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).

SGT BROOKS DRAWS A LINE

SGT BROOKS DRAWS A LINE
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
February 10 2008
edits Feb 11 3pm

Brooks carefully surveying the scenery before committing his “memory” to paper

The Path He Describes
It was a chilly November morning in Arlington, not long after sunrise, when Defense Protective Services Sgt. Chadwick Brooks met with Craig Ranke of Citizen Investigation Team at the Navy Exchange/former Citgo station just west of the Pentagon. After some initial discussion next to two bright yellow traffic barriers at the station’s northwest corner interviewer Craig Ranke asks Brooks to move the interview to the location he was actually at when he saw “Flight 77” fly over or near the station just 62 months earlier.

At 34:20 in the video they are at the spot, and Ranke has Brooks confirm “this is exactly where you were standing when you got out of the car.” As Ranke later explained for those who take this too literally, “there is no reason to expect Brooks himself to remember the exact parking space," but I think all are in agreement he picked the right general area. "From that vantage point," Ranke feels, "north or south of the Citgo would be clear as day.” Indeed, it would be as clear as left or right.

Brooks said at 34:50 “we were able to see everything” indicating the plane coming from above, ahead, and to the right. At right here is the area Brooks first saw the plane passing from, over ("the middle") of some trees at the lot’s west edge. I’ve identified the fork-like structure in that space as an Air Force Memorial just finished before the interview was given.

His path description is fragmentary, but it seems that from over these trees, the plane passed via “the front of the station” over the ‘Jersey barriers’ where the interview started. But Brooks is also clear when questioned that it was not actually over the canopy - or the barriers - but more to the left, and entirely north of the station. “It was going on a straight line, a straight line towards the Pentagon,” he says at one point, and emphasizes again “it was a straight line” on which it “flew directly in front of the building” followed by “a great ball of fire [that] just goes straight up in the air.”

So he describes a straight path that came over the trees and the barrier, visual clues he recalls and has now had a chance to see, that takes it just north of the north canopy. Therefore his path described is something quite like this:

Note that a straight line between those points comes nowhere near matching a straight line to the impact point; a severe right turn would be required. In comparison, Lagasse's path originated further north and took a much straighter line to the impact/flyover point. This is shown in the video after Brooks’ description but before Brooks drew his own path. I had to re-construct this one from the video interview, since he wasn’t asked to draw out this path right after he described it. When asked by Loose Change Forum member bileduct, Ranke explained “I simply forgot to get him to draw the flight path” at that time, which is perhaps understandable, with so many aspects to keep track of when doing this kind of work.

Back But with a Sharpie
Luckily, however, Ranke “had both officers [Brooks and Lagasse] booked on the same morning.” So after Brooks finished and left, he interviewed Lagasse, and apparently seeing his flight path reminded him; “after Lagasse's interview I realized that I forgot to ask Brooks to draw the flight path and called him on his cell phone. He agreed to come back and draw it so Lagasse stuck around to see what he would draw out of pure curiosity. That is what led to the segment with both of them.” [source] Some might wonder if this dynamic introduced some distortion to Brooks’ second recollection. “I suppose I should have taken Brooks across the street again,” Craig confessed, “but to be honest it didn't cross my mind as I knew he had already explained in detail how he saw the plane on the north side.” So he stayed on with Lagasse watching nearby.

At 58:43 in the video Brooks is back, pad in hand, under the north canopy again. Craig announces “okay, Sgt. Brooks is gonna draw for me on the image where he saw the plane fly.” As the subject faces north and scans left right perhaps over-much, Ranke explains “now he’s trying to assess the area again, recollect where he saw it, and then draw right there on that piece of paper for me.” At 59:07 Brooks decides he’s not in the right spot to draw it and walks north, with Craig commenting “he’s going over here to the north side from where he remembers it flying.” The camera follows with a calming “no pressure, no pressure.” and films the drawing action. Funky music fades in oddly repeating the word “time,” as Ranke urges the Sgt. To “make that nice and thick for me.”
At about 1:01:30, Sgt. Lagasse walks over and peeks at it, and exclaims

Lagasse: “That's damn near perfect from what I saw. And we've never -- for the record we never talked to each other about this.”
Brooks: “Yeah, for the record, we never -- we've never discussed it at all.”
Ranke: “So you guys, neither of you guys have really talked about this with each other? Never in all these five years, and you both independently drew the flight path line pretty much exact.”
Lagasse: “I know, I was -- the way this has been going -- who knew what he was going to put down there because he was in a different location. But it's right there, which makes me feel good about the way I remembered it.”
Ranke: “So you're both pretty much 100% certain that that's what you remember the flight path being?”
Brooks: “But from different locations, yes.”
About a minute later they both chuckle strangely when asked if there was any chance it was south of the station. Of course not; however it happened, they both drew the same flight path, so it’s pretty well 100% proven. “Again,” Brooks affirms, “we never discussed this, that’s what I seen with my own eyes [...] "I know what I've seen with my own eyes. I know I was here, and I don't have to go around saying I was here.”

