for playing so perfectly into their fantasies and allowing them to both implode their credibility.
30 - Capt. Daniel Davis: Apparently ignorant of the numerous photos of a battered but intact engine on the streets of NY, numerous large engine parts inside the Pentagon, and of a battered but intact engine found buried in the soft dirt near Shanksville, Davis stated in March 2007 “as a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.”
31 - Chevalier Désireé: French-American writer whi, in April 2005 claimed "It seems that it is common knowledge in these circles that Russian satellites photographed a ship-launched craft (seems to have been a drone type plane rather than a missle) that ended up impacting the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001, and that, for various reasons this information has been withheld from the public."
32 - (early) Jean-Pierre Desmoulins: French researcher whose EARLY works were in support of the Meyssan theory, citing a single, small engine found at the Pentagon, and at other points a fighter jet. Since then, he's radically altered course and now sits comfortably in the Fraud Fighters category.
33 - A.K. Dewdney: Noted scientist and 9/11 inside job proponent. His Project Achilles experiment to check the effectiveness of cell phones at high altitudes left him to conclude the 9/11 cell phone calls were impossible and so faked. In a May 2005 interview with a local FOX affiliate he explained of the Pentagon attack: "The structure of the wings dictate that the wings should have sheared off. The fact that there is no wing debris outside the building indicates it was not a 757 that struck the pentagon. [...] I mean how much evidence do people need?" Positive ID: "The guesses vary from an F-16 loaded with a depleted uranium warhead -- possibly a cruise missile." But "all of this evidence is just sitting there waiting for people to examine it." Good news, AK! I got all that evidence here for people to peruse!
34 - Domenick DiMaggio (aka Terrorcell): Apparently the third member of CIT (see also Marquis and Ranke), held their place at the Loose Change Forum when they were banned. "CIT has proven the government account to be a fairy tale and Russell Pickering defends it and tags "by remote control" on the end which can never be proven." "SGT Brooks is open to the possibility he was deceived and the plane didn't hit the building. Called the Pentacon a "real eye opener".
35 - John DiNardo: E-mail from Jan. 31 2002: I'm glad people are beginning to realize what my C-SPAN videotapes clearly show -- that an airplane did not crash into the Pentagon. THEY PLANTED EXPLOSIVES INSIDE AND TOOK OUT THE PILLARS! Am I the only one who is investigating the likelihood that an airplane did not crash into the Pentagon?" No John. It may have seemed lonely that far back, but you've gotten plenty of company since then.
36 - ”Dr. Love”: Above Top moderator: “I can actually feel myself getting dumber everytime I look at those pictures, but not dumb enough to believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon.” source
37 - (Name removed by request 12/8/2014): British truther who first obtained the NTSB animation showing the incorrect flight path called on by Pilots for 9/11 Truth despite its unclear paper-trail. I'd shied away from including him on the chance he was just being yanked around, but his convincing Ipswich talk (March 2007 - video shows a zealous Fraudster on a mission, spewing the old no-757 arguments with no compunction.
38 - Martin Doutré: Kiwi-American author of a 2002 piece still up at Serendipity that shows a curiously-constructed image of what is "alleged" to have happened. "We are expected to believe and blindly accept that a giant Boeing 757-200 slid in and secreted itself under the Pentagon, [...] The giant aircraft didn't break through the building to the other side, about 64 feet to the rear, but compacted itself deeply beneath the ground floor level [...] The exceptionally strong wings [...] slid in under the building with all of the rest of the aircraft. The giant tail section of the plane [...] also managed to tuck nicely under the building and get so far in as to be unrecognisable and undetectable in all the photos taken at the scene."
39 - Dick Eastman: Author of the piece "You Decide: Fighter Jet? Or 757? 911 Pentagon Crash Evidence proves False-Flag Frame-up" and creator of the Flight 77 overflight theory, in which a 757 flew over the building to fool eyewitnesses while a fighter jet fired a missile into and then flew into the Pentagon. Desmoulins noted that his theory is "rather complicated, not to say technically unfeasible, and finally contradicted by a key witness who demonstrates that the intellectual construction of Dick Eastman is a pure delusion." Thos theory famously irked eyewitness Lagasse, who proceded to bolster the theory with his north-of-Citgo testimony.
40 - Fedzcametogetme aka 22205 – Paranoid but clearly intelligent forum researcher who seems to live in or near DC, has done some photo and other analysis to boost CIT’s findings. Currently has a Pentagon Police memorial patch as his avatar. To me regarding photos of a damaged car at the Pentagon: “with all due respect PRC, i think you have ridden the fence long enough on this subject. i sense your subversive intentions and i dont appreciate your sneakiness. […] quit being evasive and subversive. make ur point clearly, please.”
41 - Jim Fetzer: Founder and Co-Chair Scholars for 9/11 Truth, believes all roads on 9/11 truth lead back to “the Vatican.” "Flight 77, which I have already explained, went off the radar screen in the Kentucky Ohio border, there appears to be a disconnect there, and a substitution was made, with what appears to be an A3 Skywarrior, probably painted up to resemble and American Airlines 757."
42 - Tom Flocco: I don't know much about him other than supporting Karl Schwarz' kooky theories. According to Joe R., in September 2005 Flocco "came out with a message that French and American intelligence agents had arrested Barbara Olson," who supposedly died on Flight 77 when it hit the Pentagon, "on the (non-existent) Polish-Austrian border, while in possession of a fake Vatican passport. [...] In the article he repeats that there is no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon and claims his (anonymous) intelligence sources told him the same thing." The blue Tarp Smuggling Op Exposed
43 - Fred Fox:US Navy, retired. 33 years as a commercial pilot. "I know from my experience that it would have been highly improbable that even a seasoned American test pilot [...] could have flown [...] the 757 into the first floor of the Pentagon because of a thing called Ground Effect." As said in some video.
44 - Eric Francis: March 2002: "Why does the building debris fall in the wrong direction?" (Up?) Decided after reading Meyssan and analyzing the available photos, that "something else happened in these pictures. The pictures are much more consistent with, say, an explosion inside the building."

45 - Yukihisa Fujita: Polician with the Democratic Party of Japan, in a fraud-founded presentation to Japan's parliament on January 10, 2008 he announced [trans.]: "As you can see, even though such a large plane hit the Pentagon, there is only a hole that is too small for the airplane," cites Russ Wittenberg as a US Air Force Official, and concludes the Japanese Government "should be providing the victims' families with this new information." video viewable here
46 - April Gallop: Worked at the Pentagon, says "I was there and I never saw a plane or even debris from a plane. I figure the plane story is there to brainwash people." Says she had agents intimidate her into confirming a plane. Honegger cited Gallop's wristwatch stopping at 9:32 am on 9/11 as proof that a (watch-stopping?) bomb at that time was responsible for the Pentagon attack. Thanked in the cerdits of the PentaCon ("for makin' it!") (Up?)
