It appears "singularly privileged" because we worked our tails off trying get permission to film on the Citgo property, which is Pentagon property, which is why we got detained on the first trip for filming/photographing there, as I had told you. Did you know that even folks like NBC and the BBC get kicked off the property if they do not get permission; it's a fact and has happened. They told us if we wanted to film there, we needed to get permission from the Pentagon, specifically the Navy, which is exactly what we did. We took a shot in the dark and it worked. We flew right under their radar. Getting the officers to go on camera was no easy task either. Both kept making excuses and said their schedules would make it difficult for them to do it, but after much persistence and convincing they met with Craig and did the interviews.
Lets get to it. I’ll begin with transcript of what I am assuming is you, “Merc,” or Aldo, based only on your very distinctive way of saying “Rightttttttttt,” and I noticed you didn’t reveal much beyond a quarter profile of your face, and we spoke of just such a detail in our telephone call as suspicious behavior.) This is your voice over, as the transition from the Edward interview to the segment on Robert.
As I told you, I am not the one conducting the interviews. My partner Craig Ranke is. I am the one narrating. He shows his face on camera many times, my face has been seen many times, it's right on my myspace profile-as is his. What are you accusing us of exactly?
Merc: in a voice over: While we fully understood the importance of Edward’s testimony when we first heard it we knew it was important to see if his claim could be corroborated or refuted, so we moved up the street to the Citgo gas station, where we spoke with the manger, who told us about Robert Tercios, an employee who saw the plane. Please note, the fact that Robert Turcios was at work on 9-11 and was an eyewitness to the plane has been confirmed by his own manger, and is officially on record with the station’s payroll. Because of this there is confirmed documented proof that he was at the station and saw the plane on that day. Here is how Robert describes what he experienced.
The entire interview sounds to the ear and reads like an out-of-control young prosecutor questioning a defendant on the stand, but with absolutely no concern over grounds for objections. You take pains to note a manager’s hearsay report that Robert “saw a plane,” adding an official payroll report that “he was paid for the day,” to become “confirmed documented proof.” How does a payroll confirm he saw a plane? This is utterly laughable as your jumping-off place. Then you fail by not allowing, “how Robert describes what he experienced,” rather, here is how you cast his experience through leading and cajoling—skills found in traditions of elite secrecy, I must assume, because they are not the rule of law.
Steven, a phone call goes a long way. The reason that we make a big point to say that he is confirmed to have been working that day is because about 2 weeks after we came back from the first trip and announced Robert telling me on the phone that the plane was on the North side and that it pulled up and after I plastered it all over the forums...THEY RELEASED THE CITGO VIDEO! And guess what? Robert is not seen at the pump he told us he was at. This was before we had Lagasse and Brooks. So the perps thought they could ruin Robert's credibility by removing him from the Citgo footage. They just didn't count on us getting Lagasse, who DOES appear in the Citgo footage, and Sgt Brooks. He wasn't lead or cajoled. He told Craig the exact same thing he told me on the phone. In fact, Craig obtained a first interview with him, using his little digital camera. Robert had originally told me on his last phone call with me, that he wouldn't be able to talk to the "media" anymore, due to his comment in this article that conveniently happened after our first trip.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901469_pf.html
So we had to surprise him when Craig went back in November. Craig found him at the Citgo, told him he was my partner and that he was there for the documentary. He told him he would be there filming officers and convinced him to come outside and give his account for him. Craig, knowing how important it was, attempted to film Robert with his little digital camera without Robert knowing. Again, Robert is shy and did not want to go on camera. It took a lot to convince him to come back and give us an interview. That is why you see a photo of him in his red uniform, and in our interview he came on his day off in his own clothes.
Robert: OK. So, I’m saying, I had just come out to do the pump maintenance that morning, you know, taking out the old water, replacing the paper towels, and I had my cart over here and when I…I hard a loud engine sound—we normally get fly-bys, from the airplanes—but it was louder than that. So you know, I started looking at where it was coming from. So I was looking around, and I saw the airplane come down here, over the tree.
Merc: OK. Lets see where you saying it was coming down. We’re on the south side of the Citgo station, Robert says he saw it came down come down over here…the camera pans to the north…on the north side. Is that right, Robert?
From the git-go, Robert is admitting to the use of an established script in his syntax, not, “so, as I was saying…” or, “as we previously discussed.” This likely stems from something you mention towards the end of the interview, when you say, “OK. I gave you this drawing yesterday” wherein he drew a flight path for the plane, because he apparently wouldn’t draw it on camera like the two cops do. These sorts of meetings are called “advanced briefings,” Aldo, not investigative journalism.
