THE TROUBLE WITH TURCIOS

THE TROUBLE WITH TURCIOS
VIDEO AND COMMENTARY
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Initial posting: March 13 2008
last update: 3/15 12 am

This is a partial post for now, to which I'll add later. Primarily it's to alert anyone who cares of my new video, following off my previous analysis Who is Person #1? I'm not confident saying it is Robert Turcios, but it's the only person who could be him, given his stated (general) location and (pre-plane) activities.

Online Videos by Veoh.com
Veoh page

Among some other points and spiffy music, the core of it is the conflict between the 2006 account of Robert Turcios and this possible Turcios recorded supposedly on 9/11. This panoramic patchwork demonstrates the basic idea.

I should have done it with the lower earthen mound as it was on 9/11 but that didn't occur to me. There aren't many good photos of that. Here's one that shows it - earthen, unseeded, and looking to the stupid eye like a plywood wall. Note that this photo is taken from a high point and would have an obscured view if at ground level as Turcios was.
Also, Turcios' or anyone's north-of-the-Citgo claim is contradicted by this same camera view, which also captures a large shadow on the road behind (south of) person 1. This shadow is consistent for size, shape, location, and timing with a Boeing 757 on the damage path, and traveling at 530 mph about 110 feet off the ground. Dead serious. All this is explained at this post. I invite anyone to find fault with that analysis other than 'the video is fake!'

Citizen Investigation Team's approach to this conflict of evidence is, of course, ignore the video. They insist it was altered to discredit Turcios, and disparage anyone who dares look at this as valid evidence. They do make a compelling case for removal of key views, which would prove some type of alteration. I'm doing some analysis on that at the moment, and reviewing the findings of others and will finally have something to say on it soon.

Regarding the circumstantial case for alteration, Aldo Marquis recently reminded the viewers of the person 1 video "What he failed to mention in his youtube is that the CITGO video was released 10 days after we obtained Robert's very important account and 5 days after announcing it publically”
I will mention that here and now. Here is the proof - collected posts CIT love to brandish:

