CIT criticism.

Posting these critical resources for 911blogger users to examine, when evaluating the Pentagon Fly-over theory and eyewitness evidence as presented by the CIT team. Since the poll wasn't exactly a crushing defeat for the "No" vote, users should be aware of this criticism:

John Farmer's blog:

Caustic Logic:


I have no further comment on these blogs other than to say that they exist.

What is the Pentagon flyover

What is the Pentagon flyover theory and what is the CIT team? I have never heard of this theory. I thought FL77 hit the Pentagon.

It did

The CIT team is trying to prove that multiple eyewitnesses, DNA evidence, flightpath destruction, and photos of American Airlines plane parts are all just props in an elaborate plot involving a plane flying over the Pentagon while bombs went off inside the Pentagon. Pure honey pot.

Yet you have no honey.

Let us know when you are ready to speak with witnesses who were there or or are ready to examine the fraudelant data from the alleged impact plane.

What a sad situation. Minds being manipulated and thoughts being controlled.

When will the honey pot be used?

As some point so many people will know the buildings were blown up it wont matter if they "spring" the honey pot. I submit that point has already passed.

Eye of the beholder

I wonder if the Mineta testimony is
a honey pot, which is not to say he is neccessarily lying about what he heard.

Emphasize Northside Evidence, Avoid Excess Speculation

The 'Northside Of Citgo' trajectory interviews speak for themselves and directly contradict the physical evidence on scene (downed lightpoles, etc.) 2 independent law enforcement officers alleging this flight path does not seem to be easily debunked.

The other information is too inconclusive to make a complete determination.

In my opinion, it would not be wise to try to answer what seems to be unanswerable.

what other information?

>>>>The other information is too inconclusive to make a complete determination.

Our detractors are the ones who use an argument from personal incredulity to dismiss the "flyover theory" as a means to detract from the north side evidence just as rep has done in his poll.

We focus on the evidence.

But Aidan.....if you accept the north side evidence you must understand that this is PROOF the plane did not cause the physical damage.

But as you know we have provided evidence that proves a military deception on an entirely different front as well.

The fact that the plane came from east of the Potomac River fatally contradicts all official data.

There is no way around this.

There is no reason for them to fabricate a flight path and use a fraudulent FDR if they were to have the plane physically impact the building as reported.

To suggest that we shouldn't even bother talking about the flyover at all would be the same as suggesting that people shouldn't bother hypothesizing about HOW the towers were brought down.

You are now guilty of promoting disinformation.

You just post blogs but have no comment on them?

Do you even know what is in those blogs, Rep?

All innuendo, disinfo, incorrect and incomplete information.

List one accurate piece of information that debunks or refutes anything CIT has done, Rep.

This is sad, you choose newcomers who have vehemently attacked us while trying to blend in with the movement.

Did you all know John Farmer tried courting us? Did you now about this?

We watched John Farmer burst onto the scene not long after we received the very damaging testimony.
He tried to blend in with us by complimenting our work. Then he slowly started posting strange theories, like there was a plane on each flight path. Then he tried attacking Robert. Lagasse, brooks and so on. We 100% believe John Farmer is an op. A vague character who claims he ran for congress, was a police detective, worked for Dupont... he is a regular Karl Schwarz. He is a ghost as far as we are concerned.

Arabesque is an anonymous poster from the UAE I have heard. He has been a vigilent attack campaign against us and like Farmer he misleads readers by posting incorrect, incomplete information. Arabesque still to this day has not removed all the people he claims were witnesses who actually weren't. Arabesque is another individual we consider to be a part of the operation against CIT.

Adam Larson (Caustic Logic) is admittedly "ego-obsessed" over us. He continually has been corrected and at least admits so many of his errors, but continually still spins and misleads readers by actually suggesting our witnesses are part of a disinfo campaign.

They have all done this. Either we are disinfo or they imply two of our witnesses "work for the gov't" so they must be in on it.

They try so many angles to cover all bases when trying to cast doubt on us.

You can read more here:

Rep, why do you promote info youare clearly not even reading or studying?

Do you know how disinfo works?

This is incredibly are fighting against and slowing the progress of the good guys, Rep.

