Support 911Blogger


NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - SENSITIVE INFORMATION from Citizen Investigation Team

CitizenInvestigationTeam.com

NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - SENSITIVE INFORMATION from Citizen Investigation Team

Citizen Investigation Team offers this compilation of independent verifiable evidence exposing the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon as a psychological black operation of deception. Consider this a non-violent call to action as everyone is encouraged to copy and distribute this conclusive evidence to media, political, and authority figures while first requesting, and then demanding a response. Inaction by authorities and media to this information amounts to a crime of obstruction of justice so it's time they are held accountable. This is particularly the case as more innocents are slaughtered and additional billions of dollars are spent on a fraudulent "war on terror" perpetuated under any other name. Please visit CitizenInvestigationTeam.com for full resources and a step-by-step strategy as to how you can take action on this critical life or death information.

NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - SENSITIVE INFORMATION from Citizen Investigation Team on Vimeo.

CIT: Pentagon attack was "illusion"

Craig Ranke: “We have never claimed that the citgo witnesses didn’t believe the plane hit the building. The claim we make is quite clear. Their independently corroborated placement of the plane proves they were deceived… The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military sleight of hand illusion in order to FOOL people into believing it hit the building.
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/cits-deceptive-flight-path-argu...
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

excellent quote!

Arabesque,

Excellent quote from Ranke! Let's use it in context of the WTC deception and see if you agree.

“We have never claimed that the WTC collapse witnesses didn’t believe the official explanation for an unassisted collapse. The claim we make is quite clear. Their corroborated accounts of a physically impossible near free fall speed collapse combined with reports of explosions and molten steel proves they were deceived… The plane was used as a psychological tool during a military deception in order to FOOL people into believing it is what caused the buildings to collapse.”

Would you agree with the above statement, Arabesque? If so, would you claim that it's fair to suggest that this means the witnesses in NY and the general public who watched the WTC collapse on video participated in mass hallucination? Or would military deception be a more accurate term? Do you understand the difference between the two, and do you understand the point of this analogy?

on claims . . .

>>If so, would you claim that it's fair to suggest that this means the witnesses in NY and the general public who watched the WTC collapse on video participated in mass hallucination?

There was no "fakery" to fool everyone at the WTC -- they blew up the towers and then wrote up hand-waving reports afterwards.

No fake downing of lamp posts, fake debris, fake damage to the generator, faked DNA, fake black boxes, on and on . . .

Oh yeah, and don't bother with Bush/Cheney -- you need to look at that elderly cabbie!! He's the real devil in all this!

No fake downing of lamp

No fake downing of lamp posts, fake debris, fake damage to the generator, faked DNA, fake black boxes, on and on . . .

Only the faking of "natural collapse" of 3 massive high rises in a downtown metropolis! No biggie there, huh? ;-) As if that remotely compares to a few light poles in the backyard of the perpetrators!

Before I looked intensively at CIT's work, and was only hazily aware of their research and conclusions, I too would have thought that "staged light poles" etc. sounds wacky and outlandish. But now, I realize that their conclusions are very solidly based on multiple corroborated testimonies from eyewitnesses. Even one of CIT's most outspoken critics had to concede that the 13 eyewitnesses to the north side couldn't be all wrong by coincidence. He then insinuated that a likely explanation involves all the 13 witnesses plus Craig and Aldo are all part of a huge massive disinfo op. Listen to the first three minutes to hear the discussion / debate for yourself:

That's the ironic double standard here. CIT's detractors claim that CIT does the movement harm by making claims that make the movement look stupid, such as suggesting that a nice elderly cab driver is an accomplice. But then at least one of those same detractors claimed that ALL THIRTEEN of those north side witnesses might be disinfo accomplices. Which is at least twelve times more absurd than suggesting that just ONE "witness" might be part of a fake witness op.

Oh yeah, and don't bother with Bush/Cheney -- you need to look at that elderly cabbie!! He's the real devil in all this!

This, ladies and gents, is what is what critical thinkers refer to as a straw man argument. A logical fallacy. NOWHERE has CIT suggested the cab driver was a perpetrator NOR have they ever called him "the devil". You are misrepresenting their claims. They state that the cab driver was "involved" merely in the sense of being a low level "asset" but NEVER have they suggested he is a high level perpetrator or planner on the level of Bush/Cheney.

I noticed I never received a

I noticed I never received a reply to this one. Just a down vote.

Also, remember the "Harley Guy"?

they blew up the towers and then wrote up hand-waving reports afterwards.

On the morning of 911: "...and the I watched both towers collapse, one first, and then the other, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense."

This was before any "scientific" explanations from NIST or FEMA, or even Bazant or Eagar, were published. And unlike some in the movement, I don't think the Harley Guy was a plant. He was fooled by a military deception, as were hundreds of millions of people around the world, myself included. What CIT's detractors have done in their blogs is analagous to attempting to rebut Gage, Jones, etc. by citing hundreds of witnesses who swear on their life that they saw those buildings "collapse" from "structural failure."

Incidentally, at the AIA convention in DC, we spoke with a few architects who are still fooled by this. One AIA member still belives that the steel "melted" from the jet fuel fires and that the buildings "pancaked." Even the govt's own agencies no longer claim these things.

This goes to show how "the big lie" can fool intelligent, educated people for YEARS because the deception is so profound.

PS I'm in DC right now. I saw a helicopter fly right over a government building today, not too much higher than the roof. I thought to myself: "If a ton of explosives in the upper floors of that building went off creating a huge fireball just as the copter was flying over, I would most certainly be fooled into thinking the copter crashed into the building!"

That elderly cabbie says he

That elderly cabbie says he pulled a light pole out of his windshield. They are over 200 pounds. Not a scratch on his hood. I'd like the strength of that elderly cabbie.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

He also says he fell to the ground while doing so

Specifically, that he fell on his back, but continued to hold the pole in the air.

The hood to the cab after this? Still gleaming like a mirror. Are we to believe that his arms are longer than the distance from the surface of the cab's hood to the asphalt?

Pole is 247 lbs and approx 40 feet long.

Why would he even think this

Why would he even think this pole had to be removed. It was an accident. He wasn't going to just drive away. It was because it was never there to begin with.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

nice summary from truthaction.org

This is from the thread at: //truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30910#30910

I think the first point is to get down what we agree with, so which of the following can we agree on, once established people who disagree with CITs reading of this evidence can present their alternatives:

1) There was a plane which appeared to be a large commercial jet liner involved in the incident.

2) CIT have 13 witnesses who attest to a flight path which, if correct, would make the physical damage impossible to have been caused by the plane.

3) All of these witnesses agree as to which side of Citgo, or the Navy Annex the plane was on. All of them have the official flight path suggested to them as a possibility and all reject it emphatically.

4) Arabesque has listed 6 small snippets of text relating to witnesses who say the plane flew over I-395. This does not match the official story or the north of Citgo flight path but, depending where they were on the road, could be closer to the south than north path. There are no complete interviews with these people instead they are quotes, mostly from media reports and one of them is a third person claim about what the person saw. Two of the quotes are from unidentifed people. This is the complete body of evidence for the south of Citgo flight path.

4) There are not "hundreds" of people who confirm a south of citgo flight path, despite the fact that 3 of the above mentioned 6 people could be south path witnesses if verefied, there are no verefied south side witnesses.

5) As verified by CIT in 2008, Roosevelt Roberts Jr. stated in 2001 that he saw a large commercial airliner at less than 100 feet above the ground flying away from the Pentagon seconds after the alleged impact.

6) In 2001 Erik Dihle stated that there was disagreement immediately after the event as to what happened with many witnesses around him believing that the Pentagon was hit by a bomb attack and the plane kept on going

7) British researcher Calum Douglas received an animated allegedly created from the flight data via FOIA request that contradicted the official flight path, after giving it to Pilots for 9/11Truth they received by FOIA request a spreadsheet of the full flight data which again contradicted the official flight path and also contained contradictions with the animation. Both sets of data end when the plane is way short of the Pentagon. The RADES data showed the C-130 flying a flight path no witness ascribed to it, and is a contradiction with the pilot's own testimony about where he flew.

Cool If the plane was on the official flight path, all sets of flight/radar data would correleate.

9) If the plane was on the official flight path, it would be possible to find a witness in the local area who would agree with it.

I have a suggestion

Let's all keep studying this without sowing the seeds of division. Let's stay civil about it at all times. If possible. The answers are out there.

Thanks.

I certainly will do my part

to not sow division.

"The answers are out there"

Yes, but...

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."
(Thomas Pynchon)

Most of the attacks are by CIT and their supporters

You'll notice that one of the answers in that image was "Arabeque is an agent". I see most of the attacks coming from one side and one side only. There are pages and pages of attacks against me, but little in terms of substance in response to my critiques.

CIT denies that William Laggasse "saw the light poles" when in fact, he said he didn't see the "plane" hit them. These are two very different things. Why is CIT confusing them?

William Lagasse: "These poles were not knocked down" CIT: "He didn't see the light poles"
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-lagasse-these-poles-wer...

In this diagram in that blog you can see where Lagasse placed the taxi cab which is where he also placed the light poles, which according to "ranke" he "didn't see", when actually he said he didn't see the "plane" hit the light poles. And yet they persist in promoting this as "smoking gun" evidence.

Syed writes:

"Would you agree with the above statement, Arabesque? If so, would you claim that it's fair to suggest that this means the witnesses in NY and the general public who watched the WTC collapse on video participated in mass hallucination? Or would military deception be a more accurate term? Do you understand the difference between the two, and do you understand the point of this analogy?"

Now if you were to watch a plane hitting a building and to watch the towers collapse, it is pretty obvious that the WTC collapse HAS fooled people into believing that it was due to the planes. How many people would be fooled by the image of a plane crashing into a building? Your analogy makes no sense at all.

The observation of a plane crashing into a building is pretty definitive. If you would say to me that you would "confuse" this, I would suggest you buy new glasses.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

"pages and pages of attacks against me"

Link please.

why downvote a polite request for proof?

I've never seen these "pages and pages of attacks"

Do a search for CIT on my blog

Do a search for CIT on my blog. But in your case, you are one of the people calling me an agent, so asking for proof of attacks is actually quite funny.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

It doesn't take multiple pages to call someone an agent

What's in the other pages?

All I've seen on your blog are 10,000 word mini-books atttacking CIT -- not them attacking you.

So let me get this straight...

First you ask for evidence of attacks. Then you call written critiques an "attack" (without giving a single example or responding to any points in those articles). After posting false claims, you start calling people liars in this thread (several posts, in fact). Is there moderation on 911blogger these days or can you just make post after post of slander and false claims on this site with impunity and just pretty much get away with it?

Why is this tolerated?

It's pretty clear who is contributing discussion to this post and who is simply poisoning the well.

Jim Hoffman: “[to] be successful [the] '9/11 community needs to create a culture conducive to critique… Yet… Abusers are tolerated… Rational critique is discouraged and reframed as… censorship… divisiveness… [and] infighting.”
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/10/911-truth-and-division-disinfor...
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

POST DELETED BY MODERATOR -jkeogh

Comments like this are not welcome here.

From: http://911blogger.com/rules

911blogger.com is not a message board. This site is not structured for long marathon debates about the veracity of specific claims or hypotheses. If the pace of the comments area does not suit you, consider setting up an account at truthaction.org.

GENERAL RULES

Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation. Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent won't be tolerated. Don't make this site a rallying point for competing factions to battle and waste our bandwidth and time. (If the only comments that you bother making here are to tell others users how stupid that you think they are, your comments will be added to a moderation queue, and your user account may eventually be closed.)

Do not use the site to continue arguments with other users from thread to thread.

Do not post sexual or pornographic material.

Do not embed pornographic, gore, or otherwise non-work safe images or video.

When re-posting an article, try to limit your copy to four paragraphs, and link back to source. DO NOT ALTER THE COPY FROM THE SOURCE. THIS WILL RESULT IN THE END OF YOUR ACCOUNT.

Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults.

Keep your comments relevant to the blog entry.

See this thread for topics to avoid:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/17206

Why is this allowed on here?

Why is this allowed on here? It's clearly just a personal attack.

Good question

I was surprised when this thread was not shut down when it reached 100 comments.

I'm guessing this is a test of new, more tolerant policies and that the readers are being trusted to sort it out.

I think that the regulars here, and the movement in general, are mature enough to handle this discussion.

Although those that do engage in personal attacks should realize that they only damage their own credibility when they do.

Give them enough rope...

169 comments and still going, simply amazing.

Cheers.

Rope

The users here are the real crown jewels of 911blogger. When the discussion turns personal and degrades into name-calling something must be done. Generally, we don't like the idea of shutting down threads, one reason being, as you pointed out... to give everyone enough rope. -jk

Can...

CIT show me a video of what happened at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11? Because if they can't, then in my opinion, they have no idea what happened at the Pentagon, and everything they say is theoretical. Based on witness accounts that contradict other witness accounts that support the idea that a plane hit the Pentagon. I have seen what happens when an advocate for something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon gets on the media, and is asked, "what happened to the passengers?" They are made to look like a fool, and the entire movement takes a hit on the chin. In my opinion, one I've had for as long as I can remember, advocating for something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon doesn't help us at all.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

You're not a fool

if you can't tell them where the passengers went. How the hell should you know? There is much we don't know about what happened on 9/11 -- but that shouldn't stop us from saying loudly and clearly what we DO know, and how that proves the OCT to be a lie.

When new evidence appears, it does take time for people to get up to speed on it. But after a certain point, ignorance is no longer a defense. If CIT's detractors firmly believe they are a co-intel operation to destroy the movement, then why didn't anyone make the effort to be in Arlington Saturday morning to publicly question CIT and shut them up for good? There was a lengthy Q&A after the presentation and everyone who had a question got to ask it. Nobody left that room still believing that a large airliner hit the Pentagon.

The evidence from CIT is decisive. Add in the work of Pilots for Truth and it becomes overwhelming. At this point, those who cannot acknowledge that must have another agenda.

It takes humility to admit you were wrong. Let's not let ego get in the way of advancing truth.

So you're saying...

They don't have a video to show me what happened at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11?

Incidentally, I don't follow CIT, so I had no idea they were in Arlington.

I never said anything about COINTELPRO.

What is my agenda? Haven't I proven over the years that my agenda is to bring justice to those who lost someone on 9/11? Haven't I proven over the years that my agenda is to bring help to the sick and dying 9/11 First Responders? Haven't I proven over the years that my agenda is to end the 9/11 wars? Haven't I proven over the years that my agenda is to reverse everything bad that has happened in the name of 9/11?

What is my agenda?

Edit: Is this CIT's website? I don't see any support for www.nyccan.org or for H.R. 847. The two biggest efforts, in my opinion, currently taking place.

What is their agenda?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

.

"those who cannot acknowledge that must have another agenda"

Ouch. Are you serious?

In my opinion...

