MARIA'S MEMORIES

CIT EYEWITNESS VERIFICATION, PART VI
MARIA'S MEMORIES
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
October 9 2008
2am - minor edits

Maria De La Cerda is one of Citizen Investigation Team’s thirteen touted north-of-the Citgo witnesses, proving the flyover they all "simultaneously hallucinated" the opposite of. A member of an Army band who was at Arlington National Cemetery, (about where the eye is in the graphic below), she had been interviewed by the Army’s Center for Military History in February 2002 as NEIT 567. She first became known to the public by this name after John Farmer secured the release of many of these hundreds of CMH interviews in 2007.

CIT had initially found her “one of the most compelling accounts," and had her supporting both a north path (she described the plane as “directly up” and “over my head”) and set to be their second “flyover witness,” on the strength of her statement that the plane “seemed like it struck on the other side” from the one where she later observed the damage. Early in their analysis Aldo of CIT had gushed that NEIT 567 “thought that it flew over the Pentagon and crashed on the other side!!!" which, of course, "sounds like a flyover account to me.” Except that what was missing was always the "flew over and" part.

Later on, they managed to find her name and phone number, and in mid-2008, seven years after the event, verified Maria De La Cerda's account in their usual style, and featured the audio in their ambitiously self-destructive new video, at about 24:00 into part 2. Thankfully, they seem to have scratched the flyover witness plan and only decided to brand one (that Joker Roosevelt) with that distinction. But they did continue to hint at pull-up or flyover clues. They also dropped the “over” aspect, as this would place the plane too far north to support their other NoC witnesses. But they did find another reason to take her as a north path witness in their new video and companion article.

"Admittedly Maria is one of the weaker witnesses in support of the north side evidence because she could not see the gas station at the time of the attack and because of her hazy memory in regards to the plane in general."

Indeed, she had “tree cover” and thick - the Citgo station was invisible, as was most of the Pentagon, and all she saw of impact itself was the fireball rising high over the trees. When talking to CIT, she gives the impression this is the first thing she saw, and her memory being of high fire meant she thought it hit “on top” of the building, a memory that seems to have replaced “other side” (which she no longer recalls saying - see video, 31:10). That is, a high hit memory has nothing to do with the altitude of the plane; as CIT fairly summed up the point:

"[S]he initially thought that it "seemed like it hit the other side"! [...] She confirmed this to us in our interview but at this point her memory turned it into the fact that she initially thought the impact was "on top". She ended up reconciling this in her mind by the fact that this is "where the fireball was" so this is what likely caught her eye."

On that "hazy memory of the plane," at several points in her CIT verification she seems confused about whether or not she saw the plane at all before the crash, but Craig asked where it was in relation to the Citgo anyway. She said, with a bit of prodding, that it seemed to be “over Arlington Cemetery,” [32:00] but this can only be some sort of deduction, and of roughly no value. It’s this useless guess that is their reason to claim her as one of 13 NoC witnesses, aside from their bogus contention that “she likely would not have seen it at all from her location if it was on the official flight path.”

So this verification doesn’t do much to support the north side, nor to help us understand what her “other side” claim meant, since she can’t even recall making it. Now if she had seen the plane, this may have meant something - a deduction based on witnesses trajectory. If anything significant had faded by 2008, it may have still been fresh in 2002 when she actually recalled the “other side” impression as well as:

"I saw something really fast going to the Pentagon with the swoosh and I'll never forget it, it was so fast, and then a huge fire ball, explosion and smoke.”

Well, she forgot it, but Maria apparently saw the plane in flight, at least a glimpse, so she’d have some clue of its trajectory. Having seen this, she’d had to actually deduce a hit, behind the trees, to some side other than the one that was impacted. Apologies for the confusing graphic, presuming different path origins, including ones directly over her.

There are only four choices for the other side, and the only one that makes much sense caused me to place her on my own short list of SOUTH OF THE CITGO witnesses. Not the strongest, since she couldn’t actually see the station… but at least it fits her fresher memories, rather than the useless thing where the plane was maybe nearer the ANC than the Annex, at some point when she maybe saw it. But the fact that she recalls it “hitting on top” rather than “flying over the top,” as she must have actually seen, makes her memories “a prime example,” CIT announced, of “the power of illusion/deception in contrast to the vulnerability of the human mind.”

Try the power of the plane hitting the Pentagon, not flying over, and her view being blocked, and most of a decade having passed. This is the kind of crap they say when they know they don't have any real evidence to present. "Well she doesn't help much, but that's because she was maybe fooled, which shows how everyone else must've been fooled, which makes her a whatever... north, y'know... deception... witness... thing."

