Arabesque, response to his latest hit piece

There are those in the movement who work relentlessly to provide evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job and ironically there are others who work relentlessly attacking those who provide this evidence.

Just as CIT was unaware of blogger Caustic Logic's existence until he wrote a hit-piece article on us calling us "Pentagon sponsored disinformation" we were completely unaware of the other new-to-the-scene blogger Arabesque's existence until he came out with a piece attacking our research shortly after.

Neither of these individuals have conducted their own investigation or provided a single piece of independently obtained data helping to uncover the crimes of 9/11.

Both are unified in their relentless and continuous hounding of CIT and borderline obsession with casting doubt on us personally and the evidence we present.

While I will agree that we respond harshly to these types of attacks.....we are never the original aggressors against others in the movement.

Our aggression is intensely focused on the perpetrators of 9/11 and we simply address deceptive attempts to cast doubt on us direct.

Arabesque has taken this doubt casting effort to new heights with what can only be described as the most extensive, complex, targeted yet convoluted, and deceptive attempt to personally cast doubt on any 9/11 researcher that I have ever seen.

This virtually ignores our extensive amount of PUBLISHED data/research/evidence available on our website and is based entirely on quote mining from many different internet forum debates spread out over the past year taken out of context!

Arabesque hasn't even participated in most of the wide variety of forum discussions he is quoting from which gives his blog a stranger stalker-like quality.

If he spent half as much time compiling evidence against the 9/11 perpetrators as he has digging for forum snippets he could use out of context to try and make CIT look bad the movement would be a lot further along.

There is so little said in this obsessive and incredibly long neutralization attempt that I'm not the least bit worried about it as a substantive threat against our work and the hard evidence we provide proving 9/11 an inside job.

But Arabesque doesn't care as he can only hope to spit on our good names to cast doubt on the groundbreaking work we have done.

How anyone could sign their name to such an empty, blatant, and transparent personal attack I will never know.

Oh yeah.......he won't sign his name to it or anything he publishes.

Anonymous attack blog available here:
CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy

All investigations begin on the basis if a suspicion or even a hunch on the part of the investigator but we had a lot more to go on in this case. Certainly CIT was not the first to question the official 757 impact hypothesis based on the anomalous physical damage to the building, lack of debris, signs of a cover-up by confiscating video and 911 tapes, amongst many other suspicious and questionable details.

Arabesque is deceptively characterizing this as an "assumption". Nothing was assumed at all which is why we actually took the initiative to GO there and TALK to eyewitnesses in order to find out the truth in the first place and exactly why we refused to accept what the media told us out of hand. All facts we report are backed up with hard evidence mostly on video tape so it can not be denied.

By using deceptive rhetoric and referring to our thought process as involving "assumptions" Arabesque is asking the reader to believe he can read our minds.

He has no basis whatsoever to make that claim.

But he takes his deception further by insinuating we pushed a flyover theory before conducting our investigation.

Obviously the quotes he is referring to were posted AFTER we had already conducted the first trip and found out about Robert Turcios seeing the plane on the north side.

Did we question the official story before conducting our investigation?

OF COURSE! Why would we bother investigating if we didn't?

Does that prove we "assumed" anything at all?

Certainly not.

The fact that we INVESTIGATED proves that we did NOT assume our beliefs and sought legitimate evidence and proof.

This is only the first paragraph but is a perfect example of the backwards reasoning and deceptive framing that goes on through the entire blog.

Arabesque has failed to address the claim direct and provide a single account that directly refutes the north side claim and has instead chosen to resort to circular logic. This logical fallacy is the entire basis for his argument against the north side evidence and is therefore invalid since it does not follow scientific reasoning or critical thinking principles.

The fact that the witnesses all saw the plane on the north side proves a military deception. Even if you choose to accept their claim that the plane hit the building after flying on the north side of the gas station a military deception has STILL been proven because the light poles could not have been hit and the ASCE report would have to have been fabricated.

Refusing to accept the flyover hypothesis does not change or diminish the fact that the north side evidence proves a military deception.

So Arabesque has not provided a single account or single piece of evidence that refutes the north side claim.

