Friday, June 27, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 27 2008
edits 11:45pm

We in the field of 9/11 studies owe a debt of gratitude to John Farmer for all he’s done to gather and share new evidence and analysis, most recently a consultant on research for Mark Gaffney’s new book The 9/11 Mystery Plane. He has always embraced the coherent body of evidence showing the attack plane plowed into the Pentagon from a south path, causing the extensive damage and death there. For most purposes and so far we’ve been on the same page, informational ‘allies’ in opposition to Citizen Investigation Team's north-path flyover, faked damage, and fooled witnesses meme. But his new effort You all just haven’t talked about it, made available in PDF at his blog on Friday, clarifies a latent argument he’s been hinting at on the sidelines for over a year now - as he explained:

“I’m in trouble with the “fly-over” boys because I am convinced that the evidence shows that a large commercial plane flew down along the south side of the Citgo station and hit the Pentagon. Now, I’m going to be in trouble with the no “fly-over” crowd because I now believe that the evidence strongly supports a plane flying north of the Citgo station. So here it is folks, my way of making everyone mad at me…”

Oh, I’m not mad, though a bit disappointed. I’m not sure what exactly he thinks happened, but it apparently involves a plane on the north path in addition to the impact craft, passig over/by the Pentagon and then crossing over to the Capitol. There is some compelling evidence of a second plane in the area just after (or before?) the attack. He calls on CIT witnesses Brooks and Lagasse, CMH witness NEIT 428, and a couple of others. And then there’s the north path evidence he’s found in the Citgo video; he’s undeniably done some pivotal work with the south views, but the north views I need to look closer at because I’m not seeing it yet.

CIT responded almost instantly to this odd announcement; Ranke proclaimed rather confidently that “[Farmer] admits that we have been right all along and that a plane DID fly north of the citgo and fly over the building,” but insisted on obfuscating the obvious by mixing it with the 'official' plane causing the all-fake south path evidence. He further elaborated on this at the Loose Change Forum:

”Do you guys understand how ironic and symbolically huge this is? One of our worst detractors has been forced to fully EMBRACE what we assert! He knows the evidence we present is so strong that he must try to somehow incorporated it into the official story! It's absolutely classic and a MASSIVE indicator that they are in full spin mode.”

“They?” Indeed, Craig is clearly saying that that Farmer is part of some team effort, a disinformation campaign by the perpetrators to obscure CIT’s work:

“The very first moment this shadowy character appeared on the scene focusing heavily on the research of CIT (while pretending to support us) we knew he was disinfo. We knew he was ambiguously pushing the notion that 2 planes were simultaneously approaching the Pentagon, one that hit the building and one that passed on the north side of the citgo and flew over the building. All this as a means to cover up and obfuscate the evidence that we present.”

Other suspicious clues unearthed by Scooby and Shaggy CIT include Farmer’s “pseudo-technical over-analysis of the government data,” failed political campaigns, odd variations of his middle initial indicating a fake name, and the like, to decide he is “controlled opposition.” It’s no big secret he’s not an effective politician and has promoted both ‘sets of evidence,’ if ambiguously. He first gained my attention early last year by supporting the apparent north path data in the FDR [as promoted by Pilots for 9/11 Truth], which I later debunked (not his specific claim, which I never understood, but I did identify the real reason for the visible path difference), helping us start off on the wrong foot. He’s maintained the validity of north path clues since then, like while discussing the light effects in the Citgo video in August 2007: “careful [analysis] of the solar angle, angle of wall, height of other obstacles, gives incidental evidence of both the northern and southern flight paths. Neither is conclusive, but the case can be made for either.” [emph. Mine, source] At the time it seemed either-or, but now he's decided they existed simultaneously.

And again, as we’ve agreed on other points I’ve never been able to get on the same page regarding north path evidence. I had a strong bias of course - it’s seemed to me the anathema of truth. This in itself is a reason to suspect there really is something up with the north path and hence the noise inserted by CIT. Now I will try again to see it. Farmer has never advocated a non-impact all-fakery Pentagon attack, and still does not, so as devoted to no 757 at (in) the Pentagon theories, this blog does not have to address this interesting new development. But that would be the easy way out. John was thinking ahead to this when he said to Ranke in his comments section:

“Now see Craig, Adam is going to study my analysis and rip it to shreds over at his place in a few days. But he is nice about it, nothing personal. That has to be done Craig, it is called peer review. That is how true researchers sort out fact from fiction.”

A statement like this makes me almost wonder if he really means all this as a sort of experiment, but taking him at his word, we have a genuine proposal worthy of consideration by fellow researchers. For those running ahead and reading the PDF, you’ll see that the article is built partly around the new-to-me witness Roosevelt Roberts, whose account is on its face in clear contradiction with the official one plane only impact story. An important update from Farmer to note when reading it:

“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.”

Whatever new info really triggered it, this changes things in Farmer’s favor; his placement of the plane complicates a flyover, and Roberts did indeed say silver, while the flyover plane is said by both Farmer and CIT, if I’m not mistaken, to be White and sorta E4B-ish. Now as for Lagasse… well, this is for later. But CIT is still enthusiastically embracing Roberts' account, since he was just announced as their long-awaited flyover witness. Since I meant to dig and think deeper on that anyway, this analysis will tie into both CIT's case and Farmer's call for clarification. I will talk about the rest of You all just haven’t talked about it when I know what I'm talking about.

Monday, June 23, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 23 2008

Since I melted down there a while back, I am not allowed to post at the Above Top 9/11 forum, even anonymously. This is clearly what I wanted at the time, and generally now as well, but I do feel compelled to comment on an argument posted there by CIT ally Mirage of Deceit (MoD). The point of his post was “regarding the MATH,” which the critics there have been demanding, as per Reheat’s challenge and CIT’s inability to provide a single possible flight path to accommodate all their official-deception-proving claims. While others simply deflected as if aerodynamic realities don’t matter, Mirage had the balls to step up and offer one single arc to fit the witness accounts in question, and showed the math he claims makes it a possible one.

Well the dude has some knowledge of piloting and the dynamics of flight, I’ve always handed him that, and he did put some thought into this. Plenty of others can question or verify his mathematical methodology, but I haven’t the patience. In fact I’m inclined to give MoD the benefit of the doubt on numbers, since they seem to make sense and, like Reheat but better, what MoD has done here is a brilliant job of again illustrating how – well, impossible - the over-Navy-Annex, north-of-Citgo, Pentagon-flyover scenario really is.

Like Reheat but with perhaps less awareness of the witness account details, Mirage took some set of variables into account [including “the guy stood by the Navy Annex (SW corner)”] and came up with a path (reproduced below) quite different from CIT’s original famous impossible estimate. He offered these numbers based on his “beizer curve”:

”Distance from Pentagon: 0.6169687 nm
Approx. required heading change: 30°
Assuming an airspeed of 350 kts:
Time to pentagon: 0.0017 hrs (or 6.3 secs)
Performing a rate one turn, in 6.3 seconds the aircraft could turn: 18.9°
Bank angle required for this turn at this speed: 42°”

First off, speed - the witnesses nearly all describe the plane vaguely as being quite fast, but there’s quite a spread now. Officially by FDR it was at 530 mph, or 460 kts, while Morin’s updated account, according to Ranke, supports a speed between 117-163 mph. (MoD cites “approx. 130-160 kts” as the applicable stall speed, where it falls out of the air). Most witnesses give airspeeds in the range of 250-450 kts [Arabesque compilation]. Lagasse estimated a reasonable “400 miles an hour,” or 347 kts, which is about what MoD used and found, oddly enough “at that speed, the turn STILL isn't possible.”

He was not deterred though, since “according to eye-witnesses though, it was [possible],” and with speed being “the only factor we have to play with,” he tried presuming the barely supportable and “more leisurely 250 kts,” or 288 mph, which yields these better numbers and conclusion:

”Time to pentagon: 0.0024 hrs (or 8.8 secs)
Performing a rate one turn, in 8.8 seconds the aircraft could turn: 26.4°
Bank angle required for this turn at this speed: ~32°
[…] allowing for possible errors in my calculations (specifically on heading change), the second scenario, flying slower at 250 kts, is possible.”