THE TAN BELLY

October 8 2008 4am

Just thought I'd post this, regarding Levi Stephens. Should be self-explanatory.

ETA: For the record, this seems to verify that they really did talk to Stephens, which many have doubted, since they haven't been able to share the audio. I've never doubted them on that, and in fact I thank them for gathering more good evidence for where the plane really was. Stephens couldn't even see the Citgo from where he was, so when he says it passed north of the station, it means little. But when he sees the brown dirt mound just south of it, the one that Turcios wasn't standing on, reflected in its undercarriage, which he could see, that's something useful.

Undefined deception of smoke and mirrors proposed. Mirrors here only seem to be revealing reality.

A MAN MISREAD, AGAIN

A MAN MISREAD, AGAIN
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
October 6 2008
Updated 10/7 1pm

Among the 13 north-of-Citgo witnesses recently published by CIT, is one I finally looked into a bit, an Arlington National Cemetery Facility Manager named George Aman. Like so many of the others, he was previously documented by the Center for Military History [all relevant cases catalogued and available here], and CIT says verified again by them. Unlike ANC witnesses Middleton, Prather, Stafford, and Carter, they do not offer a photo, any video, a drawn flight path, or any recordings or direct quotes. He's as "off the record" as anyone else. However, CIT will have the public know that:

"In both the CMH interview and in our interview George is clearly describing the plane north of the gas station and right over the parking lot in front of the maintenance buildings where he was in his office. […] In fact you can see how on page 19 of his CMH interview he specifically describes the plane as "turning and gliding" which instantly supports the north of the gas station bank as described by all the other ANC workers."

Planes can only "turn" and "glide' north of the Citgo? That's certainly news to me! What else do they have? Nothing new that they shared, just his old interview for reference. They cite him as NEIT 420, so I checked my files and although an ANC employee, it didn't seem a match for Aman. This one is interesting for its own reason, however. It would seem the audio tape had gaps far worse than those plaguing the recording of officer Roberts [all not in [square brackets] is as transcribed by CMH.].

“[…] I’m walking in this direction and ___. . . (20 seconds) and this is just about on top of the building, scraping the building […] And he ____ the building, he appeared that ___+ direction ___ . . . (95 seconds) and it went by, right passed out [sic] and went over there […]”

Damn, that’s a lot of evidence lost, more than remained, it would seem, leaving us a jumbled pile of loose words. In fact, this is perfect CIT mystery material, full of holes to fill in and “verify.” Will we see NEIT 420 appear on the NoC or whatever acronym list in the near future? Luckily the actual 420 link provided in CIT’s big essay connected instead to NEIT 419, which seems to be the correct transcript for the witness they cite and identify as Aman. Among the key passages:

[p 5] “[...] I open up my things here and I’m looking out and I see this big, large airplane and it looks like, I thought it was going to hit the building here […] coming down here and I thought it was coming, going to hit this building. […] The plane flies right over the parking lot here”
[p 19] "[...] When I seen he was kind of turning and gliding when he came across here, across the parking lot but when he got out right in front here, it sounded like he poured the coals on it."

If it were literally "over the parking lot," rather than "across" a line in the distance over the lot in his FoV, the plane would probably be invisible to him inside the building looking up at it out the window. His window faced south, so it had to be some distance south of his building. His impression that it might hit his building alos jibes with a heading towards it, rather than parallel. This does not sound like a purely west-east path like NoC, but rather with a north trend (towards him) like SoC.

And, sweet Jesus, he's a light pole impact witness like I've never seen before! Page 20, right between his "gliding" bit and the "honest embellishment" of seeing passengers' faces inside - how is this consistent with an "automatic" north path?

"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."

Looking forward to publication of this verification interview. Want list: the part where he actually says anything about the plane being north of anything - the part where you got him to explain he was just told about the light poles and deduced the actual flying things he remembered seeing - the part where he describes it banking hard right - the part where he sees it pull up rather than hit low - anything.
---
ETA: Craig of CIT informs me that the audio interview with Aman IS in the new video. My bad, as I only skimmed it. I'll report back now that they've released it, like a while ago. Also, 420 is Darrell Stafford, one of their ANC witnesses. Perfect CIT material is I guess recognized by CIT without prompting from me. And he paid off big time. (see comments below - a rare acceptance of a Craig comment).
---
update on Aman's testimony: My fault was in not noticing the video had two parts. Geroge’s interview is the first one in part 2, app 3:00 in. He doesn’t remember the color of the plane, seeing the C-130, or doing the CMH interview at all. What he does remember is the noise, and how it seemed to come in directly over the navy Annex when he first saw it. This proves nothing, however - from his PoV north of the scene, either path could well seem that way. He repeats “I thought it was going to smash into our building,” and this too can support either path – one was headed from southwest to northeast, and turning slightly north (towards them) along the way, The NoC path would only be coming right towards him only while over the Navy Annex, so when he first saw it, it would already be turning sharply away from them (right, south) and towards the pentagon.

