Wednesday, January 30, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
January 30 2008

Okay, so I'm banned for a week at the LCF for alluding to the well-known fact that Aldo Marquis is an asshole. [the events happen on page 8 of this thread, which is also about the C-130.] I will have more to write (and/or right) on this situation once I get some perspective. It's my first time being banned anywhere and I'm disappointed to find out my computer has been banned from allowing me to ever READ the forum, including the reason for my dismissal, or the answers CIT may or may not have offered to some questions I posed. Luckily I do have a old machine around to get around the IP block, and was barely able to read what followed. I'm not missing much it seems except continued evasion, decreased reason, argument from belligerence and incredible unchecked tirades from the CIT end. Really, some pretty insane activity from Aldo; it's like he wants out and has to do it the only way he knows - get banned for being to 'passionate' about 'truth' and 'justice' for people to handle.

On the other hand, Craig's response to my questions regarding witness Mrs. Hubbard were candid and useful.

But there was no response from either Aldo or Craig to these questions regarding their interpretation of the C-130 flight path and its 'actual' interaction with the fantasy flyover plane:

"Okay, I have a question about the outbound flight. Let's for a moment step back from the debate and go on the premise that your reading, north and west to just about over the capitol mall is correct, after which he describes his interaction with the plane, arcing from his left to north an then east, 10:00, 11:00 12;00 and descending. This part I agree with your reading, I think.

1) Is this graphic about right for what he saw that plane doing and about where?
2) You've mentioned reports of the plane being southeast of the capitol. Was this before or after this passage do you think?
3) Does he describe the plane as silver or white? Is this the flyover White Jet he saw or something else?
4) Do you think he may have been seen the C-130 and is mistakenly describing its flight path? (kidding)"

I'm not being facetious or anything here; I'm truly baffled by the implications of the C-130 being just west of over the mall when "Flight 77" came in ahead of them from the left, curved to their north and east, descending on the way. From what I have seen and heard so far of CIT's take, that would put the plane looping north of the capitol, at some point prior to its impact. I therefore open this post to comments from CIT if they wish to explain their findings in more detail to help us all determine the SIGNIFICANCE of this interpretation. I'll copy all relevant comments and thoughts into this post before finalizing it. If they have nothing to offer, I'm going to take this path shown above as the best available reading of their C-130 findings regarding the path of "Flight 77."

I'd like to start with the above list of questions as offered at LCF on my way out, and add one more:
5) How much time do you gather elapsed after seeing this arc before O'Brien saw the explosion? "Three phone calls later" = roughly how many minutes? (a range is fine).
Update: After he ignored it at LCF and here, I posted these questions for Craig again in an Above Top thread. He ignored it there as well but finally sent me an e-mail that reads as follows:
"You are dead wrong about our analysis and I refuse to discuss it in your disinfo thread at ATS or at your disinfo blog. You can wait for our new presentation scumbag.

Why do you keep intentionally spreading disinfo with your confusing ass, contradictory, deceptive ramblings? People see right through you Larson. You are blatantly deceptive. We have exposed you many times over and people do not have tolerance for your lies and spin any longer.

"The u-turn at the end is what is corroborated by eyewitness accounts, O'Brien's own account, and now also a video, taken by Anthony Tribby."

"A UFO for sure."

How can a UFO corroborate anything?

The placement of the UFO does not corroborate the RADES data anyway EVEN IF it is the C-130.

Why are you such a liar?

Why are you so dedicated to defending mass murder?

You disgust me."

[BTW: He's lying about the video and radar not matching, and the UFO is almost certainly the C-130. See my video he's talking about yourself here.]
So I’m left feeling like I must be onto something, but having to guess at what the deception I’m accused of actually is. They had been so damn sure it was just over the mall I figured it was leading up to something, but this didn’t seem quite right. It would give us an overall flight pattern like this:
At present then my guess is they have actually placed the C-130 somewhat south of the Capitol. As Craig had earlier said, hinting at a correlation with the Charter Boat Captain on the river south of Reagan National:

"We were always stumped with how O'Brien's account didn't make sense with the 2006 NTSB flight path of AA77 until we talked with our newest witness who was on the Potomac River who reveals that the NTSB flight path is false and that the plane came from the EAST of the river and looped around north timed perfectly with the explosion at the Pentagon!"

By this mapping above, 77 was looping north and east of the C-130 to NORTH OF THE CAPITOL 'timed perfectly' with the explosion a few miles to the southwest. So I'm left guessing that after all the yammering about how the plane could ONLY be right over the Capitol, that the English language mandates it, that anyone who places it any further south is a dishonest goal-post-moving scumbag... must be qualified. Only CIT is allowed to disregard the words of O'Brien saying "north and west" and a "beautiful view of the mall" to actually be well SOUTH of the mall AFTER ALL, to match up with the loop the Charter Boat Captain describes! The special privileges Citizen researchers afford themselves.

Now I'm unaware of just where the river witness places the flight path, but it's probably not as far south as it would have to be to approach the C-130 as shown on radar. But it is obviously further south than their original 'beautiful view' would necessitate, and shows that O'Brien's account is indeed open to interpretation in CIT's mind, whereas when I had tried to say the same thing as they were INSISTING on the infallibility of that graphic, they said things like this: "Power of suggestion, up is down, left is right, north is south. Lies.” [Craig responding to an incorrect assessment of my video] Or this: "Just because you said it Adam. You can change anything at anytime and it all makes sense. You can say anything, up is down and down is up. I understand.” [Asshole Marquis, both quotes from the LCF thread linked to at top]

So I am "dead wrong" in my direct reading of the same infallible evidence CIT has provided me. So their assessment was wrong. After they insisted it couldn't be. "Up" is "down" now I guess just because they say so, even tho it was a deceptive treasonous scumbag lie at first when I said it.

Duly noted, for the record, yet again... the hypocrisy never stops.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008


I'd been meaning to do a piece on John Farmer's continued FOIA follow-up and recent legal actions to get ahold of the non-truncated serial bit stream original FDR file from Flight 77. He had previously found up to six seconds of data missing, and my humble math in fact shows something closer to eight seconds gone, both of which are well beyond normal, expected data loss. For whatever reason, it sniffs of willful deletion, and his previous requests had the NTSB insisting to original data these incomplete interpretations were made from DOES NOT EXIST, indicating it was perhaps destroyed, in violation of federal law. So without any further confused commentary, here is the news I just received via e-mail:
For Immediate Release
Memphis , Tennessee
January 29, 2008

Important 9/11 Court Action

Memphis , TN - On January 29, 2008, a Complaint for Injunctive Relief was filed with the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee located in Memphis , Tennessee against the following defendants:

490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW
Washington , DC 20594-0001

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington , DC 20530-0001

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE
Washington , DC 20590 .