Ooh! A single flight path that’s possible if it were flying less that 288mph, or 72% of what Lagasse thought he saw, and 54% of the speed suggested by the FDR and the Citgo video shadow/impact interval.

Aside from the low speeds needed for his path, the most important shortfall of the proposal is the opposite of what MoD claimed: The flight path he proposes “is also more in line with the eye-witness accounts of what they saw from their various vantage points.” More explicitly:

“After watching the videos from CIT, it is clear the witnesses draw very similar flight paths on the photos. Given that the aircraft needed to fly over the Navy Annex in order for the witness there to see and describe what he saw, we can reasonably conclude the flight path was NOT as described at the start of this thread, but was in fact a VERY plausible, gentle curve.”
This is it. For those familiar with the scene, the ridiculousness of this graphic will be readily visible. It should be noted his graphic was posted as an external link so readers had the option of not seeing it at all, and his line is so thin and faint one can even miss it if they click the link. That’s good for MoD, because it’s the worst effort I’ve seen yet to explain the north path witnesses.

I brightened the line below, and measured the gap between his ‘plausible’ overflight point and impact (fireball) center, which all witnesses traced their paths to (roughly at least). The distance here ≈ 420 feet. Nearly all witnesses had Flight 77 flying low into the bottom part of the impact fireball just before it happened, not 400 feet-plus to the left of the top of it just after it blew up. I also included CIT-cited witnesses to consider, as used by Reheat - Paik, Morin, Turcios, Brooks, and Lagasse – with best direct readings here sketched roughly in blue. So what has been illustrated here, and I tend to agree with it, is that something like CIT’s proposal is aerodynamically impossible if it flew at half the official speed, on a path different from what the witnesses describe, to a spot 420 feet to the left of the flyover-hiding fireball. People rip on Reheat, including myself, for misrepresenting CIT’s findingsto prove them impossible, but this proposal takes the cake for off-baseness for the opposite reason. It’s only remotely similar to something that would really fit, more distorted than Reheat’s, but it’s the best he can came up with for aeronautical plausibility and it can’t possibly the way it happened. If this is the best it gets, or anywhere near it, then Mirage of Deceit has helped us all see that CIT will never be providing a plausible flight path and we can all stop asking. I only hope MoD will own up to the implications of his achievement rather than pretending this helps his “investigator” friends.

He did ask for a challenge, in his closing line: “Debunkers?” Yes, reporting, and I do have an answer, and some questions. I challenge him to come here and defend it. Comments are open (meaning will be allowed), and I’m all ears. My first 11 questions are these:

1) Morin - is this at all parallel to the south edge of the FoB as he describes? Is any of it ahead of him visible on his line-of –sight?
2) Paik – does this match his drawings, any of them, at all? Does it come anywhere near his earlier gestures verifying Morin’s account of it passing south of the FoB and down Columbia Pike?
3) Turcios – Does it come north of the station anything like he describes? Does it correspond with his path from there to the same spot at the Pentagon?
4) Lagasse – It’s northiness is about right, but does this match his flight path from there on or the light poles he felt were downed?
5) Brooks - same as above.
6) Which witnesses describe anything like the severe 32 or 42-degree right bank this would require? Lagasse: “There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn...” CIT on Paik: “he specifically said in our first interview how he did not notice a wing tilt.” Others support a slight left bank between the Annex and Pentagon, but effectively level.
7) What happened to CIT’s recently proved over the Annex path? This one, like the original impossible path, is almost entirely north of it.
8) The most common cited time for near-impact witnesses seeing it from around the Citgo to impact for around 2-3 seconds (Lagasse and Turcios among them), the same time testified by the Citgo video shadow/light time span (app 2.2 sec), and about half the time required for this cited speed. How do you explain so many sources halving the time?
9) What happens when we try to include the Driving Range-area witnesses, and the imagined north path no one saw connecting that to this arc at it start? How does that affect its subsequent maneuvers?
10) What if we include witnesses AT Arlington Nat’l Cemetery who report the plane as “over” them, and which CIT has also taken at face value? Including these does what for the flight path?
11) What happens when we factor is the post-flyover maneuvers now attributed to R Roberts and J Sucherman 3—5 seconds after impact? Roberts is said to have it flying away, as he says over the ‘lane one area,’ so off to the southwest, just as Sucherman sees the plane coming back for a second attack FROM the west, before turning away?

Update: From ATS link above:
ThroatYogurt: “Your flightpath shows flight 77 too far away from the impact area to support CIT's claim that it was a military deception. In order for it to be pulled off, the plane would have to be VERY close if not directly above the impact zone.”

MoD: “Please scrutinize the drawing a little more - you're missing the point where I drew the line with a beizer curve that is far from uniform in radius. If it was drawn properly, it would actually pass over the alleged impact point. […]the line isn't as accurately drawn as I'd like. It's most correct around the Citgo area, but straightens out again after that point.”

“If it was drawn properly?” Who screwed it up? Is it possible to draw it again but right, and let us know how those numbers come out?

update 6/25: I've been trying to get messages through at ATS, where I'm still a non-posting member, but it's been telling me for a couple days that the "U2U System Is Temporarily Disabled." Can anyone else still on good terms there verify this?
7/2: System went back up right after that, message in to MoD, no response yet. I don't care if he tries to defend or drop this proposal, just thought I should let him know myself that he'd been challenged.
Update 7/8: Forgot to mention it, but he did respond, in comments below.

Thursday, June 19, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 19 2008

“Bobloblaw,” the anonymous but effective debunker of Citizen Investigation Team claims, has scored some solid hits against CIT lately, contacting their witnesses, accepted and suspect, to set the record straight as much as possible. So far he’s keeping it all off-the-record, and I can’t vouch for what’s really going on, but I tend to believe him that one of those contacted is USA Today editor Joel Sucherman (suspect, highly), who contests CIT’s placement of him, which I already found was grossly dishonest.

However, I had bought their location he could not be at as it was “underneath the flight path” and thus offered no side view of the plane to fit his account of seeing its AA stripes. Sure enough, the spot they filmed on their 2006 drive up Route 27 and included in their USA Today Parade video is right next to light poles they labeled #2 and #3, the originals of which were struck down by the plane’s wings on that day. Bobloblaw however looked closer at this light pole labeling (also viewable as stills here) and found it wrong. He challenged Craig Ranke CIT, in a thread at their forum named after me, and eventually got Ranke to admit to being wrong on pole #1 and, therefore, the others.

I had not caught this myself, or analyzed their pole labeling, but saw it as soon as Bobloblaw mentioned it. And there’s little excuse for it escaping these Citizen researchers (both of them) even as they used the wrong poles to make absolutist arguments to disprove a witness account they don’t like. Spurred by Bobloblaw’s challenge, ranke took his case to the experts at the Loose Change Forum: “Light pole/camera mast perpective question; which is in front?” Even his sympathetic friends felt it necessary to acknowledge the obvious; Look-Up said “the pole must be closer to the observer than the VDOT mast,” while SPreston and 22205 concurred and tried to spin it all back on “Bob” as a blown-up non-issue. Ranke relented at this point: “It appears to be behind the VDOT mast in those images but it is not. That threw me off. It's a perspective issue but the error is mine.”

While it may appear, in stills at least, that this pole is behind the VDOT camera mast, it is clearly before (south of) the overhead sign structure, while pole #1, the first taken down by the right wing, would be on the other side (north) of it. This graphic illustrates the concept, with multiple pole positions down Route 27 highlighted and traced across to their counterpart across the road. The pole placement could have been easily verified against satellite photos, site photos by others, and whatever else. These all indicate the arrangement on the left is light pole, VDOT mast, overhead sign, pole 1, pole 2, then an ordinary pole. If this were pole 1, they’d have to wonder what happened to the last pole before the overhead, or why pole #1 looked so big. Apparently they didn’t, officially anyway.

It always looked to me too the light pole was behind, the way the mast seems to totally cover it and also its truss arm as they are passed and separate. This made me even wonder if they re-painted the mast in to make it seem in front, but in fact the poles would merge and the arm would not really show against, so it appears most likely an innocent illusion. It should be noted this is an optical effect, not a perspective problem, as the perspective shift is clear in CIT’s own video and sequential images from it. When you see it, it gets trippy for a second, then you adjust and say ‘oh, okay. That makes more sense.’ This is how some of us learn.