And now this timing 'coincidence' in a fuller context:
Tucios and Video Timeline convergence
Dec. 15 2004 – To counter growing secrecy-fueled conspiracy theories, Judicial Watch files a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Defense Dept. requesting the release of several videos including from “the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station.”
Jan 2005 - DoD admits to Judicial Watch it had a video of the impact but it must remain secret for the duration of the long-running Moussaoui trial.
Sept. 9 2005 – Scott Bingham/Flight77.info lawsuit against the DoJ yields the Maguire declaration announcing 85 videos in possession of DoJ and at least one showing the impact.
Feb. 22 2006 – Judicial Watch files suit to the DoD to release this “video that allegedly shows United Flight 77 striking the Pentagon.”
April 6 2006 - Aldo Marquis joins the Loose Change forum as Merc, gains respect with research threads like "A 757 Does Not Fit, Photographic analysis and Irregularities" (May 15).
May 4 2006 - Moussaui is sentenced to life, the trial is over, and the old reason for refusing disclosure evaporates. Video release seems more likely after this date.
May 16 - Confirming that impression, JW releases its first new video – the gate cameras we saw stills from back in 2002.
June 22 – Perhaps inspired by their success with the DoD, Judicial Watch files a lawsuit against the FBI for video release.
June 23 - Marquis/Merc is joined at the LC Forum by his future CIT cohort Ranke (as Lyte Trip), and both quickly become moderators of the Pentagon forum. At some point after this, Merc suggests a research trip to Arlington; "It was my idea. Craig and I decided to go. I mentioned it to Dylan and Russell, and Dylan asked if they could make it a joint research trip that included Russell, since Dylan was going to be in DC around the same time we planned our trip." [source]
July 31 – Moussaoui trial exhibits released in their entirety, an unprecedented move in a federal case. Could videos be far behind?
August 21-25 2006 – Marquis, Ranke, Pickering, Avery, Bermas, and Rowe conduct their research trip to Arlington to gather clues about the Pentagon attack.
August 22 – Pickering is at the Citgo making first contact as Marquis and Ranke arrive. Ranke later summarized “This turned out to be very good because he established contacts making it easier for us to return and talk with people there later.”
Aug 24 – The ‘elite research team’ visits the Citgo again to film the area, are detained and have most of their photos/video deleted. Ranke and Marquis depart on a 3:00 flight to California. (pre-planned, not a hasty retreat).
Aug 25 - Merc posts a quick synopsis solidifying his role as a stellar researcher: "Hey guys, I'm back and have some interesting news for you all. THERE WAS A LARGE PLANE SEEN DIVING TOWARDS THE PENTAGON!" There was still debate about whether the witnesses indicated an impact or a fly-over of course...
August 31 – The first full post-trip analysis, very detailed and with many photos, is posted by Lyte Trip at the LCF.
September 5 – Marquis, after following-up with the station’s manager, has his first phone discussion with a Citgo employee (Robert Turcios) who saw a gray plane pull-up on the north path. He speaks to Turcios a second time before the 10th and a third time shortly after.
September 10: Merc first posts at the forum about this witness who “breaks the case wide open” and indicates a flyover.. This is the graphic that gets its first airing as describing the yet-unnamed witness' account. September 11: the five year anniversary of the attacks arrives – a propitious time to release any held videos. It passes with nothing still. But due to previous actions mentioned above, discs of the video containing that witness are probably in the mail.
September 14: Ranke/Lyte emphasizes at the LCF the importance of Turcios: “The witness 100% refutes the mechanical flight path. No other witness account is as significant.”
September15 – After receiving a copy from the FBI, Judicial Watch releases the Citgo station security video for public viewing at Youtube. The big news about it was how it still didn’t show the actual impact but JW president Tom Fitton says “Now that it has been released to the public, there is no reason for further speculation about what it does or does not show." Hardly!
---
The Response
September 15: Dylan Avery: “i'd hate to say we caused any part of this, but our team sure caused a stir at the gas station....” Merc: “I'd hate to say it had anything to do with our star witness, but what timing.” [source] Note the curious use of 'hate' by both.
September 16 and after - analysis by some and reasons for denial from others, endless debate over what the video shows. It doesn't show what Robert says, that much is clear.
Oct 5: Marquis posts: “I believe the Citgo video was released SPECIFICALLY because of the Citgo witness and his account. I no longer believe this as a possibility, but as an unforunate reality. A counter chess move if you will. I have more reason to believe this now but can't elaborate on it at this point. But I will in the near future. [...] This is a clever trick in response to the Citgo employee's account. Simply more bad video with a few editing/graphic/lighting tricks, just like the others. Perhaps something more complex. Look at the date of my Citgo Witness thread ( My first phone call was the week of labor day), and then look at the date of the Citgo video release. As stated earlier, "Not coincidence"."
[So they read the old LCF that closely, eh? "Quick! They're talking to that witness we forgot to kill... let's edit the video to discredit him, then let these guys interview him on the premesis on video anyway, after we still forget to kill him." ???]
Nov 6? 2006: Marquis and Ranke are on a CIT-only research trip and meet with Turcios (as well as Paik, Lagasse, and Brooks) and get him to affirm his pre-video-release story on camera for the ages. He complies but his performance is awkward and not terribly believable.
Feb 28 2007: Pickering to Merc: "The question is - do you believe I am a government agent and was involved in the alteration and release of the Citgo video to sabatoge your work? Yes or no?" Merc to Pickering: "You behavior and actions indicate to me this is a possibility. But I do not know for sure one way or the other." [source]
Mid-2007? - Joh Farmer posts his first findings of a person who may be Turcios visible in the security video.
Aug 30 2007: Ranke 8/30/07: "The release of the proven manipulated video data was done to discredit Robert Turcios since he is not visible in the video." Method for deducing this- the video shows no one doing what Robert says he did and where. So no Robert. Which is a problem for... the video.

more forthcoming ...

and stuff
also to come.

CITGO VIDEO: WHO IS PERSON #1?

CITGO VIDEO: WHO IS PERSON #1?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
March 3 2008

I've just completed my first analysis of the Citgo security video extracted with Aimersoft DVD ripper from a disc sent by John Farmer, obtained by him from Juducual Watch and copied right off the original. The Software was not registered when I took all the cropped stills out, so it says 'Evaluation Copy." Sorry this looks unprofessional, but the data is still the same - just as allegedly fraudulent as it ever was. I can't prove to myself or anyone else this video is accurate and not doctored. So I won't even try. Let's just look at what it shows, whether or not that's what actually happened.

Youtube page link

What we have is blurry, ill-defined blobs that alone could be almost anything light or dark of some rough size, but by comparing to site photographs and tracking relative motion we can establish basically what’s going on. Various objects are here highlighted and persons tracked, especially one individual - marked in red as person 1 - who spends most of the time hovering between pump 1 and some mystery object.

The video is unreadable for the labels, so in order of appearance:
gas pumps and garbage can (green)
a truck or SUV that pulls in (blue)
'east entrance' doorway (green)
inner wall facing ENE (gold)
restroom door (green)
mystery object (yellow)
"unclear things happen here" (yellow)
person 1: ? (red)
other persons (purple)

The time-stamps for the segment I've analysed is 9:37 – 9:41 (camera time), looking at cameras 2 and 4, facing northwest and southwest respectively, and together covering the area under the station’s south canopy over its ‘east entrance’ and ‘single pump side.’ This is a photo re-creation (montage of two Farmer shots, 2007) of the FOV of cam 4, single pump side. Compare to labeling above.
The video shows this red-boxed someone hovering around the right pump, garbage can, and mystery object, doing things of an up-down back-forth nature. Details are nigh impossible to determine. This person goes into the restroom at 9:37:41 and apparently re-emerges at 9:39:04 then goes back to 'work.' At 9:40:35 a large shadow appears south of person 1, who moves suddenly, or drops something, in response, but stays put. Just after the glow that appears on the inner wall two seconds later, person 1 runs into the store via the east entrance door. Here are some key moments from the last segment.