The complaint seeks records pertaining to the recovery and custody of the flight data recorder from American Airlines Flight 77 from the NTSB and FBI, and a copy of the original serial bit stream (binary 1’s and 0’s) in waveform format. It further seeks the radar data from Andrews AFB, Dulles and Reagan International Airports in the custody of the FAA.

In the complaint, John Farmer states that he “believes that the defendants are purposely delaying and avoiding the release of these records to the public.” The full text of the complaint may be viewed at

Blue Collar Republican
complaint PDF download link.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
January 24 2008 4pm

Recently I stumbled across this photo, which was posted at WTC7 Lies Pentagon evidence pages [page two in the middle]. I've never heard of any such damaged car. People mention Lloy'd cab with its windshield smashed by a light pole fragment, and a clipped truck antenna, that's it from what I had seen. In this case the passnger side window taken out; someone could've been killed, so it’s rather surprising this wasn’t in the news. Lloyd's car with not a scratch on the hood gets all that attention and this gets nothing until WTC7 Lies puts it up apparently out of nowhere. It's labeled Pentacar.jpeg. It has no caption, sources, anything. The site links to main 9/11 links page which in turn is part of "links for 9/11 Research Compiled by Mark Roberts,” also known as the JREF forum’s eminent debunker “Gravy.”

So I contacted him for more information, but he didn’t have anything ready. It was from a large collection and vaguely sourced to begin with, he said. With digging up the info it came with on his ‘to-do list,’ I’ve dug around for clues linking to it on the internet but nothing has surfaced yet. In the meantime, he did offer as precedent an account from Tony Terronez, who was headed north on Route 27, in front of the Pentagon and headed away from the impact point when the plane screeched in and impacted behind him. He saw the explosion in his rear-view mirror and ducked when he saw debris falling his way.

“[…] and I heard the pitter-patter of pebbles and concrete bouncing off my car. And the next thing you know, I heard this big crash come from somewhere. It sounded like glass being shattered and I thought maybe, at first, it was one of my windows so I popped up to look but everything was fine. But when I looked to the car next to me I realized that something went through (the driver's) rear windshield and shattered it. There was a hole where you could see that something went through it.”

Here we hear about additional car damage not widely-mentioned elsewhere and not seen in photos. This case was apparently from building or plane debris from the explosion (which by deflection angle would scatter thicker over the north end of the crime scene). This is clearly not the “Pentacar,” which is another story. I immediately noticed that the major dent in the door there along with the roofline damage is consistent with at least one light pole at the scene, the little-seen pole #2 with its curiously bent end. By my mapping, this pole would have been hit low by the left wing, but this bend appears near its narrow top (light truss arm missing), which I had taken as a sign of an undiscovered secondary event after it started falling. Here is my graphic, using a Bob Pugh photo of pole 2 with bystander for scale.
Now this could well be a simple geometric predisposition – I like things that fit. As others have noted, it appears the car would have been still when the pole impacted. However the scuff mark nearer the back of the car could be from the detaching lamp head, passing that spot either from the pole’s own momentum or due to the car’s. I’d wonder if the driver had time to screech to a slanted halt on seeing something headed for him, just in time to put the empty passenger’s side in its path. This could also be some kind of building debris perhaps or something else altogether. And as I stated in an earlier Loose Change Forum thread I started, as far as I could tell “this could be a simple hoax, an unrelated photo someone decided COULD fit at the Pentagon and dropped to see who bought it.”

However on the chance it is authentic, it’s worth some more analysis to determine where it was taken. Some clues offered by the scenery include: trees on both sides of the street, 2 or 3 lanes of traffic each way plus a narrow shoulder, no high concrete divider as seen elsewhere on Route 27, an angled guardrail and narrowing sidewalk on the near side, a sign and a light pole near each other on the other, set on a wooded down-slope. Shadows indicate that if this is the morning of 9/11, this car must be facing north, on the side closer to the Pentagon – in itself a problem, as that’s the wrong lane to be in to have a pole knocked into the passenger’s side by a plane approaching from the west.

The only useful help in that LCF thread came from member “Fedzcametogetme,” and it followed some paranoid accusations against me. ‘Fedz’ as I call him then dug in, and actually drove through the area several times as well as looking at satellite photos and highlighted one area on Route 27that matched the characteristics of the Pentacar photo. While I’m not even sure the photo is ON route 27 on 9/11, if it is I accept this as the most likely – the only – spot it could be (highlighted below in purple). [r-click, new window for full-size]

Consistent points: lack of any tall divider, sign-pole placement, tree shadows on the east side and trees and downward slope on the west. The only problem with this locale is that the off-ramp curving away is not evident in the photo. An overpass bridge would be the next thing visible to the right if this photo weren’t cropped,

Looking closer and using current satellite imagery, peripheral clues also match to a high degree. The sidewalk (grass strip?) seems to narrow in both photos. Sign-pole placement, the down-slope, the same problem with off-ramp unseen, The guardrail is present in satellite photos, beginning just before this spot just as the median ends before the bridge, which itself has given me useful insights on traffic planning works.

Here I will outline scenario by which this could be an authentic case of a car damaged by pole 2:

The driver was headed from home (north) to work (south), in the relatively empty southbound lane of 27 when the 757 blew noisily up Columbia Pike. Sensing its descent and predicting trouble, instinct kicks in and the driver skids to a slanted helt with the passenger’s side (empty) facing the plane’s path somewhat as its left wing severs pole 2 and sends it against that side of the stopped car, with its base on the pavement. After impact, the driver gets out, thankful to be alive, and tilts to pole up and over the embankment to where it’s seen later. The driver then reconsiders original plans. Near-death experience, etc… good enough reason to head back home. Traffic rules be damned, he/she turns around and drives against the stopped traffic, weaving around the scant cars, looking for a place to get in the northbound lane. “How am I gonna get in tho? It’s bumper-to-bumper,” he/she thinks, driving along the double then single divider. At its end, the car turns right and half-crosses the low median, waiting for the crawling traffic to give him space. Gestures are exchanged, a space made, and the driver pulls clear across to the pull-over lane and parks to think some more and take this picture. Then to home to share the tale and to catch the news of what the hell is going on. Say in 2005 or 2007 the driver finally releases this private photo to counter the growing ‘conspiracy theories,’ but the chain of custody was left unclear by some sloppiness on whoever’s part.

This of course raise a host of issues with regards to Lloyd England, who would have been right in front of this driver, and about the lack of interaction between them, and other such issues regarding traffic flow and timelines any critic might toss out. I only offer this as a basic description that could make all this evidence line up. Otherwise, it could be a motionless car stuck in northbound traffic north of impact, getting hit with some peculiar building debris like Terronez describes.

