Wednesday, October 8, 2008


October 8 2008 4am

Just thought I'd post this, regarding Levi Stephens. Should be self-explanatory.

ETA: For the record, this seems to verify that they really did talk to Stephens, which many have doubted, since they haven't been able to share the audio. I've never doubted them on that, and in fact I thank them for gathering more good evidence for where the plane really was. Stephens couldn't even see the Citgo from where he was, so when he says it passed north of the station, it means little. But when he sees the brown dirt mound just south of it, the one that Turcios wasn't standing on, reflected in its undercarriage, which he could see, that's something useful.

Undefined deception of smoke and mirrors proposed. Mirrors here only seem to be revealing reality.


Anonymous said...


Did you forget the part where he said it did not look like and was not an AA?

Caustic Logic said...

I never heard it, but you guys implied the reason it didn't look AA was it had a tan belly. A silver plane on the south path (ie Flight 77) would have just this. Oh, he said it was NoC. Show me a perspective shot from his loc and elevation please.

Anonymous said...

So AA is in on the conspiracy?

Anonymous said...

No Mr. Strawman, didn't say that.

Anonymous said...

I would think that if anyone could figure out it was not an AA 757 it would be AA. Care to come up with a conspiracy theory to explain it? Or like all no-planers you are going to avoid the issue like the plague?

Anonymous said...

Except the lawn was green.
Your map got all the wrong colors.

Not to mention a fuselage reflects a very wide angle and you don't just see the ground reflected on it, but also objects thousands meters away.

Caustic Logic said...

"a fuselage reflects a very wide angle and you don't just see the ground reflected on it, but also objects thousands meters away."

true, but on a curve. That directly below reflects across the broadest range of bely, faraway objects are stretched along narrower strips up along the sides.

"Your map got all the wrong colors."

For the lawn, since it was green att the time, and not tan/gravel/covered with people/equipment, etc... everything else would have changed very little between the attacks and that photo the next day.

"the lawn was green."
Yes, the lawn directly behind him was green. You're aware he was facing south, towards Crystal City, right? True, he doesn't say just WHERE it was when it was brown beneath, but if it were off to his right, back across 27, where he'd have a clear view of it over the bridge mound, then it was probably south of the Citgo, which I don't think he could actually see.

Anonymous said...

Looks like I'm right. No-paner avoids question about American Airlines role in all this.

Anonymous said...

No, you goon.

Flight 77 could have crashed into a mountain or been landed somewhere else. AA would have still thought Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. In fact, can you show me where AA77 has a wheels off time?

Even if AA caught wind , execs and/or employees could have even been coerced, after the fact, with talks of "national security" right? That doesn't make them "in on it", does it?

AA wasn't involved in the investigation/recovery or identification of tail number N644AA, the FBI was.

Use that bowling ball you call a head and think for god's sake.

Caustic Logic said...

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure this is a worthy line of questioning, anon 1. This not being AA would raise questions that might apply to AA, but you wouldn't get answers that AA might not know. I doubt they'd be in on it.

Hypothetically of course.

Anonymous said...

"No, you goon."

I would think that AA would have noticed rather quickly that one of their planes had not taken off and one claimes to be 77 had hit the Pentagon. Typical of no-paners, come up with another CT to protect their pet CT. Pathetic!