CHACONAS: AN INTOLERABLE INTERPRETATION

CHACONAS: AN INTOLERABLE INTERPRETATION
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
June 4 2008
update 6/9 12pm

At the Loose Change Forum recently CIT witness Steve Chaconas, as presented in The Pentagon Flyover, came up again. [interview runs 17:34-35:00 in the video] Chaconas was a charter boat captain out fishing with others on 9/11, near a sewage treatment plant on the Potomac a few miles south of the capitol. CIT feel “Steve’s account alone is enough to prove a military deception” by having a plane fly across the river east-to-west, bank right and apparently fly into the Pentagon off in the distance. Critical forum member Bret08 pointed out that “Chiconas [sic] is a human being giving his judgement and perceptions. He is not infallible,” and asked his fellow members “Are we even sure that the plane he saw was AA77/decoy?” He’s exactly right to wonder about this, if not terribly articulate about it. He was of course hit with slings and arrows for his criticism. CIT ally Bitterman snapped back:

“Hey Bret! WTF! What is wrong with you? Wait, wait......don't tell me.....I already know what you do. It pisses me off. […] in APRIL, you asked this SAME QUESTION. Remember when we trounced you because you still didn't get it, and we informed you that Steve CAN tell the difference between a turbo prop and a jet airliner?!?!?!

4 engine turbo prop vs. a 2 engine jet. AGAIN, DO NOT ASK THIS QUESTION AGAIN. Your motives are obvious to me, but I have to play by the rules. So, for the last time....here is the answer to your STUPID question. [provides the quote I’ll post below] So? WTF man. WHY are you here? Who are you? Why are you important? How old are you? You're credible how? […] If this is ALL you bring to the table, then STFU.”

At this point the moderators stepped in. “JFK” is no Jack Kennedy – he’s also a moderator at plane-pod-promoting letsrollforum and seems to think he can make any tripe look noble with his pensive presidential avatar and management of ideological differences in the name of "9/11 Truth." In response to Bitterman’s barely-provoked tirade, JFK said “Brett is tolerated here simply in case if we overlook something.... Other than that I ignore him for the most part.” Further denunciations came unmoderated from Avenger not Aldo, and Domenick DiMaggio not CIT.

I’d guess that Brett08 is tolerated there because he is timid and not studied on the details, and because they need some on-site opposition. I know I wouldn’t be tolerated for a minute in the current climate (I’m “Deleted User” there, voluntarily, but it’s devolved since then). I know to point out that all we have for proof of the decoy white airliner thing crossing the river is this ONE witness who saw the final bank and dive preceded by a crossing of the river by what he feels is one and the same plane.

The pivotal part is where he saw it crossing close to him, considering the C-130 flown by Lt Col Steve O’Brien that followed after 77 to investigate the crash site crossed the river roughly when and exactly where Chaconas’ plane crossed. It has been reasonably proposed by Brett and myself and others that he actually saw the C-130 and just thought it was an airliner.

I’m not bothering now with a full deconstruction, but my opinion on Chaconas is that he’s neither correct nor 100% honest in his account, and neither is he outright lying, and almost certainly not any kind of “disinfo agent.” Consider this graphic: A perfectly honest and unbiased observer might connect these two maneuvers with a deduced bank, considering the proximity of the two path in time and space. Add in his apparent desire to boost the mystery and ‘unanswered questions’ surrounding 9/11 [27:00 in the video], a sentiment similar to that of Bob Pugh [video here, 30:30 on] and such deduction seems entirely too likely to be ignored.

Consider also his curious vagueness on characteristics of ‘the plane’ as it passed nearest to him:
Ranke: “Can you describe the jet for us? Did you notice how many engines it had?”
Chaconas: "I don’t recall anything specific about the airplane, and again, it was far enough away to where we, you know to me, it looked like a commercial airliner…”
Ranke: “How about the color though?”
Chaconas: “Nothing specific about it at all.” [25:05]
This raises a question for CIT. Guys, of all the witnesses you’ve interviewed, how many have flat refused to specify the color when asked? And why is it this one?

In closing, I’ll remind the reader that no other witnesses in the area have yet been found to corroborate this ONE apparent river-crossing by the decoy. And this pivotal and lonely account is based on a few words, like the hard point Bitterman slapped Bret08 with to certify it was one plane, and that an airliner. Carefully re-read this important passage: “and again, it was far enough away to where we, you know to me, it looked like a commercial airliner…” That’s a lot of qualifiers. It was far enough away that to me it LOOKED LIKE an airliner. So it was an airliner! The logical extension of this is that if it were closer, it might look to him or to anyone less like one and, perhaps, more like a C-130. The qualifiers indicate that somewhere in that brain Chaconas knows this.