Alternately, it could be an unrelated photo from another time and place, put out by whoever for whatever reason. As Fedz at LCF finally said, in agreement with the stance I took almost right off “i wont speculate any further until the source of this pic can at least make some claims or offer some background info about this pic. since all we have is a pic but no source or even a caption, then its futile for me to dissect this matter any further.”

I offer a friendly challenge to Gravy to come up with a little info, or a confirmation of how little there is, or something. I’ve been flippant at the Loose Change Forum calling this a probable hoax, but of all people I’m truly open to whatever it might prove to be.


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
December 14 2007
Last updated 2/13 1am

FOREWORD 12/07: Since I published the first version of this piece a week ago, it has gotten more attention than I expected, both positive and of course negative. A dedicated denunciation at the CIT forum and two lightning discussion threads at Above Top Secret ensued – one locked and the other still active. Some points were ironed out, some challenges issued, some questions answered and others raised. I have worked some of the more relevant results back into my original piece to make it more accurate and informed. It’s now a long post – tedious in spots but hopefully worthwhile for anyone seriously into the whole PentaCon phenomena. The original is also available on request.
The CIT Magic
Lately I’ve been giving some thought to the process by which Citizen Investigative Team (CIT) verify alleged witnesses to the Pentagon attack. As CIT core member Craig Ranke explained in a recent phone discussion, previously published eyewitness accounts of a plane impact are all suspect.

“This is not eyewitness testimony, okay […] we need to talk about it for what it is, which are static words printed by the mainstream media. So until you speak with these witnesses direct and get their first-hand confirmation of these details, these words are merely hearsay. They aren’t evidence at all. That’s a fact.” [1]

The magic of CIT is of course their tracking down witnesses, preferably previously unpublished ones, and confirming what they really say they saw, removing the MSM distortions where applicable and countering MSM ignorance elsewhere. When it came to their Citgo witnesses featured in The PentaCon, they placed their locations carefully on a map, determined their point-of-view, and had them describe what they saw, clarify details, and draw one or more lines in satellite maps to verify the direction they saw the plane flying. When possible, verification was found that the witness truly was there. This sounds good enough, and the method has yielded numerous accounts confirming the north-of-the-Citgo flight path that necessitates a fly-over of the Pentagon and all physical evidence somehow faked in an elaborate and well-coordinated effort.

They insist they have not yet found a south path witness who actually saw the official flight path matching the damage both before and inside the building. As Lyte Trip, Craig explained to the JREF debunkers “We have searched high and low for a witness to go on record contradicting the citgo witnesses north of the station claim. If you can find one let us know.” [2] This lack of verified support for the ‘official’ path has led Craig and CIT to trumpet everywhere they’re still allowed “the unanimous north side of the citgo station claim,” the one that necessitates the unseen flyover and mind-boggling feats of fakery.

But is this really true? While the four main interviews presented in the PentaCon strongly indicate a north path and impact (one of which must be wrong), another interview they did in search of confirmation came out much more murky. As I read it anyway, this one raised some awkward problems for their north-side flyover-n-fakery claim, prompting an ugly solution.

McGraw Verifies
The witness in question is Father Stephen McGraw, a Catholic priest filmed on location after the attack ministering to the injured. Like Father Merrin in the Exorcist, he emerged from the mist of dubious photos and reports, let the team into his own church for a videotaped interview and verified his account for the enlightenment of all. Key portions at least of his interesting and telling interview are presented in their video From the Law to The Lord, viewable below.
Page link
Here is Father McGraw’s previous so-called ‘eyewitness account,’ the static words attributed to him by the mainstream media, and further compiled by researcher Eric Bart, the master (until the arrival of Arabesque of course) of gathering such ‘unconfirmed hearsay’:

"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. "I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said. "There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows. "He literally had the stole in one hand and a prayer book in the other and in one fluid motion crossed the guardrail," said Mark Faram, a reporter from the Navy Times who witnessed McGraw in the first moments after the crash.” [4]

This original account strongly supports the official story, and lends credence to that fateful light pole smashing into Lloyd England’s cab, which would become an obsession of CIT’s. The good news that the citizen investigators will most often mention about this interview is the witness’ failure to recall seeing the light poles actually get hit by the plane, and they take him on his word here, and use this to support their contention that no one saw this happen (except of course Lloyd) and therefore they were probably simply dragged into place by the road at some earlier time. This despite the fact that he was square in the middle of the poles-down zone, according to his post-confirmation placement in the video (which is an issue of contention, see below). Lights 1, 2, and perhaps 3 were down behind him before he was aware of anything wrong, and apparently he didn’t see poles 3, 4 or 5 downed ahead of him, with all of perhaps 0.1 seconds to sharpen up and pay attention to detail. He spoke of seeing the damaged taxi and light pole on the road by it (pole 1, behind him and to the left in the graphic here, directly from their video), and deduced after the fact how the evidence wound up the way it was.

Problems: Not PentaCon Material
So far, this confirmation would seem helpful to the CIT case, and they have used it to support the no-pole-witnesses aspect of their program. But for all the reasons that can be found for McGraw supporting or not refuting the north side claim one problem is evident from the outset; north path necessitates a flyover, which requires a pull-up followed by a high-level non-impact. Neither is present in this video-verified account of a witness with a superb view.

Showing that verified accounts don’t always change much from their ‘static’ forbears, McGraw confirmed the words earlier attributed to him regarding its placement 20-25 feet “over the top of us,” before which it struck a light pole, and after which “it came in controlled and straight […] as if for a crash landing.” When asked, he couldn’t recall the generator trailer being hit but, he said he ‘picked up’ a memory from others of the plane bouncing on the lawn. It didn’t literally do this, but this persistent impression might be a clue that it was that low – which it would not be if ‘pulling up’ to fly over. His hand gestures repeatedly indicate a slight nose-down pitch consistent with an impact at the ground floor. He confirmed seeing flames billowing from the windows after the plane “disappeared basically into the building,” and when asked to clarify that it entered the building he responded “yes, yes, yes. I definitely watched as it disappeared into the building.”

To hear CIT talk, of all the witnesses who report seeing an impact, which is all of them so far who were in a position to see, all were allegedly deceived into seeing this despite the sly flyover through the engineered pyrotechnic blaze they merely took for the crash. But in our phone discussion Craig emphasized that “very few of these reports even […] are specifically saying they saw the jet enter the building. […] Most of them were not in a position to see the impact side of the Pentagon or even the Pentagon at all.” [1] This has no bearing on McGraw. Craig also frequently cites trees blocking the view of impact for some witnesses headed northbound on Route 27. For some northbound witnesses further south this is true. It’s not true for Father McGraw.