47 - Gideon 524 Loose Change Forum moderator with some kind of official-looking 9/11 Truth Kangle-ish hat. He tried to be civil with me, but had to get stern here and there, trying to keep the balance set in favor of people who shout “911 TRUTH” rather than those simply talking truth. Gideon Calls CIT “fellow researchers who've dedicated years to dismantling the lies we're being fed about 9/11.”
48 - Bill Giltner: 9/11 news trawler, mostly sticks to re-posting others' works and videos, but persistently passes on standard no-757 arguments in the current Loose Change mainstream - On July 2 he posted "I have a fundamental disagreement with Adam Larson" (that being me of course), an unusually verbose piece that explained "I don't think a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. However good stuff here," and linked to my "Fruits of a Wild June." You're not the first, Bill, nor quite the last I'm sure.
49 - Lisa Giuliani: Partner of Victor Thorn, aff w/WING TV, both known for infighting and feuds with other truthers. 9/11/04: "We now know no 757 ever hit the Pentagon. Just one of the many lies swirling in the lingering smoke of September 11th. What do you think about that, America? Does it go down good with your pizza?"
50 - Rosalie Grable (aka The Web Fairy): Supposedly a grandmother from Chicago who's taken up 9/11 Truth activism, she links to he bunk arguments of Gerard Holmgren, Killtown, and others. Some have noted Holmgren/Grable tag team moves and some believe Grable is a fiction created by Holmgren as a screen.
51 - Col Donn de Grand-Pre: Carreer Army man, former Pentagon arms-sales coordinator to Iran etc, political ally of Gerald Ford, right-winger concerned about globalist/Communist/Israeli/NATO takeover of the US, author "Barbarians Inside the gates. On the Alex Jones Show, February 29, 2004: "You are talking about what hit the Pentagon, right John? It was a cruise missile. It could have been a Global Hawk. It was not a commercial aircraft."

52 - David Ray Griffin: "Top-tier" 9/11 skeptic, trained in theology, author of the half-decent book The New Pearl Harbor, prominent member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. "The physical evidence, photographs, and eyewitness testimony say that the Pentagon was hit by something that caused a hole no larger than 18 feet in diameter." Some scholar. In a 9/11/06 radio interview he saw no possibility of Flight 77 under control of Hani Hanjour, and also, more vaguely, “there does not seem to be either the debris or the kind of damage that you would expect from a 757 hitting the Pentagon.” His 2007 book Debunking 9/11 debunking cited the findings of CIT and their north-path witnesses. "This testimony, besides throwing into doubt the testimony of Don Mason and the other people who claimed to have seen the light poles clipped, suggests something even more important: that the five light poles were staged to provide evidence for the official story. If so, then we must suspect that other evidence for the official story was also planted. If any of the evidence is demonstrably planted, in fact, we must doubt the truth of the entire story." Note the careful use of 'suggest,' and 'if so.'
53 - Stefan Grossmann: Joe R: describes him as “German christian. Blames the zionists and the neocons. Claims the original planes never hit the WTC or the Pentagon.”
54 - "Guardian": early resercher who concluded “The damage to the Pentagon is about as extensive as one would expect from the crash of a large aircraft, although one that was somewhat smaller than a Boeing 757.”
55 - Jim Hanson: Elderly Ohio Republican and "former district campaign manager for Richard Nixon," as Greg Szymanski explained, placed an add in his local paper "denouncing the Bush administration" based on the famous piece of Pentagon debris with "a curious piece of wood or what I have determined to be a liana vine, imbedded into the aluminum piece of wreckage [...] I then found out that another 757 went down in the South American jungle in 1995, where liana vines (similar to wicker) grow abundantly. [...] I think the military substituted this piece of wreckage in an attempt to deceive the public, in an attempt to make them believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon when it didn’t."
56 - Nico Haupt (aka "Ewing 2001"): Aff w/INN,, co-founder, etc. A 9/11 heavyweight. Prominent and reportedly belligerent NY area no-planes anywhere on 9/11 advocate. Seems to promote hologram theories (TV fakery) and dismisses those who disagree with him "plane huggers." Was a source for Ruppert on the 9/11 wargames along with Honegger. Ruppert described him as "talented but erratic." Seems true - a lot of good evidence mixed in with his analysis. Transcribed 2006 interview: "[inaudible] the missle hit the Pentagon video [inaudible] [...] [inaudible] [...] In my new presentation, I've laid over the video so the buildings are the same size [inaudible] at the right angle. In one video, entering bit by bit [inaudible] other footage, the cgi... You just have to see the overlay to see it."
57 - Robert-Thomas: Hay: Freedom "The simple fact that there are no wing marks on the Pentagon wall, the hole is too small for a 757 to fit through." Otherwise his analysis is more intelligent and insightful than the average 757 denier.
58 - "George Hayduke": A sophisticated troll who had this to say of Russell Pickering in Oct. 2006>/span>. "[...] one might argue, that good ol' Russell is here to see what parts of the official government conspiracy theory he can get activists to buy. He's part of the damage control process. Right, Russell? A wolf in sheep's clothing? A sophisticated troll?"
59 - Meria Heller: August 2006: The Pentagon attack plane "only made a 16-18 foot hole in the Pentagon? How could a 757 with it’s wingspan, only make a 16-18 foot hole? Where was the plane? The luggage? Body parts? Loose Change will show you." Actually they don't show you, and then strongly imply they didn't exist.
60 - Gerard Holmgren: Blues guitarist and no planes anywhere proponent from Australia. Computer programmer, a bit new agey. Possibly also the Web Fairy (see Grable). "I can see one good reason to cling to the belief that AA 77 hit the pentagon. The unshakable faith that the govt would not - could not lie to us. A faith so strong that the laws of physics and motion suspend themselves in order to maintain it." As for good, self-consistent reasons to reject the Boeing, "There is no evidence outside the building of wreckage [...] There is no evidence of identifiable wreckage inside the crash site [...] Fake wreckage has been designed and planted with the express purpose of impersonating the American Airlines colour scheme." On the Damage to the Pentagon
61 - Barbara Honegger: A Former Reagan White House functionary, long-time dissident from the October Surprise/Iran-Contra years, and more recently a 9/11 skeptic of dubious value. She's supposedly been formative in Ruppert's war games theories, but on the Pentagon she's as wrong as anyone. Citing "the already legion evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon - i.e. the small hole in the west side of the Pentagon being not nearly large enough for the plane’s fuselage, let alone wing width," and "wrecked plane parts at the site identified as being from an A-3 Sky Warrior," among others. Her 9:32 Pentagon attack case.
