SEE-SAW ANALOGY MOOT

LLOYD’S CAB RENDERS THE SEE-SAW ANALOGY MOOT
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
November 2 2008

In the time I’ve been doing this blog, I haven’t talked much about Pentagon attack witness Lloyd England and his damaged taxi. Citizen Investigation Team have made the counter-intuitive lack of damage to the hood one of their central proofs of “military deception” at the Pentagon, accused the likeable old guy of being "the first known Accomplice?," and indirectly anyway, a "demon." Maybe by accident, whatever... In fact, their overplaying of the issue, and the strong reactions of their multitude of critics, is one of the reasons I haven’t jumped into this crowded fray. It's too obvious, and I just have to be different.

The other reason is I thought they probably had a point, in that England’s own story seems problematic. He insists the long portion of the pole, as seen in front of his cab in numerous photos, is what pierced his windshield and remained sticking heavy-end out far over the hood without apparently touching it. Previously I had agreed with CIT that seemed unlikely, but sided with Pentagon attack researcher Russell Pickering, who had instead proposed a smaller piece of the pole actually doing the damage; Lloyd’s story was simply wrong, for whatever reason.

I did bother to put together the below attempt at judging the pole segment's true size - many have claimed this is 30 feet long or greater, but they seem to be misunderstanding the role of perspective here. My attempt is rough, but this should be close.

Recently I also noted their paranoia-laced warning that they had a new video coming of their ‘latest encounter’ with the old man who “is caught and is guilty” and “the primary one who would have explaining to do.” That video is now out, an hour and a half of them having stupid arguments in Lloyd’s home, with his wife helping string the lads along, on the road, and Craig explaining it all later with too few buttons done on his shirt. Lloyd seems a sharp enough old kook, and the video is fascinating in its own ways, but the finer points of this sprawling epic of absurdity would derail from the main point worthy of a new post – another case of CIT accidentally (??) getting too much evidence and helping us see what really happened, despite their best efforts.

They took Lloyd up on his previous offer to inspect his taxi themselves, and they drive out into the country where he had it stored in the woods, under tarps that weren't too tight. This in itself is fascinating, like an excursion to the Titanic, a historical relic sinking into the Virginia soil, a spider web draped over the steering column, visible through the even more caved-in windshield where the massive aluminum pole *allegedly* entered years ago and nearly skewered its mow-famous driver.

They again found the damage inconsistent with Lloyd's story, and again took to re-explaining the super-scientific obeservation that the heave end of a see-saw goes down. Since the heavy end, and most of the pole's length, was outside, it would not stick up in the air on its fulcrum. Craig tells us "Science proves that this is impossible," referring to the following picture, which he selected:

Apparently he failed to notice the trick here - the little hook holding the girl's end to the earth. This simple device renders the see-saw moot. Please keep this in mind, as it's a better example than he realized. We have a fulcrum - the marked indentation just to the right of center of the dashboard frame. This is on par with a light pole diameter, and the point of entry through the windshield. True, the hood's edge shows no sign of crushing, but given the angle of rest, the might may have met it more edge-wise, and the pile of windshield may also have initially helped hold it up. It would then have to be at a fairly steep downward angle for this to work, which would in turn fit with the rest of the pole sticking up, all above the hood.
"So the dash was the main alleged fulcrum," Craig summed up, " and the other would be the back seat." This is wrong - if there were two fulcrums, they would be this "alleged dent" and the front passenger seat left shoulder, as seen below, knocked well backwards. This was almost certainly in a lower position than shown here, under the weight of the pole as it stretched back to the back seat.

The clincher is the destination, the back seat. I'll write more later, but here is one of their pictures, including the tear they acknowledge but consider too tiny for a massive 5-inch diameter light pole:

The light end of the pole would have been held by the backrest part of the back seat - not the leather, but the actual seat assembly, with its wire frame and all. You can see where something warped it back (on impact) and upwards a couple of inches, leaving a wide gap between the top and bottom sections. This is beneath, and in addition to, the tear that may have been from entry or from when they pulled it out, or a bit of each. It seems unlikely the surface leather had in any part in anchoring the see-saw, but rather metal that was designed for, at the least, supporting the weight of American passengers (light pole segment app. weight - 200-220 lbs). The pole may have forced itself in there a foot or more deep as well, and found additional counter-force in some part of the car's chassis it pierced or was wedged under. They did not look under the car or inside the trunk for any such clues.


If anyone wanted to do some calculations on how impossible Lloyd's story is, here are the variables:
- Pole length overall – my take - app. 23 ft including 18” base
- expected weight, and distribution of that along the narrowing length - erg, math...
- degree of bend, and its length and location along the pole - see my graphic above for one estimate.
- Line from bash dent to seat gouge – lateral difference is negligible – it seems to have come in almost straight back
– Vertical line - Exact dimensions of Lincoln Town car interior would need to be known for either of these. I'd guess 5-8 feet of pole was on the inside side of the dashboard fulcrum.
- depth of penetration into the back seat - I'd wager at least several inches.
- lateral rotation of the bend on entry - vertical, sideways? I'd wager sharp end down, as it seems most others have.
- effective strength of the seat frame and/or any chassis elements holding the light end down against the heavier end's pull.

You could go about defining all these as best as possible and applying the known formulae, But I tend to agree with Craig that the simple analogy presented in that priceless photo is good enough, and renders any need for calculation moot.

CIT AMPING UP THE CRAZY

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

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

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

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

Orly? Please explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your participation is appreciated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time and attention,

Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED

THE SOUTH PATH IMPACT: DOCUMENTED
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
first posted August 12 2008
last update 10/11

NOTE: The full post isn’t done – I’ll be adding some details and graphics for a couple days. I've opted to simplify the process by not citing and linking to all my sources. Dig around if you have any doubts. Props to Mangoose at JREF for a couple of these leads.

“We Tried…”
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) brags of their growing list of explicit eyewitnesses to a North-of-Citgo (NoC) flight path that rules out their decoy plane hitting the Pentagon or anything on the ground, no matter what any of the same witnesses themselves say to the contrary. I believe they’re claiming 13 such witnesses at the moment, as featured in their latest full-length mockumentary, and sure to grow judging to their rhetoric. Corroborated 13 times! That’s fatal to the “official story”, which has the plane passing south of the Citgo station along the path of physical destruction before and into the Pentagon and ending there. CIT frequently boast how “all the witnesses” place the plane north of the Citgo, as clearly as they saw it crash into the building anyway, and NONE of them saw the plane on the south path.

The claim was repeated, for example, in our first phone ‘debate’ in November 2007 [40:00–42:00 or so], in their new video [link above, 3:20 in] and recently at the Loose Change Forum, when Aidan Monaghan was probing CIT’s Aldo Marquis. "Are there any south-of-Citgo witnesses?" he asked. Marquis responded simply “That is a negative,” and re-posted the one-liner ten minutes later for emphasis. And it’s not that they haven’t looked; they tried hard to debunk their own findings, but as their main site explains:

“We tried to find someone who might have seen it on the south side but it just wasn't happening.
[…]
We sure haven't been able to find ANYONE who is willing to directly contradict the north side claim AND we have not found a single previously published account that directly contradicts it either.”

How odd. I didn’t really have to even try to find previously published south path accounts, although a startling number have been pre-dismissed by CIT as among the suspect. I will offer my services free of charge. I found 13 worth making graphics for, though I’m sure there are some others. In fact, it could be said that all witnesses who saw the plane at all, whatever they may say later, saw it on the south path.

The Scene and the Spectators
The “official path” (violet in the graphics below) runs roughly along I-395 at its bend, but nearer parallel with Columbia Pike and the edge of the Navy Annex it flanks (the big harmonica building). The path had to be nearly straight but with a slight left curve and accompanying mild wing bank - left low, right high. After the Annex (entirely south), it passed south of the Citgo station (the smallish structure after), descending as it crossed Route 27, striking lamp poles, skimming the lawn, and entering the building low. The north path is also shown below for comparison, in yellow. This is CIT’s most-widely promoted possibility, never meant to be THE path, and shown to be aeronautically improbable (as have their others, to differing degrees). This angles across the Annex s-n, banking hard right along the way (left high), passing to the north of the Citgo almost at Arlington National Cemetery, descending a bit, then pulling up to fly over, yet somehow appearing to still impact low into the building.
The reason their case has some traction is the same reason that even 13 accounts can’t override the overwhelming case for the real event - eyewitnesses are the weakest type of evidence. Memory is notoriously prone to various errors and psychic distortions. Their memories are usually vague on trivial details like which side of a gas station the plane passed by, easy to be confused, misread, and maybe deliberately dishonest, especially when pushed on points like the above. There are however exceptions that freely and clearly delineate the “official path.” Now just as the whole point of NoC is that it means no impact, the unanimous impact reports could be taken as evidence the plane was on the path consistent with the damage caused. I could also use altitude clues to rule out a pull-up above the light poles, ruling out all but the “official path.” Either would make my job entirely too easy, so here I will only cite specific South of the Citgo (SoC) clues as they sporadically pop up. This is a short list and there are plenty of others that offer decent clues pointing directly at a south path, but these here are13 of the strongest that each confirm it in multiple ways.