Anyone who says you must believe or do this, that, or the other thing, otherwise, you are this, that, or the other thing, should be avoided.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

So you are saying that

So you are saying that anyone who doesn't cover your important issue is not valid? Every issue is important and it is important that people focus. You do a great job. CIT does too. At the Saturday event NYCan was brought up and people encouraged to help. Also, First Responders were brought up as an ongoing aftermath of this crime. But the event and the new DVD are about the Pentagon. Not Shanksville, not WTC, not bush, It is what it is and I am thankful someone is gathering this information. Being a Virginian and having lived a mile from there I take special interest. It doesn't detract from the important work for the first responders or the NY initiative.

Don't let anything divide us.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Which issue...

Am I saying to promote? I'm saying that promoting something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon has never helped this movement. That's a fact. In the almost 7 years I've been doing this, 99.99% of every hit piece has focused on that "theory," and made us look like fools with it. For some reason, no one seems to remember that. If you want to promote the idea that something other than 77 hit the Pentagon, feel free. It's an argument I can't win because I've made these points too many times to count, and people are still promoting it. So, do what you want.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

In those 7 years we never

In those 7 years we never had CIT. We do now and the story is deepening. You can't prove that 77 hit the Pentagon. I don't ridicule you for believing that. Just let others continue the search.

CIT is not promoting any theory about what hit the Pentagon. They are punching holes in the official story. It's important.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

So I suppose...

That you think something like this is "fake/planted?"


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

You are really offering this

You are really offering this as proof? DC911Truth went to West Virginia last year and presented. Afterwards a woman came to me and said her brother was a first responder at the Pentagon and he found the wallet of one of the children. It was NOT burned. They were baffled. I gave her some dvds to pass to her brother.

So we had a plane that went into the pentagon (on the first floor) and was so hot it vaporized but a wallet was found in the rubble not damaged, clearly identified as belonging to one of the children on board.

It didn't take much to fool America on 911.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

No...

I'm offering it as something that says Flight 77 MAY have hit the Pentagon. Which means that CIT's "evidence" isn't as "conclusive" as people in this blog are pointing out.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

No one knows exactly what

No one knows exactly what happened that day. Why are you taking this so personally.

Finding papers of this sort mean NOTHING. Maybe they prove the OCT to you, but to me it means nothing.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Why...

Do I take it so personally? Because as I said, advocating that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon has NOT helped this cause.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Your opinion. Meanwhile we

Your opinion. Meanwhile we will continue to search, thank you.
The more you try to be parental with us the more resolved we will be to question. It's all good.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

"you think something like this is "fake/planted?"

In a word: YES.

Prove it.

Who planted it? Who printed it? When did they do this, and who gave them the orders to do it? You can't just say something is "fake/planted" just because it doesn't coincide with your idea of what happened.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

This is an emotional

This is an emotional response. Prove that it is real.

Overreacting will get us nowhere. You believe, we question.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

I can print the document, and hold it in my hand.

Which any self respecting journalist would do during a press conference that CIT gave in order to make them look like fools. Advocating that something other than 77 hit the Pentagon does not help this cause.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I have to agree with Jon

I have to agree with Jon here. He's got some good points. Particularly offensive and laughable to many is the statement "how should we know what happened to the passengers," which MSM loves to repeat to average Americans -- millions at once -- to turn people away from the nutty conspiracy theorists who think a plane never hit there.

CIT has no flight path after the building . . . for a reason. Seems the radar data ended at the building too. Coincidence?

I'm still waiting for those interviews with the witnesses on the other side, who saw it flying away. Can someone post those please?

Well meaning people can disagree about what is our best evidence

But please don't try to discredit one set of evidence just because you believe that, logistically, it's not our strongest stuff.

my post makes clear

that I am speaking about the agenda of EGO. I'll leave it at that; I can't say more without getting banned or queued.

This line about needing CIT to show you a video of the Pentagon on 9/11 is frankly absurd. Did you expect them to beat the FBI to the Sheraton that morning?

I'm sure Jon that you have done a great deal to help gain medical care for the first responders. They deserve to be treated like royalty, and they've been treated like dogs.

However that is a totally different animal than proving that 9/11 was an inside job.

Re. cointelpro: I am speaking of CIT's detractors. That was not directed at you. You sound like you are still in the category of the uninformed.

Without...

A video of what happened at the Pentagon, or a public or written confession from someone like Donald Rumsfeld, CIT has no idea what happened at the Pentagon.

I hate the phrase "9/11 was an inside job."

Not only have I done a "great deal to help gain medical care for the first responders," but I have also proven that we were lied to about that day. 1000x over.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Your requring a video of

Your requring a video of what happened at the Pentagon is very unfair and is the kind of thing used to stop communication. It isn't going to work. We will continue to search. Go ahead and make unreasonable demands on the truth. Perps love it.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

It's unfair...

To point out that CIT has no idea what happened at the Pentagon? No, I don't think it's unfair at all. What does CIT say about the witnesses that say they saw a plane? Just out of curiosity.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

You are really exposing

You are really exposing yourself here. It is from witnesses who saw the plane that the CIT information is based on. They saw a north path. The official information is a south path. The north path would have come at the pentagon at a different angle. It's physics.

It is unfair for you to insist that we have a video of that day. Unbelievable in fact.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Exposing myself as what?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

As uninformed. 911 Truth

As uninformed.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

"What does CIT say about the witnesses that say...

they saw a plane?"

Jon, have you viewed ANY of their evidence? Why are you so adamantly opposed to something you know nothing about?

For those who'd like the cliff notes version, my CIT report is the most-ever visited page on my blog. Total page views now at about 50,000.

Maybe because...

What they are advocating has hurt this cause over the years I have been apart of it.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about? Hurt the movement?

This information is compelling.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

There is research and there is street activism.

I did not investigate CIT's work until a couple months ago even though they've been around since 2007.

Why? Because I crossed the line from research to activism in early 2007 after the advent of ae911truth. I figured the movement had all the evidence it needed.

If, however, a person steps back from the street activism and goes down the fascinating avenue which is research, what CIT has uncovered is very intriguing.

It was mentioned in the Lloyde England thread a couple months ago: Imagine a traffic court case where 13 witnesses all corroborate each other on the fact that the car accident happened on the north side of the intersection, and no witnesses challenged that account. It's obvious what the jury's conclusion would be.

Give me EVEN ONE person who will go on camera and declare that the South Side approach is true and that all of CIT's witnesses are wrong, and maybe my eyes and ears will perk up to all the resistance CIT receives here.

I personally have no agenda here other than following all investigative leads wherever they may lead.

People who are already predisposed to believe the truth movement is nutty and foolish will likely believe the same w/regard to CD of the towers.

Jon, you say that the inevitable question is "Where are the passengers?" and it makes us look foolish. What about the inevitable question of "How could explosives have gotten in the buildings with nobody noticing?"

CD was once upon a time controversial within the movement before it became virtually universally accepted.

In 2004, many thought Michael Moore was a nut job for implying that the government displayed incompetence on and before 9/11. How flippin' unAmerican!

It's foolish to be afraid to go down certain avenues of inquiry purely out of fear that outsiders will think us crazy.

We all have our individual role to play as bees in the hive. Some people research, and others spread the word, and others do both.

I'm sorry that there seems to be so much anger and disdain towards Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis from some of the activists on here.

The truth will out.

...

Jon, you say that the inevitable question is "Where are the passengers?" and it makes us look foolish. What about the inevitable question of "How could explosives have gotten in the buildings with nobody noticing?"

Yeah, I had a problem with that one to when the media would only focus on CD and a missile hitting the Pentagon.

Now the "media" just tries to paint us as Holocaust Denying Murderers.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

And,

despite the media attempting to mock CD, it has now become universally accepted to the point of peer reviewed acceptance in scientific journals.

The Richard Gage youtube of his appearance on Good Morning Fresno has over 200,000 views, with an average rating of five stars and overwhelmingly positive comments from hundreds (maybe thousands) of ordinary you-tubers.

I guess that old axiom is true: Time wins more converts than reason. I am currently sitting inside of the AIA convention in DC, taking a short break from engaging architects and engineers. It's been fascinating watching the light bulb go off on the faces of architects who have never heard of WTC7 and are watching it on the big plasma screen for the first time.

EDIT: Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis were also fed up with the "missile at pentagon" theory. They realized it was speculation and not one eyewitness was on the record supporting such an occurance. They were fed up with speculation, this is why they have spent thousands of $$$ on flights between California and DC the last few years, in order to scout the area and talk to witnesses who were there.

The Pentagon

...is a mystery. Arabesque is not just somebody. Arabesque is a REAL good researcher, in a league of his own.

CIT, on the other hand, has shown guts and intelligence and has gone out and interviewed people themselves. I REALLY appreciate that.

But which one of them is right? You have to have physical evidence that corroborates the witness testimony and vice versa. When there is a conflict, essentially conclusions are impossible.

I hate the ad hominems that have been going on, although I agree that it would be better we didn't use aliases that much in the movement, including me.

My name is Michiel de Boer, by the way.

"Arabesque is a REAL good researcher"

Please enlighten me on some of his accomplishments. I know him only as the anti-CIT guy.

Are you the de Boer with Zecco?

Zecco?

Hmm, I googled "zecco michiel de boer". Nope, that's not me. My last name is very common around these parts. I do recognize Marcel Boekhoorn though, he's a venture capitalist known for making some stupid investments into snake oil in the past ;-)

As for (a small fraction of) Arabesque's other work:

You were right about ego-based discussion, and you probably realize that both CIT and Arabesque have egos. I think that once you take a position and fight for it, that it becomes extremely difficult to back down later on. This prompts much of the unreasonable behavior seen in camp based discussion.

Because...obviously...one of these two camps is wrong. Right now, I'm undecided.

(This enables me to simply follow both lines of research with interest and respect. I dislike the ad hominem going on at times)

Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski

While I had my suspicions about the "attacks" on the day of 9/11, these were due to the lack response from NORAD. It was not until a week later when I saw a photo in TIME magazine of the pristine lawn at the Pentagon that I began to wonder what actually happened there. For the last five years I have researched the events of 9/11 as thoroughly as I have had time for and consider myself to be a very objective person. While I have come to the conclusion that one cannot be 100% certain of what happened at the Pentagon without a real investigation and take a neutral position on this issue when doing activism, until that investigation takes place I let my opinion be influenced by Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was in the Pentagon at the time and viewed the scene a few minutes after the alleged plane impact took place. She said (in part):

" It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...

I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...

More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."

I have also spoken to over a dozen pilots and they have many questions about everything having to do with planes that day, at least five of them mentioned the "ground effect" problem with the Pentagon plane strike and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer to that.

There is video evidence documenting the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, so I think that Jon Gold's request for similar video evidence regarding the events at the Pentagon is valid before one can be expected to accept incomplete assertions as fact.

My bottom line is that we should not exclude any reasonable possibility before all the facts are in.

We also should to endeavor to avoid acrimony and accusations which are pointless and self-defeating. The 9/11 operation was and is primarily a psyop, let's not let the perpetrators succeed on that front or we will never bring them to justice.

Please leave your dogma at the door, brothers and sisters, we have much important work to do!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

great post, leftwright

I personally AM open to all sides. I have looked at both sides and at the moment I find the CIT side considerably more convincing. Actually here in DC several of us are going to discuss this very topic over dinner tomorrow, all sides of it.

I submitted the article

Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. No plane nose dived into the gouge in Shanksville.
Remote controlled drones were substituted for the 757s that hit the towers. $.02

If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/

Joe, how do you know about the drones?

That is also the view of several really bright people in my local truth group. Their reasoning is that once a pilot realizes his flight was being controlled remotely and may crash, he would be highly motivated to find a way to override it. People whose lives are in danger can be very resourceful. The perps couldn't take the chance of a smart pilot over-riding or disabling the remote technology. So good chance they never got on the plane in the first place.

Curious if you have other reasons for believing the planes were drones.

It would be relatively easy to incapacitate everyone onboard

and fly the plane remotely. No need for drones and all the DNA evidence is delivered in the original plane.

While I am still open to other possibilities, I think that this scenario is the most logical from an operations standpoint and fits all the publicly known facts that I am aware of. When in doubt, default to Occam's Razor.

Likewise, if AA77 did not hit the Pentagon, it could have been brought down in Camp David (there were reports of a plane crash there on 9/11/01) with the human remains retrieved and brought to the military coroners. The plane wreckage could have also been collected for similar use at a later date, if and when needed.

We really need a thorough investigation with unimpeded access to everyone and everything in order to get to the bottom of this, something citizens without subpoena power cannot do.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

it would be better we didn't use aliases that much in the moveme

it would be better we didn't use aliases that much in the movement, including me.

That's why I came out of the kameelyun cocoon.

Ah, so it's you

Hi! :-P

Comparison

In my book, CD and a "missile hitting the pentagon" have absolutely nothing in common. Both may have weaknesses as far as straw man attacks go, sure. However: the first is scientific fact, and always has been for people trained to think scientifically. I admit I was fooled at first. Furthermore, it is the main reason for the suffering of the first responders, with the EPA lies in good second place. These people were breathing what Jones, Harrit, Farrer, Ryan et. al. are analyzing under the electron microscope. This should make you truly interested in CD. Remember "Elephant In The Room"?

The second? Speculation.

As for Holocaust denying murderers, the fact is that this propaganda device doesn't apply to people whose family directly suffered under Nazi occupation. I also think we need more noise from the Jewish activist community about that, exposing the propaganda for what it is. You can't use somebody for your agenda if that somebody publicly objects.

Snowcrash, since you're

Snowcrash, since you're undecided, can you explain to me why all the people on the other side of the Pentagon never saw the plane flying away? That will help me to understand your position.

How do you know they never

How do you know they never saw a plane in the sky? Planes fly around there. Weren't they focused on the fire ball. Come to Virginia and help find department of defense employees who are willing to talk about what they saw and who aren't still in shock and awe.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Victronix,

Are you not aware of Roosevelt Roberts? This was laid out very openly in the last blog entry on this topic 2 months ago.

Roberts is a witness to a "commercial airliner" flying just above light poles, "ten seconds tops" after the explosion at the Pentagon. His claim was first documented at the Center for Military History just weeks after the event, and confirmed independently by CIT in 2008.

We even have ANOTHER flyover witness. Erik Dihle was at Arlington Cemetery in his office right across from the Citgo station. he told the Center for Military History only weeks after the event that just after the explosion, he ran outside and the first thing he heard people say was that, "...a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going!”

Both Roberts' and Dihle's testimonies can be heard in CIT's new video.

Now, are you going to dismiss Roberts' testimony, just because he's CIT's first such witness? Let's face it, Lagasse's testimony of a north side approach, in the early years (before CIT) was dismissed because he was the only such witness on record. But then CIT did their hard work, and by the time they released their original Pentacon, they had a grand total of four such witnesses. Now they're up to thirteen. Actually 14. They have one who hasn't been released yet.

I hope you're also aware that Roberts, Dihle, and anyone else who saw a flyover might have some reservations about going on camera with their testimonies if they think about it and realize what the sinister implications are.

I've listened to both of

I've listened to both of their accounts and they are not witnesses to a "flyover".

