Sunday, May 4, 2008

JOEL SUCHERMAN – NOC WITNESS?

CIT EYEWITNESS VERIFICATION PART IV:
JOEL SUCHERMAN – NOC WITNESS?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
April 29 2008
updated 5/3


Apologies all, I'm not trying to keep finding things, but this... I just found a most interesting logical paradox of sorts while looking into the account of USA Today editor Joel Sucherman. I hadn’t examined his account closely before, and am here relying on the interview portions in the CIT video The USA Today Witness Parade with only vague background knowledge. This short video is based around the suspicious density of USA Today/Gannet-connected witnesses to the Pentagon attack, taken as a mobile propaganda outfit of sorts sent out to confirm the government story. While at least six were packed into a .16 mile-stretch of the highway that they took to work each morning, only two of these, “both Mike Walter and Joel Sucherman have confirmed their locations,” the video explains; Walter did so via Russell Pickering, a placement he agreed to that shows trees blocking part of his view from well south of impact. Sucherman was verified by CIT with a video-taped interview and careful POV work captured on camera.
Their confirmation had Joel taking up the rear of the parade, having just emerged from the I395 underpass well south of the official flight path. How they placed him here seems a bit arbitrary really. Surprised? As far as I can tell all the evidence for this is in their interview as in the video, recorded on their November 2006 Arlington foray where they talked to all the PentaCon witnesses. The part they seemed to use is

“I had come out from underneath the underpass and as soon as you come out from under there, you start to rise up to a hill and that’s where you get the view of the Pentagon off to the east, off to your right.”

Then the interview cuts to talking about his view of Flight 77 passing left-to-right ahead of him. It’s not made clear whether he saw this at the instant he emerged or at some point shortly after but they seem to have latched onto the ‘had come out’ and set it as ‘had just come out.’ To place him more precisely we could use his description of the flight path he saw the plane on, relative to his view:

“I saw it coming across my windshield but then [certainly?] the passenger side of the vehicle I had had a clear view of the pentagon. I would say The Pentagon is at 2 o’clock from me, in my car. So I’m seeing it come across the windshield and then I’m looking out the passenger side window and that’s where I see the collision with the pentagon. There were no trees at that point in the way at all. I did see it impact.”
CIT used this description and their footage of the drive up Route 27 to pinpoint Sucherman’s location. They show a still shot labeled “Pentagon at “2:00”” taken from the position they indicate in their graphics, with trees between, blocking his view of impact. Problem is the Pentagon is a large building that would occupy the space from about 12:30 to 3:00, depending on where exactly he was, so if he means a specific spot was in that direction, the impact point is the most likely choice. I mapped this out and if we take his 12:00 position as being forward up Route 27, the impact point is at about 12:30 from him as placed by CIT. Even the nearest corner is only at 1:00. Also, the patch of trees blocking his view does not fit his description of there being no trees blocking his view of the impact point. Also the entire view of the flight path would be across his windshield at this location, with nothing but the south parking lot visible out the side window. Nothing about this location matches these positional details other than arguably the underpass aspect.

Did they manage to place him wrong despite their much-lauded field work? Just from this, it would seem so; their citizen method for investigating his location was to sit down and interview him to glean the first-hand details, get video of the area, pick the wrong location that conflicts with the details, decide his testimony contradicts itself, and dismiss him as a liar with the rest of the Parade, sending him to the back of the line.

He is a mainstream media employee, and seems a good official path supporter. He actually makes no mention of altitude I noticed, though he does use the word impact. Elsewhere he’s described a plane fitting the official profile. CIT’s mobile video showed a better position for him seeing the official path, just after passing the trees, but ruled this out as right under the flight path. I’m not sure where Sucherman specified that he wasn’t under it, although he doesn’t specifically mention this. So I tried him in such a position, more or less under the official path, amongst the downed light poles, and in the middle of the USA Today Parade. No trees block his view here, but he wouldn't see the plane till the right half of his windshield, and there's still no real view from side window here either (the angled green line is an app. divide between front and side views). this is also still not 2:00, more like 1:00. This placement is arguably consistent with both his exact words and with the official flight path, but it would require that this be a while after passing from under 395, in slow traffic. Until I see a specific reason to question this, it seems a good trade-off. [ETA: In previous interviews he does mention seeing the side of it (AA stripes), so he couldn't have been directly under it and seems to have been a bit further south, which is even further from 2:00 and of course gives him no view of the Pentagon out his right side. ].