ETA: And the fact that CIT passed up the chance to show him their ever-present E4B and C130 photos [nowhere in the video] for comparison indicates that they knew it too.

ETA: There will be no Chaconas update posts, and after this ETA no more additions to the post body, since Ranke said "that's it?" in the comments. I don't want to change the context on him. I will include additional marks against their literal interpretation in the growing comments section below.

NEW CIT SCI-FI MOCKUMENTARY RELEASED

THE PENTAGON FLYOVER: ANNOUNCEMENT OF RELEASE AND PARTIAL REVIEW
The Frustrating Fraud
February 26 2008 12:30 am
updated 2/26 5pm

The long-awaited feature-length follow-up to The PantaCon is now released. Earlier today Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team announced the release of The Pentagon Flyover - How They Pulled It Off at Above Top Secret.com 911 forum.
Additional discussion:
Loose Change Forum
Pilots for 911 Truth forum
CIT Forum
Signs of the Times Forum

One hour and forty minutes. More solid evidence proving a deception. Here it is, with a still screen of Koeppel's map based on a few crumbs of error that happens to resemble the final path they're now proposing based on half-a-loaf of error:

Google Video link
I’ve just been skimming through and in fact I’m seeing enough bullshit already it’s making me tired to think of a full debunking, even though I’ve already done most of the work in recent discussions. Regading their findings of the C-130 pilot’s account, their once-rotated map is shown both corrected [9:45] and still rotated [41:40] and they’re still calling the north part of the 'official' outbound flight not far enough north, his view of the mall not beautiful enough by radar, and calling the outbound heading of 255 degrees ‘southwest’ (225°) and fatally contradictory to his description of ‘west’ (270°).

They told me I was ‘dead wrong’ in my guess at their full flight path:

But watching what they did [10:20-13:00 then 16:55-17:30 then 34:40-35:00] it was actually about right in the key spots. It crosses the Potomac twice, skirts north of the Capital, and follows about the 'official' (too far south) C-130 path back across. This is a rough rendering at least of their full proposed path merging previous findings with new CIT witnesses Chaconas, O'Brien, Scoggins, Mineta, and Belger [36:05]:

About 20 minutes of the video is consumed by the account of the much-anticipated Charter Boat Captain – one Steve Chaconas – who describes seeing the decoy plane crossing the river from the east south of the capitol [17:30]. He felt by visual clues it was a commercial airliner, but couldn’t offer CIT anything else, not even a general color or a number of engines. [19:05-19:20]. That’s odd. Later he rambles about confusion, media misrepresentation, open questions, etc. [26:45 – 27:30] That’s useful. CIT witnesses have an uncanny penchant of making themselves useful like this. That’s odd.

They also scored a Keith Wheelhouse interview, digging for simultanaeity of “C-130” and impact as attributed to him in early reports [starts 46:25]. Radar and other data indicates the C-130 passed the area a full two minutes after, while Wheelhouse was cited as seeing it shadowing Flight 77 as if to appear as one blip on radar. This has always been one of the eyewitness mysteries – is that just confused reporting or what he really saw?

In the interview he does confirm that he saw the two planes together [48:20], but also draws the official flight path for 77 (south of the Citgo) and the U-turn attributed to the C-130 [54:07]. They finally have a clear, on-camera corroborated south path witness, and the only thing odd is the now-confirmed same-time aspect, which still contradicts all other evidence and so is still probably wrong. I’ll have to come back and analyze how they deal with all of this, but so far they hint (it seems to me) that Wheelhouse is their elusive flyover witness who for whatever reason turned it into a C-130 after it flew over.

And of course they address the white E4B with its blue stripe that they now feel the decoy was painted to resemble, to help conceal the decoy as it circled Washington a second time before the E4B showed up. (no video of either pass of course). And then the C-130 playing into Wheelhouse's possible flyover account and possibly into Chacones' possible gray 4-engine airliner passing over... Thank god for CIT to help us sort out all this confusion. There are different nuggets in there - an interview with Narayanan, etc., to which I'll have to return. Mineta's "DRA," Scoggins' 6 miles southeast er, southwest... ABC's 9:40 'plane circling the White House.' There are answers for all these, most pretty obvious and vehemently denied by CIT.

Recent revalations, like their flight path offering being physically impossible and being based on proven fraudulent eyewitness ‘interpretations’,’ left me primed to accept this new release. The feeling I get watching this case come together finally is one of liberation; it’s finally clear even to me that CIT actually stands for Comedy Improv Team. This whole thing seems not even so much disinformation, nor simple ‘conspiracy profiteering,’ but more like some long-running prank fronted with a fierce poker face and some high-minded semantics about ‘truth’ and ‘justice.’ Why should I even waste any more time on this noise pollution? Is anybody really fooled?

Optional: Graphic Representation courtesy CIT that sums up this latest effort