Why is Joel Sucherman not a NoC witness?

Just an FYI for Craig and the rest of ATS. I just watched the interview with USA Today editor and Pentagon attack wtness Joel Sucherman conducted by CIT in November 2006. It can be seen in their video the USA Today Parade. I admit I'm not familiar with all evidence for how Succherman was placed in the scene by CIT, and am not considering his previous accounts. So this conclusion I've reached could be mistaken (it does conflict with CIT's placement).

But I'll be darned if it isn't interesting. Just from listening to this interview, these are the clues he offered for his location when he saw the plane:

“I had come out from underneath the underpass and as soon as you come out from under there, you start to rise up to a hill and that’s where you get the view of the Pentagon off to the east, off to your right. [cut - time lapse to up the hill?] I saw it coming across my windshield but then [certainly?] the passenger side of the vehicle I had had a clear view of the pentagon. I would say The Pentagon is at 2 o’clock from me, in my car. So I’m seeing it come across the windshield and then I’m looking out the passenger side window and that’s where I see the collision with the pentagon. There were no trees at that point in the way at all. I did see it impact.”

So, some point north of the overpass, presumably up the hill where you get a view of the Pentagon to your right. He had a view of the Pentagon, I'm presuming the impact point, visible to his right, at 2:00, out the passenger side window. There were no trees blocking his view. He doesn't specify the trajectory, but he saw the plane partly in his windshield and the impact out the side window. These are very good clues, but can't be taken as literal and exact like a computer. But a literal reading should be somewhat close, and it gives us this for his location and the type of flight path he'd be seeing (yellow) compared to the official path (purple).

I do not believe this is what happened, but it IS what his account implies if read carefully but literally. So my question, and I mean it as such, is Why is Joel Sucherman not listed as a NoC witness? Answers could be info that missed that rules out such a north position, or anything else I guess. Again, this is just from his descriptors in that interview.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

I guess you didn't see my reply in our forum.

Why bother taking this convoluted nonsense to the forums?

Ever since you admitted you have an "ego" driven "obsession" with us and deemed in this very forum that you planned to be "done" with us after one or two more blogs.....you have been churning out sloppy silly hit pieces as predictably as a Lindsay Lohan relapse after a weekend stint in celebrity rehab!

This latest obfuscation effort is a transparent attempt to cast further doubt on the north side witnesses by trying to blend them in with high profile official story supporter/dubious alleged witness USA Today editor Joel Sucherman.

It's so reachy and pathetic that it's downright comical.

Yes there are fatal contradictions in Sucherman's account, no he does not support a north side OR a definitive south side flight path.


First let's be clear that the ONLY member of the USA Today Pararde who has been proven to be on the scene at all is Mike Walter. There is no evidence that Sucherman or any of the others were on that highway at all that day.


But Sucherman is quite clear in all previous accounts and in his interview with us that if he really was there that the plane did not allegedly pass over the top of him but allegedly passed IN FRONT of him which would be the only way he could have seen "stripes" or been able to tell at all that it was allegedly an AA jet like he conveniently describes. He consistently repeats the claim that the plane allegedly flew from left to right across his windshield.

USAToday.com editor Joel Sucherman watches in disbelief as Flight 77 flies left to right across his windshield.
www.willthomasonline.net...

In our interview he all of the sudden tried to expand on that as if he ALSO saw it out of his right passenger window!

This is really nothing but a natural contradiction from someone trying to mentally verbalize a story that never happened but Caustic Logic saw this as a perfect obfuscation opportunity and did not hesitate to insert the needle in his arm and get another fix!

But he falls flat as he tries to claim that we erroneously represented Joel's claim that the alleged impact point was at "2:00" from his location.

The most obvious contradiction here in Sucherman's account should be that 2:00 is NOT a view out of the passenger window no matter how you slice it.

But as usual Larson takes his wild obfuscation to the next level and applies this 2:00 claim to a HORIZONTAL clock as if Sucherman would have had a point of view from a satellite!

(Larson's weird surrealist horizontal clock in upper left corner with normal clock superimposed by me in middle)



Clocks are never horizontal and this is not how normal people interpret the analogy of direction from time!


However it is quite typical for Larson to erroneously analyze things from a linear point of view from space as he does his investigoogling with google maps and removes everything from the context of real life topography, landscape, infrastructure, or actual human points of view.

