Friday, May 30, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 29 2008
updates 8/21

As my previous post on supposed Pentagon flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts illustrated, there are two main ways of reading his sighting of a silver plane near the Pentagon – before or after the violent event there. The after interpretation seems completely self-evident to CIT, who cite this passage from an interview they recently did with him: Roberts: “Upon impact I stepped out the little booth that I was in […stepped out, and saw the plane above…] Marquis: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?" Roberts: "Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It was two aircraft, that’s for sure." They also point to his 2001 LoC interview: “As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like, it was almost timed, for preciseness.”

How could this mean anything other than the plane that ‘hit’ his building just before he saw ‘another plane’? I saw this right off the bat – perhaps ‘the plane’ was United 175, ‘the building’ it hit was the WTC south tower, and he saw it on CNN. Considering that he may have clarified the plane crash was more local to CIT (which I’m not convinced of from what they’ve released so far) I wondered if “his story has voluntarily changed since '01 or if you're leading or distorting. Because he was clearly seeing it all on TV is his old interview. I even know what channel he was watching.” That was a bit of cocky hyperbole on my part. In fact, all I have is an explanation how this alternate scenario is quite possible. Admittedly, there are gaps involved in this interpretation, and some speculation is required, but it goes up now for what it’s worth.

The obvious problem most would see with this is if he saw Flight 175 hitting the WTC on TV meant it was 9:03 since everyone aired it live - and the hit was apparently immediately before seeing the ‘other’ plane outside – which all agree came in/over at about 9:37. Further confusing things, Roberts originally timed his sighting at 9:11 or 9:12, between the two times and fitting neither scenario very well. Since chronology is key here, I decided to figure out which news broadcast he might be watching. At the risk of reading too much into his described timeline of awareness, I took his descriptors literally and have reasoned that he was watching CNN’s coverage. I cross checked against CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox News coverage and found that CNN is the only of the five that fits well enough to simply splice it into his 2001 interview as I’ve done below.
CNN video starts 8:48 am, from the Television Archive.

Prior to 8:49 am: “I stopped at the south loading dock and I relieved one [audio gap]”
Later clues in the interview indicate he was at the dock preparing for a 10:45 heliport assignment (outbound, not Bush), takes a portion of guard’s shift to give him a bathroom break, and was thus responsible for security at that area. “[A]nd as I was sitting there, there was a TV that’s right there, and uh…” I’m guessing it was tuned to CNN.

8:49 – CNN is the first to announce the attack in New York at almost exactly 8:49, about three minutes after the first crash and three minutes ahead of the other networks. Maybe the break the other guard called was to call relatives in New York, which would put Roberts in charge around 8:51. It might take a minute or two for him to fully pay attention to the news.

8:54 - CNN airs a witness who’d just come out of the subway and described what seemed to her a planeless bombing of the building. “[A]ll of a sudden the news flash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed.” Or perhaps he just meant attacked. It was unclear to many people until they saw the second plane hit.

8:55-9:03 - The reporters and witnesses seem to believe a plane was responsible, as reported by a CNN producer who saw it, and speculated on fuselage buried inside. Roberts would become aware of this from 8:55 on but he has not yet seen a plane hit a building, and it still seemed a possible accident. “And first thing that came to my mind was New York City because I’m from New York and I start thinking about my parents.”

9:03 - The second impact was captured live and broadcast live but only registered clearly as an explosion of unknown origin. The video feed does show the plane but only for a split-second before an awkward cut. The editor apparently saw the plane enter just as he/she hit enter, said ‘whoa!’ and cut back but only upon the explosion. The on-site reporter didn’t see the plane, the anchors missed the flash of it, and the newsroom remained unsure about the plane impact for a couple of minutes, wondering if it was a secondary explosion from the fuselage inside the north tower.

9:04-:05 - “I looked again, and they said that it was another plane coming on the television.” No one ever broadcast warning of ‘another plane coming,’ so I’d guess he meant the reports of a possible second plane that started “coming on the television” at 9:04, well after the mysterious ‘second explosion’ of 175’s impact. At 9:05 they aired a witness to a second plane coming in and apparently hitting the tower who talks into the 9:06 slot. Until this time Roberts has not seen the second impact that so effected everyone.

9:04-9:05? - “And then my Sergeant, Sergeant Woolridge, Woody, he called and he said hey Rob listen, we’re going to threat con Delta.” I’m not sure when Threatcon Delta would be announced, but shortly after the second strike, around 9:04 or 9:05, makes sense, since this is when everyone realized there was coordinated attack underway. This would be a quick call, perhaps one minute starting at, say, 9:05:30.

9:06:30 - CNN’s coverage first clearly shows the impact of Flight 175, once they realized they had it and got it back up, at about 9:06:30. “As I hang up the phone [I looked back at the TV and saw?] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like, it was almost timed, for preciseness.” It’s also possible the call started at 9:06 and ran longer and he saw nothing until a later yet replay at 9:07, 9:10, etc… He saw the plane hit the building and knew we were under attack. The Pentagon could be a target. The TV stops defining his timeline here, and it gets less coherent.

9:11? - “So as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot. This was about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning.” Now, this time roughly fits with the preceding timeline, if a bit late for a 9:06 ‘impact’ followed by instant action. Maybe he’s rearranged his memory a little bit, or is summarizing. But the problem is clear – at 9:12 Flight 77 was way back over West Virginia. Did he see a different plane (‘another’ after the one on TV) at this time? Was there a 20-minute nervous wait he forgot to mention before the plane came into view? Or is his given time just grossly wrong (that time might stick in your head - 9:11 on 9/11) and he’s seeing either the flyover plane or another plane in the area after the impact? I’m just not sure.

If we move the impact of the plane from reality to TV, then his account would totally lack a clear impact description, which would be odd if he were outside watching. No plane disappearing behind the corner, no explosion sound, no fireball, smoke, nothing. All he says is right after seeing this plane, "then there was dust - stuff coming from the ceiling, and you could hear people scream.” Is ‘dust from the ceiling’ code for smoke from the roof? Or was it referring to the ceiling inside the loading dock? This clearly indicates sometime after the event, and everything from there on agrees, describing evacuation and injuries.

So there's no clear transition point from pre-to-post-impact in this scenario. That's a problem, but remember, this is eyewitness memory we're dealing with, which can get confused on the timeline due to the trauma of the event. Did he go back in after seeing the plane? Eyewitness testimony works well on the large-scale of crowds, where we can track overall patterns, but gets fuzzier at the individual level.

