CIT AMPING UP THE CRAZY

CIT amping up the crazy – nastier witness attacks
10/20/08
[copied over from a JREF thread]

With CIT “to ignore or not to ignore” has been the question. But I’ve just seen some insanity that sharpens the question. Since their flyover witness turned out to be simply toying with the boys, and their miraculous list of 13 NoC witnesses was achieved by including six copies of the same perspective error, the next step was clear: amp up the attacks on those witnesses who can’t even arguably fit their theory. Two cases are worthy of mention.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=417
They’re preparing to release another video of “CIT's latest encounter” with Lloyd England, the elderly cab driver who was nearly killed when something smashed through his windshield right on the “official flight path.” I’ve kept somewhat quiet on their attacks against him, perhaps because it’s too obvious and oft-noticed – a leading edge persistent bad move. Aldo whines:

[...] we have also had to endure a campaign that has painted us as evil-doers who attacked a poor old man, accusing him of being a mass murderer involved in Pentagon attack when nothing could be further from the truth.

Orly? Please explain.

It is clear to us that he knows what he did and […] he is trying to confuse and cover up this incident while he slips in ambiguous references to how 'big' this operation was.

Oh, well that's... quite... different... from what the smear "campaign" said? This is getting spooky. Aldo is soliciting members at the gang’s forum for "thoughts on Lloyd England and his involvement in the Pentagon attack." This is the second half of the post, which you have to read to even glimpse the depths these loons are dangling over.

It will be clear to anyone who has been following this saga, and who has the attention span, that this man is not telling the truth.

When you watch this footage he may make you angry. We ask that you please view the entire presentation and think about the fact that the plane has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have flown on the north side of the Citgo. Again, the implications of this are far-reaching and land right at Lloyd's doorstep since he is the primary one who would have explaining to do.

I can assure you this will be the wildest ride yet in relation to our ongoing investigation. I am sure a lot of you may leave with some sort of sadness or anxiety after watching this presentation, because it will be clear to all who and what we are dealing with. In some sense, I have even felt sorry for Lloyd because it is clear to him and anyone watching, that he knows he is caught and is guilty. I am still in shock over what I watched and heard in these interviews.

I am looking for constructive discussion/feedback on how you feel about Lloyd and what type of light you think he should be portrayed in. I am also looking for solutions/suggestions on how we can get this man or his interviews and our evidence in front of gov't investigators. To be honest, at this point you would have all you need to march into your local representative's office and demand action.

Your participation is appreciated.

Get your Guy Fawkes masks ready, it's a-comin! Good thing they took it right to a legal laevel, it was starting to seem like they were hoping someone would demand answers in blood at Lloyd's literal doorstep. Just so we're clear, CIT has issued no such fatwa.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=412
Madlene Zakhem, the suspicious south-path testifying Crypto-Jew (their characterization) is hashed over publicly again. Her “bizarre behavior” is finally enunciated – she had her arms crossed and seemed “stand-offish” in her interview, and later cut the lines of communication with the CIT. Oh man, this is sooo juicy… She cut them off right after this e-mail from August 6 2007:

I hope you remember us. We visited your office in August of 2006 with Russell Pickering and conducted an impromptu, unrecorded interview in front of the VDOT/STC where you claim you saw the plane fly over.

We returned after that debating and discussing the information we had obtained. Subsequently, we parted ways with Mr. Pickering.

Mr. Pickering is now publically stating that yourself and the late Mr. Christopher Landis said we were "creepy". This is clearly a problem if you did not say this, as it casts doubt on our integrity and credibility as researchers/filmakers.

Of course, Mr. Landis cannot speak for himself. […]

Cut-in for context: Christopher “Kit” Landis was another VDOT employee, who had given CIT the disc with high res Jason Ingersoll photos. They later noted “he wasn't able to give us specific answers” about the suspicious light poles, and “was notably nervous during our questions.” After this, “Christopher Landis committed suicide,” which they found “an extremely strange and suspicious twist that we can only pray is a coincidence,” but probably not, since it happened “about a week after we had obtained the CITGO witnesses testimony on film.” [source] So, a recently dead guy she knew, however well, is dragged into the conversation. Perhaps awkward... Luckily it was only in passing...

[…] But we feel it is appropriate that you shed some light on this matter as we feel that we treated both you and Mr. Landis fairly and with respect in the limited interactions that we had with you. In fact, we met with Mr. Landis for only a few minutes and said very little while waiting for the CD of photos he was burning for us.

Can you please explain what we did that was considered "creepy" or can you please clarify, for the record, what you told Russell Pickering that would cause him to arrive at this conclusion? Frankly, we believe he is making this up for his own reasons.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team

Her response could have been ‘what’s creepy? THAT? And YOU! And it’s getting worse!" But she was more calm, and stating in part:

You are in error and proceeding upon a false assumption. […] I decline your request and I assume that you will not pursue this frivolous claim any further. Any further writing would constitute an unfair burden on me. My desire is to "put these things to rest."”

Too little too late, lady. Aldo's brilliant mind summed up the questions thus:

Is Madlene merely an opportunist who wanted attention for what she claimed was a traumatic event? Was Madlene drastically mistaken? Unlikely. Or is Madlene an operative of some sort?

I have made comments about her jewish sounding last name and possible Israeli accent. Is there a possibility she is Mossad? Perhaps. But one thing is for sure. She certainly was not telling the truth about what she saw on 9/11.

I'm getting the feeling we may just see CIT's evidence in a coutroom someday - as an insanity plea defense.

WALTER, PICKERING, LAGASSE ON CIT

August 15 2008

Oh man, I can't just ignore this new little article from the OC Weekly - journalist Nick Schou wants Orange County residents to know "If you believe a passenger jet hit the Pentagon on 9/11, then these local ‘citizen investigators’ say you’ve been . . .
PentaConned!"

I note that he misspells Lagasse (unless I have been) and gets CIT's name wrong (Citizens Investigative Team, rather than Citizen's Investigation-ish Thing, or Comedy Improv Team). Otherwise, a great piece. Among the new things is someone else's take on the idiocy I've been dwelling on for too long, and interviews with three people who've dealt with the CIT - Mike Walter, Russell Pickering, and DPS/PFPS Sgt (now Lt I hear!) William Lagasse.

Those interviews made Walter probably the most well-known eyewitness to what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11, which is why, a little more than five years later, in November 2006, he found himself hosting a barbecue for a group of eager young men who were making Loose Change, a documentary about the terrorist attacks. After getting a telephone call from a self-described 9/11 researcher named Russell Pickering, Walter invited Pickering and Dylan Avery, the film’s director, to his house in Fairfax, Virginia.

They showed up with a couple of other people Walter had never spoken with: Craig Ranke, a fast talker with wild eyes, and Aldo Marquis, a heavyset guy who didn’t talk much. The two said they were helping Avery and Pickering with research for their film. Walter chatted casually with the pair, and at one point, he realized that Ranke was surreptitiously tape-recording the conversation.

That was weird, he thought. And increasingly, so was the conversation itself. Although Pickering and Avery seemed relatively normal, Ranke and Marquis appeared to be on a mission to prove that the Pentagon plane crash never happened. They wouldn’t listen to anything that contradicted this notion.