62 - Robin Hordon: former Air Traffic Controller and Pilots for Truth ally:
“If one were to look at some other available evidence about the Pentagon crash, and that person had NOT been pre-conditioned to think of an airliner being the vehicle that crashed into the Pentagon, one would look very, very suspiciously at: ...the streak in the Pentagon's lawn that is virtually the same flight path as the airliners […] What it wasn't...was an airbourne airliner flying in OUR atmosphere.” [source - comments]
63 - Eric Hufschmid: Painful Questions (book), Painful Deceptions (video), etc. Has ragged on the Loose Change guys because they're more popular than him and because Bermas especially could be a crypto-Jew. A vociferous apostle of anti-Zionist/anti-Semite Darryl Bradford Smith. “Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, and most other "truth seekers" and the media are part of the criminal network! They are deceiving us by covering up the role of Zionists. […] Mike Rivero writes that "government shills are working hard to trick web sites into running the claim that a passenger jet did not really hit the Pentagon." Well, that makes me a government shill. Do you trust Rivero? Have you noticed that Rivero promotes Alex Jones and other liars?” Mark Robinowitz rightly describes Hufschmid as “widely considered an embarrassment among the reality-based parts of the 9/11 truth movement." Hufschmid got the Pentagon evidence all wrong, clearly forming the data to his myth, that a small craft - probably a Global Hawk - hit the building. THEN I find this: Sam Danner confirms Hufschmid's Global Hawk thesis.

64 - David Icke: Beyond his shape-shifting Reptilian alien control theories and interesting outlines of engineered world history, Icke is a "9/11 Truth" warrior who has published on his site Michael Meyer's piece "A Boeing 757 Did Not Hit the Pentagon" (March 2006), and called 911 In Plane Site "The 911 Film Michael Moore Should Have Made." Oddly enough, one of his books was on the backseat of Lloyd England's taxi when a light pole clipped by Flight 77 fell thru his windshield.
65 - “Interpol”: A video analysis expert at the LCF, whose credentials and identity remain unrevealed,
“a number of interesting discrepancies” in the Citgo video that suggested it was yet more faked evidence, findings that came in very handy to CIT in their struggle to defend their star witness Turcios.
66 - Arkadiusz Jadczyk: Theoretical physicist, author of 'The High Strangeness of Dimensions, Densities and the Process of Alien Abduction'. Believes no plane hit, according to Joe R., and is a promoter of the Pentagon Strike flash video. I had thought him maybe a passive promoter 'till I ran across his wife (next).
67 - Laura Knight Jadczyk:, Quantum Future Group, Signs of the Times: Internet fairy godmother of Pentagon Strike. In a very long and convoluted piece ranging from air defense to deep psychology, she explains how at first suspecting a set-up, she looked into the no-plane Pentagon evidence. But in an inversion of the normally reported process, two years of research and her background in mythology, history, and hypnotherapy led her to believe, it seems, no 757 really was present. But she did explain the images showing whatever hitting the building captured by other countries' satellites and withheld for blackmail against the US but selectively leaked among "intell insiders." "After learning of these images from a very trustworthy source who, for obvious reasons, cannot be named, I realized that the stakes of the game are a lot higher than anyone imagines."
68 - Phil Jayhan: Site Administrator, creator, and deranged demigod of the den of delusions known as LetsRoll 911 (I'm a bitter former member). His exploits are well-covered here:"In my opinion it was a small lear jet, armed yet again with a missile; The Pentagons, or Pentajokes release of just 5 frames of video shows how much they have to hide; If nothing to hide, the whole video would be on display; But they give out a paltry 5 frames, and with the wrong date on it as well; Wheres the boeing?" LetsRoll's role in polluting the evidence pool -Jayhan mooching money for a non-existent tour of America. -LetsRoll 911's 9/11 Inside Job?:
69 - “Joe:” Joe Quinn? Web-master of, Nov. 2006 video talk – error-filled talk focuses on the five frames of the missile, dated sept. 10, the poor piloting of the alleed hijacker, the plane vaporized strawman, no debris except a 3-foot engine casing, noeither this nor the damage consistent with a 767. Probably a cruise-missile armed fiberglass A3 skyhawk.

70 - Alex Jones: Has most forcefully gone on the record that the Pentagon no-757 argument is a "honeypot operation," he's passively promoted it himself several times. When discussing a missile/Global Hawk/drone attack with Co. De Grand Pre in Feb. 2004: "That's what the eye-witnesses said and the evidence shows. [...] It's the most surveilled area in the world but no video of it. Witnesses said they saw a small aircraft." With Charlie Sheen two years later in March 2006: "at 500 mph you cannot fly that low to the ground [...] it doesn't look like a passenger liner, it looks like some type of small white aircraft or drone [...] nothing they say fits, everything they say turns out to be a fraud [...] it did disappear like the wicked witch when water hit her, it just all went into a fourteen foot hole."
71 - John Kaminski: Joe R: "Blames the zionists and Israel. Supports the theory that no plane hit the Pentagon. Claims the phone calls made from the airliners were bogus. Frequent guest of Rense." Has spent some time analyzing the "professioal liars" who "witnessed" the 757 strike here.
72 - David Kay: Author of the 2005 "The Big Lie” 9/11 and the Government’s Complicity in Mass Murder." He does not explicitly ckaim there was no 757, but leadingly recounts the well-known video secrecy, and notes “if you determine that [the government] is hiding something, then you reasonably have to ask then what could it be hiding that is so bad for its stated official position that would justify the secrecy?" He concludes with a wink "you already know the answer without even requiring the evidence. The world desperately awaits the leak of the equivalent of the JFK Zapruder film for 9/11.”
73 - Killtown: Ubiquitous but unidentified 9/11 researcher with a galaxy of well-traveled sites pushing numerous flawed and unnecessary theories since 2001. At the Pentagon, Killtown uses precisely the HTB case, including asking the viewer to find the alleged plane damage in two different shots where the damage is covered by fire hose spray. Plays open-minded, but keeps coming back to and hovering around the wide anything-but-a-757 territory. Lately interested in demonstrating that FLight 93 also did not really crash in Pennsylvania, as well as focusing on wider 9/11 fakery and forgery.
74 - Cmdr. Ralph Kolstad: This highly-experienced retired US Navy pilot has signed on with Balsamo and the ‘Pilots for Truth’ crowd, and asked aloud on August 20 2007 “Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?”