You let me know when you are ready to become informed Rep. I am here on this blog to inform anyone who needs it. Anyone who has any questions or comments about the above disinfo links Rep has provided.

Still waiting for someone post one piece of accurate piece of information from those blogs that accurately disprove or refute any of our findings.

Your method of attack...

Calling Rep "guilty" of promoting disinformation is ridiculous. The facts may be on CIT's side, but your attitude sucks.

what does "attitude" have to do with evidence?

Do you resent "We Are Change" for having "attitude"?

Do you resent the Vietnam anti-war movement for having "attitude"?

Do you resent the civil rights movement for having "attitude"?

You better believe we have "attitude", anger, passion, and that we respond harshly to attacks against the important information we present proving 9/11 was an inside job.

Sorry if that upsets you but we most certainly are going to continue to kick down doors to make this information known.

The convoluted obfuscation efforts in the links that Rep posted are disinformation.

If Rep had a legitimate complaint about the information he would have at least quoted these guys and made his point.

But he made none and merely set the stage for a flame war against us because he was disappointed with the poll results.

This is not an appropriate way to treat dogged investigators who have provided a mountain of independent verifiable evidence proving the official story false.

Since you agree the facts are on our side that is ALL that should matter and you should be able to see through all the division and the clear efforts to marginalize, obfuscate, and ignore what we present and understand why we react harshly to them.

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.

At least...

...CIT gets out there and tries to uncover the truth. Their interviews with pentagon eyewitnesses showing that the plane was white with a blue stripe and therefore NOT an American Airlines plane is still one of the most important pieces of the puzzle we have uncovered, and that is all thanks to CIT. Please CIT, keep it up.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." -The Declaration of Independence

Mike Rivero at WRH responds to Flt 77's black box data

Just as an FYI, I see in todays readers letters at someone has been emailing Mike Rivero at WRH asking him about the Pilots for 911 Truth analysis of Flt 77's black box data showing it was too high to hit the Pentagon. Rivero, as might be expected, is firmly sticking by his opinion that Flt 77 hit the Pentagon.

READER: In all the controversy over what did or did not hit the Pentagon, I was wondering if you had given any consideration to the work of the Pilots for 9/11 Truth and their analysis of AA Flight 77s flight data recorder information, released to them after a FOIA request to the NTSB. They say that the flight data as shown by the black box indicates that Flight 77 could not have hit the pentagon (basically trajectory was way too high) and both the NTSB and FBI have declined comment on why the FDR data does not correspond to the US Governement's "Official Conspiracy Theory" as to what went down that day.

This video presentation (55 min) analyzes the flight trajectory as presented by the NTSB from the black box data and shows how it confllcts with the official story:

more information and analysis of the FDR data is also available at

WRH: At the risk of panicking travelers, altimeters are not that accurate. Aneroid altimeters are offset by local air pressure conditions that vary from the originating airport and radar altimeters are affected by local ground terrain and do not function well at low altitudes. GPS, which is designed to find position on the globe's surface, is far less accurate on the vertical than on the horizontal. It is for this reason that aircraft are separated by 1000 feet vertically by air traffic control. Errors in the altimeters can reach hundreds of feet too high or too low. In theory, if everyone is using correctly set aneroid altimeters, the errors all move the same way by the same amount. On bad-weather approaches to airports there is special ground-based radar to give a more accurate reading of the aircraft's altitude relative to the runway. The aircraft flight data recorder carries the data from the encoding altimeter which encodes its errors onto the tape. So, there is no surprise or diabolical explanation needed for the fact that the altitude on the Flight 77 numbers read a bit high. All it takes is a slightly lower local air pressure at the Pentagon than at the airport where Flight 77 orignally took off.

First letter above was followed up by this.

READER: You said basically that the are staking their claim on possibly inaccurate and/or unverifiable readings from Flt 77/s aneroid altimeter altitude readings.

