JOHN FARMER’S NORTH PATH CLUE

JOHN FARMER’S NORTH PATH CLUE
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 17 2008
Update July 27

John Farmer and I agree on many things about the Citgo video, starting with our willingness to even call it what it is - evidence of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. We agree on the shadow of the south path impact aircraft . We agree on the video’s relevance to Robert Turcios’ testimony. On the famous north canopy flash we agree on its origin lining up only with sunlight, making it irrelevant to flight path questions, although I still find that odd in some ways.

Nearly half of Farmer’s recent second-plane north-path flyover paper is dedicated to explaining the Citgo video and how it actually supports the possibility. Even as I’m finding the whole paper something I hope is a joke, there is one valid north path clue and it’s in the video, allowing us to agree on that once again.

“I examined every flash of light or other optical event fully until I was satisfied with the source of each,” he explained, and all but one “could be associated with real-world events” (I’m presuming he means the “official story”). “At 09:40:37, in camera number 2 (south entrance) a light begins to appear on the rough concrete wall to the left of the entrance door,” the first two frames of which are shown at left with the wall shown at center, in a Farmer-provided site photo.

9:40:37 is video clock time, which is about two minutes ahead of the real time, as this light appears at the same moment all clues indicate the crash at the Pentagon happening. As Farmer notes, "in the very first frame, the light is shining over the top of the corner of that wall which is slightly raised from the roof line." Farmer explains the angles of the walls (see my own graphic below) and notes “the light is originating from a point to the left (less than 52.5 degrees from north) and approximately 3 degrees upward relative to horizontal. In simpler terms, the light source is airborne at a relatively low altitude and at least 17-18 degrees north of the impact area!”I can’t vouch for the more precise aspects, but at least I can agree to the basic idea. As he further explained it in an e-mail to me with this accompanying graphic.

“In the first frame where the “flash” is visible, there is a silhouette cast on the concrete wall. This effect can be replicated in one way, and ONLY in one way. So initially, the light source MUST be to the north-east of the wall corner in order to cast the silhouette observed.”
Alright, so I understand the concept, and I’ll call it ‘the silhouette thing,’ a valid clue of a light source from the north. Must this be a plane on a/the north path though? Altitude is important here. I considered the fireball and its known northern (and upward) angle of deflection/propogation. However looking at the scale of difference required this can be dismissed right out. It didn’t spread that far north. I don’t know enough to rule out last light of the banking plane, reflected from another object along that line, like some sign up on a high overpass nearby or something. It does arrive at that upper ledge just before the main light washes the whole wall there for over two seconds.

So I can’t vouch for the implications, I concur that it is viable evidence of some kind of light somewhere over there at that time. It’s in his attempt to divorce all the following east entrance light from what seems to me its true source and give it to an aircraft with, it seems, bizarre reflective properties, that Farmer almost seems to be talking backwards in the vein of our ol’ pals CIT.

“This is a shadowed area which immediately rules out light from the Pentagon fireball.”

Ummm, no. Open sunlight would drown it, but shadowed areas angled the right way would be where to look for fireball glow. He does correctly state that the fireball “would illuminate the entire area under the canopy, not just a spot on a concrete wall.” For two seconds or more after this one strange frame, it appears to me the intense but diffuse light actually being emitted just 1500 feet away DID illuminate every upright surface about right, even under the north canopy. This issue will require a separate post.

Update 7/27: I had meant to include this observation at first but forgot. The usual frame rate when "action" mode is off, and which I had always seen in the other views, was 3 frames per second. Among the things that first struck me about the silhouette thing is that its camera's view has at least four, and perhaps five or six, distinct frames in the pivotal 9:40:37 slot, and action is not blinking. Regarding this, You All Just Haven't Talked About It explains:

"This particular camera is one of the few that refreshes twice in the multiplexer sequence. So it captures a frame, and then 1/30th of a second later captures another. Then it must sequence through 7 frames before refreshing again. This is fortunate, since the first captured frame gives for that instant a definitive clue as to the origin of the source."