He was asked about the parking lot and at 4:08 said “yeah, yeah” in response to “it was directly over the top of that?” At 5:05 he calls the plane “right over the parking lot,” and repeats it at 5:30. Again, unless it was very low, he likely wouldn’t really see it from inside if it were directly over. In fact it was further south, as it would have to be. At 5:14 he’s asked north or south of the citgo, he responds in I think an odd tone “it was right in between, in BETWEEN, the citgo gas station, AND – and the, the, the maintenance complex.” Below is a field of View analysis if he were outside the windowand in the parking lot he had the plane “over.” Note the inherent curve of the view, a natural “fisheye” effect of panoramic views that could warp one’s perception of the plane’s actual movements – the natural bias here would be to suggest a right turn, with it looking furthest north (closest/largest) as it passed them.
[right-click, new window for larger view]

What’s visible from inside would be a cropped version of this, set back to the north about 50 feet and behind a mid-height wrought-iron fence, and some number of vehicles, leaving an uncertain view of points of reference like the Citgo. I for one could probably not tell from here with any accuracy, whether it was north or south. Clearly we’re down to the range of reasonable perspective issues as explanation for his NoC testimony. But whatever the case, there it is - it’s certainly not their strongest case, but he said it was north, like the others did.

Oh, and of all the light pole witnesses to NOT ask if he just deduced that part, I didn’t hear Craig mention the light poles. The image above shows what a clear view he had of the first two, and though the fence may have obscured them, he remembers seeing the “things flying.” Obviously another deduction, too obvious to even bother asking I suppose?

THE LAST WORD ON THE "FLYOVER WITNESS"

THE LAST WORD ON THE "FLYOVER WITNESS"
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
First posted August 28 2008
Video added September 4


Online Videos by Veoh.com

So a while back I posted about a packet I had sent to CIT's alleged Pentagon “flyover witness” Roosevelt Roberts. It was returned to me unclaimed, either declined or sent to the wrong address. I had a second place to try him, and at least half-meant to. My general MO however is to not to bother the witnesses over idiotic miscontructions of the Comedy Improv Team or others, and even though I wanted clarification, I had been dawdling on trying again to contact him. Recent developments have shown me there is really no need to break my pattern. Everything was already explained well enough for my liking.

CIT had first aired an edited collage of his interview on Air America back in May, touted as the much-awaited lone witness to the flyover decoy plane immediately after the “impact” explosion. Finally SOMEONE immune to the unexplained optic trickery that fooled everyone else! There were some questions raised, and the team had been holding back their full interview, which is why I set out to contact Roberts. However, CIT recently released it at their discussion forum, apparently full and uncut, and I can see why they were sitting on it. I was first alerted to this by CIT critic “Biscuit Cough,” who transcribed it and offered some analysis at their forum and at Above Top Secret on the 18th. [Excellent work, mate!]

The audio file was posted as a subset of a separate issue: “C130 Arrived On Scene Nearly 3 Minutes After Event, Definitely not the plane Roosevelt saw.” Aldo Marquis preceded the link with a preamble to set the tone, which I’ve copied below with my corrections bracketed in red.

Pentagon officer Roosevelt Roberts Jr was at the loading docks and experienced the explosion [on TV, of Flight 175 at the WTC] (which he [Aldo] thought was [supposed to be] the impact [of 77 at the Pentagon]) inside. He details lights flickering and pieces of ceiling falling [lights unclear, ceiling problems only AFTER he saw the plane, below]. He then takes about "7 steps" out to the edge of the east end of the loading dock in South Parking lot and sees a "silver commercial aircraft liner w/jet engines (not propellors)" [over the lane one area, so west of him] traveling from the 27 side or from [actually TO] "where the 'first plane' hit" traveling east towards DC [and then departing the opposite direction, “southwest coming out”]. He said it was very low, he estimated 50 ft to less than 100 ft over the South Parking lot [lane one] area, he said it was banking and coming around to the mall entrance side [after being led to start making shit up]. Most importantly he described it like a 'pilot who missed the landing zone target and was coming back around' [and flying away to the southwest, which no one else reports]. Roosevelt saw the flyover plane [no, he saw Flight 77 on the approach and just didn’t describe the impact].