1) Albert Hemphill
At the Navy Annex, “peering out of the window looking at the Pentagon.... the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike.” He also gives the wing bank (remember, north path means left high) “He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight […] As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings […] as he impacted low on the Westside of the building
2) Terry Morin
Another witness at the Annex (“FOB” in account). From his stated vantage point, Morin could only see the plane for the length and detail he describes if it were on the south path. CIT and Pilots for Truth have cited problems with the line of sight blocking final moment and this is valid – and doubly so for a plane passing entirely north of that line. "Teri" Morin has changed his once-vilified story and this one has gotten very weird, to hear the dispatches from CIT-land. I don’t believe them. This is what we know Terry Morin said right after the event:

“I started to hear an increasingly loud rumbling […] One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. […] The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). […] The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage […] Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. […] As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft.”

Trees to the northeast of the building is the only thing that doesn’t fit – he must mean northeast of where the plane had passed the Annex. These run along the Pike as it bends, at the crest of the hill looking down over the Pentagon (at the "n" in "line of sight"). Seeing stripes is consistent with it being a tad south of him and banked left.

3) Madelyn Zakhem
A VDOT employee previously published as a witness, Zakhem was verified by the LTW/CIT/Pickering entourage in August 2006. Aldo Marquis was not impressed and noted soon after participating “her account placed the plane "inches" from the roof of this small building [she was at]. With the left tilted down. Unfortunately, this would place it BELOW treetop level which we all know is impossible.” A figure of speech read too literally and debunked is a straw man tactic of course, and a convenient one, as the building that plane was (some number of) inches directly above, clearly puts it on the south path, and with the official bank to the left. Marquis later expanded at Above Top Secret : "Trees blocking her view. Madlene is a suspect witness. She is clearly lying about the flight path. We know because Edward blew it out of the water and we interviewed her, and now her bizarre behavior is explained.” [For Edward Paik, see below]. They can’t find any south path witnesses who’ll go on record, but the reason for strenuously denouncing this witness specifically IS that she’s a south path liar on record with THEM. So Aldo pulls the old Crypyo-Jew move: “Madlene Zackem, the lady with the jewish last name, Israeli accent while displaying a crucifix around her neck is not telling the truth about what she saw."

4) Edward Paik
The guy who blows "Madlene"'s account "out of the water" is not really a strong case for a south path in that his testimony and flight path drawn for CIT in late 2006 directly contradicts it - three versions running across the Navy Annex and thus pointing either OTC (Over-the-Citgo) or slightly NoC. However, his account is jumbled and has south path clues mixed in. When he first talked to the CIT guys and Russell Pickering earlier, he had said he thought the plane clipped an antenna tower just south of Columbia Pike: the wing "knocked down the antenna… the plane was in the middle of the road… that’s why it hit the Antenna." It didn’t really do this, (or did it?) but for him to think so, it would have to be close to it, which it almost certainly was. Also even as he draws a path entirely north of the Pike, his instinctive gestures belie ambiguity, pointing almost straight down the road, and indicating a left bank, which directly contradicts the massive right bank needed to go ONA and NoC. I believe he’s a south path witness and for whatever reason his account came out sort of supporting the north path (really it’s right between the two). How odd that the guy who proves suspicious crypto-Jew Zakhem a liar matches her account more than it differs!
5) Keith Wheelhouse
Wheelhouse, the famous C-130 ‘shadowing’ witness, was actually ‘verified’ by CIT, and for their cameras DREW the south-of-Citgo path to a T. The graphic below is based on his drawing as shown by CIT, rotated correctly to north, CIT’s path added for reference, and his lines color-coded. Light blue is his 77 path, south of the Citgo, .Lavender is the C-130 divergence he put down, happening at about the same time. They already felt he was part of the “ambiguous blending” of the C-130 and the decoy - timewise - to disguise the flyover jet (oh, it was the other plane that veered away a few seconds later…). So this drawing only affirmed their suspicions that he’s a government operative by showing the decoy plane come in on the south path while the “2nd plane,” which he describes as a C-130, peels away well short of the impact point. Once ‘verified’ at least, this here could only provide cover for… the gray, 4-prop C-130 that flew that path about a minute after The silver/white 2-engine flyover plane that no one saw or reported anywhere near the fireball and flyover point is left naked. Some operative!

6) Alan Wallace
One of three firefighters at the heliport for the President’s scheduled arrival later in the day. “The plane had two big engines, appeared to be in level flight, and was only approximately 25 feet off the ground and only about 200 YARDS from our location.” He was a bit off on the color, but felt it was close enough to match: “The airplane appeared to be a Boeing 757 or an Air Bus 320- white with blue and orange stripes. Mark later recalled the plane was silver and even identified that it was American Airlines.” White/orange/blue – silver/red/blue - close enough. Similarly with heading? “I later said the plane approached the Pentagon at about a 45 degree angle, but later drawing showed it was closer to 60 degrees.” I’m presuming here he means relative to the building’s west wall, where 90 would be a perpendicular track. From this there are two 45 degree-angle paths (in orange below). His account shows no perceived discrepancy between the angle he thought he saw and the final official path he saw later, so we must look for the “45 degrees” closest to this. Which one is a fit for ANY proposed path?

7) Timmerman/Vignola
Witnesses Hugh “Tim” Timmerman and his then-girlfriend Dawn Vignola saw the plane from a upper-floor apartment south of impact. With a panoramic view, they were able to see most of the path from at least the Navy Annex and forward. Timmerman had more plane knowledge and lodged a detailed report, while Dawn first spoke to the news on 9/11 and years later talked with another person going by the name Plan 271 online, who drew this path (in blue) based on her description. The apartment location wrong and the view blocked by another building (long red arrow) is set a bit wide, perhaps to fudge it in the interests of privacy (too late!) So the span where it passed the Citgo is deduced – did it suddenly swerve north there? No, because it had no time to correct from the left turn it was observed in (surely not as shown here, distorted by perspective, but the idea is the same), and a north path would mean the plane pulled-up and over, but to these witnesses it seemingly crashed into the ground just before the building.
8) Father Stephen McGraw
*Alleged witness DoJ lawyer and spooky just-ordained Opus Dei Catholic-priest* Stephen McGraw has described the flight path as from directly over his car, about 20 feet up and descending ahead of him and to his right to the impact point where he clearly saw it impact. He even told this to Aldo and Craig, and so all we need is his location to draw the path to the building, which CIT didn’t think to gather and hasn’t tried since. This line should also include, as McGraw deduced afterwards, the light pole that was clipped “just before it got to us” and the taxi damaged by it (see England, below) that was “just a few feet away from my car.” The plane passed from over the pole/cab area to over him and descended ahead all on a line he feels was “controlled and straight” into the building and CIT dismisses him as a “no-pather” witness and highly suspicious. CIT got no verification of his location, and they doubt he was at the scene at all, more likely fabricating for his Opus Dei NWO masters. He was placed in the correct spot (“a few feet” from England’s taxi and ahead of pole 1) in their graphics, “because we are typically discussing his account in the context of the official story,” which, in CIT land, is now a proven lie.

9) Penny Elgas
Headed north on Route 27 “almost in front of the Pentagon,” Penny Elgas reported “I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there - very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there.” Finally a witness that mentions the Citgo, and a reason others don’t, and a side! It’s tempting to simply declare it was passing along Columbia, which puts it south, but she only placed it over the road. Below I offer NoC and SoC variants for comparison. She recalled it coming “toward my car” and passing low “about 4-5 car lengths in front of me.” Along the way, the plane was descending and “banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport.” Left or right turn? Coming from NoC, it’d have to bank right, which means right wing low. South path could be level and straight or, some evidence shows, banking slightly left wing low. With the right wing closest to her, Elgas said “I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground.”

Straight at her, banking left and passing ahead of, and then impacting, which she is quite clear on. She actually had a piece of the plane
land in her car, confirming her location about under the plane as it started losing parts, which a NoC plane would not do. She is a south path witness, plain as day, and no hunt was necessary. Why does CIT still claim no published SoC witnesses even though this one is quite well-published? Oh she’s all kinds of suspicious, her account is too public, too detailed, the plane part thing is too weird, and she has government connections. Not a real DC witness and not worth talking to. “Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect," they say.

10) NEIT 567
This witness is among the CMH interviews, designated with a number like the rest, and according to CIT “one of the most compelling accounts.” A member of an Army band who was at the ANC, her location as read by CIT is actually accurate, I believe, and labeled below. Partial account:

“I hear what I think is a fly over, over my head because that's standard. [...] And I looked, I looked directly up for it, and I also had some tree cover so I wasn't able to see, but I was facing the Pentagon [...] And we're facing the site that was struck. And that's what was also weird, is that it seemed like it struck on the other side whereas I found out later, I saw [the impact point?] so that whatever plane that disappeared, it was it happened so quickly.”