POLL: WHICH IS MOVING? LIGHT OR CAR?

POLL: WHICH IS MOVING? LIGHT OR CAR?
And Solar angle analysis
July 1 2008

I'm having a hard time seeing any motion of this car, and in fact the light seems to be moving across the car. This video does use a cross-fade that isn't there, and it seems the original dimmer light remains while a brighter light shining closer to the car's front adds to and overwhelms it, holding for only one frame (action mode off, 3fps).


This is the car, in low res, sorry - a black, shiny one, and judging by its response, driven by a police or emergency responder-type, possibly off-duty. I estimate its orientation when still (a line running between the license plates) in the neighborhood of 20˚from north.


The angle of the light IS a very close match at least for the angle of light from the sun (azimuth, 113˚), just about perpendicular to the car's still position, meaning a reflection back along nearly the same line, roughly the same one camera 3 was on relative to the patrol car, and so registers a reflection pointing 'straight up." Geometrically, it all lines up, but the sun doesn't move like that. It can't be from the plane, as it happens at impact, over a second after the plane left that area. It's nowhere near a match for light angles from the impact area, so it's not the explosion that was happening then. At least not directly.

Any thoughts, anyone?
---
Update: Well, looks like I've annoyed Farmer for the last time, and he hasn't the time to explain how the car is moving when it seems to not be. Because I'm an idiot I need to get a new extraction of the video to find similar flashes to this one, but the lo-res 5-min version I have contains none that I see, despite multiple cars passing the same spot. All reflect light dimly from a certain spot to a certain band on the canopy, but only this one has this bright flash. At 9:36:50 video time a dark car drives by the same area, no such effect. A 9:37:17 a white car casts a dim light all across as it passes, no single bright flash. Farmer insists the other flashes are there as other cars pass, and so I suppose they are. But I'll need to see it myself at this point.

On the other hand, I finally did vertical angle analysis based on the known solar altitude of 32˚above the horizon and it IS looking even more like sunlight after all. The tricky part of this for me was always deciding on the reflection plane incline of this unknown automobile. I'm not a car guy, but thinking in terms of a possible patrol car, I looked at a Ford Crown Victoria, which I hear is the standard model. Perspective aside, the incline angle here is about 34˚from vertical at mid-window, curving further at the top. Considering the gentle curve of the car's side panel, the angle from vertical would degrease down the side, until the near the bottom, where it would be zero at some point, and then curve inward just a bit at the bottom. We can't tell where exactly the light is reflecting from, but an incline of about 20-32˚is likely for anything in that zone.
23˚from vertical, roughly, is what's needed to bounce light from the sun up under the canopy. This is a likely incline at about door-handle-level. So this would tend to indicate, as the source, something bright and high along the same line as the one towards the sun. ie, car moving or not, both lateral and vertical analysis indicate this is just the sun after all, or a bizarre coincidence if not.

But the car really doesn't seem to move, it's already reflecting the same sort of dimmer light from a similar angle as the other cars that pass, and this lonely flash of sunlight happens right at impact when there's that bright fireball as well. So... mysteries remain, at least for me, but this not seeming direct evidence of the attack and not a core issue, I'm leaving it here. To the south end fireball light effect.

FARMER'S 2ND PLANE THEORY: FIRST THOUGHTS

FARMER'S 2ND PLANE THEORY: FIRST THOUGHTS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 27 2008
edits 11:45pm

We in the field of 9/11 studies owe a debt of gratitude to John Farmer for all he’s done to gather and share new evidence and analysis, most recently a consultant on research for Mark Gaffney’s new book The 9/11 Mystery Plane. He has always embraced the coherent body of evidence showing the attack plane plowed into the Pentagon from a south path, causing the extensive damage and death there. For most purposes and so far we’ve been on the same page, informational ‘allies’ in opposition to Citizen Investigation Team's north-path flyover, faked damage, and fooled witnesses meme. But his new effort You all just haven’t talked about it, made available in PDF at his 911files.info blog on Friday, clarifies a latent argument he’s been hinting at on the sidelines for over a year now - as he explained:

