The PentaCON: Conspiracy Profiteering Revealed

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 

to Blackmail iWhiz - Fails

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.

From Russia, With Love--Part 2

Over a week after the controlled dissent Russia Today event, various idiots on Facebook are claiming the Ukrainian protesters are Nazis or anti-semites or some such...(bit ironic as most of the sheeple pushing these memes push a hella mucho anti-semite conspiracy crap):

Oh I see; the west plan to continue with their hypocrisy in complete disregard of the fact that 90% of Crimea wish to secede from the illegally imposed government of Ukraine.

The newly "created" ultra nationalist government of Ukraine wishes to marginalise/victimise ethnic Russians of which the territory of Crimea is predominately made up of. So it is not only the "will of the people" which is normally enough to make any newly forged country legal, it is arguably to prevent a new harsh and deadly reality of a government coming to power which is going to oppress them.

These so called leaders that now say "ILLEGAL" to this vote by a territory's people are so obviously puppets of western corporate and military interests and obviously don't give a flying fk about the safety or the desire of the people of Crimea. Shame on all of you...

Is there any source to these claims?

-90% of Crimea want to secede
-the Ukraine government is "illegally imposed"  
-the Ukraine government is newly "created" and ultra nationalist
-they want to marginalize/victimise Russians

It is doubtful.  Real journalists are getting sick of this disinformation rubbish:

Kiev's protesters: Ukraine uprising was no neo-Nazi power-grab
 
As life returns to normal in Kiev, Luke Harding encounters frustration over Russian claims of a fascist coup 

Luke Harding

The Guardian, Thursday 13 March 2014 16.14 EDT

The Kremlin describes last month's uprising in next-door Ukraine as an illegitimate fascist coup. It says dark rightwing forces have taken over the government, forcing Moscow to "protect" Ukraine's ethnic Russian minority. The local government in Crimea is preparing for a referendum on Sunday which could lead to Russia annexing the region. Yanukovych, meanwhile, has fled to Russia.
Schilling, however, was an unlikely fascist. A father of two daughters, he and his wife Anna had lived in Italy. They had four grandchildren. Moreover, he was Jewish.

Oops.  Not that it's possible to be Jewish and support fascist; that is the purpose of "alibi Jews" promoting anti semitism.  But in this case, it is very unlikely given more compelling reasons for the uprising:

" With Ukraine on the brink of invasion and division, most people in Kiev blame the country's troubles on the former president. "This is Yanukovych's fault," Zhenia, a pensioner, said, surveying the battleground in Institutska Street, where many were gunned down. She was crying.
Nearby, visitors bowed before makeshift brick shrines, some decorated with gas masks and helmets. Others crossed themselves. One child's drawing said: "Eternal glory to the heroes".
According to those who took part in it, the uprising was a broad-based grassroots movement, launched by people fed up with Yanukovych and involving all sections of society. Some demonstrators were indeed nationalists. Others were liberals, socialists and libertarians. There were Christians and atheists. There were workers from the provinces, as well as IT geeks from Kiev more at home with MacBooks than molotovs.
Its victims were a diverse bunch. The first was an ethnic Armenian; another Russian."

Even Russians involved.  Of course Russians are some of the experts on exaclty how corrupt--and manipulative--Russia can be.

"Yanukovych had just announced that he was dumping Ukraine's preparations to sign an association agreement with the European Union."

 Oh, that dastardly European Union!  And now we come to the crux of why  the Tin Foil brigade is being mobilized to defend Russian propaganda:  To fight those New World Order Illumiati Jews.

A brief scanning of the timeline on Wikipedia will show only a delusional fool can insist on believing Russia is only acting to defend ethnic Russians from "oppression ":

On February 24, 2014, Russian Special Forces^[38][39] without insignia arrived^[40] on the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine. They seized control of the Crimea region.^[41]

Russian authorities disputed that the forces were Russian military.[42

If they're there to protect ethnic Russians, then why was Russia slow to admit to the action?