By the way, the way you use his name, “ROBERT,” makes it sound like your trying to hypnotize him, or intimidate him, which is poor interview etiquette at minimum. He should have answered you back with a tug on his forelock, as he scrunched his cap between his hands, shouting out, “Yes Govnur!”
Steven, that is the way Craig speaks to people. Craig is not a cameraman or an on-air personality. That is the way he thought he should address people when he is conducting a recorded interview. I can't help the way Craig speaks, Steven. You, once again, are incredibly off base.
The reason why Robert says "as I was saying" is because we edited it. Do you know why we edited it? Because there was a man in a car behind them honking his horn, being difficult, claiming they were in his way. So they had to stop the interview and Robert had to place a safety cone in front of the space they were filming at, near pumps 10 & 11. The raw footage is available, just make an appointment with us, and we'll show you.
Robert drew the flight path for him in the store when Craig caught him at work on the first encounter, as Craig tried to film him drawing the flight path the store mgr told him he couldn't film in the store. Robert said on camera it was his photo, so we felt it wasn't necessary to include the incomplete footage from inside the store.
Robert: Yes that’s correct, it was, to my, I saw it come right over that, the top of the tree there, next to the corner of the canopy
Merc: repeating: Next to the corner of the canopy…which carries no meaning because the camera is not catching sight of any corner, which lead to an obvious non sequitur … So it came between those two trees?
Robert: Yes, that’s what I recollect
Merc: OK.
Here, already, is an example of your intent, because you are not present, you are not listening, and you are not responding appropriately, which I must assume is because you haven’t gotten to the more important part yet. So here you’re blinded dissociated.
Again, that is Craig. Robert was his first interview regarding the North side, as he didn't get to Lagasse and Brooks yet. So he was trying to film by himself, ask questions, be sure to not forget any questions, carry a folder with pictures of planes and the photos Robert so graciously gave him of the mound from the day of 9/11. I think Craig did a fine job and I don't fault him if he seemed a bit scattered in his approach-being that he has NEVER used a camera or filmed anything or anyone. I don't think intially understood how detailed we wanted him to be in his recollection of where he saw the jet. When they filmed on the North side, Robert later specified how far North the plane was and Sgt Lagasse confirmed it.
Robert: still on message, Um…It seemed to be very, very low to the ground, I thought it was going to let, hit, the floor…the street…here…the ramp….but, I…
Merc: too brightly: So, let’s go over there!
Aldo, in our call, we both spoke of our experiences contemplating the devil in this work. I’ve become experienced enough even to codify several attributes I find in his messages: a recognizable signal by grammar or syntax, a repeated or omitted word, for instance; a dislocated voice—like a stage whisper, or ventriloquism; a message in form of the exact opposite of what is really the truth; but with Robert, who truly is transparent and guileless, as he gets upset in direct proportion to the pressure placed on him to say a certain thing in a certain way, I saw a common attribute hidden by its obviousness: the quick ins and outs, sometimes only a few words long, without any continuity, like computer viruses battling. As in here, where Robert loses his second-language skills, in both the subject and the verb simultaneously: Let! Hit! Floor! Street! Ramp! I tried to be faithful to meaning in my use of punctuation, and it reads like he’s losing his grip, and surprise, the topic is the mounds! Why?
Steven, you are creating a reality for yourself. You are letting your imagination run away with these wild theories. You have to ground yourself. Please, for the love of sanity and the truth. The topic was not mounds. If you followed our interactions with Pickering, you would see that he tried to use the mound as a tool to try and discredit Robert. The mound was integral part of his account, but not Edwards, Brooks' or Lagasse's. Robert had logically (thankfully) thought to bring the photos of the mound to show what his view was actually like that day and he gave them to Craig. End of story.
Robert leads the way towards the mound, with the camera following. After only a few steps, and mid-stride, Robert is heard to say in a slightly surreal voice
Robert: Stop here…
but he doesn’t, continuing on, advancing to the curb, when Merc asks:
Merc: Where were you exactly?
Which stops him cold, he turns back towards Merc in a misunderstanding of his meaning, shaking his head exasperatedly, laughing…
Which Merc also misinterprets what this signifies, so he responds aggressively, saying…
Merc: You were right there! But the mound was a lot smaller huh?