“I understand why people have certain feelings about this government,” Walter says. “There are things this administration did that I’m not pleased with, but facts are facts. I was on the road that day and saw what I saw. The plane was in my line of sight. You could see the ‘AA’ on the tail. You knew it was American Airlines.”

Marquis and Ranke simply refused to believe Walter saw what he saw. “They were saying things like, ‘Are you sure the plane didn’t land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?’ They kept coming up with all these scenarios.

“Some of those guys [at the party] were young and nice and disaffected [about] their government,” Walter concludes. “And some of them were crazy.”

After noticing Ranke’s not-so-subtle effort to secretly tape-record their conversation—and realizing that Ranke and Marquis weren’t interested in hearing anything that contradicted their notion that a plane didn’t actually hit the building—he refused to submit to an interview.

“They thought they were really going to uncover this thing, and I tried to set them straight,” Walter says. “The next day, I told them I wasn’t going to talk to them, and later, I found out they were really hammering on me on the Internet.”

Walter’s friend Troy Hanford, who was also at the barbecue, says that Pickering and Avery seemed like “opportunists” who were just trying to make it in Hollywood. “They wanted to be the next Michael Moore team,” he said. “The other guys”—Marquis and Ranke—“their objective was to unseat the U.S. government.”

[Russell] Pickering, who now runs an antiques store in Washington, recently told the Weekly he’s aware Ranke and Marquis consider him to be a government operative. “They firmly believe that about me,” he says, adding that his experience with Marquis and Ranke motivated him to drop out of the conspiracy movement. He still believes that 9/11 was an inside job, but Pickering strongly disagrees with Ranke and Marquis’ fly-over theory, which isn’t supported by a single eyewitness. “Nobody looked up and saw a plane fly over the Pentagon and fly away. Nobody reported a fly-over.”

When reached at the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA)—the official name of the Pentagon police agency, where he’s now a lieutenant—Legasse groaned when he heard the names Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis and said he couldn’t comment without permission from a press officer.

Oops! Damage control! Oddly enough, Chad Brooks' corroboration was not even mentioned in the piece, but Pentagon Force Protection Service tells Schou:

Chris Layman, a PFPA spokesman, said the agency now prohibits officers from speaking directly to the media, but he sent the Weekly a brief, written statement saying the Pentagon “was hit by American Airlines Flight 77 at 9:37 a.m., killing all 64 passengers and crew and 15 Pentagon employees,” that the event was “witnessed by hundreds of people,” and while some “have their own theories,” the “facts have been verified and are clear.”

That's not the whole article, so go ahead and read it.

BIG EYEWITNESS NEWS COMING!!!

BIG EYEWITNESS NEWS COMING!!!
June 11 1am

Aldo Marquis CIT has news for us, again! “UPDATE: We've got another corroborating witness to the DC/EOP/Chaconas flight path.” Good, since the Scoggins confirmation didn’t turn out so well. This was the first post in the Chaconas thread since JFK shut it down a month ago to push out PBnJ. And there’s news on other fronts, hints a-dropping at the LCF in the last few days, and I gotta say I’m scared that my whole reality is about to come crashing down! "They have no idea how wrong they are about to be," Marquis told Bitterman. "Paik's position didn't allow him to see what happened at the end of the Annex," he said in another thread. "We do have a better idea now, so just stay tuned."

Most ominously, Marquis announced "We now have an additional 6 NoC witnesses. 2 on audio recording and 4 on location, on camera. One of those was a surprise published account that we did not expect to get." Lemme guess – ANC folks and such who were north of the real path, and describe the plane as over them? Now CIT’s collection has grown to “12 people who saw it on the north side of the Citgo.” How many mention the Citgo? I'll have to wait and see. How many people south of the real path described the plane as 'over' them? But they don’t count as SoC witnesses since they don’t mention the Citgo, right? Now CIT’s collection has grown to “12 people who saw it on the north side of the Citgo," he told critic Boboblaw, "leading us to believe the plane flew over. Leading us to believe in the second plane cover story. Leading us to Roosevelt Roberts who saw the plane flying away and thought it was a second jet in the area at the exact time of the attack."

Regarding that last, I'm still waiting for that full article and complete audio that was promised a couple weeks ago. One thing at a time fellas, lets see if one pans out before we start distracting people with something else that also won't. Not sure what they’re saying at their own forum, but the word bombshell is probably in there somewhere, as they plan another of their regular bomb-dropping followed by another round by the dud truck, teetering and barely able to drive beneath its towering load anymore. Perhaps they will finally break the truck, which seems their only reachable goal.

'Hey, we're not confused about Roberts' account,' CIT will likely say. 'You're the one with the stupid "questions." Why don't YOU go ask him to explain it again?' Funny they should possibly ask that right after I led the post that direction. In other news, I’ve been “unusually investigative” lately in sending out, last Monday, a ‘clarification packet’ to Officer Roberts with all the contact info he could need. In nine pages (with plenty of space, mind you), I asked about all the little details I’ve been wondering about and made it near-impossible, if he answers anything, to continue the vagueness that’s come across so far. I included a zoomed map for locating himself, lane 1, etc. if all south, and a wider view for the flight path he saw. I could have made better ones I suppose, but I felt rushed.


The way I see it there are three possible outcomes:
1) He doesn’t respond, or does so in a curt and dismissive way. This seems most likely, but considering how he talked with CIT, I would find this a bit suspicious. They didn’t just look up his number and call him, not by any means I’ve found, but likely got him to call them after an initial contact. Am I right, guys?
2) He responds in the affirmative of what I suspect – he saw 175 impact on TV and then saw 77 approach. I’ll publish it happily.
3) He clarifies what CIT’s been saying. I won’t believe it, but I’ll acknowledge it and, with his permission, pass it on. That in itself would be very interesting.

So each of these outcomes is educational in its own way, and it will have been worth the time in any case. He should have had the packet for over a week now, just long enough that the suspense is killing me and I’m wondering if he’s planning to blow me off quietly. So now it’s in the open, I can’t be blown off silently. How loud it gets depends on me. In the chance he’s reading this site, again, all I want is the honest and un-muddled truth, even if it’s just that I fail, and we are waiting on a response. And again, Roosevelt, if you're reading this, all of this back-and-forth should not matter a bit for the outcome. Memories are memories, and if CIT can hear them, why not me?

Sincerely, Caustic Logic

CIT/PENTACON {Masterlist}

CIT/PENTACON {Masterlist}
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Last Updated 3/4/08

Released: late Feb 2007 by Citizen Invetigation Team (CIT)
Aldo Marquis: Researcher/co-prod/co-writer/co-Dir/narrator
Craig Ranke: Co-dir/co-writer/on-site interviews
Jeremy Harris: Editor
One hour, 20 minutes
View The PentaCon, Smoking Gun version here:

Google Video page
The PentaCon.com - their site

Update: 7/6/07 In an attempt to help Ranke (Jack Tripper) calm down and deal with the issues, I'm removing my full review from circulation. He feels it is deceptive. I never felt it was written or approached quite right, but left it as-is to preserve what had become a large piece of my little history here. So of course I kept a copy myself.
I will also direct readers to Arabesque's far-superior critical review:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smoking-gun.html
Update 12/6: I just re-posted my original review here with comments and updates. I will add points to this from time to time and treat it as a running critique.
Update 3/4/08: Since this is where I linked to mt PentaCon review, I'll also link to may partial review of their second feature-lentgh mockumentary The Pentagon Flyover: How They Pulled It Off. Not surprisingly, it doesn't explain shit about the optical illusion they pulled off to make a flyover appear to so many as a low-level impact, but rather use misread adjectives to establish the flight path further back from the flyover point.