This interview for me represents the final word on Roberts, and it’s his own. Here's my attempt at drawing a light path. How did CIT have a hard time interpreting these words into a path? The loop here is perhaps tighter than he meant. Will have to be checked against other evidence to gauge its likely scale. I don't want to be accused of tightening it to make this breakthrough account seems less likely than it really is. This confirms their flyover findings perfectly, right?


ETA: Some words after the last word.

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.

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR 9:38

PENTAGON ATTACK TIMELINE QUESTIONS PART 3: OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR 9:38
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
August 7 2008
Last Updated 8/10/09

For those who see no reason to question the official time of the Pentagon attack, this post will be unnecessary. But for those confused by claims of different times, primarily 9:30-32 am, this may prove quite useful. If you're willing to learn... (sigh). Of all the times cited for the impact/explosion/whatever at the Pentagon on 9/11, one stands above as the most-cited, most-supported, and most-likely true – by this I mean, approximately, 9:38 am. Officially the explosive impact of Flight 77 is given as 9:37:45 or :46 based, it seems, on the Flight Data Recorder. In reality, the impact time is impossible to pin down exactly, but likely a bit after this, probably between 9:37:50 and :55 (see FDR section, first up). Following is a nearly-comprehensive list of the most direct evidence establishing the impact at right around that time.

1) Flight Data Recorder:
Much rhubarb has been made of the information on Flight 77’s Flight Data Recorder and how it doesn’t match the reality necessary to get it inside the Pentagon where it was said to be found. The last frame of data recorded is 9:37:44 or :45, depending on the exact file one’s looking at. While this is officially the moment of impact, the recorded values do not match those evident in the physical damage (most important – too high!) This is taken by some nitwits/liars as proof the plane didn’t hit. Another view takes this as a clue that this last data is actually NOT from the moment of impact, but a mile or more back, as the INS positioning says (it’s prone to error of about 1/2 mile I hear). Most analysts have come to this realization, though opinions differ on how far back, how much data is missing, and why (which is beyond the scope of this piece). Estimates range from 2 to 10 seconds remaining to impact at last frame, with the upper end of 8-10 seeming most likely to me, and placing impact at 9:37:50 or later. This slight variation of the “official” time alternates with it in the list below and illustrate that roughly all evidence points at a roughly 10 second time range best rounded to the minute as 9:38.

2) Radar:
We’ve always heard the radar data supported and defined this impact time, but fact is it can’t tell us exactly when, or even if, the plane impacted. The raw data of the Air Force’s 84th radar evaluation squadron (84RADES) was released in 2006 to researcher John Farmer, showing all returns from the DC area on 9/11. As I understand it, ‘blips’ are sent and returned every 12 seconds; the last three attributed to Flight 77 are at 9:36:48, 9:37:00, and 9:37:12 (see graphic at right, from Marco Bolletino’s reconstruction of the data). Before the next return, the airliner dropped below the coverage level of app.2,000 feet above ground [this altitude is passed by FDR about 9:37:18]. There is an established NEADS clock issue, known to be app. 25 seconds slow relative to other clocks in the FDR and at ATC facilities. Therefore, the last return would actually be at about 9:37:37, with impact presumably some seconds after that. This support is vague but would hint at an impact somewhat later than the official time less than ten seconds hence. On the other hand, the FDR pressure alt for 9:37:37 is 786 ft AGL, which seems too low to be just disappearing from radar. Perhaps I’m confused on the timeline discrepancy. Anyway, it’s all there… it doesn’t prove a 9:38 impact, but it fits it just fine.

1a+2a) FDR/Radar Combo:
In its Final Report, the 9/11 Commission gives the impact time of 9:37:46 [p 96], citing as its source NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77," created Feb. 19, 2002 by the National Transportation Safety Board. The full document in question is available in PDF form [here. The report in turn lists its sources as FDR data “as well as” (implying no conflict with) “radar data from the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air Route Traffic Control Centers, approach control at Washington Dulles Airport, and the U.S. Air Force’s 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron.” [This is the data examined above]. From this, the report summarizes that “the airplane accelerated to approximately 460 knots (530 miles per hour) at impact with the Pentagon. The time of impact was 9:37:45 AM.” Ooh! A one-second discrepancy! And both were likely a bit early, with the Commission closer it seems.

3) Arlington County Emergency System:
From Arlington County After-Action Report, and its first-hand access to emergency communications , we can see that key information was called in just before and after the 9:38 mark, and reactions followed in the next minutes, as recorded and logged as at a time generalized as 9:38. [emph mine].