This is typical from someone who prefers to attack real research from behind their computer.

CIT focuses on real world scenarios and discusses real world evidence regarding real people whether or not they are real witnesses or real complicit operatives.

Larson could care less as he shamelessly indulges in his favorite drug of choice on a daily basis despite his hollow public declarations of attempting to get clean.

He sure needs to do something about this out of control problem of his. I think he's starting to lose all perception of reality and time!


[edit on 30-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

That was a really odd response I hadn't anticipated. Most relevant point:

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

But as usual Larson takes his wild obfuscation to the next level and applies this 2:00 claim to a HORIZONTAL clock as if Sucherman would have had a point of view from a satellite!

(Larson's weird surrealist horizontal clock in upper left corner with normal clock superimposed by me in middle)

Clocks are never horizontal and this is not how normal people interpret the analogy of direction from time!

Really? So when people say something's at 12:00 they mean right above, not ahead? Can someone else verify that for me? Have I lost all grip on reality here? 6:00 means from below? How would you say from behind? I would say the position you had him puts impact at 12:30 from me there, that's how I started wondering. Anyone else? Is that photo from 2:00 or 12:30 to you? I wasn't even aware there are different systems for this, but seeing this clock face in front of your face with your video camera-like view subdivided according to horizontal appearance, I guess different people think diffferent.

Some people talking about your 3:00 position:

Think of a clock. 12 would be right in front. 6 would be right behind. three to the right 90 degrees and 9 would be 90 degrees to the left

It refers to where the three is located on the clock. For example if someone says something is 6 o'clock it is directly behind you. And if something is 3 o'clock it is to your right.

12 o'clock ^
3 o'clock >
6 o'clock v
9 o'clock

Okay, to the mods, Craig's post above is riddled with irrelevant personal attacks and is just a re-post anyway of his response to my FF post, which can also be read here.. I'm quoting all the factually siginificant parts missed by me above, attempted psychological manipulations aside, and the rest can be deleted without losing anything relevant.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
First let's be clear that the ONLY member of the USA Today Pararde who has been proven to be on the scene at all is Mike Walter. There is no evidence that Sucherman or any of the others were on that highway at all that day.

True enough, all this placement is somewhat hypothetical. But he says he was there and give specific clues as to where. This is about how these were read. His actual presence has not been disproven either, and this is about the what if. Nd your conclusions are wrong.

But Sucherman is quite clear in all previous accounts and in his interview with us that if he really was there that the plane did not allegedly pass over the top of him but allegedly passed IN FRONT of him which would be the only way he could have seen "stripes" or been able to tell at all that it was allegedly an AA jet like he conveniently describes. He consistently repeats the claim that the plane allegedly flew from left to right across his windshield.

USAToday.com editor Joel Sucherman watches in disbelief as Flight 77 flies left to right across his windshield.
www.willthomasonline.net...

Not specific enough. Left-to-right, sure, not the other way. But it does not specify that he saw no additional angle - it's not necc. straight across. Where does he say "I was not directly under it," or "it passed over the road well ahead of me..." ? Where does he say, or show on a graphic, "I was right there, had just come out from under the underpass when I saw the plane" or "i was at the bottom of the hill with the Pentagon ahead of me barely visible behind some trees." ? If you have a good reason other than your reading of "2:00" for placing him here, that it my question.

In our interview he all of the sudden tried to expand on that as if he ALSO saw it out of his right passenger window!

Yeah, that's the magic of witness verification, isn't it? You get better details... or deeper lies, depending on your mindset going in. All of a sudden we ask for better details and he starts lying on us...

The most obvious contradiction here in Sucherman's account should be that 2:00 is NOT a view out of the passenger window no matter how you slice it.

I think this statement has been shown quite incorrect. There is at least one way of 'slicing it' that's perfectly logical and, it seems, the one Sucherman used, that places the impact point at 2:00 right out his passenger window.

And again, your system, Ranke, for reading 2:00 - I see how that might make sense, but it's not what I'd use for ground objects. A car at 12:00 is ahead of you, one at 6:00 behind. A building at 12:30 is far ahead and sligtly to the right of you. A plane right above you is at nothing o-clock, it's not on that plane. You could set a new vertical clock for that oriented however you want, that's 3D stuff and if there's a set why I dunno, but point is, this is all on the ground. him - Pentagon from him. Line on the ground 2:00 from ahead being 12:00. I do not BELIEVE he saw from a satelite view. That is how I drew it out to verify what I thought was 12:30 was in fact 12:30. It's to read it, man.