Note the lively comments section below, and with each post. Very little censorship occurs here.

For the intrepid investigators / ruthless researchers of Citizen's Investigation-ish Thing, aka Comedy Improv Team, aka CIT, I have a growing body of works, most of them fairly recent, leading to allegations of hyper-stimulated obsession. I giuess that's about right, which is a problem - for CIT, anyway. Here are the self-hosted FF posts that deal directly with them and their 'evidence.' They're entitled to their own opinions regarding the North-of-Citgo (NoC) flightpath, but not their own facts. Therefore...

post rating for hardness of the hit against CIT's arguments:
* = marginally related or little direct effect
** = moderately strong refutation(s) of CIT assertions included
*** = damn that's gotta hurt, few reasonable people could walk away from this believing them at all

Rebuttals of their physical evidence claims:
** - Column 14AA: The Smoking Gun that Fell Away
** - Foundation Damage
*** - Fireball Fakery: Challenge to CIT
** - Right Wing Damage Continuity
*** - Cookie Identification Team: So CIT says much of the damage doesn't line up right with a 757 impact, but what about the spots where it does match? Eh, it lines up too well.
*** - Those are points in response to specific CIT claims. See also my physical evidence masterlist for more of the mutually-corroborating evidence of a full-on 757 impact.

Eyewitnesses:
** - CIT Eyewitness Verification Part 1: The Previously Suspicious Father McGraw
*** - CIT Eyewitness Verification Part II: The Ladies of 13th and Poe
- “Convoluted manipulative disinfo” version
- “despicable scumbag” summary version
** - Chad Brooks, 2001: Left Behind? [Don't take the title literally - IMO he first saw it left and ahead]
*** - Sgt. Brooks Draws a Line
* - William Lagasse, 2001 [No apparent conflict but little support for NoC path]
* - Lagasse And Eastman Part 1: Eastman and the Decoy Theory
** - Lagasse And Eastman Part 2: The Fortuitous Debunker
*** - Lagasse And Eastman Part 3: Another Lagasse/the Second Generation
** - On the Account of Steve O'Brien: CIT's C-130 Findings re: Flight 77
* - A Fork in the Road
*** - The Trouble With Turcios
* - 18th st. witness location
** - Roughshod over the suspicious ones - the witnesses CIT does not trust. One of them is...
*** - Joel Sucherman, NoC witness?
* - Query to CIT: Timmerman view, left side?
** - Chaconas: An Intolerable Interpretation
*** - Clout Flyover Witness: Roosevelt Roberts series - several posts compiled here - understanding CIT's first publicized "flyover witness."
*** - Morin: The Conventional Wisdom
"It's a perspective issue": On Bobloblaw's score - CIT poor research/dishonesty (your pick) + beligerence and eventual surrender = great entertainment. Re: witness Sucherman and sad attempts to alter his view.
** - Flyover Link Doesn't Link
The South Path Impact, Documented: Thirteen NoC witnesses and zero for the south path? Then why did I have to stop at 13 just to conserve time?
- See also PentaCon review

Other:
** - Open Letter from the "Light Side": Craig offers truce/partnership. Ain't happening.
*** - How the Citgo Video Contradicts the North-Side Claim: An Analysis of... Flight 77's Shadow? Some excellent clues say yes, and it's south of the station.
* - CIT-CL Phone Discussions: Embedded audio/video of CIT's postings with some notes. (two discussions, about an hour each).
** - Arabesque on the Absurdity of CIT Antics
* - The SantaCon/2007 Adios
*** - Bank Notes: CIT has found exactly ONE direct clue to support all the turns and tilts required for their flight path, ignores clues from their own witnesses and others that contradict their theory, confuse the issue with improper terminology and vagueness, and all to propose a flight path that appears next to impossible.
* - ...ahem.And then the Jreffers prove the path impossible and so on...
* - Obstacle? Impossible. CIT's stint at providing the 'government story' graphics doesn't help PFT overcome their math deficiencies.
*** - Proof that CIT was manipulated?: The Citgo manager, Robert, and the proven manipulated video.
* - Bobby Balsamo Caption Contest: CIT "op-research" on me.
*** - Six Miles Southeast: Did Scoggins MEAN southeast, and was this from radar?
* - A Visual Encounter?Scoggins doesn't know if it wa east or west but it was by eye, not radar. That doesn't sound right. CIT loves it.
*** - Radar = Visual = Southwest: Oops for CIT - it's both visual and radar and both say southwest.
** - Reheat, Reasoning, Radii: Regarding Reheat's Debunking the NoC paper. I toss CIT a bone? Sorta...
** - A Mirage of Plausibility Ally Mirage of deceit was trying to help here, but helped illustrate again what Reheat was trying to show. oops.
* - Filet of Flounder
* - Walter, Pickering, Lagasse on CIT

Most of my anti-CIT activities have been in chat forums, where I've taken an activist stance in the past. These are some of the relevant threads at Above Top Secret.com, Loose Change Forum, and elsewhere where others and I have intensely clashed with Craig and to a lesser extent Aldo, and their supporters. Just a partial list - I've stopped keeping track.
Review of Caustic Logic's Review of the PentaCon
">Challenge to Caustic Logic (eyewitnesses)
The PentaCon a hoax? Erred assumption but good debate
Retraction: PentacCon is NOT a hoax
Lack of Foundation Damage puts an end to 757 debate (hardly)
- First Things First: What hit the light poles?
- Open Letter to Adam Larson
- Are the Citgo witnesses government plants?: Craig responds to my wacky conspiracy theory
- LCF thread I hijacked to explain the south of Citgo shadow
- ATS thread I started about the south of Citgo shadow
- Craig's thread about our phone chat.
- Fireball fakery: My thread at LCF
- ATS thread Craig started in response to my fireball fakery piece
- Raven's LCF thread "Flyover Theory RIP"
- TerrorCell's LCF thread "2 More North Side of Citgo Witnesses"
- Interesting thread about CIT, SantaCon, trolls, sock puppets...
- Actual C-130 Interaction With The Decoy Jet; & the ACTUAL flight path of "Flight 77" Page 8 is where I get banned and thereafter quit the new LCF
- ATS thread on Sucherman's 2:00 north-path placement - here's where I quit ATS as well.

- Having lost his Conspiracy Master, forum-weilding status at Above Top Secret.com, Craig started his own dedicated invisionfree discussion forum for CIT. I'll include a link here in case any discussion happens there.
CIT Forum debate call to me
I feed my addiction (rebuttal - please see Sucherman piece).

