Visibility 9-11 Welcomes 9-11 Researcher Jim Hoffman

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Researcher Jim Hoffman

This episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes back to the program long time 9-11 researcher Jim Hoffman. Jim is a software engineer who has specialized in developing new algorithms, applications is computational geometry, and scientific visualization. His work has been instrumental in significant new scientific discoveries and has been featured in articles in Nature, Scientific American, Science Digest and Science News.

Jim’s work on 9-11 has laid an early foundation for the 9-11 truth movement and his work is often cited by important figures in the 9-11 movement such as Dr. David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage and Dr. Steven Jones. Focusing on what happened at the World Trade Center, Jim was one of the first people to point out facts surrounding the 3 building “collapses” on 9-11 including an extensive analysis of the Twin Towers and Building 7. His excellent website,, was one of the first websites to seriously ask if explosives were used at the World Trade Center on 9-11. has proved to be a timeless and valuable resource and, to this day, is waking up visitors to the site for the first time. Jim also currently maintains and regularly updates and

Jim has also co-authored a book called Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City with fellow 9-11 truth activist Don Paul. These two gentlemen also produced a video together called 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands. Both of these works focus on the mountain of evidence that all three high rises on 9-11 were brought down with the aid of pre-planted explosives.

Jim’s work is ongoing and he continues to publish valuable essays on the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7. His latest articles include Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple: Three Points of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe that Anyone Can Understand, and Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust: Scientists Discover Both Residues And Un-ignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics In Debris From the Twin Towers.

Jim Hoffman has also had a great impact on the 9-11 truth movement as a whole with his well-reasoned and documented critiques of popularly held myths within the movement itself. Through extensive fact checking and analysis, Jim has been able to identify the weakest claims in the 9-11 truth movement and expose them as likely misinformation. Misinformation takes many forms but is generally information which has not been substantially proven and can be patently ridiculous on its surface, which is spread by well meaning people who don’t take the time to do the research. Over the years, a pattern has emerged by personalities who insist on promoting some of the worst information about 9-11 that one can find. “No Planes” were used on 9-11, beams from space brought down the World Trade Center, or holograms and/or “TV fakery” was used instead of real planes at the WTC have all in one way or another been promoted by “Big Tent” advocates like Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds and others. Interestingly enough, these weakest of links in the pool of 9-11 information have been the same “straw man” arguments that have been used time and again by the mainstream media to attack our movement and discredit us. We at Visibility 9-11 think there are valuable clues to be found in these established patterns that would indicate a possible coordinated effort between disinformation specialists and the media to discredit our legitimate arguments and evidence.

This episode begins with an audio clip from a speech by Dr. William Pepper from June 2006. At the conference in Chicago, 9-11 Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming our Future, Dr. Pepper clearly warns the 9-11 truth movement about infiltration by specialists in disinformation and even gives an example of how he was duped during his research into the assassination of MLK. I was present during this speech and Dr. Pepper’s words had a great impact on me, which inspired the production of my Visibility 9-11 COINTELPRO Special Report in early 2007, where I interviewed both Jim Hoffman and Dr. Pepper on this topic. Visibility 9-11 also produced a newsletter entirely devoted to this topic, it’s history and manifestations in October of that same year. This is must reading if you are to understand how disinformation is being used to discredit YOU.

One of the main goals we have at Visibility 9-11 is to educate our listeners and ourselves about all aspects of the September 11th tragedy. To this end, we are taking on a more active role in addressing this important issue. In fact, we believe the issue of disinformation to be the most important issue that each of us face as 9-11 activists. As blogger Arabesque has pointed out many times, the “Official Story” is itself disinformation and must be regarded as such. Ultimately, we are the ones in the street and on the blogs and forums who will have to face the ridicule if our facts are not straight and if we are to be successful, we must learn to identify the disinformation and insert caution into your activism.

As pointed out by my guest on this program, it is agreed that central to the various themes of disinformation are the “no jetliner” claims, especially the “no 757" claims for the attack on the Pentagon. In spite of substantial resources being poured into books and videos which claim that there was no airliner crash at the Pentagon on 9-11, Jim Hoffman has published extensive work which would bring these claims into question. Careful examination of Jim’s work reveals a different picture of the Pentagon attack than the “no jetliner” advocates. We at Visibility 9-11 acknowledge that there are many valid reasons for us to believe the “no jetliner” claims. However, a closer look reveals the real possibility that the event at the Pentagon has been manipulated from the start through the use of “official” and un-offical sources.

This program takes a closer look at “Citizen Investigation Team” (CIT) and it’s biggest promoter Pilots for 9-11 Truth and their latest effort to advance the “no jetliner” theory. Their new video, National Security Alert, which is being aggressively promoted on the internet and at public events, alleges that not only did the Boeing jet not strike the Pentagon, but flew over it at the last minute in an elaborate deception that not a single witness has claimed to see, and, contradicts the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses in the area.

Direct download this episode: visibility911_hoffman_cit.mp3

(either click link to open internet player or right click and choose “save link as”)

Extensive research has been done to expose this hoax and is highly recommended reading:

The Pentagon Strike: Mysteries Persist in Pentagon Attack by Jim Hoffman
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’ by Victoria Ashley
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce by Jim Hoffman
CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy by Arabesque
Breaking Down CIT’s Bill of Goods by Jim Hoffman
CIT Virus by John Michael Talboo and ScootleRoyale

More related reading:

Visibility 9-11 COINTELPRO Special Report
Visibility 9-11 October 2007 Newsletter
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeney

“If you really care about 9-11 truth, you will do your homework and only present to the public that which is the best, most documented and scientifically validated information at your websites, conferences, public events, street actions and other related activism.” –Michael Wolsey 8/2009

Related recent posts

Related recent post:

"What Hit the Pentagon?"
by Frank Legge

And other related Pentagon research:

How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77
By Mark H. Gaffney

Why did a Civilian Air Traffic Controller do a Better Job of Defending the Skies on 9/11 than NORAD?
By Arabesque July 25, 2009

The F-16s That Failed to Protect Washington on 9/11: Was the Langley Jets' Emergency Response Sabotaged?

Thank you Jim

I believed the OCT until I saw the implosion of WTC 7. Not knowing what I could do, I Googled WTC 7 and found All the information needed to prove the OCT is a farce is there in the text and links. To this day it is the most comprehensive site and the best place to send people who have not been exposed to the other conspiracy theory.

We need to stop being afraid of the term 'conspiracy theory' and always point out that "OBL and 19 hijackers is a conspiracy theory" when confronted with this propaganda catch phrase.

We need to stop being afraid of the term 'conspiracy theory'...

Why not use "Conspiracy Hypothesist?"

"Conspiracy analyst"

That's what Gore Vidal calls himself.

Hows about

Straterigy Conspiracist


Truth seeking skeptic

Great interview.

Thank you.

Show "I'm listening to the interview now." by Adam Syed

FDR Misinfo

Nice interview Michael, Jim Hoffman really nails a lot of the points about CIT and their arguments which are really an exercise in special pleading: (My evidence counts, yours doesn't).

One point that I'm glad Jim Hoffman brought up one point in the interview because it is an example of misinformation that many seem to confuse. The FDR does NOT show the plane on a "north" approach. I'll repeat myself: the FDR supports the SOUTH approach. An animation which should be a "reconstruction" of the data found in the FDR is flat out wrong. It should match the info found in the FDR and it doesn't. This animation shows the plane on the "north" path, which is contradicted by the FDR data. I've explained this in depth here:

Misinformation: Flight 77 Flight Path "Contradicts" Official Story according to "Black Box Data"

The FDR and animation are two separate things. But people are mistaken when they claim that the "FDR" supports or contradicts the alleged flight path.

Amazingly enough, CIT has gone out of their way to NOT claim that the FDR or Animation supports the flyover theory. And yet so many people still believe this and this misinformation persists. This mistaken claim was even repeated in a Journal of 9/11 studies article.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Can't have it both ways

The FDR shows the south flight path but it also has the plane way too high. If you accept the FDR then the you accept a much higher flyover.

Good point Chris.

Good point Chris.

CIT has never cited the fraudulent NTSB data as proving a flyover OR as corroborating the witnesses, although the data is irreconcilable with an impact, since the altitude reported is much too high to facilitate this.

While the animation depicts a northern approach heading completely north of the Navy Annnex it does not match the witnesses (who have it crossing directly over the Navy Annex from south of Columbia Pike) OR the raw data file that shows a southern approach heading.

Both the animation and the raw data, however, show an altitude too high to hit the building and even much higher than reported by the witnesses.

It's government controlled data, and if the PTB have been fucking with it, they've been doing so in such a way that it muddies the waters on all sides, not totally supporting the official reports but also not totally supporting the alternative hypothesis.

FDR is missing data, that's why the plane is "too high"

Chris, if you read my entire article, you would see that the reason why the plane is "too high" in the FDR data is because the last seconds of data is missing from the end of the FDR. 4-6 seconds before impact the FDR data ends. It is a mistake (i.e. misinformation) to claim that this supports a "flyover" because it does not at all.

Rob Balsamo: "as im sure many of you know, one of the excuses/arguments govt loyalists try to use is that there is up to 2-6 or more seconds missing from the FDR.

John Farmer: "Since investigators have assumed that the FDR data is representative until ~1 second prior to impact (stopping recording at impact) numerous false assumptions regarding the data have resulted. In fact, as discussed before, the EOF for the FDR reflects a position 4 – 6 seconds prior to impact due to the time error in the RADES data. Further investigation is warranted to determine how and why the FDR data set was altered."

As John Farmer points out, if you assume that the end of the data is the "impact" then the mistake will be made that the plane is "too high". If the data is missing, then of course, the plane is going to be higher than its alleged final impact altitude. So this data does not inherently contradict the official story of the flight path at all.

The missing FDR data is a legitimate issue worthy of investigation, unlike the claims of "flyover" and "north flight path" which are supported with really weak "evidence". And Rob's statement about "gov loyalists" is actually quite funny. I guess the light pole damage, witnesses, plane parts, radar data, etc, is all manufactured by the government too. 100 witnesses telling us of a plane impact are not "gov loyalists" much as many would like to believe.

There is no explanation for the FDR missing data and it is another 9/11 unsolved mystery. I believe that an explanation should be given for this and the videos should be released, but by not providing answers, the US government is encouraging "theories" and controversy. But it should be pointed out that the data that we do have supports the alleged flight path and approximate altitude of the plane.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog


I was not saying that the FDR supported flyover but rather the FDR has been altered/erased and is not a case for anything other than fraud.
I have been following Rob's work and I must admit that the FDR thing is over my head. [pun intended]

The light poles are obviously faked and completely unnecessary. Flyover doesn't make any sense, why bother? This is a psy-ops red herring and it is having the desired effect - distraction and division. Originally I questioned the intelligence of CIT but after getting involved in this quagmire I tend to agree with Jim that their motives are suspect. Saying that north path = flyover is Monty Python. CIT's methodology is familiar.

Show "So I'm curious..." by Adam Syed

About half way through.

Notes on the the interview thus far:

Jim opens up by recalling some of the early websites in the first years after the attack, ones which perhaps might have been actual disinfo.

He then talks about how here in 2009, we have Pilots for Truth and CIT, which together form one massive, "state of the art" (Jim's own words) disinfo op.

If Craig and Aldo were still members of this website, Michael's very blog entry would be breaking the rules, as Hoffman is openly accusing Craig and Aldo of being disinformation artists. I guess the membership loophole allows him to go unchecked on this.

Chris Sarns made the remark earlier, critical of CIT, that it's "very bad form" to interview someone and then, after leaving the interview, suggest on record that the interviewee is an "accomplice." If this is true, then it's equally bad form for Hoffman, a well respected researcher re the collapse of the WTC, to claim dedicated 9/11 investigators like CIT are a "state of the art" disinfo op.

Moving on:

Hoffman says a few minutes later that he himself bought in to the "no impact" theory early on, until he looked more thoroughly. Sorry, I still don't buy it.

Hoffman says that CIT cherry picks by showing only their 13 north side witnesses while ignoring the huge body of evidence which corroborates the official flight path and impact. But this is not true. There are no "104 witnesses" to a south side approach. Many of these witnesses deduced, after the fact, that the plane had crashed into the building and hit the light poles.

Hoffman also says that "not one" witness exists to a flyover. He says that all of these north side approach witnesses claim to see (or believe) that the plane hit the building. However, many were not in such a position to see the building and hence the impact. Many more were not in a position to see the light poles.

However, Roosevelt Roberts did claim to see a "commercial aircraft" flying away over light poles in the south parking lot "ten seconds tops" after the explosion at the Pentagon.

Not impressed so far, and I'm sorry that Wolsey and Hoffman feel the need to resorting to labeling Craig, Aldo, and the Pilots for Truth as a "state of the art" disinfo op simply because they share differing views on what happened at the Pentagon.

Back to listening...

Disinfo label?

I can't find a single place where they call anybody disinfo agents. Can you please site where this is? (Please give minutes/seconds mark.) Thanks!

I would love dearly to give minutes and seconds

Unfortunately, the mp3 link,

doesn't feature the minutes/seconds thing, so it's a stab.

Drag the play circle to about half an inch from the left end. Hoffman talks about "PentaCon" being "state of the art disinfo."

Not to mention that this entire interview, of which CIT is the focus, is prepped up and introduced with a huge dissertation on "disinformation" by Wolsey.

Give me another version with minutes and seconds and I will gladly point out exact spots.

EDIT: I downloaded the file and am playing it with Windows Media Player.

Go to 19:40. At about 19:45 you'll clearly hear Hoffman referring to "PentaCon" as "state of the art in this kind of disinformation."

Now why except for camp-based voting

would the above comment be voted down? I was merely responding to a favor asked of me by another user, and by the time I edited the post, I was able to provide the exact M/S mark.

I'll go ahead and take this opportunity to add that what's also very strange is how Hoffman accuses CIT of being deceptive during their short presentation "CIT Jettin Crosstown":

But this presentation features no narrative, no hypothesis, and no conclusions whatsoever!

It's merely them driving around showing you the various points of view around the Pentagon! It's very thorough too as they take you to all the surrounding areas. It's amazing to me that Hoffman would call this deceptive without even bothering to explain why or how.

Forget it Adam

Some people are holding a grudge and will vote you down no matter what you say. Don't get worked up about it. Just stay as civil as possible and don't worry about votes.

Look at the behavior ...

I see your point, but they are just pointing to the BEHAVIOR of CIT, which they are saying looks like disinfo. And, to me, I agree with them. This is in contrast to an AD HOMINEM attack like in the following link where Craig Ranke calls Michael Wolsey an "alledged truther":

That tells me what I need to know about Craig Ranke. And in nowhere where you site, do they call anyone an agent. This cannot ever be proven, so even though it is all very engaging to think about, it is not very helpful to discuss somebody's intentions publicly. But, I find pointing out the behavior of individuals, like what Jim Hoffman has done in this interview, and what I just did with that link, is a very helpful way of determining another person's intentions.

If it quacks like a duck, Adam, more than likely it is one.

Show "Absolutely Wrong!" by Adam Syed

(insert game-show-you-are-wrong buzzer here)

Dude, wouldn't be nice if there were just two sides to this argument as you suggest. I now wonder why you want everyone to think so. There are thousands of opinions about CIT. And you, my friend, have only one of them. Me too.

I cannot get on board with your take that it is OK to be disrespectful (which reminds me, sorry my typo was so offensive to you) just because you are stressed out. If you view CIT as heroes who don't get the credit they deserve, you have the right to. I have no problem with that. But it doesn't give them the right call into question a hard-working activist's integrity.

Thanks Michael and Jim

For realizing that if we don't talk truth - there is no truth movement.

Adam- you got PENTACONNED! Let's pin 9/11 on an old cabbie, a priest, a reporter, and a funeral mourner, because they ruin a "story" of the big majic act performed at the pentagon.
How embarrassing.

>>is the "Smoking Crack"

>>is the "Smoking Crack" image not every bit as much an ad hominem as Ranke's insinuation that Wolsey might not be a sincere truther?

'Smoking Crack' can be interpreted any number of ways. There seems to be an absence of evidence for any particular interpretation. Some people love crack, as it happens. They prefer to be disconnected from reality. It's up to the individual really, how they interpret it.

Since Wolsey is known to do solid and powerful work to expose the 9/11 attacks as an inside job -- not just in his radio shows, but also in a lot of the local work he has done -- calling him 'insincere' sounds pretty ridiculous, if nothing else.

Another example of an ad hominem attack

would be Adam Syed calling Arabesque an "anonymous spook".

And what does Adam say in this thread? "I'm sorry that Wolsey and Hoffman feel the need to resorting to labeling Craig, Aldo, and the Pilots for Truth as a 'state of the art' disinfo op simply because they share differing views on what happened at the Pentagon."

No further comment necessary.

Show "During my several years in" by Adam Syed

forgive and forget ...

... can also apply to smoking crack graphics.

Good for you for admitting you were uncivil.

When, now or later? 911

When, now or later?

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Bias much?

I'll note that Adam has called me an agent more than once on this site over the CIT issue and yet he is expressing concern about the same happening to CIT... when it never even happened as President Ford correctly points out! When stuff like this happens I'm not really concerned about convincing people that they are wrong when they show such obvious examples of bias. I'm pro free speech, but I'm going to point it out when you say absurd things.

There are CIT supporters who literally claim that the fact that a witness gave false information "only proves how certain" he was of the flight path. I couldn't convince you the sky is blue if you make arguments like this.


"Nobody saw a global hawk people.
Nobody saw a missile.
There were no missiles or global hawks.

The time for speculation is done.
We now have PROOF."

So Ranke can say on the one hand that there were no witnesses of a "missile" and "global hawk" proving that it didn't happen.
On the other hand he can say they have "proof" of a flyover when there are no witnesses of a flyover (sorry, U-turn witnesses describing a C-130 don't count as a "flyover")

That it is so easy to point out this bias and yet support for the work of CIT continues speaks to something about the 9/11 truth movement. There are a lot of irrational people in the 9/11 "truth" movement.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

when it never even happened as President Ford correctly points o

when it never even happened as President Ford correctly points out!

Wrong, sir. I've documented this amply on this thread, more recently with a post on page 3.

Speaking of Thierry Meyssan's 2002 book "The Big Lie"...

At around 19:30 you'll hear Hoffman claim (bemoan the sad "fact") that the only physical evidence dealt with by Thierry Meyssan in his book was the lack of a Boeing at the Pentagon. He says this as a way of accusing Meyssan of dooming the truth movement from the outset by burdening it with this "ridiculous claim". Curious about this accusation, and owning the English version of Meyssan's first book published in 2002, L'Effroyable Imposteur (9/11 The Big Lie), I checked.