Aldo Marquis announced “She describes the plane as being "over my head" and having looked "directly up" for it which can only be the north side flight path,” which is not true. It would be A north path, but nowhere near the one they’ve been promoting. “Tree cover” implies a lateral distance with several trees in the way, rather than straight up through a single tree’s branches. This means it was at some distance, I think we can all agree to the south. Marquis also trumpets how she “thought that it flew over the Pentagon and crashed on the other side!!! […] Sounds like a flyover account to me.” She said no such thing. What did she mean about the other side thing? She knew where it hit, so we have four choices to work with here, below. Only one makes sense to me and it strongly implies a south path with perspective error.

ETA: A more detailed debunking of her inclusion as a CIT NoC witness

11) Steve Riskus
Headed south on Route 27, well north of the crash site when he saw the plane come in low and crash square into the building. When offered a graphic showing two possible flight paths he explained “The plane looked like it was coming in about where you have the "MAX APPROACH" on that picture... I was at about where the "E" in "ANGLE OF CAMERA" is written when the plane hit...”
He erroneously gives his distance from the plane about 100 feet or so when he actually would have been over 1,000 feet up the road from the plane. A 10x factor mis-estimation might seem unlikely, but he himself placed the plane about right on the map and just that far away. Just not a numbers guy apparently, but definitely a south path witness.
Riskus also said “It knocked over a few light poles in its way,” but has affirmed to others and to me in an e-mail that he did not actually notice this event. Like most other pole-impact witnesses, he admits deducing this from the evidence and, one might suspect, from the match between the observed path and damage.

12) Wanda Ramey
However, at least one observer bucks the trend – DPS/PFPS officer Wanda Ramey says she saw the poles clipped by the plane. "I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up and crashed into the west side of the building.” Ramey says, explicitly, that she saw this, unlike most other deducing light pole witnesses. CIT say they have tried to find her and verify that she truly differs from the others, but have had no luck. The original article described her as having “a clear view” from “the mall plaza booth.” My best guess as to the exact location of this is included below, and gives here a wide-angle view from a moderate distance of about 900 feet from the pole impacts. Perhaps the key to noticing the pole pruning is distance, not closeness, as CIT have presumed.
ETA: Ramey was at some point interviewed by CIT, and they have made the audio available. They'd been trying a while to get ahold of here to confirm or deny that she saw the poles actually hit. She could do neither, after years of memory atrophy, etc,, couldn't recall if she actually saw that or not. She does however specify a left bank, the "slant" being the wing nearest her lower than the other, which further supports the south path.
13) Lloyd England
So suspicious is this elderly cab driver that he gets his own short video; ‘The First Known Accomplice?” It’s not surprising that CIT and their allies make a huge deal of his account all over the place and put his damaged taxi cab on their main page. Unluckily for their case, he’s the best light pole witness, who says plane that passed right over his car “was so low it hit the light pole. And when it hit the pole it knocked the light part off and nothing came through the car but the pole itself." He screeched to a halt at an angle there, he says. “Did you actually SEE the plane hit the poles,” the old CIT standard, gets real silly in this case, but oddly enough, even Lloyd, who was closest of all, failed to actually SEE the pole(s) being struck, and offers a possible clue to why others missed it. He told the CIT/LTW/Pickering “elite research team” “this airplane flew over top of my car. It was real close, and uh, I just looked at it. And when I looked at it flying over, something - [glass?] - a loud noise happened and the pole came through the dashboard, right through the car, all the way to the rear.”

This looks bad for their planted light debris theory. Luckily, the specifics of England’s accountare problematic. He has clarified in detail how the big curved pole segment is what stabbed his car and nearly killed him (the one out front in the picture below). That this would enter the windshield and come to rest long heavy end out as he says without leaving a mark on the hood doesn’t make much sense. This proves nothing except that a witness is telling a story that apparently makes no sense; his windshield was likely damaged by a different pieces than he says, and he constructed the memory he’s shared, perhaps honestly or perhaps not. This shows why witness accounts are weaker than objective verifiable evidence, but CIT is determined to make it a strong something. Since “his story is physically impossible and proven false by the evidence,” they’ve decided he was actuallt involved in the planting of the pole and was making the story up to cover for it. They’re unsure if he’s a willing accomplice or simply a “coerced […] victim,” but simply wrong is not an option, nor is it conceivable to them that he’s actually right, even though most people who think it out can’t see how.

As the CIT video asks of this account, “isn’t it interesting how Lloyd’s story supports the official flight path while being irreconcilable with the eyewitness flight path?” That’s right – not a witness. “At this point the debate regarding what happened at the Pentagon boils down to whether you choose to believe the CITGO witnesses or Lloyd.” Well whaddya know, a fasle dichotomy.

Conclusion: 8=0?
CIT’s wild-eyed fast talker Ranke recently reiterated the bogus claim yet again, in response to Mangoose at the JREF forum: “None of the witnesses we spoke with placed the plane on the south side of the gas station.”

Alright then, just from this list of people who place (or at least strongly imply) Flight 77 SoC, they spoke with Zakhem (understood her south path testimony, and used it to dismiss itself), Vignola (breaking agreements and burning bridges along the way), and with that liar Wheelhouse (it was THEY who gave him the paper to draw his south path on!) When they talked with Paik, and got him to draw lines that were either NoC or OtC they also video-recorded his south-path-supporting gestures. They of course talked to Morin, Ranke says, and I think they talked with Riskus via e-mail as it seems everyone has. McGraw spoke more with Avery and Pickering, but CIT was present at the taping, and they used the footage in a video dedicated to tearing down and obfuscating his south path testimony. Same with Lloyd England, and they even make it look like they defied ‘the devil by stealing his cab light. Where’s Mr. T when you need him to defend his fellow DC cab drivers? So just out of these thirteen south path witnesses, the CIT have spoken with EIGHT! Of these eight witnesses, at least four have been strenuously dismissed as non-witnesses of the most sinister kind, doubt cast on two, and two distorted and claimed as NoC after all. So by CIT logic, no, they haven’t found any south path witnesses in their journeys and likely never will. That’s just neat how much they’re winning. Good for them.
---
Post-13 witnesses with no graphics guaranteed:
14) Here's another, if weaker, SoC witness, using Aldo's formula for NEIT 567: Levi Stephens, who later is said to have said it was NoC, had earlier said "I was driving away from the Pentagon in the South Pentagon lot when I hear this huge rumble, the ground started shaking … I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex. It flew over the van and I looked back and I saw this huge explosion, black smoke everywhere." Now no one is saying it was directly over the van, but how far NoC could it be and even seem that way? Hasn't he been placed around the lane one area? Why does he report a plane over there before the explosion rather than "after" like Roberts?
ETA: Also, a real SoC view is strengthened by CIT's own interview with Stephens, where they say he says it was north of the Citgo. As if it helps their case, they point out how he thought it was not an AA jet due to its unusual paint scheme - including a brown or tan underbelly. No one else really reported this (except I think Omar Campos), and most people thought it was a silver in color, as AA would be. Funny enough, the bottom of a silver plane would reflect the colors beneath it. A north-of-Citgo path would mostly show grass green, while a SoC passage would put it over the brown or tan unseeded, just built dirt mound just south of the station.
15) Roosevelt Roberts: Speaking of Roberts, his full interview reveals quite clearly a witness to Flight 77's actual SoC approach. It was a silver airliner with jet engines, he saw it in the space to the west over the south lot ("around the lane one area"). It was coming from the west ("from the 27 side ... heading east towards DC", from the southwest, past where I-395 merges with Route 27, from "almost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, Pentagon right there. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction." And it was banking about 50-100 feet above the ground, just above the light poles. All the stuff about a second plane headed away is made up. The "another plane" he saw was clearly NOT after 77's impact, if he saw it coming in on the path 77 took, at its altitude, with its appearance.

16) NEIT 405: Another CMH interviewee, on one of the walkways on either side of the loading dock at the south lot. So nearly the same position as Roberts. "Walking on that elevated area that's right outside the door. It's actually on the second floor level. And I turned and glanced off to my right [...] I saw a plane coming over 395 and very, very low. Essentially coming into eye level as it flew across 395 and come across the end of the south parking off to my right as I went through that door." Across 395 probably means 27, and it appearing over the end (lane one edge) of the lot indicates it was probably SoC.

17) George Aman: CMH witness NEIT 419, Arlington Nat'l Cemetery facilities manager, inside a south-facing office at the time of the attack. He saw the plane descending and impacting out the window, and said so to CIT. His ability to determine just how far away it was or what it was over, would have been very limited. He placed it as passing between the Citgo and the ANC south maintenance parking lot. That's north of the Citgo, about as far north as witness should be expected to warp a plane passing them over a great distance. [Fuller explanation]. So how on earth is he a SoC witness? Light poles. CIT says no one actually saw them get hit. Ramey had said she did but can't remember now when they ask. Brooks said he did, but recanted to CIT. It was deduction, he said. George Aman, from his perspective, had a clear view of the first poles up on the bridge mound a few hundred feet away, and had said back in 2001/02 "When I was looking over here and I seen things fly up in there, not knowing really what the hell they were but come to find out they were street lights. So the plane was clipping the tops of the streetlights off." CIT had every chance to ask him if he deduced this, but just decided instead that he clearly was and it wasn't worth asking. [see comments at link above] They know he's a SoC witness.