I’m unable to view the CIT forum (they’ve blocked me for some reason), but Bobloblaw collected some Ranke quotes from the debate he and fellow critic “Stinky Puh” engaged Ranke in. After getting second and third opinions, he did cede the point, as these compiled quotes show:

Ok ok.

I admit it now.

I went over the video again.

I concede I mislabeled the poles.

I publicly apologize to bob and stinkey.

Well, that might seem quite gracious of him, until you read the list Bobloblaw passes on of Ranke’s words up to that point, where for ten pages he denied the conclusion I and everyone else reached instantly once spurred to look at it.

Please stop wasting my time with this nonsense.

You and Stinkey are ridiculously wrong.

Everyone knows this.

... because I am right and you are wrong.

Pole one is BEHIND the vdot mast in every image liar.

So either admit you are a liar or a stubborn fool because you are WRONG.

I am not wrong.

Your stubbornness with this demonstrates how you are willing to say ANYTHING to cast doubt

This is fact and you are wrong.

Seriously man.

If you can't concede this you will have to go.

You are wrong.

You will concede or leave.

Do you get it yet?

Ok then you are banned.

You can come back when you admit it.

You have to admit you are wrong.

It's because you know you are wrong.


So either admit you are a liar or a stubborn fool because you are WRONG.

You better do SOMETHING productive because so far you are batting zero.

You have proven yourself manipulative and deceptive.

You will be banned.

Why did it disappear?

Did aliens take it as I drove down the road?


It's nothing but a perspective issue.

Wow. Yeah, see, Ranke’s got this perspective where he’s determined to prove Sucherman a liar. And this is where we get into the relevance of this ‘error’ Ranke’s owned up to like the big man he is. This mislabeling shifts the flight path on the left one pole placement - about 110 feet - to the south. On its face, this is significant but not the biggest deal in the word. As he said
“No harm no foul as my original point doesn't really change anyway. I'm only off by a pole.”

Nope. In addition to this ‘non-foul,’ that makes him ‘only” off by 100 feet-plus on the left-hand side, he also ignored perspective and verification on the right, placing his “pole #3” as the first one visible after the overhead sign, right across the street from his pole #2 (actually #1). This puts his pole placement TWO spots off on the right, for a difference of app. 250 feet by my measurements. This is a second egregious mistake he might have avoided if he even tried, and implies a flight path nearly straight across the road, whereas the real pole-testified path slants more up the road as well as across (purple below).
[More graphics and some juicy comments available here]

Looking at this graphic and keeping in mind that he was on the right half of the road headed north, the implications are clear. The issue at hand is whether he could be past the trees and thus have a clear view of impact as he said, while still being far enough south of the plane to see its side. So this fortunate labeling error, read back as evidence, wound up shifting the path feet about 200 feet south, shrinking the area to put Sucherman in accordingly and squeezing him back behind the trees to make him a big fat liar when he said “no trees.” Fact is, however, under the overhead sign = past the trees + could well see the plane and its stripes just fine. From the vantage below, the impact zone itself is still barely obscured by some branches at the far right. The plane I slapped in is at about the right scale, and the approximate right angle and shows just why these “investigators” might have wanted to pull it all south a ways. Oops, they did. If only this were the first time…
As Ranke is quick to point out, all of this does not change the 2:00 and passenger window claims that, as I had previously pointed out, corroborate each other and, read literally, make him a north-path witness. While both are likely just memory errors, it is uncanny how they happen to support the same thing CIT was looking for but missed. All this revalation has spurred Ranke to alter course on Sucherman and claim "I guess you're right Larson. He HAS to be a north side flyover witness! LOL!” What the hell is he LOLing about? They squandered this gift already and are still dealing with the fallout from the distortions necessary to do so.

Saturday, June 14, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 14 2008 3am
edits update 11pm

Pentagon attack witness Terry Morin, September 2001 at the Navy Annex/FoB #2:

“Approximately 10 steps out from between Wings 4 and 5, I was making a gentle right turn towards the security check-in building just above Wing 4 when I became aware of something unusual.”
According to this graphic, the larger structure to his right here is the bus stop and the smaller one security (thanks CIT). These sit astride the high-traffic crosswalk to the parking lots across the Pike, including, according to this graphic, lot 3, to which he said he was headed (thanks Bobloblaw).

“I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling behind me and to my left. As I turned to my left, I immediately realized the noise was bouncing off the 4-story structure that was Wing 5. One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view.”

Where exactly and how far out? Officially, southwest, about straight ahead if facing the bus stop. The distance is far from clear, but given that it was traveling at near the speed of sound, it couldn't be much behind its noise, perhaps passing the Sheraton hotel. In the below graphic, the “official” flight path is placed approximately based on all available data, and is a general fit for Morin’s description, below:
“The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB).”

The use of ‘essentially’ in conjunction with his otherwise detailed account shows he means it was very nearly over him but not quite. “Parallel” I take as an accurate observation but not necessarily 100% precise. The real path of Flight 77 does in fact run about parallel to the building’s edge, as seen here. Also, parallel is a word describing two different lines. He did not say “along the edge,” so it was probably centered either north or south of that line, and if north, his failing to describe it as over the building is curious.

“I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure.”

Seeing stripes indicates, as he said, that it was not directly over him (unless in a severe sideways bank, which neither he nor anyone mentions). It was either some combination of south and banking left (and he’d see the left/port side), or north and banking right (in which case he’d see the right side). The former seemed to fit his continued line-of-sight, nearly up to impact, and of course also fits with where the plane actually was and where Morin said in 2001 that he was. He describes his continuing view thus:

“Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.”

His lateral line-of-sight would be set by the edge of the 8th wing’s SE corner. This would completely block his view of anything too far north, and this path does have something of a north trend. His approximate line-of-sight then is represented by the yellow line in my second graphic, above. Note that the last stretch of the path and the impact itself would be invisible from his angle, unless he moved significantly south.

He also specifically mentions a vertical line-of-sight, defined by a row of trees running along the crest of the hill east of the FoB. In the analysis below, descent rate again approximated, the point where he’d lose sight of the plane appears to work out to about the same location – that is, it went too far north to see at about the same time it went too low, all at around the yellow line. I'd venture from these rough renderings that it would disappear below the horizon just before passing behind the building. So in two ways he would absolutely not see the plane all the way to impact. The reason I explain this is to defuse the importance of Rob Balsamo’s neat little video using 3-D graphics to show the same thing I decided with my graphics, so it's a useful visualization (scene below) – it shows the plane shrinking to the corner, disappearing vertically just before it was about to do so laterally.
This revelation fits with the placement above and with Morin's first losing it behind "a row of trees," not the building. It only appears damning and contradictory when contrasted to this line, sometimes misused by ‘de-bunkers’ and here misused by a re-bunker:

“The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon.” [emph. mine]

First, “when” cannot be taken too literally when micro-second time differences are at work. Second, the flash may be a light pole being “planted,” catching a glint of sunlight as it “danced” in the air. It may have been a glint off the plane itself as it banked, depending on the angles, which I haven’t analyzed. But clearly it occurred in his line-of-sight, and southwest of - before - the “subsequent fireball.” His narrative does put enough detailed emphasis on seeing tail, and “believing” to have, that it appears he’s embellishing a bit. Vagueness of language aside, he is clearly supplementing his memory with additional info (time: "call it approximately 9:36 AM"), and it would seem embellishing some gaps - tiny, tiny gaps. Perhaps it seemed to him that the “official facts” lined up with what he saw and heard, and if so such synergizing is only natural.

So this is the conventional wisdom, or rather my understanding (which is just a notch above that), of Terry Morin’s account. It corroborates the "official story"/real flight path so well in fact, that he's been strenuously dismissed by critics like CIT's Ranke, who back in November rattled off a huge list of perceived inconsistencies and stated paradoxically “due to all of these extreme contradictions with the official story and explicit exaggerated details meant to support it [...] it's clear that Morin is either relaying a completely fabricated or else wildly embellished account.”