“I’m in trouble with the “fly-over” boys because I am convinced that the evidence shows that a large commercial plane flew down along the south side of the Citgo station and hit the Pentagon. Now, I’m going to be in trouble with the no “fly-over” crowd because I now believe that the evidence strongly supports a plane flying north of the Citgo station. So here it is folks, my way of making everyone mad at me…”

Oh, I’m not mad, though a bit disappointed. I’m not sure what exactly he thinks happened, but it apparently involves a plane on the north path in addition to the impact craft, passig over/by the Pentagon and then crossing over to the Capitol. There is some compelling evidence of a second plane in the area just after (or before?) the attack. He calls on CIT witnesses Brooks and Lagasse, CMH witness NEIT 428, and a couple of others. And then there’s the north path evidence he’s found in the Citgo video; he’s undeniably done some pivotal work with the south views, but the north views I need to look closer at because I’m not seeing it yet.

CIT responded almost instantly to this odd announcement; Ranke proclaimed rather confidently that “[Farmer] admits that we have been right all along and that a plane DID fly north of the citgo and fly over the building,” but insisted on obfuscating the obvious by mixing it with the 'official' plane causing the all-fake south path evidence. He further elaborated on this at the Loose Change Forum:

”Do you guys understand how ironic and symbolically huge this is? One of our worst detractors has been forced to fully EMBRACE what we assert! He knows the evidence we present is so strong that he must try to somehow incorporated it into the official story! It's absolutely classic and a MASSIVE indicator that they are in full spin mode.”

“They?” Indeed, Craig is clearly saying that that Farmer is part of some team effort, a disinformation campaign by the perpetrators to obscure CIT’s work:

“The very first moment this shadowy character appeared on the scene focusing heavily on the research of CIT (while pretending to support us) we knew he was disinfo. We knew he was ambiguously pushing the notion that 2 planes were simultaneously approaching the Pentagon, one that hit the building and one that passed on the north side of the citgo and flew over the building. All this as a means to cover up and obfuscate the evidence that we present.”

Other suspicious clues unearthed by Scooby and Shaggy CIT include Farmer’s “pseudo-technical over-analysis of the government data,” failed political campaigns, odd variations of his middle initial indicating a fake name, and the like, to decide he is “controlled opposition.” It’s no big secret he’s not an effective politician and has promoted both ‘sets of evidence,’ if ambiguously. He first gained my attention early last year by supporting the apparent north path data in the FDR [as promoted by Pilots for 9/11 Truth], which I later debunked (not his specific claim, which I never understood, but I did identify the real reason for the visible path difference), helping us start off on the wrong foot. He’s maintained the validity of north path clues since then, like while discussing the light effects in the Citgo video in August 2007: “careful [analysis] of the solar angle, angle of wall, height of other obstacles, gives incidental evidence of both the northern and southern flight paths. Neither is conclusive, but the case can be made for either.” [emph. Mine, source] At the time it seemed either-or, but now he's decided they existed simultaneously.

And again, as we’ve agreed on other points I’ve never been able to get on the same page regarding north path evidence. I had a strong bias of course - it’s seemed to me the anathema of truth. This in itself is a reason to suspect there really is something up with the north path and hence the noise inserted by CIT. Now I will try again to see it. Farmer has never advocated a non-impact all-fakery Pentagon attack, and still does not, so as devoted to no 757 at (in) the Pentagon theories, this blog does not have to address this interesting new development. But that would be the easy way out. John was thinking ahead to this when he said to Ranke in his comments section:

“Now see Craig, Adam is going to study my analysis and rip it to shreds over at his place in a few days. But he is nice about it, nothing personal. That has to be done Craig, it is called peer review. That is how true researchers sort out fact from fiction.”