Robert: Yes it was a lot smaller.
There is an awful lot of energetics going on in this scene. It’s riff with assumptions that come from a back-story. I see the motherload.
Anybody will have a hard time establishing why those mounds were built in the first place, let alone why they were “grown.” On September 11 they were beautifully formed and solid, racked with groves in anticipation of seeding (an absolutely brilliant detail by the way, to leave them in an unseeded state for 9-11! Choice!)
The audio you hear is from the little hand held recorder Robert is holding. We knew his account was important and we wanted to make sure people heard this very soft spoken man, so we synched up the camera audio with the audio from the recorder he was holding. That's the reason for his "surreal" voice.
Again, I am not sure why you are hung up on the mound Steven. It was in place on 9/11, it may have been placed there to obscure the view (then or later). Or it may just be a coincidence. We will never know. Take a minute and think if the mound is crucial to figuring out what happened. Of course it isn't. Maybe in your mind. But it isn't important. Then think about the fact that you will NEVER be able to prove why the mounds were really there. Do you really believe that I contacted you about seeing our evidence so we could dissuade you of this bird brained theory about the mound or affect your "theory"? Are you this mentally unstable?
Again, I am not sure why you are hung up on the mound Steven. It was in place on 9/11, it may have been placed there to obscure the view (then or later). Or it may just be a coincidence. We will never know. Take a minute and think if the mound is crucial to figuring out what happened. Of course it isn't. Maybe in your mind. But it isn't important. Then think about the fact that you will NEVER be able to prove why the mounds were really there. Do you really believe that I contacted you about seeing our evidence so we could dissuade you of this bird brained theory about the mound or affect your "theory"? Are you this mentally unstable?
Merc: still leading, a la Pearl Mesta: You have some pictures of that, why don’t we get Fred some pictures. Can you show us those pictures Robert, how high was the mound, Robert?
Merc hands off a portfolio, which Robert takes, opens desultorily, vaguely proffering the top image…
Robert: This is what it looked like then, like, back then,
Merc: O.K. let me zoom in on that.
Robert: It was not completed then as you see it now.
Merc: Rightttttttttt.
It was a little bit shorter
Merc: with only slightly less T rollage: Righttt.
Robert: So I could see a little bit, more then now….ah, but..
Merc: interrupts in his too-positive persona, offering absurdly: In fact, let’s go up on the mound and see if we can get a better view of what you actually saw.
Robert leads the way, but stops halfway up the mound. The camera ascends to that point, but just keeps on going, an additional five or so steps, to the crest. As the camera stabilizes, leveling its view of the Pentagon, we can then see Robert’s shadow sheepishly taking the extra necessary steps to meet up with him. Leading the witness?
Wow. This is intense. Did I start this mess? Shit. Don’t try this on Court TV.
And I still can’t tell, after repeated viewings: does Merc mistakenly call Robert Fred once?
No "Merc" doesn't. Because "Merc" wasn't there. Craig Ranke was there and Craig does not call him 'Fred'.
You didn't start anything except your overactive imagination and your tendency to make this about you. Do you really think I contacted you because of the mound? Are you really that crazy?
Merc: OK! So there we go. That’s the Pentagon! Pretty close view of where the impact point was. Turning the camera to face Robert, who visibly recoils in involuntary defensiveness at the combination of this gesture and his vocal tone…Now Robert, when you ran up to the mound, you saw the plane fly through…um…between these two trees, What happened after that.
Robert: Well, as I say, um, what I saw was a gray plane ah …shrugs…I couldn’t really tell exactly what it was…quickly correcting himself…I mean, I couldn’t tell the markings on the side of it, just...
Merc: Interrupting: Did you see any markings at all?
Robert: No, I don’t remember seeing any markings.
Merc: OK. It was gray. Was it a bright gray or a dull gray. Oy vay!
Robert: Kind of bright.
Merc: Kind of bright.
Robert: shrugs: It was more a silver gray than….
Merc: OK.
Robert: But it was so, kind of quick, maybe two seconds when I saw, laughs, gesturing back to where he had been standing, when I saw…swoop down here…then I tried to follow it…I…saw it lift up a little bit to get over to the side of the bridge…here.
Merc: To the side of the bridge?
Robert: Yes, where you see the Do-Not-Enter sign
Merc: attempting to focus the camera: The Do-Not-Enter sign…
Robert: it seemed to be that way…pause… the Do-Not-Enter sign…oh I see… OK, he’s talking about the Do-Not-Enter sign…pans…right there…
Robert: It’s on the billboard…
Merc: Right there…Leading the witness: So it flew up to go over that.