Meyssan, in fact, spends only the first chapter talking about the Pentagon where he espouses his missile theory. Actually it was originally a truck bomb possibility theory in conjuction with a missile possibility theory. In the following chapters he talks about reports of explosions in the towers, of the complaint by Fire Engineering's Bill Manning that the investigation was being compromised by the destruction of evidence, the comment by Van Romero that it looked like explosives had to have been used, and that building 7 appears to only have been explainable as a controlled demolition.

So Hoffman's statement is patently incorrect. As in, false. Not just that, but his entire premise that people like Meyssan were guilty of dooming skepticism to fruitless avenues is belied by the fact that after discussing the Pentagon and the explosives at the WTC, Meyssan went on to cover virtually every early issue from the put options to the threat made against Air Force One to warnings from intelligence agencies abroad, the fact that AA77 was being tracked by military radar on its way into Washington, I mean the list goes on--given its date of publication it is an amazingly good start.

"an amazingly good start"

Indeed, translating the "truck bomb" theory into 25 languages as early as 2002 was an amazingly good start . . . in derailing and confusing the public's understanding of what happened at the Pentagon. Jim Fetzer is also a big Meyssan fan. That Meyssan covers demolition too only serves to pair it with "truck bombs" which means that one tends to question "all conspiracy theories" once they realize how wrong truck bombs were.

Hoffman covers the truck bomb here:

The Truck Bomb Theory

By January of 2002, there was discussion on the Internet about alleged problems of the official story that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. In March the French investigator Thierry Meyssan released the book L'effroyable Imposture (The frightening Fraud), which challenged the official story of Flight 77's crash pointing to alleged anomalies of a lack of plane debris, too-small dimensions of the impact hole, and the lack of video footage of Flight 77, among other things. He suggested that instead, a truck bomb exploded in front of the Pentagon. The book is now available in 25 languages. 3

Meyssan, and anyone who would read his book were vehemently attacked by mouthpieces for U.S. government and media. An FBI statement accused Meyssan of making "the ultimate insult to the memory of the 59 men, women and children on AA77 and the 125 dedicated military and civilian workers in the Pentagon who were ruthlessly murdered by terrorists on September 11." James S. Robbins, reporter for the National Review, wrote an entire column trashing the book, but admits in the column that he had not read the book. 4 Robbins compares Meyssan to Holocaust deniers.

These mean-spirited attacks served to increase Meyssan's stature in the community of skeptics, and perhaps helped to overshadow the serious errors in his analysis, such as his assertion that the "hole" in the Pentagon was about 15-18 feet in diameter. This describes the second-floor damage but overlooks the much more extensive damage to the first floor, whose walls were broken away for an expanse about 90 feet wide.

"his entire premise that people like Meyssan were guilty of dooming skepticism to fruitless avenues"

See also:

The Company We Keep
by Michael B. Green, Ph.D.
February 15, 2006

Fetzer begins by lumping together many critics of 911 who would not want to be associated with its spoiler, e.g. “As a consequence of inquiries by Nafeez Ahmed (2002), Thierry Meyssan (2002), Paul Thompson (2004), Michael Ruppert (2004), and David Ray Griffin (2004, 2005), among others, we already know that the official account of 9/11 cannot possibly be correct.” In particular, Meyssan has two books purporting to prove that no plane hit the Pentagon. The second, Le Pentagate, humorously has a well-known photo of the hole punched in the C ring that displays two plane parts. For two accounts of why Meyssan is either a fool or a deliberate hoaxer, see: and My view is that the entire discussion of what hit the Pentagon is a tar baby designed to trap the 911 truth community in useless speculation.

For reference

Meyssan himself calls his English version "The Big Lie"

Book here and website here.

He put his research resources online too: here

(Disclaimer: this is not an endorsement)


Meyssan is on CIT's enemies list.
But they call him "Thierry Mossad".

Aldo also said

this about the witness Madlene Zakhem:

"I have made comments about her jewish sounding last name and possible Israeli accent. Is there a possibility she is Mossad? Perhaps."

Apparently, everybody is a potential Mossad agent for him.

It's notable how few radio

It's notable how few radio interviews Jim Hoffman has done in the past few years; yet he is all of the sudden compelled to devote an entire show to CIT now that they have the support of many respected scholars, researchers, and activists, and have clearly caught the interest of the truth movement as a whole.

Hoffman has failed to directly address the evidence for a north side approach let alone refute it. He can barely bring himself to utter the words "National Security Alert." You can hear the exasperation in his voice as he continuously argues from a position of incredulity and fails to cite a single witness who directly and definitively contradicts the north side approach. This performance by Hoffman makes it rather clear why he has refused to accept the open invitation to debate CIT as they first issued back in 2007 here:

With the constantly growing attention to this information I wonder if any of the small handful of outspoken CIT detractors will ever muster up the courage to debate them directly or if they will continue to label them "con men" or "hoax promoters" without any opposition to their hollow accusations.

I for one would LOVE to hear a debate between Craig Ranke or Aldo Marquis and Jim Hoffman. I wonder if Michael Wolsey would facilitate it?

Speaking of agenda, why does Hoffman have to resort to insult in the very title of his critique of CIT's work? (CIT's first video was called "PentaCon: Smoking Gun Version.) And why in 2009 is he making PentaCon the subject of his critique when CIT's research has grown steadily since then, and the focus of the recent blog entries (i.e. the endorsements) has been on their new video "National Security Alert"?

Smoking Crack

We can agree on one thing

>>You can hear the exasperation in his voice

Yes, I can!

I'd like to make it clear

that I think Hoffman has done EXCELLENT research and activism with regard to the controlled demolition of the WTC. I have been an admirer of his for years in this endeavor. He and I just have profound disagreements on the Pentagon, and while I will not defend CIT being uncivil in any manner, I am very disappointed to see Hoffman's "Smoking Crack Version" image at the top of his critique. For all these years I thought Jim was above that kind of thing.

Good for you Adam. Somehow

Good for you Adam. Somehow the hard work of the CIT activists gets no respect here. All sides should be respected. It isn't cartoon time.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Extended north and south witnesses

For consideration:

North approach [in addition to the 10 in the video]

Levi Stephens (courier)
"I was driving away from the Pentagon in the South Pentagon lot* when I hear this huge rumble, the ground started shaking … I saw this [plane] come flying over the Navy Annex. It flew over the van [His van? That would make him a south side witness] and I looked back and I saw this huge explosion, black smoke everywhere."
[*CIT left out this part of his statement.They gave the impression that he was at the annex.]

George Aman (ANC)
"I'm sitting here at my desk and I hear like this jet engine. . . . . it keeps getting louder and louder*"
"The plane flies right over the parking lot here."
[*CIT left out this part of his statement. How could he hear the airplane getting louder and louder inside his office when the witnesses outside did not hear it until it was over them?]

Mark Bright
"I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area,"

Steve Patterson
It appeared to him that a commuter jet swooped over Arlington National Cemetery and headed for the Pentagon

Christine Peterson
"I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon;"
"The car shook as the plane flew over. It was so close that I could read the numbers under the wing."

Frank Probst
"approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex"

South approach

Stephen McGraw
"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.

Keith Wheelhouse
Drew south path in CIT interview [not included in video]

Jim Sutherland -- from his car
Plane flew 50 feet over I-395 in a straight line, striking the side of the Pentagon.

Gary Bauer
I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395… we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon.

Micky Bell
The jet came in from the south

Tom Hovis
The plane came up I-395

Mary Owens
Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.

Kirk Milburn
"I was right underneath the plane," on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395

I never believed the light-pole-in-taxi at 100 + mph with the hood and passenger seat undamaged anyway.

Show "If the plane came up 395 I" by BreezyinVA

It is hard for me to take

It is hard for me to take you all serious. But what is it that I said here that deserved so many votes down? What did I say here that you think I should NOT have said. Oh well

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

alleged "south side" witnesses


Your list of alleged south side witnesses is a prime example of why confirmed firsthand accounts are essential to accurate research. Furthermore you are misrepresenting the accounts of the witnesses in your list whom CIT has interviewed. None of the witnesses you listed contradict a north side approach and I will explain why.

1. Stephen McGraw
"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." "The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car.

We've been over this before since CIT has interviewed him on camera (before they ever interviewed ANY of the north side witnesses). McGraw admitted he did NOT see a plane hit light poles. McGraw admitted he was NOT aware the massive structure he was next to was the Pentagon (which is pretty ridiculous particularly since he also admitted he grew up in the area and was a DoJ attorney for 5 years prior to being ordained an opus dei influenced priest 3 months before 9/11), but most importantly McGraw admitted he did NOT see the approach of the plane at all! Obviously he would not know the location of the plane in relation to the citgo if he did not see it until it passed over him on Route 27 as described.

2. Keith Wheelhouse
Drew south path in CIT interview [not included in video]

You are ignoring the #1 important factor that determines whether or not a witness could POSSIBLY tell the difference if the plane was north or south of citgo. Location/POV. Since CIT interviewed Wheelhouse we know from his firsthand account where he claims his location was giving us all we need to validated the legitimacy of his account. The fact is that Wheelhouse could not see the citgo or the plane on the southern approach at all from his stated location and he even ADMITTED that he did not remember the gas station at all! Here is a shot taken on 9/11 (provided by Wheelhouse himself) of the location in the cemetery where he claims he witnessed the event:

Momentarily, we will have a 360 panorama of the entire vantage point. The wrong gif was uploaded but the correct one will come momentarily.

Obviously he was correct when he admitted he did not see the gas station yet incorrect when he claimed he saw the alleged impact or the plane approaching for "60 seconds" with the C-130 "shadowing" it as has been disproved by photographs, video, all other witnesses, and the C-130 pilot himself.

If he was where he claimed it would be impossible for him to distinguish north or south of the citgo. This is why it is critical to get confirmed firsthand accounts and analyze true vantage points as CIT has rigorously done.

3. Jim Sutherland -- from his car
Plane flew 50 feet over I-395 in a straight line, striking the side of the Pentagon.

No confirmed firsthand account. You have no idea where his location on 395 was and therefore his true POV, but most importantly,not even the official south side flight path has the plane traveling directly over 395!!!

But not only that.....the "NORTH" path as estimated by CIT from the full body of firsthand witness reports has the plane further SOUTH (therefore closer to 395) than the official path when you go further back in the flight path!

So when someone says they saw the plane "over 395" it is actually more likely to be confirming the NORTH path as opposed to the required official flight path. Of course you'll never know for sure what they could have seen until you confirm their exact location on the highway with them firsthand and analyze their true POV.

4. Gary Bauer
I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395… we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon.

Wow. Do you heven know who this is? Gary Bauer is a well known former repbulican presidential candidate who openly subscribes to NeoConservative ideology to the point of being a former member of the Project for a New American Century and a signer of their document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that famously lamented for a "new Pearl Harbor".

You might as well have quoted Cheney himself!

But even still....his vague placement of the plane as "coming up" the major highway actually supports the CIT witness loop flight path more than it does the official flight path as explained earlier. Are you starting to understand why firsthand confirmation is so important yet?

5. Micky Bell

The jet came in from the south previously pointed out, BOTH the flight paths "come from the south" but the witness flight path as reported by CIT does MORE SO than the official flight path.

However, I notice that you did not source this alleged quote from Mickey Bell. I'll tell you why. THERE ARE NO QUOTES FROM MICKEY BELL. His account was published 3rd hand as the reporter simply got his account 2nd hand from his boss, PenRen contractor Jack Singleton. But look what Jack really said about Mickey's experience:

"(Electrical Contractor Jack) Singleton says worker (Mickey) Bell's memory of the event is still somewhat clouded. "All that he remembers is that he heard a loud noise. He thought it was a helicopter coming in to the heliport behind him. The next thing he remembers is picking himself up off the ground and seeing the fire and the explosions in front of him," adds Singleton.

(use source link on web archive site:

Mickey Bell has never been interviewed or quoted and didn't even see the plane let alone specifically distingush north or south of the citgo.

6. Tom Hovis
The plane came up I-395

This is getting ridiculous. No quotes and no source. Why? Becuase Tom Hovis is admittedly NOT a witness to the event AT ALL! He was at his office 8 miles from the Pentagon at the time of the attack and was merely relaying details he heard or read from eyewitnesses. Perhaps not so ironically, the details he heard about the flight path have the plane flying over "no fly zone" over DC during it's loop fatally contradicting the NTSB data and corroborating what CIT reports.

My office is 8 miles from the site. The recovery teams working 18 hour shifts are just now getting to the body of the aircraft that went right through the outer ring at full power according to eyewitnesses...[...] The plane had been seen making a lazy pattern in the no fly zone over the White House and US Cap.


7. Mary Owens
Street lights toppled as the plane barely cleared the Interstate 395 overpass.

As pointed out, simply mentioning 395 does not support the official path over the CIT reported witness path. But also, CIT has similarly shown how simply mentioning the light poles does not mean the witness is claiming they literally SAW a plane hit them. In fact all alleged light pole witnesses that CIT has spoken with (such as McGraw, Brooks, Sucherman, Walter, Hagos, and Ramey) have admitted that they specificlaly did NOT see the plane hit poles or do not remember witnessing that as in the case of Ramey. A full breakdown of all alleged light pole witnesses is available here:

8. Kirk Milburn
"I was right underneath the plane," on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395.

Once again a vague referrence to 395 does not support the official flight path over the CIT reported witness flight path. And once again you have of course failed to try to pinpoint Kirk's location and analyze his POV. Of course CIT has not failed to do this and even found out from Kirk's son that his dad was killed in a motorcycle accident in 2006.

But if you had tried to find out where the ANC exit is you would see that there is absolutely no way to distinguish between the official or the CIT witness reported flight path from this location.

Furthermore we know Milburn would not have been able to see the light poles from there proving when he said "I guess it was hitting light poles" that he certainly did not mean that he saw this happen.

So NONE of the witnesses you listed contradict the 13 definitive north side witness accounts presented by CIT and in fact it could be argued that some actually support them.

When you dig and dig and dig, the Pentagon is indeed a fascinating avenue of research.

McGraw admitted he did NOT see the approach of the plane at all!

Adam: "McGraw admitted he did NOT see the approach of the plane at all!"

Craig Ranke: “He says he was directly under the plane in the left lane northbound on route 27.”

Probably because the plane flew behind him. That is why he couldn't see the "approach" of the plane. Duh. He was right beside the car that got hit by the light pole.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Good to see you agree...

Glad to see you agree he could NOT see the approach of the plane. This of course means it is impossible for him to distinguish north or south of the citgo. Therefore he is NOT a "south side" witness.

This is all that is relevant to the discussion; but also, since he claims the plane bounced off the ground in the split second he would have witnessed it as alleged we know his entire account is simply non-credible anyway.

You missed the point


CIT said there were NO south side witnesses. That was a lie.
I just listed the witnesses that could be considered south side.

Discrediting anyone who doesn't support the north side approach is a JREF tactic.

CIT did not interview anyone who they thought would contradict their hypothesis and left out the one person who did. They then proceeded to discredit him in subsequent debates. I explained his south side path by saying he was in a poor position to judge. I found McGraw's statement problematic so I said he was not credible. I did not call him a liar. There is no need to bash witnesses, even Gary Bauer. He has a right to his opinion and writing him off may work for truthers but that's not who we are trying to convince.

I still think they have made the case for the north flight path but saying that proves or even supports flyover is ludicrous. Their antagonistic behavior is very telling.

I admire your passion but take a step back and look at the problems with CIT. What is the net result?

If we do not hang together we will surely hang separately.

Are you serious?

A PNAC signatory/contributor?? Why not ask Jeb Bush about what really happened in Florida with the 2000 elections or with Atta's flight training......Or ask Wolfowitz "what really happened with that Iraq thing"

Maybe Rumsfeld and Libby can chime in too. Or James Woolsey. Maybe we should ask Dov Zakheim's opinion about NORAD.

There is a need to bash and write off Gary Bauer! Gary Bauer is someone who calls Rage Against The Machine "terrorists"!

Come on Chris.... You can't be serious. These are the prime suspects. If PNAC signatories are now credible witnesses...then you've gone completely off the deep end.

By the way

Looking at Gary Bauer's history and world view, it seems he'd fit right in at Blackwater.

I think you're just trying to be as reasonable as possible...but trusting PNAC signatories on their word is really a bridge too far for me.

You have also missed the point

CIT lied when they said there were no south side witnesses.

Citgo gas station is the epicenter of all this.

There are still no CREDIBLE or VERIFIABLE south side witnesses Chris.

I've been in contact with CIT. They engaged in no deliberate lying and cherry picking with regard to witnesses.

Look at BOTH flight paths: the official one and the proposed flyover loop.

The "north path" should more correctly be referred to as the "north of Citgo path." The plane had to be south of Citgo to do the street damage.

An eyewitness who says "the plane came in from the south" doesn't suggest the official flight path correct. The straight line which is the official path, and the loop which is the proposed north-of-citgo path, cross each other just west of the navy annex.

So if an eyewitness claims that "a plane came in from the south," this can still easily, if not more so, be considered evidence for the north-of-citgo path. The official flight path has the plane coming in from the west more so than the south.

See how the north-versus-south dialogue is meaningless unless we know where the plane was coming from at a much farther distance away?

There are no on-the-record witnesses who were in a position to see the plane's position relative to the Citgo, who have gone on the record to state that they saw it south of the Citgo. The various interviews they did with "supposed" south side witnesses turned out to be simply not credible (McGraw saying he recollected the plane skidding on the lawn first before crashing into the building) or simply not in a good enough vantage point to have been able to see the details of the flight path, like Keith Wheelhouse.

Earlier in the thread you said you listed witnesses "which could be considered south side." Craig and Aldo already did the considering, and the analyzing, and their conclusions were that these witnesses' testimony can be dismissed as non credible.

They did not deliberately lie.


I see what you mean. I've said earlier that it would be best if they tried to falsify their own theory. If they succeed, they've lost a line of inquiry at, I would say a very high personal cost, if they fail, their hypothesis grows stronger. One of the bigger evils may be that we grow attached to our own hypotheses... Are we able to harshly criticize our own work? The work of those who we consider friends? It's a core issue for all sides, imo.

360 shot of Keith Wheelhouse's Vantage Point.

I'm seeing...

A lot of emails going back and forth on both sides. One group asking to stop criticizing CIT, and one group arguing with those who gave their endorsements.

While I agree that we should ALWAYS put forward the BEST DAMN INFORMATION POSSIBLE, and have voiced my opinions about promoting something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, I do think there are more important things that we should be focused on. Bringing attention to the NYCCAN Initiative. H.R. 847. Sibel Edmonds' latest developments.

Lord knows I have been involved with too many confrontations on this site to count. If it's one thing I've learned, it's that being productive in a positive manner suits all of us better.

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?


Pentagon = pain-in-the-ass.

On the other hand, WTC 7 = mother of all smoking guns.

Can't we all just get along? ;-)

Nano-thermite chips

= mother of all loaded guns

Pentagon = booby trap


We have a winner!!!

