Friday, August 1, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
posted May 20 2008,
last update 6/9 3am

Craig Ranke, Citizen Investigation Team on Clout 5/15: "We recently have an exclusive interview with Two people saw the plane continue on past the Pentagon [...plays clip of one, see below...] this gentleman that proves the plane continued on after the explosion”

Host Richard Greene in response: "With all due respect Craig I don’t think it proves it. It’s certainly one person’s testimony which I’ve never heard before.” [and then he gave Honegger four minutes to repeat things he had, again.]

Aldo Marquis, CIT: "you guys heard it. We've got a flyover witness(es)."

Marquis: "Trust us people.....this is THE best flyover witness imaginable and his account is rock solid and corroborated." [note: possible confusion between 'imaginable' and 'possible']

Flyover theory first decided on by CIT around September-Nov. 2006. First time CIT has something they're comfortable calling a flyover witness? Just now, May 2008. And they have two. And more to come all of a sudden. Alright, but regarding this one, I’m not aware yet how they got ahold of this witness. He’s another Pentagon Police Officer, and given their track record for being straight with CIT in the past, that’s a bad starting point.

Witness location - working security at the time at the south parking lot loading dock. It's not clear if he was out in the little lot or under the roof (see graphic below). Time: just after the first violent event. [not made clear in audio itself]

Transcript from poor compression of audio of audio:
“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.”
[...] “It was, to me, at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.”
[…] Aldo: ”[...]you saw it over the south parking lot?”
“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."
Aldo: "Wow. Are you 100% certain it was a jet, an actual jet plane?"
“Commercial aircraft”
Aldo: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?"
"Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It it was two aircraft, that’s for sure."

This of course ties in very well with their two-plane cover story flyover explanation. However, as for the implications regarding the alleged flight path, am I understanding this correctly? CIT? You aren't banned here like I am at your forum. Your blathering isn't allowed, but a straight answer is. What am I missing? Was the plane literally OVER the south lot? How did it get there do you think and when?
Location of 'lane 1' thanks to a DoD PDF image courtesy Boone870. It fits my guess and makes the flyover to this part of the lot even less probable. It had to have looped around and come back just for this little show that so very few saw.

Regarding CIT's previous flight path, am I being deceptive and picking their worst fit? Well it would have to pass about through the blast fireball for the trick to work, and we know where that happened. As for angle, all would be impossible for a plane of any size at any speed to bank like that, but I'll let CIT's offering speak for themselves. How well does a path from the 'impact point' to the south parking lot work with any of these? (r-click, new window). Did it loop around and return, or what?
This one really doesn't fit
For a "3D" perspective on how impossible it is to connect all this to their long-awaited flyover witness!
Blue works best here, but none make much sense
The reasonable right bank in response to Reheat- Sacrificing witness details to try and satisy physics (still fails)
SPreston's effort from just a few days ago - oops! He was trying to help.

Update: Thanks to the on-the-ball John Farmer, we have an ID on this witness: DPS officer Roosevelt Roberts. Like Brooks and Lagasse, he was interviewed by the LoC in 2001 (Nov 30), interview available here. The interview is a bit confusing as to timeline (he saw the plane at 9:11 am?), as is his new interview, but he places a plane over the south lot, apparently after the explosion (audio gap leaves it a bit unclear). However, the LoC site says Roberts "talks about watching the plane before impact." I'll have a more detailed analysys later. I may know what's up with this and why this might prove a rather ironic twist. Keep an eye out.
Update: Aldo explains, sort of:
pinch: "So, can you clarify? Did the aircraft fly north of the Citgo, or did it overfly the south parking? You can't have both."
Aldo Marquis CIT; "Actually you can, especially if his perspective led him to believe it was "over" the parking lot. Especially if he is refering to south parking on the north side of the Pentagon, near the loading docks on that side. Especially if he is referring to the east end of south parking.

Okay, Aldo... you don't know where he was? What did he say when you asked him to clarify his position? Have you sent him a picture to draw the flight path on? This is important stuff, the FLYOVER WITNESS, and where he puts it going after that is important to understanding where to look for witnesses next, don't you think? South parking lot means what? Over means what? Lane one area is where? Plane was headed 'away' which way? Did you lose Roberts' phone number or do you intend to keep it nice and vague and all about the 'after' aspect? 'The plane was proven to be doing impossible things after the event so it didn't impact' just doesn't cut it. If it can't happen, guess what? It didn't. Please Citizen Investigators call him back and record the clarifications and get a flight path from him. It is worth it, isn't it?
Further developments, bound to keep being interesting:
The Flyover Theory Gets Some Faux Clout: The story behind the first airing.
When and Where? Establishing the open questions
Reality/TV If Roberts thinks he saw "another plane," what was the one before it that "hit the building?" It's not as obvious as CIT makes it seem.
- his 2001 interview with USU's Brennan in fraternity w/Brooks and Lagasse - Original tape missing
- Big Eyewitness news coming!!!: Regarding my attempt to contact officer Brooks. No luck so far... piece needs updated and will be updated again as needed.
Also, Roberts is mentioned in The PentaCon, I recall, by Officer Brooks, and argued about a bit between him and Lagasse. I'll have to dig that back up.


bileduct said...

This is CIT's biggest blunder yet, and it's a whopper.

Four words.

Doubletree Hotel Security Video.

The camera is pointed at the south wall of the Pentagon. For the deception to be effective the aircraft would need to fly as close to the top of the west Pentagon wall, through the fireball and then bank sharply to the right and away over the south car park.

None of this is visible on the video, nor do the pedestrians seen in the video act in any way as though a low flying aircraft is heading in their general direction.

The more they put out the stupider their story gets.

Of course they'll now say the video was faked.

Caustic Logic said...

They say it may be doctored but also that there's a tree blocking much of the air above the Pentagon, which is itself invisible behind the freeway. All of these are true. Not as good a view as some say. More likely to catch a southward escape off to the right/east, sure, but...

The south lot is what gets me. This really is a bizarre turn. Craig had clout, he used it... to deliver the final punchline of this joke they call an investigation?

It's been an odd couple days - Farmer's new piece, Gaffney's book, Clout, this witness, others, a flurry of activity, battles at the LCF, jeez... so sorry for the delay. Head spinning. Time to call it a night.