Thursday, June 5, 2008

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.

6 comments:

Craig said...

That's it?!

What a cop out!

After all this time THAT is all you have to say on Chaconas? Still holding on to the absurd C-130 nonsense? Suggesting that he DEDUCED a bank even though he clearly and very explicitly described how he SAW it?

You know how desperate you look right? No wonder it took you so long to address him!

The DC flight path is backed up by NUMEROUS sources and the fact that Chaconas is the only KNOWN witness on the river does not diminish the legitimacy of his account.

He wasn't alone either.

Caustic Logic said...

See how easy it is now to register your opinions? Er wait, sorry, your hard-won facts.

He did say he saw it turn, though he wasn't as detailed about it as he was the final maneuver, and he may have. with 77. He may be just deducing or willfully deducing, I don't know how to tell the difference. 2/3 of the path he saw is accounted for by REAL planes that were there, which is why he isn't outright lying, as far as I can tell, even though he's creating a flight path that never existed.

So did anyone else refuse to say the color when asked? Or is he the only one?

Caustic Logic said...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's it?!






What a cop out!





Oh, and no, that's not it. I have more, just not the time to put it together. I may or may not post updates. Cliff's notes version is far more potent and should suufice for most.

Caustic Logic said...

I've added 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.

And I'll also add this. How could a 4 engine prop plane EVER be mistaken for a 2-engine airliner? Everyone can tell the difference!
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=24858&t=42577
PFT poster: "but im still leaning strongly towards it having two engines man."
Aldo: "I am not taking a stance on this, and I do lean towards the photo being the C-130..."
Chaconas: "it was far enough away to where we, you know to me, it looked like a commercial airliner"
Squinting for 9/11 Truth - whoever at PFT, not quite Aldo, and mmaybe Steve C. - a 'mental picture starer'?

Caustic Logic said...

"You can't say what the captain saw was a C-130 because he saw it well before the explosion. There should have been no other planes in the area."
- Avenger
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15517&view=findpost&p=14724378

Oops, we all know how wrong that is.

But if he saw a gray 4-propellor cargo plane, he'd know it, right?

Vin Narayanan - he saw a second plane, presumably the C-130, ‘a couple minutes’ after impact (right time), but is steadfast that it was a jet Aldo has to correct himself - the plane - the jet, right... [my obsv. from Pentagon Flyover video]
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=98&view=findpost&p=1432345

PFT picture-starer cited above who thot the C-130 looked like a 2-engine - jet, right? Possible airliner? ...

Unlike these people, Bitterman screams,
"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."

Caustic Logic said...

Also we can note as support for this fusion interpretation the timeline of it. As the graphic shows, radar tracks from the C-130 crossing the river to 77's impact takes almost exactly three minutes. Chaconas on his plane:

“it was about three minutes that plane was in the air.”