http://ThePentaCON.INFO
As Seger writes in February:
This new site at http://ThePentaCON.INFO (http://thepentacon.info/) will be devoted specifically to debunking the theory advanced by Lyte Trip and the "Citizen Investigation Team" at thepentacon.com. (I have also created a forum at http://s6.invisionfree.com/ThePentaCON )WilliamSeger17th February 2007, 03:12 PM
Over the next few days, while waiting for the "smoking gun" video to be released, I will be compiling the evidence that ThePentaCON theory asks us to believe has been faked. I welcome any help with that effort, or if you have any suggestions about the direction of this new site, please post them in this thread.
Lyte Trip provided a partial transcript of the argument that the video will use to convince people that the testimony of 4 witnesses should be sufficient to prove that all the other witnesses are either part of the conspiracy, under the influence of "mind control," or just aren't very observant (and that a huge amount of physical evidence has been faked):
Originally Posted by Lyte Trip
Since the alleged credibility of the "north of the Citgo" path is apparently the centerpiece of the video, I would like to have a page that specifically addresses these six points concisely and convincingly. Please post your best argument against any one or all of these points.
It was also years before CIT's "hit list"(images digitally blurred for privacy):
that has disappeared,
...though the threads started from information deceptively obtained and published in the "hit list" remain. Whoever deleted the "hit list" is more of an idiot that usual: the entire point of the list was to list targets. In otherwords, deleting the hit list doesn't delete the evidence CIT conspiring to gather personal information deceptively; it just hides exactly when that information was shared with the forum. Aug 2009 CIT was worried enough to update the list:
Edited to add: All visitors from the CIT attack blog called "CIT Watch" please see detailed rebuttal here.Good luck archiving anyone's "aggression" predating their targeting by CIT. Someone seems worried but not worried enough.
Clarification/Disclaimer (Aug 14 2009): This thread has never been labeled or considered a "hit list" as some have fraudulently claimed. The relatively small but vocal contingency of people who have chosen to launch or take part in unprovoked and often extremely dishonest attacks on CIT personally and/or the information we have uncovered are merely being identified for the record. We have not picked a fight with any of these people. This thread was created in the name of accountability and in response to their aggression.
I revisited the CIT frauds after observing interesting traffic at the old blog, traffic repeatedly coming from Russia of all places:
31 Jul 00:09:16 Russian Federation Flag Moscow,
Moscow City,
Russian Federation Ojsc Rostelecom
coljennysparks.blogspot.ru/2009/08/cit-more-company-contacts-inspiriant.html
(No referring link)
30 Jul 14:40:55 Russian Federation Flag Moscow,
Moscow City,
Russian Federation Beeline
coljennysparks.blogspot.ru/2009/08/cit-more-company-contacts-inspiriant.html
(No referring link)
24 Jul 14:51:21 Russian Federation Flag Moscow,
Moscow City,
Russian Federation Ojsc Rostelecom
coljennysparks.blogspot.ru/2009/08/cit-more-company-contacts-inspiriant.html
(No referring link)
24 Jul 11:24:35 Russian Federation Flag Moscow,
Moscow City,
Russian Federation Ojsc Rostelecom
coljennysparks.blogspot.ru/2009/08/cit-more-company-contacts-inspiriant.html
(No referring link)
24 Jul 02:09:12 Russian Federation Flag Moscow,
Moscow City,
Russian Federation Ojsc Rostelecom
coljennysparks.blogspot.ru/2009/08/cit-more-company-contacts-inspiriant.html
(No referring link)
23 Jul 04:09:03 Russian Federation Flag Moscow,
Moscow City,
Russian Federation Beeline
coljennysparks.blogspot.ru/2009/08/cit-more-company-contacts-inspiriant.html
(No referring link)
22 Jul 05:24:12 Russian Federation Flag Moscow,
Moscow City,
Russian Federation Beeline
coljennysparks.blogspot.ru/2009/08/cit-more-company-contacts-inspiriant.html
(No referring link)
21 Jul 20:45:28 Russian Federation Flag Moscow,
Moscow City,
Russian Federation Beeline
coljennysparks.blogspot.ru/2013/09/holocaust-denial-bolloxthread.html
(No referring link)
Why does anyone care where the CIT twins work(ed) at this late date, much less anyone in Russia? And why do the care about both CIT and Holocaust Denial? Unless Ranke association with Holocaust Deniers like Fetzer and friends has garnered interest is some quarters, it's a bit myserious.