Nor were they located on the other side of the building.

Erik Dihle's entire account having anything to do with "flyover" is heresay where he says he heard someone ELSE say they heard and explosion and thought the plane flew away, and then other people corrected that person. Dihle confirms this was in the first initial confusion.

Roberts' claim describes the C-130 very clearly, not the AA77, and it fits clearly with other witness accounts of that plane in numerous ways.

What CIT does is try to conflate the C-130 with AA77 in the witness statements. Can't imagine why they'd do that.

But here's a "witness" to the Northside path supposedly . . . except, the debunkers got there first --

"The flight paths begin at Edward Paik’s location on Columbia Pike just behind the Navy Annex as annotated in the chart below. CIT interviewed Mr. Paik on at least two occasions. On one occasion Craig Ranke drew a flight path and had Mr. Paik sign it. The animated image below was taken from the filming of his testimony by CIT. They named this file Edwardpointsnorth.gif, but note that he is NOT pointing North at all. He points parallel to Columbia Pike visible in the background. That is approximately a 0720 heading corresponding along a path EXACTLY to where the next witness observed the aircraft."
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/ NoC

I prefer not to link to debunkers, but in this case, 911myths has covered this pretty well it seems, which shows how easy this is to debunk.

Now we have 911 myths as a

Now we have 911 myths as a source. I'm pretty sure the CIT have been banned from this site so they are not here. Oh well. I thought there is no proof of a C130 afterall. But 911 Myths has it all under control. Got it.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

>>I thought there is no

>>I thought there is no proof of a C130 afterall. But 911 Myths has it all under control. Got it.

The C-130 is confirmed and that's not even what 911myths is talking about. You're complaining about people not reading the info, but that seems to be the case here for you also . . . not to criticize, just bringing it up.

Originally it was said that

Originally it was said that the C130 trailed closely to the plane. There is no proof of that. You are sayinjg it was close enough to the pentagon to be confused for the plane (by CIT). I wish CIT could post here.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

>>Originally it was said

>>Originally it was said that the C130 trailed closely to the plane. There is no proof of that.

The radar data shows the path of the C-130 which is corroborated by witness statements. So I guess the people making the "fake" radar data looked up the "plant" witness statements to see what they make things look like . . .

E-4B

Frankly I think he saw that e4B doomsday plane.....the e4b is a
refurbished 747 so it resembles a commercial plane.

"(Shortly Before 9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Airborne Command Post Launched from Near Washington An E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) takes off from an unspecified airfield outside of Washington, DC. The aircraft, which is carrying civilian and military officials, is launched in order to participate in a pre-scheduled military exercise. This would be Global Guardian, which is being conducted on this day by the US Strategic Command (Stratcom) to test its ability to fight a nuclear war"
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=e_4b_national_airborne_o...

"fly-over of the White House by a US Air Force command and control plane (official designation: E-4B) at about the time of the Pentagon strike, or shortly after."
http://the911mysteryplane.com/

You can see it yourself here..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFNY8r_lrIs

"But six years later, the Pentagon, the Secret Service and the FAA all say they, at least for public consumption, have no explanation of the giant plane over the president's house just as the smoke began to rise across the river at the Pentagon"
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0709/12/acd.01.html

I doubt that it was as close as he said but it had just taken off so it would be low. And no that doesn't mean he's lying, it means he's a witness like everyone else no one gets everything 100% correct ...he said in 2001 this happened at 9:12 AM which is wrong and doesn't make him a lier. None of these witnesses is a lier OR AN OPERATIVE!

Are you saying

There was an E4B, that took of from an "unspecified airfield outside of Washington, DC", flying over the south parking lot of the Pentagon, 10 seconds after the impact of flight AA 77, silver in color, at a height of about 50 to a 100 feet?

OK, I'll paste it again.

Roberts is a witness to a "commercial airliner" flying just above light poles, "ten seconds tops" after the explosion at the Pentagon.

Notice the quotation marks? We're not making this up.

Roberts has NEVER retracted his comments. He confirmed what he saw in 2001 and 2008.

The C-130 was NOT there, and not that low, ten seconds after the explosion.

Actual witness statements in CIT video vs. Victronix

Victronix:
"Roberts' claim describes the C-130 very clearly, not the AA77, and it fits clearly with other witness accounts of that plane in numerous ways."
(...)
"But here's a "witness" [Edward Paik] to the Northside path supposedly . . . except, the debunkers got there first --"
(...)
"I prefer not to link to debunkers, but in this case, 911myths has covered this pretty well it seems, which shows how easy this is to debunk."

Victronix, I decided to investigate and compare your claims and those of the debunkers you refer to with the actual witness statements.

Sorry, but your claims really do not hold up. I now humbly suggest you consider your own advice: (from your profile)


About Me

I advocate for high standards of evidence in the movement. Most won't like what I have to say, but it often needs to be said. I don't like it either when someone calls me on doing shoddy, speculative or easily refuted stuff, but eventually I realize it was for the best to hear it.

I could not agree more. If you want to criticize CIT, you shouldn't do so on the basis of distortion of witness statements. Do you really feel your interpretation of the witnesses is fair, given the citations below?

(I would like to point out that CIT claims in the film that none of the witnesses feel they are misrepresented by CIT)


Roosevelt Roberts:


CIT:
"Let me, let me just ask you a couple of quick questions, there was mainly a couple of specific things. When you, you had mentioned, right as you hung up the phone, you ran outside..Which parking lot, which dock were you at?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"I was in south parking, and I was at the (east?) loading dock, when I ran outside and saw the low flying aircraft above the parking lot"

CIT:
"Okay, was it a, was it a....a... jet, or was it a... do you remember what kind of plane it was?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"Looked like to me at that time....a large aircraft liner, it wasn't a jet, it was a commercial aircraft."

CIT:
"Okay, did it have propellers or did it have jet engines?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"It looked like jet engines at that time"

CIT:
"So, how close were you to running outside, because this seemed to be pretty quick, at least from your account sounded like, it sounded like, literally, the explosion happened and then you ran outside, I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when, you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"From the sound of the explosion hit till I ran outside....it's a loading dock, and you can run right out to the (inaudible) look out and look off. Then you see the flickering lights inside the area, and then real quick I realize it was some sort of attack and there was going to be a countermeasure with it."

CIT:
"Right, so how many seconds would you guess?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"Maybe...10 seconds tops"

CIT:
"10 seconds tops?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"10 seconds tops"

"Before impact I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe I don't know like 7 steps away from there"

CIT:
"Wow"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"So ... extremely close. You could see that plane just as clear as day, couldn't miss it"

CIT:
"What color was it, do you remember?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"It was....To me at that time it looked like it was silver in color"

CIT:
"Like silver in color, but you saw it over the south parking lot"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"Right and it was like banking, just above the light poles like, had to been no more than, had to been no more than 50 feet less than 100 feet "

.
.
Edward Paik:


CIT:
"...It almost hit these roofs over here..So we saw it fly... It was coming from, from like..."

Edward Paik:
"Coming from this way...Coming from there to.. this way. And then... at the time feelings is that it's like ...
almost hit my roof, that much lower. Kind of the body side is over the building..and the wings are this way"

CIT:
"Oh, oh, so you're saying the body was over the building?"

Edward Paik:
"Yeah, a little over here...body....(inaudible)...body here"

CIT:
"Body's there okay"

Edward Paik:
"Wing, wing is, right wing is this way"

CIT:
"Okay"

The motions that Paik makes are diagonal towards the north side of Columbia Pike. This is then confirmed by his drawings, which include a line which he draws over the Navy Annex. If CIT's interpretation of Ed Paik is wrong, incorrect or unfair, then I am waiting for Paik's public protest.
.
.
It is then picked up by Terry Morin:

Terry Morin:
"If the Air Force Memorial had been built, the airplane would've ran into it"
(...)
CIT:
"Let me ask you this, what are the chances that the plane was actually on the south side of Columbia Pike completely, or on the South Side of the VDOT..."

Terry Morin:
"NO FRICKIN' WAY"

CIT:
"No frickin' way"

Terry Morin:
"No frickin' way, he is right over the top of me"

CIT:
"You're a 100% certain that it is over the top of the Navy Annex"

Terry Morin:
"I am....he is on the edge of the Naval Annex"

CIT:
"The plane itself would be on the north side of Columbia Pike at this point"

Terry Morin:
"Yeah, yeah, I mean this is Columbia PIke, okay, there is a fence right here, I am inside the fence, but he went right over the top over me"

CIT:
"So you're saying the entire plane then, including the right wing..."
(...)
"There's no way it was... the plane itself or even the right wing was on the south side of the Columbia Pike?"

Terry Morin:
"Nope. Nope."


You could say the witnesses were mistaken, maybe. You cannot say they were misrepresented by CIT with respect to the flight path and the C-130, in contrast to your specific claims.
.

I think I'm developing a man-crush for SnowCrash...

I love you, Snow. You saved me a lot of typing.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say I've looked at all sides and concluded that CIT's detractors' arguments are weak and insubstantial.

I tell you

It sucked writing it all down. ;-)

I've got a crush too!!!

Thank you for this transcript Snowcrash.

It proves that Victronix is out and out lying. She stated "I've listened to both their accounts," and then "Roberts' claim describes the C-130 very clearly, not the AA77...."

Obviously not. Although the video evidence is out there, many people will not take the time to view a long video. By doing the hard labor of creating a transcript (I know, I made one of Richard Gage's KMPH appearance and it took hours) Snowcrash has shown in black and white that Victronix is lying.

Pentagon Police Officer Roosevelt Roberts said he saw a large, silver commercial aircraft with jet engines banking over the south parking lot immediately after the explosion. He is not describing a C-130, which is a gray military plane with propellers:

C-130

What you did was post PART

What you did was post PART of what they said to try to support your claim, while ignoring the points that support the C-130, such as the path and the timing.

What those two aspects amount to fact that the witnesses are confused about the details of the features of the plane they saw -- they expected to see a commercial jet, so it's not at all surprising that they would use some of those words -- yet they describe the path of the C-130.

As you know, some witnesses even thought a helicopter hit the building. Does that mean it did?

Of course not.

CIT has to claim that the radar data that shows the path of the C-130 is "fraudulent" to try to make their scenario work.

I'm sorry, but when everything is "fake" then we create only a fantasy world.

Right

"What you did was post PART of what they said to try to support your claim, while ignoring the points that support the C-130, such as the path and the timing."

I quoted the witness statements verbatim. What part of Roosevelt's verbatim words did I leave out that supports a C-130, as you implied?

Let me remind you, that this discussion is not about the C-130 itself, but about the misrepresentation of witness statements by you and your debunker sources.

Such behavior is unbecoming of anybody who claims to be in a "truth" movement.

>>(I would like to point out

>>(I would like to point out that CIT claims in the film that none of the witnesses feel they are misrepresented by CIT)

It looks like someone took the time to call Roberts on the phone. Here's their account:

He is a friendly guy. We couldn't talk for very long because he was at work, and I could hear customers come into the kiosk over the phone, but he said what I wrote in my prior post. That is, that he was not happy with Aldo and Craig for using his interview to promote their flyover story because he "definitely saw the plane hit the Pentagon" and because he does not at all believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13548...

So it sounds like witnesses don't necessarily agree with how CIT represented them. Of course, it could just be a lie, but then, maybe its all lies.

That's the problem here when one is working on the premise of elaborate fakery and all people who don't agree with the North of the Citgo path being "suspect" in some way.

You got me

Roberts saw a C-130. The phone conversation with CIT was all lies. I apologize.

Cha-ching!

Snowcrash,

You really did an excellent job calling Victronix out on an outright falsehood by taking the time to type a transcript of the interview. Roberts clearly says "commercial aircraft" with "jet engines" flying just above light poles.

A person who doesn't have much time on this issue might assume that Victronix' assertion that RR was talking about the C-130 is correct. It is when you took the time to actually check for yourself that you were able to discover that Victronix, not Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis, is misrepresenting.

Sad, really, that this is going on.

Um, EXCUSE ME????

I clicked on the Loose Change forum link.

Number one, THAT QUOTE YOU'RE CITING IS NOT EVEN FROM ROOSEVELT ROBERTS. It's from another witness who's first name is Robert (without the S). Off the top of my head, I believe this is Robert Turcios.

You posted a link to a 2007 discussion. Roosevelt Roberts did not even get interviewed by CIT until 2008.

I did a double take when I read your post, because Roosevelt Roberts did NOT "definitely [see] the plane hit the Pentagon." He was INSIDE THE BUILDING! And NOT in a place where he could see the plane approaching from a window vantage point.

Wow.

That's the second truly blatant falsehood that is being pointed out to you in this blog thread.

What say you?

Hmm

I was fooled too, and I have been quoting Victronix as quoting Roosevelt Roberts since this post..

It's not Roosevelt Roberts, it's Robert Turcios.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?s=91f687f6f7004...


Is this the same Robert they continually quote something to the effect of "it looked like the plane started to pull up?"

Yes, one and the same Robert.

:-(

Okay.

There are now two instances in this thread where Victronix has been called on the act of disseminating false information. At least.

I hope the site mods are taking note.

EDIT: With regard to Victronix' post, in which she falsely attributed a quote to Roosevelt Roberts:

He is a friendly guy. We couldn't talk for very long because he was at work, and I could hear customers come into the kiosk over the phone, but he said what I wrote in my prior post. That is, that he was not happy with Aldo and Craig for using his interview to promote their flyover story because he "definitely saw the plane hit the Pentagon" and because he does not at all believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13548...

So it sounds like witnesses don't necessarily agree with how CIT represented them. Of course, it could just be a lie, but then, maybe its all lies.

The simple fact of the matter is: NONE of the eyewitnesses said any such thing.

Not Roosevelt Roberts OR Robert Turcios or ANY of them.

Victronix has resorted to searching old shut down forums for un-sourced claims from anonymous "debunkers" as a means to cast doubt on hard evidence proving a staged military deception at the Pentagon. Notice how the anonymous poster does not provide an interview or even quote the witness!

Because it is nothing but a bogus claim from a JREFer. Why Victronix is choosing to accept this as a means to discredit CIT's evidence is beyond me. I wish I could get my head around it.

>>The motions that Paik

>>The motions that Paik makes are diagonal towards the north side of Columbia Pike. This is then confirmed by his drawings, which include a line which he draws over the Navy Annex. If CIT's interpretation of Ed Paik is wrong, incorrect or unfair, then I am waiting for Paik's public protest.

You mean Edward Paik has to do a lawsuit or start his own blog before you will consider CIT's claim to be incorrect? As you know, Lloyd had never seen the images of his own cab on the internet until CIT showed him. We don't even know if Edward Paik knows this is being said about him, or if he even has a computer.

You said you agree with me that we should seek a higher standard, which is great.

That means simply verifying for yourself, not just defending CIT by saying Paik has to do all the legwork -- where was Edward Paik and which way is he pointing in the picture? You can do this with google maps streetview.

Or you can look at the page here --

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC

Whichever you like. 911myths links directly to PentaCon also so people can read the full testimony and they provide the maps to show where he is.