Based on CIT’s own placement of McGraw, he would have had a near perfect view of the final stretch of either scenario, and he says he saw it fly “over him,” then low enough he thought it bounced on the lawn, and finally a triple affirmation that he witnessed the direct impact along that line. Clearly in CIT land this cannot be. He’d see much of the pull-up and probably part of the over-flight, but as with all CIT-verified witnesses so far, he fails to mention these. Unlike the ‘many’ Craig wants to focus on, McGraw’s account has no excuses. The Father passes the shrubbery test, it seems, and has now verified that he watched the low level impact, which strongly implies the poles were also cut at that time by that craft.

Problems: A South Path Witness?
“[McGraw] says he did not see the approach. This is fact. He says he did not know the plane existed until it was over his head. This is fact. This means he SAYS that he is NOT a witness to what side of the gas station it flew. This is fact. His account is not a definitive north or south side account either way because of these FACTS." – Craig Ranke [7]

While the citizen investigators have never tried to pass McGraw off as a north-path witness, by CIT standards, the problems we’ve examined so far are not enough to bar his inclusion in the growing pool. For the team, McGraw’s failure to remember seeing the poles go down further confirms that they did not fall at that time, which could indicate a north path flyover. In our discussions, Craig insist there are no clues directly contradicting this trajectory, and some supporting it, and his report of impact is nothing new; all their Citgo witnesses report this as well. Craig finds it at least a lesser possibility that McGraw truly was “deceived in this 1 second military sleight of hand illusion just like the CITGO witnesses were.” [5]

However, they must know that at this close angle, no simple perspective trick will do to leave such a witness confusing an 80-foot-plus flyover with a ground-level impact no matter what side of some gas station it passed by. And no matter the tortured logic chains anyone might concoct, I believe Father McGraw is a south path witness, first and foremost because for so many other reasons I already believe the plane came in on a south path and I believe McGraw’s video-verified account. Previously I’d presented his south path testimony as self-evident fact. I wouldn’t do this without reason, but I was hasty, and the too-sure stance prompted a strong reaction from Ranke who claimed I ‘made it up.’ He went so far as to call my piece “nothing but a way for Larson to spread more speculative lies about our motives and methods in obtaining evidence while furiously defending the official story. […] the backwards logic is apparent and the most egregious that I have heard coming from anyone who allegedly doubts the official story.” [6] (emphasis mine: what the Hell is a 'speculative lie?')

As soon as debate was opened, I realized and admitted I’d been too dogmatic about the south path aspect of McGraw's account. Craig instantly declared “the entire premise of your blog is unjustified” and demanded “it should be taken down and retracted if you have a shred of integrity.” [5] Now even if I put any stock in Craig Ranke’s advice on how to maintain credibility, I’d still disagree that a full retraction is in order. However I need to moderate and clarify and, while I’m at it, solidify my position.

Keeping in mind the alleged position and orientation of the witness (as seen above, and facing north, or up.), and that the official plane would come up from behind him and from the left, I believe he is a south path witness for these reasons
1) The south path happened and I want to believe he was there and is honest.
2) His "just before it got to us" descriptor for where the plane hit the pole that hit the cab is a further clue of his perceived path; from behind and left to ahead and right. The only poles ‘before’ them on a L-R path, which either north or south would be, are to the left. This only describes poles 1+2, which were also behind McGraw. Everything else was to his right, so calling any other pole ‘before’ would be illogical.
3) The plane coming in ‘right over’ him makes most sense at the location he’s shown in the video if the official path were true.
4) McGraw’s ‘deducing’ the pole was clipped by the plane might indicate that the poles were knocked down on the flight path he saw. Which would make him a south path witness, since no poles on the north path were downed (4 and 5 are the closest, and the one Craig's hhinted towards). IF he weren’t fundamentally confused about where the pole were in relation to the north path he saw (like Lagasse was).
5) It seems to me that his gestures indicate back-to-front (south to north) motion as well as left-right. Gestures: “the sensation of something coming over the top of us” and gestures back to front twice (2:54 in the video) and later ‘he crashed right into the building’ accompanied by a forward flick of his hand (4:55). When indicating the cab’s position, he reaches far to the left or perhaps back and to the left (3:07-3:17). I failed to include it in this graphic, but at 3:40 McGraw distinctly turns his whole upper body to the left while reaching further left or behind to indicate “the evidence of the pole having been knocked over.” He is looking more forward than right as he recalls seeing the plane’s flight path after passing over him (4:14), when he’d be looking hard right if under the north path.
The subject's gestures: watch the video (embedded at the top) and judge for yourself.
6) Also just as a north path requires a fly-over, a real plane impact requires an approach from the southwest and would have the poles hit and ‘directly over’ McGraw in the location shown. He says this is what he saw – a real impact into the building.

However there are some points of ambiguity; as valuable as it is as evidence, there are always factors to keep in mind with eyewitness testimony, especially if it matches all evidence (??). As pointed out by Craig and others the following must be noted:
1) He did not see the plane before it passed over him, so his perception of the flight path would be limited (he did not see the approach).
2) He only cites seeing one pole, or perhaps only the top of it, after the fact, so it's possible he saw a different pole and ventrred later that was 'the one.' So what pole is the one 'before us' is not clear. #1 is still my best guess personally.
3) Motion from behind the witness to ahead is not entirely clear. Craig says I made it up, and my bias is known. I should have more carefully considered the perspective of his position – is he pointing left or left and back? Craig insists there is no front-back motion in his limited gestures, only left—right, which clearly describes the north path better than the south and therefore I’ve shown him a north path witness and should pull my piece quick before I embarrass myself. Nice try. The best we’re serving at this hour is inconclusive.
4) The two paths ‘converge’ on Route 27. Somewhat. But also the sense of ‘right over’ vs. ‘over-there’ would increase with low altitude, both illustrating and pre-moderating the following ambiguity:
5) The terms “above us” and his gestures from left to right are somewhat vague and could be used for either a north or a south path. ‘Above and slightly ahead of’ might be close enough to consider ‘above’ the position CIT used in their video. While ‘above’ and the location shown fits the south path better, L-R motion describes either path just fine.
6) His actual placement is vague and uncertain. What? Even After the CIT verification magic? I learned this late in the debate, throwing my whole analysis unexpectedly out of whack, but when I asked, Craig clarified “No he did not show us on a map." [5] "The only thing we have to go off of in regards to McGraw's location is his claim that he was directly under the plane this means he would be under the plane regardless of where it flew.” [5] So why was he placed in a spot in their video if he gave no spot? And a spot over which they "knew" no plane ever flew? Why indeed…
Solutions: ’A No-Path Witness?’
The foremost point Craig has raised in response to my analysis is that McGraw "says he did not see the approach” and so “is not a definitive north or south side account either way because of these FACTS." Certainly he was not presented as a witness to any path relative to the Citgo because he didn’t see it as it passed the Citgo. Sounds logical enough. Earlier I’d also noted the absence of the PentaCon trademark – the drawn flight path. Not surprising since they didn’t even plot his location or POV, and the reason is innocent enough; as Craig explains, “we did NOT know about Robert Turcios when we interviewed McGraw so the north or south path was not a focus of our questioning.” [7] So this was early in their search, prior to August 2006. Fair enough, they were just starting so perhaps I should cut them some slack on the point.