Well, if Ranke today is to be believed, simple embellishment is out the window at least, and Morin himself proves that Morin was fabricating virtually everything in his account, possibly in cahoots with the planners who knew how it should look. Ranke says Morin affirmed, in a private, off-the-record discussion recently, that he was actually “between” the wings rather than “from between,” (see first graphic). This is just as CIT had always reasoned against all reason, giving him the view of a toaster pastry that completely invalidates everything above and any reason to believe what he says now.

If Ranke today is to be believed… and that’s an if alright… then Morin the proven fabricator who was likely complicit now helps prove the truth seven years later and “most definitely should go on the list of people to subpoena once the hearings begin.” Once again the mighty CIT has shown us how much we all know. I have some things to say about this ridiculous turn, but I’m taking it steady right now, and will report more fully as soon as it seems reasonable.

Thursday, June 12, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 12 2008
a bit rough

Note: Lest Reheat think I'm being too harsh on purpose, lemme just say, nah! This is important work and he's right in general, I'm sure. I've just spotted a few things, and I'm such a contrarian...
JREF member and anonymous retired Air Force pilot “Reheat” has been offering mathematical proof of the impossibility of CIT’s NoC flight path for a while now. His new paper Debunking the North of Citgo Theory, as published at, further develops the theme, and spurs me to finally note his work. This additional nail in the coffin is couched as “an analysis of the aerodynamics required based upon witness testimony,” a novel approach to the north path analysis – check if it’s possible before asserting it happened and proves that other things didn’t. It’s encouraging to me that someone else feels it’s worth the time to engage this silliness earnestly. I often feel hoodwinked for arguing against something so stupid, but I have nothing to blame but my own obsession. And Reheat has taken issue with the same theory and gone and done math about it – imagine how twisted his mind must be!

His assertion, in this paper and previously, that “the calculations are aircraft type independent” has caused some confusion, and the first thing I did was ask him to clarify. To summarize as I understand it, these numbers WILL apply to any fixed-wing aircraft in the presumed turn, but exactly HOW the G-forces apply depends on the craft. F-16 could do better than 757 with the same turn. The details still escape me a bit, and so I’ll just let the paper speak for itself and offer Brainster’s accurate summary that Reheat has “taken the Morin and Paik flight paths, and then shown the turns necessary to be where the Citgo witnesses claim, then done the calculations to show the stress that the planes [sic] would have experienced trying to make those maneuvers, and that they would have stalled out.”

What I can offer now is some focus on the operative concepts and logic behind this effort, where CIT and allies have claimed straw man, faith-based argument, general scumminess, and disinfo. Unless I’m reading wrong, they have some cause to complain. The paper explains the start point, with witnesses “Edward Paik and Terry Morin who place the aircraft flying parallel to Columbia Pike. There is no problem with this portion of the testimony as it was stated, without CIT’s spin.” The problem is that CIT’s spin is part of what they have decided and the reason this proposed flight path exists to debunk in the first place.

Reheat places Morin where he actually describes himself, but has the path going directly over him there, in a straight line directly parallel to the Pike/FoB edge that has no turn at all from Paik’s position (Paik>Morin listed as requiring 0 degrees of turn). This is the red line in graphics below, on a heading of 72 deg, which is close to reality I’m sure, but not fit for this exercise. Paik himself drew several paths crossing the annex at an oblique angle, which must be ignored to use only gestures from an earlier testimony. And according to CIT, Morin was north of the spot Reheat chose, between the wings of the Annex, as they decided with this ridiculous graphic. Marquis: “when he saw the plane for the brief instant it would appeared parallel to the outer edge of the FOB-which, again, is where the flight path was at; the outer edge Also I am sure he meant it figuratively and not literally, since he can't see the entire flight path.” [not their path from this location anyway – source]

In short, the way I see it, if you want to debunk CIT’s flight path, you need to realize it’s a fiction THEY wrote based on certain interpretations and take those into account – like ignoring the low impact aspects of their Noc witnesses. We’re already factoring that out and presuming a flyover and looking here at lateral turns, NEWS. They did not propose a path literally parallel to the FOB, so including one will distort the path. And it puts one in the line of arguably valid straw man accusations.

Next: a bit technical, sort-of. To be sure I understood the concept behind his turn radii, I stripped away the numbers and made it visual, which helps me. I looked first (and only) at the most moderate curve. I connected the Morin point to the NoC 1 pin, then drew in a simu-curve (orange) to average the heading change more realistically.
Next I checked the headings at Morin and att NoC 1 and found app. 72 and 40, for a change of 32°, which is a bit off from the numbers on the chart, but close enough for what I’m doing here. Then I set a circle around the R1 pin and found it traced that same curve. So this is the right center presuming the plane started south of the Annex at Morin’s location. From there we have another center point for the second turn to impact, this time labeled P1. (“The tags P1, P2, and P3 are the center points of the turn radii for the NoC locations to the impact point at the Pentagon.”) Following the same pattern, we get a curve like this: Which gives us a final flight path like this for NoC1: Now I understand maybe that's part of the point here, but CIT never proposed anything like that, and never needed to. As whoever it was stated in response, Reheat “twists it (pun intended) even more with an S-Turn? Now there is no doubt in my mind why he wants to remain anonymous. Too funny. He must really be desperate to put an S-Turn in there.” Indeed, if I’m reading it right, there is a pronounced S-curve to the proposed path while CIT’s proposed NoC path is all one arc (blue above, their most moderate proposal). Yes, this means Morin was really fudging, but who can disprove that? It's not much further from what Paik drew - his exact lines works for neither official nor NoC paths without fudging. Reheat’s initial straight path as far as the FoB has an edge to run along requires a left and then right bank, whereas CIT has argued for a single right bank over the whole span and crossing the building. These are two different flight paths.

And as far as the degree of the second turn, JFK’s criticism – for once anyway - seems valid here. Unless I’m missing something, there’s no reason “the tags P1, P2, and P3” need to be THE “center points of the turn radii for the NoC locations to the impact point at the Pentagon.” It doesn’t need to fly the full arc 180° - it could fly nearly straight after the Citgo starting from a less northerly heading there. Let me help out here with a possibility:
Someone else can crunch the numbers on that.

If nothing else, this episode illustrates the absurdity of trying to concoct a real flight path from witnesses by focusing on discrepancies rather than correlation, and the dangers of selective reading - someone, or some part, always has to get thrown under the bus. And besides, if someone "must really be desperate to put an S-Turn in there,” someone needs to look into the chaps who put out this desperate s-s-s-swerve a while back and started all these tortured calculations.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008


June 11 1am

Aldo Marquis CIT has news for us, again! “UPDATE: We've got another corroborating witness to the DC/EOP/Chaconas flight path.” Good, since the Scoggins confirmation didn’t turn out so well. This was the first post in the Chaconas thread since JFK shut it down a month ago to push out PBnJ. And there’s news on other fronts, hints a-dropping at the LCF in the last few days, and I gotta say I’m scared that my whole reality is about to come crashing down! "They have no idea how wrong they are about to be," Marquis told Bitterman. "Paik's position didn't allow him to see what happened at the end of the Annex," he said in another thread. "We do have a better idea now, so just stay tuned."

Most ominously, Marquis announced "We now have an additional 6 NoC witnesses. 2 on audio recording and 4 on location, on camera. One of those was a surprise published account that we did not expect to get." Lemme guess – ANC folks and such who were north of the real path, and describe the plane as over them? Now CIT’s collection has grown to “12 people who saw it on the north side of the Citgo.” How many mention the Citgo? I'll have to wait and see. How many people south of the real path described the plane as 'over' them? But they don’t count as SoC witnesses since they don’t mention the Citgo, right? Now CIT’s collection has grown to “12 people who saw it on the north side of the Citgo," he told critic Boboblaw, "leading us to believe the plane flew over. Leading us to believe in the second plane cover story. Leading us to Roosevelt Roberts who saw the plane flying away and thought it was a second jet in the area at the exact time of the attack."

Regarding that last, I'm still waiting for that full article and complete audio that was promised a couple weeks ago. One thing at a time fellas, lets see if one pans out before we start distracting people with something else that also won't. Not sure what they’re saying at their own forum, but the word bombshell is probably in there somewhere, as they plan another of their regular bomb-dropping followed by another round by the dud truck, teetering and barely able to drive beneath its towering load anymore. Perhaps they will finally break the truck, which seems their only reachable goal.