LCF member Bileduct (who was banned right after me) asked Ranke, after confirming the original described path and comparing it to the later drawn one, “is it fair to say that there is an inconsistency with what Sgt Brooks said he saw, and what he drew?” “No,” Ranke responded, “unless you expect humans to be computers. They only need to be correct about the approximate placement of the plane and this is all we should expect them to be correct about.” As Craig pointed out “You can't forget how these guys are all at the Navy Exchange/former citgo EVERY DAY […] They know the area.” So he happened to draw Lagasse’s flight path despite his own recalled memory and a visual review of an area he’s very familiar with, and CIT somehow feels this makes the discrepancy less suspicious.

An Ace or a Joker?
The chuckles might be telling; Brooks’ account Is studded with clues the he might just be having fun with these guys. While discussing the altitude, he directs Ranke’s view to the left; “you see where that telephone pole is?” pointing. The camera follows and zooms in expectantly just before he yoinks the point, saying “it was up higher – it was up way higher than that. It was just – it was just unbelievable.” Sounding confused and with muted disappointment, Ranke responds “oh, okay.” At another time, he points to “the Pentagon, which is currently located over there.” Not so much ha-ha funny is where, while facing west, he indicates a flight path to his right, or north, whereas his previous account from 2001 had the plane coming up on his left. This means either a south of the Citgo path, or a 2006 interview done with him standing backwards in the scene, switching his directions to compensate. This is silly witness behavior; he may as well have been wearing his uniform backwards to flesh out the discrepancy.

But perhaps the biggest prank of them all, one with once fatal-seeming implications, has been brilliantly capitalized on by CIT. He described a “United Airlines” 737, with blue lettering on a white (actually ‘champagne’) paint job. United didn’t even use a blue-on-white standard until 2004, at the time using white letters on gray and dark blue. It almost seems Brooks did a quick Google image search just before the 2006 interview in order to yank his interviewers around, or to sabotage his account. Brooks at first seemed the odd man out compared to Lagasse’s clear description of a silver AA 757 with red letters, matching the most the widely reported clues, Turcios’ gray then silver plane with unsure markings, and Paik’s ‘black wings’ seen from below. Obviously he didn’t really see a UA plane, but CIT later turned the tables, making Brooks’ account a pivotal point of the ‘white plane’ construct, which they feel is pretty well proven. He saw a white drone airliner with a single blue stripe, and simply morphed it in his memory to something familiar. Now this leaves Lagasse’s, Turcios’, and Paik’s descriptions - and much of the rest of the body of evidence - the odd men out.

Likewise, it can’t be ruled out that Brooks was simply amusing himself when he later told the Citizen researchers that their documentary based on his testimony was an “eye-opener.” I’ve still not seen the direct quote from Brooks to this effect, but am relying on CIT’s insistence, first aired when Aldo Marquis asked Arabesque at the LCF on August 9 2007 “did you know that Sgt. Brooks already said our film was an "eye-opener" and "anything is possible" when it came to him being fooled? […] He said it was possible he was fooled, are you saying that you know for a fact that he wasn't?” [source] He repeated the same paragraph word-for-word in the same forum two days later, and Craig pasted it another two days later at JREF, again repeating Aldo’s awkward sentences; “is it possible he missed the impact because he too went to radio it in. Did Sgt. Brooks detail the impact? Or did he say "and what seemed to be a quick second the plane went in front of the building and a big boom, fireball explosion went off.". He said it was possible he was fooled, are you saying that you know for a fact that he wasn't?”

Sure, anything is possible, including that he was fooled by the fakery. It's also at least as possible that he saw what actually happened and rather than being fooled, was just fooling around when he talked to the camera in 2006.

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"?”

THE LIGHT POLES

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

THE SANTACON/2007 ADIOS

The SantaCon: Elves Speak, Conspiracy Revealed
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
December 20 2007
update 12/26


I guess it’s a bit late to put this up with everyone dropping offline for the holidays, but the idea just hit me. Just some goofy good-hearted fun from an ‘obsessed’ fan of the wrong type – no particular vitriol meant here. And I am now officially pretty much on vacation until January. I may tinker a bit but expect nothing much new until 2008. Wow, the year is done - so this is Christmas, and what have I done? If I had the time and inclination right now I'd wax philosophic but meh... I'll spare you all. Go do your own deep thinking.

Wishing all, even the fraudsters, a pleasant non-specific early winter observance and a graceful transition to a better year.