Faulty logic does not negate hard evidence.

It's very important to understand the difference between a hypothesis and evidence in this discussion because there is a concerted effort to treat them as one in the same which is really just a straw man approach to dismissing the evidence.

This is all quite true.

In fact this is the only section of this blog where Arabasque makes no attempt to comment on my factual statements.

Upon re-reading them I stand by each and every word 100%.

Arabesque is now attempting to further frame the debate by taking random statements out of context to create a personal impression of me. Clearly this has nothing to do with the evidence and is entirely a personal attack. In fact by choosing to analyze my "debate style" at all he is deliberately taking attention away from the evidence and focusing it on me personally. Naturally this approach has no bearing on the facts, truth, evidence, or what happened on 9/11.

What "evidence" was "dismissed"? Because Arabesque does not cite the evidence that he is referring to it is clear that he is making a baseless claim.

No evidence was dismissed.

Hallucinations have absolutely nothing to do with deliberate deception or professionally executed illusions. An audience at a David Copperfield show is not experiencing mass hallucinations.

By exchanging words that have completely different meanings Arabesque is once again misrepresenting our claims to erroneously frame us as having contradicted ourselves.

This not only erroneously casts doubt on our credibility but seeks to confuse the reader about our claims while further diverting attention from the evidence.

Arabesque is deceptively interchanging the flyover theory with the north side evidence as if they are one in the same. CIT has proven with hard evidence that the plane flew on the north side of the CITGO station. Any theory must incorporate this evidence if nothing is produced to refute the evidence. Simply dismissing the theory does not make the evidence go away as much as Arabesque would like it to.

1. agreed.

2. This is a total mischaracterization of our claims. Nobody knows what people really saw and/or reported because all of the 911 calls were confiscated and permanently sequestered. The fact that mainstream media did not report information that proves the official story incorrect does not prove the official story true or disprove a deception. It does not prove that no witness saw a plane fly over the Pentagon on 9/11.

3. Arabesque is being very deceptive by using the word "ALL" which has NEVER been our claim. While certainly many were deceived, others were embellishing, deducing, or deliberately lying to support the official story some innocently but certainly many with malicious intent as planted operatives. And then there are many more who are simply misreported or have quotes taken out of context as Arabesque is doing to me. By referring to unconfirmed media reports with zero investigation, analyzing, or scrutiny Arabesque is simply spreading official story propaganda at the peril of 9/11 truth.

Lagasse said multiple times in our interview that he did not see the plane hit any poles. By ignoring this fact and associating Lagasse's belief that the downed poles line up with where he saw the plane fly (as anyone would) Arabesque is merely using yet another logical fallacy as a means to erroneously dismiss Lagasse's corroborated north side claim. The light poles were an insignificant blip in this extremely significant and chaotic day and there is no reason that ANYONE would take special note as to their exact location. This has no bearing whatsoever on his placement of the plane which is corroborated by everyone else. Why would Arabesque resort to such faulty logic in order to dismiss such important and strong testimony that proves the official story false?

There is nothing misleading about reporting Lagasse's statements! He does not claim to have seen a plane hit any poles and specifically says that he did NOT see this. This is a FACT supported with video taped testimony that Lagasse has never contradicted. Arabesque is completely incorrect by stating our 100% supported claims are misleading. Lagasse's statement about the downed light poles that he only learned about after the violent event has zero bearing on his corroborated placement of the plane.

Arabesque is once again taking statements out of context and misrepresenting our claims. We assert that REPORTS of the C-130 and the white E4B were used ambiguously after the fact as a method of confusion. But the INITIAL reports about a "2nd plane" or "jet" that was seen "shadowing" AA77 and that "veered away" over the building was not identified as a C-130 or any specific plane at first.

But we certainly have NEVER implied that the C-130 really behaved this way. Quite the contrary. We have been instrumental in proving that he DID NOT behave that way since the pilot himself says he was so far away that he didn't even know the source of the smoke was the Pentagon at first.

We have new interviews helping to expose all of this that I am currently working on compiliing but Arabesque is once again taking claims out of context from a while back to paint a completely inaccurate picture of our beliefs as a straw man argument.