'Hey, we're not confused about Roberts' account,' CIT will likely say. 'You're the one with the stupid "questions." Why don't YOU go ask him to explain it again?' Funny they should possibly ask that right after I led the post that direction. In other news, I’ve been “unusually investigative” lately in sending out, last Monday, a ‘clarification packet’ to Officer Roberts with all the contact info he could need. In nine pages (with plenty of space, mind you), I asked about all the little details I’ve been wondering about and made it near-impossible, if he answers anything, to continue the vagueness that’s come across so far. I included a zoomed map for locating himself, lane 1, etc. if all south, and a wider view for the flight path he saw. I could have made better ones I suppose, but I felt rushed.

The way I see it there are three possible outcomes:
1) He doesn’t respond, or does so in a curt and dismissive way. This seems most likely, but considering how he talked with CIT, I would find this a bit suspicious. They didn’t just look up his number and call him, not by any means I’ve found, but likely got him to call them after an initial contact. Am I right, guys?
2) He responds in the affirmative of what I suspect – he saw 175 impact on TV and then saw 77 approach. I’ll publish it happily.
3) He clarifies what CIT’s been saying. I won’t believe it, but I’ll acknowledge it and, with his permission, pass it on. That in itself would be very interesting.

So each of these outcomes is educational in its own way, and it will have been worth the time in any case. He should have had the packet for over a week now, just long enough that the suspense is killing me and I’m wondering if he’s planning to blow me off quietly. So now it’s in the open, I can’t be blown off silently. How loud it gets depends on me. In the chance he’s reading this site, again, all I want is the honest and un-muddled truth, even if it’s just that I fail, and we are waiting on a response. And again, Roosevelt, if you're reading this, all of this back-and-forth should not matter a bit for the outcome. Memories are memories, and if CIT can hear them, why not me?

Sincerely, Caustic Logic

Tuesday, June 10, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 10 2008

Previously on this site I’ve cited “2001 LoC interviews” with Pentagon attack witnesses William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, and Roosevelt Roberts, all Defense Protective Service officers. These are part of a larger series of oral interviews gathered by the “American Folklife Center” at the Library of Congress, and more specifically from a sub-set of interviews collected by Utah State University student Jennifer Brennan. A USU website lists the impressive collection of 56 oral interviews recorded on tape and catalogued in their library after a folklore professor there “instigated this documentary project in her fall 2001 semester class(es). Some of her students participated in what was a larger (nation-wide) folklore collecting project," the site explains.

Remember when reading or listening to these accounts, they are not part of a scientific investigation of witnesses; the oral accounts are gathered as folklore, passed-down stories, only based in authentic experience. But around Arlington, they tell their kids that “folklore” consists of “fictional stories of a country or region passed down through generations to help explain natural phenomenon, often using animals and bigger than life characters. Paul Bunyan is an example of folklore.” How’s about the north-of-Citgo flight path, Pentagon flyover and all-faked destruction? A tall tale that will re-surface for generations when the subject of September 11 comes up? “What about those officers and that animation… didn’t some people actually see the plane fly over the Pentagon?” Never mind that it makes no actual sense, aside fro the vigorous lobbying of certain ‘investigators,’ it has a certain mythic resonance with a number of people, and these three accounts - and later accounts by the same men - are among the few real things that give it that.

But as well as embryonic folk legend, the tapes are evidence of some kind, and much of this is good stuff. The freshness of the accounts is core to their value, all recorded within a few months of the events. The register of all USU tapes, compiled in May 2004, lists the collection as including assorted paperwork “contained in the first of four boxes in the collection, each informant having an individual folder within the box. The audio tapes are held in the remaining three boxes.” Regarding the list itself, each informant's name was “followed by the call numbers (for both the interview paperwork and the corresponding audio tape), the date and place each interview occurred, as well as any other pertinent information." [emph. mine]

Including our three DPS officers, Brennan contributed 24 of the total 56 interviews (10 of which were also published at the LoC site - search "Jennifer Brennan" if needed), all conducted in late November/early December 2001. These are listed chronologically, starting with one Donald Brennan (Pentagon employee), whom she refers to as “Dad.” His account was in Box 1, Folder 7, and the audio tape in box 2, No. 4. The interview date is listed as Nov. 18, in Washington D.C. via telephone from Logan, UT. It includes “Tape log; fieldwork data sheets; 2 transcribed oral narratives included; collector release form only.” Himself a DPS officer of unclear rank, Brennan Sr’s account is detailed and coherent (and included in the LoC collection, in 2 parts). He didn’t see the plane but he mentions hearing two transmissions: of a plane approaching and a plane impacting – possible candidates for these calls include officers Brooks, Lagasse, or Roberts, all of which Brennan apparently helped his daughter get ahold of, along with at least some of the others I would guess, giving her by far the biggest take in the USU’s effort and I would hope high marks in the class.

Our eventual CIT witnesses are listed at the USU site thus:

William C. Lagasse (Pentagon employee):
Box 1, Folder 20 [AUDIO TAPE: Box 2, No. 17]
06 Dec. 2001
Fredericksburg, VA (via telephone from Logan, UT)
(Tape log; fieldwork data sheets; Collector release form only.)

Chadwick Brooks (Pentagon employee):
Box 1, Folder 24 [AUDIO TAPE: Box 3, No. 3]
09 Dec. 2001
Stephens City, VA (via telephone from Logan, UT)
(Tape log; fieldwork data sheets; Collector and informant release forms.)

Roosevelt Roberts, Jr. (Pentagon employee ?):
Box 1, Folder 27 [AUDIO TAPE: Box 3, No. 6 - MISSING]
10 April 2002

Waldorf, MD (via telephone from Logan, UT)
(Tape log; fieldwork data sheets; Tape missing; collector and informant release forms.)

So Roberts’ original tape is missing from the USU collection. This could have many different reasons, and is not unique to his interview. Four other tapes are also listed as missing, all from Brennan’s 24, and all listed as (Pentagon employee ?). two of these five, Roberts and Maiorca, were first logged with the LoC and still available, for a net loss of 3 audio accounts from all known circulation (Cooke, Ochoa, Wayman). How this happened and what significance it may have I can’t yet say.

There is also an odd pattern here by which the “date and place each interview occurred” as given on the USU site is generally later than the given dates for the ten featured on the LoC site, though generally within a few days or weeks of each other. Her fathers and Wagstaff’s are the only ones with dates that match, Nov 18 and 29th respectively, listed the same at both sites. Lagasse is listed as recorded on December 4 by LoC, and Dec 6 by USU, Brooks as Nov 25 and Dec 9. Rosati, Gamble, Stout, and Nesbitt follow this pattern. It seems reasonable to guess that one set of dates refer to the actual interview and the other to a later cataloguing or something The USU site’s wording must be wrong, since the LoC couldn’t be cataloguing them before they occurred.

The general proximity of all but two of the USU dates makes sense, but Roberts is listed as recorded Nov 30 by LoC and on April 10 2002 by the USU site, over four months apart. This is not unique, and apparently related to its missing status. The five missing tapes are all given dates of April 10, 11, or 16 2002. This is presumably the date they were found to be gone, the original dates somehow lost as well (written on the tapes?)

Friday, June 6, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 6 2008

I could have posted this sooner, but it deserved some careful prep, and I’ve enjoyed CIT’s maneuvers in the interim. Sorry fellas – I did set it like an ambush, but didn’t expect it would actually work so well and so quick.

Recently I was able to contact FAA’s Colin Scoggins about his 9/11 report of a plane seen (I presumed) on radar southeast and/or southwest of the White House just prior to the attack. I was thrown for a loop when Scoggins told me it was a visual sighting from FAA HQ in the Capitol, and it seemed he was saying it was therefore NOT a radar report.

That wasn’t even my original question, but I poo-pooed this notion, given the great distance to see it. I did do up some scale experiments that indicated “they certainly would be able to visually pick it out" - barely, as a speck - "if they were first tipped off by, say, a radar report of a plane five miles southeast, er, southwest. But to notice it with no prompting makes little sense to me.”