I found the response interesting when I posted this at the Loose Change Forum.

CIT-CL PHONE DISCUSSIONS

CIT-CL PHONE DISCUSSIONS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 14 2007 10am
Updated 12/19 2am

Recently I agreed again to a phone debate/discussion with Aldo and Craig of Citizen's Investigative Team. This happened on page two of the comments section at my first 9/11 Blogger post. I was reacting in silliness to provocations like this:
Aldo: "Then you have the "team" that came out after to help reinforce [the 'official story']. "John Farmer", "Arabesque", and "Adam "Caustic Logic" Larson".
There is not a doubt in my mind that we are dealing with ops here.
I dare Adam Larson to provide a history and proof of his identity. I defy Arabesque to do the same.
You can all laugh, but what they do is called "neutralization". This is exactly what COINTEL ,does amongst other things, like calling us "frauds", "profiteers", "liars" etc.
Neutralizing is dangerous. It leaves us in limbo, it leaves us stuck with no real resolution. It is meant to cause jut enough doubt that you feel you don't know what happened and leave confused."
---
Craig: "This is an information WAR and the government has the benefit of control of the media, all the power, technology, money, and methodology to manipulate and DECEIVE the masses.
This isn't MY investigation it is the TRUTH MOVEMENT'S investigation that has the momentous task of working against all of that.
By not clarifying what side of this information war you are fighting for you are by default working to defend the government.
[...]
All we are doing is figuring out ways to lift the veil of lies to uncover further proof that will help to deprogram the masses.
If you fail to understand and acknowledge this then you are a clear enemy in this information war."

The terms were set, numbers swapped, and a date of November 14, 3:30 pm agreed to chat with Aldo was agreed to. In light of my agreeing to the phone thing, Craig said "your willingness to debate us online and now this recorded call has me leaning towards you being a brainwashed minion of the Pickering/Hoffman/Arabasque squad rather than a professional." Along the way we agreed no one would win a 'debate,' or at least we could never agree on who won, so it'd be a discussion. We also decided I'd talk with Aldo and Craig at the same time.

Craig called about 3:30 as agreed; Aldo had backed out for some reason, so the two of us talked about witnesses, logic, investigations, evidence, flyover, impact, etc. It was essentially civil, low-key. Unfortunately I was a bit tired and not too nimble on my toes, so I largely just let him talk. It's pretty boring really from my end. He calIed me wishy-washy several times and I stammered a lot. But there are interesting parts, like where he questiooned the timing of my appearance on the scene (along with Arabesque's) as they were first releasing their crucial data.

Here is CIT's posting of the first debate in video form. God, I hate my voice and sometimes my brain. Hah! You can 'see' it here - notes added are theirs of course.

[direct link]
---
And then on December 3 I followed through on round 2 with Aldo and Craig at the same time. I actually held my own a little better this time, but we still have a Kennedy-Nixon dynamic going on, where radio listeners claim Nixon won the debate while Kennedy took it hands-down with TV audiences. While we had earlier agreed not to call it a debate since both sides would simply claim they had won it, it seems that's how it's turned out anyway: Cit has posted on their "Recorded debates with Adam Larson", which they clearly feel they've won, while of course I know I won whether or not it'd be obvious just listening to the tones of triumphalism in our voices. On content and logic I win hands-down, which is why I do better onlne with all my data here and some time to think out what I'm going to say. Anyway, here it is, the only way they could trick me into re-posting their famous 4-way north-path witness montage:

[direct link]

ARABESQUE ON THE ABSURDITY OF CIT ANTICS

ARABESQUE ON THE ABSURDITY OF CIT ANTICS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 26 2007 1:45pm
last update 12/7 2pm

Fellow blog-format 9/11 researcher Arabesque has been up to some good works on the Pentagon lately; besides his Pentagon Flyover Theory RIP (actually more a short catalog of the visual clues that there was no flyover), now he’s posted CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy, an exhaustive and worthy critique of Ctizen Investigative Team. Primarily using the words of CIT and their detractors, Arabesque examines and exposes the two-man core team (they also have a third member I hear, though I don’t know who) that produced The PentaCon and the reborn ‘proven’ fly-over theory, based on eyewitness reports (first-hand confirmed, multiple-corroborated, recorded, and still wrong IMO) and their own initial (and incorrect IMO) hunches. He addresses some background, their theory’s origins, the logic of and evidence for a flyover, and their methods of debate and evasion. If there is one source you’d like to read on CIT’s approach, this one is perhaps the best and most exhaustive.