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

This thread started out

This thread started out ridiculing CIT. Criticize all you want but ridiculing is out of line.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

So THAT'S what Parky76 looks

So THAT'S what Parky76 looks like! :D


That's really disgusting.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Wake up

"Nothing on operative Arabesque. It is so obvious that "guy" is an operation in "himself" it is not even funny."

Yea, posting personal info and calling people agents, calling witnesses agents. Why is this vile crap tolerated and when are people in the 9/11 truth movement going to wake up about this? By continuing to post articles about CIT, websites are part of the problem. Free speech does not include harassment (like phoning people up) and slander. One of the most annoying things about the 9/11 truth movement is that garbage like this is ignored and thrown under the rug. Really great way to support real activists by promoting people who slander and attack them without consequence.

Adam's response speaks volumes. He's not going to denounce the fact that CIT slanders activists and even witnesses. He seems to be even cool with that, but then he complains about the non-existent claim that people are calling CIT agents! That's pretty obviously biased isn't it? It should be an open question why he is continuously allowed to promote CIT material on this site.

Wake up and smell the garbage already
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Show ""Yea, posting personal info and calling people agents"" by Adam Syed

Adam, wake up!

Their 'enemies' list is despicable. They are not truthers! They make Mark Roberts look like a choir boy.

Stop making excuses for them. I admit that I was taken in by these @#$%^&* and it's time for you to do the same.

Show "Chris, I'm quite awake." by Adam Syed

Run along side

The stock and trade of a con man is to get your confidence by first helping you.

They have proved to my satisfaction that the plane flew north of the Citgo station. I knew that the light poles were staged just from looking at the photos of the damage to the cab so I embraced the clear evidence proving the light poles were staged and the government is lying.

I thought their assertion that the north side flight path = flyover was ridiculous and separated the two non-connected conclusions. I found their 'attack anyone who disagrees' tactic objectionable. When I discovered that they had lied about there being no south side witnesses, I lost respect for them but that doesn't change the evidence. Most of the south side witnesses have not been sought out or interviewed and the two that have been interviewed were trashed by CIT. This is not objective investigation.

When I saw the 'enemies' page I realized that Craig and Aldo are not the serious investigators they pretend to be. They are no different than the lads at JREF.

I can accept the evidence and reject the messenger if that is what the facts reveal.

This is quite an interesting phenomenon unfolding here.

I remember in 2006 at one point when "9/11 Truth Movement" and "Loose Change" were so intertwined, so one-in-the-same, that those who disagreed with the style, tactics, methods and personalities of the LC crew felt the need for the movement to, as I remember in one post, "declare its independence from Loose Change."

Right now, "Staged Light Poles" and "CIT" are so interconnected that it seems hard to separate the two.

Most CIT detractors claim that the sheer concept of the staged light poles and taxicab scene sounds wacky on its face, that it reinforces the negative stereotype of the "conspiracy theorist," and that to promote such a claim is to harm the credibility of the movement.

You are declaring your independence from CIT as people because you don't like a number of things they've said and done, but you stand by the evidence showing the staged street scene. Largely because you felt the damage to Lloyd's car was way too minimal (i.e. no damage to the hood) long before we had ever heard of CIT.

I wonder if CIT's opposition will vote you up for expressing your disgust at CIT, or vote you down for sticking by the north approach and the staged light poles.

What a bizarre world 9/11 truth can be sometimes.

is this what they call...

Sock Puppetry???? I am not sure of the term but these two seem to be working in tandem....Anyone?


Adam and Chris are two different persons. Visit Adam's blog. He's on Youtube. Google Chris Sarns, he's with AE911Truth. They hardly look alike, Michael.

Thank you snowcrash.

Glad you liked the Cincinnati 9/11 Truth show. :-)


I met Adam in DC and we talked at length about many things but not CIT.
Like most violinists, he is very high strung. As a cellist/bassist I am more mellow and low key. ;-)
Seriously, I respect Adam for his passion and dedication to the Truth Movement. People of good conscience often disagree. My disagreement with Adam does not diminish my respect for him.

Thank you Chris.

That means a lot.

Despicable is right

"Their 'enemies' list is despicable. They are not truthers!"

Nothing positive will ever come with an association of these types of people. If I were Lloyd England or M Walter i would get a restraining order placed against them.

Truthers need to protect themselves also, there are giant red flag warning signs here that need to be paid attention to. The segment of the truth movement that was completely convinced the site doesn't support a plane crash is being taken advantage of. Educate yourselves on all the physical and eyewitness evidence that supports the notion of a passenger jet hitting the building. It's overwhelming and it's easier then to see throuh this BS. On 9/11 planes flew into buildings.

Welcome Back


Beyond Disgusting

I have been trying to be diplomatic in my criticism of CIT but this is way over the top.

These guys are clearly professional disinformation, defamation specialists.

To post an 'enemies' list is indisputable proof of ill intent, a desire to discredit key members of the Truth Movement. It makes me sick and very angry.

Show "Chris," by Adam Syed
Show "I don't understand why" by BreezyinVA

I'm confused...

...are people saying that a plane did hit the Pentagon? Because if it did, why haven't they released any video of a plane hitting the Pentagon?

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

It's called psy-ops

Create confusion with conflicting evidence and get investigators to disagree. Keep them busy with infighting and countless hours of trying to sort it all out. The downed light poles were completely unnecessary. They are a red herring IMO.

Look at the result. A successful split in the Truth Movement.

CIT has revealed itself with the 'enemies' page. That is the work of someone trying to harm the Truth Movement. Putting Jim Hoffman and Mark Roberts on the same list would be hilarious if it were not so repugnant.

Show "CIT has revealed itself with" by Adam Syed

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Wolsey utters some blatant untruths about


WOOLSEY[approx 20:00]: Let's take that back even one step further Jim; let's go to the -- what I consider to be the parent organization of CIT -- and that's Pilots for 9/11 Truth. [...] I go to this website, and, one, a good friend, researcher of mine, he jokingly says, you know, they might as well be called because that's what they basically promote. And I think you can tell just as much about a website as what they don't have as what they do. And when you look at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, all of the things that you would expect to be at a website called Pilots for 9/11 Truth -- and it's a great name by the way, and, and I just think so many people hear that name and they go put the link on their website and say "Yeah! This is a good thing!" -- but when you actually go and you look at the site, all of the things that you would expect to be there, like, uh, standard operating procedure for hijackings, uh, NORAD procedures, uh, all of the inconsistencies in the 9/11 Commission Report between the three different stories that came... all of that stuff about NORAD and what happened to the plane... none of that's there. It's all no fif... uh... Boeing at the Pentagon.

JIM HOFFMAN: That's right.

So similar to the mischaracterization of Meyssan's book, where Hoffman said that it only promotes a no-757 crash when in fact it discusses WTC explosions and put options, here Wolsey falsely categorizes Pilots for Truth as only promoting a no-757 crash.

standard operating procedure for hijackings,


Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77, streaming for free on home page.

Top of page titled "Common Strategy Prior to 9/11"

NORAD procedures

See Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two - Flight Of American 77, streaming for free on home page.

uh, all of the inconsistencies in the 9/11 Commission Report

See bottom of page

Article titled, "Analysis of 9/11 Commission Report prior to release of Flight Data Recorder"

I know you hate typos

FYI - it's not Woolsey .... it's W-O-L-S-E-Y

Scott, Gage & Griffin should remove or clarify

An "enemies list" is just horrible.

I agree with Chris. Publishing an "enemies list" is really bottom of the barrel. Based on this alone, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin and others should either remove their statements of support, or clarify their support for CIT in detail. From what I understand, these men do not support CIT's main theory, the "Fly-Over", and I am sure they do not support an "enemies list" or the ad hominem attacks.

These prominent figures in the movement should remove or clarify their statements!

Peter Dale Scott Clarifies

"Peter Dale Scott writes:

'I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it.'

These words are contained in a form letter that Scott is sending out in reply to the many inquiries he has received from those who have been shocked and appalled that a scholar of his caliber would actually endorse the shoddy work of CIT. Scott makes clear that while he finds the witness testimony interesting, he has never supported CIT's absurd flyover theory nor does he support their habit of vile ad hominem attacks on witnesses and activists."

I'm having trouble


Could somebody please help ;-)

(Seriously...the zip seems corrupt. But then again, I'm on Linux...any others who can verify if the zip-file works or not?)


I'm an idiot lihopper.

That pretty much tells me all I need to know about CIT.

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 at one time argued

You at one time argued against CD. Probably you couldn't see the explosiveness and almost free fall drop. Steel buildings do not explode and then fall down. At that time I truly thought you were a let it happen person.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

I, at one time...

And MANY times before and after have argued that I don't think CD should be front and center all day, every day. Like MANY have before me. There was a time when sites like wouldn't post anything about CD. There was a time when conferences were held like the 9/11 Omission Hearings in New York City on 9/9/2004 that didn't even mention CD. It wasn't until Steven Jones came out at the end of 2005 that EVERYONE considered the possibility, and was more open to the idea of it.

I despise the terms LIHOP and MIHOP. I'm not a "let it happen" or "made it happen" or "zionists happened" or "neocons happened " or "all of the above." I'm an American who can see very clearly that elements within our Government and others have earned the title of suspect for the crime of 9/11. I spend all day and everyday thinking of ways to make sure the truth is told, people are held accountable, and justice is served. I do not think the "work" of CIT helps this cause. Plain and simple.

I have no intention of getting drawn into a long discussion about why you think I'm wrong.

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 never said CD should be

I never said CD should be front center all day every day. That is an overreaction. However, you did argue against CD. That is far different from not wanting the movement to focus on it.

People say CIT is dividing the movement. CIT isn't even here. They are banned. It is the energy being put into fighting the information that appears dividing. You are either for investigations or not. You don't have to carry it forward. But ganging up on CIT is telling. I don't fault them for exposing what they have experienced.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars


I don't fault them for exposing what they have experienced.

To tell you the truth, now that I stop and think about it, I don't either. I'm just imagining myself in their shoes, spending all the money and time on traveling from California to Washington that CIT has done. And uncovering the facts that they have. And learning the local topography as thoroughly as they have. Only for some online bloggers to spend seemingly limitless amounts of time trying to divert people away from looking at my work. And, in the process, propagating, half truths and untruths as has been carefully documented in this very thread regarding the interview posted in this blog entry. Yup, I'm sure I'd feel the compunction to create a page, within my own site, exposing those who work so hard to neutralize my work. And it's not as if Craig and Aldo posted people's addresses and phone numbers and said "Let 'em have it!" They merely put faces (which already existed online) to names, and essentially said: "This is who they are - for the record!" There's really nothing truly dispicable about that.

Now, I will be critical of CIT at the same time. While I don't disagree with the overall concept of their "face to the name" thread, I do think it is bad form for them to call people names publicly. Save it for social discussion at the bar. I don't agree with their calling Jon Gold an "idiot lihopper" for example.

EDIT: Upon reading the link Jon Gold provided, he was never called an "idiot lihopper." Yes, Aldo did say "idiot" but it was in the context of what he believed to be an "idiotic" claim from Gold about needing a video of the Pentagon attack or a signed confession from Rumsfeld in order to be convinced that anything other than the official story that AA77 crashed in to the Pentagon. After that Craig merely said, "I think he is a lihopper or something." Nowhere was he called an "idiot lihopper". Jon, I'm sorry you felt the need to mischaracterize CIT's words and I feel pretty embarrassed that I took your link at face value at first.

I cut to the chase...

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 think it is actually that

I think it is actually that you react emotionally. 911 is a tough study and we all do it.. But "chase," I don't think so.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

more reality

>>They merely put faces (which already existed online) to names

Exactly. But clearly someone like yourself probably wouldn't have found out what JREFers look like if they hadn't. Now you know, along with everyone else on the worldwide internet *because* they are paired. And that's just what can be used to harass people in person (or in the case of authorities, to target activists at marches and protests or other public events) -- you now can see them and so they are now vulnerable to physical intimidation and harassment.

>>Upon reading the link Jon Gold provided, he was never called an "idiot lihopper." Yes, Aldo did say "idiot" but it was in the context of what he believed to be an "idiotic" claim from Gold

It's only one example among many from Aldo of abusive language. And since he has also talked about kicking people in the teeth, this goes with the above issue of posting people's faces on a thread for easy reference when someone decides to do just that or something else to take out their rage.

Here's what Also said about me:

"You are a do nothing, antagonist snob. . . . Shoud we add your name to the list of subversives? It seems this is all you come to any Pentagon related topics as."

And about Arabesque:

"You are such a disgusting entity. . . .You are a joke and we're coming for you. . . ."

Documented here:

What's next?

Another gem from Aldo

"Madlene Zackem, the lady with the jewish last name, Israeli accent while displaying a crucifix around her neck is not telling the truth about what she saw." [emphasis added]

So Aldo thinks that her "jewish last name" diminishes the credibility of her account? Maybe that's why Kevin Barrett and CIT like each other so much.

Why did you not emphasise

"while displaying a crucifix around her neck"

Maybe he thinks that her Christian beliefs disqualify her? Or could it be that you only boldfaced the "Jewish" portion of his statement to create the impression of an anti-semitic comment?

I think the contradiction Aldo pointed out is irrelevant and I think his comment is paranoid. But your comment, on the other hand, is deceptive. Which is worse?

In this case, I don't believe that the end (you fighting what is described in this blog as an orchestrated CIA effort -- i.e. "disinformation") justifies the means (distortion of quotes).

The point

The point is that Aldo is focusing on her religion -- or any sort of personal detail -- to try to discredit people and distort it if need be, so that they can force their claims through by cherrypicking anyone who disagrees out of the "credible" list.

Israelis and Jewish people have basically been villified by many in the movement, so this is not just a simple contradiction, but one which both tries to turn people away from her by implying she is Israeli with no evidence, and to distort her testimony as a lie just because of a difference between a *belief* he has about her religion and nationality, and what she is wearing to denote her religion.

For all he knows she is a Christian Palestinian who married a Israeli. We have no idea. There are also Christian Zionists who support Israel. Etc.

You described it

correctly. This I agree with.


I didn't leave anything out of that sentence. I wrote "emphasis added", so everybody can see that it's my emphasis and not Aldo's. The bolding doesn't prevent anybody from reading the whole sentence and making his or her own mind up about it. So where's the deception?

Aldo specifically mentioned her "jewish last name" while trying to discredit her. That seemed like a red flag to me and that's why I boldened it. Do you seriously suggest that my comment is "worse" than Aldo's?! That would be quite an insult, because this might well have been Aldo's most idiotic comment to date. Suggesting that a Jew who wears a crucifix (for reasons unknown to us) is not a credible witness because of that is a bizarre thing to say.

Madlene Zackem

Please read this link about Madlene Zackhem.

There is PLENTY of evidence to demonstrate that she is not telling the truth, and Aldo was NOT citing the fact that she curiously was wearing a crucifix and had an Israeli accent as part of that evidence.

CIT uses primarily the scientific method of corroboration to determine who is accurate or honest, and the fact is that all other witnesses in the near vicinity, namely Ed Paik and Terry Morin, definitively contradict her. They corroborate each other perfectly and fatally contradict Madelene's shady account (that she failed to attest to on the record) particularly since her view was completely obscured by trees as shown in the post.


Now...always remember, this is a CRIME investigation so you must understand that personal associations of suspects are considered in that context, as they are in all crime investigations.

Is it PROOF that Gary Bauer was a planted witness because he just happens to be a singer of the PNAC document? No. Is it notable? Obviously.

Is it proof that alleged witness/NeoConservative christian fundamentalist Rick Renzi was involved because he went on to become a congressmen in 2002 only to become indicted for conspiracy and embezzlement in 2007? No. Are his dubious associations notable in the context of the investigation? Of course.

Is it proof that Stephen McGraw was involved because he was a DoJ attorney for 5 years only to be ordained an admitted Opus Dei inspired priest 3 months after 9/11? Nope. Is it notable within the context of this investigation? You bet.

Or how about alleged witness/GOP USA founder Bobby Eberle's connection to busted fake White House reporter/gay prostitute Jeff Gannon? Notable? Clearly.

Is Madlene's quirky behavior and the fact that she agreed to an interview only to back out once CIT got approval from public relations and her proof that she was involved? Nope. But since her account is proven false by all surrounding witnesses who WERE willing to go on camera and since CIT did happen to hear her accent and see her crucifix firsthand it was in essence Aldo's duty to report it as a notable curiosity.

Imagine two cops or detectives speaking with a potential witness or suspect in a room. Then when the interviewee has left and the cops are talking amongst themselves, they're chatting, "I notice she had an Israeli accent." "Yeah, ya notice that crucifix she was wearing?" As they scribble words down in their notebooks.

Aldo made no racist or inappropriate comment about her. It is all of this internet trolling for out-of-context quotes to smear CIT that is despicable here.

Edit: The clipped portion of the photo says "Current view of VDOT with less trees and Madeline's placement of the plane."

FDR Claims Of Missing Seconds West Of Pentagon Addressed

Visit this thread for many more common arguments addressed.

2. Claim - The FDR Data stops/is missing 2-6 seconds of data west of the pentagon wall

FDR Recorders built to 0.5 sec lag maximum standard

Radar Altitude Confirms too high

NTSB plots aircraft 1 second away from pentagon wall.

American 77 Flight Recorder Position Data - DME Video


Putting Fdr "delay" Myth To Rest


2a. Claim - The data file terminates at a point west of the Pentagon based on altitude correlation of the MC values recorded by the PLA and IAD radar facilities and the full set of DME data matched to the various VOR's used along the flight path.

FDR Positional/DME Data obtained from a file (RO2) which was decoded by software not intended for use with Aircraft Accident Investigation. Above claim ignores this point. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have not used RO2 for any official analysis published on our main site due to this point alone. Although, we have shown Radar Altitude from RO2 in conjunction with claims made still place the aircraft too high. See claim 3.

Above Radar data processed by a person with an extreme bias for the govt story, has made numerous math errors in the past regarding simple vector analysis and has been shown to be in error of their radar analysis. Above claimant does not know the difference between pressure and true altitude and has admitted a "large potential for human error" in his Radar plot/analysis. When invited for debate by a 3rd party moderator on above claim(s), P4T accepted, claimant refused.

"In general, the final AA77 data in the raw [radar] file differs materially from the processed file."

"aa77" Final Approach Ground Speed Determination From The 84rades Radar Data, 84Rades and FDR data mutually INCONSISTENT?

Altitude Correlation determined above based on primary RADES radar returns. NTSB states. "... [b]the altitude estimates from these returns are subject to potentially large errors[/b]" when attempting to correlate primary RADES altitude data for Egypt Air 990.

Points within the RADES Data have the alleged AA77 in excess of 50,000 feet.

RADES Altitude Data is not reliable for correlating position.

Altitude Data impossible to correlate due to inoperative Mode C.