ROUGHSHOD OVER THE SUSPICIOUS ONES

CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION PART III: ROUGHSHOD OVER THE SUSPICIOUS ONES
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
March 5 2008
Last update 3/14 2am

Craig Ranke the other day left this comment at John Farmer's newly revived blog regarding some things Farmer had said: “you will not find a single statement from us where we have accused ANY witnesses as being liars, government agents, or where we have "condemned" them for anything," Ranke admonished. The "Dishonrable" and "deceptive" intentions of this baseless accusation were clear; "You are simply lying about us again as usual.” Farmer passed this along to me, and it triggered me to put this together, something I’ve been thinking about for a while; a list of all the witnesses that Ranke (aka Lyte Trip) and Aldo Marquis (aka Merc) of Citizen Investigation Team have accused of being liars, government agents, or otherwise condemned to evidentiary oblivion in their Eastman-esque info-universe.

Oh I’m a fine one to talk, CIT will protest – Caustic Logic the operative with his zany 'deep cover operative' disinfo NoC witness theory. I meant to cover that first but this post was getting WAY too big with the Mea Culpa attached. So I’ll cover that in another post and we’ll see how crazy it is… Back to the current subject in which CIT’s own words are at issue.

Referring to the case of Dawn Vignola (see below) and the word ‘roughly,’ which he felt were at issue, Ranke said “we have not even published anything on her yet so to say we've treated her (or any witness) "roughly" is a lie.” Really? Then why the distinction “we have not even published anything on her?” Is there something in this process that might be called rough? “I can GUARANTEE that we did not treat her "roughly" in any way at all. We have all of our conversations with her recorded […] When we were at their home it was a short and perfectly civil meeting.” I’m sure there are no sounds of a scuffle in those recordings, or even raised voices. I don’t think that was ever the point.

‘Rough’ might not be the right word, and not with the witnesses themselves. Riding roughshod over their accounts, which reflects back on them of course, and often over their general character and credibility, is more like it. Easy dismissals of whole testimonies via what I’m calling the ‘couldn’t see shit’ maneuver, willful ignorance or minimizing of key details, flippant if vague accusations, adduced sinister connections, and a general sorting into credible witnesses and dubious ones, each with its own rules and standards. All these are employed in the CIT cherry orchard, where harvests are hand-picked, and that is undeniable.

The reasoning for and the resistance to this sorting was explained by Ranke in a discussion of the USA Today Parade (see below):

"I understand how it is hard to put a human face to this crime in any way and that it's much easier to assign blame to an entity like "the government" as opposed to living humans. But living humans were involved. They had to be. Complicit operatives were present during this incredible military black psychological operation of deception. It's up to the citizens to decide who the genuine witnesses are and who the liars are. It's not easy but we must make that determination.” [source]

Well they sure make it LOOK easy. CIT tops their professed belief in fraudulent video, radar, FDR, planted and ridiculous contrived physical evidence, and a totally unseen pull-up flyover, with a long line of eyewitnesses whose accounts can’t be trusted. They have reasons at the ready to dismiss a good portion of published recollections, ready to copy and paste when anyone tries to counter them with a pesky eyewitness account of, say, a low impact with a slight left bank. Many were just dismissed because they couldn't see something or other, or are 'unconfirmed.' Others are dismissed via serious flaws and some of these people perhaps deserve some doubt. Perhaps some are just mistaken, or duped, but the dubiousness of some accounts seems to CIT to go deeper than that.

This is serious stuff here, a matter of good and evil. As Aldo once and infamously said: "I can say I've spoken directly to operatives from the Pentagon attack. I have looked the devil in the eye."The man does have some theological insights; his Myspace page has info on Masonic architecture, old-school American Satanists, and the Israeli Supreme Court building with its inverted Cross walkway where some vague 'they' "plan to seat the "Anti-Christ." He has later clarified that he meant the overall plot - the attack, the cover-up, the whole sinister operation - was 'the devil' in that statement, but some person or persons on this list - in fact in the somewhat shorter list of ones they've spoken to - was part of it, the eye into which he peered and saw the darkness pulsing beneath. Craig backs him up: "if 'demon' isn't a fitting description for someone willingly involved what is?" [ source] Just as demons are sent from the devil, operatives are sent from the op. However literally we should take this, their evidence deals with the more earthly level, and so here are the witnesses they'd have us know have issues.

The Suspicious Ones
1) Lloyd England – Not necessarily ‘an operative from the Pentagon attack ,’ but probably, and so suspicious he gets his own short video; ‘The First Known Accomplice?” and CIT and their allies make a huge deal of his account all over the place. Little wonder they try; on the surface he’s the best light pole witness in the sense that he says the plane flew over him just as the pole came flying through his windshield. ‘Did you actually SEE the plane hit the poles,” the old CIT standard, gets real silly in this case. The reason they keep at it and put the cab on their main page is it’s a strong point for them in that England’s account of the big pole segment piercing the windshield and coming to rest long heavy end out without leaving a mark on the hood doesn’t make much sense. Of course that doesn’t prove anything except that a witness is telling a story that makes no sense; his windshield was damaged in a way other than he says, obviously. Like by a different piece of pole. When I first met Ranke as "Jack Tripper," he challenged me "Name one witness I have dismissed as a plant besides Lloyd." [source] Their apparent “Lloyd-bashing” is a persistent magnet for criticism, so CIT now goes to pains to explain “We haven’t even accused Lloyd of anything even though his story is physically impossible and proven false by the evidence. We have always maintained that he may have been coerced or manipulated which would make him a victim.” [source] But whatever they make of why, his evidentiary credibility, and all evidence connected to it, is toast. And that this piece of toast appeared right at that crucial spot and time is another clue that deception is afoot. Convenient. Ranke: “At this point the debate regarding what happened at the Pentagon boils down to whether you choose to believe the CITGO witnesses or Lloyd.” No. I don’t have to fully believe either. Period.

2) Stephen McGraw – Also suspicious enough to warrant his own short video; “From the Law to the Lord,” which “features our interview with former Department of Justice attorney turned Catholic priest Stephen McGraw” to let him “tell his story on camera and to confirm or deny some of the suspicious details in his previously published account.” Though he admits he didn’t actually see the lamp poles hit, he inexcusably describes a low impact, controlled and straight from 20 feet over his head from the left and arguably behind, making him a solid south path/impact witness. He’s also coincidentally a member of Opus Dei, a much-distrusted Catholic sect, so good choice… “The well known dubious details surrounding this secret society,” Ranke remind us, include “espionage, perversion,” and that it’s “favored by the Washington elite,” all “relevant points when considering McGraw's high profile involvement with 9/11.” On changing plans to minister to the dead and wounded at the Pentagon, Ranke affirms that “shirking his commitment to a mourning family waiting at the cemetery with their loved one in a casket is most definitely a questionable act.” They seem to presume he wasn’t even at the scene until after the crash, but “place him under the official path” in their graphics “because we are typically discussing his account in the context of the official story,” which, in CIT land, is now a proven lie. It’s clear they don’t take him seriously as a witness, just let him talk, ignore the words, and say “Opus Dei.”

3) Bob Dubill - An editor at USA Today, a mainstream media employee of some influence, and far too many of them from that one paper on that short stretch of road that day just ‘heading to work.’ They of course have a whole video on the ”USA Today Parade.” Nothing specific against Dubill I noticed.

4) Richard Benedetto: USA Today reporter, member of the suspicious parade of witnesses. Ranke has emphasized “the relevance of Gannett/USA Today as far as mainstream media manipulation goes in general and how it's a major propaganda arm of the governement similar to fox news,” and the “incredible coincidence” of six of them “being within .16 of a mile in the most critical area to witness the attack.” [source] I confess this is an odd coincidence at 9:30 am, but it really depends how many people worked there and were drawn there each day. There are roads in Seattle where at any given moment anywhere near rush hour, every other car has at least one Microsoft employee in it.