Among many quotes backed by dozens of links, this Russell Pickering gem from the old Loose Change Forum caught my attention. As someone who has worked very closely with CIT, his insights are extra valuable, so we must take note when he tells Craig, as he did shortly before The PentaCon's release:

“When I watched you guys bending reality in person conjuring up black operations for everything that didn’t agree with you - I saw where this was going. When your partner tipped over and the forums melted down - it was clear what the motives were. But I do have to admit your dissociation from reality has exceeded what I thought possible… Ego is a blinding force - but spreading this as gospel and irrefutable instead of adding it to the body of evidence truthfully and honestly is .........”

With all the emphasis CIT places on the validity of witness testimony as strong enough to counter the wider confluence of evidence, their take regarding the account of Lloyd England, the cab driver whose windshield was pierced by a light pole fragment after the plane sent it flying, is one ironic sore point for critics. Perhaps since his case contradicts their theory (though officially because it’s internally inconsistent) they feel Lloyd is a government plant and the ‘first known accomplice’ of the planted light-pole cover story. Arabesque found this about their villain:

“Dylan Avery observed of the CIT investigators, “anyone who's watched [CIT’s] behavior on our [Loose Change] forum knows exactly where [they] stand. ‘The generator damage? It was faked! The light poles? They were faked! These eyewitnesses? They're lying or agents! Bla bla bla...’ Aldo's tirade in the TNR pretty much seals the deal. You think Lloyd England is a government operative, ‘THE DEVIL’ as Aldo put it.” Ranke attempted to justify calling Lloyd the taxi cab driver a “devil” by saying, “if ‘demon’ isn’t a fitting description for someone willingly involved what is?”
---
Note: There has been some confusion over who said and meant what in this case. Aldo's original quote, in a radio interview, apparently talking about Lloyd, was: "I can say I've spoken directly to operatives from the Pentagon attack. I have looked the devil in the eye." I had a phone conversation with Aldo yesterday where he clarified that he meant it in a more figurative sense; the overall plot - the attack, the cover-up, the whole sinister operation - was 'the devil.' Lloyd just the eye into which he peered and saw the darkness pulsing beneath. They maintain that he could be simply duped into playing along, and manipulated against his will into lying about what happened, and thus be simply an unwitting surrogate of the devil's works. But clearly he is a window onto the abyss, and that he happens to be the one witness whose south path testimony they've verified, they must place him in special quarantine, apparently rimmed with [metaphorical] theological barbwire.
---
Although I helped 'the hooded one' on this with some e-mails, most of what's in there he found himself and neither that help nor this post constitutes a full endorsement of every word in Arabesque’s piece. But it seems pretty much spot-on, and I agree with his closing line: “Aside from the weakly supported flyover hypothesis, whether intentional or not, the ridiculous antics and outrageous behavior of the CIT researchers are damaging and destructive to the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.” Does that sound unfair? Read the piece, especially the harsh words/attempted intimidation against other researchers (Arabesque for one had taken more than his share) and also note this quick list of charges they’ve leveled against me in different forums (admittedly all after I first attacked them with strong language of my own):

Aldo and Craig have collectively accused me of using COINTELPRO disruption tactics, if not part of an organized program then a flunky wannabe or a brainwashed member of the CIT attack teams. They’ve accused me of ‘covering for the perps’ and trying to support the DoD’s innocence (which is irrelevant to my evidence-driven case). I’ve been accused of being on ‘the dark side’ (and invited to the ‘light side’), being a bad writer (often true), lying (a lie), using ‘deceptive’ graphics (not on purpose ever), using ‘irrelevant’ evidence, stretching the limits of credibility, being inconsistent with my own logic, making no sense/being ridiculous, and seriously arguing a conspiracy theory that isn’t even worth thinking about. They’ve distorted the points I've 'admitted' or 'conceded,' accused me of using a pseudonym to hide my efforts to smear them at the Loose Change forum just because they aren’t there to defends themselves (I happened to finally sign up just after they had been banned), manufacturing a LIHOP site at the last minute, apparently as cover for my anti-truth actions, and censoring comments on my blog (not true to any meaningful degree).

They have also proven able to see reason, to solidly show me wrong when I'm wrong (these are the cases where I've 'admitted things' - the other times it's their word against mine as to who was right). They have argued solid points, offered solid evidence, and given me and others credit where it was warranted and not threatening to their case. Why exactly they turn this reason switch off the rest of the time is anyone’s guess. I have my own hunches.

MY INFAMOUS PENTACON REVIEW

MY INFAMOUS PENTACON REVIEW
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 28 2007
working copy - last update 12/4 2 am

---
Introductory Note: This is not exactly the original as I posted it – I seem to have lost that unfortunately. But this is a version before I added some alterations to appease Craig Ranke/CIT and before I finally pulled it (back in July) for causing too much friction for my liking. I’ve repeatedly been accused of ‘conceding’ that my review was unjustified, etc. by virtue of pulling it, and this has been used by CIT to attack me as a disinfo/COINTELPRO/operative, or brainwashed nimrod sent to neutralize them, or whatever. This has some good reason, like that I attacked them first with the now-infamous phrase “Pentagon-sponsored disinformation.” This line is oft-quoted by Craig to justify his stance towards me. I honestly have no personal problem with their whole hard truth warfare thing (though it is troubling when coupled with other observations, like thse below). So for the record, I re-post it here in its original context with all typos and errors left in but notes added in this format.