This person's locations and activities generally - and partially - fit the account of only one published witness I know of. But I've heard it said that person is not in the video at all and they have offered an account that differs from these actions in important ways. It could also be another person doing similar things, or an inserted blob of pixels. Who is this person? Any guesses? Bonus points for hypotheses on the nature of the yellow-labeled mystery object and its relation to person 1.

Let the reasons to entirely ignore this evidence proceed as well... See comments below

CITGO VIDEO ANALYSIS

CITGO VIDEO ANALYSIS
(working version posted June 28 2007)
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Last Updated September 9 late pm


The Nexcom/Citgo gas station was the last real building near 77's flightpath before the Pentagon. Its security video was confiscated by the FBI on September 11 2001 (apparently NOT within minutes of the attack but rather a few hours later). It was held for five years and then released pursuant to FOIA requests on September 15 2006 to Judicial Watch.

The station had multiple cameras multiplexed together onto one screen. Some of the best views were NOT included in this compressed multi-camera screen. Whether this constitutes manipulation/forgery or some more inoccuous explanation I can't say for sure. But it is suspicious, and some of the cameras themselves seem to have been removed since then.


Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LJvFjsl6zk&mode=related&search= An analysis of what the remaining low-resolution screens show is in the works. Previously I'd said it showed "more nothing than anything yet," but in fact there are good clues in there. Of special interest are three camera views, mapped out on the model below.

Dual-Pump Camera and the Canopy Flash
Just looking at the view from the "dual pump side" camera (the north end of the station) we see a flash at 4:44 in the video, or 9:40:38 by the video's internal clock (app. set about 3 minutes ahead). The white car there most of the time at the pump is Sgt. Lagasse's. The sequence here: a black and white patrol car pulls in and sends the flash of light, reflected from somewhere else apparently to the south, onto the underside of the canopy, at which point the patrol car speeds away, possibly towards the Pentagon

My video - part 1 of the Citgo analysis, just the canopy flash.

Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ChV5gxYfrc#GU5U2spHI_4

Here is a photo of the station's north end - parking, hedges, canopy and pumps - with the Pentagon visible in the background. Compare to the camera view above.
Before getting to angles, I must note that some north-path proponents contend this flash is either from the plane but glancing off the car's roof, or simple sunlight reflected in a flash as the patrol car started rolling (see comments at the Youtube link for my video). It does seem to start inching forward just just a hair early - too subtly it seems to account for a sudden flash, but enough to make this interpretation seem feasible. The angle the light is coming from seems about the same as the angle of natural sunlight at that time, but a different part of the car also catches sunlight a few frames later in a different position. (I intend a fuller anlysis on the timeline of all these events). John Farmer's rebuttal and my counter-rebuttal: link.

However, as I will expand on in this space and with further short videos, there was also a noticable flash of light on the south side of the station a split-second earlier, clearly not reflected from the south side of a car on the north side of the station. There's also employee/customer reactions indicating something happening to the south, and a large shadow also visible on a roadway south of the Pentagon. These will be explained and even if the canopy flash is just sunlight, it somehow seems to show the same thing the other clues do: something other than the sun was sending light to /blocking light from the Citgo, from the south and southeast just before people started gawking towards the Pentagon. A high-speed, low-flying silver AA 757 is one possible culprit for at least one of these clues...

East Entrance (south) View and the Double Flash
This "East Entrance" camera is at the southern edge of the southeast canopy looking back at the store to monitor customers coming and going. Note at left the lightening on the left-hand side, on the narrow east-facing edge of a wall there. This "flash" seen at 9:40:37 is longer in duration than the one off the patrol car half-a-second later, and perhaps better described as a "double-pulse." In slow-motion (video coming) there is an intial pulse just before the canopy flash, which washes in top-to-bottom and fades just as another pulse of light blankets the spot and then fades. Duration: unsure at the moment but seems to be about one second. The light source is roughlly to the east, and could be from either a plane heading from the north or the south.


Below is the video of this flash. Sorry for the glitch - it hangs up just before "slow-motion." Maybe I'll re-post it.


The Shadow
Thanks to John Farmer's interesting work, I can see the shadow now. It's visible in the south-side "Single Pump" camera, and cast on the roadway behind the station (South Joyce Street), divided in two by some invisible obstruction (possibly a median/divider). It appears at 9:40:35 (about 2 seconds before the flashes) by the video's clock and remains for about 8 frames, 1/4 of a second (though it appears stationary, apparently a still frame taken at 4 fps). All-in;all it's a large shadow. A 757 is one possibility.

