LIKE TWO BULLDOZERS

NEIT 749 PHOTO SHEDS LIGHT ON DAMAGE PATH
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 27 2008

Whatever I think of some of John Farmer’s propositions, I have always appreciated his unparalleled use of FOIA and other channels to increase the body of available data about the Pentagon attack. Among the three dozen plus Center for Military History witnesses he’s obtained so far, one at least brought additional material aside from testimony. This witness is designated NEIT 749, a Helicopter Pilot with the Fairfax County Police Dept. He was not a witness to the event, and only saw the aftermath from the air. When he was interviewed by CMH in late April 2002,they also collected at least some of the officer’s photos, which Farmer was able to retrieve copies of, in mid-resolution, and share them at his site. He does ask that they be cited to Center for Military History / Fairfax County Police.

As far as I can see, these are all-new, never-before published images, 24 of them, most aerial long-shots of the damage and recovery staging areas. There is really nothing much revolutionary in the images that jumps out at me, but perhaps I’m just worn out on all this. One, image #100-0008, shows a new view of the downed light poles, partially assembled at the guardrail. I’m not sure yet if there are any new clues in that pile, that’s for later. For now I’m struck more by image #100-0028 (above), an early aerial shot from just north of the impact area and looking across the pre-building damage area at a unique angle.

“Obstacles” of note labeled are in this enlarged crop, most previously identified in my “obstacle dodge post. For some stupid reason, a lot of entities have latched onto the cable spools as evidence against a large plane strike. I’ll look at that a bit below. The diesel-powered generator trailer and fence are of course widely noted as evidence for the right engine’s passage through that corner of the construction area. The ‘mystery debris’ I had previously thought perhaps part of the generator, but here we can see right behind it a concrete footprint (parked’ behind the van), to which something had apparently been attached. I looked at the vent structure in detail later, Its corner was famously nicked by the ground-level left engine, but hardly anyone has looked at the inside elements of this recessed structure. ‘Vault 1’ as I’ve labeled here was apparently scraped over, its hinged door pushed back and warped (see above post for closer side-photos) What I’ve here labeled vault 2 is probably the original resting place of the propped-open door assembly dented and hurled back. This is visible as a tent-like shape in many photos (here only half-visible). A tipped over Bobcat tractor as previously seen is even further behind that.

Without reference it seems a chaotic scene. But I have reference, and this photo also allows us a unique view of the area where I can line up the column lines and the “official” plane profile relative to them, and trace this back.

The tipped fuselage would have a clearance of perhaps ten feet at the right, and perhaps five at the wall. Its right side/wing faring a bit higher than the left. The famously non-tipped, non-damaged 6-foot cable spools furthest from the building were thus likely passed just over, and the one at center likely rolled a bit from the right – probably on wake just after the plane passed. The two further in seem to be spread away from the others right along the fuselage path as it descended, and tellingly, it’s these two that are tipped over and of course singed/burnt from the intense deflagration at impact, which they were in the range of.

Otherwise, the fuselage had little real effect prior to the building, and it’s the engine paths that are interesting here. All evidence puts their impact points roughly at column lines 11 and 17, the left engine at ground level and right engine a bit higher, These I traced back from impact in orange, along the ground (width app, slight perspective skew). Refer to the above graphic where the objects were highlighted and compare to these areas. The general excellent fit stands out, as framed by the fence damage and vent corner nick, and as everyone has noticed. What pops out here, aside from the curious lack of clutter in the actual engine troughs, is the precision of the lines marking their paths. The trailer and mystery debris on the right, both seem pushed aside just far enough to let pass a barreling multi-ton RB211 engine. On the left, the lid from vault 1, the lid assembly from vault 2 or wherever, and the Bobcat’s direction of tip all clearly follow the rough outer edge of the left engine’s swathe. Forward (on the plane’s path) and to the right or left, depending. Like two low-flying aerial bulldozers came in on the “official path” to fake us all out.

That is what some “investigators” would call a suspiciously precise forensic clue – like so much else about the attack, it just lines-up a little too “cookie cutter.” Would a real airliner fake an airliner’s damage so perfectly? Short answer: yes, it would, and it probably did.

