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...


Caustic Logic said...

"hope it helps"

Boyington does it ever! First, NM... oops. If I'm correcting right that means just about 7 'statute' miles, so my graphic is a bit off already.

And second, wow, I had no idea Scoggins was at JREF. I have heard of him tho, unless that was sureshot or some other shot, I was told to talk to him about another situation he was said to be involved in. Never did 'cause that situation creeps me out. Double-checking and yeas, it is Scoggins as well. (9:21, AA11 still airborne). Wow, I can talk to him...

Third, on the interview: Telcon makes sense. He seemed to believe it was SE - the error is clearly not on his part. Clearly it's coming from someone else and he has to hear 'west' before he knows it. So second-hand by the time it gets to Scoggins but still - radar operators - or whoever was gathering this data however (?) - were seeing a plane 6NM/7 mi SW of the WH and deviating away, which is what the official returns released later also show.

Thanks a lot. It always helps when people share info I don't have, and I'm glad you guys are out there and keep seeing me and sharing. That's what 9/11 Truth should be about.

Caustic Logic said...

Superb, value added. He seems like a good guy... I did check out your blog last night, good stuff there I had missed before. I must apologize about pulling my videos - I saw two posted. I plan to have them re-posted somewhere soon and will let you know.

I noticed the format parts of your page are in Italian, so I'm wondering if you are one of 'the Italians' or just associated, or what. And then I remember that I'm still curious about where Paulo, Ashoka, Henry, et al. came from and why. It's odd, and all the Pentagon stuff was largely started by a collection of French people several years back, one of whom I correspond with now and the others of whom... Anyway, just interesting, you guys/they do some great stuff (Henry 62's new English paper is amazing) and I'm glad to make a new acquaintance. Cheers!

pappy boyington said...

just for your own curiosity:

paolo & Henry are 100% for the official explanation of 9/11, no questions, no doubts. They share a
blog with some other guys ( . Henry is an excellent researcher and has one more personal blog: .
Ashoka is 100% MIHOP(if nothing has changed) and he's an excellent researcher too (he's a moderator in one of the most important "MIHOP" (and alternative) italian sites :
Speaking for me I'm just a guy who's still having doubts about official commission results
(not more than LIHOP anyway..)
(I don't have a real blog, I post there everything I find interesting or odd about 9/11, mainly from ATC/Norad side of the story)

Caustic Logic said...

Explanation for the above - Pappy Boyington's long and highly valuable comments had extensive content from an interview with Scoggins by JREF member REF, that was pulled from elsewhere due to a book coming out featuring some of the info. I didn't feel it would be fair to the interviewer to have to yank it (wheter he actually had to or not) while I get it for free, and it only added so much to the current point anyway. I kept a copy for myself of course.

Facts learned from these: Scoggins is member Cheap Shot at the JREF forum. he was getting his info on 9/11 from telcon (phone), not radar screen directly, and he meant 6 NAUTICAL miles, not land miles, as noted in the post. Also intro to PB and his blog

Anonymous said...

Hey, wonderful blog you got here! Keep up the excellent job!

Anonymous said...

Wow neat! This is a really great site! I am wondering if anyone else has come across something
like this in the past? Keep up the great work!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing the link, but unfortunately it seems to be down... Does anybody have a mirror or another source? Please answer to my post if you do!

I would appreciate if a staff member here at could post it.