COOKIE IDENTIFICATION TEAM

COOKIE IDENTIFICATION TEAM
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 13 2008
updates/edits 5/14 1am

Semantical note: To avoid any misunderstanding as has happened in the past, over interpretations of the ‘normal’ meaning of various key terms, I am taking ‘cookie-cutter’ as meaning an unnaturally similar shape between the damage and the damager and ‘cartoonish’ as similarly meaning unrealistic, in defiance of normal principles and dynamics of the alleged event. Examples: Ranke dismissing my “sarcastic little list of cookie cutter yet anomalous damage” that “means nothing” in the face of their growing list of “evidence” against the impact. Ranke again: “Now we know why the physical damage is so anomalous and questionable yet cookie cutter in many ways.” [source] Proceed.
---
The image below has been offered about lately by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) for the ‘anomalous’ impact damage at the Pentagon’s façade. This useful and pretty accurate resource, based on a montage by Pier Paulo Murru (who also did their famous flyover animation), clears the smoke and debris to let us see the structural situation. CIT has improved on it with their red outline that seems to denote the intact structure, but ignoring the first floor columns and non-columns entirely.
CIT’s Craig Ranke noted beneath it at one post ”Just looking at the initial anomalous and admittedly "counter-intuitive" damage to the building (and lack there of) and it becomes clear that it was not caused by a missile or a plane.” CIT, at least, feel the evidence is counter-intuitive because it’s absolutely wrong for a 757 impact and a better fit for on-site (or in-site) explosives. In the past they’ve argued it doesn’t match a plane impact at all in key ways, like with the lack of tailfin damage, or foundation damage, which they assert. When others point out how the traces of what happened in fact line up quite well with such an impact, CIT do admit that was the intent of the operation and that it was somewhat successful. Aldo and Craig will not tell you about the 16-foot hole, and they do admit to some plane parts inside (pre-planted). In fact in some cases, which we’ll look at here briefly, the problem with the evidence seems to be that it matches the impact story too well. There’s always something wrong.

The damage shown above is what CIT ally Avenger meant when he said “the plane supposedly flew into the Pentagon wall diagonally, but that cleanly cut impact hole is NOT diagonal.” [emph. mine] I’m guessing by ‘diagonal’ he meant with a wing bank, but indeed, the damage seems all horizontal – almost like weak panels removed from a building with a strong horizontal frame. Craig praised him anyway: “Leave it to Avenger to cut to the chase with pure, basic, factual knowledge! This is the most simple and brilliant point that virtually everyone ignores. Particularly the 757 impact "scientists" who say that all the physical damage "lines up perfectly". It does NOT. Sure it's in a straight line but it is ridiculously cookie cutter and anomalous.” [emph. mine - source] I still can't fully understand what this statement means, but it does appear surreal, or rather fragmented and cubist, almost like something was breaking the realistic damage up into rectangular areas of varying destruction – extremely low Atari bit-rate in the op planning blueprints? Or steel-reinforced columns and beams?

The best part is when we get to talking about the faked or so-called engine damage, thee manifestations of which were compiled by Ranke as seen at left (with engine face and words added by me). He has focused most intently on the famous spot where the left engine chipped the retaining wall of the ground-level vent structure just before impact (top photo). “If you accept the notion that this damage was caused by an RB-211 you open up a whole host of other problems with the physical evidence. First consider the cartoon like curvature of the damage as if it was perfectly punched out by the bottom of the engine” [emph. mine] I’m not exactly sure what sort of realistic shape he’d expect here where a heavy, fast-moving, round object is said to have impacted a weak concrete wall. A jagged triangle with spirals of rebar? Are we sure it wasn't just the very edge of the engine, and the shape of the damage was even larger, determined by the concrete itself? What more does Ranke know about this than I? It seems to me of all things hit, this is the most likely to behave like a cookie, considering the conceptual similarity of dough and concrete.

A while back he expanded the theme to include the bottom photos; “It seems the perpetrators (and some 757 impact conspiracy theorists) expected us believe that similar cartoon like curves were created by the engines on the fence to the generator trailer AND the tree up by the light poles: Unfortunately for the official story this cookie cutter anomalous damage raises more questions than it answers.” It does raise questions like was the tree (middle) chopped by the right engine’s turbofan blades, or burned by its heat or both? Or why would the fakers do it too cartoonish like that? The tree damage is a supiciously perfect fit; relative to the probably irrelevant/easily-faked VDOT camera pole damage and approximate height and nature of damage to light pole 1, a wingtip and engine placement like this is illustrated, matching the official story with cartoonish precision you might say. Another good question raised by this alleged damage is why did they tear the fence in such a perfect curve (bottom)? Everyone knows that actual chain-link fence damage is jagged and angular,like this, causing the fence to lose tensile strength and slump into nice smooth curving shapes like this. Oh, wait… now who exactly has ever said that curve was caused directly by the engine?

The diesel generator trailer said to be impacted by the high-banking right engine just before impact also bears the stamp of Disney. It was featured prominently in Integrated Consultants’ animation of the official scenario, as seen above, with the engine just punching a nice curved hole in it like it was a block of tofu. I doubt that many really believe this is what happened - it's a cartoon. But the photos of the generator (below, bottom photo) do look a bit like this, with a very large deformation on a scale of an airliner engine and with a curve reminiscent of one. CIT co-conspirator Aldo Marquis explained why this was not evidence for an airliner engine: “Did you ever watch the video of the trailer on fire before it was put out and left the damage you see? If not you should. Look at the damage, it reflects the thin metal sheet of the trailer MELTING into [an] even bend. So the plane did not cause that, the resulting FIRE DID.”[source]
At the time I conceded that the actual curve seen in this metal could not be caused directly by an RB-211 engine unless it was dropped from above, but maintained it was apparently centered around some extensive pre-fire damage that might be compatible with an engine impact. I saw the Pugh video of the raging fire, and even one better – a photo from even before the blaze got bad, taken by Steve Riskus within five minutes tops of the event (middle). It shows a missing area and a damage profile that’s actually quite similar to the post-melting photos, if rougher and shinier, like fresh torn metal. (Note also the large piece of debris off to the left - is this part of what was removed in the collision?) It started out rectangular (top) and even before the fire took hold was knocked out or pre-fabbed almost the same as it looked later when it appeared to many that an engine passed through it like butter. In short: the fire did nothing to this damage but soften it. But as Craig once simmered it down, "the bend in the top corner to the trailer was likely simply caused by the raging fire melting it. […] the damage to the generator trailer and the cookie cutter curved damage to the fence going all the ground makes even less sense."[source]
And finally, another cookie-cutter anomaly that I discovered and that Craig and Aldo have glossed over: the vent door panel beyond the chipped wall, bearing another improbable cartoonish curve. It would seem these doors were propped and locked open at impact and remained so afterwards, but in a different position and with one side swept down severely at the corner, roughly on the scale of a RB211 engine. How convenient! In fact it looks almost melted, like a lot of energy was transferred into it suddenly by some massive physical force. Pure Hanna Barberra.