And keep in mind I had just seen the video a couple of times and had little background information and somewhat less knowledge of all evidence in general. I was pretty sure a 757 impacted, but a bit stumped by the coherency of the north path testimony, and all I could really think of other than me being wrong on all points was coordination – and I said so. But the strength of Craig’s response, and too much attention on a piece that I didn’t write all that well left me embarrassed and wanting to pull it. But with the advantage of another nine months-worth of knowledge, I regret my initial suspicions less and less, and either way, in the interest of clarity, here is what I said before these guys ever had said a word to me.
---

VIDEO REVIEW: THE PENTACON
Caustic Logic is forced to review: "The PentaCon: Eyewitnesses Speak, Conspiracy Revealed" (smoking gun version)
Update: March 5 2007

This rather troubling video opens with a CG rendition of the Flight 77 “flyover maneuver,” followed by the opening credits, which announce solemnly “Citizen Investigation Team is forced to present” … a grisly, over-the-top montage of foreign people killed at the hand of the US military. All this murder, justified by imperial greed and… the PentaCon! Both the video’s graphic fixation with the physical building and with the sins of wars planned from within those five rings, immediately bolsters my gut reaction that this is indeed Pentagon-sponsored disinformation. With this attitude wrapped around and supported by another set of dissolving claims, the video’s title is apt either way.
---
Note: I certainly don’t mean to belittle the suffering unleashed by the “World War IV” made possible by 9/11 and its string of unlikely 'failures.' I simply take issue with their manipulation of the emotional urgency this lends the debate to try and ram their conclusions through the BS detectors of ‘9/11 Truthers.’ Though true motives are impossible to divine for certain, the tingle of disinfo I got was real and has its reasons: as I added in a later update, this would serve as “a possible self-aggrandizement sarcastically disguised with demonization,” and using the anti-DoD citizen team would effectively mask the operation, if not a little too perfectly. Or it could just be my paranoia. Whatever.
---
The first several minutes are spent with Aldo Marquis’ exceptionally smooth and relaxed voice endlessly setting up the official flight path, showing repeatedly the soon-to-be damning cover-story testified to by government lies and the physical evidence. This is said to conflict with just-discovered eyewitness accounts that again “prove” that, whatever exactly happened on 9/11, no 757 hit the Pentagon.