I know this is crap quality to be blowing it up so big, but hey,
it's there. It can be (roughly) measured.
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF-GcL8hR68

General Thoughts
Quotes from north path/no plane supporters: would these researchers talk about this key evidence like this if they thought it supported their theory or was irrelevant? (most from the inital Loose Change thread spurred by Russell Pickering's analysis)
John Doe X: "Talk about chasing shadows...lol." link
Aldo Marquis/Merc: "I believe the Citgo video was released SPECIFICALLY because of the Citgo witness and his account. I no longer believe this as a possibility, but as an unforunate reality. A counter chess move if you will. [...] This is a clever trick in response to the Citgo employee's account. Simply more bad video with a few editing/graphic/lighting tricks, just like the others." link
Undertow: "You know, I started to analyze that flash 4:44 (mov time) but it's just worthless in all its pixelated compressed crappyness. I don't know what anyone can possible get out of this video besides a migrane." link
(John Farmer's quote removed - I'm not so sure now he belongs on this list)
Craig Ranke (Lyte Trip): "No serious 9/11 researcher would take this video at face value. It makes zero sense." link
Craig Ranke to me: "Evidence tampering is a Federal offense and if you insist on supporting this dubious data that is supplied from the very individuals that you accuse of this crime you are just as guilty as they are." link

So naysayers aside, and all concerns of legitimacy vs. fakery taken into account (the grain of salt one must take this with), the analysis continues.

BEES AROUND HONEY, FLIES AROUND SH*T

IS IT GETTING STICKY IN HERE OR IS IT JUST ME?

Frustrated that so many revisionists should insist on painting themselves into a corner by making the impossibility of a 757 at the Pentagon a cornerstone of the case, I took as my mission vigilantly guarding the truth movement from such self-inflicted wounds. I signed up at Let’s Roll 911 as "Vigilant Guardian" in late January 2005 with an open mind but serious doubts about their approach. Within days of joining, before I’d even seen their beloved 911 In Plane Site, I posted my concerns with their evidence as I was seeing it in a too-long post. Member Heiho 1 admonished me: “please read the threads on these topics before posting blatantly erroneous messages [...] I'm not sure how you missed the entire Pentagon thread but all of your arguments are thoroughly refuted in the main Pentagon thread.” [1] In other words, if I had not agreed to the platform laid out at the party congress I had no right to speak.

Undeterred, I started a new thread of my own, an admittedly obnoxious “cold shower to people who've watched Pentagon Strike one too many times and done their homework one time too few.” In the post I postulated that just maybe “the Pentagon WAS hit by Flight 77 or a large drone similar in size, NOT a small craft, fighter, or missile. The Pentagon's secrecy would then have lured us out to bring in this Trojan Horse seam as a central plank of the revisionist version then - BAM! They plunk down photos of Flight 77 hitting and we're all screwed.” [2]

Responses ranged from the non-answer reference to Rumsfeld’s 2001 missile “admission,” and the demand “if the evidence is available then it must be presented” (oh it must, huh? Or else what? You keep arguing the same stupid point? –I should have said that). Another more validly pointed out “even if the pictures come out bam, there are too many inconclusive facts to THEIR official story that are not valid and defy all reasoning and all physics.” These were the only two responses – everyone else at Let’sRoll ignored my provocative post and their projects, including their hand in Loose Change, rolled on.

“Trojan Horse” was the best metaphor I could think of at the time, but since then I’ve stumbled onto a better phrase to sum up my hunch. The Bumble-Planes Theory, should have been my first clue that the entire planeless Pentagon attack theory – among other of the 9/11 theories - may be what espionage people call a “honeypot.” Some trace the term back to Winnie the Pooh, known to get into great mischief over his hunger for pots of honey, while others trace he etymology back to the slang term for an outhouse, with honey a euphemism for the waste that collects there. Whatever its source, the phrase became an unofficial term during the Cold War for the use of seduction, sexual blackmail, and other such entrapments to gain the upper hand with enemy agents. Depending on the origin one uses, the prey of these setups are the equivalent of bees or flies, drawn by the aroma/stench so they get stuck in the honey/shit.

Beyond espionage, honeypot is also a computer term. In this usage, it’s a trap to attract unauthorized use: a computer, website, residual files or whatever that appears to be part of a network but which is actually isolated or connected to authorities. In other words it’s a baited trap to lure unsuspecting enemies to make compromising moves. This definition is interesting for the case at hand, dealing with internet and information systems. Combining the two, we may get false websites and false networks (Let’sRoll 911?) luring in would-be dissidents, a sponsored and engineered opposition ala Orwell’s 1984. This could well be a Pentagon-controlled system of information, created to seduce conspiracy theorists towards a deceptively perfect seam, offering a honeypot stinking to high heaven of the sewage some people seem to crave… and they get stuck and hopefully drown.