Putin Says Those Aren't Russian Forces In Crimea
 --
Russian soldiers have not occupied government buildings and surrounded Ukrainian military bases on the Crimean Peninsula, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted Tuesday during a news conference near Moscow at which he gave an account of recent events that contradicts reports from the ground.
Instead, he told reporters that the heavily armed men are "local self-defense forces."
What's more, anything Russia has done, Putin said without offering specifics, has been part of a "humanitarian mission" to protect ethnic Russians in Crimea.
--
In Kiev, Kerry seemed surprised by a reporter's question about Putin's remarks earlier Tuesday.
"He really denied there are troops in Crimea?" he asked, interrupting the question.

Ah, a non denial, denial:  "We didn't do it, but if we are doing it, it's because of a noble cause."
The idea that Russia is "protecting " anyone, is right out of Putin's mouth:

A statement from the Kremlin said Putin emphasized to Obama the existence of “real threats” to the life and health of Russian citizens and compatriots who are in Ukrainian territory. The statement indicated that Russia might send its troops not only to the Crimea but also to predominantly ethnic Russian regions of eastern Ukraine.
“Vladimir Putin emphasized that, in the case of a further spread in violence in eastern regions (of Ukraine) and Crimea, Russia maintains the right to protect its interests and the Russian-speaking population that lives there,” the Kremlin statement said.

Obama even diplomatically  pretends he thinks Putin is not lying, and offers a saner solution:

Obama told Putin that he would support sending international monitors to Ukraine to help protect ethnic Russians.

From the DUH files.    

Comments in the Guardian article get quite fiesty and on point regarding the blatant propaganda:

Polvilho BlikSnyman

14 March 2014 9:48am

I'm also starting to suspect that Russia is pulling a Koch brothers stunt.

Oh, they've been doing it for years. Witness the comments below the line on any of the recent articles about Russia's homophobic legislation.

I really don't understand what they're trying to achieve. NO ONE takes any notice of the bottom half of the internet.

Do they send a report back to the FSB "We have successfully infiltrated a small cohort of bored office workers and shut-ins with our propaganda. Victory to Mother Russia!".

Substitute "small cohort of bored office workers and shut-ins" with washed up "truthers" on Facebook pinning for the glory days, and they nailed it fair and square.

That veteran webwarriors from the "Truth" movement are pushing Putin's propaganda is depressing, but not unexpected.  Russia Today embracing "truther" stories almost from day one was always suspect.   I personally believe the people who run Russian Today also know the "truth" movement is a fraud.  But maybe they think they're demoralizing the USA by having conspiracy bobble heads claim the US government is run by Jews?  

If so, they didn't understand exactly how fringe the "truth" movement is.  If Russia Today had reached market penetration no later than 2004, maybe 2006, things might have been different.  Hell,they might have done some good by sheer force of "dumb luck", by say promoting the Feal Good foundation.   

But RT didn't get traction pushing "truther"/Ron Paul news until 2009, and the writing was already on the wall for the "truth" movement.  Any potential critical mass of Americans to manipulate to undermine the presidency or American politics to the tune of Russian propaganda had long since left by 2007-2008.

One last thing:  I'll just put this here:

Russia Today Drops All Pretense Of Editorial Independence, Publishes Pro-Putin Propaganda

When Russia Today launched in 2005, its operators insisted that despite being funded by the Russian government, the news outlet would function independently of Moscow. The channel even rebranded to simply RT in 2009 to avoid being seen as an entirely Russian news network.

 On Wednesday, however, RT seemingly dropped all pretense of being editorially independent, by praising Russian President Vladimir Putin’s highly controversial annexation of Crimea.

This can't end well.

From Russia With Love

For the record, I have no strong opinion about Abby Martin's motives.  She could be what she appears: a naive idealist sucked into the conspiracy/Patriot movement honestly believing she's part of a progressive movement. This happened to a friend of mine; they(various Patriot sympathizing "truth" groups) pulled out all the stops to convince him he was "on to something".
However it doesn't speak well of Martin's judgement or investigative skills.  She can't have it both ways:  She can't claim to be so informed to have uncovered the government conspiracy of the century and, at the same time,  be completely oblivious that all the sources for this claim originate from fringe right propaganda.