75 - Dr. Barry R. Komisaruk: Rutger's psychology professor, author of "the Science of Orgasm." Came out as a 'truther' on the six-year anniversary, explaining his journey thus: "over breakfast with a colleague, I reacted in disbelief when he said, "You know, there was no debris from a jetliner crash evident in photos of the Pentagon that day." His claim started me to read extensively about the events of the day. Based upon my reading, published evidence leads me to a terribly disturbing conclusion as to the veracity of the official government accounts." The event was shocking enough, in fact, that Barry had an involuntary orgasm. Just kidding.
76- Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski: Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. "There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. [...] there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. [,,,] secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile" [...] the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. [...] The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon.
77 - Lt. Col. Jeff Latas: Another retired Air Force pilot with too much time on his hands, Latas teamed up with 'Pilots for Truth,' signed their March 2007 press release, and told Rob Balsamo on June 25 2007 “The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon.”
78 - John Lear: Son of the person who invented the learjet, and a lifelong pilot himself. Recent recruit to Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and a "Conspiracy Master" at Above Top Secret. Believes all the 9/11 planes were holograms, has discovered proof of life on the moon, and is known for an unusually high BS factor, though my dealing with him have been generally cordial and reasonable. "The fictional story that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon is only believed by the less informed. You won't find many engineers or many pilots and many aircraft investigators that are buying into this fraudulent scam." "I have always admired Gen. Stubblebine." "Probably a holograph was used to fake the Boeing 757 on approach to the Pentagon and a predator or other kind of small missile carrying craft did the damage."
79 - John Lee: "September911Surprise (??) and "Pirate" connected - published a page headed "PACIFICATION OF PENTAGON: American Airlines Flight 77? Insanity is ramming a Boeing 757 through a 5-foot round hole." It's either a parody or something, mostly just old re-posts recycling all the worst evidence - like shrinking the entry wound now to five feet! The only good thing is its neat little gallery of uncropped 2002 attack stills.
90 - William Lewis: Director, 911 In Plane Site, producer, One Nation Under seige. Joe R.: "Just before General Stubblebine appears on the screen, Lewis talks about how a 757 could never have hit the Pentagon. Von Kleist backs him up on that. Then after Stubblebine is done, Lewis claims there's also evidence that no United Airlines and American Airlines hit the World Trade Center. He repeats the completely discredited claim of Mark Burnback and even says there were "numerous other eyewitness" who made similar statements, which is completely false." Thanks Joe. That's all I need to know for the moment about Mr. Lewis.
81 – Alex Lloyd aka "Spooked": I just found this site, comments disabled unfortunately... Some real gems. I once e-mailed him with some helpful information he ignored, and asked if he was really a spook, which he insisted he wasn't. A parody more likely.
82 - G.W. (Jerry) Longspaugh: This retired Aerospace Engineer wrote an essay stating "the debris found outside the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 or any aircraft of comparable dimensions. In particular, in the absence of some agency (possibly unknown to physical science) that removed the wings, there is no way to avoid the conclusion that the wings (and therefore the aircraft) were never present in the first place. In this case, no Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001."
83 – “Lord Carpainter”: At Above Top “A drone that looked like a 757 was in the area, but it did not hit the Pentagon. It flew over the Pentagon. Explosives caused the damage.
84 - David Lynch: Director of cult films )Eraserhead, the Elephant Man, Wild at Heart, Dune, Lost Highway, etc.) and creator of Twin Peaks. I'm a huge fan. Not an expert but an auteur, he was left impressed by Loose Change and its ability to make him re-think 9/11. He buys the Pentagon Fraud and has gone on the record promoting the video, but he's not being obnoxious about it. Nor is his seduction really relevant, just telling. See also "Kat Turner")
85 - Aldo Marquis (aka Merc, Merc Mercy, Citizen Merc, uncertain others...): co-writer, researcher, producer, director, and narrator for the Feb. 2007 video The PentaCon, arguing that the clipped light poles were planted, the building damage faked, and the 757 people saw simply flew over the building. Merc gets angry sometimes I've heard. I don't have too much to say about him.
86 - Jim Marrs:Longtime CT guru, noted JFK assassination scholar and author of "Inside Job," 2004. Marrs cites in this book April Gallop's account indicating no plane, the confiscated video, unmarked lawn, the too-small entry wound, and Rumsfeld's missile "admission," and none of the good evidence for a plane strike. He really should know better. W/George Nori, May 2006 discussing CCTV footage: "I'm underwhelmed. All I see is the explosion at the Pentagon. [...the object] looks more like a cruise missile to me." On video here
87 - Enver Masud: Virginia Peace activist - talking to Greg Szymanski: "After three years of investigation, I still can't offer an alternative theory. But I have collected sufficient evidence to show that it is very unlikely a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon."
88 - Brad May: I believe associated with, and responsible for "The Bat Cave" site. No 757 page: He uses the foam cover trick t obscure the damage on the first floor while imlpying that the minor damage on the second floor is THE impact hole, as usual, far too small and unmarked by wing impact. "If the plane, or even just the wings had "evaporated" or somehow burned up, then, they would be visible. [...] If the wings burned up, this would have been the location of the left wing [...] a metal 757 vaporized into thin air."
89 - David McGowan: Affiliated with Center for an Informed America, taking on himself to inform America that no 757 hit the Pentagon. Oct. 2004: "A hydrocarbon fire cannot possibly burn at the temperatures required to even melt a 100 ton aircraft, let alone actually vaporize it. That such an absurd notion was even floated out there for public consumption indicates that Washington officials were desperately seeking any explanation, no matter how preposterous, for the complete lack of aircraft wreckage recovered from the Pentagon."
90 - Geoff Metcalf: World Net Daily columnist and talk-show host. In March 2002 presented a collection of photos – sometimes attributed to him – showing clipped poles, building damage, etc. all the pivotal shots I use, to accompany an article where he stated “I have never seen an aircraft accident where the aircraft evaporated upon impact, water, land or buildings. […]What did happen to the plane? Where is it?”
91 - Michael Meyer: Mechanical engineer, author of the March 2006 article "A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon." Sample of evidence: "The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft (which I also feel is impossible), the fact that the two main engines were never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release. You can call me a "tin hat", crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused by a Boeing 757."
92 - Peter Meyer: aff w/, creator of yet another page claiming things like "No evidence of a Boeing 757, but the damage is certainly consistent with a cruise missile strike."