Nav 1 DME recorded 1.5 NM off DCA VOR. The above claim ignores this point.
American 77 Flight Recorder Position Data - DME Video

DME Slant Range errors are ignored by above claim.

Repetitive DME returns in excess of regulation intervals in RO2 ignored by above claim.

INS Errors are ignored by above claim (AA77 RO2 positional data shows aircraft departing roughly 3,000 feet south of IAD Runway 30. Illustration -


See Claim 2 for more information on "missing seconds".

Why is this link allowed on here?

Why is this link allowed on here? Might as well be linking to a JREF swamp.

Some quotes by Rob on that thread:

"Hoffman... lol. What a bonehead."

"I reiterate the "bonehead" comment i made above."

"Does anyone else find it funny that the people they source are named "Arabesque", "Reprehensor"... etc etc. While we source people with real names and govt agencies. Does anyone take these guys seriously?"

"Heres a good speech done by Dave vonKliest a few years ago.. it still holds true today..."

And a quote by another:

"If you asked Hoffman to show you his "front door", I'll bet he couldn't do it. ANNANUDDERTING . . . ."

"Back Door" data?


Has Hoffman figured out that the data and animation (which he clearly hasnt reviewed, considering his stumbling comments regarding altitude), came from "official channels" and not through a "back door" as he claimed in the above interview? Has Hoffman bothered to find the NTSB Cover Letters, NTSB Contact Information and NTSB FOIA request form link posted to Pilots For 9/11 Truth site since 2006?

According to the above interview, Hoffman still doesnt even realize the data came from the NTSB through "official channels", not to mention he doesnt even know what the data contains. How could someone possibly argue the information without having at least reviewed the basic fundamentals?

And you wonder why i called him a bonehead?

Lets just put it this way. If I took the time to specifically do a radio interview criticizing the work of others, without having actually reviewed the work, or at least knowing it's source and/or how the data was obtained, I'd expect to be called a bonehead as well.

You won't see me doing any radio interviews as such, ever.

Be sure to keep an eye on our core member list, we have yet another update with even more aviation professionals who endorse and understand the work/data.

And as usual, we'll make a large announcement, sending the announcement to our growing list of 3000+ forum/core members via bulk mail to make sure they get it, more than 200+ media contacts, govt agencies, Airline Union Reps, Congress, and fellow 9/11 "Truth Movement" Leaders/organizations.



The envelope and letter shown don't indicate anything about a visualization, animation, simulation, or anything else that would indicate that the NTSB is certifying that the animation is what they are calling the "flight path study". They did not include a manifest of what the contents are of the CDs.

So in other words, if anything ever comes up about the animation, the NTSB can simply say that they never sent it. There is no commitment on their part because there is nothing of theirs stating they specifically sent an animation. It's called deniability.

It's interesting that, just like the selective video frames, the animation also serves to feed the no-crash theory.

Faked lamp poles

Just a quick comment on the theory that the lamp pole damage was faked. Chris has argued that it had to be faked because of the evident lack of damage to the cab driver's hood from an allegedly falling lamp pole, although the windshield was broken and back seat damaged.

I've read somewhere that lamp poles near airports are made so that they easily detach themselves from their ground supports if hit by the wings of an airplane. For the same reason they perhaps have a lightweight construction, contrasting with a car's hood, making a relative lack of damage to the latter understandable.

And how could they have faked the detaching lamp poles next to a congested road anyway?

And it's not just the damage

And it's not just the damage to the lamp poles which would have had to have been faked, but everything else too.

So bombs would have had to have been set off in multiple locations in full view of everyone at their eye-level sitting on the highway, fake debris rained down from above, dozens of fake witnesses to claim they saw the plane hit, fake DNA planted, on and on. Why?

The basic flaw with the "all faked" argument is that one camcorder rolling would decimate the whole plan.

The WTC analogy would be for a plane to approach the towers but not hit them -- disappear apparently -- and for bombs to do all the damage to make it look like a plane hit, with rigged Boeing equipment being ejected out of the building at just the right time, jet fuel being dumped into the building, etc. All faked so that . . . what???

Why bother? And why risk such an elaborate scheme that buys nothing?

They accomplished exactly what they wanted by using a plane with real people who were murdered in a horrific way. That's all they needed. The inside job has already been proved in NYC with the many lines of evidence we have, including the hard physical evidence of dust itself.


The FAQ page on CIT's site is an amazing resource and they answer this in detail.

Please see FAQ #7:

How could the light poles and taxi cab scene have been staged in broad daylight?

And FAQ #6:

Since the plane did not hit the light poles do you think that they were somehow knocked down in real-time as the plane passed by? Maybe with explosives, or by the vortex of the plane or a missile or something?

CIT has toured the VDOT (who controls the light poles) and obtained all the specs and even physically examined the same style pole. The poles in question were 40 feet tall and 247 lbs.

Here is a short video of Craig inspecting the same style pole:

Yes the bases are cast aluminum and designed to break away but that is part of why the physical damage to this pole is so questionable as explained in FAQ #6 linked above.

If the base broke away as we would expect from a sudden force we should not see perfectly uniform damage with sooty residue on it!

Clearly CIT has done their homework on this and is not relying on speculation.

Hi Vesa

The bases of the light poles were cast aluminum which is brittle and will break if the pole is hit by a car. CIT, despite their shortcomings, have clearly shown that Lloyde is a pawn who has virtually admitted the whole thing was staged. In the last interview, he denied his cab was on the bridge. Watch the interview starting at 1:01:26

The plane was supposedly going 500 mph. Lloyde's cab was going about 40 mph. in the opposite direction. The pole weighs 247 pounds and must have been traveling at a very high rate of speed. It would have done a great deal more damage IMO. How could the pole be sticking in the cab with the other end on the ground and not even scratch the hood and fender? This is physically impossible.

The other 4 poles were off to the side and could have been placed the night before.
Start at 10:44


This picture gives the impression that the light pole had split into two parts:

What about this, then:

"This piece of a Boeing-757, American Airlines Flight 77, was torn from the plane as it clipped a light pole on approach to the Pentagon"

I don't know what to believe about the Pentagon. But even if I were sure that the light pole damage etc. was faked, I probably wouldn't "advertise" that certainty, because I'd know how absurd it would sound. Especially as I can concentrate on the much clearer evidence elsewhere, such as this:

Interesting point

I have been under the impression that the large part of the pole was embedded in the cab. If you look at Lloyde's drawing, [at 1:01:20] the pole is straight, not bent, and about 15' long. Was it the top part of the pole? This apparently blows the "couldn't be because of no damage to hood" theory. Curse you Red Barron! ;-)

Does anyone have a statement by Lloyde saying that it was the large lower portion of the light pole that was in the cab?

At 1:07:37 Craig says "There's the pole. That's your pole, see the bend? That's the pole you pulled out, right?" but he did not wait long enough for for an answer and went on.

You did not address some critical issues.
At 1:08 Lloyde says "I see that's from the bridge but that's not where it happened."
At 1:08:22 Lloyde says "Where the plane went across and where the pole came in there was no bridge." Lloyd is now insisting that he was in front of the Pentagon. This is clearly not true. Craig fails to make the point that light poles 1 and 2 were on the bridge and therefore that's where the cab was.

Listen to what Lloyde says from 1:11:42 to 1:12:40 where he says "It was planned."

I believe Craig is right about the poles being staged and the plane flew north of the Citgo station but his conclusion that this somehow proves the plane did not hit the Pentagon is dumb.

The picture of a piece of wing could have been from anywhere and does not qualify as evidence.
Off topic LOL moment: Stop the video at 25:40

ETA: No one has directly tried to refute the testimony of the 10 witnesses in the video who say the plane flew north of the Citgo station. I find their statements compelling.

Give me a good reason to doubt them and I'll make a 180 degree opinion turn on a dime and hand you change.


At 1:15 Lloyde "The plane was so low it hit the pole. When it hit the pole it knocked the light part off, and nothing came through the pole, through the car but the pole itself."

The pole hit the cab and the cab skidded to a stop. The pole would have done considerably more damage inside the cab as it was pushed along the ground and the cab turned sideways.

This is not about CIT, it's about the evidence.


I'm still curious as to why you think their conclusion is dumb. I'll say it again, why go to all that trouble of not only staging the street scene but confiscating so much video footage in the area if the plane really hit the Pentagon?

I've seen the precious few scraps of airplane debris in the various photos used to defend the claim that AA77 crashed into the building. However, the sheer quantity of debris, both outside and inside the building, is so ridiculously minimal that I still have a hard, if not impossible, time believing, based on the totality of the photographs, that a 757 crashed into the building.

And if the plane approached from north of Citgo, it would not be responsible for the direction of the damage path from the impact point at the E ring to the exit hole in the C ring, which was basically a straight southwesterly line. So we're not just talking about a staged street scene, we're talking about a staged damage path within the Pentagon itself.

It defies credulity that with all these damage anomalies, flight path anomalies, evidence of staging, and confiscation of footage, they also had a large plane really crash into the building.

Thanks for being the one person in here who is critical of CIT who separates the messenger from their message, and doesn't use any sort of personal dislike of CIT as an excuse to toss their evidence out the window in an attempt to defend the claim that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon.

EDIT: Chris, I see you above comment has received at least one down vote. You're being downvoted even after separating the evidence and the messenger and focusing purely on the evidence. Quite simply put, some people get very angry at those who discuss the evidence proving a staged military level deception at the Pentagon.

Dumb is dumb

The north flight path in no way shape or form supports, much less confirms flyover.

Asking questions that cannot be answered is a way of ignoring the facts.

"It defies credulity that with all these damage anomalies, flight path anomalies, evidence of staging, and confiscation of footage, they also had a large plane really crash into the building."

That is not evidence, it's speculation. We must have absolute respect for the evidence and avoid speculation.

The witnesses clearly establish the north flight path. Several of the witnesses were interviewed in 2001. Their accounts of what happened refutes the official flight path and therefore the downed light poles. Lloyd virtually admitted "It was planned." When faced with the evidence he tried to change his story.

This appears to be reverse psychology. Couple credible witness statements with an absurd conclusion, add a bad attitude, and get people to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The north flight path in no

The north flight path in no way shape or form supports, much less confirms flyover.

With all due respect, it does. Forget about the word "confirms," which is the word CIT would use, but you are absolutely wrong to say that the flight path "in no way shape or form supports" the notion of a flyover. Your statement is actually quite a strong claim, and you have yet to back up why this is the case.

Sometimes, speculation, or forming conclusions based on very solid evidence, is impossible and inevitable.

A conclusive case, to your satisfaction, has been made that the north of citgo flight path is the case. You seem to feel quite certain that the street scene was staged.

I am not "ignoring facts" with regard to the conclusions/speculations/inferences I make. There are so many details with regard to the Pentagon attack that we sometimes tend to forget a few of them, but when you connect the dots, it becomes more clear.

Since we seem to be on the same side regarding the light poles and taxi, let's now focus on the damage path from "Flight 77."

This diagram is facing southeast, and the plane is coming from a southwesterly trajectory:


And now for the photographs:


Do you see the diagonal trajectory which would only be consistent with the south of citgo path? (The photographer is facing southwest)

So once again, since you didn't address this when I mentioned it in the previous post (if I recall correctly I even bolded it): We're not just talking about a staged street scene, we're talking about a staged damage path within the Pentagon supporting the official trajectory.

So let's back up and look at the forest. There was indeed a large airplane approaching the Pentagon, as confirmed by the witnesses. The case has been made, conclusively imo, for the north of citgo approach. A north of Citgo approach is not consistent with either the taxicab/lightpoles scene, nor the damage path within the Pentagon. The case that the plane did not fly into the building is overwhelmingly strong imo.

So if the plane didn't hit, what happened? The most logical conclusion to me is that it flew over. What else could have happened; it didn't bury itself in the ground. I hope you're not, on a psychological level, so paralyzed and terrified of being seen as a "conspiracy theorist" in the pejorative sense of the word, even within the movement, that you turn off your thought process just short of following through with that swing of the bat, i.e. forming an very logical conclusion given overwhelming evidence for such a conclusion.

Now with all respect, if you're going to sidestep the points I've made in these last two posts and repeat the mantra that "a north side approach does not in any way shape or form support a flyover," then you need to very methodically outline why you believe this to not be the case. Because I've carefully delineated why I think the totality of circumstantial, photographic and eyewitness evidence at the scene does indeed point to a flyover being a logical conclusion.

With all due respect

The fact that the damage path does not match the approach angle does NOT prove or even suggest flyover. It only proves that something other that the plane caused some of the interior damage. Numerous people saw the plane hit the building and reported debris raining down like confetti.

I am not going to argue this any further because is is pure SPECULATION!
This flyover crap will be viewed as justification for calling the Truth Movement "nut jobs". Anyone promoting flyover is doing great harm to the Truth Movement.

Please STOP!

Chris: It only proves that


It only proves that something other that the plane caused some of the interior damage.

Okay, good. We've gotten this far. Think about the implications of what you say. The official story, of course, is that the plane is responsible for all damage.

You've also proven what I suggested about the psychological aspect of all this. You are so worried about being perceived as a nut job.

I'm still perplexed by you though. You acknowledge that the street scene was staged. CIT's detractors insist that the "staged light poles and taxi" claim is just as wacky as the flyover. You acknowledge the former, but get into a tizzy over the latter.

I used to be conscious about what could be perceived by the general public as wacky or nutty, but then it dawned on me: those who are psychologically already predisposed to believe that truth movement's overall premise is nutty will believe that about anything we say.

I've explained to people in my place of work that the war games were used as a cover for the real attacks, and that the war games neutralized our air defenses abilities to defend the skies.

I was met with "You're saying that drills to strengthen our defense against an attack actually made us weaker against defending an attack? Bwahahahaha! Come on, man, this makes no sense!"

Go to this Firehouse.Com thread to see how many people apparently still think that CD of the WTC is every bit as nutty or wacky as the flyover. Even when AE911TRUTH is presented to them, along with the Bentham paper, they deny, deny, deny, in addition to making the most hate-filled comments towards Fire Fighters for Truth.

So even though "Flyover" might sound nutty to you, where as CD of the WTC sounds sane and sober because there's chemical science to prove it, both claims will sound equally nutty to someone already predisposed to think that 9/11 being a US black op is nutty anyway.

Those who don't have such a psychological predisposition will look at both claims with an open mind.

So I no longer get my forehead in a wrinkle over what claims might sound loopy to the average person. This is not a PR movement, it is a truth movement, and we should search for truth wherever it leads us.

You are free to walk away from this discussion but I will not stop discussing the topic with those who engage.

And check out this scratch on the concrete.

Light Pole Scratch

Look at the bottom right of the picture, the scratch on the roadway going across the screen all the way to where the base of the pole rests. This would be consistent with someone dragging it there, with the heavier end on the ground.

Here's a closer zoom in:

light pole close up

This image is highly consistent with the hypothesis that the light poles were removed from the ground the night before, and that the pole was dragged to that spot for its "photo op."


if that is true, who smashed Lloyd England's windshield on the spot? Nobody witnessed that? What did they smash it with? Just thinking out loud here.

Good questions

I also think the analysis jimd3100 linked is worthy of attention.

This whole issue revolves around minutiae that could be debated forever. The idea of faked taxi cab damage is unintuitive and could never be proven anyway. There just HAS TO be better evidence than this.


Proving the government is lying and staged the light poles is not minutiae.

We should not let our negative opinion of CIT influence objective evaluation of the evidence.

The only argument I have seen so far against the 10 witnesses in the video is that Lagasse didn't realize the north side flight path didn't line up with the downed light poles. I don't see how this refutes his certainty that the plane flew north of the Citgo station. Some variation is to be expected but there is clear agreement that the plane flew north of the Citgo station.

Lloyd recognized this and tried to change his location to fit the north flight path.

Informed speculation

Snowcrash, while CIT does not directly answer your question, they do explain very well how the area where the scene occurred was easily under the control of the perps.

The entire scene is right by the heliport, where the President travels to and from quite often.


In fact, the President had departed from there the day before and was scheduled to land back at the heliport on the afternoon of 9/11/01!

Heliport firefighter Allan Wallace said:

Our first helicopter flight was around 10AM. But we were expecting President George W. Bush to land in Marine One around 12 Noon, returning from Jacksonville, Florida. Needless to say, neither flight arrived at the Pentagon that day because of the terrorist attacks.

Sean Boger, who was in the heliport tower on 9/11, told the Center for Military History (CMH):

On September 10th, it was kind of busy because the President flew out. He flew out that Monday, and whenever the President flies out, it is always a dog and pony show, you know.

You have got the Secret Service guys coming around and the dogs sniffing, and everything. So it was kind of like a big old deal. And so on September 10th, you know it was really kind of busy. And he was scheduled to come back on September 11th.

So we know it was going to be another dog and pony show, but we didn't think it was going to happen that soon.

This means that complicit officials had a perfect pretext ("securing the area for the president") under which the stage could be set.

There is evidence that authorities had already blocked off southbound traffic on Route 27 (where Lloyde's cab was photographed) shortly after the explosion, giving themselves complete control over the scene.

Jerri Davis was completely stopped in traffic talking on her cell phone in the northbound HOV lane of Route 27 in front of the Pentagon when the plane flew by. She was just far enough north that she did not see the plane, which was gone by the time she turned after hearing the huge explosion to the right. After getting out of her car and walking into the grass to observe the scene for a few minutes, Jerri then got back in her car and began to make her way out of there. Traffic was moving pretty slowly because they had to snake through a number of stopped vehicles, so once Jerri reached the point just beyond the median she pulled a U-Turn and headed back down Route 27 southbound.


Jerri told us that as she got back down near the Pentagon she noticed a man up ahead who was waving his hands and trying to flag her down to stop. She said there was no way on Earth that she was going to stop, so she got off at the Columbia Pike exit instead.


In the following images, taken by photographer Jason Ingersoll within 17 minutes or less of the event, you can see that all southbound traffic quickly disappeared. Meanwhile, Lloyde is seen surrounded by a handful of men in suits. It is also apparent that cars on the other side of the highway going northbound had their view of the scene obstructed by the two sets of guardrails on the already-closed HOV lane.



In the following images, taken by photographer Jason Ingersoll within 17 minutes or less of the event, you can see that all southbound traffic quickly disappeared. Meanwhile, Lloyde is seen surrounded by a handful of men in suits. It is also apparent that cars on the other side of the highway going northbound had their view of the scene obstructed by the two sets of guardrails on the already-closed HOV lane.



This individual with the red tie, who looks to be the same individual that was was photographed in the brown Jeep Cherokee moments earlier, was a central figure in this scene. His access, noticeably calm demeanor, and apparent authority imply he is likely a federal agent.



Here is another image showing how the view of the scene from the northbound lane was obstructed by the two sets of guardrails on the already-closed HOV lane.


All in all the scene would have been quite easy to control, especially considering that people would have been much more fixated on the burning Pentagon.

Maybe truthers should stop harassing victims?