It's obvious CIT was running a scam out of their employer's office. The entire hysterionic "they are putting their lives at risk" has fallen by the wayside. In fact, for persons so determined to libel and slander an elderly black cab driver to push a conspiracy invented by racists and anti Semites, as if life as we know it was at stake, then to abandon the project suddenly to start a mediocre band with a name they ripped off, shows they always had an agenda that they want everyone to forget about.
CIT reaction to Seger site and forum, were typical, lowlights including ridiculous threats of legal action:
REMOVE THIS FORUM AND SITE OR FACE LITIGATION, You are guilty.Then Merc proceeds to pretend he doesn't know who started the website, in spite of the fact he had to be following Seger's link from JREF:
Of course "Merc" is impervious to logic or reason:
QUOTE (Merc @ Feb 18 2007, 02:38 AM)
We can start with your first and last name?
The person who register this site and forum will be a good start.
We WILL contact invision as well.
William Seger. And yours?
Anti-sophist
Feb 18 2007, 04:51 AM Let me ask again since it's clear you are not mentally well and ranting and raving like a lunatic...
What exactly is he guilty of? Your thread topic... It says he is guilty. Of what? What litigation are you planning?
These questions are never answered.
Now knowing the "Truth" Movement is a fraud, one can look back in hindsight at two clowns who worked for a marketing firm and come to the plausible conclusion the entire CIT gig was a marketing ploy for hire.
It wouldn't be the first time. A man called Marcus Allen aka truthsleuth, also a marketing "expert" involved with the "truth" movement, had a less that honest track record:
Markus Allen is a joke, a liar, a scam artist, an extortionist and a blackmailer.And:
Check out this page:
http://plexec.com/warnings/bewareofmarkusallen.html
He's not owed a dime from me. I'd never even heard of him up until Friday. He's never been my affiliate, never been on any of my lists, and we've never spoken before.
And yet, because he claims he's owed money from an entirely DIFFERENT company (One, I might add, that has nothing to do with me at all) which I offered to help him obtain in the case that he could provide PROOF that he was owed it... he's now turned that debt on to me.
I would be careful to have any association with him. The sole reason he posted on this page was because I didn't cower to his extortionist demands and send him a free pay check. He's trying to blacken my name, but he's only making a fool of himself.
Sorry to bother your otherwise excellent forum with this idiot, guys.
Cheers ~Lee
Beware of Markus Allen!
He's a money-grabbing liar, a blackmailer, an extortionist and a scam artist. Beware!
The true account of a blackmailers attempts, and how to
protect yourself from scam artists like him in the future...
protect yourself from scam artists like him in the future...
He's already had legal action threatened against him by John Reese, he tried to extort money
from an Australian affiliate broker — and now he's trying it on with me. Beware of this man!
from an Australian affiliate broker — and now he's trying it on with me. Beware of this man!
There's more:
All this talk of blackmail sure does remind me of Craig "Killtown" Lazo's obsession with the idea...making one wonder where he got it from. But I digress...Markus Allen's Attemptsto Blackmail iWhiz - FailsIt's a sad day when someone thinks they can get money for nothing, and ruin your name in the process. Unfortunately, that is what Markus Allen, of http://www.marketing-ideas.org, thinks he can do.
By 2007 Marcus had gotten into the Conspiracy Racket, where the tactics he used to try to pressure people from money were put to use pressuring people critical of conspiracy projects. In particular the threats of sharing information on bcc spam lists:
These "email blasts", or bcc spam were a staple of many "truther" frauds, especially in the context of "debates by email". Most of them are also against the TOU of most email clients, in that a person agreeing to "debate" someone does not automatically agree to debate their horde of conspiracy zombies. It is also a sleazy way of sharing information while pretending to have a "debate", in otherwords a fraud. One that CIT and supporters freely engaged in. I suppose they hoped the sheer volume of spam would obsfucate the sham.Does that sound like a plan, Lee. If it is, please let me know before 6:30 p.m. Sunday, because if it's not, I want the email blast to hit at 7 p.m. for maximum impact.Mark
Unfortunately starting unwise things like "hit lists" is a great motivator to figure out what the heck is going on. Ask Craig Lazo. Bets are no one would know who he was if he hadn't rather stupidly started attacking people outside his Holocaust Denying conspiracy clique. Many people dislike Nazis intensely. In the same vien perhaps no one would know CIT were marketing frauds if they hadn't attacked and exploited Lloyd England. See, in the normal non conspiracy world, no one acts like this.