93 - Thierry Meyssan: The original no-plane-at-the Pentagon French guy, author of the eraly 2002 book "9/11: The Big Lie" arguing for a truck bomb, missile strike, or something other than a Boeing at the Pentagon. His theories were not the first, but the loudest, most widely repeated, and most widely debunked, reverberating aroud the world since their first release. His second book in mid-2002 "Pentagate," took into account the new video stills of the "attack" and narrowed it don to a small military drone. I've never read either, but from what I see he's the godfather of the Fraud, originating the tiny hole, unmarked lawn, and other incorrect or irrelevant bits of evidence.
94 - Raphael Meyssan: Son of Theirry, originator of the Flight 77-denial Hunt the Boeing (HTB) website, the internet version of his dad's book that spurred 9/11 IPS, The Web Fairy, Killtown, Loose Change, etc. -The French revelations - Hunting the Boeing (and Finding it!)
95 - Mirage of Deceit:Forum and blog entity - details forthcoming.
96 - Michael Moore:June 20 2007: “Lemme just give you one thing that I’ve asked for for a long time […] I wanna see the video, I wanna see a hundred videos that exist of this. Why don’t they want us to see that plane coming in to the building? […] to hit a building that’s only five stories high that expertly uhh, I believe that there will be answers in that videotape and we should demand that tape.”
97 - Leuren Moret: Depleted Uranium expert. anti-DU activist. "What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used..."
98 - Chris Morganti: "I am aware that the idea that something other than a Boeing 757 striking the Pentagon on 9/11 is considered disinformation by the 9/11 Truth movement. I personally do not believe that a Boeing 757 struck the Pentagon and I have presented the evidence here. I am not a gate keeper and you can believe what you want. Check the facts out for yourself." One example: "A US Security Camera takes 60 FPS." Actually standard is 30 or 32 fps, and the ones in question took 60 frames a MINUTE.
99 - "Nathanael": The Covenant News, February 18, 2006 "The commonly accepted size of the original impact hole or signature in the Pentagon is 16-20 feet across..." blah blah blah...
100 - George Nelson: U.S. Air Force Col. (ret), former aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. 34-year Air Force career. Lends strange credibility to the claim "With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged."
101 - Ralph Olmholt: Physics 911, author of a thorough and compelling piece "9-11 and the IMPOSSIBLE: The Pentagon: Part One of An Online Journal of 9-11." He contends: "Among the alleged “wreckage,” no tail, no wings, and no damage consistent with such a “crash.” Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged; so much for the infamous security videotape fireball! [...] If there was an aircraft actually involved, an Air Force fighter for example, it made a low pass; it didn’t hit the Pentagon!"
102 - "OmegaPoint": Let'sRoll forum moderator responsible for this steaming pile of crap.
103 - ”Painter” Pilots For 911 Truth forum regular, so exact quotes are hard to find since I refuse to register there. A supporter of the no-757 line as I recall from seeing him around somewehere, he was reportedly a former administrator at the LC Forum.
104 - Don Paul: Joel R. "You ask what I think hit the Pentagon? I think it was a combination of internal explosives and a hard-nosed missile. Certainly the nose cone of a commercial airliner... could not have made that penetration... I do believe that the airliner was disposed of in the least conspicuous matter possible, for a long time I thought it was probably dumped directly into the Atlantic Ocean and that still seems to me the likeliest thing."

105 - Michael Collins Piper: RBN radio host and Conspiratainer - July 2006 regarding Sam Danner's testimony: "He said, "It was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon. The plane looked like a hump-back whale." He thinks a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon. [...] Danner is very ill now with lymphoma, which may be the result of DU exposure at the Pentagon on 9/11. [...] The Global Hawk fired a DU missile that penetrated the thick concrete wall of the Pentagon."

106 - "Snake Plissken": Code-name for the originator of the "Bumble-Planes" theory cited by Carol Valentine, in which the Pentagon was hit with a small, explosives-laden remote control passenger plane, a “cruise missile if you like.”

107 - ”SPreston”: Apparently visually-challenged LCF and elsewhere internet entity who often speaks with sickeningly witty posters and ever-present Bush admin faces, and dedicates words only to nonsense and that as forcefully as possible. He did earn one point with me by admitting he MIGHT be wrong about the famous lettered scrap on the Pentagon lawn being painted blue and white… and green, and pink… a certain sophistication emerges? Nah. “Gee, PentagonRC aka Frustrating Fraud must have had his Bush Goggles on in order to see that 100 ton 757 plowing through the ground and still leaving the 6'6" tall cable spools undamaged and unmelted. Those wonderful goggles can make even this official Pentagon Scenario fantasy DISASTER look believable :lol: :lol: :lol:”

108 - Bob Pugh: Freelance videographer who took some excellent footage of the Pentagon shortly after the attack and then spent too much time on the internet it seems. Pugh talked with the LTW/CIT Arlington crew in 2006. I find his very long interview (here, from 30:30 to the end) curious; he starts with too much discussion of confusion over location of the crash, mentions it is "highly unusual" the authorities never requested his footage for their investigations, and is emphatic about the lack of wreckage, almost as if quoting Hufschmid: "I can't see the tail [...] the wheels [...] the engines, there's no chairs [...] luggage [...] logo." He cites the 'hole' from the plane as "16 feet diameter, 20 tops [...] no marks on the grass [...] I cant't believe they can't find an engine..." Speaks of lack of video, precision of hit with Hani a bad pilot, all of it. "When you're led to believe what you think you saw, I think that you begin to buy into it," he summarized. "But the more you dwell on it and the more the evidence comes forward the questions get larger and larger."

109 - Joe Quinn: Writer for Signs of the Times website: "“The simple fact is that, if it were not for the initiative that we took in creating the "Pentagon Strike" Flash presentation, there would have been NO coverage of 9/11 "conspiracy theories" at all." Author of Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757. Responding to Jim Hoffman: "There is nothing sloppy about the analysis of Meyssan or Holmgren. They, like so many others, can see clearly that the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is the weakest link in the official version of the events of 9/11.” The Pentagon strikers Strike Back: My critique of Quinn's critique of Hoffman's critique of the no-757 theory.
110 - Craig Ranke: AKA Co-writer, co-director, on-site interviewer for the new video ThePentaCon, whose eyewitness accounts "prove" Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon, even though none of the witnesses seem to think so. Posts online as Lyte Trip and at ATS as (Conspiracy Master) Jack Tripper. We've had a few chats. I call him disinfo, he calls me Cointelpro, calls Pickering BS and Cat Herder disinfo. Responding to my review: "In this absurd hitpiece CL is clearly trying his hardest to deflect attention AWAY from the eyewitnesses and the problems the north of the citgo claim holds for the official story while FOCUSING attention on CIT and our hypothesis so the reader walks away thinking "that's crazy." Why would any logical 9/11 truth movement "researcher" do such a thing? [...] It's so transparant. The founding document of COINTELPRO directed FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize." This is EXACTLY what this hitpiece is designed to do."