So without any north-seeking, south-skirting bias possible, it would seem, what flight path clues did they get from his testimony? Nothing conclusive, as we’ve seen. In fact we aren’t even sure where he was, or whether he was even there. I originally thought the location they picked in their map was the spot he says he was, but really, all we have is "his claim that he was directly under the plane.” So in their graphic they show him under the official path where they had already deduced no plane passed, not attempting to actually place him where he was but rather to “place him under the official path because we are typically discussing his account in the context of the official story.” [5] Please do remember that in CIT land, the official story is now a proven lie.

Why would they fail to determine witness location for anyone whose account they were interested in? As Aldo incredulously notes in the video, it is a bit odd that McGraw didn’t even realize it was the Pentagon he was in front of until after the strike. CIT apparently knew of this before and “Since he claims he is so unfamiliar with the area he grew up in that he didn't even know he was next to the Pentagon," Craig explicates, "it doesn't make sense to suggest he would have even been able to [place his location on a map].” [5]

Yes it does. Just because he can’t identify the building doesn’t mean he can’t say where he is in relation to it – or to the light pole hes talking about, or the plane. Yet all of this is now inconclusive; their failure to bother plotting his actual location is a squandered chance to collect valuable data and arguably invalidates the whole operation. Craig insists “everything we could think of was fully clarified,” and “his position could not be clarified any further. He says he was directly under the plane in the left lane northbound on route 27.” [5] This is the precise area of the too-wide fudge-zone we’re dealing with here. Not being aware of the north-path accounts yet, the guys were officially not thinking in terms of flight path yet, but they could hardly have verified this guy any more sloppily if they actively wanted to not discover his flight path.

Eventually Craig decided to class McGraw as a "NO PATHER," “since he specifcially claims he didn't see” the path, which he in fact did see and describes as ‘controlled and straight” into the building. Not the whole path of course, but enough to indicate a line that could be easily projected back if we but knew what it was. We have no geometry here, no structure, just a rubbery mesh of flexible words that could perhaps be pegged to the north path superstructure. No… not quite. So he goes on a different pile.

None of this makes sense in an effort to verify or confirm what a witness saw – but it does jive with a presumption of massive lying. When I mentioned McGraw ‘picking up’ a memory from others of the plane bouncing on the lawn, a clue against the pre-flyover pull-up, CIT responded “it indicates a propensity to deduce inaccurate information. Or it could be a deliberate "deduction" so you can make this very assertion.” Then they might include him only ‘in context of’ the official lie – an extension of it, an operative of some sort apparently sent in to lie about the impact and ‘deduce’ the poles as consistent, but clumsily give the lie away by failing to say he actually SAW THEM get hit or to pretend he clearly saw it to his left first, just south of some gas station he also couldn't name.

So if he wasn’t there, was he on the north path? Hypothetically, Craig conceded he may be a legitimate witness under the north path, fooled again by ‘sleight-of-hand’ into misreading the flyover (80 feet up) with an impact (ground level). But the clear presumption they proceeded on was that he wasn’t even there. In the video, Aldo notes his verification that he got out of his car about ‘45 seconds’ after the impact,’ but Mark Faram says the priest was crossing traffic to the Pentagon when he arrived ‘ten minutes later.’ Look at where he was (see graphic below - I placed him in the wrong lane) compared to the lawn he was photographed at later. Considering the traffic jam, walking/climbing time, the question of whether he walked down and then crossed the guardrail or vice-versa, and fuzzy rounding on either’s part, and we have how much of a reason to suspect he was trucked in later as another prop?

When I insist McGraw saw a path, if short, and could therefore never be a ‘no-pather,’ Craig let slip “Oh he did did he? It's funny how quick you are to shout conspiracy and accuse all 6 of the north side witnesses who prove the official story a lie as being deep cover operatives but you refuse to entertain the notion that a highly publicized official story witness like McGraw may have been involved.” First, I accuse no one of anything. Second: deep cover? Hardly! Their cover of logic and consistency being so shallow is the main problem. The problem in this case not the plausibility of their conspiracy theorizing, but the fact that this suspicion falls right on this possibly troubling account that they also handled too ineptly to get a reading off of. That is the only point I need make here.

Solutions: The Dark Lord’s Work?
CIT’s decision on how to handle this witness’ testimony is evident right in the intro text to the video published at their site: “This presentation features our interview with former Department of Justice attorney turned Catholic priest Stephen McGraw. We gave him the opportunity to tell his story on camera and to confirm or deny some of the suspicious details in his previously published account.” Indeed, McGraw was for five years a DoJ lawyer, before entering seminary and being ordained, curiously just three months prior to 9/11. His ties to Opus Dei [latin: The Lord’s Work], the mysterious Catholic sect that figures so strongly in The Davinci Code, is not explained in the video (but is here). But this and his previous DoJ connection were fused into a suspicion churning spiel by CIT narrator Aldo Marquis about FBI Director Louis Freeh and infamous Soviet double-agent Robert Hanssen, both Opus Dei and FBI and thus DoJ as well. “We should be more skeptical of highly publicized witnesses shrouded in dubious details who support the official story,” Craig also says, but with no concrete links it appears to be CIT themselves who are ‘shrouding him in dubious details’ when they mention the sect as being “favored by the Washington elite” and list its crimes as “espionage, perversion, government ties, and the well known dubious details surrounding this secret society." All these "are certainly relevant points,” Ranke reiterated, “when considering McGraw's high profile involvement with 9/11," and "if he isn't a traitor/spy like fellow Opus Dei sympathizer Robert Hanssen," the only other option worth considering, which I have shown to be highly implausible, is "that he was deceived in this 1 second military sleight of hand illusion just like the CITGO witnesses were." [5]

Whatever connection all this may have to McGraw, the suspicious just-ordained Father was (allegedly) on his way to administer rites at a funeral at Arlington when a suspicious ‘wrong turn’ brought him in front of the Pentagon. After I mentioned how he was stuck in traffic anyway and late for no reason already, and questioned the alleged oddity of his changing itinerary on account of 9/11 happeing right in front of his face,, Craig clarified “shirking his commitment to a mourning family waiting at the cemetery with their loved one in a casket is most definitely a questionable act.” [5] Perhaps questionable enough to suggest he wasn’t really on his way to a funeral at all?