In the wake of the Crimean situation, an Russia Today  journalist speaks out.  But are things what they seem?

Some quotes:

The New Republic:

"When Russia Today anchor Abby Martin ended a broadcast of her media analysis show “Breaking the Set” by looking sternly toward the camera and condemning Russian intervention in Crimea, many expressed amazement that this shiny-haired insurgent was bucking the Kremlin party line. Huffpo UK described the tirade as “spectacularly off-message.” Glenn Greenwald, to no one’s surprise, praised Martin’s bravery. And Martin’s speech did indeed sound quite remarkable, especially amid the blinkered unreality of RT’s overall coverage of Ukraine (which Newsweek has called a “Cold War theme park, without the breadlines.”) As her segment came to a close, Martin gravely said: “Just because I work here, for RT, doesn't mean I don't have editorial independence and I can’t stress enough how strongly I am against any state intervention in a sovereign nation’s affairs. What Russia did is wrong.”

The outburst was not exactly surprising. Martin has always been something of a rabble-rouser and a speaker of truth-to-power, though historically her specialty has been tearing down American political and cultural institutions. She grew up on the west coast and created a 9/11 truther group in San Diego. RT first found her through Occupy Oakland, when she was covering the crackdowns there as a citizen journalist. She worked for a bit as an Occupy correspondent, and then got called to DC to interview for an anchor job. (As she has described her initial reaction to the job interview: “There’s no fucking way in hell I’m moving to DC…lobbyist douchebag central.”) She has a stated affinity for psychedelic drugs. Things she has said on air since joining RT include “Fuck the media, fuck the candidates, fuck the corporatocracy,” and ads for her show feature her smashing a TV set with a sledgehammer. And it's also unsurprising, of course, to think that RT would have relished Martin’s Crimea comments as a neat little opportunity to point out its own openness to dissent."

"But the most telling part of Martin’s rant on Russia Today was its aftermath, during which RT’s image management seemed to go off the rails. The Telegraph reported that RT executives told the UK’s Channel 4 that Martin had been “misled by American media.” Meanwhile RT released a statement yesterday praising itself vis a vis Martin's behavior: “Contrary to the popular opinion, RT doesn’t beat its journalists into submission, and they are free to express their own opinions, not just in private but on the air.” The statement then added: “In her comment Ms. Martin also noted that she does not possess a deep knowledge of reality of the situation in Crimea. As such we'll be sending her to Crimea to give her an opportunity to make up her own mind from the epicenter of the story.” But alas Martin hadn't heard about her employer’s generous offer until the media reported it, and promptly replied on her Twitter feed that she would not in fact be going to Crimea. This whole murkiness of message helps explain why RT’s public perception as a Kremlin-managed monolith is off-base: much of RT's programming is less a well-oiled Russian propaganda machine than a defensive, shapeshifting retort to the Western media—less focused on a coherent foreign policy agenda than on asserting itself as an alternative to American cable news, its ideological chorus so miscellaneous that it somehow includes both Abby Martin and Larry King. "

Or reality is more complicated:

Tablet:

RT Anchor’s Riff Not as ‘Rogue’ As It Seems
How Abby Martin’s on-air jab at Russian intervention in Crimea helps Putin

By James Kirchick |March 4, 2014

 Yesterday, Abby Martin, a host on the Kremlin-funded television network RT (formerly known as Russia Today), used the end of her program to voice opposition to Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea region. “Just because I work here at RT doesn’t mean I don’t have any editorial independence. I cannot express how strongly I am against any state intervention in a sovereign nation’s affairs,” Martin said. “What Russia did is wrong.”