As Judicial Watch or whoever forced the release of new Pentagon videos in May 2006 Alex Jones again went on the record, reminding his listeners and his guest, Judicial Watch’s Chris Farrell, of his firm belief that 9/11 was an inside job. But Jones felt the first video to show us anything would show something like a 757 hitting the building (“whether it’s real or manufactured”). Jones called the Pentagon’s secrecy over the attack a “honey pot operation,” one in which “the government attracts overwhelming attention to the Pentagon issue, making it the cornerstone of the 9/11 truth movement, and then blowing it out of the water by releasing clear footage of Flight 77.” [3] Having reached the same conclusion independently, I had been ignorant of Jones’ take, which he says he’s maintained from the time of the attack. Farrell didn’t admit to this interpretation, but didn’t deny it either, chuckling a bit and further elaborating the idea of a honey pot “let's just call it a baited trap, it draws somebody into a situation in which they're compromised.” [4]

Jones further noted that the government clearly wanted the tapes released or they’d simply find a way to shut down requests as they had before. He further conveyed suspicions that Judicial Watch “is being used as a conduit for the dissemination of carefully staged government propaganda,” apparently referring to the tapes of actual events. This time the cases were going ahead, and video releases had already started. Thus Judicial Watch, as Jones tried to get Farrell to admit, could become “the water carriers” for this honeypot operation, initiating the final revelation and the inevitable realization of the set-up. [5] As Jones’ Prison Planet summed up again in September after yet one more release of the Citgo gas station video, the release “will once again whip up into a frenzy the no plane theories. If that happens and the next video, or perhaps the one after that, shows a clear impact of flight 77, then the alternative 9/11 theories that are gaining so much attention now will be widely and viciously attacked.” [6] As bad as they are, I believe they should be attacked; it’s only too bad so much of the Truth Movement has allowed itself to be dragged into the crossfire.

Fintan Dunne, a rather enigmatic character I stumbled on late in my research, but apparently an Irish activist of some sort, echoed my thoughts brilliantly in an August 2006 post at his Break For News discussion forum. “The Pentagon is the honey-trap of the Op. And I suppose we suspected that from the way it featured strongly in the “In Plane Shite" movielet. So here's the scenario. Any photos which do come out are deliberately ambiguous. They deliberately release crappy security camera footage. They are behind the Hunt the Boeing hoopla and the Plane Shite stunt. They foster and encourage all questioning of the Pentagon.” [7]

Dunne explains his belief that this is “because the Pentagon is their strongest case. Not just by good fortune. But by design.” But despite their excellently convincing evidence set-up, Rumsfeld and his people “set about making it look as BAD as possible to the conspiracy theorists. […] they wait as the hunt the Boeing and Plane Shite ops are run to establish that conspiracy theorists doubt the hit on the Pentagon.” This is about exactly as I had seen it, if clearer and better-put. His summation of the end goal: “And then they hit us. Bam!” [emphasis in original] [8]

[1], [2] “Warning! Current Pentagon Angle may be a Trojan Horse!” Posted by Vigilant Guardian, January 22 2005, 10:08 pm. Let’s Roll 911 Made Simple –> forums –> 911 & The Pentagon –> Chain of Evidence. http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4947&sid=89f85ff935de57eed04ff5744c9d2bbc
[3], [4], [5] "Judicial Watch Says More Pentagon Tapes To Come: Farrell admits entire issue potential intelligence honey pot operation." Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | May 18 2006. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/180506moretapes.htm
[6] "9/11 Gas Station Video Released - Does not show Flight 77." Prisonplanet.com. September 15 2006. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/150906_b_Video.htm
[7], [8] "Pentagon Honeytrap." Posted by Fintan, August 10 2006, 7:25 pm. The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 3i Investigation -> Pentagon - Overview. http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=487&sid=3c6ab74ec2a67d9ffe2208600e6a7afa

THE FOIA WARS

FARRELL VS DOD VS BINGHAM VS DOJ
IN SEARCH OF THE HIDDEN VIDEOS
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
December 17 2006

Enter Judicial Watch (JW), a conservative/libertarian grouping of lawyers who target government/judicial/legal corruption. They’ve been harsh on the Clintons and their various scandals, and were instrumental in House of Representatives impeachment efforts in the 1990s. But they have also proven willing to tackle the Bush administration to some extent – after all they’re supposed to be watchdogs. Representing FBI special agent Robert Wright, Judicial Watch charges pre 9/11 incompetence at the FBI’s counter-terrorism division (over both the Clinton and Bush years, from Freeh to Mueller). Most pointedly, they summed up that Wright “accuses the FBI of obstructing investigative efforts that might have prevented some of the September 11 attacks.” [1] Although it apparently wasn’t intended to such ends, the lawsuit has been used by many as evidence of a LIHOP theory of the attacks based in the dubious line that “softness” on “the Saudis” was to blame.