Granted, many "truther" critics assumed they were "agents" of some sort, but the reality is banal: they're just another front for the "truth" scam. And, like most fronts, their days were numbered once it was obvious they were running a con.
For instance: much like Espada and Ashley, Craig Ranke is a current member of Fetzer's scholar's group, to this day.
Craig Ranke (AM)
9/11 researcher/activist
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Let's take a look at Seger's excellent parody CITIT website.
You have reached the website that will explore the known facts about the September 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon and compare those facts to the video marketed by ThePentaCon.com, a "documentary" purporting to present "groundbreaking evidence demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the 9/11 official story is false."
Primarily, this film asks us to believe that a quick glimpse of Flight 77 by three people at the Citgo station across from the Pentagon and one person on Columbia Pike southwest of the station proves that the plane flew by on the north side of that station. The film asks us to believe that these perceptions and five-year-old memories are so accurate that perhaps two dozen eyewitnesses who say the plane flew over the Washington Boulevard bridge are either lying (because they are in on the conspiracy), or mistaken, or under the influence of "government mind control." The film further asks us to believe that this "north of the Citgo" flight path is so credible that it also proves that all the physical evidence of the "official" flight path -- including knocked down light poles, a clipped tree, damage to a generator, a fence, a trailer, and a low concrete wall near the Pentagon, the plane's heading indicated by the "black box" Flight Data Recorder, not to mention the massive damage to the Pentagon itself -- must have been faked right in front of dozens of witnesses by some mysterious means that the film does not even begin to explain except for vague references to "explosives." The film does not stop there, but also insists that the flight path asserted by the Citgo witnesses is so incredibly credible, so unbelievably believable, that we must conclude that the plane that they and everyone else saw must have actually flown over the Pentagon.
And yet, in more than 100 published accounts, not a single witness -- including the ones interviewed by the so-called Citizens Investigation Team! -- say they saw the plane fly over the Pentagon. This is the one detail that all accounts agree on: the plane hit the Pentagon. And once again, the film does not offer any credible explanation for how witnesses on all sides of the building failed to notice the alleged fly-over; it was just some grand "illusion" whereby the plane disappeared into the fireball which somehow convinced everyone that it hit the building. This one detail, all by itself, debunks the tale told by the Citizens Investigation Team: If the plane hit the Pentagon, the path of damage into the building implies that the plane could not have come from north of the Citgo station, so one of those assertions must be false. If the plane did not hit the Pentagon, then it must have flown over, and we are asked to believe that the plotters planned a hoax that vitally depended on nobody noticing (and possibly photographing!) this fly-over. On the other hand, the damage inside the building does point directly back to the path established by ALL the other physical evidence outside the building, and the path described by the majority of the witnesses.
Whether or not you believe the plane was Flight 77 piloted by Hani Hanjour, it's almost incomprehensible that anyone could realistically believe that the testimony of this small number of witnesses could overturn not only the testimony of a vastly greater number of witnesses but also the huge amount of physical evidence that a plane flew into the side of the Pentagon. But that is the story that the Citizens Investigation Team will literally try to sell -- for $20 per DVD.And for the slow of mind and thin of skin:
So without further ado... the "Citizen Investigation Team" Investigation Team at ThePentaCON.INFO presents:
"Six reasons to believe the PentaCON witnesses -- or not?"
DISCLAIMER: The style of this page and the top logo are intentional parodies of ThePentaCon.com site, and "fair use" rights are claimed for the purpose of debunking the claims and allegations made by that site.The link goes to this page:
Six reasons to believe the PentaCON witnesses -- or not?
The PentaCON film gives six reasons why the flight path asserted by the witnesses should be believed. "Citizen investigator" Craig ("Lyte Trip") Ranke posted these on the JREF forum, with annotations:
This is a strange claim considering that the first two witnesses do not really corroborate the path that the two police officers remember. (It's also strange considering that Lyte Trip posted on the Loose Change forum, "We know there are contradictions/errors in their accounts and we left them in on purpose for transparency.") And, of course, there are many other witnesses who indirectly contradict that "north of the Citgo" claim.