Also, he says there were no trees, and you picked a spot with trees. And he says he saw the Pentagon out his passenger widow and you picked a spot where all he'd see if the highhway to the right.

Did you decide on his position before or after the interview, Ranke?

Frankly this entire thread should be locked since it's clear there is no broad discussion possible that would inspire the board members in general to contribute and that you are merely bringing your admitted personal obsession with me to the forum that should be left in your blog.

But Sucherman describes allegedly seeing the SIDE of the plane in all of his accounts.

He is quite clear about this with us and he is quite clear about this in all interviews.

Watch this one where he describes seeing the "windows" and the AA stripes along them.

interview here

Clearly this would make no sense if he was trying to describe being under the plane.

Never does he describe being under the plane and he always describes seeing the side of it from left to right of his windshield.

Larson is picking up on the odd contradictions in his account and spinning it as a means to cast doubt on CIT and the north side witnesses.

Go figure.

But his obfuscation tactics are blatant and not very well thought out.

Just in case the reader didn't get his insinuated point he actually stated it outright:

Am I going to be forced to include Sucherman in my vast disinfo operation hypothesis when he wasn’t even used?

He's not kidding folks.

He really thinks that 9/11 was carried out exactly as reported but that everyone who CONTRADICTS the official story is directly involved in a "vast disnfo operation"!



Listen to him verbalize it here:

Google Video Link

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


Really? So when people say something's at 12:00 they mean right above, not ahead?

I can't believe you don't get this.

In fact I don't believe you don't get this and I think you are merely trying to make your deliberate obfuscation seem innocent.

People look at clocks in front of them, not from above.

When they are using clocks as an analogy for direction for the sake of discussion they are referencing their POV in 2 dimensions like the face of a clock.

Sucherman was talking about his alleged view in front of him in 2 dimensions as if it were the face of a clock.

Of course 12:00 means straight ahead but nobody EVER has a POV from above and certainly Joel Sucherman did not as he was allegedly stuck in stopped traffic on the highway so moving your surrealistic clock up and down the highway does not change his point.

People don't float in mid air.

It's 100% clear that we accurately represented his "2:00" claim within this correct context particularly since it's also 100% clear that he has never described allegedly being directly under the plane and has ALWAYS described seeing the starboard side of the craft directly in front of him pass from left to right across his windshield.

For those who are reading this please realize that there are A LOT of reasons to question Joel Sucherman's account.

Never forget operation mockingbird and please take 10 minutes out of your day to watch our presentation featuring former USA Today colleagues and high profile official story supporters Joel Sucherman and Mike Walter.

Google Video Link

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

I was curious how you'd take this, me finding witness clues indicating a north path from a witness you purposefully misplaced and dismissed as a liar. Rather ironic and too interesting to leave unnoticed. But this response is weirder and dumber than I expected, and almost entirely by weight a sickening display of your obsession with my "obsession." Still telling.

So here's where it stands. We have two different methods of reading positions using a clock face. One I used based on lines across the ground radiating from the eyewitness - ahead is 12:00, hard right 3:00, 1:30 ahead and right equally, a 45 degree angle, etc... and one that Craig insists is THE way to tell it, which I've never heard of that if I understand works like this:
the clock is superimposed over your view, as if it were a tv screen, you set the center of the clock - i dunno, somewhere in the middle of your view? 12:00 looks to be up, but should be read as ahead, of course. 6:00 looks down but means behind. 3:00 means right, or right and ahead or behind, depending how the clock is centered? 2:00 means something just above the horizon on your right somewhere? No, I don't quite get it. I'm not being deceptive, it just doesn't sound right. Sounds made-up, but maybe it is what your momma taught ya. I'm giving you time to ask around and if you still believe this is THE way people usually interpret 2:00 at, say, 2:00 tomorrow, the ridicule cannot be prevented.

Clocks are never horizontal

except the sundial, which is the best kind for this analogy.

and this is not how normal people interpret the analogy of direction from time!