I watched the shorter, “smoking gun” version of the PentaCon, which promises to be far more popular than the longer research edition.* This one hour, twenty minute work draws on four separate accounts that place the attack plane unequivocally on a flight path different from the previous official one, well to the north and thus incapable of clipping the light poles on the official path or causing the extensive damage to the building’s lower floors. The main points giving these accounts enough weight to counteract the others we’ve heard, as Marquis listed them:
---
* Note: As of November, still not released.
---
1 – The four accounts jibe with each other – at least on the one pivotal point they focused on, though on other points they still disagree, their flight paths don't match up terribly well (see below), and their descriptions of the plane differ.
2 – The question is simple – was the plane coming in to your right or left? (and which way were you facing? Oh wait, was that before the plane… no wait, I was over here, then…)
3 – The witnesses had the “best possible” vantage point to see the attack – not exactly, but three of the four had pretty good views.
4 – The witnesses are credible; two of them are Pentagon cops! *
5 – Their testimony was filmed on-location to accurately re-enact and recall what they saw, and besides...
6 – Everybody remembers 9/11 clearly, especially if they happened to see an off-white United Airlines 737 hitting the Pentagon from the northwest.
* Note: The other two have nothing like Defense Protective Services employment to cast leverage on their recollections, since they are naturalized immigrant citizens, with no secret, threatened deportation hearings or anything, or so we should presume.
---
1) Edward Paik, an auto mechanic, was working at his shop just west of the Navy Annex, and saw the plane fly right over him and very low over the surrounding rooftops. His only salient description is of black wings (shadow? He would’ve seen it from below). His English proficiency is limited, and he seems a bit confused in his awkward, eight-minute testimony to Ranke, trying to keep his clipboard at one point. His account, all in all, placed the black-winged plane on a near-straight line from south of the Navy annex, the closest of the four to the official story, but sending it north of the Citgo.
---
Note:New graphic – Terry Morin’s account read literally (ie, wrong), the official path borne out by much evidence, Paik’s drawn path across the annex, and the CIT composite path merged from their four main witnesses. Note the different elements each got right or wrong; north-south location and compass heading. It’s my firm belief that Paik and Morin saw the same thing but just decribed it differently enough to create two out-runners near the official path, and that CIT took the northernmost of these two and morphed it yet further north to fuse with thir three main witnesses, below.
---
2) Robert Turcios was at work at the Citgo station when he saw a large, twin-engine, wide-winged “gray” plane. He later clarified it was more silver, with no markings he remembered, which is roughly consistent with American Airlines’ nearly-paintless paint job. He was 100% certain it flew on the north, though he saw no light poles hit in the perhaps one second the plane was visible. Shortly before the building, he saw the plane pull up over a 20-foot-high over-road traffic sign - and thence, one would think, over the building. Turcios seemed confused and a bit annoyed when Ranke asked about a flyover and/or second plane; as Marquis’ voice-over explained, the witness still believes the silver jet hit the building, even though his account makes it “impossible." The subtle implication seems that Turcios is an idiot, but if pressed, the CIT folks would probably say he just had to believe it hit but that this bias does not adequately mar his testimony.
Note: Turcios' testimony had him at the station's south end, and running up the little mound to see the plane pull up. This is not shown in the proper view of the Citgo security video, which CIT strenuously denounce as irrelevant evidece regarding their Citgo-centered case. It was an anti-Turcios smear, they insist, first released just ten days after they first announced on September 5 2006 that they had a north path witness. As Craig explains, the video release was “done to discredit Robert Turcios since he is not visible in the video.” Another possibility is the video is real and their witness was simply not there to do what he says he did and his testimony is bogus. And again, besides Robert not being represented, there is a large shadow inserted consistent with a plane to the south of his (reported) position, when he had indicated it was just north. Proven manipulated? They had better hope so.
Some observations on Turcios’ account: was he even outside the station?
A unique intuitive reaction to the Turcios interview by StevenWarRan (apparently no longer up) noted the subject “gets upset in direct proportion to the pressure placed on him to say a certain thing in a certain way, I saw a common attribute hidden by its obviousness: the quick ins and outs, sometimes only a few words long, without any continuity, like computer viruses battling.”
John Farmer flash presentation: I’m not sure this is really Turcios here but it’s interesting nonetheless.
---
3) Sgt. Chadwick Brooks was a Pentagon police officer on patrol at shortly after 9:00 am, when he pulled into a parking lot next to the Citgo to catch news on the New York attack. After he'd been there a while, the plane suddenly came in from the west, to the north of the station. He saw impact and fireball, presuming that the plane impacted building, but saw no light poles hit. He thought it was a 737, and emphasized to Ranke the plane’s size and large number of people on board. He saw no second plane.

The oddest part of Sgt. Brooks’ account is his recollection of the plane’s color, described as off-white or “champagne.” He thought markings were of a United Airlines plane, with blue letters, but UA planes have distinctive dark blue and mid-tone gray color schemes. And no one else has described a United plane, the official one of course being a red, white, and silver AA plane. Is he inserting the color scheme to fit with the airliner he thought (from news reports) had hit the building? Ranke doesn’t probe the sergeant on this, and the narrator fails to point out or explain anything as far as inconsistencies, instead moving on swiftly to their obviously favorite witness...
---
Note: The silver-white problem has been worked out – CIT has decided the plane is now white, the flyover white jet that apparently came down the river and looped in from the southeast and then north of the Citgo. Apparently anyone who said silver meant white, and anyone who said white (or near white) meant white, not silver. Lettering and design color issues are probably addressed somewhere too. I'm behind on the specifics here.
---

Sgt. Lagasse and Brooks at the Citgo. Brooks has just drawn his flight path for Ranke.

4) Sgt. William Lagasse, a pentagon police dog handler, provided a rather solid presence to the northerly flight claims, having been already famous (in some circles) for his earlier testimony of the attack; the son of an aviation instructor, and familiar with all major plane types, he instantly identified the culprit undeniably a a silver AA jet, probably a 757. He had his dog in the car, which he was filling up at the Citgo station after chatting with some cops about the NY attacks, when he saw the blur perhaps 100 feet up and then heard it swooping down, in less than a second exploding against the building. No flaps or landing gear were down, and he could see shades pulled down on the windows as it came in from the north. He was pretty sure it actually hit with a “yawing” motion, having observed no pull-up. He saw no light poles seeing hit, but there were ones down so he presumed they were cut by this plane. He’s 100% “bet my life on it” certain that the plane flew over his left shoulder into the building, placing it to the north. Ranke did risk upsetting his interviewee by presenting him with a picture showing the clipped light poles, but Lagasse refused to believe it. Indicating the official flight path, he insisted "nothing happened over here. Period."
---
Note: Lagasse is not suffering from vague memory, but specifically wrong memory. He specifically pointed out on a map where at least two poles were knocked down on his path that did not happen. Indicating the area he would have had to drive right through to get there, he said "none of these light poles over here were knocked down. They were here. NONE of these were knocked down." He also indicated Lloyd’s cab in that area, hundreds of feet from where it really was. CIT chalks this up to denial-driven memory alteration. Anyway, when Craig says the 'official story' put the pole damage further south, Lagasse responded - incredulously - “what official story? The only official story would’ve been the Arlington County Police Report done after the event. There’s no official story other than that. That’s the After-Action Report that was written by Arlington County.”