All of this, once presented ‘in context,’ and what some take as an awkward or 'creepy' air about him, makes for some room for suspicion to flourish and clog the reliability conduit of this particular witness. The issue is not whether or not McGraw, or Opus Dei, is suspicious but rather why do they try so hard with this particular witness while giving the others a relatively free pass on the background check? I think the reason is plain to see and ties in nicely with their differing treatment of his location, point-of-view, and the like. These odd X-factors were certainly known as they decided which token south path witnesses they should interview who could be found just as suspicious - and at least as ambiguous - after their carefully-screened ‘verification.’

There’s been much hullabaloo from CIT over Arabesque and I accusing them of referring cab driver Lloyd England as ‘The Devil.’ As Craig explains “NEVER have we specifically called Lloyd or anyone "the devil.”” [8] Allow me to again clarify that I understand the term is used metaphorically; the overall plot - the attack, the cover-up, the whole sinister operation - was 'the devil.' Clearly however it’s a metaphor for something very bad and sinister, and Aldo says “I've spoken directly to operatives from the Pentagon attack. I have looked the devil in the eye.” [9] So someone they have talked to is a direct window onto this ‘devil’ of an operation. So if this was not about Lloyd, it was about someone, witting or unwitting, a part of this plot, and Aldo got close enough it sent a chill down his spine. In McGraw’s case in fact the metaphorical theology language suddenly becomes more apt. Perhaps he was the one Aldo was thinking about.

This behavior is what might be called, to quote Loose Change Forum member RacerX, “pissing in the witness pool,” and seems designed to clear the end they’re swimming in (I’m not sure if deep end or shallow end is the more appropriate metaphor). Fortunately we saw no charges of sexual abuse involvement alleged against this Catholic Priest, just vague insinuations of an Opus Dei/DoJ operative who ‘just happened’ upon the scene just in time to lend the weight of a priest’s testimony to the lies that would need to be sown. So other south path witnesses, step on up – CIT is still looking for you, and is very interested in hearing your story.
[1] Phone discussion: Craig Ranke/Adam Larson. November 14 2007. Cited excerpt at 18:00 mark
[2] James Randi Educational Foundation Forums. JREF Forum->General Topics->Conspircy Theories->The testimony of Pentagon police officers SGT Lagasse and SGT Brooks->Page 4.
[3] "From The Law To The Lord" Citizen Investigative Team. Video, 2007.
[4] Bart, Eric. "It Was A Plane Bomb: Eyewitness Accounts."
[5] Above Top 9/11 Conspiracies->Stephen McGraw: alleged Pentagon attack witness->Various posts, pages 1-3. Thread started by Craig Ranke CIT, December 11 2007, 12:08 PM.
[6] Ranke, Craig. "Adam Larson's review of From the Law to the Lord, regarding suspect witness Stephen McGraw." Dec 7 2007, 11:13 AM. CIT->Detractors->CIT response.
[7] Ranke, Craig. Comment left 12/8/07 5:13 at this post. Link back from outside:
[8] Ranke, Craig. CIT->Detractors->CIT response-> Caustic Logic and Arabesque's "devil" claim, more deceptive charachter assassination Dec 6 2007, 03:25 PM

Wednesday, January 9, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
January 1 2008
Updated Jan 15, 1am

Among the low-lying evidence of a 757 strike at the Pentagon, as illustrated in this graphic from the ASCE's Building Performance Report, is a 50x30 foot ventilation/exhaust structure, presumably just renovated along with the rest of wedge one it was set about 75 feet away from. Joined to the building by underground tubes, and populated with multiple sub-structures, this area was directly beneath the left engine's purported low-level path of destruction. The vent structure is recessed, set into a slight hillock of that curiously unmarked lawn, so it might seem odd this is where the one part of the plane truly inches above the ground would leave a mark. It is effectively invisible in many long shots except as a pair of doors propped against each other, as in this Jason Ingersoll shot below. The area is surrounded by a low concrete lip, perhaps two feet high at its east side, and having suffered damage to the south wall (the left side above, the remaining portion visible as a wedge near the cable spool).
Up close and prior to foam application, in this cropped section of a Darryl Donley picture, we can see the south wall more clearly. The missing portion of wall is not inconsistent with the bottom edge of a 757-scale engine. To its left is the broken helicopter locator light, one at each west corner of the structure, and apparently both broken. Much of what lies beyond that here is in the further background, but the squared metal structure piled with burning debris is worthy of note - it almost looks like a miniature dumpster already filled with debris.

This valuable photo presented by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins (white labels are his), taken days later during the clean-up, and seen from above shows the south wall damage, lack of something, a naked squarish footprint surrounded by plywood at the entry corner (lower right). It also shows the lack of a back (west) wall, although it seems to cleanly gone, and I'm wondering if there ever was one. The 'doors' are still propped open but the whole unit at a different overall position and angle than seen earlier. The side facing the camera, on its far end, seems to be missing a corner, or is perhaps curved. Keep this in mind. Also note the labeled pile of debris to the right, including it seems that dumspter-ish thing also moved from its initial post attack position, and possibly piled with more debris from elsewhere. I've drawn on a sample plane trajectory (not verified as 'official' but it'll be close) that helps illustrate how both were moved, first by the plane/event, then again during cleanup. The possible limited foundation damage I've located, a foot or three below this, is also along the same line implied by the damage within the vent structure.

Here are some useful very close-ups of the doors, from three Ingersoll shots, in which it's clear they are propped open by a rectangular object off-cenetered between them (green-gray). Note different lip styles on each door, apparently designed for inter-locking, and a long section of black molding hanging off the left door at a smal bit of missing far corner(?). Note the hinge arm thing and possible power cables hanging under the right door. Hinge arm, unclear half-tube shape and more cables hanging under the left. In the top shot note also in the background a tipped Bobcat dozer/forklift, a possible clue to what was going on there at impact time. In the bottom shot note a pile of dark stuff on the right door, the 'grime line' previously discussed, and faintly the broken, bent section of lip, which is revealed as well in this Jocelyn Augustino photo from September 17. Note that with the object propping the unit open removed, the left side seems to sag at an odd angle.

This Ingersoll shot from after the collapse at 10:15 shows the doors or whatever exactly that structure is, the tops of the intact structures, and what seems to be the top of another higher structure, its right half pushed down and its edge twisted.