111 - John Rappoport: Joel R.: “Editor of Interviewed by Coast to Coast AM on secret societies. Rappoport in '9/11 and the Evil in America', a documentary on the 9/11 Truth movement broadcasted in 2006 by Rupert Murdoch's SkyNews: "When you look at photographs of the holes punched into the Pentagon they are much too small to accommodate that gigantic jetliner. It just doesn't work. Now, you can speculate that large pieces of the plane were torn off on impact and scattered everywhere, but they are not to be found on photographs. You don't see wings lying around on the lawn of the Pentagon for example."
112 - "Realtruth": Author of the 2007 Above Top Secret thread “757 Plane Did Not Hit Pentagon - Hard Visible Proof!” pushing as proof clips from the Director’s Cut of 911 In Plane Site. Apparently a roofer by trade, Realtruth also excels at dodging questions, changing the subject, and praising John Lear. Nonetheless, I feel a bit bad for mangling his thread so bad within the first two pages, but it rolls on heedless.
113 - Morgan Reynolds: Former chief economist at Department of Labor under Bush 43, 2001-2002, now a hardcore 9/11 skeptic, flawed arguments include no plane at the Pentagon and no big planes, like those we saw on the news, at the World Trade Center."It is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the North Tower’s hole wasn’t big enough for a Boeing 767 either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11..."
114- Randi Rhodes: Liberal radio talk show host. May 17 2006, Regarding the five still photos of the Pentagon impact released by the DoD. "And I looked at the little silvery object. And obviously there's no markings to be seen. There's no photographs of any of the corporate emblem or the tail number. And we've never found any airplane parts. I just found that fascinating. [...] But we never, ever find any airplane parts. [...] It's just - it's a stunning story. Really."
115 - Maj Douglas Rokke: PhD, U.S. Army (ret), former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project, 30-year Army career. "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile."
116 - Korey Rowe: Former Army specialist, Producer of Loose Change. Less visible than Dylan Avery, among Rowe's contribution is admitting “we know there are errors in the documentary, and we’ve actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves.” I don't recall seeing that in the introduction. When once asked, Rowe responded "no, I do not work for the CIA."Loose Change: A Fine Piece of Disinfo
117 - Donald Rumsfeld: Just one month after 9/11 and in tandem with someone named "Lyric Wallwork Winik," Rummy "accidentally" crafted a key plank of the missile theory.. It was all just a goof, but he still hasn't fixed it. I believe other actions of his, like his 9/10 revelation of $2.3 trillion "missing," and unnecessary secrecy later on, are designed to foster useless, distracting, or discrediting theorizing.
118 - Michael C Ruppert: Former LAPD officer known for his newsletter/website From the Wilderness and his excellent 2004 book Crossing the Rubicon. After 9/11 made some strong arguments for an inside job using solid circumstantial evidence, and steering clear of how questions until 2004 as he closed his 9/11 case when he revealed in Rubicon "I have never believed Flight 77 hit the Pentagon," dropping Meyssan's embattled mythology some needed support on his way out the door and out of the country.
119 - Jerry Russel: Affiliated with, co-author, with Richard Stanley, of "The Five Sided Fantasy Island." "No tangible, verifiable evidence of an airliner crash at the Pentagon has ever been produced. Our analysis indicates that in reality, sophisticated shaped-charge explosive technology was used to create a scene comporting with the appearance of an jetliner crash, while simultaneously a 757 overflew the area and landed at nearby Reagan National Airport."
120 - Nila Sagadevan: Commercial pilot and aeronautical engineer. Speaking with Szymanski in December 2005, he questioned supposed novice hijacker's amazing piloting, a familiar but valid point. His technical analysis seems compelling enough to cast doubt on the 757 attack story (which does seem to push the limits of feasibility), but then he had to go and say “I really don’t understand how anyone could give the government’s story any credibility after seeing the original pictures taken of the small hole left in the Pentagon wall by whatever flew into it. I am not totally sure what the military used but one thing for sure, it wasn’t a 757 jetliner.”
121- Vincent Sammartino: WING TV affiliated: "As everyone who is involved in exposing the 9-11 cover-up knows, nothing concerning 9-11 is as it seems. Whether it's the magic jet that our government told us crashed into the Pentagon, the obvious missing jet at Shanksville (Flight 93) [...] Nothing, I repeat, nothing about the government/ controlled media version of 9-11 makes any sense." NOTHING! Even that it was a Tuesday, ALL LIES!
122 - Karl WB Schwarz: Patmos Nanotech, onetime "Unification 3rd Party" Presidential candidate for 2008, various ephemeral self-described qualifications, aff w/ - and has pushed among the stupidest of the stupid 9/11 theories:Of Nanotech and 9/11 Truth: Intoducing Karl Schwarz and his limited liability "9/11 Truth" crusade. The A3 Skywarrior theory: His number one claim to fame. On The 737 WTC Attack Theory: Schwarz's ridiculous "smoking gun" for an inside job, more support from Jon Carlson, and the contradictions between the two - were the planes faked with holograms or computer graphics?
123 - David Shayler: former MI5 officer, came out to Greg Szymanski as a 9/11 Skeptic and and Joe R. says has said there was no evidence that a plane had hit the Pentagon, citing a missile as a more likely weapon. Eventually took the no-planes anywhere route: "The only explanation" for the WTC attack planes "is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes" Has also said "I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet but the credibility I add to the movement is enormous," which is why no-planers were depressed to see Shayler plunge into drug-induce messianism as seen in this video.
124 - Charlie Sheen: Probably the most famous celbrity yet to come forth with his less-than worthless observations about 9/11 as revealed to Alex Jones. His take on the Frustrating Fraud was frustratingly cut short, but almost certainly a ditto of all the other Hunt The Boeing adherents.
125 - “Silent but Deadly”: Apparently French researcher, creator of the Pentagon 3d test website, which ultimately and scientific-like deduces that a 757 was quite unlikely. In the selective quotation section, is noted an edit: “sam danner said he lied, so statements are removed. Nevertheless, the best version is still the globalhawk one.”
126 - Joel M. Skousen: Former U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot, former Chairman of the Conservative National Committee in Washington DC and Executive Editor of Conservative Digest. Skousen wrote in February 2005: “The issues of the penetration hole [at the Pentagon] and the lack of large pieces of debris simply do not jive with the official story, but they are explainable if you include the parking lot video evidence that shows a huge white explosion at impact. This cannot happen with an aircraft laden only with fuel. It can only happen in the presence of high explosives."