At any rate, that's another interpretation; if not as brilliant as I first thought, it's at least possible. CIT will need to thoroughly disprove this and other plausible scenarios before they can rightly claim their case is the sole possible way of reading it. Perhaps the rest of Roberts' interview will clear this all up as well as CIT says it will and make me look totally silly. But don't hold your breath. The original interview is ambiguous enough, and they assure us "it's a serious heavy blow to the detractors how he explained seeing the plane immediately after the explosion way back in 2001. It's such a heavy blow that they are STILL looking for ways to deny it and twist his account even though it's been archived and we recently confirmed and verified it with him direct." So we've heard, so we've heard.

ETA: Oh, and again, this is tackling what CIT always felt was the strongest part of Roosevelt's account. I don't claim at all to have debunked the after aspect. Remember too the weak parts of their take. From what he tells CIT, as Gravy and Farmer and others have noted, it’s a good fit for Flight 77. “It looked like it was silver in color," but he mentioned no markings, which indicate it was either right over him or at a good distance. It was not white like CIT's flyover jet with blue stripe and numbered tail. He saw it ‘over’ the south parking lot “around the lane one area,” so flying in an unspecified direction southwest of the Pentagon, if we take this as correct. It was ‘banking,' but not specifically ' away,' at near light pole level. It looked like Flight 77 and was in the right approximate area and correct altitude for 77's approach. If it were flying away on that path, the flyover plane would have had to double back in a near-180 degree turn over the Pentagon. But about the possibility of the maneuver he saw, Craig assures me “Frankly it doesn't matter with this one since he only witnessed the plane AFTER the explosion and he is quite clear about this.” Au contrair, impossible maneuvers could not have happened after any event, aside from a wormhole opening and suspending the laws of physics. Something is quite wrong here when he has to be wrong about the color, the 9:11 time, and about the location of 'lane one' in the lot he was so proud to be responsible for.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 28 2008 4pm
updates/edits: 5/29 1am

Reversals and Revisions Regarding Roberts
It’s really quite ironic how all of this is shaping up. Just two weeks ago CIT announced they finally have a flyover witness in the form of DPS officer Roosevelt Roberts (with more to be announced). In an interview with the Team (Marquis and Ranke), he described “another plane” after the explosive impact/flyover of the ‘first.’ This is taken by CIT as fitting their second-plane flyover cover story meme very well, but it was readily evident that his account requires an extremely impossible hairpin turn over the Pentagon to get to the south parking lot as he literally describes. Oh, and he describes the plane as silver, not white as CIT have decided the flyover plane was. A lot of others did too, perhaps due to ‘reflective paint.’ But anyway, Roberts saw a plane flying somewhere after the explosion.

Then another Roberts, debunker Mark (aka Gravy) quickly reached a very different conclusion, that CIT were “utterly misusing the testimony of an eyewitness in uniform in order to claim the opposite of what that man told him.” In reality, Roberts told Clout host Richard Greene, the still-unnamed officer was an ‘official path’ observer:

“The witness had a clear view of flight 77's flight path towards the building, which he describes perfectly: a silver, commercial plane, about 50 feet high, by the light poles (which are at the cloverleaf).
It would have been impossible for him to have seen a "flyover," since the wall of the Pentagon towered more than 70 feet over him and the plane would have been on the opposite side of the building.”

This indeed fits his description of the plane and its location best and would make him a south path witness; there are many others like this who are not clear enough for CIT, but hey, what is? Where it got really ironic is when a week and a day after their first airing, ‘CIT detractor’ John Farmer released his long-awaited clarification that there was a north-path flyover (?) as well as south path impact. He had been working on it for a while and called on Officer Roberts, as CIT did, as a post-explosion/impact plane witness, but in this case supporting an actual second plane:

“Add to this another DPS Officer, Roosevelt Roberts who in a 2001 audio interview claims he ran out from the loading dock near the Pentagon southern lot and saw another
plane flying low over the south lot, and there is no doubt that AAL77 was not alone.”

Farmer had been aware of this account for a while and thought of it as an account of a plane after the impact explosion. After listening to CIT’s unexpected second interview, however, he issues this update: “I have had to remove DPS Officer Roberts as a second plane witness. If his CIT follow-up interview is accurate, he most likely saw AAL77 as it came down from the Citgo area and across Route 27. His account needs further research and clarification.”

It’s an odd reversal, and perhaps more strategic than natural, but Farmer was thinking of Roberts as basically a flyover witness until CIT brandished him as a flyover witness based on new evidence that convinced Farmer to de-list him as one. How about that… Gravy, BCR, and Caustic Logic all on the same page and CIT on the other. How can one and the same set of clues be so differently read? It’s all in the where and the when, and this where CIT can help.

Roberts’ accounts (2001 and 2008) have him working security at the south parking lot loading dock. This seems to most likely indicate the large cargo facility attached to the south end of the Pentagon, just north of the main parking area south of the building. Gravy, Farmer, and I seem to be going off this same presumed location. The Citizen Researchers are less sure, of course, and seem to like the vagueness. Even after verification Marquis was left wondering if perhaps the witness “is refering to south parking on the north side of the Pentagon, near the loading docks on that side,” and ‘the lane one area’ for all he knows means “the east end of south parking,” whatever ‘south parking’ means. If CIT has any contrary evidence they can present it, but after looking around I’m fairly sure the lane one area means the west edge of the south end lot. Look at this graphic [r-click, new window for larger readable view]: Do these numbers correspond to lanes? Indeed. Note the lane numbers on north parking – 41-63, with a large and labeled “lane 64”oriented differently and running along the others. By this, lane one is furthest southwest, numbered counter-clockwise from there. Note the location of lane 10; Roberts said later in his 2001 interview (5:20) “The Defense protective services regrouped at the 395 uh, at lane 10,” which makes sense since this is near an underpass, like this other just east of there (at lane 19), where Pentagon personnel can be seen gathered just south of I-395.
But this is not the main point - whatever his location, or the plane’s location or direction, the problem with this account as presented that conflicts with the “official story” is the timeline. Ranke prefaced the account’s first airing “I’ll set it up – he was in the Pentagon, and after the moment of the explosion, he was on the loading dock on the south parking lot. He’s a Pentagon police officer. He ran out to the loading dock and saw the plane continue on over the building. So this is his account just after he heard the explosion.” Marquis later clarified in response to Gravy that this witness “was inside the Pentagon and on the phone, hung up then he heard the explosion of what he thought was the "impact" of the "first plane". He then runs 7 steps out to the edge of the loading dock (he was on the east end) where he see's a silver commercial aircraft […]”
Ranke added that “the pure beauty of this flyover witness account is that everything he says about the plane happened AFTER the explosion!”