Because of these facts, his account is not possible in relation to the official path, if literally read. But just out of curiosity, I tried to see what was the best fit for his account. Again I presumed that by ‘the Pentagon’ he meant the impact point, read 2:00 as exact, and considered the view out of the windshield and of the ‘impact point’ being visible out the passenger window. Understanding the result would only be approximate, oddly, these considerations place USA Today editor Sucherman entirely north of the official flight path, so that any plane crossing in front of his windshield to a point visible through his passenger side window, and at 2:00 as he stated, would have to be from over ANC or, with a bit of fudging, at least north of the Citgo.
How about that? Did CIT pass up another north path witness in its huff to disprove the mass-media shills? Imagine if they’d been willing to believe him and make his descriptors into a graphic like that above. It would not have been dishonest, it's what I just found, and could have made it into The PentaCon along with Lagasse, Brooks, Turcios, and Paik, who were interviewed at this same time. Was the north path meant to be 5X corroborated to fit the ‘penta’ theme, but the team was too dense to get the fifth Beatle up on stage? Am I going to be forced to include Sucherman in my vast disinfo operation hypothesis when he wasn’t even used? Or am I just reading too much into this odd coincidence of imprecisions and something more like my middle guess is close enough to what he’s describing after all?
---
Above Top Secret.com - I quit the forum after this.
Ranke's surreal response at the CIT forum: What the hell? Although the bolstering ad hominems were fully anticipated behavior, a lashing-out as with any cornered, wounded animal, I never expected his core argument to be this stupid and ironically surreal.

"The most obvious contradiction here in Sucherman's account should be that 2:00 is NOT a view out of the passenger window no matter how you slice it."
Ummm, except the way of slicing it that makes most sense to me and is accurate to his account, that places 2:00 exactly as a view of impact to the right with no trees in the way.
"Clocks are never horizontal and this is not how normal people interpret the analogy of direction from time!"
Umm, except the original clock, the sundial, which uses the same principle normal people use for locating other ground objects relative to themselves. As the creator of The PentaCon, Ranke is not an expert on how normal people think, and his system makes no sense. Maybe that's what his momma taught him, and if so then perhaps that's what he honestly thought he should do. Personally I'm not fooled, but good move on Ranke's part putting forward this silly explication.

2 comments:

bileduct said...

Hey Adam,

Staying involved with this crap was taking too much time and sanity from my life (even in few weeks), so I just come to your site every week or so to check out the latest bullshit happenings.

This one really takes the cake though.

"Clocks are never horizontal and this is not how normal people interpret the analogy of direction from time!"

That's utterly hilarious. Utterly, utterly hilarious.

It's amazing that he can say that with such authority. But that's one of the methods that make them so successful, isn't it? The majority of people my age (early 30's) remember very little of our high school education and will generally believe anything represented as fact with a little authority.

"But as usual Larson takes his wild obfuscation to the next level and applies this 2:00 claim to a HORIZONTAL clock as if Sucherman would have had a point of view from a satellite!"

"weird surrealist horizontal clock"

That's fucking amazing.

Do you think that Ranke actually believes what he is saying? He must be a few screws loose because his statement is verifiably false and I can't imagine someone would go to those lengths to attack a position rather than just saying "hey, maybe he just got the direction wrong".

"If you are intellectually honest"

My god, man.

It's sad because there's no intellectual honesty in his position. He has just decided what he thinks is right and gets it hopelessly wrong, and then speaks with ridicule, authority and confidence that influences people to his thinking because they are too dumb to do any thinking for themselves.

You know, like the idiots who say WT1 & 2 fell faster than gravity's pull despite the fact that there are clearly chunks of the building falling at a greater rate than the collapse.

If you say it firmly enough people will believe it.

Hilarious.

Caustic Logic said...

Staying involved with this crap was taking too much time and sanity from my life (even in few weeks), so I just come to your site every week or so to check out the latest bullshit happenings.

Yep. Sanity is slowly nibbled at but that's manageable, but Time is gone immediately and never returns... I'm winding it down myself. It's been like wrestling with jellyfish, no good grip possible and the neurotoxins are getting to me.

This one really takes the cake though.

Thanks, I thought so. I expected him to just try and dismiss me without specific rebuttals, which I didn't see any of open. But he found this, which made it funny.

Do you think that Ranke actually believes what he is saying? He must be a few screws loose because his statement is verifiably false and I can't imagine someone would go to those lengths to attack a position rather than just saying "hey, maybe he just got the direction wrong".

IF he was gonna say anything, I suspected it MIGHT be that, but again, he did the surprise move. No, I don't think he believes that or much else he says. Or Aldo, or PFT or any of these clowns. That question really cuts right to the chase in a way few 'Truthers' would dare... as I said elsewhere to Ranke "you either have incredible discipline in this charade, or else, wow... MK Ultra-level mind problems." And where would someone get such mind problems OR such discipline? Not for me to say...

If you say it firmly enough people will believe it.

I wish I could disagree with you there - but keeping in mind as you know how ridiculous and unfounded their theory really is by THEIR own evidence (which is their sole claim to fame to people who praise them for 'hitting the streets' but ignore how they abuse it all after) , Reprehensor's poll at 911 Blogger (NOT the home of dummies alone) is currently running 55% to 45% in favor of the flyover.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15478

What would they get in a LCF poll? 90%? 95? Sadlarious.