Steve Riskus' shots fail to clear this point up, and all shots I've seen show only edge and none show its top. All I can say is it seems to have a top of some size, its edge seems to be bent there, it's set far from the south wall, and at about a 45 degree angle between the two walls rather than square. Shots from as early as the night of September 12 show only the concrete footprint of it bracketed with the wood railing seen during cleanup, and so this photo I found (not sure who took it) seems to be from the late afternoon of 9/11 itself. Though washed out, it offers a unique view of the vent structure where we can see under this lid and also see the edge of its footprint (perspective is tricky here).

Using this and Ingeroll's best shot of the lid edge, I made this composite:

Again the overhead shot with more photo comparisons. Perspective issues can be tricky, and also remember things are moving around in the days after.
The new shot I located showing both the 'scorched debris' and the bent 'door' is a Jocelyn Augustino photo (index no. 1890, available at this link), cropped to save space. Looking at the metal, note the coloration, the perforrated square panels, relatively weak construction, griills and flap - ventilation material, warped and burnt. Then compare the boat-looking panel with the overhead shot of the doors - overall shape, size, color, the curved section, the 'grime line' and upper lip, the angle of a scrape across it leading to the broken, bent lip, all present and proportional. It's unclear if the right door/other half of this structure, or its base, is even there in this shot, but that's the one and that's the curve we have to work with.

I certainly have not seen any reasonable non-plane fakery explanation for this point. concrete, one structure apparently bent and scraped out, and anpther structure spun aside, one of its doors severely deformed. There is certainly no simple bomb that will do this, this would have to be arranged elaborately in advance.

Sunday, January 6, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
January 6 2008

Though I've still never seen it, I'd like to draw attention to the 2007 low-budget feature-length movie Severe Visibility, which addresses “the unthinkable, the unimaginable, the unexplained” regarding the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. The title seems to refer to the weather conditions that day, but both this and the faux-dramatic theme music at the over-packaged website gives me the impression this is to be a feature-film version of the Pentagon Section of 911 In Plane Site. It's plainly visible this a severely bad omen. [trailer viewable here] Judging by the few nifty graphics I've seen, and not knowing the context they're presented in, the movie seems to toy with fighter, missile, and even somehow guided airliner technology (as on the poster).

A man named Paul Cross wrote and directed Severe Visibility, and cast himself in the lead role, so clearly it’s a bit of a personal vision for him. According to 911 Blogger member Carol Brouillet in a post about the movie,, as the attacks unfurled on on the morning of 9/11:

“Cross was at the White House for part of the post-production work of his film Follow The Leader a documentary about the everyday life of the President of the United States. On September 12th Paul visited the Pentagon. He saw that the damage to the building, the debris and the scene were not consistent with the official claim that a Boeing 757 had crashed there.”

This sounds serious; one day Paul is hanging at the White House, wrapping up this oddly-titled documentary with a cast of one – a normally media-shy George W Bush – and the next day he’s given a tour of the Pentagon and without spurring from Meyssan or anyone, amateur crash-scene investigator Cross is pretty sure there was no 757 ever there. He presumably does some research on websites over the next years, and, as Brouillet relates, “when the truth of 9/11 hit him, he cried for days. Severe Visibility, his latest film, is his response.”

Admittedly I haven’t seen this masterwork of anguish, but it doesn’t appear spectacularly good or inspired; it currently has a 5.5 star out of 10 average rating at its IMDB page even with dedicated Truthers probably stuffing the ballot box. I don’t care much about the technical qualities, but if this Cross guy is serious about the truth, I’m interested in how he approached the evidence in crafting this fictitious scenario. From website’s dramatic announcement that a deception may have happened at 9:41 (three minutes late) it doesn’t seem to be angling for major realism or factual relevance. From what I see, I’ll have to take this as the most ambitious foray into cinema I’ve yet seen from the roster of Frustrating Fraudsters.

Cross plays the fictitious Major Stanley Kruter, stationed at the Pentagon on 9/11, who struggles with the same gut feeling his creator did, but after actually being at the Pentagon when it was hit by probably not a 757. Driven by the death of a friend in the mysterious attack, he’s searching for the truth of what really happened and why, courageously facing his darkest fears about his own country, or something to that effect I guess. … The gash on his head is interesting; it seems was incurred upon his search of the site immediately afterwards looking fruitlessly for 757 debris. This injury is brandished conspicuously throughout the movie perhaps as a metaphor for his third eye opening, or just to remind us he was actually there (in the movie) and didn’t see any 757 (according to the screenplay).

Here’s a funny contrast just from the trailer; Kruter insists to the (cover-up supporting?) brass drilling him on whether he saw the plane, “from where I was standing, sir, it would have been impossible for me not to have seen it.” “But what haunts” the Major, some on-screen text explains, “is the fact that he did NOT see an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon that fateful day.” Elsewhere in the trailer is a scene where he’s distracted just as the fighter/missile whatever whizzes by behind his head. Perhaps that’s a dream sequence or something, but it doesn’t seem too haunting to me.

One pivotal character in Severe Visibility is Andrew Porter (Dennis Kleinman), who seems to be the intrepid investigator, who knows no plane hit the building/ Porter fortuitously contacts Kruter from the shadows and helps him - and of course the audience - see the horror that was always in severe plain sight. Judging by the quick shots of his info-lair, where ‘obscure secrets’ are surely revealed, he seems to be a human version of any number of fraud websites I’ve scanned and panned. At a dramatic high point of the trailer, Porter passionately urges the conflicted Stanley “for the love of your country, listen to what I have to say and THEN draw your own conclusions.” Of course Major Kruter’s actual truth, unlike our own, was determined strictly by Cross himself, so his path to it is clear and Porter the right portal. For the rest of us, we’ll need to be more discerning and less gullible than that.

Friday, January 4, 2008


Clipped or Staged?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Last Updated Jan. 7 2008

In denying a 757 impact at the Pentagon on 9/11, Loose Change looked at, among other things, the five light poles said to have been shorn by the wings of Flight 77 just before impact. The video cited previous problems when planes hit light poles - pole left damaged but standing, wing comes off, plane crahes. “And yet Flight 77 managed to tear five light poles completely out of the ground,” Avery continued, “without damaging either the wings or the light poles themselves.” How precisely he knows that the wings were undamaged on the plane he believes doesn't exists is left unexplained, but to prove the poles were untouched, they had hard proof - actual photographs, including those at left. A look at the very photos they used proves the assertion flat wrong. If these light poles aren’t damaged, why don’t they have lights on them? [at left: pole 1, pol 4, and pole 1 again. below right, pole 5.]

Clearly if a Boeing 757 with its 125 feet of wings came swooping in over the highway, it’d cut some poles – but since they insist on seeing no plane, the Loose Change people summarize that the undamaged poles “seem to have just popped out of the ground.” The only implication I can see in this is of a covert Pentagon system of specially designed poppable light-poles to fake a cruise missile/drone strike out to look like an airliner attack. I guess it’s possible, but the photos show that this system also seems to mangle the tops of the poles on the way down, which they would have to to effectively fake an airliner attack, thereby proving fallacious the whole issue which started by insisting there was no such damage.