Okay, so CIT is quite clear on when (even as they’re unsure on where), but what does Roberts himself say? The record is not entirely clear. We have his partial interview by CIT in 2008 [excerpt], which says nothing about time, except implied when he says "upon impact" he stepped outside and saw “another plane.” That is, it makes some sense to presume he meant in addition to the one that just impacted. But this is not conclusively proven. We also have his 2001 LOC interview which CIT feels corroborates their take and which Farmer felt sufficient to make him a post-impact witness. However, in that record there are conflictimg timeline clues and an audio gap just in the middle of the pivotal words “As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building.” Interestingly, the LoC site says Roberts "talks about watching the plane before impact." I have reason to believe (which I’ll present soon) that “the plane” was NOT what he thought was Flight 77, and the building it hit was NOT the one he was at, and the “other plane” he saw was in fact Flight 77 on its way in before impact.

So, CIT: Does this sound crazy? You can feel free to share any where and when clues that shut me right down if you are able to do so. What else did he say to you to clarify that his sighting was after the ‘plane’ crash at the Pentagon?
Transcripts for reference:

2001 LoC interview, partial:
“I stopped at the south loading dock and I relieved one [audio gap] and as I was sitting there, there was a TV that’s right there, and uh… all of a sudden the news flash came across the TV and said the World Trade Center has been bombed. And first thing that came to my mind was New York City because I’m from New York and I start thinking about my parents. I looked again, and they said that it was another plane coming on the television. And then my Sergeant, Sergeant Woolridge, Woody, he called and he said hey Rob listen, we’re going to threat con Delta. As I hang up the phone [audio gap] the plane hit the building. It all came at the same time, watching the TV, it was like, it was almost timed, for preciseness. So as I hung up the phone and I ran to the center of the dock and I looked up, and I saw another plane flying around the south parking lot. This was about like 9:12, 9:11 in the morning. And then there was dust - stuff coming from the ceiling, and you could hear people scream. So what I did was I turned around, and I drew out my weapon, I didn’t know what was going on, I thought we was being invaded, I didn’t know what was happening. So I ran back into south loading and I start forcing people out of the building.”

2008 CIT interview excerpt, complete:
Roberts: “["upon impact"?] I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe only seven steps away from there so it’s just extrememly close. You could see that plane just as clear as day. Couldn’t miss it.”
Marquis: “What color was it? Do you remember?”
Roberts: “It was, to me, at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.”
Marquis: “Like silver in color, but you saw it over the south parking lot?”
Roberts: “Right. Around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the light poles like – had to be no more than 50 feet, or less than a hundred feet."
Marquis: "Wow. Are you 100% certain it was a jet, an actual jet plane?"
Roberts: “Commercial aircraft.”
Marquis: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?"
Roberts: "Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It it was two aircraft, that’s for sure."

Monday, May 26, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 26 2008

This is a belated recognition, and a tip-off for those even more behind than I, of another category of useful new evidence brought to us by researcher John Farmer. The US Army Center of Military History conducted several hundred interviews with military personnel, in 2001 and 2002, about what they experienced and felt regarding the Pentagon attack. Many of these have now been obtained by Farmer through FOIA requests starting late last year. 33 so far are available in scanned PDF and MSWord format at, each with a brief description.

These include eyewitnesses to the plane’s attack – where it flew, how it hit, and all that – as well as those who only gathered peripheral clues and who saw and dealt with the aftermath. Some of them are already being buzzed about; they figure into Farmer's more recent findings and are starting to be used in online arguments by myself and others. Notably, NEIT 567 is said by CIT to be a north path flyover witness (a remarkable find for them). She and others are discussed by the team in a thread at their forum, with the usual emphasis on adjectives they like read how they like. They’re ahead of me here; I’ve only looked at a few, but so far they seem to generally fit what happened, and I see little or no cause for alarm or odd speculation.

Farmer is also pursuing another similar avenue; the Navy Historical Center who has their own list of interviews, but so far it seems all he’s gotten is the index of them. From the Navy he also has obtained, available at the previous link, the After Action Report from Port Mortuary, where victim remains were identified. Very relevant to the discussion of who died at the Pentagon and how their remains were identified.

Monday, May 19, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 19 2008
updated 5/22 1am

Last Thursday night, May 15, saw a remarkable happening of Fraudsterism via the relatively high-profile venue of the Air America radio network and Richard Greene’s Clout program, of which I’d never heard until two days before the show. This tip-off, brought to my attention by an e-mail from a friend, was a press release by Pilots For 9/11 Truth.

05/13/08 - We hope you'll join us regarding the issues surrounding the Pentagon Attack this Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 9pm Eastern on Air America Radio with your host Richard Greene, Co-Produced by Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder, Pilots For 9/11 Truth.
Guest will be:
Craig Ranke from Citizen Investigation Team
Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder, Pilots For 9/11 Truth
Kevin Barret
Individuals supporting the govt story – TBA

[emph mine - original posting]
Background on how Greene and the Pilots hooked up back in March.

For this "Week of Truth" installment, the TBA part wound up meaning, it seems, ‘tiny blocks allowed’ for the only debunker to both be invited and respond, Ron Weick of Hardfire. He took his invitation to a JREF thread but scored no supporters. To hear Balsamo talk they were cringing in fear but really it looks more like skulking and/or sighing in exasperation. I had several good reasons for not getting directly involved, but did try to get a message through to Greene. I urged him to have CIT and PFT on with their promised groundbreaking revelation, but to be aware of my findings about their previous findings. I put the ball in his court, where it already was. If Greene doesn't research his guests, or ignores that they are promoting hoaxes, that's his own problem.

On the other side the list of ‘truthseekers’ invited for the program eventually expanded to include Barbara Honegger, Col. George Nelson, and even the eminent David Ray Griffin was able to take some time to elaborate his decrepit, myopic opinion of the Pentagon attack. Barrett apparently backed up to make room and did not appear, which helped, but… CIT's Aldo Marquis later complained of this over-booking "we are being drowned out. Two many chiefs and not enough Indians. This is why we will fail. We have incredibly important evidence and Ron Weik and Barbara Honegger get more air time than Craig and Rob did. Sucks. All old info all bunk. Whatever, you guys heard it. We've got a flyover witness(es)." [He's not exactly sure if it's plural yet.]Update: the Clout flyover witness

I too was mostly looking to hear the portion where the original guests were featured and this revelation triumphantly ejaculated, but unable to catch it live I had to rely on the later-posted audio links. Ranke and Balsamo were pushed to the last block, the link for which was the only one that didn't work (and still doesn't four days later). Due to delays in getting the segment in question (see below), the review has been delayed. I'll post it separately.