5) Mary Ann Owens – news room assistant, included in USA Today parade, who 'saw' the plane fly over them on a point well south of the NoC path - portable human planted light poles! Ranke: “The plane was on the north side of the citgo. If these people simply had ambiguous memories that would be one thing but this is a far cry from that.” [source]

6) Joel Sucherman – Member of the USA Today parade, verified in the video, and his view verified – couldn’t see shit! Of course he passes off their concentration as a natural effect of that being the route to work and backed up. Regarding his account of the C-130 passing ‘3-5 seconds’ after impact, Ranke points out Sucherman is “highly publicized […] as one of the second plane witnesses, yet he would not identify the type of plane.” This is made to sound suspicious, and CIT has wondered if this account was “meant to ambiguously act as cover for the flyover?” [new video]

7) Mike Walter – USA Today Parade member, Very clear impact witnesss, view partially blocked by trees – CIT talked to him, had dinner in his house, mischaracterized his bank report, and decided he couldn’t see shit at some point or other and was making stuff up. Ranke: "I do not believe or trust Mike Walter for a single second and we have plenty of evidence to show deliberate contradictions in his account.” [source]

8) Vin Narayanan – Confirmed by CIT via phone [new video], he saw a second plane, presumably the C-130, ‘a couple minutes’ after impact, but is steadfast that it was a jet. Read back on Chaconas [see same link], who some feel saw the C-130 but decided it was a commercial jet, so a jet it must be says CIT. Ranke: Narayanan also “claims he saw a "2nd jet" fly over the building. Works as good cover for a flyover doesn't it?” [source]

9) John O’Keefe – in their new video, via Narayanan, CIT learns he too is part of the suspicious USA Today witness parade. They spoke with him and decided he couldn’t see it for 45 seconds as he says from "his now-confirmed alleged location." [new video]

10) Fred Gaskins – USA Today editor and a Pentagon witness, possibly part of the parade. Ranke: "No matter how you look at it, even if it WAS still rush hour, it strains credulity to suggest that so many reporters or editors would be in such a crucial location together during such an historically significant (and questionable) world event. Put that together with the fact that the trees blocked their view and the north of the citgo testimony and once again the implications are clear.” [source] Yeah, they had their plants blocked by trees. Great planning, as usual from the worldwide black-oppers.

11) Bobby Eberle – GOP USA connected = a liar about the Pentagon attack. Ranke: “Could you find anyone more dubious? His account reads like a fiction novel.” Shoomp, there goes another impact witness. [source]

12) Gary Bauer – PNAC connections = a liar about what he saw at the Pentagon. Ranke: “THERE IS NO PROOF HE WAS ON EVEN ON THE HIGHWAY. He is one of the PNAC signers. That would make him a suspect "witness".” Shooomp. In comes another probable plant. [source]

13) Steve Riskus – A clear and close impact witness with no GOP connections (he’s a skateboarder and a nice guy) who didn’t actually SEE the poles get hit, but is sure it hit the building, low, but not the ground. Ranke: “What a joke! Steve Riskus is obviously a plant. The website creation date is a dead give away […] no true skater would have a website with a front page as cheezy as this! And he has never bothered updating it in years. Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.” [source] (Ranke has backed off this accusation - see comments section).

14) Penny Elgas – Extremely detailed low impact account from a perfect vantage point. She could see shit. “Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect. She claims the plane was 80 feet up which is too high to hit the poles and that it "banked" which also contradicts the official story while a bank is required in the north of the citgo flight path.” [source] http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread308807/pg1#pid3613394 He’s wrong about her banking account – it matches the official story.

15) Dawn Vignola – CIT has said that her news call-in from 9/11 about the plane impact was ‘coached’ by her roommate at the time, Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman. Suspicious. Listen for the ‘coaching’ yourself here - a voice in the background helping add technical details. Too bad she’s tainted, she was almost a useful witness. As Merc noted: “She told us multiple times that the plane was white, but for some reason had fused the AA into it, perhaps becuase of news reports, perhaps because of her roomate, Timmerman.” Aldo defends coaching charges: “He says it, she repeats it. Is that not coaching?” His list has her as “claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position.” [source] Here’s an interesting discussion between CIT and a source familiar with Dawn, one “Plan271.” Ranke explained they think it was “Vignola's husband” who “came to our forum anonymously and made viciously attacked us for no reason whatsoever.” Of course if he had no reason he wouldn’t do it, now, would he? You go cherry picking, some guy no likey you pick his wife’s cherries. Not surprising.

16) Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman – see above. An impact story liar who coached Vignola, later gave his own detailed account ” it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike […] and then I lost it behind a building. And then it came out, and I saw it hit.” CIT got to look through the view they shared and found they couldn’t see shit. “The highrise building in front of them to the left completely blocked their view of the final moments of the flight path so there is no way they would have been able to tell if the plane was north or south of the citgo,” and the fireball would have blocked the flyover. Ranke: “This hitting the ground claim by Ms. Vignola and even the "plane person" Hugh Timmerman completely contradicts the official story and is further PROOF that they deduced the impact and embellished these details.” [source] No. They saw it from high up so the details were less clear. One wing hit the generator and probably exploded while the other basically hit the ground, so it exploded at ground level just before impact. From above it would look like - it his the ground and blew up.

17) Noel Sepulveda - Ranke: “There is a lot of reason to doubt the legitimacy of this account and we were not able to find him for verification." [source] Sepulveda’s account is goofy, and I see reason to doubt its accuracy, but not necessarily its legitimacy. Not sure if they were trying to cast doubt here or just flinging a bit out of simple habit.

18) Afework Hagos – This witness “is not claiming to have SEEN the light poles get hit. We can't find a trace of this person existing at all but regardless...” [source] Funny enough, other than CIT proclamations, I can't find a trace of Aldo Marquis existing at all, but regardless… here I am dealing with someone going by that name sayin’ what they’re sayin’. Merc’s list has Hagos as “unconfrimed account-deduced? Lying?” [source]

19) Madelyn Zakhem – Merc noted after participating in an interview with her in 2006 “Her account placed the plane "inches" from the roof of this small building [she was at]. With the left tilted down. Unfortunately, this would place it BELOW treeop level which we all know is impossible.” [source]Once again, when convenient, read a figure of speech too literally and debunk it. It was convenient, as the building that plane was some number of INCHES above, clearly puts it on the south path, and with the official bank and slight turn to the left. Marquis: "Trees blocking her view. Madlene is a suspect witness. She is clearly lying about the flight path. We know because Edward blew it out of the water and we interviewed her, and now her bizarre behavior is explained. Madlene Zackem, the lady with the jewish last name, Israeli accent while displaying a crucifix around her neck is not telling the truth about what she saw." [source] Wow, that is some suspiciously - what? Indeed it's the name. When I first heard of her, I misread and wondered if she was related to suspected "9/11 Mastermind" Dov Zakheim at the Pentagon. Obviously this didn't pan out, but there's apparently still some kind of play still being made on this vague perception.

20) Terry Morin – Ranke: “Due to all of these extreme contradictions with the official story and explicit exaggerated details meant to support it....it's clear that Morin is either relaying a completely fabricated or else wildly embellished account.[source]

21) Don Mason – 2nd-hand account said he saw poles hit and a truck antenna. Ranke warns us Mason “was a Pentagon Renovation worker that is one of 3 PenRen workers cited in the ASCE report. Because of this he is a VERY suspect witness.” [source]

22) Frank Probst – PenRen bigwig, so at least as suspicious. Someone in the renovation program had to know about the column bowing-inward explosived built into the structure by Masonry Arts to fake an airliner impact. Why not Probst, who also gave a suspiciously precise account of the official impact story? Ranke: "a very small handful do place [the plane] somewhere along the physical damage path," where we know it wasn't. "These are very very few such as Frank Probst. It would be foolish for someone to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job but completely write off the possibility that ANY of the witnesses were planted.”[source] He had to be, or was compelled to lie later. Bigwigs don't as often get compelled. Probably an operative and participant in the mass murder.

23) Rich Fitzharris - The third Penren guy interviewed by ASCE so also suspect. He didn't even claim to see the impact however, so it would seem he was under-utilized. Perhaps this was just a touch of realism. That they'd all three be in the right spot might seem silly.

24) Aziz El Hallou – An odd case I didn't learn about until recently, proud owner of part of the plane... Merc: “Debunked lying witness, proven to be at Navy Annex.” [source] Compellingly indicated there anyway… this case is unique. I think they may have an opportunistic liar here. Or not ... Doesn’t prove much in itself, but put together with all the others … no, still nothing.

25) James Robbins - Merc: "a national-security analyst & NRO contributor for National Review, William F Buckley (CIA) publication." [source] Certainly not an outright accusation, but he sure does sound suspicious.

26) Dave Marra - Merc: "dubious, questionable witness-claims plane cartwheeled into building." [source] Further dubious details unsure, but it's true that event did not happen. Again like Sepulveda -reason to dismiss the witness, or just to not rely on his details? I'm not familiar with this one, so I'll just leave it there.

27) Thomas Trapasso - "Political appointee"under Clinton, looking for new cronyism when he ‘saw’ the plane on the official path and reported so. No appointments I've heard of in thanks. He was stiffed. Wouldn’t return CIT’s calls. Suspicious. Mentioned at the beginning of "Flight 77 The White Plane.”

28) Albert Hemphill – Marquis: “Albert Hemphill is a Lt. General with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The C-130 was not a "Navy electronic warfare aircraft", so that would serve to fuel the conspiracy theories about it controlling the plane. […] This account seems more like an account about the C-130 that "just happens to" give fuel to the theories. I'll let the reader decide which category that fits into.” [source]

29) Keith Wheelhouse – CIT verified him on video, his C-130 ‘shadowing’ 77 account promising possible flyover treasure… after he insisted the C-130 and 77 flew together in his view for 60 seconds, which is impossible for various reasons, but drew the official fight paths for each that conflicts with what CIT feels happened, and perhaps a little too perfectly. His location and POV were questioned, he couldn't see shit they found, his re-affirmed impossible timing proves him a liar, and yeah, his account isn’t right. I don’t know about his location, why he’s wrong, what he really saw, or what any of this proves. CIT wonders “were Joel [Sucherman] and Keith’s account meant to ambiguously act as cover for the flyover?” [new video] Note here the use of singular ‘account,’ softly implying they were handed the same script.