But in the video I linked in my emails and which is posted on the http:// web site, it was claimed they also cross checked the barometric pressure derived altitude readings with the aircraft's radio altimeter readings (which are very accurate and use principles of radar instead of atmospheric pressure) and which were also contained in the FDR data released from the NTSB. Mike, the people who make up the Pilots For 911 Truth web site are professional (civilian and military or retired military) pilots. (see some of their members here: ) I find it very hard to believe that they would make a rooky mistake, even for a student pilot, like not knowing that a barometric pressure altimeter can be off if the correct local barometric pressure is not set into the altimeter and thus attempt to make a case which could be so easily dismissed. And, as a matter of fact (according to the presentation) the radio altimeter data was used to verify the data provided by the standard aneroid altimeter.

Here's the link to the Google Video presentation again:

WRH: The problem is that radar altimeters are designed to be used on approach to an airport, over flat terrain, and where the aircraft is fairly level. Most aircraft radar altimeters will not even work above 2500 feet. While some radar altimeters claim to be accurate down to 0 feet, manufacturers admit that accuracy falls off sharply and can be useless below 40 feet. The thinking is that if you still cannot see the runway at 40 feet altutude, you should not be trying to land a passenger jet anyway.

Radar altimeters measure altitude above the ground (and buildings) right under the craft. Radar altimeter data therefore fluctuates as the terrain below the aircraft rises and falls, or the aircraft flies over buildings and brodges and high tension wires. Inevitably, you are going to get a different reading on the radar altimeter that will vary with the terrain underneath.

The antennas on radar altimeters are directional, pointed downward. They are fairly narrow in focus to minimize errors from hills and tall buildings just off the flight path, which is common in airports in metropolitan areas. Are we 200 feet above ground, or 200 feet above the Tishman Building? The way you avoid those mistakes is by sending the radar pulse straight down below the aircraft, and listening for the return echo the same way. But becauser of that tight radar beam, radar altimeters are subject to slope errors. Their indicated altitude increases in steep banks, which Flight 77 did as it circled the Pentagon. For both these reasons, the raw data from the radar altimeter should not actually match that from the aneroid. The degree of error should vary as the aircraft flew over tall buildings and as it banked sharply in that final turn.

FDR altitude is only PART of it

Rivero hasn't even touched all of the conflicting information as pointed out by PFT.

Regardless of the altitude issue the even bigger problem for the official story is the final descent required (not the loop but the final descent during the final couple seconds) due to the obstacles and topography make it aeronautically impossible for the plane to enter the building perfectly low and level as seen in the DoD leaked and then released security video.

There would HAVE to be a visible descent angle yet there is none.

Furthermore, the FDR does not show and has not recorded any positive load required to pull out of this required dive. In fact, it shows less than 1 G for that segment which represents a "pushing forward" motion on the yoke, as seen in the animation reconstruction provided by the NTSB (See Pandora’s Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77), instead of a "pulling level" motion required.

This is hard scientific PROOF that the government's own data fatally contradicts their 757 impact story.

At the risk of panicking travelers,

"At the risk of panicking travelers, altimeters are not that accurate"

I stopped reading there.

At the risk of upsetting Rivero, he is very wrong. And it would explain why he has never contacted us to discuss this information while our list grows of people who are experts on the matter. Feel free to send this to Rivero. I sure will.

Also, if he is interested, ask him to dial into Air American this Thurs to discuss the facts as it appears he isnt to well versed on the subject. Richard Greene has asked me to Co-Produce this Thursday show on the pentagon. We are hoping to get Meigs and Coburn for opposition, but Rivero will do just fine as im sure Cobrun and Meigs will never reply.


Mike Rivero thinks he knows more than professional pilots?

This is juicy...

Swim in it Mike. Next time, you may want to contact professionals before talking out your ass.

Now i know why the likes of Alex Jones and Mike Rivero dont want to cover this work. They dont understand it. They are still stuck in a Stearman instead of an ADC, CAT II, III equipped modern transport category airliner. Better off as they truly wont be able to debate it with the NTSB/FBI as we have done. Instead, they make excuses. Poor form Rivero!

Talked to pilot

He spilled the beans. Said that the pilots are only there for emergency situations. The planes that they use for commuter flights are fully capable of flying on their own.

They use the computers to take off and land all the time. Especially in bad weather???
Together in Truth!

That is true

Most modern airliners are very automated. But you need someone there to input the data. Garbage in, is garbage out. The "Computer Manager" in todays airliners are highly qualified system managers.. .and... pilots. They just dont put any Computer Quality manager in those seats, not to mention systems that Mike Rivero feels are "inaccurate". Rivero is talking out his ass. Period.