Clout Links:
- Clout episode blog page Entire show minus final segment with CIT and PFT available for listen here, as well as 200+ comments (several by myself and "Hetware" it seems, have been deleted with no explanation).
- Entire show in compressed (poor) wma format, but in one convenient zip file. Provided by Pilots For 9/11 Truth. (theirs is part 1 here, understandably.)

Tuesday, May 13, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 13 2008

I just finished what I thought was the final update of my Frustrating Fraud namebase, (157 names) but missed this very important addition until just now. To thank I have a noteworthy paper written up by Italian blogger Henry 62 that looks at the Pentagon damage and rules out a missile or probably bombs inside. From this paper I've learned that Fidel Castro was among those promoting the no-757-at-the-Pentagon missile meme. After almost 50 years of being a professional thorn in the side of the American system, inciting useful crises in the south and surviving hundreds of cartoonish failed assassination plots, he also took the no-plane bait. On September 11 2007, just five months before his death, the old, old Cuban strongman wrote an article called The Empire and Lies in which, AFP reported, it was made clear that:

"Castro does not believe that an airplane crashed into the Pentagon, nor does he believe that any airplane passengers died. "Only a projectile could have created the geometrically round orifice created by the alleged airplane," he said, voicing regret that the truth will never be revealed."

The old guy obviously had internet. I was publishing at the time as well. How did he miss me and I miss him? So it's 158 now, and I may as well gather a few more names for another and final expansion...


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 13 2008
updates/edits 5/14 1am

Semantical note: To avoid any misunderstanding as has happened in the past, over interpretations of the ‘normal’ meaning of various key terms, I am taking ‘cookie-cutter’ as meaning an unnaturally similar shape between the damage and the damager and ‘cartoonish’ as similarly meaning unrealistic, in defiance of normal principles and dynamics of the alleged event. Examples: Ranke dismissing my “sarcastic little list of cookie cutter yet anomalous damage” that “means nothing” in the face of their growing list of “evidence” against the impact. Ranke again: “Now we know why the physical damage is so anomalous and questionable yet cookie cutter in many ways.” [source] Proceed.
The image below has been offered about lately by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) for the ‘anomalous’ impact damage at the Pentagon’s fa├žade. This useful and pretty accurate resource, based on a montage by Pier Paulo Murru (who also did their famous flyover animation), clears the smoke and debris to let us see the structural situation. CIT has improved on it with their red outline that seems to denote the intact structure, but ignoring the first floor columns and non-columns entirely.
CIT’s Craig Ranke noted beneath it at one post ”Just looking at the initial anomalous and admittedly "counter-intuitive" damage to the building (and lack there of) and it becomes clear that it was not caused by a missile or a plane.” CIT, at least, feel the evidence is counter-intuitive because it’s absolutely wrong for a 757 impact and a better fit for on-site (or in-site) explosives. In the past they’ve argued it doesn’t match a plane impact at all in key ways, like with the lack of tailfin damage, or foundation damage, which they assert. When others point out how the traces of what happened in fact line up quite well with such an impact, CIT do admit that was the intent of the operation and that it was somewhat successful. Aldo and Craig will not tell you about the 16-foot hole, and they do admit to some plane parts inside (pre-planted). In fact in some cases, which we’ll look at here briefly, the problem with the evidence seems to be that it matches the impact story too well. There’s always something wrong.

The damage shown above is what CIT ally Avenger meant when he said “the plane supposedly flew into the Pentagon wall diagonally, but that cleanly cut impact hole is NOT diagonal.” [emph. mine] I’m guessing by ‘diagonal’ he meant with a wing bank, but indeed, the damage seems all horizontal – almost like weak panels removed from a building with a strong horizontal frame. Craig praised him anyway: “Leave it to Avenger to cut to the chase with pure, basic, factual knowledge! This is the most simple and brilliant point that virtually everyone ignores. Particularly the 757 impact "scientists" who say that all the physical damage "lines up perfectly". It does NOT. Sure it's in a straight line but it is ridiculously cookie cutter and anomalous.” [emph. mine - source] I still can't fully understand what this statement means, but it does appear surreal, or rather fragmented and cubist, almost like something was breaking the realistic damage up into rectangular areas of varying destruction – extremely low Atari bit-rate in the op planning blueprints? Or steel-reinforced columns and beams?

The best part is when we get to talking about the faked or so-called engine damage, thee manifestations of which were compiled by Ranke as seen at left (with engine face and words added by me). He has focused most intently on the famous spot where the left engine chipped the retaining wall of the ground-level vent structure just before impact (top photo). “If you accept the notion that this damage was caused by an RB-211 you open up a whole host of other problems with the physical evidence. First consider the cartoon like curvature of the damage as if it was perfectly punched out by the bottom of the engine” [emph. mine] I’m not exactly sure what sort of realistic shape he’d expect here where a heavy, fast-moving, round object is said to have impacted a weak concrete wall. A jagged triangle with spirals of rebar? Are we sure it wasn't just the very edge of the engine, and the shape of the damage was even larger, determined by the concrete itself? What more does Ranke know about this than I? It seems to me of all things hit, this is the most likely to behave like a cookie, considering the conceptual similarity of dough and concrete.

A while back he expanded the theme to include the bottom photos; “It seems the perpetrators (and some 757 impact conspiracy theorists) expected us believe that similar cartoon like curves were created by the engines on the fence to the generator trailer AND the tree up by the light poles: Unfortunately for the official story this cookie cutter anomalous damage raises more questions than it answers.” It does raise questions like was the tree (middle) chopped by the right engine’s turbofan blades, or burned by its heat or both? Or why would the fakers do it too cartoonish like that? The tree damage is a supiciously perfect fit; relative to the probably irrelevant/easily-faked VDOT camera pole damage and approximate height and nature of damage to light pole 1, a wingtip and engine placement like this is illustrated, matching the official story with cartoonish precision you might say. Another good question raised by this alleged damage is why did they tear the fence in such a perfect curve (bottom)? Everyone knows that actual chain-link fence damage is jagged and angular,like this, causing the fence to lose tensile strength and slump into nice smooth curving shapes like this. Oh, wait… now who exactly has ever said that curve was caused directly by the engine?