Well, no one has ever explained to me why the hood of a car would be damaged when the hood of the car was never hit with anything. From day one Lloyde has stated that the pole went thru the windshield and never hit the hood or landed on it. So if nothing hit the hood, why am I supposed to think it should be damaged? I suppose if I were CIT when removing the pole I would try my best to scratch and damage my car as much as possible, but I'm not CIT. I prefer to not damage my car more and would take care as I removed said pole. If I was a stranger helping someone else out I also would try to not damage their car, but I guess I'm just funny that way.

When looking at the damage to the cab, the passenger seat is damaged and the back seat where the pole should have left a mark actually does have a mark in it, and the dash board is damaged in a way that is consistant with Lloyde's story. He even drew a picture of how the pole was sticking out never damaging the hood. The pictures can be seen here.....

So, since the pole never touched the hood, but instead went thru the windshield damaging the dash consistant with this story, damaging the passenger side consistant with this story and damaging the back consistant with this story, I guess I am to conclude that this is indeed one of the CIA's top operatives, and a confident one at that. Because if it never happened, and was all faked, the last thing you would do is keep the car around and show it off to people, you would simply get rid of it. But obviously in an operation like 9/11, you want your best and Lloyde is one of the top operatives in the business and just enjoys a challenge....or...maybe...just maybe....



I've seen all I need to see. Some of the individuals on the side of CIT are the closest possible thing I have seen to COINTELPRO or agents. I will never promote the work of CIT, and I am fairly sure that any group that consistently focuses on an area that has NEVER helped this cause, should not be trusted.

I am done with any mention of CIT. I suggest everyone else move on as well.

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?

Tip : Lynne Forest

Please read Lynne Forest - "The Three Faces of Victim" and "The Truth About The Truth"

Sometimes, from following the various discussions on the internet, it seems as if we have more "agents" than activists. We have to shift the focus away from the messenger and start focusing on the message. This may sound soft, but that's the only way to get out of this fatal victim triangle. (And my own advice goes for me, too)

>>We have to shift the focus

>>We have to shift the focus away from the messenger and start focusing on the message

I agree that focusing on evidence is the most important task. And in general, if unbiased and careful work is being done, the messenger can easily be ignored.

However, when it is clear that the message is not unbiased, but is, instead, carefully expunging any information which which contradicts it and making broad claims about physical or witness evidence which are not objective (i.e., "she's a liar, so her testimony cannot be trusted", "that lamp pole never could have broken that way," "what he really meant was this . .. "), then we do need to start considering the messenger, and why they are working so hard to influence people or label or intimidate detractors. The larger context will inform the rationale. Common examples of where the messenger has a likely motive in biasing information or presenting false information can be seen in cases such as the Webfairy, Nico Haupt and Gerard Holmgren. All openly attacked anyone who disagreed that real planes hit the WTC and made various forms of threats to try to silence disagreement.

In most cases of biased research, people are simply unaware of what they are doing.

But it's likely that in some cases they do know what they are doing, and then, ignoring the messenger only allows the situation to fester. Since no one can know for certain when either case is true, it's best to often assume they are naive or have organic damage.

But anyone with a focus on personal attack or intimidation needs to be called out or they will undermine the work of all . The more anyone is using methods of intimidation, the more they are a threat to everyone else's work, as such behavior is the extreme form of "anyone who disagrees is wrong", which is supposedly what we are working against.

Organic damage

Nice term ;-)

Anyways, I am undecided on what happened at the Pentagon. I haven't said anything else yet. There is a lot of evidence that points to a plane crash. I have never denied this. I find it hard to accept that all of this could have been planted. Nevertheless it is not scientifically impossible, but extremely unlikely.

I acknowledge that CIT, and certainly Aldo, have a way of handling attacks unproductively. On the other hand, they are attacked constantly and viciously. They did go out there and film these people, and they do also post the material that contradicts them. (McGraw, etc.) They didn't include it in their NSA video, which is a shame. I'm a big fan of the documentary programme "Backlight" precisely because of its masterful grasp and analysis of opposing viewpoints.

I have realized that "calling out personal attack" leads to a vicious cycle of personal attacks and preoccupation with persons instead of information. I find all of that a big waste of time, to be honest. It's a distraction. Accusations of disinformation and cointelpro can never be not personal. Of course, there are moments where judgment of character matters. A lot. But I hope all parties shift their focus onto more constructive things, such as research and activism. And I sincerely hope Jim doesn't get distracted too much by this issue either. CIT have no conclusive proof of flyover yet. Unlike CIT, I don't think that a north side flight path proves flyover, I think that flyover proves flyover.

However, what they've uncovered is errors in the official story, in conjunction with the errors uncovered by P4T. I cannot ignore this and I won't; I think I understand and agree with Chris Sarns' argument above. I acknowledge the problems with special pleading, but I also acknowledge factors which render a witness testimony unreliable. (Such as topography, deduction, embellishment and conformism) So I'll remain neutral and try to constructively criticize both "camps", if you don't mind. Proof by intimidation (from any side) doesn't cut it for me. I think that by now, most people in the 9/11 truth movement realize the danger of Pentagon research: that we're manoeuvring ourselves into a trap. We must take care to exercise the "precautionary principle" as Dr. Legge explained.

The thing is,

There are some people here and elsewhere who are not only weirdly obsessed with proving that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon, and spend inordinate amounts of time trying to dissuade other researchers from even going down the Pentagon avenue.

I am researching the Pentagon at this point, as someone who realizes that the movement has all the evidence it needs to prove 9/11 was an inside job. There is a difference between research and activism. Activism is supporting / donating to NYC CAN or AE911truth, or hitting the streets to hand out DVDs and fliers. Research is taking the time to view hours (yes, hours) of recorded witness testimony re the Pentagon attack, or read a book. etc.

I don't find it difficult at all to believe that the very minimal amount of debris at the Pentagon was planted. This was the perps' own back yard, and they had control of the scene! It would be a relatively easy thing to do compared to the job (carried out by whoever) of prepping the WTC for demolition.

You should go back and read my responses to Chris to understand why a flyover is indeed a logical conclusion based on the totality of what we already know.

Remember how many of us, at the time of the attack, probably made the assumption that the plane dove into the building from above? And remember how we were puzzled as to why a pilot would take such a low and level approach? Well, if the plane were to dive down it wouldn't then be able to pick up and fly away. And according to more than one witness on camera, the plane was "gliding almost noiselessly" over the Navy Annex and did indeed "pick up" as it approached the building.

It should finally be noted that there is a difference between a mere "guess" and a "hypothesis" which, as I learned in 5th grade, is an "educated guess." There is a difference between irresponsible speculation and informed speculation. Some people, in being so afraid of being seen as a "conspiracy theorist," have bunched the two types of speculation together get intimidated into thinking all speculation is irresponsible. Hence the "we're just pointing out facts and calling for a new investigation." Me, I see no harm in an honest, educated hypothesis.

How can anyone look at that

How can anyone look at that building during the first 20 minutes and see a plane crash with the damage only being to the first floor. Enver Masud of the Wisdom Fund went there (he lives nearby) and he saw no plane. I have a friend who rode his bike there and he too saw no plane. He was run off by the authorities. Of course neither of them saw the building during the first 20 minutes.

I think it is fantastic that we have people attempting investigation rather than playing on a computer.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Credible witness statements

"We have to shift the focus away from the messenger and start focusing on the message"

"I agree that focusing on evidence is the most important task. And in general, if unbiased and careful work is being done, the messenger can easily be ignored."

That is what I am asking. Let's disregard CIT and look at the witness statements.

I see nothing wrong with their statements. They are quite clear, unequivocal and sufficient in number to establish that the plane flew north of the Citgo station.

Can we put CIT aside and have a critical debate on the validity of these witnesses?


I'm fine with separating out messenger from message. The North side witnesses appear clear, but in reality, some are clearer than others, and the South side ones are also clear.

The fact is, the witnesses who are sure it went North are also just as sure that it hit the Pentagon. These are inherently contradictory positions -- could it do both of those at the same time? How?

What seems the most reasonable explanation is that CIT focused on witnesses who were located in a thin wedge of area in which it would be difficult to know for certain exactly which side the plane went on. And it is known that witnesses who said that it did not go North of the Citgo were discarded. Remember, it was flying at hundreds of mph and each person would have a slightly different experience of that depending on their own life experiences, the orientation of their body as it passed over, their memory in re-creating the event years later, etc.

Many factors may explain "Northside" flight-path perceived by CIT's cherry-picked witnesses:

* In any such large data set, there is a spread
* Cherry-picking exploits such a spread to make invalid conclusions
* CIT's witnesses were all north of the physical evidence flight path
* Given the Jet's speed and size, witnesses would perceive it closer to their position
* The difference between the physical-evidence and "northside" flight paths is only about 15 degrees
* CIT ignores altitude of the plane as factor in judging its position
* CIT's map of (highly cherry-picked) witness flight paths has the plane making impossible turns, given its speed
* CIT's 'star witness' Legasse mistakenly thought downed light-poles and damaged taxi were north of actual location
* Legasse appears to have inferred northerly flight-path from mistaken notion of downed light-pole and taxi locations
* Another CIT witness, Legasse's partner, likely derived his mis-perception by comparing notes

In the end, someone can pay to fly to DC and most likely, just as easily find the same number of people who are highly confident of a South of the Citgo flyover and interview them on film.

Remember, it is likely that hundreds of people within just a block or so saw the plane, and beyond that, thousands, so you could probably find people -- if you have the kind of time that CIT did -- who saw almost every variation of plane and path, even as they will all agree that the plane hit.

So the allure of the Northside path issue can probably be replicated with any number of different variables, say, whether the landing gear was up or down, or whether they saw stripes or not, or whether the plane sped up or not, or whether it flew higher or lower, etc. We could spend the rest of our lives on and endless series of variables to try to discount the idea that it flew toward the building, hit it, and real people were killed.

So it's not just *these* witnesses and *this* flight path, but everything you can imagine.

Any car crash seen by hundreds of people will have many subtle variations -- is it inconceivable that a sidewalk witness might think one of the cars came down a different street than it did, or turned first, or was a different type of car, etc? Of course you will find variations. But what you won't find is people saying they saw two cars approach each other and hit, when no such thing ever happened.

Some level of human variability is normal. But to claim those variations amount to a completely different event happening does not have a basis in evidence. Extracting a particular detail and blowing it out of proportion and then throwing out everyone else who does not agree is just not scientific.

Of course it's puzzling that people perceive some small differences. It's human to be fascinated with such oddities. But those don't amount to a completely faked scenario happening. Those amount to some witness anomalies, which is to be expected.


Thank you for addressing the issue.

"I'm fine with separating out messenger from message."
Then stop calling them CIT's witnesses, they are just witnesses.

"South side ones are also clear."
McGraw was clear about the plane flying over him. Wheelhouse was clear about the south flight path. After that it's not so clear. I just looked at my list of possible south side witnesses and they all said the plane was over 395 which conflicts with the official flight path. Do you know of any other 'clear' statements supporting the south flight path?

"The fact is, the witnesses who are sure it went North are also just as sure that it hit the Pentagon. These are inherently contradictory positions -- could it do both of those at the same time? How?"
These are not contradictory, they are consistent. They all saw the plane headed for the Pentagon. None actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon because they were running/diving for cover or could not see the impact from where they were. They all justifiably assumed it hit the Pentagon because of the explosion.

* CIT's witnesses were all north of the physical evidence flight path
This is the point. Their statements refute the official flight path and evidence.

* Given the Jet's speed and size, witnesses would perceive it closer to their position
3 were south at the Citgo station, 2 were directly underneath, 3 were just to the north in the equipment yard, 1 just to the north in ANC [close enough to feel the heat] and 1 directly in front in the heliport tower. They were in the best positions to see the plane.

* The difference between the physical-evidence and "northside" flight paths is only about 15 degrees
True, but that's enough to prove the official flight path is fraudulent and the "evidence" faked.

* CIT ignores altitude of the plane as factor in judging its position
The witnesses said it was very low.

* CIT's map of (highly cherry-picked) witness flight paths has the plane making impossible turns, given its speed
The flight paths were quite possible [save one] given that several also testified the plane was going much slower than 500 mph.

* CIT's 'star witness' Legasse mistakenly thought downed light-poles and damaged taxi were north of actual location
He didn't know where the downed light poles were. That has NO effect on where he saw the plane.

* Legasse appears to have inferred northerly flight-path from mistaken notion of downed light-pole and taxi locations
No, he did NOT 'infer' a north path, he drew it on a photo. He said he would stake his life on it. He is a professional. There is no reason to doubt his word or ability to say where the plane was.

* Another CIT witness, Legasse's partner, likely derived his mis-perception by comparing notes
They said they had not discussed the matter. They were both crystal clear about where the plane was and the both stated unequivocally that the plane did NOT fly south of the Citgo station.

Hey Chris, I just realized

Hey Chris, I just realized who you are. I read that you were at the WDC AE911 and I just did a search and found your music group. Am listening to it now. Nice.

Anyway, I am the one who suggested that the materials could have been brought into WTC in paper pallets. It would be a way of bringing in heavy material and no one would notice.
Maybe you remember, you asked me who I was. On here, I'm Breezy~

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

I love it, I really do. , I

I love it, I really do. , I get voted down. What a bunch of control freaks on here.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Chris- "None actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon

Chris- "None actually saw the plane hit the Pentagon because they were running/diving for cover or could not see the impact from where they were. They all justifiably assumed it hit the Pentagon because of the explosion."

Some ran/dove for cover- many others did not- your saying they "assumed" it hit is speculation, and it's not supported by the record. The below lists have close to 100 people saying they SAW the plane hit-- including witnesses CIT uses. CIT supporters have said these witnesses have to be reinterviewed and their locations checked before their testimony can be considered- I'm not buying that either.

Eyewitness testimony

What they described

Lagasse, a 'star witness' who insisted on the N-side path, also insisted that he saw the plane hit- and that he saw the poles laying on the ground in a location where they were NOT. CIT calls their claims "conclusive"; despite these things- and despite the fact that the damage path inside the Pentagon lines up with the damage path outside, and that to fake all this would necessitate HOURS and HOURS of completely unnecessary work, and the risk of being seen and even videotaped- and for what? Whoever arranged 9/11 could have easily arranged for 77 to hit the Pentagon, as they arranged for no intercepts, no defense of DC and for the plane to hit the nearly empty section opposite the top brass. The "757 didn't hit" theory is not reasonable or credible- rather, it's one of the most successful 'misinformation' memes that have distracted and divided activists over the years- how convenient for those who would perpetuate the cover up, rather than see full disclosure. Good luck to you, but I'm not buying- and neither are most people here as you can see from the comments and the voting.

Much, much, much more solid evidence of malfeasance and cover up here:

The witnesses confirm the approach

The question is where the plane approached the Pentagon, not whether or not it hit the Pentagon.

"Lagasse, a 'star witness' who insisted on the N-side path, also insisted that he saw the plane hit- and that he saw the poles laying on the ground in a location where they were NOT."
[Referring to him as a 'star witness' is rather prejudice, perhaps insulting, dontchathink?]

Where did he say that?
"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 ANC and 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 where it met the ground."
He does not say he saw the plane hit the building or the poles.
He does say:
"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."

He could only see the top floor of the Pentagon from the Citgo station.
At 22:09 it shows the view of the Pentagon from the Citgo station.

"He does not say he saw the plane hit the building or the poles"

quote sources and analysis at the link below, in addition to analysis of this meme that critics of CIT are claiming that CIT or Lagasse says he saw the plane hit the poles:

“there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down”

A Response to Misleading Claims About the CIT Flyover Debate


He assumed that the knocked down poles were where he saw the plane fly. He knew that the plane could NOT have knocked down the poles on the bridge because the plane did not fly over the bridge.

If you are trying to question the intelligence or the integrity of Sgt. Lagasse forget it.
This is just a lot of circular double talk.

And here we are at the core of the problem

Special pleading, deduction, embellishment, conformity, begging the question....Both sides attempt to call the credibility of the other witnesses into question and fervently defend their own.

It's like an episode of Law & Order. Except...millions of lives are impacted by the outcome.


There are 10 very credible witnesses refuting the government story.
The main witness for the government has changed his story.

Is the the Truth Movement or the denial movement?

He assumed the plane hit the

He assumed the plane hit the building, was not in a position to actually see it. That isn't a witness to anything, for or against. But putting arabeque links as a proof instead of listening to his actual interview is ridiculous. Circular for sure.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Truth Movement Rejects Truth

Just because it was delivered by a couple of blithering assholes. As a practicing professional asshole with over a half century of experience, I can appreciate quality assholeism and not let it cloud my judgment. Remember, we are not dealing with boy scouts and sometimes it's necessary to fight fire with fire.

Fact: Lloyde recognized that Craig and Aldo had established the airplane did not fly over the bridge and changed his story to fit the new reality.
So why are all of you having trouble with the new reality?

Do you not hate it when gatekeepers ignore/deny/marginalize numerous witnesses who say there were explosions or molten metal? Why then do you ignore/deny/marginalize these very credible witnesses who say the plane flew north of the Citgo station?

Unfortunately, the official lie is set in stone and Lloyde cannot move his cab and the light pole over to where the plane actually flew. Please listen to the segment where Lloyde repeatedly says his cab was NOT on the bridge but over where he knows the plane actually flew. Remember, this is the government's main witness for the plane knocking down the light poles.
Start at 61:27. At 65:59 he points to a spot north of the heliport on hwy 27 and says "My car was back here."

It was a terrible thing they did to that nice old man when they recorded him without his knowing it, but this is war and over a million people are already dead.

>>I can appreciate quality

>>I can appreciate quality assholeism and not let it cloud my judgment.

Indeed, you can remove the statements of Lloyd from CIT and then examine them.

But what do you find? Does his changing his statement actually prove anything? Anything at all? Could Lloyd be senile? If so, can you prove that he is or is not? Mild dementia would explain his memory loss of where his cab was as orientation and memory are hugely impacted in dementia. Lloyd obviously had never seen the pictures of his cab on the Internet until they showed them to him. That is extremely important. In 8 years he has never reviewed his role in the way that everyone else has.

This is not ignoring or marginalizing witnesses. This is taking into consideration some of the many variables we do not have facts about, such as Lloyd's mental status, his memory, his reasons for changing his story, what went on when the camera was off, etc. He's an older guy and he never even saw his own cab's location since the event happened and he made some extremely broad statements which could be attributed to AQ as much as any insiders. Why should any of that make him an accessory?

As one person on another forum said, this is coming close to "if she sinks she is a witch."

When you wish upon a star

"Does his changing his statement actually prove anything?"
Yes, it proves he is lying.

"Could Lloyd be senile?"
Be advised: I am also a devout sarcasimist and that is a great straight line. ;-)

Did you watch the segment? He sees himself and his cab on the bridge and denies he was on the bridge. That cannot be hand waved as 'senility'. Did you watch the part where he admits that it was planned?