"And so, on the face of it, Martin’s dissent from RT’s party line was a breath of fresh air, earning her plaudits across the internet. “For all the self-celebrating American journalists and political commentators: was there even a single U.S. television host who said anything comparable to this in the lead-up to, or the early stages of, the U.S. invasion of Iraq?” asked Glenn Greenwald, a frequent presence on the network. The Huffington Post praised Martin as “going spectacularly rogue.” Some have drawn comparisons to my own brief appearance on RT last August, when, invited to talk about the sentencing of Wikileaks leaker Chelsea Manning, I instead launched into a two-minute tirade against the Kremlin’s homophobic witch-hunt, which got me booted off air."

Highlighting mine.   Ask why wasn't Martin booted off the air.  The probable reasons can't be good.

But Martin’s comments, while certainly a departure from the stale Kremlin talking points offered 24/7 on RT, were hardly as rogue as they might initially seem. Martin couched her criticism of Russian policy by stating that “the coverage I’ve seen of Ukraine has been truly disappointing from all sides of the media spectrum, and ripe with disinformation,” implying that the objectively more accurate reporting of Western outlets are somehow on par with her own network’s blatantly skewed coverage.
“Above all my heart goes out to the Ukrainian people, who are now wedged as pawns in the middle of a global power chess game. They’re the real losers here,” she added. Again, this frames the Ukraine crisis as being equally the fault of Russia and the West, when, from the start, the situation has been instigated and inflamed solely by Moscow. There are no EU or NATO tanks occupying Ukrainian soil. 

 Highlighting mine.  Still wondering?

Those praising Martin would do well to acquaint themselves with the entirety of her work. Before being hired by RT, Martin was a prominent voice in the 9/11 conspiracy movement, which seems to be a job qualification for RT given the amount of airtime it gives to fringe views. In a 2008 video of a 9/11 Truth Movement protest, Martin can be seen stating that the attacks were an “inside job.” She knows this, she said, because, “I’ve researched it for three years and every single thing that I uncover solidifies my belief that it was an inside job and that our government was complicit in what happened.” On her program, she regularly gives air to outrageous conspiracy theories, including the notion that water fluoridation is a pernicious government plot to poison unsuspecting American citizens, an old bugbear of the extreme right-wing John Birch Society. She has also accused Israel of using “Hitler’s methods … to maintain a Jewish majority.”

 Last February, Martin devoted a segment to the history of American “false flag” operations. The term is a favorite of conspiracy theorists, who employ it to describe hostile acts carried out by rogue states and terrorists groups, which are, they claim, really the work democratic governments seeking a pretext for infringements on civil liberties, war, and other acts of imperialist aggression. Beginning with the 1898 sinking of the USS Maine, which ignited the Spanish-American War, up through the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, Martin, quoting from a website titled, “Israel Did 911,” characterized false-flags as “when a government uses an elite special forces operations cadre to attack that nation-state while falsely bearing the flag of another country or group.”

There is no excuse for a supposedly well informed journalist to be quoting the anti-Semite website Rediscover911.com as a credible source. The link is now a 404, but is still in wayback.  Screen with quote below:

This article, with the quote in question, was also posted by Holocaust denier Fetzer on his website:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/05/real-reasons-nation-states-institute.html

Only two other blogs have it:

http:// conspiracy-theory-secrets.com/uncategorized/global-watch-weekly-report/

http://hatonn.blogspot.com/2012_09_01_archive.html

See, the 911 "truth" front is a very, very small club now the hordes of duped leftists have drifted away and the fringe right roots are exposed.  At this time it shouldn't take much investigation skills to realize the conspiracy is a fraud.  Either Martin read it herself and didn't notice the lunacy of her source, or, more likely, someone forwarded the quote and she used it without further investigation, which at the least is sloppy.  But then this is the same person who remains  in deep denial about Ron Paul writing his racists newletters and making money off them for years.