LET’S TALK ABOUT IT THEN - THE WITNESSES

LET’S TALK ABOUT IT THEN - THE WITNESSES
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 22 2008
edits 7/23 2am

The Paper / The Witness Roster
Although it does not deny a 757 impact at the Pentagon, John Farmer’s recent paper You All Just Haven’t Talked About it, and its second Plane north path flyover theory proposition deserves special attention and a solid panning. At the outset he warned me:

“You are referring to my little essay as if it were some conclusive theory or something. It is not and was never asserted to be. My only assertion is that there is an evidence set for something more going on in the sky over the Pentagon and DC area at the time of the attack than the public record accounts for.”

But however seriously he meant it, the paper is far more specific than that. It spends its first seven pages on the evidence in the Citgo video supporting a north path aircraft – one solid but inconclusive clue – and the last six pages call on five eyewitness accounts that ultimately offer little if any assistance to the case: William Lagasse, Chadwick Brooks, Roosevelt Roberts, Center for Military History witness “NEIT428,” and “mole,” an anonymous source from a chat forum. One of these, Roberts, was immediately removed. Originally the paper said:

“Add to this another DPS Officer, Roosevelt Roberts who in a 2001 audio interview claims he ran out from the loading dock near the Pentagon southern lot and saw another plane flying low over the south lot, and there is no doubt that AAL77 was not alone.”

As it happened, the paper’s release roughly coincided with Citizen Investigation Team’s on-air announcement of having talked with that witness as a “second plane”/ flyover witness. Within days, after absorbing this new testimony, Farmer announced a change of heart: “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.” Oddly enough from his account, it seems clear that Flight 77 was alone.

So right up front that leaves us four to deal with and two I’m already pretty sure are liars – the original Defense Protective Service Citgo witnesses cited by CIT in The PentaCon. He did not include CIT’s other Citgo witness Turcios, for obvious reasons, but this curiously impossible account did not alter his enthusiasm for the others that also make no sense to the same end. He decided based on an interesting interpretations that “when SGT Brooks and SGT Lagasse’s accounts are taken objectively, they both seem to be describing two different plane approaches simultaneously. One is consistent with the southern path (Lagasse’s yaw and Brook’s vibration) and the other with a northern approach.” Interestingly, like Turcios and Roberts, both only cite one plane bearing these traits.

Lagasse's Yaw
The core of Farmer’s analysis of DPS Sergeant Lagasse is his well-known north-path testimony considered with his final moment “yaw” (nose oriented a bit sideways from the plane’s forward direction) which meant that “it approached the Pentagon at another angle consistent with the actual flight path of AAL77." Now that sounds interesting, considering he already describes the south-path action of crashing low into the building. "In other words," Farmer explains "when he first saw it, he was looking at the right side" of a plane north and set to not hit "and then at the end he is looking at the left side of it," as he'd see of the real impact plane, and "as he would have a plane passing the south side of the station."

This observation spurred to me to reason out a few of Lagasse's early observations to Dick Eastman from June 2003 that had confused me before. When Eastman asked the agitated but open officer “how much of the plane was visible to you as it went in?” Lagasse responded that he “could see the fuse, tail, port wing and starboard wing root” at its final moment, but not the right outer wing. This perhaps fits better with a south approach (seeing left side), but both angles are similar at such a distance. He cites the rise of Route 27 as his view limiter at right, but I used the tree here).

More interestingly, he describes to Eastman the impact of this plane that had passed north of him:

“[It] was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over theannex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building were it met the ground. There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with a heavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same time the wing was involved with the trailer…” [source]Indeed, a left rudder turn would lead to a left yaw matching the right side hitting first as the right wing entered the construction area. Since Construction storage trailers were either to the left of impact or too far right to be struck, and the right wing/engine is known to have torn through the generator trailer at about the time the nose struck, right side first, it seems most likely Lagasse meant this trailer and deduced from the evidence the actual impact angle. From this Farmer’s leap almost makes sense except for the glaring problem that he did not see his own north path plane he’d been tracking remaining high up and flying at least 60 feet – four fuselage-widths – above the crashing one.

So he does give clues consistent with both the north and south path, but gives them all to only one plane, which “literally hit the building were it met the ground.” While this fits with the trailer evidence he saw, it does not explain either the deflection angle of debris he noted (to the left/north) or the downed light poles, which he also saw and “remembers” in the wrong location - along his path, where he also places the damaged taxi. For this interpretation to work, he'd have to be constructing in his own mind a yaw AND a steady descent in order to fuse the two. In short, his testimony never made sense, and it’s only gotten more surreal with more verification. Lagasse is, at best, an unreliable witness. Period. His “yaw” changes this not one bit, and leaves me yawning as evidence for two planes.