I have forwarded his message to our entire core member list and our media contact list. I dont expect to hear from Rivero on the matter. Hopefully he will surprise us if he really is into seeking the truth and putting his name, face and professional reputation on the line as we have regarding the pentagon, instead of making excuses.

Letter Link?

Seems Mike may have now taken down the letter? Cant find it on the link anymore. Hmmm.... Mike, think you may have crossed the line on this one? Perhaps im missing where its posted.


What does CIT stand for. We can't always assume everyone knows the latest lingo.

Citizens Investigation Team.

I think it's Citizens Investigation Team.

no "s" in Citizen

It's Citizen Investigation Team

Another 3 letter agency

Yea, since the folks that fell for the phony "missile at the pentagon" are realizing they saw edited clips, and all the witnesses saw a plane, are waking up to that fact. We have this 3 letter agency to put in your lap another phony scenio that no one saw, a preposterous flyover. Only in this scenio you have to accuse the ordinary citizins of being "in on it", and keep the movement from pointing out how Hani Hanjour could not have done what he is supposed to. What's next in the name of "911 truth" a documentary of how the firefighters planted bombs in the WTC?

wow our name has 3 words in it so it MUST be disinfo!

This guy banned me on the prisonplanet forum this week for no reason other than censorship even though the members there clearly support us and the information we present.

The REAL funny part about this is that our presentations are supported on!


That's right

Banned because I wont be a moderator on a forum that promotes the idea, that it is ok to stab working class citizens in the back and accuse them of being accomplices in 9/11 if they prove your flyover as ridickulas. We'll see if there is any furture posts on prisonplanet for you. And I didn't need to take a vote to do it. Most that vote on a current poll believe a cruise missile hit the pentagon which only proves how bad this movement has been hit with DisInfo and responsible and sane researchers need to put an end to it. It's called responsibility, not to mention the fact that your movies are a joke and easily debunked, and make truthers look insane.

we disproved the missile theory...

And the poll had nothing to do with a missile.

It was about the flyover.

Whether or not publishes our info in the future is irrelevant.

They have already published and are CURRENTLY promoting our work AT THIS TIME.

That means you support and even voluntarily work for an organization that promotes what you claim to be disinfo.

There is no way around this fact.

How does that make you feel?

I'm not the webmaster

at prisonplanet, and like I said, we will see if they ever put you on there again. And the poll I was referring to was one on the forum at prisonplanet. And I feel just fine exposing you as DisInfo BS artists.

i never saw a poll there....

I was talking about the reaction of members to the fact that you deleted my posts and banned me and the positive reaction I have always received to my posts that weren't deleted.

You can feel good about your attacks all you want but your efforts aren't working.

You are viewed as a controlling bully on that site and your efforts to censor this important evidence have only underscored that point.

So while you continue to make yourself look bad by attacking us you are simultaneously accusing of deliberately spreading disinfo..

still crying

need some tissue? 2 members don't make a board, and both those members are still showing and believing in the old edited clips of CNN reporterJamie Mcintire and edited clips of Mike Walter and his "missile with wings" not exactly experts on 9/11. And I have had members email me saying they joined just because of the treatment I gave you.
Positive reactions from gullible ill informed people is your forte and the only reason you are still around.

BTW: Giving you your own thread as we discussed how horrible and misleading your latest movie is, was more than you gave Llyod England. I gave you a chance right there to confront my crtique. That makes me a bully. What did the old cab driver say when you asked him who his handler was? When you asked him who were at the secret meetings he had with the perpetrators he was working with? When you asked him why he went along with this mass murder. When you asked him if he would like to come clean? When you asked him how he "staged" his scene in braod daylight? What did he say to all this? You never asked did you? Becuause you knew it would be better to accuse him of all that thousands of miles away on the internet and in a movie. So what would that make you? Is there a more appropiate word than coward?

I will say...

That this CIT Team is VERY reminiscent of the "TV Fakery" team that once tried to overtake, and was eventually banned.

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

oh really??

Then make your point.

Say how.