So among the reasons to dismiss evidence of a 757 impact we find “the fact that the curvature in the fence, retaining wall, and tree is clearly cookie cutter and anomalous showing blatant signs of pre-fabrication.” [source] And of course there are the other problems that don’t match, the wrong data that rules out something, and the fact that the plane flew north of the Citgo and wherever else radar didn't show it, and flew over instead of impacting, and the choice is clear. If the cutter fits, you must acquit.
---
Cookie Identification Team: "Yes we had a cookie cutter seen in the vicinity, at least five cookies of the right shape, and many witnesses who saw the cutter press into the gingerbread, at least for the final cookie, before their very eyes. But these gingerbread men are too perfect and cartoonish, which indicates they were prefabricated, and a few witnesses saw that cutter over by the sink as the dough was imprinted. Therefore it’s been proven the cuts were done some other way with advance means that can’t be proven or even narrowed-down. Culinary deception is proven!"

ANOTHER LAGASSE/THE SECOND GENERATION

LAGASSE AND EASTMAN PART III
ANOTHER LAGASSE/THE SECOND GENERATION
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
April 23 2008
edits - 4/24 4am

Pentagon Paradigm Shifts
Following the delirious euphoria of no-757-impact certainty in much of the 9/11 Truth movement, there was a strong backlash in 2005 and after as Hoffman, Pickering, Desmoulins, Rivero, Sferios, Salter, etc. tackled the evidence at the Pentagon and found the prevailing meme sorely lacking. Debunkers from outside the movement made gains as well on all fronts, especially regarding the Pentagon issues, made as they were almost exclusively of straw. In general people started noticing the size and consistency of the eyewitness record and of the impact hole. It was looking bad for the anything-but-a-757 meme passed of from Meyssan to Pentagon Strike and 911 In Plane Site and all over the Internet.

Dick Eastman and his Zionist-engineered south-path-killer-jet-with-weaponized-air- vortices insanity, and its north-path-decoy-flyover, as covered in part 1, was among those looking staler every day. as seen in part 2, his star witness Sgt. Willaim Lagasse was at the time the only witness who clearly described the airliner as passing north of him at the Citgo station, ruling out all the impact damage, which happened on a different path (taken by the F-16 killer jet). So Lagasse had rescued Eastman’s theory with his testimony in mid-2003 (accidentally it would seem), but as Eastman faded into obscurity, Lagasse too saw his moment in the spotlight pass. By early 2006, no one much cared what side of the Citgo the 'decoy' plane flew on, but the idea was out there, floating around among those who wondered what really happened at the Pentagon.

The Louder Than Words guys (Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, and Jason Bermas) were among those who seem to have missed the no-757-is-bs memo. In their massively successful 2005 Loose Change second edition, they showed how the light poles ‘just popped out of the ground’ undamaged, spoke of a single JT8D engine found inside a single 16-foot hole, and speculated that a cruise missile had hit the Pentagon. They also started their own Loose Change discussion forum in February 2006, to which several aspiring researchers signed on in its early months, impressed by the sudden high profile of the video and hoping to add to future editions.

Among those who signed up were Aldo Marquis (as Merc) in April, and Craig Ranke (as Lyte Trip) in June, two cats from Southern California who would later of course form Citizen Investigation Team. Russell Pickering of PentagonReasearch.com, a Seattle native, also joined in May under his own name, and shared his knowledge of the evidence, which had been leading him to posit the impact of a remote-controlled 757. As Pickering proceeded with reconciling his ‘mechanical damage path’ and witness analysis, Lyte and Merc held out against this trend with their own research showing again no such crash was possible. All three impressed the LTW guys into the summer, with Pickering being made a moderator and Merc proposing a brilliant plan.

A Gem From Arlington
According to Merc, it was he who first suggested, some time in the summer, a research trip to the Pentagon to gather clues about this increasingly contentious aspect. Avery and his partners agreed it was a good idea, and all three decided to go along, and decided to bring Pickering in as well to form a six-man “elite Pentagon research team.” The team sprang into action and, aside from Merc and Lyte, assembled in Arlington on Monday, August 21. On Tuesday morning, Pickering was at the Citgo making first contact there as Marquis and Ranke arrived. 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.”
L-R: Bermas, Rowe, Avery, Pickering, Marquis. Photo by Craig Ranke (app), Arlington VA August 22 2006 word balloons by Marquis, a mood clearly communicated by his pose for the camera here.

The team's few days there were filled with witness interviews, area photography, meetings with various bureaucrats, and a wee bit of partying at night. On Thursday afternoon Merc and Lyte caught their plane back to California, but not before first visiting the pivotal Citgo station with the full team. They filmed the area until they were briefly detained and had most of their photos/video deleted. As I understand it was this same day that, as Merc later summarized:

“We talk to the manager of the Citgo station in person in 2006 and she tells us about her employee Robert Turcios who saw the plane. SHE told us that Robert saw the plane on the north side and that this has always been his story. We instantly thought about Lagasse's email to Dick Eastman and red flags went off like crazy.” [source]

These were the good kind of red flags, of course, the kind you charge at. And he had Eastman and Lagasse to thank for the insight to know the value of this gem freely offered by that manager of a military facility. As he explained to me on the phone, “the only thing that ever gave me a clue to the north side approach was Lagasse’s account through Dick Eastman. When we went there […] it wasn’t like we were looking for any – or being led to any specific witnesses,” [3:30] but admits “Lagasse and the north side were in the back of my mind during that entire first trip,” and especially right after they were led to a specific witness that reminded him of that. [source – 3:30 and 4:50]

Shift Change - August 25 2006
Across the country in Washington State, that distant guru was apparently unaware that his findings were setting off alarms as they met, in Merc’s mind, with the elusive corroboration Eastman himself never received. In fact, it was a different mood entirely in Yakima, and it would seem old Dick had reached the end of his decoy flyover rope. At 3pm on August 25 he wrote on the subject of [frameup] “I am wrong about Flight 77 Pentagon. Outstanding video simulation of attack on the Pentagon using Boeing 757,” he noted, too weary to even type complete sentences. [source]

He was referring to Mike Wilson and Integrated Consultants’ computer generated 3-D animation showing how the impact likely happened. This accurate but imprecise recreation, posted in video form at Youtube back in late June, “shows poles, smoke trail” in a convincing enough manner that Eastman was forced to surrender; “I now believe that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon - that this explanation best fits the data. Please pass this around - I don't want to hold up the search for truth any more than I already have.” [source]

I thank JP Desmoulins for alerting me to this truly odd memorandum, which seems to roughly mark the end point of his tracking of Eastman and Lagasse. Reading of his unexpected surrender, I suspected sarcasm at first; nothing from the laws of physics, of logic, of any evidence, had altered his course before. But his language is quite clear – he asks the movement to continue without him. Note also how he says “I am wrong,” not ‘was wrong.' He was still there, just stripped down by the persistence of the debunkers, but until whenever, Eastman had announced his resignation from the case, at 3pm on August 25, news he had asked his readers to spread. Two interlocked theories, the F-16 impact one and the north-path airliner flyover one, lost a champion that evening. But it would seem it gets darkest before dawn, and just then, a whole lot happened at once to revive one of those, if not the other.