Brooks' Vibration
Brooks’ value to Farmer’s thesis hinges on his 2001 LoC interview. Thanks to CIT’s 2006 verification, we know Brooks’ (stated) location, and I’ll reserve judgment on Farmer’s reading of his parked orientation and PoV. Although these are key to understanding this account, it’s something CIT did not sort out, and I at least am just guessing there. By describing a plane off to his left (and ahead?) while hearing a loud sound/vibration behind him, all well before impact, Brooks allowed Farmer to state “if SGT Brooks 2001 account is taken literally, then he was hearing a plane pass behind him while watching another plane to his left.”

We could try not taking it literally then, but there is some room for speculation here and Farmer takes it. I would guess the sound from behind was bouncing off the Pentagon, or perhaps the Citgo. But it’s possible it was a different plane, one left/ahead, one behind, which means about at the Pentagon, or just passing north or south of him and perhaps two seconds from impact, depending on how he was facing. He reported no impact or explosion at this time – not until the one he was watching approach from the west and impacted about two seconds after passing him, clipping light poles along the way, he thinks.

This means the flyover plane was well ahead of the impact one judging by Brooks’ narrative, to the tune of seconds at least (nowhere near the number he ticks off...). This certainly complicates Lagasse’s yaw interpretation! He saw the north path flyover plane pass and believe IT impacted, which necessitates the planes fly in simultaneously – at least one of these two reading has to be wrong. And no other witness describes another jet flying over the Pentagon several seconds before the impact.

NEIT428's Low Plane
The 428th witness interviewed by the Army’s Center for Military History is an Arlington National Cemetery worker and among those available now in Farmer’s FOIA collection. The key part of his account is this:

“Well, when we came out of the warehouse we heard this boom, you know, this big explosion. And we, all we could see was the smoke and the heat [...] after that happened, we looked up in the sky and there was another plane. So, you know, so we panicked. So we started running, you know. So I just dropped on the ground. The plane was so low we were thinking it was going to do the same thing, but the plane made a turn and went in the opposite direction.”

His name is still unknown to me, but I believe this is one of the ANC Ommpah-Loompahs verified in uniform and on-site again in CIT’s upcoming video smash hit whatever the hell it’s called (see the trailer around anywhere). If so my take should be considered in light of this, but whatever he may have said later, this is about his testimony as known to Farmer when he wrote this:

“My first impression was that this must surely be the C-130 known to arrive in the area a minute or so later. However, the altitude of that plane was relatively high and it seems unusual that they would duck for cover in response to it. The interviewer fortunately asks a follow-up question regarding the altitude.

“It was low enough that it could touch the building, the warehouse. It was close.””

Farmer wondered about the “documented […] plane that approached the White House from the Washington Monument area [and was] over the White House at 09:41” and if this was “the plane witnessed by the Citgo and ANC witnesses.” [emph mine] I would guess C-130 with confused altitude clues. He could see the cockpit and perhaps the people in it because it was at a distance to the west, as the C-130 was, and he was seeing its nosecone higher than he remembers and perhaps lower than we’ve all been thinking. Also he was likely nervous and exaggerating any possible threat.

NEIT428 mentions a turn to “the opposite direction,” a U-turn, which none of the witnesses describe for the “decoy” plane but only for the C-130, as Farmer well knows. If “the opposite direction” as he states is "to the left towards the Washington, D.C. area” as Farmer decides, then it must have been coming fromthe DC area when he first saw it, which does not well fit with, for example, Lagasse’s west-east flight past the Citgo. A 30-40 degree turn to the left does not equal the “opposite direction,” which requires about 180 – like the C-130 did. Of Farmer andNEIT428, one has to be wrong about the turn described by NEIT428.

Furthermore, if this witness’ second plane is NOT the C-130, then his failing to notice the C-130 in addition to it is at least slightly odd. And finally, he had second plane pass but not impact after the crash there. This clearly complicates Brooks’ impact after flyover interpretation and Lagasse’s simultaneous passage – of the paper’s proposed readings of Lagasse, Brooks and NEIT 428, at least two have to be wrong about the order of events.