Absolutely incorrect. Arabesque is erroneously and shamelessly TELLING the reader what we believe while deliberately twisting our claims out of context.


He is misrepresenting how the confusion was carried out. The E4B was a white jet. The decoy plane was reported as being white by the people of Arlington. The C-130 was blended with reports of this mysterious "2nd plane" that followed AA77 and veered off over the building.

All reports were ambiguous and most did not specifically refer to any kind of plane or jet and the ones that did are dubious because they contradict the C-130 pilot and virtually all the other witnesses who saw no such thing.

Everyone will see real soon as our next presentation will break it all down.

But bottom line.....Arabesque is not talking about our theory.

Since Arabesque has never been to the area that he claims to research he has no way of knowing what people could really see from 395 or any of the surrounding highways or how much the fireball and smoke would block their view or cause a diversion.


The fact is that this 2 second event was over before most people had a clue what had happened and with the incredible frequency of low flying planes making quick ascents over the Pentagon while departing out of Reagan there is no reason to suggest that a jet flying away over the Potomac would be a cause for alarm in any way.

Even if it was directly after the explosion.

Attention would be on the explosion, fireball, and the smoke plume which would block the view for those "potential witnesses" south of the Pentagon on 395.

Russell Pickering is far from an unbiased researcher as he has refused to update his website for over a year since our trip and dedicated 100% of his efforts towards discrediting CIT personally similar to what Arabesque has done.

His unsupported CLAIM that somebody took video footage is merely that and certainly NOT evidence.

I could easily CLAIM that we have spoken to a witness who has video footage of the flyover but that would not be evidence.

Pickering has never seen the footage he speaks of either so to suggest this is valid evidence that counters a flyover is a 100% false statement.

For a complete presentation of our hypothesis on the planting of the light poles see here:
The downed light poles at the Pentagon were staged in advance.

If Arabesque doesn't like this hypothesis he is free to come up with his own but not a single researcher, expert, pilot, engineer, or anyone at all will maintain that a 757 on the north side of the station can down the poles.

Arabesque is not refuting the north side evidence simply by attempting to cast doubt on our hypothesis of how the poles were planted.

He is simply making an argument from incredulity which is yet another logical fallacy.

Arabesque is quite fond of those.

Once again Arabesque is using circular logic to dismiss the evidence proving a deception on 9/11.

Does the fact that the WTC collapsed prove it was due to the impact of the planes?

Of course not. This is the exact same reasoning that Arabesque is using to dismiss the north side evidence.

It is not logical. It is not scientific. It is a logical fallacy.

Arabesque is reaching desperately here while once again misrepresenting our claims.

We NEVER said the trees would block the view of the flyover!

Our claim is that they block the view of the alleged IMPACT for most of the potential witnesses on route 27 and this is 100% fact.

Click here to see all images proving this.


We prove it with images as well as video footage. This is NOT "disinfo" or "disingenuous" it is proven fact.

The flyover was concealed by the fireball and subsequent smoke plume, not the trees.

Our point in bringing up the trees is to show you how some of the witness statements about the impact from people like Mike Walter and Joel Sucherman are in doubt because of their confirmed position right in front of the trees.

This has nothing to do with the flyover whatsoever and Arabesque's constant attempts to completely change our claims to make them easier to debunk or label "disinfo" is the most egregious example of using straw man arguments that I have ever seen.

It's very underhanded and is a blatant attack on our personal credibility.

Alan Wallace says some other things that support our claims. His entire first-hand account is available here.

1. He is very explicit when he claims that he did NOT see the impact of the plane.

2. He specifically describes the plane as "white"!

His description of a "crunch" is a general sound could very well be from the explosives destroying the building but his description of the plane as "white" completely contradicts the official story and supports our hypothesis.

Not even close.

We are ECSTATIC that they released the RADES data! This holds them to their word in regards to where all the planes flew and makes it even easier for us to prove a deception.

The RADES data is irreconcilable with where the C-130 flew as reported by the pilot himself as well as witnesses of the E4B.

No honest investigator into the 9/11 attack would accept government controlled and supplied data as valid evidence in support of the official story.