It would be wrong to conclude that, because it hasn’t publicly reprimanded or fired her for her recent comments, RT is proving itself to be an objective purveyor of credible news and information. “Contrary to the popular opinion, RT doesn’t beat its journalists into submission, and they are free to express their own opinions, not just in private but on the air,” the channel said in response to Martin’s broadcast. They should tell that to William Dunbar, a former RT journalist who resigned after he was prevented by the network’s management from reporting on the Russian military’s deliberate bombing of civilian targets during the 2008 Georgia War. “On any issue where there is a Kremlin line, RT is sure to toe it,” Dunbar said.

Indeed, far from damaging the propaganda efforts of the Russian government, Martin’s momentary act of nonconformity plays right into the Kremlin’s hands. RT will now be able to hold up her 60-second departure from the official script as evidence of its editorial independence, as further proof of its vital role as a “counter-hegemonic” news source in a world inundated by corrupt and corporate “Anglo-Saxon media.” Think of Martin as the puppet opposition in a dictatorship, created and sustained by the powers that be as a façade of democracy with which to dazzle credulous Western observers, a practice that Putin has himself perfected.

As a general observation, Russia Today was a match made in heaven between post Gorbachev cynical Russian power brokers and the collective of fringe interests represented by von Mises, Cato, Ron Paul and Larouche.  A foreign news outlet with apparent neutrality was a perfect platform to push conspiracy garbage with a veneer of credibility.   It's exactly the same schtick with PressTv, right down to targeting an English speaking audience.

Even FOX news won't host the Holocaust Denying Duo Fetzer and Barrett anymore, so it was inventive of the "consortium" to find a mainstream appearing megaphone, complete with their own photogenic bobble head.

Russian interests might be bankrolling some of these activities.  One website in particular, otherwise dead, has overwhelming Russian traffic:

    04:28:53    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx
        19:26:44    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtcdemolition.xxxxxxx
        19:26:34    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        16:21:02    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
       16:20:59    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtcdemolition.xxxxxxx
        07:57:02    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Russian Federation    Donekoservice Ltd (91.201.64.16)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        07:56:56    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Russian Federation    Donekoservice Ltd (91.201.64.16)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        05:04:57    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        05:04:53    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.21)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx
        04:50:30    IE 9.0
Win7
    Russian Federation Flag    Saint Petersburg,
Saint Petersburg City,
Russian Federation    Net For Dedicated Client (31.184.238.11)
 wtc-xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxx

[And this is one of many reasons I know, not suspect, but know, it was all a scam.   INTERPOL won't be happy if it involves money.]

If, as I suspect, donations are drying up to support the "truther" con, and some parties are looking for foreign sources of funding, the "consortium" might be biting off more than it can chew.  Tarpley, Fetzer, David Duke, Ron Paul, etc and other fringe drama queens are amateurs compared to Russian politicians and the Russian mafia.  The only one of the scammers I'd lay money on to hold his own is Larouche, and that's just because he's nuts with an army of cultists at his back.   The rest are used to bluffing and blustering with bullshit, usually using the Internet. 

The Russians don't roll that way.  Anyone involved with Putin's propaganda machine, needs to think twice about what they're getting into:
 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/09/mafia-state-luke-harding-review

As Luke Harding's book on his own years in Moscow captures well, life in Russia has not changed much: random inconveniences, bizarre coincidences and maddening interventions leave one confused. Did I really fail to lock the office? Why are there cigarette butts in my loo? Why does my phone battery go flat all the time? Am I going mad – or are they really out to get me?
The incidents mostly comprise petty vandalism, silly stunts (someone left a sex manual in his bedroom) and phones that play back your previous conversation.

[BTW?  This is the sort of rubbish the fringe "truther" creeps pull when they want someone to think "agents" are out to get them, to hide the fact it's a con.  But, unlike the Russian mafia, the creeps have no state protection. They just hope no one figures it out.  Oops. ]

More examples of journalists beaten in Russia:

Russian Journalists, Fighting Graft, Pay in Blood
Beaten Russian Editor Is Told to Say It’s His Fault

Martin is being played.

None of this can end well.