127 - Sherman Skolnick: Joe R. says: "he claimed that missiles or drones struck the Pentagon. Supposedly, they were launched from an aircraft carrier out in the Atlantic." See also "Lenny Bloom."
128 - "Skydrifter": Author of “9-11 And The Impossible: The Pentagon.” “There was no particular physical evidence of the expected "wreckage." There was no tail, no wings; no damage consistent with a B-757 “crash.” Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged!”
129 - Daryl Bradford Smith: Ridiculous anti-Semite, mentor of Eric Hufschmid - discussing "Crypto Jews and Crypto-Zionists," he turns to 9/11 Truther Mike Rivero: "Rivero's support of the official theory of Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon is so stupid that many people accuse him of being an agent, or an idiot. Is he another Crypto Jew? Or a blackmailed puppet?"
130 - Leonard Spencer: "Clearly a Boeing passenger jet travelling at over 450 mph has not penetrated the building at this point. There is no scar or entry hole that could possibly support this scenario. Neither is there any wreckage to be seen in front of the building. Precious little wreckage was found inside the building either. The plane — or whatever it was that hit the Pentagon — seems to have vaporized prior to impact and vanished into thin air. Planes are not generally believed able to do this."
131 - Glenn Stanish: Co-Founder Pilots for 9/11 Truth, member Scholars for 9/11 Truth, member Airline Pilots Association. October 2006: "With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 DID NOT fly into the Pentagon as alleged."
132 - Richard Stanley: Affiliated with, co-author, with - Jerry Russel, of "The Five Sided Fantasy Island,"
arguing for an overflight coupled with shape charges.
133 - Rixon Stewart: Affiliated with 'The Truthseeker,' author of the May 2006 piece "Where's Flight77?"
134 - Major General Albert Stubblebine: U.S. Army (ret) – Reportedly an oddball who's helped previously wreck the UFO movement and has dabbled in telekinesis and remote viewing. But as a former technical image analyst for the Pentagon, he seems strangely qualified to comment on the pictures of 9/11: "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"
135 - "Sukin": Forum entity in support of no-planeerism. Why did I list this? Must've annoyed me once.
136 - Greg Szymanski: Arctic Beacon, RBN radio - the conduit for former gov't officials, military whistleblowers, etc. to come out with flawed 9/11 theories, almost every one denying the 757 at the Pentagon as does Szymanski himself. He's covered Jim Hanson (Feb 2005), Morgan Reynolds (June 12 2005), Paul Craig Roberts (June 24 2005), David Shayler (July 29 2005), Doug Rokke (August 8 2005), Leuren Moret (Aug 8 2005). Helped Phil Jayhan mooch for money and/or a car on his radio show, April 2006.
137 - Webster G. Tarpley: Longtime LaRouch-connected writer (prominent for years at High Times), and co-author of the interesting "George Bush: the unauthorized Biography." Tarpley's "9/11 Sythetic Terror." He's as certain as anyone that no 757 hit the Pentagon, as his book shows, promotes other 9/11 silliness (I'm hazy on which - lasers, holograms, etc.), and created a major and divisive ruckus with his handling of the Kennebunport warning controversy, covered here: 9-11 Synthetic Error: The Meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley.
138 - Corey Taylor: Lead singer for metal band Slipknot. 2006 interview: "Look at the film! You show me a hundred yard trench that leads up to the Pentagon. You show me the wreckage. Show me and I’ll be like, all right, I was wrong. You can’t see it. If a plane that size had flown into the goddamn Pentagon, there would have been so much damage. There would have been hazmat people there protecting against jet fuel. You would have seen the wings for Christ’s sake. You would have seen something. A plane that big does not vaporize."
Terral [see Croft]
139 - Victor Thorn: Host of WING TV and co-author the book '9-11 on Trial', in which he claims no 757 could have hit the Pentagon. He and his partner Lisa Giuliani blame the neocons and zionists and have enthusiastically plugged "Loose Change."
140 - Bridget Thornton; Project Censored 2006 contributor who spoke on 9/11/06 on the ‘censored’ (ie, misread) aspects of the Pentagon attack five years before. Her error-filled presentation focused on ‘a thing’ the Pentagon put out about the plane and passengers being incinerated, the 18-foot entry hole, the non-skidded yard, lack of video, video showing a non-757, contradicting eyewitnesses, Riskus e-mail – very suspicious witness!
141 - Peter Tiradera: Author of a published book "9-11 Coup Against America: The Pentagon Analysis" [2006]. Favorable review here: "it buttresses the arguments that what hit the Pentagon was not a 757, that efforts to create artificial evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory was systematically planted, that photos were retouched to hide conspicuous evidence of what really happened and that there was a second flying object (this one definitely a plane) involved, quite possibly in directing the flying object that hit the Pentagon."
142 - Kat Turner: Actress in David Lynch's Inland Empire, credited as doing voice-overs for The PentaCon's "Researher's Edition." Quite likely member "Catgrlz" at the CIT forum.
143 - "Ultima1": Forum entity. Reportedly a ‘troubled’ man named Roger who has no NSA clearance as claimed and has absolutely nothing to offer but endless sloppy repetitions of leading questions about paperwork regarding the Pentagon attack. Quotes by ULTIMA1 found on one ATS page:
”We some of us do research to find the truth instead of just believing what we ahve been told to believe. […] You might want to do more research about what the walls were made of and how thick they were. Oh and do not forget […] a 757's nose is made of composite so it would have been destroyed and not made it through the wall […] We have no photos or videos (released) that show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. We also have no official rpeorts matching parts found to any of the 9/11 planes. […] If the governemt is not behind something or covering something why wont they simply release all the information? […] I never stated that 9/1 was an inside job. […] NO, i did not state or make it clear that i believe that no plane hit the Pentagon. I am simply stating information and facts [ed – a few, and usually either wrong or irrelevant]. Also stating what infomration and fact we do not have [ed - over and over and over while ignoring and misreading what we do have]. I stated nothing about explosives or any projectile [ed - that is, no discussion of what he thinks DID happen at the Pentagon on 9/11]. […] So what proves that AA77 DID hit the Pentagon? […] We have lots of evindece that the government had plenty of warnings from domestic and foreign intell agencies but did nothign to stop the attacks.”
144 - "Undertow": Pilots for 9/11 Truth core member, obtainer of their FDR data (August 2006) that yielded so many mysteries, helped interpret it to demonstrate deception and/or a flyover. Administrator of I've e-mailed Undertow back and forth; though fully on-board with the P49T agenda, he's a smart enough fella and offers not too many silly quotes. @ LCF:
“And I'll say this. Other then the *cough* Building Performance Report, there is NO DAMAGE PATH that goes beyond the Black Billowing Trailer of fire-resistant combustibles, and 5 Light Poles which are completely suspect. In FACT, I challenge anyone to show any damage or evidence in between the Light Weight Light Poles and the Satans Trailer of Fire.”