“In the moments immediately before impact at the Pentagon, the Arlington County ECC began receiving 9-1-1 calls reporting a low flying airliner that seemed off the normal flight path. When the crash actually occurred at 9:38 a.m., all area communications seemed simultaneously overwhelmed. Firefighters calling the ECC couldn’t get through. Relatives of Pentagon workers found cellular and land lines jammed. Emergency traffic flooded radio channels.” [page A-34]

“Captain Steve McCoy and the crew of Engine 101 were […] traveling north on Interstate 395 [when they saw] a commercial airliner in steep descent, banking sharply to its right before disappearing beyond the horizon. At 9:38 a.m., shortly after American Airlines Flight #77 disappeared from sight, a tremendous explosion preceded a massive plume of smoke and fire. Unable to pinpoint the precise location, Captain McCoy immediately radioed the Arlington County Emergency Communications Center (ECC), reporting an airplane crash in the vicinity of the 14th Street Bridge or in Crystal City.” [page A-34]

At 9:38 a.m., a large smoke plume appeared beyond the Rosslyn skyline. Arlington County Police Corporal Barry Foust radioed the ECC that he saw an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon. The ECC swung into action [page A-35] […] [B]etween 9:41 a.m. and 9:43 a.m. on September 11, the ECC Administrator, Steve Souder, acting on his own initiative, contacted the Fairfax, Alexandria, and District of Columbia fire departments. He gave them identical instructions: deploy four engines, two trucks, one rescue unit, four EMS units, and a command officer to a staging area short of the Pentagon and hold them there until called forward.” [page a25]

4) C130 pilot report via FAA:
The 9/11 Commission briefly discussed the “second plane” at the Pentagon, a C-130H cargo plane dubbed “Golfer 06.” The Commission noted on page 26 of their final report:

“At approximately 9:38 A.M., the C130H aircraft reported to Reagan Airport controllers that the aircraft it was attempting to follow crashed into the Pentagon.” The source is given as “FAA audio file, Washington Tower, Tyson/Fluky Position, 9:38:52 .-M.; FAA letterhead memorandum, 'Partial Transcript; Aircraft Accident; AAL 77; Washington, DC; September 11, 2001,’ 7.

Although the two planes had crossed path just a minute before, both radar and the pilot’s own words agree that Golfer 06 was too far away to see Flight 77 itself at impact, but was close enough to see the smoke and to know where it was coming from. Certainly the impression was there from the beginning, and was only confirmed as it approached at 9:38, passing nearest to impact point at 9:39:15, after which it veered off to the north and west and continued on to witness the crash site of Flight 93 as well before reaching base in Minnesota.

5) 9:39 News Report - NBC:
Among the most solid clues to at least the general time of the attack of the Pentagon attack is in NBC News coverage of the 9/11 events. [video link - when watching the video, note that it starts at 9:12 am, so the video time is to be added to this for the real time] At perhaps 10 seconds after the 9:39 mark [26:24 video time], the newsroom interrupted its coverage to let Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski bring them their first news of something awry there. He told the nation:

"I don’t want to alarm anybody right now, but apparently - it felt, just a few moments ago, like there was an explosion of some kind, here at the Pentagon.” He explains he was on the east side of the mammoth building, opposite from the impact, so it was a big explosion. He saw no smoke from his side, inside the E ring, and didn’t know what was going on. “I just stepped out in the hallway, security guards were herding people out," he explained, meaning some time at least had elapsed. So far impact is looking to be one minute, 15 seconds before this broadcast. Sounds like “moments” to me.

6) Security video time stamps – Pentagon, Doubletree, Citgo:
Though neither the Citgo or Doubletree videos, released in 2006, shows the official time in their on-screen clocks, both timers roughly bracket it: Doubletree – 9:34:10 impact (app 3:35 behind) Citgo 9:40:36 (app 2:51 ahead)
It’s a very small sample to be conclusive, but this is what’s called a normal distribution, that sets a center point of app. 9:37:00. That’s pretty close for a sampling of two clocks, one of which also bears the default date of Jan 1 1993 [for a clue to the professionalism and precision of their deployment].
Regarding the time stamp of the Pentagon’s own CCTV gate cameras that famously captured the plane and impact, Col. Alan Scott told the 9/11 Commission in May 2003:

“The timeline on the impact of the Pentagon was changed to 9:37 -- 9:43 is the time that was reported that day, it was the time we used. And it took about two weeks to discover in the parking lot of the Pentagon this entry camera for the parking lot, which happened to be oriented towards the Pentagon at the time of impact, and the recorded time is 9:37. And that's why the timeline went from 9:43 to 9:37, because it is the best documented evidence for the impact time that we have.” [source]

It should be noted that the time stamp is not reproduced on-screen. The initial five released framed show a time of the following evening Sept 12 – much to the delight of mystery-mongers, it’s more likely the time the frames were processed and labeled “plane,” “impact,” etc… but they seem to have been recorded in the 9:37 slot on the correct day, and were in fact instrumental in setting the time initially. We find later it’s actually near the end of that minute, but still technically not 9:38.

