Tuesday, July 15, 2008


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.


John Farmer said...

We are on bad terms???? I was not aware of that. I just did not have time to respond to stuff I worked on over a year ago and which should be self-explanatory. 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.

My issues with the boys at CIT are their distortions and falsification of eyewitness accounts and other evidence. I have always agreed that there is a secondary evidence set that needs to be explored. Is the north path object/plane related to the plane that flew over the WH area? I don’t know and I would suggest the evidence is far from conclusive on that issue. My argument is that CIT (and fans) should not reject the over-whelming body of evidence for a B757 impact at the Pentagon along the southern path, while others should not dismiss the growing body evidence of something to the north of the Citgo at the same time. Both evidence sets are valid and critical to understanding what happened. As far as I know, it could be men from Mars flying past in their space-ship to watch the events as they unfolded.

Caustic Logic said...

"We are on bad terms???? I was not aware of that."

I'm sure it's more a problem from my end. No bridges are burned I'd say, but I've been a bit of a smartass, and you seemed annoyed. You said you were through with me, and I felt the same back. At least one part of my peeves was found to be an error on my part, but Informationally we are diverging. Unfortunately as I read the paper and dig into the actual evidence, this becomes clearer to me.

Apologies if I'm misrepresenting - you clarify:
"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."

Alright then, "evidence set" indicates some cohesion between them, pointing to some possible actual unexplained events, correct? or is it a set in some other sense? The nature of said mysterious events is unknown, fair enough, but you did hypothetically postulate a possible north path second plane flyover at the time of the real impact, continuing on to cross the river and circle the capitol.

However important or solid this possibility was intended, I am reviewing it now and will be posting soon. I didn't like it, sorry.

There is as I see it one solid north path clue I can understand and agree with. This I will also post on (it's the sillhouette thing).

Thanks for weighing in. I'll consider the lines open if I have any questions about your paper.