A statement like this makes me almost wonder if he really means all this as a sort of experiment, but taking him at his word, we have a genuine proposal worthy of consideration by fellow researchers. For those running ahead and reading the PDF, you’ll see that the article is built partly around the new-to-me witness Roosevelt Roberts, whose account is on its face in clear contradiction with the official one plane only impact story. An important update from Farmer to note when reading it:

“I have had to remove DPS Officer Roberts as a second plane witness. If his CIT follow-up interview is accurate, he most likely saw AAL77 as it came down from the Citgo area and across Route 27. His account needs further research and clarification.”

Whatever new info really triggered it, this changes things in Farmer’s favor; his placement of the plane complicates a flyover, and Roberts did indeed say silver, while the flyover plane is said by both Farmer and CIT, if I’m not mistaken, to be White and sorta E4B-ish. Now as for Lagasse… well, this is for later. But CIT is still enthusiastically embracing Roberts' account, since he was just announced as their long-awaited flyover witness. Since I meant to dig and think deeper on that anyway, this analysis will tie into both CIT's case and Farmer's call for clarification. I will talk about the rest of You all just haven’t talked about it when I know what I'm talking about.

PROOF THAT CIT WAS MANIPULATED?

PROOF THAT CIT WAS MANIPULATED?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
April 21 2008
[rough ]

Criminal manipulation of the Citgo security video became a necessary charge for CIT as soon as the video was released on September 15 2006. It was quickly noticed that their 'star witness' Robert Turcios, first announced just five days earlier, was not visible in the video reacting as he said he did. While he had claimed to run out of view to a raised mound to see the plane on a north path and perform a pull-up before apparently impacting, Russell Pickering felt the only person that could be the witness is seen under the canopy at impact and running inside the store after. This is indeed what the video shows. Video contradicts this witness account = video is wrong, wrong, wrong.

CIT of course has zero evidence, aside from this conflict, that Robert was edited out, that another person who runs inside was edited in, or that the shadow of Flight 77 on the road behind that person was painted in south of the station. They also have no absolute proof the video is manipulated at all, but they do have the findings of others that seem to indicate this. They’ve cited John Farmer, who protests, and who has found no signs of tampering. They’ve cited a guy called “Interpol” at the Loose Change Forum. And most importantly, the manipulation that proves the evidence disproving Turcios was proven by Russell Pickering himself, who denied that this is what he proved, and his suspicious behavior vis-à-vis the video and Turcios eventually led Aldo at least to suspect that Pickering himself was involved in the alteration - that he had just proven. As Ranke summed up more soberly:

“Strangely; Russell has been virtually silent about some of the most important, and in my opinion, best work that he has ever done. Ultimately his research proves evidence tampering which is a Federal crime within itself. [… Russell found that the FBI] removed this critical camera a couple of hours after the event: Because THEY MANIPULATED THE DATA TO REMOVE THE VIEW OF THE CAMERAS THAT HAD A VIEW OF THE PENTAGON THAT RUSSELL HAD JUST PROVEN WERE REMOVED AFTER THE ATTACK!”

All he really did to that end was write this, and a few other posts like it, regarding I believe his first visit to the Citgo station during their joint-venture, on August 22 2006:

"According to the manager of the Citgo [...] They were evacuated for about two hours from the Citgo and minutes after they reopened the camera was taken. She never viewed the video herself. [...] The Citgo manager physically took me out under the canopy and showed me the location of the removed camera. It was pointed at pump 2. [...] The manager described this one as having had a clear view of the Pentagon wall and quite a bit north as well." [source]

Three things about this camera were found out by Pickering, all via the manager, whose name has been given only as Barbara. The first two key to making the alteration case, the third helpful for making the first two work:
1) The location of the camera and confirmation that it had a view of the Pentagon, as seen in the passage above.
2) The camera was on-line and recording on 9/11, so it's not being in the final video proves alteration. I don’t have Russell’s explanation handy but Ranke said “They [...] manipulated these views from the data […] We know this because the manager of the citgo TOLD US that the views were online.”
3) The camera was physically taken – for no reason I can fathom – and never replaced, which is why it was not there when she pointed to it. “I’m not making it up! The FBI took it!”

THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THE VIDEO WAS MANIPULATED in any meaningful way.

True, there is no such view in the video, and there is a remarkable asymmetry in the known video camera set-up. IF a camera were at that spot on 9/11 and pointed the right direction, it’s arguably possible it could have captured valuable clues of a possible north flight path (although unlikely IMO comparing to other views that are included).

Also, one must wonder how many managers they needed, when all the old stories cite Jose Velasquez, a Costa Rican native, as in charge at the time. He’s the one who said in 2001 that "I've never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film," but it may have shown the impact. I’m sure someone has talked about this situation somewhere, but I couldn’t find it easily enough. Barbara’s account of evacuation and video seizure minutes after returning fits with Velasquez fine and makes perfect sense. her knowledge of these details indicate she was in the know and on the premesis on that day of the attack, or at least had been informed enough to seem that way. Anyway, let’s presume she was there, but that does not prove that she was being truthful about what happened when she talked to Pickering and later to Marquis and Ranke. 

So… in essence, “some of the most important, and in my opinion, best work” that Pickering ever did was… to pass on the words of the Citgo manager. That’s it. Barbara provided the 'proof,' all on her own free will for whatever reason, weeks before the video was even released. Is this suspicious in itself? Not really, but what it it were part of a larger pattern? All throughout the discussion is a presumption by CIT that there’s no way the word of the CITGO MANAGER who actually TOLD them something could ever be suspect. As manager of a military facility she might well be part of a military deception to support the official story, but any clues that counter it must by default be honest slips from someone not up-to-date enough on the details.

And did she ever slip and keep slipping; this helpful manager is of course the same person who two days later freely offered the account of Robert Turcios, an employee of hers she was “90% sure” could verify a north path (perhaps she hadn’t asked him yet if he would?). Is it possible she knew what the video showed, and so in proving the video manipulated offered this evidentiary escape clause, for anyone who chose to use it, as cover for the witness? She was careful to echo Velasquez in claiming not to have seen the video, so this would seem unlikely. But of course things are not always as they seem.

I’m guessing she was also the one who approved the on-site interviews with Turcios, Lagasse, and Brooks two months later as the north path just congealed all around her head, apparently humming away oblivious to the implications. I’m not concerned at the moment with exactly why Barbara proved so helpful to the emergence of this meme, but is it not curious how much all of this hinges on that one woman? A need to protect the witness she and she alone provided, using evidence that she provided. And for failing to embrace this loop as CIT has enthusiastically done, there’s something wrong with the movement at large. As craig ranke put it:

“You see this is EXACTLY why Aldo and I get frustrated with the "movement".

Russell Pickering should have freaked out when this video was released and used all of his connections to get people to realize how incredibly important it is that the government released data that we KNOW was manipulated and can prove it with simple testimony from the Citgo manager. [emph mine]

This is HUGE! But instead it's ignored and used by Russell, John Farmer, Caustic Logic, and even Dylan Avery to support the government story! This is how bad some people out there want CIT to be wrong and the official story to be right.

CIT will continue to scream loud about this and all evidence that proves a 9/11 military deception and cover-up but it does no good falling on deaf ears.”
[source - is craig really unaware aware that excessive screaming is a prime cause of deafness?]

Anyway, so there’s your best proof from CIT that the video is manipulated somehow, and whether or not actual view information was altered, which was always the point, all such questions are rendered moot and the evidence is to be ignored altogether, except in the fact that it further implicates the perps via the absolutely proven manipulation. Now I would never claim to have proven anything here, but looking at all this, it's clearly worth noting how entirely well this manager managed the situation; even before Craig and Aldo put the CIT in Citgo, Barbara had already added the Go.

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].