Mole's 757 "over the mall"
And the fourth remaining witness in this sorry parade finally gives us something a bit more promising, but it’s an anonymous online source. Back in March 2002, Screen-name “mole” posted at the techguy forum the following:

“My Team Leader came in to say as he was coming in to the building, he saw a 757 flying in a peculiar location roughly over the Mall. (We now know that was the 757 that hit the Pentagon as it did circle downtown DC, supposedly looking for a target, possibly the Whitehouse which is not as easy to pick out from the air as the Capitol or the Pentagon, before heading west again, then turning east for its final run at the Pentagon.)”

This account is not scientifically precise, and in fact dead wrong on 77 being over the capitol (it was a common urban legend at the time) but it is probably legit as evidence and worth a look. Timeline is key, and the original post does make clear that before hearing this report, mole’s wife “called to tell me there was smoke showing from further down the Mall in the direction of the Whitehouse,” almost certainly the smoke from the Pentagon, further in that direction and the only smoking thing in the area at the time.

The timeline after is less clear, but I might guess he saw the E4-B pass at 9:46, eight minutes after the Pentagon strike. This craft is based on a 747 mode, not 757, which is interesting since mole explained how after this “I saw the outline of a 747-400 flying slowly south to north nearly directly over head at a low altitude. Planes never flew there as it is restricted airspace, almost over the Capitol.” Radar later showed this craft passed the capitol mall a second time at 9:49, but north-south near the mall’s west side, and he says it flew south-north, as it did on the first pass at 9:45:30 before turning left and passing E-W just a few blocks north of the White House.

Therefore, it seems likely after all to speculate that the “757” seen before this was NOT the E4-B, and quite possibly a post-77 second plane. Or it could be 77 itself, with “mole” or his team leader misreading the location clues to put it over the capitol rather than across the river. That might seem like a stretch, but considering how little over-the-mall evidence there really is, it can’t be dismissed. Despite these ambiguities, Farmer has no problem stating of mole’s account:

“With witness statements like this, it is clear that the 911 Commission failed in its job to fully explain to the American public exactly what happened at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.”

No, sorry. It’s clear that we need some clarification on this. The author “knew” Flight 77 was looping over the capitol, but since then we’ve learned it did not, at least officially. Did this “knowledge” compel him to remember hearing it was over the Capitol, when really no location was stated? What we have here is an anonymous unverifiable account passing on a second hand report of a “757 […] roughly over the mall” at some unspecified moment around the attack time, before or after. And it was taken by mole as supporting the crash of that plane. For any other purpose, it's anecdotal evidence, weak and not able to be strengthened ever.

Conclusion: Gravel
So that’s my panning of half the paper, the other half being the video clues I’m not done with yet. Farmer’s optics and video analysis skills are no help on this side, his law-enforcement “extensive experience working with witnesses” has been of little help either, and his statistical insights failed to tip him off to the low odds that this would all pan out. The process of panning is to separate valuable ore from ordinary rock, and at risk of carrying the metaphor too far,, after watching all this gravel sift out the bottom, I’m left with a keen sense of how empty my pan is. A couple faint sparkles of fool's gold, I'd guess. Does it get any better than this?
ETA: Re-considered then in light of this paper never meaning to have argued anything concrete, and the fact that it clearly does argue something pretty cogent, it seems this notion was being floated, or offered as a possibility with some potential value. Or what, John? A thought exercise, a little mad-libs imagination moment just couched in serious terms for effect, a prank to amuse yourself? In the peer review sense, I have to offer my best assessment of your intelligence and intentions, and hope the last is the case.
ETA 7/27: In fact, perhaps this was just a strawman CIT parody disposable construct for that idiot Caustic to joust to the ground triumphantly, which I guess would be amusing. If so, it was fun on my end too, and thanks.

LOSING FLIGHT 77

July 21
The official accounts of radar/transponder tracking and communications problems with following Flight 77 tried to explain how the weaponized airliner was allowed to get within a few minutes of its target undetected. In total this has been taken by many (including myself) as an impossible or at least suspicious string of errors, allowing a third successful attack one hour into the new war. The Pentagon WAS protected by a mobile air-to-air missile defnse system, or was supposed to be, and the system failed as fighters were first alerted of the danger by a columnar smoke signal saying mission failed.