At the very moment Eastman hit the submit button on his resignation, the next generation of north-path flyover champions were typing up their proposal to replace him. There is no evidence Eastman followed these developments, or that he didn’t, but having returned to the west coast the previous evening, Merc was typing up his notes. Just two hours after Eastman’s pessimistic plea, he posted the first report on their findings at the LCF, entitled “There Was A Plane!” “Hey guys, I'm back and have some interesting news for you all. THERE WAS A LARGE PLANE SEEN DIVING TOWARDS THE PENTAGON! We have interviewed several eyewitnesses who saw it.” Does this mean he too had seen the light and was now promoting a 757 impact? Hardly. He offered a brief synopsis of their general witness findings, to be elaborated later, and closed with this more mysterious revelation regarding the pivotal Citgo gas station the official path passed south/east of (read 'west' here as 'north'):

“The Citgo manager said her employee places the plane on the OTHER SIDE of the Citgo, the left side or west side (blue line), she is "90% sure", there is a follow-up due on this... So spread the word. There was a plane at least as far back as the Sheraton, Navy Annex, and Citgo gas (WRONG SIDE!!) Flyover anyone? [emoticon – waving a white flag] There is more to come! Stay tuned.”
Above is the graphic that had its first airing as describing the yet-unnamed witness' account. And THIS in turn tied in with the NTSB’s own animation, just posted at Youtube on the 24th by Pilots For 9/11 Truth, which of course also showed the plane flying almost where Eastman, Lagasse, and now this employee had placed it, as well as too high to hit anything relevant. A major shitstorm was set to blow in within a remarkably short time, and more than any other moment, the evening of August 25th marks both the terminus of the old north-path insanity and the birth of the new, with curiously precise timing suggesting a shift change at a gas station.

Chess Moves Around CIT’s Lagasse
Indeed there was more to come, with two different words on the same subject being spread through the night and following weeks. As Eastman receded, reports came in from Pickering and Lyte Trip on the removed cameras, their tour of the Virginia Dept. of Transportation, more interview details (Walter, England, Zackem, McGraw, Paik, Pugh, etc.), and lively discussion of the implications. All parties agreed there was a large silver or white airliner in the evidence and no missile or killer F-16. But from there they disagreed; Lyte posted a pivotal thread on September 9 titled “We've Narrowed It Down To 2 Possible Scenarios... Impact or Fly-over?”

The next day the bomb was dropped by his partner declaring which one made more sense; Merc titled the thread “Citgo Witness I Spoke W/ Breaks The Case Wide Open, Flyover?” The announcement was big news at the LCF, perhaps a cause, and definitely a beneficiary, of the mass of users online the next day, (1,225 at 3:27 pm, a forum record), to mark the five year anniversary of the attacks.

In the published details of phone discussions with this still-unnamed employee, conducted on the 5th and after, we can see glimpses of a highly curious account; aside from the north path testimony, he also described the plane as gray and very unlike an American Airlines style, and he was the first to report any kind of pull-up of the plane, which for once directly indicated a possible fly-over. This added to his obvious value to the scenario in the ‘back’ of Merc’s mind, but not apparently enough at once to trip his overkill sensors.

They would not get to keep this witness without a fight. Just five days later, on September 15, Judicial Watch released to the public the Citgo station security video, obtained through lawsuits, and with no forewarning. Avery chimed in “I'd hate to say we caused any part of this, but our team sure caused a stir at the gas station....” Merc added immediately “I'd hate to say it had anything to do with our star witness, but what timing.” Pickering took a look at the multiplexed video and decided the only person that could be Turcios can be seen running into the store after the impact, contrary to his story given to Merc (this was quite a while before John Farmer or myself decided the same). Naturally, a massive fight ensued. On October 5 Merc said “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 unfortunate reality. A counter chess move if you will.”

The video must be altered, CIT has argued in defense of their witness, and Pickering’s work was said to have proven this, even though he denied it. Eventually this debate expanded to the point where Pickering asked Merc to clarify some hints: “do you believe I am a government agent and was involved in the alteration and release of the Citgo video to sabotage your work? Yes or no?" Merc responded quite reasonably “your behavior and actions indicate to me this is a possibility. But I do not know for sure one way or the other," hoping to cast some blanket doubt over his fellow researcher whose ability to communicate the truth threatened their endeavor.

Things had clearly devolved among the elite research team, and opinions differed strongly whether it was Russel’s stubborn and “deceptive” adherence to “the official story” that was to blame, or the absurd beliefs, belligerent antics and tactical accusations coming from the other side. As the LTW core guys worked out their anticipated Loose Change Final Cut on into 2007, they seemed to favor Pickering’s even hand while repeatedly banning and re-admitting Merc and Lyte. Much bitterness prevailed and harsh words were exchanged. Pickering later professed his pleasure with the final cut of Loose Change, once it was released in late 2007, while CIT had to comfort themselves with bit parts and being listed in the credits as in the “Arlington Crew.”

Not ones to keep all their eggs in one basket, by that time the duo had pursued their own avenue, which transformed them into the hard truth warriors known as Citizen Investigation Team. Their calling took them back to Arlingon, back to the Citgo, to their Lagasse and of course to Eastman’s original, and even further. They would “irrefutably” establish the flight path of the plane people saw with no reference at all to any mechanical damage or any other clue that the plane actually hit anything but air. As for the physical evidence, this would still be 'the crime,' but all faked by… some… means. Doesn’t matter. A “military deception” would soon be ‘100% proven’ by CIT and Sgt. Lagasse would, again, help unquestioningly establish it [no, that wasn't a typo].

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.

C-130 FLIGHT PATH VIDEO

C-130 FLIGHT PATH VIDEO:
NO CONTRADICTION EXCEPT WITH CIT
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
February 12 2008
update 9/8/08

I posted this at Youtube a wile back, my most ambitious video yet, almost a mini-documentary in itself. I've been hazy on the details of the C-130 at the Pentagon, but now that Citizen Investigation Team is pushing an interpretation of it to bolster their overflight path construct, I felt a need to dig in to the available data to see what truly contradicted what. Craig and Aldo believe pilot Steve O'Brien's verbal accounts contradict the radar data (fraudulent, of course) and support their witness-compilation flight path for 77, as explained at this LCF thread (comments from "Deleted User" are from me - I asked to have my LCF account closed, not realizing how drastic it would look). To understand my reasons for assembling this, it might help to read the CIT link at top and/or this post at my blog. See also this attempted discussion thread at Above Top Secret.com.

This is the result so far: a collage of all the mutually-supporting evidence of where that plane flew and where and how it interacted with Flight 77 on its way to its fate and in its pass near the Pentagon after that. I'm able to incorporate on-the-ground witness accounts, on-site video, radar animation, and O'Brien's own words and gestures, as well as some of Aldo's own spoken words. Nothing in this video contradicts the other parts.