Just from this, it seems Lagasse feels it supports his north-side recollection. If he hadn’t studied it closely before speaking, he should have, because then he’d know how deep the ‘cover-up’ went. The text is rather vague on trajectory, but in several graphics throughout it indicated the official path (arrow at impact point) and clearly lines up with what Craig termed the official story. (note location of "forward assessment") The downed poles are on this path. Did Lagasse never see this and have his memory jogged? ‘At the cloverleaf? Oh yeah, that IS where the cab was…’
---

Lagasse also initially took them to the wrong spot, but then recalled on-camera his backing out from a different pump than he thought he was at, which Ranke notes with relief, as his testimony then matched his patrol car pulling out as captured on the Citgo’s security cameras. Lagasse had earlier cited that he was seeing the plane from the right side, meaning it was to his left, or north. This account at least is consistent with earlier, known testimony, but he clearly does not buy the no-757 theories, having repeatedly attacked the previous flyover theories of Dick Eastman. He can't be happy that his testimony is now being used to bolster - and quite well - another flyover theory. Or perhaps he's just doing his job as a link in the Pentacon disinfo web, having earlier earned anti-CT credentials in his spats with Eastman.
---
Note: This fascinating 2003 analysis by Jean Pierre Desmoulins helps shed some light on the Eastman/Lagasse back story. This discussion has flared up time and again (like here). Craig has informed me, based on his assessment of possible motives, any such conspiracy theorizing is loopy, unsubstantiated, and so nuts he was being responsible in never bothering to consider it. Regarding this possibility of organized, malicious error in the accounts, I recently asked Craig “why have you have (so far as I’ve seen) never addressed this possibility at all until forced to? If you have ever publicly aired doubts about the main content of their accounts, or the possibility of systematic deception, now’s the time to link to it. Otherwise, embracing one ridiculous possibility as a ‘smoking gun’ while rejecting another without even bothering to explain why, to dismiss it as if it never existed, is a rather suspicious way to carry out an investigation.” He responded “The notion is so completely absurd that my answer is an emphatic NO. Nobody who went through what I went through would consider such a ridiculous assertion.” Is this an admission that he’s simply too deeply invested to turn back now? If so, he and Aldo had to both just not consider it at the beginning either, at least long enough to get this far ahead.
---
In concluding and synthesizing the accounts, Marquis explains some of the reasons the witnesses think the plane hit the building; they had been conditioned by news from NY to expect a plane to hit a building. This helped mask the plane’s flyover, and on the other side of the synchronous blast the plane simply blended in with normal air traffic, just nine minutes after all commercial flights were ordered to land, and slipped away in the rapidly thinning crowd to its own secret touchdown.
---
Note: As of writing, no other-side witnesses witnesses testifying a flyover have yet surfaced. One attempt at finding one is “Barbara,” whom Woody Box presented as "a witness detected by ME to counter [the] claim that the flyover was observed by NOBODY." On 395 near the Potomac, Barbara saw "on the left-hand side, there was a commercial plane coming in, and […] we saw […] it go down below the side of the road, and we just saw the fire that came up after that. […] I'm not sure exactly where the Pentagon, where it was in relationship to where the plane went down but they are relatively close to one another. ... whether it hit any part of that pentagon, I'm not sure." Going down and crashing doesn't sound like a flyover to me, but WB thinks it happened just on the other side, perhaps in the Pentagon's lagoon. Even considering this confusing and misread account, there is no direct evidence for a flyover anywhere, just the partial implications of the collected witness accounts CIT keep getting.
---
The video also cites report of a second plane just seconds behind the explosion, which then veered off. These reports could've been those who saw through the con and witnessed the explosive "impact" and the plane flying off, but their presumption of two planes, in the official story, was then quickly “turned into” the attack plane and the C-130 ordered to scope the scene. But the C-130 was not seen until at least a minute later, so the “second plane” people saw was the flyover jet fleeing the scene. As for the identity of the flyover fool-people plane, the CIT’s investigation had decided on a hybrid plane with some AA features as the most likely possibility, perhaps a re-painted E4B airborne command center plane, since another one of these painted pure white was also seen in the area.
---
Note: They do not claim an E-4B, as I cited below, since no witnesses describe a 4-engie plane. However they do still claim the C-130 was sent in to confuse people who witnessed the flyover – it appears over the immediate area by radar and video about 2 min post-impact and way up there. Little confusion possible unless reports with things like 'moments later" are read too literally the wrong way. While the newly-released radar returns of the area matches an amteur video for C-130 path and time, but contradicts with recent testimony of the C-130 pilot given to Rob Balsamo and verified with CIT via e-mail. With this flightpath untaken in the CIT construct, its rough contours have been attributed to the charter boat captain's sighting of the white jet that then circled north and presumably flew over. I'm still hazy on this point, but something clearly isn't adding up. [graphic forthcoming]
---
So besides the flyover AA-painted E4B and the later C-130 scoping out the area, there would have to be another explanation for both the light poles and the building damage. I had initially seen this as their weak point and wondered how they would handle it, but was rather surprised at the inadequacy of their explanation. On-site bombs were used to fake the airliner impact and the 300-foot-deep penetration into the building, the space that would later be filled with planted bodies, plane parts, and the very FDR that would “prove” the plane never hit the building. The tops of the light poles, marquis explains, were torn off at some earlier time and simply planted near their mangled bases, perhaps the night before, except the one that allegedly hit the taxi's windshield, but the hood was not dented also so clearly the ploe didn't fall on the car. I guess he jumped out and smashed the windshield himself just as the feds dopped the pole next to the car.
---
Note: This whole issue is very complex and my understanding of the taxi-pole issue is still only partial, but it seems to me driver Lloyd’s account does not add up. I’m far less certain than CIT as to what this means, however, and the rest of their physical case – especially at and within the building – is at least as elaborate and silly as I had suspected (see CIT Masterlist for my partial compilation of claims and debunkings)
---
This theory leaves many questions unanswered; they admit they don’t know what happened to the passengers, for example. But these are not not enough to keep Marquis from summing up confidently “this is enough evidence to cast doubt on all of the circumstances surrounding 9/11.” The northern flight and planted poles made it undeniably clear that the attack was planned from within, and clearly radical changes will be required due to this “smoking gun” evidence. At least until someone proves them wrong. Their own eyewitnesses almost do this for them:

