In early 2007 a JREF member by the name of William Seger created this website to mock CIT aka Citizen Investigation Team and their "Pentacon" project they appeared to think would be the next "Loose Change":
http://ThePentaCON.INFO
As
Seger writes in February:
WilliamSeger
17th February 2007, 03:12 PM
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 )
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
1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.
(we will present 4 separate accounts all corroborating each other
while not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire
investigative body of evidence.)
2) The simple right or left nature of their claim.
(They only have to recall what side of the building the plane flew)
3) The perfect vantage point.
(No other witnesses were in a better position to tell on what side of
the station the plane flew then the witnesses that were on the
station’s property)
4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves.
(The reason for this will be apparent when the identities of the witnesses are revealed.)
5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.
(This leaves zero room for misinterpretation of their claims as they are able to re-enact their experience for the camera)
6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget.
Number 6 is an important one. Ask yourself where you were on 9/11.
Virtually everyone remembers in detail where they were, what they did,
and how they felt on that day. Now imagine you were on the CITGO station
property just a few feet away from the plane with a perfect view of the
Pentagon. Does it seem feasible that you could be completely mistaken
as to what side of the station the plane flew? Regardless of how you
answer that question none of the witnesses we spoke with believe there
is a remote possibility they could be mistaken in this regard.
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.
This was a couple years before Fetzer's Scholar member Victoria Ashley would be fielded to "confront" CIT for pushing hoaxes in spite of never having left Fetzer's Scholar's group.
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.
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.
Good luck archiving anyone's "aggression" predating their targeting by CIT. Someone seems worried but not worried enough.
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:
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?
Of course "Merc" is
impervious to logic or reason:
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.
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
And:
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...
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!
There's more:
Markus Allen's Attempts
It'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.
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...
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:
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
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.
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.
So without further ado... the "Citizen Investigation Team" Investigation Team
at ThePentaCON.INFO presents:
"Six reasons to believe the PentaCON witnesses -- or not?"
And for the slow of mind and thin of skin:
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:
1) The high level of corroboration from independent accounts.
(we will present 4 separate accounts all corroborating each other while
not being contradicted by a single other witness in the entire
investigative body of evidence.)
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.
2) The simple right or left nature of their claim.
(They only have to recall what side of the building the plane flew)
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?
3) The perfect vantage point.
(No other witnesses were in a better position to tell on what side of
the station the plane flew then the witnesses that were on the station’s
property)
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!
4) The high level of credibility of the witnesses themselves.
(The reason for this will be apparent when the identities of the witnesses are revealed.)
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.
5) The fact that their testimony was filmed on location.
(This leaves zero room for misinterpretation of their claims as they are able to re-enact their experience for the camera)
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.
6) The extreme magnitude of the event being something that is virtually impossible to forget.
Number 6 is an important one. Ask yourself where you were on 9/11.
Virtually everyone remembers in detail where they were, what they did,
and how they felt on that day. Now imagine you were on the CITGO station
property just a few feet away from the plane with a perfect view of the
Pentagon. Does it seem feasible that you could be completely mistaken
as to what side of the station the plane flew? Regardless of how you
answer that question none of the witnesses we spoke with believe there
is a remote possibility they could be mistaken in this regard.
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.
Last bold mine.
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.
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
Craig Ranke CIT on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 9:45am
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 game
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
Their 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.
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.
crappy
giggly
angry
artistic
I liked your exposure of the Val photo though and can see from your google earth photo that the smoke plume is about a third of a mile in diameter if it were a genuine plane crash. This leaves us with differing eywitness accounts and a single questionable photo as proof of what happened. You got them big time.
Suspicious.