Now Judicial Watch is making moves towards pulling a leading leg from beneath the MIHOP no-plane-at-the-Pentagon crowd. In February 2006 they filed a lawsuit against Alberto Gonzales’ Justice Department to release some video of the attack captured by Pentagon cameras. They have also announced plans to sue the FBI to release the 84 videos from surrounding cameras seized and kept under wraps. “Our experience has been that whenever the government takes extraordinary measures to keep the lid on documents,” their announcement of intent read, “it is worth investigating.” [2] JW clarified they were seeking video release “in part to help put to rest conspiracy theories that a government drone or missile hit the Pentagon,” clearly something the government should be eager to cooperate with. [3] Earlier JW suits to this end had been denied, with the government saying they needed to keep the tapes secret on account of the pending trial of Zaccarias Moussaoui.

Whatever logic there may have been in that refusal, it fell flat after the trial’s conclusion in early May 2006. On May 16, Judicial Watch posted the first two videos handed over to them by the Justice Department - one of them is simply the video from the Pentagon's security cameras from which the five stills were extracted in 2002, and the video is no better than the stills. The other was from a camera just a few inches away at the same checkpoint, and equally worthless as evidence for either side. These were not much, but were hoped to be the first in a series of releases. [4] This was big news on May 16; JW President Tom Fitton was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly in his “Impact Segment:” Fitton explained “we wanted to help put to rest conspiracy theories out there that were suggesting that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, that the government murdered the passengers on Flight 77, and other outrageous stuff. Just having the videos released is one more leg of the conspiracy theory that has been knocked out. This also reminds Americans of the evil we are facing.” [5] Fox News in general also ran the story [6] along with several wire services. Fitton was quoted in a May 16 CNN story as saying “we fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11.” [7]

Despite the watchdog group’s public relations coup, there is in fact some contention over who is responsible for these releases. Scott Bingham, administrator of the site Flight77.info, claims it was he, not Judicial Watch, that “forced the release of the recent flight 77 video.” He pointed to his FOIA lawsuit, Scott Bingham vs. DoJ et al., with Bingham posting letters sent to the DoJ and responses sent to his attorney Scott Hode. The reason for the request was summed up by the department: “tired of what plaintiff’s complaint calls “outlandish conspiracy theories” about the crash […] plaintiff seeks to correct what he describes as a veritable culture of misinformation.” Their opinion, issued August 1 2005, was that “this information should not be released until the risk to the Moussaoui prosecution has passed. Defendant therefore seeks summary judgment in favor of its assertion of Exepmtion 7(A) and dismissal of plaintiff’s lawsuit with prejudice.” [8] Perhaps it’s no coincidence, but unlike JW, Bingham is a 9/11 Truther, just one fed up with the Fraudsters. He seems to believe neither Loose Change nor the government.

The judge agreed to the exemption and and blocked the release, but as the Moussaoui case was decided, on May 5, Judge Friedman set a deadline date of May 26th, giving the government three weeks to either let the videos go or “show cause” to hold them longer. Bingham explains it was this date, not JW’s actions, that got them released in May. [9] According to a timeline of all this litigation, Bingham was indeed well ahead of JW. (thanks to Jim Hoffman at 9-11 Research for compiling this). It was back on October 14, 2004 that Scott Hodes, on behalf of Bingham, sent a Freedom of Information Act request to David Hardy of the FBI for any videos “that may have captured the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.” On November 3: The FBI replies that their search “revealed no record responsive to your FOIA request,” and on the 17th Hodes appealed, citing evidence that the videotapes indeed did exist. [10]

Finally on December 15 Judicial Watch’s Director of Investigations & Research Chris Farrrell first asks for the same videos. Farrell’s request bypassed the DoJ and instead was put on a fast track via the Defense Department, though the request covered files from the FBI and Homeland Security as well. Both Hodes and Farrell received early-2005 responses that the evidence needed to be kept secret to protect ongoing legal cases. On September 9, 2005, a FBI Counterterrorism special agent filed a declaration admitting to 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession that were “potentially responsive” to Hodes’ and Bingham’s request; the agent further declared that she watched 29 of them before she found one that actually showed the impact. On September 26, Hodes filed a request seeking all 85 videos. [11]

On February 22, 2006 Judicial Watch filed a further lawsuit against the DoD for its refusal to release the videos, and on May 16 they finally obtained them, although the actual handover was by the Justice Department. They immediately posted the clips on the Judicial Watch website. Hoffman noted “the site is down for about half of the day due to demand” for the brand new footage. The high-profile lawyers thus were able to break the story first despite entering the race late and thus eclipsed Bingham and his site which, unlike JW, seeks to prove a MIHOP scenario with remote controlled airliners. It seems possible Rumsfeld and his lawyers helped JW steal Bingham’s thunder by approving the video first to Farrell - indicating that their days of letting secrecy feed the wing nuts were perhaps nearing an end.