The diesel generator trailer said to be impacted by the high-banking right engine just before impact also bears the stamp of Disney. It was featured prominently in Integrated Consultants’ animation of the official scenario, as seen above, with the engine just punching a nice curved hole in it like it was a block of tofu. I doubt that many really believe this is what happened - it's a cartoon. But the photos of the generator (below, bottom photo) do look a bit like this, with a very large deformation on a scale of an airliner engine and with a curve reminiscent of one. CIT co-conspirator Aldo Marquis explained why this was not evidence for an airliner engine: “Did you ever watch the video of the trailer on fire before it was put out and left the damage you see? If not you should. Look at the damage, it reflects the thin metal sheet of the trailer MELTING into [an] even bend. So the plane did not cause that, the resulting FIRE DID.”[source]
At the time I conceded that the actual curve seen in this metal could not be caused directly by an RB-211 engine unless it was dropped from above, but maintained it was apparently centered around some extensive pre-fire damage that might be compatible with an engine impact. I saw the Pugh video of the raging fire, and even one better – a photo from even before the blaze got bad, taken by Steve Riskus within five minutes tops of the event (middle). It shows a missing area and a damage profile that’s actually quite similar to the post-melting photos, if rougher and shinier, like fresh torn metal. (Note also the large piece of debris off to the left - is this part of what was removed in the collision?) It started out rectangular (top) and even before the fire took hold was knocked out or pre-fabbed almost the same as it looked later when it appeared to many that an engine passed through it like butter. In short: the fire did nothing to this damage but soften it. But as Craig once simmered it down, "the bend in the top corner to the trailer was likely simply caused by the raging fire melting it. […] the damage to the generator trailer and the cookie cutter curved damage to the fence going all the ground makes even less sense."[source]
And finally, another cookie-cutter anomaly that I discovered and that Craig and Aldo have glossed over: the vent door panel beyond the chipped wall, bearing another improbable cartoonish curve. It would seem these doors were propped and locked open at impact and remained so afterwards, but in a different position and with one side swept down severely at the corner, roughly on the scale of a RB211 engine. How convenient! In fact it looks almost melted, like a lot of energy was transferred into it suddenly by some massive physical force. Pure Hanna Barberra.

So among the reasons to dismiss evidence of a 757 impact we find “the fact that the curvature in the fence, retaining wall, and tree is clearly cookie cutter and anomalous showing blatant signs of pre-fabrication.” [source] And of course there are the other problems that don’t match, the wrong data that rules out something, and the fact that the plane flew north of the Citgo and wherever else radar didn't show it, and flew over instead of impacting, and the choice is clear. If the cutter fits, you must acquit.
Cookie Identification Team: "Yes we had a cookie cutter seen in the vicinity, at least five cookies of the right shape, and many witnesses who saw the cutter press into the gingerbread, at least for the final cookie, before their very eyes. But these gingerbread men are too perfect and cartoonish, which indicates they were prefabricated, and a few witnesses saw that cutter over by the sink as the dough was imprinted. Therefore it’s been proven the cuts were done some other way with advance means that can’t be proven or even narrowed-down. Culinary deception is proven!"

Monday, May 12, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 12 2008
last update 5/14 12am

Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) now promote four primary claims regarding the decoy aircraft that everybody thought hit the Pentagon; First and foremost is their original North of the Citgo (NoC) claim, which necessitates the pivotal but otherwise unproven OtP (Over the Pentagon) claim (my own acronym, the others are theirs). This is also supported by the Over-the-Navy Annex claim (ONA) explicitly offered by Paik with supports recently wrangled from other witness accounts. And then there’s the tangential but important East of the Potomac (EoP) aspect, which is at issue in this article. As CIT co-founder Craig Ranke recently said “In addition to proving that the plane was on the north side of the former citgo gas station we can now also prove that it came from east of the Potomac River and actually flew over DC skies! This is absolutely fatal to the official flight path that never has the plane over DC skies at all.” [source]

I haven't tried so far to systematically debunk the EoP claim, perhaps out of fear that it would prove correct. When I finally decided to face my possible fear and finally tackle this case but found I cannot disprove it. It’s a strong enough case I don’t even feel like trying very hard, except on the one point I already did so with. I will have a fuller explanation of my general failure regarding EoP later, for now here is that one evidentiary support that I've looked at closely.

Ironically, this proof of the plane being over the river from where radar shows it is from - people whose job it was to watch where the radar was showing the plane. If CIT's reading here is correct, it would again prove the later-released radar data fraudulent, so it's a big deal. They cite the NORAD tapes, and a 09:35:41 call from Colin Scoggins at FAA’s Boston Center to Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) base “Huntress.” [transcribed from audio]

Boston (Scoggins): “Latest report, aircraft [inaudible] six miles southeast of the White House.”
Huntress: “Six miles southeast of the White House?”
Boston: “Yup. [to someone else] East? He's moving away?”
Huntress: “Southeast from the White House.”
Boston: “Aircraft is moving away.”
Huntress: “Moving away from the White House?”
Boston: “Yeah.…”
[…questions on ID…]
Boston: “If you wanna hold on a second, [inaudible] people down there looking.”
[Long pause – to someone else] “Where was that position?” [backround on Boston end, inaudible with emphasis on last syllable rhyming with yes.]
Boston: “Six.. six southwest, six southwest of the White House and deviating away.” [emph in original]
Huntress: “Deviating away. You don't have a type aircraft, you don't know who he is…”
Boston: “Nothing, nothing. We're over here in Boston so I have no clue. That—hopefully somebody in Washington would have better—information for you.”

The direction of the original deviation isn’t clear other than ‘away’ from the capitol, but CIT is quite confident in placing the plane southeast of there and moving west, eventually crossing the river due south of the capitol, and continuing to six miles away on the other side in time for the update 35 seconds later of it being SW (it was either flying very fast or the second report was much fresher than the first). An alternate guess is it was never east of the river, and the change from southeast to southwest was a correction of the same last reported position.

I could just stop there by offering that guess, but when I tried to earlier, Ranke rebuffed it by stating of the above dialog “that wasn't an accident. He even confirmed it and THEN came back with an update of it being SW which makes perfect sense.” [source] I cannot prove that this is a wrong interpretation; perhaps Colin really was watching the real, pre-alteration radar data when it symmetrically traversed the river. And supporting this possibility is the fact that, as Ranke points out, “Scoggins wasn't the only ATC to report a plane east of the river either.” Oh no, his claim is supported by Major Kevin Nasypany, NEADS mission-crew commander, also from the NORAD tapes:

Nasypany: ‘I got a aircraft six miles east of the White House! Get your fighters there as soon as possible!”
Unidentified: “That came from Boston?”
Nasypany: “‘We've got an aircraft deviating eight miles east of the White House right now.”

