Wednesday, April 23, 2008

PROOF THAT CIT WAS MANIPULATED?

PROOF THAT CIT WAS MANIPULATED?
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!”

THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE VIDEO WAS MANIPULATED in any meaningful way.

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.

6 comments:

Craig said...

Boy your conspiracy theory keeps growing!

A lot of people were in on this massive government sponsored plot to contradict their own story that was carried out exactly as reported weren't they Larson?

Is Steve Chaconas a plant too?
(oh yeah that darn east side claim also proves a military deception!)

Look at you with your big bold fonts trying to minimize real evidence and replace it with illogical speculation that is incorrect on its face.

Barbara had NOTHING to do with our approval to film. That was a young public relations guy with the Navy who we never met and who had no clue or concern about exactly what we were filming. We had no contact with Barbara beyond our first trip at all.


We provide hard evidence proving a military deception.

You provide ridiculous illogical speculation in desperate defense of your unadulterated faith in the government story and to fuel your admitted ego driven obsession with us.

That's right......your admitted "ego" driven "obsession".

Dye marker! lol

Caustic Logic said...

you offer what you have admitted are 'fabricated deceptions,' based on 'evidence that's just handed to us by mysterious insiders.' no, that was a dream where you admitted that wasn't it? well admission or no it's seeming that's the case. thanks for another comment, was afraid i'd seen the last. any revelations that change my observations will be noted. still nothing proven, just another odd aspect that' s been bugging me a while, and 3 more pieces on you guys - eastman and lagasse parts 3 and 4 and a refutation of one aspect only of the eop claim. no firm promises but i plan to be done with you after that. [keyboard broken btw no shift or enter] oh and thanks for the parenting advice...

Caustic Logic said...

i was being sarcastic on the advice thing, tho it may have accidental value. edited message and response ;
-- 'Are you sure Jamal really had "massive perspective error" as opposed to being in on your massive disinfo conspiracy?'

no i'm not certain. but he seems honest and the exact magnitude of the 'massive' error isn't so sure. i don't know where the plane exactly was by fdr - ins errors up to 1/2 mile are common i hear.

-- 'None of our claims are limited to any "insider" and all claims are verified multiple times from multiple sources.'

'the government released data that we KNOW was manipulated and can prove it with simple testimony from the Citgo manager.'
i'm sorry, i missed the other sources for this claim of yours. this is the only claim i tried to address here and your response does not explain this claim.

Craig said...

A convenience store manager is not an "insider".

She is merely the person who would know best whether or not the removed security camera was online on 9/11.

Her testimony is evidence and this information is backed up by our (former) main detractor.

Your hilarious claim that she is really a deep cover disinfo government operative is not evidence.

We provide multiple lines of independent evidence proving a military deception on multiple fronts.

All of this flies in the face of your completely unsupported, wild, goofy as hell disinfo conspiracy theory that you cling to out of desperation to protect your ego driven obsession and dismiss the hard evidence we present.

Caustic Logic said...

- 'A convenience store manager is not an "insider".'

faith based argument

- 'She is merely the person who would know best whether or not the removed security camera was online on 9/11.'

understood she's the one who'd know and all that, but 'merely' is a leap on your part. dig into her brain and all the meetings she had before you and prove she's 'merely' a manager. c'mon, with your brain scanning device you seem to have...

- 'Her testimony is evidence and this information is backed up by our (former) main detractor.'

it's circumstantial uncorroborated evidence from imo a questionable source. pickering did what to back up her words other than pass them on?

- 'Your hilarious claim that she is really a deep cover disinfo government operative is not evidence.'

good call. it's not evidence, but rather an interpretation of the evidence pickering provided. you have yours, i have mine, and no yours is not proven fact, it's an interpretation.

- 'We provide multiple lines of independent evidence proving a military deception on multiple fronts.'

hey, you repeated just enough times i finally believe it - not. when each 'line' is sketched this faint, and you got so many going all over the place, it's really just a giant scribble that you've assembled.

- 'All of this flies in the face of your completely unsupported, wild, goofy as hell disinfo conspiracy theory that you cling to out of desperation to protect your ego driven obsession and dismiss the hard evidence we present.'

name just one light pole planter, tree pruner, pole scuffer, door denter, generator mauler OR pusher, fence-ripper, debris planter, explosive masonry installer, or something like that required for your ...erm, goofy ... theory, with direct irrefutable evidence, if you can.

JUST ONE and I will approve the comment. otherwise you've had your say.

Caustic Logic said...

And what the hell? Speaking of naming one suspect...
You started out

"Boy your conspiracy theory keeps growing!

A lot of people were in on this massive government sponsored plot ..."

I told you a while back I thought Barbara was in on it. You said wow, the list grows... three witnesses and a manager. And now I add... a manager! In a post about how much of this story hinges on this ONE person, and you say wow, what a big vast conspiracy!

when people are asked to be IN a conspiracy they might ask what it entails. You would have us believe however many people - almost certainly hundreds, maybe a thousand or more - were involved in killing the passengers elsewhere, faking and planting all the physical damage, altering all the data and lying or organizing lying witnesses, and all of these people all remain silent after they learn it was part of the cover-up of mass murder... i mean if you were the guy who tore up the generator a day before 9/11 and possed up the pushing crew just before the building blew up and they used that as evidence of a plane - but you knew it was you - no rash of mysterious suicides even, that I've heard of.

I propose that a few people were coaxed to SAY SOME THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE to representatives of a widely-reviled group (9/11 Truthers who make Lagasse sick) to mess them up... and this is considered by you insane? And you're gonna keep messing things up until everyone believes Lagasse's impossible scenario first offered as a prank but co-opted and magnified as a master-prank?

That Grace Slick reference was perfect, dude. And the white knight is talking backwards, every backwards step of the way, sarcasm and irony and inversion, at full volume without even an attempt any more to conceal the fact. black is white, lies are truth, and you think you can sit there and throw these right back on others and manufacture mental illnesses for your opponents?

You either have incredible self-discipline in this charade or ... wow. MK Ultra-level mind problems.

Now my conspiracy theory could well be wrong. I don't even really care if that's so, it's just my proposal, nebulous as it is, for how all this insanity and you started. For the record and all that. Your response is quite telling, of course.