The testimony of the second witness, the gas station attendant, Robert Turcios, is peculiar and confusing. (This may be because he himself is confused. According to Russell Pickering, who accompanied some of the "citizen investigators" on an earlier trip to DC, it seems that since his earlier testimony, which was also taped, Turcios has changed his mind about which side of the station he was on -- the inside or the outside! Pickering also reported that one of the "citizen investigators" told Turcios's boss before meeting with Turcios, "I know the plane flew north of the station.") In the video, Turcios appears to be on the north side, but he seems to be indicating that he saw the plane over the canopy toward the south. Under the leading questions posed by the "citizen investigator" he seems to be saying that he now believes the plane went over the north edge of the canopy. But, if the plane had really been directly over the north edge of the canopy, that would be virtually indistinguishable from straight up above where Turcios is shown standing, since he's only a few feet away from that edge. If the plane had been noticeably north of the station, it seems that Turcios should be indicating a path somewhat away from the canopy (as officer Legasse did), so why does Turcios point back toward it? If the plane was simply farther away than Turcios perceived it to be -- if he actually saw it at all -- that could put it south of the canopy. Turcios's testimony here doesn't clarify the north/south issue at all, particularly after his earlier statements that he was inside.
The testimony of Edward Paik at the auto shop is very interesting because he puts the plane not really very far from the "official path" indicated by the physical damage, the Flight Data Recorder heading, and the testimony of the majority of the witnesses. Paik clearly indicates that he saw the plane approaching from the west-southwest of the shop, then turns and indicates a path more or less between the Navy Annex and Columbia Pike. He also clearly indicates that the right wing extended out over or beyond Columbia Pike, but under the extremely leading questioning by the "citizen investigator" (who completely ignores that gesturing), he finally puts the centerline of the path barely over the roof of the Navy Annex. Then on the maps, Paik draws two slightly different versions of his perception of the path -- one that might put the path just slightly north of the Citgo if it was accurate, and one that would put it to the south. But the path that would put the plane on the north side would also have the plane going too far north to hit the Pentagon, and moreover it would not really be consistent with the path described by the two police officers. It appears that the "Citizen Investigation Team" will try to wave away this contradiction by claiming that the plane made an "S" curve, first veering north to cross the corner of the Navy Annex roof, and then veering westward again to pass over the Pentagon -- all within the space of perhaps 3 seconds. Such a maneuver cannot be accomplished by a 757 (which is fortunate since if it could maneuver like that, the G forces would rip the plane apart). Some witnesses indicate that the plane was not completely straight and level as it approached, one saying it was banking back and forth "as if trying to balance itself," but no testimony indicted anything like the extreme banking that would be necessary to produce a very noticeable "S" curve in the path. And, of course, none of the witnesses in the PentaCON video describes any such curved path.
So, Paik doesn't really corroborate the other witnesses. The only reason it seems this testimony was included was because Paik perceived that the plane flew over the Navy Annex roof, so the video makes the point that any path on the north side of Columbia Pike does not agree with the "official path." The video does not dwell on the fact that if Paik's path is accurate, then the one described by the two officers cannot be accurate.
It's interesting that both police officers drew similar flight paths, but that isn't necessarily convincing evidence that they are accurate. It's quite possible that they convinced each other of that path. This is not to say that they are not being honest; over a period of time, a mental visualization of an event can become just as "real" as the event itself.
But the strangest part of this point is that the PentaCON video only wants to grant credibility to its own very small number of "independent accounts" because of an alleged "high level of corroboration" while implicitly denying any such credibility to the vastly larger number of accounts that corroborate a different flight path -- a path consistent with the physical evidence. Why we should grant credibility based on corroboration to one small group but not to an even larger group, the video never explains.
But the same is true for other witnesses, such as Albert Hemphill who was looking out an office window on the east end of the Navy Annex: "Immediately, 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." That would put the plane to the south of at least that office in the Navy Annex building, similar to the path described by Paik. But as noted above, that conflicts with the path remembered by the two police officers, and it doesn't necessarily contradict Edward's.
The witnesses who were on the Route 27 bridge also have a simple thing to recall: Did the plane fly right over there heads or was it 100 yards down the highway?
But being in a perfect position to see something certainly doesn't guarantee accurately perceiving or accurately remembering five years later which side of the station the plane was on. It's interesting to note that the only witness who seems to indicate that he saw the plane before it passed overhead was Paik at the auto shop, who indicates that he first saw the plane approaching from the west-southwest, and his account only differs from the "official path" in that he believes the plane passed over the Navy Annex roof instead of slightly to the south of it. The other witnesses seem to have become aware of the plane only after it was on top of them or it had passed over. They only saw it for a couple of seconds, and could easily have mis-perceived or mis-remembered the precise path as it continued on into the Pentagon.
And again, the witnesses on the bridge had the "perfect vantage point" to tell whether the plane flew over the bridge or 100 yards down the highway!