I don't like to link to debunkers, believe me! -- but like I said, in this case, it's looks like they've debunked it. As they also say:

"There is no problem with this portion of the testimony as it was stated, without CIT’s spin."

What Paik says isn't the issue, it's where he is and how it is being spun.

Paik

"You mean Edward Paik has to do a lawsuit or start his own blog before you will consider CIT's claim to be incorrect?"

There are many options. One of them includes YOU contacting him instead of citing 911myths as a credible source. Would you like to go on the record here saying 911myths is a credible source, not one that distorts and lies?

So now, we have seen the testimony of Edward Paik and Terry Morin who place the aircraft flying parallel to Columbia Pike. There is no problem with this portion of the testimony as it was stated, without CIT’s spin.

-- (911myths)

See my transcript. Terry Morin (When asked if the plane could have been south of Columbia Pike): "NO FRICKIN WAY"

>>There are many options.

>>There are many options.

Indeed, and one of them is simply looking at the info being presented. Is he pointing North or not?

>>Would you like to go on the record here saying 911myths is a credible source, not one that distorts and lies?

I don't think I've talked about 911myths as being a generally credible source, but am referencing this particular page because their analysis is fairly easy to confirm for yourself. If you can find where they are lying in the location analysis of Paik -- and I may be wrong in my own interpretation of their analysis -- please show me so I can correct my future references. I just haven't seen where anyone lays that out that clearly in that case. If someone else has, that you know of, again, please let me know.

People on all sides are guided by an emotional belief about the veracity of the official story. This tends to blind people across the board. Some people do lie, but I think in general, researchers are prone to be biased by their emotions. Science doesn't lie and that's why it's important to follow the scientific method.

Unfortuantely, CIT does not do this. It's the opposite of science because each point they make is based on a very narrow and biased interpretation of often contradictory, muddled or overly-broad witness statements. Witnesses are treated differently depending on what they saw. That break cardinal rules of scientific analysis. What they omit, as well, is meaningful, including all witnesses who came before them.

Consequently, if I find an interesting analysis which appears solid, done by 911myths or anyone else, I will post it.

The caveat, as we all know on here about 9/11 myths, is that, for example, they don't address the strong evidence in the demolitions, but cling to obfuscations by Frank Greening. I don't believe that all debunkers are necessarily liars or wrong. No one is perfect. However some debunkers are liars and it's been shown numerous times. Some even harass people on the phone. But of course, some 9/11 activists, like Nico Haupt and Rick Siegel also harassed widow Ellen Mariani. So the problems are across the board. It's not all black and white.

One role for the debunking sites, however, has been to help us hone our work to the strongest points -- they weed out the murky claims based on emotional interpretations by focusing on weakest links and hammering people with them. That helps us in the long run.

Ultimately, a focus on truth over loyalty or beliefs will help us to expose the strongest evidence.

A thousand words

Location of Edward Paik in Google maps, and the animation of your debunker source, deceptively suggesting Edward saw the flight flying parallel to Columbia Pike. I quote:

So now, we have seen the testimony of Edward Paik and Terry Morin who place the aircraft flying parallel to Columbia Pike. There is no problem with this portion of the testimony as it was stated, without CIT’s spin.


View Larger Map
cit

Official flight path (Pilots for 9/11 Truth) (click to enlarge):
Pilots for 9/11 truth

What Paik actually said and meant (and which you somehow managed to miss) (click to enlarge)

Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket Photobucket

The point is, that 911myths lies (What a surprise), and even fails to mention that Ed Paik's testimony is at odds with the OCT. 911myths, in fact, states there is "no problem" with his testimony without CIT's "spin"

We have it on here too:

We have it on here too: http://tinyurl.com/nyuuy4

scroll down to the bottom of page 9. He is pointing to the Navy Annex as the path. I don't know why this is so hard for people to get. It beckons attention.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Element

Tell "Element" I sympathize ;-)

There's not much on the other side of the Pentagon besides water

as this image shows. The plane was heading east, and several witnesses describe it banking to the south as it approached the Pentagon. Pentagon Police Officer Roosevelt Roberts described it circling over the south parking lot, which is consistent with a bank to the south.

So that would send the plane over the Potomac, and only a couple of thousand feet from the end of two runways at Reagan National Airport. Those runways are visible at the lower edge of this image. The order to ground planes had not yet been given, so air traffic was proceeding as usual. People in that area are used to planes coming and going and think nothing of it. Of course most were unaware that anything had happpened at the Pentagon so had no reason to take note of airplanes in the area.

Probably many were glued to their TV sets fixated on images of the burning twin towers.

east of Pentagon map

>>There's not much on the

>>There's not much on the other side of the Pentagon besides water as this image shows.

And there are 10 lanes of traffic to the South of the Pentagon, and high-rises will full view of the Pentagon in Pentagon City, etc. This is a city, I'm sorry, it's not empty.

>>Pentagon Police Officer Roosevelt Roberts described it circling over the south parking lot, which is consistent with a bank to the south.

The C-130 is the one that dove and banked. The commercial jet ran into the building.

Scott P. Cook --
"Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don't go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House."
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/other.html#c130

John O'Keefe --
"Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround. "
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/other.html#c130

etc.

>>So that would send the plane over the Potomac, and only a couple of thousand feet from the end of two runways at Reagan National Airport. Those runways are visible at the lower edge of this image. The order to ground planes had not yet been given, so air traffic was proceeding as usual. People in that area are used to planes coming and going and think nothing of it.

The air traffic controllers could see the whole thing from the Reagan National Airport. Oh that's right, they were all in on it too! Just like the people who faked the DNA analysis, and staged the downed lamp posts, the generator damage, spreading fake debris, etc

But CIT explicity says they don't say it landed at Reagan.

That would be more than a

That would be more than a sharp left turn to suddenly come from east and then return east. Who is actually behind these websites? I've seen them be used by debunkers. ????

Are these air traffic controllers identified?

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

9:37 a.m. September 11,

9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Witnesses See Military Cargo Plane near Flight 77; Pilot Later Implies He Is Far Away
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a937c130near77#a937c130ne...

Washington’s Reagan National Airport air traffic control instructs a military C-130 cargo plane that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it. [New York Times, 10/16/2001; Guardian, 10/17/2001]
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a936c130asked#a936c130asked

After seeing the explosion from the attack on the Pentagon, air traffic controllers at Washington’s Reagan National Airport promptly alert others to the crash, with a supervisor reporting that the crashed aircraft was an American Airlines 757. [Federal Aviation Administration, 9/18/2001; Spencer, 2008, pp. 158-159] Reagan Airport is less than a mile from the Pentagon. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/19/2001]
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a938reaganalerts#a938reag...

FAA confirmation

The only confirmation you have here that ATC's saw the crash is from the FAA. St. Petersburg Times only comments on the distance between the Pentagon and Reagan National Airport. I'm a bit skeptical of the FAA, however, those ATC tower guys must have seen a flyover..I suppose..

I find the article+above+that interesting also!


A controller in the TRACON now phones Chris Stephenson, the supervisor in the Reagan Airport control tower, and says to him, “See in the sky, five miles west of you?” Stephenson thinks he has identified the target the controller is referring to on his radar screen, but it is the wrong one. The controller clarifies: “No! The ‘LOOK’ tag! See the ‘LOOK’ tag? It’s a 757! Do you see anything out there?” Stephenson then looks out of the window and can see the plane, now less than a mile away, coming in fast. [Spencer, 2008, pp. 158]

He sees it turning to the right and descending. [USA Today, 8/11/2002] A tour group from FAA headquarters is currently looking around the tower, and Stephenson promptly orders its members to “get out” of there (see (9:32 a.m.-9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). (What the hell is this all about..? -- SnowCrash)

Time of First Notification Unclear - According to author Lynn Spencer, Stephenson was unaware of the approaching aircraft prior to this call from the TRACON. [Spencer, 2008, pp. 157-158] But USA Today will claim he received a call at “[a]bout 9:30” from the Secret Service, telling him an unidentified aircraft was speeding toward Washington (9:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [USA Today, 8/11/2002]

Furthermore, after the Reagan TRACON was alerted to the aircraft, departure controller Dan Creedon quickly attached a data box to its radar track with the word “LOOK” in it, which would allow other controllers—including those in the control tower—to quickly spot it and track it on their screens. Why Stephenson had not noticed this is unclear. [9/11 Commission, 7/28/2003 pdf file; Spencer, 2008, pp. 145-146]

You are aware

that CIT does NOT promote the missile theory, right? They themselves realized that the missile theory was pure speculation. This is why they traveled to the area and searched for eyewitnesses. They all point to a flight path that is absolutely irreconcilable with the official damage and trajectory in the Pentagon.

In order for the plane to down all those light poles and enter the building the way it did, with the exit hole in the C ring where it was, it HAS to follow the official south side path to a tee. The fact that all these eyewitnesses put the plane nowhere near the official flight path is hard evidence since the testimonies are independently corroborated.

I agree, look open mindedly at all sides. I did. I checked out Arabesque's blog. I listened to the debate between Craig Ranke and Adam Larson of the "Frustrating Fraud" blogspot. My conclusion is that CIT's work stands.

Yep, I'm aware

and the debate, do you mean with Caustic Logic? Yeah Caustic Logic's arguments were utterly pathetic. Basically his argument is: ...... there is no argument. Just a rubber spine, and words that go any way the wind blows. If you want to debate CIT, then do it right, I agree.

No Logic

So we slam a plane into the north tower we slam a plane into the south tower and we almost slam a plane into the pentagon but we don't. Instead we just want everyone to think we did and fly the plane off to somewhere else, meanwhile on an operation as big as 9/11 naturally we have our top operative cagey old Lloyd the mass murdering cab driver staging his scene and have lower ranking CIA guys planting lightpoles. Why you ask? So we can make a fake flight path just for fun. We'll try and put some more operatives like M Walter and Father McGraw along with Wheelhouse (these guys work for almost nothing....they just like killing people) in order to try and make this fake flight path we created for fun more convincing. We also planted plane parts in the building some from the wrong plane(good cointel help is so hard to find) we almost got away with it to if it weren't for those meddling CIT kids. But our operatives were instructed to give them full access and don't panic, just act like you got nothing to hide, but gosh it sure backfired. They could tell they were all operatives and lying through their teeth.

Or maybe a plane flew into the building just like everyone said, and the evidence recovered confirmed.

How embarrassing!

Physical evidence confirming every witness...
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/noplane/index.html

Northside no...
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jqaz_pentagon-eyewitness-mike-walter_...

The "truth" movement use to call him a Missile witness, now we call him a CIA plant thanks to CIT how embarrassing.

Northside? No...More just like her

http://www.dailymotion.com/Ashoka_lc/Pentagon/video/x1ihc1_pentagon-eyew...

Witnesses who were there....
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

Witnesses who were there...
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/index.html

CIT wasn't, but all their witnesses confirmed that a passenger jet hit the pentagon, Thanks CIT, for proving a passenger jet hit the pentagon, of course most of the world already knows that, so in order to not make CIT or P4T obsolete let's say it was the worlds greatest Magic show.
How embarrasing.

Great way to kill a movement and put it in the sewer.

OK, you got me.

This blog entry, not even being on the front page, has single handedly killed the movement.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

I might like to add that in this particular blog entry, all the anger, bitterness and rancor is coming from the ones who in this instance are adamant on defending the OCT.

Their witnesses confirmed no

Their witnesses confirmed no such thing. They all assumed a plane hit the Pentagon. They are freaked out now that they realize what they expwerienced is NOT what the government said happened. They understand the implications. They have gone quiet BUT none have recanted.

You guys are making things up. It is NOT a joke.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Straw man again

naturally we have our top operative cagey old Lloyd the mass murdering cab driver staging his scene

Straw Man?

What straw man? It's on your heroes own website....

"This means that Lloyde England has now been shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been directly involved with this black operation of mass murder.
...he is most definitely a direct link to the perpetrators."
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic2.htm

You don't want your second string operatives involved in an operation like this.

Or perhaps he's just a cab driver? Ya think?

How embarrassing.

If I were Donald Rumsfeld...

I wouldn't want a 757 to crash into a building I was in. Too much chance for things to go wrong. Instead, think how convenient to plant explosives in the accounting department. Rumsfeld had announced just the day previous -- 9/10/01 -- that $2.3 trillion dollars was missing. Rumsfeld and buddies know that all they have to do is stay out of the accounting dept that morning, and they won't get hurt. Those who know where the $2.3 trillion went are conveniently dead.

With the WTC, a few special people managed to be out of the building that morning (such as Larry Silverstein and his two daughters, who all had offices in the twin towers). But at the Pentagon, it was easier and safer -- to the perps -- to use explosives and just fly the plane over at the moment of detonation.

It explains the otherwise inexplicable oddity of Flight 77 apparently going into the side of the building, rather than the much easier task of divebombing the roof from the air. After all, from the air the Pentagon looks like a huge bulls-eye. Even I could probably steer a plane into it. But little ole Hani Hanjour took on the much more daunting task of piloting it low and level across the lawn into the first floor.

Why would "he" do that? Cause the plane couldn't pull out of a divebomb. It would go in. That is why.

It also explains the otherwise weird fact of no evacuation order. They were tracking the plane, they knew it was coming in, surely they opened themselves to lawsuits by not giving an evacuation order? Yes, but if they had:

1) they might not have killed the ones they hoped to kill
2) everyone on the lawn would have seen the flyover

This is speculation about their motives, but motives are an important part of crime solving. Means, motive and opportunity.

Stay on point

"2) everyone on the lawn would have seen the flyover"

No one would have seen the flyover, just like everyone stuck in traffic and all around the area, they too would have been fooled by General Copperfields Magic act.

How embarrassing.

"How embarrassing"

What exactly jimd are you so embarrassed about? So long as you are honestly seeking the truth, you have no reason to be embarrassed.

Okay, good chance that people on the lawn would be fooled too, I agree. But the damage path had already been created (light poles) to correspond with the placement of explosives. Plane cannot necessarily fly that exact route. Thousands of witnesses on the lawn watching the plane approach is not the way to keep the real story under wraps.

I have a question...

For advocates of something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

From what I understand, the crew, and the passengers were identified. I know about the remains of the hijackers being in "limbo." I have posted about the DNA regarding the hijackers before. My question is... are you saying we are being lied to about the passengers and crew being identified? If so, aside from all of the usual, "the plane vaporized, but the passengers, and DNA remained" arguments, do you have any information to suggest that what we are being told about them being identified is untrue?

Thanks.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

no information supplied by the primary suspect can be trusted

Since the evidence overwhelming shows that the plane did not hit the building, any talk of recovered DNA from passengers must be fabricated..as so much else has been fabricated.

To my knowledge...

The "primary suspect" is not the entire United States Government, but instead, elements within it. Unless you show me a good reason why I shouldn't believe that aspect of the investigation, then why shouldn't I? "Overwhelming evidence" that shows the plane didn't hit the building? What about the pieces of debris found that I have seen photographs of? What about those two different photographs showing pieces of a plane with the AA logo on them? I know Dr. Griffin says if you have 100 tons of plane, you should have 100 tons of debris, but I remember seeing an F-4 Phantom crash into a wall, and vaporize on impact, so I don't know what to think with regards to that.