7) Eyewitnesses:

Considering the known unreliability of eyewitness recollection, and that most people do not directly time-stamp their memories, it should not be surprising that this sector of the evidence is the least clear on the actual impact moment. Just a few of the published accounts provide useful clues, while many specifically disagree or are hopelessly vague. The oft-cited “9:30” is too common a rounding point to be taken too seriously, and it appears several times. A small sampling that are said to specifically cite something more like 9:32 were outlined in a previous post. But the sampling of five below does establish a normal distribution around the minute all other evidence is pointing at.

“It was about 9:35 […] it came from the south. […] I watched it come in very low over the trees and it just dipped down came down right over 395 into the Pentagon.” – Don Wright
“At 9:40 a.m. I was driving down Washington Boulevard (Route 27) along the side of the Pentagon when the aircraft crossed about 200 yards… in front of me.” - Donald R. Bouchoux
“At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me.” - Vin Narayanan
“At 9:35, as we were watching this on TV, we heard over the loudspeaker “All medical personnel report to the front desk of Medical.” We did not know at that time that the Pentagon had been hit.” - Captain William B. Durm
“About 9:30 or so — I don't know the exact time, maybe quarter to 10 — we were still in the conference room, and we heard and felt the loud explosion of the plane hitting the Pentagon, and it reminded me of an earthquake.” – Lt. Col. Frank Bryceland [note: the mid-point of the range from 9:30-45 is 9:37:30.]

Update:As the brilliant JREF member Mangoose pointed out to me a while back:

I would also draw your attention to the witness account of William Paisley who posts as Pinch at JREF and who has a blog http://www.instapinch.com/.

You might want to contact him directly but he has elsewhere related that he was at Crystal Park 3, 10th floor on 9/11, and was watching NBC coverage of the terrorist attacks; when he saw Jim Miklaszewki's report at 9:39:10 he took a few steps to his office window and immediately saw a billowing, building mushroom cloud of black smoke rising up above the roofs of the buildings between his building and the Pentagon. This is pretty good confirmation that the explosion was not too much sooner than 9:39.

8) Wall clocks at the Pentagon:
In the Book Pentagon 9/11 [Goldberg, 2007] is pictured a wall clock from an office above the impact area, stopped at 9:36:27 – one minute, 25 sec behind the time in discussion. This is reasonably close and solid evidence of the general time at least.
Ironically enough, the famous 9:30-ish stopped clocks, which stand as the best (basically only) evidence for a blast at that early time, may also support the 9:38 time-frame. Non-nutty 9/11 Truther Russell Pickering decided that the low time is a case broken mechanisms as the clocks hit bottom-first after falling from their mounts, with simple gravity responsible for pulling the hands down to near bottom. He issued a challenge for anyone to take, which no 9:32 event supporters did, For one, CIT ally Mirage of Deceit (nutty) later confirmed the results (link unavailable). The pictures indicate the minute hands were somewhere past the 6, not before, but little else can be said for sure. But since everything else says it all went down at 9:38, is it not reasonable to call these a double-confirmation of that time with gravity rounding it down towards 9:30? [note: although it seems to have fallen differently and onto carpet, a similar effect could be behind the above clock’s being behind – or perhaps someone at the Pentagon actually was synched over a minute behind.]
Case Closed
So now that the 9:38 case looks strong enough to actually absorb even the best early-attack evidence, I’d like to turn to some assorted other evidence that doesn’t fit, and for shits and giggles use it to craft smtig even stupider than the 9:32 Pentagon attack meme (which CIT doesn’t even buy). Who knows, some bold Truther might just run with the 9:30-or-before scenario (oops, they already have) or the 9:25 WTC attack (no takers yet).

CLOUT FLYOVER WITNESS

CLOUT FLYOVER WITNESS - FIRST AND FURTHER THOUGHTS
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
posted May 20 2008,
last update 6/9 3am

Craig Ranke, Citizen Investigation Team on Clout 5/15: "We recently have an exclusive interview with Two people saw the plane continue on past the Pentagon [...plays clip of one, see below...] this gentleman that proves the plane continued on after the explosion”

Host Richard Greene in response: "With all due respect Craig I don’t think it proves it. It’s certainly one person’s testimony which I’ve never heard before.” [and then he gave Honegger four minutes to repeat things he had, again.]

Aldo Marquis, CIT: "you guys heard it. We've got a flyover witness(es)."