Was there a poll here about "TV Fakery" where a majority of the participants said they believe in it?

We have never even bothered to post on threads here by others that have nothing to do with us so to suggest we have the remotest inclination to "overtake blogger" is simply ludicrous.

We don't come here to disrupt or talk bad about anyone. We have only posted independent verifiable evidence that we have personally obtained during our on site guerrilla investigative efforts.

NONE of it is based on speculation and NONE of it has been the least bit debunked here or anywhere.

The notion that we have to DEFEND this confirmed and corroborated hard evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job is ridiculous.

But it's clear there has been a concerted effort to marginalize the information we present and all we have done is respond harshly to these unwarranted attacks.

Nothing we propose has anything to do with exotic or unknown weaponry much less outrageous real time fakery theories.

CIT has always been against such nonsense as you can clearly read in our mission statement.

Your post is yet another attempt to focus on us personally as a means to detract from the evidence.

Sorry but...

I don't trust polls on a site filled with trolls that would like nothing more than to see this movement die. It reminds me of the "TV Fakery" days because 1) It brings attention to a controversial theory that IS speculative (personally, I'm tired of "theorizing" about what happened. I want some f_cking answers already). 2) This is now the "focus" of this site for the moment, much like "TV Fakery" was the "focus" of this site for a short while. Thereby "overtaking" My post was not personal. Just pointing out the similarities that I remember. Now, I've just purchased the 9th season of Cheers, so I'm going to go relax. I need a break. If you would like to continue this discussion, feel free to email me at

Why isn't Dick Cheney in prison?

we provide hard evidence, not speculation

Perhaps you aren't aware of our work but we detest speculation which is why we went there to find hard independent evidence.

We provide the evidence and have proven that the plane could not have caused the physical damage.

If ANYONE in this movement avoids speculation it is us.

I will email you and I hope to have a civil discussion with you about the evidence.

But I am out of town visiting my Mom for Mother's Day and I need a break too.

Enjoy "Cheers" and I'll be in touch in a couple of days.



What happened at the

What happened at the Pentagon is at best a moot point given the available evidence. For the movement this is in my opinion a potentially dangerous topic that takes up time and serves as a distraction. If there was a hieracrchy of evidence from strongest to weakest, the CIT evidence at this point is high controversial and should not be discussed with those outside of researchers. Why isn't the CIT team focusing on interviewing any potential NORAD employee, any Andrew Air Force Base employee, etc. is it because there opinion is that Cheney did not issue a stand-down order? Granted they can do what they want. The issue is not what happened there, but why. It's a high probability that a standdown order to allow a plane enter the most restrictive air space in the world could the Pentagon have been hit as Cheney has done everything in his power to say he wasn't at the PEOC yet to do so.

we focus on witnesses to the plane...

...and the true flight path proves a military deception.

That is hardly a "moot point".

You can focus on a stand-down order all you want but EVEN IF you were able to prove one it only implicates LIHOP.

Controlled demolition of the WTC proves LIHOP patently false so I fail to see a point in ignoring evidence that we already have proving MIHOP at the Pentagon in favor of seeking out evidence (that is virtually impossible to obtain) proving LIHOP.


We can end any argument or speculation about the Pentagon with a few simple words.

"Show us the video"

They are still acting like we do not exist. They do not need to answer our questions if we don't exist.
Together in Truth!

Oh, they know we exist, all right.

They know they can't "show us the video" because of what the video shows.

Could they fake another video? Hell yes! But if it contradicted the videos they've already leased what good would that do them? Meanwhile the work that Pilots for Truth and Citizen Investigation Team has done shows conclusively that the video they HAVE released can not possibly under any circumstances show what they SAY it shows.

Cockamamy videos, cockamamy Flight Data Recorders, cockamamy eyewitnesses who see planes on the wrong flight path -- Cockups all around. All they can hope to do is keep the situation sufficiently confusing so people will eventually just give up on "all this nonsense" in frustration and 'fugetaboutit'.

Ain't gonna happen.

Your support of government

Your support of government agent John Farmer and toilet scrubber Adam Larson and some obsessed clown named Arabesque exposes you for the gatekeeper you are Reprehensor. Let me guess you're just another anonymous clown in the gatekeeping world. Perhaps one of Randi;s kids from the JREF Forum posing as a truther.