30) Alfred S. Regnery - A peripheral witness – too far from the scene to come into the debate much. I mentioned him once as seemingly supporting a south path and Ranke mentioned “He is the president of right wing mainstream publishing company Regnery publishing who put out books by Anne Coulter, Newt Gingrich, as well as Barbara Olson the famous right wing CNN pundit and alleged vicitim passenger of flight 77. Coincidental no?” [source] Yeah, that is odd. But we have another possibly dubious witness? Why didn’t he lie himself closer and say he saw it hit the light poles as Barabara wrestled the hijackers inside? That alone would have sold tens of thousands of extra books I'd think.

31) Mickey Bell/Jack Singleton – Ranke: “1. Mickey Bell's account is told by HIS BOSS. It is hearsay; not evidence." True. Deduced really. No original content. Nonetheless " 2. He is a Pentagon Renovation contractor and should therefore be considered automatically suspect. 3. He describes a bank which is inconsistent with the official story.” [source] Wrong. The bank is necessary for the physical damage, that's why he mentions it.

32) Rick Renzi – A witness who got on camera reporting a steep descent and impact, perhaps from east of the Pentagon, and offering no clue of a flyover. Then he became a Congressman, one of the 20 most corrupt I hear, GOP-neocon connected, and on February 22, 2008 he was indicted on charges of theft, extortion, and conspiracy. Ranke: “It's clear he was "free styling" details on 9/11 and pushing propaganda a month later by outlining the neocon agenda at the time that has since come true.” [source] He could be an opportunistic liar, but somehow I think he’s describing what he saw, just exaggerating the dive. His general honesty is not the issue here – it’s his account of the descent being too steep for CIT to feel it’s consistent with the official story or, of course, theirs, which required a negative dive (a pull-up) that every witness but one missed. Ranke: "No doubt Renzi was simply a bit too enthusiastic while being under briefed."

33) Steve Storti - Ranke: "Can you prove he was really there on 9/11? Did you interview him and get video tape of his view from that window to get his view? Either he is deducing the impact or he is lying. Most people were fooled but certainly some were planted witnesses and some accounts were completely fabricated." [source] Again, nothing specific against Storti, just a friendly reminder that some unspecified accounts - perhaps this one! - are works of fiction, not evidence. And he keeps saying this about every other account anyone offers AS evidence. And every account is dubious until it's verified by CIT, and the ones still found suspicious after that are the worst of them all.

A whole list of Lyte Trip witness dismissals collected by a JREFfer.

The following text and graphic appear in just this relation at The PentaCon website :

“We tried to find someone who might have seen it on the south side but it just wasn't happening.

Consider this an open request to all the witnesses that supposedly support the official story who are willing to go on record countering Edward, Robert, Chad, and Bill's placement of the plane .

We sure haven't been able to find ANYONE who is willing to directly contradict the north side claim AND we have not found a single previously published account that directly contradicts it either.

You better believe it's a smoking gun.”

Considering all this, is there not a clear message, if unintended, to this text-graphic placement? It’s clear what they want to believe, what they want to hear. Just say the right things or you’ll be suspicious too. Your religion, your legal affairs, your suspect employment, any scandals, all might be called on to discredit anything they don’t want to hear. They throw out innuendo like all this and then they invite witnesses to come forward and meet the smoking gun. Lo and behold precious few do, at least that are willing to be specific, and the witness pool stays nice and shallow so their tenuous construct won’t drown. In their own little info-universe anyway.

THE PREVIOUSLY SUSPICIOUS FATHER MCGRAW: REDUX-THE MASTER OPUS

CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION, PART 1: THE PREVIOUSLY SUSPICIOUS FATHER MCGRAW REDUX: THE MASTER OPUS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
December 14 2007
Last updated 2/13 1am

FOREWORD 12/07: Since I published the first version of this piece a week ago, it has gotten more attention than I expected, both positive and of course negative. A dedicated denunciation at the CIT forum and two lightning discussion threads at Above Top Secret ensued – one locked and the other still active. Some points were ironed out, some challenges issued, some questions answered and others raised. I have worked some of the more relevant results back into my original piece to make it more accurate and informed. It’s now a long post – tedious in spots but hopefully worthwhile for anyone seriously into the whole PentaCon phenomena. The original is also available on request.
---
The CIT Magic
Lately I’ve been giving some thought to the process by which Citizen Investigative Team (CIT) verify alleged witnesses to the Pentagon attack. As CIT core member Craig Ranke explained in a recent phone discussion, previously published eyewitness accounts of a plane impact are all suspect.

“This is not eyewitness testimony, okay […] we need to talk about it for what it is, which are static words printed by the mainstream media. So until you speak with these witnesses direct and get their first-hand confirmation of these details, these words are merely hearsay. They aren’t evidence at all. That’s a fact.” [1]

The magic of CIT is of course their tracking down witnesses, preferably previously unpublished ones, and confirming what they really say they saw, removing the MSM distortions where applicable and countering MSM ignorance elsewhere. When it came to their Citgo witnesses featured in The PentaCon, they placed their locations carefully on a map, determined their point-of-view, and had them describe what they saw, clarify details, and draw one or more lines in satellite maps to verify the direction they saw the plane flying. When possible, verification was found that the witness truly was there. This sounds good enough, and the method has yielded numerous accounts confirming the north-of-the-Citgo flight path that necessitates a fly-over of the Pentagon and all physical evidence somehow faked in an elaborate and well-coordinated effort.

They insist they have not yet found a south path witness who actually saw the official flight path matching the damage both before and inside the building. As Lyte Trip, Craig explained to the JREF debunkers “We have searched high and low for a witness to go on record contradicting the citgo witnesses north of the station claim. If you can find one let us know.” [2] This lack of verified support for the ‘official’ path has led Craig and CIT to trumpet everywhere they’re still allowed “the unanimous north side of the citgo station claim,” the one that necessitates the unseen flyover and mind-boggling feats of fakery.

But is this really true? While the four main interviews presented in the PentaCon strongly indicate a north path and impact (one of which must be wrong), another interview they did in search of confirmation came out much more murky. As I read it anyway, this one raised some awkward problems for their north-side flyover-n-fakery claim, prompting an ugly solution.

McGraw Verifies
The witness in question is Father Stephen McGraw, a Catholic priest filmed on location after the attack ministering to the injured. Like Father Merrin in the Exorcist, he emerged from the mist of dubious photos and reports, let the team into his own church for a videotaped interview and verified his account for the enlightenment of all. Key portions at least of his interesting and telling interview are presented in their video From the Law to The Lord, viewable below.
Page link
Here is Father McGraw’s previous so-called ‘eyewitness account,’ the static words attributed to him by the mainstream media, and further compiled by researcher Eric Bart, the master (until the arrival of Arabesque of course) of gathering such ‘unconfirmed hearsay’:

"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. "I saw it crash into the building," he said. "My only memories really were that it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression," he said. "There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows. "He literally had the stole in one hand and a prayer book in the other and in one fluid motion crossed the guardrail," said Mark Faram, a reporter from the Navy Times who witnessed McGraw in the first moments after the crash.” [4]

This original account strongly supports the official story, and lends credence to that fateful light pole smashing into Lloyd England’s cab, which would become an obsession of CIT’s. The good news that the citizen investigators will most often mention about this interview is the witness’ failure to recall seeing the light poles actually get hit by the plane, and they take him on his word here, and use this to support their contention that no one saw this happen (except of course Lloyd) and therefore they were probably simply dragged into place by the road at some earlier time. This despite the fact that he was square in the middle of the poles-down zone, according to his post-confirmation placement in the video (which is an issue of contention, see below). Lights 1, 2, and perhaps 3 were down behind him before he was aware of anything wrong, and apparently he didn’t see poles 3, 4 or 5 downed ahead of him, with all of perhaps 0.1 seconds to sharpen up and pay attention to detail. He spoke of seeing the damaged taxi and light pole on the road by it (pole 1, behind him and to the left in the graphic here, directly from their video), and deduced after the fact how the evidence wound up the way it was.

Problems: Not PentaCon Material
So far, this confirmation would seem helpful to the CIT case, and they have used it to support the no-pole-witnesses aspect of their program. But for all the reasons that can be found for McGraw supporting or not refuting the north side claim one problem is evident from the outset; north path necessitates a flyover, which requires a pull-up followed by a high-level non-impact. Neither is present in this video-verified account of a witness with a superb view.