A useful new entry at 911 Myths regarding this - Losing Flight 77 - is up now to shed some light on it. I haven't really read it yet, this is just a tip-off. Calling on arguments by the relatively respectable and non-loony 9/11 Scholar Nafeez Ahmed, the 9/11 Commission Report and hearings, original interview with Colin Scoggins, and more, Mike W concludes:

Not a single one of Ahmed's arguments entirely withstands scrutiny, then. His most substantial point comes in the differing NORAD timeline, but the problems here are well-known, and Ahmed fails to provide independent confirmation to show that their version of events was correct. What's more, the NORAD tapes (released in full after Ahmed completed his book) contradict their timeline, for example clearly showing that they knew nothing of Flight 77 until after 9:30 on 9/11. And so while Ahmed claims victory, the reality is very different: the balance of evidence continues to support the 9/11 Commission timeline for Flight 77.

Additional discussion at JREF with technical input from Gumboot.

JOHN FARMER’S NORTH PATH CLUE

JOHN FARMER’S NORTH PATH CLUE
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 17 2008
Update July 27

John Farmer and I agree on many things about the Citgo video, starting with our willingness to even call it what it is - evidence of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. We agree on the shadow of the south path impact aircraft . We agree on the video’s relevance to Robert Turcios’ testimony. On the famous north canopy flash we agree on its origin lining up only with sunlight, making it irrelevant to flight path questions, although I still find that odd in some ways.

Nearly half of Farmer’s recent second-plane north-path flyover paper is dedicated to explaining the Citgo video and how it actually supports the possibility. Even as I’m finding the whole paper something I hope is a joke, there is one valid north path clue and it’s in the video, allowing us to agree on that once again.

“I examined every flash of light or other optical event fully until I was satisfied with the source of each,” he explained, and all but one “could be associated with real-world events” (I’m presuming he means the “official story”). “At 09:40:37, in camera number 2 (south entrance) a light begins to appear on the rough concrete wall to the left of the entrance door,” the first two frames of which are shown at left with the wall shown at center, in a Farmer-provided site photo.

9:40:37 is video clock time, which is about two minutes ahead of the real time, as this light appears at the same moment all clues indicate the crash at the Pentagon happening. As Farmer notes, "in the very first frame, the light is shining over the top of the corner of that wall which is slightly raised from the roof line." Farmer explains the angles of the walls (see my own graphic below) and notes “the light is originating from a point to the left (less than 52.5 degrees from north) and approximately 3 degrees upward relative to horizontal. In simpler terms, the light source is airborne at a relatively low altitude and at least 17-18 degrees north of the impact area!”I can’t vouch for the more precise aspects, but at least I can agree to the basic idea. As he further explained it in an e-mail to me with this accompanying graphic.

“In the first frame where the “flash” is visible, there is a silhouette cast on the concrete wall. This effect can be replicated in one way, and ONLY in one way. So initially, the light source MUST be to the north-east of the wall corner in order to cast the silhouette observed.”
Alright, so I understand the concept, and I’ll call it ‘the silhouette thing,’ a valid clue of a light source from the north. Must this be a plane on a/the north path though? Altitude is important here. I considered the fireball and its known northern (and upward) angle of deflection/propogation. However looking at the scale of difference required this can be dismissed right out. It didn’t spread that far north. I don’t know enough to rule out last light of the banking plane, reflected from another object along that line, like some sign up on a high overpass nearby or something. It does arrive at that upper ledge just before the main light washes the whole wall there for over two seconds.

So I can’t vouch for the implications, I concur that it is viable evidence of some kind of light somewhere over there at that time. It’s in his attempt to divorce all the following east entrance light from what seems to me its true source and give it to an aircraft with, it seems, bizarre reflective properties, that Farmer almost seems to be talking backwards in the vein of our ol’ pals CIT.

“This is a shadowed area which immediately rules out light from the Pentagon fireball.”

Ummm, no. Open sunlight would drown it, but shadowed areas angled the right way would be where to look for fireball glow. He does correctly state that the fireball “would illuminate the entire area under the canopy, not just a spot on a concrete wall.” For two seconds or more after this one strange frame, it appears to me the intense but diffuse light actually being emitted just 1500 feet away DID illuminate every upright surface about right, even under the north canopy. This issue will require a separate post.