You intentionally mislead people just with the name of your poll.

Why don't you have a poll and ask people who have looked at CIT's work if they think LaGasse, Brooks, Paik, Stephens, Boger, Turcios, Ross, etc are all lying about where they saw the plane. If every eyewitness CIT finds miraculously all either hallucinated an airplane on 9/11 or are all having a false memory which corroborates every other eyewitness CIT has spoken to.

Why doesn't LaGasse change his memory to support the official flight path?

Got any idea "Reprehensor"?

This is what Sgt LaGasse says :

"Again, they can hypothosize all they want...I know what I saw, I know what happened, period."

Know the difference between CIT and their eyewitnesses and gatekeers like you?

You're the one who is anonymous and yet you ultimately get to paint a picture because of your status here to lead or in this case mislead real honest people searching for information and research.

You should resign from this site and this movement. You support government disinformation provocateurs. I'm sure the saddest day for you so far had to have been when CIT's exposure of that fake truther Russell Pickering and his disinfo website caused them to go away. He would fit right in with Farmer and Larson and this other clown.

Ok. That's enough.

Aldo says:
"You are now guilty of promoting disinformation."

Craig says:
"Let's be's no secret that 9/11 blogger has coddled the 757 impact conspiracy theory and has marginalized information that counters this notion."

This, despite the fact that I was (WAS) an early supporter of the Pentacon film:

No, not a JREFer, and now it's time to wrap things up here.

And, I'm sorry to say that I was never very familiar with Pickering's work.

Rep I have the utmost respect for you but when you say:

"I have no further comment on these blogs other than to say that they exist," truly is unsatisfactory to the point of insult. Hey, the 9/11 Commission Report ALSO exists -- should we therefore conclude that all the research done which counters it should just be dismissed? You, I, we, all know better than that.

I've been monitoring the research at P4T and CIT since it began and as someone who knows nothing about aeronautics and someone who has never been to Washington DC, I can appreciate how difficult it is to wrap one's head around the information that has been accumulated by these two groups. Nevertheless, it is very important information -- "take it to the judge" information. What P4T has shown is that even the government's own data DOES NOT SUPPORT the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon. This is a truly stunning revelation. If the world worked at all the way we've been led to believe it worked, this would be headline news all over the world. The data from the Flight Data Recorder which the FBI and the NTSB says came from American Flight 77 which they claim hit the Pentagon on 9/11 does NOT support that conclusion! Worse, it is irreconcilable with the physical damage at the Pentagon and with the leaked then released Pentagon impact videos. As irreconcilable as the rate of decent of the WTC towers and building 7 with ANY "gravitational collapse" theory.

Now, on top of this, the Citizen Investigation Team has interviewed numerous witnesses and what they've found is some emphatically insist that they saw the plane on a flight path that is irreconcilable with the damage at the Pentagon. Irreconcilable, even if they also believe the plane they saw DID hit the Pentagon. Moreover, if you follow all their research, what they're indicating is that a "second plane" or "shadow plane" story was invented and thrown into the mix to confuse eye-witnesses so that EVEN IF THEY DID WITNESS THE FLY OVER they could easily be dissuaded into believing what they had seen was NOT a fly over but the mythical "second" plane.

This is very important stuff, well researched and presented as well as possible given the circumstances. Is it confusing? Hell yes!
What is a psy-op but a house of mirrors filled with wild geese chasing red herrings? But through diligence -- and not without having made some honest mistakes along the way -- P4T and CIT have succeeded in bringing together an incredible amount of research and evidence that further explains the events of 9/11. You have to be willing to look at the evidence. You have to be willing to get beyond whatever bias against it you may have and ask questions and listen to the answers without marginalization or provocation.

"I have no further comment on these blogs other than to say that they exist" is a cop out and provocative precisely because it indicates you do not understand the debate sufficiently to comment on it intelligently. Ok, fine! There is a LOT about 9/11 I don't "understand" -- but I know how to listen and learn and I feel it is my patriotic responsibility to do just that. As John Lennon was want to say, "I hope some day you'll join us!"

painter >> P4T Forum Administrator