Showing that verified accounts don’t always change much from their ‘static’ forbears, McGraw confirmed the words earlier attributed to him regarding its placement 20-25 feet “over the top of us,” before which it struck a light pole, and after which “it came in controlled and straight […] as if for a crash landing.” When asked, he couldn’t recall the generator trailer being hit but, he said he ‘picked up’ a memory from others of the plane bouncing on the lawn. It didn’t literally do this, but this persistent impression might be a clue that it was that low – which it would not be if ‘pulling up’ to fly over. His hand gestures repeatedly indicate a slight nose-down pitch consistent with an impact at the ground floor. He confirmed seeing flames billowing from the windows after the plane “disappeared basically into the building,” and when asked to clarify that it entered the building he responded “yes, yes, yes. I definitely watched as it disappeared into the building.”

To hear CIT talk, of all the witnesses who report seeing an impact, which is all of them so far who were in a position to see, all were allegedly deceived into seeing this despite the sly flyover through the engineered pyrotechnic blaze they merely took for the crash. But in our phone discussion Craig emphasized that “very few of these reports even […] are specifically saying they saw the jet enter the building. […] Most of them were not in a position to see the impact side of the Pentagon or even the Pentagon at all.” [1] This has no bearing on McGraw. Craig also frequently cites trees blocking the view of impact for some witnesses headed northbound on Route 27. For some northbound witnesses further south this is true. It’s not true for Father McGraw.

Based on CIT’s own placement of McGraw, he would have had a near perfect view of the final stretch of either scenario, and he says he saw it fly “over him,” then low enough he thought it bounced on the lawn, and finally a triple affirmation that he witnessed the direct impact along that line. Clearly in CIT land this cannot be. He’d see much of the pull-up and probably part of the over-flight, but as with all CIT-verified witnesses so far, he fails to mention these. Unlike the ‘many’ Craig wants to focus on, McGraw’s account has no excuses. The Father passes the shrubbery test, it seems, and has now verified that he watched the low level impact, which strongly implies the poles were also cut at that time by that craft.

Problems: A South Path Witness?
“[McGraw] says he did not see the approach. This is fact. He says he did not know the plane existed until it was over his head. This is fact. This means he SAYS that he is NOT a witness to what side of the gas station it flew. This is fact. His account is not a definitive north or south side account either way because of these FACTS." – Craig Ranke [7]

While the citizen investigators have never tried to pass McGraw off as a north-path witness, by CIT standards, the problems we’ve examined so far are not enough to bar his inclusion in the growing pool. For the team, McGraw’s failure to remember seeing the poles go down further confirms that they did not fall at that time, which could indicate a north path flyover. In our discussions, Craig insist there are no clues directly contradicting this trajectory, and some supporting it, and his report of impact is nothing new; all their Citgo witnesses report this as well. Craig finds it at least a lesser possibility that McGraw truly was “deceived in this 1 second military sleight of hand illusion just like the CITGO witnesses were.” [5]

However, they must know that at this close angle, no simple perspective trick will do to leave such a witness confusing an 80-foot-plus flyover with a ground-level impact no matter what side of some gas station it passed by. And no matter the tortured logic chains anyone might concoct, I believe Father McGraw is a south path witness, first and foremost because for so many other reasons I already believe the plane came in on a south path and I believe McGraw’s video-verified account. Previously I’d presented his south path testimony as self-evident fact. I wouldn’t do this without reason, but I was hasty, and the too-sure stance prompted a strong reaction from Ranke who claimed I ‘made it up.’ He went so far as to call my piece “nothing but a way for Larson to spread more speculative lies about our motives and methods in obtaining evidence while furiously defending the official story. […] the backwards logic is apparent and the most egregious that I have heard coming from anyone who allegedly doubts the official story.” [6] (emphasis mine: what the Hell is a 'speculative lie?')

As soon as debate was opened, I realized and admitted I’d been too dogmatic about the south path aspect of McGraw's account. Craig instantly declared “the entire premise of your blog is unjustified” and demanded “it should be taken down and retracted if you have a shred of integrity.” [5] Now even if I put any stock in Craig Ranke’s advice on how to maintain credibility, I’d still disagree that a full retraction is in order. However I need to moderate and clarify and, while I’m at it, solidify my position.

Keeping in mind the alleged position and orientation of the witness (as seen above, and facing north, or up.), and that the official plane would come up from behind him and from the left, I believe he is a south path witness for these reasons
1) The south path happened and I want to believe he was there and is honest.
2) His "just before it got to us" descriptor for where the plane hit the pole that hit the cab is a further clue of his perceived path; from behind and left to ahead and right. The only poles ‘before’ them on a L-R path, which either north or south would be, are to the left. This only describes poles 1+2, which were also behind McGraw. Everything else was to his right, so calling any other pole ‘before’ would be illogical.
3) The plane coming in ‘right over’ him makes most sense at the location he’s shown in the video if the official path were true.
4) McGraw’s ‘deducing’ the pole was clipped by the plane might indicate that the poles were knocked down on the flight path he saw. Which would make him a south path witness, since no poles on the north path were downed (4 and 5 are the closest, and the one Craig's hhinted towards). IF he weren’t fundamentally confused about where the pole were in relation to the north path he saw (like Lagasse was).
5) It seems to me that his gestures indicate back-to-front (south to north) motion as well as left-right. Gestures: “the sensation of something coming over the top of us” and gestures back to front twice (2:54 in the video) and later ‘he crashed right into the building’ accompanied by a forward flick of his hand (4:55). When indicating the cab’s position, he reaches far to the left or perhaps back and to the left (3:07-3:17). I failed to include it in this graphic, but at 3:40 McGraw distinctly turns his whole upper body to the left while reaching further left or behind to indicate “the evidence of the pole having been knocked over.” He is looking more forward than right as he recalls seeing the plane’s flight path after passing over him (4:14), when he’d be looking hard right if under the north path.
The subject's gestures: watch the video (embedded at the top) and judge for yourself.
6) Also just as a north path requires a fly-over, a real plane impact requires an approach from the southwest and would have the poles hit and ‘directly over’ McGraw in the location shown. He says this is what he saw – a real impact into the building.

However there are some points of ambiguity; as valuable as it is as evidence, there are always factors to keep in mind with eyewitness testimony, especially if it matches all evidence (??). As pointed out by Craig and others the following must be noted:
1) He did not see the plane before it passed over him, so his perception of the flight path would be limited (he did not see the approach).
2) He only cites seeing one pole, or perhaps only the top of it, after the fact, so it's possible he saw a different pole and ventrred later that was 'the one.' So what pole is the one 'before us' is not clear. #1 is still my best guess personally.
3) Motion from behind the witness to ahead is not entirely clear. Craig says I made it up, and my bias is known. I should have more carefully considered the perspective of his position – is he pointing left or left and back? Craig insists there is no front-back motion in his limited gestures, only left—right, which clearly describes the north path better than the south and therefore I’ve shown him a north path witness and should pull my piece quick before I embarrass myself. Nice try. The best we’re serving at this hour is inconclusive.
4) The two paths ‘converge’ on Route 27. Somewhat. But also the sense of ‘right over’ vs. ‘over-there’ would increase with low altitude, both illustrating and pre-moderating the following ambiguity:
5) The terms “above us” and his gestures from left to right are somewhat vague and could be used for either a north or a south path. ‘Above and slightly ahead of’ might be close enough to consider ‘above’ the position CIT used in their video. While ‘above’ and the location shown fits the south path better, L-R motion describes either path just fine.
6) His actual placement is vague and uncertain. What? Even After the CIT verification magic? I learned this late in the debate, throwing my whole analysis unexpectedly out of whack, but when I asked, Craig clarified “No he did not show us on a map." [5] "The only thing we have to go off of in regards to McGraw's location is his claim that he was directly under the plane this means he would be under the plane regardless of where it flew.” [5] So why was he placed in a spot in their video if he gave no spot? And a spot over which they "knew" no plane ever flew? Why indeed…
Solutions: ’A No-Path Witness?’
The foremost point Craig has raised in response to my analysis is that McGraw "says he did not see the approach” and so “is not a definitive north or south side account either way because of these FACTS." Certainly he was not presented as a witness to any path relative to the Citgo because he didn’t see it as it passed the Citgo. Sounds logical enough. Earlier I’d also noted the absence of the PentaCon trademark – the drawn flight path. Not surprising since they didn’t even plot his location or POV, and the reason is innocent enough; as Craig explains, “we did NOT know about Robert Turcios when we interviewed McGraw so the north or south path was not a focus of our questioning.” [7] So this was early in their search, prior to August 2006. Fair enough, they were just starting so perhaps I should cut them some slack on the point.

So without any north-seeking, south-skirting bias possible, it would seem, what flight path clues did they get from his testimony? Nothing conclusive, as we’ve seen. In fact we aren’t even sure where he was, or whether he was even there. I originally thought the location they picked in their map was the spot he says he was, but really, all we have is "his claim that he was directly under the plane.” So in their graphic they show him under the official path where they had already deduced no plane passed, not attempting to actually place him where he was but rather to “place him under the official path because we are typically discussing his account in the context of the official story.” [5] Please do remember that in CIT land, the official story is now a proven lie.