Update 7/27: I had meant to include this observation at first but forgot. The usual frame rate when "action" mode is off, and which I had always seen in the other views, was 3 frames per second. Among the things that first struck me about the silhouette thing is that its camera's view has at least four, and perhaps five or six, distinct frames in the pivotal 9:40:37 slot, and action is not blinking. Regarding this, You All Just Haven't Talked About It explains:

"This particular camera is one of the few that refreshes twice in the multiplexer sequence. So it captures a frame, and then 1/30th of a second later captures another. Then it must sequence through 7 frames before refreshing again. This is fortunate, since the first captured frame gives for that instant a definitive clue as to the origin of the source."

FLYOVER LINK DOESN’T LINK

FLYOVER LINK DOESN’T LINK
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 15 2008

Digging through John Farmer’s north-path flyover paper You All Just Haven’t Talked About it, I had to respond to this one point and draw attention to a little-known but verifiable witness that could confirm or deny it.

“Mark Gaffney and Pinnacle have already documented a plane that approached the White House from the Washington Monument area and was photographed by Linda Brookhart as it turned over the White House towards the Capitol Building.”

Before continuing, I should note that although we’re on bad terms at the moment, Farmer did send me Pinnacle’s documents to review, and I will. I’m still waiting for Gaffney’s book (is it out yet or what? I pre-ordered it months ago!) And for reference, this is the plane in question as snapped by Brookhart - refer to this picture when reading Farmer’s attempt to ambiguously blend this craft with the one seen by Lagasse, Brooks, and “NEIT428:”
“Further, Peter Jennings reported a plane over the White House at 09:41, 2 1⁄2 minutes after the Pentagon event official time of 09:38. So is the plane witnessed by the Citgo and ANC witnesses the same plane? Without more definitive evidence regarding the direction the plane left the area, it is difficult to say.”

The white four-engine plane over the capitol could not have been the same silver 2-engine AA airliner seen on the north flyover path. Further, the direction the plane left the area according to the Citgo witnesses was none. So no, it can't be the same plane. It's not "difficult to say" from my end, but I understand how others might have a harder time deciding.

For now I want to focus on a link in this path Farmer did not cite: Lt. Col. Stuart Artman. A local Florida paper described him on 9/15/01 as a 44-year old "licensed commercial airline pilot of the Army Reserve and engineer in Winter Haven, Florida” and gives his location at the time as “walking near the Washington Monument when he saw a plane fly low over the city." The only direct quote was "I saw the plane that hit the Pentagon. It went behind some trees." The paper followed with “then he saw the smoke.” [source]

It went behind trees, he saw smoke, he feels it hit the Pentagon. Deduced, of course. Here is a graphic highlighting the Monument area, which he was at or near, so exact PoV is unknown. There are several bands of trees he could mean, most likely on his side of the River. A CIT-type north path flover is in yellow, continuing towards the monument area, and the official path ending at the Pentagon is in purple.
Did it fly all the way to his rough location without re-emerging from behind the trees? Was he right under a really dense tree so he didn’t even see it overhead? Because he did not say the plane also flew over the Pentagon after the impact. He did not report any plane heading through the plume right towards him and on to the Capitol. If he had seen this, would he have called that “the plane that hit the Pentagon?” The paper did say “low over the city,” but this means nothing. It’s possible the reporter just doesn’t know the layout or didn’t ask specific enough questions to know if it was over DC or over Arlington.

Perhaps these weaknesses led Farmer to not include Artman in his short five-witness lineup for his paper, but CIT saw it differently, citing this brief account in The Pentagon flyover video, in their list of six additional witness accounts in support of the decoy plane looping over the Capitol either before or after it "hit the Pentagon." Aldo Marquis CIT also cites Artman’s account in his C-130 flight path essay in support of the contention:

“It is clear from a number reports that the plane flew over DC or the Capitol, so we really can't accept that it "had not crossed over towards the White House or towards the Capitol", as Mineta tries to assert.”

Who could believe Bush’s man Mineta over “a number of reports?” Never mind that it’s not just him, but also the radar, the black box, all the physical evidence, the roster of witnesses describing a path ending at the Pentagon, and the total lack of witnesses to any flyover, including the supremely well-placed Lt. Col. Artman that indicate the plane was perhaps headed towards the monuments and the mall but never got that far, having been traumatically absorbed by the Pentagon short of crossing the river.