Here, PentaCON seems to be insinuating that the two police officers have more credibility than the witnesses on the bridge, but doesn't substantiate that insinuation. There doesn't seem to be any reason to suggest that any of the witnesses are intentionally lying (with the possible exception of Edward), so "credibility" does not really enter into it. All of the witnesses could honestly be saying what they believe to be the truth, and the differences in the testimony can still be understood in terms of well-known differences in witness perceptions and memories after watching the same events. It's hard to understand what the point is here unless the "Citizen Investigation Team" intends to launch a massive attack on the credibility of all the other witnesses.
True, that leaves no room for misinterpreting their claims, which is good, but it doesn't necessarily make the claims more accurate. And again, on the other hand, there is little room for misinterpreting the claims of the many witnesses who said the plane hit the light poles, either. One huge difference, however, is that the light poles were indeed knocked down, while there is not a shred of physical evidence to support the claims of the PentaCON witnesses.
This is simply wishful thinking. Study after study (for example, this list) has shown that witnesses to significant events will remember some details vividly and accurately, some details very inaccurately, and other details not at all. (For example, here.) And once again, the PentaCON film asserts that the witnesses shown have memories more accurate than all the witnesses who contradict them, with no explanation at all for why that should be. (Ask yourself if you are more likely to accurately remember the precise path of a plane flying over your head if you perceived it hitting light poles, and then you also saw those light poles actually on the ground after the plane was gone.)
Indeed, the most striking thing about the six points above is that they completely fail to distinguish or separate the PentaCON witnesses from the far greater number of witnesses who contradict them. Another oddity is that, after constructing a highly implausible hypothesis based on the supposed credibility of these witnesses, the film goes on to tell us that we need to ignore and discount the credibility of these same witnesses when they tell us the plane hit the Pentagon.
The strangest thing is that there is virtually nothing about William Seger at the abandoned CIT forum. Seger's website was still around in 2008, when CIT were claiming to be "attacked" by everyone and their parakeet. In fact this is a great thread to reread CIT outright lies. Take this exchange:
This is the behaviorI was
This is the behavior I was referring to at Truthaction which makes CIT , IMHO, not the best people to promote whatever merits this theory has:
"All innuendo, disinfo, incorrect and incomplete information."
"Arabesque is another individual we consider to be a part of the operation against CIT."
"Rep, why do you promote info youare clearly not even reading or studying?"
"Anyone who has any questions or comments about the above disinfo links Rep has provided."
since when does "behavior" trump evidence?
You have yet to comment on the evidence we present yet here you are focusing on us personally.Craig Ranke CIT on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 9:45am
Rep's post makes no point whatsoever and merely sets the stage for a "flame war" against us.
We respond harshly and you pop in to say "SEE! Look how they behave!!"
All the while ignoring the evidence.
Yes we know the evidence contradicts the unprovable remote guided 757 impact conspiracy theory that your clique has so readily embraced.
I'm sorry this upsets you and I'm sorry that you have chosen to make this about us instead of the evidence.
The fact is Jenny that we have proven a military deception on 9/11 and this does not change no matter how much people choose to incite us to react and then focus on our reaction.
www.ThePentaCon.com
1. He contradicts himself. He admits nothing has been said about evidence, that it's being ignored and the only criticism is his behavior, yet tries to say it's "personal".
2. He claims a "stage" has been set for a flame war, then admits they're responding harshly to a flame war that didn't happen until they started it.
3. Tries to bait by projecting "upset".
4. Lies with the invention they have "proven a military deception". Since this lie is used to sell DVD's it's actually fraud. A fraud being run out of their place of employment.
Maybe that's what the old blog traffic is about...
Rereading the Marcus Allen blackmail anecdotes, it's obvious CIT was working from a similar playbook: any suggestion, criticism or comment about them was exploited as an opportunity to either promote the scam or aggressively defend the scam, even though a rational person could see their agression was misplace.
Some suggest mental illness. While there may be an element operating (after all, only a deluded idiot could believe they'd get away with this con forever), sadly the facts point to CIT knowing all along they were:
a) Pushing a confidence gameTheir forum is virtually dead now, though that might change if one of their fans finds this. It takes little imagination to predict the response. CIT fans should be aware that CIT is a fraud.
b) Their lives were never in danger
c) There attacks, defamation, privacy invasion and "hit lists" were the acts of vindictive malicious frauds defending a scam
And fraud is properly reported to the correct agencies...along with anyone stupid enough to support and endorse it.
Let's see who feels lucky opening this can of worms.
It won't end well.
No comments:
Post a Comment