In the comments at the above link, Craig Ranke of CIT showed his enthusiasm for this revelation and his own idea for the prompting in question:

“So Scoggins is 99% sure it was a visual from FAA HQ in downtown DC! Wow. Great work! Clearly that destroys the NTSB and supports EoP.
It wouldn't take a "hawkeye" on the DC flight path if they saw it pass their building over DC and kept following it and this does not make any sense AT ALL with the NTSB or alleged radar data!
>>>>You'd guess they were prompted by the over DC path to keep following it then?
If there is any truth at all to the this visual reference then it is the only explanation. Naturally any plane at all in P56 airspace would alert attention.”

[how about the outbound C-130 over the mall’s south edge? Any witnesses outside the plane?]

Ranke even started a thread at their forum, the last before the valuable threads posted later on “Tramsoccalpra” and “Hydrociault” that were REMOVED! (Censor Nazis ;))
DC flight path - East of Potomac evidence, further confirmed by ATC Colin Scoggins
, about how “CIT obsessed Adam Larson did a little investigating of his own and ended up CONFIRMING our claims!” He presented a fuller argument that does make sense given the state of the evidence yesterday, used my graphics, and even linked to the original as a valuable piece of research, if riddled with obfuscation and whatnot. Amazing. Cue the sparkly CIT lyte trip-hop music, this goes in the revised how they forgot to scratch Lloyd's hood and other addenda video...

As far as Ranke’s interpretation that a visual encounter supports the DC flight path, this does make some sense, depending on how much evidence there really is for it being over DC before this (hint – it’s a CIT claim). For CIT it’s a no-brainer since they already believe it was over DC and THIS is what prompted them to follow or project it south, southwest, and so on. But here’s a different, more informed insight, from another Scoggins e-mail just as Craig started posting stuff:

"This [is] taken from the USA Article I mentioned. This is the TELCON I beleive I was on. I am 99% sure. The call came from FAA HQ, and they were on the West side of the FAA HQ building, and Dave Canoles must have been on the North side, so Dave's office was a corner office or it was real close to the corner. "

Cue the record-scratch sound. Indeed. I had heard this article mentioned but hadn't read it, and apparently neither had Ranke. The whole article, from just after 9/11, is still available here. These are the relevant excerpts:

At FAA headquarters, less than a half-mile from the White House and Capitol, Dave Canoles paces before a speakerphone. The head of air traffic investigations, Canoles has set up phone connections with air traffic facilities. […] Now, about 9:35 a.m., he and others on the conference call listen as an official watching a radarscope tracks the progress of the jet heading for Washington

So my either-or impression was a false one based in my ignorance of this piece. Canoles is probably the muted voice we can hear behind Scoggins in the NORAD tapes, and he was first tipped off by another person elsewhere watching the radar track. This makes perfect sense, and then the visual part comes in, prompted by radar. Is there a clue in this to what the returns said?

“Canoles sends an investigator who works for him to an adjoining office with a view to the west. "See if you can spot it," he tells him.
"Six miles from the White House," a voice on the phone says.”
Canoles glances outside, through a window facing north. He wonders if he and his co-workers are in danger. At 500 mph, the jet is traveling a mile every seven seconds.
"Five miles from the White House."
No way the FAA is a target, Canoles thinks. It can't be.
"Four miles from the White House."
They'd never choose to hit us. No way.
"The aircraft is circling. It's turning away from the White House."
Where? Where's it going?
Then: "It's gone."
In the adjoining office, the investigator spots smoke to the west of the city. The jet has hit the Pentagon. The time: 9:38 a.m.”

Scoggins feels this account “flat out tells me that it is visual,” but I don’t really see it. There is talk of windows and attempts to see, which is a hint it might have gone there, but the only thing that’s clearly mentioned actually being seen is the smoke afterwards. Now since the investigator is in an adjoining room a phone bridge seems unnecessary, but it is possible he’s the one on the phone giving the updates based on what he’s seeing out the window. And it’s at least as possible, not knowing more, that these are from the same radar operator that got them started.

It’s not clear from this alone if there was ever a visual sighting of the plane, but Scoggins also heard what Canoles actually said, in the telcon we only hear murmurs of, and he is left 99% certain there was such a contact. I’m inclined at the moment to believe him. So treating this as an eyewitness case, let’s first note that the USA Today piece mentions a view to the north, meaning Canoles’ office was on the building’s north side – he had an investigator go into an adjoining, but different office, with a view to the west – a corner office.
It’s not clear if any sighting would be before the plane turned fully southward from its original path or after the loop and up to the final approach. The witness would not be able to see the farthest reaches of the loop (darker green, below) between these points at all without binoculars. He may well have had binoculars though, come to think of it. He could then have seen perhaps the entire loop, or any portion of it, all from that office with a view to the west.
Now, how can this visual sighting “further validate the east side evidence” if it’s taking place from a west-facing office, prompted by a radar report of a plane in that direction? Originally I offered the quite reasonable and well-supported guess that the southeast report was simple error in reporting a radar track. Then it seemed there was a visual contact instead of radar, which complicated things. Then I learned that this observance was spurred by radar and confirmed southwest, and while we still aren’t sure where the momentary inversion of east and west came in, it is looking pretty much out the window as evidence.

Thursday, June 5, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 4 2008
update 6/9 12pm

At the Loose Change Forum recently CIT witness Steve Chaconas, as presented in The Pentagon Flyover, came up again. [interview runs 17:34-35:00 in the video] Chaconas was a charter boat captain out fishing with others on 9/11, near a sewage treatment plant on the Potomac a few miles south of the capitol. CIT feel “Steve’s account alone is enough to prove a military deception” by having a plane fly across the river east-to-west, bank right and apparently fly into the Pentagon off in the distance. Critical forum member Bret08 pointed out that “Chiconas [sic] is a human being giving his judgement and perceptions. He is not infallible,” and asked his fellow members “Are we even sure that the plane he saw was AA77/decoy?” He’s exactly right to wonder about this, if not terribly articulate about it. He was of course hit with slings and arrows for his criticism. CIT ally Bitterman snapped back:

“Hey Bret! WTF! What is wrong with you? Wait, wait......don't tell me.....I already know what you do. It pisses me off. […] in APRIL, you asked this SAME QUESTION. Remember when we trounced you because you still didn't get it, and we informed you that Steve CAN tell the difference between a turbo prop and a jet airliner?!?!?!

4 engine turbo prop vs. a 2 engine jet. AGAIN, DO NOT ASK THIS QUESTION AGAIN. Your motives are obvious to me, but I have to play by the rules. So, for the last is the answer to your STUPID question. [provides the quote I’ll post below] So? WTF man. WHY are you here? Who are you? Why are you important? How old are you? You're credible how? […] If this is ALL you bring to the table, then STFU.”

At this point the moderators stepped in. “JFK” is no Jack Kennedy – he’s also a moderator at plane-pod-promoting letsrollforum and seems to think he can make any tripe look noble with his pensive presidential avatar and management of ideological differences in the name of "9/11 Truth." In response to Bitterman’s barely-provoked tirade, JFK said “Brett is tolerated here simply in case if we overlook something.... Other than that I ignore him for the most part.” Further denunciations came unmoderated from Avenger not Aldo, and Domenick DiMaggio not CIT.

I’d guess that Brett08 is tolerated there because he is timid and not studied on the details, and because they need some on-site opposition. I know I wouldn’t be tolerated for a minute in the current climate (I’m “Deleted User” there, voluntarily, but it’s devolved since then). I know to point out that all we have for proof of the decoy white airliner thing crossing the river is this ONE witness who saw the final bank and dive preceded by a crossing of the river by what he feels is one and the same plane.

The pivotal part is where he saw it crossing close to him, considering the C-130 flown by Lt Col Steve O’Brien that followed after 77 to investigate the crash site crossed the river roughly when and exactly where Chaconas’ plane crossed. It has been reasonably proposed by Brett and myself and others that he actually saw the C-130 and just thought it was an airliner.