Can Mr. Artman be contacted by CIT or Farmer, Gaffney, Pinnacle, or any other flyover proponent to get some details on this flight roughly over his head that was omitted from the scrap of his account we have? This is very Important I should think. Perhaps he was being censored in ’01 and maybe he’s been “gotten to” since, but it should not be left unexplored. He does seem to appear in people searches, all you guys, and all the clues you need are in this very post. I would perhaps offer to try myself, but I have no questions for the man and the onus is on those trying to prove some stupid hobbled-together "deception." Best of luck.

CHOKE ON THIS, DICK EASTMAN!

FLIGHT 77's SHADOW
July 6 2008
Update July 11

Mr. Eastman, if you're reading this:

I see you are still active on the internet, having recently contacted Ron Weick to alert him of another compilation of your post-CIT/PentaCon e-mails praising "Greg Ranke" et al... It appears this was first posted and then analyzed by debunkers here (apparently pulled since) and otherwise ignored as fruity.

God bless those San Juan Capistrano kids, eh? I understand Integrated Consultants' animation bowled you over back in August 2006 and briefly convinced you for - how many hours? - that Flight 77 really did actually knock down the poles and impact the building as all the witnesses who were there said. Luckily CIT immediately started "proving" with your star witness and two more that, even though there was no "killer" F-16, the flyover decoy plane really did pass north of the Citgo and NOT impact.

Well here - in addition to the nicely linear damage that IC worked in to explain the south-of-Citgo real flight path and impact, we have the video proof - and have for almost two years now - that places that plane right on the path to do all that. I tell you man, if that little cartoon knocked you flat, what does this do for ya?

Online Videos by Veoh.com
This a re-working of my previous post from last year. The only change is the distance to the plane (before, 195', now 175) and a resultant altitide change from 115 to 105 ft above the shadow (all approximate). It's not a big change and it's all in a general range. It all fits as well as ever - essentially, perfect.

We still have no proof that the Citgo video was manipulated in any maningful way.

ETA: Dick, I know this must be hard to take and I can imagine why you might be bitter, man. Also, thanks to my posting at JREF and Brainster/Pat Curley's re-posting at Screw Loose Change, the video is already at 390 views, pretty good for a few days with no twooferbots fluffing the numbers up. A few debunkerbots I suppose, but somehow those annoy me less. Check the comments section.

Add'l info 7/11: I've never made this clear enough, but this shadow is actually more than two dots. there's an additional small dark patch visible between them, and a faint line of shadow to the right of them. These correspond roughly to the left wing root and forward wing edge as predicted by plane shadow at the right heading. Even without seeing these, the two dots should be evident to anyone who maps out what we would see, but with these additional bits managing to come through, it becomes undeniable. If you spot any inconsistencies here in heading, do remember the aircraft may have been on a slightly different heading at that point, in a slight yaw (flying a bit sideways from its heading) and there's also the angle of view of the roadway, seen more from above in the bottom graphic and more from level in the top.

FILET OF FLOUNDER

FILET OF FLOUNDER
July 3 2008

On June 26 I received my packet for Officer Roberts, unopened and un-received. I had sent it three weeks earlier, hoping to get some clarification on aspects of his eyewitness account. Perhaps I picked the wrong address, or he's out of town, who knows? They said they made two attempts to deliver, and couldn't find anyone to give it to. Maybe he was there and refused it. I don't know.

Anyway, now that I'm started I won't stop that easy. I have the info I paid for, and I know others who know how to talk to him... so I e-mailed Craig Ranke on Tuesday. Here's how that went:

Me: "Well hey, it's been a while. Hope you guys are doing well personally and floundering professionally. The reason I write is to say that my package for Officer Roberts was not received/accepted. [...] Before I waste any more time, I was wondering if you or Aldo would be willing to help me out, either with the right address or if possible his phone number? This will help get me to confirm this account again, which would be great for you guys."

Ranke: "You expose your dishonest intentions and personal obsession with us in your 2nd sentence. You don't care about truth you simply want CIT to "flounder professionally".

You are desperately fishing for ammo to preempt us with spin.

Relax and wait to see all the data."