Marquis: "Trust us people.....this is THE best flyover witness imaginable and his account is rock solid and corroborated." [note: possible confusion between 'imaginable' and 'possible']

Flyover theory first decided on by CIT around September-Nov. 2006. First time CIT has something they're comfortable calling a flyover witness? Just now, May 2008. And they have two. And more to come all of a sudden. Alright, but regarding this one, I’m not aware yet how they got ahold of this witness. He’s another Pentagon Police Officer, and given their track record for being straight with CIT in the past, that’s a bad starting point.

Witness location - working security at the time at the south parking lot loading dock. It's not clear if he was out in the little lot or under the roof (see graphic below). Time: just after the first violent event. [not made clear in audio itself]

Transcript from poor compression of audio of audio:
“I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe only seven steps away from there so it’s just extrememly close. You could see that plane just as clear as day.”
[...] “It was, to me, at that time, it looked like it was silver in color.”
[…] Aldo: ”[...]you saw it over the south parking lot?”
“Right. Around the lane one area and it was like banking just above the light poles like – had to be no more than 50 feet, or less than a hundred feet."
Aldo: "Wow. Are you 100% certain it was a jet, an actual jet plane?"
“Commercial aircraft”
Aldo: “So there was another commercial aircraft in the area as the plane hit then basically, is that what you think?"
"Yes sir, it’s not what I think I saw it. It it was two aircraft, that’s for sure."

This of course ties in very well with their two-plane cover story flyover explanation. However, as for the implications regarding the alleged flight path, am I understanding this correctly? CIT? You aren't banned here like I am at your forum. Your blathering isn't allowed, but a straight answer is. What am I missing? Was the plane literally OVER the south lot? How did it get there do you think and when?
Location of 'lane 1' thanks to a DoD PDF image courtesy Boone870. It fits my guess and makes the flyover to this part of the lot even less probable. It had to have looped around and come back just for this little show that so very few saw.

Regarding CIT's previous flight path, am I being deceptive and picking their worst fit? Well it would have to pass about through the blast fireball for the trick to work, and we know where that happened. As for angle, all would be impossible for a plane of any size at any speed to bank like that, but I'll let CIT's offering speak for themselves. How well does a path from the 'impact point' to the south parking lot work with any of these? (r-click, new window). Did it loop around and return, or what?
This one really doesn't fit
For a "3D" perspective on how impossible it is to connect all this to their long-awaited flyover witness!
Blue works best here, but none make much sense
The reasonable right bank in response to Reheat- Sacrificing witness details to try and satisy physics (still fails)
SPreston's effort from just a few days ago - oops! He was trying to help.

Update: Thanks to the on-the-ball John Farmer, we have an ID on this witness: DPS officer Roosevelt Roberts. Like Brooks and Lagasse, he was interviewed by the LoC in 2001 (Nov 30), interview available here. The interview is a bit confusing as to timeline (he saw the plane at 9:11 am?), as is his new interview, but he places a plane over the south lot, apparently after the explosion (audio gap leaves it a bit unclear). However, the LoC site says Roberts "talks about watching the plane before impact." I'll have a more detailed analysys later. I may know what's up with this and why this might prove a rather ironic twist. Keep an eye out.
---
Update: Aldo explains, sort of:
pinch: "So, can you clarify? Did the aircraft fly north of the Citgo, or did it overfly the south parking? You can't have both."
Aldo Marquis CIT; "Actually you can, especially if his perspective led him to believe it was "over" the parking lot. Especially if he is refering to south parking on the north side of the Pentagon, near the loading docks on that side. Especially if he is referring to the east end of south parking.

Okay, Aldo... you don't know where he was? What did he say when you asked him to clarify his position? Have you sent him a picture to draw the flight path on? This is important stuff, the FLYOVER WITNESS, and where he puts it going after that is important to understanding where to look for witnesses next, don't you think? South parking lot means what? Over means what? Lane one area is where? Plane was headed 'away' which way? Did you lose Roberts' phone number or do you intend to keep it nice and vague and all about the 'after' aspect? 'The plane was proven to be doing impossible things after the event so it didn't impact' just doesn't cut it. If it can't happen, guess what? It didn't. Please Citizen Investigators call him back and record the clarifications and get a flight path from him. It is worth it, isn't it?
---
Further developments, bound to keep being interesting:
The Flyover Theory Gets Some Faux Clout: The story behind the first airing.
When and Where? Establishing the open questions
Reality/TV If Roberts thinks he saw "another plane," what was the one before it that "hit the building?" It's not as obvious as CIT makes it seem.
- his 2001 interview with USU's Brennan in fraternity w/Brooks and Lagasse - Original tape missing
- Big Eyewitness news coming!!!: Regarding my attempt to contact officer Brooks. No luck so far... piece needs updated and will be updated again as needed.
---
Also, Roberts is mentioned in The PentaCon, I recall, by Officer Brooks, and argued about a bit between him and Lagasse. I'll have to dig that back up.

FLYOVER LINK DOESN’T LINK

FLYOVER LINK DOESN’T LINK
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
July 15 2008

Digging through John Farmer’s north-path flyover paper You All Just Haven’t Talked About it, I had to respond to this one point and draw attention to a little-known but verifiable witness that could confirm or deny it.

“Mark Gaffney and Pinnacle have already documented a plane that approached the White House from the Washington Monument area and was photographed by Linda Brookhart as it turned over the White House towards the Capitol Building.”

Before continuing, I should note that although we’re on bad terms at the moment, Farmer did send me Pinnacle’s documents to review, and I will. I’m still waiting for Gaffney’s book (is it out yet or what? I pre-ordered it months ago!) And for reference, this is the plane in question as snapped by Brookhart - refer to this picture when reading Farmer’s attempt to ambiguously blend this craft with the one seen by Lagasse, Brooks, and “NEIT428:”
“Further, Peter Jennings reported a plane over the White House at 09:41, 2 1⁄2 minutes after the Pentagon event official time of 09:38. So is the plane witnessed by the Citgo and ANC witnesses the same plane? Without more definitive evidence regarding the direction the plane left the area, it is difficult to say.”

The white four-engine plane over the capitol could not have been the same silver 2-engine AA airliner seen on the north flyover path. Further, the direction the plane left the area according to the Citgo witnesses was none. So no, it can't be the same plane. It's not "difficult to say" from my end, but I understand how others might have a harder time deciding.

For now I want to focus on a link in this path Farmer did not cite: Lt. Col. Stuart Artman. A local Florida paper described him on 9/15/01 as a 44-year old "licensed commercial airline pilot of the Army Reserve and engineer in Winter Haven, Florida” and gives his location at the time as “walking near the Washington Monument when he saw a plane fly low over the city." The only direct quote was "I saw the plane that hit the Pentagon. It went behind some trees." The paper followed with “then he saw the smoke.” [source]

It went behind trees, he saw smoke, he feels it hit the Pentagon. Deduced, of course. Here is a graphic highlighting the Monument area, which he was at or near, so exact PoV is unknown. There are several bands of trees he could mean, most likely on his side of the River. A CIT-type north path flover is in yellow, continuing towards the monument area, and the official path ending at the Pentagon is in purple.
Did it fly all the way to his rough location without re-emerging from behind the trees? Was he right under a really dense tree so he didn’t even see it overhead? Because he did not say the plane also flew over the Pentagon after the impact. He did not report any plane heading through the plume right towards him and on to the Capitol. If he had seen this, would he have called that “the plane that hit the Pentagon?” The paper did say “low over the city,” but this means nothing. It’s possible the reporter just doesn’t know the layout or didn’t ask specific enough questions to know if it was over DC or over Arlington.

Perhaps these weaknesses led Farmer to not include Artman in his short five-witness lineup for his paper, but CIT saw it differently, citing this brief account in The Pentagon flyover video, in their list of six additional witness accounts in support of the decoy plane looping over the Capitol either before or after it "hit the Pentagon." Aldo Marquis CIT also cites Artman’s account in his C-130 flight path essay in support of the contention:

“It is clear from a number reports that the plane flew over DC or the Capitol, so we really can't accept that it "had not crossed over towards the White House or towards the Capitol", as Mineta tries to assert.”

Who could believe Bush’s man Mineta over “a number of reports?” Never mind that it’s not just him, but also the radar, the black box, all the physical evidence, the roster of witnesses describing a path ending at the Pentagon, and the total lack of witnesses to any flyover, including the supremely well-placed Lt. Col. Artman that indicate the plane was perhaps headed towards the monuments and the mall but never got that far, having been traumatically absorbed by the Pentagon short of crossing the river.

Can Mr. Artman be contacted by CIT or Farmer, Gaffney, Pinnacle, or any other flyover proponent to get some details on this flight roughly over his head that was omitted from the scrap of his account we have? This is very Important I should think. Perhaps he was being censored in ’01 and maybe he’s been “gotten to” since, but it should not be left unexplored. He does seem to appear in people searches, all you guys, and all the clues you need are in this very post. I would perhaps offer to try myself, but I have no questions for the man and the onus is on those trying to prove some stupid hobbled-together "deception." Best of luck.

FARMER'S 2ND PLANE THEORY: FIRST THOUGHTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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