I’m not bothering now with a full deconstruction, but my opinion on Chaconas is that he’s neither correct nor 100% honest in his account, and neither is he outright lying, and almost certainly not any kind of “disinfo agent.” Consider this graphic: A perfectly honest and unbiased observer might connect these two maneuvers with a deduced bank, considering the proximity of the two path in time and space. Add in his apparent desire to boost the mystery and ‘unanswered questions’ surrounding 9/11 [27:00 in the video], a sentiment similar to that of Bob Pugh [video here, 30:30 on] and such deduction seems entirely too likely to be ignored.

Consider also his curious vagueness on characteristics of ‘the plane’ as it passed nearest to him:
Ranke: “Can you describe the jet for us? Did you notice how many engines it had?”
Chaconas: "I don’t recall anything specific about the airplane, and again, it was far enough away to where we, you know to me, it looked like a commercial airliner…”
Ranke: “How about the color though?”
Chaconas: “Nothing specific about it at all.” [25:05]

This raises a question for CIT. Guys, of all the witnesses you’ve interviewed, how many have flat refused to specify the color when asked? And why is it this one?

In closing, I’ll remind the reader that no other witnesses in the area have yet been found to corroborate this ONE apparent river-crossing by the decoy. And this pivotal and lonely account is based on a few words, like the hard point Bitterman slapped Bret08 with to certify it was one plane, and that an airliner. Carefully re-read this important passage: “and again, it was far enough away to where we, you know to me, it looked like a commercial airliner…” That’s a lot of qualifiers. It was far enough away that to me it LOOKED LIKE an airliner. So it was an airliner! The logical extension of this is that if it were closer, it might look to him or to anyone less like one and, perhaps, more like a C-130. The qualifiers indicate that somewhere in that brain Chaconas knows this.

ETA: And the fact that CIT passed up the chance to show him their ever-present E4B and C130 photos [nowhere in the video] for comparison indicates that they knew it too.

ETA: There will be no Chaconas update posts, and after this ETA no more additions to the post body, since Ranke said "that's it?" in the comments. I don't want to change the context on him. I will include additional marks against their literal interpretation in the growing comments section below.

Wednesday, June 4, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 4 2008 2am

Colin Scoggins was the manager of FAA’s Boston Center as the attacks of 9/11 unfolded around him nearly seven years ago. He played an unexpectedly crucial role relaying information between the FAA, NEADS and others, as one can hear listening to the NORAD tapes released in 2004. Perhaps most famously he was the one who passed on the much-speculated on and unfortunate report at 9:21 am that Flight 11 was still airborne. I’ve been sent a copy of an off-line, detailed account Scoggins wrote, and was even able to make e-mail contact recently with Scoggins himself.

While I’m still trying to get his take on my own Flight 11 theory, he’s given me a puzzling insight into a lesser erred report he had to relay, which I had already covered in six miles southeast, as it related to CIT’s East-of-the-Potomac case. The call Scoggins made, at 9:35:41 am, was essentially this: “Latest report, aircraft [inaudible] six miles southeast of the White House,’ a report soon changed to “six southwest, six southwest of the White House and deviating away.” It was clear that he was passing on information from someone else, but how those people had become aware was not totally clear. I had presumed he was passing on a seen radar track, and that the change from SE to SW was a correction, providing a "brilliant indication" that the path released by the NTSB was “the one seen by radar controllers on 9/11” - a plane deviating away six miles southwest of the White House. When I asked Mr. Scoggins about it, however, it turned out more complex than I thought it would.

I asked, again presuming a radar track, “was the plane your people were watching ever on the east side of the Potomac? Was SE->SW an error->correction or correct placement->update situation?” He wasn’t sure at all on the reason for the change, which stands to reason given the general overload of the morning:

“I immediately called NEADS, and was advising them what I was hearing. They changed the direction so I repeated what I heard. […] So the real question is did AAL77 cross the Potomac, I don't know. I'm 99.9% it did slam into the pentagon, on what route of flight I have no idea, other than what has been published.”

He told me off the bat that “I never saw the plane, our radar doesn't go down that far,” meaning south, as he later clarified “our radar only goes down part way through New Jersey.” The information was being handed to him on a Telcon, a telephone (?) conference, with others at FAA, and passing it on to NEADS, where it linked to military response/lack thereof. He’s not certain who he was talking to or where they were calling from, but seems pretty sure who and where through some personal research (though he isn’t telling me yet). On Scoggins’ advice, as he said in an interview with JREF member Ref, NEADS made a call to Washington Center, where he thought there’d be better intelligence.

“NEADS did turn around and immediately called Washington Center, and advised them that “Boston Center reported and aircraft six miles from the White House”, the response from the Washington Center person who received this call was unbelievable, “How would Boston Center know if an aircraft is six miles from the White House” “CLICK” they hung up.”

I was under the impression Washington center was tracking, or aware of Reagan National's tracking of 77 at this time (about two minutes before impact, near the end of the loop), and would have been the source of this intel. But apparently they rejected it when it was handed to them from the outside. Perhaps they were just too busy tracking the plane to take accurate but minutes-old hearsay about it? But it’s a good question, and the one I was asking; “How would Boston Center know if an aircraft is six miles from the White House?” Scoggins told me:

“I was on aTELCON and there were people who were actually looking at their window and saw the plane, they were speaking it verbatim on the phone to the TELCON. So it was a visual encounter, I assume they were in FAA HQ on Independence AVE. I know one persons name who was there and according to a USA article on around 9/20/01 I have an idea who said it on the phone, and he is the same person that I received the Phantom 11 call on.”

Was he just confusing a human voice saying it for a human eye having seen it? I asked for clarification “are you pretty sure it was not radar that was giving this info?” I would guess FAA headquarters had a link to radar controllers, if not their own screens. He clarified “when they say six miles they probably would have meant statue miles, not nautical,” which would equal a slightly lesser distance. He also pointed out that “they were estimating on a visual of an aircraft moving pretty quick,” and that

“I don't know what office window they were looking from, I've always felt it was FAA HQ […] I am 99 % sure that the statement was made by visual, the same person who stated that this aircraft was 6 NM southwest, is the same person who told me that AAL11 was still in the air.”

I still have to doubt that this is so, Colin being 99% sure or not, because when you turn this into an eyewitness account it falls apart. The main reason is distance: I took a crop of the picture CIT took from witness Timmerman’s apartment, which shows the Pentagon in the mid-distance and the Washington monument clearly visible across the river at 2.4 miles. But its height of 555 feet is 400 feet greater than the length of a Boeing 757. Here is how Flight 77 would have looked if it were flying near the monument, nearly 2 1/2 miles distant:
And here is an experiment in reverse, a view west from atop the Monument. The location the other photo was taken from is marked with a red eye on this 400-foot-wide building. Again, a 757 is slapped in to scale just above the building, 2.4 miles away.

Now here’s the building Scoggins thinks the call came in from – FAA Headquarters on Independence Avenue in DC. At about a mile south of the White Hose and fairly near the Washington monument, they were calling in a report of a plane about five miles away from their ten-story building. Considering the experiments above, what would a witness at FAA HQ see five miles distant? Enough to report as a plane doing this and that? It's as likely to be reported as a gnat on the window, IF the witness was staring an inch from the pane. they certainly would be able to visually pick it out if they were first tipped off by, say, a radar report of a plane five miles southeast, er, southwest. But to notice it with no prompting makes little sense to me.

So I guess it doesn't really matter, but Scoggins could just have a false impression or imprecise memory, and then again he could be right. It is possible that some hawkeye saw it happening not terribly far away. It's possible but unlikely, and radar still seems right for this accurate but briefly inverted report of Flight 77's location.

Monday, June 2, 2008


June 2 2008 1am

I hate to have to keep reporting weird things but this can’t go un-noted. Since last night this has been the status of JREF's forum: The Forum is closed for maintenance. For about the same time, this is what the Loose Change Forum gives me: Safari can’t open the page “” because it can’t find the server “”. This simultaneous cessation of two discussion forums (one VERY active) presumably will be short-lived and explained soon enough. But it is very mysterious and leaves me repeating, as an old co-worker had a way of pronouncing it, “Whot de ‘ell?”