You are not an expert on how normal people think my friend! You are the creator of The PentaCon! How you, or I, or normal people think about it is irrelevant here anyway. What's important is how Sucherman meant it. When he said 2:00 what direction did he mean? I thought it was self-evident he meant the normal way, my way. you thought it self-evident he meant your method. In CIT land the solution is clear, but in the real world we have a disagreement.

Well here's the great part - you interviewed him for better clues, so we can get a better guess what exactly he meant! Hooray! Except all he told you was lies that conflicted with your pre-assigned behind-the-trees liars corner. He said no trees. Your 2:00 has trees in the way, mine doesn't. He said he could see the Pentagon out his side window. Not by your 2:00. Isn't it possible that your 2:00 was set in error due to presuming he was using a system like yours? Or because you decided you needed him to be a lair so bad you didn't even realize what a good Noc witness he could be made to seem?

As far as the other aspects, you did add some useful info here, thanks. I still see no reason to rule out he was under it, He doesn't seem to think so, but officially it flew at an angle over the road, so even then he'd be able to see the side of it, thorugh his windshield. Left-to-right and back-to-ahead. It is almost impossible to get a perfect fit consistent with his words and the official story, looking as you say from above. Perhaps he's confusing seeing the impact hole out the side later after he rolled forward? I'd guess from the road an exact 2:00 by my method would look more like 3:00, so by 2:00 he might mean 1:00 or 1:30. There are perspective issues, like you can see in the Ingersoll shots, where the building appears shifted north or south so the flight path doesn't seem to line up... you know what I mean. I don't tintend to iron it all out and place him exactly, but it was somewhere around here, not where you placed him, literally about 1:00 or 1:15.

However it is quite typical for Larson to erroneously analyze things from a linear point of view from space as he does his investigoogling with google maps and removes everything from the context of real life topography, landscape, infrastructure, or actual human points of view.

Really? I'm proposing that he meant 2:00 across the acctual topographical earth's surface to identify the location of a building on the ground in 3D space, while you think he means

they are referencing their POV in 2 dimensions like the face of a clock.

Sucherman was talking about his alleged view in front of him in 2 dimensions as if it were the face of a clock.

What's plain surreal here is how backwards you manage to frame everything. How can one argue with logic like this? Nothing new of course. Your little addiction jokes get staler even as they get more explicit and menacing. I'm 'hooked' on honesty, and you are always trying to shoot people up with stupid distortions. and so I'm not as done as I'd said I would be, why ARE you so eager for me to 'get clean?' If all I'm doing is making a 'greasy-haired fool' of myself, isn't that a good thing for you?

I started out trying to be civil and non-personal, but...

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Frankly this entire thread should be locked since it's clear there is no broad discussion possible that would inspire the board members in general to contribute and that you are merely bringing your admitted personal obsession with me to the forum that should be left in your blog.

Hah! So it can't inspire anyone towards YOUR idea of 9/11 Truth, so it should be locked. Maybe deleted! Says... you! Huh, whaddya know.
I brought you a north path witness account you missed! You've been digging for them - Morin, NEIT who is, that thot the plane hit the south side of the building, etc... All you have to do is admit you placed him wrong, remove him from suspect witness purgatory, and you have another NoC witness!

But we know why Sucherman had to be left out. He's media. Only when media are deemed suspect can we get a blanket excuse to deny most evidence - which comes to us via the media - and then the investigation can begin!

But Sucherman describes allegedly seeing the SIDE of the plane in all of his accounts.

you mean "I looked up and allegedly saw the side of the plane?" If it's only alleged and maybe made up, why is this a point against me? He saw the right side as it passed over and ahead of him at an angle. Also the bottom and probably left wing underside, tho he doesn't get that specific.

He is quite clear about this with us and he is quite clear about this in all interviews.

Watch this one where he describes seeing the "windows" and the AA stripes along them.

interview here

Clearly this would make no sense if he was trying to describe being under the plane.

No, it would only fail to describe a plane flying over him straight down 27. No one is arguing for this. ANY L-R motion, which we all agree on, would allow him to see the side at least somewhat.
ETA: that's not right. If it were flying right along his line of sight would be the problem, he'd see no side action or stripes. this is a slight problem with my guess below, so he was somewhat south of that by this clue.