Robert: Yes, it…ah…
Merc: OK. And?
Robert: And, then, my view was not…I could not totally see when it hit the Pentagon, all I see is, all I saw was, it headed straight to it, and a, shrugs, then the big explosion, just the fireball, and lots of smoke.
Merc: OK. So you see….so you didn’t actually see it hit the Pentagon? Duh.
Notice that the repeating of “run up the hill” by Merc should have read, “So, I ran out here...to this mound…to see if I could see what was going to happen…ah...but.”
Quite clearly, you have a vested interested in getting Robert to admit to seeing something attempt a “pull-up” maneuver, which might then be broadened into your flyover theory.
Robert’s honest testimony is, “I tried to follow it.”
I think the only thing that would hug the ground over hill and dale like that would be a cruise missile, but than again, I KNOW you have a vested interest in NOT saying that.
Steven, what is wrong with you? Are you ok? Did you hit your head in between the time I spoke with you and the time you watched the movie? Take a step back from the painting and take another look.
Let me explain something to you so you understand. You are what people call a "Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist"( or you are an operative yourself-I will wait for your next move before I make that assessment)-you may even have some mental issues due to all the acid you took at age 13. You being a PCT are a detriment to the truth. You have done no genuine research which results in finding out what actually happened. You stare at photos and use your broken "sixth sense" (You may want to get that fixed by the way) to formulate a case. Your delusional gut feelings do not qualify as research or investigating.
I have a vested interest in getting to the truth. There was no goddamn missile Steven. There is no evidence for it, if we need to we can go over it again-no one with a name and a face saw a missile. The damage does not indicate a missile. It indicates a poorly simulated plane shape in the building, with columns blown up and out, accomplished through explosives. Explosives which are corroborated by victims .
We had a vested interest in Robert telling Craig on camera what he told me on the phone. And he did, Steven.
Let me explain something to you so you understand. You are what people call a "Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist"( or you are an operative yourself-I will wait for your next move before I make that assessment)-you may even have some mental issues due to all the acid you took at age 13. You being a PCT are a detriment to the truth. You have done no genuine research which results in finding out what actually happened. You stare at photos and use your broken "sixth sense" (You may want to get that fixed by the way) to formulate a case. Your delusional gut feelings do not qualify as research or investigating.
I have a vested interest in getting to the truth. There was no goddamn missile Steven. There is no evidence for it, if we need to we can go over it again-no one with a name and a face saw a missile. The damage does not indicate a missile. It indicates a poorly simulated plane shape in the building, with columns blown up and out, accomplished through explosives. Explosives which are corroborated by victims .
We had a vested interest in Robert telling Craig on camera what he told me on the phone. And he did, Steven.
Robert: No, the views was…it was obstructed still…I could only see the… he gestures…the fireball.
Merc: Did you see it hitting any of the light poles?
Robert: No, I…laughing satirically—I must have missed that. I just saw it pick up, just to make the…
Merc: You saw it pick up to miss that? Rather than hitting the lamp poles? Did you see it fly over the Pentagon?
Robert: Disingenuously: Fly over? The Pentagon? No, only thing I saw was when it was a direct, a direct line to go into the Pentagon….
Merc: interrupting…OK. So you didn’t see it hit?
Robert: finishing…. collided…. No I did not.
Merc: Because there were other plans as well, some people say a gray plane flew over the Pentagon that was following it. But you did not see that?
Robert: No, I did not see any other planes…no.
Merc: OK. Did you see any windows on the plane?
Robert: No, I don’t.
Merc: Did you notice how many engines it had?
Robert: I could see the one from my side, the big turbine engine, you know, on the wing. Laugh
Merc: OK. Just one.
Merc is clearly not paying attention to Robert at this point. Yes Merc, Robert technically said “one” big turbine engine, but he also said, “you know, on the wing.” He is meaning for you to extrapolate the result, not mindlessly parrot, “OK. Just one,” as if the plane’s name were Eileen.
Steven, that is Craig. Clearly Craig does not meet your standards for a interviewer. Sure there are things I wish he said or asked differently, but he interview is what it is. It is about the North side and Robert seeing the plane pull up.