"This is not ignoring or marginalizing witnesses."
Yes it is. When you have 10 credible witnesses, who were in excellent positions to see the flight path, stating where the plane flew, you cannot justifiably hand wave them. Why do you persist in grasping at straws? Why are you so convinced that the government is telling the truth and all these witness are mistaken?

Why get stuck on this?


I've seen the film in which the CIT guys interview Lloyd at length. I agree with Victoria that not much can be based on that old man's confusing utterances. The taxi cab evidence doesn't unambiguously show that the light pole could not have broken the windscreen. I also don't think people's recollections of a plane's precise flight path are very reliable and that they could provide that kind of evidence that would validate 9/11 Truth. There is much, much stronger evidence. I'd welcome your return to the good old WTC stuff. :-)

I adamantly disagree

There is absolutely no way all the north side witnesses could all be mistaken and Lloyde is obviously lying thru his teeth.

How can we say the witnesses who saw molten metal are right but the witnesses who saw the plane fly north of the Citgo station are all mistaken?

The guy in the heliport tower is a trained professional. He was in the best position to see where the plane was approaching from. He said it flew over the Naval Annex toward the right side. How can you doubt him?

The water truck guy in ANC said he could he could feel the heat when the plane passed by him. How can you doubt him?

"I also don't think people's recollections of a plane's precise flight path are very reliable"
With all due respect, either all the witnesses are lying or the government is lying.
There is no middle ground.

Comments like Vesa's are what irritate me.

There is much, much stronger evidence. I'd welcome your return to the good old WTC stuff. :-)

And of course earlier in the thread Jon Gold said "I suggest everyone else move along as well."

You know Vesa: Chris, myself and any one else who is interested in this avenue of research don't need to be chaperoned as to what material we explore and avenues we pursue. There seems to be a contingent of 9/11 activists who seems desperate to dissuade other activists from even exploring various lines of inquiry and investigation. Yes, we already know there is enough evidence for an inside job at the WTC, but that doesn't mean we don't stop digging!


I'm absolutely not saying that anyone should not explore what they want. All I'm saying is that in the case of WTC we have both strong visual and physical evidence that contradicts the official story. In the case of the Pentagon we have in practice just eyewitness statements. When trying to convince others, let alone prove something, I think the former is very much more effective than the latter.

Everything we have either at

Everything we have either at WTC or the Pentagon or even Shanksville we have because people didn't let some room monitor tell them to stop looking.

We have more than just witnesses in practice as you say. We have damage that is NOT consistent. And we won't stop looking.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

It was planned

"Did you watch the part where he admits that it was planned?"

I've got news for you. The whole world knows 9/11 was planned. No one thinks it was a random series of chaotic events with no meaning. When Lloyd was making his "confession". He was not making any confession at all.; He was talking about people like you. When he said he was just a small guy and things come back to him and there is nothing he can do about it, it wasn't a "confession", it was what people claim happened at the pentagon, and the BS that has sprouted up around it. But you were conned and still are. His words were edited and you were told how to interpret it. You think physical evidence and witnesses confirming the physical evidence are not nearly as important, in fact are irrellevant but some hand picked witnesses who agree with the physical evidence and the notion a plane hit the pentagon but put it off 15 or so degrees, is what matters. It's not. Either the plane hit the building or it didn't. This is the biggest bunch of BS to ever hit the movement. Lloyds own cab proves his story is true, and after two days of being told that "everyone" places the plane over here, he agrees, and you say he changed his story, and is involved in some way. His own cab and the damage to it proves his story is true. The fact he still has it and shows it off proves he is an innocent person being smeared by so called truthers. This is beyond disgusting. We have recovered plane parts, eyewitnesses all saying the plane hit, rescue workers cleaning up the mess confirming all this, and we are supposed to figure out why all the witnesses didn't place the plane flying in the air that they saw for a second or two in the exact same spot? That would be expected. Wasting your life on that nonsense is up to you, but accusing innocent people of being involved in mass murder is outrageous and disgusting and anyone not denouncing this should be ashamed of yourselves.

Shirley you jest

"I've got news for you. The whole world knows 9/11 was planned. No one thinks it was a random series of chaotic events with no meaning."

If that were the case the Bush gang would be in prison.

This is frikin hopeless.

Everyone knows 9/11 was planned

No one thinks 9/11 was a bunch of airline accidents that happened on the same day. I can't believe I have to tell you this. Yes, everyone knows it was a planned event. And that doesn't mean we're all in on it.

Show "Hey Chris, look at my comment from a little while ago..." by Adam Syed

Don't speak for me

I can speak for myself, and I've never accused a single witness of being an operative or liar. That is what CIT does. This no plane garbage, and that is what it is. Has gotten so stupid you have to accuse innocent people, people who were actually willing to assist so called "truthers", of being "in on it" to keep your silly NO PLANE at the pentagon BS alive.

Please elaborate

Although I can understand the reasoning behind Lloyd being worn down to the point where he just tries to tell CIT what they want to hear, please elaborate on these questions then, which seem pertinent:

  1. When Lloyd referred to "the people with the money", did he mean Al Qaeda/Bin Laden?
  2. Where and how were Lloyd's words edited to misrepresent him? Could you explain this editing and its consequences in detail?
  3. You refer to the north flight path witnesses as "hand picked". Suppose that were completely true, are you then also saying they are all incorrect?
  4. How does Lloyd's cab prove that he wasn't on the bridge, as he claims?
  5. How does Lloyd showing off his cab prove he is being truthful?
  6. How many witnesses can you cite that did not deduce the plane impact but actually saw the plane hit the building? (McGraw would be a good example) Any sort of deduction or topographical limitation invalidates witnesses who claim they saw a plane impact.

I agree with you on the rescue workers. Many of them saw wreckage and bodies inside. This is good evidence that refutes that anything other than a commercial plane hit the Pentagon.

However, do you really think it is helpful to threaten people interested in Pentagon research with shaming? Answering the questions above would be a much better way to attack the problem, wouldn't you say? I, for one, am not convinced by appeals to force or argumentum ad populum: with me it tends to produce the exact opposite effect.

Show "Bodies" by Adam Syed
Show "Re: bodies" by SnowCrash
Show "Building Performance Report etc." by Adam Syed

What did Lloyd mean?

"When Lloyd referred to 'the people with the money', did he mean Al Qaeda/Bin Laden?"

I just listened to that part twice. He starts with "philosophical" references to history as "HIS story". It is pretty vague and ambiguous from then on. It could perhaps also be interpreted as just meaning that all of the 9/11 stuff is too big for him. It is difficult to say what he means.

Show "bravo, SnowCrash" by Eleusus
Show "Thanks Eleusus" by SnowCrash


The situation here is hopeless so I have decided to change sides and take a job with the National Guard. I'm too old to be an "Internment/Resettlement Specialist but maybe I can get a job as a Rehabilitation Counselor. See ya. ;-)

It's too bad Chris isn't

It's too bad Chris isn't here to see this. Are people allowed to pull material from blogger and put it somewhere else? Shouldn't only the link be shared?

Chris has joined the National Guard to fight a new war. It is my impression he doesn't have time for this blog.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars


It's rare to be able to observe the moment when someone realizes how CIT works. And a rare person to share it.

There seems to be a slight problem

There are 10 very credible witnesses refuting the government story.
The main witness for the government has changed his story.

Is the the Truth Movement or the denial movement?

— Chris Sarns, August 12

(Chris clearly distinguishes between CIT and their witnesses, shouldn't you be 'sharing' this part of Chris' opinion as well?)

I have to agree with Chris, specifically on the "hopelessness" part.

Let me say something else. I noticed something really great about the presentation. You mentioned that all CIT witnesses are north of the official flight path. This is exactly what I have been thinking, and in my opinion this is a truly correct way to criticize CIT's work.

Can you elaborate?

By "presentation" are you referring to Jim Hoffman's presentation on What do you think is the significance of the fact, if true, that all CIT witnesses are north of the official flight path? Thanks and I appreciate your attempt to be extremely objective and fair in this debate. We can definitely use more of that around here.

Witness position

Eleusus, I believe this may be due to the fact that perspective may interfere with the ability of witnesses to estimate location.

I'm not certain this is the case, it's just a hunch.

Only if they all saw the plane to their south

Perhaps if all 10 witnesses were looking towards their south when they saw the plane then your theory could be plausible, but I don't believe all of them were looking to their south.

An attempt at explanation

The spatial difference between the official flight path and the CIT flight path is relatively small, while the size of the airborn object the witnesses saw was large.

From the ground, it is quite easy to err about the precise position of a large object in the air. Especially if there are only a few seconds at most to evaluate its position.

All of CIT's witnesses were to the north of the official path, and it would appear that most were slightly to the north of the CIT path as well:

As it is easy to think that a large object in the sky is closer to oneself than it really is, this would explain why the witnesses to the north of the plane thought it was closer to them than it really was. Hence the different, "north", flight path.

I'm afraid a state lawyer would have a field day demolishing this kind of witness evidence in court.

Sure, but let's look at the dimensions involved

For the plane to have been low enough to have hit the building at the first floor going straight and level, it would have had to stop its descent and level out a few seconds before it allegedly hit the building, which would require it to have been very low going over the Navy Annex and Citgo station. Looking at the distance between the official flight path and the NOC flight path, it would seem to me that a plane that low following the official flight path would not be seen straight up above the NOC witnesses, but definitely to the south. And, some witnesses definitely were not looking to their south. In fact, some like Bill Lagesse were looking slightly to the north, so there is no way foreshortening would have had him point in that direction if the plane was on the official flight path.

Now, if the plane was much higher in altitude, like hundreds of feet high (which would make it impossible to have hit the building), then the foreshortening problem could much more likely have given them a faulty perspective, but then that would still disprove the official path for obvious reasons.

I dont' have time right now to map out the witnesses, the direction they were pointing, and the dimensions of the plane superimposed on the paths, so I can't really argue this any more precisely at this time. But to determine if your foreshortening theory is at all possible, we would have to map dimensionally all these aspects and go from there.

Interesting point you brought up, though.


Foreshortening is not really a theory though, it really happens to people it seems ;-)

The thing is, and you are right to point that out, not all of them were looking south, and not all foreshortening would necessarily be disadvantageous to the official flight path .. (Such as Sean Boger's account)

However, when you look at CIT's overlay map, you see a lot of difference between their own witnesses, where you often even see that the degree of deviation rivals that of the deviation between, for example north and south flight path.

Still, we are still left with critical vantage points, such as Lagasse & Brooks, Turcios, Morin, Paik and Boger.

Why, oh why?

I have said earlier that in the case of the Pentagon we have ONLY eyewitness statements. In the case of the WTC, we also have eyewitness statements, but in addition, and more importantly, hard visual (videos and photos) and physical evidence. In the case of the Pentagon, the latter is completely lacking.

Let's assume the CIT witnesses got it right. This would still not accomplish anything in a court of law. I don't think any of us really fail to see that.

There are witnesses who contradict CIT's north flight path, who have been disregarded.

Lloyd's confused utterances, alas, prove nothing, unlike what is being hyped. It would also seem that he is "coaxed" in a particular direction in the secret recording. Perhaps Lloyd was susceptible to such a thing, trying unconsciously to please the guys. People often do that when interacting, you know.

CIT's scenario relies on practically everything having been faked.

Why on earth would they have done that? If the Pentagon WAS hit by a plane, WHY would they have faked a flight path in the first place? That wouldn't make ANY sense.

From that perspective, flyover is the only "reasonable" option. It is really the only rationale for faking about everything. But in the overall picture, it is not reasonable at all.

Still, I think one has two options: if one believes that virtually everything at the Pentagon was faked, one is almost compelled to believe that flyover happened. If one believes in CIT's flight path, flyover had to happen.

This is not leading us any further.

The same goes for the south side witnesses

I'm afraid a state lawyer would have a field day demolishing this kind of witness evidence in court.

CIT has clearly shown that most Pentagon witnesses are extremely sensitive to confirmism, embellishment and deduction. Not that CIT is the first to show this, this is of course general knowledge about witness testimony in general.

What I believe to be critical is the vantage points where the matter of north or south is reduced to "left or right", such as at the CITGO gas station.

Also, when the plane is above you, or you can relate it pretty well to buildings it flies over, then you have a lot less trouble with foreshortening. This is what CIT refers to as "critical vantage points".

Anyways, all these criticism apply just as much to the south side witnesses as the north side witnesses. It's important to think of problems with embellishment and deduction.

In the case of Keith Wheelhouse, didn't he draw the exact same flight path as the OCT? And wasn't he completely wrong about the C-130's position?

Sounds like embellishment to me. He couldn't see it from where he was, so he may have investigoogled it before CIT came by.

And it's truly rare indeed...

To see someone like Chris separate his opinion of CIT as people from the evidence they produce.

Chris still understands that the witnesses' testimony speaks for itself. He still realizes a case has been made beyond a shadow of doubt for the north of citgo approach.

Nuff said.

Chris' statememt

Here is Chris' statement that Jim Hoffman added to his presentation"

"I now see why people are having a problem with CIT. They specifically said there were NO witnesses who said the plane flew south of the Citco station but they interviewed several who did. So far; Stephen McGraw, Keith Wheelhouse and Vin Narayanan. Interviewing someone and then calling them an accomplice in a video is very bad form. Optimum would be to show all the witness statements and let the viewer decide. My opinion of CIT just went in the toilet. Keeping that in mind, let's look at the all the witness statements."

I believe that Chris is incorrect that CIT "specifically said there were NO witnesses who said the plane flew south of Citco". What CIT has said is that there were no CREDIBLE or VERIFIED witnesses who said the plane flew south of CItco. There is a big difference between the two statements. Wheelhouse could not see the official flight path at all let alone the Citgo gas station and McGraw admitted as much as well. Vin Narayanan was part of the USA Today parade, claims he saw a "second jet" after hopping out of his car. Vin Narayanan is featured in CIT's video The 2nd Plane Cover Story. There are legitimate questions regarding the unlikely large number of USA Today reporters who "just happened" to all be 45 minutes late to work, all bunched up on the "perfect" place on the highway together in front of the Pentagon right at the perfect time, and also appearing to be possibly involved with creating a 2nd plane cover story. People should view the videos: 2nd Plane Cover Story and USA Today Parade and decide for themselves.

You could argue with the reasoning that CIT used to determine that the 3 are not credible or verified, and perhaps CIT should do a better job of letting people know about the contrary witnesses, along with their disclaimer of why they don't feel they are credible, and then letting people decide for themselves, but I don't think there is sufficient evidence to show that CIT was being deceptive about it.

Good post, Eleusus.

I'll reiterate what I've said elsewhere on this matter (since it was never acknowledged before):

There are no on-the-record witnesses who were in a position to see the plane's position relative to the Citgo, who have gone on the record to state that they saw it south of the Citgo. The various interviews they did with "supposed" south side witnesses turned out to be simply not credible (McGraw saying he recollected the plane skidding on the lawn first before crashing into the building, and claiming that he remembered only the top of a light pole being sheared off while the base remained standing) or simply not in a good enough vantage point to have been able to see the details of the flight path, like Keith Wheelhouse.

Earlier in the thread Chris said that when citing Wheelhouse, McGraw and Narayanan, he listed witnesses "which could be considered south side." Craig and Aldo already did the considering, and the analyzing, and their conclusions were that these witnesses' testimony can be dismissed as non credible due to either the topography blocking a clear view of the plane (and also the citgo) or because their testimony clearly contradicts the photographic and video evidence.

No, you are incorrect.

"I believe that Chris is incorrect that CIT 'specifically said there were NO witnesses who said the plane flew south of Citco'."

Aidan Monaghan: "Are there any south-of-Citgo witnesses?"

Aldo: "That is a negative."

"We sure haven't been able to find ANYONE who is willing to directly contradict the north side claim AND we have not found a single previously published account that directly contradicts it either."

Show "And this is true." by Adam Syed

Yeah, I got that internment

Yeah, I got that internment job email. It's pretty dark. Humor is necessary for that stuff.


That's scary shit. In the current economic climate they will have no shortage of volunteers. They did not try to disguise it. They are talking to us.

Bring it on MF!

Step back a moment

I had to step back and cool off. I suggest the main combatants do the same.

No one has moved one iota from the position they had when this 'discussion' began. i.e. No one here is capable of learning anything new thru debate.
This has more to do with ego than rational evaluation of the evidence IMnsHO. [irony noted ;-)]

You are all talking past each other. Everyone is talking but no one is listening.

To those of you who still cannot separate the message from the messenger, and reject the statements of 10 very credible witnesses, please consider what you doing. Perhaps you don't realize that you are undercutting David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage. Severely damaging their credibility.

Who's side are you on? Intended or not, CIT has successfully gotten the core of the Truth Movement to discredit the most prominent spokespersons and demonstrate a total lack of objectivity when it comes evaluating the evidence.

I agree with DRG and RG that the statements of the witnesses, who were in the best positions to ascertain the correct flight path, conclusively establish the north flight path. The argument that they were all north of the official flight path assumes the government is telling the truth and any evidence to the contrary is therefore incorrect. Do you realize that is a JREF tactic? Do you realize that 'cherrypicking ' is a JREF way of marginalizing anything they cannot deny? What they call 'cherrypicking' is simply research and putting together evidence to support a point.

I ask you all to cut the double talk and catch phrases. The 10 north side witnesses were there and you were not! Hand waving them is exactly the same as JREFers hand waving the molten metal witnesses. You can't have it both ways. When there are numerous credible witnesses all saying the same thing, based on their observations, you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let's not challenge authorities?

"Perhaps you don't realize that you are undercutting David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage. Severely damaging their credibility."

Chris, you are now engaging in a logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.

And we should refrain from questioning the conclusions of CIT's witnesses in order not to damage David's and Richard's credibility?

"Who's side are you on?"

I'm not on "anyone's side". I can separate the message from the messenger, be that Richard Gage or CIT's witnesses.

As regards your other points, I have already commented on them above.


It's not an appeal to authority, but an appeal to consequences ;-) (FYI)

Thanks for the correction ;-)

But perhaps it could be said that it was an appeal to consequences premised on an appeal to authority...?

Who to believe (and not)

"Sounds like embellishment to me. He couldn't see it from where he was, so he may have investigoogled it before CIT came by."

Just like Lloyd the cabbie has said from day one that nothing ever hit the hood of his car, and the damage to his car confirms his story,....Wheelhouse also from day one has told us of how he saw the passenger jet hit the pentagon and the c 130 that was following it. He didn't need to "google" any of this because he was talking about this even before it was officially released.........

"17 October 2001
A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington "at an unusual angle," said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman......
Keith Wheelhouse, of Virginia Beach, still has a vivid image of that fireball etched in his mind.

"He and several family members, including his sister, Pam Young, of Surry County, were leaving a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery when they watched the hijacked American Airlines jet nose-dive into the nation's military headquarters."

