CHACONAS: AN INTOLERABLE INTERPRETATION

CHACONAS: AN INTOLERABLE INTERPRETATION
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 time....here 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.