Online Videos by Veoh.com
Page link - Veoh

To understand the video itself, especially regarding its lower-than-hoped resolution, refer to these graphics and additional notes:
This is the radar screen labeled, which is unreadable in the video. The raw radar data was released to US researcher John Farmer, and this animation created by Italian researcher Marco Bolletino, downloaded from Farmer's AAL77.com.
first frames of Anthony Tribby's amateur video of the post-attack scene, taken almost due south of impact. The smoke has not reached the top of the screen, putting this at somewhere from, say, 10-30 seconds after impact. The "UFO" I think is the C-130 emerges from behind the plume one minute and 45 seconds after this frame. It barely comes through at all in my video, and doesn't even look too good in the higher res original. The frame below is the clearest of the object, zooming in on it as 2:04.

The object is filmed from a moving position in the range shown below, ESE of the impact point, judging by passing landmarks. After being visible for 23 seconds, it disappears again behind the plume. Its overall direction of movement seems to be left-to-right (S-N) at first, curving away and departing along the rough line of sight from there (WNW). The red arc below shows the rough direction of flight, but does not attempt to re-create the exact placement or scale of the flight path. [update: any idiot who takes this as evidence of the location of the plane or the size of the arc is... an idiot. The ANC witnesses are READ as placing it right over the cemetery doing the same curve the radar shows but a few hundred feet off, and that this coincides with my curve here means nothing. I wasn't even trying to decide what it was over.
I haven't bothered downloading the special software and figuring out the raw data, but by Bolletino's animation, this is about what radar shows the C-130 doing approximately two minutes after the attack.

The departure from Andrews shown on radar is said by CIT to fatally contradict what O'Brien himself says; he flew "north and west" and had "a beautiful view" of the Capitol Mall as they crossed the Potomac on "the south side of the mall." [see links above] The departure on radar has him taking off north and then nearly west, crossing the river well south of but probably within visual range of the mall. Close enough for me. The departure shown is also a match for one of the standard patterns used at Andrews, the "Camp Springs One" departure. [explained by Boondoggled]

That wasn't even in the video, nor was this bonus, for folks marveling over the mystery plane (left) with lopsided engines captured in a photo from 9/11 and previously passed off as the C-130. Here is that plane compared to a 4-engine C-130. Like a low-resolution mirror.

THE LADIES OF 13th AND POE

CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION PART II: THE LADIES OF 13th AND POE
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
February 3 2008
update 2/11 2am

Note: Thanks to LCF member bileduct for starting me seeing these patterns. This here is the “Convoluted manipulative disinfo” version of the article, which explains all my points adequately. For those with less patience, see also my “despicable scumbag” summary version.

Northern Redezvous / Southern Anchor
Craig Ranke, the argumentative co-founder of Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) announced back on December 10 2007 the release of their new video "Flight 77" The White Plane: “CIT further exposes the mainstream media cover-up with this extremely important new 37 minute short revealing what the people of Arlington REALLY saw on 9/11.” [source] Their early 2007 video The PentaCon had already set the damning flight path from the Pentagon, north of the Citgo, and back to the Navy Annex (see graphic below). This follow up is centered on four witnesses further back along the flight path, and their main finding, as the title implies, is that “the plane people saw tree top level over Arlington timed perfectly with the explosion at the Pentagon was white.” They speak of a “media cover-up of this white jet” to be confused with and erased by the E4B that circled the capitol shortly afterwards. [source] The PentaCon witnesses had disagreed on the color but that didn’t matter; it was all about the flight path then. Now that four people used the word 'white,' this is reported as the most significant aspect and the flight path clues are ignored. For this reason I will first, in this piece, ignore the color issue and focus on what CIT has downplayed – what the plane was remembere to have actually done with its whiteness, according to these witnesses.

This new eyewitness data, in addition to the old, gave CIT as an inescapable reality this yellow swerve (red labels and arrows mine), what Craig has elsewhere described as “the flight path that has been getting established for us by the people of Arlington.” While the curves are extreme for an aircraft that size, I’d guess this path is entirely possible for a 757. However I cannot visualize it happening without two very sharp turns with accompanying steep wing banks - one turn left, with right wing pointed up towards the sun, a rapid leveling and straightening on a more northerly heading, then an even sharper turn to the right, during which its right wing would need to be dipped quite low over the Navy Annex. Keep this in mind when looking at this as it has been re-created in the graphics below, yellow each time. The southern portion of this path, from the Navy Annex down, is what The White Plane and its witnesses are said to illustrate.

Here is the video itself for reference: If you want to watch the whole thing, I recommend reading this full piece first.

The White Plane begins with Jamal El Kournayti, a caddy or something at the Army Navy Country Club on 9/11; as narrator A. Marquis puts it, “Jamal’s account gives us a strong starting point for our flight path.” This it does, by placing the plane well south of the previous accounts, which might seem ironic, since their original path was north of the official one. But this is also the only account of the four that, on its own considered merits, even seems to contradict the official path. El Kournayti's is the most specifically illustrated stretch, referenced to specific trees at either end of the range, which he says the plane flew directly over. The path and location they draw for their video is accurate to what El Kournayti describes and is the better part of a half-mile off the ‘official path,’ but with about the same heading.
So if we’re starting out well south of the North-of-Citgo path, the attack plane had to connect to PentaCon witness Edward Paik, at the west end of the Navy Annex NNE of the end of the driving range. Both men would be near the hinge points where heading changed and should have reported a turn or at least the accompanying bank. However Paik was never asked about any turn, and gave clues only indicating a straight path. Likewise El Kournayti is never asked about and never mentions any bank of the wings or turn in the flight path. His gestures indicate a straight sweep across the sky on a bearing I map out at approximately 65°. So somewhere between Jamal and Edward the plane would need to shift to the north and do all its remarkable turning, banking, and leveling; it’s clear at this point that a lot was riding on the witnesses of south Arlington who occupied that span.

Canvassing / Mrs. Hubbard
In between Jamal and Edward there were neighborhoods to screen for “additional previously unknown witnesses,” neighborhoods like the one they call 13th and Poe, which is probably what the locals call it too, since it has such an uncanny – if unlucky - ring to it. Canvassing the few long streets of this mini-borough Nestled between I-395 and Washington Blvd, south of the Navy Annex, and north of Hoffman Boston Elementary School, Ranke found it, “painfully clear that the people on the street report something different than the suspect witness accounts reported by the mainstream media.” The PentaCon’s four North-of-Citgo witnesses had their four flight paths, hand drawn over aerial images of the attack; here again we have four witnesses but oddly not a single drawn flight path among them. Craig explained to me “I didn't have images prepared for people I did not know I would randomly find from canvassing. Only for the pre-arranged interviews.” Granted, aerial long-views of every possible POV cannot be prepared, but a satellite map the witness could read relative to their view might work. Something could have, should have, been improvised to get some graphic confirmation. And wouldn’t you know it… Jamal and then at least three new witnesses found and interviewed around 13th and Poe, all supporting the logical extension of their previous groundbreaking findings we’re told, but not a pen-stroke of that good stuff to show for it.

The first witness presented after Jamal is Mrs. Hubbard, who was interviewed on the porch of her home on the west side of S Poe st just off 13th. Ranke did confirm for me that her window points on Poe street, which would offer a view to the east. Not only is there no flight path drawn by her, but no visual clues shared whatsoever; she declined to be videotaped and talks unseen, mentioning ‘numerous clues indicating some flight path:

“It came right between these two houses […] I saw the tip of it going that way [...] It came this way. It came across here. And it went between the house with the gray roof […] and the big house. It pulled up so that it would miss those trees and then the next thing I saw was the puff of smoke.”