Why would they fail to determine witness location for anyone whose account they were interested in? As Aldo incredulously notes in the video, it is a bit odd that McGraw didn’t even realize it was the Pentagon he was in front of until after the strike. CIT apparently knew of this before and “Since he claims he is so unfamiliar with the area he grew up in that he didn't even know he was next to the Pentagon," Craig explicates, "it doesn't make sense to suggest he would have even been able to [place his location on a map].” [5]

Yes it does. Just because he can’t identify the building doesn’t mean he can’t say where he is in relation to it – or to the light pole hes talking about, or the plane. Yet all of this is now inconclusive; their failure to bother plotting his actual location is a squandered chance to collect valuable data and arguably invalidates the whole operation. Craig insists “everything we could think of was fully clarified,” and “his position could not be clarified any further. He says he was directly under the plane in the left lane northbound on route 27.” [5] This is the precise area of the too-wide fudge-zone we’re dealing with here. Not being aware of the north-path accounts yet, the guys were officially not thinking in terms of flight path yet, but they could hardly have verified this guy any more sloppily if they actively wanted to not discover his flight path.

Eventually Craig decided to class McGraw as a "NO PATHER," “since he specifcially claims he didn't see” the path, which he in fact did see and describes as ‘controlled and straight” into the building. Not the whole path of course, but enough to indicate a line that could be easily projected back if we but knew what it was. We have no geometry here, no structure, just a rubbery mesh of flexible words that could perhaps be pegged to the north path superstructure. No… not quite. So he goes on a different pile.

None of this makes sense in an effort to verify or confirm what a witness saw – but it does jive with a presumption of massive lying. When I mentioned McGraw ‘picking up’ a memory from others of the plane bouncing on the lawn, a clue against the pre-flyover pull-up, CIT responded “it indicates a propensity to deduce inaccurate information. Or it could be a deliberate "deduction" so you can make this very assertion.” Then they might include him only ‘in context of’ the official lie – an extension of it, an operative of some sort apparently sent in to lie about the impact and ‘deduce’ the poles as consistent, but clumsily give the lie away by failing to say he actually SAW THEM get hit or to pretend he clearly saw it to his left first, just south of some gas station he also couldn't name.

So if he wasn’t there, was he on the north path? Hypothetically, Craig conceded he may be a legitimate witness under the north path, fooled again by ‘sleight-of-hand’ into misreading the flyover (80 feet up) with an impact (ground level). But the clear presumption they proceeded on was that he wasn’t even there. In the video, Aldo notes his verification that he got out of his car about ‘45 seconds’ after the impact,’ but Mark Faram says the priest was crossing traffic to the Pentagon when he arrived ‘ten minutes later.’ Look at where he was (see graphic below - I placed him in the wrong lane) compared to the lawn he was photographed at later. Considering the traffic jam, walking/climbing time, the question of whether he walked down and then crossed the guardrail or vice-versa, and fuzzy rounding on either’s part, and we have how much of a reason to suspect he was trucked in later as another prop?

When I insist McGraw saw a path, if short, and could therefore never be a ‘no-pather,’ Craig let slip “Oh he did did he? It's funny how quick you are to shout conspiracy and accuse all 6 of the north side witnesses who prove the official story a lie as being deep cover operatives but you refuse to entertain the notion that a highly publicized official story witness like McGraw may have been involved.” First, I accuse no one of anything. Second: deep cover? Hardly! Their cover of logic and consistency being so shallow is the main problem. The problem in this case not the plausibility of their conspiracy theorizing, but the fact that this suspicion falls right on this possibly troubling account that they also handled too ineptly to get a reading off of. That is the only point I need make here.

Solutions: The Dark Lord’s Work?
CIT’s decision on how to handle this witness’ testimony is evident right in the intro text to the video published at their site: “This presentation features our interview with former Department of Justice attorney turned Catholic priest Stephen McGraw. We gave him the opportunity to tell his story on camera and to confirm or deny some of the suspicious details in his previously published account.” Indeed, McGraw was for five years a DoJ lawyer, before entering seminary and being ordained, curiously just three months prior to 9/11. His ties to Opus Dei [latin: The Lord’s Work], the mysterious Catholic sect that figures so strongly in The Davinci Code, is not explained in the video (but is here). But this and his previous DoJ connection were fused into a suspicion churning spiel by CIT narrator Aldo Marquis about FBI Director Louis Freeh and infamous Soviet double-agent Robert Hanssen, both Opus Dei and FBI and thus DoJ as well. “We should be more skeptical of highly publicized witnesses shrouded in dubious details who support the official story,” Craig also says, but with no concrete links it appears to be CIT themselves who are ‘shrouding him in dubious details’ when they mention the sect as being “favored by the Washington elite” and list its crimes as “espionage, perversion, government ties, and the well known dubious details surrounding this secret society." All these "are certainly relevant points,” Ranke reiterated, “when considering McGraw's high profile involvement with 9/11," and "if he isn't a traitor/spy like fellow Opus Dei sympathizer Robert Hanssen," the only other option worth considering, which I have shown to be highly implausible, is "that he was deceived in this 1 second military sleight of hand illusion just like the CITGO witnesses were." [5]

Whatever connection all this may have to McGraw, the suspicious just-ordained Father was (allegedly) on his way to administer rites at a funeral at Arlington when a suspicious ‘wrong turn’ brought him in front of the Pentagon. After I mentioned how he was stuck in traffic anyway and late for no reason already, and questioned the alleged oddity of his changing itinerary on account of 9/11 happeing right in front of his face,, Craig clarified “shirking his commitment to a mourning family waiting at the cemetery with their loved one in a casket is most definitely a questionable act.” [5] Perhaps questionable enough to suggest he wasn’t really on his way to a funeral at all?

All of this, once presented ‘in context,’ and what some take as an awkward or 'creepy' air about him, makes for some room for suspicion to flourish and clog the reliability conduit of this particular witness. The issue is not whether or not McGraw, or Opus Dei, is suspicious but rather why do they try so hard with this particular witness while giving the others a relatively free pass on the background check? I think the reason is plain to see and ties in nicely with their differing treatment of his location, point-of-view, and the like. These odd X-factors were certainly known as they decided which token south path witnesses they should interview who could be found just as suspicious - and at least as ambiguous - after their carefully-screened ‘verification.’

There’s been much hullabaloo from CIT over Arabesque and I accusing them of referring cab driver Lloyd England as ‘The Devil.’ As Craig explains “NEVER have we specifically called Lloyd or anyone "the devil.”” [8] Allow me to again clarify that I understand the term is used metaphorically; the overall plot - the attack, the cover-up, the whole sinister operation - was 'the devil.' Clearly however it’s a metaphor for something very bad and sinister, and Aldo says “I've spoken directly to operatives from the Pentagon attack. I have looked the devil in the eye.” [9] So someone they have talked to is a direct window onto this ‘devil’ of an operation. So if this was not about Lloyd, it was about someone, witting or unwitting, a part of this plot, and Aldo got close enough it sent a chill down his spine. In McGraw’s case in fact the metaphorical theology language suddenly becomes more apt. Perhaps he was the one Aldo was thinking about.

This behavior is what might be called, to quote Loose Change Forum member RacerX, “pissing in the witness pool,” and seems designed to clear the end they’re swimming in (I’m not sure if deep end or shallow end is the more appropriate metaphor). Fortunately we saw no charges of sexual abuse involvement alleged against this Catholic Priest, just vague insinuations of an Opus Dei/DoJ operative who ‘just happened’ upon the scene just in time to lend the weight of a priest’s testimony to the lies that would need to be sown. So other south path witnesses, step on up – CIT is still looking for you, and is very interested in hearing your story.
---
Sources:
[1] Phone discussion: Craig Ranke/Adam Larson. November 14 2007. http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-cl-phone-discussion.html Cited excerpt at 18:00 mark
[2] James Randi Educational Foundation Forums. JREF Forum->General Topics->Conspircy Theories->The testimony of Pentagon police officers SGT Lagasse and SGT Brooks->Page 4. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2470954&postcount=150
[3] "From The Law To The Lord" Citizen Investigative Team. Video, 2007. http://www.thepentacon.com/LloydEngland_AccompliceVideo.htm#FromLawtoLord
[4] Bart, Eric. "It Was A Plane Bomb: Eyewitness Accounts." http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
[5] Above Top Secret.com. 9/11 Conspiracies->Stephen McGraw: alleged Pentagon attack witness->Various posts, pages 1-3. Thread started by Craig Ranke CIT, December 11 2007, 12:08 PM.http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread320389/pg1
[6] Ranke, Craig. "Adam Larson's review of From the Law to the Lord, regarding suspect witness Stephen McGraw." Dec 7 2007, 11:13 AM. CIT->Detractors->CIT response. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=43
[7] Ranke, Craig. Comment left 12/8/07 5:13 at this post. Link back from outside: http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2007/12/previously-suspicious-father-mcgraw.html
[8] Ranke, Craig. CIT->Detractors->CIT response-> Caustic Logic and Arabesque's "devil" claim, more deceptive charachter assassination Dec 6 2007, 03:25 PM http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=42
[9]