Notice that this report follows Scoggins’ by only 40 seconds and someone feels it may have been based on that info from Boston. Is it possible he’s just repeating the report cited above rather than independently confirming it? Is "eight miles” an anticipated distance, an error, or real info? Does east mean southeast, or had it moved north? Most interestingly, if we take this as independent confirmation, it shows that that plane was not only east of the Potomac, but also deviating further EoP, rather than towards the river to cross west as CIT feels happened next.

Perhaps it’s all a complex cover-up where they altered some parts of the record to hide the real plane while other parts are let through, to provide cover for something, or something. I can’t rule this out as a possibility, but my tentative alternate guess – for whatever it’s worth – is that the report Scoggins received had one error - southwest was reported as southeast, and both Scoggins and Nasypany just echoed this error. A bit of confusion is evident in what Nasypany said later to Vanity Fair’s Micheal Bronner: "Six miles south, or west, or east of the White House is—it's seconds [...] Airliners traveling at 400-plus knots, it's nothing. It's seconds away from that location." That is, they weren’t worried at the moment about which direction the hostile craft would have to fly for a few seconds to hit the White House – they were worried about how few seconds that was, and how to get fighters to that small area fast. They did sort out the error, if that's what it was, but the fighters didn't get there 'til far too late.  

Anyway, you can test this east-west error reading here: refer to this graphic of the radar flight path, marked roughly with lat-long cross-points from the FDR (corrected and approximate), and a 6-mile arc south and west from the White House. Then read the reports below, corrected. update: As explained in the comments below, 6 miles meant nautiical miles which - I think - is about 7 land miles. So note this - the red arc is set a bit too small.

Scoggins 9:35:41: “Latest report, aircraft [inaudible] six miles southwest of the White House.”
“Yup. West—he's moving away? Aircraft is moving away.”
“Six.. six southwest of the White House and deviating away.”
Nasypany 9:36:23: "I got a aircraft six miles [south]west of the White House! […]
We've got an aircraft deviating eight miles [south]west of the White House right now.”

One word, one dyslexic slip in the information chain, is all it takes to turn this into a brilliant indication that the above path is the one seen by radar controllers on 9/11. On the other hand, a different reading could, with a few complications, be found to support the EoP claim, which, again, I still cannot disprove.
Update: SPreston has used this "six miles southeast" evidence to say the FDR path is PROVEN a lie.:
"PROVEN: This Flight Path Crossed Over the Potomac, Over DC, and Six Miles Southeast of the White House [...] How come all the witnesses actually interviewed place the actual aircraft east of the Potomac and over Washington DC and 6 miles southeast of the White House and banking around Reagan National? "
None of the witnesses says this that I've seen. One has it looping around from the east (Chaconas and he alone) and this location and distance is not from any interviewed witness, but from the above-described possible error. Almost all other witnesses were west of the Potomac (a few just east as well but looking west). SP, help me out if I'm missing something! Comments open...

Monday, May 5, 2008


first posted April 20
last updated 5/5 1 am

At least at the CIT Forum I’m allowed to read any posted attacks against me, unlike at some other forums where one must register their computer with the owners to even read it, which I refuse to do. Craig got mad about my ‘attack’ on a witness he’s about to publish. They offered no link to the actual attack, as they don’t link to ‘disinfo’ and banned me from posting there for being disinfo, of course, as dis-disinfo would be called by disinfo.

He again resorted to my “ego-driven obsession” admission, which I injected into his quote repertoire intentionally as a dye marker to gauge when he really has nothing else to offer.
To prove I said this, he even finally offers a direct link to my 'disinfo.' I've seen it, and can document it. I make a bad point, they call me on it. He's wrong! Here's why. Then I consider that, reformulate and hit back... and suddenly it's either a fluffed-up bluff, an accusation of incoherency (what? I couldn’t hear ya! What?) or failing even that, it’s the ego/obsession thing, or perhaps I’m an “operative” if I’m dealing with Aldo.

And when that stops working it devolves further... PFFFFT and CIT are now so confident of their facts they have resorted to comments about my job, my appearance, my kitchen, and my girlfriend’s 10-year-old son. [link to their stupidity, which I always offer since I trust my readers to decide for themselves].

I was hoping to keep the kid out of all this, and I had a feeling of dread one night recently when I realized I had still been logged into his account when responding to one of Rob’s lying posts on my video page. I hoped he'd be mature enough to leave that alone, but got myself worked up worrying about it for reasons I can’t fully explain, and can’t expect Rob to understand. So of course he passed the link on to CIT who make an animated gif of me where Nick coaxed me to be in one his shorts – getting hit in the head with a ball of clay and falling down like a dork in my messy kitchen. They captioned this with witty lines about me being deceptive and knocked over by CIT’s evidence and shit like that. I chuckled a bit despite myself. They all had a great time, not playin, making fun of my hair and skinniness, whatever. [eh, see them there] Hahaha! I look like dork in my messy kitchen! This is okay since I did this earlier for CIT using Ranke's public picture:

But for my own reasons, I had really been hoping to keep Nick out of this, at least by name, but too late now. What pissed me off most was when Rob, probably belligerent drunk, asked “I wonder if that "Nick" kid was the same "Nick" we were arguing with last year on ATS.” After I had asked him to not drag the kid into it, he said “Adam.. YOU brought the kid into this by having him post on the net (if in fact it was the same Nick. Going by his replies, it sure seemed like a 10 yr old).” [emph mine] Yes Rob. Last year when he was nine I had him argue with you online. He’s a smart kid, just not smart enough to use a screen name other than his own. I brought it down on us. For some reason this whole thing really pissed me off. I told him if we were in the same room I’d punch him in the face. I’m sure he’d win the fight, but still…
update 4/22 nick 7261 argues fine, this is just another insult. perhaps little nick could argue rob down, i dunno, but big nick did well - he was over-zealous and sometimes stupidly wrong, but really smart and biting at moments too.