"They also saw a second plane."

"At first, they weren't sure whether the second plane was involved in the attack."

"But Wheelhouse, a three-year Army veteran, thought it looked like aC-130, although he wasn't certain."

"Tuesday, he was pleased to hear the military is finally verifying what he's been telling people."

"Wheelhouse and at least two other witnesses to the Pentagon attack were troubled that Pentagon spokesmen had until now said they were unaware of a C-130 being in the area at the time."

"So I wasn't losing my mind," he said."

"Date: Sep 14, 2001
Her brother, [Keith Wheelhouse], of Virginia Beach, spotted the planes first. The second plane looked similar to a C- 130 transport plane, he said."'HORRIFIC'+IMAGE+STILL+HAUNTS+SURRY+WOMAN+DISASTER+VIEWED+FROM+ARLINGTON&pqatl=google

I believe all the witnesses are good decent honest people. Why? I have no reason to not believe it and they willingly let so called "truthers" into their homes and talked freely with them. They didn't have to. In the case of Wheelhouse he was even attempting to help these "truthers" even after they went on the internet accusing him of being a liar and mass murder accomplice, because he was unaware of the insanity that some of us seem to like dealing with....

email from Wheelhouse to CIT attempting to be helpfull to their "investigation"..
"Just thought you would like to see a few photos.
Take care
Keith D. Wheelhouse""

Ranke response...
."...."There is really nothing more to discuss unless you want to confess, Kieth."......" We know it was a flyover/flyaway. We have witnesses who prove this."....."We prefer to believe you are innocent and were coerced to lie."

Yea, he was a bit off in his spatial estimates of the planes.....JUST LIKE ANYONE COULD BE OBVIOUSLY.....but he was there. I wasn't, and neither was anyone here, and neither was CIT. He said he watched the plane enter the building, but CIT knew the exact spot where he was and also knew exactly how the trees and shrubs looked like that day years ago. Really? Perhaps these CIT guys are not quite on the level....ya think?


I referred to his reproduction of the flight seemed to have been an exact match for the official flight path, as if he had looked it up to be sure. Do you happen to have a link with a picture of his drawing? The topography of where he was precludes him to see the impact, and it would make it very difficult to place the plane at all.

As for that C-130, if he said it was immediately physically behind flight 77, right? Isn't that incorrect, according to the C-130 pilot?


"As for that C-130, if he said it was immediately physically behind flight 77, right?"

No he said it was above it, but he had it closer than it really was. Because IMO and this is's not unusual to have a flying object estimate to be off......and as for googling 9/11 pentagon stuff, you'd think he would have come accross CIT calling him a liar and plant, but he was still trying to be nice and helpfull to them until they tried to get him to "confess" like the nutjobs they are.

He's just a guy that gained nothing from 9/11 just like every other witness. Perhaps it's counter productive and downright destructive for "truthers" to accuse innocent civilians of being criminals when they ruin their pet theory. And you have no idea what his exact spot was and how high the trees were and wether there were bushes, because you werent there...he was, and it was 8 years ago.

I have no idea

and you have no idea.

Now where are we? Should we start over? Surely you aren't going to pull a "you weren't there" on me are you?

Anyways, didn't Wheelhouse himself tell CIT where he was?

thx for this about the C-130- a 6-4-03 Commission Memo says

they just learned of it recently, and notes NORAD didn't mention it at the hearing...

For those interested in downloading:

username: 911blogger
password: 911blogger

Show "You can't be serious, jimd3100" by Eleusus


"Perhaps you don't realize that you are undercutting David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage. Severely damaging their credibility."

Perhaps you don't realize that is the reason they wanted the endorsements. And the reason some of us have been warning about this "9/11 truth" wrecking ball (CIT) for a long time.

calling FOUL on Chris

re: Statement by Chris >>
To those of you who still cannot separate the message from the messenger, and reject the statements of 10 very credible witnesses, please consider what you doing. Perhaps you don't realize that you are undercutting David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage. Severely damaging their credibility.
Who's side are you on? Intended or not, CIT has successfully gotten the core of the Truth Movement to discredit the most prominent spokespersons and demonstrate a total lack of objectivity when it comes evaluating the evidence.

This is BS. Why are you painting this as a two-sides argument? ("Are you with us or against us?" Perhaps?) Many of us have issues with many sides of this argument and do not fall into this two-camp characterization of the situation. I take offense to this framing of the debate and think it is extremely divisive to do so ... even if it makes you feel a little better about your position by doing so.

My bad

That was over the line. I am getting frustrated with the denial, double talk and diversion so typical at JREF and so pervasive here.

Subject shift

No one has commented on the critical point.
10 very credible witnesses said the plane flew over the Naval Annex.
They were in excellent positions to judge the flight path.

3 of the witnesses were a little south of the plane
2 were under the plane
4 were directly in front of the plane
1 was just to the north

Sgt. Lagasse was on the north side of the Citgo station. He said he would stake his life that the plane flew NORTH of the Citgo station. The 2 other witnesses at the Citgo station were certain that the plane flew NORTH of the Citgo station.
The 2 witnesses under the plane establish it flew over the Naval annex.
The 3 witnesses in the equipment yard said the plane flew over the Naval Annex headed right for them and then banked away to their left.
The witness in the ANC said the plane was so close he could feel the heat. [do you think he is lying?]
The witness in the heliport tower said the plane flew over the Naval Annex.

There is NO possibility that they were all mistaken.

The plane flew over the Naval Annex.

The plane could NOT have flown over the Naval Annex and hit the light poles on the bridge.

Out of the hundred or so witnesses, no one other than Lloyde said they saw the plane hit the light poles.

Please don't subject shift! Address the above facts directly.
Please don't use semantics like 'precise'. If the plane flew over the Naval Annex as described, it did not hit the light poles.

Ed Paik's 'other' CIT drawing

See how Paik drew the line over the Navy Annex and it goes right to the Pentagon- and south of the Citgo?

Kind of gives support to the theory that perspective may be the reason some witnesses thought what they did, doesn' it?

And before anyone criticizes me or calls me a shill for linking to JFEF-

1) They're not hot links
2) How do you like it that something CIT did is giving JREF'rs legit grounds for criticism???

You're blatantly using JREF arguments?

Heh...nothing else needs to be said.

JREF is incorrect as always


View Larger Map

Why do you even cite JREF?

those links go to Ed Paik's OTHER drawing!!!

I take it you guys didn't look before posting your comments.

Besides the FACT that it was ED PAIK's drawing, I don't buy the premise of 'JREF' arguments; arguments and evidence stand on their own merit. It doesn't help the truth movement to argue that something isn't a fact when it is, or is a fact when it isn't.

Proper interpretation

Yes, I looked carefully at your links before responding. JREF misrepresents Ed Paik's witness statement by cherry picking the drawing which shows the Pentagon in the background, which leads Paik to deduce, drawing a line over the Navy Annex to the OCT impact point. This sort of semi-clever deception is the hallmark of JREF. You need to take the whole of Ed Paik's witness statement into account. BTW, JREF didn't even bother to appropriately scale the Citgo gas station in proportion to the Navy Annex.

What Paik means becomes quite clear from the video, as illustrated below: (although I get a bit tired of repeatedly having to do this, as if you guys didn't see Ed Paik pointing there in the first place, gesturing how the plane was angled towards the Navy Annex)


cit,citizen investigation team,paik; edward,pentagon,flight aa 77

I absolutely did look at the JREF links you posted. But have you watched National Security Alert? Paik's complete testimony is in it, and there is no doubt about it. The screenshots above shouldn't have been necessary to make this clear. The point is not to prove CIT right or to prove you wrong; the point is to interpret Ed Paik's statements sincerely. All the witnesses statements suffer from deduction. If you'd shown Paik the official flight path during his testimony, what do you think would've happened?

In the spirit of an earlier promise: I will repeat frequently that I do not endorse flyover and that I'm merely interested in resolving the flight path contradictions. If at some point in time, CIT actually reliably proves flyover I'll admit I was wrong.

P.S. I made the bottom picture especially for you ;-)

What would be useful is if

What would be useful is if the people who are afraid of this information would come here and actually check the different vantage points. Why is it the witnesses have gone so quiet now (but have not recanted). They know something is wrong. When will the armchair investigators wake up. We have a major disprecancy in the OCT. It is a start.

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Take a look

Paik Points Straight, too!
citizen investigation team,ed paik,edward paik,9/11,9/11 truth

The following 2 images are from the JREF links above- the first is EDWARD PAIK's drawing- the 2nd is a google earth that shows the Citgo location. Neither the photo SnowCrash posted or this one allow Paik to draw from his own vantage point and perspective- but this one is actually closer to his perspective than the one directly above. In both cases he's 'deducing'. The point is the issues with perspective could be the reason for the discrepancies between what the witnesses remember and 'deduce', and the path 77 'allegedly' flew.

Paik Draws S of Citgo
ed paik,edward paik,citizen investigation team,cit,9/11,9/11 truth

Google Earth- Paik S of Citgo
edward paik,ed paik,citizen investigation team,cit,9/11,9/11 truth

Yes, I watched National Security Alert- enjoyed every minute of it, too- it's highly entertaining, but it's not 'conclusive' and it's not 'proof' of the NoC claim- or evidence that 9/11 was a black op. As you know, in the film England insists his car was near the alleged NoC flight path, much to the consternation of Ranke. England says he was at a different bridge (there's only one in the area- the one where his cab was with the pole). When they went driving, England pointed to a concrete retaining wall and said that's where he was- it sort of looked like the cobblestone wall. In any case, photos put England with his cab and the pole on the bridge. Is England (the "DEVIL" and "Accomplice") now lying about his location as a devious psyop switcheroo; discrediting his testimony by changing it 7 years later? Ranke doesn't claim this in NSA- perhaps in the next film?

Interestingly, Lagasse and Brooks' stories have also changed over the years, and they've both gotten significant details wrong:



And then there's the 13 witness accounts that indicate/confirm a S of Citgo path- including other statements by Paik and Morin:


And don't forget the nearly 100 first-hand witness accounts that the plane hit the Pentagon- none of these people saw a flyover (the rest of the article is worth studying as well):

So there's contradictory eyewitness evidence- and it's known that eyewitness accounts can be mistaken or change with time. But there's a damage path that lines up perfectly with the majority of the eyewitness accounts. Or you can believe that some/all of these witnesses and England are part of the evil master deception plan, and participated in staging the damage to his cab and cutting down a 240 lb light pole, in brought daylight in the middle of a highway, at the precise moment the decoy plane was flying the 'real' flight path behind him (where he now says he really was)- and that the NWO evil geniuses didn't have to do it that way (they could've just arranged for AA77 to hit the Pentagon's nearly empty, recently-reinforced section), but decided to anyway- just to show how badass they are- right? And you can excuse CIT's atrocious behavior, and ignore how this issue has been used to ridicule, marginalize, divide and disrupt the 9/11 Truth Movement, in the same way blatantly obviously bogus claims like "no planes hit the WTC" have been used. I admit, the hole 'looks' too small- if you don't look at the rest of the photos, that is.

The 'too small' hole in the Pentagon is one of the things that got me to go looking for info, after I learned of 9/11 lies and the Truth Movement by watching Loose Change 1 and In Lame Psyche summer 05. But there's a ton of solid material that contradicts the OCT, and doesn't cause arguments and breed suspicion. Why in the world does anyone- even people who are sincere and mean well- continue to insist that speculative, divisive claims are hard evidence, instead of promoting hard evidence? These sites, among many others, are outstanding:

The Complete 9/11 Timeline

Journal of 9/11 Studies

No comment

citizen investigation team,cit,paik; edward,pentagon,flight aa 77

JREF is not a good source

The white line is the JREF assumption based on the truncated video.
The black line is approximately where Paik drew the flight path.

Image Hosted by
[right click - view image]

Paik's statement

establishes approximately where the plane started over the Naval annex. He could not accurately say where it was at the other end. His approximation is close to the witnesses in the equipment yard.
ETA: Thank you for addressing the point.

Witness list as broken down by CIT Jan 2008

I thought this would be useful to all "sides" so I am posting it here as it helps to compare what various posters are trying to claim about the witnesses, and it also discusses a bit about the methods that CIT used to determine which witnesses could have witnessed the actual flight path/light poles, alleged crash, etc.

Disclaimer: I am not necessarily endorsing CIT's conclusions and remain undecided about the flyover theory. I am simply of the opinion that much of the research and evidence CIT has organized and accumulated is indeed useful and relevant to us researchers.

Hello all,

Here is a great resource for you all to use. It consists of a breakdown of all witnesses in relation to what they said versus what they actually saw or could have seen. I based this analysis on what was actually printed. Without direct confirmation and srutinizing of witness claims and POV (point of view) locations, they are merely static words floating around left to imply an impact.

Seeing plane + smoke/fireball DOES NOT equal actually witnessing an impact.

Seeing/descrbing a plane + reporters deduction/sensationalizing about witness account DOES NOT equal actually witnessing an impact.

Speaking with witnesses and clarifying the details of their account is the ONLY way to get answers.

Some witnesses are genuine and some are not. Some are real people with real lives who were confused and convinced by the attacks in New York while some are deep cover opertives or assets implicitly planting bogus information to make us chase our tails or delicately dancing between ambigous statements.

Some merely deduced an impact while some either arrived after the event or simply said they were there and outright lied about an impact. The fact that they "saw a plane versus a missile" is what their account was originally touted for by skeptics but when accepted that there was a plane and scrutinized against the north side flight path and the fact that the local topography does not allow a complete view of the event, most of the accounts do not hold water when analyzed.

I am open to debate on this matter and tried to remain as fair and accurate as I possibly could. If I missed anyone, please let me know. If you disagree with any of this witness designations, then please let me know. However, you should be warned that I will ask you for evidence or logic to support your argument ie pictures and other supporting factors.

First and foremost:

Flyover/away witnesses and connections:
1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"

4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in"
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".

Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact:
Susan Carroll (on metro platform at Reagan National)

Allen Cleveland (on subway metro train at Reagan National)
Meseidy Rodriguez (metro platform at Reagan National)
Steve Snaman (Ft McNair)
Michael Tinyk (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT US Patent and Trademark office in Crystal City)
Greta van Susteren (on the roof of a parking structure at National Airport)
Clyde A. Vaughn, Army Brig. Gen. (Saw the plane loitering over Georgetown, DC, )

Don Chauncey (small commuer plane)
Henry Ticknor (Rt 50, only saw plane for a moment-mad that people misrepresent)
Michael James -POV confirmed (Columbia Pike curve, trees blocked view)
Isabel James -POV confirmed (Columbia Pike curve, trees blocked view)
Mark Eastman
D.S. Khavkin (saw small commerical craft from back on Columbia Pike in highrise)
Allan Wallace (ran when plane came in, admits DID NOT see impact)

Mark Skipper (ran when plane came in, admits DID NOT see impact)
Steve Eiden (out on 395 loop)
Capt Steve McCoy (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT at 395 and Glebe Rd)
Andrea Kaiser (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT at 395 and Glebe Rd)
Ann Krug (Hoffman-Boston Elementary)
Mary Lyman

Oscar Martinez (saw plane, claims he only heard it hit, no confirmation to seeing)
Kirk Milburn (deceased, died in Motorcycle accident-CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT, could not see impact or light poles)
Linda Plaisted
Alfred S. Regnery (watched it disappear behind bridges and concrete barriers)
Joseph Royster
Darb Ryan, Vice Admiral
Elizabeth Smiley

Steve Snaman
Dewey Snavely, Sgt.
Levi Stephens
Greta van Susteren
Phillip Sheuerman (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT, on 395, only saw plane for brief moment, did not see impact)
Phillip Thompson (does not mention seeing impact, only fireball)
Thomas J. Trapasso (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT1400 S. Barton, dubious conflicting witness and can't see Pentagon from location)

Richard Benedetto (claims he did not see impact from Rt 27)
Terry Morin, Former USMC aviator (CONTACTED by CIT, would not return phone calls, EDIT 8/08: INTERVIEWED by CIT)(up at Navy Annex)
James Ryan (And you saw it hit the Pentagon? No, at that point it went down because I was approaching a hill.)
Darb Ryan (quote only says "when out of the corner of my eye I saw the airplane" , the writer for Aviation Week adds 'a split second before it struck'.)
Mickey Bell (did not know what had happened)
Don Scott (did not and could not see pentagon or impact, confirmed by CIT)

Ralph Banton
Michael DiPaula ("sounded like missile", reporter adds detail about plane roaring into view, not in position to make determination on impact)
Lon Rains ("sounded like a missile")
John Thurman,Army Major who works in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff
Daniel McAdams (only heard)
Dennis Smith (no direct confirmation of impact, may actually support flyover)
Dawn Vignola (TALKED TO by CIT, claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position)

David Battle
Mike Gerson
Cheryl Hammond (saw the big American Airlines plane and started running)
Dan Creed (up on Columbia Pike, no view of Pentagon or impact)
James Keglovich (no indication or CONFIRMATION that he actually saw the impact)
Aydan Kizildrgli (no indication or CONFIRMATION,writers words, his quotes do not allude to ACTUALLY seeing the impact)
Pam Bradley

Claims they "Saw" impact of "plane"/large airliner-were allegedly in a position to possibly confirm one:
1. Deb Anlauf (CONTACTED by CIT, would not return call)
2. Donald Bouchoux (military consultant. CONTACTED by CIT, would not return call)
3. Mike Walter (had dinner with CIT)
Sean Boger (CONFIRMED the north side, impact deduced due to seeing NoC approach)
4. Lincoln Liebner (at entrance to building in south parking lot, cannot see impact zone from there-but can see flyaway zone-also claims plane hit helicopter which it did not)

5. Hugh "Tim" Timmerman (Dawn Vignola's roomate, unavailable for comment)
6. James R. Cissell
7. Daryl Donley
8. Bobby Eberle (came forward well after the event, Jeff Gannon's boss)
9. Penny Elgas (has plane banking, places it 50-80 feet above ground over highway just before the alleged impact, too high to cause damage, did not see plane hit light poles despite being just a short distance back on the highway)
10. Mary Ann Owens
11. Scott Perry

Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt.
13. G. T. Stanley (unconfirmed name/witness)
14. Steve Storti
15. Carla Thompson (unconfirmed name/witness)
16. Terrance Kean (Unreachable)
17. Dave Marra (dubious, questionable witness-claims plane cartwheeled into 20. building)
18. Mark Petitt (VERY dubious account)

Aziz El Hallou (Debunked lying witness, proven to be at Navy Annex)
19. Robert A. Leonard(driving northbound in the HOV lanes on I-395; Pentagon is on the left. The plane vanished, absorbed by the building, and there was a slight pause. Then a huge fireball rose into the sky.")
20. Mike Dobbs (according to writer, not confirmed, not his own words)
21. Joe Harrington (seems like it made impact before Wedge-in South Parking lot)
22. Rick Renzi (corrupt congressman, listed as law student, has plane "dive bombing", very peculiar account)
23. Vin Narayanan (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED BY CIT - part of the USA Today parade, claims he saw a "second jet" after hopping out of his car)

"Saw" a plane & impact from far away, but DID NOT mention a second plane/jet shadowing/chasing and veering away as the impact happened:
24. Steve Anderson, USA Today Editor (saw impact from USA Today building)
Don Wright (a commuter plane, two-engined )
Don Chauncey (small commuter plane)
Steve Gerard (saw small corporate jet with no markings) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)

Lesley Kelly, Cmdr. U.S. Navy (Ret.) (near impossible to see the plane approach from DC)
James Robbins (a national-security analyst & NRO contributor for National Review, William F Buckley (CIA) publication saw silver flash, "diving in an unrecoverable angle")
Ken Ford (prop plane flying up river from National)
25. Christopher Munsey, Navy Times (Owned by Gannett who owns USA Today) reporter


Claims plane an American Airlines:

Richard Benedetto
James R. Cissell
Dennis Clem
Mike Dobbs, Marine Cmdr.
Penny Elgas
Cheryl Hammond
Joe Harrington
Lincoln Leibner, Army Major

Elaine McCusker
Mitch Mitchell, Ret. Army Col. CBS news correspondent
Christopher Munsey, Navy Times reporter
Steve Riskus
Mike Walter

James Ryan
Steve Storti
Tim Timmerman
Michael Tinyk (dark orange and blue) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED by CIT)
Alan Wallace (white airplane with orange and blue trim)
Ian Wyatt
Afework Hagos (according to writer)(CONTACT ATTEMPTED by CIT)

(25 total)

Saw a "silver plane":

Allen Cleveland
Albert Hemphill
James Mosely (silver flash?)
Steve Patterson
James S. Robbins

(7 total)

Saw "the/a plane", not identified as AA:
Steve Anderson
Deb Anlauf
Donald Bouchoux
Pam Bradley
Mark Bright
Omar Campo
Susan Carroll

James R. Cissell
Dan Creed
Daryl Donley
Bob Dubill
Bobby Eberle
Steve Eiden
Bruce Elliott, Colonel
Kim Flyler
Kat Gaines

Fred Gaskins
Steven Gerard
Afework Hagos
Eugenio Hernandez
Fred Hey
Michael James
Andrea Kaiser
Terrance Kean
James Keglovich

Lesley Kelly, Cmdr. U.S. Navy (Ret.)
Aydan Kizildrgli
Ann Krug
Robert A. Leonard
Mary Lyman
David Marra
Oscar Martinez
William Middleton Sr.