Me: "Nice excuse. You damn well know my "dishonest intentions" and it would be disrespectful to conceal them. Plus it wouldn't work. So really what you're saying is "no because you're a detractor." Does this mean you really are twisting his words and don't want anyone else messing up your formula? And I'm not obsessed here, I'm following up. I don't even care about your next batch of smoking gun witnesses, I'm only watching the legal developments at this point."

This avoidance despite his earlier statement to Bobloblaw and I:

"Please feel free and call ALL the witnesses.

We encourage it.
[...]
Thanks for helping to verify our claims.

It's about time that The Frustrated Fraud finally did as well.

I sure hope Roosevelt responds to him."

So did he discover I was a deceiver/denier AFTER this statement, or was he just posturing? Oh well, I didn't really expect help, just thought I should try. I still have other addresses to try.

Only news about how CIT's massive proof is playing out in the courts will catch my attention now. As so many others have, I urge CIT to quit wasting their time gathering more evidence and provoking and slinging insults at insane illogical critics and take it to an wise and impartial judge and get this show moving! Otherwise fighting them have grown as stale as fighting the short guy below - who's worried about "preempting" HIS next move?

POLL: WHICH IS MOVING? LIGHT OR CAR?

POLL: WHICH IS MOVING? LIGHT OR CAR?
And Solar angle analysis
July 1 2008

I'm having a hard time seeing any motion of this car, and in fact the light seems to be moving across the car. This video does use a cross-fade that isn't there, and it seems the original dimmer light remains while a brighter light shining closer to the car's front adds to and overwhelms it, holding for only one frame (action mode off, 3fps).


This is the car, in low res, sorry - a black, shiny one, and judging by its response, driven by a police or emergency responder-type, possibly off-duty. I estimate its orientation when still (a line running between the license plates) in the neighborhood of 20˚from north.


The angle of the light IS a very close match at least for the angle of light from the sun (azimuth, 113˚), just about perpendicular to the car's still position, meaning a reflection back along nearly the same line, roughly the same one camera 3 was on relative to the patrol car, and so registers a reflection pointing 'straight up." Geometrically, it all lines up, but the sun doesn't move like that. It can't be from the plane, as it happens at impact, over a second after the plane left that area. It's nowhere near a match for light angles from the impact area, so it's not the explosion that was happening then. At least not directly.

Any thoughts, anyone?
---
Update: Well, looks like I've annoyed Farmer for the last time, and he hasn't the time to explain how the car is moving when it seems to not be. Because I'm an idiot I need to get a new extraction of the video to find similar flashes to this one, but the lo-res 5-min version I have contains none that I see, despite multiple cars passing the same spot. All reflect light dimly from a certain spot to a certain band on the canopy, but only this one has this bright flash. At 9:36:50 video time a dark car drives by the same area, no such effect. A 9:37:17 a white car casts a dim light all across as it passes, no single bright flash. Farmer insists the other flashes are there as other cars pass, and so I suppose they are. But I'll need to see it myself at this point.

On the other hand, I finally did vertical angle analysis based on the known solar altitude of 32˚above the horizon and it IS looking even more like sunlight after all. The tricky part of this for me was always deciding on the reflection plane incline of this unknown automobile. I'm not a car guy, but thinking in terms of a possible patrol car, I looked at a Ford Crown Victoria, which I hear is the standard model. Perspective aside, the incline angle here is about 34˚from vertical at mid-window, curving further at the top. Considering the gentle curve of the car's side panel, the angle from vertical would degrease down the side, until the near the bottom, where it would be zero at some point, and then curve inward just a bit at the bottom. We can't tell where exactly the light is reflecting from, but an incline of about 20-32˚is likely for anything in that zone.
23˚from vertical, roughly, is what's needed to bounce light from the sun up under the canopy. This is a likely incline at about door-handle-level. So this would tend to indicate, as the source, something bright and high along the same line as the one towards the sun. ie, car moving or not, both lateral and vertical analysis indicate this is just the sun after all, or a bizarre coincidence if not.

But the car really doesn't seem to move, it's already reflecting the same sort of dimmer light from a similar angle as the other cars that pass, and this lonely flash of sunlight happens right at impact when there's that bright fireball as well. So... mysteries remain, at least for me, but this not seeming direct evidence of the attack and not a core issue, I'm leaving it here. To the south end fireball light effect.