Rob did correctly point out that it was never top-secret, that “you can scroll through "related videos" on the right margin of your "CausticLogic" videos and find "AdamSonOfLars" and vice versa.” Yes, I never liked that and that’s my fault - but it was somehow never a problem until a couple days after that stupid slip that gave him this opportunity to do some accidental op research. So you got your funny pictures, and whatever else. Account closed, new one if there is will be firmly separated and any further drawing in of my personal life and family into this - should be avoided for many reasons. Harassers for 911 truth doesn't have the same ring...

Stick to the issues please Rob. Still no explanation for what you meant by all those cherries I made that pie out of. Still no (public) correction to your patently ridiculous G-force calcs based on an irrelevant thought exercise. Nothing beyond the word of a FDR salesman that that wrong data is 1 sec or less from the wall, tho we hear you have more evidence somewhere. And how about that airfones thing? You can’t get your own shit together yet you can always find time to sling more insults. Oh, and to go enjoy your water sports.

I mean, I could go off on that stupid picture you slapped me with of your lying fat ass on that waterskiing adventure, sucking up the $$$ that suckers keep sending you for DVDs and barbecue aprons, but that would be side-stepping the issues and engaging in childish personal attacks on your motives and appearance.

But while we all wait for updates and/or admissions, this will help while away the time. First, I’ll let anyone else decide what to put in this balloon. Submit entries in comments section below. I’ll add my own later. Winners will be posted, and recieve nothing more. Then I can call it even and move on to you continuing to ignore and downplay your own lies and not-quite-lies as I finally stop bothering "holding your hand" and trying to walk you towards a more truthful path.
update 4/22 I’m less angry now - my girlfriend thinks it's not such a big deal... she's more upset that i deleted the page. I’m new to the sorta-parent thing and was trying a bit too hard with the 'protective' thing. Also Craig, thanks for the tips. you may just be better at parenting advice than at running an 'investigation.' keep trying and you may find your calling.
update 5/5: In fact I have Rob to thank for helping me realize I don't want video accounts tangled and there''s no way it seems if they're even looked at on the same computer. So I'm deleting my Youtube videos and not watching others. Also, the contest is decided after I received Rob's entry as well (see comments below). This is the winner.

Sunday, May 4, 2008


Adam Larson/Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
old undated piece written in 2005, posted late '06, and re-posted January 1 '08

Note 5/4/08: I haven't revised this like I planned to a few months back. See comments below for some important updates I haven't digested yet. Now it's doubly-deserving of updates and soon. Ish.
In all the arguments about whether it was a military weapon (missile) or a comandeered civilian transport (Boeing 757) that hit the Pentagon, one point sometimes missed is that a missile and a plane are designed on very similar principles, both are propelled with fuel and streamlined to fly great distances through the air. In fact a plane basically is a missile designed to make soft landings and to blow up as little as possible if it fails in this. But if taken in the wrong hands, as the Japanese Kamikaze pilots of WWII knew, its fuel becomes explosive, its chassis piercing and in a pinch it can become a missile in a more literal sense, or at least a large flying Molotov cocktail. It’s not the best weapon but one that hijackers have been able to seize before, if previously minus the suicidal imagination to make that leap. The official story is riddled with references to the 9/11 hijackers' use of the planes as guided missiles, yet nitwits argue that in the midst of a suicide hijacking attack, on a clear and bright morning in front of hundreds of drivers stuck in gridlock traffic they break out an actual Cruise missile to strike the Pentagon. This is idiocy, this is why I never wanted to read Meyssan.

So a plane is a missile, and if Boeing jets really were responsible, as nearly all evidence indicates, another key question is not entirely resolved – who was piloting the plane. The bolder revisionists remove the terrorists from the scene and are left with the chilling possibility that remote control was used. But officially, this is impossible. The State Department, refuting conspiracist claims in 2005, stated flatly as an evident fact “Boeing commercial aircraft can not be remotely controlled.” [1]

A Raytheon 727 lands in New Mexico in August, 2001. [Source: Associated Press via Cooperative Research]
But it is not actually impossible by a long shot - let’s turn to Raytheon, a big player in the military-industrial complex involved in high-tech projects like the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS), a landing guidance system for military aircraft. They worked with the Air Force in testing and development for JPALS, carried out at Holloman AFB, New Mexico from June to September 2001. [2] The system was completed just before the 9/11 attack and publicized just after; in an October 1 press release they boasted of their role in “the first precision approach by a civil aircraft using a military [GPS] landing system.” On August 25, a FedEx Express 727-200 landed using “a Raytheon-developed military ground station.” [3] They explained details, which included a total of six successful pilotless takeoffs and landings of their specially rigged Boeing airliner. This was done just seventeen days before someone helped four Boeing jets jointly and precisely approach and “land” in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a strip mine in Pennsylvania.

JPALS was a military project but designed to be “fully interoperable with planned civil systems utilizing the same technology,” Raytheon explained, and they were also involved with this, under contract with the FAA. [4] For this they worked on the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) and the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), designed to improve on the GPS guidance system and bring it up to the FAA’s standards for safety and accuracy. [5] By merging JPALS with these GPS-refiners, a nation-wide, extremely precise matrix for automated landings – that is remote-controlled flight – of distressed civilian airliners was a real possibility- if still officially years off.

Raytheon published the fact only on October 1, just four days after President Bush announced at a speech in Chicago “we will look at all kinds of technologies to make sure that our airlines are safe [...] including technology to enable controllers to take over distressed aircraft and land it by remote control.” [6] A company official noted in the release their dedication to providing satellite-guided landing systems for “the flying public,” and their pride in being “part of the success achieved this summer during JPALS testing at Holloman.” [7] And proud they should be, that’s some mighty fine timing.

This series of Raytheon-centered events is only one illustration of the possibility of remote controlled flight, and the curious timing in fact makes the whole thing a little too obvious for my liking, possibly another honeypot set up in advance to distract us from real leads. But even if this angle should ever be conclusively proved unrelated to shadow 9/11, it does help remind us that remote control aircraft has been a reality for the military since the late 1950s at least, and civil airliners have been being remotely landed in foggy weather for over two decades. Most disturbing are the allegations – tentative at best but still possible - of secret FAA/NORAD systems of remote control built in to all (American) civilian Flight Control Systems, allegedly dating back as far as the 1970s. [8] Though if such a system exists - and Raytheon’s work for the FAA proves it was feasible by mid-2001 anyway - it has not been proved and has been kept thoroughly secret.