Just in case the reader didn't get his insinuated point he actually stated it outright:

Am I going to be forced to include Sucherman in my vast disinfo operation hypothesis when he wasn’t even used?

He's not kidding folks.

No, I'm not. You'll notice that has a ? after it and was included in a list of possibilities:

Did CIT pass up another north path witness in its huff to disprove the mass-media shills? Imagine if they’d been willing to believe him and make his descriptors into a graphic like that above. It would not have been dishonest, and could have made it into The PentaCon along with Lagasse, Brooks, Turcios, and Paik. Was the north path meant to be 5X corroborated to fit the ‘penta’ theme, but the team was to dense to get the fifth Beatle up on stage? Am I going to be forced to include Sucherman in my vast disinfo operation hypothesis when he wasn’t even used? Or am I just reading too much into this odd coincidence of imprecisions and something more like my middle guess is close enough to what he’s describing after all?

I'm really leaning towards the last one, more or less. But wow, he gave some good north path clues outta nowhere and makes it hard to place him with all the variables he gives... but there's way better guesses than the one you guys picked.

He really thinks that 9/11 was carried out exactly as reported but that everyone who CONTRADICTS the official story is directly involved in a "vast disnfo operation"!

And your distorted rendering of my theory is getting more grandiose and less acurate every time you repeat it. Does anyone care for a reminder what the flyover theory this fella here presents would require? Because that's the alternative, or simultaneous north-path error over and over. Go ahead Ranke, try to make it sound perfectly reasonable again.




[edit on 1-5-2008 by Caustic Logic]

I gotta be honest:

Why would anyone use the vertical method of viewing the clock when on the ground? Sure, when flying a plane - like in top gun - that makes sense. But when you're one the ground, it only makes sense to view the clock in a horizontal manner.

I know, as a layman, if I wasn't trained to view it in a vertical manner, I would definitely think of the clock horizontally to point which direction I'm talking about.

I think it's a pretty stupid argument either way. You can't tell if someone is lying based off of clock.

dbl post - one below is better

[edit on 1-5-2008 by Caustic Logic]

Thank you sir for being honest then, a classy move. It can start to feel a bit insane if it's just you and CIT, you can almost start to doubt yourself, so it's good to have another voice step in, and for that to be, well, in agreement with me, and from a smart member I respect.

And BTW, where are Ranke's supporters? Certainly they have me on ignore, as a notorious disinfo agent. But if I were as wrong as Craig says, you better bet they'd be in here and all over me.

I gave it some more thought and I still don't get Ranke's system entirely. It does give close readings for most uses - you'd never confuse 3:00 and 9:00 for example. BUT it seems to me the reading you get is based on how you 'place' te clock in front of you. It's somewhat dependent on the size of the clock one uses - how far out to the 2 detarmines the angle of the line. More so it's dependent on where you center it. below are some variations: centered at center of the picture, centered at the horizontal center where it meets the horizon line, centered as CIT did, centered as CIT did but larger.

The system I use never changes - it has the crystaline simplicity of the ancient Greeks and smacksof something people should have adopted as a basic maxim of understanding space. it's centered on you, the angle to the object/spot in reference is always set as it leaves the center and if gauged accurately by the witness will give an accurate reading when looked at from above, over whatever distance. So as far as I'm concerned, the system I use is far superior and IF most normal Americans use Craig's system, that's a problem with our education system.

So, anyone care to prolong this discussion of placement systems by challenging this again? Ranke? Two versions of 2:00... one has trees and no view to the right, the others matches his description better. I don't think you're coming out of this correct, but that clock silliness helps it look unintentional at any rate, like that's what you honestly thought you should do. Personally I'm not fooled, but good move.

reply to post by Caustic Logic


People aren't replying because there is no broad discussion possible that would inspire the board members in general to contribute and it's clear that you are merely bringing your admitted personal obsession with me to the forum that should be left in your blog.

It's a train wreck of a thread and no doubt has people scratching their heads wishing they never bothered to click on it.

You have no legitimate point.

Did you know that Sucherman claims there was a 2nd plane that veered away from the building 3 to 5 seconds after the explosion?

Do you believe him?

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


Now that's a cool story.

Click here to learn more about this warning.


[edit on 2-5-2008 by Caustic Logic]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


3- 5 seconds after the impact? How far away would the decoy plane be in 3- 5 seconds?