145 - Carol Valentine: Aff. w/Public Action Inc., Waco holocaust museum, opposed to the "war for Jewish supremacy." June 2002: Explaining the alleged use of water instead of foam to fight the Pentagon fire: "Perhaps all these firefighters knew what we don't -- maybe there was no aviation fuel in the Pentagon that day . . . no aviation fuel means no airplane, no airplane means no truth in the Official Story. That's one explanation."
146 - Dave Von Kleist: producer and host of 911 In Plane Site, radio host at the Power Hour. Early 2002: "On reviewing the first three pictures, one can easily see that only one of the buildings rings was penetrated. [...] Was the damage of the Pentagon caused by a Boeing 757 as reported by government officials, or was it the result of some other event which is being covered up in an attempt to mislead and manipulate the American people into a war and into the willing relinquishment of their rights?"
147 - Jimmy Walter: Eccentric millionaire 9/11 Truth financier, runs, which states as one of its core points "A 757 did not Hit the Pentagon! Read and see that it could not have been a 757," a contention repeated in his 2004 TV spots. Check out this video with him and Eric Hufschmid: (Penn and Teller on Stupid 9/11 Theories)
148 - Steven Welch [aka StevenWarRan]: An eccentric Pentagon attack researcher, a talented writer of some excellent essays, finder of rare photos, originator of intuitive and slippery theories, some silliness, etc. I've never looked close enough at the WarRan portfolio - where he stands, what he may have gotten right - He eventually got on the wrong side of CIT, but has also played into the mystery mongering, questioning Lloyd England's story in July 2006 that a flight 77-clipped light pole hit his taxi: "I submit Lloyd England was the star of a short entre-acte, titled, The Taxi Driver and the Downed Lamp Poles, part of a larger epic—in which the poles starred, not Mr. England—called The Rumsfeld Conspiracies, where these downed lamp posts serve as a corps de ballet, tangible “proofs” of a 757-jetliner’s trajectory and altitude."
149 - Jack White: Photo "expert." At the Pentagon he finds such nifty things as planted scraps, planted actors, shoddily painted-in firetruck, and a photoshopped-out guardrail, and uses expert jargon like "whatsist" and “bagman.” White also denies the moon landing with such works, and some other things. A Real genius.
150 - Tim White: A kitchen counter installer from Denver who's had the whole 9/11 inside job explained to him (code-name "Tango Dancer" organized it he sez). Interview w/Jim Fetzer: Fetzer: "But I am asking you, if [the Pentagon] was not hit by a Boeing 757 what was it hit by?" White: "This started coming together when Karl Schwarz, and people working with Karl Schwarz, when Karl first posted the article regarding the A3 Skywarrior [...] when Karl Schwarz came out with that article. I read that, and I immediately knew what was going on." I wonder who his source was for that one?
151 - Darren Williams: Associated with LK Jadczyk and "Signs of the Times" website, British-based producer of the highly manipulative 2004 Pentagon Strike video short, one of the most videly seen venues for promotion of the no-plane or missile theory, reviving interest in the fading Meyssan mythos just as In Plane Site and Loose Change were entering the field.
152 - Bishop Richard Williamson: This excommunicated British Bishop of the Catholic church has been in the news recently after Pope Bennedict’s tentative re-instatement. A well-known holocaust denier, Williamson feels that only a few hundred thousand Jews ever died in the camps, and none by gassing. He’s been called "the Borat of the schismatic Catholic far-Right" and "a clown, but a dangerous clown". He’s also a full-on MIHOP 9/11 Truther, who can be heard here directing his flock to “,” which sounds bizarre spoken with a true cathedral reverb. It’s undated, but I’d guess 2006, Williamson cited as “an enslaving lie” the US gv’t contention “that an aeroplane struck the Pentagon” which is of course “totally impossible,” citing a ‘soft nose’, “six 18” walls, etc… “It can only be a guided missile which struck the Pntagon – can only be,” he surmised, setting people free with truth as always.
153 - Russ Wittenberg: Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying all Boeing models, including the precise two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11 (as Flight 93 and Flight 175). "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. [...] There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. […] The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."
154- Woody Box: Aff. With Team8plus (Haupt, Killtown, et al) and INN World Report. Originator of the "Cleveland Airport Mystery" plane swap theory presented in Loose Change. At the Loose Change Forum in August, he stepped into the CIT-Pickering overflight debate with "a witness detected by ME to counter your claim that the flyover was observed by NOBODY." Witness "Barbara" told Woody "I'm not sure exactly where the Pentagon, where it was in relationship to where the plane went down but they are relatively close to one another. ... whether it hit any part of that pentagon, I'm not sure." Well that about does it, right?
155 - Glen Yeadon: Sept. 2004, in response to 911 In Plane Site: "After the collapse photos show adjacent offices untouched by fire. In one case a first floor office shows a wooden stool with an open book on top. The pages of the book were not even singed. If the crash had been a Boeing 757 on a cross continental flight with nearly full fuel tanks the fire would have burned for days and consumed a much larger area."
156 - Sami Yli-Karjanmaa: Author of an exhaustively-researched, well-illustrated 2004 piece called “The ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report: Arrogant Deception - Or an Attempt to Expose a Cover-up?”
The report “fails in its attempt to show that the structural damage caused to the Pentagon” was caused by a 757. Yli-Karjanmaa sums up “belief in the official B-757 story implies belief in physically impossible and inexplicable phenomena. […]The most natural explanation for the numerous errors in the Report is that it is a part of the disinformation campaign by the US authorities - the purpose of which is to prevent the truth regarding 9/11 from being revealed and thus to protect the perpetrators of those atrocities.”
157 - Sheikh Zayed: Emir of the United Arab Emirates at the time of 9/11 and until his death in 2004. His Zayed Center offered support to Meyssan, translating his book to Arabic and circulating it among the Arab elites and masses, helping to foster resistance to the WOT via nonsense.
158 - Gregory M. Zeigler: PhD, Captain, US Army, former Army Intelligence Officer: ""I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. ... [A]nomalies poured in rapidly [including...] the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon."
159 - Barry Zwicker: "November 15, 2003, Toronto Observer, 'Canadian critic challenges official 9-11 story': "I think a lot of the questions have been answered,” Zwicker said. “For instance, the question of whether an airliner crashed into the Pentagon has now been answered by all sorts of physical evidence. If you do spectrometry analysis of the pictures of the fire, [it’s clear] an airliner did not go in."