This is perhaps the most-widely-cited graphic analysis of the light pole arrangement, which of course aso coincides with the 'official' flight path. This graphic was made in 2002 or so by UK 'debunker' Ron Harvey. Another researcher, Dick Eastman, first doubted the poles' existence: "Ron Harvey says that 5 poles were downed. Ever hear that from any other source? I saw eye witness testimony that one pole was "clipped."" [link] Later he admitted their existence; "The poles not a question that is in dispute. I have long acknowledged the existence of the poles as soon as I finally got my hands on an actual picture of one (Ron Harvey was not forthcoming with me at the time) -- in fact it was the pole data in contrast to the witness accounts that first suggested the presense of two converging aircraft paths." [link.] One had a swooping 125 foot wingspan backed by 100 tons of force - and flew well above the poles, which were knocked down by air vortices off the wingtips of his F-16 killer jet.

Russel Pickering's analysis at found that they were 27.66 feet high, made of .188 inch-thick aluminum, 8 inches in diameter at the base and 4.5 inches at the top and topped with 70 pound lampheads. The reason the wings wouldn't be damaged is because the use of a "breakaway style" pole design. As Pickering explains: "this limited damage factor is why the FAA requires these type of poles in the "safety zones" around airports and helipads. They recognize that this type of pole minimizes damage to aircraft." He cited the FAA's rules: "any structure located within 250 feet of runway centerline has to be frangible, which means the structure needs to break away when hit by an aircraft to minimize damages to the aircraft and its pilot."

I have done my own anlysis now on poles 1 and 2 (pole 1 being the one that allegedly speared Lloyd England's windshield). I deduced a slightly different pole height than Pickering, although he's probably right and, along with tree damage and a slight mark high on a camera pole, have mapped out a rough outline of the plane's apparent bank at that moment - right-high, like the witnesses all have said.

If these were faked, they were faked well, The PentaCon video in 2007 made the case that the light poles were staged to fake the official attack path, and poorly so at that, bearing dozens of effects errors. Largely a rehash of Eastman's early theory sans the killer jet and beefed up with better witness pool, the video and its makers propose the poles were cut down, crimped, and in one case curved, some point perhaps weeks in advance, hidden in the bushes unnoticed, and dragged out for the attack in the morning. Or something to that effect. The one that hit Lloyd England's taxi was trickier, and they go to great length to explain the conspiracy behind this, or at least to argue there must be one. As PentaCon producer Craig Ranke (aka Jack Tripper) explained:

"If you accept that the plane flew on the north of the station you MUST accept that ALL the physical damage was staged/simulated/fabricated. Therefore, because the light poles line up perfectly with all the physical damage to the building there is no reason to suggest that any natural force [...] or projectile at all brought them down. They were simply removed and planted BEFORE the event."

That's of course one of the many reasons I do not accept the north side flight theory.

Wednesday, January 2, 2008


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
December 18 2007
last update 1/2 1am

I'm still working out my analysis of the trailers-in-the-impact-zone situation: were they exploded to string airliner-ish confetti across the lawn and helipad as some have speculated? Were they removed entirely before the event as satellite images (see left) suggest is quite possible? Attack witnesses Micheal DiPaula gives a picture of an amptying but not empty construction zone: “we were in the process right prior to September 11 cleaning out the area. We just – we moved all the trailers. Actually, on the tenth we had some other trailers that were just leaving because we were getting ready to turn it back over to the building. And we had one trailer left, which was the – we had the Singleton trailer out there. And – and then we had some other trailers over here. So that’s the lay down area, were the plane actually came over.” So it seems possible there were trailers right there, and gone after, presumably removed by the plane on its way in. Are there any photos of trailers inside the Pentagon? What constitutes a trailer exactly? Why the hell am I still wasting time on things like this? These are the questions I've been tackling for the last three days.

In this case just the graphics and a few notes and links should suffice. Thanks to John Farmer for bringing up this issue again and spurring me with his post The Trailer (redirecting at the moment). Until I read that, I'd been baffled by the melty cheesy form seen in the construction area just north of impact, by the burning SUV (see below), seeing an orange tarp - or something - though others had previously identified this as some type of trailer. More accurately, as Farmer proposed, I'd consider it a steel cargo container, the angle from it being tipped over by the left wing, and the warping mostly due to fire that gave it the rust color. It seems it may have been ON a towable trailer, judging by the floor remaining beneath it and apparent wheel axle. This graphic represents what I feel is the most likely style matching the Pentagon sample, with various matching features highlighted.

Doesn't look quite right? For comparison, see these sample images of cargo containers subjected to explosion and fire aboard the M/V Hanjin Pennsylvania, which burned for four days off the coast of Yemen in November 2002 after a nasty fireworks mishap. The twisted shapes are those that fell to the bottom of a massive container cell that collapsed. Note the different appearance of corrugated vs. bare-ribbed walls, perhaps different styles of container. The pictures and info were found at this site.

Compare again to this stray scrap photographed from at least two angles, found just inside the Pentagon. It appears to be neither part of the plane nor of the building. In fact it looks kind of like somethinng from the Pennsylvania. Below are the shots these are from, the second (by FEMA's Jocelyn Augustino) I've labeled with the likely column assignations. There are no supports on line 10 in this area, and by looking at the photo index in the ASCE's Performance Report, I've pegged this snake skeleton of a remnant as that of column 9B.
Below is the ASCE's column damage pattern laid over a rendering of the September 7 satellite image (lined up along expansion joints, in black). The trailer location on the right (the plane's left) corresponds roughly with the tipped and melted trailer seen above. The one on the left more closely matches the position to have wound up at column 9B given the 'official' 757 trajectory (red arrows represent approximate angle and impact points of engines and fuselage).

Therefore I speculate that we're dealing with two similar cargo containers in the spots where containers and trailers had previously been seen. One remained outside, the other inside, battered, and invisible in the available photos but for this good-sized scrap (and possibly others if I dug deeper). The intact one shows no sign of exploding to scatter debris, being as it is intact. The other possible container or trailer would have had to undergo a peculiar directed explosion to put it inside the building while leaving no similar traces I've seen in the other direction, away from the building. So while both possible trailers are possibly compatible with a plane strike (no detailed forensics yet), neither seems to make sense from the explosion and fakery hypothesis.
Update: Two more pictures of a rather shiny looking warped trailer, near the same construction scaffolding seen in other photos of the trailer.
These are close-up crops of Jason Ingersoll high-res photos provided by CIT. Another from that batch also has background details useful here, from later in the day, after it dried up: