'Flight 77's' Shadow in Citgo video?
I'd like to draw attention to a little-noted feature of the Citgo security video, seen in view "single pump side" camera 4, at 9:40:35 by camera timestamp. The view is looking south, takinf video at three frames per second. Two synched dark spots appear and disappear in the span of one frame. 
A short video I did to help people see it. Please note this is not the best source for analysis, even lower resolution than the original video, and using slow-motion and cross-fade effects.
Believe it or not, there's good reason to believe these 'two dots' are the shadow cast by Flight 77 as it passed south of the Citgo.
Here's about what the camera was looking at. Site photos by John Farmer. The security camera was set higher and looking down at the surface of South Joyce Street there.
shadow location (app.) by camera view subdivision.
One distinct possibility - to scale
And here is a perspective model I made with a 757 shadow to scale. Note also how in the foremost section the fuselage shadow and engine shadows, if divided from the rest, would appear as three separate shadows, one of which disappears once distorted along the lines of the video view, the parts at the top hidden by perspective, the lens, and the canopy (bottom).
Using a sun azimuth of 113 degrees (the one effective at 9:38 am at the Pentagon on 9/11/01) and the official/damage path, the plane would be here relative to the shadow.
Using this distance and the effective sun alltitude at the time of 32 degrees above the horizon, the plane would be about 115 higher than the shadow. Again, all somewhat approximate.
The distance from shadow-casting position to impact point, measured again, looks like almost exactly 1560 feet. With something like 130 feet descended as well, I’ve used a total distance of 1,690 feet.
Speed – 530 mi/hr = 777.3 ft/sec
1690ft / 777.3 ft/sec = 2.174 seconds
Compare this to the 2.167 seconds between the shadow’s appearance in the video and the first light effects on the building.
Working the other way back, we get
1690 / x = 2.167 -- x = 779.88 ft/sec = 531.7 mi/hr
Compare this to the ‘official speed’ of 530 mph.
A perfect fit for the timeline.
This rate of pitch change is more extreme than anything I've found in the FDR, but not by much, and again there's the fudge factor inherent in all this.
If you're not getting the picture with just the pictures, see my Fuller explanation.
Thank you all for your careful consideration.
- Caustic Logic's blog
- Login to post comments
Smoking Shadow?
Impressive work as usual Caustic.
In summary:
Shadow appears at approximate location expected.
Shadow appears to face correct direction headed to impact
Shadow appears to line up with light pole damage (and light pole damage lines up with structural damage inside of the Pentagon)
Shadow appears to line up with correct speed of impact expected
Now what are the odds of that?
Regarding the CITGO witnesses... I've already dealt with this, but to recap:
The interviewer then explains that “the official story says that the plane came on the south side and hit the light poles here [pointing].” Legasse responds: “No Chance.There’s no chance. If… as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here [where Lagasse claims the plane flew] that was knocked down, and there was [another] here, that was knocked down—not any over here… none of these light poles over here were knocked down… I’ve never seen anything that was on the south side of that gas station—ever.”
Absolutely false! Lagasse is wrong. Lagasse continues, “I don’t have eyes in the back of my head.” This assumes he was facing in the direction he remembered.This is a possibility as Lagasse misremembers where he was standing at the gas station.He claims with confidence:
“This is where the taxi cab was. Right here.Not over there. Nothing happened over here!”
Wrong again.So much for “100%—I’d bet my life on it” certainty....
This shows that Laggase’s entire testimony about the flight path is in doubt.If he cannot determine where the real lamp poles and the taxi cab were, we have strong reasons to doubt his testimony about the flight path.If he does not know where these objects were located how could he remember which direction the plane flew? Especially noteworthy is the fact that he claims that the flight path was approximately where he thought the light poles and taxi cab were—is it reasonable to think that the plane flew where the real lamp poles were—not where he thought they were?
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smo...
Not to mention that the PentaCon witnesses claimed the plane hit the Pentagon.
Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op
Intended to create circus of interest around 'no plane' theories, later debunk them
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/pentagon_video_is_giant_psyop.htm
______________________________
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com
Logical fallacy.
Lagasse did not see the plane hit any light poles or the light poles hit the cab.
But he most certainly DID see the plane on the north side like everyone else.
OF COURSE he would assume the downed poles that he didn't see line up with the trajectory of the plane that he did see.
The fact that he was incorrect on the placement of the downed poles does NOT contradict his placement of the plane in the least. To suggest it does is a logical fallacy of the highest order.
You are deceptively attributing Lagasse's "bet my life on it" quote to the light poles when he was referring to the plane being on the north side.
Lagasse would not have been able to see the plane at all on the south side from where he was standing.
All of the citgo witnesses saw the plane on the north side and NONE of them saw it hit the poles.
You don't have to rely on Sgt. Lagasse.
Plus we know that even your inaccurate, deceptive compilation of mainstream media witness accounts does not support the notion that a plane hit the light poles.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/12189#comment
The plane was on the north side and the two dots in this invalid and proven manipulated government supplied data does not even come close to contradicting the rock solid north side evidence that is corroborated by all and refuted by none.
You guys sure work hard to support the official story in light of the incredible amount of evidence proving it a deception.
"bet my life on it"
Incidentally, when I watched your video and Lagasse's "bet my life on it" was repeated in a slowed-down version, I wondered why it was repeated that way. That gave a strange impression and somehow detracted from the feeling of trustworthiness. I even wondered if that was some kind of a "signal". Anyway, I hope it was simply a stylistic trick.
we did it simply as emphasis.
It was an important and critical statement that proves 9/11 was an inside job.
Perhaps the effect was a bit thick but the validity of the statement was corroborated by all other witnesses and refuted by none.
Good point. I've thought
Good point. I've thought about that too. Say he were a 'plant,' for whatever reason told to go say North Path." HYPOYHETICALLY! How? Get this guy to say what he saw but flipped N-S relative to the Citgo. Perhaps in some way he had bet his life on it. Just another thought.
- Maintain vigilance and calm
just another ignorant thought.
His account is corroborated by all witnesses and directly refuted by none.
He actually didn't refer to it as simply "north" and has maintained that he was on the "starboard" side of the plane.
The entire purpose of interviewing him on location was to make sure there is no ambiguity about this.
The second he pointed towards Arlington National Cemetery world history was made via quadruple independent corroboration. He could not have accidentally pointed in the wrong direction.
The fact that you have to push your absurd conspiracy within a conspiracy of them all being cointelpro simply shows how bad you have to reach to refute it.
"none of these light poles over here were knocked down"
"Lagasse did not see the plane hit any light poles or the light poles hit the cab."
Lagasse is denying that light poles were knocked down where they WERE knocked down.
Lagasse: "No Chance.There’s no chance. If… as a matter of fact [emphasizing strongly], there was a light pole here [where Lagasse claims the plane flew] that was knocked down, and there was [another] here, that was knocked down—not any over here… none of these light poles over here were knocked down… I’ve never seen anything that was on the south side of that gas station—ever.”
That's a smoking gun alright... a smoking gun that his testimony isn't reliable.
If he thought the plane flew where he THOUGHT the light poles were knocked down... and the light poles were actually knocked down elsewhere.... gee, couldn't that mean, the plane flew there instead? The plane flew where the light poles were really located? Isn't that a possibility?
The fact that you will not even CONSIDER this possibility, shows that you are biased. It is very obvious that you REFUSE to seriously consider or acknowledge any evidence whatsoever that contradicts your theory.
The point is he is CLAIMING there were NO LIGHT POLES knocked down WHERE THEY WERE KNOCKED DOWN. It can't get any clearer than that. There is clearly a logical fallacy happening here, but it's not coming from my end.
I find it incredibly amazing that you will debate this point.
But then again, I find it even more amazing you argue a flyover when 3/4 of your witnesses said the plane hit the Pentagon.
But hey, I'm just a "anonymous blogger"--I guess you can't trust the logic of what I am saying based on that.
______________________________
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com
Kudos on that one Arabesque.
Kudos on that one Arabesque.
Hmmmm... it flies north, seems to impact - he gets up close (detecting no sign of explosives he says), sees the poles over there -- maybe he doesn't think about it.
Then he contacts Eastman in 2003 - no, it impacted. I saw it north and it impacted. Eastman pushes this as proof the plane couldn't hit poles or building. Lagasse apparently misses these later pieces.
He has three years to think it over, apparently never does put 2+2 together. He agrees to talk to CIT and is presented as if for the first time with the 'official story' on the poles. He's not just confused, he know they're over here, some others, whatever. Mental gymnastics. Anyway, it was north and it impacted. Blissful ignorance, still no public retractions or comments/clarification.
He 'felt good' that Chad's line matched his own. Perhaps it was getting lonely out there.
So many possibilities, only one CIT will ever accept or even consider.
- Maintain vigilance and calm
HE DID NOT SEE THE LIGHT POLES.
Your straw man argument of his placement of the poles THAT HE DID NOT SEE cancelling out his placement of the plane that he DID SEE is pathetic and has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on his completely corroborated north side testimony.
If the other witnesses saw the plane on the south side you would have a point. Since they all saw it on the north side you have none.
Lagasse did not see the poles.
He specifically says this.
None of the witnesses saw the plane hit the poles because they were not hit.
The poles were a relatively insignificant part of this chaotic and incredible world historical event to anyone present so there is no reason to assume he would take special note of their exact location on the ground let alone remember it accurately.
If he did he probably would have never given the interview because he would have been aware of the deception.
There is also no reason to assume he would study the poles after the event and given the fact that all official reports completely ignore the poles he wouldn't have found out anything about the pole location from them anyway.
It makes perfect sense that he would insist that the downed poles line up with where he saw the plane.
This only proves how sure he is of where the plane was! It does NOT cancel out his north side testimony at all! In fact it bolsters it.
It's the only way he COULD have reacted.
No honest researcher could possibly suggest that Lagasse's testimony should be dismissed based on this straw man especially given the fact that all other witnesses place it on the north side as well.
The notion that you are expecting Lagasse should have researched all the physical damage and came to the conclusion that him and all the other witnesses were hallucinating the plane on the north side is ludicrous. Yet this is your argument.
EVERYONE saw the plane on the north side.
This PROVES a military deception on 9/11 but instead of accepting this notion you attack the witnesses credibility and CIT using a straw man argument all in the name of dismissing this evidence in favor of the official story.
It's sickening and it follows no legitimate logic, reason, or critical thinking principles.
Your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy yet that doesn't stop you from faking like you are a critical thinker.
Thanks Mr. A. I was hoping
Thanks Mr. A. I was hoping for a little more attention for this evidence of either a 757 on the official path or blatant fakery to that effect. But it's like at the other forums - the best points often are ignored in favor of debating hograms and such. Perhaps I'm out of step with the Loose Change meme everyone's re-embracing as LCFC comes to the surface finally.
- Maintain vigilance and calm
This is not valid evidence.
No honest investigator would accept data that was controlled and provided for solely by the suspect as valid evidence in support of the suspect's story.
Trying to prove the official story correct with evidence that the government provides is even worse than citing mainstream media witness accounts without any scrutiny or investigation to support the official story.
It runs counter to all logic, reason, and everything that the movement stands for.
Plus it has already been proven that the government has manipulated this data to remove the the most critical views.
Why you would think for a second that the movement would be receptive to an analysis of invalid proven manipulated data in support of the official story is beyond me.
fair point
Anyone who doesn't already know go ahead and check out that argument. The video could be manipulated. Or it might've really captured this shadow and your witness not responding like he told you he did. All I'm realy talking about is what it shows. It could have been recorded by light and dark entering the camera lens or with digital editing later. Neither can be absolutely proven.
I am not trying to prove the official story correct with this evidence, only trying to show how well supported it is by all evidence taken collectively. This is just my newest point.
- Maintain vigilance and calm
if it's a valid point why do you ignore it?
What I said was.....
>>>>>>>No honest investigator would accept data that was controlled and provided for solely by the suspect as valid evidence in support of the suspect's story.
This data is invalid REGARDLESS of whether or not evidence tampering has been proven.
The fact that it has only bolsters this point and further implicates the suspect!
If you are not conducting an investigation against government involvement in 9/11 then you are spending what you characterize to be 'way too much time" defending their story against the truth movement.
There is no other purpose for scrutinizing this data so heavily unless you do it for fun and if that's the case I suggest you seek help asap.
If I'm ignoring it, why am I
If I'm ignoring it, why am I calling it a valid point? Your way of admiting its validity is to assume this evidence is somehow 'invalid' and should be totally ignored. I can think of about ten reasons your witnesses should be considered invalid but I accept all evidence as it is and look at the different things each piecee could indicate. ex: shadow could be real or painted in. Witnesses could be authentic or plants to confuse us.
It's curious that even tho your north path is 'proven,' and this shadow therefore 'proven' inserted, that you aren't embracing this new 'proof' of 'military deception.' Instead you ignore it. Duly noted.
- Maintain vigilance and calm
you have to look at evidence in context of the investigation.
Otherwise you have no purpose.
This is an investigation into the government's involvement in the 9/11 attack.
The government is the suspect.
No honest investigator/researcher would accept evidence that was controlled and provided for solely by the suspect as valid. The data is therefore invalid even WITHOUT proving manipulation.
THIS is the fact that you ignored in favor over the impossible task of "proving" the dots were manipulated or leaving the question open over whether or not frames were deliberately removed. (even though we know they were)
Yes witnesses can be plants but this can not be automatically assumed and that is exactly why independent corroboration is important.
Corroborated first-hand testimony obtained independently during the course of this investigation is valid evidence.
A grainy video released by the suspect as damage control after they have been caught in a deception is not.
The fact that you are having trouble grasping this concept is well.......troubling.
"You have to look at
"You have to look at evidence in context of the investigation. Otherwise you have no purpose."
I think by the 'the investigation' you mean YOUR investigation.
"This is an investigation into the government's involvement in the 9/11 attack.
The government is the suspect."
See my investigation of the Pentagon attack is simply into what happened. Overall gov't/elite/whatever complicity/orchestration of 9/11 is something I've always suspected, but I remain leery of 'proof,' especially when it pops up where, it seems to me, it shouldn't. The rubble at the Pentagon, where it seems a 757 crashed, is not the place to look IMO. Perhaps it was remote control, but something took down the poles, put plane parts in the building, got eyewitnesses thinking it was the plane that did it, etc. It's certainly POSSIBLE each of these was orchestrated individually by a careful script, but I still think it's AT LEAST worth considering it was all done in one efficient swoop. I go beyond just considering, but that's just me, one voice.
"No honest investigator/researcher would accept evidence that was controlled and provided for solely by the suspect as valid. The data is therefore invalid even WITHOUT proving manipulation."
You think an honest researcher would automatically ignore all evidence the perp touched? If I knew more detective types I'd ask them how well that theory of yours really fits known investigative procedures. Seems it should raise doubts of course... And if this is so, can you PROVE to us that Defense Protective Services officers Lagasse and Brooks WERE NOT "controlled and provided for solely by the suspect?" If you just say 'they're countering the official story' again, let me append in advance 'in a stupid and discrediting way.'
"Yes witnesses can be plants but this can not be automatically assumed and that is exactly why independent corroboration is important."
If 'no honest investigator/researcher would accept evidence that was controlled and provided for solely by the suspect as valid,' would it be okay to unquestioningly embrace as true something uttered by a POSSIBLY controlled witness? So if you get a witness planted to seed a false story to the world to confirm this false story for your camera, that proves what?
"Corroborated first-hand testimony obtained independently during the course of this investigation is valid evidence.
A grainy video released by the suspect as damage control after they have been caught in a deception is not."
Alright, so we all understand that about the methods of YOUR investigation. Thanks for clearing that up. MY investigation simply works different. And others' work how they do. Cool.
- Maintain vigilance and calm
If the government isn't the suspect in your investigation....
Then you work against the truth movement.
Plain and simple.
This is an information WAR and the government has the benefit of control of the media, all the power, technology, money, and methodology to manipulate and DECEIVE the masses.
This isn't MY investigation it is the TRUTH MOVEMENT'S investigation that has the momentous task of working against all of that.
By not clarifying what side of this information war you are fighting for you are by default working to defend the government.
There is no way around this.
You can NOT be unbiased in this investigation.
The owners and participant here at 911blogger KNOW that 9/11 was an inside job.
The truth movement KNOWS that 9/11 was an inside job.
All we are doing is figuring out ways to lift the veil of lies to uncover further proof that will help to deprogram the masses.
If you fail to understand and acknowledge this then you are a clear enemy in this information war.
Your convoluted, inaccurate, neutralization pieces and continuous attacks on others in the movement make this quite evident but you have in essence just admitted it.
A blinding analysis based on nothing
All of this analytic elaboration here looks very impressive apart from the very crucial point of departure which should draw the most attentive analysis because it is the only connex (maybe) to the real event.
I have tried to look at that tiny fragment of a video and I just can't believe you start building upon nothing.
It's not nothing. We're
It's not nothing. We're talking about it... it's dark, appears and disappears in less than .333 seoconds...
Only the shape of the shadow is inconclusive. Its location and timing indicate the official flight path and speed, and roughly at least its altitude.
Okay, maybe I'm being too dogmatic, but c'mon, it COULD be something selse, but this all fits so well...
What this seems to be is either further evidence the 'official story' is correct - in the sense that some kind of 757 clipped the poles and damaged the buildigng and left its parts inside - or that they have clearly doctored evidence to support such. Depends on your point of view I guess.
- Maintain vigilance and calm
Disinfo at it's finest...
Remember, the video was released BECAUSE OF US and THE NORTH SIDE APPROACH AND PULL UP.
Citgo employee Robert Turcios gave us the final word on the approach. 10 days later, 5 days after announcing it publically, they released the video.
Then you have the "team" that came out after to help reinforce it. "John Farmer", "Arabesque", and "Adam "Caustic Logic" Larson".
There is not a doubt in my mind that we are dealing with ops here.
I dare Adam Larson to provide a history and proof of his identity. I defy Arabesque to do the same.
You can all laugh, but what they do is called "neutralization". This is exactly what COINTEL ,does amongst other things, like calling us "frauds", "profiteers", "liars" etc.
Neutralizing is dangerous. It leaves us in limbo, it leaves us stuck with no real resolution. It is meant to cause jut enough doubt that you feel you don't know what happened and leave confused.
If they were at all honest, they would tell you the whole story behind that video and admit that we proved it was tampered with.
But they won't. You should all stop and think why.
Nice to be able to talk to
Nice to be able to talk to you again under your preferred screen name, Merc.
So now I'm an obvious operative because I'm willing to talk about the obvious shadow on the ground? How's about you stick to the topic? I dare you to talk about the obvious shadow on the ground. Or ignore it and call me names. I got my own name up there. I got no relevant secrets. No suspicious connections, nothin. I work as a janitor and at a call center. I spend way too much time on this. I live in a shit city in the NW. That's all you need to know. Send your amy after me if you must, I've been brushing up my king fu.
"Neutralizing is dangerous. It leaves us in limbo, it leaves us stuck with no real resolution. It is meant to cause jut enough doubt that you feel you don't know what happened and leave confused."
You sound like Bush there, dude. Sure we got you into the war in Iraq with lies and by a script written out before 9/11, but to question our motives or goals in Iraq now only sows confusion and discord, yadda yadda, gotta stay the course.
If the road is wrong get off it wheneveryou realize, id it's right just stay on it. A real researcher tackles all evidence and tries to incorporate it into a coherent explanation for the one true way things happened. The shadow is there. It ain't going away. How do you explain it?
- Maintain vigilance and calm
just listen to your deceptive rhetoric.
"Obvious shadow"?
Hardly.
There is nothing obvious in that horrible quality video but there is certainly zero proof those two anomalous dots are shadows at all let alone the result of a 757 that has been proven to be on the north side of the station.
Whether or not you are an Op or simply a dupe that has been inspired by Ops you sure are pushing their agenda and talking points stronger than anyone else.
Maybe you ought to pay more attention to your career and family because as it stands by neglecting them you are helping cover up mass murder with your badly composed, convoluted, inaccurate, neutralization efforts.
>>Send your amy after me if
>>Send your amy after me if you must
This is how people are made to feel if they dare to consider that AA77 hit the Pentagon, and it's not without a basis. It says alot about the relevance of the frantic need for some, for everyone to believe that AA77 could never have hit the Pentagon.
People who have sincere interest in evidence don't generally bother people who disagree with them, attack them personally, etc. They just debate the evidence. Usually it's clear when someone cannot win a debate -- they call a name, they huff off and say it's rigged, etc. But generally if they move into the area of calling someone an agent they expose themselves as probably unable to win any debate, since they are seeing "evidence" where none exists. The problem is when you get people who have little or no critical thinking abilities who cannot believe they are wrong when their gut is telling them they are right. So the debate moves away from logic quickly and into personal issues, and increases from there.
what are you talking about?
>>>>>People who have sincere interest in evidence don't generally bother people who disagree with them, attack them personally, etc. They just debate the evidence. Usually it's clear when someone cannot win a debate -- they call a name...
CIT has never gone after anyone in the movement first and we will debate/discuss the information with anyone, anytime, anywhere.
All of the people mentioned have publicly ATTACKED us first completely unprovoked.
We never heard of Caustic Logic until he attacked us by calling us "Pentagon sponsored disinfo".
Arabasque is an anonymous blogger who suddenly appeared out of nowhere shortly after the release of our data with an inaccurate hit piece on our research based on logical fallacies and misinformation.
Your partner Jim Hoffman has chosen to publish a libelous web page suggesting we are promoting a "hoax" and labeling us disinfo based on nothing but the lies and logical fallacies in the inaccurate hit piece published by anonymous blogger Arabasque.
John Farmer has acted like he supported us but suddenly spiraled into an all out public personal attack complete with childish name calling simply because we used one of his images in a forum.
Even you refuse to debate us on the information and simply use sarcasm and vague rhetoric to cast doubt and attack us personally.
CIT did not initiate contact with ANY of these people and all have chosen to very publicly attack us personally and our research.
We merely defend ourselves with facts, logic, and direct evidence.
So your vague comments are actually quite accurate when applied to you, your partner, Arabasque, and Farmer.
I have to give Caustic Logic credit for being the only one willing to debate us.
Naturally it has ended with him making some sort of concession virtually every time.
So is Jim going to remove his libelous claim about us from his website or will we be forced to take further action?
Will you or Jim ever address the evidence we present direct or muster up the courage to discuss the information with us in a public debate?
And I never attacked you
And I never attacked you until I saw your public video that offended my sensibilities as a researcher. You go public with something like this, why are you so shocked that people will publicly disagree?
(add'l thoughts held back to avoid new fights).
- Maintain vigilance and calm
offended your sensibilities????
You have got to be kidding.
You just contradicted yourself.
<<<<<<"I never attacked you until I saw your video...."
Ummm.....That is admitting that you attacked us.
We had never heard of you or your blog until you saw our video and publicly attacked us personally without any basis whatsoever. That was how you introduced yourself.
OF COURSE we expected to get attacked for this information but certainly not by honest researchers.
How could evidence "offend" your "sensibilities as a researcher"??
That is ludicrous. The fact that you ADMITTED it was an unreasonable knee-jerk response and took it down proves that there is no valid basis for a statement like that.
You only get credit for admitting your fault and removing your attack review when I approached you but you only stepped up your neutralization/confusion pieces like this one after that.
You did more than "publicly disagree". You straight up ATTACKED us without a valid reason.
You, Pickering, Arabasque, Hoffman, and now that lunatic missile/drone fanatic Terral ALL went after us first.
We merely defend ourselves with logic, reason, and hard evidence.
I look forward to your debate with Aldo.
What's a good time frame for how soon before you'll be ready?
Yes, offended my
Yes, offended my sensibilities. You arten't the first or the last. I wasn't eager to attack or less so anyway when I realized I'd have you over my shoulder and in my face, which is fair I guess just unexpected. But I had staked out this turf hoping the no-planers/etc. were on the way out and I'd help w/cleanup. THEN your video and how could I not tackle that?
"Ummm.....That is admitting that you attacked us."
Ummm... and that's using the post title extracted from the first words of that sentence as if I wrote "I didn't attack you period." I didn't mean to attack you guyspersonally except in that you're the persons who made this BS flyover fantasty movie that is stronger than it deserves to be due to curiously helpful but inconsistent witnesses.
"OF COURSE we expected to get attacked for this information but certainly not by honest researchers." So that's why you were shocked? I'll take it as a compliment...
"You did more than "publicly disagree". You straight up ATTACKED us without a valid reason."
I've shared my reasons every step of the way dude.
"I look forward to your debate with Aldo.
What's a good time frame for how soon before you'll be ready?"
Times and terms, see below.
- Maintain vigilance and calm
"Arabasque is an anonymous blogger"
"Arabasque is an anonymous blogger who suddenly appeared out of nowhere shortly after the release of our data "
That sounds familiar... that's how Tarpley described me.
I've posted more blogs here than almost anyone... anyone at this site knows that. And I was here a long time before your misinformation filled video came out.
Your own witnesses said the plane hit the Pentagon, and one of them didn't even know where the light poles were actually knocked down. Not to mention no one claimed a commercial plane flew over the Pentagon. And then you call your film "smoking gun".
And then you try to use your version of "logic" to debate this.
When that fails, you resort to ad-hominem attacks like "anonymous blogger", "blogger", "not part of the truth movement", "liar", "disinformation" and "appeared out of nowhere".
And then you go around saying you don't personally attack people. Even after being banned from forums multiple times for disruptive behavior.
After a while, it makes you wonder if you are really genuine in what you are doing, or if I should even take you seriously if you engage in this kind of behavior.
______________________________
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com
Anonymous bloggers don't solve crimes
>>>>>Arabasque is an anonymous blogger who suddenly appeared out of nowhere shortly after the release of our data "
That sounds familiar... that's how Tarpley described me.<<<<<
And it is 100% accurate.
>>>>I've posted more blogs here than almost anyone... anyone at this site knows that. And I was here a long time before your misinformation filled video came out.<<<<<
Oh my goodness. Well you've posted on 911blogger more than anybody. Well there you go. You must be an authority on everything related to 9/11 huh?Misinformation? You have some nerve. You have piecemealed this horrible analysis of our data using fraudelant info.
YOU CITE PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT EVEN THERE OR COULD NOT EVEN SEE THE PENTAGON AS WITNESSES. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF. YOU CALL YOURSELF A :RESEARCHER"? You are an anonymous DISINFO agent. You fix your blog yet? How many times did Craig and I call you out and you still haven't fixed it. You are F____ disinfo.
>>>>>>Your own witnesses said the plane hit the Pentagon,<<<<<<<
Yes. IN THE VIDEO. They also said the plane approached from the north side. How many times do we need to tell you this? Lagasse also flinched and jumpedi nto his car after seeing the plane too his left, so he DEDUCED the impact. Do you understand what deduction means? Brooks also said he could have been fooled and that our movie was an "eye-opener". Robert Turcios saw it pull up over the highway headed to the Pentagon.
>>>>and one of them didn't even know where the light poles were actually knocked down.<<<<
You are such a disgusting entity. Call him you coward. Call him. WE HAVE TOLD YOU A MILLION TIMES. You can't see the poles from there. He flinched. He drove up on the scene and saw poles 4 & 5 on the ground, remembered where he saw the plane and deduced which poles were hit. What does that have to do with all of them placing it on the north side, Disinfobesque? What about Levi Stephens is he mistaken too? You are a joke and we're coming for you.
>>>>>Not to mention no one claimed a commercial plane flew over the Pentagon. And then you call your film "smoking gun".<<<<<<
Does one actually need to, you crackpot? The plane was on the north side. THAT is the smoking gun. Do you understand anonymous disinfo op?
>>>>>>>And then you try to use your version of "logic" to debate this.<<<<<<<<<
Our version of logic? I am seriously trying to contain my anger here. You....cited...witnesses....who...weren't....even....THERE. How is that logical?
>>>>>>When that fails, you resort to ad-hominem attacks like "anonymous blogger", "blogger", "not part of the truth movement", "liar", "disinformation" and "appeared out of nowhere".<<<<<<<<
Fails? Not one bit. You are pegged and a joke. You are a tool for the unitiated and unresearched. You peddle day dreams for these idiots who bought into the honey pot theory or LIHOP. Yet, you are simply that, an anonymous blogger who has never interviewed witnesses, victims, rescuers, firefighters. You've never even set foot in Arlington, huh? You make me sick.
>>>>>>And then you go around saying you don't personally attack people. Even after being banned from forums multiple times for disruptive behavior.<<<<<
We don't. I tell people like it is. I get in people's faces. I get banned because people can't stand hearing the truth so harshly. You generalize a statement and provide no supporting evidence for it. Show people why I"VE been banned. Show them. Document it. I can, because I was there.
>>>>>After a while, it makes you wonder if you are really genuine in what you are doing, or if I should even take you seriously if you engage in this kind of behavior.<<<<
Yes, shape their thoughts. Mold their mind. Cast doubt. God you are so transparent.
So if we're not genuine, what are we then. Be specific.
More personal attacks
I admit I haven't fixed my errors yet, but really, is it such a big deal that you have to personally attack me over it?
At least I will admit I have made mistakes. And I will fix the (small) errors. But why should I respond to you when you do nothing but personal attacks? Why should I reward this type of behavior with a response? I've got other areas of 9/11 I'd rather focus on than replying to people resort to these ridiculous kinds of personal attacks.
When has CIT admitted to making mistakes or promoting misleading claims? Criticizing your research is not attacking it. This is called conflating critique with ad-hominem. There is a huge difference, which CIT obviously can not tell the difference between. There are some of your criticisms of me while somewhat valid, but your opinions are also extremely hypocritical.
______________________________
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com
Thanks V I hope it's not
Thanks V
I hope it's not really like that, with armies. That was mostly hyperbole on my part. That's Balsamo anyway who has the 'army' that 'comes after' people. I guess he means an army of chatdrones. But you're correct in noting this lashing out action - cornered or wounded animals often behave the same. Is that what we're seeing here? To say so might be a personal attack, so who knows. Maybe they're just genuinely pissed at what they really see as malicious disinfo from people who have the advantage of the official story behind them and all its faked evidence. Or perhaps they just know they're wrong and keep on trucking faster regardless.
How do i give points here BTW? I don't see why you need -3. :)
- Maintain vigilance and calm
Spook
>>>>Nice to be able to talk to you again under your preferred screen name, Merc.<<<<<
My preferred screen name? No, that is my emcee name. I rhyme. I rap. I am a real person with a real identity and a real life. I am a real patriot who actually went and performed an on site investigation to determine if the plane hit the Pentagon and 5 light poles the way the official story says it did. It did not. So who are you again?
>>>>So now I'm an obvious operative<<<<
It certainly seems that way. We keep correcting you and you keep coming back with more convoluted, vague and accusatory claims.
>>>>because I'm willing to talk about the obvious shadow on the ground?<<<
See. "Obvious"? Obvious to who? To you? You are POSITIVELY REINFORCING the existence of an shadow that A. Is not clearly there and B. is from a tape that was released as damage control replete with altered data. You just keep marching forward trying to manipulate the unresearched. Just like "John Farmer" and "Arabesque".
>>>>How's about you stick to the topic? I dare you to talk about the obvious shadow on the ground.<<<<
Yawn. Spook much? Obvious shadow? Is this a technique they teach you in your briefings?
>>>Or ignore it and call me names. I got my own name up there. I got no relevant secrets. No suspicious connections, nothin. I work as a janitor and at a call center. I spend way too much time on this. I live in a shit city in the NW. That's all you need to know. Send your amy after me if you must, I've been brushing up my king fu.<<<<
No one is calling you names. Stop trying to evoke pity and manipulate the readers. How can you make all these claims and expect us to believe it? You are anonymous for all intents and purposes. We offered a phone call. You evaded that. We offered open discussion. You avoided that. As far as I am concerned you are not a real person. Why don't you provide us a phone number and address and we can start there? Your privacy is fully protected and we can even draw something up if need be.
If you are not going to concede so we can conclude, cite faulty information, and continue to attack, chastize and divide people against us we will be forced to concentrate our efforts on making sure you are even a real researcher. You seem awfully sophisticated and committed to be a janitor at a call center.
Give us an address and well show up CIT style knocking on your door with a camera in your face. Then we'll see what you have to say then.
>>>"Neutralizing is dangerous. It leaves us in limbo, it leaves us stuck with no real resolution. It is meant to cause jut enough doubt that you feel you don't know what happened and leave confused."
You sound like Bush there, dude. Sure we got you into the war in Iraq with lies and by a script written out before 9/11, but to question our motives or goals in Iraq now only sows confusion and discord, yadda yadda, gotta stay the course. <<<<
Well this is EXACTLY what you are doing. You are bypassing the integrity of the evidence and accepting it as genuine. You continually get schooled and corrected by Craig ( we lost count). Then you turn around and come right back in an attempt to act as "the opposing side". You reduce this to online investigoogling/debate while we go out and speak with witnesses and film POV's, while compiling and analyzing most all pertinent and overlooked information.
>>>>>If the road is wrong get off it wheneveryou realize, id it's right just stay on it. A real researcher tackles all evidence and tries to incorporate it into a coherent explanation for the one true way things happened.<<<<
Um, that is EXACTLY what we did. We CAUSED the release of the video in the first place. You are trying to play johnny come lately, rational, calm, "researcher". But Craig and I can see clearly what you are.
It appears your road has potholes in it.
>>>>The shadow is there. It ain't going away. How do you explain it?<<<<
We already did. It ain't there. And it ain't valid.
Remember, Caustic Operative, the NORTH SIDE was there FIRST. The NORTH SIDE caused the release of this video.
You are an absolute idiot or a spook if you actually think there was a plane on the south side after Robert, Chad, and Bill (not to mention Levi Stephens and other star witness) all saw THE plane on the North side of the Citgo.
Remember that. In fact, go back and watch it again. Watch how they casually, adamantly, and emphatically stress that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo.
Why don't you go and interview them and ask them about the shadow, "Adam"?
I think the real people reading this know why you won't.
alright, let's go
By preferred screen name I mean I note you aren't banned here yet.
I'm not afraid of a debate. When I'm ready I'll send you my number. We'll schedule a time where I have an hour or more. I'll drinka beer. Let's both record it and see who's more keen on posting the results when all's said and done.
- Maintain vigilance and calm
excellent.
It's about time.
To keep it fair I'll let you go one on one with Aldo so you don't feel overwhelmed.
What's a fair time frame before you'll be ready?
terms and times
Next week, only Wednesday afternoon works good. West Coast time, 1:00-4:00. Week after Monday or Wednesday. Possibly night time if that's all that works. I can debate each of you one at a time.
I'll U2U you my phone number on condition you swear not to share it with anyone but Merc and you two use it only for debates/discussions we all agree to and I'll do the same back. If I have to change my number you got a harassment suit coming or whatever's appropriate. I presume your word is good enough?
- Maintain vigilance and calm
oh spare me the accusatory paranoia.
Harassing you over the phone will do nothing for us or our cause.
We have never done that to anyone.
It's much more effective to expose you publicly as we have pretty much done on a daily basis in the forums.
It will be our pleasure to have the opportunity to do it over the phone on recording.
Wednesday should be fine, let's say 3:00.
I will keep an eye out for your U2U at ATS.