---
Note: This graphic missed the reported turn that merged Paik’s path to the others, leading Craig to call it “the most deceptive idiotic confusing piece of crap ever.” CIT’s final synthesis, unless they’ve updated it, is this:

---
This vid is clearly more fraudsterism at heart, as evidenced by the thanks list at the end of the video, a veritable who's who of no-757 activists: Dylan Avery, Dick Eastman (surprise?), April Gallop, etc. Kat Turner, an actress who starred in Inland Empire (directed by Pentalawn-awed Loose Change fan David Lynch), was thanked for providing voice-overs for the PentaCon's research edition.
---
Note: Avery had a falling out with CIT later on and is now ‘agnositc’ on what happened at the Pentagon.
---
Nonetheless, its evidence, along with the recently-released Flight 77 FDR evidence might have forced me to rethink the Pentagon attack and start allowing for a second plane. But even that isn’t the case made here - their theory is much simpler and dumber than even that. By denying the actual attack plane altogether in another frivolous overflight theory that treats the actual attack and its victims (both on the plane that hit and in the building that was hit) as secondary factors to explain away, they blew any chance of convincing me of this new flight path.
---
Note: I still stand by that assessment, though how I worded it was manipulative sounding. I mentioned the dead - once! Un-provable black ops and ‘total control of the scene’ is explanation for any physical evidence that contradicts their theory, perpetrator control their explanation for other data that effectively conflicts. On the other hand, simple error is their reason for the bits of ‘fakery’ done wrong enough (like no foundation damage, the generator gouge, the poles laying the wrong way, fooling the north path witnesses into seeing an impact but not the right flight path) that they try to prove the impact impossible with it.
---
Curiously, the CIT don't even call on the new Black Box animation evidence despite its government pedigree and partial validation of the witness report, other than a brief nod to the PBB video by their "brother organization, Pilots for 9/11 Truth." This is one more clue that something is wrong with that aspect of the new fraud flight path, an analysis of which I'm well-into and will be posting more on soon.
---
Note: 'North path data' is illusion only: the FDR recorded the 'official path,' all but a few seconds of it. The NTSB animation seeming to show a course remarkably similar to what the witnesses described has been shown by me to be a rotation of the fial map, adding 20 degrees of heading and north of the Citgo apparently on accident. Luckily Craig disavows the FDR as governmnt-controlled data, but fiercely supports the anomolograhy of it done by his Pilots for Truth cohorts.
---