Is it true what Victronix says? "All fake?"


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Here's my honest opinion.

Even before Thierry Meyssan came out with his missile hypothesis book in 2002, and LONG before "Pentagon Strike" or "In Plane Site," I had my suspicions about the relatively minor lack of visible debris.

When the original argument against a plane crash was that there was no large debris, this was attemptedly refuted by the video of the known example of the govt (NASA?) remote controlling a large plane into a super strong wall at top speed. Yes, the plane disintegrated into teeny tiny pieces.

Where is all the confetti-like debris in the photos? The question here is in the QUANTITY.

By the way, Jon: Do you believe the final NIST report on WTC 7?

If not, why would you believe the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology?

I remember seeing a photograph that had a lot of debris...

Little pieces all over the helipad or something. I think NIST's WTC7 report is questionable, and have already written about that. However, I have been shown good reason not to believe the NIST report on WTC7. I have not been shown equally convincing information with regards to the Pentagon, and the idea of "what" hit the Pentagon has ALWAYS been a divisive topic in this movement.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Please show us this photograph

which shows "a lot" of debris.

Here+are+quite+a+few+to+choose+from. Which of these qualifies as "a lot" of debris in your opinion?

And if you're honestly seeking the truth, you shouldn't (imho) care about internal debate and disagreement, and how it might look to the onlookers.

I...

Think this was the photo I was thinking about, however, this one, I think should stop anyone from promoting the idea that 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. I suppose that was planted? I can't believe this movement was drawn in by this. It's INFURIATING.

Especially when you consider that the movement COULD and SHOULD have been focusing on the fact that the most defended airspace in the world was left completely undefended 34 minutes after the second tower was hit, when EVERYONE in the world knew America was "under attack."

Appearances count for QUITE a lot.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Absolutely, completely unconvincing.

Those photos you cite do NOT show a large quantity of airliner debris.

The first photo you link to could easily be explained by explosives in the Pentagon blasting debris outwards.

And the second photo, touted by debunkers everywhere, is a total joke.

"Total Joke..."

So you're saying it's a fake/planted? What about this SECOND piece of debris with the AA logo on it sitting against the wall?

Fake? Planted?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Yes.

Rumsfeld was out on that lawn dictating control over the scene when he should have been in his office at his post.

In addition to the fact that the perps would confiscate / cover / destroy evidence that contradicts the official story, it is completely logical that evidence would be planted to support the official story.

If you're aware of compartmentalization and need-to-know, you understand that Rumsfeld was in total control of the Pentagon and US military. It is unrealistic to believe that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, in this instance, is a trustworthy source re the bodies.

But you have...

No evidence to substantiate the claim that either pieces of debris are fake/were planted. NONE.

You have a theory, and that's it. A theory that, as I said, has NOT been helpful to this cause.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

But the documentation

of witness statements is.

I believe that earlier, you said:

Anyone who says you must believe or do this, that, or the other thing, otherwise, you are this, that, or the other thing, should be avoided.

I think the investigation in itself is important. Let the chips fall where they may, as Richard Gage says. This includes the physical evidence of an American Airlines aircraft on the Pentagon lawn. Remember also Ted Olson's lies?

What we must do, is try to resolve the conflicts between flight path and physical evidence. I really don't care for what is considered to be an "admissible" line of questioning...unless it is obvious that it is extremely harmful.

What CIT could do is moderate their conclusions, because like I said earlier, the Pentagon is still a mystery, and I would like to get to the bottom of all the contradictions.

Don't you agree that what we have here are extremely disturbing contradictions? (I suspect that you'll remind me again what is good for the truth movement and what not)

i didn't...

Call anyone names or make any insinuations which is the second portion of that statement. I think stating that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, when there is CLEARLY debris with the AA logo, is JUST as ridiculous as saying no planes hit the towers.

Everyone seems to forget the amount of times this movement has been made a fool of with the "Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon" theory. I don't need to tell you what's "good for the truth movement." You should be able to figure that out all on your own.

So to recap, we have BOTH the crew and passengers identified, a student ID card for one of the hijackers found in the rubble, AND two pieces of debris with the AA logo on them.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a dead issue.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Dead issues

"As far as I'm concerned, this is a dead issue."

It sure isn't. The discovery of nano-thermite has reminded me just how insane these people are, and what they are willing and capable of doing.

So...

Since they are "insane" and "willing and capable of doing" something like planting fake evidence at the Pentagon so as to make people think Flight 77 hit it, then we should also look into mini-nukes, holograms, pods, exotic weaponry (space beams), etc... etc... etc...

Sorry, but not for me.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

You

still doubt controlled demolition. You say it is "the bane of your existence".

Sorry, but not for me.

Thanks for baselessly accusing me of supporting "mini-nukes, holograms, pods, exotic weaponry (space beams)"

In case you don't know, these were thoroughly refuted by the same scientists that you scorn when you whine about CD.

No...

But your statement was a "big tent" statement if I ever heard one, and those things are part of the "big tent." What has been the "bane of my existence" is how everyone that questions what I do, does so by bringing up "explosives in the building." When I said that, I think I also referenced someone pointing to the one fact in my facts piece that talks about CD just to denounce the entire thing. What has been the "bane of my existence" is how this movement, for the most part, almost entirely focuses on CD even though people still think of it as "crazy." I guess you don't remember the BBC stating that the "final mystery of 9/11" has been solved when NIST's WTC7 report came out. Gee, I wonder what gave them that idea. FYI, CD was along for the ride with a missile at the Pentagon any time a hit piece has been written over the years. It is the one thing "debunkers" love to tackle the most. These are facts. However, as I said the CD group have made more convincing arguments than the Pentagon group.

By the way, that "bane of my existence" argument got me a few emails saying, "thank you Jon" from people I don't even know.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Big tent

No it was not an endorsement of big tent. Do you like rhetorical devices and hyperboles? What I said was that the USG is capable of anything. This is an assessment of intent. "Anything" however should be supported with convincing evidence. I also said there was a major contradiction between eyewitness statements and physical evidence. I feel that this contradiction needs to be resolved.


“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

“There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact”

“You see, but you do not observe”

-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Also

I think I've been clearly sympathetic to your postings of debris photos.

This is because I follow the facts, not my agenda.

Could someone tell me if this is a hoax? I've heard about it before, and this is supposed to be an FAA animation corroborating the North side flight path.

Edit:
[1] Arabesque: source 28 -- http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/07/pentagon-flight-path-map-perfec...
[2] P4911Truth -- http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Pilotsfor911TruthChallengePen...

Isn't this the video that

Isn't this the video that Jon Gold wants us to produce. Here it is! OK, I'm being silly. But how are we to produce the videos when it is the government who has them. He is pressuring the wrong people.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

LOL,

and good point.

Jon, you're like a broken record

You could have learned a lot by now if you paid attention. How long have you been in this movement? Ever picked up a book? Your degree of ignorance is simply breathtaking.

You can't expect to be spoon fed the rest of your life. Ever hear of David Ray Griffin? He's written some good books. He'll help you understand why the uncharred pieces of metal that can be picked up by hand do not prove that a 757 crashed at the Pentagon.

Rather than posting here with more uninformed rubbish, sit down and educate yourself, please.

And your...

Insistence on promoting something that has never helped this movement is astonishing. Have you ever read a book on common sense? Hmmm... promote something that DOESN'T help the movement or this cause... that makes PERFECT sense.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I promote the truth

What you are promoting is the OCT (I'll help you with that one, that's short for Official Conspiracy Theory, IOW, the theory promoted by our government and the MSM [mainstream media.]) How is protecting the perpetrators going to help this movement??

I'm a member of the 9/11 Truth movement. Not the 9/11 Strategy movement.

It is not for you or I to decide what the truth is. The truth stands on its own, without any help from anyone. LIke God. It just IS.

I can tell you...

That saying everything is fake, and or planted helps this movement a lot less than the things I point out regarding the Pentagon. The more you insinuate about my stupidity, the more your own shines brightly.

I'm finished with this blog. Keep on promoting this nonsense. That's what it is. Nonsense. Nonsense that has NEVER helped this cause, but instead, has been used to help destroy it. That is a fact. Or rather, the truth.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

"Keep on promoting this nonsense."

You're in for a surprise soon...

Jon

That is an absolutely amazing photo. Thank you.

"an F-4 Phantom crash into a wall, and vaporize on impact"

If the plane vaporized on impact, what caused the punch-out in the C ring?

>>Since the evidence

>>Since the evidence overwhelming shows that the plane did not hit the building, any talk of recovered DNA from passengers must be fabricated

All fake.

Get it Jon?

I'm speechless that the

I'm speechless that the crime of two centuries is explanable by you so simply. What was the chain of control of that DNA. All the witnesses including the CIT witnesses and the air traffic controllers and everyone should be put under oath. Without that anything can be said. The difference in the CIT witnesses is they thought they were corroborating the OCT. Surprise!!!!!!

Now go ahead and vote me down for caring.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Without a real investigation

it is impossible to know what happened at the Pentagon, that's why we're all fighting for a new investigation, right?

After nearly one hundred comments back and forth, I think it's time to agree to disagree and move on.

Please.

It would be grand if some folks could be more tolerant, others have a bit thicker skin, and for everyone to realize that the endless attempts to win an argument with insufficient evidence is pointless.

Reasonable people can disagree about some things and still work together on a larger project.

Admit that the available evidence is insufficient and contradictory.

Make the choice to be reasonable.

I, for one, am quite motivated to get the investigations we need to solve the puzzles of 9/11/01 and bring the perpetrators and their backers to justice.

Has anyone done a FOIA request into where the wreckage of AA77 is being stored and a inventory of the wreckage?

There is still much work to do, brothers and sisters, let's keep our eyes on the prize.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

What would be grand would be if everyone in the truth movement

cared about the truth.

Complete CIT witness list is here. There were no witnesses eliminated. They interviewed everyone whom:

1) they could locate
2) was willing to go on record
3) saw any portion of a flight path
4) was in a position to see what they claimed to have seen

You will see from the extensive list at the link that they worked very hard to interview as many people as possible.

The truth

And the truth is CIT slanders old cab drivers and reporters, accusing them of being accomplices to mass murder, in order to fullfill a silly flyover fantasy that they had BEFORE ever interviewing a single witness, while ignoring crimes of real perps such as Bush Cheney Tenet. Yes. That is embarrassing.

Yes. Don't bother with

Yes. Don't bother with Cheney or anyone in charge, it was Lloyd! Look over here everyone! Look at Lloyd! HE did it!

Show "I can't believe you even show your face on this thread" by Sheila Casey

It's fascinating how you

It's fascinating how you accuse people of lying with no evidence.

As I responded already to that post, Roberts described a mixed version of a plane -- he expected to see the commercial jet -- that fits the path of the C-130 according to the radar data. CIT then says the radar data is . . . drumroll please . . . "fake".

It's not that hard to see that this witness does not describe a flyover -- he describes the plane that came after AA77 hit the building, which was the C-130.

Accusations of lying with no evidence

"Roberts described a mixed version of a plane -- he expected to see the commercial jet"

BULL SHIT.

Quote me Roberts exactly, saying he "expected to see the commercial jet". You're making stuff up. I will tolerate a lot, but not outright lying.

Key parts of his statement: "low flying aircraft", "large aircraft liner", "commercial aircraft", "jet engines", "From the sound of the explosion hit till I ran outside", "Maybe...10 seconds tops", "So ... extremely close. You could see that plane just as clear as day, couldn't miss it", "silver in color", "no more than 50 feet less than 100 feet "

Why do you continue?

Roosevelt Roberts:

CIT:
"Let me, let me just ask you a couple of quick questions, there was mainly a couple of specific things. When you, you had mentioned, right as you hung up the phone, you ran outside..Which parking lot, which dock were you at?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"I was in south parking, and I was at the (east?) loading dock, when I ran outside and saw the low flying aircraft above the parking lot"

CIT:
"Okay, was it a, was it a....a... jet, or was it a... do you remember what kind of plane it was?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"Looked like to me at that time....a large aircraft liner, it wasn't a jet, it was a commercial aircraft."

CIT:
"Okay, did it have propellers or did it have jet engines?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"It looked like jet engines at that time"

CIT:
"So, how close were you to running outside, because this seemed to be pretty quick, at least from your account sounded like, it sounded like, literally, the explosion happened and then you ran outside, I mean do you remember how many seconds it was when, you heard the explosion and then saw that plane?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"From the sound of the explosion hit till I ran outside....it's a loading dock, and you can run right out to the (inaudible) look out and look off. Then you see the flickering lights inside the area, and then real quick I realize it was some sort of attack and there was going to be a countermeasure with it."

CIT:
"Right, so how many seconds would you guess?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"Maybe...10 seconds tops"

CIT:
"10 seconds tops?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"10 seconds tops"

"Before impact I stepped out the little booth that I was in and the distance between that booth and the edge of that dock is about maybe I don't know like 7 steps away from there"

CIT:
"Wow"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"So ... extremely close. You could see that plane just as clear as day, couldn't miss it"

CIT:
"What color was it, do you remember?"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"It was....To me at that time it looked like it was silver in color"

CIT:
"Like silver in color, but you saw it over the south parking lot"

Roosevelt Roberts:
"Right and it was like banking, just above the light poles like, had to been no more than, had to been no more than 50 feet less than 100 feet "

Anyways

I had sincerely hoped that this discussion would not degenerate to this level. Too bad.

My position, to clarify one last time, is that I would like the contradictions between the witness statements and the physical evidence resolved.

That's about it. No lying in order to belong to either camp required.

And Victronix, if you can, please respond to that FAA animation. (At first glance it appears to be genuine and it is sourced by Arabesque) What is your opinion about that?

The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse

Here's what the star witness Sgt. William Lagasse states....

",The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse

Subject: 9-11
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 13:11:40 -0400
From: "Lagasse, William, , PFPA"
To: "'apfn@apfn.org '"

Dear Sir rest assured it was a Boeing 757 that flew into the building that
day, I was on duty as a pentagon police sgt. I was refueling my vehicle at
the barraks k gas station that day adjacent to the aircrafts flight path.
It was close enough that i could see the windows had the shades pulled down,
it struck several light poles next to rt 27 and struck a trailer used to
store construction equipment for the renovation of the pentagon that was to
the right of the fueselage impact point. The fact that you are insinuating
that this was staged and a fraud is unbelievable. You ask were the debris
is...well it was in the building..I saw it everywhere. I swear to god you
people piss me off to no end. I invite you and you come down and I will walk
you through it step by step. I have more than a few hours in general
aviation aircraft and can identify commercial airliners. Have you ever seen
photos of other aircraft accident photos...there usually isnt huge amounts
of debris left...how much did you see from the WTC?...are those fake
aircraft flying into the building. I know that this will make no diffrence
to you because to even have a websight like this you are obviously a
diffrent sort of thinker."
http://www.911-strike.com/lagasse.htm

2nd Statement....