Disc sent by Hardy at FBI to Hodes and Bingham, 3/16/06

Yet back on March 16, exactly two months earlier, David M. Hardy, section Chief of Records/Information dissemination at the FBI sent Hodes a disc with the same two time lapse videos later received by JW, labeled with a fancy cursive font “Flight 77 CD-ROM”. Bingham seems not to have posted them at this time – or if he did it seemed to generate no buzz. The first news my internet searches are showing was on and after May 16. On the 17th, Alex Jones’ Infowars site did a piece on the videos that mentioned the Bingham case, but this seems to be the biggest story on Bingham’s pivotal role, which remains absent from the mainstream news.

sources:
[1] Klayman, Larry, Chairman, Judicial Watch Schippers, David, Counsel, Schippers and Bailey, Judicial Watch. Wright, Robert, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Judicial Watch News Conference: FBI Whistle-Blower.” May 30 2002. National Press Club, Washington, D.C. http://www.infowars.com/jw_transcript.htm
[2] Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Against Defense Department for Withholding Video of 9/11 Attack on PentagonDOD has "no legal basis" to refuse release of videotapeMarch 1 2006http://www.judicialwatch.org/5724.shtml
[3] See [2].
[4] “First video of Pentagon 9/11 attack released: Watchdog group says video will end 'conspiracy theories.'” CNN. May 16, 2006. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html
[5] The O’Reilly Factor Flash. Tuesday, May 16 2006. http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=807
[6] "Pentagon releases video of plane Hitting Building on 9/11" Fox News. May 16 2006. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195702,00.html (Conspiracy theorists may or may not be disappointed Tuesday when they see footage released from the Pentagon showing two angles of American Flight 77 hitting the western wall of the building on Sept. 11, 2001...)
[7] See [4].
[8] Case 1:05-cv-00475-PLF Document 13 page 5 of 23. Filed 08/01/05. Accessed November 8 2006 at: http://www.flight77.info/documents.htm
[9] Accessed November 8 2006 at: www.flight77.info
[10] Hoffman, Jim. “Pentagon Attack Footage: The Suppression of Video Footage of the Pentagon Attack.” http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.html
[11] See [10].
[12] See [10].
[13] Accessed November 8 2006 at: www.flight77.info
[14] Watson, Steve. “FBI Withholding 84 More Tapes of Pentagon on 9/11: Magically Only 1 shows impact so why not release the rest?” Infowars. May 17 2006. http://infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

NOTHING TO SEE HERE

THE SECRET IMAGES OF THE PENTAGON ATTACK
Adam Larson / caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Last updated 6/26/07

Back in 2002, at the Fraud’s genesis and amid loud and deserved rebuttals of the no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theory, some took the opportunity to point out that we had no convincing evidence to disprove the crazy construct. French Sociologist Pierre Lagrange aptly noted just after the release of Thierry Meyssan’s book “9/11: L’Effroyable Imposture,” which he dismissed, “there is no official account of the crash [...] the lack of information is feeding the rumor.” [1] There were serious questions about how the plane could do what it was alleged to have done and leave so little physical evidence, and these questions were compounded by continuing secrecy and evasiveness from the Pentagon’s leadership and the government in general. It was “move along folks, nothing to see here” from minute one.

Some footage went quickly from private to Federal custody, the two famous cases being from the camera at an unnamed hotel (originally thought to be the Sheraton National, but probably the Doubletree) and from the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station open only to Department of Defense personnel. The hotel's employees, according to a 9/21/01 report in the Washington Times, had time to “watch the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the video as part of its investigation.” [2] On the other hand, Jose Velasquez, owner of the Citgo station, famously told National geographic that his security cameras were "close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact.” But he said “I’ve never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.” [3]

V-DOT Cam 740 view, cropped with Flight 77's alleged attack path inserted.

Other videos were reportedly seized from the Virginia Highway Department’s cameras, which may have captured the plane’s flight over I-395 and Washington Blvd. At trafficLand.com I was able to verify the view of a few likely cameras, most notable V-DOT traffic camera 740, which has a clear view of the Pentagon’s west wall and Washington Blvd from well above and a few hundred yards south. The plane's line of attack should have been in view for at least a few hundred feet. [4] At almost any frame rate, this should yield some views of the attack craft, whatever it was.

There were an unknown number of other tapes seized from State and private owners by the FBI and kept under wraps, and yet more that began in Federal hands. The Pentagon itself clearly sports a few surveillance cameras, but nothing was forthcoming from their trove. No photographic evidence of the plane had been seen at all as late as six months after the attack, leaving all sides endlessly grappling to argue their cases. Doubts were growing much stronger as it seemed Rumsfeld’s people were covering up something; in the presence of so much bovine manure, conspiracy theories mushroomed on a worldwide scale, and Meyssan sold many books.