CITGO CAMERA MYSTERY

CITGO CAMERA MYSTERIES AND MYSTERY CAMERA
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
First draft - April 6 2008
edits 4/8

Recently I started looking again into the layout of the surveillance cameras at the Citgo station/Navy Exchange, first using as a base John Farmer's graphic made after on-site inspection in 2007 [left - figure 4 in his Citgo video overview PDF, an informative read]. The green circles represent views present in the multiplexed video released in September 2006 [see below]. The yellow circle is the area lit up at about the moment of impact. Red circles indicate cameras there or said to have been but whose views were not included. These will be the main focus of this article.

The numbering for the cameras is based on multiplexer slot labeling and verified by the view shown from each (see sample screen below). Cameras 5, 6, and 7 watched the inside of the store, while 3 and 4 looked from its outside walls over the canopy/pump areas. The #1 label is somewhat arbitrary since its view is not represented, but there is a slot for it on the final screen - labeled '1 ICE' [upper left corner in the screen below]. That spot is filled by the composite screen in miniature, which means, to Farmer, that the camera was offline at the time of recording. His site photos confirm an ice machine at the south/east entrance, so this is the best guess for camera 1.

The main focus of this article will be on the two camera positions on the north canopy's west edge. These were left unnumbered in Farmer's graphic, since there was no spaces for them in the multiplexed image as released. For reference, I chose to call them 8 and 9, with 9 at the corner and 8 closer to the store. Below is Russell Pickering's drawing after on-site investigation in August 2006 [source], labeled by view title, not camera number. The one I've called 9 is labeled here 'missing camera.' Indeed, its place in these graphics is honorary; no camera has ever been photographed in that spot to my knowledge.

Pickering explained the reason this spot was included with such a label, at the Loose Change Forum in September 2006:

"According to the manager of the Citgo [...] They were evacuated for about two hours from the Citgo and minutes after they reopened the camera was taken. She never viewed the video herself. [...] The Citgo manager physically took me out under the canopy and showed me the location of the removed camera. It was pointed at pump 2. [...] The manager described this one as having had a clear view of the Pentagon wall and quite a bit north as well." [emph. mine] [source]
Previously most researchers had believed the video, not the actual camera, was seized 'within minutes' of the attack. But Pickering found out on the pivotal group-research trip that it was actually taken hours afterward, along with one of the actual cameras, for uncertain reasons. In this Pickering photo (above, pink labels by me, black and red by him) we can see the indicated location of the one said to have been taken by the FBI, as I've labeled it, camera 9. Camera 3 is also visible here, labeled but not important, and camera 8 is nestled at the pillar with its own view that was also not present in the final. Note the position of this camera when looking at the photo below, also by Pickering [source]. In this view, again, pink is mine, we can clearly see another camera even closer to the store (labeled by me "?"). It's featured in neither Farmer's nor Pickering's layouts. Also no view present in the video, of course.


This opens up new possibilities; the removed camera was later replaced but in a different spot - it was never taken at all, just moved over prior to August 2006 - it was not even moved, with the manager yanking Pickering's chains pointing to an empty spot where they never had a camera. Although it seems a prime spot to have one.

There are obvious time line issues and no certainty that the video set-up was the same from 9/11 to 2006 or 2006 to 2007, or till now. All we have is three contended camera positions along the north canopy's west edge, two cameras in 2006, and no views from any of these three locations in the Citgo video (only cam 3 covered the north canopy). This is admittedly a bit odd. Considering all photographed and alleged camera positions, however many were there and online on that morning, this is the slate as I see it (below). There is a definite asymmetry here. (red camera angles rough, based on above photos, black line deduced as a logical angle for the missing camera).


In this context I can see why people would suspect views were removed; the alternative seems to be that on September 11 as Flight 77 flew by on whatever side, all the camera views towards the Pentagon and/or the north path were just off-line, like the VDOT's cameras are said to have been. Considering field of view and resolution issues I doubt any of them would catch anything that was much above the ground or any more than a few hundred feet away. Thus little was likely missed, but it looks kind of like they're fostering mystery here.

But then again camera 4 was left in, or painted in, whichever you prefer... and it shows what's almost certainly the shadow of Flight 77 following the ground south of the station.

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.