"From: Lagasse, William, , PFPA
To: Dick Eastman

Mr. Eastman The barracks k gas station is were the press set up after the
attack, approx 500-600m west-south west of the pentagon. The aircraft
struck the poles in question, they were not blown down, the aircraft passed almost directly over the naval annex splitting the distance between the ANCand Columbia pike. and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building were it met the ground. There was no steep bank, but a shallow bank with aheavy uncoordinated left rudder turn causing a severe yaw into the building
with the starboard side of the cockpit actually hitting at about the same time the wing was involved with the trailer,
Because of the Doppler effect no one could have heard the plane if they were on rt 27 until it was already in the building, identifying its position and trajectory from that angle would have been difficult if not impossible...it was not over Arlington National Cemetery but closer to Columbia pike itself, there is a small grove
of trees that would have shielded anyone on 27 from seeing the aircraft until it was literally on top of them...again not much time to make the assessment. I identified it as American Airlines almost as soon as I saw
it and radioed that it had struck the building. I was on the Starboard side of the aircraft. There was very little wake turbulence that I can recall, which was surprising to me. The aircraft DID NOT have its landing gear or flaps extended. whoever said the landing gear comes out when its that low forgets the aircraft was exceeding the speed that would allow gear to be extended. How and where the trailer was struck I cant speak of because rt 27 blocked my view slightly to the right because it is elevated. I did however see it in person BEFORE any EMS/Fire arrived and it was fully engulfed in
flame 30-40 seconds after impact literally torn in half. you can see in a few AP photos a tower workers 300zx on the left side of the impact point that was struck adjacent to the fire truck that was hit. 3 fireman were there at the tower as well as two persons in the tower that watched this
entire process and are luck to be alive. There was almost no debris to the
right/south of the impact point but I found a compressor blade and carbon
fiber pieces over 3/4 of a mile away to the north on 27 when we were
collecting evidence. The biggest piece of debris I saw was one of the
engines smashed...but intact in the building. I saw the building from the
inside and outside..before during and after the collapse and rest assured
that it was indeed an American airlines 757 that struck the Pentagon that
morning. no photos clearly show the size of the original breech...it was at
least 10-12 feet high and 20-30 feet wide not than size persons who weren't
there claim. I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I hope your
search for the truth will end with this e-mail as I have nothing to gain by
lying or distorting facts.. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It
has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt
that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just
curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in
quelling misconceptions"
http://www.911-strike.com/lagasse.htm

Interesting detailed statement

What about all the stuff he saw in the Pentagon.? They were not interested in hearing that?

He says allot here when interviewed by someone else.

Just curious

Did the plane fly over the Navy Annex?

I quote from your post:

"the aircraft passed almost directly over the naval annex"
"and was approx 100-150ft agl when it passed over the annex and continued on a shallow-fast decent and literally hit the building"

"I was on the Starboard side of the aircraft"

A lot people describe it as

A lot people describe it as flying "over the Annex".

Bright, Mark
Defense Protective Service officers were the first on the scene of the terrorist attack. One, Mark Bright, actually saw the plane hit the building. He had been manning the guard booth at the Mall Entrance to the building. "I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the street lights. It knocked a couple down."

Hemphill, Albert
As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon.

Probst, Frank
Then, at about 9:35 a.m., he saw the airliner in the cloudless September sky. American Airlines Flight 77 approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon.

But a lot of other interesting details as well --

Faram, Mark
"As I stepped onto the highway next to the triage area, I knelt down to tie my shoe and all over the highway were small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger than a half-dollar. Anyone familiar with aircraft has seen the greenish primer paint that covers many interior metal surfaces - that is what these shards were covered with. I was out of the immediate area photographing other things within 20 minutes of the crash."

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

These are all thrown out by CIT (all witnesses they didn't interview don't count). Unfortunately, that's not science.

Ultimately, the physical evidence does fit the large body of eyewitness evidence. What CIT does is try to control and interpret through their personal lens, a small group of less than 20 of the witnesses to eclipse everyone else, the dozens and dozens of accounts that, as a body, agree with the physical evidence.

What do you believe?

Did the plane fly over the Navy Annex?

>>that FAA animation. What

>>that FAA animation.

What I've seen is an avalanche of back and forth analysis and interpretations of it, and some have suggested it may have been altered to fit other data. I don't put as much stock in animations, secondary data, as I do in raw or primary data (the body of witness statements, the physical evidence, radar data, FDR, etc). If you have a particular insight on it, I'm all ears.

Some information coming from the government may be wrong or edited, however, it should never be automatically assumed that because it comes from the government, then it is automatically wrong or fixed.

My impression is that almost all of the evidence is generally complex and internally contradictory in some cases. When examined with a microscope and an agenda, i.e., "that witness said he saw faces in the windows so he must be lying!" or, "that video was edited to hide our witness and discredit him!", the perception of this huge body of information can be distorted. But when examined broadly, without cherry-picking of what is allowed to be considered, the different lines of evidence do converge on a likelihood that AA77 likely just hit there, and a lot of people were killed instantly.

That was really all that was needed to mobilize the many thousands of young men to want to get on a plane and fly across the ocean to 'get them back'.

What the insiders and Bush Admin wanted was to mobilize, and no extreme magic show at the Pentagon was necessary to do that because of what the Pentagon represents to young men in the military. Simply ramming a plane into the building and making sure the defenses were down and controlled, allowed them to get everything they dreamed of.

Sadly, once the many young men got over seas, they +paid+a+very+high+price, as did we all, both here and there.

the contradictions resolved

The crime scene -- including damage to building, downed lightpoles, damage to Lloyde England's cab -- was completely controlled by the primary suspect. The fourteen witnesses are not. That gives you a good starting point for resolving the contradictions.

C-130

>>>"Roberts described a mixed version of a plane -- he expected to see the commercial jet"
BULL SHIT.

Did Roberts expect to see something other than the planes that hit in NYC? We don't know for certain, but given that he'd just gotten off the phone talking about those crashes, it's likely what he expected to see.

>>Right and it was like banking, just above the light poles like

Was AA77 banking as it "hugged the roof" of the Pentagon (as CIT alleges)? Unlikely. The wingspan is fairly wide to do that -- hide yet bank -- all at the same time without hitting the roof. Did it somehow correct the bank between the light poles and the building? Again, basically impossible at that distance and speed.

But the C-130 did bank. It's shown on radar and described by numerous witnesses as making what looked like a U-turn.

While CIT believes he can only be describing the commercial jet, I believe he description of the plane is basically what he expected to see, particularly because the path he describes fits the C-130 so well. I don't assume the witness can perfectly describe a plane flying at hundreds of mph, but if we look at the overall picture, and the larger body of accounts, we can see how their view fits in.

Here are some similar accounts:

Witnesses described a second plane, a C-130 following the plane that hit the Pentagon

“Reagan Airport flight control instructs a military C-130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews Air Force Base to intercept Flight 77 and identify it.” [New York Times, 10/16/2001; Guardian, 10/17/2001]

1. “I witnessed a military cargo plane (Possibly a C-130) fly over the crash site and circle the mushroom cloud. My brother in-law also witnessed the same plane following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield. He said that he saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary RD in Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it… I personally believe that the government new full well that this was about to happen and they are hiding something a lot bigger than they are willing to let out.”[615]

2. “We saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don’t go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House. All the while, I was sort of talking at it: “Who the hell are you? Where are you going? You’re not headed for downtown!” Ray and Verle watched it with me, and I was convinced it was another attack. But right over the tidal basin, at an altitude of less than 1000 feet, it made another sharp left turn to the north and climbed rapidly. Soon it was gone, leaving only the thin black trail.”[616]

3. “A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner… Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane ‘to let us know where it’s going,’ McClellan said. But, he said, there was no attempt to intercept the hijacked airliner. “A C-130 obviously goes slower than a jet,” McClellan said. “There was no way he was going to intercept anything.” The C-130 pilot “followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into the Pentagon,” he said. “He saw it crash into the building. He saw the fireball.”[617]

4. “I hopped out of my car after the jet exploded, nearly oblivious to a second jet hovering in the skies.”[618]

5. “When I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head, and it scared …me, because I knew there had been two planes that hit the World Trade Center. And I started jogging up the ramp to get as far away as possible. Then the plane—it looked like a C-130 cargo plane—started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.”[619]

6. “He stopped his car to watch and saw another plane following and turn off after the first craft’s impact.”[620]

7. “Soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it.”[621]

8. “Within a minute another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn’t clear if that plane was trying to maneuver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit.”[622]

9. “Then a gray C-130 flew overhead, setting off a new round of panic. I tried to reassure people that the plane was not a threat. All around me people began to panic, fleeing for their lives.”[623]

10. “Both of them, as well as at least one other person at the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet…Wheelhouse said the second plane looked like it may have been a C- 130 transport plane, but the other three witnesses say they’re not sure what the plane looked like… Wheelhouse believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon. As Flight 77 descends toward the Pentagon, the second plane veers off west.”[624]

11. “The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading.”[625]

I'm not out to prove flyover

...and you know this. I'm saying there is absolutely nothing in Roberts' testimony that suggests that it was a C-130

You solve that problem by saying that (a) he saw what you think he expected to see (b) ignoring all the references Roberts makes to the altitude, the location, the direction, the color, the size, the shape, the engines and the timing (10 seconds) (c) quoting numerous witnesses who saw the C-130

Roberts may be wrong, I understand that. But I find it the height of dishonesty to imply that Roberts' testimony somehow supports a C-130. It does not!

Now he may say he doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job (accusing his employer if he did), or that he believes flight 77 hit the building...all that is just fine with me. That's not what he was asked about. He was asked about what he saw flying away shortly after impact.

On the phone with Aldo Marquis he said all sorts of things that are quite outrageous, his honesty owed to his belief that he wasn't diverging from the OCT in any way. In investigative journalism (let's call it that) it's perfectly normal to coerce somebody to spill the beans, sometimes using a hidden tape recorder or a camera. These people will protest later, that's the way it is, as Cronkite (RIP) would say.

You not only do this with Roberts' testimony, but you also do it with Edward Paik, citing 911myths, an unreliable, deceitful debunker source. Why?!

It doesn't fly well with me to "protect" the 9/11 truth movement from "harm" by consciously warping witness testimony to make it fit with physical evidence (or flyover theory)! This has nothing to do with CIT groupie-ism, but with my personal integrity. Call me naive, but in this movement this is my greatest asset.

I guess I'll leave it at that, this thread has grown like a magic bean!

Ignore, ignore, ignore....

It's fascinating how you accuse people of lying with no evidence.

Snowcrash and I have caught you progapating falsehoods twice in this thread. We have shown it, very decisively. And it strains credulity to think these were mistakes.

I just happened to click on that Loose Change forum link and discover that you were attributing a quote to Roosevelt Roberts which wasn't even from him, but someone who's first name was Robert.

What if I were to actually spend HOURS fact-checking/double-checking EVERY one of your posts in ALL CIT threads?

I haven't because I don't devote 100% of my truthing time to CIT. I just spent a week in DC helping out with Richard Gage's appearances. Not to mention my life outside 9/11 truth.

Lloyd is the one with all

Lloyd is the one with all the muscles. Maybe you are the one that did it?

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Show "Victronix has been completely discredited" by Sheila Casey

I know Victronix personally.

She and her husband are tireless workers and great assets to the 9/11 truth movement.

Your increasingly hysterical attacks on her and 911blogger do nothing to further the cause of truth or improve your own credibility, so I suggest you moderate your approach and reign in your dogma.

If you cannot agree to disagree in a civil manner, what does that say about you and the world that you would create by such actions?

Personally, I think exactly what happened at the Pentagon remains an open question and, while I hope to see this mystery resolved in my lifetime, I will not accept anything less than a thorough investigation which makes a convincing and credible case proving what took place there. This would include an inventory of the plane wreckage which accounts for at least 80% of a plane and has parts which can be matched to a specific plane using verifiable and credible records.

Until we get that investigation, I think that people who go out of their way to argue excessively and hurl accusations are not doing the movement or themselves any good and I respectfully ask that all parties cease and desist.

148 comments of this? Why?

I understand that some people are frustrated by the seemingly slow pace of progress that we are making and the sense of foreboding that many of us have, but arguing among ourselves instead of putting that energy into public education is not a good use of time or energy, imho.

So, when it comes to repeating this argument over the Pentagon, hopefully everyone will just say no and move on.

Love is a verb, brothers and sisters, let's get busier (and work smarter)!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Show "Liars may well be assets" by Sheila Casey

I'm a bit late to this discussion

and pretty much everything i'd say about the evidence for a 757 crash at the Pentagon and the problems with CIT has been said better by Vic, Arabesque, jimd3100 and Jon Gold (and anyone i forgot)- thank you for taking the time in this thread, and in the articles you've researched and written.

I also appreciate LeftWright's points about civil dialogue.

I can understand someone withholding judgment about what hit the Pentagon; after all, most of the videos that might show 77 (or whatever it was) approaching and hitting the Pentagon are being withheld. And no hard evidence has been produced by the govt that it was AA 77; in response to FOIA's by Aidan Monaghan, the NTSB apparently has said they never verified that it was, and the FBI responded by saying it was never in doubt.

But absolute claims that it wasn't AA 77 or a 757 don't make sense to me. And engaging in personal attacks and baseless accusations the way Sheila and Adam Syed/kameelyun and occasionally SnowCrash have done gets no respect and down votes from me.

CIT doesn't have "13 witnesses"; holes in their claims about several of them have been pointed out repeatedly in this 6 pg thread. And as far as the others go, how does any of us know they AREN'T making up their claims about North-side- or that they're mistaken?

There is a wealth of actually compelling evidence that the OCT is false and a full investigation is imperative, here at 911Blogger.com and these links:
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
http://911research.wtc7.net/
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

http://911reports.com

Better late than never, well said and thank you

Absolute claims about anything in the face of contradictory information/evidence is not rational and is certainly not in keeping with the mission of the truth movement, at least not as I understand it.

Thanks for all your work, loose nuke.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

engaging in personal attacks

engaging in personal attacks and baseless accusations the way Sheila and Adam Syed/kameelyun and occasionally SnowCrash have done

Show me where I have engaged in a personal attack. In this particular blog entry.

While the rules at this site forbid one user from calling another a liar, they do not forbid one user from pointing out an actual falsehood that another user is propagating.

Victronix was called out on misrepresenting Roosevelt Roberts' claim about what kind of plane was flying away after the Pentagon explosion.

She said he clearly describes a C-130. It is crystal clear as day in the interview that RR speaks of a "commercial aircraft" with "jet engines" about "50, no more than 100 feet" above light poles.

Let's say, hypothetically, that RR suffers from faulty memory and he actually saw a C-130.

Even if that were to be true, Victronix and company claim that CIT misrepresented RR's claims.

But it's clear that CIT did no such thing.