[1] United states of America State Department. Identifying misinformation. Thierry Meyssan: French Conspiracy Theorist Claims No Plane Hit Pentagon.” Created: 28 Jun 2005 Updated: 28 Jun 2005 Accessed November 5, 2005 at:
[2] “Raytheon and Air Force Demonstrate Civil-Military Interoperability for GPS-Based Precision Landing System.” Raytheon press release. October 1, 2001. Accessed October 28, 2005 at:,+2001
[3] See [2].
[4] See [2].
[5] See [2].
[6] Long, Jeff. “Landing by remote control doesn't quite fly with pilots.” Chicago Tribune. September 28, 2001. Accessed January 2, 2005 at:
[7] See [2].
[8] Vialls, Joe. “Home Run: Electronically Hijacking the World Trade Center Attack Aircraft.” October, 2001. Accessed October 30, 2005 at:


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 - 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.

Saturday, May 3, 2008


posted 4/26? I forget - note when reading update.
Craig, Aldo...
I checked into the old debate w/Plan 271 and decided your blocked-view analysis is pretty much spot-on, but due to skewing of the satelite images we're using, that neighboring building may offer even less of a view right before impact than you show here.
The flip-side of this would be a bit wider view of the approach, perhaps even of part of the Navy Annex. I'm not sure what that looked like (see below), but your photo from inside that apartment stands as primary evidence of a highly useful nature. I agree the low buildings in the foreground are all there in post-9/11 satellite photos, so the ground itself was just as obscured at that time. The only new building I see that obscures anything is the tall shopping center at the right which, if anything, helps your case here, as it would help hide the flyover... wait, if it were there on 9/11, I got that backwards. Well something happened so they didn't report a flyover in that high view off to the right.

Anyway... so this is my analysis of the FoV there, as the photo was taken, new building (NOT in satellite image) and Washington Monument on the right, Pentagon corner, edge, and building edge (app) on left.
Timmerman: “I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama.” A panorama would normally require a series of shots, and so I presume you have photos of the view from the other side as well, looking north and west. Apologies if they're already up somewhere I missed, and if not, for all the others trying to figure things out, could you share these photos with us as well? If so thanks in advance.
update, 5/4: Didn't think so.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

THE VIDEO RECORD {masterlist}

The reason the attack on the Pentagon has been able to be such a magnet for controversy and speculation, since the day of 9/11, is that unlike the vividly witnessed New York leg of the assault, this one happened out of public view. There was no video of the plane hitting. Of course there are those for whom even such an image is insufficient proof of an attack by a real hijacked airliner, but without such a single piece of undeniable evidence, even reasonable people have been led to let the mystery take hold and turn their imaginations loose.

Note: this is NOT a frame from any video - it's a collage I made from three or four different frames to say "hey, here's the video section!"

Of course there is the physical evidence and the eyewitness accounts to draw on in piecing the scene together, but in a surveillance age, it seems there had to be some video or at least still images we'd been allowed to see of the moment of impact. Indeed there is a video record, though it's been kept remarkably tightly sealed from 2001-2006 as the various Hunt The Boeing arguments unfurled their vines of speculation and obfuscation. Last year, however, the pool of evidence began opening up and expanding what we can learn from. This masterlist will direct you to posts here, both up and upcoming, dealing with the emerging video record of that mysterious attack.
History of the Video Record:
> Nothing to see here: The initial catalog of unseen video
> The 2002 Stills: From ??? with love.
> The FOIA Wars: Farrell vs DoD vs Bingham vs DoJ - the tangle of lawsuits in search of the hidden videos.
Pentagon CCTV Video, released Feb 2002/May 2006
Left, camera two, from which five frames were release in 2002. Right, comparable frame from camera one. Both were released as one frame/second "video" in 2006 after lawsuits (see above).
What They Saw: Understanding the field of vision - the cameras were located side-by-side at the secuity gate guarding access to the north parking lot. Their field of view was 90 degrees, with fisheye lenses, south across the access road, the Pentagon's west face, and the west lawn and heliport.
- Update, 2/15: I just updated the blocked view field - my previous one was too narrow and too close to the building. this one is based on four sample lines approximating widths across the field of view as based on landmarks like the crook in the foreground walkway, the heliport, and the app. base of the building and shadow line. All the measurement lined up failry well,indicating that this almost the precise angle, location, and width of that which would be hidden from the view of camera 2, and I feel confident in this as my final take on the matter.
- Update, 7/25: I also fixed the mislabeling of the plane positions (cams 1 and 2 had been switched), and narrowd down the camera 2 position in the top left box to the same pylon as the security bar.
> The White Blur: Of smoke and Mirrored Surfaces - an analysis of moving vs. stationary objects in the five frames, with "black tailfin" and 2006 "nosecone" included.
> Correcting for the fisheye effect
> Measuring the Crime Scene
> Distance/Speed, frame rate and camera offset analysis and exploring the possibility of one or three frames missing: Flight 77's Home Stretch
Citgo Video, released September 2006
> - External link: Loose Change Forum Russell Pickering explains the Citgo video and what it shows to Loose Changers – including eventual Pentagon forum moderator Lyte Trip. Excellent read, and based on his massive research and on-site inspections - with Lyte (aka Craig Ranke) and Merc (Aldo Marquis) of the north of the Citgo flight path-promoting PentaCon.
- Citgo Video Analysis: station and camera layout, embedded videos of the shadow and two flashes and some initial analysis - a bit dated now.
- How the Citgo Video Contradicts the North-Side Claim: An Analysis of... Flight 77's Shadow? Some excellent clues say yes, and it's south of the station.
- Who is Person #1?
- Citgo camera mystery and mystery camera
- Proof that CIT was manipulated? - on manager Barbara's 'proof' that the video was altered.
Doubletree video, released December 2006
> The Doubletree video: analysis forthcoming. Some see a plane wing or tailfin there, but I don't think they undesrstand what they're looking at. It shows the explosion but neither the plane nor the Pentagon itself. This camera just didn't have the field of view to give us what we're looking for.
Other Videos, not released yet
> Total FBI-confiscated videos remaining unreleased: 83.
> Pentagon security cameras unreleased, Number unknown. All but the two gate cameras But for example, one camera I'd like to see the video from.
> "Details Regarding the Confiscated Security Videos Of Pentagon Attack." An excellent thread at Above Top started by Craig Ranke (Jack Tripper) based on on-site investigations with Russell Pickering. There are some interesting photos and facts in there about confiscated video, removed cameras, and other suspicious secrecy. Will help fill the gap 'till I get something more up.
A Reason for the Secrecy Besides Hiding the anti-757
> Bees Around Honey, Flies Aroud Sh*t: Is it getting sticky in here, or is that just me?