The RADES data was released this year and the NTSB data was released in 2006. How can ANYONE who claims that 9/11 was an inside job assume that this data is valid? ESPECIALLY in light of all the blatant contradictions that we will lay out in our next presentation.

Who is Caustic Logic? He sure isn't an FDR specialist! Or a pilot or an authority on ANYTHING with any credentials whatsoever. He is a janitor. He is clearly not an authority on the FDR.

But Pilots for 9/11 truth are.

This short video shows you the facts proving how the FDR is irreconcilable with the physical evidence.

American 77 Flight Path version2 - In 3D


Why does Arabesque ignore the experts in favor of biased bloggers such as John Farmer and Caustic Logic?

My statement is certainly correct but even Arabesque's own "FDR expert" Caustic Logic agrees with us that you would not be able to see the flyover in the government provided DoubleTree security video due to the trees.

That doesn't stop Arabesque from claiming it as PROOF there was no flyover!

I claim the data has been proven manipulated which is a fact.

Whether or not the usual biased 757 impact conspiracy theorist subjects that you reference (Farmer, Pickering, Larson) have "lodged complaints" nothing that I have claimed has been debunked by you or any one of them.

But regardless.....the alleged "shadow" is inconclusive and the data is invalid evidence to support the government story since it was controlled by the government.

The fact that you fail to see this logic and continue to reference this data to support the government further reveals your agenda.

Yeah.....a "non-government" video that actually proves the C-130 was in the skies about 3 minutes later as reported by witnesses.

1. You have no proof whatsoever that it was taken "15 seconds" later. Farmer made that up with no sources and you ran with it.

2. We know for a fact that it was closer to 3 minutes since the Tribby admits to turning the camera on "approximately one minute" after the explosion and the plane does not show up until about 1:45 after that.

Caustic Logic figured that even 15 seconds would be enough time for it to have disappeared in the first place:

You can't even get people on your team to support your hasty and deceptive proclamations of victory.

The rest of Arabesque's hit-piece is dedicated to focusing on CIT peronally and none of it addresses the evidence at all.

Our aggression is limited to responses to people who deceptively manipulate our research and claims; this primarily being Russell Pickering, John Farmer, Caustic Logic, and Arabesque.

All have made public claims of support for the 757 impact theory and demonstrated a clear bias against any evidence proving otherwise.

It is a FACT that besides Russell Pickering (who has disappeared from the scene after dedicating months to discrediting us personally even BEFORE we released the north side evidence); all 3 of the others were unknown to the 9/11 truth movement until shortly AFTER we announced the north side evidence and the CITGO security video was released within a few days later.

Is their all of the sudden rise to semi-prominence through independent blogs a coincidence?

Have all of them blended in with the movement and put out convoluted, seemingly technical, yet entirely inconclusive information on a regular basis while focusing a borderline obsessive amount of time on us and our research for kicks?

If our info was so faulty they wouldn't care about it.

If they had a leg to stand on Arabesque wouldn't have incestuously referenced all of these same individuals so often in this opus of his.

No matter how you look at it it's clear that the research of CIT has elicited some HEAVY response from very focused individuals.

When looked at closely their deceptive tactics are easily spotted.

But their blogs are confusing, long, and overly technical for a reason. They simply hope to cast doubt and sow confusion.

They know they can't effectively refute the information so attacking us personally is their only recourse.

They simply want the reader to walk away scratching their head while abandoning their quest for info out of frustration.

A certain amount of aggression is not only warranted in the 9/11 movement it is required.

The Vietnam anti-war movement wasn't effective because they were demure.

The atrocities of 9/11 and the war on terror are going to require a response 100's of times greater.

We have only been able to obtain the incredible amount of evidence that we have BECAUSE of our intense passion for justice and anger for the perpetual mass murder of innocent people that is continuing to this very day in this fraudulent war on terror.

We refuse to be afraid to express it because some anonymous bloggers lurking in the shadows will deceptively use that passion as an excuse to personally attack us.

Thanks for your attention and I simply ask that you stay patient, aware, and conscious of the incredible effort underway to neutralize the information we present.