I can not understand why you would vote down any of my posts in this thread (and this thread specifically, where I have remained civil at all times) unless you are married to a particular "camp."

retraction

Adam, i went back thru the thread; I didn't find an entry by you that I'd call an "attack", so I take that back. Looks like Vic did mislabel the comment about Turcios, and it's not clear to me that Roberts saw the C-130- or a flyover. Frustrating Fraud has a number of posts on Roberts, with links to others:
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/search/label/Roberts%20R

That said, I doubt Vic was "lying"- and unless someone has proof of an intentional deception, it's not "civil" to accuse her of even "misrepresenting"- why not just ask for a clarification; you did, i think, in a later comment. SnowCrash did make an indirect reference/accusation about lying, but I also couldn't find what I'd call an "attack" by him- and he said he apologizes if he contributed in any way to the unpleasantness in this thread.

So I apologize for conflating your comments with Sheila's; she posted a number of attacks/accusations/nasty comments, which I collected- I'm gonna check this thread tomorrow evening; if I find a challenge from Sheila to provide them, i'll paste them as a reply, for the record- I probably won't be back to this thread after that- imho, this thread has proven yet again that this issue is divisive and a distraction from the wealth of solid evidence that the OCT is a fraud, collected by the sites I linked above, and many others.

http://911reports.com

Shouldn't the people who

Shouldn't the people who voted her up for her mislabelling go back and change their support of that mislabelling. Just a suggestion.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

"flyover fantasy that they had BEFORE ever interviewing...

...a single witness"

Proof, please.

"Proof"? All fake.

"Proof"?

All fake.

So no way to know what's real.

We have ways to tell what's real

And if you'd bother to view the evidence, you would too.

Jan 2006

The title of the thread made by CIT is..

"Meet Agent Lloyd A. England (Pentagon Plant)"

http://letsrollforums.com/meet-agent-lloyd-england-t9799.html

Made in Jan of 2006

They already have Lloyd pegged as a mass murderer and the lightpoles were all staged. They like NIST knew what their "investigation" would find before they ever "investigated"
It's a con job.

Some quotes...
"Note he didn't mention the plane crashing or seeing the impact. That's the thing."

"A LOT of people saw a plane, the plane, some kind of plane."

"And then at some point people saw the diversion plane making it's low flying appearance?"

"Remember, that side of the Pentagon is sourrounded by tree lines and hills, so it may be possible there were 2 and 3 planes or crafts involved in this and some people didn't see it. And he's also got it flying low and slow. That sounds like a large airliner that is about to make a brief appearance and then land at Reagan "

"And then at some point people saw the diversion plane making it's low flying appearance?"

CIT also called the taxi driver "the devil"

Later, they tried to deny that they called him the devil despite the fact that Ranke said on 911blogger:

“if ‘demon’ isn’t a fitting description for someone willingly involved what is?”
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

Aldo Marquis tried to claim that this statement was "not" an admission that they called the taxi driver a "devil".

Craig Ranke characterized one of my articles as a "personal attack" when in fact the only personal attacks in the article were by Ranke attacking other 9/11 researchers:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

CIT claims that they have credible "smoking gun" witnesses of the flight path despite the fact that:

1. Lagasse got his own location wrong, got the location of the light poles and taxi cab wrong. When this is pointed out to Craig Ranke, he claims that "Lagasse didn't see the light poles". In actual fact, Lagasse didn't see the PLANE hit the light poles. Lagasse was adamant that light poles knocked down on 9/11 were not knocked down. And yet they promote this witness as "smoking gun" evidence. For more on this read here: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-lagasse-these-poles-wer...

2. The witness at the CITGO station Turcios, in fact is contradicted by the CITGO gas station video. He claims he ran up the "north side" of the station, but in fact, the CITGO gas station video shows a man running up the south side. In response to this, CIT brazenly claims that the U.S. government "edited" him out of the video. No they didn't. The only man "running up a hill" shows up on the South side of the video.


Watch The Trouble With Turcios in How to Videos  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Read some of the outlandish explanations by CIT for the fact that the witness is contradicted by the CITGO gas station in the video.

These points and others are also backed up with links and references here:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

3. CIT claims that E. Paik is a "north path" witness when in fact, his testimony directly contradicts the other witnesses who gave a "north path". In fact, his testimony closely matches the official path. The next day after the attack, a nearby antenna was being repaired which this witness also observed. The day after 9/11. While this has not been officially confirmed that the plane hit this tower, if it did, it would match up with the light pole damage. And of course, the south flight path. This is still being investigated by a 9/11 researcher.

Last but not least of all: All of their witnesses in a position to observe the Pentagon attack, they all claim the plane struck the Pentagon

Putting aside all of these points (and many others), the very fact that CIT is asking to you promote these "flyover" claims when there are far more incriminating facts about 9/11 that deserve attention is very frustrating I have to say. It is very disturbing that the claims of CIT are being taken seriously by many 9/11 truth activists despite the alarming facts I have pointed out above.

Accusing witnesses of being perpetrators without credible evidence does NOT help the cause of the 9/11 truth movement. Anyone who does not understand this, has some issues in their judgment.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

CIT debunked years ago

CIT theory of a flyover isn't even original, it was debunked years ago.
When Dick Eastman proposed it.

Paik is on film describing

Paik is on film describing the plane heading over the Navy Annex. Is your website the source.

Read my blog.........

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Incidentally,

I drove to the former CITGO gas station the other night.

It used to be a civilian gas station that anyone could use.

Now it's called Navy Exchange (still a gas station) but only authorized military patrons can use it.

At the entrance to the station, I was greeted with this sign:

Right next to this sign, there is another sign saying "photography strictly prohibited."

There was a cop car parked in the south side of the station. After my camera flash went off, he started driving around to my side. By that time I was crossing the street heading toward my car and making a beeline out of there. Fortunately he didn't chase me down.

Why would the Pentagon be concerned with no media access at a gas station? Why are they so afraid of people taking photos there?????

Someone, or some two, are making them very afraid.....

These guys

are obsessed with secrecy.

Btw, the image below for anybody who wants to click and download: (Flash is a DRM mechanism, try to avoid it)

Military Installation .. No media access authorized

Show "Obsessed with avoiding Ranke and Marquis, I'd say" by Sheila Casey

Now why exactly would

Now why exactly would someone vote the above post down?

Because I've defended CIT's work so you just vote down all posts by "Adam Syed?"

Why would the Pentagon be so paranoid about photos and media at a gas station?

Why would such a sign be at a gas station?

I can't think why the shell station down the street from my house would be paranoid about someone taking a photo.

Why the gas station outside the pentagon?

Brian Birdwell

Anyone want to try and explain how Brian Birdwell almost died from jet fuel in his lungs?

"For those that may not recognize the name, Brian is a Pentagon 9/11survivor."
The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs."
http://usma1961.westpointaog.com/BirdwellLuncheon.htm

Sure, no problem


"Inhalation of jet fuel vapors can cause mild to severe irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and respiratory tract mucosa. Systemic effects include headache, drowsiness, burning sensation in the chest, nausea, weakness, restlessness, incoordination, and other effects of central nervous system depression such as staggering gait, slurred speech, and mental confusion. High exposures can lead to a feeling of suffocation, coma and death due to respiratory arrest. Pulmonary edema (fluid in the lungs) can develop approximately 24 to 48 hours after exposure. This is a medical emergency and can also be fatal. There may be coughing, bloody sputum, chest pain, and congestion."

Oooh, wait? You mean because of plane impact? Dammit. Yes. That sounds plausible. But wait. I never said a plane didn't hit the pentagon now did I.

CIT might. I am not CIT. What I've said maybe like fifteen times now in this thread is that I think it is important to resolve the contradictions between the witness statements and the physical evidence.

But no. You want camps, so you can play capture the flag. Did that sound sarcastic? It was. Because I can do much better than kerosene lungs.

One employee saw the nose of the plane crash through her office wall.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html

this is known as hearsay

The entire quote on this topic is: "One employee saw the nose of the plane crash through her office wall."

No information is given at that link about her name, who she told this to, why no one else saw it or took a picture of it, or where in the building she was located. Essentially hearsay.

I met a woman who said she saw them pull the entire plane out of the Pentagon backwards, still intact, and that this was on TV.

Anyone can say anything.

People who are willing to be interviewed on camera, with their full name and all other pertinent details, now that is something else again. That is what we have witih CIT and why they scare the OCT supporters so much.

Just asking

"Oooh, wait? You mean because of plane impact? Dammit. Yes. That sounds plausible. But wait. I never said a plane didn't hit the pentagon now did I."

Thanks. I think it sounds plausible as well. I don't know what you claim hit the pentagon or didn't, I thought this discussion was in regards to wether there was a flyover as CIT says, not on what you claim, which isn't something I was exploring.

"CIT might. I am not CIT. What I've said maybe like fifteen times now in this thread is that I think it is important to resolve the contradictions between the witness statements and the physical evidence."

I agree that contradictions between the witness statements and physical evidence is worth discussing. I've seen pictures of the physical evidence and it does look to me like a passenger jet crashed. The witnesses interviewed seem to think they witnessed a passenger jet crash into the pentagon. Lagasse is very adament about it. But they also seem to give a flight path that is off, causing CIT to conclude the plane didn't hit but flew over. However other witneses they interviewed indicate a different flightpath consistant with where "it should be".
i.e. Father McGraw, Mike Walter, and Lloyd the cabbie to name three. However Mike Walter is a reporter for USA today and therfor a "plant", I find that to be unreasonable. Father Mcgraw is a priest and has ties to the vatican and is a former DOJ attorney and is therefor "compromised", I find that to be unreasonable, and Lloyd the cabbie, doesn't jive with Laggasee's flight path and therfor is "in on it", I find that to be unreasonable. I was simply asking for any explanation for how this Mr Birdwell could have almost died from jet fuel in his lungs if the plane these witnesses are all seeing didn't hit the pentagon?
So it seems it actually did, which would indicate to me some people got the flight path wrong and some got it right.

"But no. You want camps, so you can play capture the flag. Did that sound sarcastic? It was. Because I can do much better than kerosene lungs.

One employee saw the nose of the plane crash through her office wall.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html"

I don't know what you are on about here. If there was another explanation for this Mr Birdwell almost dieing from the jet fuel I was looking for it, otherwise it seems that all we are argueing about is contradictions in witness statements which would occur at any scene. Either that plane hit or it didn't. Birdwell seems to indicate it hit.

Thanks

For this reasonable response:

I agree that contradictions between the witness statements and physical evidence is worth discussing.

There were tanks of aviation fuel on the ground that ignited

There is absolutely zero evidence that Mr Birdwell or any the other first responders at the Pentagon obtained lung ailments from a plane crash particularly since we know there was a diesel fuel generator trailer (that could NOT have been hit from a plane on the north side approach) that was billowing out smoke for hours.

Diesel is basically the same thing as jet fuel and in fact they sometimes use jet fuel in these big military size generator trailers.

But we also know that the alleged impact point was right next to the heliport tower and there are reports of tanks of aviation fuel exploding one by one!

"We ran to the end of our building, turned left and saw nothing but huge, billowing black smoke, and a brilliant, brilliant explosion of fire." (...) One of the Pentagon's two fire trucks was parked only 50 feet from the crash site, and it was "totally engulfed in flames," Anderson says. Nearby, tanks full of propane and aviation fuel had begun igniting, and they soon began exploding, one by one."
source: http://www.newsweek.com/id/75861

So again, there is absolutely zero evidence that Mr Birdwell or any the other first responders at the Pentagon obtained lung ailments from a plane crash and plenty of evidence to the contrary. But the very notion that such an arguement even begins to refute the north side approach evidence is a pure logical fallacy anyway!

Why would you resort to faulty logic as a means to defend the official narrative against hard evidence proving it false?

Sheila, Joe, BreezyInVA, and others frustrated by this thread...

Maybe we should take Arabesque's advice and create our own blog! ;-) ;-)

I'm frustrated because I

I'm frustrated because I feel like people are defending the official conspiracy. I understand that they don't want to go to new considerations but to defend the OCT is surprising to me. I didn't realize that about Blogger. I thought I could come here to rest from that. Not so.

Instead we are told to prove it (whatever it is). The OCT has NEVER been proven. Period.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

The OCT has NEVER been

The OCT has NEVER been proven. Period.

That is correct.

Not ANY PART of it.

Discussion

What I find disappointing is that comments that simply (and succesfully) call argumentation and sourcing into question are downvoted if they are in favor of CIT. The logic of that escapes me, I will simply defend any reasoning that is sound, and attack reasoning that is flawed, no matter who it is or what the topic is. It's much more rewarding to give up on trying to make the evidence fit your conclusion, i.e. the fallacy of "begging the question".

Perhaps I've been a little too fanatical, having difficulty accepting "creativity" with verbatim text or unambiguous data. Personal attacks and accusations of others being agents don't improve the climate either. However, disingenuous behavior should be addressed as such.

But hey! Has this thread not set a record? You can't say there's lack of participation.

Should we call it a day?

I don't look at this as a case of defending the OCT,

but more in line with all the independent analysis of the events of 9/11/01.

The situation at the Pentagon is very problematical due to the piles of contradictory information and the relative dearth of actual physical or video evidence. Unfortunately, time has not improved this situation and after nearly eight years some people are becoming frustrated, perhaps giving too much weight to certain elements and are jumping to conclusions which, imo, cannot be rationally supported as more than tentative or speculative.

My first reaction to what happened at the Pentagon came a week after 9/11 when I saw a photo in TIME magazine that showed a pristine lawn and virtually no wreckage. Then, I studied the details much more and became more neutral on the issue. More recently, after discussing the issue of "ground effect" with many pilots and taking some guidance from Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who was at the Pentagon and witnessed the scene shortly after the event happened, I tend to lean in the direction that no large Boeing plane impacted the building (call it 55/45 against).

Now, with all that said, I keep an open mind on the issue and eagerly await new information which will resolve this issue. Note that while my own personal opinion is contrary to that of people like Victronix, I still respect her opinion and thank her for the rigorous scrutiny and critical thinking she brings to this and all other issues. I also have no problem working with someone who may disagree with me on some peripheral issues. [Yes, I consider whether or not a large Boeing hit the Pentagon to be a peripheral issue when making the case against the OCT, as we all know that Hani Hanjour did not pilot the plane and may not have even been on it, so in the grand scheme of things, it is virtually irrelevant]

The main activity of most members of the movement is public education on the issue. The Pentagon remains a minefield when it comes to public advocacy and is best avoided, imo.

For those who want to do more research on this or any other issue relating to 9/11, I encourage you to go after it with everything you can, publish your work on the internet, invite critical analysis and not have so much ego invested in a particular position that you dig yourself into a bunker and lob mortar rounds at anyone who asks questions and demands answers that make sense, this is the MO for the movement, after all.

I really don't mind the back and forth on this issue here at 911blogger and am grateful that the moderators have allowed it to go on, I just am saddened at the level of incivility and dogma engaged in by some people, at times. Always remember that the number one tactic of control is divide and conquer and do not aid and abet those who oppose the truth and want to maintain their corrupt control of us by creating artificial divisions.