Let go of your beliefs. There was a plane. Why don't you get off your delusional ass and go out there and tell the people of Arlington it was a missile or sorry, "missileS". There was no missile-not one that can be confirmed anyway, maybe one DID shoot from the plane before it flew over, or maybe one did come from the gnerator trailer-but we CAN'T prove it. I know, it's like someone telling you there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny.I know it's not as exciting or fascinating as a missile attack, but it's the truth Steven. They kept us confused and in the dark, they kept the people of Arlington thinking we were all nuts because the perps promoted missile and global hawk/A3 theories, while the people of Arlington all saw a large plane on it's way to the Pentagon.
The real evidence was in the flight path and dubious accounts about a "second" plane/jet chasing/shadowing along the flight path and veering away as soon as the fireball explosion happened. And we proved it.
Get on a plane, go to the gas station and ask Robert what he saw. Ask him if Craig led him. Ask him if we misrepresented his testimony in any way, shape or form.
Cut. Robert is shown standing on the north side of the Citgo station, where the mound has conspicuously petered out, revealing the full splendid view of the Pentagon.
Merc: OK. Here we are on the north side of the Citgo station, the Navy Annex station…laughs... whatever it’s called. What’s it called?
Robert: Navy Exchange.
Merc: Navy Exchange:
Merc is simply being rude here, which further establishes his priorities.
Not continuing on with the full transcript, the interview concludes with a sequence:
Once again, it is Craig. Not me. And Craig was not rude, he just laughed because he didn't know the new name of the station off the top of his head. Get a grip.
Robert: I lost sight of it behind the mound…getting back on message… that’s when I ran out…
Merc: Pauses to collect himself, then in a summary tone: When you ran out to the mound, that’s when you saw it pick up a bit?
Robert: Utterly surrendered: Yes.
Merc: OK. But without a doubt it was on this side of the station the north side
This blows the whole game! You are saying yourself that your two major points carry different levels of doubt and verification! Are we meant to find out the truth by virtue of such slipshod work and does this explain your ennui over the agenda of the Illuminati? Are we meant to destroy ourselves in factional fighting?
I don't know Mr. Conspiracy Theorist, or is it Mr. Operative? You are the one causing the fight. Causing mistrust. You are working very much like a subversive operative casting doubt while simultaneously making yourself look nuts-which in turn makes truth seekers look nuts. Clearly it was a mistake even contacting you, but I guess once you saw the movie (or they gave you the order) you would blog out these delusions (or calculated disinformation) for all to see anyway.
The following conclusion is cheap bullshit and you know it.
Robert’s account is earth shattering. He collaborates Edward’s account and definitively places the plane on the north side of the gas station, proving the official story a fabrication. What’s also quite notable about Robert’s account is he actually saw the plane pull up to miss the street sign and light poles
So, where does that leave us? When they say “it was an inside job,” what does that mean?
I sense several factions dancing in a balance of corruption, as well as even more covert—if there can be such a thing—organized pockets of good will, working to subvert the subversion. Where do you fit in Aldo? Because your bullshit about taking the bus doesn’t fly with me anymore.
Lastly, my responding to you privately in this fashion is completely uncharacteristic of me and my tactics. I know this stuff in my gut and I should be altering the tenses here and there and publicly posting straightaway on my blog and your forums, which is likely to happen anyway, but giving you a chance to come clean first, leaves me reeling. Please don’t lie again.
Most of the cheap bullshit can be found on your blog, next to the 99 cent research and second hand, discounted theories.
Don't lie again? Motherfucker, you got some nerve. So now I have to regret telling you personal things about my life? I have to convince you that I rode a bus for a period of time in my life like it's even relevant? How dare you threaten to drag our good names through the mud because you are an unstable paranoid conspiracy theorist? I am responding now out of duress for fear that you WOULD blog this nonsense if I didn't respond to your delusions (or calculated disinformation). I guess if it is calculated disinformation you will publish it anyways.
So tell me, who is telling the truth? Who in Steven Welch's warped mind is actually telling the truth? Is everybody in on it? So everybody in Arlington is lying or was led because Steven M. Welch "KNOWS" it was "missiles" because he stared at pictures harder and longer than everybody else?
Should we have just sat behind our computer and stared at photos too? Argued with people online about witness lists ? No wait, we wouldn't be doing that, because according to you, we are accomplices to this crime. That infuriates me.
I am forwarding this e-mail to Craig so he can respond. I hope you think twice about your conclusions. If you want to post about missiles, do it until your heart's content at the expense of the truth and our work. But leave our names out of your "theories"/accusations.
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
No comments:
Post a Comment