The bickering, sniping, and so on between the two forums had been getting about insane - personal info revealed, sock puppets, IPs tracked, old gripes, accusations, veiled threats, screen caps, it was all hard to keep up with. Did something in there snap something, like, legally? Much of this drama was centered in the areas I'm watching - Conspiracy Theories at JREF and The Pentagon at LCF – and the bogus theories of Citizen Investigation Team (sorry, the bogus theories of the Citgo witnesses, the people of Arlington, etc.). The friction was between the team itself and increasingly its supporters and detractors inside and outside ‘the Movement.’ Was it from this flamethrower battle that a simultaneous cessation of both forums came?

It didn’t seem so, since CIT’s own discussion board was still up last night and earlier today. Then I went to check again and got this: Safari can’t open the page “” because it can’t find the server “”. Whole servers are down at Zetaboards and Invisionfree? Or is it all on my end? And whatever’s going on at JREF? I do not know my computer stuff – is this a virus or something? Is it subject-matter oriented, or legal? There were no announcements or warnings sent to members, that I saw. it just happened.

For those desaparately adrift due to all this, I’m still afloat, it seems. Climb on board here, and help me sort it out. Comments moderation off for now given the catastrophe. :)
Update: As I should have suspected, no multi-forum catastrophe - see comments below - LCF is working for others, so app. I've been banned from reading it, It's more invisible that the Pilots for Truth forum now. JREF has a genuine problem and the page says they'll be up again soon. CIT is back to normal as well. And normal is... well, you should all know by now. Serious seekers and exposers of the "Truth" ban posting for members who disagree too well (CIT), ban reading of subjects for those who don't register for future banning (PFTF), and it seems ban their site from appearing to certain not-even-members anymore (LCF, hijacked by CIT/PFT). Also I found I'm not able to comment anonymously even at ATS, like a normal person who hasn't pissed them off once can do. So with two of these four forums unreadable and the other two unanswerable, I have JREF and 911Bolgger in my communications repetiore at the moment. So... I won't be following the latest lies, distortions, and idiocy as close anymore, which will be good for me and I guess for them.
update: Tuesday afternoon - LCF opens for me now. Whot de 'ell? Well now I don't really care but I have something to do for the next ten minutes. Oh, I guess it'll only take two minutes to catch up on the news.

Sunday, June 1, 2008


The Frustrating Fraud
Last updated January 2 2008

This post is to organize the sub-posts dealing with the analysis of the physical evidence at the Pentagon attack scene. I am not a structural engineer, forensic scientist, or airplane mechanic. I'm a janitor, but have enough common sense, basic scientific knowledge, and ability to visualize spatial dynamics and physical processes to give my analysis some worth. Some of this is just conjecture, some backed by some research. And most importantly, I’m driven by a desire to actually figure out what makes the most sense, and not be ruled by mystery and speculation. Initially my research was to decide how far off-track Pentagon Strike and 911 In Plane Site really was, but since then I have put together a plausible explanation for what physically happened there that morning centered around the impact of a plane rougly the size and shape of a Boeing 757 and seemingly painted with the American Airlines standards. It's not the only possibility, but as I'll demonstrate it's probable, likely, or at at least as plausible as any other theory, putting the lie to the myriad claims it could not be so.

Just as I was posting this starting late in 2006, the new paradigm of no-757 hoaxing was emerging – Citizen Investigative Team and the witnesses whose geometry logically rules out an impact by a missile, drone, 757, anything, with all the points of evidence addressed below fabricated independently, some in real-time, to indicate a plane strike on the official path. To demonstrate how remarkably convoluted that would be all I need do is keep plugging away at the details like I have been and take as leads the points they think they can twist into making their silly case seem to make sense. To address the witness verification, logic, geometry, and honesty aspects of CIT, I’ve gone out on several limbs listed in a separate masterlist.

In piecing this together I’ve drawn on official and governmental sources, FOIA released documents shared by others, published personal accounts, and mostly on many hundreds of photographs and the published opinions of various theorists. I'm indebted in tiny part to 911 IPS/Loose Change/Hufschmid et al for getting me started and wondering, but indebted massively to the groundbreaking works of John Judge, Mark Robinowitz, Jim Hoffman, Russell Pickering, Joel van der Reijden, Scott Bingham, and various others for showing and addressing in a sane manner ALL the evidence available and thus allowing me closer to the reality of the situation. So in drawing on the works of others, there are only so many new ideas here. What I do is try to understand a point at the basic level, verify it by what I know or can learn, and then simplify and convey the core ideas in my own way. There are no math or science prerequisites for understanding the evidence of this crime scene as I've boiled it down.

In fact, as some have pointed out, the Pentagon may have become such a focus of flawed theories because of the simplicity of the crime scene. The WTC was almost volcanically destroyed and buried, but the Pentagon was basically a five-story office building left almost totally intact. The impacted section was primarily on a single floor of the building and of course inside the plane. Identification of plane parts and bodies would be easier by orders of magnitude than the New York crime scene. And if no such evidence existed, many reasoned, this would become the “weakest link” in the official story. The scant evidence available does not bear them out – this is someone’s weakest link, but not the government’s.

- Precision Low-Rider: The remarkably anomolous final attack altitude - admittedly quite a feat for a hulking 757. And yet...
- The widely-cited unmarked lawn: A plane so low and yet not quite THAT low. Again suspicious but ultimately a red herring IMO. It seems that however unlikely, it flew that razor's edge of altitude, pushing the envelope to the maximum.
- From the Blind Spot to the Empty Side: The lack of radar coverage over the attack route and the stroke of "luck" that had the plane hit the just-renovated and partly empty side of the building.
- The "undamaged" light poles: Testifying the 'official' flight path and altitude, were these clipped by the plane, popped with FX, or planted in advance?
- Analysis: Poles 1 and 2 proportions, shear height, clues to final plane bank, just a hint of getting into the Lloyd issue...
- Map of the crime Scene and the "obstacle Dodge." The heliport, attack path, generator, etc. mapped out and explained. Excellent resource to be updated soon to reflect the below.
- Vent Structure Damage: If the plane could be said to have hit the ground before impact, this is where it did so.
- Twisted Orange Trailers: Analysis of scrap metal at the scene with some angles and stuff. Pretty cool.
- Cookie Identification Team: The damage points that line up so well they're called 'cookie-cutter,' or too perfect, by critics. Generator trailer, fencem vent retaining wall, tree damage, general impact hole.
- Like Two Bulldozers: A new view highlights the consistency of the damage path with a 757 strike or some damn good fakery.


- The Entry Wounds: Analyzing the tiny "16-foot hole" so many insist could not have allowed a 757. It's actually 90 feet wide.
- The "16-foot hole challenge." coming soon.
- The outer wall: how many inches of what?: External Wall construction notes - 18" of steel-reinforced concrete? 13" of brick reinforced limestone? Or what?
- Support columns Masterlist: The "intact support columns" thought to preclude a 757 - anlysis with thee linked sub-posts demonstrating incorrect official reports, questioning the status of columns 15-17aa, and the PentaCon guys' analysis of "intact" column 14aa on the second floor.
- Pentagon Foundation Damage?
- Right Wing Damage Continuity

- Early revisionist accounts decided only one ring was damaged. I run rings around their deeply flawed analyses (from 2001 and 2002) for no big plane at the Pentagon. They should have learned by now, but it doesn't seem they have.
- Nine feet of Steel Reinforced Idiocy: Plane penetrates 300 feet, fraud logic penetrates nothing.
- Punch-Out Page - intro on the punch-out hole at the end of the plane's alleged penetration, masterlist of more posts on the hole.

- No fires? "A Stool Sample of IPS Evidence."
- Impact fireball: Fireball Fakery: Challenge to CIT


- Part I: The Engines: Parts that could be from almost any engine - including a 757's.
- Part II: Landing Gear: a wheel and a landing gear that look like those from a 757.
- Part III: the Scrap Over the Scraps: Fuselage segments from an American Airlines jet.
- The Flight Data Recorder {masterlist}: Found intact, with altitude, speed, etc details programmed in, and coming out weird. A lot to cover... especially the animation.

Faces of Death, the Moussaoui Edition: The government's release of new evidence in mid-2006 as the Moussaoui case closes - are we seeing the Flight 77 victims here?
- also covered at the end of the
nine feet of idiocy piece.