We are all brothers and sisters, let's focus on being the change we want to see in the world, as that is the only way we will actually make that change happen.

End sermon. :)

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Rigorous scrutiny

I disapprove of the harsh climate. I apologize if I contributed to it in any way (by calling "bull shit"), but there are more ways of being nasty, especially logical fallacies, shameless spin and accusations of being damaging to the truth movement. Some of it seems rooted in a sense of entitlement to determine admissibility of legitimate topics, such as discrepancies between witness statements and physical evidence, and criticism of scrutiny. Controlled demolition research has suffered disproportionally from lack of affinity with the scientific method. Schools don't stimulate exact science the way they should. Even the slightest dishonesty is unacceptable in this arena.

Lack of rigorous scrutiny should be properly addressed, especially when such poorly presented claims are popularized through upvoting, creating the illusion of legitimacy. This illusion of legitimacy then further spreads to include fraudulent claims by debunker sources. I simply must intervene at that point.

This all has nothing to do with siding with any particular camp, of course. If this was a social setting and we'd be having a drink, don't expect me to be such a pain, in fact, expect me to be very easygoing. But when it comes to research and related discussion, brutal honesty is not elective. Too bad for camaraderie in that case, and that's a rather high price to pay. Here's a random thought: people might take it personally if they are downvoted to the point where their replies become invisible. If the minimum was zero in discussions such as this, emphasis is redirected towards encouragement instead of discouragement. This has everything to do with "balancing the discussion temperature" as we say in Internet Relay Chat circles.

Thanks for your nuanced, sincere and thoughtful contributions, LeftWright. That's exactly what we need.

I am paraphrasing Jon but he

I am paraphrasing Jon but he said on 7-15 that promoting something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon has never helped this movement. So he IS standing by what rumsfeld said happened. He then says he has spent 7 years "making these points. Making rumsfeld's points?

It started this thread out based on the OCT. He is against investigating the OCT.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Sorry,

But I am doing no such thing.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

There will come a time very soon,

Jon, when you will have to (grudgingly) acknowledge the validity of CIT's work, just as you had to grudgingly admit that the CD hypothesis is valid after the Bentham paper came out.

Sorry, but you're wrong...

On both counts. If you're going to speak, make sure that what you say is accurate. I have always endorsed Steven Jones, and his work. I haven't always agreed with it, or liked the fact that the hypothesis of CD has been used to hurt this cause, but I have always endorsed it, and promoted it when something new is introduced. Reason being, how those towers came down is an important question to the families, therefore I support it. Also, to a layman such as myself, those who advocate for CD make compelling arguments. The Bentham paper had nothing to do with my support for their work.

Unless CIT produces a video showing precisely what happened at the Pentagon, then I can guarantee that I will most likely never acknowledge the "validity" of their work. For reasons I have already stated in this blog.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Here's...

A perfect example of my statement that "in my opinion anyone who says you must believe or do this, that, or the other thing, otherwise, you are this, that, or the other thing, should be avoided."

If you don't believe "the proven-false proposition that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon," then you are part of "a tiny fringe element of truth-seekers (real and/or counterfeit)."

Kevin Barrett should be avoided, but that's nothing new.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

There you go again,

There you go again, indirectly endorsing Rumsfeld. Thanks for posting that link. I hadn't seen it. And for you to say that someone should be avoided is practicing your own criticism.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

BreezyinVA...

No matter how many times you lie (why do people who support ridiculous theories have a tendency to lie, and make accusations against people?) about me "endorsing Rumsfeld," it will never become the truth.

I don't recall Donald Rumsfeld pointing out that the most defended airpsace in the world was left completely undefended 34 minutes after the second tower was hit when everyone in the world knew America was under attack.

I don't recall Donald Rumsfeld pointing to Norman Mineta's testimony regarding Flight 77, and how the Vice President was in the PEOC before the Pentagon was hit.

Please... stop lying.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Are you breaking the rules?

Are you breaking the rules? Lying?

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Saying...

That I am endorsing Donald Rumsfeld's version of events, or making his points is a lie. A blatant lie.

Now, I am REALLY done with this blog.

Edit: One last thing... The book "Firefight"... From what I understand, they talk about seats with bodies, etc... fake? planted?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

I don't think

accusing Jon Gold of being of one mind with Donald Rumsfeld is really productive, whether or not you disagree. All this doesn't need to be so toxic.

I never said Jon was of one

I never said Jon was of one mind with Rumsfeld. I won't call you a liar but you sure do exaggerate. He has spent a lot of time stomping for the OCT. Is that better? I was called a liar, but that is how I see it. When did it get so toxic (when I was called a liar).

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

It's better to phrase it this way

You said:


"So he IS standing by what rumsfeld said happened. He then says he has spent 7 years "making these points. Making rumsfeld's points?"
(....)
"There you go again, indirectly endorsing Rumsfeld"

I think that's a little out of line. Rumsfeld is a mass murderer and a traitor. Rumsfeld might say that planes hit the World Trade Center. Does that mean it's wrong to agree with him? You're using "guilt by association" and I don't think Jon deserves that, although I certainly strongly disagree with him on some points.

Show "I don't know nor necessarily" by BreezyinVA

Those could have been

Those could have been military planes but instead of answering the question why you are diluting Ft. 77 with WTC, you vote me down.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

No I haven't

voted you down. I didn't touch the arrows next to your replies. I only vote down when I think somebody gets a disproportionate amount of 'up' votes for a comment that I don't like.

This is all your own doing.

Forget this thread. There are more important things. Such as this:


BREAKING NEWS!! Richard Gage from AE911Truth has been detained
Richard Gage is being detained at the National Institute for Standards and Technology, in Gaithersburg, MD. Mr. Gage went to deliver a letter to, Shyam Sunder which proves thermite was in the WTO buildings, they were detained and are currently inside, film was confiscated. We Are Change Virginia's Ben Schnitger is on the scene.

NIST, 100 Bureau Dr, Gaithersburg - (301) 975-2000

Stay Tuned for additional info....

Source: We Are Change

And..released again


Richard Gage released.
Richard is ok, he is now out of the NIST HQ, and his letter is delivered, also the tape was returned to Ben.


We Are Change

My point is, let's put this useless flamewar to an end. You should write a point by point blog article about CIT, without any ad hominems, it helps you organize your thoughts on this issue and there is no voting whatsoever involved. Then somebody else can respond and we can all have a civil discussion.

Want to take this to court?

Evidently you don't seem to be aware that while you are busy saying Jon "supports the OCT", CIT has gone out and proven the OCT,(in regards to the pentagon) and wants to con you into taking this to court. That's right, if you ignore the spin and listen only to the witnesses, they all agree that a passenger jet slammed into the building. Every one of them. And Ranke goes on the K Barrett radio show and says that every witness they talked to was "North side".
http://noliesradio.org/archives/3068

Ranke tends to lie...

Meet S Side witness M Walter
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jqaz_pentagon-eyewitness-mike-walter_...

They met him at his own home where he fed them. Isn't he horrible? He decided to not go on camera when he caught Ranke secretly recording him and knew they were no good. He's smarter than they are....

"The two said they were helping Avery and Pickering with research for their film. Walter chatted casually with the pair, and at one point, he realized that Ranke was surreptitiously tape-recording the conversation."

Although Pickering and Avery seemed relatively normal, Ranke and Marquis appeared to be on a mission to prove that the Pentagon plane crash never happened. They wouldn't listen to anything that contradicted this notion."

"Marquis and Ranke simply refused to believe Walter saw what he saw. "They were saying things like, 'Are you sure the plane didn't land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?' They kept coming up with all these scenarios."

"Some of those guys [at the party] were young and nice and disaffected [about] their government," Walter concludes. "And some of them were crazy."
http://www.ocweekly.com/2008-08-14/features/pentaconned/

"Mike Walter is the only one who has proof he was there at all and he was probably in south parking lot waiting for the event to go down before he ran over to the scene to play "witness" for the news cameras."--CIT take on Walter
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread436840/pg1

Not outrageous enough for ya?

Meet S side witness Father McGraw
CIT will deny he is a s Side witness....but listen to his testimoney...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5085491450059007792&ei=LdJkSvn9...

It's clear he is. Sound like the plane "flew over"?
I would like to remind you this is a man of honour who gave up a career as an attorney to use his life in a spiritual way.

"We know for a fact that funerals continued at ANC throughout the morning and afternoon so the notion that he simply abandoned his responsibility to some veteran's family to fraternize with the first responders and loiter around the attack scene etc is unconscionable. -CIT take on Mcgraw
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread436840/pg1

Not disgusting enough for ya? How about...

"AND.....McGraw claims he was late to preside over a funeral at Arlington Cemetery. Why would he get out of his car at all with such an important commitment? We know for a fact that funerals continued as scheduled at ANC.

What happened to the poor family that was waiting for him as he hung around the Pentagon?

McGraw has admitted to having a connection to the controversial fundamentalist catholic secret society Opus Dei.

This is notable because of the political intrigue surrounding this catholic cult. It is well known to be favored by the "Washington elite" as reported in the History Channel special "The Spy Next Door: Robert Hanssen".

Robert Hanssen is a convicted traitor who was an FBI employee that sold secrets to the Russians for years. He was a good friends and parish members with former head of the FBI Louis Freeh who is said to have been instrumental in the Oklahoma City bombing cover-up. Both were devout members of Opus Dei but Hanssen was exposed as a sexual deviant who had extra marital affairs with strippers and secretely video taped sex with his wife while his friend would watch from a monitor set up in their spare room in the basement." --CIT take on Father McGraw
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread320389/pg1

Why aren't you disgusted with this slander of innocent people who did nothing but make the mistake of talking to "truthers" and ruin their fake "flyover" con?

Meet S Side witness K Wheelhouse...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3383333411025014760&hl=en

freeze frame at 14:11 guess why they call him an "undercover operative" liar?

Take this to court and the judge will obviously hear that everyone agrees a passenger jet flew into the building and the physical evidence confirms it. Some got little details wrong like the path some got it right, JUST LIKE IN ANY CASE! Think there isn't physical evidence? There is. Judgment is-OCT true(in regards to pentagon) and 9/11 truthers are disgusting and dishonest. You want that case to go to court do you? Some of us are not out to "prove the OCT wrong". Some of us are out to expose the truth. Being "out to prove the OCT wrong" is better than a debunker "out to prove the Gov Right? I'm not interested in any of that. I'm out to get to the truth. I still believe in that. The truth is planes flew into buildings on 9/11. Who was flying them?

Jon,

The evidence is overwhelming to the point of conclusive that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon.

I was in DC last week and spoke to numerous truthers in real life. Some didn't wake up til years later, but some were skeptics right from day one. The two things that made people day-one skeptics were the nature of the tower collapses in addition to the pristine lawn and lack of significant quantities of wreckage at the Pentagon.

On the day.

YEARS before "In Plane Site" or "Pentagon Strike" or Hufschmid's "Painful Deceptions" came out, "telling" them what to think.

The north side flight path has been established beyond a reasonable doubt and it does prove a flyover. The damage to the Pentagon, beginning with the outer wall and continuing on to the hole in C ring, would only be consistent with a south side approach.

We all want that New Investigation. Some citizens have been realistic enough to understand that this investigation will come in small steps, at a snail's pace, if at all. So they have taken it upon themselves to launch that independent investigation. And they have compiled evidence which will be turned in to that New Investigation in its official body.

I'd say the work of CIT is almost too good. They deserve the Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism.

I just realized

it would be cool to break the 200 mark.

There you go! ;-)

I stand corrected...

September 12, 2001 and Shortly After: 9/11 Hijackers’ IDs Are Found in Pentagon Rubble
Two or three documents belonging to the Flight 77 hijackers are found in the rubble at the Pentagon. One is a “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Student Identity Card” with Majed Moqed’s name on it. Forensic examination will later indicate that the card may have been fraudulent. [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/21/2004, PP. 44 ] Another is Nawaf Alhazmi’s USA ID card. [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/21/2004, PP. 27, 42 ; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006] The 9/11 Commission will say that Salem Alhazmi’s USA ID is also found, although this will not be mentioned at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, where an otherwise exhaustive list of the hijackers’ ID found at the crash sites is submitted. [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/21/2004, PP. 27, 42 ; US DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, ALEXANDRIA DIVISION, 7/31/2006] In addition, the Commission will say that Salem Alhazmi was unable to produce a photo ID when checking in for his flight on 9/11 (see (7:25 a.m.-7:36 a.m.) September 11, 2001), so it is unclear how the document could have come to be at the Pentagon. Based on report from the Secret Service, the 9/11 Commission will say these two documents appear genuine. However, they may actually be fakes (see (July-August 2001)). [9/11 COMMISSION, 8/21/2004, PP. 27 ] There are at least a couple of other reported instances of other similar paper-based objects surviving the same plane crash, as well as that of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania (see After 10:06 a.m. September 11, 2001). [ATHENS BANNER-HERALD, 9/10/2004]

When the timeline references "fakes" or "fraudulent" it is referring to entries like this.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Good find

My chief gripe is with the jet-crash proof bandana at the pennsylvania crash site . It's just so utterly ridiculous. Why is it in pristine condition? Where is the head that was attached to it?

I have...

A lot of problems with Flight 93...


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

It is strange how it's

It is strange how it's pristine and because of that seems fake. Did some cops just drop it there? Did it just appear on the scene? Wouldn't be hard. Or maybe a passenger happened to be wearing a bandana that day.

But the thing is, you can't prove it's fake. And that's the problem with citing it as evidence of something faked. It appears fake, but it's not physically impossible for it to have actually belonged to someone on the plane and ended up being found. When planes come apart in the air people fall out and all of their clothes are ripped off as they fall through the air. That's not unheard of. Even if a plane crashes or is blown up, things can survive.

I thought it was interesting that these were found in this recent crash, which had no political agenda from what I could tell:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/n/a/2009/07/15/internati...

This is true

I largely agree with what you're saying. People shouldn't have cartoonesque expectations from inelastic collisions.

However, when I say this initially I think about two things:

#1

Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.”

Seymour Hersh

#2
The contradiction between the lack of recognizable plane debris on site, and the pristine condition of the evidence supporting the OCT.

Was flight 93 shot out of the sky? That would make the occurrence of the bandana a little more likely.

Did somebody clean the brains, skin and dirt off of it before it was photographed? A lot of things to think about.

>>Did somebody clean the

>>Did somebody clean the brains, skin and dirt off of it before it was photographed? A lot of things to think about.

We don't know. Like I said, when people fall from the sky their clothes are ripped off of them. Unless someone plans on a forensic examination of the bandana, there's no real way to prove anything about it except that it makes the "conspiracy theorists" excited.

All of those kinds of details amount to speculation, ultimately, when you do not have any hard evidence.

The basic misconception with the Pentagon is that we should know just how a crash looked that we have never seen before, a 90 ton airliner smashing into a material that no airliner has ever smashed into before. To assume we know how each piece should look is just that, an assumption. It's not a fact or known without a doubt.