Kirk Milburn
Mary Ann Owens
Zinovy Pak
Scott Perry
Christine Peterson
Linda Plaisted
Alfred S. Regnery
Rick Renzi
Meseidy Rodriguez

Joseph Royster
Darb Ryan, Vice Admiral
Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt.
Elizabeth Smiley
Steve Snaman
Dewey Snavely, Sgt.
G. T. Stanley
Levi Stephens

Greta van Susteren
Shari Taylor
Carla Thompson
Phillip Thompson
Rodney Washington

Only heard plane:
Ralph Banton
Michael DiPaula ("sounded like missile", reporter adds detail about wing)

Lon Rains ("sounded like a missile")
John Thurman,Army Major who works in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff
Daniel McAdams

Heard impact/explosions:
Lisa Burgess
Michael DiPaula
John Thurman, Army Major who works in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff

Saw something else that does NOT support official story:
Stuart Artman (plane over/near Wash. monument)

Joseph Candelario (plane flying towards White House, sharp turn to Pentagon)
Kim Dent(shadow of plane from Navy Annex)
Ken Ford (prop plane flying up river from National)
Kat Gaines (plane striking telephone poles from 110)
Steve Gerard (saw small corporate jet with no markings) (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT)
Joe Hurst ( saw it go overhead, Oval Room restaurant at Lafayette Square? DC)
Lesley Kelly, Cmdr.U.S. Navy(Ret.)(saw it descend from office in downtown DC)

D.S. Khavkin (saw small commerical craft)
Elaine McCusker (saw AA over 14th street bridge)
Steve Patterson (small silver 8-12 passenger commuter plane)
Dennis Smith (tail section before impact from Pentagon Courtyard)
Clyde A. Vaughn, Army Brig. Gen. (Saw the plane loitering over Georgetown, DC,
Don Wright (a commuter plane, two-engined-strange behavior when questioned about direction )
Omar Campo (saw white with blue on the bottom plane, United plane)

Michael Kelly (plane flying over him while he is on the 14th st bridge, debris falling on the 14th st bridge/395, sounded like small plane)
Harry Gold (saw plane "off the registered course over the Potomac" and believes it made a dive over Rosslyn)
Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt. (unconfirmed account-claims landing gear was down and hit light pole)
Sgt. Chadwick Brooks CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT-saw champagne off white plane on north side of Citgo, admits he could have been fooled and he stands by where he saw the plane)
Levi Stephens (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CIT-saw plane on north side of Citgo, claims did not look like and was not an American Airlines aircraft)
Robert Turcios (CONTACTED/CONFIRMED/INTERVIEWED by CITsaw plane on north side of Citgo, claims did not look like and was not an American Airlines aircraft)

Could see details of plane ie passengers:

Daryl Donley
Steve Eiden
James R. Cissell
Kim Flyler

Claims Saw it clip light pole:
Wanda Ramey (CONTACTED/INTERVIEWED by CIT, cannot remember if she thought she actually saw the plane hit a pole or simply deduced it after seeing it on the ground like everyone else we spoke with)
Noel Sepulveda, Navy Master Sgt. (unconfirmed account-claims landing gear was down and hit light pole)

Mike Walter (has since changed story)

Listed or mistaken as witnesses but actually nowhere near the pentagon at the time of the attack nor did they see anything
Don Fortunato
Lee Evey
Tom Hovis
Jack Singleton
Henry Ticknor

Saw plane on north side of Citgo or headed towards north side of Citgo

Sgt William Lagasse
Sgt Chadwick Brooks
Robert Turcios
Levi Stephens
Sean Boger
Ed Paik
William Middleton
Darryl Stafford
Darius Prater

Donald Carter
Amy Hart (according to Steve Ross)
Terry Morin
Maria De La Cerda
George Aman


These 14 are what we primarily need to focus on. I think in light of all the evidence we have uncovered these should be the most scrutinized alleged witnesses since they were in a alleged position to potentially see an alleged impact or a flyover/away over south parking lot.

1. Deb Anlauf (CONTACTED by CIT, would not return call)

South Parking Lot:
2. Lincoln Liebner (at entrance to building in south parking lot, cannot see impact zone from there-but can see flyaway zone-also claims plane hit helicopter which it did not)
3. Noel Sepulveda
4. Col. Bruce Elliott
5. Joe Harrington
6. Cheryl Hammond (Only claims to have seen AA jet and started running)

Navy Annex:
7. Scott Perry
8. Albert Hemphill

Highrise in Crystal City:
9. Carla Thompson
10. Terrance Kean
11. Steve Storti

Rt 27/Hwy 395
12. Dave Marra
13. Robert A. Leonard
14. Christopher Munsey

Subject shift/burial

Another tactic often used at JREF is to bury critical facts and evidence with looooooong irrelevant posts.


Is your scroll wheel broken? I posted this because this is relevant to various claims and generalizations posters are making regarding witness lists and whether or not CIT was ignoring alleged witnesses of the official flight path. Could you please explain how the witnesses listed above are not the most critical facts and evidence throughout this whole discussion? Maybe you should chill out.

In fact, I'll ask people to vote it down to collapse the post. Please everyone, give the witness list post above at least 3 negative votes. There, happy?

EDIT: I've added my negative vote, now it is down by -2. Somebody add just one more negative vote please (that shouldn't take too long).

(from my email to Chris; emphasis added)

I'm with Jon Gold here. Even if they [wittnesses interviewed by CIT] were correct, how strong do you consider the argument

"The official flight path is incorrect; the plane flew a more northerly route into the Pentagon"?

How do you think someone new to the 9/11 stuff would react? Would he or she perhaps ask "So what?" Then you'd end up explaining that EVERYTHING SUPPORTING THE OFFICIAL FLIGHT PATH WAS FAKED. I'm a quite open-minded person, but even I just cannot believe *that*. Now replace me with someone "out of the 9/11 conspiracy theory loop". I think trying to convince people that 9/11 was an inside job using that argument would be extremely foolish and counterproductive. Don't you see this? Don't you think that there are MUCH STRONGER arguments and evidence than what CIT has offered?

I also think this shows that MANY people would have seen the flyover:

I agree

It would be wise to stay away from the Pentagon altogether when talking to someone new to "911 was an inside job".

Exceptions: I have gotten positive reactions to:
Do you really think the Pentagon was defenseless on 911?
They refuse to release the videos. This can only be described as a cover-up The ones they released don't show anything.

My concern here is the division this has caused and the potential damage to DRG and RG.

I have been saying that the 'flyover' is absurd from the get go.

The divisive tactics have been taken to an absurd level

DRG, RG, and other movement heavyweights who have recently endorsed CIT have apparently been the victims of a harassment campaign by the self-proclaimed movement Protectors of the OCT of the AA77 crash. Peter Dale Scott has just issued a blistering critique of these tactics:

This is a form letter in response to the flood of letters that has been showered on me by those who do not like CIT.

I have not endorsed the flyover theory for Flight 77, and I do not personally believe it. All I endorsed was their assemblage of witnesses who said that Flight 77 approached the Pentagon on the north side of the Pike. I do not draw the conclusions from their testimony that CIT does. But I believe that the testimony needs to be seriously considered by those trying to find out what actually happened.

I must say that I am disappointed by number of ad hominem attacks I have received. I do not believe one incoming letter so far has dealt with the substance of what the Turnpike witnesses claimed and I endorsed.

In his famous American University speech of June 1963, John F. Kennedy famously said, "And we are all mortal." I would add, "And we are all fallible." For this reason I would ask everyone in the 9/11 truth movement to focus their energies on the substance of what happened on 9/11, and not discredit the truth movement by wanton attacks on each other.


Peter Dale Scott

Faked path = flyover

After telling a person that the plane actually flew along a different path and that all the evidence for the official path was faked, the person will ask:

WHY was everything faked? Why go to the trouble if the plane hit the building anyway, just a bit norther than is officially claimed?

What do you answer to that?

Going through all the trouble of faking a wrong flight path, including faked damage inside the Pentagon consistent with the official path, would be thoroughly absurd - unless the plane really did NOT hit the building. As said, that would be the ONLY reason for faking a flight path. They wouldn't have faked a flight path just for the fun of it.

So, in practice, the idea of a faked flight path does endorse the flyover theory.

Incidentally, I have not approached Scott.

I link to Lagasse's 2003 statements in which he says he actually saw the plane hit the light poles. He also says that he saw one of the poles hit a taxi cab. So, there we go.

Show "Nada" by Chris Sarns

>>The approach has

>>The approach has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the plane hit the building.

Physics would suggest that they do.


The plane was very low as it approached in both flight path scenarios.

You agree that the flyover is bonkers so what's the problem with the north side approach hitting the building? Specifically what law of physics does the north path-impact-building violate and how?

You get it Chris

I think this is a reasonable question.

I don't think it is

For me, the only rationale for faking everything (lamp poles, taxi cab damage, many witnesses, and even the orientation of the damage path inside the Pentagon) to support the official flight path while having the plane follow a slightly different path would be flyover.

Why go through all that intricate faking if the plane hit the building anyway?

Psychopaths are not rational

Speculation, . . . . . criticism be dammed.

Perhaps the 737 full of explosives didn't fly exactly where it was scripted to, just like WTC 7 didn't come down at 10:45 as it was scripted to do.

We are never going to agree but that's OK. The danger is greater when everyone marches in lock step.

Why not?

I don't think those behind an operation of this magnitude planned it irrationally.

And I don't know if WTC 7 was scripted to come down at 10:45. That, too, is speculation.

They didn't get the path "correct"?

"Perhaps the 737 full of explosives didn't fly exactly where it was scripted to"

So they had everything ready - including the lamp poles rigged with explosives - for faking the "correct" flight path when they realized the plane didn't fly "right"?

Sorry, but that, too, doesn't fly with me.

What part of

"Criticism be dammed" don't you understand? ;-)

At the end of the day [or beginning, depending on where you live] "It can't be because" doesn't work for me. I'm inclined to go with numerous credible witnesses.

I'm also inclined to side

I'm also inclined to side with many more numerous witnesses who place the plane on the path that took it to hitting the lamp poles and then the building.

Why do you keep uttering

Why do you keep uttering complete falsehoods Victoria?

We have shown time and again, both in this blog entry and previous ones, that there are NOT "many more" witnesses at all who were in a critical vantage point to determine the trajectory who unequivocally place the plane south of the citgo.

What witnesses?

Please list the witnesses who say the plane flew over the bridge or words to that effect.

Please state what law of physics suggests the north flight path = flyover.

Aldo has recently said

this about Victoria Ashley:

"She is way too subversive and obstinate to be anything else but a you know what IMO. But I could be wrong, she could just a be a nasty, egocentric, psychotic, self-important ****."

So, she's either an operative or a psychotic ****? And only because she criticizes him? That's probably the most disgusting comment Aldo has yet made and I don't think you'll find anything directed against CIT that compares even remotely.

In light of attacks like the above, Peter Dale Scott had also this to say about CIT:

“I am now aware of [CIT’s] ad hominem attacks on good people, which is a big reason why I am giving you this permission.”

Stop your whining about ad hominem attacks against CIT. Everything bad that has been said about them pales in comparison to what they themselves have said about others. Could you find the time to acknowledge that in a sentence or two?

bait and switch

Why not address the slimy smear and bully tactics that Victoria and others have been using, as Peter Dale Scott has just pointed out?

duplicate post



I think you can relax. Despite what CIT's hard core opposition wants you to think, this is NOT going to do ANY damage to Richard Gage or David Ray Griffin.

I have spoken to lots of truthers in real life. I spoke to many at the Busboys and Poets event in DC. I've spoken to many people in my local group as well.

In reality, CIT's work is very well received in the truth community. Their presence is nowhere near as divisive as their detractors would have you believe. There is a coordinated group of people who for whatever reason feel threatened by Pentagon research - not just CIT, but the actual evidence. This is exemplified by the fact that when you said "My opinion of CIT just went in the toilet" and expressed outrage over their detractors' list, your posts were voted up. But since you've separated Craig and Aldo from the evidence and have been trying to have a rational discussion about what really happened at the Pentagon, you've been getting voted down. This coordinated group of people who oppose CIT do indeed get mean and nasty as Peter Dale Scott has just stated. Incidentally, Peter Dale Scott is handling this very well.

You are right about the votes

There is an aversion to discussing the witness statements rationally.

I hope you are also right about the broader picture.

Show "I also think this shows that" by Adam Syed

Thank you loose nuke for the south side witness list

This is going to be long so I'll take it in pieces
Adam Larson says the following are south flight path witnesses.

Edward Paik - Terry Morin
They both say the plane flew over Naval Annex, north of official flight path. Would require a right bank and then a left bank to get on official flight path

Albert Hemphill
It is not stated where on the east side of the annex Albert's office was. He said the plane seemed to come directly over the annex and over his right shoulder. For both of these conditions to be true, his office had to be more toward the north-east corner.
Adam Larson tries to indicate that the 'left wing bank' indicates the south path. Quite the contrary, a left bank after coming over the annex puts the plane right where the guys in the equipment yard saw it headed straight for them. Furthermore, a left bank as the plane clears the annex puts it further away from the south flight path.

"Another eyewitness named Penny Elgas also referred to the plane rocking back and forth while Albert Hemphill commented that, "He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just 'jinked' to avoid something." These observations were further confirmed by Mary Ann Owens, James Ryan, and David Marra who described the plane's wings as "wobbly" when it "rolled left and then rolled right" and the pilot "tilted his wings, this way and in this way."
These statements are consistent with the guys in the equipment yard and the guy in the ANC.
The south path requires a straight approach, with no wobbling.
Albert Hemphill is a north flight path witness.

Penny Elgas
Headed north on Route 27 “almost in front of the Pentagon,” Penny Elgas reported “I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there - very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there.”
Adam Larson incorrectly assumed she was talking about the part of the Columbia Pike that runs along the annex. She said "perpendicular to the road I was on" The Columbia Pike wraps around the annex, runs NORTH of the Citgo station and meets rt 27 at a 90 degree angle [perpendicular] at the bridge where the downed light poles were.
Penny Elgas is a north flight path witness.

Madelyn Zakhem, executive secretary at the STC, had just stepped outside
for a break and was seated on a bench when she heard what she thought was
a jet fighter directly overhead. It wasn't. It was an airliner coming
straight up Columbia Pike at tree-top level. "It was huge! It was silver.
It was low -- unbelievable! I could see the cockpit. I fell to the
ground.... I was crying and scared,"
The narrative said 'directly overhead' she did not.
She is not a witness for either path.

Alan Wallace
“I later said the plane approached the Pentagon at about a 45 degree angle, but later drawing showed it was closer to 60 degrees.”
He is not a clear witness.

"I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines."
The plane could not come straight down 395 and right over the Columbia Pike by the Sheraton Hotel.
He is not a clear witness.

Stephen McGraw is a south flight path witness.

Keith Wheelhouse is a south flight path witness.

Lloyde England is a south flight path witness

Maria De La Cerda (NEIT 567)
“I hear what I think is a fly over, over my head because that's standard. [...] And I looked, I looked directly up for it, and I also had some tree cover so I wasn't able to see, but I was facing the Pentagon [...] And we're facing the site that was struck. And that's what was also weird, is that it seemed like it struck on the other side whereas I found out later, I saw [the impact point?] so that whatever plane that disappeared, it was it happened so quickly.”
Vague, not a good witness for either approach.

Steve Riskus - south flight path witness?
Not in a good position to judge flight path accurately.
Image Hosted by

Wanda Ramey - south flight path witness?
"I saw the wing of the plane clip the light post, and it made the plane slant. Then the engine revved up and crashed into the west side of the building.”
"It happened so fast. One second I saw the plane and next it was gone."
Wanda's location (?)
Not in a good position to judge flight path accurately.
Image Hosted by

Good work, Chris. I noticed

Good work, Chris.

I noticed Loose Nuke citing Adam Larson's blog, and even without much time, I saw that the first witness, Albert Hemphill, gives testimony which supports the north path and that the words Larson highlights to defend the south path are a real fine case of cherrypicking / special pleading.

What's wrong with these pictures?

These poles were supposedly knocked down by an airplane traveling over 500mph. Why then is the grass undamaged? There are no gouges.
These poles were carefully placed there!

Image Hosted by
[right click - view image]