Which houses? Which trees? I’ve scanned satellite photos for what she might mean but don’t feel comfortable settling on a path and with CIT being and helpful as they have with their verification, the best I have to go on is the facts that she saw it, and “I thought it had hit the highway,” meaning the raised curving portion of I-395 northeast of her east-facing den window. But CIT’s yellow composite squiggle passes entirely behind her house and out of view. She’s included as a witness to this path’s middle stretch, but for Mrs. Hubbard to have actually seen this path, it would have to curve at least somewhat to the east of her den window, then almost due north to the corner of the Navy Annex, complicating the required turn to the right to rendezvous with Ed Paik’s line. I think I know why they fudged it back behind her, (see below) but it’s just fudging, CIT would say, and probably not a sign that she’s a plant. She clearly, literally “saw the "tail" of the plane,” Craig explains, “headed towards Edward Paik coming from Jamal.” In reality, she never mentioned either man in her account and it’s not even clear if the three know each other.

Before we can go any further then we must revise the middle portion – to pass in front of her house, which will in turn effect the remaining two witnesses. To connect the accounts of El Kourtayni and Paik while offering Hubbard a view, it would have to fly a bit further east than CIT shows, then turn near north, a heading of about 15-20° from true north, running entirely parallel to I-395. While her directional clues are still vague, I would offer the magenta line as at least better fitted to her thinking it crashed into the freeway somewhere in the distance. This is very different from what CIT decided she saw, even once it’s adjusted to be possible.


The Cousins With A Bathroom View

Veronica (first name only) was interviewed apparently in the August 2006 elite research foray, since Russell Pickering is visible and actually doing most of the questioning. She seems to be standing on 13th street, between S Poe and S Pierce streets, facing north and away from the camera for her entire interview. The segment starts out with her pointing out the plane’s flight path, having been apparently asked about it right before. She also points about the same direction to her location at the time, her cousin’s house on the north side of the street, from a window in the back facing north. “We were at my cousin’s house over here; she’s got a window in the back ‘cause she was in the bathroom,” Veronica explained. This makes it sound as if she herself didn’t see it, but was merely passing along her cousin’s account. But the rest of her account makes it indeed seem that she herself, if unclearly, saw "the white go by." However she learned of it, she seems pretty sure of the plane’s general trajectory, her repeated arm gestures clearly indicating east-northeast, inconsistent with CIT’s yellow composite path and far inconsistent with my corrected yellow-green path from east of Mrs. Hubbard’s window. She also describes no kind of turn or associated wing bank of a plane swooping north and arcing east over the Navy Annex, repeatedly tracing a straight line across the sky, the only conclusive visual clue offered by any of the ladies of 13th and Poe that actually got through to the viewers of The White Plane.
All this is ignored by CIT, and Veronica’s account is used primarily to corroborate the plane as white, and as an introduction to her cousin, Cindy Reyes, “who got a better look at the airplane” and did an even better job with setting the color trend. Reyes showed her face and spoke candidly after letting the interviewers in to stand in her bathroom and see what her view was like, a panoramic one looking almost due north, revealing the Sheraton hotel in the distance and the Navy Annex just out of view to the northeast. Her descriptions and gestures against that window indicate a descent to what seemed treetop level. For its lateral direction, she gestures from left to right, but it’s unclear if she’s trying to indicate three-dimensional movement, or just tracing across the window pane like one might a TV screen. There is some obvious confusion in the interview about left vs. behind (her left then or their behind now?), which leaves her directional and perspective clues vague.

When challenged, CIT has refused to draw the path they think she saw on a map anywhere, so I decided to try my own from clues she freely offered. There was a predominantly left-right (west-to-east) motion, but it was not purely seen from the side but “at an angle.” I’d like to emphasize an angle, as in singular. Nowhere does she mention or is she asked about seeing any change of angle, any turn of the airplane. Whether they knew it at the time or not, this is the spot where it would have to turn sharply to a more easterly heading. And of course such a sharp turn, coming in from Mrs. Hubbard’s FoV, would require a pronounced wing bank, which she also does not mention and is not asked about.

In attempting a guess of her flight path, remember that she and Veronica supposedly saw the same thing from about the same location, and that Veronica’s gestures seemed to indicate ENE. Both paths in the graphic above agree on general distance from the window, but angle and turn are in question. This double-corroborated testimony of Cindy and Veronica seems to more strongly support the purple line, which is in fact the precise “official path” of Flight 77, or something quite similar.

Constructing the Flight Path
Among the 13th and Poe witnesses there are clearly no direct clues for the middle stretch of the yellow CIT squiggle, and in fact some serious points against it. The Citizen Investigators tacitly admit this in discussions by downplaying flight path evidence altogether. After the revolutionary flight path up north, it's all about the color and the location of - something. The issue of plane direction is clearly back-burner now:

“We KNOW that none of their accounts are perfect. […] They only need to be approximately correct. […] there is no need to determine the exact placement of the plane or a flight path at all. […] It is unreasonable to suggest that it is even possible to determine the exact placement of the plane from witness statements.” [source]

Craig in fact started a whole new thread at the new LCF in response to this piece, titled "No witness can accurately depict a flight path (The plane moved too fast)." This is a bad sign; they never admit something if there isn’t a way to twist it into appearing to support the thesis. Instead they fall back on presenting false dichotomies, like this one, that are getting falser the deeper I look:

“If you believe the official story you have to accept that virtually all of them are completely lying. […] So do you trust real people or do you trust the government? Is it more likely that they have a reasonable margin of error in their accounts or is it more likely that they are all completely lying and that the drastically different official story is true? That is pretty much your choice here.” [source - emph mine]

Clearly CIT doesn’t trust ‘their own’ people, taking the approach to flight path construction of “Draw a line from where Jamal saw the plane to where the citgo witnesses saw the plane. […] That's what we did. That is scientific, logical, and the most accurate way to interpret this data.” So long as both placements are truly accurate and there’s supporting data in between, or at least no contradictory facts, this is certainly true. Unfortunately that is not the case here.

The explanation was also a challenge; “draw a line from where Jamal saw the plane to where the citgo witnesses saw the plane. […] Think of all of their placements as being approximate and create the best estimation you can using ALL of their accounts. Go ahead, do it and show me what you come up with.” Okay so here are some versions: CIT’s scientifical yellow swerve and the ‘official’ path, more or less, in purple for reference in each: and my readings of the White Plane witnesses read with three different sets of assumptions explained on each:



”Flight 77” The White Plane”, an “extremely important “ video “revealing what the people of Arlington REALLY saw on 9/11.” Hardly. As Asshole Marquis recently asked a fellow LCF member, and as I now deflect back to them:

“Are you so sick and demented that [the Ladies of 13th and Poe] are just values in a logic equation? Do they represent actual witnesses and human beings who are scared about what they saw or are they just names and statements that you can play circle games with because you think you understand "logic"?”