So did the Pentagon yield and quell the mental mutiny by releasing proof that Flight 77 did hit their building? No. Somebody finally released what appeared to be such footage: five badly compressed stills supposedly showing the plane’s impact. These were published on March 7, 2002 by the Washington Post and on the 8th by all other major media outlets, clearly in response to Meyssan’s weeks-old inflammatory charges. The American media widely pushed these as confirmation of the official story, if still curiously weak. But strangely, no one would vouch for the pictures, with both DoD and DoJ (who responsible for evidence of federal crimes) denied any knowledge of the stills' source. [5]

Wherever they came from, they attracted quite a lot of buzz and served to remind everyone what the “War on Terrorism” would be all about in the dawning year 2002 and beyond. Indeed, they offered no evidence toward any theory, predicting the continued “trust us” mentality the Bush regime had been fostering as it pushed ahead into Iraq and other adventures regardless of evidence. The stills have served more as a Rorschach test than evidence; many have looked closely (as I'm starting to) to find evidence of a hijacked Boeing 757, a Cruise missile, an A-3 Skywarrior or Global Hawk drone, even a simple hologram to cover for the bombs placed inside the building or in a truck nearby.

After the white blur stills, there was nothing new for four years as Pentagon Strike, IPS, and Loose Change tore up the Truth scene with their no-757 claims. Then after years of badgering and lawsuits on at least two fronts, two actual videos were released in May 2006 by the DoJ and Dod via Judicial Watch, one of which is simply the video from the Pentagon camera from which the five stills were extracted in 2002, and the video adds nothing to the stills - they really were just frames from the video. [6] The other video, listed as #1, was from a camera just a few feet away - actually it seems to be inside the unknown box from the 2002 stills - two cameras right by each other pointed the same way. Before we'd seen a white blur with no shape, apparently partly hidden behind the second camera. Now we can see what the second camera saw through its horrible glare - no obstruction, but still onlya liver ever visible - it's clearly the edge, the missing piece of the white blur that gives it its shape - it looks like the nosecone of a jet, or prhaps a wingtip, or perhaps something else - but its the same color as the blur, meaning this is indeed a large white/silver object flying fast on a sunny day. [Watch the video here - Youtube]

On the five-year anniversary of the attack, the DoJ also released the video seized from the Citgo gas station. It showed low-resolution views from the station’s six security cameras together on one screen with the lower half blurred out to conceal identities of the pixilated customers. After a few minutes of nothing in particular, the attendant, Velasquez, steps outside at 4:45 to join a small, agitated crowd outside to view the aftermath. [7] Despite Valasquez’s optimism, we see nothing at all, since these cameras were aimed to observe the gas pumps and the customers, not the Pentagon across the Highway. Another video reportedly from the Doubletree hotel was due to be released on or around November 9, after the mid-term elections; despite the “horror” the employees felt watching it, this video does not contain the impact either, according to the FBI. [8] The release date for this was later pushed up to December 21, supposedly because the FBI was moving its FOIA function to Winchester, Virginia and its video equipment was being reassembled there. [9]
Update: The Citgo video shows a distinct flash in the window "dual pump side.' Look under the canopy at 4:44 in the the video. There are other clues as well that seem to indicate a silver object passing by just to the south of that location. Analysis forthcoming)

Update, 1/27/07: That video too has been released - Flight 77.info: "The FBI has sent us 10 Doubletree hotel DVDs. Only two show sky. The DVD of camera 1 is about 8 hours long, and we've clipped it down to 15 mins in the best quality." it actually does show the skyline in the direction of the Pentagon - I haven't analyzed it carefully myself, but Scott Bingham's got it up as of Christmas 2006. He thinks it shows a helicopter going by towards the Pentagon at 9:23 am - 14 minutes before Flight 77's impact. I think he may be right and it may be relevant.
Update: This video shows the explosion, but the building itself and the plane are invisible, a half-mile away behind a cluster of raised highway lanes. Analysis fortcoming

Sources:
[1] “French lap up Pentagon crash 'fraud'.” BBC News. April 2 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1907955.stm
[2] “Reverse Psychology and the hidden Pentagon videotapes: seizing the videos proves foreknowledge, NOT "no plane"
blurry images published May 16, 2006 intended to fuel "no plane" hoaxes.” http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-video.html
[3] McKelway,Bill. “Three Months On, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon.” Richmond Times-Dispatch. December 11 2001. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/12/1211_wirepentagon.html
[4] Trafficland. http://www.trafficland.com/findacamera/findacamera.php?city=WAS
[5] Pino-Marina, Christina. “New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon.” Washington Post. March 7, 2002. Accessed November 5, 2005 at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56670-2002Mar7¬Found=true
[6] First video of Pentagon 9/11 attack released Tuesday, May 16, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html
[7], [8] 9/11 Gas Station Video Released - Does not show Flight 77
Prisonplanet | September 15 2006
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/150906_b_Video.htm
[9] Flight77.info Forces Release of Doubletree Hotel Video http://www.flight77.info/